Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

Yea, you know there's a problem when mobertermy's theory is one of the saner ones.
 
Mobertermy said:
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...

Please re-post the quote that you are editorialising, so we can all remind ourselves that "more perpendicular than at an angle" is not his actual statement but rather your personal interpretation of the word "straight".

Dave
 
16.5 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
 
Mobertermy said:
Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...

He was in his car not out of it so this is a stretch at best. But it doesn't really matter because it simply is not definitively clear exactly where was so no assumptions can be made from his statement. It fits perfectly a SoC approach but can be stretched to perhaps fit an NoC approach. This is hardly the kind of "evidence" that would override all the other physical evidence for which no assumption need to be made.

Still waiting for you to show us the part in the McGraw statement that makes him definitively a NoC witness as you claimed.

Hint: Its long past time to admit you've been conned by CIT.
 
Mobertermy said:
Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...

4 cars down, 4 cars away, not 4 cars back. You're using semantics to bolster a nonsense argument.
 
No Mobertermy, you would say "the tree was four cars behind me", not "I was four cars behind." The problem seems to come from your lack of understanding of the English language. In this case the subject pronoun is all important to the meaning of the statement.
 
Mobertermy said:
Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...


You would say the tree is "four cars back" from you, not that you are "four cars back" from the tree. If you say the latter, in that situation, you're probably not too bright.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy, this is a classic example of your problem. You start from a conclusion. You then re-interpret every witness statement so that it supports that conclusion, even if it's necessary in the process to invert the most obvious meaning of the statement. Finally, you conclude that every witness statement supports your conclusion. It's the same approach to witness statements that you take to photographic evidence: start from the conclusion, then force the evidence to fit it, however much you need to distort it in order to do so.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...

The bolded sentence is the key to your misunderstanding. The minute you insert the term "back" in the "four cars from" statement, you're no longer describing distance alone. You have now provided a positional descriptor into the sentence describing where you were located in relation to the object in question.

Back from, to the side of, in front of, on top of...

You even use a location descriptors in your quote above.
Mobertermy said:
You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome.
Click to expand...

Another.
Mobertermy said:
The tree is four cars down from you.
Click to expand...
 
Mobertermy said:
Imagine you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...

Bwhahahaha!!!

Hey, if that is your argument, I got your "back."

And by that I mean the exact opposite, just like your little tale of the car and the tree.
 
Mobertermy said:
Imagine...
Click to expand...

Something truther generally excel at.

Mobertermy said:
...you are in a traffic jam though. You get out of your car...
Click to expand...

Something that your witness just didn't do, or did he?

Mobertermy said:
...and you look at a tree down the road in the direction you came frome. The tree is four cars down from you. Later on someone asks you where your car was in relation to the tree...you could say "four cars back." The reason is because you are using cars as a measurement of distance, not as position in line.
Click to expand...

Nice fairy tale.

Didn't happen.
Making thungs up is not the way to support an argument. Mobertermy, you should check your act. You are again making a fool of yourself. It was predictable, and it ain't pretty.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Mobertermy, this is a classic example of your problem. You start from a conclusion.
Click to expand...

No Dave, this is your problem. All I do is report what the witnesses say.

You then re-interpret every witness statement so that it supports that conclusion, even if it's necessary in the process to invert the most obvious meaning of the statement.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what you are doing in regards to Cissell.
Finally, you conclude that every witness statement supports your conclusion.
Click to expand...
I don't have a conclusion. I literally can just post what the witnesses say? that's all I am doing. If you and CIT want to try and twist their statements that is your business. But don't try and pin that on me.

It's the same approach to witness statements that you take to photographic evidence: start from the conclusion, then force the evidence to fit it, however much you need to distort it in order to do so.
Click to expand...
Wrong again Davey. Once again, I start with what the witnesses say. The cab driver said the photographs weren't right, that was my starting point.
 
Gamolon said:
The bolded sentence is the key to your misunderstanding. The minute you insert the term "back" in the "four cars from" statement, you're no longer describing distance alone. You have now provided a positional descriptor into the sentence describing where you were located in relation to the object in question.
Click to expand...

It's similar to left and right. It depends on where you are and how you are looking. If you are looking at a tree and it is four cars away from you, you were four cars back from it. You certainly wouldn't say "I was four cars front from it."

You are just equivocating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom