It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw
Just like you do, pinch, when Boger states that he saw the alleged plane on a NOC approach. You ignore that, in favour of the official story.


Wrong-o. If Boger wants to keep believing the plane flew from that-a-way, great! I won't call him a liar like CIT is - I'd suggest he was mistaken. Even if he maintains that claim, the fact is he watched it hit the building and no amount of CIT saying he "deduced" the impact or twisting of his words or changing his testimony will change that.


You're a rather strange creature, pinch, since you pretend to ignore the bleeding
obvious which we more discerning fair-minded individuals saw at first glance; that you clearly was talking to yourself when you uttered this: "take what they like out of what
someone says and discard what they don't like."

Case in point:
Boger says: "I just looked up and saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft
coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building."

He would never have stated this if he saw a plane impact, for the simple reason that
the impact hole was below his point of view.
l

He would not have looked up, but would have had to look down if he truly saw
a plane impact the building. This is not what he's saying. He clearly states that he
saw the aircraft coming right at him, indicating even here that he must have looked up and straight out the window to view the plane, if his attention at the time would
have been focused on a monitor or the like.

At no time did he tell us he approached the window to get a better look at a plane
that obviously must have been below his point of view, such that he must have been
looking down to witness the plane hitting the building.
On the contrary, he tell us the plane approached from over the navy annex, which
explains why he had to look up to see it coming toward him.

But most important of all is the fact that at no time did he tell us he saw the plane
hitting 5 light poles on its way toward him.
This would have been quite a spectacular sight which undoubtedly would have been
etched in his memory if he actually saw this happening, and would therefore be one
of the things he would be eager to relate to anybody who interviewed him about the
incident. But no such observation is coming from Boger. Nothing of the sort.

Hence, there is really only one conclusion one can arrive at when it comes to the
sequence of events Boger must have experienced:
That he did what any normal persons would have done were they in his place at the
time, namely, rather quick smart hitting the floor before thinking about anything else.
Normal people would not wait to do this after the event.

Pinch, however, do not appear to belong to this category of human beings, so it is
therefore quite possible that he could be... sort of... one of the only exceptions to this
natural "rule".

This could explain a lot!




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
the fact is he watched it hit the building and no amount of CIT saying he "deduced" the impact or twisting of his words or changing his testimony will change that.

The fact is he watched it fly NOC and no amount of you saying he 'mistook' the flight path will change that.

You cherry-pick Boger's testimony to only include what you want to believe.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
All of Craig's witnesses that were in a position to do so...
SAW THE IMPACT.
Ask Craig how many of them saw the impact.
Ask Craig how many of his witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.
the flyover theory is corroborated by none.

All of Craig's witnesses that were in a position to do so...
SAW THE PLANE FLY NOC.
Ask Craig how many of them saw the NOC flight path.
Ask Craig how many of his witnesses saw the plane fly SOC.
the NOC flight path theory is corroborated by around thirteen people.

A NOC flight path destroys the official story. Everything else is just minor details.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pinch
the fact is he watched it hit the building and no amount of CIT saying he "deduced" the impact or twisting of his words or changing his testimony will change that.

The fact is he watched it fly NOC and no amount of you saying he 'mistook' the flight path will change that.



The fact is he CLAIMS he watched it fly NOC



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


A NOC flight path destroys the official story. Everything else is just minor details.



No Tezz. What destroys Rankes fantasy is:

ALL the "NOC" witnesses that could, watched the impact

NONE of the witnesses saw a flyover

PLANE debris was littered everywhere.

JET FUEL was smelled by many people inside the Pentagon

JET FUEL odor was in the HVAC systems months after 911

DNA Evidence was collected and identified

REPORTS from two individuals who saw a body or bodies strapped
to airplane seats.

PHONE CALLS were made from flight 77

DAMAGE consistent with witness reports and FDR

FDR data confirms flight path

You will (like Ranke) dismiss ALL this evidence and call it "faith based." Well, I say, have at it. The rational world knows what happened and do not ignore the facts. Ranke knows, if the evidence doesn't fit his fantasy, he dismisses it.




[edit on 6-2-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pinch
the fact is he watched it hit the building and no amount of CIT saying he "deduced" the impact or twisting of his words or changing his testimony will change that.

The fact is he watched it fly NOC and no amount of you saying he 'mistook' the flight path will change that.

You cherry-pick Boger's testimony to only include what you want to believe.


Wrong-o again, my upside down friend! I am not cherry-picking anything!

I'll say it again - if Boger wants to claim the aircraft was on a flight path that puts it on his right-hand side as he was looking out towards the Annex, wonderful! Great!! Beauty!!!

He also had a view, 100 feet away or so, of the aircraft as it slammed into the side of the building!!! Beauty! Wonderful!! Great!!!

Don't you think, Tezz of the Outback, if the aircraft flew past him without hitting the building or if it "pulled up" or if it was in that honking big turn necessary to get over the South parking like the CIT Boys say happened - he'd say that instead of saying he watched it hit the building?

I'll take his whole statement - lock, stock and barrel...the whole 9-yards. I think he is wrong in his placement on the approach, but whatever! Can a 90-ton aircraft, slamming into the side of a building, be mistaken? Are you going to jump on the CIT Bandwagon and call Boger a liar?

Of course you will, which means YOU and the CIT Boys are the ones cherry-picking his statement, picking out what you like about it (NOC) and discounting the rest impact).

You gonna . over to the CIT Kitchen with Craig and Aldo and make cherry pie or cherry strudel with them cherries?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


You cherry-pick Boger's testimony to only include what you want to believe.


Let's take Bogers interview, but instead of an airplane crash, let's call it a murder. We are asking him about a murder he witnessed 4 years ago.

757 = Gun man

Citgo Station = Citgo station

Flight Path = Direction Gun man was running.

Pentagon = victim

Video of entire event = FDR

Start of Story:
Boger hears a loud noise.
Looks up and sees a man running toward him.
He states that the man ran from the right side of the Citgo station.
He said the man was running toward him and then made a slight turn.
Boger then states that he watched the man shoot the victim. At that time, Boger dropped to the floor in fear for his life.

Shell casings were found
Gun was found
Victim was dead on the scene
Medical Examiner was dispatched to the scene and declared him dead.

Video was confiscated by local police and found the man was running on the left side of the Citgo station.

The End.

Now, the argument is... "Well, x amount of people saw him running on the other side and no one saw him running on the side that the video shows.

Sorry, it's a little vague, but I think you get the point I am making.





[edit on 6-2-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This argument is really stupid, none of the witnesses testemonies are to be trusted, its a panic situation, so the brain will only remeber whatever was most traumatic, anything else could/would be fabricated, you'll brain will do that to fill in the empty spots.

as for everyone cherry picking, both parties on each side are cherry picking to prove their/your own argument, as I see it, both witnesses and goverment accounts are inconsistent, more information is needed to get to the bottom of this, hopefully we will...



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


If it was a memory issue their accounts would not match.

The fact that ALL of the witnesses in this critical area from ALL surrounding and opposing perspectives CORROBORATE the north side approach proves that this is not a mere anomaly due to "trauma".



Corroboration is a scientific process and first-hand eyewitness statements = evidence.

So the simple north side approach has been scientifically validated 13 times over with hard evidence.

ZERO first-hand accounts exist of the plane on the south side so nobody has been "cherry-picked".



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Once again; how many witnesses that were in a position to do so, saw the flyover?

How many that were in a position to do so, saw the impact?

You verified this gentleman's statement from November 2001.





posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


Hi,

As a total newcomer - I believe that Arsenis has summed things up perfectlyl - ego v ego, point scoring v point scoring, cherry picking v cherry picking...

Being a 'spritely' 58 year old (yes kids - people do live that long!) and having watched the Cuba crisis, the lunar landing(?), the assasination of JFK, Vietnam et al, I have little faith in the powers that be. (by coincidence whilst writing this I am listening to Steppenwolf's - Monster/Suicide/America- so no change since 1969 then!)

For what it's worth - I watched the second WTC crash and agree - immediate horror and shock took over. My kids had asked me to see what was happening on TV and explain it to them.... but all I know is I wanted to shield them from the images. (Born in UK, raised in Oz, lived in UK at the time and now I live in Berlin so I'm not particularly patriotic...though obviously Oz is best :-) )

But later - I watched things with more detachment and wondered what happened before? Everyone focusses on thenh and after.... I couldn't understand how three buildings should suddenly collapse - especially one that hadn't been hit. For an old timer this made little sense and, in fact, watching video after video it seemed to me to be a planned demolishion. BTY - has the UK IT manager been discounted? One of my fomer jobs was to run mainframes and I know dust and disk . don't mix. What was the activity on the week-end before? Plus the previous weeks of noise and dust?

But the Petagon? Nothing will ever convince me that a Boeing 757 hit that building - unless of course, the FBI releases clear, undoctored images..... which of course, it won't.

And Flight 93 - sorry, but a hole in the ground doesn't actually convince me either.

Sorry Cameron, Pinch and whoever - as a newbie - I have to agree with Craig and SPreston and ultimately, Artensis who are at least questioning reality.

Unfortunately, experience has shown that nothing will be officially revealed - for whatever reason - oil, power, armements manufacurers... there's far too much to lose.

Peace!



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Wrong-o again, my upside down friend!
Don't you think, Tezz of the Outback,
You gonna . over to the CIT Kitchen with Craig and Aldo and make cherry pie or cherry strudel with them cherries?

You often try your best to insult me within the terms and conditions of this website. Keep it up, pinch, we both know that the Moderators ARE watching!

Moderators, you'll notice that this is a common pattern in many of pinch's posts. The thinly veiled insults are present to bolster his argument, as he lacks the coherency to debate from a logical point of view using proven facts.



Are you going to jump on the CIT Bandwagon and call Boger a liar? Of course you will, which means YOU and the CIT Boys are the ones cherry-picking his statement, picking out what you like about it (NOC) and discounting the rest impact).

What form of ESP do you possess to know that I will call Boger a liar? You speculate from authority, when in fact, you are clueless as to what I think.

Boger, along with a dozen other people, state that they saw the NOC flight path. If true, that is enough to destroy the official story. Nothing more is needed.

I don't care if a plane flew into the Pentagon, over it, under it, holographed through it or exploded in front of it on the lawn. If the NOC flight path is what really happened, then the rest is just details, as the official flight path is wrong, proving data manipulation, evidence manipulation (light poles) and an official cover-up.

See, I'm willing to entertain that maybe Boger is correct on BOTH claims, that the alleged plane flew NOC and hit the Pentagon. Maybe it did or didn't happen that way but that's one implication from his testimony. I wasn't there, I don't know. That's why I'm keeping an open mind - unlike you. You still can't ID the plane that you allege crashed into the Pentagon, so you're one down on that score.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Arsenis
 


If it was a memory issue their accounts would not match.

The fact that ALL of the witnesses in this critical area from ALL surrounding and opposing perspectives CORROBORATE the north side approach proves that this is not a mere anomaly due to "trauma".

Corroboration is a scientific process and first-hand eyewitness statements = evidence.

So the simple north side approach has been scientifically validated 13 times over with hard evidence.

ZERO first-hand accounts exist of the plane on the south side so nobody has been "cherry-picked".



Exactly, who is arguing that the witness did not see anything, not me, my argument is that it cannot be taken as a fact. Every single thing that they said must be true? possibly, whatever happen before impact? ofcourse, after impact there is fear and shock, some of what they saw plus a little salt and pepper.

I am not one person who would say this is what happen, with this information from witnesses we atleast know that info provided by the goverment is or must be false.

What all of you have been arguing is I am right you are wrong, both ways, plus my argument pulls more towards your side. Why so defensive?

No problem here dude, I know you are trying your best and you have gone out of your way to try and prove things, but don't justify your hard work as the truth.

Although I will say, thanks for the information since we can see that the media and goverment is hiding something since witnesses contradict what we have been told.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis

Although I will say, thanks for the information since we can see that the media and goverment is hiding something since witnesses contradict what we have been told.


And so I will say peace and blessings to you for having an open mind.

Please be sure and view ALL of the evidence available for free in the presentations listed here before making a final determination.

Thanks brother.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

And so I will say peace and blessings to you for having an open mind.

Please be sure and view ALL of the evidence available for free in the presentations listed here before making a final determination.

Thanks brother.



All the evidence isn't at your website Craig. All YOUR evidence is.

You leave out quite a bit.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Ask Craig how many of them saw the NOC flight path.
Ask Craig how many of his witnesses saw the plane fly SOC.


Ask Craig how many of his witnesses saw the aircraft hit the building.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Listen to the interview again.

Mr. Boger contradicts himself on whether or not he saw the plane hit the building.

On one hand he says when he saw it comeing in he fell to his knees and ducked and covered (before any impact).

On the other he says he saw the plane hit the building.

Anyway you slice that, he is NOT an impact witness. The blast alone would have burnt out his retinas, come on, use you .s,did you see how bring that explosion was? really with a plane that size bearing down on you at 300-500 mph do you really think he stood there and just tunrned casual,as this 757 was power diving almost straight at him..., pah-lease.I don't buy it for a minute, and I'd bet my life he was on the floor before that plane got past the freeway. A little critical thinking. He "deduced" the plane hit the building.

But really, lets put that aside, because thats not point really, because it's questionable, he wants to say he saw an impact ok fine.

The REAL isuue at hand is he places the plane North of Citgo, and to the Nothern side above the Navy Annex.

This completely blows out your "official flight path" Cameroon, And Pinch.

What do you have to say? Is Mr. Boger credible or not?

You are the ones cherry picking, you wanna say he saw the impact, but miscaculated where the plane came from. When the latter is clearly 100% easier of a call to make. It's him seeing your impact thats in question, and frankly, I don't care about it anyway.

Because again he blows the "official story" out of the water.

Are you saying he is wrong about the plane comeing in North side of Citgo?
Tell me yes or no, Cameroon, or Finch.....

I'll answer for you, he's right. So the official flight path our goverment gave us is wrong, hence, 9/11 pentagon Conspiracy.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Nola213]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
Listen to the interview again.


No, YOU listen again.

Listen to the part when he say's: "I watched the plane hit the Pentagon."



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Nola213
Listen to the interview again.


No, YOU listen again.

Listen to the part when he say's: "I watched the plane hit the Pentagon."




The Point you keep evading in your lust for attacking whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not, is Why are so many different witnesses, in different locations, from different backgrounds placing the Plane over the Annex in a very different path than the Official one?

Even *IF* one grants what your saying regarding the plane hitting, there is no meaningful reason why so many people placed the plane on a Northern Approach.

Something is NOT Right Here, this much is obvious.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by talisman]




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join