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

[chris sarns]

Subject shift noted.
How can you use government evidence of 757 parts to discredit my theory without discrediting your own?

All 3 witnesses at the Citgo station said the plane flew into the Pentagon. Two saw it completely and one not totally. Sean Boger saw the plane hit the Pentagon. You did not mention that in 'National Security Alert' because you think someone deceived them into just thinking they saw what they saw.

Your only first hand witness did not see the north path plane fly over the Pentagon. The plane he saw fly away to the south-west, could not have been the north path plane.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Subject shift noted.
How can you use government evidence of 757 parts to discredit my theory without discrediting your own?

Easily.

You claim the plane hit and we provide scientific proof that it did not.

Witnesses believing an impact at the Pentagon do not refute their placement of the plane on the north side proving it did not hit any more than witnesses of the WTC collapse who were deceived into believing the buildings fell due to the planes and subsequent fire refute the evidence for controlled demo.

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]

You claim the plane hit and we provide scientific proof that it did not.

What scientific evidence?

Witnesses believing an impact at the Pentagon do not refute their placement of the plane on the north side

Correct

proving it did not hit

Incorrect

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

P4T proved that a plane on the north could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.
At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

This is a scientific fact that you can not change.

P4T confirms a plane on the north path could not hit the light poles but they do not refute the fact that plane on the north path could descend and hit the Pentagon as 4 of your witnesses said it did.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 7 2009, 07:43 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

P4T proved that a plane on the north could hit the Pentagon at the impact point.
At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7034/757737sm.jpg

This is a scientific fact that you can not change.

P4T confirms a plane on the north path could not hit the light poles but they do not refute the fact that plane on the north path could descend and hit the Pentagon as 4 of your witnesses said it did.

Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path Sarns.

But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage.

Stop making a fool of yourself by making claims for others when you don't even understand what they have said.