Roosevelt Roberts, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 09:23 PM by biscuit cough

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

No, Craig. If you listen to what Roosevelt says:

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

You'll see it's closer to what the picture shows. I've added an arrow to clear up this confusion:

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 09:26 PM by biscuit cough

reply to post by TheBobert

Bobert, I think Aldo explains why he doesn't post at ATS, here: s1.zetaboards.com...

Originally posted by Aldo:
I can't post there, because he and I share the same IP at work.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 09:52 PM by pccat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870

That's corroboration.

No it is not.

You don't know for sure what Roosevelt Roberts meant by that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Anyway....it doesn't matter because even when taking typical eyewitness errors and/or perspective issues or general fallibility into consideration which should be expected there is still no other viable explanation for his account other than a flyover.

There was no other viable explanation for Sam Danner's "Global Hawk" testimony either..
until he admitted to lying about it..

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 04:37 AM by pinch

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Certainly not because it was north of the citgo as reported by all other witnesses.

Yo...Craig!

Do us all a favor. Send an email to your buddy Rob and ask him if a 90 ton airliner could make that turn at ANY speed and ANY altitude from a NoC flight path to a South parking fly-over.

Please??

We'll wait.

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 12:40 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pccat

There was no other viable explanation for Sam Danner's "Global Hawk" testimony either..
until he admitted to lying about it..

Roosevelt Roberts is not Sam Danner.

Roosevelt Roberts ia a Pentagon police officer who currently works for the Anti-Terrorism Force/Protection Directorate.

He told the same story on 11/30/2001 in an interview that he knew would forever be on record with the Library of Congress.

Please contact his department, get a hold of him, record your conversation as we did, accuse him of lying like you have here, and publish his response in this thread.

Thanks.

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 12:41 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pinch

Do us all a favor. Send an email to your buddy Rob and ask him if a 90 ton airliner could make that turn at ANY speed and ANY altitude from a NoC flight path to a South parking fly-over.

Prove it was a "90 ton airliner" first.

Thanks.

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 04:04 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Important thread.

Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.'s account is the ultimate validation of a flyover at the Pentagon and is the critical first flyover witness as officially documented in the Library of Congress with an interview from 11/30-2001 as well as independently confirmed by us this year as cited by biscuit cough.

Craig Ranke's erroneous claim is, once again, very easy to refute, as already has been done:

1. Roosevelt Roberts statement was not verified by anyone, including CIT. There are no confirmatory accounts and Craig Ranke contradicted Robert's statement of the supposed direction the jet took.

2. ALL of CIT's other 13 eyewitnesses were on the wrong side of the Pentagon to witness a "flyover" given that the "fireball" would have blocked their view of the jet once it was "supposedly" over the Pentagon, according to CIT. They were all positioned on the approach side of the Pentagon, not on the departure side.

3. None of CIT's 13 other eyewitnesses ever said they witnessed a flyover.

4. ALL of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses believe the jet crashed into the Pentagon.

5. A flyover would have been witnessed by untold scores of eyewitnesses within position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon. The yellow area represents all geographical spots within a two-mile range of the Pentagon that would be able to see a jet at the instant it was 100 Feet over the Pentagon:

NO eyewitness reports were ever made claiming to see a "flyover." For more details see: www.abovetopsecret.com...

6. Had a flyover occurred, scores of eyewitnesses would contact the media to say so.

7. Had a flyover occurred, scores of eyewitnesses would contact the media and been all over the Internet demanding to know why the media didn't report a flyover.

8. CIT and Ray Balsamo each categorically refuse to look for, or present, ANY "flyover" eyewitnesses who witnessed a jet flying away from the Pentagon after the "explosion."

9. CIT and Ray Balsamo each categorically refuse to present ANY "flyover" flight path away from the Pentagon.

10. Craig Ranke contradicted Robert's muddled testimony.

11. Reheat has demonstrated that ALL CIT-proposed flight paths to the Pentagon are aerodynamically impossible for a passenger jet.

The above-listed facts are irrefutable. CIT and P4T cannot demonstrate in any way whatsoever that a jet flew over the Pentagon. They completely lack any evidence or eyewitnesses and refuse to provide any evidence, flight path, or eyewitnesses whatsoever.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by jthomas]

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 07:37 PM by pccat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pccat

There was no other viable explanation for Sam Danner's "Global Hawk" testimony either..
until he admitted to lying about it..

Roosevelt Roberts is not Sam Danner.

Roosevelt Roberts ia a Pentagon police officer who currently works for the Anti-Terrorism Force/Protection Directorate.

He told the same story on 11/30/2001 in an interview that he knew would forever be on record with the Library of Congress.

Please contact his department, get a hold of him, record your conversation as we did, accuse him of lying like you have here, and publish his response in this thread.

Thanks.

I did NOT make an accusation, at worst it was an insinuation..
I did NOT say he lied, I simply pointed out the fact that "A LIE" would be a viable explanation..
viable explanations are at the crux of this argument..
one lone flyover witness does NOT out weigh the many witness testimonies of those that saw the impact.. especially your own witness “Sean Boger”..
your presentation is slick.. but your “facts” are refutable.. especially seeing how you managed to mis-interpret what I said..
how much more have you mis-interpreted?

Roosevelt Roberts is in law enforcement, and as such he would be expected to be a credible witness due to his training.. but he sure seemed rather confused don't you think?

why don't you go ask Lloyd England why HE LIED then.. I have accused no one except Mr Danner, who has admitted it..

thank you!

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 08:37 PM by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by biscuit cough

Like this maybe?

You are over analyzing the unclear specifics while ignoring the clear generalites such as general timing and general altitude and generally a commercial airliner with jet engines.

It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.

What does this mean.

You know in his 2001 testimony he said he saw this plane at 9:11, or 9:12. Did you clarify this problem? It seems his not a jet is a subliminal C-130 verification! LOL

The only plane visible after 77 impacts is the C-130 verified by video (super hard evidence), RADES (super hard evidence), and witnesses!

This looks like your fantasy has been exposed, but I bet there is a market for false information. A lot of people like to believe lies and false information to match their distorted fantasy view of the world.

It looked like jet engines, at that time.

Looked like? Not the same as was! But you make the leap and go with jet engines. Gee, you know the C-130 are turbine engines; you know that turbine engine are called jet engines, these on the C-130 are turning props. So Roosevelt is right! Even if he is wrong! Good job Roosevelt!

[edit on 19-8-2008 by beachnut]

reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 09:11 PM by biscuit cough

My buddy Stinkey Puh is having quite the discussion ovar at Loose Change Forums. Since I'm not able to participate there, I thought I'd comment on a few things here. Here's a link to the thread that I'll be referencing: s1.zetaboards.com...

It seems apparent to me that some are insistant upon ignoring all the information staring them in the face that lane 1 is the farthest west lane in the south parking lot. They use the claim of confusion and lack of clarification from Roosevelt Roberts as cover for their speculations about the plane's path and the location of lane 1, but no matter how you spin it, lane 1 always ends up as lane 1. I sure wish they would post a map or other document referencing row 1. Face it, in all references to the parking lanes at the Pentagon, they are always refered as lanes. As soon as they can show us a credible reference to rows in Pentagon south parking, I'll eat my hat on this one.

Take 22205's valiant attempt with lane 64. We'll have to say thanks to him for pointing out Leibner's testimony as further confirmation as to the location of lane 1. Here's Boone's old map for reference:
Click here
Notice that lanes 1-6 are marked in the legend as "U" parking. From this 1989 document, which has apparently changed in some regards, we learn that U is for people who work Unusual hours. Leibner was on a swing shift and worked unusual hours, thus he would be allowed to park in unusual lanes. After all, it appears you have to have a permit to park in certain areas at the Pentagon. This is understandable. But our friends 22205 and SPreston, for some reason want us to think that the parking along Rotary Road is lane 1. No, it's not for some reason; it's for the reason that it works with what they want the plane to have done, not with what Roosevelt Roberts says the plane did. I won't post it again because I've done it several times already in this thread, but please read the transcript again where Roosevelt says the plane traveled southwest back across Rt. 27. None of the proposed paths posted in 22205's reply cover this area. No, he wants the plane to land at the airport. He wants the plane to head towards the airport. Roosevelt Roberts says the plane did not head towards the airport:

Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like.

