Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Roosevelt Roberts Interview
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Debate
Pages: 1, 2, 3
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?

Craig Ranke CIT
Your interpretation is not what he is describing. Yes he was confused regarding cardinal directions while relaying this over the phone during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving. That is typical for any human and to be expected.

But when he used landmarks it tells a different story.

"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

And then later:

It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.


So the plane came from the alleged impact side where he thought the "first plane" "flew into the Pentagon". This is clear. Yet he called that "southwest" and the blast site is NOT southwest of him.

That's because he was confused when relaying cardinal directions during an off the cuff interview which is quite normal.

No big deal.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.


Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around


Again that is not southwest, it is north.

We have said from day one that Roosevelt's account is not 100% clear and we regret that he clammed up after he got scared and backed out of the on-camera interview he later promised.

But for YOU to parse his words and poke holes in what is admittedly not perfect testimony can be for no other purpose but to suggest he completely fabricated his account and is LYING even though he is corroborated by ALL the north side witnesses who prove with scientific fact that the plane did not hit.

Deal with it Sarns.

The north side approach is 100% scientific proof that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

This is why no pilot, expert, researcher, or CIT detractor on earth who has ever published ANYTHING on this issue has contested this fact.

You are unreasonably scrutinizing Roosevelt's memory of what would be a VERY confusing and difficult situation to remember and relay accurately for ANYONE.

But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone.
Craig Ranke CIT
You see we have no problem acknowledging that ALL witness accounts are subjective and fallible.

That's why we rely so heavily on corroboration to validate details.

Roosevelt is corroborated by Erik Dihle and ALL the north side witnesses who prove a flyover.

NONE of the witnesses are 100% correct about all details and it would be unreasonable to expect ANY of them to be.

Witnesses are not computers.

But the GENERAL fact that the plane flew north of the gas station is proven as is the GENERAL fact that the plane flew away and that the corroborated right bank had it headed towards south parking.





But we will NEVER know the exact flight path down to a mathematical level because witnesses accounts are subjective and fallible.

Stop denying the undeniable implications of this information.

The plane did not hit the building Sarns and it did NOT explode in front of the building at the bottom floor without leaving a crater in the ground or leaving large pieces of recognizable debris.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 01:08 PM) *
And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.


Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around


Again that is not southwest, it is north.


For some reason, CIT detractors love to ignore this point when taking such an impromptu interview so literally.

Chris, if you are going to take such an interview so literally, you need to draw a new path taking the aircraft "over on the mall entrance side" and then turn.

Bottom line, Roberts describes an aircraft flying low and away immediately after the explosion. This is cause for serious further inquiry considering all the North Flight Path independently corroborated witness statements and statements made by Eric D to the CMH also explaining an aircraft "kept flying after the explosion".

Keep in mind, if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

Please review this presentation...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854
chris sarns
Rob,

Thank you for your reply. You answered my question.
At 14:48 in the video it establishes the north path is aerodynamically possible. The radius is 5,090 feet. However, it leaves the Pentagon on the south-EAST side headed south-EAST.

Roosevelt only saw the plane as it was flying away so he was just guessing which way it approached. [over the Mall side]

All that matters is which way it flew away.

Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-WEST.

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest.

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

Lane one is at the west end of the south parking lot, the Highway 27 side.

A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.




QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 05:35 PM) *
For some reason, CIT detractors love to ignore this point when taking such an impromptu interview so literally.

Chris, if you are going to take such an interview so literally, you need to draw a new path taking the aircraft "over on the mall entrance side" and then turn.

Bottom line, Roberts describes an aircraft flying low and away immediately after the explosion. This is cause for serious further inquiry considering all the North Flight Path independently corroborated witness statements and statements made by Eric D to the CMH also explaining an aircraft "kept flying after the explosion".

Keep in mind, if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

Please review this presentation...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854
Craig Ranke CIT
You are wrong Sarns.

He said it flew to the Mall entrance side after Aldo was asking him where it flew AWAY.

He described it coming FROM the alleged impact (yet mistakenly described that as being from the southwest) and banking around TO the Mall entrance (and also mistook that as being southwest).

He was clearly incorrect when relaying cardinal directions because NEITHER of those landmarks were southwest of him, while BOTH were actually north or northwest of him.

But that's ok because witnesses are subjective and typically fallible and his account of a plane flying away AT ALL supports the flyover and is corroborated by all north side approach witnesses.

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar even though he along with over a dozen north side witnesses corroborate each other proving 9/11 was an inside job?
rob balsamo
Landmarks trump cardinal direction every time when dealing with witnesses, or even pilots, especially in an informal setting. I cant count how many times i have heard other pilots/ATC.. .etc... say southwest when they meant southeast. Northwest when they meant northeast... ."Traffic 9 O'clock" when they meant "3 o'clock"... and so on... Its an honest mistake.

Ever gotten directions from a friend? Ever heard them say "turn left" when they meant right? Or, "We are on the east side of the highway", when they really are on the west side?

To take Roberts statement of "southwest" in an interview on a cell phone while he was driving as literal.. while ignoring his landmark statements is intellectually dishonest or cherry picking to fit an already established belief/agenda.

QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 03:02 PM) *
A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.


Sure "a plane" can. It depends on the type aircraft and perhaps any classified military technology involved.

Again,

...if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used, including classified military technology, leaving the possibilities numerous, perhaps endless, and therefore speculation. The North approach is not limited to 757 (or 737) performance as required for the south path.

(i bolded it this time as it appears you missed it the first time and in the video...)

Since Roberts refused a second meeting to clarify statements, his most important statement at this time is the fact he vividly remembers observing an aircraft immediately AFTER the explosion. This is fatal to the govt story. Some CIT detractors feel we should ignore this altogether. I understand why they feel that way. Unfortunately for the detractors, "Nothing to see here folks, move along" doesnt sit well with real truth seekers.
chris sarns
There was a problem with communication. When Aldo asked:
Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roosevelt told him where it was coming from.
Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Then he describes where it he saw it.
Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.
He is describing the south west corner of the south parking lot where the exit from 395 goes into the south parking lot at the south-west corner.

Aldo had to ask him again:
Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

Roosevelt: Right.

And again:
Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

That's clear. The plane flew away to the south-west back across Highway 27.

* * * * *
He said it flew to the Mall entrance side after Aldo was asking him where it flew AWAY.
No. Aldo asked him where it turned around.
Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

It flew over the mall before it turned around and then headed south-west away from the Pentagon.

He described it coming FROM the alleged impact (yet mistakenly described that as being from the southwest) and banking around TO the Mall entrance (and also mistook that as being southwest).
He was clearly incorrect when relaying cardinal directions because NEITHER of those landmarks were southwest of him, while BOTH were actually north or northwest of him.
[i]He did not describe the impact zone or the mall as being to the south-west nor did he say banking around TO the mall.


But that's ok because witnesses are subjective and typically fallible and his account of a plane flying away AT ALL supports the flyover and is corroborated by all north side approach witnesses.
He saw the plane fly away to the south-west.

Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar?
Quite the contrary, I'm taking his statement at face value.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 09:45 PM) *
Why are you accusing Roosevelt of being a liar?
Quite the contrary, I'm taking his statement at face value.


Ok then if you take his statement that he saw a plane AT ALL at "face value" you have no choice but to accept that he is ultimate corroboration for the flyover that has already been scientifically proven by the north side witnesses alone.

To unnecessarily scrutinize what parts of the flight path he is describing may be fallible or not has no relevance to the FACT that he saw the plane flying away at all.

Why are you so hell bent on casting doubt on this witness and what is your contention about his account if you refuse to accept the fact that he corroborates the north side witnesses who prove a flyover?
Craig Ranke CIT
Furthermore route 27 runs north alongside north parking so even if it was banking around to the Mall entrance side as he claims it would STILL be banking around towards route 27.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:02 PM) *
Ok then if you take his statement that he saw a plane AT ALL at "face value" you have no choice but to accept that he is ultimate corroboration for the flyover

NO! He is NOT corroboration, quite the contrary. He said the plane flew away to the south-west over lane one in the south west corner of the south parking lot like I drew it.

QUOTE
that has already been scientifically proven by the north side witnesses alone.

The north path witnesses do NOT prove flyover. That is based on an assumption that the plane would have to cause all the damage and that is not necessary. The other damage was caused by explosives. Your theory requires all the damage to be caused by explosives so why not just part of the damage?

QUOTE
To unnecessarily scrutinize what parts of the flight path he is describing may be fallible or not has no relevance to the FACT that he saw the plane flying away at all.

I know you would like to ignore this inconvenient truth but where and in which direction he saw it fly away proves it could not be the airplane approaching on the north path.

QUOTE
Why are you so hell bent on casting doubt on this witness

You're the one casting doubt on your own witness.

QUOTE
and what is your contention about his account if you refuse to accept the fact that he corroborates the north side witnesses who prove a flyover?

He does NOT corroborate the north flight path and the north flight path witnesses do not corroborate anything but the north flight path.

You can't double talk around the FACT that he said:

THE PLANE FLEW AWAY TO THE SOUTH-WEST ACROSS HIGHWAY 27!
Aldo Marquis CIT
Flying into south parking it would have been going south and then after making its u-turn to the mall entrance side would make it west. That could very well be what he meant by "south-west".

Regardless, the only plane it could be is the flyover plane. Either that or the C-130 and I called him back and confirmed the hell out what he saw, even informing him of the presence of the C-130 with propellors a few minutes after the explosion. He was sure that was not what he saw.

So I don't know what your purpose, nor do I understand where you get off trying to discredit witnesses that prove a flyover but debunk your silly and completely impossible NoC+impact theory. You may as well go after the north side flight path witnesses also, because guess what? They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building, as much as you want it to hit for some strange reason.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 10:27 PM) *
THE PLANE FLEW AWAY TO THE SOUTH-WEST ACROSS HIGHWAY 27!


I never denied that he said that.

But he also said that the impact point was southwest of him and that the mall entrance side was southwest of him.

He was clearly incorrect regarding southwest, a cardinal direction that is difficult for ANYONE to relay over the phone while driving and trying to remember specific details of a very complex and confusing event.

Witnesses are fallible Chris.

If you believe he saw a plane at all you believe he saw a flyover.

If you don't you are calling him a liar and are forced to present your own hypothesis to explain the north side accounts.

We already know that your own hypothesis is proven false by the physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence for an exploding 737 such as a massive crater in the ground in front of the building.

Let go of your ego and your pathetic stubborn bullheadedness for once and deal with the facts.

The plane did not hit and the north side approach proves it.
Aldo Marquis CIT
No no no, I get it.

CIT comes up with hard evidence proving an inside job, but Chris Sarns, armchair researcher and investigator deems it important to waste valuable time trying to interject HIS theory. HIS opinion.

K now what, Chris? The plane flew on the north side and then magically hit the building (while we ignore the gate cam video and directional damage disproving this nonsense). What are you doing about getting the evidence of the staged poles in front of people?

You've got some nerve going around calling CIT "incompetent" (as I saw you called us on blogger) as you spend countless hours poring over our research and the eyewitness testimony we collected. Research and testimony you would have never had if it weren't for us. Gotta love monday morning quarterbacks coming in to TELL US what really happened as they sit comfortably behind their monitor never setting foot in Arlington or in front of an actual eyewitness.

Let me repeat it...

A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT. You can't change this.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 10:31 PM) *
You may as well go after the north side flight path witnesses also, because guess what? They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building, as much as you want it to hit for some strange reason.


It's an incredibly bloated ego and a clear desire to be accepted and embraced by his 911blogger / anti-everything-about-the-pentagon-attack-clique.

He has relentlessly attacked us as evil genius "con-men" who are miraculously "fruit-loops" and "bonkers" at the same time.

Yet HE is the one who is the LONE PERSON ON EARTH to try and assert this scientifically impossible north side impact lunacy.

He's lost all control with reality in his desire to be accepted by the anti-CIT crowd while putting up this bogus "independent thinker" front.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 10:27 PM) *
The north path witnesses do NOT prove flyover. That is based on an assumption that the plane would have to cause all the damage and that is not necessary.


Yes it is necessary for the plane to cause damage if it hit because planes don't disappear.

Even if they have bombs in them.

QUOTE
The other damage was caused by explosives. Your theory requires all the damage to be caused by explosives so why not just part of the damage?


Because NONE of the damage could have been caused by an exploding plane on the north side.

NONE of it.

Not the light poles, generator trailer, facade damage, or the C-ring hole.

Plus there is no physical evidence for an exploding plane.

Your ridiculous exploding plane bomb theory is fatally contradicted by the lack of debris and lack of a massive crater in front of the building.

What do you not understand here?

Stop it with your relentless and ignorant personal campaign against us.

Stop speaking for Richard Gage and stop misrepresenting this information and spending all your time trying to obfuscate and create the impression there is a debate here.

Go back to making yourself feel useful by focusing all your attention on WTC7 again.

I'm sure you do a great job convincing people of the obvious but you have proven yourself an obstinate buffoon when it comes to real research and investigation concerning the Pentagon attack.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:31 PM) *
Flying into south parking it would have been going south and then after making its u-turn

It made the turn before it got to the south parking lot.

QUOTE
to the mall entrance side would make it west.

The Mall was north.

QUOTE
That could very well be what he meant by "south-west".

He meant south-west from the south-west corner of the south parking lot going south-west.
Maybe this will help:


QUOTE
Regardless, the only plane it could be is the flyover plane.

It could NOT be the plane approaching from the west because it could not turn that quick.

QUOTE
So I don't know what your purpose

Yes you do.

QUOTE
nor do I understand where you get off trying to discredit witnesses that prove a flyover

You're the one trying to ignore what he said.

QUOTE
They certainly prove the plane did not hit the building

No they don't.
Craig Ranke CIT
Sarns you've got nothing.

You've got ZERO evidence for your theory.

You have accused us of CONNING Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and many more while posturing yourself as somehow smarter than all of them and able to see right through our evil plot.

You are not smarter than any of them and you have not shown yourself to even have basic common sense.

It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage and there is ZERO evidence that a plane exploded at ground level just outside the facade.


THINK ABOUT THAT.

Stop being such a bullheaded fool and realize that NONE of the published CIT detractors will back you on your idiotic north side impact theory and in fact pretty much all of them have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover.

You are not a researcher nor a studied individual on this information.

When I called you in July you had not even viewed National Security Alert.

But it only took one day before you were emotionally flying off the handle and making THREATS against us on behalf of Richard Gage DEMANDING that we remove our statements in NSA that a north side approach proves a flyover.

It's clear that you are not an emotionally stable individual and your reputation for your inability to control your emotions and communicate like a reasonable adult is well known.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:40 PM) *
A plane approaching on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the 5 light poles, show up low and level as seen in the dubious gate cam frames, hit the gen trailer with its right engine, and cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole. This is FACT.

We agree on those facts.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:14 PM) *
We agree on those facts.


It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage and there is ZERO evidence that a plane exploded at ground level just outside the facade.

This proves the plane flew away and that Roosevelt is not lying about this with no motive.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 10:14 PM) *
Sarns you've got nothing.

You've got ZERO evidence for your theory.

That's right.

QUOTE
It is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage

Right again.

QUOTE
in fact pretty much of them have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover.

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

QUOTE
You are not a researcher or studied individual on this info.

I have done little else for the last week and I had already studied your videos and witness statements for many, many hours.

The transcript was what allowed me to figure out what Roosevelt was saying. The interview is chaotic and the information disjointed but it's there.
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:03 AM) *
It made the turn before it got to the south parking lot.


No when he saw it, it was flying around south parking lot, "banking just above the light poles", making a u-turn out towards the mall entrance side.


QUOTE
The Mall was north.


I know. That is where the plane flew towards. That is not southwest.


QUOTE
He meant south-west from the south-west corner of the south parking lot going south-west.


Man, you sound confused. He "meant" that? You talked to him? You got it all cleared up Chris?

That's why he said it was traveling east towards DC, coming from where he believe the first plane hit, then making a u turn out going to the mall entrance side on the north.

QUOTE
Maybe this will help:


Aww, ur losing it huh? Getting frustrated? Well just admit you are wrong. It's ok.


QUOTE
It could NOT be the plane approaching from the west because it could not turn that quick.


You know how quick it turned? You were there? You went back in time and timed everything as you stood next to Roosevelt?


QUOTE
Yes you do.


No, I don't. That is why I asked. Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

QUOTE
You're the one trying to ignore what he said.


Right, as you ignore that the mall entrance is to the north.

So how did it get from south parking lot over the mall entrance side, Chris? Did it go SW to get there? LOL. laughing1.gif


QUOTE
No they don't.


Only in the lone mind of Chris Sarns on whatever planet he is from.
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:14 AM) *
We agree on those facts.


You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:28 PM) *
The transcript was what allowed me to figure out what Roosevelt was saying. The interview is chaotic and the information disjointed but it's there.


So what is your contention?

What are you suggesting he saw if it wasn't the plane flying away?
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 11:29 PM) *
You may want to read that again lol. You just admitted you are wrong.


His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.

I kid you not.

THAT is the result of his arm chair research and justification for publicly accusing us of being "fruit loops con-men".
chris sarns
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 07:40 PM) *
Landmarks trump cardinal direction every time when dealing with witnesses, or even pilots, especially in an informal setting. I cant count how many times i have heard other pilots/ATC.. .etc... say southwest when they meant southeast. Northwest when they meant northeast... ."Traffic 9 O'clock" when they meant "3 o'clock"... and so on... Its an honest mistake.

To take Roberts statement of "southwest" in an interview on a cell phone while he was driving as literal.

He said he was in the south parking lot. He knew which direction south was. He knew Highway 27 was to the west.

QUOTE
while ignoring his landmark statements is intellectually dishonest or cherry picking to fit an already established belief/agenda.

I didn't expect that from you.


A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.

QUOTE
Sure "a plane" can. It depends on the type aircraft and perhaps any classified military technology involved.

Not the plane the north path witnesses described.

QUOTE
if you accept the north flight path statements, any type of aircraft could have been used,

Terry Morin said it was a 737 and later said it must have been a 757. There's not much difference.

A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757-200. The wingspan of a 373 is 12 feet less than a 757. The fuselage width is 12 feet for both.

QUOTE
Since Roberts refused a second meeting to clarify statements, his most important statement at this time is the fact he vividly remembers observing an aircraft immediately AFTER the explosion. This is fatal to the govt story.

He reaffirmed 10 seconds.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.

This is your witness so if you don't believe him then how can you say he proves or even supports flyover?
chris sarns
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 09:43 PM) *
So what is your contention?

What are you suggesting he saw if it wasn't the plane flying away?
I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:07 AM) *
He said he was in the south parking lot. He knew which direction south was. He knew Highway 27 was to the west.


He knew where south parking is because they have lots of signs telling you so.


QUOTE
I didn't expect that from you.


A plane on the north path could not turn and head south-west as he stated.


Actually a plane can. But that is not what he describes he describes it doing a u-turn out and heading to the Mall Entrance side.


QUOTE
Not the plane the north path witnesses described.


Actually yes it can.


QUOTE
Terry Morin said it was a 737 and later said it must have been a 757. There's not much difference.

A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757-200. The wingspan of a 373 is 12 feet less than a 757. The fuselage width is 12 feet for both.


Yeah it could have been a 737. So? Doesn't change that it could not and did not hit.


QUOTE
He reaffirmed 10 seconds.

Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

Craig: Or a little bit more?

Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.


So? He also said 10 seconds tops. So it could be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 seconds. For all you know, they could have been setting off the internal bombs before the plane even reached the building, prompting Roosevelt to run out and see the plane at what he thought was close to 10 seconds. A 7 steps to the edge of the loading dock, that is a clear indicator that it can only be the flyover plane he saw.

QUOTE
This is your witness so if you don't believe him then how can you say he proves or even supports flyover?


Dude listen to you. You sound like those scumbag "skeptics" who have ran out of fuel so they try some bizarre reverse psychology by trying to insinuate we "don't believe" our witnesses.

You lost, Chris. Go home. Stop being a spoiled sport.
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 12:32 AM) *
I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.



Actually that is exactly what it was the plane that banked to the right on the north side of the gas station taking it right into south parking lot.

He can believe it was a second plane all he wants. It can only be the flyover plane. It wasn't the C-130 and it wasn't an errant commercial flight from or headed to Reagan.

National Groundstop was enacted by 9:25, so it could not be a departure. Which we also know it would not be because of the direction it approached from. And it could not be an arrival , because planes were landing from the south that day.

You lose again.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 01:32 AM) *
I don't know but it could not be the plane on the north path. He thought is was another plane and it flew over Highway 27 at less than 100 feet. That's what he said.


If you don't have an explanation for the plane and you don't think he is lying about seeing the plane then you have no choice but to admit you agree he corroborates the north side witnesses who scientifically prove a flyover.

It's as simple as that.

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud and start being productive by getting this evidence that you agree proves 9/11 was an inside job into the hands of media and congresspeople.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 5 2009, 02:35 AM) *
Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud....



For the record this why it may seem as if Aldo and I are being a bit hard on Chris Sarns.

For the past few weeks on 911blogger he has engaged in an all out campaign to attack us personally by calling us "looney tunes", "bonkers", "fruit-loops", and outright "professional con-men" and of course "disinformation".

He has engaged in persistent and absolutely baseless personal attacks without shame EVEN THOUGH he admits that he accepts the north side approach evidence and even believes the light poles, generator trailer, and much more of the physical damage was staged.

There is no logic or excuse for his behavior whatsoever. It's been absolutely out of control as his obsession with attacking us and harsh rhetoric has continuously escalated.

All of this supposedly because we state the undeniable scientific fact that ALL supporters and detractors who have published anything on this issue unanimously agree on.......the north side approach proves a flyover.

Unless there is more behind his motive that he has not revealed.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 10:28 PM) *
No when he saw it, it was flying around south parking lot,

Flying around? He does not say that.
Here's what he said:

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?

Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.

Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

The lane one area is the west end of the south parking lot.


QUOTE
"banking just above the light poles", making a u-turn out towards the mall entrance side.

No. It was over the south west corner [lane one] of the south parking lot headed south-west over Highway 27.
Craig Ranke CIT
Chris,

Eyewitnesses are fallible.

Not only that they often deduce and embellish.

They are subjective and are virtually NEVER 100% correct.

You are a fool if you believe that YOUR extreme literal interpretation of his words is exactly what he meant or saw.

If you believe he saw a plane over the parking lot AT ALL within seconds of the explosion you are admitting to a flyover.

No matter how hard you work to discredit Roosevelt Roberts and us personally you can not change that fact.

Now cease your public campaign to discredit us personally with baseless accusations of fraud.

In fact if you are the least bit honest you will issue a full public apology as an entry to your blog at blogger. If you don't you will always be considered someone with a personal agenda against us as a detriment to exposing the 9/11 deception.

Don't fool yourself. Your little gate keeping anti-cit clique at blogger do NOT represent the majority of the truth movement or the true research community.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 03:12 AM) *
Flying around? He does not say that.


Yes he does say that.

He said it to the Library of Congress in 2001.

"As I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot"

Stop pretending like you know what you are talking about or faking like you are an authority on this issue just because you have been literally obsessed with personally attacking us and attempting to discredit the witnesses the past week.

That does not make you a studied researcher.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 06:50 PM) *
His theory is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.


laughing1.gif

Chris, you may want to check the weather for that time of the day, the winds were from the opposite direction (Northwest). Unless of course you feel there was some huge wind machine from the south turned on just as a 737 passed Morin, and then turned off once near the Pentagon?

See top of our Pentagon page for Current Weather at DCA (METAR) and for decode link.

METAR KDCA 111251Z 35005KT 10SM CLR 21/14 A3021
SPECI KDCA 111341Z 33010KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111351Z 34009KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3023
METAR KDCA 111451Z 32008KT 4SM HZ CLR 24/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111551Z 33009G15KT 7SM CLR 26/14 A3021

I bolded the above relevant portion. Winds were from 330 degrees at 10 knots.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 5 2009, 03:41 AM) *
Chris, you may want to check the weather for that time of the day, the winds were from the opposite direction (Northwest).


Only researchers actually do research BEFORE presenting theories.

People like Chris Sarns who prefer to personally attack real researchers and obfuscate real evidence will say anything to cast doubt and make it look like there is a "debate".

They don't even care about their own credibility.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 12:21 AM) *
Chris,

Eyewitnesses are fallible.

Not only that they often deduce and embellish.

They are subjective and are virtually NEVER 100% correct.

You are a fool if you believe that YOUR extreme literal interpretation of his words is exactly what he meant or saw.

He said the plane was "around the lane one area" That's at the west end of the south parking lot. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Do you believe him?

If not what do you believe.?
chris sarns
This is yesterdays news. I scrapped that idea. I realized that the plane could have followed the average north path an hit the building causing the damage on the lower floors. There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

It didn't do the interior damage. So what? You cannot rule out the possibility explosives caused the rest of the damage. In your theory, all the damage is caused by explosives so you know that is possible.

You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you show where he said something else?
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 08:27 AM) *
He said the plane was "around the lane one area" That's at the west end of the south parking lot. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Do you believe him?

If not what do you believe.?


He says the plane came from the alleged impact side (west) and banked around to the mall entrance side (north).

Of course I believe him because he has no motive to lie, is corroborated by Erik Dihle and all the north side witnesses, and he is the ultimate confirmation of a deception on 9/11.

But I am also a reasonable and logical person who understands that witnesses are subjective and fallible especially when considering the extremely confusing and chaotic nature of the event he is relaying.

Furthermore I understand how you have a confirmation bias against a flyover and a personal vendetta against CIT and have chosen to vigorously pursue this publicly by literally attacking us and the witnesses with no basis whatsoever in a blatant attempt to discredit us.

Only 2 days ago after accusing us of being con-men you admitted this on blogger regarding your agenda against Roosevelt Roberts' account and us personally:

QUOTE (Chris Sarns Wed Nov 4th on 911blogger)
Taking his statement at face value, it does not support the flyover theory which is my only concern. I don't care if he saw a flying pig, it leaves CIT with zip, nada, no frikkin witnesses. ;-)

Did I mention I don't like those guys (CIT)?
(emphasis added)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21720#comment-220901


So you admitted that you are reducing his words to "face value" while ignoring the extremely confusing and chaotic nature of the event being discussed and the fact that witness accounts are subjective and fallible -- all as a means to come up with your own impossible interpretation of the exact details of Roosevelt's account so you can feel comfortable DISMISSING what he saw with a hand wave and no explanation whatsoever.

And of course you also admitted that you have a personal grudge against us even though we have never met and the extent of our communication has been this thread and one phone call in July. After which, the very next day, you immediately flew off the handle emotionally via email and made DEMANDS that we change the entire premise of National Security Alert, and actualy leveled threats against us on behalf of Richard Gage.

This behavior and your continuous personal attacks against us ever since is all very solid evidence that you, Christopher Sarns, are not a stable individual who is looking at this information objectively.
Ligon
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 02:46 AM) *
You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

So you acknowledge that Roosevelt DID see a large commercial aircraft after all, but you think that it was a SECOND large commercial aircraft that was flying over the south parking lot headed southwest across route 27 just seconds after the explosion, even though NO ONE corroborates that. Got it. No, you're right Chris. That makes way more sense than Roosevelt simply having his cardinal directions wrong "during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving." as Craig suggested.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 08:46 AM) *
This is yesterdays news. I scrapped that idea. I realized that the plane could have followed the average north path an hit the building causing the damage on the lower floors. There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.


You have no coherent hypothesis because you are not a researcher.

Your are stubborn angry man with an admitted personal grudge against us who has shown himself to be more concerned with personally attacking CIT and obfuscating the facts than exposing the 9/11 deception.

QUOTE
It didn't do the interior damage. So what? You cannot rule out the possibility explosives caused the rest of the damage. In your theory, all the damage is caused by explosives so you know that is possible.


Of course it's possible for the damage to the building to be staged with pre-planted explosives but what is NOT possible is for a large plane full of bombs to explode and completely disintegrate at ground level without creating a massive crater in the ground.

This proves your theory false which is why you have failed to address it.

QUOTE
You know that the plane could not have made that turn. You know Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west over Highway 27. Therefore, you know the plane he saw was could not be the plane that flew the north path.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you show where he said something else?


Yes we've already done that...he says it banked around to the Mall entrance side which is north.

Route 27 runs alongside north parking too.

Either way the fact that he saw a plane over the parking lot immediately after the explosion at all supports a flyover and corroborates the north side witnesses who already prove the plane did not hit.

Your admitted personal grudge against us and clear desire to attack us personally and attempt to discredit Roosevelt Roberts Jr proves you are unable to look at this information logically or objectively.
painter
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 4 2009, 11:46 PM) *
<snip>There is nothing about the north path that precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

I'm surprised this has been left to stand unchallenged.

There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon but there is nothing about the damage at the Pentagon -- within the Pentagon or its immediate environment -- indicating it did. NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the downed light poles which clearly demand a south flight path. We have no evidence of a descent angle that could avoid those obstructions yet simultaneously impact the building at precisely ground level without causing either damage to the lawn or the foundation of the building. In fact, we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles we know were staged because the plane was not witnessed on the path required to hit them, a few not positively identified (and not publicly available for analysis) pieces of debris and the damage along the facade and within the building which also, not coincidentally, aligns with a south approach.

If the north approach witnesses are to be believed (and I've not been given any reason to not believe them) the plane they witnessed is irreconcilable with the damage at the Pentagon. This leaves us with one, and only one, REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon. Attempts to suggest that the plane somehow impacted without leaving any evidential damage or that it somehow "disintegrated" is grasping at straws -- and it begs the question: Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated? So much so that one would float alternative hypotheses with no evidence to support them? What is it about the Pentagon that in the minds of some, despite all evidence to the contrary, demands an impact? So much so that they will grasp at straws in a vein attempt to hold open this "possibility"?

We cannot talk about the events at the Pentagon by isolating one witness and divorcing his account from the accounts of all other witnesses. We have multiple accounts which agree not only with a north approach but in multiple instances with a right bank and in one instance reporting a "pull up" at hwy 27. There is NO EVIDENCE for an impact along this approach, especially with a right bank and doubly especially with a "pull up". Again, that leaves us with only one REASONABLE hypothesis unless one wants to grasp at straws not supported by any evidence.

That those who wish to support 'keeping open the possibility that the plane did impact along the north approach' also find it necessary to resort to insults and defamation of character against those who hold a perfectly reasonable hypothesis given the evidence further begs the question: Why? Why is it so necessary to retain this unsubstantiated hypothesis in the mind?

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 4 2009, 03:28 PM) *
Is it disruption? Disinfo? Distraction? Subterfuge? Ego?

Indeed.
Aldo Marquis CIT
And there you have it, Chris. Thank you so much painter. That was perfectly put.
Craig Ranke CIT
Only researchers and truly objective scientists require evidence in support of their theories.

People like Chris Sarns who prefer to personally attack real researchers and obfuscate real evidence will say anything to cast doubt and make it look like there is a "debate".

Evidence isn't required when that is your intent.
chris sarns
QUOTE (painter @ Nov 3 2009, 04:30 PM) *
There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.

QUOTE
NO EVIDENCE of a north approach impact.

There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.

QUOTE
We have no evidence of a plane impacting any of the obstructions along hwy 27 other than the down light poles which clearly demand a south flight path.

Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]



There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.

QUOTE
we have no evidence of a plane impacting the building at all except for light poles . . .
REASONABLE conclusion: The plane these witnesses saw must have flown over the Pentagon.

The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.



I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE
Why is it so important to some that the fly-over hypothesis be obfuscated?

I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
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

CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."

It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.

Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.

At 22:55 of "National Security Alert", Craig says "So it flew up to go over that" [the Do Not Enter sign]
Robert Turcios "Yes"
Robert then said "The view [unintelligible] My view was . . . I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon."
Craig says "You didn't actually see it hit the Pentagon".
The subtitles on the screen leave out Robert's reply "The view was obstructed still" and skip to "I could only see the fire ball from the explosion."

At 24:20, Craig says "This is exactly where you saw the plane fly by, right?”
Robert "Yes"
The Pentagon is in the background and all but the bottom floor is clearly visible.
Robert said he did not totally see the plane hit the Pentagon because his view was obstructed. He would still be able to see the vertical stabilizer. Only the first floor was hidden from his view. In other words, the plane hit the first floor.

Starting at 26:20: In the interview with Officer Chadwick Brooks, the pentagon is clearly visible in the background. The view of the bottom floor is obstructed.
Officer Brooks:
"From this point right here we were able to see everything."
How could he miss seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon?
To borrow a quote from Craig:
"A ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make, let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report."

Sean Boger was in the Heliport control tower. He said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT believes every part of his story except the part that contradicts their flyover theory.
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 10:03 PM) *
Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.


It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.

But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit from the north side.

QUOTE
There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.


ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

That is the point.

All researchers including CIT detractors agree that the plane can ONLY approach from south of the gas station to cause the physical damage.

You are the lone dissenting voice but you are unable to articulate a coherent or feasible hypothesis because you do not have one and you are wrong.

Furthermore you have admitted an unprovoked personal grudge against us and have a clear confirmation bias against the flyover proving you are not objective or even a reasonable/civil human being.

QUOTE
Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]

There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.


Actually Killtown has been harping about this for years so it's funny to watch you all the sudden act like it's some big discovery of yours!

Yes the light poles were staged but a lack of gouge in the lawn is not "proof" of it in the least.

The eyewitness evidence uncovered by CIT is the proof.

P4T does not assert that the light poles were staged or any hypothesis at all. They present facts and professional analysis regarding the official NTSB data and aircraft capabilities.

QUOTE
The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.


Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of recognizable 737 debris ANYWHERE? Bombs inside the plane would not disintegrate the entire plane including tail section and wings. Those appendages would be sent flying.

And why didn't this plane bomb leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

I'll tell you why, your ridiculous theory that you admit has no evidence to support it is false.

QUOTE
I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.


No govt controlled evidence released after the fact will ever prove anything.

The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

Just ask Hoffman, Legge, Caustic Logic, or any of the other CIT detractors who have looked at this infintiely more closely than you have.

You are not smarter than any of them.

In fact you have shown yourself to be nothing but an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

QUOTE
I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.


Yes there is.

That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.

QUOTE
Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
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.


No matter how many times you post it it does not change the fact that WHEREVER the plane exactly flew you must agree that Roosevelt's account confirms a flyover unless you are willing to accuse him of fabricating his story with no motive.

QUOTE
CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."


No we didn't. We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=499&st=0

Furthermore we do not claim that Dihle was telling the CMH that he BELIEVES the plane flew over and the beginning is included where he specifically states there was a lot of confusion and people weren't sure what happened.

This is what facilitated the deception.

Confusion.

It's clear that most people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit exactly like they were deceived into believing the plane impacts and subsequent fires at the wtc caused the buildings to collapse.

Nothing was "misrepresented" so cease your baseless accusations due to your admitted personal grudge against us now.


QUOTE
It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.


You can't really be this dumb.

Are you??

"Cancel each other out"????

This isn't a game.

This is evidence of a psychological black operation of deception.

We KNOW that people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit but if it did NOBODY would think it flew over.

This can't be so difficult for your stubborn brain to comprehend.

QUOTE
Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.



So you really ARE this dumb!

Wow.

Pssst.......ALL of the north side witnesses believed the plane hit.

That is why they talked to us in the first place.

They did not understand the implications of what they saw and they were successfully deceived as intended. They would have never talked to us if they thought the plane flew over.

We have never denied this and in fact it only adds to their credibility because they are not pushing a conspiracy.

But it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the directional physical damage that requires a south side approach.

You are not more intelligent than the entire organization of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and every CIT detractor who has ever published anything on this issue.

That much is as clear as is your unprovoked yet admitted personal grudge against CIT that is keeping you from looking at this information objectively.
chris sarns
QUOTE
There may be nothing about the north path that precludes the "possibility" of the plane hitting the Pentagon

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 09:47 PM) *
It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.
But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit.
ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.

You just contradicted yourself.
The damage could have been caused by explosives. Your flyover scenario requires all the damage be due to explosives. Why not just part of the damage?
You are still making the claim that the damage precludes the north path approach. That claim is invalid.

QUOTE
Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of 737 debris ANYWHERE?
And why didn't it leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?

Witnesses said debris was falling around them.
These two explosions did not leave a crater.






QUOTE
The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.

What scientific proof? The damage not caused by an impact could have been caused by explosives.

QUOTE
In fact you have proven to be an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.

Several people told me that some of the comments I have made are not helping my case so I have stopped making them. You are hardly in a position to criticize anyone for badmouthing others. Your posts here and your enemies list do so in the extreme. You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.

QUOTE
I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.

QUOTE
That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.
Roosevelt said the plane flew away to the south-west. You have stated that he said the plane flew away to the north. Please post the statement that supports that claim.

QUOTE
CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."


QUOTE
We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.

But you don't include the conflicting statements when you claim publicly that Eric's statement supports flyover, nor do you mention that Eric overheard them. You know most people will not listen to the full interview and think Eric's account is first hand. They will not know about the equally valid statements from the same location that conflict with the "confirmed by" claim you make.
Aldo Marquis CIT
QUOTE
You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement and will continue to say so.


You do that.

If it hit why did people think a bomb went off and the jet kept on going? LOL.

An even better question: If we collected evidence of a north side flight path, which as Painter clearly spelled out for you can only mean a flyover, and Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up", and Maria De la Cerda thought it hit on top or on the other side and did not understand the side impact, and Roosevelt Roberts became the final validation in saying he saw the aircraft flying away from the pentagon seconds after the explosion, and considering we realize some people would have been fooled into believing it hit, WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE'S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to?

You are desperate and pathetic.
chris sarns
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 3 2009, 11:44 PM) *
Robert Turcios indicates he saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway, and Darius Prather saw it "pivot up"

You did not ask them what the plane did after that. Robert Turcios and Chadwick Brooks saw where the plane went. When you were video-recording them you could see that. Chadwick even said he could see the whole thing but you did not ask if he saw the plane hit the building. That is what you were supposedly investigating and they could have told you. They didn't actually have to see it hit to know that. The plane would have dropped behind what was obstructing their view of the first floor.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 09:30 PM) *
You did not ask them what the plane did after that.



Yes they did.

Chris, your ignorance of this topic is very unbecoming.

Robert said he wasn't sure what happened after that as all he saw was a big fireball. He assumed the aircraft hit.

The ANC witnesses said they were running for their lives because the aircraft was approaching them (which is impossible if it were on the south path). Not to mention the fact there is a huge tree line blocking their view of the Pentagon.

Have you even reviewed NSA or AoP? Apparently not.

Furthermore, have you calculated the descent angles required for an impact from the north path and which poles would be damaged as a result? Do you realize an impact from the north path would probably take out the Heliport tower?

Chris, your whole impact theory from a north path while staging all the other damage of a south path is absurd.

Why would they impact an aircraft from a north path and stage damage from a completely opposite direction?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.