There's still no balcony in the photo you posted.
Was Dick Oliver confused about what he heard on 9/11
- Thread starter DGM
- Start date
There's still no balcony in the photo you posted.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Jammonius is also a no-balconyer, just to move the discussion forward.
Are you trying to convince yourself of something? The above is nothing more than an argument with yourself that ignores the evidence that no widebody jetliners traveling at 500 and more mph at or less than 1000ft above Manhattan hit the Twin Towers on 9/11.
I will here re-introduce one of my candidates for the title of FIRST NO PLANER. I here refer to Battalion Chief Stephen King.
He kept his wits about him both during and after the event that he participated in as a high ranking first responder. His statement is among the best there is for demonstrating how one can keep calm and collected in a professional manner at the scene of an extreme emergency. He maintained professional discipline in his thought process about the event and his statement is testimentary to that fact.
When he gave his officially recorded statement on 11/21/01, he still was not sure any planes had hit the WTC and, to his enduring credit as a professional, he had the courage to say so, posters and lurkers, on the record. Stephen King is a remarkable person.
Please consider the following statement of Battalion Chief Stephen King who is a legitimate candidate for the title of First No planer:
Q. Were you aware of what happened, what the circumstances were?
A. No. I did not know.
Q. They didn't come over the radio with what had happened?
A. No. I've been tossing and turning with this for a long time. I don't believe that it was clear to me that it was an airplane at all. I certainly could see that I had a major event. I mean, it looked to me like there was fire on eight to twelve floors. I know in my own mind I thought it was some sort of an explosion, that to get something going that rapidly, you know, to cover that many floors, something dramatic had happened.
But I don't believe I understood at that point that it was a plane crash.
…
"…You could see right away that the magnitude of this event, though I never expected that a tower might
collapse -
Q. You never thought that?
A. No, I don't think I ever thought that. I know I didn't think that, not
understanding that it was an airliner full of fuel. It was so much easier watching on TV later and people telling there were so many thousands of gallons of fuel, et cetera.
When you hear all of that, you can start saying to yourself this building could fail. But, no, I don't believe I ever thought about that. I knew I had a very serious fire and I wasn't anticipating building failure at that point at all.
…
Q. Did you know there was any incident going on with the other tower at that point?
A. Oh, let me tell you. I guess I left that all out. Yes. At some point when I'm at the command post, I hear something about an aircraft has struck the other tower, the south tower. I'm at the command post at that point.
Q. You're in the north tower?
A. I'm in the north tower. I hear something about an aircraft just struck the south tower. And I don't know that a plane has hit the north tower.
Q. You still don't know that?
A. I still don't know that. I don't believe I know that. If I do, then I was in more shock than I thought. Even though I heard a plane struck the south tower, I mean, I didn't hear anything like an
S. KING
airliner. It was just I heard a plane struck the south
tower. I remember saying how is that possible? In my mind, I'm thinking it might be a news helicopter. I'm thinking that, you know, when we have an event like this in the city, how you get one of those helicopters in there very quickly. So, literally, although they said an aircraft, I'm thinking that maybe it's some idiot in a news helicopter circling, you know, filming this event in the north tower and somehow he plowed into the south tower. Or else, I'm saying to myself, if it isn't that, maybe it's -- I'm a pilot, by the way. I'm a commercial pilot for 30 years. I flew in the Navy.
Q. Fixed-wing pilot?
A. Fixed-wing. I've flown some helicopters. But fixed-wing. And I flew in the Navy.
But anyway, the other thing I'm thinking is what they call a VFR corridor that runs up the Hudson River right alongside the Twin Towers. It goes up the Hudson River. VFR, visual flight rule, private plane type, they can go up and down that as long as they stay under 1100 feet AGL, above ground level. So I'm saying to myself the other possibility is some light plane. But I'm never thinking airliner. I don't hear that at 19 S. KING
all. So I'm saying to myself we've got a major thing going on in the north tower, something struck the south tower, and I don't envision this as a terrific event going on in the south tower. Anyway, that early, that's not what I understand.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110208.PDF
The process of thinking and of matching one's sensory perception to what had been perceived is very evident in what Battalion Chief Stephen King testified to, irrespective of coming under the same pressure as everyone else did to conform to the common storyline.
Battalion Chief Stephen King is a person of historical signficance for the courage he displayed and for the actions he took and the statement he gave.
Lurkers out there who may have had similar experiences, please let Stephen King be a role model for you.
And, oh, by the way, would someone please ask Mark Roberts why he did not ever mention, let alone quote, Battalion Chief Stephen King???
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
What you leave out near the beginning of the interview
So much for King being a no planer
A new york times article? Do you even remember this quote of yours ?
And besides which, King was not even in Manhattan for the first impact. He was in a firehouse over in Brooklyn which was south east and beyond flight 11's flight path. And was inside the north tower near the command post when flight 175 hit the south tower. So he was never in a position to see either flight. You are trying to convince yourself that no planes existed by using the testimony of people who were in no position to see planes!
That's Rich!
Simply because Battalion Chief Stephen King was never in a position to see planes!
Last edited:
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
bolding mine.
I was afraid of this.
You do expect to have seen something akin to the following, don't you?
btw: That was a failed takeoff. Nobody died. And the plane certainly wasn't going 500 mph.
Could you possibly be more detached from reality? Seek help.
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
Somehow..i just knew you wouldn't answer.
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
jammonius: does it disturb you at all that in order to adhere to your fantasy, you have to say that thousands of people are lying (not just wrong, but intentionally, purposefully, lying) about what they saw and/or heard on 9/11? See, in MY universe, people can do their best to relate things as they remember or perceived them. They can be incorrect on some details and correct on others. It is entirely possible for me to believe that ALL the witnesses told what happened to them as best they could and that they were not lying. You, on the other hand, are forced to believe that many of them were just making it up, or were in on it, were paid, were part of the "psyop", were brainwashed, or some other nefarious thing.
What sounds more likely?
Cause I know what sounds more likely to me, and to every OTHER poster on this thread, besides you.
What sounds more likely?
Cause I know what sounds more likely to me, and to every OTHER poster on this thread, besides you.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Problem solved!
Folks! Lighten up! I figured out the solution to all our problems!!!
No one saw jammo's daddy do the shooby-doo upon jammo's mommy. No directed energy for sure.
In fact, plenty of witnesses (I can make up any number of names!) specifically said they saw NO LOVE-MAKING in jammo's parents' bed-room from their balcony 80 feet underground.
Since there were rabbits present in City Park, that's what they witnessed.
It follows, with deadly precision, that jammo wasn't conceived and born. All the smoke he seems to create isn't really smoke, it's a psy-op.
Do we have any other no-jammoniusers in da house?
Folks! Lighten up! I figured out the solution to all our problems!!!
No one saw jammo's daddy do the shooby-doo upon jammo's mommy. No directed energy for sure.
In fact, plenty of witnesses (I can make up any number of names!) specifically said they saw NO LOVE-MAKING in jammo's parents' bed-room from their balcony 80 feet underground.
Since there were rabbits present in City Park, that's what they witnessed.
It follows, with deadly precision, that jammo wasn't conceived and born. All the smoke he seems to create isn't really smoke, it's a psy-op.
Do we have any other no-jammoniusers in da house?
Jim Ryan is also a candidate for FIRST NO PLANER
Thank you for offering your excuse for why no jetliner could be seen inside and why no one could report hearing a jetliner, despite the fact that the common storyline of 9/11 mandates a Boeing 767 hauled-butt into the North Tower at 8:46AM at a height of 1000ft above street level @ close to 500mph.
As to that claim, we may, in addition to many other candidates, like Battalion Chief Stephen King, already quoted, consider Jim Ryan to be a candidate for Our First No Planer.
He could not really have been any calmer or clearer in making the following declaration, on air:
"...If that's the case, where's the plane, I would ask? I don't see it in that live picture..."
Kudos, then, to Our Jim Ryan:
Oh, one other thing, since Mark Roberts wanted us to take a look at official police reports from NYC from 9/11, how about Sgt. De Vona who was located outside of 5 WTC and who recognized he had to give an accurate statement and who said he heard an explosion.:
Posters, and especially Lurkers, isn't it about time the reality that on 9/11, there is no real evidence a widebody Boeing 767 jetliner hit the North Tower start to sink in?
Come on folks, the evidence is that an explosion occurred. That is what people are saying they saw, and especially heard, over and over and over again.
Thank you for offering your excuse for why no jetliner could be seen inside and why no one could report hearing a jetliner, despite the fact that the common storyline of 9/11 mandates a Boeing 767 hauled-butt into the North Tower at 8:46AM at a height of 1000ft above street level @ close to 500mph.
As to that claim, we may, in addition to many other candidates, like Battalion Chief Stephen King, already quoted, consider Jim Ryan to be a candidate for Our First No Planer.
He could not really have been any calmer or clearer in making the following declaration, on air:
"...If that's the case, where's the plane, I would ask? I don't see it in that live picture..."
Kudos, then, to Our Jim Ryan:
Oh, one other thing, since Mark Roberts wanted us to take a look at official police reports from NYC from 9/11, how about Sgt. De Vona who was located outside of 5 WTC and who recognized he had to give an accurate statement and who said he heard an explosion.:
Posters, and especially Lurkers, isn't it about time the reality that on 9/11, there is no real evidence a widebody Boeing 767 jetliner hit the North Tower start to sink in?
Come on folks, the evidence is that an explosion occurred. That is what people are saying they saw, and especially heard, over and over and over again.
You're capacity for reasoned discussion is slipping. The above is a simple-minded quibble that is devoid of any semblance of a capacity for proper contextualization. Who are you trying to fool, yourself, maybe?
Of course, one of the things that might hamper you is your reliance on Mark Roberts. His website is pathetic. Granted, he may have put in a lot of time on the matter, but his results are asinine.
Here's what I suggest. Mark Roberts references the following source of compiled police reports:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports01.pdf
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf
If you go through them, you will find that almost all who report having a sense impression of what happened at the WTC report explosions, not planes. Look at the reports themselves and you will see that the report of Sgt. DeVona, quoted above, is common and typical.
It must have been a bad evening for you. Your attempt at refutation was nothing more than an exercise in futility. You apparently have some catching up to do, sorry to say. DO BETTER next time.
The NYTimes is merely the publicly available source of the what are known and referred to as the 503 Task Force Witness Statements, which the NYTimes obtained via a FOIA request and then published. Those statements are valid, admissible evidence.
In my prior post referencing your cut and paste job from Mark Roberts' jingoistic website I clearly identified the 10 statements as being from the group of 503 First Responder statements:
"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."
It appears you have not really read Battalion Chief King's statement, let alone understood what sensory apparatus he was referencing for purposes of making his NO PLANE declaration. Permit me to suggest you DO OVER.
As to your query contained somewhere about witnesses to DEW, the answer is OF COURSE.
Go look up, for starters, the statement of PATRICIA ONDROVIC. I've quoted her in other threads and you can look her statement up yourself. As your posting has been slipping lately, I think the exercise will do you some good.
I will expect you to post up 10 DEW witnesses by, say, noon tomorrow. That is not a hard task I assure you.
Last edited:
Well, yeah, of course I'm not going to answer a post like the one you put up. I expect more substantive discussion with you Macgyver. I know it's the weekend, but that's no excuse for posting up questions that don't advance the discussion much.
The above adds nothing of substance to the discussion. You aren't engaging in any reasoning whatsoever.
Though longwinded, the one point you might be advancing is that of witness location. As is often the case with you, a claim made by you that some sort of logical fallacy is present is, in the event, almost always an indicator that you have either just committed or are about to commit that fallacy.
AWSMith, hear this:
You have nowhere shown any grasp whatsoever of the location of those witnesses who said they saw a plane.
The fact of the matter is that there is a strong and demonstrable correlation as follows:
The closer the witness was to the scene, the more likely the witness was to say they SAW AND HEARD AN EXPLOSION AND NOT A PLANE.
Consider, by way of example, David Handschuh, right underneath Tower 2 and Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory, West Street between Liberty and Albany.
Your plane spotters were, for the most part, in no position to see a plane. This includes the fantasy ones as well as the first responders. By "fantasy ones" I mean Cardona Rivera, Murtagh and Freidl. A search of the 503 Task Force responders will show that there are as more who reliably report no plane than there are who reliably report a plane. Many of those who say they saw or heard a plane use the word "plane" in describing the sound only of the explosion.
See prior post for your mission.
Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. AWSmith, are you seeking in the above speculation to provide an excuse as to why almost no one described accuratly hearing a Boeing 767 screaming along at, as you say, 806ft/sec. 1000ft above sea level?
If that is what you are doing, then you are deluding yourself. A widebody jet screaming along at that great rate of speed would have created an environmental nightmare that people where Dick Oliver was located, including Dick Oliver, would have noticed in no uncertain terms.
It is really a powerful testiment to the power of denial and of rationalization that after more than 50 pages of posts about the Dick Oliver videos, there are those who still do not grasp that the plain fact of the matter is that those videos show there was no environmental information in them consistent with the claim a widebody jetliner had crashed into the North Tower at 500mph. And, in addition to no enviromental information confirming that claim, the actual witnesses clearly said otherwise: ALL OF THEM, without exception.
The power of denial and of rationalization cannot permit you to continue on the path you are on. Get a grip.
Even if you insist on maintaining your allegiance to the common storyline, you will need to come up with either better arguments or simply admit that you are going to continue adherence to the common storyline, just because, and be done with it.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to foist meaningless arguments rooted in denial and in rationalization without being told that that is what you are doing.
That is what you are doing.
Thanks for explaining to posters a word I use that they might not be all that familiar with.
That statement requires acceptance of untested assumptions and would result in the incorporation of extremely misleading data. One example of the capacity to mislead consists in a failure to contextualize witness accounts to their location, all as discussed more fully above.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Ok, let me try to sum up the theory of jammonius (TOJ) as far as I can gather at this point:
- The towers were rigged with pyrotechnical show effects, including fake smoke and fake fire
- A zillion or so different video recordings (from all TV channels operating in NYC, and many private persons) capturing the first and second WTC event were manipulated, some in real-time (live broadcast from NYC), some after the events but before becoming public
- The USAF and NTSB faked radar data to make it appear like two civilian planes disappeared in NYC
- United and American Airlines conspired to keep a lid on the fact that they did not lose planes in NYC (and Arlington and Shanksville) that day
- The FAA faked conversations and other real-time data, covering communication with planes to make the claim that no planes were hitchhiked and rerouted towards NYC
- Miss Cardona Rivera lied
- Mr. Murtagh lied
- Mr. Oliver started lying after being psoped
- The entire world population, except jammonius, was psyoped
- DEWs did something
- Pictures with hubcaps were subjected to desinformation that made people believe they saw airplane parts
- an entire forensic investugation was faked that purported to have found and identified remains of planes and passengers at Ground Zero
- Jim Ryan was at the same instrumental in planting into the mind of Dick Oliver and TV viewers that a plane had hit the WTC, AND a no-planer
- Our Lady of the Path Train employed X-ray vision to see NO PLANE from a train 80 feet underground
Ok, that is all awfully convincing - but there are two things that I still don't get...
1. jammonius, what did you or anybody see or hear that convinces you that specifically DEWs were used (and how were they used?), and not, say, nanorobots that gnawed away the building, or divine force, or a super-secret nuclear thingie?
2. How did YOU escape the psyoping?
- The towers were rigged with pyrotechnical show effects, including fake smoke and fake fire
- A zillion or so different video recordings (from all TV channels operating in NYC, and many private persons) capturing the first and second WTC event were manipulated, some in real-time (live broadcast from NYC), some after the events but before becoming public
- The USAF and NTSB faked radar data to make it appear like two civilian planes disappeared in NYC
- United and American Airlines conspired to keep a lid on the fact that they did not lose planes in NYC (and Arlington and Shanksville) that day
- The FAA faked conversations and other real-time data, covering communication with planes to make the claim that no planes were hitchhiked and rerouted towards NYC
- Miss Cardona Rivera lied
- Mr. Murtagh lied
- Mr. Oliver started lying after being psoped
- The entire world population, except jammonius, was psyoped
- DEWs did something
- Pictures with hubcaps were subjected to desinformation that made people believe they saw airplane parts
- an entire forensic investugation was faked that purported to have found and identified remains of planes and passengers at Ground Zero
- Jim Ryan was at the same instrumental in planting into the mind of Dick Oliver and TV viewers that a plane had hit the WTC, AND a no-planer
- Our Lady of the Path Train employed X-ray vision to see NO PLANE from a train 80 feet underground
Ok, that is all awfully convincing - but there are two things that I still don't get...
1. jammonius, what did you or anybody see or hear that convinces you that specifically DEWs were used (and how were they used?), and not, say, nanorobots that gnawed away the building, or divine force, or a super-secret nuclear thingie?
2. How did YOU escape the psyoping?
Last edited:
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
Oystein said:
Well, it worked didn't it? She didn't see a plane, ergo she is a "no planer". In a remarkable coincidence, I also did not see a plane, from my perspective under the sheets in a bed in western new york.
Hey, Macgyver,
I've got a good idea. Here's how you can get back into the game of meaningful and helpful posts here.
Our AWSmith has posted the following:
"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."
For complete context see post# 297:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5889662&postcount=297
That's a rather dumb statement, I'm sure you'll agree, but let's see if we can turn that "]lemon of a post into lemonade, nonetheless.
As you know, the first Dick Oliver video contains a pronounced sound from the 0:18 mark onwards to the crash sound at 0:24, and afterwards, up to a squeak sound consistent with braking heard at 0:28. But, we won't need to address the buses seen in the video at this point.
The video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
Rather, the point of this drill is to take the value in feet that AWSmith has come up with for us and use that value for something worthwhile.
AWSmith claims a value of 806ft/sec.
Fine, now since we know the crash sound is at 0:24 and we know the noise sound begins at 0:18, we can use that to calculate the distance a presumed (for purposes of this exercise) Boeing 767 would have traveled prior to its presumed (for purposes of this exercise) crash into the North Tower.
That distance looks to be nearly 1 mile, correct?
So, in that distance and in that time, no one, and I mean no one in the Dick Oliver video, either seen walking or heard to say what they had experienced thought to mention the possibility of a widebody jetliner, or, indeed, a jet of any kind.
Not one persona, Macgyver.
What can you do to elaborate on this theme?
Thanks in advance for your reasonsed, rational and unbiased scientific discussion that I am sure will follow.
Key concept for consideration here might be: Dispassionate reasoning.
Give it a try, please.
And, Lurkers, you know what to do...
Last edited:
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Wow.
It seems in all your rantings and ravings, you completely forgot the question I posed.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I just had to quote this section of jammonius post for the benefit of anyone that has him on ignore. This has got to be the most disjointed attempt at science I've ever seen. It also says volumes about his thought process.
Thanks for the Sunday LOL jammonius!
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Posters / Lurkers
This is another stellar example of LOGJAM thinking. Here we have Jim Ryan, who is given nothing but a live shot from several blocks away of a smoldering gaping hole through a clearing. Of course he doesn't see an airplane. But was does Ryan say about it a just few minutes later, Hmmmmm?
Jim Ryan said:
What do we see here? A man putting together the pieces and coming to the correct conclusion.
What does someone like jammonius see? The beginning of the PSYOP taking hold.
So now, just for the record we have:
- Dick Oliver - Status of "no plane" argument: Destroyed. Said he heard an airplane.
- Jim Ryan - Status of "no plane" argument: Destroyed. See above quote.
- Battalion Chief King - Status of "no plane" argument: Destroyed. Was in fire house when first plane hit, was in WTC1 when second plane hit.
- Our Lady of the Subway -Status of "no plane" argument: Destroyed. Was in a PATH car, several stories underneath the World Trade Center when the first plane hit.
That's some witness list we have here, damned near convinced myself just typing this up.
Last edited: