Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Gamolon]

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.

You're the one who said they all correlate, not me.

Anyways, since you want to discuss only Cissell, please answer my question I posed to you earlier.

Were you wrong about claiming that Cissell saw the plane fly into the pentagon at a 90 degree angle.

Yes or no?

 

[BCR]

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.

Mobertermy, what have you been smoking? Based on his own estimation of his position and observations it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to be anything but a SoC witness. For an event that lasted at best a second, the only things you can say is where he was looking when he first saw the plane (over his shoulder to the left and back), where he was when it passed in front of him (about 4 cars back) and where the plane ended up. Those three things combined result in only one possible path. There is no other solution set, unless you read things into his account that are not there.

He 'thought' it was more perpendicular to the Pentagon face. Well Lagasse 'thought' it did an extreme yaw maneuver from almost perpendicular to a more angular approach. Others 'thought' a lot of things that are mutually exclusive as well. That is why eyewitness accounts cannot be evaluated on what people 'thought'. The only thing concrete in his account is that he had to look left and behind, he was traveling NNE, and the plane crossed the road in front of him. That is all that is objective in his account, everything else is subjective and questionable to perceptional errors. The problem is that you do not know how to interpret eyewitness accounts just like you did not know how to draw line-of-sight to convert 3D to 2D.

Dave is not taking one form of evidence over the other. He is reading SUBJECTIVE observations against OBJECTIVE evidence and noting the correlations. That is the proper method in every endeavor to use such evidence. One person saw an American Airlines plane (Lagasse) while someone else nearby saw a United (Brooks). Those are subjective observations based on how one person's brain interprets events as opposed to someone else.

If you take Cissell's subjective observations literally (as you are trying to do), you don't come up with NoC. You come up with something not even close to reality.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Can you please provide the site or some evidence that pinpoints where Cissell's location was when he witnessed the plane? I have seen reports that he was on Interstate 110. Some of his comments seem to locate him somewhere on VA-27.

His comments to Prison Planet contradict each other. First, he says this.

My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway.

Four cars back? That means the plane passed in front of him right? Then he says this later in the same article.

The plane was coming from left and behind of me - I guess if you were on the other side of the highway and facing the plane as it came in you would have had a lot more time to react," said Cissell.

First it was in front of him, then later in the article it was behind him? And you're arguing what the man saw when he isn't even sure himself where he was that morning?

 

[Oystein]

...
The only thing concrete in his account is that he had to look left and behind, he was traveling NNE, and the plane crossed the road in front of him. That is all that is objective in his account, everything else is subjective and questionable to perceptional errors.
...

If I may nitpick?
Even that objective observation data is subjective and questionable to perceptional errors. It may very well still be erroneous, and certainly is imprecise.

You are right though that this is the objective data within his account that we need to interprete, just as the witness interpreted his own observation.

Caution: If you assume that his observation was input to his interpretation, , you are somewhat out on a limb. I can attest from own experience that I have retroactively mended my observational memory because I already trusted in my interpretation (whether false or correct). For example: I was sure that a certain friend was present at a certain situation in the past, and so I genuinely believed I had seen him there (read: actively remembered), when it turned out that I had only been told of his presence, and he really hadn't been there at all.

 

[DGM]

Can you please provide the site or some evidence that pinpoints where Cissell's location was when he witnessed the plane? I have seen reports that he was on Interstate 110. Some of his comments seem to locate him somewhere on VA-27.

His comments to Prison Planet contradict each other. First, he says this.



Four cars back? That means the plane passed in front of him right? Then he says this later in the same article.


First it was in front of him, then later in the article it was behind him? And you're arguing what the man saw when he isn't even sure himself where he was that morning?

The plane was coming in on an angle. Left/ behind to right/front.

 

[Oystein]

...
First it was in front of him, then later in the article it was behind him? And you're arguing what the man saw when he isn't even sure himself where he was that morning?

That's pretty easy to resolve. I am not good at Paint, but could draw it if you don't understand the verbose:

"later in the article" of course doesn't mean "later in real life". He is telling things in reverso order.

If he was on the northbound highway, the plane did indeed approach from behind and left at an angle to the highway, so first it was behind him (i.e. he had to turn his head). Then it passed him on his left just before crossing the highway a few cars in front of him.
(We should take those "4 cars" with a shovel of salt - crossing the highway took the plane in its full width along a lot more than 4 car lengths of highway. Also, people are usually pretty bad at estimating hights, and by extension distancens of objects above.)

 

[Gamolon]

The plane was coming in on an angle. Left/ behind to right/front.

That's pretty easy to resolve. I am not good at Paint, but could draw it if you don't understand the verbose:

"later in the article" of course doesn't mean "later in real life". He is telling things in reverso order.

If he was on the northbound highway, the plane did indeed approach from behind and left at an angle to the highway, so first it was behind him (i.e. he had to turn his head). Then it passed him on his left just before crossing the highway a few cars in front of him.
(We should take those "4 cars" with a shovel of salt - crossing the highway took the plane in its full width along a lot more than 4 car lengths of highway. Also, people are usually pretty bad at estimating hights, and by extension distancens of objects above.)

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected and see what he meant.

 

[BCR]

If I may nitpick?
Even that objective observation data is subjective and questionable to perceptional errors. It may very well still be erroneous, and certainly is imprecise.

You are right though that this is the objective data within his account that we need to interprete, just as the witness interpreted his own observation.

Caution: If you assume that his observation was input to his interpretation, , you are somewhat out on a limb. I can attest from own experience that I have retroactively mended my observational memory because I already trusted in my interpretation (whether false or correct). For example: I was sure that a certain friend was present at a certain situation in the past, and so I genuinely believed I had seen him there (read: actively remembered), when it turned out that I had only been told of his presence, and he really hadn't been there at all.

You may nitpic, but I don't think there is much subjective about looking over one's shoulder and something passing in front (not behind). It is true that they are very rough estimations of actual position and certainly not to be taken as a pin point accurate measurement. Yes, even that is subject to revised recall, but not likely. I never interviewed one car accident witness who thought he/she ran into the vehicle ahead of him/her only to turn out it was vice versa. In other words, recalling the heads position in making an observation is a fairly reliable indicator.

 

[Oystein]

You may nitpic, but I don't think there is much subjective about looking over one's shoulder and something passing in front (not behind). It is true that they are very rough estimations of actual position and certainly not to be taken as a pin point accurate measurement. Yes, even that is subject to revised recall, ...This

...but not likely. I never interviewed one car accident witness who thought he/she ran into the vehicle ahead of him/her only to turn out it was vice versa. In other words, recalling the heads position in making an observation is a fairly reliable indicator.

That's why it is a nitpic

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Or Vice versa

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ok Mobertermy, having demolished Cissell as a NoC witness, what about McGraw? You keep claiming he say the poles down NoC so where is your source for that information?

 

[Mobertermy]

Cissell was right across from the helipad, because he says he was so close to it that he could hit it by throwing a ball. He looked over his left shoulder and saw the plane flying straight into the building on the NoC route. He has looked at the the diagrams online of the official flight path and has explicitly said it looks wrong. He is an NoC witness. I don't care how many contortions you guys put yourselves in to try and deny this.

 

[Mobertermy]

Ok Mobertermy, having demolished Cissell as a NoC witness, what about McGraw? You keep claiming he say the poles down NoC so where is your source for that information?

You haven't demolished anything.

For Mcgraw watch "From the Law to the Lord" on google video.

 

[BCR]

Cissell was right across from the helipad, because he says he was so close to it that he could hit it by throwing a ball. He looked over his left shoulder and saw the plane flying straight into the building on the NoC route. He has looked at the the diagrams online of the official flight path and has explicitly said it looks wrong. He is an NoC witness. I don't care how many contortions you guys put yourselves in to try and deny this.

So, Boger is dead?

 

[DGM]

So, Boger is dead?

I don't think he would be dead. If Cissell was across from the helipad and the plane took the path he describes, I believe it would have missed the Pentagon altogether.

 

[Mobertermy]

So, Boger is dead?

Why on earth would Boger be dead. The plane flew behind Cissell's car...remember he had to look over his left shoulder to see the plane flying straight into the building and not the official 37 degrees which he explicitly says looks wrong yet you for some reason dismiss and still try and use him as an official flightpath witness.

It's ridiculous.

Every bit as ridiculous as CIT using witnesses that saw the plane hit as flyover witnesses.

 

[DGM]

Why on earth would Boger be dead. The plane flew behind Cissell's car...remember he had to look over his left shoulder to see the plane flying straight into the building and not the official 37 degrees which he explicitly says looks wrong yet you for some reason dismiss and still try and use him as an official flightpath witness.

It's ridiculous.

Every bit as ridiculous as CIT using witnesses that saw the plane hit as flyover witnesses.

Woops........He also said it passed 4 cars in front of him.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why on earth would Boger be dead. The plane flew behind Cissell's car...remember he had to look over his left shoulder to see the plane flying straight into the building [...]

What? No. The combination of words that Cissel used to describe the event as he remembers it does not translate to what you've written above.

You either have a horrible memory, your reading comprehension skills are as poor as your photo analysis skills, or you're hallucinating.

 

[Gamolon]

The plane flew behind Cissell's car...remember he had to look over his left shoulder to see the plane flying straight into the building...

Can you please show use where Cissell says this?

As was explained to me earlier in this thread to clear up my misunderstanding, Cissell says he saw the plane APPROACH from the left AND behind him. The plane then crossed over the HIGHWAY four cars in front of him.

I can't find one quote from him saying he looked over his left shoulder to see the plane fly into the building.

Again, please provide your evidence he said what you claim.

 

[Gamolon]

Woops........He also said it passed 4 cars in front of him.

And here's the quote from Cissell on Prison Planet's website.

My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway.