TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
You fail to understand that once it made that hole, it stopped being a widebody Boeing 767.
Was Dick Oliver confused about what he heard on 9/11
- Thread starter DGM
- Start date
You fail to understand that once it made that hole, it stopped being a widebody Boeing 767.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Don Sachtleben was in charge of a team of FBI agents searching the Shanksville crash site. I'd think you'd want to contact him, since you have the problem with the investigation.
I will not derail this thread any further with responses to this line of questioning.
Hey Lurkers,
Have you noticed that Sheeplesnshills has surrendered completely, has ceased posting up anything of substance lately, and has, instead, taken to posting stuff consistent with the role of a joker?
ps
Anyone care to comment on Sgt. DeVona's statement, including what he said and where he was located?
Have you noticed that Sheeplesnshills has surrendered completely, has ceased posting up anything of substance lately, and has, instead, taken to posting stuff consistent with the role of a joker?
ps
Anyone care to comment on Sgt. DeVona's statement, including what he said and where he was located?
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
PAPD said:
You disgust me.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17887556/NY-B30-PA-Police-Reports-1-of-2-Fdr-DeVona-Sgt-Alan-T
Last edited:
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
He disgusts everyone.
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
Maybe they didn't attach as much importance to it as you do. Your "theory" appears to be that "they" pre-manufactured a section to resemble a wall section of the tower, along with some building piping and a mashed up plane wheel, and then after the first "hit" they carried it out to this location on a flatbed truck and dragged it off onto the ground, along with a bunch of other debris-type stuff. Then they damaged some surrounding vehicles and things to make it look good. All before the collapse of the south tower. Right?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Here's what's left of jammonius's horse:
- If Dick Oliver heard a plane, then how did that "tire, wheel, brake assembly, and hub of a main landing gear" end up on a New York street?
- If that exterior panel fell from WTC1, then what could have crushed that pickup truck?
- If some people saw a plane, then why didn't the people in an underground subway see the plane?
- If the events of 11 September 2001 had something to do with planes, then how come Sergeant DeVona found the plaza "filled with building debris and fireballs falling down"?
- If planes smashed into the WTC towers, then what could have caused those smoking holes in the towers?
- If these photographs were taken in New York City, then how come some of the photographs show cars and trucks?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Uhm no!?! They say it was dislodged from floors 93-96 and found on the street. Since they don't assume their readers to be little children or fools, it gpes without saying what happened between "dislodged from floors 93-96" and "found on the street".
Ok, let me grant one thing: Even a child would figure that out.
No.
Sheeesh, jammonius! That second photo in p=5903240&postcount=463 does not show the same location - it is on the other side of St. Nicholas Church from where the panel was found. Look at the photo that shows the PBW, and a double one-way streetsign. On the right you see parked cars: from foreground to backgrounnd these are: a black pick-up, a red van, a white pick-up, a (low and behold!) small red flat-bed truck. We can't see clearly what is directly behind that. Then a white van.
The white building on the left is St. Nicholas Church. WTC3 would be seen if we turned 90° to the left, as we are near the corner of West and Cedar Streets.
The small red flat-bed truck is the same that you see in the picture where you are missing the PBW. Let's look at that: In the foreground we see the flat-bed (left) and a red pick-up (right). To the left in the middleground is St. Nicholas Church.
You can see clear as day that that truck is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to small to haul the PBW.
Agreed?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
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.
Mate, this horse wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! He's bleedin' demised! He's a stiff! Bereft of life! Rests in peace! If jammonius hadn't nailed it, it would be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Sorry to post something in German, but for those who understand: This is cute (and dada):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViLaCqayWwA
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I already pointed out your deficient reading skills.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Jammo, Since you have proven to be impenetrably stupid and refuse to prove even the simplest of your assertions. I'm trying a more direct approach that may manage to be understood by even you....
I have a Mug for you......
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
Uh.....no! It's....uh...kind of limited to the resolution of NTSC video which (even allowing for the fact that you've sourced an image that has clearly been compressed and decompressed multiple times) isn't anywhere near the resolution of the image you so facilely dismiss.
If the second image strikes you as clearer than the first, we might have struck at the root of your 'arguments'. 
Look AJM, you are among people who are straining mightily to hold on to their ability to "believe" in the common storyline. You know that and I know that.
When you engage in emotionally driven expressions of RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION as you have done in the above, you invite the posters who want to stay in denial and in rationalization to remain stuck, all with added emotional zeal.
You realize, of course, you are fooling no one but yourself and those who want to be fooled.
