Roosevelt Roberts Jr. interview...

Boone 870 · 12th August 2008, 12:25 PM

As many of you are aware, CIT recently released their latest smoking gun presentation and they claim to have found a flyover witness: "Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness."

After listening to CIT's recorded interview with Roberts, I found myself having a difficult time understanding exactly what Roberts was saying and how CIT interpreted his recollection of the events as proof of a flyover. So I transcribed the parts of the conversation that dealt, specifically, with the location of the aircraft and noticed a couple oddities in the recording.

There are two breaks (glitches?) in the recording, one at 5:19 and the second at 6:34. Did anyone else notice this?

I'm not making any accusations, I'm Just Asking Questions.

funk de fino · 12th August 2008, 01:16 PM

I loved this part on the website

Originally Posted by CIT monkeys

Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts

Absolutely the worst lie ever told. This is their whole problem. They completely fail to understand it.

If they were not making such disgusting claims they would be too funny.

beachnut · 12th August 2008, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Boone 870

As many of you are aware, CIT recently released their latest smoking gun presentation and they claim to have found a flyover witness: "Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness."

After listening to CIT's recorded interview with Roberts, I found myself having a difficult time understanding exactly what Roberts was saying and how CIT interpreted his recollection of the events as proof of a flyover. So I transcribed the parts of the conversation that dealt, specifically, with the location of the aircraft and noticed a couple oddities in the recording.

There are two breaks (glitches?) in the recording, one at 5:19 and the second at 6:34. Did anyone else notice this?

I'm not making any accusations, I'm Just Asking Questions.

In 2001 Roberts does not support CIT's fantasy.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/title_sound_recordingI1.html - other interviews
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01 - Roberts real interview, not biased by bad investigators.

He says plane, no more on the description. But the only plane visible below 3500 feet (i.e. above the Pentagon, which stands at 70 feet) from the Pentagon at impact time is the C-130. Visible at impact and it comes right up to the Pentagon, high enough in the sky to look up and have to make an effort to look up.

In 2001 he said he saw a plane out side when he looked up. He also said he saw this at 9:11, or 9:12. His testimony in 2008? How can it be used for anything after 6 years? He new stuff does not even support the failed conclusions of CIT.

Anyway, the interview is here
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/title_sound_recordingI1.html - other interviews, and Roberts
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01 - Roberts real interview…

dudalb · 12th August 2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts

One or two witnesses, yes, but when you have great numbers saying the saw the same thing (with minor differences) you can safely assume that to be reliable.
ANd a word of caution. The term 'Just Asking Questions" has ,to put mildly, a certain disrepute around here.

Drudgewire · 12th August 2008, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

ANd a word of caution. The term 'Just Asking Questions" has ,to put mildly, a certain disrepute around here.

I was just about to post this. Can't be stressed enough.

Reheat · 12th August 2008, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Boone 870

....So I transcribed the parts of the conversation

Yes, I saw this over at ATS. Good job transcribing part of that charade. They have been chided over no flyover witness for so long that they had to reach below the bottom of the barrel and twist this stuff into a pretzel in order to claim they now have a flyover witness.

As is easily recognizable what he says does not make sense at all. Of course, this doesn't deter the incompetent frauds from twisting it to say what they want to hear and selling the snake oil to other deluded fantasists.

Who knows what was said to any of the witnesses to get them to talk and who knows what was edited out that didn't quite meet specifications? We know there are other interviews that they've done that haven't been released.

Supposedly they recorded Sean Boger (the heliport tower controller) supporting their ridiculous North of Citgo crap, but I've heard no recording of that conversation. They merely annotate a video with his supposed statements and, of course, explain why he really didn't see the aircraft impact like he said he did.

I cease to be amazed at the number of irrational people who swallow this snake oil. It reinforces the opinion that there are a lot of stupid people in the world and CIT attracts them like flies to honey.....

Boone 870 · 12th August 2008, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

He says plane, no more on the description. But the only plane visible below 3500 feet (i.e. above the Pentagon, which stands at 70 feet) from the Pentagon at impact time is the C-130. Visible at impact and it comes right up to the Pentagon, high enough in the sky to look up and have to make an effort to look up.

I have to agree with you, beachnut. Even though he gets the timing and the description of the aircraft wrong. He does mention that the aircraft approached from the same direction as flight 77, which would place it above lane one and the Route 27 entrance into the south parking lot.

Boone 870 · 12th August 2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

ANd a word of caution. The term 'Just Asking Questions" has ,to put mildly, a certain disrepute around here.

I know this is what all of the truthers say when they first join up but, I'm really not a truther. And I'm not really asking questions. That was a sad attempt at sarcastic humor.

