• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Hmmm, seems to me that any competent investigator would get witnesses to resolve mutually exclusive claims. Are you telling me that the Complete Idiot Team didn't do this? They are incompetent? Well, I am shocked.
 
dtugg said:
Hmmm, seems to me that any competent investigator would get witnesses to resolve mutually exclusive claims. Are you telling me that the Complete Idiot Team didn't do this? They are incompetent? Well, I am shocked.
Click to expand...
No witness statement is "mutually exclusive" if you only use the parts you want.:rolleyes: That's the CIT defense (although they don't say it that way)
 
Let's try a little analogy here:

Let's say a man is shot in broad daylight in front of a lot of witnesses. Everybody agrees on the general story of what happened. Then, years later, after being interviewed by a couple of idiots on a mission to prove the man was never shot, a small percentage of the witnesses say the shooter was standing at an angle incompatible with the bullet wounds. Does this mean the man was never shot?
 
dtugg said:
Let's try a little analogy here:

Let's say a man is shot in broad daylight in front of a lot of witnesses. Everybody agrees on the general story of what happened. Then, years later, after being interviewed by a couple of idiots on a mission to prove the man was never shot, a small percentage of the witnesses say the shooter was standing at an angle incompatible with the bullet wounds. Does this mean the man was never shot?
Click to expand...
I see it more along the lines of, That elephant can't be in that cage because the only door I see is the one the keeper uses and the elephant is way to big. They have now asked 13 people how many doors they see. Of course the only obvious one is the keepers. Now the CIT would conclude that there was no elephant.

Now a logical person would ask the keeper how it got in there, or even reach in the cage to see if it is in fact there (the elephant). Why they wouldn't do this I have no clue, All I know is the refuse to.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Let's try a little analogy here:

Let's say a man is shot in broad daylight in front of a lot of witnesses. Everybody agrees on the general story of what happened. Then, years later, after being interviewed by a couple of idiots on a mission to prove the man was never shot, a small percentage of the witnesses say the shooter was standing at an angle incompatible with the bullet wounds. Does this mean the man was never shot?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but all the witnesses interviewed years later still ALL agree that the man was shot...because they saw it.

CIT are silly. Period.
 
We tried to warn CIT that speeding down a one-way street wasn't a good idea. CIT didn't realize that a large, concrete wall awaited them around that last turn they took.

What a mess.
 
TLB,
you've been away from this thread for a few days, but now that you're back, would it be possible to get a response to my post 209. It would be very much appreciated.
 
Now, now. Play nice. I'm really interested in hearing TLB's response before the whole thread get's closed and sent to AAH.

Frankly, there really is only one way that you could fly the plane to fool Boger into thinking it hit the Pentagon without actually hitting it. And not only would that method would not match what CIT claims their other witnesses saw, it would have been obvious to them that the plane didn't hit. That's the problem with their whole "elaborate magic trick" idea. It could only work from a very narrow and specific line of sight. Anyone outside of that line will see something very different and quite obvious.

Boger's statements hurt them far more than it helps them.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Or better yet why don't you ask Sean Boger yourself?
Click to expand...

Good idea!

And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has liked stop, and I look out the window and I just hear a -- I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer.

And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.

********

So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head. It was like glass shattering and ceiling tile was falling, and --
Click to expand...

Sean Boger - November 14, 2001
 
ihaunter,

Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility

For instance:
Frankly, there really is only one way that you could fly the plane to fool Boger into thinking it hit the Pentagon without actually hitting it.
Click to expand...
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility

Besides everything changes if he hit the deck when the plane headed right towards him like any other normal human would have.

And not only would that method would not match what CIT claims their other witnesses saw, it would have been obvious to them that the plane didn't hit.
Click to expand...
Method? What method?
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility



That's the problem with their whole "elaborate magic trick" idea. It could only work from a very narrow and specific line of sight. Anyone outside of that line will see something very different and quite obvious.
Click to expand...
No. The fact is that you have NO idea for what lines of sight the deception would be most effective for exactly what flight paths. The combinations are endless. Throw in the element of surprise, pre-conditioned mindset about plane impacts due to NY, natural fear or instinct to duck for cover, and every little thing that any person may have had their attentions on at the moment (cell phone, work, tv, etc) and we're literally talking about trillions of combinations of factors that could potentially have an effect or completley change the outcome on whether or not anyone was successuflly deceived.

Even still the answer is yes....the witnesses certainly did report something that was quite different and quite obviously not the official story.

But the implications were not obvious at the time because nobody knew what the "official story" was supposed to be! Get it?

And most still don't as Sgts Brooks and Lagasse proved in 2006.

But we know. Right ihaunter?

The plane had to have been on the south side for the official story to be true. We've all studied it for years but the witnesses did not have that benefit on 9/11 and most haven't had a reason to consider it since.

We now know for a fact that it was not supposed to be the relatively slow right banking north side approach directly over the ANC parking lot like all the first-hand witness accounts available unanimously report.

What they all saw and described sure as heck is not the perfectly low and level 535mph missile like object shown in the fraudulent security video.

And yes people saw it flying away too.

Just ask Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

That's why there was an elaborate 2nd plane cover story.

Boger's statements hurt them far more than it helps them.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh no.

He saw a relatively slow north side RIGHT banking approach north of the citgo proving the plane did not hit.

He most certainly did not describe a perfectly low and level 535mph missile like approach as shown in the fraudulent security video.

The witnesses prove a deception.

AllGroupsMap3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys are still lying about Roberts being a flyover witness? Amazing! You must really be desperate! TLB, why don't you draw a graphic of the the plane flying NoC, over the Pentagon, and over the south parking lot so we can all have a nice laugh at your expense. Come on, it'll be fun!
 
Post 209 is the post I'm interested in hearing your response to.

Due to his proximity to the Pentagon, and the height he was standing at, how far away was the plane when he ducked, that still allowed it to pull up while having a course that could convince him that it hit the Pentagon. Again, this is a question that assumes you are right. This is ignoring the fact that he said himself that he saw the plane hit and ducked after. I am giving you every benefit of the doubt that I can. I just want to hear a plausible explanation of how such a deception could be performed.
So far your explanation seems to be that the perpetrators relied primarily on luck and crossed fingers. "Gee, I hope no one is paying close attention, because if we're caught I could be shot as a traitor."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom