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

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

That idiom, as I understand it, is a metaphor for jammonius's argument (as stated in the original post).

There's an honest difference of opinion here. We think jammonius's argument is a dead horse; jammonius says it's just stunned, or pining. We say it has passed on, ceased to be, gone to meet its maker, joined the choir invisible. In short, that horse is an ex-argument.

jammonius disagrees.

 

[jammonius]

As far as I know.


Sure.



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?

We're making some progress here. Let's take this to the next level by confirming how the matter was investigated by NIST:

The above is very interesting in terms of what NIST did not find; namely, NIST did not find or determine that the perimeter beam with wheely (PBW) was knocked from the North Tower and landed on West and Cedar Streets.

Are we agreed on that?

In addition, while NIST made no such finding, NIST did indicate that although it highly truncated the scope of its investigation to include a time period that was defined as "from the moment of impact to the initiation of the probable collapse sequence" which quotation may not be exact and is being done from memory here.

However, for as limited and as fraudulently framed (resulting in science fraud and other kinds of fraud) as NIST's curtailment of their mandate was, it included the time frame shown above. Thus, by not determining what, in fact, happened concerning PBW, NIST simply did not do its job, even as it had narrowly defined it.
Because the entity that had a huge staff as well as the cream of the military industrial complex working in a "public - private partnership" (to the tune of $16million of taxpayers' money) working for it, the fraud is inexcusable.

Now, our specific frame of reference is, then, that no determination of what caused the PBW to be seen where it is seen is a matter of fact.

Do you agree?

One further intriguing issue that requires our discussion here and a determination of whether we agree or not is that, as a matter of fact, it appears the PBW is actually missing from the second photo posted above that, interestingly enough, shows a small portion of what appears to be a flat-bed tow truck that, again interestingly, could have been used to plant the PBW at West and Cedar Streets.

See photo in post# 463

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5903240&postcount=463

Correct?


ps

Unlike WDClinger, I do not presume you either agree or disagree and I do not misquote you. You can post up what you actually want to say about matters. It is too bad WDClinger cannot post in that manner, Lurkers.

By the way, let's hear from Lurkers, especially those who may have seen or heard something on 9/11/01 concerning the explosions that took place!

 

[TJM]

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, <blather snipped>

Exactly where have you posted anything about valid and reliable witnesses? All I see is your rambling on about people who were in no position to make any kind of judgement and your refusal to acknowledge that.

 

[dafydd]

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

Sheeeeesh!!!! Unbelievable!!

 

[jammonius]

Just for Jammy:

[qimg]http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3634/p7300432cropped.jpg[/qimg]

Tell me, what do you see here?

You're entering into what I think is a useful area of discussion here; namely, discussion of the forensic implications of the hole in the North Tower. The large and relatively high resolution photo you posted up is helpful and adds a lot to our base of information to consider.

Thanks for posting it.

Clearly, the hole is very small. It is also highly confirmatory of Our Jim Ryan's video quotation, posted in its entirety earlier on in this thread that was to the effect that he "didn't see a plane" in the hole or building.

Neither do I.

Furthermore, based on the small size of the hole, it is utterly impossible for their to have been no debris in the front of the North Tower, had a Boeing 767 @ 500mph+/- crashed into it as claimed in the common storyline. The fact there was no debris is confirmed for us by, among others, OLPT and Chief Cassano, all as has been quoted either earlier in this thread or in the forbidden Dick Oliver thread.

See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

 

[jammonius]

Exactly where have you posted anything about valid and reliable witnesses? All I see is your rambling on about people who were in no position to make any kind of judgement and your refusal to acknowledge that.

The above is representative of total denial and complete rationalization. If there is one thing that is clear in this and the prior Dick Oliver thread it is that the witnesses I rely on were in a much better position to see and/or to hear reliable information than are those relied on by supporters of the common storyline.

I have also shown a direct correlation between both location and validity of reporting source that the witnesses are all very consistent in reporting "an explosion" and nowhere mentioning a plane, let alone a jetliner. Further, the closer they are to the scene, the more likely they are to report "an explosion."

Just in the last page, I posted up Sgt. DeVona, whose statement was written in the line of duty and is, therefore, a valid piece of evidence, where he showed he was located outside of WTC 5 and reported "an explosion."

I would have thought that posters here would at least acknowledge him as a witness because, after all, he did say there was debris. Usually, posters here try to latch onto anything and everything they can from witnesses I find and post up.

Of course, by merely saying "debris" and not plane crash debris, Sgt. DeVona's reference to debris is consistent solely with his assertion of "an explosion." He did, in fact, say "building debris", and not plane debris.

Maybe that's why no one mentioned him, yet.

In any event, that example, one that was recently given, serves to confirm the nature of the denial and the rationalization your posts demonstrate.

Do better.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

By the way, let's hear from Lurkers, especially those who may have seen or heard something on 9/11/01 concerning the explosions that took place![/QUOTE]


Maybe a song will get the idea idea into your head.

 

[jammonius]

Sheeeeesh!!!! Unbelievable!!

What do you find to be unbelievable about this:

sheesh!!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You're entering into what I think is a useful area of discussion here; namely, discussion of the forensic implications of the hole in the North Tower. The large and relatively high resolution photo you posted up is helpful and adds a lot to our base of information to consider.

Thanks for posting it.

Clearly, the hole is very small. It is also highly confirmatory of Our Jim Ryan's video quotation, posted in its entirety earlier on in this thread that was to the effect that he "didn't see a plane" in the hole or building.

Neither do I.

Furthermore, based on the small size of the hole, it is utterly impossible for their to have been no debris in the front of the North Tower, had a Boeing 767 @ 500mph+/- crashed into it as claimed in the common storyline. The fact there was no debris is confirmed for us by, among others, OLPT and Chief Cassano, all as has been quoted either earlier in this thread or in the forbidden Dick Oliver thread.

See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

or maybe a cartoon?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/flogging_a_dead_horse.asp

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The above is representative of total denial and complete rationalization. If there is one thing that is clear in this and the prior Dick Oliver thread it is that the witnesses I rely on were in a much better position to see and/or to hear reliable information than are those relied on by supporters of the common storyline.

I have also shown a direct correlation between both location and validity of reporting source that the witnesses are all very consistent in reporting "an explosion" and nowhere mentioning a plane, let alone a jetliner. Further, the closer they are to the scene, the more likely they are to report "an explosion."

Just in the last page, I posted up Sgt. DeVona, whose statement was written in the line of duty and is, therefore, a valid piece of evidence, where he showed he was located outside of WTC 5 and reported "an explosion."

I would have thought that posters here would at least acknowledge him as a witness because, after all, he did say there was debris. Usually, posters here try to latch onto anything and everything they can from witnesses I find and post up.

Of course, by merely saying "debris" and not plane crash debris, Sgt. DeVona's reference to debris is consistent solely with his assertion of "an explosion." He did, in fact, say "building debris", and not plane debris.

Maybe that's why no one mentioned him, yet.

In any event, that example, one that was recently given, serves to confirm the nature of the denial and the rationalization your posts demonstrate.

Do better.

Jammo trying to get a date...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKu_Rv9qZRw

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What do you find to be unbelievable about this:


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


sheesh!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tfVdMV5dYc

 

[TJM]

One further intriguing issue that requires our discussion here and a determination of whether we agree or not is that, as a matter of fact, it appears the PBW is actually missing from the second photo posted above that, interestingly enough, shows a small portion of what appears to be a flat-bed tow truck that, again interestingly, could have been used to plant the PBW at West and Cedar Streets.

See photo in post# 463

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5903240&postcount=463

Correct?

Incorrect.

The two photos you refer to are taken from opposite sides of the church.

Do better.

 

[WildCat]

Do better.

I honestly think that's the best jammonius has to offer.

 

[TJM]

I honestly think that's the best jammonius has to offer.

Stick around, it gets worse.

 

[TJM]

By the way, posters and lurkers, I have come across the name of JACK SHEA as an FBI person who had something to do with the Flight 93 investigation. His name came up in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article that was noteworthy for being meaningless fluff, babble and propaganda, but it did provide a name.

Jack Shea
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011029newsmaker1029p3.asp

By the way, since your so keen to find those who had something to do with the UAL 93 crash site, here's another:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/70080/national-geographic-specials-the-fbi

(Forward to about 8 minutes in - segment is about 5 minutes long.)

If you can't watch hulu in your world, his name is Donald Sachtleben and he was on one of the teams that gathered and catalogued evidence from Shanksville. I suggest you contact him directly, since you now know his name and where he works. Let us know how that works out for you.

 

[jammonius]

Just for Jammy:

Tell me, what do you see here?

One other thing about the above photo is that while it is very large and of relatively high resolution, I don't think that photo is as clear, sharp or as revealing as is this simple still grab from the Dick Oliver video, the one that allowed Our Jim Ryan to stake out his candidacy for the title of the First No Planer:

Do posters and lurkers agree the Dick Oliver image is more revealing and has more detail?

 

[TJM]

Do posters and lurkers agree the Dick Oliver image is more revealing and has more detail?

No.

 

[jammonius]

By the way, since your so keen to find those who had something to do with the UAL 93 crash site, here's another:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/70080/national-geographic-specials-the-fbi

(Forward to about 8 minutes in - segment is about 5 minutes long.)

If you can't watch hulu in your world, his name is Donald Sachtleben and he was on one of the teams that gathered and catalogued evidence from Shanksville. I suggest you contact him directly, since you now know his name and where he works. Let us know how that works out for you.

Well, the link posted above doesn't work for me, as you appear to have predicted.

What is elsewhere said about Donald Sachtleben is that:

"Following the events of 9/11, Mr. Sachtleben provided crime scene assistance at the crash of United Airlines flight 93 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In August, 2004, Mr. Sachtleben was named as coordinating forensic examiner for all evidence submitted to the FBI Laboratory in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks."

That tells us next to nothing useful, imho.

What does he say in the video that you think is of importance?

 

[jammonius]

No.

Well, do posters and lurkers agree with Our Jim Ryan that there is no evidence of a plane, let alone a widebody Boeing 767, seen in any one of the three photos posted above of the hole in the North Tower?

 

[jammonius]

Incorrect.

The two photos you refer to are taken from opposite sides of the church.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2114[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2970[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2971[/qimg]

Do better.

OK, I can accept that the photos may show different sides of the church and that, therefore, one would not expect to see the PBW in the same photo as the flatbed tow truck is seen.

Do you think the flatbed towtruck is seen parked on the right side of the street?

Is there a particular reason why you did not post that part of the NIST statement that confirmed they made no determination as to how or why the PBW was seen where it was photographed?

Do you agree that part of the event was within NIST's own truncated scope of investigation?

Do you agree NIST had the resources and MIC personnel from, among others, SAIC and ARA, to make a proper determination about the PBW and whether or not it fell from the North Tower?