Mobertermy's Pentagon Evidence

[Mobertermy]

And here's the quote from Cissell on Prison Planet's website.

The four car's back statement could just be him not stating things as eloquently as you would like which is convenient since you seem to want to twist the words of this witness who explicitly states he disagrees with the official flight path in an attempt to turn him into on OFP witness.

So according to debunkers Cissell, who claims the OFP is wrong, is actually an OFP witness. Just as according to CIT witnesses who saw the plane impact are actually flyover witnesses. Got it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You haven't demolished anything.

For Mcgraw watch "From the Law to the Lord" on google video.

The one that starts with this?

"This 10 minute short features our interview with eyewitness to the 9/11 Pentagon attack, Stephen McGraw, a former Department of Justice attorney who was ordained a catholic priest 3 months before 9/11. McGraw is a key suspect witness as he claims he was right in front of the Pentagon on Route 27 directly underneath the plane and therefore in the middle of the downed light poles with a clear view of the alleged impact point. The fact that the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station raises serious questions about the legitimacy of McGraw’s account."

OK watched it all. please let us know what part of that makes McGraw a NoC witness???? They appear to think he is some kind of opus dei shill
but nothing he says places him anywhere other than under the FDR path.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=Mobertermy;6835695]The four car's back statement could just be him not stating things as eloquently as you would like which is convenient since you seem to want to twist the words of this witness who explicitly states he disagrees with the official flight path in an attempt to turn him into on OFP witness.

And what do you imagine you are doing, that's any different?????

So according to debunkers Cissell, who claims the OFP is wrong, is actually an OFP witness. Just as according to CIT witnesses who saw the plane impact are actually flyover witnesses. Got it.

His statement is a at worst a little ambiguous but certainly does not support your position that it was NoC and that the poles were knocked down NoC.
He makes no mention of teams with heavy machinery moving the felled poles and setting them up again either.....how could he have missed that????

 

[Oystein]

Why on earth would Boger be dead. The plane flew behind Cissell's car...remember he had to look over his left shoulder to see the plane flying straight into the building and not the official 37 degrees which he explicitly says looks wrong yet you for some reason dismiss and still try and use him as an official flightpath witness.

It's ridiculous.

Every bit as ridiculous as CIT using witnesses that saw the plane hit as flyover witnesses.

As hasd been poinbted out several times, Cissell testified that his car was four cars back from where the plane crossed the highaway.
In other words, it passed for cars in front of him.
You cannot claim not to be aware of this explicit statement by him. So I suspect your trying to pass a lie. Please do not think of us as this stupid.

He also said that the plane came from behind.
Both statements, taken together, have only one geometrically possible interpretation:
The plane did NOT fly perpendicularly into the pentagon, but at a slender angle.

Nowhere does Cissell say that he meant "perpendicular" - it is all in your confused head.

 

[Oystein]

The four car's back statement could just be him not stating things as eloquently as you would like which is convenient since you seem to want to twist the words of this witness who explicitly states he disagrees with the official flight path in an attempt to turn him into on OFP witness.

So according to debunkers Cissell, who claims the OFP is wrong, is actually an OFP witness. Just as according to CIT witnesses who saw the plane impact are actually flyover witnesses. Got it.

His own observations disprove his interpretation.

Go with the observation.

 

[A W Smith]

The four car's back statement could just be him not stating things as eloquently as you would like which is convenient since you seem to want to twist the words of this witness who explicitly states he disagrees with the official flight path in an attempt to turn him into on OFP witness.

So according to debunkers Cissell, who claims the OFP is wrong, is actually an OFP witness. Just as according to CIT witnesses who saw the plane impact are actually flyover witnesses. Got it.

This is the meat of the article at PP. I have removed most of the incredulous speculation that the author had included.

James R. Cissell, an eyewitness to the object that struck the Pentagon on September 2001, is furious with a Cincinnati newspaper for falsely attributing quotes to him that he never made.​

The Cincinnati Post reported Cissell's comments in a September 12 story headlined, 'I saw the faces of some of the passengers.'​

Here is how the Post quoted Cissell in full.​

''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower."
''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car."
''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

James R. Cissell contacted PP to express his anger at the newspaper for taking his comments completely out of context.
"The Cincinnati Post article, which you refer, angered me greatly after reading it. It is almost completely fiction based loosely on an interview I did with a Cincinnati Post reporter Kimball Perry who called me in response to an on air phone report that I did for Channel 12 in Cincinnati."
Cissell relates what he actually told the reporter.
"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."

​

Here's the Post quote again.
"I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.''
Compared to, "Had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."
Cissell's comments were taken so far out of context that this seems to be a deliberate attempt at sensationalism or even an effort at lending bias towards the assumption that the plane was a large commercial airliner with passengers on board.
Cissell has himself worked in media and expressed his incredulity at the sloppy journalism betrayed in the article.
His numerous calls, e mails and letters to the Post went unanswered and though he was promised the online version of the article would be removed, as of June 30th it is still online without retraction.


Regarding the speculation that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and alternate explanations behind the event, Cissell is not certain that the plane was as large as a 757, but at least as large as a 727.
"As far as the size of the plane, it happened very quickly. What I can say is that it was a passenger plane at least as big as a 727 maybe bigger. From the time I heard it over my left shoulder and turned to see it I had one thought, 'he's off course'; I was used to seeing planes fly along the Potomac on the other side of the Pentagon to land at national airport just a mile or two away. My next thought wasn't a thought, it was the realization of what was happening and that happened moments or even a moment before the plane struck."
"Later I found it remarkable that someone even saw what airline it was from. The plane was coming from left and behind of me - I guess if you were on the other side of the highway and facing the plane as it came in you would have had a lot more time to react," said Cissell.

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.
Cissell makes it clear that speculation that the object was a missile or that there was no plane at all is off base.
"With regards to conspiracies in general, I think the conspiracy people need to be focusing on is the one where Bush and his administration leveraged the tragedy of 911 to enter a war for money and oil that cost the lives of who knows how many civilians, a couple thousand soldiers and undid 30 years of progress in a region that was slowly healing itself."

Now that we have established that he said

The plane was coming from left and behind of me

and then

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

how is it even possible that it hit at a 90 degree angle? it is clear to me that for it to be behind his left shoulder, and then fly across the highway 4 cars in front of him. it would have to cross the highway at a steep angle. wouldn't you agree?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Mobertermy, its time to man up again and admit you are wrong.

Every single item you raise has been shown to be wrong or explainable with no need for a Gov. Conspiracy.

 

[DGM]

The four car's back statement could just be him not stating things as eloquently as you would like which is convenient since you seem to want to twist the words of this witness who explicitly states he disagrees with the official flight path in an attempt to turn him into on OFP witness.

So according to debunkers Cissell, who claims the OFP is wrong, is actually an OFP witness. Just as according to CIT witnesses who saw the plane impact are actually flyover witnesses. Got it.

Mobertermy, You need to read this response (yours) and apply it to the argument you are presenting. It works both ways.

I applaud your admission in the other thread. I hope you apply the same thinking to this one.

 

[DGM]

Mobertermy, its time to man up again and admit you are wrong.

Every single item you raise has been shown to be wrong or explainable with no need for a Gov. Conspiracy.

He has already done this in his "photo manipulation" thread. I suspect (understandably so) admission of being wrong would present a huge conflict of everything he holds true about 9/11.

Hopefully he will see what we present as fact (and not take our word for it and check for himself) and reexamine his position.

 

[Gamolon]

The four car's back statement could just be him not stating things as eloquently as you would like which is convenient since you seem to want to twist the words of this witness who explicitly states he disagrees with the official flight path in an attempt to turn him into on OFP witness.

Let's get one thing straight Mobertermy.

I'm not twisting ANYTHING he said. I've asked you a few times to point me to quotes in which YOU said he stated certain things. You either ignored my asking you to do this or missed it.

The first thing you said was that Cissell stated he said the plane came in at 90 degrees. I asked you to provide the link to that quote.

You ignored/missed my asking this.

The second thing you claimed he stated is that he looked over his left shoulder behind him and saw the plane hit the pentagon. I asked you to provide the link to that quote from him showing he said that.

You ignored/missed that one.

The fact that he says he disagrees with the official flight path means absolutely zero without proof of where he actually was on the highway. This is the exact reason why, without proof, nobody can trust an eyewitness account to be 100% accurate without corroborating evidence.

Why?

Take a look at the 13 damn flight paths that were WITNESSED by 13 different people. ALL of them are different. Almost half are over the annex and the others are north of it.

Now, please show me where I twisted his words to mean something else or retract your bogus statement. If I'm wrong, I'll admit to it.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Cissell was right across from the helipad, because he says he was so close to it that he could hit it by throwing a ball. He looked over his left shoulder and saw the plane flying straight into the building on the NoC route. He has looked at the the diagrams online of the official flight path and has explicitly said it looks wrong. He is an NoC witness. I don't care how many contortions you guys put yourselves in to try and deny this.

To echo others in this thread, how did you come to the conclusion that he looked over his left shoulder, Mobertermy? In the article from PP, Cissell said he heard the plane over his left shoulder. Did you take that to mean he looked over his left shoulder?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Mobertermy Perhapse you can tell me.Why they would go to the trouble of faking a different flight path? What is to gain?

 

[beachnut]

Woops........He also said it passed 4 cars in front of him.

In 911 truth fantasy land, in front is behind, and left is right, south is north, and lies are evidence. Morons make up lies, gullible people believe them.

No Mobertermy evidence, only lies, delusions, and failure.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Mobertermy Perhapse you can tell me.Why they would go to the trouble of faking a different flight path? What is to gain?

He thinks they did it to coverup the fact that the plane hit the building at the wrong angle and so could not have caused the damage to the bazillion dollar records that had been blown up by planted explosives.

What he doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that an NoC impact would have caused internal damage and deaths they could not have covered up. The poles would have been the least of their problems......how do you resurrect people who get killed but can't possibly have been where the plane damage was?

 

[I Ratant]

"As far as the size of the plane, it happened very quickly. What I can say is that it was a passenger plane at least as big as a 727 maybe bigger. From the time I heard it over my left shoulder and turned to see it I had one thought, 'he's off course'; I was used to seeing planes fly along the Potomac on the other side of the Pentagon to land at national airport just a mile or two away. My next thought wasn't a thought, it was the realization of what was happening and that happened moments or even a moment before the plane struck."
.
Like this one here...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just taking a step back for a moment here, what would we actually expect the witnesses to say about the flight path of AA77?

In the real world, witnesses are unreliable. Memories are subject to errors in original observation, certainly, and to errors in recollection of that observation, but also - as witness some examples posted in this thread - memories are also subject to correction, often based on the belief that the original memory cannot have been correct. For example, anyone whose memory of the course of the airliner conflicts with their impression of where the course of the airliner should have been may well revise their memory, convince themselves that the airliner followed a different course, and adjust their memories to suit. So we'd expect to see a range of courses with a random spread, but with some subconscious correction to line up better with what people think should have happened.

So how does this relate to NoC/SoC? Well, we know from the physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon at a fairly fine angle, rather than perpendicular to the wall. We'd expect witnesses' original recollections to exhibit a range of courses spread randomly around this angle. However, anyone originally forming a memory of AA77 passing south of its real course would very quickly realise that this would make it highly unlikely for it to have hit the Pentagon at all, and might well convince themself, therefore, that it passed north of the course they recalled. In contrast, anyone recalling a course further north than the real one would have no such conflict to resolve; a course nearer perpendicular makes it more, not less, plausible that the airliner hit the Pentagon. So erroneous recollections of more southerly courses will be subconsciously corrected, and quite possibly even over-corrected, whereas erroneous recollections of more northerly courses will not. In fact, even perfectly correct recollections may be corrected northwards, because the more northerly the course, the greater the perceived probability that it's correct.

And so, what would we expect to see if we plot all the witness recollections on a map compared to the real flight path? Some, we'd expect, might be correct, because physical obstacles might make it impossible to see the plane anywhere other than where it actually passed. Others might well show a wide range of paths distributed to the north of the actual path, but few or none would place it to the south of the actual path.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to further extrapolate to the appearance of the plot if the witness recollections were collected by a biased group of researchers who were already convinced that AA77's course lay further north than the physical evidence suggests, and who were prepared to ignore or dispute witness statements that suggested otherwise.

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.

 

[carlitos]

I forget who, but there was once a guy here who debated some aspect of 9/11 for a really time like Mobertermy. At the end, it was all based on his confusion about a midwestern TV station superimposing a local time stamp on a broadcast of footage from New York.

 

[Gamolon]

You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.

No.

Four cars back means four cars back. Never have I ever heard someone refer to their location IN FRONT of something by saying the were "blah blah blah BACK FROM blah blah."

The key word is BACK.

Who is twisting meanings now?

 

[fess]

You guys are hung up on the "four cars back" phrase - this could mean that he was four cars away from the plane in either direction.

Is this the beginning of grabbing at straws?