Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

Yes, Mobertermy is clearly and blatantly twisting the direct witness testimony. He is trying to manipulate the argument. Shame on him. There really are no two ways to interprete "4 cars back". If we are free to read "in front" when a witness says "back from", then north can be south and left can be right. What an embarrassing new low he has found.


But even IF the plane crossed 4 cars behind him: It approached from left and behind . Had it come from left and not behind, then, due to the size of it, the witness needed not to look behind to see it if it crossed the highway so close.

So even that (preposterous) interpretation disproves the lied-up "perpendicular" nonsense.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I forget who, but there was once a guy here who debated some aspect of 9/11 for a really time like Mobertermy. At the end, it was all based on his confusion about a midwestern TV station superimposing a local time stamp on a broadcast of footage from New York.
Click to expand...

That was jammo, when he was disrespecting a witness who had seen both planes strike the towers.
 
Mobertermy said:
You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.
Click to expand...

That is utterly, completely ridiculous.

You once again have proven that you are either a liar, a troll or incontrovertably ignorant.
 
Mobertermy said:
You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.
Click to expand...
I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway.
Click to expand...
Unambiguous

What you are wanting him to say is
I was about four cars ahead of where the plane crossed over the highway.
Click to expand...
These two statements are not the same

What you are trying to do is pound a square peg into a round hole to fit your conspiracy.
 
Mobertermy said:
You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.
Click to expand...


This pretty much confirms for me that your reading comprehension skills are indeed every bit as poor as your photo analysis skills, but I still feel the need to ask...

How?

No, really... break that down for us. Begin with his exact quote and then explain to us how those words in that combination can be interpreted in two different ways.
 
Mobertermy said:
You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.
Click to expand...

Not in my world. But even you have to admit the comment is hardly crystal clear so you cannot say he is an NoC witness. If he looked over his left shoulder....how could he kept following the aircraft to impact unless he was an owl or the girl from the exorcist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPfgTOxOGe8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeqi3Yw4TI


Still waiting for you to tell us in the video of McGraw makes him an NoC witness?
If anything it implies he was no witness at all.
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
Not in my world. But even you have to admit the comment is hardly crystal clear so you cannot say he is an NoC witness.
Click to expand...
Sure you can, he explicitly states the official flight path looks wrong and that he thought the plane flew into the building more perpendicular than at an angle.

If he looked over his left shoulder....how could he kept following the aircraft to impact unless he was an owl or the girl from the exorcist?
Click to expand...
Where does he say that's what he did.

Still waiting for you to tell us in the video of McGraw makes him an NoC witness?
If anything it implies he was no witness at all.
Click to expand...
No, the point about Mcgraw is that his car was NoC and he said the cab was a "few feet" from him. This means he corroborates England's claim about not being at the bridge, which I am sure to all you Coincidence Theorists is nothing more than a coincidence.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This pretty much confirms for me that your reading comprehension skills are indeed every bit as poor as your photo analysis skills, but I still feel the need to ask...

How?

No, really... break that down for us. Begin with his exact quote and then explain to us how those words in that combination can be interpreted in two different ways.
Click to expand...


Put yourself in his situation. Imagine you are recounting the story of seeing the plane to someone...you are recollecting seeing it four cars away...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).

If that is your claim it is just an argument from incredulity.
 
Mobertermy said:
Put yourself in his situation. Imagine you are recounting the story of seeing the plane to someone...you are recollecting seeing it four cars away...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).

If that is your claim it is just an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

Yours is the argument from incredulity. You just can't imagine that to a rational person 4 cars back is 4 cars behind. Traffic is serial. If I was 4 cars ahead I'd say 4 cars ahead. If I was 4 cars behind I'd say 4 cars behind. Only If I was 4 cars to one side or in a parking lot would I say 4 cars away.

You're spinning enough to make ME dizzy, Mobertermy. Stop it before I get sick.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Put yourself in his situation. Imagine you are recounting the story of seeing the plane to someone...you are recollecting seeing it four cars away...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).

If that is your claim it is just an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

And this proves that there was a secret government conspiracy?
 
Mobertermy said:
...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).
Click to expand...

You are just being silly now. He states the plane was to his left and behind him. He turned to look (indicating that is also where he saw the plane initially). He then describes himself as 4 cars behind where the plane crossed the road. Any rational human being understands that to mean behind the cars in front of him. Since there is no debate on the direction he was facing, and if you wish to assert that he was next to the helipad and the plane hit at a 90 degree angle, then Sean Boger is dead because it would have hit the tower he was in. Not sure why you don,t understand your argument is self-debunked.
 
Mobertermy said:
Put yourself in his situation. Imagine you are recounting the story of seeing the plane to someone...you are recollecting seeing it four cars away...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).

If that is your claim it is just an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

Me: Oh, Hi Jim, I saw Frank in line at the movies. I was four spots back of him.
Jim: Oh did he save you a seat?
Me: What? I was ahead of him, so I saved him a seat.
Jim: lol wut. You said you were Back of him.
Me: Yeah, you know, “back” as in “away” from him.
Jim: Remind me, what color is the sky on your planet?
Me: Green… Why? Oh yeah, did you hear that 9/11 was an inside jobbity job?
Jim: “backs” “away” slowly.
 
Mobertermy said:
Put yourself in his situation. Imagine you are recounting the story of seeing the plane to someone...you are recollecting seeing it four cars away...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).

If that is your claim it is just an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...


This is not what I requested. You, of course, have no obligation to grant any request I make of you, but I ask that you show some decency and not waste my (and others') time with such diversions. If you are unable to explain your own thought process, simply say so. You wouldn't be the first to have such difficulty.

But to answer your question anyway...

[...] you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).
Click to expand...


I am honestly telling you that I can not imagine myself using that phrase in that situation.

ETA: On a line, there are four possible ways Person A can describe their position relative to Object B: 1) relative to the direction that Person A is facing, 2) relative to the direction that Object B is facing, 3) along the direction of travel using Persona A as a reference point, or 4) along the direction of travel using Object B as a reference point.

Although I don't know the specific traffic situation at that exact moment, I don't think that it is entirely unreasonable to assume that James Cissell was in motion at the time of his observation. That assumption, in combination with his choice of words, indicates to me that he was using Option #4 as I described above.

Of the four options I enumerated above, the one that most closely accounts for your interpretation may be Option #2. For Option #2 to truly work, Flight 77 would have to be facing away, more or less, from Mr. Cissell as it crossed over VA-27 behind him. However, VA-27 runs nearly, but not exactly, parallel to the face of the Pentagon that Flight 77 impacted, and if Flight 77 did impact that face at 90 degrees, as you've claimed, then there would be no "back" relative to the plane; Mr. Cissell would have been to the left of the plane.

Unless you have another explanation, I don't see any reasonable way in which you've interpreted Mr. Cissell's words to mean what you claim they might mean. Can you do better?
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
He thinks they did it to coverup the fact that the plane hit the building at the wrong angle and so could not have caused the damage to the bazillion dollar records that had been blown up by planted explosives.

What he doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that an NoC impact would have caused internal damage and deaths they could not have covered up. The poles would have been the least of their problems......how do you resurrect people who get killed but can't possibly have been where the plane damage was?
Click to expand...

Well Mobertermy hasn't told us yet so that is just conjecture on your part.

I would like to hear why he thinks it was done.
 
=Mobertermy;6842963]Sure you can, he explicitly states the official flight path looks wrong and that he thought the plane flew into the building more perpendicular than at an angle.
Click to expand...

The operative word was "seemed", ie not explicit at all.


Where does he say that's what he did.
Click to expand...

Whether he was NoC or Soc the plane comes to him from the left and behind!
Do I need to draw you a picture????



No, the point about Mcgraw is that his car was NoC and he said the cab was a "few feet" from him. This means he corroborates England's claim about not being at the bridge, which I am sure to all you Coincidence Theorists is nothing more than a coincidence.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't! We know Lloyde was at the bridge, you even agreed that the pictures were not faked!!!! so if he was beside Lloyde why on earth do you think he was further north???? You make no sense!
 
Mobertermy said:
Put yourself in his situation. Imagine you are recounting the story of seeing the plane to someone...you are recollecting seeing it four cars away...you are honestly telling me that you can't imagine yourself using the phrase "I was four cars back" to describe being four cars away (regardless of which way traffic was going).

If that is your claim it is just an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...


While it is possible that's what he meant but its not likely (and in any case this could be found out in seconds by asking him) so hardly an argument from incredulity.
What is incredible however is you insisting his statement is "PROOF" of NoC. At best it would be a line of inquiry that could be looked at further.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Well Mobertermy hasn't told us yet so that is just conjecture on your part.

I would like to hear why he thinks it was done.
Click to expand...


Are you holding your breath? :D He has said he more or less goes along with CIT fantasy but for some reason not their flyover part..........no it makes no sense to me either as the whole CIT story has to result in a flyover as the damage to to the Pentagon would not match the flightline......
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Are you holding your breath? :D He has said he more or less goes along with CIT fantasy but for some reason not their flyover part..........no it makes no sense to me either as the whole CIT story has to result in a flyover as the damage to to the Pentagon would not match the flightline......
Click to expand...

Does that mean CIT's theory is now the second worst 9/11 conspiracy theory on the internet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom