and perhaps could have been less strident about their flyover conclusion.

Why?

The plane flew on the north side of the gas station. This fact alone proves a flyover. It means the plane CAN'T hit the light poles, CAN'T show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video frames, CAN'T hit the gen trailer with it's right wing, and CAN'T cause the internal directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is fact. We do not accept exotic weaponry like holograms as an explanation.
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html

Not to mention Robert Turcios saw it pull up into an ascent and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up" over the highway. Holograms and planes about to hit the first floor of the pentagon DON'T pull up into ascents over the highway. Why would they stage light poles (and a gen trailer?) if they were going to crash the plane into the Pentagon?

We have Erik Dihle's supporting evidence of hearing people say they believed a bomb had went off and "a jet kept on going".

Most importantly we have Roosevelt Robert's account. I spoke with him. He knows what he saw. I clarified it. It was not the C-130 and could only be the attack jet. He realizes what he saw and is now scared to talk. Should we be less "strident" and back off because we only have one actual witness on record to seeing the plane fly away who is now scared to talk? Of course not. None of that means a thing. Not to mention we still have the north side flight path in itself. The fact is witnesses are scared to death once they are taken out of the fog of confusion and made aware of the implications of what they saw. Some are made aware of them before we even get to them. Take for instance, Dewitt Roseborough, someone we are more than confident saw the complete flyover.

Take a look and a LISTEN:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449