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 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible?

chris sarns
post Nov 4 2009, 06:28 PM
Post #21





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 10:14 PM) *
Sarns you've got nothing.

You've got ZERO evidence for your theory.

That's right.

QUOTE
It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage

Right again.

QUOTE
in fact pretty much of them have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover.

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

QUOTE
You are not a researcher or studied individual on this info.

I have done little else for the last week and I had already studied your videos and witness statements for many, many hours.

The transcript was what allowed me to figure out what Roosevelt was saying. The interview is chaotic and the information disjointed but it's there.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 4 2009, 06:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 06:28 PM
Post #22


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:03 AM) *
It made the turn before it got to the south parking lot.


No when he saw it, it was flying around south parking lot, "banking just above the light poles", making a u-turn out towards the mall entrance side.


QUOTE
The Mall was north.


I know. That is where the plane flew towards. That is not southwest.


QUOTE
He meant south-west from the south-west corner of the south parking lot going south-west.


Man, you sound confused. He "meant" that? You talked to him? You got it all cleared up Chris?

That's why he said it was traveling east towards DC, coming from where he believe the first plane hit, then making a u turn out going to the mall entrance side on the north.

QUOTE
Maybe this will help:


Aww, ur losing it huh? Getting frustrated? Well just admit you are wrong. It's ok.


QUOTE
It could NOT be the plane approaching from the west because it could not turn that quick.


You know how quick it turned? You were there? You went back in time and timed everything as you stood next to Roosevelt?


QUOTE
Yes you do.


No, I don't. That is why I asked. Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

QUOTE
You're the one trying to ignore what he said.


Right, as you ignore that the mall entrance is to the north.

So how did it get from south parking lot over the mall entrance side, Chris? Did it go SW to get there? LOL. laughing1.gif


QUOTE
No they don't.


Only in the lone mind of Chris Sarns on whatever planet he is from.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 06:29 PM
Post #23


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:14 AM) *
We agree on those facts.


You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 06:43 PM
Post #24





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:28 PM) *
The transcript was what allowed me to figure out what Roosevelt was saying. The interview is chaotic and the information disjointed but it's there.


So what is your contention?

What are you suggesting he saw if it wasn't the plane flying away?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 06:50 PM
Post #25





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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 11:29 PM) *
You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.


His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.

I kid you not.

THAT is the result of his arm chair research and justification for publicly accusing us of being "fruit loops con-men".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 4 2009, 07:07 PM
Post #26





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 07:40 PM) *
Landmarks trump cardinal direction every time when dealing with witnesses, or even pilots, especially in an informal setting. I cant count how many times i have heard other pilots/ATC.. .etc... say southwest when they meant southeast. Northwest when they meant northeast... ."Traffic 9 O'clock" when they meant "3 o'clock"... and so on... Its an honest mistake.

To take Roberts statement of "southwest" in an interview on a cell phone while he was driving as literal.

He said he was in the south parking lot. He knew which direction south was. He knew Highway 27 was to the west.

QUOTE
while ignoring his landmark statements is intellectually dishonest or cherry picking to fit an already established belief/agenda.

I didn't expect that from you.


A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

QUOTE
Sure "a plane" can. It depends on the type aircraft and perhaps any classified military technology involved.

Not the plane the north path witnesses described.

QUOTE
if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used,

Terry Morin said it was a 737 and later said it must have been a 757. There's not much difference.

A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757-200. The wingspan of a 373 is 12 feet less than a 757. The fuselage width is 12 feet for both.

QUOTE
Since Roberts refused a second meeting to clarify statements, his most important statement at this time is the fact he vividly remembers observing an aircraft immediately AFTER the explosion. This is fatal to the govt story.

He reaffirmed 10 seconds.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, 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. . . seven steps away from there.

This is your witness so if you don't believe him then how can you say he proves or even supports flyover?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 4 2009, 07:32 PM
Post #27





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:43 PM) *
So what is your contention?

What are you suggesting he saw if it wasn't the plane flying away?
I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 07:39 PM
Post #28


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:07 AM) *
He said he was in the south parking lot. He knew which direction south was. He knew Highway 27 was to the west.


He knew where south parking is because they have lots of signs telling you so.


QUOTE
I didn't expect that from you.


A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.


Actually a plane can. But that is not what he describes he describes it doing a u-turn out and heading to the Mall Entrance side.


QUOTE
Not the plane the north path witnesses described.


Actually yes it can.


QUOTE
Terry Morin said it was a 737 and later said it must have been a 757. There's not much difference.

A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757-200. The wingspan of a 373 is 12 feet less than a 757. The fuselage width is 12 feet for both.


Yeah it could have been a 737. So? Doesn't change that it could not and did not hit.


QUOTE
He reaffirmed 10 seconds.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, 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. . . seven steps away from there.


So? He also said 10 seconds tops. So it could be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 seconds. For all you know, they could have been setting off the internal bombs before the plane even reached the building, prompting Roosevelt to run out and see the plane at what he thought was close to 10 seconds. A 7 steps to the edge of the loading dock, that is a clear indicator that it can only be the flyover plane he saw.

QUOTE
This is your witness so if you don't believe him then how can you say he proves or even supports flyover?


Dude listen to you. You sound like those scumbag "skeptics" who have ran out of fuel so they try some bizarre reverse psychology by trying to insinuate we "don't believe" our witnesses.

You lost, Chris. Go home. Stop being a spoiled sport.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #29


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:32 AM) *
I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.



Actually that is exactly what it was the plane that banked to the right on the north side of the gas station taking it right into south parking lot.

He can believe it was a second plane all he wants. It can only be the flyover plane. It wasn't the C-130 and it wasn't an errant commercial flight from or headed to Reagan.

National Groundstop was enacted by 9:25, so it could not be a departure. Which we also know it would not be because of the direction it approached from. And it could not be an arrival , because planes were landing from the south that day.

You lose again.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Nov 4 2009, 07:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 08:35 PM
Post #30





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 01:32 AM) *
I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.


If you don't have an explanation for the plane and you don't think he is lying about seeing the plane then you have no choice but to admit you agree he corroborates the north side witnesses who scientifically prove a flyover.

It's as simple as that.

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud and start being productive by getting this evidence that you agree proves 9/11 was an inside job into the hands of media and congresspeople.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 4 2009, 08:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 08:50 PM
Post #31





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 02:35 AM) *
Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud....



For the record this why it may seem as if Aldo and I are being a bit hard on Chris Sarns.

For the past few weeks on 911blogger he has engaged in an all out campaign to attack us personally by calling us "looney tunes", "bonkers", "fruit-loops", and outright "professional con-men" and of course "disinformation".

He has engaged in persistent and absolutely baseless personal attacks without shame EVEN THOUGH he admits that he accepts the north side approach evidence and even believes the light poles, generator trailer, and much more of the physical damage was staged.

There is no logic or excuse for his behavior whatsoever. It's been absolutely out of control as his obsession with attacking us and harsh rhetoric has continuously escalated.

All of this supposedly because we state the undeniable scientific fact that ALL supporters and detractors who have published anything on this issue unanimously agree on.......the north side approach proves a flyover.

Unless there is more behind his motive that he has not revealed.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 4 2009, 09:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 4 2009, 09:12 PM
Post #32





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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 10:28 PM) *
No when he saw it, it was flying around south parking lot,

Flying around? He does not say that.
Here's what he said:

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?

Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.

Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

The lane one area is the west end of the south parking lot.


QUOTE
"banking just above the light poles", making a u-turn out towards the mall entrance side.

No. It was over the south west corner [lane one] of the south parking lot headed south-west over Highway 27.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 09:21 PM
Post #33





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



Chris,

Eyewitnesses are fallible.

Not only that they often deduce and embellish.

They are subjective and are virtually NEVER 100% correct.

You are a fool if you believe that YOUR extreme literal interpretation of his words is exactly what he meant or saw.

If you believe he saw a plane over the parking lot AT ALL within seconds of the explosion you are admitting to a flyover.

No matter how hard you work to discredit Roosevelt Roberts and us personally you can not change that fact.

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud.

In fact if you are the least bit honest you will issue a full public apology as an entry to your blog at blogger. If you don't you will always be considered someone with a personal agenda against us as a detriment to exposing the 9/11 deception.

Don't fool yourself. Your little gate keeping anti-cit clique at blogger do NOT represent the majority of the truth movement or the true research community.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 4 2009, 09:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 09:35 PM
Post #34





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 03:12 AM) *
Flying around? He does not say that.


Yes he does say that.

He said it to the Library of Congress in 2001.

"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"

Stop pretending like you know what you are talking about or faking like you are an authority on this issue just because you have been literally obsessed with personally attacking us and attempting to discredit the witnesses the past week.

That does not make you a studied researcher.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 4 2009, 09:41 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:50 PM) *
His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.


laughing1.gif

Chris, you may want to check the weather for that time of the day, the winds were from the opposite direction (Northwest). Unless of course you feel there was some huge wind machine from the south turned on just as a 737 passed Morin, and then turned off once near the Pentagon?

See top of our Pentagon page for Current Weather at DCA (METAR) and for decode link.

METAR KDCA 111251Z 35005KT 10SM CLR 21/14 A3021
SPECI KDCA 111341Z 33010KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111351Z 34009KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3023
METAR KDCA 111451Z 32008KT 4SM HZ CLR 24/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111551Z 33009G15KT 7SM CLR 26/14 A3021

I bolded the above relevant portion. Winds were from 330 degrees at 10 knots.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 4 2009, 09:50 PM
Post #36





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 5 2009, 03:41 AM) *
Chris, you may want to check the weather for that time of the day, the winds were from the opposite direction (Northwest).


Only researchers actually do research BEFORE presenting 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".

They don't even care about their own credibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 5 2009, 02:27 AM
Post #37





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 12:21 AM) *
Chris,

Eyewitnesses are fallible.

Not only that they often deduce and embellish.

They are subjective and are virtually NEVER 100% correct.

You are a fool if you believe that YOUR extreme literal interpretation of his words is exactly what he meant or saw.

He said the plane was "around the lane one area" That's at the west end of the south parking lot. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Do you believe him?

If not what do you believe.?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 5 2009, 02:46 AM
Post #38





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



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.

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.

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 5 2009, 12:30 PM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 08:27 AM) *
He said the plane was "around the lane one area" That's at the west end of the south parking lot. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Do you believe him?

If not what do you believe.?


He says the plane came from the alleged impact side (west) and banked around to the mall entrance side (north).

Of course I believe him because he has no motive to lie, is corroborated by Erik Dihle and all the north side witnesses, and he is the ultimate confirmation of a deception on 9/11.

But I am also a reasonable and logical person who understands that witnesses are subjective and fallible especially when considering the extremely confusing and chaotic nature of the event he is relaying.

Furthermore I understand how you have a confirmation bias against a flyover and a personal vendetta against CIT and have chosen to vigorously pursue this publicly by literally attacking us and the witnesses with no basis whatsoever in a blatant attempt to discredit us.

Only 2 days ago after accusing us of being con-men you admitted this on blogger regarding your agenda against Roosevelt Roberts' account and us personally:

QUOTE (Chris Sarns Wed Nov 4th on 911blogger)
Taking his statement at face value, it does not support the flyover theory which is my only concern. I don't care if he saw a flying pig, it leaves CIT with zip, nada, no frikkin witnesses. ;-)

Did I mention I don't like those guys (CIT)?
(emphasis added)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21720#comment-220901


So you admitted that you are reducing his words to "face value" while ignoring the extremely confusing and chaotic nature of the event being discussed and the fact that witness accounts are subjective and fallible -- all as a means to come up with your own impossible interpretation of the exact details of Roosevelt's account so you can feel comfortable DISMISSING what he saw with a hand wave and no explanation whatsoever.

And of course you also admitted that you have a personal grudge against us even though we have never met and the extent of our communication has been this thread and one phone call in July. After which, the very next day, you immediately flew off the handle emotionally via email and made DEMANDS that we change the entire premise of National Security Alert, and actualy leveled threats against us on behalf of Richard Gage.

This behavior and your continuous personal attacks against us ever since is all very solid evidence that you, Christopher Sarns, are not a stable individual who is looking at this information objectively.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 5 2009, 01:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post Nov 5 2009, 12:33 PM
Post #40





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 02:46 AM) *
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.

So you acknowledge that Roosevelt DID see a large commercial aircraft after all, but you think that it was a SECOND large commercial aircraft that was flying over the south parking lot headed southwest across route 27 just seconds after the explosion, even though NO ONE corroborates that. Got it. No, you're right Chris. That makes way more sense than Roosevelt simply having his cardinal directions wrong "during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving." as Craig suggested.

This post has been edited by Ligon: Nov 5 2009, 12:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 24th September 2017 - 09:08 AM