The lengthy post to which this reponds is a simplistic and misleading excerpt from Mark Roberts' jingoistic, compilation website. Mark Roberts is considered to be the ObiWanKenobe of 9/11 debunkers.
Mark Roberts has an agenda and does not have objectivity and I will here demonstrate that he has no objectivity and is not, therefore, a reliable source for 9/11 information. He is, instead, a propaganda artist or propagandist.
Poisoning the well logical fallacy
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#well
First of all, one must consider that Mark Roberts does not quote or reference Dick Oliver, let alone Our Lady from the Path Train:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/pathlady.jpg?t=1272554370
Indeed, Lurkers, this is a very important point.
The Dick Oliver video contains the very best video footage of the hole in the North Tower. It is so good that anchor, Jim Ryan, is able to declare, in substance, and as quoted exactly elsewhere in this thread, that he sees
NO PLANE in that "
live shot."
Mark Roberts quotes neither Our Lady from the Path Train, nor any of the other witnesses who mention "
"bomb" or
"explosion." Indeed, not one witness walked right up to Dick Oliver's camera said "plane." Not one. And, there is no way to dodge, disguise or explain away that fact and maintain any objectivity.
It is an indisputable fact that those witnesses who said they witnessed a plane, did so. The physical evidence and matching testimony proves that. Those who were not in a position to witness a plane, whether they were 8 story's underground on a train during the impact. or under a canopy of trees in a park many blocks away on ground level. Are not significant to the claim that no planes were present. Therefore there is no need to mention the testimony of the aftermath witnesses when the subject is, WAS THERE A PLANE OR NOT. get it?
Let us examine Mark Roberts sources, one by one:
The first two sources from the stupidly long Mark Roberts excerpt that AWSmith has foisted upon us relies on the following sources that are compilations of some police reports. Now, police reports are "OK" as possible evidence, but, keep in mind, they are secondary. People call the police and they say things the police then write down in the reports. Still, they have some degree of reliability and are OK to refer to.
Here are the links for the first two sources relied on in the lengthy post:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf
As most of them are police reports, it was misleading for the poster to quote only those that refer to "a plane."
There are lots of reports in those two police report compilations that consist in about 200pages of police reports. Many of them refer only to an "explosion" or something other than a plane, let alone a jetliner.
For instance, in the one found right after the one that Mark Roberts quotes, we have this:
A memorandum from PO James E. Hall # 1529 to Lt. E. Gutch stating:
"On Sept. 11, 2001 the undersigned officer was assigned to the CVI unit. Also assigned that day was PO A. Niedermeyer #1537 and PO J. Rivero #1623. While conducting a bus inspection detail in the location of W 41st and 11th Ave. at approx. 0845, we received a radio transmission stating an explosion occurred at the location of the World Trade Center."
While Mark Roberts may quote some who say "plane" he omits any mention whatsoever of those that merely say "explosion". By doing that, Mark Roberts engages in mischaracterizing the actual evidence of what happened on 9/11.
Some of those reports are from actual police officers, WHO WITNESSED THE PLANES!!. how is it
"mischaracterizing" mentioningthe fact that some witnessed planes??
Indeed, are any of you Lurkers in the least bit perplexed, as yet, as to why Jim Freidl was seen on national teevee, but Our Lady from the Path Train was only shown on local teevee and, in fact, seconds after she gave her statement, which, itself, followed four others, as well as Dick Oliver's comments indicating he didn't know whether a plane hit or not, that excellent on the scene resource was totally blacked-out and not mentioned or picked up. Instead, we were then given Rosa Cardona Rivera and Sean Murtagh, as if Our Lady from the Path Train and Our Man with Baby Girl and David Stollick, to name some, didn't exist or matter.
It doesn't matter because they were not in a position to witness the plane impacts.
The coverage on the day of 9/11 was, then, demonstrably edited and biasede. So, too, the Mark Roberts website is likewise biased.
Biased in favor of the reality of the events that day. not your deluded mentally ill fantasy.
The sources that he, himself, relied on, contain just as many accounts that support the NO PLANE claim and/or contradict the issue of PLANE SPOTTING as otherwise, yet Mark Roberts does not let you know that.
The testimony of those not in a position to see a plane does not contradict those who in fact did see a plane. And does not support a no plane fantasy.
Hand wave noted, Yet you rely on the video of a newscast which you yourself claim was edited. Are you aware of the fallacy you are engaging in?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#special
The next group of sources compiled by Mark Roberts and copied and pasted by AWSmith in an attempt to fool Lurkers into thinking AWSmith had posted up a lot of witnesses to the claim a jetliner hit the North Tower is a group of 10 out of the 503 First Responders.
To be sure, that grouping of 503 First Responders is a proper source. Indeed, I am the one who has indicated that there are those within that group who said they saw a plane.
However, there are also those in that group who said they saw NO PLANE.
Mark Roberts nowhere mentions that there are about as many people within the 503 First Responders who said they either saw and heard NO PLANE or saw a missile or a small plane or something other than a jetliner.
Mark Roberts does not do an objective assessment of those 503 First Responder statements by any means.
Furthermore, what is even more glaring, perhaps, is that if you look at even that group of 10 that was included in the long quote posted by AWSmith, you will find that among them, while some may have seemingly said they saw the first plane, their locations were not ideal, in all instances, for such spotting; and, many of them were in a position to then see the second plane, if it had been there, and those self-same witnesses who Mark Roberts relies on to say a plane hit the North Tower, then turn around and say they SAW NO SUCH THING HAPPEN AT THE SOUTH TOWER, EVEN THOUGH, BY THEN, THEY WERE ON THE SCENE!
Again,
special pleading logical fallacy, You dismiss those who witness a plane on the basis of less than ideal locations, Yet you want us to accept without question the testimony of a lady on a train 8 story's below ground?
Let's go through the list of the 10 that come from the group of official statements from the 503 First Responders:
FDNY firefighter Kenneth Escofferey, Ladder 20 -- He does not actually say he saw he saw plane hit the North Tower, he makes the inference that it did. And, as to the second attack, he says only that he heard a loud explosion and does not indicate he thought a jetliner was involved.
Mark Roberts does not tell you that, Lurkers.
FDNY firefighter George Kozlowski -- His statement is one of many that has a redaction, that is to say, some part of it 'blacked-out' so that we do not know what all he actually said. Furthermore, part of his statment is very supportive of the claim the towers were destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).
Do you have any witnesses who claim they saw a directed energy beam? Or what
they describe as phenomena consistent with DEW?
FDNY lieutenant Robert Larocco -- This person does not say he saw plane hit
FDNY Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer -- We have elsewhere discussed Pfeifer. I rely on him as a witness.
FDNY lieutenant William Walsh -- We have elsewhere discussed Walsh. I rely on him as a witness.
FDNY firefighter Thomas Spinard -- Ditto.
FDNY EMT Alexander Loutsky -- While this person may have said things supportive of the claim a plane hit the North Tower, he is one who, after actually then arriving on the scene, does not see or hear a plane hit the South Tower.
Here's what he actually said:
"AROUND THAT TIME DIDNT AT THE TIME REALIZE IT BUT FROM WHERE WE WERE AT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON THE WEST SIDE HIGHWAY AREA THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AND LOT OF DEBRIS STARTED COMING DOWN APPARENTLY THAT WAS THE SECOND PLANE THAT HIT"
FDNY EMT Ralph "Hank" Ramos -- Here's another one that saw NO PLANE hit the South Tower:
"We went down West Street and parked at West
and Liberty. There was -- Lieutenant D'Avila was
there. There were several other units already on the
scene and there was a wave of people running out of the
building, running towards us. Stopped like about maybe
4 people, put them into our vehicle and I was treating
them and in the process of doing that, the second plane
hit right over top of us and all the debris started
falling down on top of us."
Note that language: He never stopped doing what he was doing and obviously was just as oblivious to a jetliner being 800ft above his head at 550mph as Dick Oliver was oblivious to a jetliner being 1000ft at 500mph above him.
The witnesses are, indeed, hugely consistent about not having the foggiest clue a jetliner at an earsplitting 140dB was right above them.
The speed of sound at sea level is 1116.43 feet per second. For a plane traveling at 806 feet per second it is understandable that by the time they heard the plane from the street level and looked directly up. the plane debris would have been exiting the other side of the building. Can you grasp that? Their attention would be drawn to a jet engine sound that to them would seem to be coming from 1116 feet behind the aircraft assuming they were 1116 feet below it.
The descriptions from on-the-scene people is consistent only with an explosion and not with a jetliner being present. We are seeing this with utter and complete consistency, posters and lurkers.
FDNY EMT Marc Cohen -- Here's what this person actually said that is nowhere given by Mark Roberts or AWSmith:
"IF YOUD START WITH WHERE YOU WERE AT THE
TIME OF THE FIRST IMPACT THE FIRST PLANE
MY PARTNER AND KENNY DAVIS WHO IS ALSO
PARAMEDIC HERE AT EMS BATTALION 22 WE WERE IN THE
CITY PROBABLY ABOUT 700 OCLOCK THAT WAS THE
PRIMARY ELECTION DAY AND WE WERE PLANNING TO WORK FOR
MARK GREEN HIS CAMPAIGN WE WERE ON THE 59TH STREET
BRIDGE WHEN OUT OF THE CORNER OF OUR EYE WE SAW THE
FIRST PLANE HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOOKING SOUTH
FROM THE 59TH STREET BRIDGE WE NOTICED THE SMOKE"
That is nowhere near a convincing statement that the witness actually saw a plane hit the North Tower. He actually saw the smoke. That is what he can be said actually to have seen from that far away.
FDNY EMT Kenneth Davis -- Here's what he actually had to say:
"As we were driving over the 59th Street
bridge, just looking out the window, we saw a plane hit
the World Trade Center, what we thought was a plane,
and out of disbelief, I was like did anybody else just
see that? They're like what? I said a plane just hit
the Trade Center. Everybody was like, oh, yeah,
right. When they looked, you could see the flames and
the smoke starting and they're like, wow, it must have
been one of the little planes. I said, no, it looked
like a jet."
Needless to say, his statement is obviously tentative.
The last sources given to us by Mark Roberts as foisted on us by AWSmith is from some jingoistic book and some youtube video:
You keep using that word for its buzz effect. Yet it is perfectly clear you do not know what it means. Let me take off that dunce cap of yours and attempt to pour a little knowledge into that clouded deluded tiny pointed head of yours
Main Entry:
jin·go·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈjiŋ-(ˌ)gō-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date: 1878
: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn "102 minutes, The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers." Henry Holt &Co. New York.; 2005.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...tc1-strike.avi
Posters and Lurkers, you now have an objective assessment of what happened at the North Tower on 9/11. There was an explosion. That is the only thing that the witnesses are actually agreeing on.
The witnesses who saw a plane to this day agree that aircraft impacted the world trade towers, Can we agree on that?
