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

deadhorse.jpg
 
jammonius said:
Let me double check for accuracy of understanding of those who are commenting on the Ginny Carr audio:

Are posters here saying that audio suports the claim a jetliner hit the North Tower more than it supports the claim something exploded at the North Tower, all as more fully discussed by the Dick Oliver 4 WITNESSES?
Click to expand...

What's your point? Two hijacked jets hit the towers. What people saw and heard at the instant of the crash is irrelevant.
 
jammonius said:
Also, if posters are 100% sure in their interpretations, one way or another, they can feel free to just come right out and scream it.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% sure that two hijacked jets caused all the death and destruction at WTC on 9/11.

None of your babble has made the slightest dent in any of the massive amount of information that informs my understanding of what happened on 9/11.

Your assertions are either factually wrong, irrelevant or incoherent.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Hey posters and lurkers,

I'd like to also double check for accuracy of understanding as to the following transcription found in post # 390:

0:41-0:42 Female voice: [ETA:] "Was that the, uh, Concorde?"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5898171&postcount=390

Do posters and lurkers acknowledge that the Female voice is more likely to have said the word Concourse referring to the area in the middle of the WTC complex that is also called the "WTC Plaza" than the word Concorde?

Mind you, I am here asking a specific question. Which interpretation is "more likely"

There is no right or wrong answer, I'm just asking what do posters hear and what do they consider more likely?

Also, if posters are 100% sure in their interpretations, one way or another, they can feel free to just come right out and scream it.
Click to expand...

After listening to that clip several times, I am quite confident that she said Concorde. There was no 's' at the end of the word. It also makes sense that she would say that, since the Concorde had loud engines and made sonic booms, was still in operation at the time, and used one of NYC's airports.

On the other hand, 'concourse' makes no sense. Contrary to your description, the concourse was part of the underground mall, not the plaza.



ETA: Correction, the Concorde was not in regular service at that time, but did have a flight that day. It hadn't been retired yet though and I stand by my line of reasoning above.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because those witnesses were not in a position to see a plane. That's why. Now go back to your post and find yourself what you get wrong.


jammonius said:
...
I might have known you were straining at the bit to call someone "A LIAR." That is your default response, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Tell me again: Which witness have I construed to be "A LIAR."?

Isn't it true that YOU, jammonius, are resting your entire case on the unproven an libellous assumtion that Roas and Sean are liars? Is it not YOU who calls each of them, in effect "A LIAR."? Do you not claim that what they said about their position and what they saw is "A LIE"?
 
Oystein said:
....

The secondary "boom" is heard about 9.3 seconds after the crash (manually timed with stopwatch). Since the beginning of the crash is marked by the plane entering the building at about 450mph = about 200m/s, and the building is 208ft = 63m wide, a steel panel with wheel embedded would not break free sonner than 0.3 seconds after impact, so free fall time is 9.0 seconds max.

With s= 1/2 gt2, a heavy steel section would have fallen 396m in free fall in 9.0s

The crash occurred around a height of 360 meters - so we are about 10% off the calculated value. I guess there is a considerable margin of error to take into account. Sources of imprecision:
- I suspect I react better to the first boom because I anticipate it better fromn the swelling. Maybe 9.25s is a better measure than 9.3, reducing the expected height by about 4 meters (1 floor)
- The wheel that broke out the steel panel was certainly slowed by the impact. If it travelled the depth of the building in 0.4 instead of 0.3 seconds, free fall height would come out as 388 meters.
- The panel may not have been free to fall instantly, further reducing the fall hight.
- I have not researched what the starting hight for the steel panel was - my assumption of 360m is smack in the middle of the impact zone that's given by wikipedia as "between the 93rd and 99th floors". Could of course be less or more
- I suspect air drag would not slow down the fall by much, but of course there will be some drag.
- The sound takes different times to travel from their different origins. The Ginny Carr party was on the 36th floor - slightly closer in hight to the streetlevel secondary crash than to the plane impact zone. On the other hand, being on the north face of 1 Liberty Plaza, they are a little closer laterally to the plane impact. So that may cancel out.

Overall, my assessment is, that the Ginny Carr recording is in agreement with the plane theory:
- we hear a swelling sound that may be jet engines
- One witness reports having seen a plane, and connects that with the impact
- We have a secondary crash that is in close agreement with the assumption of a heavy part of steel panel crashing onto Liberty Street near St. Nicholas orthodox church after free fall from the impact zone between 93rd and 99th story.
Click to expand...

Well, Oystein, as you may recall, my statement about that secondary sound is that it might or might not be consistent with debris.
It sounds like you are staking out a claim, as quoted above, that the sound heard is that of that large section of structural steel, perimeter beam, with wheel stuck upright in it. Is that correct?

The problem I think you're going to get stuck on with that theory is that the audio does not match the visual. This is an example of the visual conflict;

panel-objects-01.jpg


The visual image is utterly and totally inconsistent with, as you, yourself, say, and I quote: "With s= 1/2 gt2, a heavy steel section would have fallen 396m in free fall in 9.0s"

The problem is that a heavy steel section falling 1000ft would have created an impact crater and/or street damage that far, far exceeds what is seen above. The above makes it look for all the world as if the piece of steel with the wheel stuck upright in it was laid down by a flatbed truck, of the type that -- oops! -- just happens to be seen in the location where the perimeter beam with wheel stuck in it was found:

fuselage-02-1.jpg


Your contradictions abound when you go down the path of trying to relate what you claim is a secondary explosion with the perimeter beam with wheel stuck in it.
 
Please, for Jammonius' sake and good health... consider the following:

I have followed and replied to Jammonius for while now. I concluded that this whole discussion is going nowhere. I have to ask you all, please stop replying to him.

Those that were around to witness and participate in Chris' realistice thread know that Jammonius will never, ever admit there were planes used on 9/11. He will never, ever admit he is wrong. Nothing can change his mind.

Jammonius is not well and needs help beyond what we can provide. All we can do is stop giving him any reason to go on and post his misconceptions about the events of 9/11.

Jammonius, please stop posting your false believes and start putting your energy in more constructive affairs.

:grouphug3

I will not be reading or posting in this or any of Jammonius' threads again.
 
Thanks to those posters who confirm and stand by the claim the word spoken by the female voice is Concorde rather than Concourse. Your interpretations are duly noted and are appreciated for the information the observations provide.

thanks

For what it is worth, I think the better interpretation of the female voice is the word 'concourse.'
 
The problem is that a heavy steel section falling 1000ft would have created an impact crater and/or street damage that far, far exceeds what is seen above.
Click to expand...

Please show us why that would be so. List all assumptions made and show working.....

Chirp.....chirp.....chirp....
 
jammonius said:
Thanks to those posters who confirm and stand by the claim the word spoken by the female voice is Concorde rather than Concourse. Your interpretations are duly noted and are appreciated for the information the observations provide.

thanks

For what it is worth, I think the better interpretation of the female voice is the word 'concourse.'
Click to expand...

Of course you do. The first thing anyone thinks of when they here a jet engine and a boom is "was that the underground mall?"
 
jammonius said:
Thanks to those posters who confirm and stand by the claim the word spoken by the female voice is Concorde rather than Concourse. Your interpretations are duly noted and are appreciated for the information the observations provide.

thanks

For what it is worth, I think the better interpretation of the female voice is the word 'concourse.'
Click to expand...


2214271981_7806124fc4_o.gif
 
Yea, all you lurkers who believe Jammonius post. Please.

Like I did with the realistice thread, I find this thread a fascinating study in how one can argue such a totally untenable point for so many pages. It appears the only thing Jammonius has convinced anybody here of is that he just may need professional help.

It is indeed getting old.
 
jammonius said:
Thanks to those posters who confirm and stand by the claim the word spoken by the female voice is Concorde rather than Concourse. Your interpretations are duly noted and are appreciated for the information the observations provide.

thanks

For what it is worth, I think the better interpretation of the female voice is the word 'concourse.'
Click to expand...

Flogging-a-dead-horse.jpg
 
jammonius said:
The problem is that a heavy steel section falling 1000ft would have created an impact crater and/or street damage that far, far exceeds what is seen above. The above makes it look for all the world as if the piece of steel with the wheel stuck upright in it was laid down by a flatbed truck, of the type that -- oops! -- just happens to be seen in the location where the perimeter beam with wheel stuck in it was found:
Click to expand...

And you know this how? If it landed flat it would do less damage then if it landed on its side and the hardness of the surface it landed on would make a difference (for example).

Now, please tell us what you base your opinion on?
 
Note the difference in the visuals posted, lurkers.

It will be noted that there are some who post up, predominantly, visuals consistent with claims made about what happened on 9/11; and, there are those who post up predominantly joke visuals, and very few substantive ones. However, the funniest ones of all might be those that complain about the number of posts. Those are, indeed, funny.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom