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  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible?

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:13 PM
Post #81


Citizen Investigator


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



And so, this 757 landing gear...



And this 757 wheel rim...



...both found next to or in the C-Ring, near the alleged exit hole, were magically able to explode from a 737 and fly through forest of exploding columns three rings in and make the C-Ring exit hole?

The 757 RB211 combustion case they found in the Pentagon? That came from the 737?


Everywhere you turn, your silly, illogical conspiracy theory runs into problems.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Nov 6 2009, 02:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:32 PM
Post #82





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



Aldo since he agrees with the witnesses regarding a north side approach and agrees with us that this proves the light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole and most damage to the building was staged, as well as the fact that the security video was manipulated, I'm quite sure he will have no problem agreeing with us that those parts were planted.

But you see he has claimed that we're "fruit loops" and he is rational for completely dismissing Roosevelt Roberts and suggesting his 737 loaded up with bombs completely disintegrated at ground level without leaving a crater in the ground or any trace of recognizable 737 debris at all.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 6 2009, 02:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:41 PM
Post #83


Citizen Investigator


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



Well the problem he runs into is why would you plant 757 parts if they are going to be found along side 737 parts? Which begs the question why would you say it's a 757 that hit the Pentagon and then destroy a 737 outside the building?

Knuckleheadedness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:53 PM
Post #84





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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 6 2009, 07:41 PM) *
Well the problem he runs into is why would you plant 757 parts if they are going to be found along side 737 parts? Which begs the question why would you say it's a 757 that hit the Pentagon and then destroy a 737 outside the building?

Knuckleheadedness



Because they had special bombs that are designed to disintegrate entire planes at ground level without damaging the lawn.

Sheesh Aldo.

You must be fruit loops.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #85





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



Subject shift noted.
How can you use government evidence of 757 parts to discredit my theory without discrediting your own?

All 3 witnesses at the Citgo station said the plane flew into the Pentagon. Two saw it completely and one not totally. Sean Boger saw the plane hit the Pentagon. You did not mention that in 'National Security Alert' because you think someone deceived them into just thinking they saw what they saw.

Your only first hand witness did not see the north path plane fly over the Pentagon. The plane he saw fly away to the south-west, could not have been the north path plane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 03:26 PM
Post #86





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 08:18 PM) *
Subject shift noted.
How can you use government evidence of 757 parts to discredit my theory without discrediting your own?


Easily.

You claim the plane hit and we provide scientific proof that it did not.

Witnesses believing an impact at the Pentagon do not refute their placement of the plane on the north side proving it did not hit any more than witnesses of the WTC collapse who were deceived into believing the buildings fell due to the planes and subsequent fire refute the evidence for controlled demo.

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

This is a scientific fact that you can not change Sarns.

This is why I have a team of pilots and ALL of our published detractors unanimously supporting me on this fact.

You have proven yourself irrational and deceptive and NOBODY supports you on this issue.

Obviously logic, reason, facts, and science can not get through that cantaloupe over your skull due to your admitted personal grudge against us.

You are intellectually bankrupt and this thread will go nowhere just like your ridiculous disintegrating 737 theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 08:59 PM
Post #87





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 07:26 PM) *
You claim the plane hit and we provide scientific proof that it did not.
What scientific evidence?

QUOTE
Witnesses believing an impact at the Pentagon do not refute their placement of the plane on the north side

Correct

QUOTE
proving it did not hit

Incorrect

QUOTE
It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

P4T proved that a plane on the north could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.
At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

This is a scientific fact that you can not change.

P4T confirms a plane on the north path could not hit the light poles but they do not refute the fact that plane on the north path could descend and hit the Pentagon as 4 of your witnesses said it did.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 7 2009, 06:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 7 2009, 12:58 AM
Post #88





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 7 2009, 02:59 AM) *
P4T proved that a plane on the north could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.
At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7034/757737sm.jpg

This is a scientific fact that you can not change.

P4T confirms a plane on the north path could not hit the light poles but they do not refute the fact that plane on the north path could descend and hit the Pentagon as 4 of your witnesses said it did.


Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path Sarns.

But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage.

Stop making a fool of yourself by making claims for others when you don't even understand what they have said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 7 2009, 02:43 AM
Post #89





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 03:58 AM) *
Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path

And I never claimed that it did. I offered a hypothesis for consideration. Debate on these forums is for people to test hypotheses by making arguments for and against. Rob checked out the wind direction and ruled that out leaving "It didn't come out of the turn as planned." Do you have a better explanation for why the plane was north of the staged light poles?

QUOTE
But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage.

If you mean all the damage, yes. A plane hitting the Pentagon on the north path would cause the damage to the first two floors. We agree that the interior damage and the hole in the C ring were caused by explosives. We agree the light poles were staged. The generator damage was not caused by the airplane. The fence post is bent out away from the building.
If you disagree, just state your reasons.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5386/ge...encebentout.jpg

Also know that I am ready to scrap everything I believe in a heartbeat if someone presents conclusive evidence of something else.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 7 2009, 08:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 7 2009, 01:16 PM
Post #90





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 7 2009, 08:43 AM) *
And I never claimed that it did. I offered a hypothesis for consideration. Debate on these forums is for people to test hypotheses by making arguments for and against. Rob checked out the wind direction and ruled that out leaving "It didn't come out of the turn as planned."


Huh?

That is not his conclusion as a result of the wind.

You clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.

QUOTE
Do you have a better explanation for why the plane was north of the staged light poles?


Yes and we mention it in National Security Alert so I am not going to bother explaining it to you here because you are lazy and and have a low attention span.

You have already proven that you are unresearched on this info and have not even viewed the full interviews or all of the evidence we present.

You have been personally attacking us for weeks without even having viewed all the evidence or remotely understanding our full stated position!

This is ridiculous.

Your behavior is beyond intellectually dishonest.

It's quite disgusting.

QUOTE
If you mean all the damage, yes. A plane hitting the Pentagon on the north path would cause the damage to the first two floors. We agree that the interior damage and the hole in the C ring were caused by explosives. We agree the light poles were staged. The generator damage was not caused by the airplane. The fence post is bent out away from the building.
If you disagree, just state your reasons.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5386/ge...encebentout.jpg

Also know that I am ready to scrap everything I believe in a heartbeat if someone presents conclusive evidence of something else.


Sarns you are not worth my time anymore.

Your position is absurd and you are clearly emotionally reacting out of a fear of being rejected from your blogger clique.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 7 2009, 09:08 PM
Post #91





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



You did not address the point which is: The plane does not need to do all the damage.

You agree that:
"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."

In other words, the plane on the north path could have hit the building.

This is what you use to support your claim that the plane did not hit the building.
"But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage."

This statement implies the plane must do all the damage or it did not hit the Pentagon. You know that is not true so why do you claim that this proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 7 2009, 09:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 7 2009, 09:51 PM
Post #92





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 8 2009, 03:08 AM) *
You did not address the point which is: The plane does not need to do all the damage.


It can not do ANY of it.

The plane had to completely disintegrate by your loaded up bombs and that notion is ridiculous.

QUOTE
You agree that:
"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."

In other words, the plane on the north path could have hit the building.


Do you not know what the word hypothetically means?

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

NONE of it is reconcilable with a plane on the north side approach so for the plane to not flyover it would had to have completely disintegrated.

Impossible and ridiculous ESPECIALLY without causing a massive crater in the ground.

Just stop this desperate ridiculousness.

QUOTE
This is what you use to support your claim that the plane did not hit the building.
"But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage."

This statement implies the plane must do all the damage or it did not hit the Pentagon. You know that is not true so why do you claim that this proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon?


No it doesn't imply that nor have I claimed that.

The factual statement which is backed up by all CIT detractors and supporters who have published anything on this issue is that the plane MUST be on the south side to cause ANY of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

Go away Sarns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 7 2009, 09:54 PM
Post #93





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



From the OpEd article:

"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This statement is not true.

You acknowledge that a plane on the north path could have hit the building.

"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."
Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities

What other reasons you may have for the plane not hitting the Pentagon are a separate matter.

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. When you asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said NO. Sean Boger said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are NO witnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the pentagon.

You did a lot of excellent investigation and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but you went a bridge too far.

You selectively chose what you wanted to believe and not believe. You would be laughed out of any court.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 7 2009, 11:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 8 2009, 01:21 AM
Post #94





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 8 2009, 02:54 AM) *
From the OpEd article:

"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This statement is not true.

You acknowledge that a plane on the north path could have hit the building.

"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."
Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities


So apparently you DON'T know what the word hypothetically means!

This is wild.

Ok one more time....

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

NONE of it is reconcilable with a plane on the north side approach so for the plane to not flyover it would had to have completely disintegrated.

Impossible and ridiculous ESPECIALLY without causing a massive crater in the ground.

Just stop this desperate ridiculousness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 8 2009, 01:56 AM
Post #95





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 6 2009, 04:21 AM) *
So apparently you DON'T know what the word hypothetically means!

Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities [Windows dictionary]
You acknowledge that it was possible for the north path plane to hit the Pentagon.
Correct?
ETA: P4T has established that it was aerodynamically possible for the north path plane to hit the Pentagon.
What happened after that is another matter.

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.
You are saying that a plane on the north path would not do ANY damage when it hit the Pentagon.

ETA: You did not respond to this part:
The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. When you asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said NO. Sean Boger said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are NO witnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the pentagon.

You did a lot of excellent investigation and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but you went a bridge too far.

You selectively chose what you wanted to believe and not believe. You would be laughed out of any court.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 8 2009, 03:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 8 2009, 12:14 PM
Post #96


∞* 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 7 2009, 10:56 PM) *
You are saying that a plane on the north path would not do ANY damage when it hit the Pentagon.

Not "would not," DID NOT -- because it did not impact.
QUOTE
The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

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

Incapable of putting 2 & 2 together?

You rant about CIT cherry picking and yet all you do is choose one data set over another. First it was Roselvet Roberts to the exclusion of everyone else, now its the NOC witnesses to the exclusion of the damage at the Pentagon clearly outlined in NSA. Once again: There is no damage consistent with a NOC approach as described by the witnesses -- nor is there any evidence consistent with a "plane bomb".

Yes, we all know what a hypothesis is. We all understand that a good hypothesis has to account for ALL the observed events and evidence and NOT rely upon "possibilities" for which there is no evidence.

So lets cut the crap, Sarns:
  • What evidence of an impact do you have that is consistent with a witnessed NOC approach?
  • If your hypothesis is that the NOC approach plane did not impact, then what is your explanation for what happened to it and what evidence do you have to support it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 8 2009, 08:20 PM
Post #97





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



You seem to think it's up to me to prove the plane hit the Pentagon. Such is not the case. I offered a hypothesis. You all act like I did something terrible. I suggested another possibility that the explosives were in the construction trailers. These were just suggestions of what might account for the results. I do not claim that's what happened nor did I make a video saying had proof.

CIT made a video claiming their witnesses proved the plane did not hit the Pentagon, and that proves flyover.

P4T made a video proving a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

Four of CIT's witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon.

2 + 2 = 4 The plane hit the Pentagon.

Their only "flyover witness" does not support the P4T analysis showing which direction the plane would have flow away.

CIT is "cherry picking" the statements by their own witnesses and disregarding that which disproves their flyover theory.

You are arguing that the plane does not account for all the damage. The north path witnesses have no bearing on that, only the path the plane took.

The north path does not preclude the plane hitting the building as CIT claimed.

That is the point I have made.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 8 2009, 08:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 8 2009, 09:48 PM
Post #98


∞* 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 (painter @ Nov 8 2009, 09:14 AM) *
  • What evidence of an impact do you have that is consistent with a witnessed NOC approach?
  • If your hypothesis is that the NOC approach plane did not impact, then what is your explanation for what happened to it and what evidence do you have to support it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 9 2009, 12:29 AM
Post #99





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



ETC:
You keep asking me for evidence that the plane did the damage to the building. You know what the damage is and what the evidence is. That is not what CIT is talking about. They said the north path proves that "the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This is not true. The NOC witnesses do not prove the plane could not hit the building.
P4T said it could hit the building on the NOC flight path.

I don't need to prove anything. I am just stating the facts as they are.

CIT's claim that the NOC flight path proves the plane did not hit the building is incorrect.


Do you think the damage to the building is possible with the official SOC approach?

If so, then why not on the NOC approach?

Is it possible that some of the damage to the building was caused by explosives?

Do you think Sgt.Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse, Robert Turcios and Sean Boger are lying or delusional?

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 9 2009, 04:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 9 2009, 12:39 PM
Post #100





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



This conversation is a little comedic.

You seem to be the only person in the English speaking world who doesn't understand that when CIT say the plane "couldn't have hit the building" they mean it could not have caused the damage to the building, which is of course the only evidence which could be used to make a claim thatthat the plane did just that.

You seem to be trying to create a side show from a turn of phrase. Because CIT chose the words "hit the building" rather than "hit the building, causing the damage we saw on 9/11", you think you have an in-road to score a point?

It detracts from your credibility though, as no one else reading this will see any problem with the turn of phrase CIT use and you just appear to be a time waster.

The damage to the building is real, it actually happened, there is no sense saying "ah but the building could be hit by the plane causing different damage" because that different damage does not exist.

I realise that Boeing Impact Theorists have been slowly conditioned over the years to accept that the minimum wreckage and damage we saw at the Pentagon was perfectly normal, but are you really trying to tell us that the plane in fact flew from the north and caused no damage at all? And then damage was faked as though a plane had flown in from the south?

Have I got your theory right???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
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: 28th May 2017 - 07:20 AM