The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

First, there is NO WAY the same plane could be over the south parking lot 10 seconds AFTER being at the point of the explosion at the west wall of the Pentagon. It's physically impossible.

Second, how do you know Roberts wasn't talking about the the "Mall Entrance" as being the actual MALL ENTRANCE to the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City? It's the area in the big red oval on the map below.
https://www.simon.com/mall/fashion-centre-at-pentagon-city


There are roads that go into the mall in close proximity to the 27/395/south parking lot location description Roberts gives and fits PERFECTLY with his story. Below is a quote from him.

 

Could it have been another 757 that wanted to land, but got redirected away from the airport because of what happened? Maybe he mistook the C130 as a jetliner? Who knows?

 

He says that he saw it about ten seconds after the alleged impact. If he's telling the truth, that can't be the explanation.

He said it had jet engines, not propellers

 

I didn't know that was there. That's logical. I only knew about the mall entrance at the North side of the Pentagon shown here.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg

That fits the flyover scenario.

 

Explain why it couldn't have been a redirected 757.

I see. So when he says something that supposedly supports your claim, it's right on the money and when he says something that goes against your claim, he was confused. How convenient.

 

The Fashion Centre at Pentagon City mall fits the flyover scenario?

 

And your claim that the 757 that flew over the Pentagon at the explosion location is the same plane that Roberts saw over the south parking lot/395/27/lane one is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

That is true but it may have been further away and he might have misestimated the number of seconds when he was being interviewed.

It wouldn't have been redirected ten seconds after the impact, thirty or forty perhaps, but not ten.

Look where that section is.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg

It's south of the Pentagon and jets can turn at about one hundred and fifty miles per hour if the flaps are down and it's fuel tanks are close to empty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_(aeronautics)

He says he saw a large jetliner and it couldn't have been a redirected plane just a few seconds after the explosion. His being fuzzy on the details of the direction it took doesn't make the the large jetliner go away. The only scenario that would include an actual impact of a 757 would be that he's making the whole thing up which I don't totally rule out.

There's simply too much evidence for a flyover to simply rule it out because of a few possible misstatements by Roosevelt Roberts.. There's what Erik Dihle said...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-111#post-1070121616

...and there's the fact that the crash site isn't consistent with an impact...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lane-hit-the-pentagon.547977/#post-1070028643

...and there's the fact that the government lied about the flightpath of the 757.
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm

 

I've asked you this before.

Explain why everything Roberts says that goes AGAINST your claim is because he was either confused or "misestimated", but everything that supports your claim is spot on?

 

This coming from a guy who swore up and down that his physical "ruler measurements" against his monitor were correct and refused to use "digital pixels" because he thought they were inaccurate/suspect and then ended up admitting he made a mathematical mistake due to caffeine.

This coming from the guy who didn't know the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City mall was just south of the Pentagon, who retracted his claim that the plane fly over the Pentagon and landed at the airport, who keeps saying that Roberts testimony is unreliable because he was confused, yet still uses parts that supposedly support your claims, who admitted that maneuver to get the 757 from the point of the explosion to over the south parking lot/395/27/lane one was IMPOSSIBLE, and can't find one single person who actually SAW a 757 fly over the Pentagon.

Yeah, simply too much evidence...

 

^^^^This...

 

This includes Roberts saying the plane was doing a U turn, going extremely fast, he says he saw it at 9.11/12 - 25 minutes early and directly after he saw the second WTC impact on TV - 10 minutes late!

He is either embellishing his story to make himself more important, or he is one very wrong and confused person. Or maybe the "goons" paid him a visit AFTER the evil government released his interview transcript. Yeah, like that makes sense!

 

There were two interviews. You're referring to the first one. The second one was with the Citizen Investigation Team. At first he talked with them freely. Later, he refused to talk to them. He was going to draw the route he'd seen the large airliner take but later backed out. It's plausible that the government sent some goons to tell him to stop talking to the CIT or there would be consequences. That's very plausible. There's nothing hard-to-believe about that.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-official-story.514874/page-2#post-1070125604

 

You don't know what the word plausible means. He already gave the bulk of all he had to say in the first interview. This was freely released. Gagging him after he gave another interview saying pretty much the same things again is nonsense.

Speaking of plausible. Is it plausible that you are cherry picking tiny segments of his highly questionable account, whilst ignoring dozens of conflicting pieces? Is it plausible that you are going to continue to label him only confused in those bits you don't like?

ADDRESS THIS! This includes Roberts saying the plane was doing a U turn, going extremely fast, he says he saw it at 9.11/12 - 25 minutes early and directly after he saw the second WTC impact on TV - 10 minutes late!

 

I've already talked about this. His explanations of what the plane did are not logical but he says he saw a plane. There are several plausible scenarios. He may simply be lying about everything. He may have seen the 757 that flew over the Pentagon but had trouble describing what he'd seen.

I don't simply dismiss his illogical statements but there are other witnesses whose statements are not illogical...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...grees-with-citizen-investigation-team.548562/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-111#post-1070121616

...and support the flyover. Then there's the fact that the "Impact" site is not consistent with a crash.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lane-hit-the-pentagon.547977/#post-1070028643

Everything points to the flyover scenario except for Roosevelt Robert's illogical statements. It's very plausible that he just got mixed up when he was talking. It would be very illogical to simply dismiss all that other evidence because of a few illogical statements by someone who might have been mixed up. If you don't use the scientific method, you may come to an erroneous conclusion. Simply choosing what fits what you want to be true and ignoring the rest is not the scientific method. I haven't come to a firm conclusion on this but I'm leaning heavily in the direction of a flyover.

 

Just bizarre. You state that you don't dismiss anything, then proceed to do just that!

Too fast, wrong time, impossible U turn maneuver, you contradict yourself and avoid everything he says that doesn't fit!

 

I left off a few posts following the gist of these but whatever ... here's a scenario that will highlight the alleged 10 second time frame ...

Could it be that a pilot , of whatever type of large plane, on his glideslope into Reagan, saw a huge explosion in his windscreen and decided to pull up and make a go around??? ...

just a thought ...

 

Here's an overhead view of the whole area.
https://www.alamy.com/aerial-photo-...ngton-national-airport-and-image63599219.html

I've watched planes landing and taking off at several airports and I've never seen any two planes which were going to land on the same runway which were spaced that close together. I suppose that they could be headed to two different runways. The picture shows that the two runways were not parallel. Looking at the two runways it doesn't seem likely to me. Tell us about the scenario you're picturing.

 

Why are you still banging on about this hogwash!? Quite clearly and without question, there are very significant details you are ignoring, because "he was confused" or "had trouble explaining" what he claimed to have seen.

• The plane was going extremely fast.
• The plane was seen shortly after "9.12/9.11 in the morning" and he was very specific about this time even offering a 1 minute correction!
• That is 25 minutes before the Pentagon crash.
• He said it was doing a U-turn.
• He said he saw it just after the second WTC plane hit.

His testimony is all over the place, if the government were using it to verify their case, you would be the first one to dismiss it!

 

He also says he saw a large jetliner ten seconds after the "Impact". He was referring to the explosion on the other side of the Pentagon. You're ignoring this. This jetliner he says he saw ten seconds after the impact has to be explained. His forgetting the exact times of things is a lot more likely than his getting the ten seconds wrong.

I won't be disappointed if it turns out that a 757 hit the Pentagon; I just want to know what happened. You seem to have a foregone conclusion or you wouldn't be playing down his having said he'd seen a large jetliner. An objective person wouldn't be taking the stand you're taking.

I don't see how another large jetliner could be so close to the other one if a 757 did indeed crash into the Pentagon. Can anyone explain that?

 

That's why legitimate investigations are absolutely necessary for any crime, especially of the magnitude of 9/11. There was no investigation that thoroughly interviewed ALL known eyewitnesses at the Pentagon or anywhere else on 9/11 and followed up on their respective testimonies because there was no legitimate official criminal investigation of 9/11. The grand jury petition makes that very clear. For now the grand jury is only focused on the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 but IF the grand jury determines that was never properly investigated perhaps the can of worms can be opened such that the Pentagon and Shanksville will also prompt legitimate investigations. A grand jury can subpoena all the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and Shanksville as well as the results of the alleged airplane parts identification claimed to have been conducted by the FBI and/or the NTSB which is being withheld from the public for what reason, no one knows except the FBI and the NTSB. Coverup is the first reason that comes to mind, especially given that the entire OCT is a coverup.

 

This is deliberately manipulating his testimony! You have yet again failed to take into account two very specific statements and you keep ignoring the time he says he saw this non jet, jet engine plane!

Again: This includes Roberts saying the plane was doing a U turn, going extremely fast, he says he saw it at 9.11/12 - 25 minutes early and directly after he saw the second WTC impact on TV - 10 minutes late!

https://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000155/

0:56 RR: “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. So after I though about it, 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.”

Quite clearly he is not talking about the Pentagon impact. It is TOO early and he's just seen the TV and talks about a second plane coming in to NY.

A joke statement! YOU have the foregone conclusion. YOU ignore the bits that don't fit with it! My stand is that he is all over the place with his statement. I have no idea what he is talking about.

No. More importantly neither can he to any accuracy

 

There were two interviews. You're ignoring the second one.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt Roberts:
Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft.

Aldo Marquis:
Okay, did it have propellers or did it have jet engines?

Roosevelt Roberts:
It looked like jet engines at that time

Aldo Marquis:
Jet engines, okay. So, how close were you to running outside, because this seemed to be pretty quick, at least from your account sounded like, it sounded like, literally, the explosion happened and then you ran outside, I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when, you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

Roosevelt Roberts:
From the sound of the explosion hit till I ran outside....it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the (inaudible) look out and look off. Then you see the flickering lights inside the area, and then real quick I realize it was some sort of attack and there was going to be a countermeasure with it.

Aldo Marquis:
Right, so how many seconds would you guess?

Roosevelt Roberts:
Maybe...10 seconds tops.

Aldo Marquis:
10 seconds tops?

Roosevelt Roberts:
10 seconds tops.

Aldo Marquis:
So you heard the explosion, and 10 seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt Roberts:
Correct, you could see that plane just as clear as day, couldn't miss it.
---------------------------------------------------
Craig Ranke:
Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt Roberts:
It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.
---------------------------------------------------
Aldo Marquis:
Eh..okay, so and.. and.. but would... Now how long would... I mean would you be sure that it was about 10 seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside or would you think it was less than 10 seconds?

Craig Ranke:
Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt Roberts:
It was taking about 10 seconds because prior 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 I don't know like 7 steps away from there.
---------------------------------------------------

From this interview it looks like he's referring to the Pentagon explosion. He says some contradictory things so we have to look at all plausible scenarios. He might simply be lying about the whole thing. In the first interview he might have been talking about both the Pentagon hit and the Twin Tower hit at the same time and gotten a little confused.

It's not likely that a large airliner would fly anywhere near the Pentagon directly after the crash as it wouldn't have been so close to the first one. It's also not likely that a controller would direct a plane to go in that direction a few minutes after a crash.

There's a ton of other evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-116#post-1070147169


You're not using the scientific method* to come to your conclusion. You're simply choosing what supports your foregone conclusion and ignoring everything else. If you don't use the scientific method, you may come to an erroneous conclusion.


*
https://www.google.es/search?source.....0..0i131j0i10j0i30j0i10i30j0i13.qpSjp0d5meU

 

Instead of acknowledging that this is eyewitness evidence that requires a thorough criminal investigation it’s constantly being dismissed by the usual suspects using every apologist excuse that can be invented. Even if it turns out to be worthless eyewitness evidence there’s not one reasonable excuse in the world for the failure to interview/investigate.

 

Don't talk crap. I highlighted it many times in my first references. The guy is talking nonsense all through his account.

It wasn't a jet.

It was a jet.

Leading the witness. I actually get the impression that this Roberts guy is so naïve, he doesn't realise that the questioner is talking about the Pentagon explosion rather than what Roberts is actually referring to, straight after he saw it on TV. His statement about this is unequivocal!

Or the opposite of your claim! I have already stated, I don't have any idea what he is talking about, it is very vague and conflicts with times and a number of other key points. Baffling really.

Enough already with your bullshit spam. Answered dozens of times and ignored by you.

I am using that exact thing to determine that the witness is all over the place with his recollections. You dare to pull me up about scientific rigor when you stuck a damn ruler up against a screen to measure an image?!