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

[R.Mackey]

ihaunter,

You are doing

Personalizing the argument

what's known in the true skeptic community

No True Scotsman fallacy

as the talking out of your a**hole fallacy.

Appeal to false authority and ad Hominem, abusive

You have nothing to back up such a wild blanket statement like this

Well-poisoning

therefore the orifice you are using for speaking here is not the correct one.

ad Hominem, abusive

Besides everything changes if he hit the deck when the plane headed right towards him

Speculative, potential Argument to Probability fallacy

like any other normal human would have.

Argumentum ad populum or No True Scotsman, take your pick

Method? What method? Once again you have presented no evidence or "method"

Destroying the Exception

so the orifice you are using for speaking here is not the correct one

Ad Hominem, abusive

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.

Begging the question

The combinations are endless.

Appeal to Probability

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

Attempted Proof by Verbosity

that could potentially have an effect or completley change the outcome on whether or not anyone was successuflly deceived.

Negative Proof fallacy

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

Denying the Correlative and False Dilemma

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

Historian's Fallacy

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

Misleading vividness

But we know. Right ihaunter?

Fallacy of Many Questions

The plane had to have been on the south side for the official story to be true.

Affirming the Consequent

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.

Psychologist's Fallacy

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

Fallacy of the Single Cause and Intentional Fallacy

like all the first-hand witness accounts available unanimously report.

Destroying the Exception

What they all saw and described sure as heck is not

Special Pleading

the perfectly low and level 535mph

Fallacy of necessity and Hasty Generalization

missile like object shown

False Analogy

in the fraudulent security video.

Assuming the Consequent

And yes people saw it flying away too.

Bare Assertion Fallacy

Just ask Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Proof by Example, Appeal to Authority, and Repetition Fallacy

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

Regression Fallacy and Appeal to Consequences

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

False Precision and Incomplete Comparison

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

See above.

The witnesses prove a deception.

Undistributed Middle

Get a new act.

 

[jhunter1163]

As the kids say, PWNED!!

 

[1337m4n]

Mackey, do you, like, sleep with a logic textbook under your pillow?

 

[BCR]

Mackey is my hero

 

[bje]

"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."

"We?"

A little Freudian slip there, perhaps?

 

[twinstead]

I really have to hand it to TLB and CIT, though. How many of us would have the fortitude to debate endlessly with sustained vigor a point that not only is untenable, but makes practically every bona fide expert in every relevant science laugh in our face?

CIT, TLB, I salute you, Mr argue an untenable position forever guy!

 

[dtugg]

I really have to hand it to TLB and CIT, though. How many of us would have the fortitude to debate endlessly with sustained vigor a point that not only is untenable, but makes practically every bona fide expert in every relevant science person that is not crazy laugh in our face?

CIT, TLB, I salute you, Mr argue an untenable position forever guy!

Fixed that for you.

One has to wonder if they will be blathering on about NoC/flyover until they die. I kind of hope so, because I think they are hilarious. The laugh in your face type of hilarious, of course.

 

[HyJinX]

Personalizing the argument

No True Scotsman fallacy

Appeal to false authority and ad Hominem, abusive


Well-poisoning

ad Hominem, abusive


Speculative, potential Argument to Probability fallacy
Argumentum ad populum or No True Scotsman, take your pick


Destroying the Exception

Ad Hominem, abusive


Begging the question

Appeal to Probability

Attempted Proof by Verbosity

Negative Proof fallacy


Denying the Correlative and False Dilemma


Historian's Fallacy


Misleading vividness


Fallacy of Many Questions


Affirming the Consequent


Psychologist's Fallacy


Fallacy of the Single Cause and Intentional Fallacy


Destroying the Exception


Special Pleading


Fallacy of necessity and Hasty Generalization


False Analogy


Assuming the Consequent


Bare Assertion Fallacy

Proof by Example, Appeal to Authority, and Repetition Fallacy


Regression Fallacy and Appeal to Consequences


False Precision and Incomplete Comparison

See above.

Undistributed Middle

Get a new act.

Nominated.

A pristine post.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

And yes people saw it flying away too.

Wow TLB, are you really trying to tell us that the plane flew over the Annex, banked OVER the ANC parking lot, toward the Pentagon, continued descending so that the fuselage was below BOGER, pulled out of the descent, pulled up and over the Pentagon at the impact site, continued banking and exited where Roberts saw it, over the Pentagon parking lot?

Really? Why don't you show us that the plane Boger saw could fly the CIT fantasy flight path?

And CIT wonders why the Truthers at Prison Planet and 911Blogger think that CIT is a complete and utter joke.

Somebody start a poll, are the No Planers at the Pentagon more, less or equally pathetic as the No Planers at the WTC?

 

[twinstead]

Somebody start a poll, are the No Planers at the Pentagon more, less or equally pathetic as the No Planers at the WTC?

Well, they're equally pathetic, but I have to give the slight nod in nuttiness to the WTC No Planers. Now, as soon as CIT start claiming holograms I might reconsider...

 

[Reheat]

Well done, Ryan Mackey!

You have the patience of Job.

I have stopped facilitating the CIT nonsense as it's the same old tripe over and over again.

Someone buzz me when there is a sensible discussion of something new......

 

[nicepants]

Somebody start a poll, are the No Planers at the Pentagon more, less or equally pathetic as the No Planers at the WTC?

Slightly less pathetic...the only difference between the two is that there is live, full-motion, clear video of the planes hitting the WTC...and there is no such video (that I'm aware of) of the Pentagon attack. All other aspects (eyewitnesses, physical evidence, etc) is present in both places.

I have little doubt that, absent the news footage of the WTC attacks, the Pentagon no planers would be WTC no-planers as well. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find 13 new yorkers who thought that the planes passed north of some given landmark which would be inconsistent with their actual trajectories.

 

[The Big Dog]

Slightly less pathetic...the only difference between the two is that there is live, full-motion, clear video of the planes hitting the WTC...and there is no such video (that I'm aware of) of the Pentagon attack. All other aspects (eyewitnesses, physical evidence, etc) is present in both places.

I am going to have to go with equally pathetic. I equate the videos with the audio tapes that the CIT completely ignores. Lets take Boger, he is a great example. Boger flat out says that the plane hit the building. There are 12 other examples saying the same thing. But CIT hand waves all that audio away. Sad, in an Ace Baker kind of way.

Add to that their recent and utterly bizarre “enemies list.” And top it off with ridiculous personal attacks on Lloyde England, and these guys tip over into Judy Woods land.

Other truthers consider CIT to be delusional or disinfo, just like the other No Planers. Go on 911 Blogger or Prison Planet and bring up the No Plane at Pentagon nonsense, and see what happens.

So it is Resolved: No Planers at the Pentagon are equally as pathetic as the No Planers at the WTC.

 

[dtugg]

I think they are about equally pathetic. And I saw the plane hit the south tower.

 

[The Big Dog]

Although the CIT's presentation on Boger convinced me that CIT were simply No Planers moved a couple of hundred miles South, perhaps a mod would be kind enough to split this discussion into a new thread.

Perhaps people would volunteer to take the lead on various positions:

CIT is somewhat Less Pathetic than the No Planers at the WTC. I originally thought that TLB would be a natural for this, but given that he simply he simply regurgitates CIT's nonsense, he has succeeded only in digging the hole deeper. Hoisted by one's own petard, as it where. Nevertheless, have at it TLB if you wish.

CIT is equally Pathetic as the No Planers at the WTC. Any takers?

CIT is more Pathetic than the No Planers at the WTC. I have someone in mind, but perhaps that person will speak up.

 

[jaydeehess]

TLB on a path to suicide by mod?

 

[beachnut]

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

...
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.

Trying to use Boger as support for an insane delusion of CIT? Boger saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Not a logical move, and a move that can be seen as false by young kids in first grade when the ready the above versus the reality of testimony given right after 911 without people stepping (talking over) on Boger talking.

Boger does not see a slow turn over ANC he sees a plane about to impact. Not some turn of 56 degrees of bank made up by Balsamo 11.2G failed physics logic backed with pilots who have insane ideas on 911.

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. Boger 2001 http://aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit299.pdf

No turn, just right at us. No 56 degree delusional turn.

CIT verified Boger …

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. Boger 2001 http://aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit299.pdf

To make it clear, ...

So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered by head. I was like glass shattering and ceiling tile was falling, and –
Boger 2001 http://aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit299.pdf

CIT delusion of Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon is busted by a CIT verified witness. Why do CIT use a witness who proves them wrong?

At 535 mph plus, a 757 will look like this!

coming right at us, and he didn’t veer. Boger 2001 http://aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit299.pdf

The path was not level, the plane was diving into the Pentagon, the parking lot camera lens shows a descending path as level, it is distortion, CIT and Balsamo also lack knowledge of optics. Add optics to the list; including math, physics, flying, fire, explosives, and all other areas needed to understand 911.

 

[Kent1]

Personalizing the argument
snip

Get a new act.

Well done, Your patience is amazing. far greater than mine these days.

 

[dtugg]

I was just reading their enemies list thread. They were crying about how the WTC no planers have damaged the credibility of the truth movement more than the debunkers. LOL! You idiots are just as bad!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

ihaunter,

Many were deceived by the sleight of hand (see post 192 for Boger's case specifically).

Those who weren't fooled were blown off as anomalous just as ANC witness Erik Dihle revealed to the Center for Military History only weeks after the event:

Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.

-Erik Dihle

Many of these flyover witnesses were later placated by false reports of a "2nd plane" that allegedly "shadowed" AA77 and allegedly veered away during the attack.

Exactly like this guy reported.

The 2nd plane cover story was a crucial element that you are failing to consider.

Nobody claimed that everyone would have been fooled by the sleight of hand.

No matter how hard it is to believe all of the first-hand eyewitness reports in the critical area unanimously place the plane on the north side approach.

If that doesn't concern you nothing will.