The Report you quote from is a second, later dated (March 28, 2002) statement given by DeVona that clearly contradicts the actual report of police logs he had compiled, prepared and reported, as directed, on November 21, 2001, more than 4 months prior to the March 28, 2002, report you link us to.
Further, even in the March 2002 report, he repeats, word for word, the part that I quoted, namely that he was in front of WTC 5 when he heard an explosion and saw building debris. You skipped that part, didn't you? Why did you do that?
What he adds and that you quote is not actually even his own statement. It is the second-hand statement given to us by DeVona that appears to be sourced to one "PO Basic," so your righteous indignation is completely false and uncalled for.
I here request that you quit the indignation bit, it doesn't become you and only shows how weak your argument is and how little actual evidence you have of a plane hitting the North Tower.
The weakness of the evidence is what should cause you to be indignant.
Your emotional zeal is misdirected. Get a grip.
Here's what I can do for you. Sgt. DeVona does make a statement, long after the same statement has been made on teevee, that aircraft crashes are confirmed, but he doesn't source that statement.
He also has in his log, at 9:04, one right after the other, of contradictory reports concerning WTC 2:
In fact, the claim a plane hit WTC 2, as typed above, appears to me to be a different font or indicative it was not actually in the original. However, I am not going to quibble. Rather, let's assume both statements were given and transmitted to DeVona.
He does say the explosion statement was transmitted to him by an unidentified source, but there is no indication of how or where the claim a plane hit WTC2 came from, correct?
Needless to say, other reports coming in at that time reference missiles and bombs. Do you see them? Do you want to see them? Do you want to pretend they don't exist?
To be sure, there are reports in DeVona's log, coming from reliable sources, of claims consistent with a jet hitting the tower. There are statements, for instance, coming to him of smelling jet fuel.
The statement I emphasized was a statement of DeVona's own experience, consisting in what he saw, what he heard, where he was located when he saw and heard what he reported.
Your attempt to detract from that plain truth is, well, how shall we put this, ah, I know: A form of denial and of rationalization.
Once again, no matter how you slice it, Sgt. DeVona is a NO PLANE witness. Is that what disgusts you?
Last edited:
Uh.....no! It's....uh...kind of limited to the resolution of NTSC video which (even allowing for the fact that you've sourced an image that has clearly been compressed and decompressed multiple times) isn't anywhere near the resolution of the image you so facilely dismiss.
As I look at the photo from Dick Oliver's camera, I see, first of all, an extreme difference in color quality in comparison to the larger photos we are comparing it with.
Actually, the still shot that I posted up is, itself, darker and less clear than what can be seen on youtube. The large pictures posted, and, for that matter, the network shot that ran next to Oliver's camera seem to be filtered to me because the coloration is completely at odds with what is seen in Dick Oliver that appears, in all respects, to be more consistent with daylight on a clear day.
It is to be recalled that Dick Oliver said, in substance, "the sky is perfectly clear' or words to that effect. His camera bears that out, but the network photos do not. So, something is amiss.
A second factor is that the loose bits that are bending outwards are more clearly seen in the Dick Oliver shot than in the larger ones, as I see it.
That fact is consistent with witnesses like OLPT who concluded that what she saw was consistent with an internal explosion and not a crash into the building.
Are you willing to post up what you see?
I have done that; as did Our Jim Ryan who has a legitimate claim to be the First No Planer.
Your still straining at the bit, I see. Sgt. DeVona saw and heard an explosion and saw and reported seeing fireballs and building debris from the vantage point of out in front of WTC 5.
Do you understand that much, at least?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
No, I don't believe we are.
Why do you avoid my question? How much damage SHOULD the gear /wall panel have made in your opinion and what do you base this on. You are the one that claims that it did not do enough damage. Stop dodging and back-up your opinion with something. If it's just saying "I have no basis for my assertion" that's fine.
Last edited:
Greetings, DGM,
I certainly think Oystein obfuscated the matter and caused us a setback. We can still make some progress. I will continue to post up on the PBW and the NIST report.
My one request is that you stop trying to control the dialogue through that "question" tactic of yours.
If there is one thing I have consistently made clear it is that I do not engage in or participate in GOTCHA BS.
If you post that question like that again, I will not respond to it. We are either going to do an honest assessment here or we are not.
Do you understand?
I certainly think Oystein obfuscated the matter and caused us a setback. We can still make some progress. I will continue to post up on the PBW and the NIST report.
My one request is that you stop trying to control the dialogue through that "question" tactic of yours.
If there is one thing I have consistently made clear it is that I do not engage in or participate in GOTCHA BS.
If you post that question like that again, I will not respond to it. We are either going to do an honest assessment here or we are not.
Do you understand?