Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[BCR]

I find it odd that people are still pushing the NoC crap. Most of the erroneous NoC eyewitness set can be understood (especially the Citgo crowd) once you actually visit their POV and understand the topography and circumstances of their observation. Once their eyewitness accounts are compared to others and what they actually did (we can see them on the Citgo video), the discrepancies in their observations become easily reconciled with a SoC flight path. The same can be said for the ANC eyewitnesses. Collectively, when taken together there is absolutely no doubt in any rational investigators mind that the plane flew SoC along the path described by the damage and FDR.

I guess I'm just shocked that people are still peddling the NoC nonsense and demonstrating their lack of elementary discernment skills.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I guess I'm just shocked that people are still peddling the SoC nonsense and demonstrating their lack of elementary discernment skills.

Careful, Farmer.

 

[BCR]

Thanks CE, just woke up

 

[Mobertermy]

So why again did they fly the plane NoC, fake a SoC path, and plant explosives? Please say it was so they could cover up the theft of $2.3 trillion so I can laugh in your face some more.

It was so they could cover up 2.3 trillion dollars.

 

[Mobertermy]

Not all did. I really don't have the patience to go through the CIT list again.

Sorry.

Rule number one of a "sinister plan" KEEP IT SIMPLE.

No, I completely agree with you that going through the NoC list is tedious and boring.

I am making a separate point: the witnesses to the cab and lightpole corroborate that it was NoC. See Father Mcgraw in "From the Law to the Lord" for example. He was NoC and says the cab was a "few feet" from him.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It was so they could cover up 2.3 trillion dollars.

There was no theft of 2.3 Trillion. Is was just not properly accounted for at that time. Destruction of the entire pentagon would not cover up the theft as all business by 2001 is done electronically and all that is backed up at remote sites.

So no theft, to loss of data...........so why blow the place up????

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, I completely agree with you that going through the NoC list is tedious and boring.

I am making a separate point: the witnesses to the cab and lightpole corroborate that it was NoC. See Father Mcgraw in "From the Law to the Lord" for example. He was NoC and says the cab was a "few feet" from him.

and what makes you think that? given that we have found that your analysis skills are somewhat challenged I see no reason to think you are right here either..............

 

[DGM]

No, I completely agree with you that going through the NoC list is tedious and boring.

I am making a separate point: the witnesses to the cab and lightpole corroborate that it was NoC. See Father Mcgraw in "From the Law to the Lord" for example. He was NoC and says the cab was a "few feet" from him.

Have you reconsidered your "no SoC witnesses" claim after reading the link I (and a few others) posted?

I'd appreciate an answer to this before I spend any time on the "pole" claim.


Thanks

 

[Mobertermy]

The positions of the wing marks rule out a NoC approach.

Well I completely disagree with this. It wasn't until I thought of the plane hitting from a 90 degree angle that I believed a plane could have cause the damage to the facade. If the plane approached from the official 37 degree angle the right wing would have hit before the engine causing wing damage, whereas from a ninety degree angle the engines hit first then the wings shear off in the hole created by the wings...this explains the abscence of wing damage and why the hole is much smaller than would be intuitively expected.

Explosives would not do the sorts of damage done inside the building.

Sure it could have. In fact explosives work much better than plane damage. See for instance the "upward deflected" slab in the ASCE report. Very easy to understand how explosives could do that. Harder to explain how a plane could do it.

The exit hole could only have been made by a mass of solid material hitting the inside of the wall.

Such as what? The plane was travelling through the building as "fluid." What is this mass of solid material to which you refer?

You have no physical evidence of explosives. That's all there is to that.

Secondary explosions, upward defelected slab, hole in c-ring, explosives used earlier in the day at WTC in the same operation, witnesses claim official flightpath is wrong...that's my evidence.

 

[Mobertermy]

Have you reconsidered your "no SoC witnesses" claim after reading the link I (and a few others) posted?

I'd appreciate an answer to this before I spend any time on the "pole" claim.


Thanks

It reinforced my opinion that there are no SoC witnesses.

 

[Mobertermy]

I find it odd that people are still pushing the NoC crap. Most of the erroneous NoC eyewitness set can be understood (especially the Citgo crowd) once you actually visit their POV and understand the topography and circumstances of their observation. Once their eyewitness accounts are compared to others and what they actually did (we can see them on the Citgo video), the discrepancies in their observations become easily reconciled with a SoC flight path. The same can be said for the ANC eyewitnesses. Collectively, when taken together there is absolutely no doubt in any rational investigators mind that the plane flew SoC along the path described by the damage and FDR.

I guess I'm just shocked that people are still peddling the NoC nonsense and demonstrating their lack of elementary discernment skills.

Are you the John Farmer?

I've been to the actual Citgo...how does the topography disprove NoC?

 

[DGM]

It reinforced my opinion that there are no SoC witnesses.

OK. I don't think I really feel like trying to change your mind.


I do hope you learn something about photo interpretation though.

 

[WildCat]

It was so they could cover up 2.3 trillion dollars.

So all this was to cover up $2.3 trillion, and then Rumsfeld spills the beans at a press conference anyway?

This makes truther-sense?

 

[The Big Dog]

Well I completely disagree with this. It wasn't until I thought of the plane hitting from a 90 degree angle that I believed a plane could have cause the damage to the facade. If the plane approached from the official 37 degree angle the right wing would have hit before the engine causing wing damage, whereas from a ninety degree angle the engines hit first then the wings shear off in the hole created by the wings...this explains the abscence of wing damage and why the hole is much smaller than would be intuitively expected.


Sure it could have. In fact explosives work much better than plane damage. See for instance the "upward deflected" slab in the ASCE report. Very easy to understand how explosives could do that. Harder to explain how a plane could do it.


Such as what? The plane was travelling through the building as "fluid." What is this mass of solid material to which you refer?


Secondary explosions, upward defelected slab, hole in c-ring, explosives used earlier in the day at WTC in the same operation, witnesses claim official flightpath is wrong...that's my evidence.

And if a plane hit at a 90 degree angle, then there would have been damage in the Pentagon along that trajectory. There was none.

I have asked you about that 5 times.

You have refused to address this. That makes you a troll or incontrovertibly stupid.

I can't figure out if it is not your fault, because it appears that it IS your fault.

Thanks for sharing with us the dumbest pentagon conspiracy theory.

 

[twinstead]

So all this was to cover up $2.3 trillion, and then Rumsfeld spills the beans at a press conference anyway?

This makes truther-sense?

Between that and Silverstein's "pull it", it just illustrates that the NWO just likes to rub it in our face sometimes.

 

[BCR]

Are you the John Farmer?

I've been to the actual Citgo...how does the topography disprove NoC?

Please don't misquote me. "Most of the erroneous NoC eyewitness set can be understood (especially the Citgo crowd) once you actually visit their POV and understand the topography and circumstances of their observation."

And very good. I was there multiple times. I took reference photos and actual linear and angular measurements of the facility with which to properly understand the security video (camera placement, etc). So just take what Turcious said in his interview with CIT for example, locate his actual POV on the security video and it was impossible for him to see a plane on the NoC. Whereas it was not only possible, but most likely that SGT Lagasse saw it SoC, not NoC. Brooks ... his statement just does not fit with anything, so not sure what he really saw or did not see.

Over the years, eyewitness accounts corrupt themselves from being told over-and-over again as 'war stories'. That is why in court a police officer sticks to whatever notes he (or she) took at the incident. Otherwise a good attorney will use this 'corruption' to make you look like an idiot on the stand. No, there is not ONE NoC account that not be explained by a SoC approach and perceptional error.

 

[Oystein]

It was so they could cover up 2.3 trillion dollars.

This is the stupidest theory of all.
You could flatten a bank, and still all the accounting would be safe.
You just can't destroy government accounting with bombs. You apparently have no idea how accounting is done, in technical terms. You probably never heard about Data centers and where they are located, and where not.

 

[Oystein]

Well I completely disagree with this. It wasn't until I thought of the plane hitting from a 90 degree angle that I believed a plane could have cause the damage to the facade. If the plane approached from the official 37 degree angle the right wing would have hit before the engine causing wing damage, whereas from a ninety degree angle the engines hit first then the wings shear off in the hole created by the wings...this explains the abscence of wing damage and why the hole is much smaller than would be intuitively expected.

Intuition is a bitch when you are dealing with such large forces and energy levels.
Your entire intuition about how the plane would perform at different angles is most certainly wrong. Momentum would carry all parts of the plane straight into the Pentagon wall, no matter what angle you have.

Sure it could have. In fact explosives work much better than plane damage. See for instance the "upward deflected" slab in the ASCE report. Very easy to understand how explosives could do that. Harder to explain how a plane could do it.

You are cherry-picking one unusual piece of physical evidence, and ignoring pretty much all of the rest.

Such as what? The plane was travelling through the building as "fluid." What is this mass of solid material to which you refer?

Ok, you have a valid point there. The exit hole was indeed not cause by some "massive material", but by a directed flow of more fluid mass.
Either way, it is that directed nature of the flow that is peculiar here. Most explosions would not have that kind of neat direction to cause a well defined exit hole.

Secondary explosions, upward defelected slab, hole in c-ring, explosives used earlier in the day at WTC in the same operation, witnesses claim official flightpath is wrong...that's my evidence.

No explosives were used at the WTC.
You are full to the brim of woo. My my...

 

[beachnut]

It reinforced my opinion that there are no SoC witnesses.

That proves your opinions on 911 are false, failed.
SoC witnesses.

Pointing south. OOPS (for the direction challenged they are pointing south.)

These guys point exactly where 77 was, to cause the damage; each one agree Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. The FDR verifies these guys pointed to Flight 77 on the real flight path. BTW, CIT's flight path is impossible to fly due to aerodynamics. You were debunked on 911.

 

[DGM]

Secondary explosions, upward defelected slab, hole in c-ring, explosives used earlier in the day at WTC in the same operation, witnesses claim official flightpath is wrong...that's my evidence.

I believe your a reasonably intelligent guy that has just been over loaded with woo that you have chose (for whatever reason) to believe.

Before we go much further I feel I need to ask this question. Do you think we (everyone that's been responding) are sent here to convince people of the "official story"?