Will you please consider editing your post; and quickly too? I must tell you that I have found it necessary to report your use of words of personal attack.
You know very well that no one on the scene at Park Row could have possibly seen an airplane impact the WTC, as there were trees in full foliage and a couple of tall buildings (Woolworth?) blocking the view on the tower, and the immediate approach path of the plane. Therefore it is disingenious, deceptive and misleading to claim their not seeing a plane is indicative of no plane.
You are engaging in pure speculation, couched in a variety of unlisted assumptions, especially as they pertain to the group of
4 witnesses and you have simply left the arena where reasoned discussion takes place. I'm sorry you have found it necessary to do that.
Furthermore, your above quote is clearly contradicted by this image, taken from the scene, showing the WTC can be seen from Park Row:
Note, too, that as between what I think was the "network" feed on the left and the Dick Oliver camera on the right, the Dick Oliver feed is clearly, sharper and takes us deeper into the hole itself.
Note, as well, something that is very important in terms of first impression witness statements. At the time frame when the above image is shown in the video, anchor, Jim Ryan, had just said, and I quote:
"...If that's the case, where's the plane, I would ask? I don't see it in that live picture..."
Very good question, Jim Ryan, I would say for there is no plane to be seen and that is what other on the street witnesses also said. So, at that time period, one might fairly say that anchor,
Jim Ryan, was a NO PLANER.
How can you possibly assess the credibility of the real eyewitnesses, Mrs. Cardona Rivera and Mr. Murtagh?
There are a variety of ways of doing so. In fact, their credibility has been challenged in various message board discussions. I assume, without double checking, their credibility has been questioned right here in the JREF forum at some point or another.
Speaking just for me, I have already indicated as between the 2 of them and the
4 witnesses the 4 are in a better location to have seen, heard and, indeed, felt, the presence of a widebody jetliner 1000ft up and at nearly 500mph if any such thing had been present. Did you miss that part of my prior post? It was right there as a means of comparing credibility and reliability of witnesses, Oystein.
Their "too good to be true" are actually only "too good to allow your delusion to stand for one more second". I know that, you know that, everybody knows that, we all know that you know.
That's not true in terms of questioning whether or not what Murtagh and Cardona Rivera said is too good to be true. Certainly, they are rather unique in that their telephone calls got through and they each said "plane." On the other hand, the
4 witnesses who were actually in the vicinity said "bomb" or "explosion" and yet, no phone callers got through who said what they said.
There are a variety of ways to question their credibility. Murtagh and Cardona Rivera are fair game.
No one in the videos is lying.
By the way, just as an aside, what is it that enables you to determine with so much certainty who's lying and who isn't?
In particular, Dick Oliver is speaking the TRUTH when he declares clearly what you, jammonius, try to lie away:
THAT HE HEARD THE SOUND OF AN AIRPLANE before the boom!
I have already said it is useless in this thread to assess what Dick Oliver said as posters here simply do not have the capacity to be objective about him.
Oystein, do you really think you need to tell me what Dick Oliver said? I have posted up the actual transcript of what he said. You, on the other hand, are simply choosing to interpret some parts of what he said and are relying on placing emphasis where you want to place it and ignoring other parts that you find convenient to ignore. Interpretation is fine. You can do that. I also do that. One difference between us is that when I disagree with your interpretation, I simply say that I disagree. You, on the other hand, use different wording to characterize our interpretive disagreements, sorry to say.
So, in describing what you think Dick Oliver meant, you are engaging in speculative interpretation; that, and nothing more. Fine, no problem. Let us all know when you have convinced yourself.
Are you after all willing to consider the possibility that the sound that Dick Oliver describes (twice) as that of an airplane, might in fact be an airplane?
Will or will you not agree that a person, standing on a sidewalk, would in all likelihoof NEVER describe the sound of a bus in his back, or a train beneath his feet, as "sounded like an aircraft"?
Will you please retract your silly and delusional fraudulent suggestion that said sound of an airplane might be a train or a bus?
The above rhetoric is wickedly twisted, slanted and distorted. Did it hurt your fingers to type it?
Why have you discarded objectivity to such a degree?
P.S.: I am not calling you names. I am describung you fairly: You assert falsehoods and spread deception despite your proven knowledge of facts to the contrary. You do so malevolently - to convince us that innocent people are murderers and / or conspirators in murder. Speaking falsehoods despite knowing them to be false in ill intention = lie. q.e.d.
Person who lies = liar.
I hope you amend your posts.
