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

[Baylor]

I'll gladly explain to anyone the scientific investigation of human memory and eyewitness testimony, but first he or she must demonstrate that I wouldn't be wasting my time.

 

[R.Mackey]

Hilarious!

Look at you spin as fast as a top while ADMITTING you are reduced to "quibbling" about "semantics".

I am rubber, you are glue.

Yes his statements sure are "consistent" with a northern approach and since you admit there are many others whose statements are also "consistent" with this then yes, his statements do amount to CORROBORATION!

No. You don't understand the word "corroboration," any more than you understand "evidence," "theory," or "scientific method." Look 'em up.

The fact that you are forced to deny the very definition of the word "corroboration" is amazing and really exposes how desperate you are.

Oh, I'm desperate all right. I'm this close to cracking and admitting my part in the heinous plot to enslave America...

Nobody has ever said that Boger or any one witness is "proof" but since they are first-hand witnesses to the event and their statements are all "consistent" with a northern approach they certainly do corroborate each other in this regard.

No, you yourself said that Boger et. al. "proved" your farsical trajectory. You might want to review your own drivel.

Seriously do you even know what the word corroboration means?

Yes. How about you?

This sentence indicates to me that you haven't a clue.

I can't help what it indicates to you. Everyone else understands.

Of course I don't buy it and I think you are playing dumb as a means to avoid conceding the facts.

If their statements are consistent that means they corroborate each other.

New term for you to look up: Experimental error. Feel free to ask questions.

Sorry but Wheelhouse does not fit the criteria because he ADMITTED he had no view of the citgo and his confirmed location proves that he would have had no view of the citgo OR the official low and level southern approach.

His "confirmed location" and view is entirely speculative, and your analysis thereof highly unreliable. As for his admission that he couldn't see the CITGO, that's a big, big problem for you -- if he couldn't see the CITGO, but could see the impact (as he says he did), then there's no way your story can be correct.

Anyway, you're changing the subject. You asked for testimony that contradicts your hypothesis. Mr. Wheelhouse provided it. You were not only aware of it, but already have a ready-made excuse to ignore it. That makes your earlier claim, that no such testimony exists, rather unsupportable.

The fact that you considering verifying someone's POV "nitpicking" is also rather telling.

I have no reason to trust your brand of "verification."

Wheelhouse's proven false 2 plane "shadowing" description is the ONLY first-hand account you can reference due to his illustration so this could fairly be dismissed as "special cause" even if he had a clear view. But his view was completely obstructed. This is a fact. Go there yourself if you don't believe it. Verifying actual POV's is imperative to verifying witness accounts.

Again, you're using the word "proven" incorrectly.

But you were forced to change the definition of "corroboration" to do it!

Too funny.

You're squirming Mackey.

You wish.

That is what you are doing.

You are putting the theory before the evidence.

You are refusing to accept the evidence based on nothing but your refusal to believe a theory. That is not scientific.

Totally wrong. In the scientific method, all theories are subject to question. Yours doesn't stand up to it.

If you had a good theory, you would welcome the questions and the doubt. The fact that you keep trying to invalidate the questions is revealing, but we already expected that.

If you can't refute the evidence you must accept the implications of the evidence and come up with your own theory for what happened to the plane after it passed north of the citgo.

Again, you don't even know what "evidence" is. You don't refute evidence. You refute hypotheses.

I already have my theory, and that theory states that the aircraft never did pass north of the CITGO. The only data that indicates it did are confused witness statements, easily shown to be inconsistent with all physical evidence. They were wrong, or quote-mined, or misled by faulty interview technique. End of story, unless you can come up with something different. You can't. You can't even come up with something dimly plausible without disregarding the entire body of physical evidence, and that's not worth a damn.

But what's clear is that Keith Wheelhouse's proven false account is the ONLY independent evidence you have cited to refute the northern approach and sorry but that 100% fails.

Again, you're using the word "proven" incorrectly.

Either learn some science, or come up with something new. This is getting intolerably repetitive.

 

[Mangoose]

Do you agree that Boger confirmed first-hand that the plane was in a "right" bank on the north side of the citgo? Yes or No?

No. You're combining two unrelated things. When he talked about the tilt to the wings, he didn't say where the plane was when it was tilting. He wasn't placing the bank in relation to the CITGO. You are assuming that Boger was talking about the very last few seconds when the plane was passing by the CITGO. But he doesn't say that. In fact, he said that he saw the plane for 8 and 15 seconds. Aldo did not ask him when during that span the plane tilted; Boger was only referring generally to when "the plane was coming towards me" which was the case the whole time he saw the plane.

CIT has said many times that they have not "devised" any complete or definitive flight paths at all and merely report what the witnesses said.

Yeah, for good reason. You know what I meant....any NOC flight path CIT *could* devise, or any logical NOC flight path, etc. Whether or not CIT refuses to commit to a particular path, they must agree that the plane did take one and only one path to the building. Whatever that was, it was impossible if the path went over the South Parking Lot. And everyone here knows it, and laughs at the sheer inanity of it.

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.

What he told Craig & Aldo is that the plane was not low and level

....BECAUSE IT WAS DESCENDING. I already said that. CIT requires the plane to be ascending. Do I have to quote Boger for you?

Marquis: Did he come in over low and level over the grass, was he level over the ground or was he descending at an angle? Boger: He was actually descending.

Boger has the plane descending over the grass. CIT requires the plane to be ascending from the street to the Pentagon. And Boger earlier said that the plane "hit the sign on the street" and then said that it looked it it went from being three stories high to two stories high -- a descent, not an ascent. Boger debunks CIT. A descending plane over the lawn = no flyover.

 

[1337m4n]

One entry found.

Main Entry:
cor·rob·o·rate
Pronunciation:
\kə-ˈrä-bə-ˌrāt\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
cor·rob·o·rat·ed; cor·rob·o·rat·ing
Etymology:
Latin corroboratus, past participle of corroborare, from com- + robor-, robur strength
Date:
1529
: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain
synonyms see confirm
— cor·rob·o·ra·tion \-ˌrä-bə-ˈrā-shən\ noun
— cor·rob·o·ra·tive \-ˈrä-bə-ˌrā-tiv, -ˈrä-b(ə-)rə-\ adjective
— cor·rob·o·ra·tor \-ˈrä-bə-ˌrā-tər\ noun
— cor·rob·o·ra·to·ry \-ˈrä-b(ə-)rə-ˌtȯr-ē\ adjective

 

[dtugg]

Hey TLB, is the Complete Idiot Team still using this as their flight path?:

 

[1337m4n]

Hey TLB, is the Complete Idiot Team still using this as their flight path?:

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/DewittLocations.jpg[/qimg]

Huh, can a jumbo jet even turn that sharply?

 

[dtugg]

One of the many reasons I call them the Complete Idiot Team.

 

[nicepants]

If you are unable to tell that the entire point of this complex graphic (that included 3 different POV's) was to relay a flight path as opposed to depict the size of a 757 in relation to the topography then I can't help you.

The problem with relaying a flight path when your plane is 750 feet wider than it should be...is that the flight path is also 750 feet wider than it should be. That margin of error would easily put the plane SOC.

They merely state the obvious which is:

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?

If not why?

No.

None of the eyewitnesses reported a plane bigger than the navy annex.

Again, you're cherrypicking the parts of their animation which you believe support your theory.

 

[jaydeehess]

What Boger absolutely does not say is that he ducked before the plane hit.
This has been full acknowledged by CIT.

TLB:
But Boger DOES say that he saw the plane on the north side like everyone else proving it did not hit.

Right back at ya. Boger DOES say that he saw the plane hit, like everyone else, proving (by the same reasoning that the CiT uses) it did hit.

Do you agree that Boger confirmed first-hand that the plane was in a "right" bank on the north side of the citgo? Yes or No?

The problem is two fold, that there are a number of witnesses who's statements are consistent with a path that takes it south of the Citgo station. That they do not specifically mention the arbitrary landmark of the Citgo station does not invalidate the fact that their statements are consistent with a , so-called, SoC path. Others remark on a left bank.
Second , there is a great and vast preponderance of eyewitness statements that include the aircraft impacting the Pentagon. Those who mention where it hit invariably state it hit low down at the frst few floor levels. No one at all has ever stated that it looked like it was going to hit high up on the top few floors, and no one states that the plane was rising as it neared the Pentagon (not Turcois, he states that the plane went below his line of sight after it went past the highway and he did not see it again).

Therefore by the logic of the CiT , that eyewitness statements are conclusive evidence, the statements illustrate that the plane hit the building.

 

[twinstead]

The truthers don't seem to grasp the concept that we can throw their logic right back at them. Indeed, we can say that since the vast majority of eye witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, it did indeed hit the Pentagon, period. Any evidence to the contrary is wrong.

 

[DGM]

The truthers don't seem to grasp the concept that we can throw their logic right back at them. Indeed, we can say that since the vast majority of eye witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, it did indeed hit the Pentagon, period. Any evidence to the contrary is wrong.

Or lack there of?

I just wish they knew the difference between "evidence" and "proof".

 

[twinstead]

I just wish they knew the difference between "evidence" and "proof".

Or even the difference between "evidence" and "not evidence"...

 

[Baylor]

First you verify if the witness had a good POV, then you interview him. Not the other way round. If you interviewed someone then said, 'oh, he doesn't count,' not only would you be wasting everyone's time, you'd be telling your audience you handwave the evidence you don't like. That's exactly what "The Pentacon" did.

 

[DGM]

Or even the difference between "evidence" and "not evidence"...

I have to give them the "evidence" part. Anything that anyone says can be taken as "evidence". The problem comes when the say that this "evidence" is "verified" or "corroborated".

Now if you say it's "verified" as "proof" it has to be shown to be factual. This is a problem for "eyewitness" reports that do not agree with "hard" or physical evidence. The human mind is in no way a video recorder and is often swayed to what is conceived as logical.

Now "corroborated" just means that someone else agrees with your perception of the event. This is in no way a verification of the accuracy of the testimony.

Maybe someday we can explain the difference between "testimony" and "evidence" but frankly there"s a stool at a local pub that has my name on it. (and a cute bartender to boot)

 

[DGM]

The thing is my best advise to a "truther" would be, If your ever in trouble make sure your lawyer (counsel) is not a "truther", because you would most definitely hang.

 

[Thunder]

I

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. http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm.

The man says he SAW the plane hit the Pentagon and HEARD the metal slicing through the building.

What's your problem man?

 

[twinstead]

Yup. I checked. The man REALLY DID SAY HE SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. So why is it that TLB gets to judge what a witness thinks the saw and what they 'really' saw?

 

[Thunder]

So he is telling the truth when he says he saw the North side flightpath...and lying when he says he saw the plane hit the building????

There are no words..just no words to describe the kind of jerk if would take to come up with such an absurd and offensive idea.

 

[beachnut]

Hey TLB, is the Complete Idiot Team still using this as their flight path?:

This CIT turn takes only 85.6 degrees of bank with 13Gs, and impossible turn. Even if they try to slow down the aircraft to 200 knots, the turn takes 68 degrees of bank and 2.7Gs (aircraft stalls). Impossible turns so p4t and CIT have no path to show for the NoC.

CIT confirmed Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

 

[Bobert]

The man says he SAW the plane hit the Pentagon and HEARD the metal slicing through the building.

What's your problem man?

Remember we are dealing with a Cult here.