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]

From the OpEd article:

"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This statement is not true.

You acknowledge that a plane on the north path could have hit the building.

"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."
Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities

What other reasons you may have for the plane not hitting the Pentagon are a separate matter.

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. When you asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said NO. Sean Boger said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are NO witnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the pentagon.

You did a lot of excellent investigation and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but you went a bridge too far.

You selectively chose what you wanted to believe and not believe. You would be laughed out of any court.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 8 2009, 12:43 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

From the OpEd article:

"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

This statement is not true.

You acknowledge that a plane on the north path could have hit the building.

"Nobody denies that it could HYPOTHETICALLY hit the building on a north path."
Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities

So apparently you DON'T know what the word hypothetically means!

This is wild.

Ok one more time....

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.

[chris sarns]

So apparently you DON'T know what the word hypothetically means!

Hypothetically: involving ideas or possibilities [Windows dictionary]
You acknowledge that it was possible for the north path plane to hit the Pentagon.
Correct?
ETA: P4T has established that it was aerodynamically possible for the north path plane to hit the Pentagon.
What happened after that is another matter.

The point is that it can not cause any of the physical damage as photographed and reported.
You are saying that a plane on the north path would not do ANY damage when it hit the Pentagon.

ETA: You did not respond to this part:
The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In fact, they prove just the opposite. Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse saw the plane hit the building. Robert Turcios had an unobstructed view of all but the bottom floor. When you asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon he said NO. Sean Boger said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are NO witnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the pentagon.

You did a lot of excellent investigation and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not fly where the government said it did, but you went a bridge too far.

You selectively chose what you wanted to believe and not believe. You would be laughed out of any court.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 8 2009, 04:31 AM

[painter]

You are saying that a plane on the north path would not do ANY damage when it hit the Pentagon.

Not "would not," DID NOT -- because it did not impact.

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

Incapable of putting 2 & 2 together?

You rant about CIT cherry picking and yet all you do is choose one data set over another. First it was Roselvet Roberts to the exclusion of everyone else, now its the NOC witnesses to the exclusion of the damage at the Pentagon clearly outlined in NSA. Once again: There is no damage consistent with a NOC approach as described by the witnesses -- nor is there any evidence consistent with a "plane bomb".

Yes, we all know what a hypothesis is. We all understand that a good hypothesis has to account for ALL the observed events and evidence and NOT rely upon "possibilities" for which there is no evidence.

So lets cut the crap, Sarns:

• What evidence of an impact do you have that is consistent with a witnessed NOC approach?
• If your hypothesis is that the NOC approach plane did not impact, then what is your explanation for what happened to it and what evidence do you have to support it?