The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

We interviewed Sean Boger.

This is probably one of the most important interviews we have done.

[Redacted [Ranke identifies as Boger]] 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. 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.

[Redacted [Interviewer]] Oh, my gosh.

[Sean Boger] So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head.

www.aal77.com...

[edit on 22-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by djeminy

All you really have to do, is producing just ONE witness who actually SAW a plane
impact the pentagon.

Now, it is probably a very good thing that I just repeat this again, emphasizing the words "actually" "actually" "actually", three times, again, just so there can be no doubt as to what is meant by this word.

OK, one more time: Actually, SAW with his or her own eyes a plane impact the pentagon!

Sean Boger.

William Lagasse.

Chadwick Brooks.

There's three for starters. Would you like to continue?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

So out of all your witnesses only 2 thought it didn't hit the Pentagon

Wrong.

None of his witnesses thought the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

Exactly NONE of them.

You did miss my question mark off the end of the sentence.

My point is that Craig cherrypicked witnesses and yet they still nearly all (if not all) saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Craig - why do you think your witnesses are correct about where they saw the plane in the air (many years after the incident) yet deluded about seeing hit the pentagon?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Craig - why do you think your witnesses are correct about where they saw the plane in the air (many years after the incident) yet deluded about seeing hit the pentagon?

1. Many of them reported the same thing weeks after the event to the Center for Military history. I already told you this. Pay attention.

2. YOU are the one who thinks they are simultaneously deluded regarding where they saw the plane.

I think they were deliberately deceived regarding the impact.

Big difference.

They were all much closer to the plane as it went right past them as opposed to when it reached the building.


This is a logical and physical reason why it makes sense to suggest it would be much easier to to tell what side of the station the plane flew compared to what happened to it when it reached the building much further away.

The notion that they all simultaneously hallucinated the plane on the same side of the station as it barreled passed them 10's of feet away is pretty silly.

The notion they were deceived in regards to the impact is backed up by the fact that the official flight path is impossilbe anyway!

What is more logical FatherLukeDuke?

Mass hallucination or mass deception?

reply to post by discombobulator


Please explain how the plane hit after it was banking to the right on the north side of the gas station.



Obviously it can not.

His placement of the plane corroborates everyone else about north side approach.

It proves he was incorrect about the impact.

Simple.

Logical.

Corroborated evidence explaining WHY the official flight path is impossible.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Please explain how the plane hit after it was banking to the right on the north side of the gas station.

Did you ask Sean Boger to explain how he could have seen these mutually exclusive events?

No, you didn't.

You weren't interested in hearing any of the witnesses explain how they could have possibly witnessed two mutually exclusive events, yet you demand an explanation from me?

reply to post by discombobulator


It is impossible for them to see two mutually exclusive events.

It's not my job to put witnesses on the spot.

I collect evidence and analyze it.

If Boger was mistaken about where he saw the plane then the CITGO witnesses and the ANC witnesses wouldn't have corroborated him.

Or how about William Middleton?

Did you watch his interview?



That is a completely different perspective from all of them yet he fully corroborates the relatively slow north side approach.

He wouldn't have been able to see the plane on the official flight path at all!

Do you think he was lying?

Here he is talking to the Center for Military History:


That drastic right bank he is describing sure doesn't fit the official story!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

It is impossible for them to see two mutually exclusive events.

But many of your witnesses claim that they did, and you didn't bother to challenge their claims. Any of them.

You're sure quick to challenge others to explain how your witnesses could have seen two mutually exclusive events, but you sure aren't interested in hearing an explanation from the witnesses themselves.

Boger and Middleton KILL this debate.



They have opposite perspectives and report the same thing as everyone else!




There is NO WAY all these people could be so incredibly wrong in the exact same way.

It simply doesn't make sense to watch these interviews and still support the official story.

How much validation will it take?

How could anyone insist on dismissing the corroborated accounts of all of these real people who were THERE that day in favor of blind faith in an impossible official story?

reply to post by discombobulator


I only challenge doubters.

But there is no legitimate or logical reason to doubt where the witnesses all unanimously place the plane.

But there are a TON of reasons to doubt their belief in an impact.

1. Mass deception is more logical than mass hallucination.

2. The physical damage and suspicious lack of debris is anomalous and admittedly "counter-intuitive".

3. The fact that the official flight path is impossible.

4. The fact that the NTSB data is irreconcilable with the physical damage.

5. All of the east side/DC flight path evidence proving evidence was falsified.

6. A complete lack of disclosure of evidence from the authorities including video, 911 calls, positive ID of the plane parts, etc.

7. Evidence that information that has been released has been manipulated.

8. The massive list of anomalies, suspicious circumstances, blatant contradictions, and impossibilities in other factions of the attack such as building 7 collapse etc. implicating a black operation.

The list goes on and on.

Their story doesn't add up all the way around the board.

We simply have discovered hard proof of this and forcing the witnesses to acknowledge this is not part of evidence gathering.

The implications of the massive psychological crime in question are too great to suggest it's my responsibility to break that barrier with the witnesses.

I simply reported what they said and you don't like it.

Sorry but where they all place the plane is not my fault.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There is NO WAY all these people could be so incredibly wrong in the exact same way.

Which is why I believe them when those who were in a position to observe an impact at the Pentagon claim that that is exactly what they saw.

You have no credible explanation as to how hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses positioned all around the Pentagon managed to miss a commercial airliner fly over the Pentagon. Your one supposed "flyaway" witness is not corroborated by anyone, including Levi Stephens who would have been directly underneath this magical "flyaway" plane, not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands of people on I395 and R27 who would have had a clear view.

No flyover witnesses = no flyover.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

I only challenge doubters.

Yes, because you have an investment to protect and DVDs to sell.

A real investigator would have challenged these witnesses when they make impossible claims. You didn't.

You are not a real investigator.

reply to post by discombobulator


Psssh.

Prove to me that a "real investigator" would tell the witnesses they were wrong in the exact same stage of the investigation of the exact same type of crime.

Go ahead.

Do it.

You have no idea what you are talking about because YOU are not a "real investigator" or an investigator at all!

You are an anonymous Australian obsessed with CIT and spinning the hard evidence we report in pure defense and blind faith in what you have been told by the U.S. government.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Prove to me that a "real investigator" would tell the witnesses they were wrong in the exact same stage of the investigation of the exact same type of crime.

Creating more false scenarios there, Craig?

Challenging a witness who has made two mutually exclusive claims is wildly different from telling them that they are wrong -- that would be leading the witness, something that you're actually an expert at.

reply to post by discombobulator


No, as soon as you tell them their claims are mutually exclusive and "challenge" them you are telling them they are wrong.

It is not the witnesses' responsibility to explain this particularly given the incredible implications of the massive psychological crime we are talking about.

Regardless....you told me what a "real investigator" would do yet you have no clue what this is because you are not an investigator at all.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

No, as soon as you tell them their claims are mutually exclusive and "challenge" them you are telling them they are wrong.

It is plainly obvious why you didn't question them further. No legitimate reporter/investigator on the face of this planet would print such a contradiction without clarifying it with the witnesses themselves.

You didn't question them further because YOU want to explain the contradiction just as you're doing here. YOU want their statements to support your fantasy, so YOU explain the contradictions.

Even when it's being discussed you jump in and FLOOD the discussion with your graphics and hot air.

If this stuff was worth a crap you wouldn't need to incessantly defend it, it would stand on it's own. As it is all you've done is create a gigantic quagmire of contradicting testimony from witness memories more than 5-6 years after the fact. Then you incessantly spin your yarn on every Forum you can to "explain it to the rest of us".

You have become a victim of your own FRAUD.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

I only challenge doubters.

But there is no legitimate or logical reason to doubt where the witnesses all unanimously place the plane.

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." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

In the building! Your witness, places the plane in the Pentagon. Who can argue with your logic.

This statement is from 2001, your new witnesses are over 6 years old.

2001 wins. How did the DNA get in the Pentagon while Sean watched the plane enter the building?

[edit on 22-9-2008 by beachnut]

Beachnut, retreat, discombobulator, etc., give it up.

We know you know this is the end of the road. We know you "sense" it.

Your posts are screeching with desperation. They are becoming more infantile, more silly and of the same old boring platitudes.

None of you are growing in stature. You all got that sinking "dark cloud" around you.

Whatever you dish out is so easily dismissed.

Lagasse and Brooks was too far away, and only deduced that an impact 'must' have taken place.

Sean Boger is no Clark Kent or Hancock, but simply a human being like the rest of us. So don't think for a moment he just stood there, motionless, eyes wide open - as the plane came nearer and nearer - without any immediate reaction! Would any of you have done that, in his situation? No, of course not!
The 'instinct' would have taken over in the instant danger became apparent, as it typically does on other harrowing occasions.

I think CIT has given up on you guys a long long time ago. You would be a bit delusional if you think their posts actually are addressed to you people - as it should be obvious they are more for the benefit of newcomers and visitors than anything else!

Give it up folks, and have a nice day instead!





Mod Note: Attack the topic, not the poster. name calling is not allowed here.
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.









[edit on 23-9-2008 by djeminy]

[edit on 23-9-2008 by djeminy]

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Crakeur]

Hi djenema,

I can not speak for the others, but I appreciate your words of counseling regarding my opposition to a FRAUDALENT and DECEPTIVE distortion of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Unfortunately, it appears that you have also been deceived as have a few others, but fortunately the number of those deceived are becoming fewer and fewer. In fact, evidence of the deception is considerable. Aerodynamics, lack of witnesses to a flyover, the age of witness statements, the mutual exclusivity of the statements, the videos and photographs from non-government sources, the Radar Data, the correctly interpreted FDR data, the ATC transcripts, and common sense all corroborate the FACT that the OP is WRONG!

It's unfortunate that you have been deceived, but there is a solution to your problem. Since you were so kind to offer your kind words of counseling to me I'm obliged to return the favor. I'm sure if you read the post carefully you'll see the solution to your problem.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Reheat]