Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Oystein]

In my opinion it is no different than if the mafia ran a police station in some city and was put in charge of investigating the mafia.

You are obviously starting with a conclusion, and work from there by discarding without further ado all the evidence that runs contrary to it. >95% of the evidence, that is.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mobertermy thinks that the U.S. Government committed genocide on 9/11?

Mobertermy, the U.S. Government isn't like the Nazi Regime of WWII.

Get a grip on reality, your logic sux!

 

[Oystein]

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.

There is.

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?

Where did I claim to have physical evidence?

Your dishonesty sucks. It stinks.

Yes the plane hit the building...you can tell by looking at the facade.

Please answer this now:

Why is there no physical evidence such as damage to the pentagon consistent with a flightpath as shown by the yellow paths?
Why is there only pgysical evidence consistent with a flightpath SoC?

 

[Mobertermy]

Oh come on Mobertermy. Now you've just jammed your heels in the dirt and grabbing on to anything to keep from having to possibly re-examine your position. This is not the action of a skeptic, this is the action of an ideologue.

I think I was right from the beginning; it's all about ideology and not about facts and logic.

Twinstead, how many times do I have to say that if the Pentagon issue was taken to court the Truthers would lose?

 

[Oystein]

Look, I'm not really. I don't claim to know what happened at the Pentagon.

Obviously you do not know this

All I did was look into CIT because I was curious what all the controversy was about.

Obviously, we all agree that CIT are wrong.

All my "theory" is is a representation of what I understand the witness testimony to be.

Obviously, you do not understand the full volume of witness accounts.
In addition:
You obviously do not understand photographs
You obviously do not understand the wealth and importance of available physical evidence.
You obviously cannot point to any physical evidence that supports your theory
You obviously cannot point to any photographic or video evidence that supports your theory

You are very obviously WRONG.

You are very obviously DISHONEST.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Twinstead, how many times do I have to say that if the Pentagon issue was taken to court the Truthers would lose?

But you don't grasp why they would lose......to prove a case in court you need evidence. period.

You have none so you will lose no matter how prejudiced you think the court might be. Its irrelevant because you fail the first test of any case.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

In every court around the world you must provide evidence for your case.

No evidence + no case = You're screwed!

 

[Oystein]

...what CIT presented. Basically my claim is that CIT makes non-sequiturs. They claim that a north path proves flyover...why can't the plane hit?...

Because there is no physical evidence for a NoC path. If a plane had hit the Pentagon from NoC, there would be huge amounts of physical evidence inside the Pentagon. Such as a path of destruction, dead people, and the like.

You seem to have admitted in the meantime that you do not know of any physical evidence for NoC. As wrong as the CIT are, they have one up on you: They already know that there is no such physical evidence.

 

[Mobertermy]

Let's see what Kean and Hamilton really said, shall we?



Now, I'll grant you this, it's quite hard to track down that quote. There are so many truther sites repeating the "set up to fail" quotemine without including the full context that I had to look down to page 8 on Google to find it. That's how the truth movement suppresses information, by burying it under a torrent of misinformation. But when we actually dig down to the reality, it turns out the truthers were misleading us, every time. Kean and Hamilton actually view the work of the 9/11 Commission as a success despite the Bush administration's attempts to block its work. And this, let's remember, is what truthers brand as the government's official theory - one that the government of the day actually tried to hide, because they were afraid of looking incompetent.

Dave

Dave,
Kean and Hamilton have said on numerous occasions that they thought the commission was set up to fail. They then list a number of things that were working against the commission like a measely budget and the fact that they weren't given access to certain kinds of information. So, yes Dave, it's 100% fact that K&H said it was set up to fail - do you deny this?

Did you know that K&H even go so far as to say their investigation was "obstructed"?

 

[Oystein]

Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.

I suspect you have raped children.
Agreed?
After all, following your shining example, I don't need to provide evidence.

 

[DGM]

Dave,
Kean and Hamilton have said on numerous occasions that they thought the commission was set up to fail. They then list a number of things that were working against the commission like a measely budget and the fact that they weren't given access to certain kinds of information. So, yes Dave, it's 100% fact that K&H said it was set up to fail - do you deny this?

Did you know that K&H even go so far as to say their investigation was "obstructed"?

And who told you this?


Did they not say they considered the report a success?

 

[Oystein]

Do you mean the findings of the 9/11 commission which was "set up to fail."?
...

Is this the only investigation that you are aware of?

Do you happen to know who made that statement about the 9/11 Commission having been "set up to fail", and what does that person believe happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
Kean and Hamilton have said on numerous occasions that they thought the commission was set up to fail. They then list a number of things that were working against the commission like a measely budget and the fact that they weren't given access to certain kinds of information. So, yes Dave, it's 100% fact that K&H said it was set up to fail - do you deny this?

Did you know that K&H even go so far as to say their investigation was "obstructed"?

Let's get back to why you raised this quote, which was as an attempt to discredit the 9/11 Commission (and, of course, ignore a very large proportion of the evidence surrounding 9/11, because it doesn't support the conclusion you want to reach) by implying that its own members felt it had failed. Do you admit that, although Kean and Hamilton's quote is frequently used to give the impression that the results of the 9/11 Commission are disbelieved by the commissioners themselves, Kean and Hamilton themselves do not share this belief, and feel that, despite official obstruction, the Commission was a success?

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

Dave,
Kean and Hamilton have said on numerous occasions that they thought the commission was set up to fail. They then list a number of things that were working against the commission like a measely budget and the fact that they weren't given access to certain kinds of information. So, yes Dave, it's 100% fact that K&H said it was set up to fail - do you deny this?

Do you really believe we ar so dumb that we cannot see through your transparent rhetorical gaming?

Look, you took the quote out of context to imply that the 9/11-commission was a failure as an argument in favour of your contention that a re-investigation is needed.

When we put to the quote into context we see Kean and Hamilton neither meean, nor imply anything even remotely.

Trying to agrree Dave on the quote stripped from its context doesn't change the meaning of Kean and Hamilton's words. It doesn't help you to prove your contention.

You fail big time.

 

[Oystein]

Dave,
Kean and Hamilton have said on numerous occasions that they thought the commission was set up to fail. They then list a number of things that were working against the commission like a measely budget and the fact that they weren't given access to certain kinds of information. So, yes Dave, it's 100% fact that K&H said it was set up to fail - do you deny this?

Did you know that K&H even go so far as to say their investigation was "obstructed"?

Dear Mr. Dishonest,
Dave explained very well that even though the Commission faced obstacles, K&H considered it and its report a success - that it got to the truth despite the obstacles.

Do you agree that K&H believe that the Commission got the right results?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I looked at my calendar. Apparently, it's 2011 now. "Set up to fail" was old in 2007.

Mobertermy, the rest of us can see quite a lot of irony in the fact that you consider us blinkered and yourself as the creative innovator who thinks outside the box, when all you're doing is regurgitating the usual truther half-truths. You've been sold the same bill of goods as all the other obedient little truther sheep. How gullible do you have to be to fall for this stuff?

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Alright for you guys that seem to be confused about the can/did confusion about gov't killing let me explain (John sorry I didn't bother to read your nonsense after the first few sentences).


I never said that a government capable of killing its own citizens means it did. Obviously for someone or some organization to actually do something they must first actually be capable of it right? If beyond that you don't get what my point was that is your problem.

So that's your answer to my question in post 297?

Name the incidents in which the united states willfully killed its own citizens en masse. Be prepared to provide proof.

Do you know the fallacy you are committing?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question

 

[A W Smith]

Dave,
Kean and Hamilton have said on numerous occasions that they thought the commission was set up to fail. They then list a number of things that were working against the commission like a measely budget and the fact that they weren't given access to certain kinds of information. So, yes Dave, it's 100% fact that K&H said it was set up to fail - do you deny this?

Did you know that K&H even go so far as to say their investigation was "obstructed"?

Your flat out lie has been highlighted for all to see.

 

[Mobertermy]

Your flat out lie has been highlighted for all to see.

They even said it in their book...flat out lie? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I'm going to suggest to Mobertermy to read this book, titled: "The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome"

http://www.set-up-to-fail.net/

Truthers claim that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail". In reality it didn't fail because the commission collected enough evidence to prove stupid people (namely Truthers) wrong.