Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Mobertermy]

You are manipulated, pal, by priests if woo.

What's interesting about you is that you don't mind that the ignorant American populace can be led into a war with Iraq that has nothing to do with 911...a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. That doens't offend your sensibilities. No what offends you is someone like me that thinks the US gov't deliberately manipulated its people into supporting this war. Your prioritoes are f-ed up.

 

[Mobertermy]

So, your adding yet another layer to the "cover-up". Your "plan" is even more complicated the CIT's.

No its not. Its far less complicated, after CIT thinks explosives were used too. In my "plan" there is no need for faked airplane parts or a flyover no one saw.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But why do they all seem to misremember it the same way?

most of them were questioned as a groups so group speak applies.....and of course they don't all remember it the same way.....they all draw different routes.

 

[Oystein]

What's interesting about you is that you don't mind that the ignorant American populace can be led into a war with Iraq that has nothing to do with 911...a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. That doens't offend your sensibilities. No what offends you is someone like me that thinks the US gov't deliberately manipulated its people into supporting this war. Your prioritoes are f-ed up.

Strawman, and off-topic.

If this was a thread about the Iraq war, you might very well see my disgust over the things you mention.
But it isn't.
So you won't.

 

[twinstead]

What's interesting about you is that you don't mind that the ignorant American populace can be led into a war with Iraq that has nothing to do with 911...a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. That doens't offend your sensibilities. No what offends you is someone like me that thinks the US gov't deliberately manipulated its people into supporting this war. Your prioritoes are f-ed up.

Yup. It always comes down to ideology, doesn't it? You think 9-11 was an inside job because your world view demands it, not because you are looking for the truth.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Ask DGM, Myriad, tsig, alienentity, A W Smith, beachnut, Dave Rogers, BCR, I Ratant, sheeplesnshills, JohnG, Dumb All Over - I gave you now a dozend names to work with, who have recently replied in this very thread.

Did beachnut try to educate you, Oystein? Did you read my explanation of north and south? Did you understand it? Please explain what is wrong with the following image posted by beachnut in #139 of this thread.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No its not. Its far less complicated, after CIT thinks explosives were used too. In my "plan" there is no need for faked airplane parts or a flyover no one saw.

But you must still account for the lack of NoC damage to the building and why the poles were not seen being faked and repaired in the first 10 minutes by teams who would not have been expecting to have to do that......

 

[Oystein]

No its not. I am just saying that the Pentagon was like WTC...they used planes as cover for use of explosives.

Have you got an idea yet how much energy those planes dissipated into the buildings, and how much explosives you'd need to match that, by order of magnitude?

In other words, what could explosives do what planes can't? Why did they not use planes alone?

 

[DGM]

No its not. I am just saying that the Pentagon was like WTC...they used planes as cover for use of explosives.

Yes it is.

You, like CIT claim that the plane flew NoC. That means faked FDR, Radar, Building damage, Citgo video and planted poles.

You also claim the plane was "switched-out" meaning the DNA had to be faked.

You now add the layer of explosives that have a very distinct signature that had to be covered up.

Add to that every photo that shows the poles or anything remotely incriminating had also needed to be faked.


Congratulations, You created the most complex "plan" ever.

 

[Oystein]

Did beachnut try to educate you, Oystein? Did you read my explanation of north and south? Did you understand it? Please explain what is wrong with the following image posted by beachnut in #139 of this thread.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif[/qimg]

This has nothing to do with my post. What has beachnut to do with me? You probably missed the recent thread by beachnut where I fought his style and (lack of) content tooth and nail

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No its not. I am just saying that the Pentagon was like WTC...they used planes as cover for use of explosives.

Why bother when a plane will do the job just fine?

 

[DGM]

No its not. Its far less complicated, after CIT thinks explosives were used too. In my "plan" there is no need for faked airplane parts or a flyover no one saw.

All you did was substitute "plane parts" for faking every photo. You also have to account for no damage in the direction you claim the plane actually hit..

 

[twinstead]

I'm still trying to figure out what is crazier--a flyover that nobody witnessed or claiming a plane struck part of the building where there was no damage.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yes it is.

You, like CIT claim that the plane flew NoC. That means faked FDR, Radar, Building damage, Citgo video and planted poles.

You also claim the plane was "switched-out" meaning the DNA had to be faked.

You now add the layer of explosives that have a very distinct signature that had to be covered up.

Add to that every photo that shows the poles or anything remotely incriminating had also needed to be faked.


Congratulations, You created the most complex "plan" ever.

worse....there are now two damage tracks inside the building, one which must be made to look like a plane crash and one that must instantly be made to look like an undamaged office with live people (who would have been killed by the NoC route but not by the SoC route).................

 

[DGM]

I'm still trying to figure out what is crazier--a flyover that nobody witnessed or claiming a plane struck part of the building where there was no damage.

Or, faked everything in advance to cover-up the fact a plane was going to fly the route in the first place (it only went south "in a screw-up").

 

[DGM]

worse....there are now two damage tracks inside the building, one which must be made to look like a plane crash and one that must instantly be made to look like an undamaged office with live people (who would have been killed by the NoC route but not by the SoC route).................

Your right I covered that briefly in post #252. It's makes my head hurt to think of it all at once.

 

[A W Smith]

If the plane did hit a lightpole NoC they would have to cover up this fact right?

Cover it up by not just impounding any video which showed NOC poles down? But then re-enacting it with actors and vehicles in newsreels later that day to show the light poles upright and intact? That's got to be the stupidest and most elaborate plan of ever ever ever ever. Why not just confiscate it? Again. WTF is wrong with you that you swallow every conspiracy theory whole without letting it pass through your grey matter?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm still trying to figure out what is crazier--a flyover that nobody witnessed or claiming a plane struck part of the building where there was no damage.

They are both equally crazy, but in my opinion, Mobertermy's theory is the single dumbest pentagon conspiracy theory ever.

He does not explain where the missing North Path damage went to nor does he explain how the debris and passengers from a plane that crashed on a North Side path ended up on the South Side path.

/he has convinced himself of all this nonsense, and now is absolutely unable to extricate himself without crushing his ego.

 

[A W Smith]

Right, he claims he was NoC.


You seem to be making the childish claim that if you saw it in a photo it must be true.

You seem to be making the childish claim that if someone claims something years after the fact that it must be true. Despite the preponderance of physical evidence contradicting their claim. This evidence includes the following which were not even necessary to prove a SOC flight path.

A treetop at the southwest end of the bridge shorn off and injested by the starboard engine of flight 77.

The leaves from that tree on the south end of the bridge strewn all over the southbound lane

Lloyyd's cab in the south path with pole #076 into his windshield which stood next to above tree

The VADOT camera pole missing foot peg and scar from the wing tip.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But why do they all seem to misremember it the same way?

They don't. Their accounts vary just as widely as you'd expect from eyewitnesses; that's why they're the least reliable form of evidence. Yet you have deemed their statements to hold more weight than documented physical evidence.

I'm sorry, but that's not intelligent; it's damn stupid.

Explosives in the building just like at WTC.

So... did they also instantly rebuild the alternate damage path that would be caused by an impact from NoC? Or is it your contention that the plane itself was not capable of causing any damage whatsoever?