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]

You did not address the point which is: The plane does not need to do all the damage.

You agree that:
"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."

In other words, the plane on the north path could have hit the building.

This is what you use to support your claim that the plane did not hit the building.
"But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage."

This statement implies the plane must do all the damage or it did not hit the Pentagon. You know that is not true so why do you claim that this proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 7 2009, 10:11 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

You did not address the point which is: The plane does not need to do all the damage.

It can not do ANY of it.

The plane had to completely disintegrate by your loaded up bombs and that notion is ridiculous.

You agree that:
"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."

In other words, the plane on the north path could have hit the building.

Do you not know what the word hypothetically means?

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

NONE of it is reconcilable with a plane on the north side approach so for the plane to not flyover it would had to have completely disintegrated.

Impossible and ridiculous ESPECIALLY without causing a massive crater in the ground.

Just stop this desperate ridiculousness.

This is what you use to support your claim that the plane did not hit the building.
"But EVERYONE knows for a FACT that it is physically impossible to cause the damage."

This statement implies the plane must do all the damage or it did not hit the Pentagon. You know that is not true so why do you claim that this proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

No it doesn't imply that nor have I claimed that.

The factual statement which is backed up by all CIT detractors and supporters who have published anything on this issue is that the plane MUST be on the south side to cause ANY of the physical damage as photographed and reported.

Go away Sarns.