Heliport tower ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of the north side approach

[TheLoneBedouin]

Has CIT contacted NG allready? Has CIT asked NG to confirm the NoC flightpath?

I'm not following you here.

Are you refusing to accept the fact that NG put out animations depicting EoP, ONA, and NoC unless they "confirm" it with CIT?

Is that because you are refusing to look at the animations?

If you actually watched the National Geographic "Seconds from Disaster" presentation regarding 9/11 you should have no doubt of this already proven fact.

Why would CIT need to "confirm" something that is right there on video for everyone to see?

If your point is that YOU believe the journalists behind this piece simply made a lucky guess regarding all of these separate but equally fatal aspects of the flight path (EoP, ONA, & NoC) that the witnesses would end up unanimously reporting to CIT it is up to YOU to prove YOUR coincidence theory by contacting National Geographic direct and getting them to confirm it.

But the fact that they depicted the flight path in this manner is not in question so no further confirmation of this is necessary.

 

[dtugg]

I wonder, did NG have the plane flying over the Pentagon. Hmmm, I guess I will have watch it to see.

 

[Bell]

I'm not following you here.

Are you refusing to accept the fact that NG put out animations depicting EoP, ONA, and NoC unless they "confirm" it with CIT?

Is that because you are refusing to look at the animations?

If you actually watched the National Geographic "Seconds from Disaster" presentation regarding 9/11 you should have no doubt of this already proven fact.

Why would CIT need to "confirm" something that is right there on video for everyone to see?

If your point is that YOU believe the journalists behind this piece simply made a lucky guess regarding all of these separate but equally fatal aspects of the flight path (EoP, ONA, & NoC) that the witnesses would end up unanimously reporting to CIT it is up to YOU to prove YOUR coincidence theory by contacting National Geographic direct and getting them to confirm it.

But the fact that they depicted the flight path in this manner is not in question so no further confirmation of this is necessary.

That is not what a real journalist would do. A real journalist would go to the source. What CIT is doing is yellow journalism. And yellow can be interpreted in multiple ways. Tell CIT that if they want to present themselfs as real journalist, they should verify with NG. And ask CIT if they mention the NG employees did not die at the Pentagon, while they are at it.

 

[HyJinX]

Hi TLB. Quick question for ya.

Lampposts...were they planted or not planted?

Thanks!

Oh...this is my ninth try at getting you to answer this simple question. A "yes" or "no" is all that's required.

 

[lapman]

I'm not following you here.

Are you refusing to accept the fact that NG put out animations depicting EoP, ONA, and NoC unless they "confirm" it with CIT?

No, we are saying that CIT has to confirm that NG based the animations on real data.

If you actually watched the National Geographic "Seconds from Disaster" presentation regarding 9/11 you should have no doubt of this already proven fact.

Please point out where NG states that they based their animation on real data.

Why would CIT need to "confirm" something that is right there on video for everyone to see?

So, because it's on video, it's 100% accurate?

If your point is that YOU believe the journalists behind this piece simply made a lucky guess regarding all of these separate but equally fatal aspects of the flight path (EoP, ONA, & NoC) that the witnesses would end up unanimously reporting to CIT it is up to YOU to prove YOUR coincidence theory by contacting National Geographic direct and getting them to confirm it.

SO you have Penny Eglas reported the plane NOC? What about the other 100+ eyewitnesses that don't appear on CIT's videos? BTW, the onus is on you to prove that NG based their animation on real data.

But the fact that they depicted the flight path in this manner is not in question so no further confirmation of this is necessary.

Yes it is in question. You are just afraid to find the real answer.

 

[double_o]

Excuse me...every witness in a position to see the citgo and specifically state on what side it flew.

Sorry, it just that this goalpost moved so fast that I wasn't able to catch it.

 

[The Big Dog]

If your point is that YOU believe the journalists behind this piece simply made a lucky guess regarding all of these separate but equally fatal aspects of the flight path (EoP, ONA, & NoC) that the witnesses would end up unanimously reporting to CIT it is up to YOU to prove YOUR coincidence theory by contacting National Geographic direct and getting them to confirm it.

But the fact that they depicted the flight path in this manner is not in question so no further confirmation of this is necessary.

Who said they made a Lucky Guess? We said they were wrong on the path. Say, Champ, why don't you do a couple of things for us: calculate the G forces on the plane in that video, and make sure you add the calculations for the pull up and over!!

Thanks big guy!

/ the NG video is to "evidence" as Aldo the Buffet Destroyer is to healthy eating habits.

 

[nicepants]

I'm not following you here.

Are you refusing to accept the fact that NG put out animations depicting EoP, ONA, and NoC unless they "confirm" it with CIT?

Is that because you are refusing to look at the animations?

If you actually watched the National Geographic "Seconds from Disaster" presentation regarding 9/11 you should have no doubt of this already proven fact.

Why would CIT need to "confirm" something that is right there on video for everyone to see?

You know what else is right there on video for everyone to see? A 757 with a 900 foot wingspan. The animation was an illustration, an approximation, and was clearly not created to the exacting standards you're applying to it. They used a yard stick, you're quibbling over millimeters. Unless you or CIT confirms with NG that they DELIBERATELY placed the plane noc, it means nothing.

 

[beachnut]

...
Are you refusing to accept the fact that NG put out animations depicting EoP, ONA, and NoC unless they "confirm" it with CIT?

Is that because you are refusing to look at the animations?

If you actually watched the National Geographic "Seconds from Disaster" presentation regarding 9/11 you should have no doubt of this already proven fact.

The animation is not real. Do you understand that? Or is your delusion cloud reality for you? Not real like CIT conclusions of delusions.

The National Geographic animation is HEARSAY. Hearsay is not evidence.

Find out what the animation is based on, you will see they depicted the flight path based on nothing. You are full of junk ideas on 911, the DNA, Boger, and FDR prove you wrong.

Show me the data it is based on and stop telling a lie that NG supports your failed delusion proven wrong by your own witnesses.

You are proven wrong with hard evidence in the DNA, and FDR. Cherry picking manufactured CIT messed up analysis is not too smart.

Hi TLB. Quick question for ya.

Lampposts...were they planted or not planted?

Thanks!

Oh...this is my ninth try at getting you to answer this simple question. A "yes" or "no" is all that's required.

That is 911Truth job to ask questions. CIT says the military did it; TLB has to support the delusion of being planted by government agents, by the people for the people.

p4t party line is they "offer no theory". With CIT working the research for p4t, is there any doubt why p4t offer no theory?

 

[Bell]

So, what say you, TLB? Are you going to ask Craig "internet tough guy" Ranke to contact NG? Remind him he is honest, forthright, honorable, and correct.

And while we're at it, ask Craig to contact KSM's lawyers, present them his evidence to proof KSM is innocent. You know? Craig being honest, forthright, honorable, and correct.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Hi TLB.

Were the lampposts planted or not planted?

Thanks.

Oh...this is my ninth try at getting you to answer this simple question. A "yes" or "no" is all that's required.

Why are you asking me what my opinion is about something that has nothing to do with the topic? I've ignored you the past 8 times because your question is nothing but a demand for speculation in a blatant attempt to derail the thread.

Since the evidence proves the poles were not hit by the plane feel free to come up with your own theory and make a thread about it.

If you are unaware of CIT's theory regarding the light poles I suggest you view their presentations.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

No, we are saying that CIT has to confirm that NG based the animations on real data.

Why?

CIT merely stated that this is what NG reported and this is a fact that can be verified by anyone simply by watching the video.

Obviously CIT didn't consider the NG animations alone to be proof of anything which is why they went to Arlington to gather "real" independent verifiable data in the form of first-hand eyewitness statements.

THAT is the proof.

Clearly YOU are the one who is making accusations about the credibility of the journalists who put together the NG piece by suggesting they put out wildly inaccurate animations (that just so happen to match the witnesses by chance) without bothering to do any fact checking at all.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up this unsupported accusation against NG. Let us know what you find out.

In the mean time it is already perfectly clear to rational individuals that NG depicted EoP, ONA, and NoC virtually exact to what has been reported by CIT based on the witnesses.

 

[HyJinX]

Why are you asking me what my opinion is about something that has nothing to do with the topic? I've ignored you the past 8 times because your question is nothing but a demand for speculation in a blatant attempt to derail the thread.

Since the evidence proves the poles were not hit by the plane feel free to come up with your own theory and make a thread about it.

If you are unaware of CIT's theory regarding the light poles I suggest you view their presentations.

But Boger said he saw the plane hit. What about that evidence? If the plane hit, as Boger stated, then the plane could not have been NoC...correct? Is Boger lying?

 

[Bell]

Why?

CIT merely stated that this is what NG reported and this is a fact that can be verified by anyone simply by watching the video.

NG reported NOTHING, they simply showed an animation.

Obviously CIT didn't consider the NG animations alone to be proof of anything which is why they went to Arlington to gather "real" independent verifiable data in the form of first-hand eyewitness statements.

Indeed, the NG animation is not proof.

THAT is the proof.

Wrong.

Clearly YOU are the one who is making accusations about the credibility of the journalists who put together the NG piece by suggesting they put out wildly inaccurate animations (that just so happen to match the witnesses by chance) without bothering to do any fact checking at all.

Wrong again. CIT are the ones who claim NG supports their NoC flightpath. Real journalists would contact the source (NG) to verify their findings. It is bad manner, very bad manner, to assume a person or institution collebrates with certain evidence, WITHOUT checking with said person or institution. This is the same as putting words in the mouth of NG. Remember, Craig is honest, forthright, honorable, and correct, so the most honest, forthright, honorable, and correct thing for him to do is contact NG.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up this unsupported accusation against NG. Let us know what you find out.

Wrong again... again. The burden of proof is on CIT, to proof that NG agrees with the NoC flightpath.

In the mean time it is already perfectly clear to rational individuals that NG depicted EoP, ONA, and NoC virtually exact to what has been reported by CIT based on the witnesses.

The witnesses that saw AA77 crash into the Pentagon?

 

[beachnut]

Another delusional post based on CIT failed interviews. Are they trying to say their witnesses combined with the delusional analysis of Craig verify the fake NG animation?

The NG animation is not based on real data. Is CIT really saying their research is the verification for an animation not based on real data? Not even trying to match reality, at least they have a little reality in their ironic list of their enemy. I feel sorry for TLB defending lies and delusions.

Sounds off topic to me.

Boger!

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

 

[Baylor]

Why are you asking me what my opinion is about something that has nothing to do with the topic? I've ignored you the past 8 times because your question is nothing but a demand for speculation in a blatant attempt to derail the thread.

Since the evidence proves the poles were not hit by the plane feel free to come up with your own theory and make a thread about it.

If you are unaware of CIT's theory regarding the light poles I suggest you view their presentations.

That's right. CIT debunked themselves with their own "arlington asset". Can't use the "light poles were staged" idea anymore. Since they manufactured their entire conspiracy theory on those light poles, what exactly do they have on the "official story"?

 

[bje]

Why are you asking me what my opinion is about something that has nothing to do with the topic?

Actually, I started a thread for the the actual topic of your claims so anyone could post the curiously absent evidence of any "flyover" by any jet over and away from the Pentagon.

Not unexpectedly, no evidence has been posted of a flyover, not even from CIT. None was posted when I asked months ago on LCF and ATF. No one is surprised that CIT is unable to support its own claims. It's the nature of the beast.

Any questions, TLB?

 

[nicepants]

Why?

CIT merely stated that this is what NG reported and this is a fact that can be verified by anyone simply by watching the video.

Then you must agree that they also "reported" a plane with a 900-foot wingspan. Something clearly isn't right there.

As I've said before...you and CIT are assuming a much higher level of accuracy than was actually present. NG used a yardstick, you're using calipers.

Edit: As others have said...the proper thing to do would be to contact NG to determine what data they based their animation on in order to understand if this was intentional, was the result of a mis-communication or oversight, or was simply a case of needing something showing a plane hitting the Pentagon and not being concerned about a 200-foot difference in flight path.

Given that the aircraft in their animation had a wingspan of roughly 900 feet, we can assume a margin of error of at least 750 feet.....which is enough to put the aircraft SOC.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh really?

Is that means they never interviewed Keith Wheelhouse, Mike Walter, Madlene Zakhem, Stephen McGraw, Lloyd England and Wanda Ramey.

But those are the shills/assets/operatives! Obviously they don't count.

Excuse me...every witness in a position to see the citgo and specifically state on what side it flew.

I swear the ONLY arguments you guys assert are based around semantics, typos, and faulty logic.

It's really pathetic.

The CiT approach to the eyewitness statements reminds of a joke..........

Q: What is the difference between a mathematician and an engineer?

A: Ask them the question " Are all odd numbers prime?"

The mathematician will state "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is divisible by 3 therefore the hypothesis fails and not all odd numbers are prime"

The engineer will test the hypothesis and determine; "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime , 11 is prime, 13 is prime. Therefore 9 must be a result of experimental error. The hypothesis stands, all odd numbers are prime."


.................The CiT simply throws out anything it does not like such as Lloyd England's taxi being damaged by the pole, Sean Boger saying he "saw" the aircraft hit, and all of their favorite witnesses saying that the plane hit the Pentagon, and DNA evidence, FDR evidence, aircraft parts and the testimony of the recovery personell who took out the body parts, the relatives of the dead,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, worse yet is the penchant that PfT has for developing animations of what witnesses saw that do not conform to what the testimony is. Paik being able to see the Annex(he could not) and his pointing out the direction and location of the aircraft,,,Morin saying the plane was overhead along he edge of the Annex and the animation putting the aircraft to his north at the center of the building.

I keep asking this question, so far no answer; how do you know that Boger could see the Citgo from his location? He may have simply been deducing where it was.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Then you must agree that they also "reported" a plane with a 900-foot wingspan. Something clearly isn't right there.

If you are unable to tell that the entire point of this complex graphic (that included 3 different POV's) was to relay a flight path as opposed to depict the size of a 757 in relation to the topography then I can't help you.

You people MUST realize what an idiotic argument that is.

Seriously.

Right?

As I've said before...you and CIT are assuming a much higher level of accuracy than was actually present. NG used a yardstick, you're using calipers.

NO "we" are not.

Please pay attention nice, uh, pants.

CIT has NOT asserted that the complex and very detailed NG graphic was meant to be a perfectly accurate representation down to the foot.

In fact they have specifically claimed that it is not that accurate.

They merely state the obvious which is:

The National Geographic professionally produced animation is extremely similar to the first-hand witness statements available in the public domain yet completely contradictory to the official data and physical damage.

Do you agree?

If not why?

And if your assertion is that their animation is based on NOTHING you need to back up this assertion.

CIT could care less either way since they provide completely independent verifiable evidence (not associated with MSM) proving the flight path anyway.