Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

Gamolon said:
Straight in at 90 degrees? Like the red path I have drawn on this photo?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/flightpath.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

No, like the other NoC paths. Certainly not the Official path as he himself explictly states.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Why do you imagine that that comment overrides his "over his left shoulder"
comment?
Click to expand...

I believe I have the answer.

prison.jpg
 
Mobertermy said:
Sure they can. They correlate each other and Cissell.
Click to expand...

Let's look at this statement from you first. Please take a look at the next photo with the "eye-witnessed" flight paths.

AllGroupsMap3.jpg


How can almost half of the WITNESSES show the path over the annex and the others show the flight path NORTH of the annex? How did this discrepancy occur?
 
Mobertermy said:
They all look pretty close to me.
Click to expand...

So you accept the "distance discrepancy" between witnessed the over-the-annex flight paths and the witnessed north-of-the-annex flight paths, but when it comes to the distance between the "official flight flight" and the all the witnessed flight paths, the official flight path has gone out of your "allowable tolerance" for "distance discrepancy"?
 
Gamolon said:
So you accept the "distance discrepancy" between witnessed the over-the-annex flight paths and the witnessed north-of-the-annex flight paths, but when it comes to the distance between the "official flight flight" and the all the witnessed flight paths, the official flight path has gone out of your "allowable tolerance" for "distance discrepancy"?
Click to expand...

Indeed, according to him just as out of tolerance as if it was in W. Virginia.
 
=Mobertermy;6831435]Sure they can. They correlate each other and Cissell.
Click to expand...

except they don't. All their tracks are different and Cissell drew no track at all. You are simply twisting his story to fit your version. Funnily enough just like CIT did.


They all look pretty close to me. Certainly none of them hit poles 1 or 2 and they all are exactly where the cab driver said he was. All just a big coincidence I suppose.
Click to expand...

Yet you just accepted that he wasn't where he thought he was. The pictures show us where he was!
 
Mobertermy said:
No, like the other NoC paths. Certainly not the Official path as he himself explictly states.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. Please show us which Diagram he was looking at and that he meant 90 degrees not 45 or 50 degrees.....or that he believes his recollection overrides the physical evidence.
 
=Mobertermy;


It's the collapse area.
Click to expand...

so are you saying a plane would not punch holes through all the rings? On what basis do you make that claim? Are you a civil engineer/structural engineer/Physics major?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
No he doesn't. Please show us which Diagram he was looking at and that he meant 90 degrees not 45 or 50 degrees.....or that he believes his recollection overrides the physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Where was Cissell? I see some reports of him being on 110.
 
Gamolon said:
Where was Cissell? I see some reports of him being on 110.
Click to expand...


Its not really clear but from what I can gather he was heading northbound on Washington boulevard and about where Lloyds taxi was but facing in the opposite direction and several lanes over. That about the only location where he would look over his left shoulder and still have the plane pass in front of him so he could see the windows. The alternative is that he was further along and the Plane passed behind him. This places him nearer the helipad but would make judging any angle accurately very difficult indeed as he would have to have a head like an owl to follow it!
 
Mobertermy said:
...
They all look pretty close to me. Certainly none of them hit poles 1 or 2 and they all are exactly where the cab driver said he was. All just a big coincidence I suppose...
Click to expand...

But we know from the Ingersoll photos where the cab was: south of the bridge, near lamppost 1. That photo wasn't manipulated - you conceded that you have no proof for that contention.
So evidently, England was mistaken.
 
I still don't understand why they would go to the trouble of faking a different flight path? WHat is to gain?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I still don't understand why they would go to the trouble of faking a different flight path? WHat is to gain?
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that the plane was supposed to come in at a certain angle and destroy all the evidence of the ten bazillion that Cheney had stolen (but curiously talked about the day before....)
Now the lizard overlords knew that a high KE 757 wasn't going to be able to do that so the planned to add explosives to do the job as if it could have........then for some reason they decided not to crash the 757 and just fly over the building and then truck in plane and body parts to make it look real.

The plan started to fall apart however when the idiot pilot flew NoC rather than SoC! Luckily they had the whole dis info team in place and they quickly moved all the external damage, including Lloyde and his taxi) to the correct line (without anyone noticing).

However that didn't fool the ever alert truthers who could see that the damage looked nothing like any plane crash they had seen on youtube before so they knew it was faked!

Mobertermys version just changes the story by having the plane crash but at the wrong angle.......however that just makes things even harder to cover up as the impact of the plane would have killed different people and damaged different areas of the building.....


All the above nonsense comes from not understanding the weaknesses in eye witness testimony and an argument from incredulity as to what a High KE air crash looks like.
 
Let's assume it isn't, and neither is your approach of "When the witness said straight, he meant perpendicular". What are we left with? We're left with taking all the witness statements with a pinch of salt, because any individual one of them could be erroneous or misinterpreted; and we're left with the radar tracks, the FDR output and the physical evidence, all of which are consistent with one plane hitting the Pentagon on the SoC course. So, if you want to throw out all the witness testimony, because you think it all supports NoC and impact and these are inconsistent, that's fine; you're throwing out all the evidence that can be interpreted to suggest anything other than the generally accepted narrative, and left with evidence that unanimously supports it.
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, it's fine if you want to take the approach that physical evidence always over rules witness testimony, and that physical evidence can never be faked/manipulated/planted/etc. It's not okay for someone to take a witness (Cissell) that doesn't support the SoC approach and put them on a list that says they do.
 
Gamolon said:
So you accept the "distance discrepancy" between witnessed the over-the-annex flight paths and the witnessed north-of-the-annex flight paths, but when it comes to the distance between the "official flight flight" and the all the witnessed flight paths, the official flight path has gone out of your "allowable tolerance" for "distance discrepancy"?
Click to expand...

Look, we aren't talking about all NoC flightpaths right now. We are talking about a specific witness, James R. Cissell, and whether he is an NoC witness, SoC witness, or neither.
 
Mobertermy said:
Dave, it's fine if you want to take the approach that physical evidence always over rules witness testimony, and that physical evidence can never be faked/manipulated/planted/etc. It's not okay for someone to take a witness (Cissell) that doesn't support the SoC approach and put them on a list that says they do.
Click to expand...

Nor is it OK to take a witness that doesn't support the claim that the airliner hit the Pentagon at 90 degrees to the wall and put them on a list that says they do, which is what you're doing. And I'm not saying that physical evidence can never be faked/manipulated/planted/etc., but I'm not going to accept that it was faked etc. when there isn't even a plausible hypothesis to suggest how it could have been faked.

Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom