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

[sheeplesnshills]

Well, if the issue were simply that of convincing you of the accuracy of something I say, then discussion would be a fruitless waste of time.

If you are not trying to convince us or lurkers why bother? You have utterly failed to do either so far.

But, I am not trying to convince you of anything. Rather, I am only suggesting you consider the information posted and try not to either over interpret it or under interpret it.

We have considered it and it does not make the remotest sense. We are apparently unanimous in thinking it makes no sense.

I'm not trying to change your mind about what happened on 9/11. That is impossible, absent your own willingness to examine the matter.

What have we not examined? You post, we look at it, fall about laughing, then post reply pointing out why you are mistaken.

At this late date, it is not likely that we'll ever be able to get beyond the Lapman approach that disputes everything I post and every interpretation of information I offer, no matter what, 100%, fail not. That is likely to continue.

It will only continue so long as you continue to be 100% wrong.

The pattern here is well established;

1--I post factual information, usually from reliable sources, admissible as evidence, and I interpret the information.

2--Others dispute my interpretation of the information I interpret.

3--Once in awhile a poster here will post up a screen shot from Mark Roberts or some other debunking site and make proclamations about it.

4--I will then show that the debunkers source their claims to unreliable sources, relying on inadmissible evidence.

5--Repeat 1-4

No. You post stupid assertions, we point out how they are wrong, you modify assertions a little, we point out how you are wrong etc etc etc ad nauseum.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"Now let's treat Sean Murtagh just the same and listen closely to his testimony:
"MURTAGH: I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be cruising at slightly lower-than-normal altitude over New York City, and it appears to have crashed into -- I don't know which tower it is -- but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade Center towers.

LIN: Sean, what kind of plane was it? Was it a small plane, a jet?

MURTAGH: It was a jet. It looked like a two-engine jet, maybe a 737.

LIN: You are talking about a large passenger commercial jet.

MURTAGH: A large passenger commercial jet.

LIN: Where were you when you saw this?

MURTAGH: I am on the 21st floor of 5 Penn Plaza."

5 Penn Plaza (its right next to Penn Station and the Post office building) is close to the flight path of the 1st plane and 2.85 Mile from the WTC. Plenty of time for someone on the 21st floor to hear the jet and/or acquire it visually and follow it down to the WTC. There are no taller buildings in between to obstruct the view and on a clear day (and 9/11 was exceptionally clear he could easily see the plane and the WTC quite clearly. I have seen the WTC debris burning from that distance (from atop the Empire State building) on a cloudy day so he would have had no problems on 911. Unless Jammonius can prove that he is lying..........

 

[BigAl]

Ah!
1. Was Our Lady of the Path Train in a position to see a plane? Was she in a position to hear the plane? (My answers: No and no - she was 80 feet underground in a noisy place)

I expect she heard the impact of the plane transmitted through the structure.

 

[jammonius]

Ah!
1. Was Our Lady of the Path Train in a position to see a plane? Was she in a position to hear the plane? (My answers: No and no - she was 80 feet underground in a noisy place)

Your answers over interpret and exhibit a bias against this particular witness. As she did not claim she saw a plane, it is nothing but a gratuitous attack upon her to attach a query about whether or not she saw a plane. Our Lady PT did not claim she saw a plane, so your query in that respect, and your need to find a negative answer is simplya bogus attack by someone who shows an utter inability to treat witnesses with respect and to accept what they say.

You then go even further into the land of gratuitous attack on a witness by discounting what she heard. In this instance you do so by attacking her directly as she did use words indicating she heard an explosion sound. So you are attacking her.

You continue the attack by assuming she was 80 feet below ground, or as far away as she could possibly be. You do that despite the fact that at about 8:51 she was able to reach Park Row and appear in front of Dick Oliver's camera. So, on the basis of the objective information, while she may have said she was "on the Path Train" it is quite possible she was already out of the train and either at or near the ground level when she heard the "explosion sound" and when "everybody came out."

Your attack on Our Lady PT is weak.

That weakness on your part transfers over to the common storyline, itself. You simply cannot accept that there are people who made statements that contradict the common storyline, which simply means you have no confidence in the common storyline. You simply still do not grasp that when you go way over the top to attack a NO PLANE witness and then turn around, as we shall presently see, and bend over backwards to accredit a PLANE SPOTTER witness, you are showing a weakness, not a strength. You are cracking.

2. Was Sean Murtagh in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: See yes, hear possibly not)

The above shows your bias. With Sean Murtagh, it is only "possible" that he couldn't hear, according to you; even though there was no sound of any such thing in the Dick Oliver video and no one who came up to the mic in the Dick Oliver video mention a jet sound as even a possibility.

There is more that is wrong with Sean Murtagh as a witness. First of all, he was a phone witness, so we do not know where he was with the same degree of accuracy that we have for Our Lady PT and everyone else seen and heard in the Dick Oliver video. Those witnesses were on the scene, with "scene" being on Park Row.

We see them on camera or hear them through the local microphone.

Sean Murtagh called in, got through, while goodness knows who else was trying to get through, only to get edited out, as opposed to edited in.

With Dick Oliver, it was first come first to be served. He asked all who passed by him. The network did no such thing. The network filtered who got on air. And, as to Sean Murtagh, he used a word not used in ordinary speech to describe what people have seen. He said, according to you "I witnessed..." That is not the way most people speak. Indeed, he and Jim Friedl both used that expression, something that smacks of contrivance.

Your ability to be objective simply does not exist and your ability to be analytical is decidedly biased.

3. Was Dick Oliver in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: See no, hear yes)

4. Was the camera man in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: See no, hear yes)

Your answers are incomplete. Neither of them said they thought they heard a plane, with any degree of certainty and neither even mention the possibility of a jet, but you do not say that.

5. Was the man with the girl in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: See we don't know because we don't know where he was, hear yes)

Since we have Our Lady PT pictured, I suppose the thread needs also to have a picture of Our Man with Baby Girl:

Interesting person is seen walking through in the background. I don't knwo why, but for some reason, I think that guy had some sort of role in the matter. Again, don't ask me why, I am here just going with a gut instinct, posters.

Back to Our Man with Baby Girl, Oystein, you do not accredit what he actually said about what he saw. He said he saw a bomb. He did not say he saw a plane.

6. Was Rosa Cardona Rivera in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: Yes to both)

Rosa was yet another "call in" witness for whom we do not have verifiable information as to her location. She, too, is a witness who was a part of the editing process, someone who was allowed to get through and whose statement plainly contradicts that of the on the scene, unfiltered, unedited witnesses. Rosa is a weak witness.

7. Was "hun" in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: We don't know, since we don't know who she is and where she was)

Since I don't play gotcha, I will here simply ask you whether you think you ought to edit your statement so as to remove the above? If you do not do that, then you will be seen to have applied one standard of objectivity to "Hun" and a different, more lenient one to Sean Murtagh and to Rosa Cardona Rivera because we do not know who they are or where they were either. As to all three, the only thing we have is the audio of their statements.

Furthermore, as to Sean and Rosa, we know that editorial decisions were involved in letting them on the air to the exclusion of others.

Since most people who were unfiltered and who called the police said "explosion" and not "plane" we can see right here that the NO PLANE claim is supported by the stronger evidence.

So, please edit your statement so as to bring your thought process into a state of consistency.

8. Was Jim Ryan in a position to see a plane? Was he in a position to hear a plane? (My answers: no to both, he was inside a TV studio at an unknown location away from the WTC)

That is a dumb statement as it has nothing whatever to do with what Jim Ryan said. Jim Ryan based his assessment on a live shot from Dick Oliver's camera to say there was no evidence of a plane crash into the North Tower. That was his statement using the information available to him.

Did I forget anybody? Please add.

I'd say you forgot those in the Dick Oliver video who didn't flinch until the crash sound and Our Lady in Blue. They, too, are witnesses who we can assess based on their reactions to the environment they were in. They clearly do not react as if a jetliner is 1000ft up @ 500mph.

