IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible?

Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 12:40 PM
Post #41





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 08:46 AM) *
This is yesterdays news. I scrapped that idea. I realized that the plane could have followed the average north path an hit the building causing the damage on the lower floors. There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.


You have no coherent hypothesis because you are not a researcher.

Your are stubborn angry man with an admitted personal grudge against us who has shown himself to be more concerned with personally attacking CIT and obfuscating the facts than exposing the 9/11 deception.

QUOTE
It didn't do the interior damage. So what? You cannot rule out the possibility explosives caused the rest of the damage. In your theory, all the damage is caused by explosives so you know that is possible.


Of course it's possible for the damage to the building to be staged with pre-planted explosives but what is NOT possible is for a large plane full of bombs to explode and completely disintegrate at ground level without creating a massive crater in the ground.

This proves your theory false which is why you have failed to address it.

QUOTE
You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you show where he said something else?


Yes we've already done that...he says it banked around to the Mall entrance side which is north.

Route 27 runs alongside north parking too.

Either way the fact that he saw a plane over the parking lot immediately after the explosion at all supports a flyover and corroborates the north side witnesses who already prove the plane did not hit.

Your admitted personal grudge against us and clear desire to attack us personally and attempt to discredit Roosevelt Roberts Jr proves you are unable to look at this information logically or objectively.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 5 2009, 12:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 5 2009, 01:30 PM
Post #42


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:46 PM) *
<snip>There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

I'm surprised this has been left to stand unchallenged.

There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon but there is nothing about the damage at the Pentagon -- within the Pentagon or its immediate environment -- indicating it did. NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the downed light poles which clearly demand a south flight path. We have no evidence of a descent angle that could avoid those obstructions yet simultaneously impact the building at precisely ground level without causing either damage to the lawn or the foundation of the building. In fact, we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles we know were staged because the plane was not witnessed on the path required to hit them, a few not positively identified (and not publicly available for analysis) pieces of debris and the damage along the facade and within the building which also, not coincidentally, aligns with a south approach.

If the north approach witnesses are to be believed (and I've not been given any reason to not believe them) the plane they witnessed is irreconcilable with the damage at the Pentagon. This leaves us with one, and only one, REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon. Attempts to suggest that the plane somehow impacted without leaving any evidential damage or that it somehow "disintegrated" is grasping at straws -- and it begs the question: Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated? So much so that one would float alternative hypotheses with no evidence to support them? What is it about the Pentagon that in the minds of some, despite all evidence to the contrary, demands an impact? So much so that they will grasp at straws in a vein attempt to hold open this "possibility"?

We cannot talk about the events at the Pentagon by isolating one witness and divorcing his account from the accounts of all other witnesses. We have multiple accounts which agree not only with a north approach but in multiple instances with a right bank and in one instance reporting a "pull up" at hwy 27. There is NO EVIDENCE for an impact along this approach, especially with a right bank and doubly especially with a "pull up". Again, that leaves us with only one REASONABLE hypothesis unless one wants to grasp at straws not supported by any evidence.

That those who wish to support 'keeping open the possibility that the plane did impact along the north approach' also find it necessary to resort to insults and defamation of character against those who hold a perfectly reasonable hypothesis given the evidence further begs the question: Why? Why is it so necessary to retain this unsubstantiated hypothesis in the mind?

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 03:28 PM) *
Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

Indeed.
Reason for edit: typo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 02:27 PM
Post #43


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



And there you have it, Chris. Thank you so much painter. That was perfectly put.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 04:35 PM
Post #44





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Only researchers and truly objective scientists require evidence in support of their theories.

People like Chris Sarns who prefer to personally attack real researchers and obfuscate real evidence will say anything to cast doubt and make it look like there is a "debate".

Evidence isn't required when that is your intent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 5 2009, 05:03 PM
Post #45





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 3 2009, 04:30 PM) *
There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.

QUOTE
NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.

QUOTE
We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the down light poles which clearly demand a south flight path.

Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]



There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.

QUOTE
we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles . . .
REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon.

The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.



I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE
Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated?

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
Roosevelt:
coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.

Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

At 22:55 of "National Security Alert", Craig says "So it flew up to go over that" [the Do Not Enter sign]
Robert Turcios "Yes"
Robert then said "The view [unintelligible] My view was . . . I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon."
Craig says "You didn't actually see it hit the Pentagon".
The subtitles on the screen leave out Robert's reply "The view was obstructed still" and skip to "I could only see the fire ball from the explosion."

At 24:20, Craig says "This is exactly where you saw the plane fly by, right?”
Robert "Yes"
The Pentagon is in the background and all but the bottom floor is clearly visible.
Robert said he did not totally see the plane hit the Pentagon because his view was obstructed. He would still be able to see the vertical stabilizer. Only the first floor was hidden from his view. In other words, the plane hit the first floor.

Starting at 26:20: In the interview with Officer Chadwick Brooks, the pentagon is clearly visible in the background. The view of the bottom floor is obstructed.
Officer Brooks:
"From this point right here we were able to see everything."
How could he miss seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon?
To borrow a quote from Craig:
"A ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make, let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report."

Sean Boger was in the Heliport control tower. He said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT believes every part of his story except the part that contradicts their flyover theory.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 5 2009, 05:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 05:47 PM
Post #46





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 10:03 PM) *
Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.


It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.

But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit from the north side.

QUOTE
There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.


ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

That is the point.

All researchers including CIT detractors agree that the plane can ONLY approach from south of the gas station to cause the physical damage.

You are the lone dissenting voice but you are unable to articulate a coherent or feasible hypothesis because you do not have one and you are wrong.

Furthermore you have admitted an unprovoked personal grudge against us and have a clear confirmation bias against the flyover proving you are not objective or even a reasonable/civil human being.

QUOTE
Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]

There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.


Actually Killtown has been harping about this for years so it's funny to watch you all the sudden act like it's some big discovery of yours!

Yes the light poles were staged but a lack of gouge in the lawn is not "proof" of it in the least.

The eyewitness evidence uncovered by CIT is the proof.

P4T does not assert that the light poles were staged or any hypothesis at all. They present facts and professional analysis regarding the official NTSB data and aircraft capabilities.

QUOTE
The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.


Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of recognizable 737 debris ANYWHERE? Bombs inside the plane would not disintegrate the entire plane including tail section and wings. Those appendages would be sent flying.

And why didn't this plane bomb leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

I'll tell you why, your ridiculous theory that you admit has no evidence to support it is false.

QUOTE
I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.


No govt controlled evidence released after the fact will ever prove anything.

The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

Just ask Hoffman, Legge, Caustic Logic, or any of the other CIT detractors who have looked at this infintiely more closely than you have.

You are not smarter than any of them.

In fact you have shown yourself to be nothing but an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

QUOTE
I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.


Yes there is.

That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.

QUOTE
Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
Roosevelt:
coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.


No matter how many times you post it it does not change the fact that WHEREVER the plane exactly flew you must agree that Roosevelt's account confirms a flyover unless you are willing to accuse him of fabricating his story with no motive.

QUOTE
CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."


No we didn't. We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=499&st=0

Furthermore we do not claim that Dihle was telling the CMH that he BELIEVES the plane flew over and the beginning is included where he specifically states there was a lot of confusion and people weren't sure what happened.

This is what facilitated the deception.

Confusion.

It's clear that most people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit exactly like they were deceived into believing the plane impacts and subsequent fires at the wtc caused the buildings to collapse.

Nothing was "misrepresented" so cease your baseless accusations due to your admitted personal grudge against us now.


QUOTE
It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.


You can't really be this dumb.

Are you??

"Cancel each other out"????

This isn't a game.

This is evidence of a psychological black operation of deception.

We KNOW that people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit but if it did NOBODY would think it flew over.

This can't be so difficult for your stubborn brain to comprehend.

QUOTE
Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.



So you really ARE this dumb!

Wow.

Pssst.......ALL of the north side witnesses believed the plane hit.

That is why they talked to us in the first place.

They did not understand the implications of what they saw and they were successfully deceived as intended. They would have never talked to us if they thought the plane flew over.

We have never denied this and in fact it only adds to their credibility because they are not pushing a conspiracy.

But it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the directional physical damage that requires a south side approach.

You are not more intelligent than the entire organization of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and every CIT detractor who has ever published anything on this issue.

That much is as clear as is your unprovoked yet admitted personal grudge against CIT that is keeping you from looking at this information objectively.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 5 2009, 06:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 5 2009, 07:17 PM
Post #47





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE
There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 09:47 PM) *
It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.
But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit.
ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

You just contradicted yourself.
The damage could have been caused by explosives. Your flyover scenario requires all the damage be due to explosives. Why not just part of the damage?
You are still making the claim that the damage precludes the north path approach. That claim is invalid.

QUOTE
Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of 737 debris ANYWHERE?
And why didn't it leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

Witnesses said debris was falling around them.
These two explosions did not leave a crater.






QUOTE
The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

What scientific proof? The damage not caused by an impact could have been caused by explosives.

QUOTE
In fact you have proven to be an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

Several people told me that some of the comments I have made are not helping my case so I have stopped making them. You are hardly in a position to criticize anyone for badmouthing others. Your posts here and your enemies list do so in the extreme. You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.

QUOTE
I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

QUOTE
That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.
Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west. You have stated that he said the plane flew away to the north. Please post the statement that supports that claim.

QUOTE
CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."


QUOTE
We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.

But you don't include the conflicting statements when you claim publicly that Eric's statement supports flyover, nor do you mention that Eric overheard them. You know most people will not listen to the full interview and think Eric's account is first hand. They will not know about the equally valid statements from the same location that conflict with the "confirmed by" claim you make.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #48


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE
You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.


You do that.

If it hit why did people think a bomb went off and the jet kept on going? LOL.

An even better question: If we collected evidence of a north side flight path, which as Painter clearly spelled out for you can only mean a flyover, and Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up", and Maria De la Cerda thought it hit on top or on the other side and did not understand the side impact, and Roosevelt Roberts became the final validation in saying he saw the aircraft flying away from the pentagon seconds after the explosion, and considering we realize some people would have been fooled into believing it hit, WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE'S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to?

You are desperate and pathetic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 5 2009, 09:30 PM
Post #49





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 11:44 PM) *
Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up"

You did not ask them what the plane did after that. Robert Turcios and Chadwick Brooks saw where the plane went. When you were video-recording them you could see that. Chadwick even said he could see the whole thing but you did not ask if he saw the plane hit the building. That is what you were supposedly investigating and they could have told you. They didn't actually have to see it hit to know that. The plane would have dropped behind what was obstructing their view of the first floor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 5 2009, 09:58 PM
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 09:30 PM) *
You did not ask them what the plane did after that.



Yes they did.

Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

The ANC witnesses said they were running for their lives because the aircraft was approaching them (which is impossible if it were on the south path). Not to mention the fact there is a huge tree line blocking their view of the Pentagon.

Have you even reviewed NSA or AoP? Apparently not.

Furthermore, have you calculated the descent angles required for an impact from the north path and which poles would be damaged as a result? Do you realize an impact from the north path would probably take out the Heliport tower?

Chris, your whole impact theory from a north path while staging all the other damage of a south path is absurd.

Why would they impact an aircraft from a north path and stage damage from a completely opposite direction?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 10:15 PM
Post #51





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 12:17 AM) *
You just contradicted yourself.
The damage could have been caused by explosives. Your flyover scenario requires all the damage be due to explosives. Why not just part of the damage?
You are still making the claim that the damage precludes the north path approach. That claim is invalid.


I did not contradict myself at all, you just apparently have issues comprehending basic logic and a knack for changing the subject within the same sentence.

There is ZERO damage consistent with a north side approach.

This is a fact and is the exact reason why Hoffman, Arabesque, and all individuals on earth who have published anything on this issue agree with us and not you in this regard.

QUOTE
Witnesses said debris was falling around them.


Yes, blown out little scraps that have NOT been identified to a 737.

Your ridiculous bomb stuffed plane would send the wings, engines, and tail section flying.

Your notion that the perps would have this amazing stroke of luck where all recognizable pieces would be completely disintegrated is laughable.

QUOTE
These two explosions did not leave a crater.


Unbelievable.

This is as bad as the intellectually dishonest traitors at NIST who did the building 7 report.

As if a Hollywood effect fireball that dissipates ten stories above the building or else a secondary explosion from bombs planted in columns and walls etc inside the building could POSSIBLY have the same effect on the ground that large passenger plane completely exploding to disintegration at ground level just outside of the facade would have!

Just step back and think about how ridiculous the words are that you're typing before continuing with this nonsense.


QUOTE
What scientific proof? The damage not caused by an impact could have been caused by explosives.


Yes but the scientific proof we have is the north side approach evidence proving that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

This is why all pilots, experts, CIT detractors and ANYONE who has published a single thing on this issue are all unanimous on this fact and you are completely alone with your ridiculous assertion.

QUOTE
Several people told me that some of the comments I have made are not helping my case so I have stopped making them. You are hardly in a position to criticize anyone for badmouthing others. Your posts here and your enemies list do so in the extreme.



WE have NEVER attacked ANYONE because of their research or beliefs. We simply respond to people like you who attack us first unprovoked.

You personally attacked and threatened us entirely unprovoked.

Big difference there bucko.

It exposes a serious anger management issue on your part that I suggest you get help with as soon as possible.


QUOTE
You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.


No we don't.

We provide the facts. It's no secret that most people believed the plane hit and we did not claim otherwise about Erik Dihle. Plus the beginning part made that perfectly clear:

"We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds very confusing we couldn't even tell, some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going....no no no the jet ran into the building.

Clearly he was not stating that the jet DID keep going and we did not give that impression. All we did is include the relevant part which is that SOME people think that. You are grasping a straws for ANYTHING to dismiss the clear importance of this statement.

The CONFUSION is exactly what facilitated the deception.

We already KNOW that most people were fooled into believing the plane hit. What's important here is that Erik Dihle is a firsthand account proving that not EVERYONE was deceived.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

QUOTE
Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west. You have stated that he said the plane flew away to the north. Please post the statement that supports that claim.


THE MALL ENTRANCE SIDE IS THE LANDMARK HE USED AND THAT IS TO THE NORTH.

He mistakenly said the impact point was southwest of him and he mistakenly said the mall entrance side was to the southwest to him PROVING he got confused when relaying cardinal directions.

It's that simple.

But it doesn't matter because him seeing a plane AT ALL is the ultimate confirmation of the flyover that has already been proven by the north side approach witnesses.

This is getting silly.


QUOTE
But you don't include the conflicting statements when you claim publicly that Eric's statement supports flyover, nor do you mention that Eric overheard them. You know most people will not listen to the full interview and think Eric's account is first hand. They will not know about the equally valid statements from the same location that conflict with the "confirmed by" claim you make.


Man this is insane.

Stop your desperate and disgusting lies now Sarns.

Dihle's quote is precluded with his statement that "SOME PEOPLE WERE SAYING"....and also included how he admits he was IN THE BUILDING DURING THE EXPLOSION but just in case you didn't get it we even pointed it out in the narrative for you!

"Although he personally did not see the plane, he said the first thing people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet kept on going."

We couldn't possibly have been any more clear that he was not a firsthand witness to the plane.

There is NOTHING deceiving about that.

Your lies about how we presented this information is what is deceiving.

You'd have to be an idiot to think we presented this as a firsthand account. In fact nobody is that stupid. Not even you. This is an outright lie on your part in a blatant attempt at character assassination.

You are out of line Sarns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 10:22 PM
Post #52





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 02:30 AM) *
You did not ask them what the plane did after that. Robert Turcios and Chadwick Brooks saw where the plane went. When you were video-recording them you could see that. Chadwick even said he could see the whole thing but you did not ask if he saw the plane hit the building. That is what you were supposedly investigating and they could have told you. They didn't actually have to see it hit to know that. The plane would have dropped behind what was obstructing their view of the first floor.


We plainly state in National Security Alert that the interviews are edited for conciseness and that the full interviews are provided for free on our site.

We straight up asked Robert if he saw the plane fly over.

We don't hide the fact that they all believe the plane hit and that most ALL witnesses were deceived as intended exactly like how most ALL people were deceived into believing the towers collapsed from the planes and fire.

Too bad for you and the perpetrators that a north side approach scientifically proves it COULD NOT have hit.

That's why we have the backing of a team of pilots and also why all published hard core CIT detractors agree with us and NOT you on this scientific fact.

You aren't behaving logically Sarns.

You are reacting irrationally to this info because of your admitted personal grudge against us even though you have never met us or had communication with us beyond this thread and one phone call.

Oh yeah and your unprovoked email threats on behalf of Richard Gage.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 5 2009, 10:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Nov 5 2009, 11:29 PM
Post #53





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



CIT....would you please reveal this chris sams' relationship to richard gage and architects and engineers for 911 truth.

is it you opinion that chris sams is functioning as an agent of that group to torpedo your work.

i want to know.

i have supported gage. but if he is energizing this clown, i want to ask for my money back.

all ears
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 12:43 AM
Post #54





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 6 2009, 05:29 AM) *
CIT....would you please reveal this chris sams' relationship to richard gage and architects and engineers for 911 truth.


I'm not quite sure. Maybe Sarns will let us know.

QUOTE
is it you opinion that chris sams is functioning as an agent of that group to torpedo your work.


No not at all.

Unlike Sarns, Richard Gage is a logical and reasonable person who was easily able to understand the importance of what we have accomplished which is why he endorsed National Security Alert.

Even more importantly, after being barraged with lies and distortions about the info and us personally by people who have an unreasonable agenda against CIT and all Pentagon attack research Gage was man enough to call me and meet with me in person before rushing to judgment.

The result was very positive as he stands by his endorsement to this day despite all the pseudo-controversy surrounding us fueled by unreasonable people like Sarns.

QUOTE
i have supported gage. but if he is energizing this clown, i want to ask for my money back.

all ears


That is a commendable offer but there is no need for that.

We support Gage and his work as he does us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 6 2009, 01:00 AM
Post #55


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I'm of the opinion that this board should not be a publication platform for proven liars. Sarns has repeatedly misrepresented what CIT has said and done. Repeatedly in this thread. It's not a matter of not being familiar with CIT's work -- or, if it is, that is yet another case of Sarns misrepresentation -- it is now obvious that Sarns is not objective and his agenda is to misrepresent with bald-faced lies. This is not to mention that the plane/bomb hypothesis is laughable. An explosion powerful enough to shred the ENTIRE aircraft (including all the airframe, landing gear and engines) and NOT devastate the immediate area is simply absurd.

thumbdown.gif on that and thumbdown.gif on Sarns' continued participation on this board.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 6 2009, 01:04 AM
Post #56


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 09:43 PM) *
We support Gage and his work as he does us.

I'm very glad to hear that. CIT is supported by many respected people within the truth movement, as well they should be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Nov 6 2009, 01:28 AM
Post #57





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



thnx for your response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 01:30 AM
Post #58





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE
You did not ask them what the plane did after that.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 4 2009, 01:58 AM) *
Yes they did. Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

My bad.

QUOTE
Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

Your bad. He said he saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon.


Robert: I saw it lift up a little bit to get over . . . . . the do not enter sign.
Craig: So it flew up to go over that?
Robert: Yes. I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it and then the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.
Craig: Did you see it ac . . . You didn't see it hit the Pentagon?

Changed from a positive question to a negative one mid sentence, reinforcing didn't hit. Had he asked "Did you actually see it hit the Pentagon" he would have gotten the explanation which would be something like "It flew straight into the Pentagon at the bottom but my view of that part was obstructed."

Robert: No, The view was obstructed still and I could only see the fire ball from the explosion.
Craig: Did you see it hit any light poles?
Robert: No, I may have missed that. I just saw it pick up, just to make . . .
Craig: You saw it pick up to miss that? Rather than hit any light poles. Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert: Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Coli. .
Craig: OK, you didn't see it then. [interrupts to avoid further explanation and reaffirm didn’t see it]
Robert: [while Craig is talking] Collided.
Robert: No, I did not.
Craig: Cause there was other planes as well. [move on to something else]

Net result:
Robert saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon but this is superbly obfuscated and never acknowledged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 01:40 AM
Post #59





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Psssst....Sarns.....ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.

This is how the deception worked but it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage.

Physics do not lie.

This is why a team of pilots as well as all of our detractors who have published anything on the issue agree with us on this fact and NOBODY agrees with you.

The more you continue with this foolishness fueled by an admitted yet unprovoked personal grudge against us the sillier you look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 01:48 AM
Post #60





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Isn't it amazing how this Sarns guy has been personally attacking us so relentlessly for weeks yet he just revealed how he has only JUST NOW viewed Robert Turcios' full interview in The PentaCon tonight?

The arrogance is mind-numbing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th June 2017 - 12:28 PM