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

[TheLoneBedouin]

In light of the fact that it should be painfully clear by now to the members here that not a single first-hand witness account exists to refute the north side approach we should take a closer look at the first-hand accounts that do exist.

Sean Boger is obviously a critical expert witness due to his location and clear unobstructed view of the approach from his elevated position in the tower.

Here is a look at his approximate point of view of the citgo and Navy Annex:

Sean saw the plane banking on the north side of the gas station like everyone else proving the plane did not hit the building.

He flatly proclaimed:

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station...it would be on my right hand side."

Although Sean has also claimed that he watched the plane go into the building we know this is impossible since he saw it on the north side. He says he hit the deck so logic would dictate that he did this as the plane hit and deduced the impact considering all other witnesses corroborate his north side claim.

Sean's clear unobstructed view of the approach, extremely critical vantage point, opposite perspective of all the other witnesses, and expert status as an air traffic controller make him one of the best witnesses possible to report on the exact location of the plane as it headed toward the Pentagon.

The notion that he too would make such a wild and drastic mistake concerning north or south of the gas station simultaneously with 12 other witnesses in this critical area while no first-hand account exists that directly refutes them all is a practical impossibility. Particularly since he ALSO reports a right bank/tilt of the aircraft exactly like described in detail by all the witnesses at Arlington National Cemetery such as foreman Darrell Stafford:

This distinctive right banking motion is also fatal to the official data, the physical damage, and the security gate camera video yet is corroborated many times over.

Boger explains:

"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like...not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle. [...] And so he was coming like at an angle. You know his wings were tilted. Almost like he was in a, like trying to bank towards the uh Pentagon building".

Sean also makes some interesting comments regarding the security gate camera as it's clear that what he remembers does not match what he sees in the video. He does not think it appeared low and level and even said that it looked like he was "trying to get control of the aircraft". The relatively slow, banking, and struggling north side flight path does not match the security video or perfectly straight official flight path one bit but matches the Arlington Cemetery witnesses perfectly.

At some point you are going to have to realize that all of the people in this critical area are placing the plane on the north side because this is where the plane flew. Not because they are all ridiculously mistaken in the exact same manner or because CIT hypnotized them all to report something opposite of what they saw.

View the new 15 minute short featuring the first-hand account of critical witness Sean Boger here.

 

[dtugg]

Boger says he watched the plane hit the Pentagon. Why the hell do you frauds leave that out?

 

[Baylor]

At some point you are going to have to realize that all of the people in this critical area are placing the plane on the north side because this is where the plane flew. Not because they are all ridiculously mistaken in the exact same manner or because CIT hypnotized them all to report something opposite of what they saw.

Really? Studies have shown that changing ONE WORD can "hypnotize" witnesses into reporting something opposite of what they saw. And these studies were done 1 week after the event, not 5 years.

http://www.garysturt.free-online.co.uk/loftus.htm

 

[A W Smith]

this is all we need to know

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

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Really? Studies have shown that changing ONE WORD can "hypnotize" witnesses into reporting something opposite of what they saw. And these studies were done 1 week after the event, not 5 years.

http://www.garysturt.free-online.co.uk/loftus.htm

The fact that you are even making this argument is good a sign becuase you understand that the level of corroboration effectively rules out witness error (I will elaborate in response to Mackey tommorow).

If you have any evidence that CIT led the witnesses please post it here.

The studies you cite are about specific instances (precise speed recall ,etc.) which are not gerneralizable into all instances of witness recall (not that you have shown any evidence of "hypnotizing" anyway).

 

[Hokulele]

If you have any evidence that CIT led the witnesses please post it here.

OK.

Erik Dihle: He was flying from the...he was coming out of the west by northwest.

Craig Ranke: He was coming from the northwest so kind of like from over Arlington Cemetery?

ED: Oh yeah he was coming from over Arlington, absolutely. Yeah maybe due...not so much due west, but again I'd say more northwest as I recall....maybe eh west a little bit to the north, yeah a little bit more to the north. Not truly from the north, definitely not from north....I would say somewhere between uh west by northwest.

CR: Sure but definitely not from the south.

ED: Oh no, not from the south. No way. Nope. Unless somebody is telling me that's something I didn't witness........no this plane definitely came from the, absolutely positively it came from the west or northwest.

Whoops, wrong "here", but you get the idea.

 

[A W Smith]

TLB,, you have no physical evidence. Its over, Confused foggy memories 7 years later from leading interviews don't cut it, You are engaging in the biased sample logical fallacy

Biased sample

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
A biased sample is a statistical sample of a population in which some members of the population are less likely to be included than others. If the bias makes estimation of population parameters impossible, the sample is a non-probability sample.
An extreme form of biased sampling occurs when certain members of the population are totally excluded from the sample (that is, they have zero probability of being selected). For example, a survey of high school students to measure teenage use of illegal drugs will be a biased sample because it does not include home schooled students or dropouts. A sample is also biased if certain members are underrepresented or overrepresented relative to others in the population. For example, a "man on the street" interview which selects people who walk by a certain location is going to have an over-representation of healthy individuals who are more likely to be out of the home than individuals with a chronic illness.

 

[Baylor]

The fact that you are even making this argument is good a sign becuase you understand that the level of corroboration effectively rules out witness error (I will elaborate in response to Mackey tommorow).)

What?

The studies you cite are about specific instances (precise speed recall ,etc.) which are not gerneralizable into all instances of witness recall (not that you have shown any evidence of "hypnotizing" anyway).

Witnesses reported seeing something that wasn't there--broken glass. The studies show that witness testimonies can be altered by the interviewer changing as little as ONE WORD. Thus the studies are generalizable because witness testimonies are so easy to manipulate.

 

[R.Mackey]

In light of the fact that it should be painfully clear by now to the members here that not a single first-hand witness account exists to refute the north side approach we should take a closer look at the first-hand accounts that do exist.

... except for the first-hand accounts that were shown to you in the other thread, that is.

Or the ones in your own videos, such as Mr. Wheelhouse's account, or Mr. England's.

I really don't understand this kind of denial. It sets the tone very poorly when you start off with such nonsense.

This denial isn't original, either -- as we've already reminded you, even others in the Truth Movement, with whom I agree hardly ever, have noted this exact same behavior:

The film claims that there is not a single contradicting eyewitness statement “in the entire investigative body of evidence.”

This claim is false—in fact the opposite is true.In assembling the largest collection of the eyewitness testimony available, it is easily demonstrable that this statement is completely false. There is no other obvious evidence confirming that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station. I could not find any clear eyewitness accounts supporting the flight path alleged by these four witnesses. This single point reveals the “special pleading” argument of the PentaCon as relevant evidence and studies are ignored.

Source

This is the only thing that I am sure Arabesque and I agree on. That's corroboration for you.

Any response? This article has been out for a very long time, and is backed by some fairly big names in the Truth Movement, such as Hoffman (whom I have torn apart in print, yet again am compelled to agree with here). Surely you've thought about this?

 

[dtugg]

I wonder what happened to the grand juries that Craig promised on this forum years ago. I mean the evidence 100% for sure proves a "military deception" right? So what's the hold up?

 

[dtugg]

Any response? This article has been out for a very long time, and is backed by some fairly big names in the Truth Movement, such as Hoffman (whom I have torn apart in print, yet again am compelled to agree with here). Surely you've thought about this?

According to Craig, they are disinfo agents sent to discredit him. Craig is insane.

 

[Baylor]

If you have any evidence that CIT led the witnesses please post it here.

“They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’" -Mike Walter

WHAT THE HELL???? Did the plane land at Reagan? Seriously, what the hell kind of question was that? I can only imagine what Mr. Walter was thinking. 'Hmmmm....I'm pretty sure the plane didn't land at Reagan, I just said I saw it hit the building.'

Did they set a off a bomb? What??? Where the hell did that question come from?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

If you have any evidence that CIT led the witnesses please post it here.

OK.
Whoops, wrong "here", but you get the idea.

Nope, that was an excerpt after:

Craig: Do you recall what direction that plane [i.e. the C130] approached from?

Erik: Yeah, he was coming out of the west by northwest.

Try listening to the interview before criticizing it next time.

And stop trying to derail: address the OP or go away.

 

[Hokulele]

Nope, that was an excerpt after:

Ah, so changing his direction from "west by northwest" to "northwest", adding in the reference to Arlington Cemetary, and later telling him "definitely not from the south" was in no way leading him away from stating a direction of "west" (which failed to a certain extent), and towards the direction Craig prefers.

I suppose if you redefine what the term leading question means...


But then again, handwaving away evidence is what CIT is best at.

 

[ref]

Hey Bedouin.

I usually do not participate in any CIT stuff. But I have a question.

Who first discovered this NoC thing? And when was that? How did the first person draw his conclusion, that it was NoC? How many interviews or other evidence did it take to come to that conclusion?

I assume it was Craig or Aldo in 2006 or 2007. I really haven't been paying that much attention.

 

[Baylor]

Hey Bedouin.

I usually do not participate in any CIT stuff. But I have a question.

Who first discovered this NoC thing? And when was that? How did the first person draw his conclusion, that it was NoC? How many interviews or other evidence did it take to come to that conclusion?

I assume it was Craig or Aldo in 2006 or 2007. I really haven't been paying that much attention.

Don't mean to start a derail, but I think it was the anti-semitic Dick Eastman back in 2003. As you can tell from his e-mail exchange in '03 with Sgt. Lagasse, he was trying to manufacture a conspiracy of his own. He asked a slew of questions hoping to get as many inconsistencies as he could.

http://www.911-strike.com/lagasse.htm

All the anti-establishment basement-dwelling conspiracy theorists just ripped it off from the anti-semitic ones. Just like Dylan Avery stole many of his ideas from Carol Valentine, Hufschmidt et. al.

Here's a photo of the anti-establishment truthers. I don't think they're discussing particle physics.

Edited by chillzero: 

Image removed for breach of Rule 10.

 

[dtugg]

Hey TLB, do you think that making an enemies list of JREFers and stalking them is a good thing for you guys to do? I mean, it was you that made most of that list on the Complete Idiot Team's pathetic forum. I think the whole thing is hilarious. But surely, you must have better things to do than play childish games. Right???

 

[Bell]

Hey TLB, do you think that making an enemies list of JREFers and stalking them is a good thing for you guys to do? I mean, it was you that made most of that list on the Complete Idiot Team's pathetic forum. I think the whole thing is hilarious. But surely, you must have better things to do than play childish games. Right???

At most it shows how crazy, delusional and paranoid CIT and their cheerboys are.

 

[dtugg]

At most it shows how crazy, delusional and paranoid CIT and their cheerboys are.

Yes. Hilarious. I predict that TLB will not comment on the enemies list and why he felt it was a good idea for him to contribute to it. Or try to deny it was him, but I know it was.

 

[Bell]

Although Sean has also claimed that he watched the plane go into the building we know this is impossible since he saw it on the north side. He says he hit the deck so logic would dictate that he did this as the plane hit and deduced the impact considering all other witnesses corroborate his north side claim.

Your/CIT's logic fails in soo many ways, it's hard to keep count. That's your problem.