So we have no more than 2 witnesses on record who were in a position to see a plane, and here is what they saw, pertaining to the plane or no-plane event:
2. Sean Murtagh: "I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be cruising at slightly lower-than-normal altitude over New York City, and it appears to have crashed into -- I don't know which tower it is -- but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade Center towers. ... It was a jet. It looked like a two-engine jet, maybe a 737. A large passenger commercial jet. Yes, it did [appear that the plane was having any difficulty flying]. It was teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip, and it looks like it crashed into, probably, 20 stories from the top of the World Trade Center, maybe the 80th to 85th floor. ... It looks like it has embedded in the building. ... The plane just was coming in low, and the wingtips tilted back and forth, and it flattened out. It looks like it hit at a slight angle into the World Trade Center."
6. Rosa Cardona Rivera: "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." [CNN: "So you saw a plane crash into the side of the WTC?"] RCR: "Yes sir. … It was a big plane"

Nope, the above is false. You know, at least in theory, that neither Sean nor Rosa are valid witnesses because you knew, when it came to a NO PLANE witness, namely, "Hun," that since she was not seen and only heard, you had no real idea as to who she was or where she was, even though she was heard on Dick Oliver's mic.

While I think it is reasonable to infer she was at Park Row, I have to admit that is only an inference because she is not seen.

And so it is with Sean and Rosa.

No let's see what the people who were in a position to hear a plane report about what they actually heard pertaining to the moments just before the explosion:
3. Dick Oliver: "...we did hear of what sounded like, uh, sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom ... And I did hear some kind of a screech or some kind of a wail before a tremendous boom so uhhh I first thought it was a plane"

Do you want to edit your statement to include what Dick Oliver actually said, or do you want to be seen as engaging in improper posting?

4. camera man: "Sounded like a plane crash"

Do you want to edit your statement to include what David Stollick actually said, or do you want to be seen as engaging in improper posting?

6. Rosa Cardona Rivera: "I was standing outside actually on the side of the building [on the 14th floor] smoking a cigarette and I hear a plane"

Rosa is in the same category as Sean and Hun, so please edit her out accordingly.

Granted, there were a couple of other persons who were potentially in a postion to hear something, but they weren't asked properly:
5. man with the girl: He was only asked what he saw, but not, if he was in a position to see. He hints on sounds, but that's inconclusive
7. "hun": Asked to report what she heard she says "Sounded like a bomb", and that is all she gets to say. Again, this is inconclusive.

You are being hyper critical of NO PLANE witnesses and not at all critical of PLANE SPOTTERS. Once again, who are you trying to convince, yourself?

Most witnesses report the crash sound we all know from our first video. It is variously described as "Incredible explosion, very very loud", "just an explosion" (camera man), "Sounded like a bomb" (hun), "a tremendous boom" (Dick Oliver), "like bamm ... that was the bomb [or boom?]" (man with girl), "a huge explosion sound" (OLPT), and I believe Mrs. Rivera also mentioned some boom.

What took you so long to admit most witnesses report an "explosion"? And, even after admitting that, why do you waffle so much about it?

You have to appreciate the fact that a large passenger plane, at travelling speed, smashing into a building, would indeed create an enormous crash sound very much reminiscent of any huge explosion, bomb, crash or whatever. it would be very much louder than a plane just flying at that speed, and would reasonably be the thing that impresses most listeners the most. It is therefore expected that any ear-witness to a plane crash would report a "huge explosion sound" or something similar.

You are engaging in rationalization and denial in the above. You haven't even accounted for the sound a jet makes, for the wake vortex or the overwhelming assault on the environment a widebody jet, at 1000ft above the street at close to 500mph would create. That is something that people would respond to and mention, had it occurred.

In the two Dick Oliver videos, we see very clearly that no such event took place. There was no widebody jetliner involved in causing the explosion at the North Tower.

We are fortunate to have the two Dick Oliver videos that escaped censorship and survived into the public domain.

Hence, everybody doing so is in line with the plane theory.
We do not know what a DEW or pyrotechnical display would sound like, since jammonius has failed to spell out any such theory in sufficient detail, but maybe such a scenario would yield similar observations of explosion sounds.

That is a false statement, pure and simple, for all the reasons mentioned in this reply.

To sum up:
- everybody who we know was in a postion to see a plane DID see a plane
- several of those who were in a position to hear a plane, DID report hearing something they thought was a plane, or, in one instance, a plane crash
- Those who were in a position to hear a plane, but do not mention hearing a plane, were not given the opportunity to elaborate - they just had time to report the much more impressive explosion. Their not mentioning specifically hearing a plane is therefore not conclusive of "no plane".


All the videos we discussed, and the witness testimonies therein, can be explained with the plane-theory without adding any assumptions
The no-plane-theory, on the other hand, need additional unproven assumptions in order to be reconciled with the testimonies given.

That summary is utterly inconsistent with what is seen and heard in the two Dick Oliver videos.

 

[Bell]

 

[carlitos]

 

[EventHorizon]

Does jammonius actually think that a jet crashing into a building wouldn't explode? What does he think, it'll pierce it and go straight through?

 

[I Ratant]

Jammy ain't gonna stop until he's pulled all of the quills from the porcupine with his face.

 

[carlitos]

Does jammonius actually think that a jet crashing into a building wouldn't explode? What does he think, it'll pierce it and go straight through?

I think it was another topic, but he did once post a picture of the World Trade Center tower with a "Road Runner" silhouette on the side. So it's possible.

 

[jammonius]

I expect she heard the impact of the plane transmitted through the structure.

Hey BigAl, I hope you know that by some small measure, what you posted above is ever so mildly supportive of my interpretation of OUR Lady PT. Is everything alright, BigAl?

There is also something else about the above post, BigAl. I don't quite know why, but I think you've "got cards you ain't showin" by which I mean I think you know people who saw and heard things in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and that what they saw and heard is consistent only with there having been "an explosion."

And, by the way, now that we're onto a new page, it's time for a shout out to Lurkers:

SHOUT OUT TO LURKERS. POST UP!

 

[dafydd]

Hey BigAl, I hope you know that by some small measure, what you posted above is ever so mildly supportive of my interpretation of OUR Lady PT. Is everything alright, BigAl?

There is also something else about the above post, BigAl. I don't quite know why, but I think you've "got cards you ain't showin" by which I mean I think you know people who saw and heard things in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and that what they saw and heard is consistent only with there having been "an explosion."

And, by the way, now that we're onto a new page, it's time for a shout out to Lurkers:

SHOUT OUT TO LURKERS. POST UP!

Ah,you haven't had private messages of support from lurkers.I thought so.Your post reeks of desperation.

 

[carlitos]

The issue is only and ever to honestly and accurately interpret what people have said.

Indeed.

Our Lady PT said there was an explosion a huge explosion SOUND.

See what you did there?

Witnesses say what witnesses say. All we can do is interpret them.

Indeed.

The only other poster I saw anywhere that thought he had a sympathetic audience of lurkers, and actually appealed to them, was now-defunct SteveAustin. Classic examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect^WP.

 

[DGM]

There is also something else about the above post, BigAl. I don't quite know why, but I think you've "got cards you ain't showin" by which I mean I think you know people who saw and heard things in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and that what they saw and heard is consistent only with there having been "an explosion."

Let me guess, When he says he doesn't know anyone it will soon be proof that he's covering them up.

 

[Oystein]

Your answers over interpret and exhibit a bias against this particular witness. ... blah blah blah Your attack on Our Lady PT is weak. ... blah blah blah ... You simply cannot accept that there are people who made statements that contradict the common storyline, which simply means you have no confidence in the common storyline. You simply still do not grasp that when you go way over the top to attack a NO PLANE witness and then turn around, as we shall presently see, and bend over backwards to accredit a PLANE SPOTTER witness, you are showing a weakness, not a strength. You are cracking.

So much word salad, only to show you do not understand what I wrote and what I responded to.

You had said that you quoted witnesses who were in a position to see or hear a plane - and I just checked which witnesses these were.
I have not at all "attacked" any witness - I just analysed what we knew about their position. For example, Our Lady PT - saying that she was not in a position to see or hear a plane is not at all an attack - to the contrary: I take her statements fully serious and acknowledge, without minimizing or doubting anything, that she was "in the Path train" and heard an "explosion sound". When you insinuate that she is a witness for "no-plane", then clearly it is you who attacks her testimony, for you imply that she means things she didn't say.
Also, it is not I but you who attacks eyewitnesses by arbitrarily claiming some witnesses are less reliable than others.
You say that we should not believe Mrs. Rivera or Mr. Murtagh when they tell us where they were around the moment when the explosion happened - but for some reason you seem to trust OLPT when she states where she was - how can you know if she is right? She was interviewed several minutes and a few blocks away from the event. Why do you suppose she told the truth, and why do you suppose we can't trust others?

The above shows your bias. With Sean Murtagh, it is only "possible" that he couldn't hear, according to you; even though there was no sound of any such thing in the Dick Oliver video and no one who came up to the mic in the Dick Oliver video mention a jet sound as even a possibility.

Huh? What on earth are you responding to? Reading comprehension, any?
I was still just assessing if, as you put it, this witness Murtagh "was in a position to see or hear a plane", and, contrary to your approach, I let his testimony stand or fall on its own merits! Why don't you?

There is more that is wrong with Sean Murtagh as a witness. First of all, he was a phone witness, so we do not know where he was with the same degree of accuracy that we have for Our Lady PT and everyone else seen and heard in the Dick Oliver video. Those witnesses were on the scene, with "scene" being on Park Row.

Again, your verdicts are entitely arbitrary. Our Lady PT claims she was not on Park Row at all when the event in questiin took place. Rather she claims she was 80 feet underground. I take her testimony as is - as I take any other. Realizing they could all be liars, but that is not for me to decide!

With Dick Oliver, it was first come first to be served. He asked all who passed by him.

All? How many did he ask, how many passed him? You can't be serious!

as to Sean Murtagh, he used a word not used in ordinary speech to describe what people have seen. He said, according to you "I witnessed..." That is not the way most people speak. Indeed, he and Jim Friedl both used that expression, something that smacks of contrivance.

Crap. Murtagh is a news media person and an educated man. "To witness" is most ceratinly within his active vocabulary, and entirely applicable.

Your ability to be objective simply does not exist and your ability to be analytical is decidedly biased.

Right back at ya. Difference between me and you is: No one has caught me lying yet.

Your answers are incomplete. Neither of them said they thought they heard a plane, with any degree of certainty and neither even mention the possibility of a jet, but you do not say that.

Both state clearly what they heard: Sounded like a plane crash; sounded like an airplane; I first thought it was an airplane
If this is not hinting at the possibility of an airplane, I don't know what is.
However, it is indeed a fact that no one even uses the word bus, much less describe any sound as that of a bus, and yet you want us to believe they maybe heard a bus? Silly silly silly...

Interesting person is seen walking through in the background. I don't knwo why, but for some reason, I think that guy had some sort of role in the matter. Again, don't ask me why, I am here just going with a gut instinct, posters.

This is an amazin piece of gut droppings.

Back to Our Man with Baby Girl, Oystein, you do not accredit what he actually said about what he saw. He said he saw a bomb. He did not say he saw a plane.

I never claimed he said he saw a plane. Which would be irrelevant anyway as we have no idea where he was several minutes before the interview, so we cannot assess if he was "in a position ti see or hear a plane". Apparently, he observed something associated with a bomb-like "baaam", and twice agrees that it hit the tower from the outside - but these words are more put into his mouth by Dick Oliver than uttered by himself; and since, as I said, we have not the slightest idea what position he was in as witness, there really isn't much we can get out of his statements one way or the other.

Rosa was yet another "call in" witness for whom we do not have verifiable information as to her location.

Which is more than we can say about the man with the girl, and about as much as we can say about Our Lady PT. It is your arbitrary choice to attack one set of witnesses (those who clearly contradict your delusion) and not the other set (those whose statements would support both theories).

She, too, is a witness who was a part of the editing process, someone who was allowed to get through and whose statement plainly contradicts that of the on the scene, unfiltered, unedited witnesses. Rosa is a weak witness.

You introduce unproven assumptions.

Since I don't play gotcha, I will here simply ask you whether you think you ought to edit your statement so as to remove the above? If you do not do that, then you will be seen to have applied one standard of objectivity to "Hun" and a different, more lenient one to Sean Murtagh and to Rosa Cardona Rivera because we do not know who they are or where they were either. As to all three, the only thing we have is the audio of their statements.

Yes, and the obvious and relevant difference is that Murtagh and Rivera (and OLPT) clearly state where they were at the relevant moment - so we can use that information and let it stand or fall on its own merit - whereas we don't even have such information about "hun". Again, to remind you, I was merely trying to assess which of the witnesses were in a position to see or hear a plane, using the information that we have. You would be forced to admit that we do in fact have NO information about the position of "hun", while we DO have information about Murtagh, Rivera and OLPT from their own testimony. You may not play along my game of gotcha, but I gotcha nonetheless.

That is a dumb statement as it has nothing whatever to do with what Jim Ryan said. Jim Ryan based his assessment on a live shot from Dick Oliver's camera to say there was no evidence of a plane crash into the North Tower. That was his statement using the information available to him.

You are again missing the point of my analysis: Were our witnesses in a position just prior to the explosion to witness a plane if there had been a plane? We have no reason to assume that Ryan was watching the live feed from Oliver's camera during the commercial break - you know, the scene of our initial 1:16 video. Ryan did not witness anything that we can't look at ourselves today, so his interpretation of TV footage is of no additional value.

I'd say you forgot those in the Dick Oliver video who didn't flinch until the crash sound and Our Lady in Blue. They, too, are witnesses who we can assess based on their reactions to the environment they were in. They clearly do not react as if a jetliner is 1000ft up @ 500mph.

You have been made aware plenty of times that this supposed argument is no valid argument until you have shown all assumptions and work of an analysis that results in an expected noise pressure level for the plane fly-by scenario.
Please do that analysis, and do not repeat this non-argument any further until you have presented your results.

Nope, the above is false. You know, at least in theory, that neither Sean nor Rosa are valid witnesses because you knew, when it came to a NO PLANE witness, namely, "Hun," that since she was not seen and only heard, you had no real idea as to who she was or where she was, even though she was heard on Dick Oliver's mic.

While I think it is reasonable to infer she was at Park Row, I have to admit that is only an inference because she is not seen.

"Hun" was on Oliver's at least 2 minutes after the event we are discussing. While I do agree that she was probably at or near Park Row during the event, we are in no position to assess her ability to see or hear a plane. Maybe she had just arrived by the bus whose breaks we heard squeeking seconds after the explosion? When you are riding a bus, it is easy to miss loud noises outside, and just as easy not to see events 1000ft up in the air. She is really of no value to us.

And so it is with Sean and Rosa.

Unless you assume, without evidence, and with total DISrespect, that they are both liars and complicit in mass murder, then it is NOT so with Sean and Rosa: We DO know their relevant position as per the informtaion that we can objectively gather from the videos.

Do you want to edit your statement to include what Dick Oliver actually said, or do you want to be seen as engaging in improper posting?

So what else did Oliver say about what he HEARD just prior to the explosion - at the time when we postulate a plane should have been audibly in the air above lower Manhattan?

Do you want to edit your statement to include what David Stollick actually said, or do you want to be seen as engaging in improper posting?

"Was just an explosion"? That is what you like to improperly post, sometimes ignoring the fact that he also said "sounded like a plane crash". Why don't we let his testimony stand and fall on its own merit, and agree that he heard an explosion that sounded to him like a plane crash? Nothing in these statements implies that he did NOT hear an airplane. I suspect you want to get mileage out of the word "just". You know very well that is often just a filler word, and sinc that remark was more exclamated than diligently formulated in a conscious witness report, we have to consider that we do not know which of several possible semantics David had in mind when he uttered it.

Rosa is in the same category as Sean and Hun, so please edit her out accordingly.

False. Again, we have information about Rosa's position, but we have none about "Hun"'s.

You are being hyper critical of NO PLANE witnesses and not at all critical of PLANE SPOTTERS. Once again, who are you trying to convince, yourself?

I merely respect all witnesses equally and consider all the information they give us about the fateful moment we are discussing. You are the one introduces arbitrary criteria to call this witness a liar and that not. You are the one who choses to discard some infornation but not other. You were, by the way, the one who introduced the reasonably criterion of "witness in a position to see or hear a plane", which I followed you on.

What took you so long to admit most witnesses report an "explosion"? And, even after admitting that, why do you waffle so much about it?

Because it is obvious, it is undisputed, and it doesn't help at all to discern between "plane" and "no-plane".
Imagine for a moment: What if Dick Oliver had grabbed a couple of witnesses who were at Park Row but did not report an explosion - would you conclude that there was no explosion, or would you not consider all the other evidence of explosion and conclude that the witnesses just missed something for whatever reason?

You are engaging in rationalization and denial in the above. You haven't even accounted for the sound a jet makes, for the wake vortex or the overwhelming assault on the environment a widebody jet, at 1000ft above the street at close to 500mph would create. That is something that people would respond to and mention, had it occurred.

You are, unfortunately, NOT engaging in rationalization - in particular, you have, despite having been called upon it many times, not forwarded any rational argument why the sound and vortex of a plane should have been so overwhelming in the first place! Please do your homework! It's high time to stop the talking and do the walking!

In the two Dick Oliver videos, we see very clearly that no such event took place. There was no widebody jetliner involved in causing the explosion at the North Tower.

Now this is stupidity and denial in its purest essence.
Would you even expect to SEE an event in a video if the event is hidden from view by foliage, and the camera is not even pointed towards the event?
However, EVERYBODY clearly HEARS that a plane approaches, then the explosion, and then no plane, only echo from the crash.
You know that you are the only one who fails to hear that plane. If anybody has been psyoped, or more probably, has psyched out, the odds are clearly it's you, jammonius.

 

[BigAl]

Hey BigAl, I hope you know that by some small measure, what you posted above is ever so mildly supportive of my interpretation of OUR Lady PT. Is everything alright, BigAl?

There is also something else about the above post, BigAl. I don't quite know why, but I think you've "got cards you ain't showin" by which I mean I think you know people who saw and heard things in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and that what they saw and heard is consistent only with there having been "an explosion."

And, by the way, now that we're onto a new page, it's time for a shout out to Lurkers:

SHOUT OUT TO LURKERS. POST UP!

I know that every point you try to make is either factually incorrect or irrelevant. I know that you selectively ignore any evidence that shows your bizarre beliefs wrong.

Flights 175 and 11 were hijacked by Arab Islamists who crashed them into the WTC towers, causing them to burn and the collapse.

 

[CompusMentus]

I know that every point you try to make is either factually incorrect or irrelevant. I know that you selectively ignore any evidence that shows your bizarre beliefs wrong.
Flights 175 and 11 were hijacked by Arab Islamists who crashed them into the WTC towers, causing them to burn and the collapse.

This ^ That

Suck it up Jam.


Compus

 

[sylvan8798]

Not that it's relevant, but Our Man with Baby Girl looks about 15 or 16 years old.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I think Jammo is about to reach critical mass and implode under the weight of his own droppings.

 

[firecoins]

This just in!

2 planes hit the World Trade Center, 1 into each tower after being hijacked by Islamic militants.

Who cares if this idiot heard or didn't hear the planes! Millions of others saw and heard it live.

 

[A W Smith]

There is an audio recording of a business conference during 9/11 that I am trying to locate. In it you hear the plane impact, A "thud, thud" against and through the tower as it hits the columns . anyone have a link to that audio?