Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said: "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

Their reasons have no evidence!

 

[Mobertermy]

I Agreed?
After all, following your shining example, I don't need to provide evidence.

No Oystein you aren't following the argument at all. Lets take you for instance. Lets say that it is a known fact on many occasion that you have raped children. That you were even tried and convicted of child rape. Then when you got out of prison a few weeks afterwards a child was raped. Would it not be appropriate to consider you a suspect of raping the child. Lets say you are also a smart child rapist so you decided to leave some clues around to play on your neighbors known inherent racism. So you leave a koran at the scene of the crime. You think this will lead the police to Ahmed who lives right down the street from the child YOU raped. This also works well because Ahmed is from a country where sex with children under the age of 12 is permitted. So there are two suspects. Ahmed because they found a Koran at the scene and the country he is from. And you. Because you are a known child rapist that has raped many children so we therefore know you are capable of raping children.

Get it now?

 

[gumboot]

No Oystein you aren't following the argument at all. Lets take you for instance. Lets say that it is a known fact on many occasion that you have raped children. That you were even tried and convicted of child rape. Then when you got out of prison a few weeks afterwards a child was raped. Would it not be appropriate to consider you a suspect of raping the child. Lets say you are also a smart child rapist so you decided to leave some clues around to play on your neighbors known inherent racism. So you leave a koran at the scene of the crime. You think this will lead the police to Ahmed who lives right down the street from the child YOU raped. This also works well because Ahmed is from a country where sex with children under the age of 12 is permitted. So there are two suspects. Ahmed because they found a Koran at the scene and the country he is from. And you. Because you are a known child rapist that has raped many children so we therefore know you are capable of raping children.

Get it now?

What if Ahmed's semen was found in the girl, she herself was found tied up in his basement, he had a diary, written in his hand, detailing numerous other rapes and how he'd plotted them out, and gave the police a detailed account of his crime and a signed statement that he did it?

Would that change your assessment?

ETA. And he filled in the most recent census with the occupation "Child Rapist", a census in which he identifies his house as 4 Potter Street, a house which, on closer inspection, bears, on its letterbox inscribed on a brass plate "Ahmed Sufi, Child Rapist".

 

[twinstead]

No Oystein you aren't following the argument at all. Lets take you for instance. Lets say that it is a known fact on many occasion that you have raped children. That you were even tried and convicted of child rape. Then when you got out of prison a few weeks afterwards a child was raped. Would it not be appropriate to consider you a suspect of raping the child. Lets say you are also a smart child rapist so you decided to leave some clues around to play on your neighbors known inherent racism. So you leave a koran at the scene of the crime. You think this will lead the police to Ahmed who lives right down the street from the child YOU raped. This also works well because Ahmed is from a country where sex with children under the age of 12 is permitted. So there are two suspects. Ahmed because they found a Koran at the scene and the country he is from. And you. Because you are a known child rapist that has raped many children so we therefore know you are capable of raping children.

Get it now?

If the DNA evidence taken from the victim came back and it was not from Oystein, and it could be proved that Oystein was not in the area when the attack took place, and there is a video of Ahmed grabbing the victim, yet the prosecutor still maintained Oystein was guilty providing no evidence that he did it or that the evidence that Ahmed did it instead was manipulated, what exactly would a jury of his peers think?

 

[Mobertermy]

What if there was a video of Twinstead raping the child?

 

[twinstead]

You have no clue what we are talking about, do you? You would still demand Oystein did it, because he's done it before!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What if there was a video of Twinstead raping the child?

Given the evidence in post#463 then I say video is likely faked. Forensic analysis would then likely show it was.

Given the that your "forensic analysis" has shown no faking to date we have to assume they were not faked. Evidence is everything.

 

[twinstead]

Given the evidence in post#463 then I say video is likely faked. Forensic analysis would then likely show it was.

Given the that your "forensic analysis" has shown no faking to date we have to assume they were not faked. Evidence is everything.

Or like I said above, he would still insist Oystein did it, and not care about Ahmed or twinstead.

 

[Oystein]

They even said it in their book...flat out lie? Don't be ridiculous.

Careful with the big words: "absolutely", "preposterous", "ridiculous"...

 

[Oystein]

No Oystein you aren't following the argument at all. Lets take you for instance. Lets say that it is a known fact on many occasion that you have raped children. That you were even tried and convicted of child rape. Then when you got out of prison a few weeks afterwards a child was raped. Would it not be appropriate to consider you a suspect of raping the child. Lets say you are also a smart child rapist so you decided to leave some clues around to play on your neighbors known inherent racism. So you leave a koran at the scene of the crime. You think this will lead the police to Ahmed who lives right down the street from the child YOU raped. This also works well because Ahmed is from a country where sex with children under the age of 12 is permitted. So there are two suspects. Ahmed because they found a Koran at the scene and the country he is from. And you. Because you are a known child rapist that has raped many children so we therefore know you are capable of raping children.

Get it now?

I highlighted where you bare-assedly assume I was the rapist.

I also highlighted where you provided any evidence. (Note: You won't find any highlighted evidence, because you don't provide any evidence).


Would you think I was the rapist, when you have no evidence?
Can only known rapists rape?
Do you agree that you can rape a child?
What if Ahmed was also a known and previously convicted child rapist?
In your example, I represent the US government, and you claim that the US government has mass murdered its own citizens before. Please cite examples!

And finally: Would you convict me of rape with all the evidence (i.e. none) that you present?

 

[Mobertermy]

Would you think I was the rapist, when you have no evidence?

We were making an analogy to government and whether or not they should be considered a suspect.

Can only known rapists rape?

Of course not. Try and follow what the analogy is actually saying.

Do you agree that you can rape a child?

No.

What if Ahmed was also a known and previously convicted child rapist?
In your example, I represent the US government, and you claim that the US government has mass murdered its own citizens before. Please cite examples!

I was talking about government in General. But I would consider the Genocide of the Native Americans ab example of the US killing its own citizens...and a far more heinous crime than 9/11? What do you think?

Also, have you ever looked into US involvement in South America and how CIA backed terror campaigns were used to control populations?

And finally: Would you convict me of rape with all the evidence (i.e. none) that you present?

You're still not following the analogy.

 

[gumboot]

What if there was a video of Twinstead raping the child?

At this point the analogy to 9/11 falls apart because there's isn't a single scrap of evidence pointing to US Government involvement in the attack. There is, of course, a plethora of evidence that Al Qaeda did it.

 

[Arus808]

wow, you guys caught him in a lie about the "set up to fail" and you let him change the subject.

guys, pin the obivous troll down on this. he can't change the subject when he was caught in an outright lie.


Mobert - why did you lie about the quote? why did you ignore dave's full quote that he copied word for word that doesn't express anything you stated?

Why are you lying?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

We were making an analogy to government and whether or not they should be considered a suspect.

How can they be "suspects" if you have no evidence to provide in a Fedeal Court of Law?

 

[Mobertermy]

wow, you guys caught him in a lie about the "set up to fail" and you let him change the subject.

guys, pin the obivous troll down on this. he can't change the subject when he was caught in an outright lie.


Mobert - why did you lie about the quote? why did you ignore dave's full quote that he copied word for word that doesn't express anything you stated?

Why are you lying?

Dude you realize they discussed the "set up to fail" thing more than once right?

Did they say they thought the commission was set up to fail or not? Yes or no?

Do they think it failed? Yes or no?

What percentage of Americans agree with them?

 

[WildCat]

wow, you guys caught him in a lie about the "set up to fail" and you let him change the subject.

guys, pin the obivous troll down on this. he can't change the subject when he was caught in an outright lie.


Mobert - why did you lie about the quote? why did you ignore dave's full quote that he copied word for word that doesn't express anything you stated?

Why are you lying?

I agree. Mobertermy should either admit he was misled by the liars who make up the "truth" movement, or apologize for attempting to deceive us here.

 

[Oystein]

We were making an analogy to government and whether or not they should be considered a suspect.

Right. Should anyone be considered a suspect without evidence? (Remember: you have not presented any evidence that links the US gov to 9/11)

Of course not. Try and follow what the analogy is actually saying.

Go ahead: Tell me!

No.

Of course you can. Unless you are a quadriplegiac.

I was talking about government in General.

Oh. So in general, people are capable of raping children. Therefore, I may safely suspect that you raped a particular child. Is that the logic? (Yes, it is)

But I would consider the Genocide of the Native Americans ab example of the US killing its own citizens...and a far more heinous crime than 9/11? What do you think?

I think the native Americans were not US citizens. Your example doesn't fit the bill.

Also, have you ever looked into US involvement in South America and how CIA backed terror campaigns were used to control populations?

South Americans are not US citizens. Your example doesn't fit the bill.

Please cite examples of where and when the US gov mass-murdered its own citizens.

You're still not following the analogy.

I am. You aren't.

 

[WildCat]

Dude you realize they discussed the "set up to fail" thing more than once right?

Did they say they thought the commission was set up to fail or not? Yes or no?

Do they think it failed? Yes or no?

What percentage of Americans agree with them?

Why do you continue to lie about this Mobertermy?

Is it ok to lie for The Truth^TM?

 

[twinstead]

Unless the "fail" has anything to do with 9-11 being an inside job, it's a discussion for another thread in another subforum--probably the politics subforum, which works out well because I think that's where you really belong, Mobertermy.

Have any commission members mentioned that the "fail" included uncovering plot by the government to kill its own citizens?

 

[Mobertermy]

I agree. Mobertermy should either admit he was misled by the liars who make up the "truth" movement, or apologize for attempting to deceive us here.

Answer my questions in post 475.