Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Oystein]

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

FALSE.
You twist and turn what the witness says into its very opposite.

...
I don't have a conclusion.

I call a LIE.

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 is you who twists his statement to make it mean the opposite of its literal content.

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.

That may be his opinion, but it is contradicted by his own precise description of what he witnissed.

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."
...

What direction was your witness' car facing? Which direction was he driving?
Where, then, is "back"?

There are no two ways to interprete the whole thing.
He was driving and facing north when a plane approached him from left and behind. That's south-west for you. He was 4 cars back fromn where the plane crossed the highway - that is a little bit south from that point.
There are no two ways about this.

 

[DGM]

I don't have a conclusion.

I call a LIE.

I'm not so sure this is a lie.

He mostly has incomplete thoughts heading toward the hopeful confirmation of his belief. (a subtle but distinct difference)

 

[tsig]

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.

I'd say "I was four cars in front of it".

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Liar, you cited him as a definitive NoC witness. His statement lacks the clarity for you to do so with any honesty.

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.

But you already know that CIT lied to him to get him confused as to where he was. They even do so on tape!
Why do you cling to one of their lies but refuse to accept another. Be consistent at least!!!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

As are you, the big difference is we are not citing him as definitive evidence of something and you are.
You are choosing an unusual way of interpreting his comment, hey who knows, you might even be right, but you cannot know that you are with any certainty.

Still waiting for you to show us how that video places Mcgraw NoC.....

 

[Oystein]

I'm not so sure this is a lie.

He mostly has incomplete thoughts heading toward the hopeful confirmation of his belief. (a subtle but distinct difference)

This to be confirmed belief is the very conclusion he starts with.

 

[Mobertermy]

But you already know that CIT lied to him to get him confused as to where he was. They even do so on tape!

What the hell are you talking about? Did CIT even interview this guy?

 

[Mobertermy]

As are you, the big difference is we are not citing him as definitive evidence of something and you are.

Wrong. BCR listed him as an SoC witness.

You are choosing an unusual way of interpreting his comment, hey who knows, you might even be right, but you cannot know that you are with any certainty.

No, I am just showing why this one comment doesn't discount the rest of his comments. People have used it to show that the plane was in front of him, even though he clearly says he looked over his left shoulder to see the plane. I am merely pointing out that they are the ones trying to twist his meaning. Clearly the guy is not an official flightpath supporter because he said the OFP looked wrong to him. And here you guys are trying to use him as one. Its as ridiculous as CIT trying to use people that saw the plane impact the building as flyover witnesses.

Still waiting for you to show us how that video places Mcgraw NoC.....

You know what....I'm not going to do any research for you just to have you find ways of twisting it. You saw in the video where Mcgraw said the cab was "a few feet" from him. No go to google.com type in "father mcgraw, pentagon witness" or a similar term and find out for yourself where he was on rte 27.

 

[Mobertermy]

Then why do you feel the need to explain what they meant?

Because your friends feel the need to twist what he said.

 

[BCR]

Wrong. BCR listed him as an SoC witness.

Because he is, not because I want him to be ... big difference

 

[A W Smith]

Mobertermy and his tortured logic

Because your friends feel the need to twist what he said.

irony

you are the one doing the twisting,

How would he have been able to make a statement like

I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

How would he be able to see passengers if the plane was behind him? Impossible.

 

[DGM]

Because your friends feel the need to twist what he said.

I have not seen any "twisting" by my "friends". I have however seen attempts made to merge the witness accounts with physical evidence.

Let me ask you this. If you want to find the truth, wouldn't this be the correct path to follow?

 

[twinstead]

Let me ask you this. If you want to find the truth, wouldn't this be the correct path to follow?

It's much easier to simply eliminate physical evidence that is contrary to his opinion by claiming it's planted, though. No merging necessary.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How would he have been able to make a statement like

I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

How would he be able to see passengers if the plane was behind him? Impossible.

To be fair, you're ignoring the hypothetical situation he sets up with "had it been sitting on a runway".

He's saying that if the plane was simply sitting on a runway, and he were as close to it in that hypothetical situation as he was in this real situation, he would then be able to see the faces of the people inside looking out. He's not actually saying that he saw the faces of the passengers as the plane flew past him to impact the Pentagon.

 

[A W Smith]

passengers in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear? Really?

To be fair, you're ignoring the hypothetical situation he sets up with "had it been sitting on a runway".

He's saying that if the plane was simply sitting on a runway, and he were as close to it in that hypothetical situation as he was in this real situation, he would then be able to see the faces of the people inside looking out. He's not actually saying that he saw the faces of the passengers as the plane flew past him to impact the Pentagon.

I have ignored nothing,

I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of the passengers peering out."

He didn't say when it went behind, he says "when it went past", Would he be looking at the passengers in his rear view mirror?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have ignored nothing,


He didn't say when it went behind, he says "when it went past", Would he be looking at the passengers in his rear view mirror?

Ah. I think I may have misinterpreted the reason for your focusing on that part of the quote, which is a shame on me given the context of the argument at the moment. My bad.

 

[BCR]

Man, I've seen some creative splicing and dicing of the English language before, but gee-wiz. This is not hard folks, he was sitting in traffic, a plane approached from the left and behind him and then crossed the road in front of him, slamming into the Pentagon. That corresponds to the physical evidence at the scene with no ambiguity what-so-ever. Everything else is just fluff (perceptional bias).

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What the hell are you talking about? Did CIT even interview this guy?

Sigh.....I was talking about lloyde England. You only place McGraw NoC because you think Lloyde was NoC (despite admitting that you were wrong about the pictures that prove exactly where he was.)

You are wrong about Lloyde therefore you are wrong about McGraw. The only evidence that Lloyde was anywhere but where he is clearly seen in the pictures is as a result of CITs shameful lies making him confused. You know he was SoC because he is in the pictures!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

E=Mobertermy;6855809]Wrong. BCR listed him as an SoC witness.

BCR is not all of us, but his claim has a lt more credibility than yours.

No, I am just showing why this one comment doesn't discount the rest of his comments. People have used it to show that the plane was in front of him, even though he clearly says he looked over his left shoulder to see the plane.

Sigh.....it came from behind him and to his left so where else would he look to see it???? It then traveled in front of him and hit the building.
It appears I do need to draw you a picture

I am merely pointing out that they are the ones trying to twist his meaning. Clearly the guy is not an official flightpath supporter because he said the OFP looked wrong to him.

No he merely said that a he thought it seemed (ie he is not at all sure) to be more staight. He does not say perpendicular. His comments are well within reasonable eye witness tolerances of the SoC route

And here you guys are trying to use him as one. Its as ridiculous as CIT trying to use people that saw the plane impact the building as flyover witnesses.

Nope you are still wrong. No surprise there.......

"You know what....I'm not going to do any research for you just to have you find ways of twisting it. You saw in the video where Mcgraw said the cab was "a few feet" from him."

And you know EXACTLY where Lloydes cab was!!!!!!!!!! IT WAS JUST SOUTH OF THE BRIDGE!

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

That's a blatant lie. You know perfectly well that you take quotes like "straight" and say "this clearly means perpendicular to the building", or "four cars back" and say "this could equally well mean four cars forward". You can't even look at a witness statement without distorting its meaning.

If you and CIT want to try and twist their statements that is your business. But don't try and pin that on me.

Four cars back = four cars forward. Straight = perpendicular to the building. No sign of trying to twist statements there, right?

And try to have the good manners not to alter my username. It seems like you can't even be honest about that!

Dave