Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible? Options

[chris sarns]

It's easier to put the disjointed pieces together by reading the transcript. Leaving out all the um's and searching for the right words, it breaks down like this:

Roosevelt:
coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

The purple-ish path is what Roosevelt surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west.
The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw and what Roosevelt saw.
The radius is about 330 feet. (?)

It's unlikely that Hani chickened out at the last second so let's assume somebody in the E4B was "flying" the 757 [or 737]. Assuming no pilot, can a 757 or 737 handle the g-forces to make that turn at a speed sufficient to stay in the air while making that turn?

(IMG:http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8973/rrflightpaths80.jpg)

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 4 2009, 10:30 AM

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

No no no, I get it.

CIT comes up with hard evidence proving an inside job, but Chris Sarns, armchair researcher and investigator deems it important to waste valuable time trying to interject HIS theory. HIS opinion.

K now what, Chris? The plane flew on the north side and then magically hit the building (while we ignore the gate cam video and directional damage disproving this nonsense). What are you doing about getting the evidence of the staged poles in front of people?

You've got some nerve going around calling CIT "incompetent" (as I saw you called us on blogger) as you spend countless hours poring over our research and the eyewitness testimony we collected. Research and testimony you would have never had if it weren't for us. Gotta love monday morning quarterbacks coming in to TELL US what really happened as they sit comfortably behind their monitor never setting foot in Arlington or in front of an actual eyewitness.

Let me repeat it...

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT. You can't change this.

[chris sarns]

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT.

We agree on those facts.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

We agree on those facts.

You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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".

[rob balsamo]

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.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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

[chris sarns]

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?

[painter]

<snip>There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

Indeed.

Reason for edit: typo