Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

Mobertermy said:
The movement is calling for a real investigation. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The movement has rejected the findings of every investigation so far, whoever its instigators, and members of the movement have advocated summary execution and armed revolution.

Mobertermy said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

No, you're not looking for excuses to ignore the Pentagon photographs, despite the fact that you've more or less admitted that you're looking for reasons to believe they're fakes? Or no, you're not unable to understand the geometry involved, despite the fact that you've repeatedly had your mistakes explained to you and yet you keep repeating them?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
More psychobabble garbage from the debunktards.
Click to expand...

Given that you have admitted in this thread that you have no evidence to support your North Path Impact of the Pentagon theory, is there a reason you are persisting in posting in this thread?

"Originally Posted by Sunstealer
So Mobertermy - Are you going to show me this physical evidence that you claim to have or are you just going to ignore the question after I've politely requested it? Thanks."

Mobertermy: "Where did I claim to have physical evidence?"

Game over, folks, please do not feed the troll.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy:

What response do you think a court of law would have to your accusations? What would be your opening statement to the jury?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Rubbish. The movement has rejected the findings of every investigation so far,
Click to expand...
Do you mean the findings of the 9/11 commission which was "set up to fail."?

whoever its instigators, and members of the movement have advocated summary execution and armed revolution.
Click to expand...
Who? I've never heard anyone say this. Not even CIT.

No, you're not looking for excuses to ignore the Pentagon photographs, despite the fact that you've more or less admitted that you're looking for reasons to believe they're fakes?
Click to expand...
Yeah, one of those reasons is that the cab driver said they were.

Or no, you're not unable to understand the geometry involved, despite the fact that you've repeatedly had your mistakes explained to you and yet you keep repeating them?

Dave
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
392 evidence-free posts from Mobertemy!

How... unsurprising.
 
twinstead said:
Mobertermy:

What response do you think a court of law would have to your accusations? What would be your opening statement to the jury?
Click to expand...

Witness testimony is evidence. You have repeatedly said that physical evidence trumps witness testimony so I have no idea what you are still going on about.
 
Oh come on Mobertermy. Now you've just jammed your heels in the dirt and grabbing on to anything to keep from having to possibly re-examine your position. This is not the action of a skeptic, this is the action of an ideologue.

I think I was right from the beginning; it's all about ideology and not about facts and logic.
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Do you mean the findings of the 9/11 commission which was "set up to fail."?
Click to expand...

Typical. You've swallowed every lie and carefully distorted half-truth the truth movement's fed you, and you think we're the ones wearing blinkers. Blinkers restrict vision, right? And only being able to see three words out of a lengthy passage is a classic example of restricted vision. I'll bet you've never even read the whole quote this was mined from. Look it up some time, if you decide to give rationality a go; you'll find it means something completely different to what you've been brainwashed to think it means.

Mobertermy said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Then explain parallax.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
Witness testimony is evidence. You have repeatedly said that physical evidence trumps witness testimony so I have no idea what you are still going on about.
Click to expand...

So when that physical evidence does indeed trump the witness testimony, since you have no evidence the physical evidence has been tampered with your case is thrown out of court. Your only recourse is to claim the court was fixed, but you'll have no evidence of that either.

That is I am still going on about.
 
Last edited:
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...

I do not recall a single case of a debunker saying that, Please find one.

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

you have no evidence. I'm still waiting for you to prioduce the father McGraw statement that proves that the pole were felled NoC

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?
Click to expand...

because a plane hitting would cause a damage trail both outside and inside the building in line with the angle of impact. There is no such trail so there was no impact at that angle. QED

"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.[/QUOTE]"

because CIT are habitual liars. They lie about the NoC witesses, they lie about the lack of SoC witnesses and they lie to Lloyd to get him to move where he thinks he saw the plane.

Real question is why do you accept some of their lies but not that one????:confused:
 
Last edited:
Mobertermy said:
Do you mean the findings of the 9/11 commission which was "set up to fail."?
Click to expand...

Let's see what Kean and Hamilton really said, shall we?

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed—if not designed—to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. Indeed, the scenarios for failure far outnumbered the chances of success. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.
Click to expand...

Now, I'll grant you this, it's quite hard to track down that quote. There are so many truther sites repeating the "set up to fail" quotemine without including the full context that I had to look down to page 8 on Google to find it. That's how the truth movement suppresses information, by burying it under a torrent of misinformation. But when we actually dig down to the reality, it turns out the truthers were misleading us, every time. Kean and Hamilton actually view the work of the 9/11 Commission as a success despite the Bush administration's attempts to block its work. And this, let's remember, is what truthers brand as the government's official theory - one that the government of the day actually tried to hide, because they were afraid of looking incompetent.

Dave
 
Mobertermy said:
AW, I asked you a queston. Can't you just give me a straight forward answer? Allow me to answer for you then...you think most of your memories are basically reliable.
Click to expand...

When I was 12, I was knocked over by a car while riding my bicycle. Fell on the head and was unconscious for most of the following 18 hours or so. When I woke up, I had no idea of why I was in a hospital.

About 2 or 3 weeks later, the man who had hit my bike visited me in the hospital. By then I had a clear, crisp and distinct memory of the car and its driver as they approached me in on that intersection, facing the sun low above the horizon.
This memory is almost certainly 100% false. It did not enter my brain via the eyes. It was a reconstruction based on the things I had been told about the accident.

Turns out: The car, clearly "visible" in my "memory", wasn't red. And the driver wasn't chubby. It was only my imagination.
 
Mobertermy said:
AW, I completely agree with you that memories are fallible. My question wasn't do you have memories which are wrong. My question was do you generally think your memories are accurate?
Click to expand...

As a general rule: The more extraordinary a remembered event, the more traumatic, the more shocking it is, and the more you re-run it in your head, the more likely you are to add and skew details to make it wrong. Especially when you are pressed to remember more details than you actually have memorized in the first place. Our memory is reliable as long as you don't want to carve out too many details.
 
There are no memories I could ever have that couldn't be trumped by the right amount of incontrovertible physical evidence to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom