Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

Alright for you guys that seem to be confused about the can/did confusion about gov't killing let me explain (John sorry I didn't bother to read your nonsense after the first few sentences).


I never said that a government capable of killing its own citizens means it did. Obviously for someone or some organization to actually do something they must first actually be capable of it right? If beyond that you don't get what my point was that is your problem.
 
twinstead said:
Maybe Mobertermy thinks this is a thread to discuss how governments kill their own people in general (that would be boring. Everybody would agree) instead of a thread to present evidence that a specific government killed their own people in a specific incident.

It's the latter, Mobertermy. Do you have any of that evidence?
Click to expand...

Every Truther has heard a thousand times from OCTers that the gov't wouldn't kill its own citizens. For you guys to pretend like this isn't the case is just bs - plain and simple.

As far as the evidence in this specific case goes we disagree on it - plain and simple.

As far as what I consider the evidence to be in regards to the Pentagon all I did was present an alternative possibility to what CIT presented. Basically my claim is that CIT makes non-sequiturs. They claim that a north path proves flyover...why can't the plane hit? They claim that Lloyde England is an accomplice...didn't they just get done telling us how the witness testimony proves the physical evidence wrong? Why are they turning this on its head when it comes to Lloyde.
 
Mobertermy said:
In all seriousness I would give them a management position.
Click to expand...

You'd want to adjust their hairstyle first. Upswept from either temple into two little points above the ears would work nicely.

Mobertermy said:
Someone who can think outside the box, try out new ideas, think for themselves, not afraid of trying something new even if its in an area outside their expertise,
Click to expand...

...and ignore any useful suggestions from people who have got some expertise in that area.

Mobertermy said:
recognize when they make mistakes and have the integrity to admit it.
Click to expand...

Sorry? This from the person who went from insulting anyone who didn't share his obvious mistake, to saying "It seems you may be right", to avoiding any comment on the issue whatsoever in a transparently obvious attempt to pretend it didn't exist?

Which traffic arm is which, Mobertermy? How many more pages before you even mention them? And how many, after that, before you admit you've mixed them up? Or would you rather just run away and talk about guard rail posts, or some other variant on the same mistake.

Mobertermy said:
Yup...management. The opposite of that person is someone who lacks creativity, needs to be told what to do, is unaware when they make mistakes, but probably won't make many anyways because they are uninterested or scared to try something new, and even if they did probably wouldn't float their ideas to the team because they are afraid of being negatively judged.
Click to expand...

And, of course, everybody is one or the other in your world, right?

I'm not saying I haven't seen a lot of people like you in management; people who make pronouncements on any half-baked and uninformed thought that enters their heads, browbeats and insults anyone who disagrees with them, then change the subject when the sheer weight of expertise ranged against them makes it undeniable that they've based an entire course of action on the product of their own ignorance, usually so that they can repeat the same mistakes in a slightly different area. But perhaps their biggest mental error is that they mistake novelty for merit, though usually solely where their own ideas are concerned.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Every Truther has heard a thousand times from OCTers that the gov't wouldn't kill its own citizens. For you guys to pretend like this isn't the case is just bs - plain and simple.
Click to expand...

This is patently untrue. You will need to show me an example of any "OCTers" (by the way, just about everybody on Earth except members of the tiny truth cult are "OCTers"--you need to keep this in mind) who claim that the gov't wouldn't ever kill its own citizens.

As far as the evidence in this specific case goes we disagree on it - plain and simple.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of a very small group of people--many of whom cannot even agree amongst themselves what happened--who disagree with the vast majority of both experts and non experts on Earth. You don't see it that way, but to everybody else this is the case.

As far as what I consider the evidence to be in regards to the Pentagon all I did was present an alternative possibility to what CIT presented. Basically my claim is that CIT makes non-sequiturs. They claim that a north path proves flyover...why can't the plane hit? They claim that Lloyde England is an accomplice...didn't they just get done telling us how the witness testimony proves the physical evidence wrong? Why are they turning this on its head when it comes to Lloyde.
Click to expand...

You don't need to convince me that CIT is wrong; I'm positive they are. You need to convince me (and by me I mean the entire rest of the world) that YOU are right. Do you think you are doing a good job?
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Strangely enough, though, we aren't saying it. Do you often get these auditory hallucinations?

Dave
Click to expand...

Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
 
Mobertermy said:
As far as what I consider the evidence to be in regards to the Pentagon all I did was present an alternative possibility to what CIT presented.
Click to expand...
And you presented no evidence to support it. Do you have any?

Mobertermy said:
Basically my claim is that CIT makes non-sequiturs. They claim that a north path proves flyover...why can't the plane hit?
Click to expand...
Because for a plane to have flown the path that CIT claim, and still do the physical damage at the Pentagon, would require some crazy 200g turns that can't be pulled by a F22 Raptor, let alone a 757.

Regarding the psychological issues you and JohnG were discussing about the evil government, I'd recommend that you read this. It's pretty short, and it discusses how some people waste energy battling imaginary enemies instead of doing the tough work to fix real problems in government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/20/comment.september11
 
Mobertermy said:
Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
Click to expand...

Typical conspiracist fractured logic. We have many disagreements; whether it is possible for a government to kill its own citizens is not one of them.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Typical conspiracist fractured logic. We have many disagreements; whether it is possible for a government to kill its own citizens is not one of them.

Dave
Click to expand...

Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
 
Mobertermy said:
Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
Click to expand...

What I have a problem with, is morons making excuses for terrorists who claim responsibility. Then blaming innocents for murder, with absolutely NO evidence of such crimes!
 
Mobertermy said:
Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
Click to expand...

There isn't any evidence to support "looking into it" except the fact that governments kill their citizens sometimes. No rational person would suggest considering ANYBODY a suspect in a crime just because of that without corroborating evidence. EVERYBODY is innocent until proven guilty, including governments.

The preponderance of evidence suggests what the commonly-held narrative states. You can't go all willy nilly and accuse people of mass murder with no evidence. It isn't rational.

You never answer this question from me: what do you think the reaction of a court of law would be to your accusations? Would it ask for evidence?
 
Mobertermy said:
Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
Click to expand...

In return, you need to agree that people have already looked into that possibility and found truther accusations regarding 9/11 to be baseless, and that you're treading ground that has already been well covered.

If you don't, then you're years behind the rest of us.
 
Mobertermy said:
Good, then you agree that there is nothing wrong with someone considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it. Good, we have no disagreement.
Click to expand...

Apart from anything else, I disagree that truthers are "considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it", when some members of the movement have, among other things, called for the summary execution of members of the government. Truthers are considering the government guilty of the crime, then looking for ways to manipulate the evidence so as to support that conclusion. A great many, if not all, of those you style "debunktards" (classy move) have considered the possibility of government complicity, assessed the evidence in total, and determined that none of it supports that view. Truthers, on the other hand, seem more concerned with focusing on minor segments of evidence, interpreting them in a way inconsistent with the overall convergence of evidence, then frantically looking for excuses to ignore any evidence that disagrees with them. That includes, for example, claiming that photographs are faked based on an inability to understand the geometry involved.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
All that guy is saying is that the Bush government was evil but its just completely out of the question that they committed 911 even though he himself admits how serendipitous it was for them. Pure crap.
Click to expand...

I think that his analysis was a little more nuanced than your summary of it, but your ignorance / arrogance ratio remains high. Maybe you could get hired at the Guardian as a photo analyst, and get promoted to "management" for your out-of-the-box thinking. Then you could fire Mr. Monbiot for producing "pure crap." :rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
Apart from anything else, I disagree that truthers are "considering the government a suspect in the crime and looking into it", when some members of the movement have, among other things, called for the summary execution of members of the government.
Click to expand...
The movement is calling for a real investigation. Nothing more.

Truthers are considering the government guilty of the crime, then looking for ways to manipulate the evidence so as to support that conclusion.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's how it appears to you.

A great many, if not all, of those you style "debunktards" (classy move) have considered the possibility of government complicity, assessed the evidence in total, and determined that none of it supports that view.
Click to expand...
OK
Truthers, on the other hand, seem more concerned with focusing on minor segments of evidence, interpreting them in a way inconsistent with the overall convergence of evidence, then frantically looking for excuses to ignore any evidence that disagrees with them.
Click to expand...
Nope.

That includes, for example, claiming that photographs are faked based on an inability to understand the geometry involved.

Dave
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom