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

[TheLoneBedouin]

R.Mackey,

True to form you are yet again ignoring what's being said in favor of focusing on semantics.

Quoting out of context and forcing each of my sentences to fit into any fallacy label you can muster is, well, a logical fallacy (sometimes called "contextonomy").

Of course look at the pseudo-skeptics fawn all over you as if you're the second coming of Randi for committing this particularly lazy and deceptive fallacy!

If you would have responded to my post with any substance you would have provided something to back up ihaunter's unsupported hollow fallacious claims that I was responding to. But you can't because you know I am right.

Really you have proven that you will accept no level of corroboration of any evidence contradicting the official story. Your claims are not falisfiable because they based soley on pure unadulturated deep-rooted faith in the official story. You will never concede a thing and will continue to reduce the discussion to a debate exercise where winning is more important than truth. Similar to a cunning defense attorney working for a very guilty but very rich client. Your status as a "NASA scientist" bolsters your hollow rhetoric and gives you the authority to which the members here can appeal.

You've admitted that CIT represents the "last stand" for the truth movement yet you are unable to refute the evidence they present. This has the members here clearly frantic as they step up their drastic measures to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy by proclaiming the north side approach evidence is "as pathetic" as no planes at the WTC theories.

So which is it? If this information was really that "pathetic" you wouldn't even bother with it.

The north side approach evidence was not "theorized". The witnesses are real. They really do all report the plane on this approach and CIT presents the evidence to prove it. If the citgo witnesses were some wild fluke CIT would not have continued to get validation from everyone else they spoke with including the heliport air traffic controller facing the citgo! The notion is silly. If this is a deception on CIT's part you have to admit it's insanely brilliant. There is no way they could have pulled off providing all these definitive first-hand witness accounts if they were "Complete Idiots" or as stupid as everyone here desperately makes them out to be.

So which is it?

CIT can not be simultaneous frauds and fools. The notion that they decieved 2 federal police officers and at least 10 others on recording into supporting some wild conspiracy theory that they made up is lunacy and the notion that they bummbled across all this information out of pure dumb luck is even more ridiculous.

There is a reason why their biggest "detractor" is now a full-blown member here whose main published article summarizing his work actually cites the main evidence they present as valid and literally SUPPORTS a north side flyover conspiracy.

 

[dtugg]

So, the use of hearsay is perfectly fine as long as it supports your fantasy, correct?

 

[dtugg]

R
CIT can not be simultaneous frauds and fools. The notion that they decieved 2 federal police officers and at least 10 others on recording into supporting some wild conspiracy theory that they made up is lunacy and the notion that they bummbled across all this information out of pure dumb luck is even more ridiculous.

I forget, which one of these witnesses say that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but rather flew up and over it?

 

[Bobert]

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!

Aldo is even dividing up truthers who dont support them into 3, "camps"

Right now the movement is made up of 3 camps that are non-responsive to our evidence:

1. Ops/Infiltrators
2. Arrogant/jealous/ego driven types
3. The unresearched/impressionable/lazy types

Hmmmm does the CIT CULT have FEMA like camps to remove their detractors to?
Poor widdle Aldo no one is listening to them!
Time to call the Howard Stern Wrap-up show again!

 

[The Big Dog]

R.Mackey,

True to form you are yet again ignoring what's being said in favor of focusing on semantics. WORD WORDS WORDS COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT


CIT can not be simultaneous frauds and fools. The notion that they decieved 2 federal police officers and at least 10 others on recording into supporting some wild conspiracy theory that they made up is lunacy and the notion that they bummbled across all this information out of pure dumb luck is even more ridiculous.

There is a reason why their biggest "detractor" is now a full-blown member here whose main published article summarizing his work actually cites the main evidence they present as valid and literally SUPPORTS a north side flyover conspiracy.

"CIT can not be simultaneous frauds and fools"? Sure they can! They are frauds because they made up that completely freaking stupid flyover nonsense, and they are fools if they think that anyone but a few sheep and paperboys believes it.

You think that 911Files is your biggest detractor? Wow. I got to think your biggest detractor is the editor of 911 Blogger, because he won't even let the CIT nonsense reach the Twoofers.

Although given Tubby's call out thread attacking the guys at Loose Change (again) I suspect that the MODS over at the Loose Change Boards will soon be added to your "enemies list."

/by the way, I see old Aldo got himself a girlfriend! I see she is a chubby chaser AND a twoofer! Back off boys, she's a keeper!

 

[BCR]

You think that 911Files is your biggest detractor? Wow. I got to think your biggest detractor is the editor of 911 Blogger, because he won't even let the CIT nonsense reach the Twoofers.

Hey, I worked hard for this honor....stop trying to undermine it

 

[DavidJames]

The notion that they decieved 2 federal police officers and at least 10 others on recording into supporting some wild conspiracy theory that they made up is lunacy and the notion that they bummbled across all this information out of pure dumb luck is even more ridiculous.

Whoa, time out sparky. Are you saying that "2 federal police officers and 10 others" believe the AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon and actually flew over it, really, please provide the quotes where they say that.

Note, providing quotes that they may believe that AA77 flew a route inconsistent with the one most people believe doesn't count.

 

[DGM]

Whoa, time out sparky. Are you saying that "2 federal police officers and 10 others" believe the AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon and actually flew over it, really, please provide the quotes where they say that.

Note, providing quotes that they may believe that AA77 flew a route inconsistent with the one most people believe doesn't count.

I agree. I want quotes saying "Although it's not what I saw it must be true because I was told it was". None of these witnesses have come out as "truthers" or support (in any meaningfully way) CIT.

I have said it before, the death of CIT would be for them to have all of their witnesses in the same room and have them watch the "Pentacon".

 

[dtugg]

Does anybody know what happened to the grand juries that Craig predicted would happen within the year two years ago? Surely, he wouldn't have just said that just for the hell of it, would he? TLB, since you know everything about the Complete Idiot Team, maybe you could illuminate us.

 

[beachnut]

...
So which is it? ...

The CIT lie about 77 not hitting the Pentagon?

Based on the following statement confirmed by CIT, you have to add a few descriptors to what CIT is.

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,"

The descriptors to be used are indicative of CIT’s failed investigation techniques based on hearsay, lies and fantasy.

 

[nicepants]

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

-Erik Dihle

Hearsay

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.

? Only CIT's eyewitnesses (minority) make this claim. It's not unanimous....it's anomalous.

But back to your point:

No matter how hard it is to believe all of the first-hand eyewitness reports in the critical area unanimously place the plane hitting the pentagon.

 

[beachnut]

Ultimate validation of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon! Sean Boger.

...
Really you have proven that you will accept no level of corroboration of any evidence contradicting the official story. Your claims are not falisfiable because they based soley on pure unadulturated deep-rooted faith in the official story. You will never concede a thing and will continue to reduce the discussion to a debate exercise where winning is more important than truth. Similar to a cunning defense attorney working for a very guilty but very rich client. Your status as a "NASA scientist" bolsters your hollow rhetoric and gives you the authority to which the members here can appeal. ...

Mackey wants evidence; you offer delusions as your corroboration. You lost due to the pure nut case idea of no plane, the no-plane Boger sees hitting the Pentagon? lol

No, your beliefs in CIT nut case ideas, a flyover and no plane hitting, are not falsifiable, you have no idea what falsifiable means. You and CIT actually prove the official story is falsifiable, and therefore a viable scenario. This is irony. CIT is self debunking and Boger is proof of this.

No one here has faith in any official story, this is a skeptic forum, you have failed to put a dent in the official story, and you support the nuttiest ideas about 911.

You have delusions; you win in your own mind. Be happy if p4t and CIT let you have a share of the profits from selling delusions on 911.

What does NASA have to do with Boger?

CIT delusion, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Fact:

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,"

You have presented talk to support your delusion. You are attacking Mackey when you should try to find some evidence to go with your wild delusions. Your hang up with Mackey is proof you have zero evidence.

You are wasting your best rhetorical rant on delusions from CIT and p4t.

Topic is Boger, and how you and CIT have proven the NoC is false, not falsifiable, just plane false. Which witness path does Boger support? The 50G, 30G or 10G flight path. What about roll rates?

And you can’t publish your NoC Flight Path. CIT has no North Flight Path folks. Zero, zip, nothing.

 

[dtugg]

Come one TLB, please tell me, is the Complete Idiot Team still pimping this flight path?:

Or do they have another one that I don't know about that I laugh at instead?

 

[ihaunter]

So I checked out post 192 and all I got to explain how Boger was fooled is

Roosevelt's reported flight path explains why Boger claims that the plane hit the Pentagon (because it what appear from his position that the plane disappeared into the fireball)

Do you even know where he was standing? If the plane was attempting a flyover and Boger saw it disappear into the fireball, then either the plane failed to pull up in time and hit the building or the fireball started way before the plane was there and rose into the sky high enough to be obvious to him that the plane wasn't responsible for the fireball and it didn't hit.
Boger's position does not allow for a fly-over to fool him into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon at a location the puts the plane below him. He could be fooled, however if the plane flew around the side of the Pentagon at ground level. This is the only way to make it look like the plane hit the Pentagon from Boger's perspective, but is fraught with problems of its own, not even counting other witnesses seeing nothing like it.

But going back to my post 209 (which is based on the assumption that you are correct), all I'm really looking for is, where do you think the plane was when Boger ducked down. You don't have to be too specific, just a rough distance from the Pentagon and altitude. A general direction of travel would be appreciated as well. If you continue to ignore this request, I will be forced to assume that it is because you have realized that you can't make a fly-over fit with Boger's comments.

 

[jaydeehess]

Good idea!

Quote:
And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has like stopped, 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, ,.
********

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 --

Sean Boger - November 14, 2001

I concur, it IS a good idea.

"he didn't veer" - directly contradicts the CiT contention that the plane was in a turns tight enough to put it over the south parking lot.


"just smacked into the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building" - directly contradicts the CiT contention that it did not hit the building and the CiT contention that Boger ducked prior to the plane reaching the building.


"once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head." - again directly contradicts the CiT contention that Boger ducked prior to the plane reaching the Pentagon.

The CiT, decieded to ignore those parts of Boger's original statements. Ever time Boger was asked to recount his experience he states that the plane hit the building.

So the CiT chose to disregard the more memorable event of the plane's passage and instead concentrate on the movement of the aircraft prior to arriving at the Pentagon. They consider Boger's , and everyone else's recollection prior to the most memorable event of the plane's passage to be incorrect and that their recollection of the path of the aircraft proipr to that time to be more accurate than where the plane was when it reached the building.

Sorry but that is just not a logical contention.

 

[DGM]

It's mind boggling why they include Sean Boger in their list of witnesses. They should have buried his statements and thrown away the shovel (like they did with everyone else that disagrees with them). There is no logical way to twist what he said to fit their fantasy, PERIOD.

 

[dtugg]

They should have buried his statements and thrown away the shovel (like they did with everyone else that disagrees with them).

Well, to be fair, that would be all of their witnesses so if they did that they would have nothing to spin their fantasy out of.

 

[jaydeehess]

So I checked out post 192 and all I got to explain how Boger was fooled is


Do you even know where he was standing? If the plane was attempting a flyover and Boger saw it disappear into the fireball, then either the plane failed to pull up in time and hit the building or the fireball started way before the plane was there and rose into the sky high enough to be obvious to him that the plane wasn't responsible for the fireball and it didn't hit.
Boger's position does not allow for a fly-over to fool him into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon at a location the puts the plane below him. He could be fooled, however if the plane flew around the side of the Pentagon at ground level. This is the only way to make it look like the plane hit the Pentagon from Boger's perspective, but is fraught with problems of its own, not even counting other witnesses seeing nothing like it.
.

Choices
1) Boger did see the plane hit the Pentagon
- corressponds with all other witness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon, with the physical evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon and explains why the people on board Flight 77 were found in the Pentagon

2) Boger instead saw the plane enter a fireball
- problem, why would Boger then state that the plane caused the fireball given that it must still be in front of the Pentagon when the fireball occurs?

3) Boger saw the plane coming and ducked down prior to it reaching the Pentagon
- problem, the CiT just said that Boger saw it enter a fireball so this would place the aircraft even further out when the fireball occurs. If Boger did not see it enter a fireball but ducked before the plane reachs the Pentagon the CiT will have to come up with a distance away at which Boger ducked that would be consistent with the rest of Boger's statement and assume that Boger is directly lying (not mistaken) about seeing it hit. Boger has to duck when the aircraft is close enough that he would feel the grave danger but far enough away to have him assume an impact on a low floor of the building while having enough time to ascend and clear the building.


We know for certain that the plane was not skimming the earth and missing the Pentagon to the south. Absolutly no one reports such a thing.

Boger also heard the plane when it made its pass before turning. He assumes that the Dulles report of it being to his east when it did this to be accurate. But if it made the turn as described in the official narritive he would also have been able to hear it. In fact without the bulk of the Pentagon between him and the aircraft at this time he would be in a better position to hear it.

 

[Gravy]

See, once again, this is your problem.

When you wrote "The Evidence" above, you weren't talking about all the evidence. Only your 13 magic witnesses. That's dishonest.

...Fortunately, nearly everyone understands this. All the people in the world who fall for this mockery of science coming from the Citizens's Investigation Team would fit comfortably into a very short bus...

...which broke down on the bridge years ago.

I hadn't seen this before because I keep the no-planer kooks on ignore. Saw TLA nomination. Great post, R.Mackey.

 

[DGM]

2) Boger instead saw the plane enter a fireball
- problem, why would Boger then state that the plane caused the fireball given that it must still be in front of the Pentagon when the fireball occurs?

In addition to that he was in the tower so for the plane to "fly over" the Pentagon it would have had to start climbing long before he would have felt the need to duck. That's not what he reports. Their morons for even trying to spin this one.