Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



Do you feel embarrassed?

Are you ashamed at your rude sarcastic antagonistic behavior?

Somehow I have a feeling you're not.

Hey Craig ~

What way was he facing? One of your minions that bought your snake oil was trying to make the point that he was unable to see the plane. You know this is not true.

As far as feeling:

Embarrassed or Ashamed.

That sir should be you for your flyover fantasy that is the 2nd most laughed at theory next to the holograms.

Have a great night no-planer.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The sarcastic attitude only makes you look more like a fool when you are wrong.

Uh-huh.

Guess what pinch?

You're wrong.

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

So...Boger and Kidd were "sitting down" like that when the plane hit. Could you...you know...manufacture a quote stating that was the case? Or perhaps djeminy "deduced" Boger was sitting down when the plane hit. Kidd wasn't even in the tower when the plane hit. The article you quote from (below) never, ever even *mentions* Boger "sitting down". So actually, djeminy *does* manufacture something here and he *does* deduce Boger sitting down. Too bad djeminy is suffering from "Morbus CITUS" or "CIT Disease" - the making up of stuff to bolster a biased position.

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

Sarcasm isn't wasted on you, nosiree!

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

Interesting you quote the article that states Boger said flatly and with conviction he watched the aircraft hit the building. Perhaps we are getting to you - after all you are quoting from an article that you claim printed a lie from Boger, an article in a online publication that caters primarily to the military community of the DC area - so how can you trust it?. More selective quote mining, I see, Craig. You've become pretty adept at picking stuff out you like and discarding stuff you don't, but that's been your whole raison d'etre all along, hasn't it?

Do you feel embarrassed?

I'll tell you what I *am* embarrassed about - that I am still here arguing this stuff with you. I'll say again, though...I'm not here to marginalize you - I'm here to make sure you keep marginalizing yourself.

Are you ashamed at your rude sarcastic antagonistic behavior?

Absolutely not. Consider who I am dealing with here (in other words look in a mirror). If you don't like my "rude sarcastic antagonistic" attitude then select ignore.

On edit...I was negligent in asking how the understanding of that ADW Camp Springs 1 departure is going. If you or the P4T Boys need any help, be sure to ask.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by pinch]

It's actually quite funny sort of visualizing how and in what manner pinch and fox
are creeping around the hot porridge.

The scent they sniff is rather inviting, but they also know that the taste of it would do
nothing more than burn them severely.

So they keep circling the bowl with its savoury content, hoping that sooner or later
the porridge will kool off so they desirously can eat it with glee.

But little do they know that they in fact are dealing here with a magic dish:
for instead of cooling down, the porridge is getting hotter and hotter.

Truly, they will never ever be able to devour and thus get rid of this appetizing
meal. They are firmly stuck on their self-imposed circular track, not getting anywhere fast.

And so, in this way, it has all become a bit of a fairy-tale:

How 5 lightpoles can suddenly turn into hot porridge.

Originally posted by djeminy

....... creeping around the hot porridge.

The scent they sniff .......


the porridge will kool off so they desirously can eat it with glee......

.... they in fact are dealing here with a magic dish:
for instead of cooling down, the porridge is getting hotter and hotter. .....
....

How 5 lightpoles can suddenly turn into hot porridge.

Dude are you ok? I mean really?

Apparently the more you circle around the more dizzy and confused you're getting,
and the less you seem to understand.

Would you really like me to treat you like a minor and spell it all out for you!!

Get off that BS 'merry-go-round' you take so much delight in being on, and get
yourself a life. .....please!

You could start by showing us a bit of courage and honesty.

Try dealing with the points raised in previous posts, instead of arrogantly ignore
their existence.

This foxy tactic of yours will do you no good.

You assume people are fools, but of course they are not.

Had you been aware, you would have known that people can see right through you.

If only...... (sigh)!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I have been following this theory for a while and can’t reconcile the physical evidence with something other than Flt 77 striking the Pentagon. Some of the theories are in agreement with the physical evidence, such as a robot controlled plane loaded with anesthetized passengers, but don’t seem to have any way of proving that the events did not occur as officially described. It would seem that some theorists have a conclusion that they believe and then must claim planted evidence and lies by the government to reach that conclusion. Of course, they have no proof of any such misdirection.
Flight path physical evidence: toppled light posts. Witnesses may be under duress when they see the plane approaching and have only a short time to note the flight path. There is no evidence of manufactured light post evidence, just a good deal of argument and counter argument. Unless there is proof of tampering, the fallen light posts must dictate the flight path.
Airplane impact: Some witnesses saw the fireball immediately after the plane disappeared from their sight. One said he saw the plane hit. No one saw a plane leave. The plane must have hit.
Missile impact: No missile in the inventory is capable of carrying the amount of fuel required for the fuel explosion and fire. No tanker truck or large fuel tank was located at the outside wall near impact. The explosion seen was a hydrocarbon dispersion and ignition and not HE. There was no missile needed nor in evidence.
Flight 77 impact: If the plane was not Flt 77, it had to be a large aircraft similar in size and shape to Flt 77. Smaller or military aircraft would have been noted by some of the witnesses; none so noted. If Flt 77 did not strike the Pentagon, where is it? How did the bodies of manifest passengers get into the Pentagon? As there is no evidence of such a monstrosity, Flt 77 must have struck the Pentagon.
Planted evidence: Just like an old Perry Mason episode, planted evidence can explain all. It is the go-to device when anything must be ignored or explained away. It is the “have a nice day and think outside the box” phrase that meets all needs. There is no evidence for planted evidence, just the accusation. No one was seen casually dropping off broken light posts, placing a carefully incinerated landing gear in the walkway, or placing aircraft parts on the lawn. Bodies were not brought in, they were taken out. There was no planted evidence.
The conclusion must be that Flt 77 did hit the Pentagon and that the official story is as close as we will get to the actual events of the day until such time as a conspirator confesses or new evidence is discovered. As of this moment, the CTer’s have not yet proposed a single theory that details the entire sequence of events and backed it for more than a few days, at best.
Do the CT folks have a theory? What is it?

Originally posted by djeminy

and the less you seem to understand.

You're 100% correct. I do not understand any of your off topic incoherent posts. (just that they are off topic)

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by djeminy

and the less you seem to understand.

You're 100% correct.

Thanks. I know.


And asking you to deal with previous posts in this thread, cannot possibly be
considered off topic!!


Try to think man. Try to think.... please!


It will do you good!

And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has liked stop, and I look out the window and I just hear a -- I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer.

And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.

********

So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head. It was like glass shattering and ceiling tile was falling, and --

Sean Boger - November 14, 2001

Originally posted by 911files

And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has liked stop, and I look out the window and I just hear a -- I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer.

And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.

********

So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head. It was like glass shattering and ceiling tile was falling, and --

Sean Boger - November 14, 2001

And later he says:
.....
"But this particular day we heard something. We heard a roooooooah, and so xxxxxx
was like what was that, and we both looked out the window, but we didn't see
anything.
And that was the airplane, and he had flown past us, but we didn't see him, but we
heard it. And so had we had seen that aircraft sooner or maybe realized how low he was, we could have probably called Washington and asked them if they were talking
to him, and I don't know if we would have had enough time to do that."


Contrast this with his earlier statement:

"And she said I will be back. I am going to the restroom. She said keep your eyes on the planes. And she was just joking you know. And she was down there for like 5
minutes."

So in the beginning of the interview he is alone in the tower, but at the end of the
same interview, they are both there together, Boger and his female colleague, watching the plane fly past!


To continue from where 911 files let off:

Boger: "So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I
hid the floor and just covered my head.
It was like glass shattering and ceiling tiles falling and - -"
.....

Interv.: "It is amazing that you reacted that quickly".

Boger: "I know, and I think that a lot of it had to do with the actual impact of the plane,
because when it exploded, it kind of shook our building. So it shook our
building, and from there - -"

Interv.:"And you went down anyway.

Boger: "Yes, instinct, and I hit the ground, because you know we are surrounded by
glass. So when something explodes like that, glass is going to be the first
thing to shatter."

Later Boger says:

.....
"And I had like a burn and a cut on this arm, and cuts to my elbows, and cuts on this
elbow, and I looked at my shirt, and my shirt has like blood on the side of it,
.....

I remember that xxxxxx and I we both - - I think she had a cut on her leg, and so they
was trying to take us to a triage area, ....."


It should be worth noting that in one account the colleague is downstairs in the
restroom, but in another account she is with boger in the tower when they observe the
plane.
Worth noting as well, is the fact that the glass, apart from shattering, also would have
been forcefully driven across the room from the effect of the huge explosion that took
place.

Judging from the small cuts on the arms and leg that both Boger and the colleague
sustained, it would be very unlikely these small injuries was caused by the blast of
flying glass pieces.

It would be much more likely that Boger received these small cuts while lying on the
floor covering his head with his arms - and therefore exposed elbows.

So the conclusion still stands, that Boger must have hit the floor before the
explosion took place.

This stands to reason.













[edit on 12-2-2009 by djeminy]

FYI...his associate was downstairs at the time of the event. Her interview is here.

"But this particular day we heard something. We heard a roooooooah, and so xxxxxx
was like what was that, and we both looked out the window, but we didn't see
anything.
And that was the airplane, and he had flown past us, but we didn't see him, but we
heard it. And so had we had seen that aircraft sooner or maybe realized how low he was, we could have probably called Washington and asked them if they were talking
to him, and I don't know if we would have had enough time to do that."

Here he is referring to something he heard before she went downstairs to the restroom.

Taking a closer look at the title of this thread I am taken by Craig's use of the word "ultimate".

If he thinks that Sean Boger's account is the "ultimate" validation of this claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, Craig is hurting more than we ever thought.

Ultimate? Is Boger's account the "last; furthest or farthest"? Is it the "ending a process or series"? We can only hope so.

Ultimate? Is Boger's account the "maximum; decisive; conclusive" account? Perhaps, but only if you examine his definitive position that he watched the aircraft slam into the building.

Ultimate? Is Boger's account the "final; total" account? Again, if we only tell Craig he is finally right and he has found the final and total account, would he go away?

Ultimate? Is Boger's account the "basic; fundamental; representing a limit beyond which further progress, as in investigation or analysis, is impossible" account? If Craig chose this definition, then obviously there is no further need for any more CIT or P4T and they should strike camp and move on to the next question of the cosmos.

Whatever definition Craig chose to fit his use of the word "ultimate", we can only hope that he has a clear understanding of the word and will apply its connotation to its logical conclusion - its over, Craig. You admitted that you have found the best, most basic, most fundamental, most final, most total, most maximum and decisive and conclusive and last validation you need, one that ends the process or series. Now go investigate something else.

Or, he doesn't know the definition of the word and he'll still be around.

Somehow I feel its the latter.

Originally posted by pinch
Taking a closer look at the title of this thread I am taken by Craig's use of the word "ultimate".

If he thinks that Sean Boger's account is the "ultimate" validation of this claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, Craig is hurting more than we ever thought.

Perhaps you should be taking a closer look still at the title of this thread. Specifically, how it doesn't mention anything about flight A77 or impact, or lack thereof, with the Pentagon.

Originally posted by 911files
FYI...his associate was downstairs at the time of the event. Her interview is here.

"But this particular day we heard something. We heard a roooooooah, and so xxxxxx
was like what was that, and we both looked out the window, but we didn't see
anything.
And that was the airplane, and he had flown past us, but we didn't see him, but we
heard it. And so had we had seen that aircraft sooner or maybe realized how low he was, we could have probably called Washington and asked them if they were talking
to him, and I don't know if we would have had enough time to do that."

Here he is referring to something he heard before she went downstairs to the restroom.

Perhaps she was! This is not important, really.


But the interviewer didn't seem to doubt that it was the plane in question Boger is here
refering to, judging from his comment following the above quoted:

Interv.: "You probably wouldn't have. It was probably too late after that."

Boger: "But still we heard it you know, but the things that I think about on that
particular day was just that the aircraft, the flames, and the fuel on fire.
It is not like a camp fire. It is like burnt orange color that will always be
embedded in my mind."

Originally posted by almighty bob


Perhaps you should be taking a closer look still at the title of this thread. Specifically, how it doesn't mention anything about flight A77 or impact, or lack thereof, with the Pentagon.

Craig, and by extension CIT and P4T, exists soley and for no other reason than to tie *everything* to the claim that AA77 did not hit the building.

Craig's self-selected title for this topic, "Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach" is nothing more than another way to say AA77 did not hit the building and that anyone who claims it did is lying and anyone who says they saw it hit is lying and it was and remains a "covert Cperation" and Bush is evil and everyone in the galaxy, including the OC Weekly and other newspapers and television networks and magazines and judges and courts and countries and states and counties etc so on and so forth are in on it because NOBODY will listen to him/them.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by pinch]

I'm wondering where the glass came from that Sean mentioned. It looks to me like the windows in the tower held up pretty well....

September 11th:






September 12th before President Bush shows up:

reply to post by NIcon


Actually you can see how the one window has already been replaced with temporary plastic and it looks to me like the other has a break in it.

reply to post by NIcon

Yes, that front window has plastic, but in the September 11th photos it looks fine, so either it was already the plastic (is that why it's a different color as the other two windows on that side?) or did they take out that window within 24 hours and replace it with the plastic. In the September 11th photos I couldn't tell if the other two windows on that side were there because they looked like two black holes, but we can see they are still there from the September 12th photos.

Here's an enlargement of a September 11th photo:



It's a tough call, but to me it looks like they didn't shatter. I'm thinking that maybe they put that plastic up right after the crash? That would be a strange thing to worry about right after a big event like this.

reply to post by NIcon


It's a different color because it was shattered.

If you look closely as the other image you posted from 9/11 you can see two holes, one in the aluminum frame and one in the window itself.

Originally posted by pinch
Taking a closer look at the title of this thread

Great observation, pinch! Take a closer look at the title and see that Boger is probably the best NOC eyewitness.

He's trained to observe aircraft and he's familiar with the approach paths of aircraft around the Pentagon. He was on duty and in direct line of sight to the aircraft coming at him on a NOC flight path.

You make it so easy for all of us, pinch when you point out the obvious.

A NOC flight path will destory the official story. Anything after that doesn't really matter once the official story has been debunked. It must be annoying for official story believers to have so many people placing the flight path NOC, contradicting the government spin.