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

[jaydeehess]

Aldo likes to ignore the fact that the CiT contention and the WTC no-planers have two things very much in common, both state that no aircraft hit the buildings and that the damage to the buildings was caused by some other means. In that way the CiT are very much a no-plane contender.

The sole difference between the WTC no-planers and the Pentagon no-planers is the method they contend was used to deceive the many witnesses into believeing that a plane hit the building.

 

[jaydeehess]

I forget, just how does the CiT reconcile the facts that; all their witnesses recall differing flight paths but they all agree on one aspect of the flight path, that it ended when the plane hit the building, and; the CiT choses to discard the single point of agreement in favor of lumping all the differing reports as being NoC

 

[Mangoose]

911files: Don't forget about the third firefighter, Dennis Young, who was there with Skipper and Wallace. He was in the heliport building, in the bay where the Fort Myer firetruck was usually stored, when the crash and explosion happened. Then "I had gotten my firefighting gears; I just picked it up in my hands and walked outside. When I walked outside I realized what had happened. I mean, there was pieces of the airplane everywhere" (interviewed September 14, 2001 on CNN).

Those people planting the debris must've been damn quick!!! Oh wait, I know, there was already a stash of airliner debris inside the building that scattered itself all over the lawn in the explosion.

 

[Hellbound]

Those people planting the debris must've been damn quick!!! Oh wait, I know, there was already a stash of airliner debris inside the building that scattered itself all over the lawn in the explosion.

FASCAD rounds - Field Artillery SCAtterable Debris.

They exist now. Thats why you can often see debris scattered around the point an artillery round impacts.

 

[Bell]

911files: Don't forget about the third firefighter, Dennis Young, who was there with Skipper and Wallace. He was in the heliport building, in the bay where the Fort Myer firetruck was usually stored, when the crash and explosion happened. Then "I had gotten my firefighting gears; I just picked it up in my hands and walked outside. When I walked outside I realized what had happened. I mean, there was pieces of the airplane everywhere" (interviewed September 14, 2001 on CNN).

Those people planting the debris must've been damn quick!!! Oh wait, I know, there was already a stash of airliner debris inside the building that scattered itself all over the lawn in the explosion.

Dude, a firefighter at the Pentagon, that's like double do not trust.

 

[Bobert]

WOW that CIT CULT must have increased the drugs in its koolaid.
So let me get this straight.
You claim that no plane hit the Pentagon but you are not a no-planer?
How does that work?
Anyhoo the CIT CULT will not tolerate no plane talk at within their treefort

Brinkman,

Let's make it clear that we do not promote a "no plane" theory and we do not allow association of such to be promoted on our boards.

There was a plane and it did not hit. This is supported by hard eyewitness evidence, topography that will not allow the official flight path to work, and fraudelant flight and radar data.

We do not present a "theory" and we certainly do not promote anything related to the "no plane theory".

I am going to edit your post and leave it here in the quote.

Thank you.

LOL wow apparently even the "topography" supports them!
How exactly does topography not allow the flight path to work?
How played the voice of the topography?
Is that available yet on DVD?

 

[Bell]

I am going to edit your post and leave it here in the quote.

We were never at war with Eurasia.

 

[BCR]

911files: Don't forget about the third firefighter, Dennis Young, who was there with Skipper and Wallace. He was in the heliport building, in the bay where the Fort Myer firetruck was usually stored, when the crash and explosion happened. Then "I had gotten my firefighting gears; I just picked it up in my hands and walked outside. When I walked outside I realized what had happened. I mean, there was pieces of the airplane everywhere" (interviewed September 14, 2001 on CNN).

Those people planting the debris must've been damn quick!!! Oh wait, I know, there was already a stash of airliner debris inside the building that scattered itself all over the lawn in the explosion.

I do not have a CMH interview for him and that is what I was focusing on. But you are absolutely correct. My goal was to demonstrate to TLB that the CMH interviews are not just "nameless" unverifiable statements. In the cases of Wallace and Skipper, no reasonable person can expect them to lie to protect someone who almost had killed them. Okay, let me rephrase that, no one outside CIT/P4T would expect it.

 

[GlennB]

I said:

"Your status as a "NASA scientist" bolsters your hollow rhetoric and gives you the authority to which the members here can appeal."

That does not mean that YOU appeal to authority.

It means that others appeal to YOUR authority.

This is the classic "I award you some authority to which others might appeal - if they so wish - so that I can claim to have knocked back your argument if they did. Even though you didn't ask for this authority and nobody has appealed to it anyway" fallacy.

 

[BCR]

LOL wow apparently even the "topography" supports them!
How exactly does topography not allow the flight path to work?
How played the voice of the topography?
Is that available yet on DVD?

Yes, the famous Cap't Bob 11.2 g essay. Cap't Bob applied his extensive mathematical skills and determined that the topography made the "official flight path" impossible. So they replaced it with a 60-80 degree bank and "some of you guys under the bus" flight path with no descent.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is the classic "I award you some authority to which others might appeal - if they so wish - so that I can claim to have knocked back your argument if they did. Even though you didn't ask for this authority and nobody has appealed to it anyway" fallacy.

That is as suucinct a way of describing what TLB said as I could ever think of.

On the one hand TLB is stating that Mackey is qualified to opine on technical subjects , and on the other hand TLB is stating that if anyone here does reference a Mackey post, they are simply appealing to authority and thus their arguement is tainted.

However, TLB then is specifically stating that Mackey's qualifications are sufficient for Mackey's own posts. Thus if we reference Mackey's statements we are referencing a person who TLB has stated is qualified to make such statements, but in doing so we are appealing to authority and thus doing so means he can ignore..........................

I have to stop, the room is spinning.......................

 

[R.Mackey]

This is the classic "I award you some authority to which others might appeal - if they so wish - so that I can claim to have knocked back your argument if they did. Even though you didn't ask for this authority and nobody has appealed to it anyway" fallacy.

Yup. It still doesn't even compete with this classic, however.

However, TLB then is specifically stating that Mackey's qualifications are sufficient for Mackey's own posts. Thus if we reference Mackey's statements we are referencing a person who TLB has stated is qualified to make such statements, but in doing so we are appealing to authority and thus doing so means he can ignore..........................

Bingo. If one were to accept his monumentally hebetudinous logic, applying it in general -- rather than a personal swipe against me -- it would mean that you could categorically ignore the statements of anyone with legitimate training or expertise in the subject matter under discussion. This is not just illogic, but in fact anti-logic. And ample justification to totally ignore TheLoneBedouin.

As they say about the Truth Movement, "Ignorance is Strength."

 

[Hokulele]

Bingo. If one were to accept his monumentally hebetudinous logic, applying it in general -- rather than a personal swipe against me -- it would mean that you could categorically ignore the statements of anyone with legitimate training or expertise in the subject matter under discussion. This is not just illogic, but in fact anti-logic.

Hmm, I suppose by this line of argument, it would be perfectly reasonable to defer to your status as a "NASA scientist" when it comes to matters of logical fallacies as opposed to matters of, say, physics.

I think.

I need a beer.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

And ample justification to totally ignore TheLoneBedouin.

Well you better run with whatever you can as an excuse for that because the north side evidence isn't going anywhere even if TheLoneBedouin is banned and CIT completely disappears.

The evidence is real and it's only going to grow.

That's why you are all so afraid to talk to any witnesses!

You don't want to confirm what you already know is truth.

There are plenty more north side witnesses and there are plenty more flyover witnesses as indicated to the CMH only weeks after 9/11 by ANC witness Erik Dihle.

The fact is that you have lost this debate so you are doing your best to abandon it as you recline into a comfortable position of ridicule and denial.

But it will keep haunting you and you'll keep doing your best to respond with spin, diversions, and lawyer-like deceptions while pretending like you don't really care.

But you DO care and you won't ignore it that's for sure!

Just like Gravy couldn't stay away after his big public departure from this sub-forum. It's always funny watching you guys squirm as you pretend like you are forcing yourselves to chime in while trying to claim that you just took us off "ignore" or whatever.

The point I made about people appealing to your authority wasn't necessarily meant to suggest that it was happening from an argumentative stand-point at that moment.

Their "appeal to authority" is much more shallow than that and merely used as an emotional crutch to help boost the group-think morale.

There really isn't anything intellectual about it at all.

You see what I meant is that the core members here will for the most part desperately hurl insults and be their usual immature obnoxious selves looking all silly until you jump in with some hollow pseudo-technical rhetoric with all the confidence of "R.Mackey NASA scientist extraordinaire" causing them to fawn all over you as if you made everything all better again.

That sums up the ironic psycho-emotional energy that makes up the jref 9/11-conspiracy-theory-pseudo-skeptic-subculture.

Let me know when you are able to scientifically refute the evidence for real.

 

[dtugg]

You're a funny dude, please keep it up. I can always use the laughs.

 

[beachnut]

Yup. It still doesn't even compete with this classic, however.



Bingo. If one were to accept his monumentally hebetudinous logic, applying it in general -- rather than a personal swipe against me -- it would mean that you could categorically ignore the statements of anyone with legitimate training or expertise in the subject matter under discussion. This is not just illogic, but in fact anti-logic. And ample justification to totally ignore TheLoneBedouin.

As they say about the Truth Movement, "Ignorance is Strength."

The irony of CIT validating Sean Boger seeing 77 impact the Pentagon.

The first thing I found when I searched the Internet for 911 was Hoffman's continuous steam of stuff on 911 which he forms loose nut case ideas on 911. I found just like Jones' work, you can use the references Jim and Dr Thermite cite to refute their work.

Boger is the self debunking key to CIT.

 

[jhunter1163]

I had to google what "hebetudinous" meant. I'm going to use that word in daily conversation now. It'll make me sound smarter.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

words

Yes, they best way of winning an argument is continously repeating "I won the argument". Now, what did the National Geographic say when you CIT guys asked them about their confirming your theory in their TV-show?

 

[BCR]

I am just curious what the point of all of this is. Aside from a handful of forum junkies, no one takes the CIT/P4T stuff seriously. This should tell CIT and their disciples something. CIT made one rather embarrassing showing with a mainstream media outlet and the response was less-than-favorable. Nic Schou of the OC Weekly gave the boys a shot at making their case, but after a little research of his own found the CIT assertions wanting. In a commentary following the email barrage that followed, Schou repeated the same plea we have been making here.

As I've already told Ranke and Marquis--and their fellow researcher Captain Bob from Pilots for 9/11 Truth--I'm interested in evidence, not innuendo. If they or anybody else reading this blog can provide any actual evidence showing what happened to the American Airlines jet they claim didn't hit the building--like the current whereabouts of the crew and passengers--I'll be the first to report it. Meanwhile, anyone who's interested in rehashing the debate can feel free to comment here.

In the words of an old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?" So again I ask, what is the point?

 

[1337m4n]

Well you better run with whatever you can as an excuse for that because the north side evidence isn't going anywhere even if TheLoneBedouin is banned and CIT completely disappears.

Your are correct. It isn't going anywhere. It never will go anywhere, because you refuse to do anything with it. You refuse to contact any media outlets, police departments, or al-Quaeda lawyers with you alleged "evidence".

ALL of us at JREF could ignore you clowns and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Because you're not doing a damned thing, other than trolling Internet forums.

No matter how much you think you know "the truth"--if you're not willing to actually step outside the Internet and accomplish something towards your goal, then it doesn't make a lick of difference what "the truth" happens to be.

So Mackey, and myself as well, will continue to wait here, waiting for you to do something with your evidence that you think is so perfect and so irrefutable. We've been waiting for seven years. How much longer will we have to wait?