Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

twinstead

Penultimate Amazing
twinstead
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
12,374
I don't normally start threads, but I'm curious. We've had countless Pentagon threads, but I've never heard anybody suggest that the event was a combination of explosives and plane damage, and from what I can remember that there were two planes, but I could be wrong about that.

When you can take some time off from your photo analysis, Mobertermy. No rush...
 
North of Citgo (noc) doesn't prove flyover. The plane could have still hit from NoC. It just means that all the damage to the south of the impact would have been caused explosives.
 
Mobertermy said:
North of Citgo (noc) doesn't prove flyover. The plane could have still hit from NoC. It just means that all the damage to the south of the impact would have been caused explosives.
Click to expand...

Would there be a good reason to pull this trick? Crash a plane AND plant explosives in the Pentagon AND cover it up? Not even the craziest Bond-villain would ever conceive of such a complicated plan. There must be a compelling reason for it.
Got any ideas?

Who would you need for the cover up? Pretty muchg every investigator on the scene, right?
 
Except for a few rogue witnesses (to be expected in any event like this) ALL the evidence points to the commonly-held narrative. In order to believe otherwise, a HUGE amount of evidence needs to have been faked and planted, all with no witnesses.

It just isn't rational.
 
Oystein said:
Would there be a good reason to pull this trick? Crash a plane AND plant explosives in the Pentagon AND cover it up? Not even the craziest Bond-villain would ever conceive of such a complicated plan. There must be a compelling reason for it.
Got any ideas?

Who would you need for the cover up? Pretty muchg every investigator on the scene, right?
Click to expand...


No, the flyover would involve far more people involved in conspiracy than impact-as-cover-for-explosives, because a plane did hit in my scenario. That means no planting of parts, etc.
 
DGM said:
So not to derail the other thread I copied your reply to here.


Why do you feel (and feel the planers thought so too.) the fueled, fast aircraft would not be enough on it's own?
Click to expand...

Because they had specific targets.
 
twinstead said:
Except for a few rogue witnesses (to be expected in any event like this) ALL the evidence points to the commonly-held narrative. In order to believe otherwise, a HUGE amount of evidence needs to have been faked and planted, all with no witnesses.

It just isn't rational.
Click to expand...


Well I personally can't find any witnesses whatsoever that I can consider SoC witnesses.
 
So they faked the downed light poles AND the leaves all over the southbound lane of 27 at VDOT light pole #076? the leaves that were ingested and ejected by the starboard engine of flight 77? Why would they need to do that? Wouldn't it be easier to chose a "faked" flight path that didn't include collisions with fixed objects?
 
Mobertermy said:
North of Citgo (noc) doesn't prove flyover. The plane could have still hit from NoC. It just means that all the damage to the south of the impact would have been caused explosives.
Click to expand...

And the damage from the "North" plane strike would be where, exactly? You do realize that even CIT realized that the absence of damage extending along the flight path North of Citgo into the Pentagon required them to come up with their insane flyover theory, don't you?

/I truly think that we have found that absolute worst theory in the history of the 911 movement. Certainly the worst Pentagon theory. Man, this guy makes CIT look like a couple of freaking geniuses.
 
Wait a minute, Mobertermy are you saying that there were 2 damage points, one that was caused by explosives where the commonly-held narrative says the plane hit, and another where the NoC plane actually DID hit?
 
Mobertermy said:
No, the flyover would involve far more people involved in conspiracy than impact-as-cover-for-explosives, because a plane did hit in my scenario. That means no planting of parts, etc.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that you think the plane really approached on the northern path, but didn't hit any light poles in doing so, and that all the evidence for the southern approach was planted as part of the plan? Or are you saying that you think the plane knocked down light poles on the northern path, striking Lloyd England's cab, and all the evidence was subsequently manipulated and all the photographs modified to give the impression that it had actually approached on the southern path, as a cover-up after the event?

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
North of Citgo (noc) doesn't prove flyover. The plane could have still hit from NoC. It just means that all the damage to the south of the impact would have been caused explosives.
Click to expand...

Sorry but yes it does. The damage exactly matches that expected from a high KE impact of a fuel laden plane the size and configuration of a 757.

If they faked damage AND crashed a plane at the wrong angle there would be two damage tracks. There is only one, ergo there was only one plane or one faked damage.
So if a plane hit, It must have been SOC. QED

CIT get around this problem by inventing the flyover.
 
Mobertermy said:
No, the flyover would involve far more people involved in conspiracy...
Click to expand...

No one here argues the fly-over delusion. Our alternatives in this thread are the commonly-held narrative vs. your personal delusion.

Mobertermy said:
...than impact-as-cover-for-explosives, because a plane did hit in my scenario. That means no planting of parts, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the plane debris as well as the plane impact damage was strewn along a SOC path.
 
In order to have a "scenario", shouldn't there be some evidence to support it, Mobertermy?
 
twinstead said:
In order to have a "scenario", shouldn't there be some evidence to support it, Mobertermy?
Click to expand...

NoC witnesses. Abscence of SoC witnesses.

Every witness I am aware of also said the poles were knocked down NoC (England, Mcraw, Aman, Hemphill, Brooks). The one notable exception to this is Noel Sepulveda whose story is absolutely preposterous - he claims that after he hit his head he was knocked unconcious, then when he came to he ran into the burning building and saved a baby, then he saved five more people and then ran all the way through the buidling to positively identify the pilots and terrorists sitting in the still intact cockpit which was sitting in the A&E drive presumably after punching a neat litle hole in the C-Ring.

Damage in Pentagon is inconsistent with only a plane.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So are you saying that you think the plane really approached on the northern path, but didn't hit any light poles in doing so, and that all the evidence for the southern approach was planted as part of the plan? Or are you saying that you think the plane knocked down light poles on the northern path, striking Lloyd England's cab, and all the evidence was subsequently manipulated and all the photographs modified to give the impression that it had actually approached on the southern path, as a cover-up after the event?

Dave
Click to expand...

Second option is exactly what I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom