Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Mobertermy]

"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."

"

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?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea why you think him looking over his left shoulder works in your favor.

 

[drewid]

Sorry MT but after the other thread , the one you are now conveniently ignoring, I don't think anyone has any faith in your spatial skills

 

[Mobertermy]

Sorry MT but after the other thread , the one you are now conveniently ignoring, I don't think anyone has any faith in your spatial skills

Well in this instance it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the witness says and he says he doesn't think the official flightpath was right. Period.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Well in this instance it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the witness says and he says he doesn't think the official flightpath was right. Period.

Does He? Please show us which "diagram" he was looking at when he made that statement.


And which of the many CIT NoC paths do you think is the right one so we can see what angle that would be relative to the one backed up by the FDR and all the physical evidence. What angle relative to the face of the pentagon do you think it hit?

 

[Mobertermy]

He said the plane flew more straight in not an angle like the official path. This means what he saw was a plane flying straight in at a 90 degree angle like the other NoC witnesses have it, not the 37 degree angle the gov't said. Add to this that he says he was very close to the helipad and the fact that he explicitly says the gov't path looks wrong to him and it is pretty undeniable he is an NoC witness.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

He said the plane flew more straight in not an angle like the official path. This means what he saw was a plane flying straight in at a 90 degree angle like the other NoC witnesses have it, not the 37 degree angle the gov't said. Add to this that he says he was very close to the helipad and the fact that he explicitly says the gov't path looks wrong to him and it is pretty undeniable he is an NoC witness.

You know, I don't get Truthers who bitch & complain about the flightpath. Flight 77 hit the 5 light poles, a generator & then the building. You can make a straight line to the flight path with those pieces of evidence.

So stop complaining about it, the story isn't going to change because you think it should.

God almighty!

 

[BCR]

So stop complaining about it, the story isn't going to change because you think it should.

God almighty!

Amen

 

[sheeplesnshills]

He said the plane flew more straight in not an angle like the official path. This means what he saw was a plane flying straight in at a 90 degree angle like the other NoC witnesses have it, not the 37 degree angle the gov't said. Add to this that he says he was very close to the helipad and the fact that he explicitly says the gov't path looks wrong to him and it is pretty undeniable he is an NoC witness.

No he didn't. He says more straight that "diagrams" he has seen. First you have to establish exactly what "diagrams" he was talking about.
Next you have to determine what he meant by "more straight". Does he mean a shallower or steeper angle?

Next you have to look at Google earth and you can see that even a NoC flightpath is not hitting the face of the pentagon at 90 degrees. And you can further see the difference in angle between the FDR path and say that of Turciuos is only about 15 degrees.

Lastly he doesn't "explicitly say" anything, he merely comments that the angle "seemed" different. If he is being explicit at all it that he only thought it was different, not that it actually was. He realizes that memories can be mistaken.

please google "problems with eye witness testimony" and you will find 96200 references to this issue.

like this one http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc51.html

or this

http://sullivanfiles.net/324_portfolios/stephensen/prp_bib2.html

or this

http://www.holah.co.uk/study/loftus/


To put it simply, barring other evidence to back up a case. in the UK you are very unlikely to be convicted based on eye witness evidence only. It simply is wrong much of the time.


His evidence fits in with the FDR path with a pretty good degree of accuracy so to claim him a NoC witness is false. At best you can claim he saw a plane and it did hit the Pentagon. No court would consider his comments as evidence of anything else.

 

[Mobertermy]

No he didn't. He says more straight that "diagrams" he has seen. First you have to establish exactly what "diagrams" he was talking about.
Next you have to determine what he meant by "more straight". Does he mean a shallower or steeper angle?

He means the plane flew in from the NoC 90 degree angle approach not the official 37 degree approach.

Lastly he doesn't "explicitly say" anything, he merely comments that the angle "seemed" different. If he is being explicit at all it that he only thought it was different, not that it actually was. He realizes that memories can be mistaken.

The question isn't whether you can play some kind of game where you come up with reasons why thw witness didn't really claim to see what he claims to have seen, the question is whether the witness himself claims the plane flew NoC or SoC.

When you guys starting doing this whole "yeah, that's witness claims to have seen but thats not what they really saw" how is that any different than when CIT says the witnesses only think they saw the plane impact?

His evidence fits in with the FDR path with a pretty good degree of accuracy so to claim him a NoC witness is false. At best you can claim he saw a plane and it did hit the Pentagon. No court would consider his comments as evidence of anything else.

Just do the intellectually honest thing an admit that he is an NoC witness.

He says the official flightpath is wrong. He says it flew straight in, not at an angle. He says he was right across from the heliport (i.e., so close he could throw a baseball to it). He says the plane flew in four cars behind him. Put all that together. He's an NoC witness.

 

[Mobertermy]

Amen

If you agree with Chewy then why lie about it John? Why not just do what other SoCers do and say "yeah, that's what the witness says, but the witness is wrong." Then provide a link to Dr. Loftus and your done. No lying involved.

 

[Oystein]

...
When you guys starting doing this whole "yeah, that's witness claims to have seen but thats not what they really saw" how is that any different than when CIT says the witnesses only think they saw the plane impact?
...

Easy: Plane impact is corroborated by many other witness statements and, more importantly, thousands of pieces of physical evidence.
NoC is not corroborated except by a few cherry-picked witnesses who were lead by loaded questions. To the contrary: NoC is falsified by all the physical evidence. All, without a single exception. To name a particular example, NoC is falsified by the location of Lloyd England's cab, as shown in the Ingersoll photos.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He means the plane flew in from the NoC 90 degree angle approach not the official 37 degree approach.

What is that interpretation based on? Did he, at some point, say to you or say on the video, "I don't think the plane approached the Pentagon at a sharp angle, I think it was nearer to perpendicular," or some similar form of words, or does he simply mean that the plane flew in a straight line rather than on some of the sharply curved courses that CIT derive from other witness statements?

The question isn't whether you can play some kind of game where you come up with reasons why thw witness didn't really claim to see what he claims to have seen, the question is whether the witness himself claims the plane flew NoC or SoC.

But you have to be just as careful not to play the same game yourself. If the witness uses the word "straight", you can't assume he meant "perpendicular" just because it happens to support your preferred conclusion.

When you guys starting doing this whole "yeah, that's witness claims to have seen but thats not what they really saw" how is that any different than when CIT says the witnesses only think they saw the plane impact?

Let's assume it isn't, and neither is your approach of "When the witness said straight, he meant perpendicular". What are we left with? We're left with taking all the witness statements with a pinch of salt, because any individual one of them could be erroneous or misinterpreted; and we're left with the radar tracks, the FDR output and the physical evidence, all of which are consistent with one plane hitting the Pentagon on the SoC course. So, if you want to throw out all the witness testimony, because you think it all supports NoC and impact and these are inconsistent, that's fine; you're throwing out all the evidence that can be interpreted to suggest anything other than the generally accepted narrative, and left with evidence that unanimously supports it.

Dave

 

[fess]

He means the plane flew in from the NoC 90 degree angle approach not the official 37 degree approach.

<snip>

He says the official flightpath is wrong. He says it flew straight in, not at an angle. He says he was right across from the heliport (i.e., so close he could throw a baseball to it). He says the plane flew in four cars behind him. Put all that together. He's an NoC witness.

So, if I have you right, the aircraft struck the building straight on and made an immediate left turn to match the internal damage path of the building?

 

[Gamolon]

He said the plane flew more straight in not an angle like the official path. This means what he saw was a plane flying straight in at a 90 degree angle like the other NoC witnesses have it,...

Straight in at 90 degrees? Like the red path I have drawn on this photo?

 

[BCR]

Straight in at 90 degrees? Like the red path I have drawn on this photo?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/flightpath.jpg[/qimg]

Actually no, it would have to be further NE because he was right next to the helipad. OMG, that means the plane hit the helipad tower and Boger is dead

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=Mobertermy;6830697]He means the plane flew in from the NoC 90 degree angle approach not the official 37 degree approach.

Well firstly NoC does not mean 90 degrees and secondly how do you "know" what he means? You are guessing and guessing isn't evidence.

The question isn't whether you can play some kind of game where you come up with reasons why thw witness didn't really claim to see what he claims to have seen, the question is whether the witness himself claims the plane flew NoC or SoC.

And he makes no such claim either way.

When you guys starting doing this whole "yeah, that's witness claims to have seen but thats not what they really saw" how is that any different than when CIT says the witnesses only think they saw the plane impact?

Its not, but that does not make CITor you right either....it just shows the dangers of eye witness testimony and why its best to rely on physical evidence.

Just do the intellectually honest thing an admit that he is an NoC witness.

I can't do that, because its not true.

He says the official flightpath is wrong.

No he doesn't. He says he "thought" it was more straight than a diagram we don't see. So he isn't sure it was more straight and we don't know what his definition of more straight is.

He says it flew straight in, not at an angle.

No he doesn't

He says he was right across from the heliport (i.e., so close he could throw a baseball to it). He says the plane flew in four cars behind him. Put all that together. He's an NoC witness.

Wrong, it flew in front of him. And how do you know how far he can throw a baseball????
"The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

 

[Gamolon]

The question isn't whether you can play some kind of game where you come up with reasons why thw witness didn't really claim to see what he claims to have seen, the question is whether the witness himself claims the plane flew NoC or SoC.

We come up with reasons why the witness didn't see what he claims to have seen? Why do we do this? I'll tell you why. Here is a photo of showing the different flight paths "witnessed and supposedly seen" by people on the ground. Each flight path "witnessed and seen" is in yellow.

Why are there 13 DIFFERENT witnessed flight paths BEFORE the Citgo station? Which one is correct out of those 13? They cannot ALL be correct?

How come not one flight path before the Citgo station matches? They all "witnessed" it right?

How would you explain this?

Furthermore, the damage pattern in the Pentagon does not agree with the "90, straight in" witnessed path. If the plane did strike the Pentagon from 90 degrees, why is the damage pattern not shown that direction? Even if there were explosives, you would still have a damage pattern from the plane going 90 degrees inward.

 

[Gamolon]

Actually no, it would have to be further NE because he was right next to the helipad. OMG, that means the plane hit the helipad tower and Boger is dead

Oh wait!

I get it now.

NOC stands for "North of Cloverleaf" not "North of Citgo"!!!

This changes everything...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

We come up with reasons why the witness didn't see what he claims to have seen? Why do we do this? I'll tell you why. Here is a photo of showing the different flight paths "witnessed and supposedly seen" by people on the ground. Each flight path "witnessed and seen" is in yellow.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/6a00d8341c0ac653ef01156eca1f48970c-.jpg[/qimg]

Why are there 13 DIFFERENT witnessed flight paths BEFORE the Citgo station? Which one is correct out of those 13? They cannot ALL be correct?

How come not one flight path before the Citgo station matches? They all "witnessed" it right?

How would you explain this?

Furthermore, the damage pattern in the Pentagon does not agree with the "90, straight in" witnessed path. If the plane did strike the Pentagon from 90 degrees, why is the damage pattern not shown that direction? Even if there were explosives, you would still have a damage pattern from the plane going 90 degrees inward.

I think he thinks the plane would not have penetrated.....but then how did one engine, dead bodeies etc get inside? And if they had rigged explosives timed for the impact wouldn't the plane go in through the hole made by the explosives and leave a trail inside the building???

He obviously has not or can not think this through logically.

 

[Mobertermy]

We come up with reasons why the witness didn't see what he claims to have seen? Why do we do this? I'll tell you why. Here is a photo of showing the different flight paths "witnessed and supposedly seen" by people on the ground. Each flight path "witnessed and seen" is in yellow.

Why are there 13 DIFFERENT witnessed flight paths BEFORE the Citgo station? Which one is correct out of those 13? They cannot ALL be correct?

Sure they can. They correlate each other and Cissell.

How would you explain this?

They all look pretty close to me. Certainly none of them hit poles 1 or 2 and they all are exactly where the cab driver said he was. All just a big coincidence I suppose.

Furthermore, the damage pattern in the Pentagon does not agree with the "90, straight in" witnessed path. If the plane did strike the Pentagon from 90 degrees, why is the damage pattern not shown that direction? Even if there were explosives, you would still have a damage pattern from the plane going 90 degrees inward.

It's the collapse area.