September 12 2008, 2am
I meant I heard the last word I needed to from officer Roberts and that I meant it to be my own last word regarding him. But of course it’s not that easy, and it’s worth a few more given two critiques from CIT critics, rather than CIT. John Farmer rightly took issue with me, finding the title “strangely arrogant” and it was. I was feeling a bit cocky after hearing the full interview and feeling it all fall into place. So sue me. Since he’s in Arlington at the moment for the Pentagon memorial’s opening and doing some fruitful research, I have to give John some props and yield that of course this is all my opinion. And I don’t care if MY word is the last or not – so long as it’s in there.
A couple critiques however: Farmer says “First, I think it is very clear that Officer Roberts believes he made his observation AFTER the impact event.” Whatever he believes, as Farmer himself earlier noted, “if his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” The full interview is better. The first half is all 77 stuff. We both know what 77 did. IF he vaguely *experienced* a plane hitting some building and THEN saw 77 approach… what other explanation?
Regarding “His directional descriptions are quite ambiguous, such as describing the plane leaving the area southwest.” I’m not seeing the ambiguity, sorry. A U-turn – definition? Same way in, same way out. All directions are southwest. Where is the evidence he’s confused about what southwest means?
And at Above Top Secret where they have no tolerance for sock puppets or anonymous people if they’re on my computer, the still tolerated “Biscuit Cough” has offered his thoughts as well, bringing it into the “discussion” there. He finds my “twist on it” to be “very interesting” but probably “incorrect.”
Some critiques here: First, I am not “Frustrating Fraud” [or “Frustrated Fraud”]. The adj – noun construct implies I AM a Fraud, as opposed to the BS my blog of that title is about. Not to nit-pick, and I’m sure it was unintentional. Okay, so you cited Roosevelt: “ten seconds […] seven steps” and so on and asked:
“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.”
What? Did you miss the part where the TV, and his awareness of the attacks coming from it, is about all he talks about? In his original interview, and in my video, he specifies the TV he was watching in the booth, up until he runs outside. And the cut isn’t “read in,” it’s there and he did say something we can only guess at. Previous narrative defined by the TV screen, then “as I hung up the phone [cut] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV.” Fill in the gap then if you have a better idea. “I looked back at the TV and saw”, or something to that effect, is my guess.
“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.”
Remember, this was preceded by awareness of the shit in NY already, the issuing of Threatcon Delta, and his awareness of his responsibility. ‘We could be hit next,’ y’know? So he goes out to assess the situation, watch for one of them crazy ass planes… It’s what I might do.
“So in summary, I think FF has a few things he needs to deal with: Roosevelt's testimony that there were two planes [and] that the plane was flying over the lane one area, southwest away from the Pentagon, back across 27.”
Agreed – these are the two irresolvable problems. I’ll spare us the full breakdown, but most points he relays fit with my interpretation just fine. The implication that the plane sighting is at 9:11-ish can’t be correct in CIT’s version either. Anything 77-related he saw was at 9:38 or so, and he MUST be wrong on this point. Right? Implied immediacy of “the explosion” and the low-flying plane. Did it simply follow “9:12 or 9:11” into the error wormhole?
Points that cannot fit:
Agreement to “two aircraft in the area” – one impacting unseen and the other seen after - “it was two aircraft, that’s for sure.” [5:50] the one he saw came from “where the first plane had flown into the Pentagon” [6:15] -first plane again implies the second.
The left turn to the Mall Entrance side, loop around back over 27 and departure to the southwest, mentioned all through the second half of the interview. This can’t figure into CIT’s story either, which is why they’ve decided he’s just confused.
Note that all of his statements that cannot fit come after 3:48. BC, what did you mean by “His testimony that it was flying "back across 27" was not given when he was asked to speculate.”? He was never asked to speculate, but if you mean after the “second plane” flying “away from the Pentagon” was mentioned, wrong. That’s what happened at 3:48, the only question he asks to be repeated, and the only one he had to think about for several seconds before answering. Anything unusual after that is highly suspect as evidence. All the second-plane stuff is after that. Hand-waving about “confusion” and “it’s all AFTER the event…” is the only alternative to even drag this one through the gate.
Simplest resolution and my guess and final word from me unless someone has smething remarkable to offer:
He saw 175 on TV at 9:10 and noted the time, ran outside and saw nothing.
He came back in and watched for a few minutes, made some calls or something. Remember, it’s threatcon. He’s in crisis mode here. Not the best for memories.
He went back out at 9:30-ish and after a bit saw Flight 77 appear over the lane one area, approach quickly over 27 at light pole level, and disappear around the corner at impact.
Two months later his memory was confused, so nearly all the wait time between the TV crash and the real plane was forgotten and compressed to about 2 minutes. He also left the actual impact un-described and implied – one second there’s a plane, the next, dust from the ceiling and people screaming. He either can’t recall it clearly, or feels no need to say it.
All the weird stuff everyone’s debating about and/or dancing around was made up under special and observable conditions.
Crazy, huh? The alternative is… a second/flyover something plane re-creating Flight 77’s approach right after a vaguely described impact/fakery event, and then defying physics with a maneuver that would have been invisible to Roberts anyway, and that haven't been seen by anyone else. Or he’s just confused and talking gibberish, probably ‘cause they “got to him.” Maybe I did…
So in essence, of all the hundreds of recorded witnesses, his ambiguity on the first plane-into-building event, plus his silence on the real impact make him uniquely confusing, and ripe for the plucking by flyover/second-plane enthusiasts. He’s at least as confusing when further probed, and not surprisingly does little to either prove or disprove the earlier issues. Those who can’t get enough mystery, carry on. There's still a lot of space between the words to play in.
Showing posts with label Roberts R. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roberts R. Show all posts
Friday, September 12, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
THE LAST WORD ON THE "FLYOVER WITNESS"
THE LAST WORD ON THE "FLYOVER WITNESS"
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted August 28 2008
Video added September 4
Online Videos by Veoh.com
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.
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted August 28 2008
Video added September 4
Online Videos by Veoh.com
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.
Friday, August 1, 2008
CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS
CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS - FIRST AND FURTHER THOUGHTS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
posted May 20 2008,
last update 6/9 3am
Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team on Clout 5/15: "We recently have an exclusive interview with Two people saw the plane continue on past the Pentagon [...plays clip of one, see below...] this gentleman that proves the plane continued on after the explosion”
Host Richard Greene in response: "With all due respect Craig I don’t think it proves it. It’s certainly one person’s testimony which I’ve never heard before.” [and then he gave Honegger four minutes to repeat things he had, again.]
Aldo Marquis, CIT: "you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)."
Marquis: "Trust us people.....this is THE best flyover witness imaginable and his account is rock solid and corroborated." [note: possible confusion between 'imaginable' and 'possible']
Flyover theory first decided on by CIT around September-Nov. 2006. First time CIT has something they're comfortable calling a flyover witness? Just now, May 2008. And they have two. And more to come all of a sudden. Alright, but regarding this one, I’m not aware yet how they got ahold of this witness. He’s another Pentagon Police Officer, and given their track record for being straight with CIT in the past, that’s a bad starting point.
Witness location - working security at the time at the south parking lot loading dock. It's not clear if he was out in the little lot or under the roof (see graphic below). Time: just after the first violent event. [not made clear in audio itself]
Transcript from poor compression of audio of audio:
“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."
This of course ties in very well with their two-plane cover story flyover explanation. However, as for the implications regarding the alleged flight path, am I understanding this correctly? CIT? You aren't banned here like I am at your forum. Your blathering isn't allowed, but a straight answer is. What am I missing? Was the plane literally OVER the south lot? How did it get there do you think and when?
Location of 'lane 1' thanks to a DoD PDF image courtesy Boone870. It fits my guess and makes the flyover to this part of the lot even less probable. It had to have looped around and come back just for this little show that so very few saw.
Regarding CIT's previous flight path, am I being deceptive and picking their worst fit? Well it would have to pass about through the blast fireball for the trick to work, and we know where that happened. As for angle, all would be impossible for a plane of any size at any speed to bank like that, but I'll let CIT's offering speak for themselves. How well does a path from the 'impact point' to the south parking lot work with any of these? (r-click, new window). Did it loop around and return, or what?
This one really doesn't fit
For a "3D" perspective on how impossible it is to connect all this to their long-awaited flyover witness!
Blue works best here, but none make much sense
The reasonable right bank in response to Reheat- Sacrificing witness details to try and satisy physics (still fails)
SPreston's effort from just a few days ago - oops! He was trying to help.
Update: Thanks to the on-the-ball John Farmer, we have an ID on this witness: DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts. Like Brooks and Lagasse, he was interviewed by the LoC in 2001 (Nov 30), interview available here. The interview is a bit confusing as to timeline (he saw the plane at 9:11 am?), as is his new interview, but he places a plane over the south lot, apparently after the explosion (audio gap leaves it a bit unclear). However, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I'll have a more detailed analysys later. I may know what's up with this and why this might prove a rather ironic twist. Keep an eye out.
---
Update: Aldo explains, sort of:
pinch: "So, can you clarify? Did the aircraft fly north of the Citgo, or did it overfly the south parking? You can't have both."
Aldo Marquis CIT; "Actually you can, especially if his perspective led him to believe it was "over" the parking lot. Especially if he is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side. Especially if he is referring to the east end of south parking.
Okay, Aldo... you don't know where he was? What did he say when you asked him to clarify his position? Have you sent him a picture to draw the flight path on? This is important stuff, the FLYOVER WITNESS, and where he puts it going after that is important to understanding where to look for witnesses next, don't you think? South parking lot means what? Over means what? Lane one area is where? Plane was headed 'away' which way? Did you lose Roberts' phone number or do you intend to keep it nice and vague and all about the 'after' aspect? 'The plane was proven to be doing impossible things after the event so it didn't impact' just doesn't cut it. If it can't happen, guess what? It didn't. Please Citizen Investigators call him back and record the clarifications and get a flight path from him. It is worth it, isn't it?
---
Further developments, bound to keep being interesting:
The Flyover Theory Gets Some Faux Clout: The story behind the first airing.
When and Where? Establishing the open questions
Reality/TV If Roberts thinks he saw "another plane," what was the one before it that "hit the building?" It's not as obvious as CIT makes it seem.
- his 2001 interview with USU's Brennan in fraternity w/Brooks and Lagasse - Original tape missing
- Big Eyewitness news coming!!!: Regarding my attempt to contact officer Brooks. No luck so far... piece needs updated and will be updated again as needed.
---
Also, Roberts is mentioned in The PentaCon, I recall, by Officer Brooks, and argued about a bit between him and Lagasse. I'll have to dig that back up.
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
posted May 20 2008,
last update 6/9 3am
Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team on Clout 5/15: "We recently have an exclusive interview with Two people saw the plane continue on past the Pentagon [...plays clip of one, see below...] this gentleman that proves the plane continued on after the explosion”
Host Richard Greene in response: "With all due respect Craig I don’t think it proves it. It’s certainly one person’s testimony which I’ve never heard before.” [and then he gave Honegger four minutes to repeat things he had, again.]
Aldo Marquis, CIT: "you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)."
Marquis: "Trust us people.....this is THE best flyover witness imaginable and his account is rock solid and corroborated." [note: possible confusion between 'imaginable' and 'possible']
Flyover theory first decided on by CIT around September-Nov. 2006. First time CIT has something they're comfortable calling a flyover witness? Just now, May 2008. And they have two. And more to come all of a sudden. Alright, but regarding this one, I’m not aware yet how they got ahold of this witness. He’s another Pentagon Police Officer, and given their track record for being straight with CIT in the past, that’s a bad starting point.
Witness location - working security at the time at the south parking lot loading dock. It's not clear if he was out in the little lot or under the roof (see graphic below). Time: just after the first violent event. [not made clear in audio itself]
Transcript from poor compression of audio of audio:
“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."
This of course ties in very well with their two-plane cover story flyover explanation. However, as for the implications regarding the alleged flight path, am I understanding this correctly? CIT? You aren't banned here like I am at your forum. Your blathering isn't allowed, but a straight answer is. What am I missing? Was the plane literally OVER the south lot? How did it get there do you think and when?
Location of 'lane 1' thanks to a DoD PDF image courtesy Boone870. It fits my guess and makes the flyover to this part of the lot even less probable. It had to have looped around and come back just for this little show that so very few saw. 
Regarding CIT's previous flight path, am I being deceptive and picking their worst fit? Well it would have to pass about through the blast fireball for the trick to work, and we know where that happened. As for angle, all would be impossible for a plane of any size at any speed to bank like that, but I'll let CIT's offering speak for themselves. How well does a path from the 'impact point' to the south parking lot work with any of these? (r-click, new window). Did it loop around and return, or what?
This one really doesn't fit
For a "3D" perspective on how impossible it is to connect all this to their long-awaited flyover witness!
Blue works best here, but none make much sense
The reasonable right bank in response to Reheat- Sacrificing witness details to try and satisy physics (still fails)
SPreston's effort from just a few days ago - oops! He was trying to help.
Update: Thanks to the on-the-ball John Farmer, we have an ID on this witness: DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts. Like Brooks and Lagasse, he was interviewed by the LoC in 2001 (Nov 30), interview available here. The interview is a bit confusing as to timeline (he saw the plane at 9:11 am?), as is his new interview, but he places a plane over the south lot, apparently after the explosion (audio gap leaves it a bit unclear). However, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I'll have a more detailed analysys later. I may know what's up with this and why this might prove a rather ironic twist. Keep an eye out.
---
Update: Aldo explains, sort of:
pinch: "So, can you clarify? Did the aircraft fly north of the Citgo, or did it overfly the south parking? You can't have both."
Aldo Marquis CIT; "Actually you can, especially if his perspective led him to believe it was "over" the parking lot. Especially if he is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side. Especially if he is referring to the east end of south parking.
Okay, Aldo... you don't know where he was? What did he say when you asked him to clarify his position? Have you sent him a picture to draw the flight path on? This is important stuff, the FLYOVER WITNESS, and where he puts it going after that is important to understanding where to look for witnesses next, don't you think? South parking lot means what? Over means what? Lane one area is where? Plane was headed 'away' which way? Did you lose Roberts' phone number or do you intend to keep it nice and vague and all about the 'after' aspect? 'The plane was proven to be doing impossible things after the event so it didn't impact' just doesn't cut it. If it can't happen, guess what? It didn't. Please Citizen Investigators call him back and record the clarifications and get a flight path from him. It is worth it, isn't it?
---
Further developments, bound to keep being interesting:
The Flyover Theory Gets Some Faux Clout: The story behind the first airing.
When and Where? Establishing the open questions
Reality/TV If Roberts thinks he saw "another plane," what was the one before it that "hit the building?" It's not as obvious as CIT makes it seem.
- his 2001 interview with USU's Brennan in fraternity w/Brooks and Lagasse - Original tape missing
- Big Eyewitness news coming!!!: Regarding my attempt to contact officer Brooks. No luck so far... piece needs updated and will be updated again as needed.
---
Also, Roberts is mentioned in The PentaCon, I recall, by Officer Brooks, and argued about a bit between him and Lagasse. I'll have to dig that back up.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
LET’S TALK ABOUT IT THEN - THE WITNESSES
LET’S TALK ABOUT IT THEN - THE WITNESSES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 22 2008
edits 7/23 2am
The Paper / The Witness Roster
Although it does not deny a 757 impact at the Pentagon, John Farmer’s recent paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, and its second Plane north path flyovertheory proposition deserves special attention and a solid panning. At the outset he warned me:
“You are referring to my little essay as if it were some conclusive theory or something. It is not and was never asserted to be. My only assertion is that there is an evidence set for something more going on in the sky over the Pentagon and DC area at the time of the attack than the public record accounts for.”
But however seriously he meant it, the paper is far more specific than that. It spends its first seven pages on the evidence in the Citgo video supporting a north path aircraft – one solid but inconclusive clue – and the last six pages call on five eyewitness accounts that ultimately offer little if any assistance to the case: William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, Roosevelt Roberts, Center for Military History witness “NEIT428,” and “mole,” an anonymous source from a chat forum. One of these, Roberts, was immediately removed. Originally the paper said:
“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”
As it happened, the paper’s release roughly coincided with Citizen Investigation Team’s on-air announcement of having talked with that witness as a “second plane”/ flyover witness. Within days, after absorbing this new testimony, Farmer announced a change of heart: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” Oddly enough from his account, it seems clear that Flight 77 was alone.
So right up front that leaves us four to deal with and two I’m already pretty sure are liars – the original Defense Protective Service Citgo witnesses cited by CIT in The PentaCon. He did not include CIT’s other Citgo witness Turcios, for obvious reasons, but this curiously impossible account did not alter his enthusiasm for the others that also make no sense to the same end. He decided based on an interesting interpretations that “when SGT Brooks and SGT Lagasse’s accounts are taken objectively, they both seem to be describing two different plane approaches simultaneously. One is consistent with the southern path (Lagasse’s yaw and Brook’s vibration) and the other with a northern approach.” Interestingly, like Turcios and Roberts, both only cite one plane bearing these traits.
Lagasse's Yaw
The core of Farmer’s analysis of DPS Sergeant Lagasse is his well-known north-path testimony considered with his final moment “yaw” (nose oriented a bit sideways from the plane’s forward direction) which meant that “it approached the Pentagon at another angle consistent with the actual flight path of AAL77." Now that sounds interesting, considering he already describes the south-path action of crashing low into the building. "In other words," Farmer explains "when he first saw it, he was looking at the right side" of a plane north and set to not hit "and then at the end he is looking at the left side of it," as he'd see of the real impact plane, and "as he would have a plane passing the south side of the station."
This observation spurred to me to reason out a few of Lagasse's early observations to Dick Eastman from June 2003 that had confused me before. When Eastman asked the agitated but open officer “how much of the plane was visible to you as it went in?” Lagasse responded that he “could see the fuse, tail, port wing and starboard wing root” at its final moment, but not the right outer wing. This perhaps fits better with a south approach (seeing left side), but both angles are similar at such a distance. He cites the rise of Route 27 as his view limiter at right, but I used the tree here).
More interestingly, he describes to Eastman the impact of this plane that had passed north of him:
“[It] was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over theannex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer…” [source]
Indeed, a left rudder turn would lead to a left yaw matching the right side hitting first as the right wing entered the construction area. Since Construction storage trailers were either to the left of impact or too far right to be struck, and the right wing/engine is known to have torn through the generator trailer at about the time the nose struck, right side first, it seems most likely Lagasse meant this trailer and deduced from the evidence the actual impact angle. From this Farmer’s leap almost makes sense except for the glaring problem that he did not see his own north path plane he’d been tracking remaining high up and flying at least 60 feet – four fuselage-widths – above the crashing one.
So he does give clues consistent with both the north and south path, but gives them all to only one plane, which “literally hit the building were it met the ground.” While this fits with the trailer evidence he saw, it does not explain either the deflection angle of debris he noted (to the left/north) or the downed light poles, which he also saw and “remembers” in the wrong location - along his path, where he also places the damaged taxi. For this interpretation to work, he'd have to be constructing in his own mind a yaw AND a steady descent in order to fuse the two. In short, his testimony never made sense, and it’s only gotten more surreal with more verification. Lagasse is, at best, an unreliable witness. Period. His “yaw” changes this not one bit, and leaves me yawning as evidence for two planes.
Brooks' Vibration
Brooks’ value to Farmer’s thesis hinges on his 2001 LoC interview. Thanks to CIT’s 2006 verification, we know Brooks’ (stated) location, and I’ll reserve judgment on Farmer’s reading of his parked orientation and PoV. Although these are key to understanding this account, it’s something CIT did not sort out, and I at least am just guessing there. By describing a plane off to his left (and ahead?) while hearing a loud sound/vibration behind him, all well before impact, Brooks allowed Farmer to state “if SGT Brooks 2001 account is taken literally, then he was hearing a plane pass behind him while watching another plane to his left.”
We could try not taking it literally then, but there is some room for speculation here and Farmer takes it. I would guess the sound from behind was bouncing off the Pentagon, or perhaps the Citgo. But it’s possible it was a different plane, one left/ahead, one behind, which means about at the Pentagon, or just passing north or south of him and perhaps two seconds from impact, depending on how he was facing. He reported no impact or explosion at this time – not until the one he was watching approach from the west and impacted about two seconds after passing him, clipping light poles along the way, he thinks.
This means the flyover plane was well ahead of the impact one judging by Brooks’ narrative, to the tune of seconds at least (nowhere near the number he ticks off...). This certainly complicates Lagasse’s yaw interpretation! He saw the north path flyover plane pass and believe IT impacted, which necessitates the planes fly in simultaneously – at least one of these two reading has to be wrong. And no other witness describes another jet flying over the Pentagon several seconds before the impact.
NEIT428's Low Plane
The 428th witness interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History is an Arlington National Cemetery worker and among those available now in Farmer’s FOIA collection. The key part of his account is this:
“Well, when we came out of the warehouse we heard this boom, you know, this big explosion. And we, all we could see was the smoke and the heat [...] after that happened, we looked up in the sky and there was another plane. So, you know, so we panicked. So we started running, you know. So I just dropped on the ground. The plane was so low we were thinking it was going to do the same thing, but the plane made a turn and went in the opposite direction.”
His name is still unknown to me, but I believe this is one of the ANC Ommpah-Loompahs verified in uniform and on-site again in CIT’s upcoming video smash hit whatever the hell it’s called (see the trailer around anywhere). If so my take should be considered in light of this, but whatever he may have said later, this is about his testimony as known to Farmer when he wrote this:
“My first impression was that this must surely be the C-130 known to arrive in the area a minute or so later. However, the altitude of that plane was relatively high and it seems unusual that they would duck for cover in response to it. The interviewer fortunately asks a follow-up question regarding the altitude.
“It was low enough that it could touch the building, the warehouse. It was close.””
Farmer wondered about the “documented […] plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area [and was] over the White House at 09:41” and if this was “the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses.” [emph mine] I would guess C-130 with confused altitude clues. He could see the cockpit and perhaps the people in it because it was at a distance to the west, as the C-130 was, and he was seeing its nosecone higher than he remembers and perhaps lower than we’ve all been thinking. Also he was likely nervous and exaggerating any possible threat.
NEIT428 mentions a turn to “the opposite direction,” a U-turn, which none of the witnesses describe for the “decoy” plane but only for the C-130, as Farmer well knows. If “the opposite direction” as he states is "to the left towards the Washington, D.C. area” as Farmer decides, then it must have been coming fromthe DC area when he first saw it, which does not well fit with, for example, Lagasse’s west-east flight past the Citgo. A 30-40 degree turn to the left does not equal the “opposite direction,” which requires about 180 – like the C-130 did. Of Farmer andNEIT428, one has to be wrong about the turn described by NEIT428.
Furthermore, if this witness’ second plane is NOT the C-130, then his failing to notice the C-130 in addition to it is at least slightly odd. And finally, he had second plane pass but not impact after the crash there. This clearly complicates Brooks’ impact after flyover interpretation and Lagasse’s simultaneous passage – of the paper’s proposed readings of Lagasse, Brooks and NEIT 428, at least two have to be wrong about the order of events.
Mole's 757 "over the mall"
And the fourth remaining witness in this sorry parade finally gives us something a bit more promising, but it’s an anonymous online source. Back in March 2002, Screen-name “mole” posted at the techguy forum the following:
“My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)”
This account is not scientifically precise, and in fact dead wrong on 77 being over the capitol (it was a common urban legend at the time) but it is probably legit as evidence and worth a look. Timeline is key, and the original post does make clear that before hearing this report, mole’s wife “called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse,” almost certainly the smoke from the Pentagon, further in that direction and the only smoking thing in the area at the time.
The timeline after is less clear, but I might guess he saw the E4-B pass at 9:46, eight minutes after the Pentagon strike. This craft is based on a 747 mode, not 757, which is interesting since mole explained how after this “I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol.” Radar later showed this craft passed the capitol mall a second time at 9:49, but north-south near the mall’s west side, and he says it flew south-north, as it did on the first pass at 9:45:30 before turning left and passing E-W just a few blocks north of the White House.
Therefore, it seems likely after all to speculate that the “757” seen before this was NOT the E4-B, and quite possibly a post-77 second plane. Or it could be 77 itself, with “mole” or his team leader misreading the location clues to put it over the capitol rather than across the river. That might seem like a stretch, but considering how little over-the-mall evidence there really is, it can’t be dismissed. Despite these ambiguities, Farmer has no problem stating of mole’s account:
“With witness statements like this, it is clear that the 911 Commission failed in its job to fully explain to the American public exactly what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”
No, sorry. It’s clear that we need some clarification on this. The author “knew” Flight 77 was looping over the capitol, but since then we’ve learned it did not, at least officially. Did this “knowledge” compel him to remember hearing it was over the Capitol, when really no location was stated? What we have here is an anonymous unverifiable account passing on a second hand report of a “757 […] roughly over the mall” at some unspecified moment around the attack time, before or after. And it was taken by mole as supporting the crash of that plane. For any other purpose, it's anecdotal evidence, weak and not able to be strengthened ever.
Conclusion: Gravel
So that’s my panning of half the paper, the other half being the video clues I’m not done with yet. Farmer’s optics and video analysis skills are no help on this side, his law-enforcement “extensive experience working with witnesses” has been of little help either, and his statistical insights failed to tip him off to the low odds that this would all pan out. The process of panning is to separate valuable ore from ordinary rock, and at risk of carrying the metaphor too far,, after watching all this gravel sift out the bottom, I’m left with a keen sense of how empty my pan is. A couple faint sparkles of fool's gold, I'd guess. Does it get any better than this?
ETA: Re-considered then in light of this paper never meaning to have argued anything concrete, and the fact that it clearly does argue something pretty cogent, it seems this notion was being floated, or offered as a possibility with some potential value. Or what, John? A thought exercise, a little mad-libs imagination moment just couched in serious terms for effect, a prank to amuse yourself? In the peer review sense, I have to offer my best assessment of your intelligence and intentions, and hope the last is the case.
ETA 7/27: In fact, perhaps this was just a strawman CIT parody disposable construct for that idiot Caustic to joust to the ground triumphantly, which I guess would be amusing. If so, it was fun on my end too, and thanks.
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 22 2008
edits 7/23 2am
The Paper / The Witness Roster
Although it does not deny a 757 impact at the Pentagon, John Farmer’s recent paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, and its second Plane north path flyover
“You are referring to my little essay as if it were some conclusive theory or something. It is not and was never asserted to be. My only assertion is that there is an evidence set for something more going on in the sky over the Pentagon and DC area at the time of the attack than the public record accounts for.”
But however seriously he meant it, the paper is far more specific than that. It spends its first seven pages on the evidence in the Citgo video supporting a north path aircraft – one solid but inconclusive clue – and the last six pages call on five eyewitness accounts that ultimately offer little if any assistance to the case: William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, Roosevelt Roberts, Center for Military History witness “NEIT428,” and “mole,” an anonymous source from a chat forum. One of these, Roberts, was immediately removed. Originally the paper said:
“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”
As it happened, the paper’s release roughly coincided with Citizen Investigation Team’s on-air announcement of having talked with that witness as a “second plane”/ flyover witness. Within days, after absorbing this new testimony, Farmer announced a change of heart: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” Oddly enough from his account, it seems clear that Flight 77 was alone.
So right up front that leaves us four to deal with and two I’m already pretty sure are liars – the original Defense Protective Service Citgo witnesses cited by CIT in The PentaCon. He did not include CIT’s other Citgo witness Turcios, for obvious reasons, but this curiously impossible account did not alter his enthusiasm for the others that also make no sense to the same end. He decided based on an interesting interpretations that “when SGT Brooks and SGT Lagasse’s accounts are taken objectively, they both seem to be describing two different plane approaches simultaneously. One is consistent with the southern path (Lagasse’s yaw and Brook’s vibration) and the other with a northern approach.” Interestingly, like Turcios and Roberts, both only cite one plane bearing these traits.
Lagasse's Yaw
The core of Farmer’s analysis of DPS Sergeant Lagasse is his well-known north-path testimony considered with his final moment “yaw” (nose oriented a bit sideways from the plane’s forward direction) which meant that “it approached the Pentagon at another angle consistent with the actual flight path of AAL77." Now that sounds interesting, considering he already describes the south-path action of crashing low into the building. "In other words," Farmer explains "when he first saw it, he was looking at the right side" of a plane north and set to not hit "and then at the end he is looking at the left side of it," as he'd see of the real impact plane, and "as he would have a plane passing the south side of the station."
This observation spurred to me to reason out a few of Lagasse's early observations to Dick Eastman from June 2003 that had confused me before. When Eastman asked the agitated but open officer “how much of the plane was visible to you as it went in?” Lagasse responded that he “could see the fuse, tail, port wing and starboard wing root” at its final moment, but not the right outer wing. This perhaps fits better with a south approach (seeing left side), but both angles are similar at such a distance. He cites the rise of Route 27 as his view limiter at right, but I used the tree here).More interestingly, he describes to Eastman the impact of this plane that had passed north of him:
“[It] was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over theannex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer…” [source]
Indeed, a left rudder turn would lead to a left yaw matching the right side hitting first as the right wing entered the construction area. Since Construction storage trailers were either to the left of impact or too far right to be struck, and the right wing/engine is known to have torn through the generator trailer at about the time the nose struck, right side first, it seems most likely Lagasse meant this trailer and deduced from the evidence the actual impact angle. From this Farmer’s leap almost makes sense except for the glaring problem that he did not see his own north path plane he’d been tracking remaining high up and flying at least 60 feet – four fuselage-widths – above the crashing one. So he does give clues consistent with both the north and south path, but gives them all to only one plane, which “literally hit the building were it met the ground.” While this fits with the trailer evidence he saw, it does not explain either the deflection angle of debris he noted (to the left/north) or the downed light poles, which he also saw and “remembers” in the wrong location - along his path, where he also places the damaged taxi. For this interpretation to work, he'd have to be constructing in his own mind a yaw AND a steady descent in order to fuse the two. In short, his testimony never made sense, and it’s only gotten more surreal with more verification. Lagasse is, at best, an unreliable witness. Period. His “yaw” changes this not one bit, and leaves me yawning as evidence for two planes.
Brooks' Vibration
Brooks’ value to Farmer’s thesis hinges on his 2001 LoC interview. Thanks to CIT’s 2006 verification, we know Brooks’ (stated) location, and I’ll reserve judgment on Farmer’s reading of his parked orientation and PoV. Although these are key to understanding this account, it’s something CIT did not sort out, and I at least am just guessing there. By describing a plane off to his left (and ahead?) while hearing a loud sound/vibration behind him, all well before impact, Brooks allowed Farmer to state “if SGT Brooks 2001 account is taken literally, then he was hearing a plane pass behind him while watching another plane to his left.”
We could try not taking it literally then, but there is some room for speculation here and Farmer takes it. I would guess the sound from behind was bouncing off the Pentagon, or perhaps the Citgo. But it’s possible it was a different plane, one left/ahead, one behind, which means about at the Pentagon, or just passing north or south of him and perhaps two seconds from impact, depending on how he was facing. He reported no impact or explosion at this time – not until the one he was watching approach from the west and impacted about two seconds after passing him, clipping light poles along the way, he thinks.
This means the flyover plane was well ahead of the impact one judging by Brooks’ narrative, to the tune of seconds at least (nowhere near the number he ticks off...). This certainly complicates Lagasse’s yaw interpretation! He saw the north path flyover plane pass and believe IT impacted, which necessitates the planes fly in simultaneously – at least one of these two reading has to be wrong. And no other witness describes another jet flying over the Pentagon several seconds before the impact.
NEIT428's Low Plane
The 428th witness interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History is an Arlington National Cemetery worker and among those available now in Farmer’s FOIA collection. The key part of his account is this:
“Well, when we came out of the warehouse we heard this boom, you know, this big explosion. And we, all we could see was the smoke and the heat [...] after that happened, we looked up in the sky and there was another plane. So, you know, so we panicked. So we started running, you know. So I just dropped on the ground. The plane was so low we were thinking it was going to do the same thing, but the plane made a turn and went in the opposite direction.”
His name is still unknown to me, but I believe this is one of the ANC Ommpah-Loompahs verified in uniform and on-site again in CIT’s upcoming video smash hit whatever the hell it’s called (see the trailer around anywhere). If so my take should be considered in light of this, but whatever he may have said later, this is about his testimony as known to Farmer when he wrote this:
“My first impression was that this must surely be the C-130 known to arrive in the area a minute or so later. However, the altitude of that plane was relatively high and it seems unusual that they would duck for cover in response to it. The interviewer fortunately asks a follow-up question regarding the altitude.
“It was low enough that it could touch the building, the warehouse. It was close.””
Farmer wondered about the “documented […] plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area [and was] over the White House at 09:41” and if this was “the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses.” [emph mine] I would guess C-130 with confused altitude clues. He could see the cockpit and perhaps the people in it because it was at a distance to the west, as the C-130 was, and he was seeing its nosecone higher than he remembers and perhaps lower than we’ve all been thinking. Also he was likely nervous and exaggerating any possible threat.
NEIT428 mentions a turn to “the opposite direction,” a U-turn, which none of the witnesses describe for the “decoy” plane but only for the C-130, as Farmer well knows. If “the opposite direction” as he states is "to the left towards the Washington, D.C. area” as Farmer decides, then it must have been coming fromthe DC area when he first saw it, which does not well fit with, for example, Lagasse’s west-east flight past the Citgo. A 30-40 degree turn to the left does not equal the “opposite direction,” which requires about 180 – like the C-130 did. Of Farmer andNEIT428, one has to be wrong about the turn described by NEIT428.
Furthermore, if this witness’ second plane is NOT the C-130, then his failing to notice the C-130 in addition to it is at least slightly odd. And finally, he had second plane pass but not impact after the crash there. This clearly complicates Brooks’ impact after flyover interpretation and Lagasse’s simultaneous passage – of the paper’s proposed readings of Lagasse, Brooks and NEIT 428, at least two have to be wrong about the order of events.
Mole's 757 "over the mall"
And the fourth remaining witness in this sorry parade finally gives us something a bit more promising, but it’s an anonymous online source. Back in March 2002, Screen-name “mole” posted at the techguy forum the following:
“My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)”
This account is not scientifically precise, and in fact dead wrong on 77 being over the capitol (it was a common urban legend at the time) but it is probably legit as evidence and worth a look. Timeline is key, and the original post does make clear that before hearing this report, mole’s wife “called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse,” almost certainly the smoke from the Pentagon, further in that direction and the only smoking thing in the area at the time.
The timeline after is less clear, but I might guess he saw the E4-B pass at 9:46, eight minutes after the Pentagon strike. This craft is based on a 747 mode, not 757, which is interesting since mole explained how after this “I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol.” Radar later showed this craft passed the capitol mall a second time at 9:49, but north-south near the mall’s west side, and he says it flew south-north, as it did on the first pass at 9:45:30 before turning left and passing E-W just a few blocks north of the White House.
Therefore, it seems likely after all to speculate that the “757” seen before this was NOT the E4-B, and quite possibly a post-77 second plane. Or it could be 77 itself, with “mole” or his team leader misreading the location clues to put it over the capitol rather than across the river. That might seem like a stretch, but considering how little over-the-mall evidence there really is, it can’t be dismissed. Despite these ambiguities, Farmer has no problem stating of mole’s account:
“With witness statements like this, it is clear that the 911 Commission failed in its job to fully explain to the American public exactly what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”
No, sorry. It’s clear that we need some clarification on this. The author “knew” Flight 77 was looping over the capitol, but since then we’ve learned it did not, at least officially. Did this “knowledge” compel him to remember hearing it was over the Capitol, when really no location was stated? What we have here is an anonymous unverifiable account passing on a second hand report of a “757 […] roughly over the mall” at some unspecified moment around the attack time, before or after. And it was taken by mole as supporting the crash of that plane. For any other purpose, it's anecdotal evidence, weak and not able to be strengthened ever.
Conclusion: Gravel
So that’s my panning of half the paper, the other half being the video clues I’m not done with yet. Farmer’s optics and video analysis skills are no help on this side, his law-enforcement “extensive experience working with witnesses” has been of little help either, and his statistical insights failed to tip him off to the low odds that this would all pan out. The process of panning is to separate valuable ore from ordinary rock, and at risk of carrying the metaphor too far,, after watching all this gravel sift out the bottom, I’m left with a keen sense of how empty my pan is. A couple faint sparkles of fool's gold, I'd guess. Does it get any better than this?
ETA: Re-considered then in light of this paper never meaning to have argued anything concrete, and the fact that it clearly does argue something pretty cogent, it seems this notion was being floated, or offered as a possibility with some potential value. Or what, John? A thought exercise, a little mad-libs imagination moment just couched in serious terms for effect, a prank to amuse yourself? In the peer review sense, I have to offer my best assessment of your intelligence and intentions, and hope the last is the case.
ETA 7/27: In fact, perhaps this was just a strawman CIT parody disposable construct for that idiot Caustic to joust to the ground triumphantly, which I guess would be amusing. If so, it was fun on my end too, and thanks.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
FILET OF FLOUNDER
FILET OF FLOUNDER
July 3 2008
On June 26 I received my packet for Officer Roberts, unopened and un-received. I had sent it three weeks earlier, hoping to get some clarification on aspects of his eyewitness account. Perhaps I picked the wrong address, or he's out of town, who knows? They said they made two attempts to deliver, and couldn't find anyone to give it to. Maybe he was there and refused it. I don't know.
Anyway, now that I'm started I won't stop that easy. I have the info I paid for, and I know others who know how to talk to him... so I e-mailed Craig Ranke on Tuesday. Here's how that went:
Me: "Well hey, it's been a while. Hope you guys are doing well personally and floundering professionally. The reason I write is to say that my package for Officer Roberts was not received/accepted. [...] Before I waste any more time, I was wondering if you or Aldo would be willing to help me out, either with the right address or if possible his phone number? This will help get me to confirm this account again, which would be great for you guys."
Ranke: "You expose your dishonest intentions and personal obsession with us in your 2nd sentence. You don't care about truth you simply want CIT to "flounder professionally".
You are desperately fishing for ammo to preempt us with spin.
Relax and wait to see all the data."
Me: "Nice excuse. You damn well know my "dishonest intentions" and it would be disrespectful to conceal them. Plus it wouldn't work. So really what you're saying is "no because you're a detractor." Does this mean you really are twisting his words and don't want anyone else messing up your formula? And I'm not obsessed here, I'm following up. I don't even care about your next batch of smoking gun witnesses, I'm only watching the legal developments at this point."
This avoidance despite his earlier statement to Bobloblaw and I:
"Please feel free and call ALL the witnesses.
We encourage it.
[...]
Thanks for helping to verify our claims.
It's about time that The Frustrated Fraud finally did as well.
I sure hope Roosevelt responds to him."
So did he discover I was a deceiver/denier AFTER this statement, or was he just posturing? Oh well, I didn't really expect help, just thought I should try. I still have other addresses to try.
Only news about how CIT's massive proof is playing out in the courts will catch my attention now. As so many others have, I urge CIT to quit wasting their time gathering more evidence and provoking and slinging insults at insane illogical critics and take it to an wise and impartial judge and get this show moving! Otherwise fighting them have grown as stale as fighting the short guy below - who's worried about "preempting" HIS next move?
July 3 2008
On June 26 I received my packet for Officer Roberts, unopened and un-received. I had sent it three weeks earlier, hoping to get some clarification on aspects of his eyewitness account. Perhaps I picked the wrong address, or he's out of town, who knows? They said they made two attempts to deliver, and couldn't find anyone to give it to. Maybe he was there and refused it. I don't know.
Anyway, now that I'm started I won't stop that easy. I have the info I paid for, and I know others who know how to talk to him... so I e-mailed Craig Ranke on Tuesday. Here's how that went:
Me: "Well hey, it's been a while. Hope you guys are doing well personally and floundering professionally. The reason I write is to say that my package for Officer Roberts was not received/accepted. [...] Before I waste any more time, I was wondering if you or Aldo would be willing to help me out, either with the right address or if possible his phone number? This will help get me to confirm this account again, which would be great for you guys."
Ranke: "You expose your dishonest intentions and personal obsession with us in your 2nd sentence. You don't care about truth you simply want CIT to "flounder professionally".
You are desperately fishing for ammo to preempt us with spin.
Relax and wait to see all the data."
Me: "Nice excuse. You damn well know my "dishonest intentions" and it would be disrespectful to conceal them. Plus it wouldn't work. So really what you're saying is "no because you're a detractor." Does this mean you really are twisting his words and don't want anyone else messing up your formula? And I'm not obsessed here, I'm following up. I don't even care about your next batch of smoking gun witnesses, I'm only watching the legal developments at this point."
This avoidance despite his earlier statement to Bobloblaw and I:
"Please feel free and call ALL the witnesses.
We encourage it.
[...]
Thanks for helping to verify our claims.
It's about time that The Frustrated Fraud finally did as well.
I sure hope Roosevelt responds to him."
So did he discover I was a deceiver/denier AFTER this statement, or was he just posturing? Oh well, I didn't really expect help, just thought I should try. I still have other addresses to try.
Only news about how CIT's massive proof is playing out in the courts will catch my attention now. As so many others have, I urge CIT to quit wasting their time gathering more evidence and provoking and slinging insults at insane illogical critics and take it to an wise and impartial judge and get this show moving! Otherwise fighting them have grown as stale as fighting the short guy below - who's worried about "preempting" HIS next move?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
BIG EYEWITNESS NEWS COMING!!!
BIG EYEWITNESS NEWS COMING!!!
June 11 1am
Aldo Marquis CIT has news for us, again! “UPDATE: We've got another corroborating witness to the DC/EOP/Chaconas flight path.” Good, since the Scoggins confirmation didn’t turn out so well. This was the first post in the Chaconas thread since JFK shut it down a month ago to push out PBnJ. And there’s news on other fronts, hints a-dropping at the LCF in the last few days, and I gotta say I’m scared that my whole reality is about to come crashing down! "They have no idea how wrong they are about to be," Marquis told Bitterman. "Paik's position didn't allow him to see what happened at the end of the Annex," he said in another thread. "We do have a better idea now, so just stay tuned."
Most ominously, Marquis announced "We now have an additional 6 NoC witnesses. 2 on audio recording and 4 on location, on camera. One of those was a surprise published account that we did not expect to get." Lemme guess – ANC folks and such who were north of the real path, and describe the plane as over them? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo.” How many mention the Citgo? I'll have to wait and see. How many people south of the real path described the plane as 'over' them? But they don’t count as SoC witnesses since they don’t mention the Citgo, right? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo," he told critic Boboblaw, "leading us to believe the plane flew over. Leading us to believe in the second plane cover story. Leading us to Roosevelt Roberts who saw the plane flying away and thought it was a second jet in the area at the exact time of the attack."
Regarding that last, I'm still waiting for that full article and complete audio that was promised a couple weeks ago. One thing at a time fellas, lets see if one pans out before we start distracting people with something else that also won't. Not sure what they’re saying at their own forum, but the word bombshell is probably in there somewhere, as they plan another of their regular bomb-dropping followed by another round by the dud truck, teetering and barely able to drive beneath its towering load anymore. Perhaps they will finally break the truck, which seems their only reachable goal.
'Hey, we're not confused about Roberts' account,' CIT will likely say. 'You're the one with the stupid "questions." Why don't YOU go ask him to explain it again?' Funny they should possibly ask that right after I led the post that direction. In other news, I’ve been “unusually investigative” lately in sending out, last Monday, a ‘clarification packet’ to Officer Roberts with all the contact info he could need. In nine pages (with plenty of space, mind you), I asked about all the little details I’ve been wondering about and made it near-impossible, if he answers anything, to continue the vagueness that’s come across so far. I included a zoomed map for locating himself, lane 1, etc. if all south, and a wider view for the flight path he saw. I could have made better ones I suppose, but I felt rushed.
The way I see it there are three possible outcomes:
1) He doesn’t respond, or does so in a curt and dismissive way. This seems most likely, but considering how he talked with CIT, I would find this a bit suspicious. They didn’t just look up his number and call him, not by any means I’ve found, but likely got him to call them after an initial contact. Am I right, guys?
2) He responds in the affirmative of what I suspect – he saw 175 impact on TV and then saw 77 approach. I’ll publish it happily.
3) He clarifies what CIT’s been saying. I won’t believe it, but I’ll acknowledge it and, with his permission, pass it on. That in itself would be very interesting.
So each of these outcomes is educational in its own way, and it will have been worth the time in any case. He should have had the packet for over a week now, just long enough that the suspense is killing me and I’m wondering if he’s planning to blow me off quietly. So now it’s in the open, I can’t be blown off silently. How loud it gets depends on me. In the chance he’s reading this site, again, all I want is the honest and un-muddled truth, even if it’s just that I fail, and we are waiting on a response. And again, Roosevelt, if you're reading this, all of this back-and-forth should not matter a bit for the outcome. Memories are memories, and if CIT can hear them, why not me?
Sincerely, Caustic Logic
June 11 1am
Aldo Marquis CIT has news for us, again! “UPDATE: We've got another corroborating witness to the DC/EOP/Chaconas flight path.” Good, since the Scoggins confirmation didn’t turn out so well. This was the first post in the Chaconas thread since JFK shut it down a month ago to push out PBnJ. And there’s news on other fronts, hints a-dropping at the LCF in the last few days, and I gotta say I’m scared that my whole reality is about to come crashing down! "They have no idea how wrong they are about to be," Marquis told Bitterman. "Paik's position didn't allow him to see what happened at the end of the Annex," he said in another thread. "We do have a better idea now, so just stay tuned."
Most ominously, Marquis announced "We now have an additional 6 NoC witnesses. 2 on audio recording and 4 on location, on camera. One of those was a surprise published account that we did not expect to get." Lemme guess – ANC folks and such who were north of the real path, and describe the plane as over them? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo.” How many mention the Citgo? I'll have to wait and see. How many people south of the real path described the plane as 'over' them? But they don’t count as SoC witnesses since they don’t mention the Citgo, right? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo," he told critic Boboblaw, "leading us to believe the plane flew over. Leading us to believe in the second plane cover story. Leading us to Roosevelt Roberts who saw the plane flying away and thought it was a second jet in the area at the exact time of the attack."
Regarding that last, I'm still waiting for that full article and complete audio that was promised a couple weeks ago. One thing at a time fellas, lets see if one pans out before we start distracting people with something else that also won't. Not sure what they’re saying at their own forum, but the word bombshell is probably in there somewhere, as they plan another of their regular bomb-dropping followed by another round by the dud truck, teetering and barely able to drive beneath its towering load anymore. Perhaps they will finally break the truck, which seems their only reachable goal.
'Hey, we're not confused about Roberts' account,' CIT will likely say. 'You're the one with the stupid "questions." Why don't YOU go ask him to explain it again?' Funny they should possibly ask that right after I led the post that direction. In other news, I’ve been “unusually investigative” lately in sending out, last Monday, a ‘clarification packet’ to Officer Roberts with all the contact info he could need. In nine pages (with plenty of space, mind you), I asked about all the little details I’ve been wondering about and made it near-impossible, if he answers anything, to continue the vagueness that’s come across so far. I included a zoomed map for locating himself, lane 1, etc. if all south, and a wider view for the flight path he saw. I could have made better ones I suppose, but I felt rushed.
The way I see it there are three possible outcomes:
1) He doesn’t respond, or does so in a curt and dismissive way. This seems most likely, but considering how he talked with CIT, I would find this a bit suspicious. They didn’t just look up his number and call him, not by any means I’ve found, but likely got him to call them after an initial contact. Am I right, guys?
2) He responds in the affirmative of what I suspect – he saw 175 impact on TV and then saw 77 approach. I’ll publish it happily.
3) He clarifies what CIT’s been saying. I won’t believe it, but I’ll acknowledge it and, with his permission, pass it on. That in itself would be very interesting.
So each of these outcomes is educational in its own way, and it will have been worth the time in any case. He should have had the packet for over a week now, just long enough that the suspense is killing me and I’m wondering if he’s planning to blow me off quietly. So now it’s in the open, I can’t be blown off silently. How loud it gets depends on me. In the chance he’s reading this site, again, all I want is the honest and un-muddled truth, even if it’s just that I fail, and we are waiting on a response. And again, Roosevelt, if you're reading this, all of this back-and-forth should not matter a bit for the outcome. Memories are memories, and if CIT can hear them, why not me?
Sincerely, Caustic Logic
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
FOLKLORE/BRENNAN /MISSING TAPES
FOLKLORE/BRENNAN /MISSING TAPES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 10 2008
Previously on this site I’ve cited “2001 LoC interviews” with Pentagon attack witnesses William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Roosevelt Roberts, all Defense Protective Service officers. These are part of a larger series of oral interviews gathered by the “American Folklife Center” at the Library of Congress, and more specifically from a sub-set of interviews collected by Utah State University student Jennifer Brennan. A USU website lists the impressive collection of 56 oral interviews recorded on tape and catalogued in their library after a folklore professor there “instigated this documentary project in her fall 2001 semester class(es). Some of her students participated in what was a larger (nation-wide) folklore collecting project," the site explains.
Remember when reading or listening to these accounts, they are not part of a scientific investigation of witnesses; the oral accounts are gathered as folklore, passed-down stories, only based in authentic experience. But around Arlington, they tell their kids that “folklore” consists of “fictional stories of a country or region passed down through generations to help explain natural phenomenon, often using animals and bigger than life characters. Paul Bunyan is an example of folklore.” How’s about the north-of-Citgo flight path, Pentagon flyover and all-faked destruction? A tall tale that will re-surface for generations when the subject of September 11 comes up? “What about those officers and that animation… didn’t some people actually see the plane fly over the Pentagon?” Never mind that it makes no actual sense, aside fro the vigorous lobbying of certain ‘investigators,’ it has a certain mythic resonance with a number of people, and these three accounts - and later accounts by the same men - are among the few real things that give it that.
But as well as embryonic folk legend, the tapes are evidence of some kind, and much of this is good stuff. The freshness of the accounts is core to their value, all recorded within a few months of the events. The register of all USU tapes, compiled in May 2004, lists the collection as including assorted paperwork “contained in the first of four boxes in the collection, each informant having an individual folder within the box. The audio tapes are held in the remaining three boxes.” Regarding the list itself, each informant's name was “followed by the call numbers (for both the interview paperwork and the corresponding audio tape), the date and place each interview occurred, as well as any other pertinent information." [emph. mine]
Including our three DPS officers, Brennan contributed 24 of the total 56 interviews (10 of which were also published at the LoC site - search "Jennifer Brennan" if needed), all conducted in late November/early December 2001. These are listed chronologically, starting with one Donald Brennan (Pentagon employee), whom she refers to as “Dad.” His account was in Box 1, Folder 7, and the audio tape in box 2, No. 4. The interview date is listed as Nov. 18, in Washington D.C. via telephone from Logan, UT. It includes “Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; 2 transcribed oral narratives included; collector release form only.” Himself a DPS officer of unclear rank, Brennan Sr’s account is detailed and coherent (and included in the LoC collection, in 2 parts). He didn’t see the plane but he mentions hearing two transmissions: of a plane approaching and a plane impacting – possible candidates for these calls include officers Brooks, Lagasse, or Roberts, all of which Brennan apparently helped his daughter get ahold of, along with at least some of the others I would guess, giving her by far the biggest take in the USU’s effort and I would hope high marks in the class.
Our eventual CIT witnesses are listed at the USU site thus:
William C. Lagasse (Pentagon employee):
Box 1, Folder 20 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 2, No. 17]
06 Dec. 2001
Fredericksburg, VA (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Collector release form only.)
Chadwick Brooks (Pentagon employee):
Box 1, Folder 24 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 3, No. 3]
09 Dec. 2001
Stephens City, VA (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Collector and informant release forms.)
Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. (Pentagon employee ?):
Box 1, Folder 27 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 3, No. 6 - MISSING]
10 April 2002
Waldorf, MD (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Tape missing; collector and informant release forms.)
So Roberts’ original tape is missing from the USU collection. This could have many different reasons, and is not unique to his interview. Four other tapes are also listed as missing, all from Brennan’s 24, and all listed as (Pentagon employee ?). two of these five, Roberts and Maiorca, were first logged with the LoC and still available, for a net loss of 3 audio accounts from all known circulation (Cooke, Ochoa, Wayman). How this happened and what significance it may have I can’t yet say.
There is also an odd pattern here by which the “date and place each interview occurred” as given on the USU site is generally later than the given dates for the ten featured on the LoC site, though generally within a few days or weeks of each other. Her fathers and Wagstaff’s are the only ones with dates that match, Nov 18 and 29th respectively, listed the same at both sites. Lagasse is listed as recorded on December 4 by LoC, and Dec 6 by USU, Brooks as Nov 25 and Dec 9. Rosati, Gamble, Stout, and Nesbitt follow this pattern. It seems reasonable to guess that one set of dates refer to the actual interview and the other to a later cataloguing or something The USU site’s wording must be wrong, since the LoC couldn’t be cataloguing them before they occurred.
The general proximity of all but two of the USU dates makes sense, but Roberts is listed as recorded Nov 30 by LoC and on April 10 2002 by the USU site, over four months apart. This is not unique, and apparently related to its missing status. The five missing tapes are all given dates of April 10, 11, or 16 2002. This is presumably the date they were found to be gone, the original dates somehow lost as well (written on the tapes?)
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 10 2008
Previously on this site I’ve cited “2001 LoC interviews” with Pentagon attack witnesses William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Roosevelt Roberts, all Defense Protective Service officers. These are part of a larger series of oral interviews gathered by the “American Folklife Center” at the Library of Congress, and more specifically from a sub-set of interviews collected by Utah State University student Jennifer Brennan. A USU website lists the impressive collection of 56 oral interviews recorded on tape and catalogued in their library after a folklore professor there “instigated this documentary project in her fall 2001 semester class(es). Some of her students participated in what was a larger (nation-wide) folklore collecting project," the site explains.
Remember when reading or listening to these accounts, they are not part of a scientific investigation of witnesses; the oral accounts are gathered as folklore, passed-down stories, only based in authentic experience. But around Arlington, they tell their kids that “folklore” consists of “fictional stories of a country or region passed down through generations to help explain natural phenomenon, often using animals and bigger than life characters. Paul Bunyan is an example of folklore.” How’s about the north-of-Citgo flight path, Pentagon flyover and all-faked destruction? A tall tale that will re-surface for generations when the subject of September 11 comes up? “What about those officers and that animation… didn’t some people actually see the plane fly over the Pentagon?” Never mind that it makes no actual sense, aside fro the vigorous lobbying of certain ‘investigators,’ it has a certain mythic resonance with a number of people, and these three accounts - and later accounts by the same men - are among the few real things that give it that.
But as well as embryonic folk legend, the tapes are evidence of some kind, and much of this is good stuff. The freshness of the accounts is core to their value, all recorded within a few months of the events. The register of all USU tapes, compiled in May 2004, lists the collection as including assorted paperwork “contained in the first of four boxes in the collection, each informant having an individual folder within the box. The audio tapes are held in the remaining three boxes.” Regarding the list itself, each informant's name was “followed by the call numbers (for both the interview paperwork and the corresponding audio tape), the date and place each interview occurred, as well as any other pertinent information." [emph. mine]
Including our three DPS officers, Brennan contributed 24 of the total 56 interviews (10 of which were also published at the LoC site - search "Jennifer Brennan" if needed), all conducted in late November/early December 2001. These are listed chronologically, starting with one Donald Brennan (Pentagon employee), whom she refers to as “Dad.” His account was in Box 1, Folder 7, and the audio tape in box 2, No. 4. The interview date is listed as Nov. 18, in Washington D.C. via telephone from Logan, UT. It includes “Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; 2 transcribed oral narratives included; collector release form only.” Himself a DPS officer of unclear rank, Brennan Sr’s account is detailed and coherent (and included in the LoC collection, in 2 parts). He didn’t see the plane but he mentions hearing two transmissions: of a plane approaching and a plane impacting – possible candidates for these calls include officers Brooks, Lagasse, or Roberts, all of which Brennan apparently helped his daughter get ahold of, along with at least some of the others I would guess, giving her by far the biggest take in the USU’s effort and I would hope high marks in the class.
Our eventual CIT witnesses are listed at the USU site thus:
William C. Lagasse (Pentagon employee):
Box 1, Folder 20 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 2, No. 17]
06 Dec. 2001
Fredericksburg, VA (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Collector release form only.)
Chadwick Brooks (Pentagon employee):
Box 1, Folder 24 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 3, No. 3]
09 Dec. 2001
Stephens City, VA (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Collector and informant release forms.)
Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. (Pentagon employee ?):
Box 1, Folder 27 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 3, No. 6 - MISSING]
10 April 2002
Waldorf, MD (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Tape missing; collector and informant release forms.)
So Roberts’ original tape is missing from the USU collection. This could have many different reasons, and is not unique to his interview. Four other tapes are also listed as missing, all from Brennan’s 24, and all listed as (Pentagon employee ?). two of these five, Roberts and Maiorca, were first logged with the LoC and still available, for a net loss of 3 audio accounts from all known circulation (Cooke, Ochoa, Wayman). How this happened and what significance it may have I can’t yet say.
There is also an odd pattern here by which the “date and place each interview occurred” as given on the USU site is generally later than the given dates for the ten featured on the LoC site, though generally within a few days or weeks of each other. Her fathers and Wagstaff’s are the only ones with dates that match, Nov 18 and 29th respectively, listed the same at both sites. Lagasse is listed as recorded on December 4 by LoC, and Dec 6 by USU, Brooks as Nov 25 and Dec 9. Rosati, Gamble, Stout, and Nesbitt follow this pattern. It seems reasonable to guess that one set of dates refer to the actual interview and the other to a later cataloguing or something The USU site’s wording must be wrong, since the LoC couldn’t be cataloguing them before they occurred.
The general proximity of all but two of the USU dates makes sense, but Roberts is listed as recorded Nov 30 by LoC and on April 10 2002 by the USU site, over four months apart. This is not unique, and apparently related to its missing status. The five missing tapes are all given dates of April 10, 11, or 16 2002. This is presumably the date they were found to be gone, the original dates somehow lost as well (written on the tapes?)
Friday, May 30, 2008
“FLYOVER WITNESS” ROBERTS: REALITY/TV
“FLYOVER WITNESS” ROBERTS: REALITY/TV
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 29 2008
updates 8/21
As my previous post on supposed Pentagon flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts illustrated, there are two main ways of reading his sighting of a silver plane near the Pentagon – before or after the violent event there. The after interpretation seems completely self-evident to CIT, who cite this passage from an interview they recently did with him: Roberts: “Upon impact I stepped out the little booth that I was in […stepped out, and saw the plane above…] Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?" Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It was two aircraft, that’s for sure." They also point to his 2001 LoC interview: “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness.”
How could this mean anything other than the plane that ‘hit’ his building just before he saw ‘another plane’? I saw this right off the bat – perhaps ‘the plane’ was United 175, ‘the building’ it hit was the WTC south tower, and he saw it on CNN. Considering that he may have clarified the plane crash was more local to CIT (which I’m not convinced of from what they’ve released so far) I wondered if “his story has voluntarily changed since '01 or if you're leading or distorting. Because he was clearly seeing it all on TV is his old interview. I even know what channel he was watching.” That was a bit of cocky hyperbole on my part. In fact, all I have is an explanation how this alternate scenario is quite possible. Admittedly, there are gaps involved in this interpretation, and some speculation is required, but it goes up now for what it’s worth.
The obvious problem most would see with this is if he saw Flight 175 hitting the WTC on TV meant it was 9:03 since everyone aired it live - and the hit was apparently immediately before seeing the ‘other’ plane outside – which all agree came in/over at about 9:37. Further confusing things, Roberts originally timed his sighting at 9:11 or 9:12, between the two times and fitting neither scenario very well. Since chronology is key here, I decided to figure out which news broadcast he might be watching. At the risk of reading too much into his described timeline of awareness, I took his descriptors literally and have reasoned that he was watching CNN’s coverage. I cross checked against CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox News coverage and found that CNN is the only of the five that fits well enough to simply splice it into his 2001 interview as I’ve done below.
CNN video starts 8:48 am, from the Television Archive.
Prior to 8:49 am: “I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap]”
Later clues in the interview indicate he was at the dock preparing for a 10:45 heliport assignment (outbound, not Bush), takes a portion of guard’s shift to give him a bathroom break, and was thus responsible for security at that area. “[A]nd as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh…” I’m guessing it was tuned to CNN.
8:49 – CNN is the first to announce the attack in New York at almost exactly 8:49, about three minutes after the first crash and three minutes ahead of the other networks. Maybe the break the other guard called was to call relatives in New York, which would put Roberts in charge around 8:51. It might take a minute or two for him to fully pay attention to the news.
8:54 - CNN airs a witness who’d just come out of the subway and described what seemed to her a planeless bombing of the building. “[A]ll of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed.” Or perhaps he just meant attacked. It was unclear to many people until they saw the second plane hit.
8:55-9:03 - The reporters and witnesses seem to believe a plane was responsible, as reported by a CNN producer who saw it, and speculated on fuselage buried inside. Roberts would become aware of this from 8:55 on but he has not yet seen a plane hit a building, and it still seemed a possible accident. “And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents.”
9:03 - The second impact was captured live and broadcast live but only registered clearly as an explosion of unknown origin. The video feed does show the plane but only for a split-second before an awkward cut. The editor apparently saw the plane enter just as he/she hit enter, said ‘whoa!’ and cut back but only upon the explosion. The on-site reporter didn’t see the plane, the anchors missed the flash of it, and the newsroom remained unsure about the plane impact for a couple of minutes, wondering if it was a secondary explosion from the fuselage inside the north tower.
9:04-:05 - “I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television.” No one ever broadcast warning of ‘another plane coming,’ so I’d guess he meant the reports of a possible second plane that started “coming on the television” at 9:04, well after the mysterious ‘second explosion’ of 175’s impact. At 9:05 they aired a witness to a second plane coming in and apparently hitting the tower who talks into the 9:06 slot. Until this time Roberts has not seen the second impact that so effected everyone.
9:04-9:05? - “And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta.” I’m not sure when Threatcon Delta would be announced, but shortly after the second strike, around 9:04 or 9:05, makes sense, since this is when everyone realized there was coordinated attack underway. This would be a quick call, perhaps one minute starting at, say, 9:05:30.
9:06:30 - CNN’s coverage first clearly shows the impact of Flight 175, once they realized they had it and got it back up, at about 9:06:30. “As I hang up the phone [I looked back at the TV and saw?] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness.” It’s also possible the call started at 9:06 and ran longer and he saw nothing until a later yet replay at 9:07, 9:10, etc… He saw the plane hit the building and knew we were under attack. The Pentagon could be a target. The TV stops defining his timeline here, and it gets less coherent.
9:11? - “So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning.” Now, this time roughly fits with the preceding timeline, if a bit late for a 9:06 ‘impact’ followed by instant action. Maybe he’s rearranged his memory a little bit, or is summarizing. But the problem is clear – at 9:12 Flight 77 was way back over West Virginia. Did he see a different plane (‘another’ after the one on TV) at this time? Was there a 20-minute nervous wait he forgot to mention before the plane came into view? Or is his given time just grossly wrong (that time might stick in your head - 9:11 on 9/11) and he’s seeing either the flyover plane or another plane in the area after the impact? I’m just not sure.
If we move the impact of the plane from reality to TV, then his account would totally lack a clear impact description, which would be odd if he were outside watching. No plane disappearing behind the corner, no explosion sound, no fireball, smoke, nothing. All he says is right after seeing this plane, "then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream.” Is ‘dust from the ceiling’ code for smoke from the roof? Or was it referring to the ceiling inside the loading dock? This clearly indicates sometime after the event, and everything from there on agrees, describing evacuation and injuries.
So there's no clear transition point from pre-to-post-impact in this scenario. That's a problem, but remember, this is eyewitness memory we're dealing with, which can get confused on the timeline due to the trauma of the event. Did he go back in after seeing the plane? Eyewitness testimony works well on the large-scale of crowds, where we can track overall patterns, but gets fuzzier at the individual level.
At any rate, that's another interpretation; if not as brilliant as I first thought, it's at least possible. CIT will need to thoroughly disprove this and other plausible scenarios before they can rightly claim their case is the sole possible way of reading it. Perhaps the rest of Roberts' interview will clear this all up as well as CIT says it will and make me look totally silly. But don't hold your breath. The original interview is ambiguous enough, and they assure us "it's a serious heavy blow to the detractors how he explained seeing the plane immediately after the explosion way back in 2001. It's such a heavy blow that they are STILL looking for ways to deny it and twist his account even though it's been archived and we recently confirmed and verified it with him direct." So we've heard, so we've heard.
ETA: Oh, and again, this is tackling what CIT always felt was the strongest part of Roosevelt's account. I don't claim at all to have debunked the after aspect. Remember too the weak parts of their take. From what he tells CIT, as Gravy and Farmer and others have noted, it’s a good fit for Flight 77. “It looked like it was silver in color," but he mentioned no markings, which indicate it was either right over him or at a good distance. It was not white like CIT's flyover jet with blue stripe and numbered tail. He saw it ‘over’ the south parking lot “around the lane one area,” so flying in an unspecified direction southwest of the Pentagon, if we take this as correct. It was ‘banking,' but not specifically ' away,' at near light pole level. It looked like Flight 77 and was in the right approximate area and correct altitude for 77's approach. If it were flying away on that path, the flyover plane would have had to double back in a near-180 degree turn over the Pentagon. But about the possibility of the maneuver he saw, Craig assures me “Frankly it doesn't matter with this one since he only witnessed the plane AFTER the explosion and he is quite clear about this.” Au contrair, impossible maneuvers could not have happened after any event, aside from a wormhole opening and suspending the laws of physics. Something is quite wrong here when he has to be wrong about the color, the 9:11 time, and about the location of 'lane one' in the lot he was so proud to be responsible for.
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 29 2008
updates 8/21
As my previous post on supposed Pentagon flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts illustrated, there are two main ways of reading his sighting of a silver plane near the Pentagon – before or after the violent event there. The after interpretation seems completely self-evident to CIT, who cite this passage from an interview they recently did with him: Roberts: “Upon impact I stepped out the little booth that I was in […stepped out, and saw the plane above…] Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?" Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It was two aircraft, that’s for sure." They also point to his 2001 LoC interview: “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness.”
How could this mean anything other than the plane that ‘hit’ his building just before he saw ‘another plane’? I saw this right off the bat – perhaps ‘the plane’ was United 175, ‘the building’ it hit was the WTC south tower, and he saw it on CNN. Considering that he may have clarified the plane crash was more local to CIT (which I’m not convinced of from what they’ve released so far) I wondered if “his story has voluntarily changed since '01 or if you're leading or distorting. Because he was clearly seeing it all on TV is his old interview. I even know what channel he was watching.” That was a bit of cocky hyperbole on my part. In fact, all I have is an explanation how this alternate scenario is quite possible. Admittedly, there are gaps involved in this interpretation, and some speculation is required, but it goes up now for what it’s worth.
The obvious problem most would see with this is if he saw Flight 175 hitting the WTC on TV meant it was 9:03 since everyone aired it live - and the hit was apparently immediately before seeing the ‘other’ plane outside – which all agree came in/over at about 9:37. Further confusing things, Roberts originally timed his sighting at 9:11 or 9:12, between the two times and fitting neither scenario very well. Since chronology is key here, I decided to figure out which news broadcast he might be watching. At the risk of reading too much into his described timeline of awareness, I took his descriptors literally and have reasoned that he was watching CNN’s coverage. I cross checked against CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox News coverage and found that CNN is the only of the five that fits well enough to simply splice it into his 2001 interview as I’ve done below.
CNN video starts 8:48 am, from the Television Archive.
Prior to 8:49 am: “I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap]”
Later clues in the interview indicate he was at the dock preparing for a 10:45 heliport assignment (outbound, not Bush), takes a portion of guard’s shift to give him a bathroom break, and was thus responsible for security at that area. “[A]nd as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh…” I’m guessing it was tuned to CNN.
8:49 – CNN is the first to announce the attack in New York at almost exactly 8:49, about three minutes after the first crash and three minutes ahead of the other networks. Maybe the break the other guard called was to call relatives in New York, which would put Roberts in charge around 8:51. It might take a minute or two for him to fully pay attention to the news.
8:54 - CNN airs a witness who’d just come out of the subway and described what seemed to her a planeless bombing of the building. “[A]ll of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed.” Or perhaps he just meant attacked. It was unclear to many people until they saw the second plane hit.
8:55-9:03 - The reporters and witnesses seem to believe a plane was responsible, as reported by a CNN producer who saw it, and speculated on fuselage buried inside. Roberts would become aware of this from 8:55 on but he has not yet seen a plane hit a building, and it still seemed a possible accident. “And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents.”
9:03 - The second impact was captured live and broadcast live but only registered clearly as an explosion of unknown origin. The video feed does show the plane but only for a split-second before an awkward cut. The editor apparently saw the plane enter just as he/she hit enter, said ‘whoa!’ and cut back but only upon the explosion. The on-site reporter didn’t see the plane, the anchors missed the flash of it, and the newsroom remained unsure about the plane impact for a couple of minutes, wondering if it was a secondary explosion from the fuselage inside the north tower.
9:04-:05 - “I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television.” No one ever broadcast warning of ‘another plane coming,’ so I’d guess he meant the reports of a possible second plane that started “coming on the television” at 9:04, well after the mysterious ‘second explosion’ of 175’s impact. At 9:05 they aired a witness to a second plane coming in and apparently hitting the tower who talks into the 9:06 slot. Until this time Roberts has not seen the second impact that so effected everyone.
9:04-9:05? - “And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta.” I’m not sure when Threatcon Delta would be announced, but shortly after the second strike, around 9:04 or 9:05, makes sense, since this is when everyone realized there was coordinated attack underway. This would be a quick call, perhaps one minute starting at, say, 9:05:30.
9:06:30 - CNN’s coverage first clearly shows the impact of Flight 175, once they realized they had it and got it back up, at about 9:06:30. “As I hang up the phone [I looked back at the TV and saw?] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness.” It’s also possible the call started at 9:06 and ran longer and he saw nothing until a later yet replay at 9:07, 9:10, etc… He saw the plane hit the building and knew we were under attack. The Pentagon could be a target. The TV stops defining his timeline here, and it gets less coherent.
9:11? - “So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning.” Now, this time roughly fits with the preceding timeline, if a bit late for a 9:06 ‘impact’ followed by instant action. Maybe he’s rearranged his memory a little bit, or is summarizing. But the problem is clear – at 9:12 Flight 77 was way back over West Virginia. Did he see a different plane (‘another’ after the one on TV) at this time? Was there a 20-minute nervous wait he forgot to mention before the plane came into view? Or is his given time just grossly wrong (that time might stick in your head - 9:11 on 9/11) and he’s seeing either the flyover plane or another plane in the area after the impact? I’m just not sure.
If we move the impact of the plane from reality to TV, then his account would totally lack a clear impact description, which would be odd if he were outside watching. No plane disappearing behind the corner, no explosion sound, no fireball, smoke, nothing. All he says is right after seeing this plane, "then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream.” Is ‘dust from the ceiling’ code for smoke from the roof? Or was it referring to the ceiling inside the loading dock? This clearly indicates sometime after the event, and everything from there on agrees, describing evacuation and injuries.
So there's no clear transition point from pre-to-post-impact in this scenario. That's a problem, but remember, this is eyewitness memory we're dealing with, which can get confused on the timeline due to the trauma of the event. Did he go back in after seeing the plane? Eyewitness testimony works well on the large-scale of crowds, where we can track overall patterns, but gets fuzzier at the individual level.
At any rate, that's another interpretation; if not as brilliant as I first thought, it's at least possible. CIT will need to thoroughly disprove this and other plausible scenarios before they can rightly claim their case is the sole possible way of reading it. Perhaps the rest of Roberts' interview will clear this all up as well as CIT says it will and make me look totally silly. But don't hold your breath. The original interview is ambiguous enough, and they assure us "it's a serious heavy blow to the detractors how he explained seeing the plane immediately after the explosion way back in 2001. It's such a heavy blow that they are STILL looking for ways to deny it and twist his account even though it's been archived and we recently confirmed and verified it with him direct." So we've heard, so we've heard.
ETA: Oh, and again, this is tackling what CIT always felt was the strongest part of Roosevelt's account. I don't claim at all to have debunked the after aspect. Remember too the weak parts of their take. From what he tells CIT, as Gravy and Farmer and others have noted, it’s a good fit for Flight 77. “It looked like it was silver in color," but he mentioned no markings, which indicate it was either right over him or at a good distance. It was not white like CIT's flyover jet with blue stripe and numbered tail. He saw it ‘over’ the south parking lot “around the lane one area,” so flying in an unspecified direction southwest of the Pentagon, if we take this as correct. It was ‘banking,' but not specifically ' away,' at near light pole level. It looked like Flight 77 and was in the right approximate area and correct altitude for 77's approach. If it were flying away on that path, the flyover plane would have had to double back in a near-180 degree turn over the Pentagon. But about the possibility of the maneuver he saw, Craig assures me “Frankly it doesn't matter with this one since he only witnessed the plane AFTER the explosion and he is quite clear about this.” Au contrair, impossible maneuvers could not have happened after any event, aside from a wormhole opening and suspending the laws of physics. Something is quite wrong here when he has to be wrong about the color, the 9:11 time, and about the location of 'lane one' in the lot he was so proud to be responsible for.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
“FLYOVER WITNESS” ROBERTS: WHEN AND WHERE?
“FLYOVER WITNESS” ROBERTS: WHEN AND WHERE?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 28 2008 4pm
updates/edits: 5/29 1am
Reversals and Revisions Regarding Roberts
It’s really quite ironic how all of this is shaping up. Just two weeks ago CIT announced they finally have a flyover witness in the form of DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts (with more to be announced). In an interview with the Team (Marquis and Ranke), he described “another plane” after the explosive impact/flyover of the ‘first.’ This is taken by CIT as fitting their second-plane flyover cover story meme very well, but it was readily evident that his account requires an extremely impossible hairpin turn over the Pentagon to get to the south parking lot as he literally describes. Oh, and he describes the plane as silver, not white as CIT have decided the flyover plane was. A lot of others did too, perhaps due to ‘reflective paint.’ But anyway, Roberts saw a plane flying somewhere after the explosion.
