This is terrible. Your interpretation is far more confusing than CIT's is. You're putting words in Roosevelt's mouth. It harkens back to Clinton's word parsing on the stand or the definition of a hanging chad from the 2000 elections. You make some very strong claims without enough substance to back it up. Thumbs down.
"grow a pair"? do you think i don't go there coz i'm intimidated by your questions? i post almost everyday at pumpitout, come along to there - i simply advertised my video on 911oz.
You "advertised" an illogical breakdown of this guy's testimony as can be seen in your half-ass answers to my questions which are answered at the link above.
All of you start threads then run away back to pumpshitout.
KP50 went to debate Debs at PSO and he is even hiding THERE!
"all of you"? methinks ur a little paranoid. you couldn't even rebut my answers here, then it was YOU who suggested running away to another forum.
i can answer questions here just fine :) and i also showed you the link to where further questions are answered. you just don't like the fact that there was no flyover, and that CIT are being proven so conclusively wrong.
The really telling thing for me in that interview with Roosvelt Roberts is that he doesn't mention the 'third plane'. If the plane that these CIT people think he is talking about is some 'flyover' plane then the C-130 would be a third plane. No mention of it at all- he says there was a second plane but not a third plane. They don't ask him about the third plane. The idea that anyone would use this confusing unclear interview as evidence of anything is pretty absurd.
@dangerouslytalented No, truthers aren't clutching at straws. The Citizen Investigation Team us clutching at straws. Their dishonest research, irrational conclusions, and unethical actions make the truth movement look bad. Fortunately, honest truthers are wise to them, just as they're wise to other discrediting elements in the truth movement such as the con artist William Rodriguez and the bigot and lunatic Kevin Barrett.
3. You don't think it's stretching it that he saw this obviously repeated tower strike on TV "ran outside" (for God knows what) and coincidentally just at that moment the plane that allegedly struck the Pentagon was seconds away from "impact" (which he never mentioned by the way - no massive explosion - he just saw the plane then...nothing.)
"he saw this obviously repeated tower strike on TV "ran outside" (for God knows what"
he gives a reason - he thought they were being invaded. it was the first time he'd seen the plane strike on TV. he works at the pentagon. that's why he ran to attention, so to speak.
and yes, several seconds later he saw the plane on its approach to the pentagon. not much of a coincidence, but coincidences do happen in some people's worlds :)
"the plane that allegedly struck the Pentagon was seconds away from "impact" (which he never mentioned by the way - no massive explosion - he just saw the plane then...nothing.)"
actually he mentions the dust coming from the ceiling and people screaming. as can be heard in the video you are commenting on....)
but no, he doesn't describe seeing the impact. he couldn't have seen it from his position. but he IS interview by the CMH as a witness to the plane. wonder why?
he'd not seen the footage of the plane at the WTC before. he works at the pentagon, an obvious military target. but he gives his own reason: he thought they were "being invaded"
Are you trying to say that this was the first time he had seen the second tower being struck in the 40 minutes from the first time he saw that a "news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed."?
When he says "I saw another plane flying around the South Parking Lot" , and goes on to narrow it down to "lane 1 south parking above the lightpoles, you use the ridiculous image of the Pentagon from how many years ago?
Apart from the fact that he wasn't in South Parking, you purposely used an image of SLD minus the pedestrian bridges which give entry to the second floor.
"you purposely used an image of SLD minus the pedestrian bridges which give entry to the second floor."
no i didn't. but you can still see the bridge area from the dock. (the bridge area with the lightpoles, which he also mentions).
what was your question here? maybe you should try making an illustration to describe your opinion that roosevelt couldn't have seen this bridge? ah, i know why....
please note, CIT never dared go on a podcast with me. i challenged them publicly several times.
brokenstyx 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This is terrible. Your interpretation is far more confusing than CIT's is. You're putting words in Roosevelt's mouth. It harkens back to Clinton's word parsing on the stand or the definition of a hanging chad from the 2000 elections. You make some very strong claims without enough substance to back it up. Thumbs down.
iphrazel 1 year ago
@iphrazel
what part didn't you understand?
the part where he saw a plane flying near the lightpoles?
the part where he describes seeing the plane hit the WTC on the TV?
the part where he saw a second plane flying the same direction the C-130 flew?
hmm...
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Here man, grow a pair and go over to 911oz and answer the questions there.
I've answered your nonsense there. 911oz . com / vbulletin / showpost . php ? p = 38555 & postcount = 30
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
"grow a pair"? do you think i don't go there coz i'm intimidated by your questions? i post almost everyday at pumpitout, come along to there - i simply advertised my video on 911oz.
and what questions am i avoiding?
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx
You "advertised" an illogical breakdown of this guy's testimony as can be seen in your half-ass answers to my questions which are answered at the link above.
All of you start threads then run away back to pumpshitout.
KP50 went to debate Debs at PSO and he is even hiding THERE!
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
its a perfectly logical breakdown.
"all of you"? methinks ur a little paranoid. you couldn't even rebut my answers here, then it was YOU who suggested running away to another forum.
i can answer questions here just fine :) and i also showed you the link to where further questions are answered. you just don't like the fact that there was no flyover, and that CIT are being proven so conclusively wrong.
soz
x
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@amadanish
come on amadanish - why not try writing these oh-so-scary questions??
lol
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@amadanish (and everyone)
i've added a link to the discussion thread in the video info.
brokenstyx 1 year ago
The really telling thing for me in that interview with Roosvelt Roberts is that he doesn't mention the 'third plane'. If the plane that these CIT people think he is talking about is some 'flyover' plane then the C-130 would be a third plane. No mention of it at all- he says there was a second plane but not a third plane. They don't ask him about the third plane. The idea that anyone would use this confusing unclear interview as evidence of anything is pretty absurd.
cwlldoran 1 year ago
You guys agree with any crap spewed at Pumpshitout whether they are contradictory
or pure disinfo.
Broken Styx hasn't the balls to answer questions on his "work".
Same goes for Shure.
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
hi danish
what questions am i not answering? please feel free to post them here. mind your language if you want them answering tho!
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx
There's a few there.
Take your time.
amadanish 1 year ago
I have to say, you and the others over at pumpitout are doing a fine job of exposing CIT's lies. Keep up the good work.
citizenfor911truth1 1 year ago
@citizenfor911truth1
much obliged, citizen! shure is doing a fantastic job with calls, as usual.
and the CIT trolls are only helping us prove them wrong even further lol
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Damn no-planers!
boone870 1 year ago
Thanks for this vid and all your work in exposing CIT.
TrueScar 1 year ago
@TrueScar
Thanks TrueScar - your comments are much appreciated :)
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Leading questions, misleading questions, they were obviously trying to confuse him, get ANYTHING that sounded odd.
The truthers are really clutching at straws here.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented No, truthers aren't clutching at straws. The Citizen Investigation Team us clutching at straws. Their dishonest research, irrational conclusions, and unethical actions make the truth movement look bad. Fortunately, honest truthers are wise to them, just as they're wise to other discrediting elements in the truth movement such as the con artist William Rodriguez and the bigot and lunatic Kevin Barrett.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
So they were trying to trip him up, trying to get him to say things that were inconsistant with the facts.
It does not matter whether it fits with the truther story, because the truther stories lack any coherence anyway.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Great video!
shure911 1 year ago
@shure911
What was "timed for preciseness"?
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
nothing. roosevelt says "like" it was timed. this is a form of simile.
the two events are:
1. roosevelt hanging up the phone.
2. "flight 175" hitting WTC2 on his television.
brokenstyx 1 year ago
3. You don't think it's stretching it that he saw this obviously repeated tower strike on TV "ran outside" (for God knows what) and coincidentally just at that moment the plane that allegedly struck the Pentagon was seconds away from "impact" (which he never mentioned by the way - no massive explosion - he just saw the plane then...nothing.)
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
"he saw this obviously repeated tower strike on TV "ran outside" (for God knows what"
he gives a reason - he thought they were being invaded. it was the first time he'd seen the plane strike on TV. he works at the pentagon. that's why he ran to attention, so to speak.
and yes, several seconds later he saw the plane on its approach to the pentagon. not much of a coincidence, but coincidences do happen in some people's worlds :)
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@amadanish
"the plane that allegedly struck the Pentagon was seconds away from "impact" (which he never mentioned by the way - no massive explosion - he just saw the plane then...nothing.)"
actually he mentions the dust coming from the ceiling and people screaming. as can be heard in the video you are commenting on....)
but no, he doesn't describe seeing the impact. he couldn't have seen it from his position. but he IS interview by the CMH as a witness to the plane. wonder why?
brokenstyx 1 year ago
For what logical reason did he say that he "ran to the center of the dock" on seeing the second tower being struck on TV?
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
he'd not seen the footage of the plane at the WTC before. he works at the pentagon, an obvious military target. but he gives his own reason: he thought they were "being invaded"
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Are you trying to say that this was the first time he had seen the second tower being struck in the 40 minutes from the first time he saw that a "news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed."?
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
he did not say he was watching the news for 40 minutes. far from it.
and the fact he thought the WTC had been bombed, as opposed to struck by a plane, fits with this replay being his first viewing of the plane strike.
on top of this, at 9:37 CBS9Washington are talking about the bombing of the WTC in the 90s, which also fits with roosevelt's description of events.
haven't you checked the TV archives to see if anything fits his testimony?
brokenstyx 1 year ago
When he says "I saw another plane flying around the South Parking Lot" , and goes on to narrow it down to "lane 1 south parking above the lightpoles, you use the ridiculous image of the Pentagon from how many years ago?
Apart from the fact that he wasn't in South Parking, you purposely used an image of SLD minus the pedestrian bridges which give entry to the second floor.
Yeah, "Great video"..
amadanish 1 year ago
@amadanish
"you purposely used an image of SLD minus the pedestrian bridges which give entry to the second floor."
no i didn't. but you can still see the bridge area from the dock. (the bridge area with the lightpoles, which he also mentions).
what was your question here? maybe you should try making an illustration to describe your opinion that roosevelt couldn't have seen this bridge? ah, i know why....
brokenstyx 1 year ago