So much word salad, only to show you do not understand what I wrote and what I responded to.
The above is an
awful waffle.
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?
Let's set this in proper context.
Dick Oliver interviewed
4 WITNESSES all of whom spoke with consistency of experience, namely, that they had experienced an explosion or a bomb. Not one of them said anything that would lead anyone to think a plane was involved, let alone a widebody jetliner at nearly 500mph.
The last witness we heard from in the Dick Oliver video is, indeed,
OLPT:
Others in the thread have commented, in substance, that
OLPT is an attractive person, and I agree with that. She is, indeed, exactly the type of person who you'd think would make the network feed concerning an ongoing event in connection with which she saw and heard important parts of it and had specific things to say about its cause.
Yet, almost immediately after being seen as shown above, this is what happened:
That is remarkable in and of itself, Posters and Lurkers. There was no reason why OLPT could not have been shown on network teevee and there is no known reason why the Dick Oliver image, that was much better and much clearer than the network feed, had to be lost.
Indeed, the Dick Oliver feed was so good that it had allowed
Our Jim Ryan to have previously commented, in substance, that "
"I don't see a plane there...", all as more exactly quoted elsewhere in this thread.
What followed after the
blanking out of the Dick Oliver feed was the audio only feed of Sean Murtagh and Rosa Cardona Rivera, with the fuzzy, hazy, unclear shot of the Twin Towers serving as the backdrop. That is consistent with PSYOP editing and control, posters and lurkers. Pure and simple and sinister, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, we only know what happened here, we do not know who masterminded it.
What we do know is that Osama binLaden did not control the blanking out of the Dick Oliver feed of live reality and the substitution of it with the synthetic BS put out by the networks.
Do posters and lurkers grasp this? It is important to understand that what is said here stems solely and exclusively from a reasoned assessment of what exactly took place in the airing of the 9/11 event, as it unfolded.
The point is Dick Oliver and his witnesses were blanked out. They had all said, in substance,
NO PLANE. In the place of Dick Oliver and his witnesses, we got a synthetic view and audio witnesses from goodness knows where (if you apply the same tactic applied to Hun), who were
SPOTTED A PLANE.
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?
You are illustrating the point I am making. You did not accept what
"Hun" said, using, as you did, the hyper-critical tactic of claiming you didn't know where she was. You also do not know where Sean Murtagh was or what he could see from where he claimed he was. You don't actually know anything reliably established about Sean Murtagh as his sole and exclusive purpose was that of providing a foundation for the claim a widebody jetliner hit the WTC coming right after
4 WITNESSES had clearly stated no such thing.
Everyone knows that the most fundamental technique of journalism is to establish controversy, to quote witnesses who say opposing things. That is what makes a story a story, generally speaking. However, in this instance the
4 WITNESSES, including young and attractive OLPT were blanked out of the story.
Come on, posters and lurkers, put your thinking caps on here, please.
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!
I might have known you were straining at the bit to call someone
"A LIAR." That is your default response, isn't it. You appear not to be able to help it. When someone says something you disagree with, they become liars. Let me double check for accuracy of understanding: Is what we see in connection with your use of the word "liar" endemic to you as a whole, or does that characteristic only come to the surface in connection with your attachment to the common storyline of 9/11 and your apparent need to defend it at all costs?
What gives, Oystein
All? How many did he ask, how many passed him? You can't be serious!
He asked and spoke with double the amount given us by network teevee; and, as to network teevee, neither Sean nor Rosa were actually shown. They were call ins who were, as I previously noted, filtered in and not filtered out.
Crap. Murtagh is a news media person and an educated man. "To witness" is most ceratinly within his active vocabulary, and entirely applicable.
The above is very interesting and very consistent with the tactic of PSYOP. The above shows the psyop affected you, Oystein. You say that
"Murtagh is a news media person..." and that is almost certainly what the common storyline wants you to think, and even more certainly wanted you to think on 9/11, live. But, Sean Murtagh was, actually,
a CNN corporate dude, VP of finance who had
nothing whatsoever to do with news media reporting. Yet, you attribute "news media" background to him, just as the psyop dictates.
That is, you know what...
(Your favorite 4letter word might be "liar" and mine might be "rich".)
Right back at ya. Difference between me and you is: No one has caught me lying yet.
Oh, I don't know about that, other than to say you are ever so predicatable in your need to call someone a liar. Those who read the posts can form their own conclusions about that. Are you comfortable with what you've posted?
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...
I don't find it necessary to use the "L" word like you do, but I do note that in the above, you appear not to have any capacity at all for accuracy in assessing what people have said.
This is an amazin piece of gut droppings.
The above fails as refutation and is nothing more than emotional dribble.
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.
You are arguing with yourself. It would be better simply to acknowledge
OMBG is a NO PLANE WITNESS, one of the
4 WITNESSES being accurate and objective in your posting. I don't know why you can't do that. Do you?
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).
After the way you treated "Hun" you've got a lot of nerve posting the above. To top it off, you appear to be straining mightily not to call OMBG and OLPT by your favorite "L" word.
In fact you have never yet acknowledged the simple fact that the Dick Oliver videos contain
4 WITNESSES who are
NO PLANE witnesses. You have failed to do what objectivity demands.
You introduce unproven assumptions.
You've got a lot of darn nerve raising the issue of unproven assumption. This will be all the more apparent as we see below your request for a "20 question" exercise where you want assumptions to be included.
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.
The only thing the above can fairly be said to stand for is that it shows where playing gotcha has gotten you. Nowhere.
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.
The above is rationalization of the worst sort. Dick Oliver's mic captured the explosion better than any other source.
I have highlighted the above, posters and lurkers, as an attempt to draw attention to it and to ask if there's anyone out there who disagrees with the claim that the 1:16 Dick Oliver video captures the sound of the explosion at the North Tower better than any other known source?
Is there any disputation of that claim, pray tell?
And, as to that source, Oystein wants to minimize it.
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.
OK, let's recall your earlier ditty about assumptions. You then turn around and construct a '20 questions' game that is obviously fruitless because it requires use of assumptions, all as you require and acknowledge. So long as a 20 question game relies on assumptions, the one who gets to pose the questions can claim never to receive a satisfactory answer. That is why such games are nothing more than BS control tactics.
"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.
The above amendment and modification of your prior stupid criticism of "Hun" is noted. One might say, "better late than never" and "better grudging than not at all." However, you still end up minimizing her signficance, showing, yet again, your obvious prejudice against NO PLANE witnesses.
It is too bad you cannot be objective.
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.
Oh, joy, here we go again with your emotional rant surrounding your use of your "L" word. Unless and until you modify the above, I am not going to respond to it. Your emotional rant is your emotional rant. Do better.
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?
Cut the crap. Quote Dick Oliver or move on.
"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.
Yet again, hyper-criticism of NO PLANE witnesses. It serves no useful purpose to do that, especially since you do not do the same for those witnesses who appear to you to support the common storyline.
False. Again, we have information about Rosa's position, but we have none about "Hun"'s.
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.
You do no such thing. You are hyper-critical and all but dismissive of the NO PLANE witnesses and you all but "hug" the PLANE SPOTTERS. Your bias is clear and apparent and it would do you good to claim 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?
The useless hypothetical you pose is noted. Will you stop at nothing in your attempt to ignore the abundant NO PLANE evidence?
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!
Nope, the videos are proof enough that there was NO PLANE at 1000ft and nearly 500mph present. The homework consists in being honest with the information imparted by the two Dick Oliver videos.
Posters and Lurkers take note. Just be honest with the information imparted.
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.
Hey Lurkers, wouldn't it be great if someone knew Dick Oliver or David Stollick? I sure hope one or the other of them comes across this and the prior Dick Oliver thread at some point or another.
I am inclined at this point to allow Oystein to have the last word here. We'll see. It might be more useful at this point to spend some time posting on Ginny Carr who has entered into the discussion. Her audio is not as good as the Dick Oliver audio, but the two should certainly be discussed in conjunction with each other.
eye-poppi)