*05:27

Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone.

How much clearer do we need? Face it, Roosevelt has clearly said the plane was not heading towards the airport. Roosevelt Roberts clearly said the plane headed southwest across 27. Why is CIT arguing that the plane flew somewhere else? Let's not have some silly explanation that people can be confused about things: there's no indication in the interview that Roosevelt was confused as to where the plane was headed.

bc

[edit on 21-8-2008 by biscuit cough]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 05:09 PM by biscuit cough

Since I mentioned Leibner in the last message, I've been doing a little research on him. It turns out he may be the latest NoC flight path witness. Check out this video on this website. Right about the 1:00 time, he draws on an overhead indicating the plane's approach. It's definitely not an SoC flight path, much closer to NoC. Cool, huh?

bc

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by biscuit cough

Oh lordy, another NoC witness who watched flight 77 impact the Pentagon. Of course, it is impossible for the aircraft to hit the Pentagon if it flew north of the Citgo..... so they claim.

What to do???

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 08:06 PM by biscuit cough

reply to post by biscuit cough

Face it, in all references to the parking lanes at the Pentagon, they are always refered as lanes. As soon as they can show us a credible reference to rows in Pentagon south parking, I'll eat my hat on this one.

Well, it's a good thing I'm wearing a yummy hat, because I'm going to eat it! Check out this PDF, and you'll see that they call lanes rows, too.

*Crunch* *Crunch* *Crunch*

bc

reply posted on 10-9-2008 @ 10:23 PM by biscuit cough

Our freind, Frustrating Fraud, has some interesting views on Roberts, which he presents on his blog. He's even put together a neat little video about it. I have to say I've watched it a few times, and his twist on it is very interesting. After listening to Roberts original testimony in 2001 and his subsequent interview with CIT this year, I must say that I believe FF's interpretation is incorrect.

I urge you to watch the video and read his blog so you understand what he is saying. The main issue I have with it is the idea that Roosevelt is speaking of watching the second plane hit the second tower just prior to running out onto the south loading dock and witnessing the plane over the south parking lot, heading towards the Pentagon. While I do agree that many of CIT's questions where asked in a leading manner (see here where I've addressed this on CIT's forum before I was transparently banned)--which does not add to the credibility of the answers--Roosevelt does seem to agree and not with tension or a snarl that "It was two aircraft." If Frustrating Fraud or anyone who agrees with him is reading this, I would like to understand your interpretation of his interview with CIT around 7:07 into the interview. Here's how I hear it:

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.

It would seem that if he were watching it on the television, there must have been a television in the booth with him? One would only come to this conclusion if we didn't read the apparent cut into the 2001 interview. Also, when speaking with CIT, he clearly states that it was about "ten seconds tops" after the explosion hit (what building?) until the time he saw the plane over lane one. It appears FF is saying he watched the second plane hit in NYC and jumped up and ran outside to the south loading dock. Odd response, IMO.

So in summary, I think FF has a few things he needs to deal with:

Roosevelt's testimony that there were two planes. He would either have to be ignorant about the other two planes reported on 9/11 (Flight 93 and Flight 11) or be refering to two planes in the area of the Pentagon, or. . .? Is it possible that 6 1/2 years after 9/11, Roosevelt still thinks there were only two planes involved that day?
Roosevelt's testimony that the plane was flying over the lane one area, southwest away from the Pentagon, back across 27. (His testimony that it was flying "back across 27" was not given when he was asked to speculate.)