I've been butting heads with Craig at ATS for over a year and, more recently, with both of the CIT twins at LCF.

Bobert · 12th August 2008, 05:16 PM

Nice job over at ATS Boone!

bje · 12th August 2008, 07:36 PM

Yeah, you guys have completely flummoxed the CIT nuts here and on ATS.

They've disappeared from the threads one by one, completely flummoxed, mumbling incoherently, defeated, left to run home to mommy.

Bobert · 12th August 2008, 09:14 PM

LOL my favorite is how Aldo started a thread over at LCF crying for people to help the CIT over at ATS and NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE to Aldo by the LCF loons.
CLASSIC.
BTW Boone apparently Aldo is babbling to himself about you over at LCF.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...19218&t=514488

Caustic Logic · 29th August 2008, 02:27 AM

Yes, this is the end for the team, again. How did I miss this thread? Great work at *another site* where discussion is constantly forced into the mud of sticking to the "issues" that CIT creates. Pointing out the fraud behind the curtain is verbotten, "off-topic" - Welcome to Oz.

I think Roosevelt was always describing Flight 77, not the C-130. He does give a left bank, but it's about 180 degrees. Coming in east, from the west, from over lane one, from Route 27 where it joins 395 - it leaves the same way, back across 27, back "southwest, coming out" over lane one again.

Quote:

Boone 870: There are two breaks (glitches?) in the recording, one at 5:19 and the second at 6:34. Did anyone else notice this?

The earlier, no, The second - his speech is broken and there is a clip there... I dunno. Wouldn't editing this but leaving SOUTHWEST COMING OUT left in be a bit redundant? What on earth would they be hiding at this point?

Now I did note the pauses right after Aldo asks him about the "second plane" flying "away?" [3:45] Am I crazy here, or does it seem a certain tension is introduced there, and it's an audible SNARL in the emphasis Roosevelt puts on "that's for SURE," when affirming he thought there were two planes. [5:49] YES of course, dumbass, WHATEVER YOU SAY.

Oh, and it flew out the same way it came. NO AMBIGUITY.

My blog
The video I'm working up will kick ass.

Caustic Logic · 31st August 2008, 12:32 AM

They will say I'm reading this wrong, that he said "to" and meant "from," etc, but can't get ahold of him to make it seem like they clarified. One half makes sense, the other, after a departing "second plane" was introduced to the discussion, does not.

How did CIT have a hard time interpreting these words into a path? The loop here is perhaps tighter than he meant. Will have to be checked against other evidence to gauge its likely scale. I don't want to be accused of tightening it to make this breakthrough account seems less likely than it really is. This confirms their flyover findings perfectly, right?

T.A.M. · 31st August 2008, 07:15 AM

are we really, REALLY, actually giving CIT dedicated Cerebral Time here?

Oh brother.

TAM

Caustic Logic · 31st August 2008, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

are we really, REALLY, actually giving CIT dedicated Cerebral Time here?

Oh brother.

TAM

If you mean where I said "Will have to be checked against other evidence" and so on... that was sarcastic. Just showing how wrong they are is already more than they deserve. I only do it 'cause I find it kind of fun.

Mangoose · 31st August 2008, 05:30 PM

T.A.M.: God knows that I have last week in Reheat's thread, but it actually was a pretty stimulating intellectual exercise in its own right.

T.A.M. · 1st September 2008, 04:46 AM

I understand the mental challenges of debating/discussing any of these topics, but it just seems like we are giving an audience to a group that does not deserve one, and that is saying something amongst the 9/11 truth theories/groups.

TAM

Caustic Logic · 4th September 2008, 05:01 PM

They do deserve an audience. The dudes are geniuses. Here's the video on Roberts.

the Last Word on the "Flyover Witness"

beachnut · 4th September 2008, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

They do deserve an audience. The dudes are geniuses. Here's the video on Roberts.

the Last Word on the "Flyover Witness"

Good work.

Caustic Logic · 5th September 2008, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Good work.

Thanks, and a self-bump. The faux-dramatic intro came out neat, the middle is a bit boring but important to explain why he was seeing 77, and the last couple minutes (8:35 on) come together in a way that's to me unbearably funny.

TC329 · 5th September 2008, 01:20 AM

sorry adam theres no way you can spin that account.

the plane was saw because roosevelt heard the "impact" before it hit the building.

there is visual evidence the c130 didn't arrive til almost 3 minutes later and couldn't be the plane roosevelt saw in the couple steps he ran to look outside.

thanks for wasting 12 minutes of my life i can't get back.

