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 seem to think it's up to me to prove the plane hit the Pentagon. Such is not the case. I offered a hypothesis. You all act like I did something terrible. I suggested another possibility that the explosives were in the construction trailers. These were just suggestions of what might account for the results. I do not claim that's what happened nor did I make a video saying had proof.

CIT made a video claiming their witnesses proved the plane did not hit the Pentagon, and that proves flyover.

P4T made a video proving a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

Four of CIT's witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon.

2 + 2 = 4 The plane hit the Pentagon.

Their only "flyover witness" does not support the P4T analysis showing which direction the plane would have flow away.

CIT is "cherry picking" the statements by their own witnesses and disregarding that which disproves their flyover theory.

You are arguing that the plane does not account for all the damage. The north path witnesses have no bearing on that, only the path the plane took.

The north path does not preclude the plane hitting the building as CIT claimed.

That is the point I have made.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 8 2009, 09:24 PM