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  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible?

Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:00 AM
Post #61





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 06:30 AM) *
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."


I just noticed your little deceptive interjection here trying to talk for Turcios.

He ALREADY said that he did NOT see it hit due to the chaotic moment and the fireball. You have no right saying what he would have said if I didn't re-phrase the question to simply confirm what he already told me.

Plus if he saw the highway sign there in no reason he couldn't see the bottom floor. The only thing he says that "obstructed" him was the "fireball".

Furthermore if the plane is LIFTING UP over the highway and NOT hitting light poles as he describes it is NOT entering the building perfectly low and level on the first floor without hitting the lawn.



The fact that you would try to spin Robert Turcios' account into supporting an impact is complete and utter proof that you have no interest whatsoever in truth and are working off a pure deceptive and twisted agenda from only God knows what demented motive.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 6 2009, 02:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 6 2009, 02:23 AM
Post #62



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 01:30 AM) *
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 ....... the big explosion, just a fireball and lots of smoke.



Amazing how a change in bolding shows the real interpretation of the statement huh?

I fixed your above quote...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:30 AM
Post #63





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 6 2009, 07:23 AM) *
Amazing how a change in bolding shows the real interpretation of the statement huh?


No kidding.

It's clear this guy Sarns is not above any of the cheapest and most pathetic spin tactics in the book.

His desperation is so transparent it's awkward to have to witness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 02:34 AM
Post #64





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 05:40 AM) *
Psssst....Sarns.....ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.

Craig, when you asked: "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?" he said NO
He could see all but the bottom floor. If it had flown over, he would have seen it.
He went on to say "the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Collided [= ran into]

QUOTE
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.

You are the one doing the deceiving and it is not necessary for the plane to do all the damage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:35 AM
Post #65





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 06:30 AM) *
Net result:
Robert saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon but this is superbly obfuscated and never acknowledged.


And wtf is this?

Superbly obfuscated?

The fact that ALL the witnesses believe the plane hit has been FULLY acknowledged since day one since OBVIOUSLY these details were left in the footage.

I keep realizing how snide and deceptive each sentence you type is.

First you criticize me for not asking something that I CLEARLY DID ASK, and then when you realize I asked it you accuse us of not "acknowledging" it????

Where do you get off?

What kind of madness is this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 02:40 AM
Post #66





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 07:34 AM) *
Craig, when you asked: "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?" he said NO
He could see all but the bottom floor. If it had flown over, he would have seen it.
He went on to say "the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Collided [= ran into]


You are the one doing the deceiving and it is not necessary for the plane to do all the damage.


He told ME first that the fireball and explosion is all he saw.

So did Lagasse.

This is typical because this is how the deception worked.

We know this because 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 02:42 AM
Post #67





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 4 2009, 06:23 AM) *
Amazing how a change in bolding shows the real interpretation of the statement huh?

I fixed your above quote...

Can you fix these?

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 fly over the Pentagon?
No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon.
Collided: crash into something!!!

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 6 2009, 03:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 02:46 AM
Post #68





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:00 AM) *
The fact that you would try to spin Robert Turcios' account into supporting an impact flyover is complete and utter proof that you have no interest whatsoever in truth and are working off a pure deceptive and twisted agenda from only God knows what demented motive.
Fixed that for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 03:00 AM
Post #69





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:40 AM) *
He told ME first that the fireball and explosion is all he saw.

He also told you "it headed straight to it" [the Pentagon]
and
"the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon."
and
[the plane] collided [crashed into the Pentagon]

You hang on the fact that he didn't see the actual crash because it was below his field of view and ignore the places where he says it flew into the Pentagon. - Collided.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 6 2009, 03:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 04:24 AM
Post #70





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



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 4 2009, 03:29 AM) *
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

I am here as an individual.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Nov 6 2009, 06:34 AM
Post #71





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



[quote name='chris sarns' date='Nov 5 2009, 10:03 PM' post='10778727']


"The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757."


Er... according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 757 is 124.10" Therefore the wingspan of a 737 must be 12'10"


Or...according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 737 is 117'5". Therefore the wingspan of a 757 must be 229'5"


Or....Chris Sarn is a very sloppy researcher.

This post has been edited by Skeptik: Nov 6 2009, 06:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 08:28 AM
Post #72





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



QUOTE (Skeptik @ Nov 4 2009, 09:34 AM) *
"The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757."

Er... according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 757 is 124.10" Therefore the wingspan of a 737 must be 12'10"

Or...according to Boeing, the wingspan of a 737 is 117'5". Therefore the wingspan of a 757 must be 229'5"

Or....Chris Sarn is a very sloppy researcher.

Oops :-) Chris the sloppy typist. BTW: It's Sarns not Sarn. ;-)
That should read:
"The wingspan of a 737 is 12 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 09:48 AM
Post #73





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



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
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 09:54 AM
Post #74





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 10:24 AM) *
I am here as an individual.


We asked you what your relationship is to Gage in general.

Apparently there is none making it more apparent that your decision to level threats on his behalf was an uncontrollable emotional tirade coming from the mind of a very angry and likely delusional man.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 6 2009, 10:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 10:15 AM
Post #75





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



For the record.....immediately after Sarns' threat against us on behalf of Richard Gage I copied Gage on my reply.

Within a couple of hours I received an apology from Sarns which was accepted.

That has been revoked since Sarns chose to take his personal attacks against us public on 911blogger where he knew we had been censored and would not be able to reply.

I would have never said a word about it publicly if he was able to control himself and address this information like a rational human being. Clearly that is not something he is capable of so the truth about my only other interaction with this man outside of this thread deserves to be known.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 6 2009, 10:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 10:47 AM
Post #76





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 01:48 PM) *
It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over will make it true. It isn't true.

How can you say these witnesses were deceived? You asked and they told you they saw the plane hit the building. Sgt. Lagasse described in detail how it hit.

Sgt. Brooks: As you can see that's the impact point, and as you can see right now, anybody standing in this current location where I'm at, can actually see that, uh, straight on right there. There's nothing blocking, there was actually nothing blocking at the time. So there was a straight shot.

Craig: When you were standing right here looking toward the Pentagon and you saw the plane in a rapid descent past the station on the north side of the station, what did you see?

Sgt. Brooks: Ok what I'd seen then was the plane going directly in front of the building and what seemed to be a quick second we just seen a 'boom', and everything just, a great ball of fire just go straight up in the air. And it just, right on the impact. Just a great ball of fire.

Craig: were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?

Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon which is currently located over there...directly.

It was a big plane. I don't know if it's a 737. I'm assuming it was a 737.

Sgt Lagasse: Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.

Craig: Can you describe that again. It did a what into the building?

Sgt. Lagasse: A yaw. It moved on its yaw axis, meaning the tail, instead of the plane just doing this, kinda [motions one hand into the other] from here it looked like the tail went in, it didn't hit at a 90 degree angle, it was not flush, it hit off center. [motions one hand into the other at a 45 degree angle] It wasn't like it went in this way, [motions one hand into the other at 90 degree angle] it went in at an angle.


And you are calling me delusional???

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 6 2009, 11:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Nov 6 2009, 11:22 AM
Post #77



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Isn't the official account very specific, from the downing of the light poles to the path through the Pentagon? Isn't that path specific to an official south-of-CITCO path? If I am not mistaken, any other path, i.e. a North of CITCO path, is inconsistent with the official account and with the damage documented?

Isn't that the whole point here?

Just trying to get to the jist of it ... if I am somehow mistaken, someone please correct me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 12:02 PM
Post #78





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



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 6 2009, 04:22 PM) *
Isn't the official account very specific, from the downing of the light poles to the path through the Pentagon? Isn't that path specific to an official south-of-CITCO path? If I am not mistaken, any other path, i.e. a North of CITCO path, is inconsistent with the official account and with the damage documented?

Isn't that the whole point here?

Just trying to get to the jist of it ... if I am somehow mistaken, someone please correct me.


Sarns agrees with the witnesses that the plane was on the north side and believes the physical damage was staged including the light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole, and apparently most of the damage to the building but he considers the notion of a flyover "fruit loops" so he as engaged in a campaign to personally attack CIT and discredit Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Apparently physics and evidence is not important to Chris Sarns.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 6 2009, 12:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 6 2009, 12:19 PM
Post #79





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



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 4 2009, 03:22 PM) *
Isn't the official account very specific, from the downing of the light poles to the path through the Pentagon? Isn't that path specific to an official south-of-CITCO path? If I am not mistaken, any other path, i.e. a North of CITCO path, is inconsistent with the official account and with the damage documented?

Isn't that the whole point here?

Just trying to get to the jist of it ... if I am somehow mistaken, someone please correct me.

The north path proves the government is lying and the light poles were staged. So does this photo:
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/650/pole5.jpg

The point in question is the whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.
At 14:37 in this video, it establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible. The radius is 4,974 feet. It crosses the Pentagon at the impact point but leaves the Pentagon on the south-EAST side headed south-EAST. A commercial airliner could not turn fast enough to be anywhere over the south parking lot, much less at the west end where Roosevelt says it was, nor could it turn and fly over the Mall side. Therefore, Roosevelt is not a witness for flyover.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Four witnesses said it was a 757 and four said it was a 737. A 737 and a 757 look very similar.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7034/757737sm.jpg

Many others said it was a large airplane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 6 2009, 12:40 PM
Post #80





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 6 2009, 03:47 PM) *
You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over will make it true. It isn't true.


Yes it is true.

It is a scientific fact which is why a team of pilots and all CIT detractors who have ever published anything on the issue agree with me and not you.

QUOTE
How can you say these witnesses were deceived? You asked and they told you they saw the plane hit the building. Sgt. Lagasse described in detail how it hit.


By this logic you are suggesting that witnesses to the WTC collapse who believe it was caused by the planes and subsequent fires refute the scientific evidence for controlled demo.

It's amazing that you are having trouble grasping the concept of deception when discussing this issue.

QUOTE
And you are calling me delusional???


Reading comprehension?

I said:

"your decision to level threats on his behalf was an uncontrollable emotional tirade coming from the mind of a very angry and likely delusional man."


Since you are unwilling to reveal whether or not you have a relationship with Gage we can only assume that you do not.

IF this is the case then your decision to level threats on his behalf is not only inappropriate but, yes, delusional.

Perhaps you'll be willing to clear that up for us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th April 2017 - 05:41 PM