Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[I Ratant]

Maybe Moby might manipulate this image (ran out of m-alliteratives) and entertain enlighten us with his photo interpretation skills (I crack me up) and draw the true and only really true flight path of AA 77 on this 2-days after image?

 

[beachnut]

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

you are full of lies and nonsense

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.

Paik's testimony point the south flight path, the official flight path. CIT are morons, you have proved it. Good job. Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, your flyover theory is insane.

They are pointing south to the official flight path. They also have no clue how big a 757 is, they all think it is closer to them than it is. You need to take a course in aircraft accident investigation, the only thing these witnesses verify is 77 was south of them; verifying the official flight path which RADAR proves was south of them. CIT liars have to ignore reality based evidence to make up lies. FDR, RADAR and DNA have to be fake for CIT lies to work in their fantasy-land of lies.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

CIT liars have to ignore reality based evidence to make up lies.

and they are not even very good at that.......how they left Mr Morin and the footage of them lying to Lloyde in their fairytale is beyond comprehension.

 

[I Ratant]

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]

.
For starters, neither person is identified in the images.
The images will get much more viewing than any text.
And, there's no orientation in the images.
Which way are the gentleman pointing, relative to north or south of anything?
And a plot of where they are standing in relation to something would be nice to go along with the two images.

 

[George 152]

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

And lost impressively

 

[Mobertermy]

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

I believed the official story at one point in time just as you do. My worldview doens't demand it all...my worldview also doesn't demand that I keep blinders on.

 

[Mobertermy]

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..

I never said every photo.

 

[Mobertermy]

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.

DGM, you do realize that CIT thinks that explosives were used as well. As far as photo manipulation goes I guess we jsut disagree on how common place this is or easy to do (you might want to find out what experts have to say about that though).

 

[DGM]

DGM, you do realize that CIT thinks that explosives were used as well. As far as photo manipulation goes I guess we jsut disagree on how common place this is or easy to do (you might want to find out what experts have to say about that though).

So, what makes your "plan" better then theirs? Can you refine my list?

 

[Andy_Ross]

DGM, you do realize that CIT thinks that explosives were used as well. As far as photo manipulation goes I guess we jsut disagree on how common place this is or easy to do (you might want to find out what experts have to say about that though).

So tell us how easy it is?
How woud you do it?
You have shown no analytical skills, you have described no method for analysing the pictures and you haven't shown any artifacts or evidence to support any manipulation.
Which pictures are manipulated?

I have to say I didn't think there could be anything crazier than the WTC 'No Planers' but then I stumbled across a whole bunch of threads about the Pentagon that are even crazier. 'No Planers' that actualy include a Plane.

 

[beachnut]

.
For starters, neither person is identified in the images.
The images will get much more viewing than any text.
And, there's no orientation in the images.
Which way are the gentleman pointing, relative to north or south of anything?
And a plot of where they are standing in relation to something would be nice to go along with the two images.

The people appear in CIT video, they are pointing to the official flight path south of them, I can post the area and where they are pointing later, but there is only one flight path, and these people saw the plane on the official flight path. What is the official flight path, the real one.

I watched the CIT video, it was funny seeing these guys point south as CIT ignores them and lie about 911.

 

[The Big Dog]

I never said every photo.

lulz, our Hero ignored this part of your question:

Originally Posted by DGM
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..

 

[I Ratant]

The people appear in CIT video, they are pointing to the official flight path south of them, I can post the area and where they are pointing later, but there is only one flight path, and these people saw the plane on the official flight path. What is the official flight path, the real one.

I watched the CIT video, it was funny seeing these guys point south as CIT ignores them and lie about 911.

.
Seeing on a typical search on the 'net for 9/11 stuff that the crazies outnumber the reality presenters, it's quite disspiriting to see so much lunacy out there, and some of it appearing almost coherent.
Jammo here is bad enough, but his fellow sewer dwellers... Ewwww!

 

[BCR]

Dozens? First of all lets get one thing straight...the military police were confiscating civilian cameras. I'm not sure if we one could make the claim that the only photos that made it from the scene are gov't provided. Ingersoll for instance.

Let's get another thing straight. There were multiple news crews and cameras at the scene which broadcast live from the scene. You can find those without much difficultly at YouTube and the archive site. I uploaded raw footage from one such reporter who was on the scene. There are photographs that have been in the public domain for quite some time now. Two, Ingersoll and Riskus were taken very shortly after impact. The CIT boys have the original Ingersol set by the way.

Yes, many were 'confiscated', just like they have been for years. In 2007 I was detailed by DPS myself and given the 3rd degree for taking pictures in the area.

This is just a CIT a lie, one which I am surprised you would repeat. Lloyde never said he was at the bridge, even in their first interview with him when they are trying to lead him into admitting he was at the bridge by doing things like starting sentences by saying "So when you were at the bridge....."
But even then with them asking leading questions he insisted he wasn't at the bridge. If you think Lloyde ever said he was at the bridge I'd like to see it.

Secondly, Lloyde claims the photos of him were faked (he never uses this word but thats clearly what he thinks). My main objective is not to get debunkers to think there was an inside job, it is to get CITers to recognize the inherent absurdity of accusing England of being an agent whose job it is to sell the Official Flightpath, including presumably posing for pictures, but then when some CTers show up with a camera claim he was nowhere near the Official Flightpath and that the pictures of him there must be fake.

Speaking of CIT contradictions - they have asserted that all kinds of things at the Pentagon were faked: RADES, DNA, FDR, Citgo Video, Plane Parts, Plane Crash...what is easier to fake? Those things? Or photos?

I don't claim *fact* they are down NoC. I am merely putting together the actual witness testimony record without any double-standards, and what we end up with is that the plane flew NoC, hit poles NoC which hit a cab, and then impacted the building. Now people can dismiss the witness testimony if they wish, but that is what they say.

And what witness was asked?

I repeat ...

The ONLY person who EVER asserted the erroneous pole location pre-CIT coaching was ... darn, nobody that I can think of.

Now quit ducking the issue at hand and show me the downed poles you speak of. Plenty of non-government photos and video out there. I gave you one and you did not respond to my request, so I won't waste my time uploading more for you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

DGM, you do realize that CIT thinks that explosives were used as well. As far as photo manipulation goes I guess we jsut disagree on how common place this is or easy to do (you might want to find out what experts have to say about that though).

You do realize that we think CIT are screaming bat crazy (or worthless money grubbing slimeballs depending on whether or not they actually believe their Poo)
so agreeing with anything they say is not an asset but a really bad sign (especially since you, unlike CIT, or not making any money out of this which just leave the crazy option......)

 

[brazenlilraisin]

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

And you seem utterly unaware just how deadly stupid that idea is.

 

[Dave Rogers]

...my worldview also doesn't demand that I keep blinders on.

Unfortunately, I think you've just switched them for a different set.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

I believed the official story at one point in time just as you do. My worldview doens't demand it all...my worldview also doesn't demand that I keep blinders on.

Yes it does. You just don't see it because you have....well....the blinders on. You are the stereotypical ideologue scolding us about being "sheeple" and not "waking up" when all the time it is you who are mistaken.

I have see it a thousand times. Your world view is allowing you to come to patently ludicrous conclusions about 9-11.

 

[Mobertermy]

So, what makes your "plan" better then theirs? Can you refine my list?

You know what makes my theory better than theirs? No double-standards in regard to witness testimony. If a witness says that they saw the plane NoC and that the plane hit that's what their testimony counts as. Or if they say the plane was NoC and hit a pole...both things get admitted. CIT picks and choses what portion of the witness testimony they consider valid.

 

[DGM]

You know what makes my theory better than theirs? No double-standards in regard to witness testimony. If a witness says that they saw the plane NoC and that the plane hit that's what their testimony counts as. Or if they say the plane was NoC and hit a pole...both things get admitted. CIT picks and choses what portion of the witness testimony they consider valid.

Big freaking deal, so don't you. You still have to ignore more evidence then you except.

BTW: You never commented on the damage that had to be "covered-up".