Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Dumb All Over]

But why do they all seem to misremember it the same way?

They don't. Haven't you seen the supposed plotted flight paths from each of the NoC witnesses? They are all different from each other. No two of them are alike. Each of them plots a different flight path and none of them match up with any of the other NoC witnesses. To put it more succinctly, they all misremembered but not in the same way.

 

[Mobertermy]

Make your claim. Point out the NOC light poles, Go ahead. Pick any of them you think he was talking about.

If the plane did hit a lightpole NoC they would have to cover up this fact right?

 

[Mobertermy]

No you are not stating a fact. You are stating your perception of what they state. Big difference. The taxi driver only revisited his location AFTER Craig called him a liar and an accomplice to murder, telling him that it was FACT that he was at another location (darn, he even filmed his intimidation of the old man).

This is just a CIT a lie, one which I am surprised you would repeat. Lloyde never said he was at the bridge, even in their first interview with him when they are trying to lead him into admitting he was at the bridge by doing things like starting sentences by saying "So when you were at the bridge....."
But even then with them asking leading questions he insisted he wasn't at the bridge. If you think Lloyde ever said he was at the bridge I'd like to see it.

Secondly, Lloyde claims the photos of him were faked (he never uses this word but thats clearly what he thinks). My main objective is not to get debunkers to think there was an inside job, it is to get CITers to recognize the inherent absurdity of accusing England of being an agent whose job it is to sell the Official Flightpath, including presumably posing for pictures, but then when some CTers show up with a camera claim he was nowhere near the Official Flightpath and that the pictures of him there must be fake.

Speaking of CIT contradictions - they have asserted that all kinds of things at the Pentagon were faked: RADES, DNA, FDR, Citgo Video, Plane Parts, Plane Crash...what is easier to fake? Those things? Or photos?

Please stop asserting things as fact when they are not. I am uploading footage now that clearly show the light poles in the area. Please find the poles that are down where you claim *fact* that they were downed.

I don't claim *fact* they are down NoC. I am merely putting together the actual witness testimony record without any double-standards, and what we end up with is that the plane flew NoC, hit poles NoC which hit a cab, and then impacted the building. Now people can dismiss the witness testimony if they wish, but that is what they say.

The ONLY person who EVER asserted the erroneous pole location pre-CIT coaching was ... darn, nobody that I can think of.

And what witness was asked?

 

[Mobertermy]

There is a photographic and video record of EVERY pole made by dozens of citizens within minutes of the event. Please show us this pole you speak of

Dozens? First of all lets get one thing straight...the military police were confiscating civilian cameras. I'm not sure if we one could make the claim that the only photos that made it from the scene are gov't provided. Ingersoll for instance.

 

[Oystein]

So you, and they other people that admit that governments do kill their own people, must not think there is anything inherently preposterous about thinking the US gov't could have done this on 9/11 right? You just don't think the evidence supports it?

"I know governments are capable of killing their own citizens" NOT EQUAL TO "US gov't does kill its own citizens".

Yes, you need to present evidence, then jump to conclusions. That's the way we skeptics do it around here. Called "the rational way".

They way you do it: Jump to conclusions, then presume evidence is not necessary as we already have a conclusion. That's "the woo way".

You decide which way will win the day.

 

[Mobertermy]

please elaborate. How exactly? This is gonna be entertaining.

Well all the damage in the Pentagon correlates to a southern approach right?

So if the plane hit from NoC they'd have to cover that up right?

 

[Myriad]

If the plane did hit a lightpole NoC they would have to cover up this fact right?

Not at all. If the plane did hit a light pole NoC, that would necessarily mean the plane went NoC, and all the other damage done by the plane inside and outside the building would also have reflected a NoC path, and the flight recorders and radar systems would have recorded a NoC path, and all the expert forensic, press, and historical investigators would have discovered and reported the NoC path, and no one would have had to cover it up.

Since actually the plane hit light poles SoC, and all the other damage done by the plane inside and outside the building also reflect a SoC path, and the flight recorders and radar systems recorded a SoC path, and all the expert forensic, press, and historical investigators discovered and reported the NoC path, we know that the plane went SoC, and no one had to cover it up.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DGM]

Speaking of CIT contradictions - they have asserted that all kinds of things at the Pentagon were faked: RADES, DNA, FDR, Citgo Video, Plane Parts, Plane Crash...what is easier to fake? Those things? Or photos?

Your claiming basically the same list. Add to that the poles AND the photos.

 

[Oystein]

Well the simple fact of the matter is that all the witnesses*, including the cab driver himself claim the incident occured NoC. I'm just stating a fact. If you don't think that fact means anything thats your prerogative.

He can claim whatever he wishes all day long. We saw him, and his cab, and the knocked-down pole that hit his cab and made him leave the cab, just south of the bridge - SoC, that is.
Lloyd is simply WRONG (underline that, word: WRONG, and say it out loud 100 times, will ya) in that statement, made years after the event.

*The only exception I'm aware of is Noel Sepulveda and his story is absolutely preposterous.

Do you remember the first time you used the words "absolutely" and "preposterous" in one post? You made a FALSE claim then. You had to admit that nothing was "absolute", and nothing was "preposterous".

You better be careful with these big words, they are much to heavy for you to handle!

 

[Mobertermy]

"I know governments are capable of killing their own citizens" NOT EQUAL TO "US gov't does kill its own citizens".

I didn't say it is. So you agree that there is nothing inherently absurd with the notion that the US gov't could kill its own citizens?

Yes, you need to present evidence, then jump to conclusions. That's the way we skeptics do it around here. Called "the rational way".

In my experience you have that on its head. I believed the gov't story until I looked at the evidence.

They way you do it: Jump to conclusions, then presume evidence is not necessary as we already have a conclusion. That's "the woo way".

But all those American Flag waving patriots that had jumped to the conclusion that Arabs had done it...your fine with that right?

You decide which way will win the day.

Yeah yeah yeah. A large part of the American population still think that Saddam was behind 9/11...you've got no problem with them though right? Even though their ignorance has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis...No, what you have a problem with is people like me that actually do do research into the event and come to a different conclusion than you. What you are actually defending is an ignorant easily manipulated population that can be lead into war...

 

[Oystein]

Well all the damage in the Pentagon correlates to a southern approach right?

Right. All the damage. that means none of the damage correlates to a northern approach. Right??
How do you imagine a plane could crash into a building along a NoC path and not create damage in the building that correlates to that path?

So if the plane hit from NoC they'd have to cover that up right?

There is that big speculative "if" again.

It didn't.
So the didn't have to.

Get over it already.

 

[Mobertermy]

He can claim whatever he wishes all day long.

Right, he claims he was NoC.

We saw him,

You seem to be making the childish claim that if you saw it in a photo it must be true.

Do you remember the first time you used the words "absolutely" and "preposterous" in one post? You made a FALSE claim then. You had to admit that nothing was "absolute", and nothing was "preposterous".

I didn't have to admit it. I did so because it is the intellectually honest thing to do. Trying to use someone admitting a mistake against them?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Father McGraw put the cabs and pole NoC too...also mistaken right?

Please show us where he says the poles are NoC....I know of no such quote

 

[Mobertermy]

Right. All the damage. that means none of the damage correlates to a northern approach. Right??
How do you imagine a plane could crash into a building along a NoC path and not create damage in the building that correlates to that path?

Explosives in the building just like at WTC.

 

[DGM]

Explosives in the building just like at WTC.

So, your adding yet another layer to the "cover-up". Your "plan" is even more complicated the CIT's.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So you, and they other people that admit that governments do kill their own people, must not think there is anything inherently preposterous about thinking the US gov't could have done this on 9/11 right? You just don't think the evidence supports it?

Al the truther theories are inherently preposterous. Now could the CIA have infiltrated Al Quida and persuaded them that this was a good idea possibly.......or perhaps the CIA found out about it and didn't do anything to stop it.........possibly
If you find evidence of either of those CTs let us know.

 

[Oystein]

I didn't say it is. So you agree that there is nothing inherently absurd with the notion that the US gov't could kill its own citizens?

There is nothing inherently absurd with a lot of fiction. Why is this question interesting? Is anybody making that claim of absurdity? Methinks you want to shove a strawman on our backs.

In my experience you have that on its head.

Can you please make that explicit? I want to nominate that!

I believed the gov't story until I looked at the evidence.

You mean: Until you cherry-picked some feigned evidence and ignored all the rest.

But all those American Flag waving patriots that had jumped to the conclusion that Arabs had done it...your fine with that right?

I am not fine with American flag waving patriots. Why do you think I am? I am not American, and I don't wave flags (except during football world cups ).
Strawman, buddy!
Those American flag waving patriots, as much as I feel distaste for them, merely happen to be right, because all of the evidence supports their case.

Would you be fine with the notion that claims should be rejected when we don't like the folks making them?

Yeah yeah yeah. A large part of the American population still think that Saddam was behind 9/11...you've got no problem with them though right? Even though their ignorance has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis...

Strawman. I do not believe that anyone of the guys and gals here who have tried to educate you for days thinks that Saddam was behind 9/11. Ask DGM, Myriad, tsig, alienentity, A W Smith, beachnut, Dave Rogers, BCR, I Ratant, sheeplesnshills, JohnG, Dumb All Over - I gave you now a dozend names to work with, who have recently replied in this very thread.
How much do you want to bet that there is at least one among the twelve who believes 9/11 was a good enough reason to invade Iraq? Make it a substantial sum, please!

However wrong the Bush government was to construct the link between 9/11 and Saddam, that is not the reason anyone here tells you you are WRONG. We have all looked at the evidence, and done so a lot more competently than you have, believe me!

No, what you have a problem with is people like me that actually do do research into the event and come to a different conclusion than you.

Your research sucks. Look at the photomanipulation thread. You have displayed utter - utter! - incompetence at reviewing the simplest kind of evidence. You have shown over and over and over again that you will not learn, period.

What you are actually defending is an ignorant easily manipulated population that can be lead into war...

You are manipulated, pal, by priests if woo.

 

[Oystein]

Explosives in the building just like at WTC.

Explosives undo the NoC damage? Why would they plant explosives to cover up the NoC damage???

And besides: Where is your evidence for the use of explosives?

 

[Oystein]

Right, he claims he was NoC.

Claim is WRONG. Many witnesses misremember. It happens all the time.

You seem to be making the childish claim that if you saw it in a photo it must be true.

You have tried to prove photo manipulation and FAILED. So yes, I happen to think that if several photographs from several photographers corroborate the physical evidence (knocked-down pole...), and no-one finds conflicting evidence except some witnesses manipulated into a story years later, I tend to go with the photos and the physical evidence.

I didn't have to admit it. I did so because it is the intellectually honest thing to do. Trying to use someone admitting a mistake against them?

Huh?

 

[Mobertermy]

So, your adding yet another layer to the "cover-up". Your "plan" is even more complicated the CIT's.

No its not. I am just saying that the Pentagon was like WTC...they used planes as cover for use of explosives.