Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig, sorry I'm not seeing it. Are you saying it shattered as in safety glass shattering? Are you saying there's a hole like someone threw a baseball through it? What I'm seeing is that the windows stayed intact, nothing to show glass flying through the air.

Here's the other pictures I'm using (not very high on resolution though):

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

LOL, tezz! You do make this fun!

As you said, "He's trained to observe aircraft..." and it isn't surprising that he watched the aircraft all the way in - to impact, like he said.

"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.

I'll keep putting that quote up because your selective memory seems to omit it from any and all cerebral functions you have regarding this issue.

"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.

What is interesting is how you side with Craig and call Boger a liar - your position that his clear, unambiguous and firm statement that he "watched [the aircraft] hit the building" is not true/a lie/a falsehood/a canard/an embellishment/a deduction.

Unless and until you can get Boger to recant that testimony, to say flat out that he was mistaken, to admit he was hoodwinked, to state he was wrong, then your and Craig's and Aldo's and P4T's North of Citgo fantasy is nothing but wasted trons.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Craig, sorry I'm not seeing it. Are you saying it shattered as in safety glass shattering? Are you saying there's a hole like someone threw a baseball through it? What I'm seeing is that the windows stayed intact, nothing to show glass flying through the air.

I think it's pretty evident from this picture that those two windows had been broken:


That certainly is not the temporary plastic we see from the next day.

And on this one if you look closely you can see the hole in the aluminum frame as well as a bigger hole in the window right next to it as if a baseball had been thrown through it:


Angle, lighting, and resolution all make a difference in what you can or can't see in the images.

But again...it's clearly not this plastic replacement from the next day:


The workers probably just put it up.

In fact you can see how one of the guys in there actually has a roll of duct tape in his hands!

Originally posted by pinch
LOL, tezz! You do make this fun!
As you said, "He's trained to observe aircraft..." and it isn't surprising that he watched the aircraft all the way in - to impact, like he said.

pinch, you make it even more hilarious! Boger said that he saw the aircraft fly NOC!

I'll keep putting that quote up because your selective memory seems to omit it from any and all cerebral functions you have regarding this issue.

I don't care if Boger saw the plane hit the wall, explode before the wall, fly over the wall or holograph through the wall. He saw it fly NOC, that's all I'm interested in.

"What is interesting is how you side with Craig and call Boger a liar - your position that his clear, unambiguous and firm statement that he "watched [the aircraft] hit the building" is not true/a lie/a falsehood/a canard/an embellishment/a deduction.

pinch, you make it even more laughable when you presume quotes that I have never made. Please, quote me where I ever stated that I called Boger a liar in any way?

Quote me where I state that I side with Craig, calling Boger a liar! You better hurry, pinch, I've made nearly 3000 posts for you to comb through. Failure to produce a quote will show that you're making things up, which the Moderators will not appreciate.

Unless and until you can get Boger to recant that testimony, to say flat out that he was mistaken, to admit he was hoodwinked, to state he was wrong, then your and Craig's and Aldo's and P4T's North of Citgo fantasy is nothing but wasted trons.

Huh? Boger stated that he saw the plane fly NOC. How is that a fantasy? pinch, you tie yourself in knots with your uninformed, twisted logic. You presume far too much and you lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same category.

Try reading what people actually post for a change and not what you think they post.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tezzajw]

Boger: "And um I just happened to be looking out the window. And as I was looking
out the window I could see a plane it was actually, it was actually like three
minutes later the plane was coming directly at us. And uh when I saw it you
know I was just in amazement so I just - - well I just looked at it I mean you
know I fell to the ground and I covered my head."


Both pinch and fox has taken great care ignoring this account by Boger. As far as they
are concerned this account doesn't exist. (Or so they pretend)!


Boger: "And so I am looking out at the road, and I see traffic has like 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 we just hear the noise, ...."


Also this account is totally ignored by pinch and fox. The reason for this is bleeding
obvious, so no need for us to elaborate further.


Boger: "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.


Only this account has been quoted by pinch and fox; like a thousand times between
them, give or take!


This should give new members and guests real insight into the true nature of these
two persevering anti-truthers, or pseudo-sceptics, as they are more commonly known
by.

reply to post by djeminy


I think you are forgetting Boger was not alone and to evaluate his statements properly, then the people with him need to also be listened to. I know folks like to focus on Boger and ignor them for obvious reasons, but taken collectively, NoC is simply not a valid interpertation of his accounts.

Unfortunately, ATS limits the size of the post so I cannot address this properly here. I did however address it elsewhere for anyone really wanting to know.

Placing together these two accounts from Boger intrigues me, and would like to know
if this alleged first fly-by has been confirmed by anyone?




.....
"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."



And from the audio interview:

"And you know but what else made a lot of sense to me also was that I was watching
a program a couple of years ago and the ATC at uh Dulles airport were explaining what they had uh witnessed.
And err one of the ladies said that the plane actually had circled the Pentagon looking
for the White House. And she said the White House must have been obstructed because
he circled back around to hit the building - - they said he **** the airplane and so I
was thinking about that I said well you know that explains that loud noise we heard.
You know we actually heard him the first time when he flew past the Pentagon."

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by djeminy

 

I think you are forgetting Boger was not alone and to evaluate his statements properly, then the people with him need to also be listened to. I know folks like to focus on Boger and ignor them for obvious reasons, but taken collectively, NoC is simply not a valid interpertation of his accounts.

Unfortunately, ATS limits the size of the post so I cannot address this properly here. I did however address it elsewhere for anyone really wanting to know.

Could you possibly give us a few hints as to what you're referring too?

Originally posted by djeminy



Could you possibly give us a few hints as to what you're referring too?

There are interviews that 911Files obtained from his FOIA request that confirm Bogers account. He lists them at the link provided above.

In typical CIT fashion, this was all hand waved.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by djeminy



Could you possibly give us a few hints as to what you're referring too?

There are interviews that 911Files obtained from his FOIA request that confirm Bogers account. He lists them at the link provided above.

In typical CIT fashion, this was all hand waved.

I read the interview in the link provided.

Hence my question to 9/11files.

You're loosing the plot fox.

Originally posted by djeminy

You're loosing the plot fox.

Yeah Fox! Quit "loosing" the plot! Tighten it up a bit! We run a squared away plot here.

911file's post that talks about the events at the Pentagon Helipad Tower is fascinating and really does, all by itself, knock a significant and fatal hole in any "no-impact" or "fly-over/fly-by" postulation by the CIT Boys.

It all, once again, centers around Sean Boger's experience, which cannot be discarded, denied, twisted, lied about, hand waved or otherwise discounted regardless of the sturm und drang of CIT or P4T or tezz.

To watch the aforementioned "Truthers" resort to their standard "He deduced the impact" excuse simply adds to the comedic nature of their campaign. They are, quite literally, making up Boger's experience for him since his own account does not further their agenda.

What is equally funny is how they try to "embrace" him, how they try to make him the very apex of their fantastic flight of fancy - how he is the "ULTIMATE!!!!!" validation, as if nothing more is needed.

tezz....how do you reconcile the below quote while still maintaining your firm belief in the NOC, without calling Boger a liar?

"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."

tezz, how do you deal with the below quote while still maintaining your steadfast belief in the NOC, without calling Boger a liar?

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.

Keep in mind the entire premise of the NOC fantasy is to "prove" the aircraft did not hit the building.

Further, if Boger is lying about the impact, what makes you think he isn't lying about the inbound flight path? After all, he *is/was* a government employee and Craig gets purple in the face when he talks about how "evidence" provided by those accused cannot be trusted.

Have you jumped on the selective quote bus along with Craig and his fellow CIT and P4T Boys?

Originally posted by pinch
It all, once again, centers around Sean Boger's experience, which cannot be discarded, denied, twisted, lied about, hand waved or otherwise discounted regardless of the sturm und drang of CIT or P4T or tezz.

You've done it again, pinch! You're consistent with your mistaken quotes, aren't you? Putting me in the same basket as CIT or P4T is not a good thing to do. You have not provided ONE quote where I have called Boger a liar. You have not provided one quote where I have stated that there definitely was a fly-over.

pinch, it's time for you to stop spreading your BS about me and retract your claims.

tezz....how do you reconcile the below quote while still maintaining your firm belief in the NOC, without calling Boger a liar?

pinch, when will you ever start to read my posts with an intent to try and understand them?

You obviously don't. You've been typing the same false statements about me in this thread, regardless of the explanation given to you.

pinch, Boger stated that he saw the plane fly NOC. Get it? If that's true, then it's ENOUGH evidence to prove the goverment story is false.

tezz, how do you deal with the below quote while still maintaining your steadfast belief in the NOC, without calling Boger a liar. Keep in mind the entire premise of the NOC fantasy is to "prove" the aircraft did not hit the building.

Oh, pinch... you really are losing the plot in this thread and your grip on all cognitive thought.

You are blind to what I type, in your desperate attempts to associate me with CIT or P4T. Guess what, pinch? I'm neither.

You've obviously missed the part where I typed that I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. You've obviously missed the part where I typed that maybe Boger was telling the truth about the NOC flight path and the impact (cogburn entertains this theory). You've missed a lot of things, pinch and you're making up false accusations about me.

Have you jumped on the selective quote bus along with Craig and his fellow CIT and P4T Boys?

Another of your very sad assumptions, that is again, wrong. pinch, I'm not the topic of this thread. It's about Boger's NOC claim. Stick to the topic. I can do without your hero-worship and your dedicated attempts to fabricate quotes.

Originally posted by djeminy



I read the interview in the link provided.

Hence my question to 9/11files.

You're loosing the plot fox.

there were three of them.

try to keep up.

Terrorist sympathizers are a wee bit on the slow side.

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by djeminy

 

I think you are forgetting Boger was not alone and to evaluate his statements properly, then the people with him need to also be listened to. I know folks like to focus on Boger and ignor them for obvious reasons, but taken collectively, NoC is simply not a valid interpertation of his accounts.

Unfortunately, ATS limits the size of the post so I cannot address this properly here. I did however address it elsewhere for anyone really wanting to know.

pinch and fox are obviously trying to protect you from answering my question,
so trusting that you can stand up for yourself, I'll try again:

Could you possibly give us a few hints as to what you're referring too?

Thanking you in anticipation!

Originally posted by djeminy

pinch and fox are obviously trying to protect you from answering my question,
so trusting that you can stand up for yourself, I'll try again:

Could you possibly give us a few hints as to what you're referring too?

Thanking you in anticipation!

Sorry, I don't come by ATS too often. Also, ATS size constraints do not permit a full expansion of the topic here. However, I posted a link to a comparison of the others who were present which can be found HERE.

There was actually one additional witness (Young) in the helipad fire truck garage at the time, but I don't have a full statement from him.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by djeminy

pinch and fox are obviously trying to protect you from answering my question,
so trusting that you can stand up for yourself, I'll try again:

Could you possibly give us a few hints as to what you're referring too?

Thanking you in anticipation!

Sorry, I don't come by ATS too often. Also, ATS size constraints do not permit a full expansion of the topic here. However, I posted a link to a comparison of the others who were present which can be found HERE.

There was actually one additional witness (Young) in the helipad fire truck garage at the time, but I don't have a full statement from him.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by 911files]

Sorry, but I didn't ask you for 'a full expansion of the topic'.

As you can see, I'm merely asking you for a few hints as to what you're referring too!

I have read your paper a couple of times now, and would still love to know what
it is that convinces you of a OS SOC flight path.

All I see is you offering some prejudiced opinions, while omitting an awful lot of data
that speaks volumes against your bias.

Nah, forget it. Don't bother answering the question.

I,m so tired of this nonsense and obfuscation business and avoid-dance trickery BS.

Hope you'll expand that "I don't come too often" thing, to "I come here only rarely"!

Thanks for nothing.

reply to post by djeminy


I see you need someone to tell you want to think, but I'm not your man. If you wish to ignore 99% of the eyewitness testimony in favor or a 1% anomaly, then suit yourself.

reply to post by 911files


Please present 14 first-hand accounts of the plane on the south side of the citgo (or one for that matter) or concede that you lied in your article supporting a 2-plane north of the citgo flyover disinformation theory.

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by djeminy

 

I see you need someone to tell you want to think, but I'm not your man. If you wish to ignore 99% of the eyewitness testimony in favor or a 1% anomaly, then suit yourself.

You obviously missed, at least, these two lines, so I'll repeat them:

"Nah, forget it. Don't bother answering the question.

I,m so tired of this nonsense and obfuscation business and avoid-dance trickery BS."

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Please provide details of your latest theory including number of aircraft, aircraft flight paths, aircraft pilots [if any], planted evidence, and any eyewitnesses you wish to quote.