Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

Now you have the correct CITGO station.

In #176 you marked the one with the "C" bubble, while it is the one with the "A" bubble up at the pentagon.

Here I explained where north and south in this argument is.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Now you have the correct CITGO station.

In #176 you marked the one with the "C" bubble, while it is the one with the "A" bubble up at the pentagon.

Here I explained where north and south in this argument is.
Click to expand...


CIT flight paths were proved to be a fraud. CIT are liars, or plain dumb making up delusions. RADAR, FDR and PAIK prove CIT flight paths are a fraud. CIT never did settle on one flight path; they have no flight path.

the final seconds from the FDR have a true course of 61.2 to 61.5; reality proves CIT fraud. FDR is evidence, CIT is fraud.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is part of it, but the fact is the plane was over the Citgo for a second or less, after which it was east of the Citgo. Sometimes when witnesses experience something as extreme as this was (especially with the limited visibility of the overhead canopy), the brain just fills in the missing blanks. Lagasse was on the north side, so his brain registered the plane was too. But, he was facing towards his car, towards the Citgo according to his statements. From that POV he would have had a very brief instance of the plane as it came past the Navy Annex when it would have been in his field of view.

Put on top of the limited visibility the noise bouncing off the hillside on the Annex side and reverberating underneath the canopy and who can blame Robert for running inside the Citgo (although he claims he ran up the embankment).

I've never been critical of the Citgo witnesses. I simply recognize the circumstances of their observations. They believe they saw what they saw the way they remember seeing it. The brain likes to make sense of the world, so it fills in the blanks for us quite often.
 
BCR said:
That is part of it, but the fact is the plane was over the Citgo for a second or less, after which it was east of the Citgo. Sometimes when witnesses experience something as extreme as this was (especially with the limited visibility of the overhead canopy), the brain just fills in the missing blanks. Lagasse was on the north side, so his brain registered the plane was too. But, he was facing towards his car, towards the Citgo according to his statements. From that POV he would have had a very brief instance of the plane as it came past the Navy Annex when it would have been in his field of view.

Put on top of the limited visibility the noise bouncing off the hillside on the Annex side and reverberating underneath the canopy and who can blame Robert for running inside the Citgo (although he claims he ran up the embankment).

I've never been critical of the Citgo witnesses. I simply recognize the circumstances of their observations. They believe they saw what they saw the way they remember seeing it. The brain likes to make sense of the world, so it fills in the blanks for us quite often.
Click to expand...


and you have to add in the fact that the shadow of the aircraft would have been well to the north west of the actual plane at that time of the morning.
so people would tend to place the plane above where the shadow was if they had no other point of reference. A plane on a SoC route would have its shadow over the Citgo or even NoC.

Balsammos himself tries to use the shadow to confirm Paiks story but as usual was completely incompetent in doing so (It was me that pointed out he may be using the wrong time, he had forgotten about how the clocks change through the year.) yet he ignores the effect the shadow may have had later in the route.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
That is part of it, but the fact is the plane was over the Citgo for a second or less, after which it was east of the Citgo. Sometimes when witnesses experience something as extreme as this was (especially with the limited visibility of the overhead canopy), the brain just fills in the missing blanks. Lagasse was on the north side, so his brain registered the plane was too. But, he was facing towards his car, towards the Citgo according to his statements. From that POV he would have had a very brief instance of the plane as it came past the Navy Annex when it would have been in his field of view.

Put on top of the limited visibility the noise bouncing off the hillside on the Annex side and reverberating underneath the canopy and who can blame Robert for running inside the Citgo (although he claims he ran up the embankment).

I've never been critical of the Citgo witnesses. I simply recognize the circumstances of their observations. They believe they saw what they saw the way they remember seeing it. The brain likes to make sense of the world, so it fills in the blanks for us quite often.
Click to expand...
What do you make of the fact that Lagasse insists that the poles were down NoC and not by the bridge. And don't say that he just made a deduction based on where he thought the plane was, because he clearly says he saw the poles on the ground NoC when got to the scene (see Eastman interview for instance). It isn't a little weird that the cab driver insists he was NoC and both Brooks and Lagasse independently confirm this?
 
Mobertermy said:
What do you make of the fact that Lagasse insists that the poles were down NoC and not by the bridge. And don't say that he just made a deduction based on where he thought the plane was, because he clearly says he saw the poles on the ground NoC when got to the scene (see Eastman interview for instance). It isn't a little weird that the cab driver insists he was NoC and both Brooks and Lagasse independently confirm this?
Click to expand...


They do no such thing. They are never taken to where the cab was, just point to the highway hundreds of feet away where they mistakenly recall it crossing.
The error is in their recall not where the actual poles were. Note they also do not report any pole felling or repair teams, or a flyover (an NOC plane has to flyover as damage to the building reflects only a SOC route.)
 
sheeplesnshills said:
They do no such thing. They are never taken to where the cab was, just point to the highway hundreds of feet away where they mistakenly recall it crossing.
The error is in their recall not where the actual poles were. Note they also do not report any pole felling or repair teams, or a flyover (an NOC plane has to flyover as damage to the building reflects only a SOC route.)
Click to expand...

No, they say they saw the poles on the ground when they got to the scene. They say this in their interview with Craig...they are talking about the poles and Lagasse says he didn'e see the poles get hit but "Obviously they were on the ground when they got to the scene." He also says he saw the poles and the cab in person in his online interview with Dick Eastman.

So, he didn't just deduce where the poles were based on where he thinks the plane was. He says he actually saw them on the ground NoC, and Brooks agrees with him. They point to exactly where Lloyde says he was.
 
Mobertermy said:
So, he didn't just deduce where the poles were based on where he thinks the plane was. He says he actually saw them on the ground NoC, and Brooks agrees with him. They point to exactly where Lloyde says he was.
Click to expand...

Approximately when did they do that?
 
So many witnesses to what you think the 'real' path is, mobertermy, but none to any movement or planting of evidence. It doesn't add up. The physical evidence doesn't rely on recollection or confusion, it is what it is. Unless I can find evidence of tampering, the physical evidence is pretty compelling, regardless of what some eye witnesses remember.

It's how ANY investigation would work.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
What do you make of the fact that Lagasse insists that the poles were down NoC and not by the bridge. And don't say that he just made a deduction based on where he thought the plane was, because he clearly says he saw the poles on the ground NoC when got to the scene (see Eastman interview for instance). It isn't a little weird that the cab driver insists he was NoC and both Brooks and Lagasse independently confirm this?
Click to expand...

He was simply mistaken. On 9/11 he was not focused on poles, he was focused on the huge fireball rising above the place he was responsible to secure. He spent his time at the scene, not the poles. Again, his brain put the plane NoC, so he had to put the poles NoC. There are plenty of just after the event video and photographs. They all put the poles down on the SoC approach and not one shows any evidence of pole damage down towards the ANC.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
and you have to add in the fact that the shadow of the aircraft would have been well to the north west of the actual plane at that time of the morning.
so people would tend to place the plane above where the shadow was if they had no other point of reference. A plane on a SoC route would have its shadow over the Citgo or even NoC.

Balsammos himself tries to use the shadow to confirm Paiks story but as usual was completely incompetent in doing so (It was me that pointed out he may be using the wrong time, he had forgotten about how the clocks change through the year.) yet he ignores the effect the shadow may have had later in the route.
Click to expand...

I know where the shadow was. It shows up on the Citgo video. It was SoC.

Citgo Video Overview
Citgo Update (witnesses and shadow)
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
What do you make of the fact that Lagasse insists that the poles were down NoC and not by the bridge. And don't say that he just made a deduction based on where he thought the plane was, because he clearly says he saw the poles on the ground NoC when got to the scene (see Eastman interview for instance). It isn't a little weird that the cab driver insists he was NoC and both Brooks and Lagasse independently confirm this?
Click to expand...
Yet when I asked you to show me the downed poles in the NOC videos I had provided you skipped right past that post and referred to witness recollections years after the fact. Show us the damned poles already. You think they stood em back up 15 minutes after the incident? WTF is wrong with you?
 
Mobertermy said:
No, they say they saw the poles on the ground when they got to the scene. They say this in their interview with Craig...they are talking about the poles and Lagasse says he didn'e see the poles get hit but "Obviously they were on the ground when they got to the scene." He also says he saw the poles and the cab in person in his online interview with Dick Eastman.
Click to expand...

And at what point do they say he saw the pole NoC? They don't.

So, he didn't just deduce where the poles were based on where he thinks the plane was. He says he actually saw them on the ground NoC, and Brooks agrees with him. They point to exactly where Lloyde says he was.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are falling for CITs trick of getting them to sketch a route as best they remember it. CIT don't point out exactly which pole were knocked down do they?
The cops remember poles being down but exactly which ones they have no clue 7 years later (why would they????). Or maybe they do but CIT omitted that part of the interview..............
 
alienentity said:
Approximately when did they do that?
Click to expand...

CIt make use of wide angle shots to make it appear the the SoC and NoC paths are wide apart so no one could possible confuse the two but thats not actually the case. Look on good earth.....they are actually only about 15 degrees apart.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
CIt make use of wide angle shots to make it appear the the SoC and NoC paths are wide apart so no one could possible confuse the two but thats not actually the case. Look on good earth.....they are actually only about 15 degrees apart.
Click to expand...
.
Can you point to an image of this?
 
I Ratant said:
.
Can you point to an image of this?
Click to expand...

Pentagonandcitgoannotated.jpg



I created this to show how Mr Morins statement has to be SoC but you can see that a line NoC and a line SoC could be very lose together from anyone near the Citgo......probably a little a 10 degrees and at most only 30 degrees but CIT love showing a wide angle which make it look at least 45........I wonder why they did that:D
 
And why reorient the image that way?
It's almost 90° off a normal map presentation.
And that red flight path would need control inputs and changes in heading and roll angle not shown in the FDR data.
And at the high speed the plane was moving, highly unlikely to be possible as shown.
 

Attachments

  • Pentagonandcitgoannotated-A.jpg
    Pentagonandcitgoannotated-A.jpg
    74.4 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom