Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

twinstead said:
Y

I have see it a thousand times. Your world view is allowing you to come to patently ludicrous conclusions about 9-11.
Click to expand...
All my worldview is that gov'ts kill their own citizens. Thats a historical fact that you all agree with when asked about it directly. So it must be something other than my worldview that led me to my conclusions. Also, there was a couple years after 911 when my worldview was basically in line with the status quo.

I watched United 93 the other day. Interesting viewing experience. I found I was able to switch back and forth between viewing the movie through a OCTer eyes or Truther eyes. It was much more satisfying to view it through OCTer eyes: having a small, weak supremely evil enemy to crush....how satisfying. Or Truther eyes: being manipulated by a government that claims to be democratic...how horribly unsatisfying.

I'm so sick of hearing that psychobabble about how Truthers need to impose order on the world by inventing conspiracies. I'd say having clear cut good and evil imposes much more order on the world than a world where the good guys are bad.
Click to expand...
 
DGM said:
Big freaking deal, so don't you. You still have to ignore more evidence then you except.

BTW: You never commented on the damage that had to be "covered-up".
Click to expand...


As far as I can tell you plain and simply don't believe that it is possible to cover-up anything. Yes, in my scenario some things would have to be covered-up...you can figure out as easily as me what those things would be.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, photographs and physical evidence obviously can be wrong.
Click to expand...

No, they can't, they can only be misinterpreted; they are what they are. You yourself are trying to obtain evidence of deception from an interpretation of photographic evidence, on the basis that the photographs were produced by manipulation of different images; but even if this were true, the photographs would still be evidence, it would be your interpretation of that evidence that would be different. Personal recollections, on the other hand, can very easily be quite simply incorrect; in fact, they are very rarely accurate. The ability of people to remeber things that never happened is extremely well understood.

Dave
 
DGM said:
Yes they can. How many different photo sources and what techniques have you used to produce your "manipulation" theory?
Click to expand...


DGM, I don't expect you to agree with me. All I did was take the Pentagon witness testimony and analyze it without any using any of CITs preposterous double standards or fanciful leaps of imagination. Its my opinion that the (known) witness testimony supports a North side flight path and impact.
 
Mobertermy said:
You know what makes my theory better than theirs? No double-standards in regard to witness testimony. If a witness says that they saw the plane NoC and that the plane hit that's what their testimony counts as. Or if they say the plane was NoC and hit a pole...both things get admitted. CIT picks and choses what portion of the witness testimony they consider valid.
Click to expand...

so how does Mr Morins or Ms Zakhems testimony support NoC?

still waiting for you to show a single witness statement to the poles being NoC
other than Lloyds which we have already shown was corrupted by CIT.

Still waiting for your explanation of no NoC damage track inside the building.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, photographs and physical evidence obviously can be wrong.
Click to expand...

Analogy time.

If you tell me the sky is pink, and parade 100 people through my office saying the same, and I look at a photograph of the sky, and see it's blue, no matter what you claim, it's still wrong.

For instance. You claim there were lightpoles hit NOC. We have shown you photos of the area, and no downled lightpoles are seen. Nor is there ANY other evidence of lightpoles being down NOC.

Conclusion: The photo is correct.
 
Mobertermy said:
DGM, I don't expect you to agree with me. All I did was take the Pentagon witness testimony and analyze it without any using any of CITs preposterous double standards or fanciful leaps of imagination. Its my opinion that the (known) witness testimony supports a North side flight path and impact.
Click to expand...
And you ignore the physical evidence to justify your findings.

:rolleyes:
 
Mobertermy said:
DGM, I don't expect you to agree with me. All I did was take the Pentagon witness testimony and analyze it without any using any of CITs preposterous double standards or fanciful leaps of imagination. Its my opinion that the (known) witness testimony supports a North side flight path and impact.
Click to expand...

I see no difference between you and CIT, they distort evidence to support NoC and you accept that then you simply chose to ignore their problem of no NoC damage.....they fix that my claiming a ludicrous flyover and you simply ignore the issue. If anything that make you dumber than them!
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, they can't, they can only be misinterpreted;
Click to expand...
Thats just plain and simply not true. Its a historical fact that many photos have been manipulated. Its easy to do, commonplace, and hard to detect.

they are what they are. You yourself are trying to obtain evidence of deception from an interpretation of photographic evidence, on the basis that the photographs were produced by manipulation of different images; but even if this were true, the photographs would still be evidence, it would be your interpretation of that evidence that would be different.
Click to expand...
Dave, it is possible to prove that photographs have been manipulated. It is quite clear that in the opinion of "debunkers" and CITers I have failed to demonstrate this.

Personal recollections, on the other hand, can very easily be quite simply incorrect; in fact, they are very rarely accurate. The ability of people to remeber things that never happened is extremely well understood.
Click to expand...
They sure can Dave. But lets say we had all known witnesses to the event and they all said the same thing? Then it gets a little harder to dismiss right? You're not so quick to dismiss the fact that all the witnesses saw the plane hit the building are you?
 
DGM said:
And you ignore the physical evidence to justify your findings.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


But we are just back to your basic bleief that physical evidence can't be manipulated. Which is fine...that's what you believe. I just don't believe that.
 
triforcharity said:
For instance. You claim there were lightpoles hit NOC. We have shown you photos of the area, and no downled lightpoles are seen.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Nor is there ANY other evidence of lightpoles being down NOC.
Click to expand...
Well there is witness testimony.

Conclusion: The photo is correct.
Click to expand...
Conclusion: You don't think it is possible to manipulate physical evidence.

Which is fine. That is your choice. I just don't believe that.
 
Mobertermy said:
But we are just back to your basic bleief that physical evidence can't be manipulated. Which is fine...that's what you believe. I just don't believe that.
Click to expand...


Projection. What you really are saying is that your basic belief is that the physical evidence is manipulated. You have no evidence for that, however.
 
Mobertermy said:
But we are just back to your basic bleief that physical evidence can't be manipulated. Which is fine...that's what you believe. I just don't believe that.
Click to expand...
How many people do you think it would take to "manipulate" all the physical evidence at the Pentagon? Not just the photos. The inconsistent blast damage, the plane damage in the wrong direction, the downed poles, the FDR, the DNA (need I go on?).

Don't forget this was done with no one noticing.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect that our hero actually addressed 1. where the damage from the North Path plane strike is; 2. how the the plane debris and DNA ended up along the South Path damage path?

No?

You sure this guy aint just a troll?
 
dgm said:
how many people do you think it would take to "manipulate" all the physical evidence at the pentagon? Not just the photos. The inconsistent blast damage, the plane damage in the wrong direction, the downed poles, the fdr, the dna (need i go on?).

Don't forget this was done with no one noticing.
Click to expand...

20 - 35
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom