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

[chris sarns]

There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.

NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.

We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the down light poles which clearly demand a south flight path.

Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]

(IMG:http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/650/pole5.jpg)

There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.

we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles . . .
REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon.

The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.

(IMG:http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7923/pentagondamagecomposit.jpg)

I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.

Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated?

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
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

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.

Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

At 22:55 of "National Security Alert", Craig says "So it flew up to go over that" [the Do Not Enter sign]
Robert Turcios "Yes"
Robert then said "The view [unintelligible] My view was . . . I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon."
Craig says "You didn't actually see it hit the Pentagon".
The subtitles on the screen leave out Robert's reply "The view was obstructed still" and skip to "I could only see the fire ball from the explosion."

At 24:20, Craig says "This is exactly where you saw the plane fly by, right?”
Robert "Yes"
The Pentagon is in the background and all but the bottom floor is clearly visible.
Robert said he did not totally see the plane hit the Pentagon because his view was obstructed. He would still be able to see the vertical stabilizer. Only the first floor was hidden from his view. In other words, the plane hit the first floor.

Starting at 26:20: In the interview with Officer Chadwick Brooks, the pentagon is clearly visible in the background. The view of the bottom floor is obstructed.
Officer Brooks:
"From this point right here we were able to see everything."
How could he miss seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon?
To borrow a quote from Craig:
"A ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make, let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report."

Sean Boger was in the Heliport control tower. He said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT believes every part of his story except the part that contradicts their flyover theory.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 5 2009, 06:18 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.

It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.

But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit from the north side.

There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.

ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

That is the point.

All researchers including CIT detractors agree that the plane can ONLY approach from south of the gas station to cause the physical damage.

You are the lone dissenting voice but you are unable to articulate a coherent or feasible hypothesis because you do not have one and you are wrong.

Furthermore you have admitted an unprovoked personal grudge against us and have a clear confirmation bias against the flyover proving you are not objective or even a reasonable/civil human being.

Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]

There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.

Actually Killtown has been harping about this for years so it's funny to watch you all the sudden act like it's some big discovery of yours!

Yes the light poles were staged but a lack of gouge in the lawn is not "proof" of it in the least.

The eyewitness evidence uncovered by CIT is the proof.

P4T does not assert that the light poles were staged or any hypothesis at all. They present facts and professional analysis regarding the official NTSB data and aircraft capabilities.

The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.

Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of recognizable 737 debris ANYWHERE? Bombs inside the plane would not disintegrate the entire plane including tail section and wings. Those appendages would be sent flying.

And why didn't this plane bomb leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

I'll tell you why, your ridiculous theory that you admit has no evidence to support it is false.

I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.

No govt controlled evidence released after the fact will ever prove anything.

The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

Just ask Hoffman, Legge, Caustic Logic, or any of the other CIT detractors who have looked at this infintiely more closely than you have.

You are not smarter than any of them.

In fact you have shown yourself to be nothing but an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

Yes there is.

That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.

Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
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.

No matter how many times you post it it does not change the fact that WHEREVER the plane exactly flew you must agree that Roosevelt's account confirms a flyover unless you are willing to accuse him of fabricating his story with no motive.

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

No we didn't. We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=499&st=0

Furthermore we do not claim that Dihle was telling the CMH that he BELIEVES the plane flew over and the beginning is included where he specifically states there was a lot of confusion and people weren't sure what happened.

This is what facilitated the deception.

Confusion.

It's clear that most people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit exactly like they were deceived into believing the plane impacts and subsequent fires at the wtc caused the buildings to collapse.

Nothing was "misrepresented" so cease your baseless accusations due to your admitted personal grudge against us now.

It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.

You can't really be this dumb.

Are you??

"Cancel each other out"????

This isn't a game.

This is evidence of a psychological black operation of deception.

We KNOW that people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit but if it did NOBODY would think it flew over.

This can't be so difficult for your stubborn brain to comprehend.

Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

So you really ARE this dumb!

Wow.

Pssst.......ALL of the north side witnesses believed the plane hit.

That is why they talked to us in the first place.

They did not understand the implications of what they saw and they were successfully deceived as intended. They would have never talked to us if they thought the plane flew over.

We have never denied this and in fact it only adds to their credibility because they are not pushing a conspiracy.

But it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the directional physical damage that requires a south side approach.

You are not more intelligent than the entire organization of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and every CIT detractor who has ever published anything on this issue.

That much is as clear as is your unprovoked yet admitted personal grudge against CIT that is keeping you from looking at this information objectively.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 5 2009, 07:30 PM