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.

 

New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

page: 25
23
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Who said I accept only part of Boger's testimony? With the contradictory elements of it, any rational, sane person would reject him as a viable or credible witness.

Fair enough. You don't accept Boger as a credible witness, so you can't use his testimony that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Thanks for that!

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tezzajw]


Get your buddy Craig to stop touting him as a "NOC" witness then.

And do the same for Lagasse and the others.

Thanks for THAT.

How's that case looking now that 3/4 of your "witnesses" are non-credible?




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Get your buddy Craig to stop touting him as a "NOC" witness then.

You appear to be mistaken, again, trebor. You are on record as writing off Boger as a credible witness. That's fair enough. I never stated that I wrote him off. At face value, I take Boger's claim that he saw the plane flying NOC and hitting the Pentagon.

You appear to be really mixed up in your last few posts.

Why don't you tell Craig what you want him to do? I'm not in control of Craig, nor do I answer to him or speak for him. Your assumptions show how poor your logic and reasoning are, at times.


Originally posted by trebor451
How's that case looking now that 3/4 of your "witnesses" are non-credible?

What do you mean? I don't understand what you're typing, when you're clearly not able to communicate coherently.

Who are my witnesses? I didn't know that I interviewed any witnesses?

trebor, gather your thoughts and think about what you're trying to state before you type a reply.

At least we've settled that you've written off Boger's entire testimony.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Originally posted by Craig Ranke

Section 70, Delta Company, 2nd platoon. And I have been interviewed by Government officials and no I do not wish to be interviewed by anyone else. Just a simple post to express what I saw and experienced.

Excellent, thanks.

Would you say the plane was closer to you on the north/Arlington cemetery side of the Navy Annex or would you say it was further away on the south/Columbia Pike side of the navy annex?

Really couldn't tell. Definitely was not over ANC and definitely was not further south than I-395..Somewhere in between...The plane WAS NOT level coming in but did not APPEAR to be banking. That also doesn't mean that it wasn't. It could have been, but it was moving so quickly it was not obvious from my standpoint.

My point of posting was to advise that it was an American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon.


Oh I'm *sure* it was



Originally posted by BigSarge
Anything more than that and it starts moving beyond fact and moreso into opinion.


the fact you only want to focus on IDing AA is quite odd tbh.

sorry, but thats the type of testimony the npt and truther camp are talking about which is extremely suspect... not to mention my other points about your convenient timing here.

there's far too much evidence and irrefutable science and data that contradict claims you're making.

If we didn't know what we do about LLOYD and people like MIKE WALTERS or the Harley Guy and the list goes on, your testimony probably wouldn't be that scrutinized or suspicious.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by avelino
Always check your rear-view mirror, stay safe, but hit them where it hurts.

Thats your 6 Oclock position. Craig, Just incase you didn't know.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by BigSarge
It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.

If it was dipping and unsteady and probably turning, as you describe, then how did it manage to fly a straight flight-path to knock down the five light poles?


Yup.
so was this question ever addressed in full or at all tezz? did i miss it?

sarges posts are becoming more and more combative and defensive not to mention his words keep changing.... too many oddities and inconsistencies going on. My gut has always been there's something not right even though craig wants to give him the benefit which i somewhat will still agree. My patience is running out though.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ah, so you refuse to look at any evidence that goes against your beliefs? Thank you for showing people you have no credibility.


...Comment Archived for future reference.

You're a funny guy bonez. Will we ever see an end to your hypocrisy and double standards? Inquiring minds want to know.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

BigSarge to answer your question about the passengers. If the criminals that committed 9/11 were willing to kill people in the thousands why do you think they would hesitate to kill a plane load of people?


Exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you. So the criminals were willing to fly the actual 2 aircraft full of people into the WTC, but at the Pentagon, they chose to make the plane full of passengers miss? And risk someone seeing and/or videotaping the plane missing the Pentagon and thus PROVING beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a bomb or missile rather than a plane? This isn't Flight 93 in the middle of nowhere. This is one of the busiest areas in DC/Northern VA area, in the middle of the morning. Not only did they choose to take this risk, but then had to fly a plane full of innocent people to an undisclosed location and murder them? Or risk keeping them alive? Maybe they passed them off to the aliens? Stuck them up on the moon to live on the secret base there?

For me, this is the toughest pill to swallow. Why would any conspirator do the above when it would be SO easy to simply fly the plane itself into the Pentagon? It makes no sense at all to risk having something like that exposed/proven to be an inside job when crashing the plane into the structure just like they did at the WTC would have been so much safer in keeping the "conspiracy" hidden/secret.

I still haven't heard a good explanation of how pieces of an AA aircraft was wrapped, impaled, embedded, and mixed so thoroughly into the debris from the Pentagon itself without there being an impact. The theory that this evidence was planted is LAUGHABLE. Unless the Incredible Hulk himself snuck in while the place was still burning and carefully planted thousands of pieces of a plane by weaving intricate threads of parts amongst the wiring and pipes etc. inside the building. I know how tough it was to get the stuff out, and it took hundreds of workers weeks on end to do so. THIS is the smoking gun of impossibility, not the fact that the plane may have been slightly north or south of either the official flight path or multiple eyewitness acounts.



FYI bigsarge, you're asking questions that have been answered and addressed over and over here. I suggest you take some time to do a serious investigation if you're going to criticize what you obviously haven't researched far enough yet.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
It appears you somewhat agree with my suspicions eh TA? You bring up similar questions that i've had. sorry, but I smell a rat. i suspect you might agree. and my gut is usually right.



Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And then imagine you toiled through all the destruction for days pulling out bodies of murdered innocents and you saw what you believed to be plane parts throughout the building.


Well, imagine is right. Because we have three courses of action here.

1) We believe him and supposed official evidence of the plane parts being real, embedded into columns, and true.

If this is the case, then either

a) Some other kind of plane or missile hit and F77 flew over
b) F77 hit and your witnesses saw a different plane
c) the plane parts were planted theory goes out the window, along with the bombs in building theory.

2) We don't believe that he was really part of this, and is lying.

a) His refusal to give testimony to you, on site just like the other PentaCon witnesses, after viewing what you have already done, and in the entirely civil manner in which you did it, is particularly suspect. Why? Because he instead is going to come on to an internet forum and talk about it, when his testimony could be quite helpful (or not) in figuring out this world-changing event? That's just morally wrong, when literally even more people's lives are at stake here, and so many have already been lost after 9/11, supposedly BECAUSE of 9/11. In light of the failure that the 9/11 Commission was, Sarge needs to see the importance of his testimony and come forward.

3) Sarge agrees to meet you on site and testify, with signature. And heck, you're going to be right there in a week or two! If he does that, I will retract my statements. But how anyone could have the fricken nerve to ask you to provide some real evidence after all you have been through boils my blood.


And really Craig you don't need Sarge at ALL. You have everything you need already as far as I'm concerned, although it wouldn't hurt to find more people that can testify to the flyover. Someone had to be getting in their car in the huge south parking lot or close by and have seen it too. But that one flyover witness is so critical at this point, I'd get him to go in and at least do a video deposition with attorney and notary before they nail him. Your tape might not be enough to convince a jury. Then again it might be. A video deposition would be more solid though, for sure.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by
At face value, I take Boger's claim that he saw the plane flying NOC and hitting the Pentagon.


Great! So we agree the aircraft hit the building!


Why don't you tell Craig what you want him to do? I'm not in control of Craig, nor do I answer to him or speak for him. Your assumptions show how poor your logic and reasoning are, at times.


Of course you do. You carry water for him here and your posts over at PfT show that you are a loyal sycophant there for the CIT/PFT crew, as well.


What do you mean? I don't understand what you're typing, when you're clearly not able to communicate coherently.


Take a Reading Comprehension for Adults course then. I'm sure they have them down in Oz. Its not my fault you can't understand.


At least we've settled that you've written off Boger's entire testimony.


You people really like to twist comments, don't you? I was referring to using Boger as a witness in any court proceeding. Go read the post again. Here...I'll help. Here is the relevant passage:


Who said I accept only part of Boger's testimony? With the contradictory elements of it, any rational, sane person would reject him as a viable or credible witness. "Your honor, I move to strike this witness as credible due to the fact his testimony contains mutually exclusive elements that cannot be reconciled. His testimony is therefore deemed non-credible and as such should be discounted". I would not use him to bolster my case, support my case, pimp my case, *anything* my case since his credibility, from second-one on any stand, would be demolished in a heartbeat.


As a matter of fact, I *do* believe the man when he says he saw the aircraft hit the building. I believe he is mistaken in his account of what direction he believes the aircraft came from, but I do believe he saw the aircraft hit, just as he said he did. I would not use him as a witness for or against any case, however, because these two parts are mutually exclusive.

Nice to see that good ol' Troother logic, though, when you believe both these accounts, especially when one cancels out the other.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Great! So we agree the aircraft hit the building!

trebor, you discounted Boger as a credible witness, so how can you agree with me about Boger? You've written Boger off as a credible witness, that means that you don't accept his NOC testimony and you don't accept his testimony about the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Remember this, trebor:

Originally posted by trebor451
Who said I accept only part of Boger's testimony? With the contradictory elements of it, any rational, sane person would reject him as a viable or credible witness.

You don't accept Boger as a credible witness.


Originally posted by trebor451
Of course you do. You carry water for him here and your posts over at PfT show that you are a loyal sycophant there for the CIT/PFT crew, as well.

Wow! trebor, why do you persist with making these personal attacks against me and claiming things that you do not know to be true? I notice that you've already got a red flag by your name, so you should be very careful not to score another one with your name calling.

I do not work for Craig, speak for Craig or answer to Craig. Any incorrect speculation, by you, is likely to breach the terms and conditions of this website.


Originally posted by trebor451
You people really like to twist comments, don't you? I was referring to using Boger as a witness in any court proceeding.

You clearly stated that you rejected Boger as a witness. You stated that any sane and rational person would reject him as a witness.

Is trying to recant your statement an admission that you were wrong about Boger?


Originally posted by trebor451
As a matter of fact, I *do* believe the man when he says he saw the aircraft hit the building. I believe he is mistaken in his account of what direction he believes the aircraft came from, but I do believe he saw the aircraft hit, just as he said he did.

Neutral readers to the thread will note the tangled web of words that trebor has caught himself in.

Firstly, trebor has claimed that he discounted Boger as an unreliable witness.

Secondly, trebor has tried to recant that statement, despite already stating that no sane or rational person would believe Boger's contradictions. Perhaps trebor is suggesting that he is neither sane nor rational for now wishing to believe some of what Boger states?

Thirdly, trebor has selectively cherry-picked Boger's statement. trebor wants to believe the part where Boger described the plane hitting the Pentagon, but he doesn't want to believe the part where Boger stated the plane flew NOC.


Originally posted by trebor451
I would not use him as a witness for or against any case, however, because these two parts are mutually exclusive.

After trying to convince us that trebor now wants to use part of Boger's testimony, he's now trying to state that he wouldn't use Boger as a witness!!!

trebor, it appears that your thought processes are a little jumbled and you have shown to be out of your depth in this discussion. You clearly do not have a consistent position with regards to Boger.

I strongly urge you to have a good think about how you will reply and to stick to one position regarding Boger - a consistent position that won't contradict yourself.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


Originally posted by trebor451
Great! So we agree the aircraft hit the building!


You can spin this any way you wish, which is par for the CIT course, but anyone reading this will understand that a) you hold two mutually exclusive positions with regards to Boger's testimony that cannot be reconciled and b) you accept his claim that the aircraft hit the building.

Logic being what it is, I submit the CIT view of the event that you choose to back is, in a word, absurd.

Have a wonderful 4th of July.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
You can spin this any way you wish, which is par for the CIT course, but anyone reading this will understand that a) you hold two mutually exclusive positions with regards to Boger's testimony that cannot be reconciled and b) you accept his claim that the aircraft hit the building.

trebor, again, you appear to be mistaken about a great many things.

Firstly, I am not a part of CIT. You seem to think that I am a Craig clone. I'm not. I am not involved with CIT.

Secondly, I can accept or reject whichever parts of anyone's testimony that I choose. As I have stated previously, at face value, I accept both of Boger's claims. That he saw the plane fly NOC and that he saw it hit the Pentagon.

Here's the problem that Boger creates for government loyalists. Before the plane can allegedly hit the Pentagon, it has to fly there. There is only one flight path that the plane can allegedly take, according to the official damage spin story. That path is SOC. So, when Boger clearly stated that he saw the plane fly NOC, that testimony causes problems for the official story.

I don't care if the plane hit the Pentagon, flew under it, flew over it, teleported through it, or holographed into it. That's not as important to me as the flight path is.

Many government loyalists accuse lots of truthers of cherry-picking witness statements. Yet, many government loyalists enjoy cherry-picking Boger. They're prepared to believe the impact part, but they don't want to believe the NOC part. Read that again, trebor: cherry-picking. You did it too. You stated that you only believe part of what Boger claimed.


Originally posted by trebor451
Logic being what it is, I submit the CIT view of the event that you choose to back is, in a word, absurd.

Logic being what it is, you would realise that if I was part of CIT, then I would change my username to tezzajw_CIT.

trebor, on many levels you have failed Logic 101. You have shown yourself to be inept and not able to clearly think about Boger's statements. You also willingly misrepresent me to try and claim that I am a Craig clone or a CIT lackey. These misrepresentations about me are dangerously close to breaching the terms and conditions of this website.


Originally posted by trebor451
Have a wonderful 4th of July.

That patriotic crap doesn't work on me. I don't wave any flags. We should all be free citizens of planet Earth. It's too bad that geographical borders still mean that we create enemies amongst ourselves.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by trebor451

Secondly, I can accept or reject whichever parts of anyone's testimony that I choose. As I have stated previously, at face value, I accept both of Boger's claims. That he saw the plane fly NOC and that he saw it hit the Pentagon.


Thanks. Game over.


trebor, on many levels you have failed CIT Logic 101.


There I fixed it for ya. Failing CIT Logic 101 is a recognition I am honored by.



That patriotic crap doesn't work on me. I don't wave any flags. We should all be free citizens of planet Earth. It's too bad that geographical borders still mean that we create enemies amongst ourselves.


What? They don't have a 4th of July in Oz? Do they have a 5th of July? I was merely wishing you a good day. A bit paranoid, aren't we?

"Free citizens of planet Earth." Why am I not surprised.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Thanks. Game over.

Neutral readers to the thread will note the shortfall in trebor's logic.

Satisfied with Boger's statement that a plane hit the Pentagon, trebor concludes that's all he needs to read.

Clearly, trebor has cherry-picked Boger's statements and ignored his NOC testimony. Why would trebor do that? If he tout's Boger as a credible witness, then why does trebor ignore Boger's NOC testimony?

Remember that NOC is a direct contradiction to the official story. trebor conveniently ignores this aspect of Boger's testimony.

Also note that Boger never identified the plane that he saw as being Flight AA77.


Originally posted by trebor451
There I fixed it for ya. Failing CIT Logic 101 is a recognition I am honored by.

Once more, trebor tries to associate me with CIT. It's poor form and shows the level to which trebor needs to sink, to try and debate me. He can't overcome his contradictions with Boger, so he reduces his argument to name-calling.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Thanks. Game over.

Neutral readers to the thread will note the shortfall in trebor's logic.


I'll try and explain it in much simpler terms for you.

Boger's comments contain two mutually exclusive elements that cannot both be true at the same time.

Any sane person would be able to examine those two elements and come to the decision that while both cannot be true, one or the other can be. While both can be false, it is up to the individual to make that determination.

If one merely accepts them as nothing more than statements that Boger made, why the heck are you here?

Your posts appear to show that you accept both as true, since you discount neither, and that is the clearest indication of your confusion regarding this event.

If your personal analytical process cannot understand that fact, it is not my fault that you are confused. Your position in this matter (or, rather, your inability to make an informed decision on Boger's statement based on the known facts) leaves absolutely no doubt, if there were any at all, that CIT and PfT and all the other CT fantasies make no sense whatsoever and their supporters, by extension and by your confusion, do not make any sense whatsoever, either. That is not meant as a pejorative statement, but rather a fact of the matter.

I could care less if you are a dues-paying member of CIT or not. You subscribe to their foolishness, you parrot their snake oil, you tout their thesis and as such might as well be on their payroll. I've read your posts over on PfT (CIT's sister web site) and you confirm the fact there that you but into this lunacy.

Have a great 5th of July!



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Boger's comments contain two mutually exclusive elements that cannot both be true at the same time.

Your failure to consider all possible scenarios is quite telling, trebor. Which is why you do not pass Logic 101.


Originally posted by trebor451
Any sane person would be able to examine those two elements and come to the decision that while both cannot be true, one or the other can be. While both can be false, it is up to the individual to make that determination.

Yet you have previously written off Boger, then cherry-picked Boger to claim only what you want to hear him say. Considering that you were not there that day, can you be absolutely certain that there are only two possible scenarios?


Originally posted by trebor451
Your posts appear to show that you accept both as true, since you discount neither, and that is the clearest indication of your confusion regarding this event.

Hardly. By being willing to consider everything, I'm putting myself in a position to learn the truth. You appear to be bound to the belief that Boger can only be correct about one aspect of his testimony. Which is a confusing position to cling to.

You cherry-pick Boger. You do exactly what you deride truthers of doing.

You have shown more confusion regarding Boger than you ever showed regarding Lloyde's light pole. Remember how you claimed that you don't need to prove the light pole hit the taxi, because you know it happened... that's confusion and poor logic. You have a history of doing this, trebor, in your short time on ATS.


Originally posted by trebor451
Your position in this matter (or, rather, your inability to make an informed decision on Boger's statement based on the known facts)

Yet you are the one who has continually contradicted yourself about Boger - not me. Try again, trebor, your poor attempt to spin yourself out of trouble is quite transparent.


Originally posted by trebor451
I could care less if you are a dues-paying member of CIT or not. You subscribe to their foolishness, you parrot their snake oil, you tout their thesis and as such might as well be on their payroll. I've read your posts over on PfT (CIT's sister web site) and you confirm the fact there that you but into this lunacy.

Wow. You still insist on labelling me as a CIT operative? Tracking me on multiple websites? Someone has a lot of time on his hands to try and nail the truthers, doesn't he? I'm sure at some point, you'll slip-up. Remember that the Moderators are willing to hand out the red flags. They've been very active these past few days, successfully stopping the personal attacks and off-topic nonsense.

Indeed, trebor, your poor logic leads to ill-informed personal attacks against me. Maybe you're just annoyed that your logical errors are so glaring for everyone to see, that you have to strike back at me?

You don't have a clue what to do with Boger, other than cherry-pick the parts that you want to hear. You don't have a clue what to do about Lloyde's light pole, as it's too daunting for you to consider.

I don't speak for Craig, I never have and I never will. However, I bet if we both ask him, he'll be glad for your continued participation in this thread, bumping it right up to the top again!

[edit on 5-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

posted by tezzajw

You cherry-pick Boger. You do exactly what you deride truthers of doing.

Wow. You still insist on labelling me as a CIT operative? Tracking me on multiple websites? Someone has a lot of time on his hands to try and nail the truthers, doesn't he? I'm sure at some point, you'll slip-up. Remember that the Moderators are willing to hand out the red flags. They've been very active these past few days, successfully stopping the personal attacks and off-topic nonsense.



Isn't it odd how these pseudoskeptics and government loyalists who claim we 9-11 Truthers are a bunch of nutcases wasting our time and getting nowhere, spend so much of their valuable time attacking us and taking threads off-topic and making up nonsensical strawman arguments?

It is blatantly obvious that most of them do little to no researching. But they waste hours each day on multiple websites desperately trying to shut us down.

Yet Sean Boger most definitely places the decoy aircraft directly Over the Naval Annex flying straight at him. Sean Boger was an experienced Air Traffic Controller standing in his control tower looking directly at the Naval Annex up the hill. He had the perfect view of the decoy aircraft flying straight at him from Over the Naval Annex, and even saw it banking to the right (his left) before he dived down on the floor to protect himself.


Google Video Link


The decoy aircraft flying directly Over the Naval Annex is deadly to the script for the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. That decoy aircraft cannot possibly knock down the 5 light poles in the official story nor can it possibly create the official damage path inside the Pentagon between the alleged entry hole and the alleged Exit Hole. The official south flight path is impossible from Over the Naval Annex and Sean Boger along with 20+ other verified eyewitnesses places the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex.



In this official interview from November of 2001 he admits to hitting the deck, but strangely claims he did this after watching the plane allegedly enter the building. The notion that plane hit the building is mutually exclusive with the flight path he describes observing for "between 8 and 15 seconds", which had the plane banking to its right on the north side of the gas station. Since this flight path has been corroborated by every other witness who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position to judge the plane's location in relation to that landmark, we have determined that he likely reacted as anybody would and hit the deck as soon as he realized there was a plane headed right towards him, which is what it would look like as it banked toward the Pentagon on the north side flight path.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Sean Boger CMH NEIT 299




[edit on 7/5/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

I don't speak for Craig, I never have and I never will. However, I bet if we both ask him, he'll be glad for your continued participation in this thread, bumping it right up to the top again!


Actually, I am a firm believer of the Sunshine effect. I'm all FOR Craig and his minions getting ALL their garbage out - that includes your position (as illogical as it is) as well. How better to show the folly and absurdity of this whole circus?

At the expense of submitting to some infantile "I had the last post so I won!" mentality, I'll let you have the last post. Feel free to expound on your thesis that Boger saw both the aircraft NOC and it also hit the building. The floor is yours.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
At the expense of submitting to some infantile "I had the last post so I won!" mentality, I'll let you have the last post. Feel free to expound on your thesis that Boger saw both the aircraft NOC and it also hit the building. The floor is yours.

Thanks, I'll take the floor and simultaneously bump the thread.

You withdraw from the thread still trying to put words in my mouth.

At face value I take Boger's claim that he saw the alleged plane fly NOC and that it hit the Pentagon. Does it mean that both happened? I don't know.

I don't know which way to interpret Boger's statements. When I finally find out, I'll let you know - eventually. You're not that high up on my list of people to inform. Beside, you've admitted to following me around other websites, so I'm sure that you'll continue to use your time to track me and try to keep yourself informed. Should I be honoured that you track my internet usage on other websites? Am I that much of a threat to you?

You cherry-picked Boger, after discrediting him. You only want to believe that Boger saw the plane hit the Pentagon, without flying NOC. Your failure at Logic 101 was quite obvious, not only with Boger, but also with Lloyde.

I don't expect this to be the last post. Someone else will surely bump the thread to the top again.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Did Sean Boger draw a flight path?
Was Sean Boger interviewed on location?
Does Sean Boger mention NoC in his 2001 testimony?


Originally posted by tezzajw
You're grasping at straws now. Why does any of that matter?

discombobulator, back on page 24 you left this unanswered question.

I'm still waiting for a reply.







 
23
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join