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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

8 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible?

chris sarns
post Nov 9 2009, 05:19 PM
Post #101





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



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 7 2009, 03:39 PM) *
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 that the plane did just that.
No. In English this means the different path proves the plane could not hit the building:
"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."

To mean what you think it means it would have to read:
"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally reported a drastically different flight path. The plane absolutely could have hit the building on that path, but it didn't because it couldn't cause the damage we saw on 9/11."

But there's a bigger problem with the flyover theory.

All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon independently, unanimously, and unequivocally said the plane hit the Pentagon. If you believe the witnesses then you believe the plane flew north of the Citgo station and hit the pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 10 2009, 12:37 PM
Post #102





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 9 2009, 04:19 PM) *
No. In English this means the different path proves the plane could not hit the building:
"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."


WHAT? This is getting a bit surreal. Let's start by getting some agreements if you'd be happy to?

Do we agree or disagree that:

1) There was no damage indicating a plane hitting the building from a north path or any path other than the official one.

2) All damage to the building and surrounding area is reliant on the official flight path being 100% accurate, from the moment it hit the first lightpole onwards.

I'm going to assume that we do agree and move on accordingly.

The plane hitting the building and the damage it alledgedly caused are not two separate concepts you can divide in your mind for your convenience, this is reality not a logic puzzle. If a plane flying on any path other than the official one, it cannot have caused the damage we see therefore...

...it cannot have hit the building.

The only scenario that it could have is one where a Boeing hitting the building causes NO DAMAGE AT ALL, is this what you are proposing?

QUOTE
To mean what you think it means it would have to read:
"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally reported a drastically different flight path. The plane absolutely could have hit the building on that path, but it didn't because it couldn't cause the damage we saw on 9/11."

But there's a bigger problem with the flyover theory.


Hold on? Can we go back to the place where you presented a SINGLE problem with the flyover theory? All you've done is indulge in semantics.

QUOTE
All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon independently, unanimously, and unequivocally said the plane hit the Pentagon. If you believe the witnesses then you believe the plane flew north of the Citgo station and hit the pentagon.


Wow. I'd never thought of that before. I'm a fool and you're a genius![/irony]

Chris, do you think there is a single person who supports CIT who never thought that thought? That we were all waiting in ignorance for you to shine that light on us.

The problem is that where they saw the plane fly was between a few and up to 10-15 seconds of perception. The point of the explosion was an instant, and an extremely traumatic one that would cause people to flinch, duck, run away. Yes they might say the plane hit the Pentagon, they might believe they saw it, but if it flew on the north path THEY CANNOT HAVE SEEN IT.

Let's look at some of them. Sean Boger says he saw the plane hit - he also says he hit the deck - which is what you'd expect him to do. Lagasse says he saw the plane hit - he also says he found himself ducked inside his car at the point of "impact" - a natural response. Other witnesses were running away. This is how I would expect myself to act and how I expect them to act. I would also expect them to report the plane hit the building, because this is what I would believe had happened had I witnesed what they did.

It all makes sense, but your scenario doesn't.

While it is no problem whatsoever for me to imagine that people witnessing what CIT propose they witnessed might well conclude the plane hit the building - it is statistically and logically redundant to consider all these people are making such a fundamental misjudgement as to what side of their bodies the plane flew in such as way as to corroborate each other.

CIT detractors don't seem to get this:

Completely plausible scenario
People seeing a plane fly towards the Pentagon. Huge explosion panics them. Plane is gone. They deduce the plane hit the Pentagon.

Completely implausible scenario
All of the witnesses are mistaking left for right. Something to do with the water in virginia probably, anyway stop asking questions, don't you care about the future of the truth movement. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 10 2009, 02:30 PM
Post #103





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



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 8 2009, 03:37 PM) *
WHAT? This is getting a bit surreal. Let's start by getting some agreements if you'd be happy to?

Do we agree or disagree that:

1) There was no damage indicating a plane hitting the building from a north path or any path other than the official one.

No.

QUOTE
2) All damage to the building and surrounding area is reliant on the official flight path being 100% accurate, from the moment it hit the first lightpole onwards.

Not "all" the damage.

As I have said many times, a plane on the north path could cause some of the damage to the Pentagon and explosives caused the rest.

QUOTE
The problem is that where they saw the plane fly was between a few and up to 10-15 seconds of perception. The point of the explosion was an instant, and an extremely traumatic one that would cause people to flinch, duck, run away. Yes they might say the plane hit the Pentagon, they might believe they saw it, but if it flew on the north path THEY CANNOT HAVE SEEN IT.

Wrong. The witnesses at the Citgo station and control tower had a clear unobstructed view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Robert Turcios' view of the actual collision was obstructed but he said the plane collided and it did NOT fly over the Pentagon. That part he could see.

To believe flyover you must hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Flyover will not fly other than on this forum and the CIT forum. Reasonable people will think you are nuts if you are honest enough to tell them the whole truth and include the part where all the witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT did not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 11 2009, 10:10 AM
Post #104





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 10 2009, 02:30 PM) *
No.


Not "all" the damage.

As I have said many times, a plane on the north path could cause some of the damage to the Pentagon and explosives caused the rest.


Wrong. The witnesses at the Citgo station and control tower had a clear unobstructed view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Robert Turcios' view of the actual collision was obstructed but he said the plane collided and it did NOT fly over the Pentagon. That part he could see.

To believe flyover you must hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Flyover will not fly other than on this forum and the CIT forum. Reasonable people will think you are nuts if you are honest enough to tell them the whole truth and include the part where all the witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT did not.


So you're saying now that a plane flying in from the North would cause LESS damage than the damage we saw when it hit? And then, for no reason whatsoever, they decided to stage lightpole damage and damage to the building to suggest it flew on a slightly different path. Right?

Do you have an inkling of why no one is taking this theory of yours, or you, very seriously?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 11 2009, 10:54 AM
Post #105





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 10 2009, 02:30 PM) *
To believe flyover you must hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Flyover will not fly other than on this forum and the CIT forum. Reasonable people will think you are nuts if you are honest enough to tell them the whole truth and include the part where all the witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT did not.

National Security Alert is a new abridged presentation - they make it massively clear that some of the witnesses think the plane hit the Pentagon in their original videos which are still online, they even plug them in the film itself. I became convinced of this material before NSA ever came out. I've always been perfectly aware that some witnesses thought it hit, so is everyone else here. There is no dishonesty at all in putting out an abridged video of the best evidence.

I've explained already why this is no problem for me, and why it makes perfect sense that some of these witnesses would report the plane hit the pentagon even if it didn't.

And on another note, where do you think we all came from? Do you think this forum or CIT forum sprung up with a full roster of posters? Everyone here attended to the evidence and found it to be credible in demonstrating a North of Citgo flight path. Once this is established it is clear to anyone not in the throes of the most comedic case of cognitive dissonance ever recorded on a forum in history understands that the plane cannot have hit the building. THEN we came here.

Your claim that no one out side this or this CIT forum buys the flyover is firstly simply not true. If you go to the Truth Action forum, or TruthMove or 911 visibility or look at a lot of the comments on blogger you might think itís a "controversial debunked theory" - problem is all of the people generating that noise are part of the same clique and their numbers are extremely low. Of the further handful who slavishly hang on their every word, try and engage them in conversation about it and they admit pretty quickly they barely have any knowledge of what CIT are actually saying, but they "trust" the other side. Itís a massive con job.

In the real world I know ONE person who does not get what CIT are saying of all the truth activists I have met. ONE - and he refuses to debate the issue and has admitted to not watching their films.

What makes that person stand out among the others I know? He is a regular reader of Truth Action forum and a big fan of the clique there. What a surprise.

And you know what? The average person on the street, with no connection whatsoever to 9/11 truth, tends to be suspicious of the Pentagon and thinks very little about the WTC.

The response in this video of the policeman is pretty common:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Z1-t6qvWo

"Well everyone knows it was never a plane that went in there" (the Pentagon).

I helped run a 9/11 truth day at a friend's university at a point where I was in a "don't talk about the Pentagon" position myself and time after time students would argue about the WTC facts we had on display but much more freely offer that "the story at Pentagon is pretty dodgy though".

Even me, before I ever considered 9/11 and "inside job" never believed the story at the Pentagon. From day one I (and everyone around me) looked in disbeleif and said "a plane is supposed to have crashed there?". But I didn't even think 9/11 was an inside job. I assumed they were embarrassed about the security failure that would allow such a secure building to be bombed.

My friend, I realise that a small clique of individuals have spent a lot of time and effort in attempting to brain wash other truth activists into thinking the Pentagon is "dangerous" territory but in the mind of the general public it is no less accessable than the world trade centre.

You've been conned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 11 2009, 11:24 AM
Post #106





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



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 11 2009, 03:54 PM) *
National Security Alert is a new abridged presentation - they make it massively clear that some of the witnesses think the plane hit the Pentagon in their original videos which are still online, they even plug them in the film itself. I became convinced of this material before NSA ever came out. I've always been perfectly aware that some witnesses thought it hit, so is everyone else here. There is no dishonesty at all in putting out an abridged video of the best evidence.


Precisely.

In fact we are quite clear in National Security Alert as well that the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit.

We straight up say it in the narrative more than once.

The notion that we are being dishonest about this is, well, dishonest.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 11 2009, 11:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Nov 11 2009, 01:17 PM
Post #107





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Mr. Sarns, what plane did Roberts see seconds after the explosion?

Thanks for answering this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 11 2009, 04:13 PM
Post #108





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



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Nov 9 2009, 04:17 PM) *
Mr. Sarns, what plane did Roberts see seconds after the explosion?

Thanks for answering this.

I don't know but it was not the "hijacked" plane that approached from the west.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 11 2009, 04:18 PM
Post #109





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



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 9 2009, 01:10 PM) *
So you're saying now that a plane flying in from the North would cause LESS damage than the damage we saw when it hit? And then, for no reason whatsoever, they decided to stage lightpole damage and damage to the building to suggest it flew on a slightly different path. Right?

Wrong.

I am saying that the north path does not prove flyover.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 11 2009, 04:37 PM
Post #110





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 9 2009, 02:24 PM) *
The notion that we are being dishonest about this is, well, dishonest.

You fraudulent claim that I am being dishonest by saying your are dishonest is, well, dishonest. ;-)

"In fact we are quite clear in National Security Alert as well that the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit."

"Believe" is fraudulent. That is your judgment. They had no doubt and not including their statements to that effect is dishonest.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 11 2009, 04:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 11 2009, 06:05 PM
Post #111


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



Why are we providing a platform for this lame semantic BS? There is no evidence for a north side approach impact -- thus proving that the witnesses do, indeed, BELIEVE something that is false. Since there is no evidence of a plane impact from the north, the north approach proves a fly over -- unless one wants to dream up some other scenario -- for which we have no evidence. The only other option is the plane just vanished. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 11 2009, 08:11 PM
Post #112





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 11 2009, 09:13 PM) *
I don't know but it was not the "hijacked" plane that approached from the west.


He says it approached from the alleged impact side which is from the west.

It's amazing how hard you will work spin information that fatally contradicts the official story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 11 2009, 08:13 PM
Post #113





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



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 11 2009, 11:05 PM) *
Why are we providing a platform for this lame semantic BS? There is no evidence for a north side approach impact -- thus proving that the witnesses do, indeed, BELIEVE something that is false. Since there is no evidence of a plane impact from the north, the north approach proves a fly over -- unless one wants to dream up some other scenario -- for which we have no evidence. The only other option is the plane just vanished. rolleyes.gif


Some people are quite happy to ignore the laws of physics as means to spin information that conclusively proves the official story false.

Even alleged "truthers" if it isn't the way that they want the official story to be proven false.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Nov 11 2009, 11:23 PM
Post #114





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



self-deception is an astonishing occurrence.

hey, i even know engineers who say that wtc 7 never collapsed.

i even know a few manhattanites that say it is still standing because tishman-speyer erected its replacement, without any fanfare, within a twinkling of an eye.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 12 2009, 06:14 AM
Post #115





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



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 9 2009, 09:05 PM) *
There is no evidence for a north side approach impact. Since there is no evidence of a plane impact from the north, the north approach proves a fly over -- unless one wants to dream up some other scenario -- for which we have no evidence. The only other option is the plane just vanished. rolleyes.gif

You are talking nonsense. What caused this damage, termites?



Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

If you are saying that neither path could make this damage then you have just admitted that the CIT investigation did not prove anything you didn't already know about the possibility of flyover.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 12 2009, 06:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 12 2009, 06:23 AM
Post #116





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 9 2009, 11:11 PM) *
He says it approached from the alleged impact side which is from the west.

Correct. He went on to say it flew away to the south-west.
It's amazing how hard you will work spin information to say it flew away to the north.

Even if you were right, the plane approaching from the west could not make that turn either.

You know this yet you falsely claim that he was talking about the plane approaching from the west.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 12 2009, 06:30 AM
Post #117





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 9 2009, 11:13 PM) *
Some people are quite happy to ignore the laws of physics

You are ignoring the law of physics that proves the plane could not make the turn Roosevelt describes.

You falsely claim that Roosevelt is a witness for flyover when he clearly is not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 12 2009, 06:31 AM
Post #118



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 05:14 AM) *
You are talking nonsense.


Chris, please keep your insulting opinions to yourself. My next reply may not be so polite.



QUOTE
Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?



Chris, what caused this damage?



A. South Side approach
B. North side approach
C. Staged
D. The photo is photoshopped
E. B and C
F. Fill in the blank

After you answer the multiple choice above (or feel free to add your own through option F), I'll have more questions for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 12 2009, 07:04 AM
Post #119





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 11 2009, 11:24 AM) *
Precisely.

In fact we are quite clear in National Security Alert as well that the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit.

We straight up say it in the narrative more than once.

The notion that we are being dishonest about this is, well, dishonest.


Thanks Craig, I was pretty sure you had mentioned it in NSA but wasn't 100% so didn't want to go ahead and say it, especially since it still wouldn't be dishonest even if you didn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 12 2009, 07:13 AM
Post #120





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 06:30 AM) *
You are ignoring the law of physics that proves the plane could not make the turn Roosevelt describes.


CIT never got to get an arial photo in front of Roberts, of have a full video interview where they could clear up exactly what he saw, his description of the movement of the plane seemed confused and off the top of his head. If they had managed to it might have shown that he was wrongly describing something that actually made a lot more sense.

I, for example, am terrible at giving people directions, even to places I know the exact location; I describe things badly. Give me a bit of paper and I'll draw a perfect map, but try and use my off-the-top-of-my-head verbal directions and you'll never find the place. Roberts could be the same.

There is a bigger problem with your viewpoint on Roberts - your view relies on him thinking he saw something (a large commerical jet just above light pole height) when in fact he saw nothing.

The clarion call of "no one saw a flyover" of the Boeing Impact Theorists (which presumably your attempt to strike Roberts from the record as a witness is a part of) does not of course prove anything; someone not seeing something does not prove it was not there - they could just not have seen it.

Conversely, to claim that someone who said they saw something, especially something so unmistakable as a full sized commerical airliner, when in fact they saw nothing, is far more serious claim.

It implicitly states that the witness in question is either insane or a liar, since such a sight would be impossible to simply be mistaken about. Which claim is it you are making in the "valiant" defence of your rapdily dying Boing Impact Theory?

QUOTE
You falsely claim that Roosevelt is a witness for flyover when he clearly is not.


What is it you are going to describe him as then, a mad man or a liar?

This post has been edited by StefanS: Nov 12 2009, 07:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 >
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: 17th October 2018 - 07:29 PM