• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. interview...

Boone 870

Critical Thinker
Boone 870
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
252
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.
 
I loved this part on the website

CIT monkeys said:
Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boone 870 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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…
 
Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boone 870 said:
....So I transcribed the parts of the conversation
Click to expand...

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.....
 
beachnut said:
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.
Click to expand...



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

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

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

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?
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
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.
Roberts_Flight_Path.jpg

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

Oh brother.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
are we really, REALLY, actually giving CIT dedicated Cerebral Time here?

Oh brother.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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:)
 
beachnut said:
Good work.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom