Was Dick Oliver confused about what he heard on 9/11

[TJM]

Dick Oliver didn't hear a bus, so under it he goes.

Posters / Lurkers, a reminder:

The argument that jammonius has put forward has been utterly destroyed. Now watch jammonius flail and grasp at straws as he tries to resurrect this moribund thread and claim a new group of "no plane" witnesses, including one who was underneath the World Trade Center. In a subway car.

 

[dafydd]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2683248eda5a14f067.jpg[/qimg]

Dick Oliver didn't hear a bus, so under it he goes.

Posters / Lurkers, a reminder:

The argument that jammonius has put forward has been utterly destroyed. Now watch jammonius flail and grasp at straws as he tries to resurrect this moribund thread and claim a new group of "no plane" witnesses, including one who was underneath the World Trade Center. In a subway car.

Really,these no-planers should not be allowed out on their own.

 

[jammonius]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2683248eda5a14f067.jpg[/qimg]

Dick Oliver didn't hear a bus, so under it he goes.

Oh boy, Posters and Lurkers, the capacity for self-deception is becoming very apparent here.

The 4 witnesses together with a reasoned interpretation of what Dick Oliver actually said and actually meant (namely, he didn't know what he heard pure and simple) has caused some to engage in forms of posting deception. There exists in this thread, at this time, a clear attempt to obfuscate the information provided to us by the Dick Oliver videos.

Blatant misrepresenttion, pretense of not understanding, taunts, almost anything that can be used to deflect your attention away from taking an objective look at this information for what it is, is being tried.

It serves no purpose in doing that.

Look, try this:

The common storyline of what happened on 9/11 is firmly implanted into public consciousness. Relax. You don't have to misinterpret every piece of information that goes against the common storyline. By doing that, you send a signal of weakness, not of strength. If the common storyline were actually strong, then it would be OK to admit, once in awhile, that, yes, there is some information out there that legitimately goes against the common storyline.

There's nothing unusual about that. Reality almost always has confounding variables that complicate a given matter.

Those who support the common storyline do not seem capable of ever admitting the legitimacy of anything that goes against the common storyline.

Right here in this thread on this page there are 4 witnesses who were in a position to see and hear a jetliner if one had been present. They report no such thing.

At some point, posters need to admit that and stop fighting so hard.

Posters / Lurkers, a reminder:

The argument that jammonius has put forward has been utterly destroyed. Now watch jammonius flail and grasp at straws as he tries to resurrect this moribund thread and claim a new group of "no plane" witnesses, including one who was underneath the World Trade Center. In a subway car.

The above is assumption riddled. The woman from the Path Train is not being properly quoted. She said what she saw. She obviously at some point exited from the train and was in a position to see and hear and she reported what she saw and what she heard.

Here's the view from the Path Station:

Here's the topography showing where the Path Station is relative to the WTC complex:

There was no need to misrepresent what the woman from the Path Train was able to see and to hear.

Once again, a jetliner 1000ft up from her location at nearly 500mph is not reported as being something she or any of the other witnesses heard.

There was no reason for that fact to be obscured.

 

[tsig]

Is this a forum for skepticism? I have indicated reasons why I think Murtagh and Cardona Rivera give suspect statements. Their locations are not nearly as good as those of the 4 witnesses and their ability to get through on the phone and say things that clearly contradict better placed witnesses is indicative of a clear conflict as between witnesses.

One cannot easily accredit the 4 witnesses who walked right up to a camera and a mic at Park Row, with the WTC ablaze in the immediate background, without at the same time discrediting Rosa and Sean.

This is one reason why the absence of a rigorous investigation where Rosa and Sean would have been required to undergo questioning renders their teevee statements meaningless.

A proper investigation would have easily recognized that as between the 4 witnesses on the one hand and Sean and Rosa on the other, a conflict existed.

That is yet another reason why identification of plane parts through competent means rather than based on "postulation" and "belief" is crucial.

None of us knows with any degree of reliability what happened on 9/11 as there is no publicly funded, duly authorized investigation that we can point to for purposes of resolving disagreements.

So the only way to arrive at an explanation is to have a " publicly funded, duly authorized investigation"?

 

[twinstead]

So the only way to arrive at an explanation is to have a " publicly funded, duly authorized investigation"?

I appears that jammonius is conveniently forgetting the "publicly funded, duly authorized investigation" that was already done.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So the only way to arrive at an explanation is to have a " publicly funded, duly authorized investigation"?

I'm struggling to see how Operation PENTTBOM wasn't either publicly funded or duly authorised, not to mention the 9/11 Commission or the NIST report. It seems the only way to refute evidence is to pretend it doesn't exist.

Dave

 

[jammonius]

Posters / Lurkers,

The taunts and the appeals to "know-nothingism' continues. The NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports are flawed and inconclusive. That has been said and demonstrated many times, including in this or related threads. Indeed, in the verboten thread, we went into some detail on the NIST report's use of obviously inconclusive language about plane debris as a key example.

Lurkers, I'm sure you can see that it is futile to dispute the accuracy and the validity of the 4 witnesses captured in realtime, live at or about 8:50AM on 9/11. They are first hand witnesses, very near the scene and they describe nothing remotely consistent with a jetliner 1000ft above them at nearly 500mph being present.

That is a rock-solid fact and it is highly significant. A jetliner that low that fast would not have gone unnoticed had it been there. You know that and I know that.

Let's do some justice to Our Lady from Path Train:

Here's an approximation of what she said, in relevant part (it is not a full transcript, that is something we need):

6:57+/-: Dick Oliver: Did you see what happened? What happened?

Our Lady: Well, I was in the Path Train and there was a huge explosion sound. Everyone came out. A large section of the building had blown out around like at the 80th floor.

Dick Oliver: Was it hit by something or was it inside.

Our Lady: It was inside because everything was coming out. All the windows were coming out all the papers...

Dick Oliver: What was on the sidewalk?

Our Lady: I didn't see anything.
...
She says more and the full transcript should be posted and considered

Once again, this is a valid witness who negates and refutes the claim a widebody jetliiner hit the North Tower, pure and simple and some posters need to at least acknowledge that much. It would do you good to admit what needs to be admitted; namely, there are valid NO PLANE witnesses whose statements contradict the common storyline. Whether you still adhere to the common storyline is up to each person.

But, the point is to acknowledge what needs to be acknowledged. Posters here are too resistant and too defensive.

What, pray tell, are you afraid of? A little truth, maybe?

 

[phunk]

Oh boy, Posters and Lurkers, the capacity for self-deception is becoming very apparent here.

The 4 witnesses together with a reasoned interpretation of what Dick Oliver actually said and actually meant (namely, he didn't know what he heard pure and simple) has caused some to engage in forms of posting deception. There exists in this thread, at this time, a clear attempt to obfuscate the information provided to us by the Dick Oliver videos.

Blatant misrepresenttion, pretense of not understanding, taunts, almost anything that can be used to deflect your attention away from taking an objective look at this information for what it is, is being tried.

It serves no purpose in doing that.

Look, try this:

The common storyline of what happened on 9/11 is firmly implanted into public consciousness. Relax. You don't have to misinterpret every piece of information that goes against the common storyline. By doing that, you send a signal of weakness, not of strength. If the common storyline were actually strong, then it would be OK to admit, once in awhile, that, yes, there is some information out there that legitimately goes against the common storyline.

There's nothing unusual about that. Reality almost always has confounding variables that complicate a given matter.

Those who support the common storyline do not seem capable of ever admitting the legitimacy of anything that goes against the common storyline.

Right here in this thread on this page there are 4 witnesses who were in a position to see and hear a jetliner if one had been present. They report no such thing.

At some point, posters need to admit that and stop fighting so hard.



The above is assumption riddled. The woman from the Path Train is not being properly quoted. She said what she saw. She obviously at some point exited from the train and was in a position to see and hear and she reported what she saw and what she heard.

Here's the view from the Path Station:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/pathstationview-1.jpg?t=1272553170[/qimg]

Here's the topography showing where the Path Station is relative to the WTC complex:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/pathstationview-2.jpg?t=1272553062[/qimg]

There was no need to misrepresent what the woman from the Path Train was able to see and to hear.

Once again, a jetliner 1000ft up from her location at nearly 500mph is not reported as being something she or any of the other witnesses heard.

There was no reason for that fact to be obscured.

LOL!

That's where the path station is NOW. On 9/11, the path station was UNDERGROUND!

 

[Oystein]

Oh boy, Posters and Lurkers, the capacity for self-deception is becoming very apparent here.

Absolutely.

...
Right here in this thread on this page there are 4 witnesses who were in a position to see and hear a jetliner if one had been present. They report no such thing.

Two at least were in no position to see a plane:
* The camera man was where the camera was - that is, behind trees, where the WTC tower could NOT be seen
* The woman admits she was ON the PATH train.

One was potentially in a position to see:
* Man with child confirms twice that he saw at least something hit the tower.

She said what she saw. She obviously at some point exited from the train and was in a position to see and hear and she reported what she saw and what she heard.

This is plain WRONG. Let's look carefully at what was being said:

Dick: Did you see what happened? What happpened?
Woman: Well I was on the PATH train and there was a huge explosion sound and everyone came out. A large section of the building had blown out around like the 80th floor.
(My stresses)
She very clearly tells us what she witnessed:
* She was ON the train
* She HEARD an explosion (and thus obviously did not SEE anything / ETA: this includes not seeing the explosion, hence she was not in a position to see)
* THEN "everybody came out"
* THEN she observed that a section of the building HAD blown out
From this she CONCLUDES in the remainder of the short interview that whatever caused the explosion must have come from inside.
Note: She did not OBSERVE the explosion or its cause, she merele SPECULATED on the cause. This much we can discern objectively from her testimony.

Here's the view from the Path Station:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/pathstationview-1.jpg?t=1272553170[/qimg]

You hopefully are aware that the WTC PATH station was destroyed along with the towers when they collapsed? What you show there is a spot somewhere on today's PATH station premises. In 2001, the PATH platforms were 80 feet below street level, the PATH fare control 60 feet below street level. Your photo is thus misleading and deceptive.

There was no need to misrepresent what the woman from the Path Train was able to see and to hear.

I couldn't agree more. Too bad you did just that: Misrepresent both her statements AND what she was able to see and to hear.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Lurkers, I'm sure you can see that it is futile to dispute the accuracy and the validity of the 4 witnesses captured in realtime, live at or about 8:50AM on 9/11. They are first hand witnesses, very near the scene and they describe nothing remotely consistent with a jetliner 1000ft above them at nearly 500mph being present.

In your, and yours alone, opinion. This has already been established as absolutely worthless as you cannot even tell a bus from a plane. An opinion is not evidence, doubly so when it is held only by a tiny minority (of one in this case)

That is a rock-solid fact and it is highly significant. A jetliner that low that fast would not have gone unnoticed had it been there. You know that and I know that.

Where is your proof of that? It was noticed by Naudet and the Firemen and at least two other eye witnesses. Near the WTC the sound of the plane would only reach people on the ground at about the same time the plane actually hit the building so by the time anyone looked up because of the the jet noise they had something much more scary to see. An exploding building. The fact that they saw the explosion and not the plane would be expected of ANYONE close to the WTC as unless they were looking up into the sky at the time there is no way they could react to any jet noise before it hit.

Let's do some justice to Our Lady from Path Train:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/pathlady.jpg?t=1272554370[/qimg]

Here's an approximation of what she said, in relevant part (it is not a full transcript, that is something we need):

6:57+/-: Dick Oliver: Did you see what happened? What happened?

Our Lady: Well, I was in the Path Train and there was a huge explosion sound. Everyone came out. A large section of the building had blown out around like at the 80th floor.

Right, she was in a train or perhaps the train station (both underground) and came out to see the hole (probably the exit hole).....how is she then a no plane witnesses when she could not have seen the plane to start with. I was in an office meeting on 911 in NC and I did not see the plane either...what does that prove???

Dick Oliver: Was it hit by something or was it inside.

He is no sure what happened and says just that.

Our Lady: It was inside because everything was coming out. All the windows were coming out all the papers...

She says "inside" because that where the fire etc were.....and if it was the south side or east or west side she saw then the "explosion" had come from the inside!

Dick Oliver: What was on the sidewalk?

Our Lady: I didn't see anything.

Unless she was on the south side of the building why should she see anything?....its a physics thing you know......
...

She says more and the full transcript should be posted and considered

Feel free.

Once again, this is a valid witness who negates and refutes the claim a widebody jetliiner hit the North Tower, pure and simple and some posters need to at least acknowledge that much. It would do you good to admit what needs to be admitted; namely, there are valid NO PLANE witnesses whose statements contradict the common storyline. Whether you still adhere to the common storyline is up to each person.

Absolute tripe. She saw no plane because she could not have seen the plane. She is not a witness of anything other than there was a loud bang and a large hole in the building. Not witnessing something does not necessarily make you a witness that it did not happen!

But, the point is to acknowledge what needs to be acknowledged. Posters here are too resistant and too defensive.

I am not the slightest bit resistant and defensive....you are just plain wrong and are quite possibly the most delusional person I have ever observed in a blog.

What, pray tell, are you afraid of? A little truth, maybe?

[/QUOTE]

Funny, thats the question everyone is asking YOU!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Rosa Cardona Rivera
„I'm at 99 Hudson Street and I was standing outside actually on the side of the building [14th floor] smoking a cigarette and I hear a plane and I don't usually see planes in this area, then all of a sudden I saw go right into the uhh to the WTC, to the building.“
„So you saw a plane crash into the side of the WTC?“
RCR: „Yes sir. … It was a big plane“

I had a look on Google earth and 99 Hudson Street is much closer to the flight line than either Naudet or Oliver. She was almost at the the top of the building and well above most street noise and with a clear view down to the WTC towers (about nine blocks away) to the south. If she was, as she said, smoking on the balcony, then there is no reason she would not have heard the plane, had time to acquire it visually and see it hit the building. Jammo can you prove she was lying? You must in order to make your story of no plane even remotely plausible. Eye witness evidence is not particularly reliable but its hard to mistake watching a plane flying into a Tower and her account was within minutes of it happening (she probably called in response to TV reports saying they did not know what had happened. She did know and called to tell them so just as I would have done in the same situation.

 

[I Ratant]

The Dick Oliver videos can be discarded in their entirety without altering the fact of the two plane impacts on the World Trade Center.
It's a lame pony begging for terminal release from the pain of this ignorant and insane brain fart.

 

[X]

Let's do some justice to Our Lady from Path Train:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/pathlady.jpg?t=1272554370[/qimg]

She's kinda cute. Therefore there was an airplane.

(Hey, it makes more sense than Jammonius' nonsense.)

BTW, what do you think she meant by
"[The event] was inside [the tower] because everything was coming out. All the windows were coming out all the papers... "
Can you think of a way in which an object impacting a structure from the outside can give the appearance of coming from the inside?

I'll give you a hint: What would it look like from the other side of the structure?

 

[TJM]

Wow. Just wow.

I went to work shortly after my last post, returning now to see jammonius still beating this dead horse and still trying to claim somebody who was underground as a no plane witness. Smacks of desparation, doesn't it lurkers?

 

[sylvan8798]

Perhaps posters and lurkers have missed this tidbit, whilst pondering whether the top of the WTC was visible from the underground train.

One cannot easily accredit the 4 witnesses who walked right up to a camera and a mic at Park Row, with the WTC ablaze in the immediate background, without at the same time discrediting Rosa and Sean.

So, lurkers, "no smoke, no fire and no debris" as per competent and reliable firefighter professionals, combined with the Dick Oliver video of no images and no sound and no witness reactions consistent with a jetliner, and what we have here is a strong base of evidence for the "no plane" claim as it relates to the North Tower.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=5774378&highlight=smoke+fire#post5774378

 

[CompusMentus]

Jam wants his bread buttered on both sides.

He cannot nefariously pick and choose segments of the output of this TV station for that morning. Either he trusts the output as a source or he doesn't.

Here's a short clip (HERE) that covers the relevant broadcast for 15 minutes right up to the impact of the second plane.

About 5 minutes from the end of the clip there is a phone interview with one Jim Friedl. This guy was across the river in Hoboken and saw the jet impacting the building. He gives an excellent account of what he witnessed only minutes before:-

Interviewer: Jim, tell us what you saw if you would.

Jim Friedl: Well, I was looking out the window and normally you'll see planes kind of flying low over the Hudson, but this was a large plane, something like a seven-twenty-seven and it was banking, the only reason I kind of looked at it is I thought it was rather low, banking very hard and then it just drove right through the world trade centre tower.

Interviewer: What's your vantage point there Jim?

Jim Friedl: I'm actually across the Hudson in Hoboken, but I have a clear view right at the world trade towers.

Interviewer: Now it did seem to you that it was done on purpose?

Jim Friedl: No, I don't know if I can say that, but it was very odd type of turn. It was headed directly, directly at the building so whether that was on purpose or not I can't tell. I don't know if he was trying to avoid or they were headed for it.

Interviewer: Describe that turn for us (?) particularly heavily banked.

Jim Friedl: It was pretty heavily banked, maybe forty-five degrees, again hard to tell it was kind of unremarkable because you do see planes fly through here, it was a large plane like a seven-twenty-seven and that's the only reason I kept looking, and you know it went right into the building I just thought it was going to follow the river and keep on going, but it didn't.

Interviewer: Now, after the plane struck the building from your vantage point it apparently went directly inside?

Jim Friedl: That's correct.

Interviewer: And if that's the case, my goodness.

Jim Friedl: Yeah, actually as the impact occured you could see debris flying out the other side.

Interviewer: So it apparently went right through the...we're looking at a live picture of the building right now Jim and (?) see that view of the nineteeth floor or so?

Jim Friedl: Yeah, again I can't tell if it went right through but certainly debris was shot out the other side of the building.

Interviewer: Did you hear anything when it took place? Did you hear the crash?

Jim Friedl: Yes I did. In terms of anything beforehand no, I mean I couldn't tell if the plane was in distress or anything like that but certainly when it hit there was a large explosion and again smoke and debris coming out the other side as well

Interviewer: Allright Jim, thank you very much. Been talking to Jim Friedl, eyewitness who witnessed the crash from Hoboken. Thank-you Jim very much for giving us what you saw and heard.....

Now unless it can be proven that Jim Friedl is lying I contend that man's story completely falsifies Jam's cretinous theory about that day.

Compus

 

[TJM]

<snip>

<snip>Compus

Fools.

Using the logic of jammonius (LOGJAM), I summarily dismiss both your rather vague claims, especially sylvan's, who is trying to play a rude game of Gotcha with him using his own words. Anyone can clearly see that when he wrote those posts he meant something else entirely and therefore are out of context and it was bloody rude of you to bring it up. I'll give you the opportunity to edit your post, as I've reported it.

And you Compus, are you going to try to tell me that somebody all the way accross the Hudson, somebody who wasn't even in the same state as jammonius' witness is going to trump somebody who was actually at the trade center?

That is rich.

When she exited the subway and got above ground she reported exactly what she saw, which was NO PLANE.

I'll give you 15 minutes after which time I expect a full retraction and an apology.

All the best.

 

[Oystein]

Fools.

Using the logic of jammonius (LOGJAM), ...

...
When she exited the subway and got above ground she reported exactly what she saw, which was NO PLANE.
...

Ok.
Ok!
I have to come clean.
I saw NO PLANE myself. Clear as day.

I was in my office in Cologne, Germany. Actually, customer premises, but we had a project office there. Around 2:55pm CET (8:55 ET), one of the two project assitants sent around an email that claimed a plane had crashed into WTC 1 - but frankly, from where we were, we did not hear a plane, and we did not see a plane. I repeat: NO PLANE!
I am pretty sure I heard no bus either, and definitely no subway train.
Which kinda - I don't know, I didn't know what it was, I only know we all saw NO PLANE. So it immediately struck me it had to be something that does not exist, and that I know absolutely nothing about, and then it struck me:

Of course! DEWs!


ETA: The project assistant's parents at the time worked for the German diplomatic corps in Kirgistan. Yeah, that Kirgistan, that's next to Caveman-country (Afghanistan)!
There uhhhhh must be a connection!! Somehow!!! 11!!!111eleventy!

ETA: PS: What does this 11!!!111eleventy! stuff mean???


[/LOGJAM]

 

[jammonius]

LOL!

That's where the path station is NOW. On 9/11, the path station was UNDERGROUND!

Even PLANE SPOTTING, true believers in the common storyline should have called you to task for the insipid, weak nature of the above comment.

Do better next time.

sheesh

 

[Oystein]

Even PLANE SPOTTING, true believers in the common storyline should have called you to task for the insipid, weak nature of the above comment.

Do better next time.

sheesh

Stundie! Stundie!!