Caustic Logic · 5th September 2008, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by TC329

sorry adam theres no way you can spin that account.

What? I just did! Remember, the stuff you saw/heard when I wasted 12 minutes of your life?

Quote:

the plane was saw because roosevelt heard the "impact" before it hit the building.

"as I hung up the phone ________ the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV [...] this was like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning."

Yeah, definitely the crash of Flight 77. The plane that looked like 77, was on its flight path from the soutwest, well to his west, banking just above the light poles like 77 did, is clearly all after 77 did these things. Except he's confused.

How did CIT clear this up? "was this the explosion at the Pentagon? Why mention the TV at that moment?" They didn't bother and just started every question right after that point, after "the explosion." Did you hear how confused he got when they reveal they think he saw a plane AFTER and flying away? No wait, that wasn't confusion and improvisation, he was "struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction." Sure. Funny stuff.

Quote:

there is visual evidence the c130 didn't arrive til almost 3 minutes later and couldn't be the plane roosevelt saw in the couple steps he ran to look outside.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? C-130 is for second-plane witness people. Roosevelt never was one! He saw Flight 77 and the one that came in the same way as "the first plane" and left again the same way - southwest, southwest, southwest - guess what?

Made up. You think it's real?

Everything here is my opinion only, which does not change the fact that it's true.

ETA: Also, TC, did you dig the part where yer buddies "would like to clarify his account further" but then "explained the implications of what he saw" to him so he could turn around and get "nervous regarding the implications of what he saw" and back out of the clarification? DANGNABBIT! Now we'll just have to trust the CIT that he meant something else when he said southwest like ten times.

12th August 2008, 12:25 PM	#1
Boone 870 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 180	Roosevelt Roberts Jr. interview... As many of you are aware, CIT recently released their latest smoking gun presentation and they claim to have found a flyover witness: "Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness." After listening to CIT's recorded interview with Roberts, I found myself having a difficult time understanding exactly what Roberts was saying and how CIT interpreted his recollection of the events as proof of a flyover. So I transcribed the parts of the conversation that dealt, specifically, with the location of the aircraft and noticed a couple oddities in the recording. There are two breaks (glitches?) in the recording, one at 5:19 and the second at 6:34. Did anyone else notice this? I'm not making any accusations, I'm Just Asking Questions.
Boone 870 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 180

12th August 2008, 01:16 PM	#2
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	I loved this part on the website Originally Posted by CIT monkeys Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts Absolutely the worst lie ever told. This is their whole problem. They completely fail to understand it. If they were not making such disgusting claims they would be too funny.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

12th August 2008, 02:56 PM	#5
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by dudalb ANd a word of caution. The term 'Just Asking Questions" has ,to put mildly, a certain disrepute around here. I was just about to post this. Can't be stressed enough.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

12th August 2008, 04:52 PM	#7
Boone 870 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 180	Originally Posted by beachnut He says plane, no more on the description. But the only plane visible below 3500 feet (i.e. above the Pentagon, which stands at 70 feet) from the Pentagon at impact time is the C-130. Visible at impact and it comes right up to the Pentagon, high enough in the sky to look up and have to make an effort to look up. I have to agree with you, beachnut. Even though he gets the timing and the description of the aircraft wrong. He does mention that the aircraft approached from the same direction as flight 77, which would place it above lane one and the Route 27 entrance into the south parking lot.
Boone 870 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 180

12th August 2008, 05:03 PM	#8
Boone 870 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 180	Originally Posted by dudalb ANd a word of caution. The term 'Just Asking Questions" has ,to put mildly, a certain disrepute around here. I know this is what all of the truthers say when they first join up but, I'm really not a truther. And I'm not really asking questions. That was a sad attempt at sarcastic humor. I've been butting heads with Craig at ATS for over a year and, more recently, with both of the CIT twins at LCF.
Boone 870 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 180

12th August 2008, 02:52 PM	#3
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,881	Originally Posted by Boone 870 As many of you are aware, CIT recently released their latest smoking gun presentation and they claim to have found a flyover witness: "Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness." After listening to CIT's recorded interview with Roberts, I found myself having a difficult time understanding exactly what Roberts was saying and how CIT interpreted his recollection of the events as proof of a flyover. So I transcribed the parts of the conversation that dealt, specifically, with the location of the aircraft and noticed a couple oddities in the recording. There are two breaks (glitches?) in the recording, one at 5:19 and the second at 6:34. Did anyone else notice this? I'm not making any accusations, I'm Just Asking Questions. In 2001 Roberts does not support CIT's fantasy. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/title_sound_recordingI1.html - other interviews http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01 - Roberts real interview, not biased by bad investigators. He says plane, no more on the description. But the only plane visible below 3500 feet (i.e. above the Pentagon, which stands at 70 feet) from the Pentagon at impact time is the C-130. Visible at impact and it comes right up to the Pentagon, high enough in the sky to look up and have to make an effort to look up. In 2001 he said he saw a plane out side when he looked up. He also said he saw this at 9:11, or 9:12. His testimony in 2008? How can it be used for anything after 6 years? He new stuff does not even support the failed conclusions of CIT. Anyway, the interview is here http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/title_sound_recordingI1.html - other interviews, and Roberts http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01 - Roberts real interview…

12th August 2008, 02:54 PM	#4
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	Quote: Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts One or two witnesses, yes, but when you have great numbers saying the saw the same thing (with minor differences) you can safely assume that to be reliable. ANd a word of caution. The term 'Just Asking Questions" has ,to put mildly, a certain disrepute around here.

12th August 2008, 03:03 PM	#6
Reheat Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 2,030	Originally Posted by Boone 870 ....So I transcribed the parts of the conversation Yes, I saw this over at ATS. Good job transcribing part of that charade. They have been chided over no flyover witness for so long that they had to reach below the bottom of the barrel and twist this stuff into a pretzel in order to claim they now have a flyover witness. As is easily recognizable what he says does not make sense at all. Of course, this doesn't deter the incompetent frauds from twisting it to say what they want to hear and selling the snake oil to other deluded fantasists. Who knows what was said to any of the witnesses to get them to talk and who knows what was edited out that didn't quite meet specifications? We know there are other interviews that they've done that haven't been released. Supposedly they recorded Sean Boger (the heliport tower controller) supporting their ridiculous North of Citgo crap, but I've heard no recording of that conversation. They merely annotate a video with his supposed statements and, of course, explain why he really didn't see the aircraft impact like he said he did. I cease to be amazed at the number of irrational people who swallow this snake oil. It reinforces the opinion that there are a lot of stupid people in the world and CIT attracts them like flies to honey.....

12th August 2008, 05:16 PM	#9
Bobert Government Loyalist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kennesaw GA Posts: 4,146	Nice job over at ATS Boone!
	__________________ CIT CULT founder Ranke responding to where Flight 77 is"I'm not aware of any "theories" nor am I interested in theorizing about what method was used to murder them ." CIT CULT MEMEMBER ROUNDHEAD Suck on one weenie, you are a weenie sucker for life CIT CULT founder Aldo Marquis :You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family

12th August 2008, 07:36 PM	#10
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: On Solid Ground Posts: 1,280	Yeah, you guys have completely flummoxed the CIT nuts here and on ATS. They've disappeared from the threads one by one, completely flummoxed, mumbling incoherently, defeated, left to run home to mommy.
	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

12th August 2008, 09:14 PM	#11
Bobert Government Loyalist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kennesaw GA Posts: 4,146	LOL my favorite is how Aldo started a thread over at LCF crying for people to help the CIT over at ATS and NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE to Aldo by the LCF loons. CLASSIC. BTW Boone apparently Aldo is babbling to himself about you over at LCF. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...19218&t=514488
	__________________ CIT CULT founder Ranke responding to where Flight 77 is"I'm not aware of any "theories" nor am I interested in theorizing about what method was used to murder them ." CIT CULT MEMEMBER ROUNDHEAD Suck on one weenie, you are a weenie sucker for life CIT CULT founder Aldo Marquis :You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family

29th August 2008, 02:27 AM	#12
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Yes, this is the end for the team, again. How did I miss this thread? Great work at another site where discussion is constantly forced into the mud of sticking to the "issues" that CIT creates. Pointing out the fraud behind the curtain is verbotten, "off-topic" - Welcome to Oz. I think Roosevelt was always describing Flight 77, not the C-130. He does give a left bank, but it's about 180 degrees. Coming in east, from the west, from over lane one, from Route 27 where it joins 395 - it leaves the same way, back across 27, back "southwest, coming out" over lane one again. Quote: Boone 870: There are two breaks (glitches?) in the recording, one at 5:19 and the second at 6:34. Did anyone else notice this? The earlier, no, The second - his speech is broken and there is a clip there... I dunno. Wouldn't editing this but leaving SOUTHWEST COMING OUT left in be a bit redundant? What on earth would they be hiding at this point? Now I did note the pauses right after Aldo asks him about the "second plane" flying "away?" [3:45] Am I crazy here, or does it seem a certain tension is introduced there, and it's an audible SNARL in the emphasis Roosevelt puts on "that's for SURE," when affirming he thought there were two planes. [5:49] YES of course, dumbass, WHATEVER YOU SAY. Oh, and it flew out the same way it came. NO AMBIGUITY. My blog The video I'm working up will kick ass.

31st August 2008, 12:32 AM	#13
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	They will say I'm reading this wrong, that he said "to" and meant "from," etc, but can't get ahold of him to make it seem like they clarified. One half makes sense, the other, after a departing "second plane" was introduced to the discussion, does not. How did CIT have a hard time interpreting these words into a path? The loop here is perhaps tighter than he meant. Will have to be checked against other evidence to gauge its likely scale. I don't want to be accused of tightening it to make this breakthrough account seems less likely than it really is. This confirms their flyover findings perfectly, right?

31st August 2008, 07:15 AM	#14
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	are we really, REALLY, actually giving CIT dedicated Cerebral Time here? Oh brother. TAM

31st August 2008, 05:23 PM	#15
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by T.A.M. are we really, REALLY, actually giving CIT dedicated Cerebral Time here? Oh brother. TAM If you mean where I said "Will have to be checked against other evidence" and so on... that was sarcastic. Just showing how wrong they are is already more than they deserve. I only do it 'cause I find it kind of fun.

31st August 2008, 05:30 PM	#16
Mangoose Muse Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 923	T.A.M.: God knows that I have last week in Reheat's thread, but it actually was a pretty stimulating intellectual exercise in its own right.
Mangoose Muse Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 923	__________________ Steven Jones: "Witness testimony evidencing explosions accompanied by white dust clouds ... are physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ." (source) Reality: The witness in question was actually describing the dust clouds accompanying the collapse of the South Tower. (source)

1st September 2008, 04:46 AM	#17
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	I understand the mental challenges of debating/discussing any of these topics, but it just seems like we are giving an audience to a group that does not deserve one, and that is saying something amongst the 9/11 truth theories/groups. TAM

4th September 2008, 05:01 PM	#18
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	They do deserve an audience. The dudes are geniuses. Here's the video on Roberts. the Last Word on the "Flyover Witness"

4th September 2008, 08:07 PM	#19
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,881	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic They do deserve an audience. The dudes are geniuses. Here's the video on Roberts. the Last Word on the "Flyover Witness" Good work.

5th September 2008, 01:03 AM	#20
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by beachnut Good work. Thanks, and a self-bump. The faux-dramatic intro came out neat, the middle is a bit boring but important to explain why he was seeing 77, and the last couple minutes (8:35 on) come together in a way that's to me unbearably funny.

5th September 2008, 01:20 AM	#21
TC329 Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,459	sorry adam theres no way you can spin that account. the plane was saw because roosevelt heard the "impact" before it hit the building. there is visual evidence the c130 didn't arrive til almost 3 minutes later and couldn't be the plane roosevelt saw in the couple steps he ran to look outside. thanks for wasting 12 minutes of my life i can't get back.
TC329 Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,459

5th September 2008, 01:48 AM	#22
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by TC329 sorry adam theres no way you can spin that account. What? I just did! Remember, the stuff you saw/heard when I wasted 12 minutes of your life? Quote: the plane was saw because roosevelt heard the "impact" before it hit the building. "as I hung up the phone ________ the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV [...] this was like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning." Yeah, definitely the crash of Flight 77. The plane that looked like 77, was on its flight path from the soutwest, well to his west, banking just above the light poles like 77 did, is clearly all after 77 did these things. Except he's confused. How did CIT clear this up? "was this the explosion at the Pentagon? Why mention the TV at that moment?" They didn't bother and just started every question right after that point, after "the explosion." Did you hear how confused he got when they reveal they think he saw a plane AFTER and flying away? No wait, that wasn't confusion and improvisation, he was "struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction." Sure. Funny stuff. Quote: there is visual evidence the c130 didn't arrive til almost 3 minutes later and couldn't be the plane roosevelt saw in the couple steps he ran to look outside. What the hell does that have to do with anything? C-130 is for second-plane witness people. Roosevelt never was one! He saw Flight 77 and the one that came in the same way as "the first plane" and left again the same way - southwest, southwest, southwest - guess what? Made up. You think it's real? Everything here is my opinion only, which does not change the fact that it's true. ETA: Also, TC, did you dig the part where yer buddies "would like to clarify his account further" but then "explained the implications of what he saw" to him so he could turn around and get "nervous regarding the implications of what he saw" and back out of the clarification? DANGNABBIT! Now we'll just have to trust the CIT that he meant something else when he said southwest like ten times.
	Last edited by Caustic Logic; 5th September 2008 at 01:55 AM.