Friday, August 29, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted August 28 2008
Video added September 4

Online Videos by

So a while back I posted about a packet I had sent to CIT's alleged Pentagon “flyover witness” Roosevelt Roberts. It was returned to me unclaimed, either declined or sent to the wrong address. I had a second place to try him, and at least half-meant to. My general MO however is to not to bother the witnesses over idiotic miscontructions of the Comedy Improv Team or others, and even though I wanted clarification, I had been dawdling on trying again to contact him. Recent developments have shown me there is really no need to break my pattern. Everything was already explained well enough for my liking.

CIT had first aired an edited collage of his interview on Air America back in May, touted as the much-awaited lone witness to the flyover decoy plane immediately after the “impact” explosion. Finally SOMEONE immune to the unexplained optic trickery that fooled everyone else! There were some questions raised, and the team had been holding back their full interview, which is why I set out to contact Roberts. However, CIT recently released it at their discussion forum, apparently full and uncut, and I can see why they were sitting on it. I was first alerted to this by CIT critic “Biscuit Cough,” who transcribed it and offered some analysis at their forum and at Above Top Secret on the 18th. [Excellent work, mate!]

The audio file was posted as a subset of a separate issue: “C130 Arrived On Scene Nearly 3 Minutes After Event, Definitely not the plane Roosevelt saw.” Aldo Marquis preceded the link with a preamble to set the tone, which I’ve copied below with my corrections bracketed in red.

Pentagon officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr was at the loading docks and experienced the explosion [on TV, of Flight 175 at the WTC] (which he [Aldo] thought was [supposed to be] the impact [of 77 at the Pentagon]) inside. He details lights flickering and pieces of ceiling falling [lights unclear, ceiling problems only AFTER he saw the plane, below]. He then takes about "7 steps" out to the edge of the east end of the loading dock in South Parking lot and sees a "silver commercial aircraft liner w/jet engines (not propellors)" [over the lane one area, so west of him] traveling from the 27 side or from [actually TO] "where the 'first plane' hit" traveling east towards DC [and then departing the opposite direction, “southwest coming out”]. He said it was very low, he estimated 50 ft to less than 100 ft over the South Parking lot [lane one] area, he said it was banking and coming around to the mall entrance side [after being led to start making shit up]. Most importantly he described it like a 'pilot who missed the landing zone target and was coming back around' [and flying away to the southwest, which no one else reports]. Roosevelt saw the flyover plane [no, he saw Flight 77 on the approach and just didn’t describe the impact].

This interview for me represents the final word on Roberts, and it’s his own. Here's my attempt at drawing a light path. 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?

ETA: Some words after the last word.


Anonymous said...

It looks to me like you've put this together a little incorrectly, sir. If you listen to Roosevelt's testimony, he says explicitely the plane was "above the parking lot" "over lane one." Your picture does not show this. You've got the direction heading southwest away from the Pentagon correct. But it's on the wrong side of 27: Roosevelt said he saw it going across 27.


Caustic Logic said...

No need to say sir!

This is the only way part of it can even make sense. I read as "facing west, looking out at the space over the lot and off to the west." How is this provable as the wrong way?

His citing lane one means, as he says, it was southwest. Exact distance would not be clear to him. He could see either NoC or SoC from there, both "above lane one," but only one passes by where 395 and 27 meet, well short of the lot.

This is the way i drew it also cause it's the way all other evidence shows it actually happened, so it must be what he meant.

The away part... that's mysterious. What on earth can that represent, on any side of 27?

Caustic Logic said...

Oh yeah, and you and Stinkey Puh - sorry, that is the dumbest name ever - doin' good work whoever you are/aren't/whatever.

bobloblaw said...

Heads up, there's a Discovery Channel documentary out this week called Attack On The Pentagon.

It is being discussed here ->

I haven't seen it yet.

thejumblies said...

In that infamous interview with Roosevelt Roberts it surprises me that he never mentioned the 'third' plane , which would have been the C-130. He was also never asked about it.