Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

So Mobertermy - Are you going to show me this physical evidence that you claim to have or are you just going to ignore the question after I've politely requested it? Thanks.
 
DGM said:
I've got to ask. How did you come-up with that number? Is that like a standard for planting stuff in broad daylight in front of thousands?
Click to expand...

Probably used ConspirPlan the latest in Conspiracy planning software. You enter the parameters, size, location, method... and it spits out the result.
 
Sunstealer said:
Then why is there no physical evidence such as damage to the pentagon consistent with a flightpath as shown by the yellow paths?

Please just answer that one question.
Click to expand...

Mobertermy said:
There is.
Click to expand...

Sunstealer said:
Please show this evidence. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Sunstealer said:
So Mobertermy - Are you going to show me this physical evidence that you claim to have or are you just going to ignore the question after I've politely requested it? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Seconded. Where is the physical evidence that is consistent with the given flightpath? No, interpretations of witness statements is not physical evidence. Neither is misinterpretation of landmarks in a photograph. Like Sunstealer asked, what is the physical evidence?
 
All I did is take the witness testimony and analyze it without using double standards. CIT did use double standards. For instance the NoC-Impact theory seems to have gained some traction - enough that CIT felt it necessary to post an update to their FAQ section where they "explain" that the plane couldn't have hit from NoC because it didn't hit any lightpoles or other obstacles on the NoC flight path. The problem with them making this claim is that there are all kinds of (NoC) witnessses that claim to have seen the plane hit obstacles or to have seen the evidence on the ground (Aman, Lagasse, Brooks, Hemphill, Morin, Mcgraw, England). So what CIT is doing on the one hand is claiming that the witness testimony disproves the physical evidence, and on the other hand claiming the physical evidence disproves their very own witnesses. Its preposterous.
 
Mobertermy said:
... So what CIT is doing on the one hand is claiming that the witness testimony disproves the physical evidence, and on the other hand claiming the physical evidence disproves their very own witnesses. Its preposterous.
Click to expand...

All right. On its face, this is definitely acceptable. I won't go beyond that into the overall propositions about explosives and the like, but the point that CIT is demonstrably self-contradictory is definitely true.

Mobertermy said:
Yes the plane hit the building...you can tell by looking at the facade.
Click to expand...

Yes, as well as a plethora of other evidence that definitively places it there. That we can all agree on.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes the plane hit the building...you can tell by looking at the facade.
Click to expand...
So if you agree that the plane hit the building based on physical evidence, which I assume means the damage path, the DNA etc, which all match the SoC flightpath, then how can you claim a different flightpath?

To claim a different flightpath when all physical evidence points to the SoC is preposterous.

How can you dismiss this and rely solely rely on fallible witness testimony?

eg: if 10 people witness a crime, say a stabbing, and those 10 say the assailant was wearing a blue jacket, but later police recover a black jacket with the victims blood and DNA on, then the witnesses are obviously wrong. Aren't they?
 
Sunstealer said:
So if you agree that the plane hit the building based on physical evidence, which I assume means the damage path, the DNA etc, which all match the SoC flightpath, then how can you claim a different flightpath?

To claim a different flightpath when all physical evidence points to the SoC is preposterous.

How can you dismiss this and rely solely rely on fallible witness testimony?

eg: if 10 people witness a crime, say a stabbing, and those 10 say the assailant was wearing a blue jacket, but later police recover a black jacket with the victims blood and DNA on, then the witnesses are obviously wrong. Aren't they?
Click to expand...


Look, I'm not really. I don't claim to know what happened at the Pentagon. All I did was look into CIT because I was curious what all the controversy was about. All my "theory" is is a representation of what I understand the witness testimony to be.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
All my "theory" is is a representation of what I understand the witness testimony to be.
Click to expand...

And what did the majority of the witnesses said what they've seen from the adjacant highway?

How many for a cruise missile?

How many for the fly over?

How many for Flight 77?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom