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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman


Something is NOT Right Here, this much is obvious.


I agree. What is not right, is the statements from the witnesses MANY YEARS later.





posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by talisman


Something is NOT Right Here, this much is obvious.


I agree. What is not right, is the statements from the witnesses MANY YEARS later.




Number of issues with your statement.

It would not explain why so many people years after made the same mistake. It also assumes that are memories are not *always* reliable. While I would agree to a certain extent, but we can't just use that as a blanket statement. I mean, many people remember exactly what they were doing during the time they heard about 9/11, or JFK, or when John Lennon got shot.

There are also times people's memories fail them. But......
..There are also times when peoples memories fail them Soon After as well!


Even *IF* some are mistaken on this issue, it is strained to say that all of these witnesses made the same error.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
SERIOUSLY, right???!! LOL you pretty much sum it up.

more truth to what you say than most and he'd ever admit.





Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by CameronFox
 

So Cameron.... does being an internet based disinfo agent pay well?

Can you get me a job if it does?




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:43 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.

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

yup!

but the fact they all corroborate the NOC is all that matters.

the NOC corroboration is far more important and powerful than the issue of what they supposedly saw because of the simple fact it was most likely DEDUCED.

the evidence and facts support the NOC. Only opinion and deduction support claims it "also" (lol) hit the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

no, they deduced it.


No, they didn't. They watched the impact. The ones that deduced it are the ones that lost the view of the plane behind trees, or had other obstructions that limited their view of the impact.


but in either case, it wasn't flight 77


Yes, and you have done such an amazing job at proving that haven't you?





they either weren't in a position to, or they deduced another scenario based on the confusion.


Are you serious?? Try reading or watching the CIT propaganda.





key word LITTERED, yes... or IOW, the code word for littered is planted.

so yeah, they littered debris everywhere.


Wake up sir. You tell me how thousands of pounds of debris were planted inside a building that was just hit by a multi -ton aircraft... (or a bomb for you no-planers)

Look at how quickly the fire department was on the scene. Did they mention anyone running around a burning building with plane parts?


but no debris was from flight 77


Once again, let me commend you on the abundance of evidence you have provided to confirm this statement.




even if the report is true, we're supposed to blindly trust/accept that report? a report from the pentagon?? LOL


typical truther; hand waving of evidence. You obviously have not looked into the Pentagon attack other than what you buy from snake oil salesmen.


need i remind you of all the missing or altered video evidence?


No need not remind me of anything. What you need to do is support your claim with some evidence. So far you have done nothing but puffed your feathers,stuck out your chest, and called me a disinfo agent.


or......................... errrrrrrr never mind

i don't even know why i'm answering, or attempting to debate a shill or disinfo agent.


You're not answering anything. Your attempt at a discussion has so far been terrible.




that bs myth has been debunked plenty of times.


This is what you call a debate? Hand waving? Can you please show me how this has been debunked?



plenty of evidence puts that myth into question as well.


You are full of words Mr. Matrix. Please show me the evidence.


you act as though there's been no contradictory evidence to the phone calls.


I haven't seen any.


but then again, i have to keep reminding myself i'm talking to a D.A.


What a shame. that's all you got? Calling me a shill and a disinfo agent?




B U L L S H # T

PFT exposed that myth as well.

try again...


No, PFT did nothing of the sort. PFT is a pack of incapable imbeciles.



Originally posted by CameronFox


If you want to call corroborated eye-witness evidence a fanstasy,(sic) fine.


I didn't call the eyewitnesses a fantasy. I said the flyover theory was a fantasy. Try to keep up.


its truly bizarre and sad how much bandwidth is wasted here debating with people like you who have so little common sense and deny facts and evidence.


There is a little ignore button under my name. Do yourself a favor...click it and you wont have to worry about me.


but then again, the more I remind myself of who i'm talking to, the less your opinion matters.


But you see, my opinion DOES matter. That is why you took all this time typing a response to me. As poor of a job you did, you took time to attempt to refute my facts.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Number of issues with your statement.

It would not explain why so many people years after made the same mistake.


I understand where you are coming from. Really. There are many variables with all of the witnesses. Yes, most of them used the Citgo station. But not all of them.

There are many that didn't. These got hand waved by CIT as government agents, liars, workers of the evil manipulated media, or in one case; a suspicious jew. Many people witnessed the crash. None of them witnessed a flyover.





I mean, many people remember exactly what they were doing during the time they heard about 9/11, or JFK, or when John Lennon got shot.


Remembering what you were doing at the time of a national tragedy is far different than recollecting the details you witnessed during a traumatic event.



There are also times people's memories fail them. But......
..There are also times when peoples memories fail them Soon After as well!


Statistically this is not accurate. Especially in events as traumatizing as 911.



Even *IF* some are mistaken on this issue, it is strained to say that all of these witnesses made the same error.


Look at all the drawings Ranke has posted measure the differences the witnesses have. The errors aren't the "same."

[edit on 9-2-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but no debris was from flight 77


Really?

Are ya sure?

No serial numbers, you say?

If you choose to believe 'no plane' nonsense, that's completely your prerogative and absolute right. However, your belief system is not an excuse to peddle statements born from ignorance.

Why do I say ignorance? You make assertions of fact in your posts. The word stupid would imply you just don't know. Ignorant implies you absolutely do know but, don't care. That is; you believe what you believe and no amount of reason, logic, data-based evidence, eye witnesses or (in this case) pictures taken by the very people who were there will ever, under any circumstances, change your mind.

As I said before, your opinion is your absolute right. However, to make an assertion of fact that's so patently absurd as the above is ignorant, in my opinion.

Of course, that's just my opinion.


[edit on 9-2-2009 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Even *IF* some are mistaken on this issue, it is strained to say that all of these witnesses made the same error.


Good point. How many of the CIT's Famous 13 claimed they saw the plane hit the building? 11? 12? 10 or 9 even? A vast majority, in other words., by anyone's count.

Did they all make the same error? Are you willing to stand by your statement even when it doesn't promote your perspective?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Good point. How many of the CIT's Famous 13 claimed they saw the plane hit the building? 11? 12? 10 or 9 even? A vast majority, in other words., by anyone's count.



Quite incorrect.

Most could not see the alleged impact point at all. Most people were running for cover and not paying attention to what happened to the plane after it passed by them dozens of feet away on the northern approach.

1. Ed Paik.......could not see Pentagon or alleged impact point at all.
2. Terry Morin....could not see alleged impact point at all.
3. William Middleton.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
4. George Aman.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
5. Darrell Stafford......could not see alleged impact point at all.
6. Darius Prather......could not see alleged impact point at all.
7. Donald Carter......could not see alleged impact point at all.
8. Robert Turcios.....specifically claimed that he DID NOT see the plane hit and only remembers the fireball.
9. Sgt Brooks.....Admitted after seeing The PentaCon that it's possible he could have been fooled about the impact but stands by the north side approach.
10. Sgt Lagasse....Admitted that he jumped into his car out of a "fear" after plane flew by on the north side.
11. Levi Stephens....Admitted that he was facing the opposite way towards Crystal City.
12. Maria De La Cerda......could not see alleged impact point at all and thought the plane crashed on "the other side" or "on top" of the building indicating flyover.
13. Sean Boger....This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Quite incorrect.



Not quite.

1. Ed Paik.......could not see Pentagon or alleged impact point at all.

Could not see the Citgo Station either. In one drawing he actually draws a line SOC.

2. Terry Morin....could not see alleged impact point at all.

Terry claims to have watched the plane fly parallel to the annex. He also was not given an overhead drawing like the other witnesses.

3. William Middleton.....could not see alleged impact point at all.

did not see alleged flyover

4. George Aman.....could not see alleged impact point at all.

did not see alleged flyover

5. Darrell Stafford......could not see alleged impact point at all.

did not see alleged flyover

6. Darius Prather......could not see alleged impact point at all.

did not see alleged flyover

7. Donald Carter......could not see alleged impact point at all.

did not see alleged flyover

8. Robert Turcios.....specifically claimed that he DID NOT see the plane hit and only remembers the fireball.
did not see alleged flyover

9. Sgt Brooks.....Admitted after seeing The PentaCon that it's possible he could have been fooled about the impact but stands by the north side approach.

did not see alleged flyover, and I believe his statement was "anything is possible"... correct me if I'm wrong

10. Sgt Lagasse....Admitted that he jumped into his car out of a "fear" after plane flew by on the north side.

did not see alleged flyover

11. Levi Stephens....Admitted that he was facing the opposite way towards Crystal City.

did not see alleged flyover and was in South Parking lot

12. Maria De La Cerda......could not see alleged impact point at all and thought the plane crashed on "the other side" or "on top" of the building indicating flyover.

did not see alleged flyover. Do you have a POV picture you can share?

13. Sean Boger....This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.

He "innocently embellished" the impact details? Did he embellish that the plane was not in a climb but a descent just prior to impact? Did he witness a flyover?..nope

What about Penny Englas? Oopps... evil member of the NWO

What about USA Today witnesses? Oooops ...evil members of the media.

Dodge and weave, pick and choose... That's why no one buy's this Flyover fantasy.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.


Circular logic.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Wouldn't mind a response to this post, pinch or fox!

Did you really overlook it, or was it willfully ignored?

Pray tell!





Originally posted by djeminy

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, 11 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Wouldn't mind a response to this post, pinch or fox!

Did you really overlook it, or was it willfully ignored?

Pray tell!


Tough to read all the crazy in one thread. I simply ignored it. It lacks common sense.

But since you are seeking an answer, I will do my best to comply.









Originally posted by djeminy

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.


Did you happen to read Mr. Bogers statement?


"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."


Nothing here that states he fell to the ground prior to impact is there? This is why:


"There was no time to think," the tower chief said. "There wasn't time to be scared."

www.dcmilitary.com...

For the rest of your rant, I suggest you take a peek at what the tower looks like.

Then consider the flight path, and how fast it was going.

You won't though. You bought the elixir that is being sold by 911 truthers. You are now invested in the CIT Snake Oil. You got sucked in. You want to believe that the government went through all the trouble of planning the hijacking and crashing of 3 planes on 911, yet decided to "hood wink" the world by flying the 4th one OVER it's target.

Have at it son.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by djeminy

Wouldn't mind a response to this post, pinch or fox!

Did you really overlook it, or was it willfully ignored?

Pray tell!


Tough to read all the crazy in one thread. I simply ignored it. It lacks common sense.

But since you are seeking an answer, I will do my best to comply.









Originally posted by djeminy

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.


Did you happen to read Mr. Bogers statement?


"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."


Nothing here that states he fell to the ground prior to impact is there? This is why:


"There was no time to think," the tower chief said. "There wasn't time to be scared."

www.dcmilitary.com...

For the rest of your rant, I suggest you take a peek at what the tower looks like.

Then consider the flight path, and how fast it was going.

You won't though. You bought the elixir that is being sold by 911 truthers. You are now invested in the CIT Snake Oil. You got sucked in. You want to believe that the government went through all the trouble of planning the hijacking and crashing of 3 planes on 911, yet decided to "hood wink" the world by flying the 4th one OVER it's target.

Have at it son.



It's really amazing to witness the enormous effort you put into trying to live up to your
username, dear fox. But you're not quite succeeding I'm afraid. There's frankly
nothing 'smart' about you. Perhaps a bit of nasty cunning can be detected, but in a
rather naive way, one could say.

Boger is sitting down watching TV.

It appears to be a ca. 3 foot wall between the floor and the window sill.

Boger looks up and see a plane approach from NOC flying straight toward him.

He doesn't see a plane flying one foot above ground, having just prior to this feat
knocked 5 light poles over, (where four of them lands close to their base, and one
post miraculously fly up the highway and penetrate the windscreen of an oncoming
taxi, which, with a speed of 30 - 40 mph, carry the long post back to where it came
from before the taxi comes to a screeching halt sideways to the traffic flow. The
post and the hood btw. unmoved and unshaken by this drastic manoeuvre).

Boger sees nothing of this.

That fox seems hellbent on avoiding dealing with this fact is not surprising at all.

It would actually be a smart thing for him to do, but as said before, fox is not really
that kind of fox!






[edit on 11-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


Bravo! I am sure Pinch has been handed his hat!

So, now that you've 'demolished' Pinch, when do you plan on taking 'the truth' from internet forums to say, court? You know, take some actual action.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by djeminy
 


Bravo! I am sure Pinch has been handed his hat!

So, now that you've 'demolished' Pinch, when do you plan on taking 'the truth' from internet forums to say, court? You know, take some actual action.


Excellent point, Slightly! If I agree that I've been demolished....if I agree that I have ben roundly thrashed in the forum of intellectual and public debate here on ATS, will you people THEN take your concrete "proof" and your expert "witnesses" and your scientifically proven "theories" to the proper authorities and put all of us behind bars where we belong?

Can we count on your to cease this junior-varsity debate here on ATS (after all, you've demolised me!) and move on to the real world? CBS? CNN? ABC? NBC? FOX? IndyMedia? Pravda? BBC? CBC? AP? Reuters? Bloomberg? Deutsche Presse-Agentur ? Indo-Asian News Service? Le Figaro ?

Or not.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy


It's really amazing to witness the enormous effort you put into trying to live up to your
username,....words words words....


The preceding paragraph you posted is completely off topic and nothing but an ad hom.


Boger is sitting down watching TV.


Oh? What was he watching? Regis and Kelly?



It appears to be a ca. 3 foot wall between the floor and the window sill.

Boger looks up and see a plane approach from NOC flying straight toward him.

He doesn't see a plane flying one foot above ground, having just prior to this feat..... more words that are repeated from another post



You obviously failed to read the FDR report. You failed to acknowledge the speed of the plane.

You failed.

Once again. Read the FDR. Read his statements.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Boger is sitting down watching TV.


Boger was "sitting down"?

The Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief was "sitting down" watching tv? A handfull of hours before the President comes by for a visit and Boger was having a little break - "sitting down" and watching TV? What, were the Soaps on? Did Oprah start early? Did he have a beer and a pizza? Some nachos, perhaps? Was he on his couch or the La-z-boy?

Its obvious you've never been in an aircraft control tower, so let me help you out. The job of someone in a position like that is to *observe*, not "sit down and watch tv". It is a workstation - not a frat room. TV's are installed in nearly every military watch-center or control room anywhere and during work hours are always on news or current-event stations liek CNN or Headline News or Fox News. This is a working environment in an aircraft flight control tower that will be visited by the President in a few hours. Boger is not going to be sitting around having a Bud and "watching TV".

Go read what Boger said and try to avoid putting words in Boger's mouth or attribute actions to him that he didn't do like Ranke does:


"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."


Now if you want to just go ahead and obliterate that fine line between simply misinterpreting what someone says and move full-square into lying about what someone said, knock yourself out, but please be honest about it. If you want to say Boger was "sitting down while watching TV" when the plane hit, by all means do so but make sure you follow that up with a "But I have absolutely no proof whatsoever he was doing that - I'm just making this crap up".


[edit on 11-2-2009 by pinch]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch


Boger was "sitting down"?

The Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief was "sitting down" watching tv? A handfull of hours before the President comes by for a visit and Boger was having a little break - "sitting down" and watching TV? What, were the Soaps on? Did Oprah start early? Did he have a beer and a pizza? Some nachos, perhaps? Was he on his couch or the La-z-boy?


The sarcastic attitude only makes you look more like a fool when you are wrong.

Guess what pinch?

You're wrong.

Here is a pic of Sean Boger and Jacqueline Kidd sitting down in the heliport tower:


And oh wait! Here is the quote where he says he was watching the tv!



Sept. 11 started out as a normal day in the Pentagon control towers. The crew, Boger and Spc. Jacqueline Kidd, air traffic controller and training supervisor, prepared for President George W. Bush to arrive from Florida around 12:30 p.m.

"We were watching television and saw where the World Trade Centers were hit," Boger, a former Military District of Washington and Fort Belvoir NCO of the year, said.
source


So no pinch, he was not watching the soaps.

He was watching the worst attack on American soil unfold on tv right before he saw it unfold in real life right in front of him on the north side of the citgo.

Do you feel embarrassed?

Are you ashamed at your rude sarcastic antagonistic behavior?

Somehow I have a feeling you're not.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join