Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[twinstead]

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"?

Yea, it needs to be asked; that usually puts the exclamation point at the end of the woo.

 

[JohnG]

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.

I worked for a company in 2001 that stored electronic records for dozens of major companies, including a major financial firm based in the WTC. We in turn had all those records in our data center and backed up at a second site. All of this redundancy happened on a daily basis. In the days after the attack the firm was able to operate (more or less) through satellite offices and because their documents were available and online via our company. Though 2001 may now seem like the stone age to people who were children or teens at the time, these sorts of backup procedures were pretty common practice in big business even then.

Protip for CTists everywhere: Smoking Pot, playing video games and talking to your friends until 4:00 AM every morning about how the NWO is going to put you in a concentration camp at any moment doesn't magically impart any knowledge of how the real world works. You want to "rage against the machine"? Fine, more power to you, but first you have to learn how the machine actually operates and not just make stuff up based on some half remembered plot of a Steven Seagal movie.

 

[tsig]

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.

Yeh, just how big is 13 trillion in electronic storage?

 

[I Ratant]

Yeh, just how big is 13 trillion in electronic storage?

.
Prolly get a SanDisk chip for my cameras that big for about $9 today at the Shack.
The 32 Meg HD I got for my Color Computer, at $825.. that hurts now.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

\

No thats not how the real world works. Nothing shears off because its all too quick. The wings simply shred up into little pieces as they hit. The linestone facing is destroyed all along where the wings hit. The wings and tail were not heavy enough to pierce the reinforced concrete whilst the fuselage was.....hence the 14ft (IRC) diameter hole which is the size of a 757 Fuselage.

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.

argument from incerdulity. What experiance or education makes you think your opinion on this matters?

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

The plane was a fluid? Hardly....it may act like one in some respects but it was very much a solid.

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 its all wrong. The fuel explosion or deflected parts would explain slab. hole in c ring is just where it should be, no explosive used in WTC and witnesses mistaken or lying (and lots of others make it SoC) prove nothing.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I imagine he thinks (like Jammo) that the plane should have bounced off?

 

[I Ratant]

Is there a graphic of the NoC flight path?
I saw one site which showed the impact on the north side of the building.
Which is totally absurd.

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Did you see any NOC downed poles in any of the videos or photos taken that day? I do not care much where they say they were, the facts, video evidence, photographic evidence proves them and YOU wrong. I challenge you here and now to show a downed pole or taxi north of Citgo moments after flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

Produce this evidence now or concede

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why? To hide the fact that they stole $2.3 trillion dollars? lol

You do realize that backups of records are kept, correct?

But not in spy stories and movies. It's all kept on a floppy disk or memory stick on the bosses PC.

 

[Mobertermy]

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.

John does this have something to do with the fact that, due to the placement of the Citgo, depending on when one looks at the plane an NoC plane could appear to be SoC, and an NoC plane could appear to be SoC?

I was looking at an overhead of the Citgo the other day and the way it is kind of at an angle seems like it could cause all kinds of potential problems with witnesses referring to it as NoC or SoC. I haven't really delved into this too much.

 

[Mobertermy]

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"?

Absolutely not.

In fact, I think my thoughts of you are pretty much a mirror of how you think of me. I think you're an intelligent person that has psychological factors which make it seem that 9/11 being an inside job is absurd.

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

 

[Dog Town]

Absolutely not.

In fact, I think my thoughts of you are pretty much a mirror of how you think of me. I think you're an intelligent person that has psychological factors which make it seem that 9/11 being an inside job is absurd.

Evidence is an amazing thing!

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

Who said governments aren't capable?

 

[Mobertermy]

Re: 2.3 Trillion

Can we at least agree that an extremist group that spent years planning a mission hitting the one part of the Pentagon that was reinforced seems a little contradictory?

I mean either they were smart enough to pull of this wildly successful crime? Yet so dumb as to hit the Pentagon where it makes the least sense to hit it?

Whereas, if it were people that wanted to do minimal damage that is where it makes the most sense to hit it?

 

[Dog Town]

Re: 2.3 Trillion

Can we at least agree that an extremist group that spent years planning a mission hitting the one part of the Pentagon that was reinforced seems a little contradictory?

I mean either they were smart enough to pull of this wildly successful crime? Yet so dumb as to hit the Pentagon where it makes the least sense to hit it?

Whereas, if it were people that wanted to do minimal damage that is where it makes the most sense to hit it?

How do you know where they meant to hit?

 

[beachnut]

Absolutely not.

In fact, I think my thoughts of you are pretty much a mirror of how you think of me. I think you're an intelligent person that has psychological factors which make it seem that 9/11 being an inside job is absurd.

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

You failed to study US history and our core documents, this is why you fail. We are the government, we decide, we elect, we change. you failed again, you make up lies about what you are capable of, not what other people are.

You and 911 truth would be capable of doing dumb things, the rest of us try to stop you and other who spread lies out of ignorance.

Get a compass and learn which direction south is, then go back to school and get a reality based education. Your photo interpretation skills are zip.

Complex terrorist plot baffles 911 truth.
19 terrorists did 911, the plot was so complex it has you baffled. Let me list the complex steps!
1. Kill pilots take aircraft
2. Crash aircraft into large buildings
Bet the terrorists trained for years memorizing these incredibly complex steps. Maybe not, but you have had 9 years and all you do is regurgitate failed 911 truth lies and delusions. 100 percent failure, the terrorist beat you, and they don't want your failed apologies.

 

[Mobertermy]

Who said governments aren't capable?

So then you don't think there is anything inherently ridiculous about someone thinking that elements within the US gov't attacked its own citizens on 9/11?

You just don't think the evidence supports this perfectly reasonable possibility?

 

[DGM]

I guess the main difference between us is that I think governments are capable of killing their own citizens and you don't. Thoughts?

What on earth makes you think that? I truly believe that horrible things have been done by some governments. I just don't lump them all together and assume all are the same.

 

[Mobertermy]

You failed to study US history and our core documents, this is why you fail. We are the government, we decide, we elect, we change.

I'd have to say it is you that failed to study US history. The founding fathers viewed Government as a necessary evil that needed checks and balances and constant surveillance from the citizens to ensure that it keeps serving the citizens needs.

 

[Mobertermy]

What on earth makes you think that? I truly believe that horrible things have been done by some governments. I just don't lump them all together and assume all are the same.

Me either.

 

[DGM]

Me either.

So why do you think I don't believe governments could not harm their own citizens? It would help if you would express a complete thought and not expect us to interrogate it out of you.