Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[beachnut]

John, since you claim to be an expert on this subject I am going to have to say you are lying. Not just mistaken. Lying.

...

And you are wrong again. You failed in photo stuff, and now in investingating 911. Supporting anything from CIT is automatic self-debunking. You should have taken a course in aircraft crash investigation, you need a lot of help and knowledge to catch up if you believe CIT.

Have you taken your delusions to CBS? Anyone? Police? If you know you are right you are holding back evidence of a crime! Better do something!

 

[BCR]

And you are wrong again. You failed in photo stuff, and now in investingating 911. Supporting anything from CIT is automatic self-debunking. You should have taken a course in aircraft crash investigation, you need a lot of help and knowledge to catch up if you believe CIT.

Have you taken your delusions to CBS? Anyone? Police? If you know you are right you are holding back evidence of a crime! Better do something!

No point arguing with him beachnut. He has shown his true colors, he is a CIT cultist. I guess it won't do to tell him that there are no NoC eyewitnesses. Even Lagasse has to admit, he does not have eyes in the back of his head and that is exactly what he would have had to have to see a plane that his back was to (even by his own account). You give them a hard-core SoC eyewitness like Paik and Morin and suddenly they become NoC. So what's the point?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No they aren't. They place the plane unambiguously north of the radio tower which puts it at odds with the official flight path right there.

Paik says he thought the plane hit the Tower and since he has no way of telling if the plane is in front of,over or beyond the Tower he is only a witness that the plane was over or south of Columbia Pike. And Morins testimony in unequivocally SoC. It may not be a perfect math to the FDR path but his testimony rules out an NoC.
I've shown you these picture before but here goes again.....

How can you possibly think Morin is NoC??? CIT lied to you. You know they lie so why cannot you accept that they lied on this as well??????

 

[Mobertermy]

No point arguing with him beachnut. He has shown his true colors, he is a CIT cultist. I guess it won't do to tell him that there are no NoC eyewitnesses. Even Lagasse has to admit, he does not have eyes in the back of his head and that is exactly what he would have had to have to see a plane that his back was to (even by his own account). You give them a hard-core SoC eyewitness like Paik and Morin and suddenly they become NoC. So what's the point?

So John you are going to continue to lie and claim that James Cissell is an SoC witness?

Its crystal clear who is lying here.

 

[BCR]

So John you are going to continue to lie and claim that James Cissell is an SoC witness?

Its crystal clear who is lying here.

James Cissell - June 30, 2006

"I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway.

He was facing north.

The plane was coming from left and behind of me

Now, anyone who can use Google Earth can easily pin-point his location on 27. 'Left and behind me' leaves only one possible path, SoC.

Yes, it is crystal clear who is lying here.

 

[Mobertermy]

James Cissell - June 30, 2006

Now, anyone who can use Google Earth can easily pin-point his location on 27. 'Left and behind me' leaves only one possible path, SoC.

Yes, it is crystal clear who is lying here.

John, that's just ridiculous. The plane could be coming in from the Official Filghtpath or the NoC path. It is clear what Cissell thinks:

"Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle, said Cissell."

Stop lying.

 

[BCR]

John, that's just ridiculous. The plane could be coming in from the Official Filghtpath or the NoC path. It is clear what Cissell thinks:

"Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle, said Cissell."

Stop lying.

Mobertermy, there is no way you can get NoC out of his account. The Citgo was to his left. NoC is to his left and forward. Thanks for admitting you are an irrational CIT cultist.

 

[DGM]

Mobertermy, there is no way you can get NoC out of his account. The Citgo was to his left. NoC is to his left and forward. Thanks for admitting you are an irrational CIT cultist.

Isn't it cute how he ignores everything that's "inconvenient" to his belief.


Talk about living life "inside the box".

 

[twinstead]

"Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

This statement I find very funny. "Cissell disagrees with some aspects". LOL

NoC!!11!!!1!!! INSIDE JOB!!!1111!!!11!!

 

[WildCat]

Has anyone here pointed out yet that every single one of CIT's witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon?

 

[twinstead]

Has anyone here pointed out yet that every single one of CIT's witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon?

That's where Mobertermy and the CiT cult split off into different factions.

 

[DGM]

Has anyone here pointed out yet that every single one of CIT's witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon?

That's the part that makes Mobertermy's theory "better" than CIT's. He accepts that fact the plane hit the building. Of course he ignores the problems this creates. But, that's were the "planted" evidence card comes to the rescue.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Isn't it cute how he ignores everything that's "inconvenient" to his belief.


Talk about living life "inside the box".

Cognitive dissonance and the truth movement, a marriage made in heaven, nine years and still going strong.

 

[WildCat]

That's where Mobertermy and the CiT cult split off into different factions.

That's the part that makes Mobertermy's theory "better" than CIT's. He accepts that fact the plane hit the building. Of course he ignores the problems this creates. But, that's were the "planted" evidence card comes to the rescue.

So Mobertermy's theory is that everything happened as "the official story" says it did, only the plane had a slightly different flight path?

 

[DGM]

So Mobertermy's theory is that everything happened as "the official story" says it did, only the plane had a slightly different flight path?

He does suggest the plane was "switched out" somewhere along the line (adding another layer of difficulty). It's so disjointed that I can make any sense of it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

John, that's just ridiculous. The plane could be coming in from the Official Filghtpath or the NoC path. It is clear what Cissell thinks:

"Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle, said Cissell."

Stop lying.

If it came from over his left shoulder and crossed front of him it has to have been SoC. Its crossing the road at an acute angle whilst NoC requires a right or obtuse angle. He say he "remembers" it more directly not that it actually was because he knows this something one can be mistaken about. Having to look at it over his left shoulder before it crossed in front is much less likely to be misremembered.
Cissell is SoC witness. Thank Mobers for adding another one to my list. I'll create overhead with his position so all but the completely loony can see this.

I'm starting to think Mobertermy is just a Balsammo or CIT sock puppet. His stance of thinking CIT lie about one thing but not another is very strange.

 

[beachnut]

So John you are going to continue to lie and claim that James Cissell is an SoC witness?

Its crystal clear who is lying here.

You can't be lying, you have no clue what the flight path was. You can't do the physics required to understand CIT flight paths are impossible to fly. You no clue the guy you call a liar took the time to get and plot data from independent RADAR sites that prove the real flight path is not NoC. You fail at every point in investigating the Pentagon, and you don't have a clue you are clueless.

You don't understand the FDR makes you the liar, and incapable of doing better.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You can't be lying, you have no clue what the flight path was. You can't do the physics required to understand CIT flight paths are impossible to fly. You no clue the guy you call a liar took the time to get and plot data from independent RADAR sites that prove the real flight path is not NoC. You fail at every point in investigating the Pentagon, and you don't have a clue you are clueless.

You don't understand the FDR makes you the liar, and incapable of doing better.

We shouldn't forget, he could simply be mistaken

 

[Mobertermy]

Mobertermy, there is no way you can get NoC out of his account. The Citgo was to his left. NoC is to his left and forward. Thanks for admitting you are an irrational CIT cultist.

"Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle, said Cissell."

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle, said Cissell."

"Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online "

Perhaps he's talking about CITs flightlines or someone elses. Please prove that he is talking about the actual flightline as proven by the FDR

" I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle, said Cissell."[/QUOTE]"

Why do you imagine that that comment overrides his "over his left shoulder"
comment? Which is he likelier to be mistaken about....his left shoulder or a angle versus a multi faced building several hundreds of feet away?