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

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.

[chris sarns]

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, 12:03 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.

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.

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.