Craig may not be forthcoming in his public presentations about “evidence” to support his positions – preferring to attack evidence offered by others–instead of offering a coherent explanation for what happened. However, he is not is so shy in his e-mail conversations and he presents his evidence. It is a CABEMOH–BIFAB.
Roosevelt Roberts Overview
Roosevelt Roberts was on duty inside the South Loading Dock area on 9/11. South Loading had a view south of the Pentagon, but not to the west. Because South Loading Dock is at ground level, it would be impossible for Roberts to look up over the upper five stories and see the plane pass over the Pentagon unless he was, say 100 feet or more, outside the building (which was not part of any account) . When he does mention seeing a plane it was over “lane 1” of the South Parking lot which is in the opposite direction from where a fly-over would have been seen (if over happened).
Roosevelt Roberts is an Important Witness
From: craigmckee45@yahoo.ca [911telecon]
To: “911telecon@yahoogroups.com” <911telecon@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017, 12:41:26 PM EST
Subject: [911telecon] Re: Pre-debate thoughts
Dick,
I’d like to address some of the points you brought up before last night’s debate.
[…]
You also ask about Roosevelt Roberts and the 9:11/9:12 time. I can’t think of any explanation other than he was wrong about the time. There is no evidence for an explosion at that time. And this explosion led him to rush out of the building to see what had happened. For people who care first about the truth, Roberts is an important witness. Those who just want to push a theory might want to dismiss him.
Craig
In the article: The Barbara Honegger Show: DC 9/11 conference spun as new consensus
[…] While I won’t criticize Sullivan too much for not having put together a more complex presentation I do have some concerns about his remarks that the flyover evidence is the weakest element of the case and that the main witness to this (Roosevelt Roberts) was “shaky.”[…]
Here is what he says about a fly-over and his central witness, Roosevelt Roberts.
Craig’s Unambiguous Claim of a “Fly-Over” at the Pentagon
—- Forwarded Message —–
From: Craig McKee craigmckee45@yahoo.ca
To: “911telecon@yahoogroups.com” <911telecon@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016, 6:20:58 PM EST
Subject: Re: [911telecon] Once again, This was NOT the proposition addressed in Wed.’s Debate …
[…] And I said you know there is evidence of a flyover because you know there is. While I wish there were more witnesses to a flyover, we do have Roosevelt Roberts, who went outside within seconds of the explosion and saw a plane circling over the Pentagon parking lot.
[…]
Finally, the burden of proof is essential to this discussion. Why would you want that burden to be on the truth movement and not the government? I don’t get it. It’s not that the government should investigate, it’s that they should prove their case. Again, they can’t.
From: Craig McKee craigmckee45@yahoo.ca [911telecon]
To: “911telecon@yahoogroups.com” <911telecon@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016, 1:01:58 PM EST
Subject: Re: [911telecon] Re: Wayne is incorrect in this …
Wayne,
I will address your points once again, and I look forward to reading your answers to the questions I pose below…
You write: “So can you please explain to me what you say happened to the plane – and why you say it?”
I have already addressed this. The plane didn’t hit the building. This is obvious to most people since there is no plane at the scene of the supposed crash. For some reason, you and a small group feel that it’s not at all surprising that a plane could crash without leaving virtually any identifiable debris outside. You conclude the plane ended up inside despite the fact that the hole isn’t big enough to accommodate a plane that size. You guess/speculate/assume that the wings must have been pulled in with the fuselage and yet you have no factual basis for this. Nor do any of the others have a basis for concluding that the wings, tail, and stabilizers turned to confetti.
I have already said that I don’t know where the plane went after it passed the Pentagon. It is completely illogical to claim that because we don’t know where it went that it must have crashed and entered the building through a hole that was too small before creating a nice round exit hole in line with the fuselage but none where the two engine cores would have hit.
While I’m all for continuing to research this question, you can’t conclude that a plane crashed because you don’t know where it went.
We have already discussed Roosevelt Roberts and Dewitt Roseborough who did see a plane continuing on just seconds after the alleged impact. We don’t know if their estimate of the number of seconds was accurate but we know they weren’t talking about the C-130, which didn’t arrive till nearly three minutes later. We have the second-hand account of Erik Diehle and Maria de la Cerda. Do I wish we have 100 witnesses who saw the plane fly past and land at the airport? Absolutely I do. That would be a nice package. But 9/11 was one deception after another. Things were not as they seemed to the average person. But in the case of the Pentagon, you conclude that the most obvious thing must have happened.
–