That is a simple question, probably too simple to be a legitimate inquiry at this stage in the Dick Oliver discussion -- 50+ pages.
Look, your position in this discussion is well staked out as is mine. I have tried to say, many times, the issue is to neither over interpret nor under interpret what the witnesses are saying in real time.
Yes, the process of interpretation requires use of inference, of nuance, of balance and of a willingness to assume an objective stance, rather than one that is biased by the viewpoint we each bring to the discussion.
You know and I know that I am likely to interpret the information consistent with a NO PLANE interpretation and that you are likely to interpret anything and everything consistent with PLANE SPOTTING.
That much is a given, right?
So, the only thing we can really usefully assess is the degree to which our respective interpretations are reasonable and are consistent with fair interpretation.
I don't think you can fairly interpret what Jim Ryan later said, after he came under the influence of the PSYOP as changing or overriding what he said initially.
The question is simply whether what he said initially is more reliable than what he subsequently said. That is a question, it is not an answer.
Here's what I say, Lurkers:
The information Our Jim Ryan had 20 minutes later was thoroughly tainted by the psyop.
Oh, by the way, notice the clarity of the "live" image he had from Dick Oliver's vantage point versus the blurry, dim, dark and virtually illegible view he had from the network as seen one after the other:
Network:
Dick Oliver video:
That is a hugely exaggerated claim. You are showing no capacity at all for objectivity. There is no secret about what Dick Oliver said or about the order in timing in which he said it. You cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that Dick Oliver's statement that he "first thought he heard a plane" that, itself, is in fact contradicted by what he said at first, namely, "what the hell was that" and what he later said that he "didn't know what it was" and that in between time he went back and forth, actually concluding at one point that he thought the better interpretation was that it "came from inside."
There is no rational reason for you to do what you have done to Dick Oliver's statements. Typically, however, and Lurkers you can now see this plainly, everytime someone accuses me of something, they turn around and do it themselves.
What AJM has done here is clearly engage in cherry-picking.
This, too, is cherry-picking. At most one can say that Our Jim Oliver said contradictory things. The attack on the North Tower was a separate event from the attack on the South Tower. So, as a matter of logic, what he thought happened at the South Tower, namely that a shadow thingy plowed into it, doesn't have any logical thing to do with what happened at the North Tower that he had already explained, showed no visible evidence of a plane, all as he more exactly said as quoted elsewhere.
It is foolhardy to pretend that at least a few people viewing this won't notice the actual reality here.
You are fooling no one but yourself, AJM, along with those who want to be fooled.
The above is likewise dumb and foolhardy. Battalion Chief King was obviously relying on hearing and that is what his statement says.
The above is likewise dumb as it tries to portray what Our Lady PT said. She clearly described what she heard from her vantage point and then what she saw when she got outside.
It is improper to engage in what appears to be deliberate misstatement and misunderstanding of witness accounts.
Try for a little more objectivity, please. It won't hurt you to be a bit more honest with yourself.
Look, the fact of the matter is that there are witnesses who said they saw and heard things that go against the common storyline.
As I've said before: It's ok if people want to continue to believe in the common storyline, no matter what the witnesses said. But, that does not mean you have to engage in misconstruction of what the witnesses said in order to feel better about the common storyline.
Reality almost always has conflicting evidence to sort through.
Deal with it.
As I've said many times, all of us are hampered by the lack of an official and validly conducted investigation that provides a proper source of information.
As for us, we all do the best we can, right?
Last edited:
