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

[BigAl]

2--Look, posters, this is obvious: The common storyline of 9/11 DOES NOT call for the Concorde to have crashed into the North Tower.

The Concorde is was one the loudest jets around and familiar to many New Yorkers. If she just heard the loudest noise ever and compared it to the Concorde, I'd have to conclude she heard a 757/767 and not a bus or a subway or a Plymouth missing a muffler.

 

[sylvan8798]

2--Look, posters, this is obvious: The common storyline of 9/11 DOES NOT call for the Concorde to have crashed into the North Tower.

How does that have any relevance to what she said? She obviously says "concorde". She heard a loud noise and speculated on what it might be in the form of a question. The answer to her question is "no, it wasn't". She could as well have asked "was that Bob falling down the stairs again?" for all its relevance to whether there were planes or not.

BTW: If she had said "was that the concourse?" that also would have been WRONG, so you are not in any better position than you are deriding others for.

 

[jammonius]

jammonius:
Do you plan to address the questions as to how you decided the panel that (if it) fell from the towers would have left a particular?

There are a lot of open issues in this thread that have not been adequately covered, including, by way of example, the issue of the steel perimeter beam section with wheel stuck upright in it, as you mention above.

The issue is open not solely because I have called attention to it, the issue is open because Oystein also took a stab at it in post# 390.

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

Another open issue is that of the testimony of Sgt. DeVona who saw the explosion from a vantage point of outside of WTC 5. The DeVona statement was posted as follows:

In connection with the steel perimeter beam with wheel stuck in it, I had posted up the following visuals, where the first shows the beam and the second shows how it got there, perhaps:

Oystein's post#390 is, perhaps, a good illustration of the futility of posters trying to do what no investigation, with a staff and a budget, had done; namely make forensic findings.

Oystein's use of some calculation is noble but useless. Here's one way we can tie the DeVona statement and the perimeter beam issue together. Here's a schematic of the WTC complex:

The above schematic was posted to show where Ginny Carr was located, 1 Liberty Plaza. It also, however, shows 5 WTC and it also, importantly, shows WTC3, the 22-story Marriot Hotel.

Oystein did not calculate how the perimeter beam traversed across the area covered by that hotel without hitting it, and thus, his free-fall time calculation and related attempt to correlate to the sound in the Ginny Carr audio fails.

As to DeVona, his statement that he "heard an explosion" while standing outside of WTC 5 all but single handedly refutes the claim a jetliner crashed into that building.

Finally, in my view, I here assert the perimeter beam in the photo posted above shows no signficant damage to either the street or the sidewalk.

Before going further into that forensic discussion, do you agree with my assessement the photo posted above of the perimeter beam with wheel stuck in it shows no signficant damage to the sidewalk or street where it is seen to by laying?

 

[DGM]

.

Finally, in my view, I here assert the perimeter beam in the photo posted above shows no signficant damage to either the street or the sidewalk.

And how much damage SHOULD it have caused (and what you base this on)?

.Do you agree?

I agree that you posted a lot of stuff to avoid answering the question I asked. Why?

 

[jammonius]

The Concorde is was one the loudest jets around and familiar to many New Yorkers. If she just heard the loudest noise ever and compared it to the Concorde, I'd have to conclude she heard a 757/767 and not a bus or a subway or a Plymouth missing a muffler.

We know that you are bound and determined to conclude she, he and everyone else you can possibly point to, heard a 757/767. The problem is, almost no one who was verifiably in a position to hear a widebody jet report hearing any such thing. No one, BigAl, no one. Consider, as most recently posted, Sgt. DeVona.

 

[jammonius]

And how much damage SHOULD it have caused (and what you base this on).



I agree that you posted a lot of stuff to avoid answering the question I asked. Why?

First things first. Let's get agreement for sake of reference that;

1--Photo posted above is where perimeter beam with wheely "landed;" and

2--Photo posted above is accurate assessment of landing area; and

3--Photo posted above shows almost no damage whatsoever to sidewalk and street.

 

[jammonius]

Whether she said Concorde or Concourse or Comfort or Contort or Pompous or Cold Horse - who cares????

Why not talk about Our Lady of the Plane (OLP) who said "the plane that I just saw"?

I'm waiting a more complete transcript of Ginny Carr's audio. I am also thinking about how we should name "Our Man who said Bomb" (OMB)to go along with whatever Our Lady of the Plane (OLP) actually said. The task is to be objective about the audio. So, for starters, I agree with you there is an OLP and there is also an OMB who has not been acknowledged as yet, together with OLC, to name some. I think we need to name all who can be reliably heard.

You agree?

 

[DGM]

First things first. Let's get agreement for sake of reference that;

1--Photo posted above is where perimeter beam with wheely "landed;" and

As far as I know.

2--Photo posted above is accurate assessment of landing area; and

Sure.

3--Photo posted above shows almost no damage whatsoever to sidewalk and street.

It's tough to tell but, that's not the point. How do you know how much damage it SHOULD have caused (and what do you base this on)?

Want to try to answer?

 

[jammonius]

Idiom: Flogging a dead horse

Idiom Definitions for 'Flogging a dead horse'
If someone is trying to convince people to do or feel something without any hope of succeeding, they're flogging a dead horse. This is used when someone is trying to raise interest in an issue that no-one supports anymore; beating a dead horse will not make it do any more work.

British English British English | Category: Animals

View examples in Google: Flogging a dead horse

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/flogging+a+dead+horse.html

Sorry. If you posted the above for my sake, I didn't mean to be taken quite so literally. I'm fully familiar with the idiom of speech. I was simply taking posters to task for posting at least 6 examples of it, by calling attention to the more literal content of the idiom; namely, that it references horses that have died or been killed.

My objective was to get posters to stop the excessive use of that idiom.

By the way, from what I can gather, the thread has not run its course and posters are still engaging with one another.

You agree?

 

[beachnut]

... a damaged truck from steel dropped 700 feet. Oops.

Next he will be saying jet engines are Plymouth Wheel Covers. oops

 

[DGM]

jammonius:
Did you notice that the building across the street shows damage and also the pick-up truck looks like the bed is crushed? Perhaps the piece hit that building on the way to the street, that would minimize the damage to the street, would it not?

 

[TJM]

By the way, from what I can gather, the thread has not run its course and posters are still engaging with one another.

You agree?

The thread was effectively killed at post #97, but you have too much invested in your fantasy and that compelled you to begin pulling witnesses from your butt.

Hey, at least I didn't say anything about beating a dead horse, which you are by the way.

 

[sylvan8798]

Unless you have pictures of the top of the marriott hotel taken between 8:46 and the collapse, you really don't have any proof that the wall section didn't scrape the hotel as it went over. That said, there was a height difference of around 800 feet between the top of the hotel and the location where the panel came out.

 

[Oystein]

...
Another open issue is that of the testimony of Sgt. DeVona who saw the explosion from a vantage point of outside of WTC 5. The DeVona statement was posted as follows:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/devona.jpg?t=1272799783[/qimg]

As to DeVona, his statement that he "heard an explosion" while standing outside of WTC 5 all but single handedly refutes the claim a jetliner crashed into that building.

Wrong. Can't you read? Try again! he says that he "has just walked out from the Police Desk 5 WTC". From the Police desk. Which is inside 5 WTC. Not from the building. 5 WTC is not a Police Desk.

...
Oystein did not calculate how the perimeter beam traversed across the area covered by that hotel without hitting it, and thus, his free-fall time calculation and related attempt to correlate to the sound in the Ginny Carr audio fails.

Ok. Let's do that real quick - rough numbers:
WTC3 had 22 stories, so it would have been about 80 meters high.
The panel fell from about 360 meters high - a distance of 280 meters to the roof of WTC5.
by s = 1/2 gt² <=> t=sqrt(2s/g) = sqrt (2*280/9.8)s
= 7,6s = the time the panel had to clear the hotel
Knowing that the twin towers are 63m wide, and looking at your map above, I's estimate that it's about 110m from the south face of WTC1 to the south dave of WTC3. The panel would have to move at a horizontal speed of at least 110m/7,6s = 14.5m/s to clear the hotel before it has fallen 280m and reached the hight of the hotel roof.
14.5m/s is about 7% of the speed of the plane at impact.

We could now make a lot of assumptions about speed, mass and impulse of the parts of the plane that hit the panel upon exit, but, roughly speaking, if the panel is hit by plane parts having about 1/8 of its mass, then, by the law of conversation of impulse, the system would get the required horizontal speed, and by law of conversation of energy there would be plenty of energy left to break out the panel (and deform things).
Not unrealistic at all.

Finally, in my view, I here assert the perimeter beam in the photo posted above shows no signficant damage to either the street or the sidewalk.

Before going further into that forensic discussion, do you agree with my assessement the photo posted above of the perimeter beam with wheel stuck in it shows no signficant damage to the sidewalk or street where it is seen to by laying?

How do you know the beam got to rest in the same spot where it hit the street?

 

[Oystein]

I'm waiting a more complete transcript of Ginny Carr's audio. I am also thinking about how we should name "Our Man who said Bomb" (OMB)to go along with whatever Our Lady of the Plane (OLP) actually said. The task is to be objective about the audio. So, for starters, I agree with you there is an OLP and there is also an OMB who has not been acknowledged as yet, together with OLC, to name some. I think we need to name all who can be reliably heard.

You agree?

We all agree that the event made a loud explosion sound. Correct?
That is what people heard.
Our Lady PT was maybe the one who was most accurate in her description: She said just that - "there was a huge explosion sound".
Everybody else who offered explanations like "bomb", "crash", "plane crash", "Concorde/Concourse/Cold Horse" are already interpreting the sound. Their interpretation could be wrong or right, and since we have disagreement, there is no a-priori correct answer, and we should be careful and simply agree: "there was a huge explosion sound".

Which is, by the way, what we hear in the Dick Oliver video and in the Ginny Carr recording. "A huge explosion sound", or "a loud bang".

The sound would be consistent with a bomb theory - except that nobody is really proposing the damage to the 93th to 99th floor of the WTC were solely or primarily caused by a bomb. Or are you?
It is unclear if the sound would be consistent with a FSM theory, because no one really knows what the voice of her Noodliness sounds like - she does not exist.
The sound would be consistent with a plane crash. Along with everything else, like all the people who saw or even filmed a plane.
It is unclear if the sound would be consistent with a DEW theory, because no one really knows what these kinds of weapons sounds like - they do not exist.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Just for Jammy:

Tell me, what do you see here?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Sorry. If you posted the above for my sake, I didn't mean to be taken quite so literally. I'm fully familiar with the idiom of speech. I was simply taking posters to task for posting at least 6 examples of it, by calling attention to the more literal content of the idiom; namely, that it references horses that have died or been killed.

My objective was to get posters to stop the excessive use of that idiom.

By the way, from what I can gather, the thread has not run its course and posters are still engaging with one another.

You agree?

I changed to dictionary meanings of the phrase when you complained about pictures of people flogging a dead horse. Since you are still flogging away. How about a poem on the subject?

Lakotah tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in such organizations such as government and business, other strategies are being tried, to wit:

1) Buying a larger whip.

2) Changing riders.

3) Saying things like, "This is the way we have always ridden this horse."

4) Appointing a committee to study the horse.

5) Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

6) Creating a training session to improve riding skills.

7) Passing a resolution stating the horse is not dead.

8) Blaming the horse's parents.

9) Declaring that no horse is too dead to beat.

10) Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.

11) Harnessing several dead horses together to increase performance.

12) Conducting a study to see if private contractors can ride the dead horse cheaper.

13) Issuing a press release stating that the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.

14) Forming a quality circle to find better uses for dead horses.

15) Revising performance goals for dead horses.

16) Insisting that this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.

17) Promoting the horse to a supervisory position.

 

[dafydd]

Wait a minute. In the above post, you simply cannot be serious. It is not just the Dick Oliver videos that put the issue of NO PLANE firmly and securely within the realm of reason, occurring as they do, on the day of 9/11/01, itself.

The fact of the matter is that all else that has ever been presented as being proof of a jetliner crash is utterly and completely indeterminate.

Here's another still from the Pavel Hlava video, with the help of "an arrow" used to alter the image in order to "point" to a nonexistent Boeing 767.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/firstplanelarge.jpg?t=1273081909[/qimg]

It is no different and no better in the Naudet video; it, too, is indeterminate. Plus, to resolve the doubt, there are the on the scene witnesses, many of whom I have both quoted and given colorful nicknames to, in order to help facilitate reality and to show that the evidence confirms there were no planes on 9/11 at the WTC. Keeping in mind, we've already done a full thread on Flight 93 and a tad on the Pentagon as well.

The Ginny Carr audio is also sitting in this thread and is under discussion. The capacity for denial and for rationalization has already been turned on full force in connection with that audio that cannot in any reasonable way be said to offer support for the claim a jetliner had crashed. And yet, the denial persists.

I'll bet there are posters here who will swear up and down on a stack of horses they will have slaughtered (please stop doing that, it is cruel) that they can see a Boeing 767 in the Pavel Hlava video.

That is rich.

Stop it.Please stop it.Go and lie down,go out for a drink,go to a movie,seek medical help,take up knitting,start collecting stamps,anything but this.

 

[dafydd]

Sorry. If you posted the above for my sake, I didn't mean to be taken quite so literally. I'm fully familiar with the idiom of speech. I was simply taking posters to task for posting at least 6 examples of it, by calling attention to the more literal content of the idiom; namely, that it references horses that have died or been killed.

My objective was to get posters to stop the excessive use of that idiom.

By the way, from what I can gather, the thread has not run its course and posters are still engaging with one another.

You agree?

Only to be constantly amazed by your obstinacy and wonder at the depth of your obsession,and to propagate the truth about 9/11 just in case some one somewhere might actually believe you.

 

[jammonius]

I changed to dictionary meanings of the phrase when you complained about pictures of people flogging a dead horse. Since you are still flogging away. How about a poem on the subject?

That list of 17 items should resonate with those who are hopelessly opposing recognition that the Dick Oliver videos, along with all else being posted by me concerning valid and reliable witnesses, shows that the claim a Boeing 767 hit the North Tower @ 500mph+/- on 9/11/01 is, indeed, a dead horse.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding:

Are you on the verge of an awakening, Sheeplesnshills?

Here's hoping.

Good luck