Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[beachnut]

I'd have to say it is you that failed to study US history. The founding fathers viewed Government as a necessary evil that needed checks and balances and constant surveillance from the citizens to ensure that it keeps serving the citizens needs.

Gee whiz, you failed again. Get a compass, learn which way is south, and why 19 terrorists are smarter than the entire failed truth movement you have joined, as you repeat their failed delusions.

You need to study again. The big reason we don't shoot down civilian aircraft is our history! Our skies are civilian run; gee whiz, you back me up on this, and you have no clue. Our military is us, we make up our military, we control our military and with your lies you are calling the military liars.

The DNA proves you wrong, the FDR proves you wrong, RADAR proves you wrong, and you would be one of the few capable of doing the stupid things you say the government could do; hope you are not in the government.

You have no evidence, you have delusions on the Pentagon attack and try to apologize for murdering terrorists for some odd reason. The terrorists took credit, and after 9 years you are spreading lies.

 

[Dog Town]

So then you don't think there is anything inherently ridiculous about someone thinking that elements within the US gov't attacked its own citizens on 9/11?

You just don't think the evidence supports this perfectly reasonable possibility?

Your desire for this to be so, is sad. Possibility does not equal doing it!
The days events are well known, you just need to believe something else.
Your faith in mankind is troubling. Glad I'm not you.

 

[DGM]

I'd have to say it is you that failed to study US history. The founding fathers viewed Government as a necessary evil that needed checks and balances and constant surveillance from the citizens to ensure that it keeps serving the citizens needs.

Yes! And that's why we have representatives in all branches.

Did you vote in the last election?

 

[JohnG]

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

Jack the Ripper was certainly fully capable of murder. Does it then logically follow that he must have been responsible for any and all murders that happened to take place in London, circa 1888?

What is it with Conspiracy Theorists and their poignantly naive belief that all unfortunate or tragic events (from a flat tire to the 2004 Tsunami) originate from some monolithic, omnipotent source? I'm sorry to say that there's plenty of evil to go around in the world (taking accidents and natural disasters out of the equation for the moment) and pretty much anyone, from a shy young orphan* to the President of the United States is theoretically "capable" of murder.

It's no accident that you continue to focus on (what your untrained eye takes to be) suspicious anomalies at the expense of trying to construct an all encompassing narrative that puts your suspicions into context. If you spent even 10 minutes trying to do so you'd find yourself faced with a narrative of such jaw droppingly stupid proportions that you'd curl up in an embarrassed ball on your bed for a month.

So by all means, continue to obsess on that one little tree that looks vaguely artificial from a distance. Just try not to get snippy when others point out to you that you're standing in the middle of Yosemite National Forest.









* And sometimes (believe it or not) a shy young orphan can grow up to murder a President of the United States.

 

[tsig]

John does this have something to do with the fact that, due to the placement of the Citgo, depending on when one looks at the plane an NoC plane could appear to be SoC, and an NoC plane could appear to be SoC?

I was looking at an overhead of the Citgo the other day and the way it is kind of at an angle seems like it could cause all kinds of potential problems with witnesses referring to it as NoC or SoC. I haven't really delved into this too much.

So NoC's can be Soc's or look like SoC's so we can't trust the NoC's lest they be SoC's unless they're NoC looking SoC's and of course then we'd know they're NoC's. I think that's a LoC.

 

[triforcharity]

It was so they could cover up 2.3 trillion dollars.

And yet, the 2.3 trillion was announced in (IIRC) April of 2001. Still, even after 9/11, people know about it. And even yet, you actually think that it would have ONLY been stored on ONE computer!! LOL!! You have no idea how servers work, do you?

 

[MikeW]

And yet, the 2.3 trillion was announced in (IIRC) April of 2001.

Earlier still, in fact:

Pentagon's finances in disarray
By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm

 

[tsig]

Absolutely not.

In fact, I think my thoughts of you are pretty much a mirror of how you think of me. I think you're an intelligent person that has psychological factors which make it seem that 9/11 being an inside job is absurd.

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

I know governments are capable of killing their own citizens but that doesn't change the physical fact of what happened.

 

[triforcharity]

Earlier still, in fact:

Thanks Mike. I couldn't recall when exactly it was.

 

[tsig]

Re: 2.3 Trillion

Can we at least agree that an extremist group that spent years planning a mission hitting the one part of the Pentagon that was reinforced seems a little contradictory?

I mean either they were smart enough to pull of this wildly successful crime? Yet so dumb as to hit the Pentagon where it makes the least sense to hit it?

Whereas, if it were people that wanted to do minimal damage that is where it makes the most sense to hit it?

How do you know how much damage wanted they would do?

 

[tsig]

I'd have to say it is you that failed to study US history. The founding fathers viewed Government as a necessary evil that needed checks and balances and constant surveillance from the citizens to ensure that it keeps serving the citizens needs.

And these checks and balances are what hit the Pentagon?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

John does this have something to do with the fact that, due to the placement of the Citgo, depending on when one looks at the plane an NoC plane could appear to be SoC, and an NoC plane could appear to be SoC?

I was looking at an overhead of the Citgo the other day and the way it is kind of at an angle seems like it could cause all kinds of potential problems with witnesses referring to it as NoC or SoC. I haven't really delved into this too much.

Not really because at the time no one cared where the Citgo was, no one was saying wow that plane looks like it is in front of, over or behind the citgo from where I'm standing. The plane was visible for only 3 or four second if that and traveling very very fast.........only people direcectly under the flight path would have any reasonable accuracy in placing it. The NOC witnesses
that CIT claim to have ben right under it, turcious and LaGasse have both been shown to have been lying/mistaken about what they describe to CIT.
The others simply have no frame of reference to be able to have a clue as to where it was relative to the citgo

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Absolutely not.

In fact, I think my thoughts of you are pretty much a mirror of how you think of me. I think you're an intelligent person that has psychological factors which make it seem that 9/11 being an inside job is absurd.

Sorry but no. There is zero evidence that it was an inside job so to thnk otherwise is similar to beleiving in fairies Gods etc....you are simply Naive and Gullible

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

Nonsense, Govs have repeatedly done so. However given the complete lack of evidence they would appear not to have done so on 911.

 

[I Ratant]

But not in spy stories and movies. It's all kept on a floppy disk or memory stick on the bosses PC.

.
#99 on the Evil Overlord's "things I will never do" list...
"Any data file of crucial importance will be padded to 1.45Mb in size."
.
This of course is outdated, no one has any 3-1/2" floppy drives any more.
.
http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

 

[NutCracker]

Absolutely not.

In fact, I think my thoughts of you are pretty much a mirror of how you think of me. I think you're an intelligent person that has psychological factors which make it seem that 9/11 being an inside job is absurd.

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

The main difference between you and us is that we a coherent narrative that explains all the data points. We have evidence, sound logic and science supporting our narrative. You have none of those. You hand your fellow clowns in Twoof have no evidence, no nothing, no nada, to offer. You have only your incompetence, pseudo-sciecne, lack of knowledge on any relevant field and logical fallacies in the offering.

Look my dear friend, it is not on the grounds of us not believing governments are capable of killing their own people that we reject 9/11 "theories." That's just a nice strawman. It's on the ground that there is not as shred of evidence supporting them. It's on the grounds that they are contradicted by the facts. It on the ground that they make no sense. They are absurd indeed, to the point of being utterly insane.

It is thus on rational grounds that we reject 9/11 theories. Not psychological ones. Rather for a sane individual it is apparent you, on the other hand, do have psychological reasons for believing the drivel you adhere to, like the delusions of intellectual superiority you allude to.

Truther projections never fail to be apt.

 

[I Ratant]

Not really because at the time no one cared where the Citgo was, no one was saying wow that plane looks like it is in front of, over or behind the citgo from where I'm standing. The plane was visible for only 3 or four second if that and traveling very very fast.........only people direcectly under the flight path would have any reasonable accuracy in placing it. The NOC witnesses
that CIT claim to have ben right under it, turcious and LaGasse have both been shown to have been lying/mistaken about what they describe to CIT.
The others simply have no frame of reference to be able to have a clue as to where it was relative to the citgo

.
Kinda like this here....
Where at is the NoC flight path, using the FDR information of course.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Re: 2.3 Trillion

Can we at least agree that an extremist group that spent years planning a mission hitting the one part of the Pentagon that was reinforced seems a little contradictory?

I mean either they were smart enough to pull of this wildly successful crime? Yet so dumb as to hit the Pentagon where it makes the least sense to hit it?

Whereas, if it were people that wanted to do minimal damage that is where it makes the most sense to hit it?

Please show that they even knew it was being upgraded? or cared where they hit? I think it likely that Capitol or White house was the main target but Hanjour hit what he knew he could and only just managed to do that.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

deleted

 

[A W Smith]

.
Kinda like this here....
Where at is the NoC flight path, using the FDR information of course.

Navy exchange was at that time , A Citgo.

 

[I Ratant]

Navy exchange was at that time , A Citgo.

.
The map is dated Sep 7, 2001. The date for the locations Google gives...???
The question still stands, where is the NoC flight path?
.
From the new report....
"There has been much debate about the flight path of the plane. One group asserts that the
plane approached from a direction which would not have permitted it to create the observed
straight line of damage through the light poles and inside the Pentagon. This assertion is
based on the group’s discovery of 13 eyewitnesses who allegedly place the course of the
plane to the north of the former Citgo service station. It is argued from this that the plane
must have passed over the Pentagon, despite the existence of a large number of eyewitness
reports that the plane hit the building,6 including some of these 13 north-path witnesses,7
and despite the absence of the many reports of the plane flying over the building that would
be expected, given the large number of vehicles in traffic jams nearby.8 This theory requires
that the long, straight line of complex damage was done by some other means, and done in
its entirety without any of the activity being reported."
.
Modified image.... Still SoC.
And another...
I find it useful to see graphics, when numbers and locations are being discussed.