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]

You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.

You do that.

If it hit why did people think a bomb went off and the jet kept on going? LOL.

An even better question: If we collected evidence of a north side flight path, which as Painter clearly spelled out for you can only mean a flyover, and Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up", and Maria De la Cerda thought it hit on top or on the other side and did not understand the side impact, and Roosevelt Roberts became the final validation in saying he saw the aircraft flying away from the pentagon seconds after the explosion, and considering we realize some people would have been fooled into believing it hit, WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE'S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to?

You are desperate and pathetic.

[chris sarns]

Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up"

You did not ask them what the plane did after that. Robert Turcios and Chadwick Brooks saw where the plane went. When you were video-recording them you could see that. Chadwick even said he could see the whole thing but you did not ask if he saw the plane hit the building. That is what you were supposedly investigating and they could have told you. They didn't actually have to see it hit to know that. The plane would have dropped behind what was obstructing their view of the first floor.

[rob balsamo]

You did not ask them what the plane did after that.

Yes they did.

Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

The ANC witnesses said they were running for their lives because the aircraft was approaching them (which is impossible if it were on the south path). Not to mention the fact there is a huge tree line blocking their view of the Pentagon.

Have you even reviewed NSA or AoP? Apparently not.

Furthermore, have you calculated the descent angles required for an impact from the north path and which poles would be damaged as a result? Do you realize an impact from the north path would probably take out the Heliport tower?

Chris, your whole impact theory from a north path while staging all the other damage of a south path is absurd.

Why would they impact an aircraft from a north path and stage damage from a completely opposite direction?

[chris sarns]

You did not ask them what the plane did after that.

Yes they did. Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

My bad.

Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

Your bad. He said he saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon.


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."

Robert: No, The view was obstructed still and I could only see the fire ball from the explosion.
Craig: Did you see it hit any light poles?
Robert: No, I may have missed that. I just saw it pick up, just to make . . .
Craig: You saw it pick up to miss that? Rather than hit any light poles. Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert: Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. Coli. .
Craig: OK, you didn't see it then. [interrupts to avoid further explanation and reaffirm didn’t see it]
Robert: [while Craig is talking] Collided.
Robert: No, I did not.
Craig: Cause there was other planes as well. [move on to something else]

Net result:
Robert saw the plane fly straight into the Pentagon but this is superbly obfuscated and never acknowledged.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/robertpullup.gif)

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, 03:27 AM

[chris sarns]

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.