Then another Roberts, debunker Mark (aka Gravy) quickly reached a very different conclusion, that CIT were “utterly misusing the testimony of an eyewitness in uniform in order to claim the opposite of what that man told him.” In reality, Roberts told Clout host Richard Greene, the still-unnamed officer was an ‘official path’ observer:
“The witness had a clear view of flight 77's flight path towards the building, which he describes perfectly: a silver, commercial plane, about 50 feet high, by the light poles (which are at the cloverleaf).
It would have been impossible for him to have seen a "flyover," since the wall of the Pentagon towered more than 70 feet over him and the plane would have been on the opposite side of the building.”
This indeed fits his description of the plane and its location best and would make him a south path witness; there are many others like this who are not clear enough for CIT, but hey, what is? Where it got really ironic is when a week and a day after their first airing, ‘CIT detractor’ John Farmer released his long-awaited clarification that there was a north-path flyover (?) as well as south path impact. He had been working on it for a while and called on Officer Roberts, as CIT did, as a post-explosion/impact plane witness, but in this case supporting an actual second plane:
“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another
plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”
Farmer had been aware of this account for a while and thought of it as an account of a plane after the impact explosion. After listening to CIT’s unexpected second interview, however, he issues this update: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27. His account needs further research and clarification.”
It’s an odd reversal, and perhaps more strategic than natural, but Farmer was thinking of Roberts as basically a flyover witness until CIT brandished him as a flyover witness based on new evidence that convinced Farmer to de-list him as one. How about that… Gravy, BCR, and Caustic Logic all on the same page and CIT on the other. How can one and the same set of clues be so differently read? It’s all in the where and the when, and this where CIT can help.
Where?
Roberts’ accounts (2001 and 2008) have him working security at the south parking lot loading dock. This seems to most likely indicate the large cargo facility attached to the south end of the Pentagon, just north of the main parking area south of the building. Gravy, Farmer, and I seem to be going off this same presumed location. The Citizen Researchers are less sure, of course, and seem to like the vagueness. Even after verification Marquis was left wondering if perhaps the witness “is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side,” and ‘the lane one area’ for all he knows means “the east end of south parking,” whatever ‘south parking’ means. If CIT has any contrary evidence they can present it, but after looking around I’m fairly sure the lane one area means the west edge of the south end lot. Look at this graphic [r-click, new window for larger readable view]:
Do these numbers correspond to lanes? Indeed. Note the lane numbers on north parking – 41-63, with a large and labeled “lane 64”oriented differently and running along the others. By this, lane one is furthest southwest, numbered counter-clockwise from there. Note the location of lane 10; Roberts said later in his 2001 interview (5:20) “The Defense protective services regrouped at the 395 uh, at lane 10,” which makes sense since this is near an underpass, like this other just east of there (at lane 19), where Pentagon personnel can be seen gathered just south of I-395.
When?
But this is not the main point - whatever his location, or the plane’s location or direction, the problem with this account as presented that conflicts with the “official story” is the timeline. Ranke prefaced the account’s first airing “I’ll set it up – he was in the Pentagon, and after the moment of the explosion, he was on the loading dock on the south parking lot. He’s a Pentagon police officer. He ran out to the loading dock and saw the plane continue on over the building. So this is his account just after he heard the explosion.” Marquis later clarified in response to Gravy that this witness “was inside the Pentagon and on the phone, hung up then he heard the explosion of what he thought was the "impact" of the "first plane". He then runs 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock (he was on the east end) where he see's a silver commercial aircraft […]”
Ranke added that “the pure beauty of this flyover witness account is that everything he says about the plane happened AFTER the explosion!”
Okay, so CIT is quite clear on when (even as they’re unsure on where), but what does Roberts himself say? The record is not entirely clear. We have his partial interview by CIT in 2008 [excerpt], which says nothing about time, except implied when he says "upon impact" he stepped outside and saw “another plane.” That is, it makes some sense to presume he meant in addition to the one that just impacted. But this is not conclusively proven. We also have his 2001 LOC interview which CIT feels corroborates their take and which Farmer felt sufficient to make him a post-impact witness. However, in that record there are conflictimg timeline clues and an audio gap just in the middle of the pivotal words “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building.” Interestingly, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I have reason to believe (which I’ll present soon) that “the plane” was NOT what he thought was Flight 77, and the building it hit was NOT the one he was at, and the “other plane” he saw was in fact Flight 77 on its way in before impact.
So, CIT: Does this sound crazy? You can feel free to share any where and when clues that shut me right down if you are able to do so. What else did he say to you to clarify that his sighting was after the ‘plane’ crash at the Pentagon?
---
Transcripts for reference:
2001 LoC interview, partial:
“I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”
2008 CIT interview excerpt, complete:
Roberts: “["upon impact"?] I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.”
Marquis: “What color was it? Do you remember?”
Roberts: “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
Marquis: “Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot?”
Roberts: “Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Marquis: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
Roberts: “Commercial aircraft.”
Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 28 2008 4pm
updates/edits: 5/29 1am
Reversals and Revisions Regarding Roberts
It’s really quite ironic how all of this is shaping up. Just two weeks ago CIT announced they finally have a flyover witness in the form of DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts (with more to be announced). In an interview with the Team (Marquis and Ranke), he described “another plane” after the explosive impact/flyover of the ‘first.’ This is taken by CIT as fitting their second-plane flyover cover story meme very well, but it was readily evident that his account requires an extremely impossible hairpin turn over the Pentagon to get to the south parking lot as he literally describes. Oh, and he describes the plane as silver, not white as CIT have decided the flyover plane was. A lot of others did too, perhaps due to ‘reflective paint.’ But anyway, Roberts saw a plane flying somewhere after the explosion.
Then another Roberts, debunker Mark (aka Gravy) quickly reached a very different conclusion, that CIT were “utterly misusing the testimony of an eyewitness in uniform in order to claim the opposite of what that man told him.” In reality, Roberts told Clout host Richard Greene, the still-unnamed officer was an ‘official path’ observer:
“The witness had a clear view of flight 77's flight path towards the building, which he describes perfectly: a silver, commercial plane, about 50 feet high, by the light poles (which are at the cloverleaf).
It would have been impossible for him to have seen a "flyover," since the wall of the Pentagon towered more than 70 feet over him and the plane would have been on the opposite side of the building.”
This indeed fits his description of the plane and its location best and would make him a south path witness; there are many others like this who are not clear enough for CIT, but hey, what is? Where it got really ironic is when a week and a day after their first airing, ‘CIT detractor’ John Farmer released his long-awaited clarification that there was a north-path flyover (?) as well as south path impact. He had been working on it for a while and called on Officer Roberts, as CIT did, as a post-explosion/impact plane witness, but in this case supporting an actual second plane:
“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another
plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”
Farmer had been aware of this account for a while and thought of it as an account of a plane after the impact explosion. After listening to CIT’s unexpected second interview, however, he issues this update: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27. His account needs further research and clarification.”
It’s an odd reversal, and perhaps more strategic than natural, but Farmer was thinking of Roberts as basically a flyover witness until CIT brandished him as a flyover witness based on new evidence that convinced Farmer to de-list him as one. How about that… Gravy, BCR, and Caustic Logic all on the same page and CIT on the other. How can one and the same set of clues be so differently read? It’s all in the where and the when, and this where CIT can help.
Where?
Roberts’ accounts (2001 and 2008) have him working security at the south parking lot loading dock. This seems to most likely indicate the large cargo facility attached to the south end of the Pentagon, just north of the main parking area south of the building. Gravy, Farmer, and I seem to be going off this same presumed location. The Citizen Researchers are less sure, of course, and seem to like the vagueness. Even after verification Marquis was left wondering if perhaps the witness “is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side,” and ‘the lane one area’ for all he knows means “the east end of south parking,” whatever ‘south parking’ means. If CIT has any contrary evidence they can present it, but after looking around I’m fairly sure the lane one area means the west edge of the south end lot. Look at this graphic [r-click, new window for larger readable view]:
Do these numbers correspond to lanes? Indeed. Note the lane numbers on north parking – 41-63, with a large and labeled “lane 64”oriented differently and running along the others. By this, lane one is furthest southwest, numbered counter-clockwise from there. Note the location of lane 10; Roberts said later in his 2001 interview (5:20) “The Defense protective services regrouped at the 395 uh, at lane 10,” which makes sense since this is near an underpass, like this other just east of there (at lane 19), where Pentagon personnel can be seen gathered just south of I-395.
When?
But this is not the main point - whatever his location, or the plane’s location or direction, the problem with this account as presented that conflicts with the “official story” is the timeline. Ranke prefaced the account’s first airing “I’ll set it up – he was in the Pentagon, and after the moment of the explosion, he was on the loading dock on the south parking lot. He’s a Pentagon police officer. He ran out to the loading dock and saw the plane continue on over the building. So this is his account just after he heard the explosion.” Marquis later clarified in response to Gravy that this witness “was inside the Pentagon and on the phone, hung up then he heard the explosion of what he thought was the "impact" of the "first plane". He then runs 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock (he was on the east end) where he see's a silver commercial aircraft […]”
Ranke added that “the pure beauty of this flyover witness account is that everything he says about the plane happened AFTER the explosion!”
Okay, so CIT is quite clear on when (even as they’re unsure on where), but what does Roberts himself say? The record is not entirely clear. We have his partial interview by CIT in 2008 [excerpt], which says nothing about time, except implied when he says "upon impact" he stepped outside and saw “another plane.” That is, it makes some sense to presume he meant in addition to the one that just impacted. But this is not conclusively proven. We also have his 2001 LOC interview which CIT feels corroborates their take and which Farmer felt sufficient to make him a post-impact witness. However, in that record there are conflictimg timeline clues and an audio gap just in the middle of the pivotal words “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building.” Interestingly, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I have reason to believe (which I’ll present soon) that “the plane” was NOT what he thought was Flight 77, and the building it hit was NOT the one he was at, and the “other plane” he saw was in fact Flight 77 on its way in before impact.
So, CIT: Does this sound crazy? You can feel free to share any where and when clues that shut me right down if you are able to do so. What else did he say to you to clarify that his sighting was after the ‘plane’ crash at the Pentagon?
---
Transcripts for reference:
2001 LoC interview, partial:
“I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”
2008 CIT interview excerpt, complete:
Roberts: “["upon impact"?] I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.”
Marquis: “What color was it? Do you remember?”
Roberts: “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
Marquis: “Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot?”
Roberts: “Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Marquis: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
Roberts: “Commercial aircraft.”
Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
