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

carlitos said:
[qimg]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2112/picture5hk.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Are you taller than the plymouth hubcap, as it appears you are in the photo, or is the plymouth hubcap taller than you?



ps

I see we have rolled past unlucky 13, Lurkers. I will try again on this page to encourage rational discussion of the PBW, Jim Ryan's No Planer status and Sgt. DeVona's No Plane witness statement. As always, I hope some Lurkers out there who were present in NYC on 9/11 will post up.

We know from the Dick Oliver videos there were quite a few people present at Park Row. The only ones who made any statements all consistently said EXPLOSION or BOMB....

Do any of you have anything you can add?

Here's hoping.
 
Last edited:
Once again, no matter how you slice it, Sgt. DeVona is a NO PLANE
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

And on and on and on and on he flogs...........he really cannot seem to grasp the difference between someone who does not see a plane and a no-plane witness :rolleyes:

I did not and could not have seen the the first plane as I was in a conference room in North Carolina at the time. No Windows, no TV. Am I thus a "no-plane witness??????

horse01.jpg
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

3900194959_5165452422.jpg
 
jammonius said:
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?
Click to expand...

Can you point out the exact words of Sgt. DeVona that mean "out in front of WTC 5"?

Thanks.

I do of course understand that he heard an explosion (we all agree on this - no need to flog a horse that's running smoothly)
I do of course agree that he reports fireballs (plane fuel gushing down and all - is there an explanation for fireballs in the DEW theory?)
I do of course understand that he reports building debris on WTC Plaza. I think we all agree on this, although I am not so sure if you do. Do you? You seemed to have doubted that there would be any debris, because OLPT said she saw no debris on the sidewalk...
 
jammonius said:
Oystein,

You are too emotionally driven in the posts you are offering up to warrant any further response from me. Please modify post# 509 if you want to dialogue directly with me further about NIST.
Click to expand...

Dodge noted.
 
jammonius said:
Are you taller than the plymouth hubcap, as it appears you are in the photo, or is the plymouth hubcap taller than you?



ps

I see we have rolled past unlucky 13, Lurkers. I will try again on this page to encourage rational discussion of the PBW, Jim Ryan's No Planer status and Sgt. DeVona's No Plane witness statement. As always, I hope some Lurkers out there who were present in NYC on 9/11 will post up.

We know from the Dick Oliver videos there were quite a few people present at Park Row. The only ones who made any statements all consistently said EXPLOSION or BOMB....

Do any of you have anything you can add?

Here's hoping.
Click to expand...


Why? you have not added a single thing of any worth in all those pages. You will not even provide proof of any of the assertions you make. You would even fail the Turing Test!

97e0039baf0f0de179a34d45ab0a1c78.jpg
 
jammonius said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dodge noted.
Who is trying to control the dialogue here?

I take your evasion and irritated counterattack as your recognition that I did indeed GOTCHA :)
 
jammonius said:
Look AJM, <blather snipped>
Click to expand...

Frankly I couldn't care less. When somebody is behaving like a douchebag I'm going to call them on it, every time. So if one does not wish to be called on it, stop engaging in blatant, insipid douche baggery. ]

jammonius said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why do you skip DeVona's entry at 0849 hours in the November document?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16841973/...eport-of-the-WTC-Radio-Transmissions-on-91101


I'll take a signed document from the Port Authority over the lunatic ramblings of an internet truther, I'm funny that way.

jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

DeVona reported a possible aircraft collision at 0849. How's that for evidence. :rolleyes:



jammonius said:
Once again, no matter how you slice it, Sgt. DeVona is a NO PLANE witness. Is that what disgusts you?:boggled:
Click to expand...

Not quite. Actually I've just destroyed another of your "witnesses". No matter how you slice it.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you think a high-resolution image from a professional-grade camera would show less detail than a screen-capture from NTSC video that's been compressed and decompressed who-knows-how-many-times?

Why should their colour imagery match to the degree you think they should?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
I did not and could not have seen the the first plane as I was in a conference room in North Carolina at the time. No Windows, no TV. Am I thus a "no-plane witness??????
Click to expand...

Just as much as the lady from the Path Train was.

Just as much as I must be because I was in a cinema in Toronto during the Toronto International Film Festival.

In fact, I only saw the buildings collapsing on TV and I haven't been to NYC in the interim. So by jammonius' criteria, I must be bound and obliged to believe that the World Trade Center buildings are yet standing, cloaked by some stealthy technology. :boggled::boggled::boggled::boggled::boggled:
 
jammonius said:
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?
Click to expand...



Why are you going to ignore his question?

Are you somehow immune from providing justification for your assertions?
 
fitzgibbon said:
Why do you think a high-resolution image from a professional-grade camera would show less detail than a screen-capture from NTSC video that's been compressed and decompressed who-knows-how-many-times?

Why should their colour imagery match to the degree you think they should?
Click to expand...


i don't consider the above questions to be either helpful or responsive at all.

Are you willing to discuss what is seen in the photos, or not?

Your questions are devoid of any seeming recognition at all that we have photos in front of us, and we each presumed to have eyes and can, therefore, see and interpret visual information.

Are you willing to engage in a visual comparison of the information provided by the photos.

I have already said the network feed and the large photos seem filtered. More specifically, the network feed is hazy and has a yellowish tint. The large photos are likewise hazy and have a bluish tint.

On the other hand, the Dick Oliver video still is clear and in what I consider to be natural, clear daylight color and the detail showing damage to the building with primarily outward tilted and bent damage indicators that are consistent with force coming from inside, all as was more exactly mentioned by an in person witness, namely OLPT.

The blue tinted, hazy large images are simply not sharp enough, detailed enough to see the building damage. What they do reveal, however, is a small hole through which a Boeing 767 could not possibly have gone through. When that information is then compared to the reports, again, by OLPT and also by Chief Cassano, that there was no debris on the ground, the case for NO PLANE, meaning no Boeing 767 having hit the North Tower is firmly established, not merely as a validly stated inference, but as the most likely fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom