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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 134
215
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Lillydale

Why don't you tell CIT that ?


Why? Do you need someone strong to speak for you? Are you shy? Afraid of CIT? I do not understand why you want me to pass a message to CIT for you.




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think that when Sean Boger was caught on the phone by CIT, years after the event he simply made a mistake.

But how can you be certain he made a mistake?

You're placing your judgment upon what Boger saw and described.

Why are you cherry picking the parts about Boger that you wish to believe?

Why have you stated that Boger is an unequivocal witness, if you don't believe everything that he stated is true?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Sean Boger is a reliable witness when it comes to the flight path of the plane.

He had an excellent vantage point of the planes approach and has no apparent reason to lie about it.

He is also an "expert witness" when it comes to viewing aircraft in flight.

His description of the planes approach is corroborated by CIT's video witnesses

His description of the planes approach is also corroborated by other video witnesses featured in "the news" on 9-11.

His belief that the plane hit the building can be logically attributed to respondent conditioning; explicated in the car analogy I presented in previous posts.

[edit on 12/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
tezzajw & JPhish

We can surely agree that the plane cannot have been noc and impacted close to Sean's tower in the way it did.

So, Sean is mistaken as to which side of the gas station the plane flew or about the crash into the Pentagon.

It seems to me that you then have to look at probabilities. For the reasons I gave earlier I think it is absurd to treat his estimate of flightpath as gospel which means you have to pretend that he is somehow mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away. Readers can just make up their own minds which they think is most likely.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

tezzajw & JPhish

We can surely agree that the plane cannot have been noc and impacted close to Sean's tower in the way it did.
straw man No we can’t, because it is our contention that the plane did not impact the building at all!

What you should be saying is . . .

If the plane approached NOC, it did not crash into the pentagon.

Of course the reverse is true.

If the plane crashed into the pentagon, it did not approach NOC.

Sean Boger claims both. He must be mistaken about one of his claims.


So, Sean is mistaken as to which side of the gas station the plane flew or about the crash into the Pentagon.
Taking into account all of the evidence in this post. Your conclusion is erroneous.


It seems to me that you then have to look at probabilities. For the reasons I gave earlier I think it is absurd to treat his estimate of flightpath as gospel which means you have to pretend that he is somehow mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away.
straw man it is not our position that the plane crashed anywhere at all. What he believed was a that plane crashing, was actually another explosion. He likely believed it was that plane crashing due to respondent conditioning.


Readers can just make up their own minds which they think is most likely.
Or maybe they shouldn’t pay attention to your weak inductive reasoning and should review the facts in my last post which conclusively show that you are wrong.

[edit on 12/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
JPhish

Correct me if I am wrong but are you not saying that Sean was "mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away " which is precisely what I said ?

Given his clear description and the other factors I mentioned earlier I think this is absurd.

We obviously wont agree on it so I am quite happy for others to make up their own minds.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I've looked through the witness accounts and can't locate any reporting the plane flying over the building.

Here are some more witnesses not describing a 'flyover'

Stephen McGraw:
'I saw it crash into the building'

Frank Probst
'and I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 mph. I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize. It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere'

Noel Sepulveda
'The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon'

Tim Timmerman
'and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground'

Mike Walter
'It literally disintegrated on impact. It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings'

Penny Elgas
'I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete.'

Joel Sucherman
'The plane went west to east, hit the west side of the Pentagon. Immediately flames were searing up into the air. There was white smoke, and then within seconds, thick black smoke'

Could someone identify the flyover witnesses for me? (as in witnesses specifically stating they saw the plane miss the building)



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
His belief that the plane hit the building can be logically attributed to respondent conditioning; explicated in the car analogy I presented in previous posts.

[edit on 12/20/2009 by JPhish]


Your "proof" is based on your assumption of respondent conditioning. That is not proof. Give yourself a logical fallacy for all posts that refer to this as proof.
Please provide a testable theory or you will be given another "failure to state" logical fallacy.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
tezzajw
We can surely agree that the plane cannot have been noc and impacted close to Sean's tower in the way it did.

I don't know, Alfie1 - I wasn't there to see it unfold. Sean Boger was there and we know what he stated about the North flight path and the impact.



Originally posted by Alfie1
For the reasons I gave earlier I think it is absurd to treat his estimate of flightpath as gospel

I try not to treat anything as gospel, Alfie1.

Why do you try to treat his impact claim as gospel, when you are so ready to doubt his testimony about the Northern approach?

The way in which official government story supporters try and cherry pick Sean Boger always amuses me.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw

I will respond to your post but I think I have pretty much said what I have to say in respect Of Sean Boger and am content to leave readers to decide.

Anyway, for a final time. Sean must be mistaken about the plane passing on the north side of the Citgo gas station or mistaken about the plane crashing into the Pentagon close to his tower.

It is therefore necessary, for anyone interested in what happened at the Pentagon, to try and decide on which of those two aspects he is most likely to be right.

In my view, it is a no-brainer; I cannot see any equality between the two issues that has to be juggled. Sean said at the time " I just watched it hit the building." "I could actually hear the metal going through the building." The impact nearlly killed him and his contemporary testimony accords with all the physical evidence and many witnesses.

On the other side you have a telephone call from CIT to Sean, years later, in which he said he thought the plane passed to the north side of Citgo. An impression he can only have obtained in the briefest of moments while in fear of being killed. He said "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us. " The reference to the "big nose" suggests to me that the plane was pretty much on top of him by that stage.

Anyway, if you prefer to believe that he is right about where the plane was in relation to a gas station and wrong about crashing into the Pentagon so be it. Let others decide as they will.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


You do not see any problem with that at all? All OSers do is talk about how 'truthers' cherry pick and take things out of context and obscure the real meaning behind things and blah blah blah blah. Now when you are faced with the fact that your witness told conflicting stories, you have no problem stating you will believe the one you like and the one you do not like is a mistake. You even have a cute little justification but what it really boils down to is that you are keeping the testimony that backs up your fantasy and tossing out the testimony that ruins it, from the same source. Sounds like cherry picking to me.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Anyway, if you prefer to believe that he is right about where the plane was in relation to a gas station and wrong about crashing into the Pentagon so be it. Let others decide as they will.

Where did I ever state that I believed that, Alfie1?

Remember your first post to me, in this thread was based upon an incorrect premise of your's about what you thought I believed. It appears that you have not learnt, as you're continuing to claim something about me, which is false.

You will need to quote me where I stated that I believe Boger's claim about NoC but not about the impact. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you have attributed another of your false beliefs to me.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You will need to quote me where I stated that I believe Boger's claim about NoC but not about the impact.

Your failure to do so will be your admission that you have attributed another of your false beliefs to me.



Answer the question of whether someone could possibly see a plane flying right at them and get that wrong?

Don't take up any more space with rules and regulations no one acknowledges.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
You will need to quote me where I stated that I believe Boger's claim about NoC but not about the impact.

Your failure to do so will be your admission that you have attributed another of your false beliefs to me.



Answer the question of whether someone could possibly see a plane flying right at them and get that wrong?

Don't take up any more space with rules and regulations no one acknowledges.


A crazy person, a pathological liar, a person under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, someone under hypnosis, suffering from sleepwalking, etc....

In short, yes.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

A crazy person, a pathological liar, a person under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, someone under hypnosis, suffering from sleepwalking, etc....

In short, yes.



Are we talking about the kind of people who would actually believe something as whacko as a plane flying over Pentagon and explosives used to simulate a crash?

Sounds about right.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Are we talking about the kind of people who would actually believe something as whacko as a plane flying over Pentagon and explosives used to simulate a crash?

Sounds about right.



I can see it really bothers you when people actually do answer your simple little questions as easily as this. If you want to attribute those things to 'truthers' go right ahead. That does nothing to take away from the fact that YES a person can look right at a plane flying overhead and be wrong about it.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
YES a person can look right at a plane flying overhead and be wrong about it.


Sean Boger seeing a plane coming towards him is also supported by tons airplane wreckage.

Present company excepted, does anyone in their right mind believe a plane came towards the Pentagon, flew over, bombs went off, tons of plane wreckage and body parts were planted.

Oh yeah, a taxi on the highway had it's windshield smashed to make it look more authentic.

I'm embarrassed just typing it. Hard to believe I'm in contact with people actually think it happened.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Sean Boger seeing a plane coming towards him is also supported by tons airplane wreckage.


Tons? Can you back that up or is that just more of that stuff you like to say that has no basis in fact?


Present company excepted, does anyone in their right mind believe a plane came towards the Pentagon, flew over, bombs went off, tons of plane wreckage and body parts were planted.


Because that is the only other option? For starters, a sane person would just assume that Sean Boger was MISTAKEN. That is right, he is only mistaken about the flight path but otherwise, he is SPOTLESS!


Oh yeah, a taxi on the highway had it's windshield smashed to make it look more authentic.


Apparently. Look how well it works for you. 'Hey, if we create some weird random damage that seems too absurd to bother with that will really make it look believable. We can smash up this guys windshield with a lightpole and then people will never believe we would do that just to stage the scene. Just remember to tell Boger which way to say the plane was flying. I cannot stress that last one enough.'



I'm embarrassed just typing it.


As well you should be.


Hard to believe I'm in contact with people actually think it happened.


Who? I thought you were talking to me?





[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Oh yeah, a taxi on the highway had it's windshield smashed to make it look more authentic.

mmiicheal, you made a specific claim in this thread that the light pole hit the taxi. You have not yet demonstrated that this is true.

You also have not proven your claims that
- thousands of people saw the plane depart.
- hundreds of people saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
'Hey, if we create some weird random damage that seems too absurd to bother with that will really make it look believable. We can smash up this guys windshield with a lightpole and then people will never believe we would do that just to stage the scene. Just remember to tell Boger which way to say the plane was flying. I cannot stress that last one enough.'


So that's your theory at last. Some bizarro notion that a 90 ton plane crashing can be faked to fool all those professionals and basically intelligent people.

Somehow a plane can leave Dulles Airport at 8:20 be tracked in the air as it is flown right into the Pentagon at 9:37. There is massive wreckage consistent with the same plane. Later DNA of the passengers is identified.

Somehow all this was planted to cover up some - get this - some other plane flying over and preplanted bombs being set off. Oh yeah the people on the flight were murdered somewhere else.

The sort of bad movie childish scenario only people with zero life experience, knowledge of science, understanding of human nature, logic - would even consider possible.

If I come across as insulting here it's because the more I read on this the more I feel my intelligences is being insulted.

The Big "Flyover' Cover-up. Exposed by Citizen Investigation Team.

At best only a few hundred people in the world who wouldn't crack up hearing this looney tunes theory supported by things like inconsistencies in videotaped testimony of some doddering cab driver.

A lot of people really need to get out a bit more into the real world.





[edit on 21-12-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join