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

[Baylor]

Are you sure you're not an NWO operative? Because you sure know your doublespeak.

 

[dtugg]

You know, if I was a truther, I might suspect that CIT are disinfo agents to discredit "legitimate" truthers.

 

[Baylor]

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?

No

If not why?

No witness reported seeing a plane with a 900' wingspan.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

See, once again, this is your problem.

When you wrote "The Evidence" above, you weren't talking about all the evidence. Only your 13 magic witnesses. That's dishonest.

You don't get to exclude some evidence and keep others, then form a hypothesis, test it against only that special evidence while disregarding the rest, and then reject everything else under the assumption your hypothesis has been proven. That's basically the standard definition of pseudoscience.

I'll demonstrate: Suppose, instead of deciding arbitrarily to keep your 13 witnesses and reject the light pole evidence, we did the opposite. Starting with the light poles, that "proves" there in fact was an airplane there. So the 13 witnesses must be wrong.

So, as you can clearly see, the outcome of your "investigation" is unpredictable -- you get radically different answers depending on your assumptions. That's not science.

What you need to do, as I've told you repeatedly, is consider all of the evidence. And guess what, it doesn't all agree. But you need to come up with the best fit, and have some reasonable explanation for the things that don't fit. "It's all fake / planted" is not a reasonable explanation. "Anything the Government says is wrong by default" is not acceptable. Those would be part of your hypothesis, and those need evidence of their own.

Naturally, you have none.

Fortunately, nearly everyone understands this. All the people in the world who fall for this mockery of science coming from the Citizens's Investigation Team would fit comfortably into a very short bus. But there is no shortage of similar hoaxes being pushed by homeopaths, psychic detectives, Bigfoot believers, creationists, Holocaust deniers, and so on. Pseudoscience is all the same, and it's all crap.

Hopefully you'll get it this time -- the error in your reasoning is absolutely textbook, and in no way unusual or unfamiliar. Gardner wrote about it, so did Sagan, Phil Plait, take your pick. Take a science class. Learn. Please.

 

[BCR]

Are you sure you're not an NWO operative? Because you sure know your doublespeak.

You know, if I was a truther, I might suspect that CIT are disinfo agents to discredit "legitimate" truthers.

Actually, a lot of truthers believe just that. As a truther, I certainly consider it a hypothesis with more evidence and support than the NoC hypothesis.

 

[Baylor]

TLB, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Disocery". You'll learn about the degrees of corroboration and why your using "corroborate" in every post is just flat-out pathetic.

 

[Arus808]

Can we get back on topic. You know what Boger stated:

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

bolded part proves TLB to be wrong on all counts.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

See, once again, this is your problem.

When you wrote "The Evidence" above, you weren't talking about all the evidence. Only your 13 magic witnesses.

No, the witnesses are not the only evidence taken into consideration. Other important evidence is the damage to the poles themselves, the damage to Lloyde's car, etc. Obviously, you have not viewed CIT's claims in any depth.

Your claim that all of the evidence should be considered is a very important point, and one I think you clearly don't live up to.

Unfortunately, I did not get to reply to your other post on Wednesday. I was suspended for no reason and had to provide a copy of my driver's license (what a ridiculous practice for an internet forum)! I should be able to reply on later today or on Sunday.

 

[Arus808]

No, the witnesses are not the only evidence taken into consideration.

TLB, Witnesses are not evidence. YOU and your crazy psychotic Crappy Investigoogle team need to learn what evidence is, in a legal sense.

Witnesses can only provide TESTIMONY. a spoken or written story of what they observed and what they felt. THAT's it. That is not evidence. THEIR story is then weighed against EVIDENCE. IF the EVIDENCE proves that their story cannot be supported, then the EVIDENCE outweighs their TESTIMONY.

ONce you get that through your thick skull, maybe you can join us in the year 2009.

 

[beachnut]

No, the witnesses are not the only evidence taken into consideration. Other important evidence is the damage to the poles themselves, the damage to Lloyde's car, etc. Obviously, you have not viewed CIT's claims in any depth.

Your claim that all of the evidence should be considered is a very important point, and one I think you clearly don't live up to.

Unfortunately, I did not get to reply to your other post on Wednesday. I was suspended for no reason and had to provide a copy of my driver's license (what a ridiculous practice for an internet forum)! I should be able to reply on later today or on Sunday.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller - "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

Remember this was verified by CIT as what he said. Verified by CIT who say 77 flew over the Pentagon and bomb was dropped, or some other delusional idea. Oh, the military did it according to Craig the expert delusion maker with the Corporation of Insane Tripe on 911, CIT.

Whose driver's license did you finally use? Did you pass the driver’s test? Lucky the questions were not on 911. Very lucky.

Sean Boger - "... I just watched it hit the building,"

 

[dtugg]

Hey TLB, when are you guys going to send all of your "evidence" to KSM's lawyers?. It is 100% proof of a "military deception," correct? Don't you want to help save a poor man accused of this horrible crime from getting the needle? If you need a name and address, let me know.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

bolded part proves TLB to be wrong on all counts.

Nope. You're not examining that quote in the context of all the evidence.

If you do not accept that Boger simply dropped to the deck as the plane approached as everyone else was doing (ANC workers running away, etc.), then you must still take into account Roosevelt Roberts claim that the plane flew over the south parking lot.

Roosevelt's reported flight path explains why Boger claims that the plane hit the Pentagon (because it what appear from his position that the plane disappeared into the fireball) and why he vehemently argued that the security camera footage showing a low and level plane was wrong (because the plane was not low and level). Nothing explains how he could possibly have deduced the NOC approach, the right bank, and the higher altitude.

 

[dtugg]

So your witness is a liar then?

 

[R.Mackey]

No, the witnesses are not the only evidence taken into consideration. Other important evidence is the damage to the poles themselves, the damage to Lloyde's car, etc. Obviously, you have not viewed CIT's claims in any depth.

You're totally wrong. I know what "CIT's" claims are, and you confirmed them for me -- I asked you whether they hypothesize the poles were magically sabotaged, and Lloyde's car impact staged, and you answered in the affirmative.

What they believe, that it's all planted and staged and so on, isn't "consideration" of the evidence. It's making excuses for it because otherwise it disrupts your hypothesis. We see this kind of excuse all the time, so often in fact that I went as far as to describe it theoretically, calling it the Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories. Like I said, you're a textbook case of pseudoscience.

You see, when you make up some far-out, unsupported excuse to disregard evidence, it doesn't go away. Instead, it creates an even more implausible story that you have to prove. It doesn't work, it's not science, it's not convincing. If you refuse to learn how this works, then you might as well save your breath.

Your claim that all of the evidence should be considered is a very important point, and one I think you clearly don't live up to.

Stop trying to change the subject. After you learn how science works, I'll be glad to go through the process myself. But you're not ready yet.

 

[Baylor]

If you do not accept that Boger simply dropped to the deck as the plane approached as everyone else was doing (ANC workers running away, etc.), then you must still take into account Roosevelt Roberts claim that the plane flew over the south parking lot.

How exactly do you "take this into account"?

 

[Baylor]

And how exactly is Roberts a "flyover witness"? Aldo confirmed with him the plane hit the building.

Aldo: -so there was another commercial aircraft in the area as- as the, uh. . . the plane hit then, basically. Is that what you think?

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

 

[1337m4n]

See, once again, this is your problem.

When you wrote "The Evidence" above, you weren't talking about all the evidence. Only your 13 magic witnesses. That's dishonest.

You don't get to exclude some evidence and keep others, then form a hypothesis, test it against only that special evidence while disregarding the rest, and then reject everything else under the assumption your hypothesis has been proven. That's basically the standard definition of pseudoscience.

I'll demonstrate: Suppose, instead of deciding arbitrarily to keep your 13 witnesses and reject the light pole evidence, we did the opposite. Starting with the light poles, that "proves" there in fact was an airplane there. So the 13 witnesses must be wrong.

So, as you can clearly see, the outcome of your "investigation" is unpredictable -- you get radically different answers depending on your assumptions. That's not science.

What you need to do, as I've told you repeatedly, is consider all of the evidence. And guess what, it doesn't all agree. But you need to come up with the best fit, and have some reasonable explanation for the things that don't fit. "It's all fake / planted" is not a reasonable explanation. "Anything the Government says is wrong by default" is not acceptable. Those would be part of your hypothesis, and those need evidence of their own.

Naturally, you have none.

Fortunately, nearly everyone understands this. All the people in the world who fall for this mockery of science coming from the Citizens's Investigation Team would fit comfortably into a very short bus. But there is no shortage of similar hoaxes being pushed by homeopaths, psychic detectives, Bigfoot believers, creationists, Holocaust deniers, and so on. Pseudoscience is all the same, and it's all crap.

Hopefully you'll get it this time -- the error in your reasoning is absolutely textbook, and in no way unusual or unfamiliar. Gardner wrote about it, so did Sagan, Phil Plait, take your pick. Take a science class. Learn. Please.

Language Award Nominee.

 

[beachnut]

How exactly do you "take this into account"?

75-degree bank is need to get over the south parking lot at 200 knots.

That is an easy 3.8gs, but a 757 can’t do 200 knots at 75 degree of bank, the wing will stall.

At the real speed 77 was doing it takes 87 degree of bank at 19Gs. Not possible.

Slow speed, 77 stalls in turn during flyover, Real speed 77’s wings fall off during flyover.

Where is Balsamo's 11.2G-failed math when TLB need a distraction?
Failure for CIT and p4t, shot down by their own witness and physics of flight, and they publish proof they have a delusion.


Thread conclusion: Boger saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. He saw it hit.

 

[twinstead]

See, once again, this is your problem.

When you wrote "The Evidence" above, you weren't talking about all the evidence. Only your 13 magic witnesses. That's dishonest.

You don't get to exclude some evidence and keep others, then form a hypothesis, test it against only that special evidence while disregarding the rest, and then reject everything else under the assumption your hypothesis has been proven. That's basically the standard definition of pseudoscience.

I'll demonstrate: Suppose, instead of deciding arbitrarily to keep your 13 witnesses and reject the light pole evidence, we did the opposite. Starting with the light poles, that "proves" there in fact was an airplane there. So the 13 witnesses must be wrong.

So, as you can clearly see, the outcome of your "investigation" is unpredictable -- you get radically different answers depending on your assumptions. That's not science.

What you need to do, as I've told you repeatedly, is consider all of the evidence. And guess what, it doesn't all agree. But you need to come up with the best fit, and have some reasonable explanation for the things that don't fit. "It's all fake / planted" is not a reasonable explanation. "Anything the Government says is wrong by default" is not acceptable. Those would be part of your hypothesis, and those need evidence of their own.

Naturally, you have none.

Fortunately, nearly everyone understands this. All the people in the world who fall for this mockery of science coming from the Citizens's Investigation Team would fit comfortably into a very short bus. But there is no shortage of similar hoaxes being pushed by homeopaths, psychic detectives, Bigfoot believers, creationists, Holocaust deniers, and so on. Pseudoscience is all the same, and it's all crap.

Hopefully you'll get it this time -- the error in your reasoning is absolutely textbook, and in no way unusual or unfamiliar. Gardner wrote about it, so did Sagan, Phil Plait, take your pick. Take a science class. Learn. Please.

TLB This describes EXACTLY what you and CIT are doing, and why nobody sane is listening to you. Deny it all you want. Go ahead. We know better

 

[Mangoose]

If you do not accept that Boger simply dropped to the deck as the plane approached as everyone else was doing (ANC workers running away, etc.), then you must still take into account Roosevelt Roberts claim that the plane flew over the south parking lot.

Boger himself does not accept this....He reports that he watched the plane hit and ducked when the explosion happened. The explosion and debris were headed directly at him. Take a look at the closeup photos of the heliport tower and see the damage. He had just a pane of glass between himself and the fireball. Of course he would have ducked to avoid the debris. What Boger absolutely does not say is that he ducked before the plane hit.

And about Roosevelt Roberts, a flight path over the South Parking Lot is absolutely inconsistent with any NOC flight path that CIT has devised. Everyone here knows that.

Roosevelt's reported flight path explains why Boger claims that the plane hit the Pentagon (because it what appear from his position that the plane disappeared into the fireball) and why he vehemently argued that the security camera footage showing a low and level plane was wrong (because the plane was not low and level).

What Boger told Craig and Aldo is that the plane kept descending lower and lower at an angle and did not fly low and level parallel to the ground. How in heck this is supposed to mean that the plane ASCENDED upward to fly over the Pentagon is beyond me.