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

[twinstead]

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.

Sheesh. Why the word salad? A simple, "no, I refuse to answer your question because it's inconvenient to my position" would have been sufficient.

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

Uhm well, is it? Did Dick Oliver think so? Let's see...

Is it ok if I quote you to disprove what you just said? I have had discussions with truthers who considered it very rude to quote them to make an argument... I hope it's still ok.

Source of your quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5876474#post5876474

1:08-1:30 DO continues: "You could hear around me emergency vehicles heading towards the scene. Now this could have been an aircraft or it could have been something internal. It appears to be something coming from the outside due to the nature of the opening. On about the 100th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
...
2:15-2:40- DO continues: "Well it could be it could be something in-in internal as well. There are pieces of the superstructure sticking out but a lot going in

Well, dear jammonius: Dick Oliver was there, and he saw what everybody sees in his video and in all the other videos and photos: the broken columns and panels on the north facade of the North Tower were mainly stickin in, thus helping the case for some force being applied to the building from the outside - just like a plane would.


Can you agree that THAT is what Dick Oliver saw? A lot of things sticking IN, giving the opening the appearance that something hit from the outside, as Dick Oliver puts it?



What do you see - things sticking in, or out? Or too blurry to decide?

 

[fitzgibbon]

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?

I was. You see, I asked you

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?

That's your opening to explain the logical underpinnings of your position. Part of the discussion has to include how a particular piece of evidence supports your assertion. Thus far, you seem to be arguing that a valid judgment can better be made from a low-resolution blurred image than a high-resolution clear image. That strikes most people as counterintuitive. What makes that low-resolution image more reliable?

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.

But a sharp high-resolution image is being dismissed by you in favour of a low-resolution on which necessarily demands more 'interpretation' on your part. That's like saying an Impressionist painting is a better source for basing a judgment on as opposed to a photograph of exactly the same scene.

Like I said; counterintuitive. Please clarify why you should think this preferable.

 

[jammonius]

In an around about way, progress is being made. The differences now seem centered on what can or can't be seen in photos and what can or cannot be reasonably said about what witnesses have said.

I think posters are realizing, at long last, that the vast majority of PAPD witnesses use the words "explosion" and "bomb" and almost no one sees or claims to have seen a plane.

Of the few who claim to have seen a plane, the references are either tentative, indirect or from afar.

One poster here, AJM, indignantly referenced P.O. Basic, who was quoted by Sgt. DeVona, who saw no plane, as saying a "possible plane."

AJM jumped all over that statement as apparent proof of a plane, despite the obviously tentative and unsure nature of what P.O.Basic had said.

There is one other officer who likewise reports that all P.O.Basic actually did was raise the possibility of a plane, without saying that he saw any such thing. I refer here to E. Finnegan:

By the way, posters, there are actually 4, not 2, volumes of PAPD statements. They can be found at:

http://adam.pra.to/public/mir/www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

If you're looking for proof jetliners hit the WTC, then don't bother going through the 4 volumes. You will be hurt.

Almost all who were on the scene report an EXPLOSION making these Police Officers utterly and entirely consistent with the Dick Oliver witnesses. Almost none of them who were in a position actually to see or hear a plane make any mention of that at all.

At most, there are a few PLANE SPOTTERS who, for the most part, were far away, relative to the vast majority of witnesses who were closer and who predominantly use the word EXPLOSION.

I don't know what posters are going to do with this information. I assume the mechanisms of denial and of rationalization will overcome your ability to be objective, as it has done throughout this process.

But, the fact remains, the witnesses who were closest and who had a duty to be observant and truthful about reporting what they saw, through official channels, almost always say they saw or heard an EXPLOSION.

I regret that information causes apoplexy and denial around here.

Similarly, I'm afraid posters also cannot bring themselves around to even doing an objective review of the photos showing the hole in the North Tower.

There hasn't been any comment at all on the fact the holes shown in the photos are far too small for a Boeing 767 to have gone all the way through; yet, there was no plane debris below.

Come on posters, you don't have to fear being objective.

Try harder, please.

 

[carlitos]

The passengers, crew and terrorists were pretty definitive that they were on a plane.

 

[beachnut]

The passengers, crew and terrorists were pretty definitive that they were on a plane.

The RADAR backs them up. The impacts only a plane going about 470 mph and 590 mph could make; impacts backed up by eyes, and video play back match the exact time RADAR data showing 11 and 175 flights ending at the WTC to the second.

Not surprising these facts fail to make headway with the super logic disaster of jet engines being Plymouth Wheel Covers; we are stuck with delusions made up with failed logic about Dick Oliver.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

There hasn't been any comment at all on the fact the holes shown in the photos are far too small for a Boeing 767 to have gone all the way through; yet, there was no plane debris below.

Its hard to credit anyone could be capable of typing on a keyboard yet still so unremittingly and utterly without any higher brain function at alll. Perhaps Jammos keyboarding skills are a Brain stem function?

Sammo, please show us why the plane would have gone through the building and left a hole the same size on the other side. Please list all assumption made and post all working.
Why are you lying about there being no debris???. You may think it was planted but you have already admitted that there was plane debris. Stop lying.

Luckily there is no immediate shortage of dead horses

 

[TJM]

<usual crap snipped>One poster here, AJM, indignantly referenced P.O. Basic, who was quoted by Sgt. DeVona, who saw no plane, as saying a "possible plane."

AJM jumped all over that statement as apparent proof of a plane, despite the obviously tentative and unsure nature of what P.O.Basic had said.

Yes let's forget Sgt DeVona giving an actual confirmation of aircraft into both buildings @0923, that's not important now is it.

Better still, let's glance over the fact that PO Lim reported smelling jet fuel on the 51st floor @0912.

I don't know about NYC, but here in SF we generally don't store jet fuel in our buildings. So unless the WTC wasn't also a jet fuel storage facility then something brought that fuel into the tower. I wonder what that could've been.

Care to field that one jammonius?

 

[Porkpie Hat]

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:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/clearer.jpg?t=1273110953


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

Ummm...no.

 

[BigAl]

Come on posters, you don't have to fear being objective.

Try harder, please.

An objective look at all the data and eyewitness statements and video shows that you are wrong.

Every point you try to make is either wrong or irrelevant to the facts of the day; two hijacked Boeing jets crashed into the towers and they burned and collapsed as a result.

 

[X]

Jammo, please show us why the plane would have gone through the building and left a hole the same size on the other side. Please list all assumption made and post all working.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Jammonius is exempt from justifying his assumptions. He can make as many wild claims as he likes, but being asked to back them up is playing "gotcha", and he does not have to aprticipate in such games.

 

[jammonius]

Ummm...no.

That answer is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far, does it?

The advantages of the above in my opinion are:
1--Clarity of color;
2--Better detail concerning nature and extent of damage to exterior.

We see those advantages very clearly in comparison with the network photo that is seen next to in the above.

The disadvantages of the network image are:
1--Dark and distant;
2--Fuzzy and blurry;
3--Lacking in detail.

However, seen below is the "big" image:

Its advangage is:

1--Size and angle showing the overall shape as well as size of the hole in the structure as well as extent of fire at that particular time. The size of the hole enables us us to say that hole is too small to have absorbed a Boeing 767 and that since there was no debris below, as reported by multiple credible witnessds, including OLPT and Chief Cassano, the claim a big Boeing hit the building is basically refuted by the evidence revealing the hole was not large enough to have absorbed the entire presumed jetliner.

Granted, some might argue the plane disintegrated or whatever, but the degree of disintegration that would have resulted in no debris would require an extreme form of disintegration and a rather untenable argument, imho.

Its disadvantage are:

1--Coloration has a decided blue tint that seems strange;
2--It lacks the detail of the damage to the exterior in comparison with the Dick Oliver image;
3--Perhaps as a result of the blue filtering, if that is what it was, the image is a bit blurry and hazy.

Can you offer up whether you agree or disagree with the foregoing and whether you have different ways of describing the images in some greater detail?

Mind you, if you do not want to do that, you are not obliged to do so, of course.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

Yes let's forget Sgt DeVona giving an actual confirmation of aircraft into both buildings @0923, that's not important now is it.

The above is simply not worthy of your potential level of analysis. You are not interpreting the data properly.

By 0923, teevee had already included the apparent "live" image and apparent teevee narration of the famous ""...there's another one..." declaration. Plus, by 0923, the whole thing had been solved and Osama binLaden had already been fingered as the culprit, I do believe.

Further, just think about DeVona's statement. It is impossible for confirmation to have consisted in anything other than what people were getting from teevee.

The problem is, teevee doesn't trump what people actually experienced and said.

I suppose the issue is, has been, and might for a long time continue to be, whether and to what extent people are willing to examine the role of teevee in the 9/11 PSYOP.

We saw this a little bit in the blacking out of the Dick Oliver video and in the selective us of witnesses. The one window on reality we had was taken from us. Right after OLPT, we were given filtered and selective witnesses, Sean, Rosa and Jim. Yet, all actual witnesses, including all in the Dick Oliver video were saying "explosion" and not plane.

The fact that Dick Oliver was blanked out and substituted with both the fuzzy image and witnesses who were saying things completely at odds with what those who were, more or less, right in front of the building were saying speaks volumes that what we were being exposed to was a PSYOP.

I have already said a survery of the 4 volumes of the PAPD statements, and you can look yourself, confirm that an overwhelming number of statements use the word "EXPLOSION" just like the actual responses from witnesses in the Dick Oliver video, and almost none claiming a plane and those that do claim a plane are either tentative or at a distance, for the most part.

Once again, here's a reminder of exactly when the window on reality was taken away:

Better still, let's glance over the fact that PO Lim reported smelling jet fuel on the 51st floor @0912.

I have already mentioned that there are witnesses like that. Reality is almost always a hodge-podge and is almost never completely one way or another. I was the one who called attention to this grouping of "smell" witnesses. Furthermore, the claim is that the K-9s smelled jet fuel. Now, goodness knows I respect K-9s and I am sure the K-9s smelled something, but really, ask yourself this:

How does a police officer know a dog is smelling jet fuel?

Does the dog bark a certain number of times if it's jet fuel and a different number if it's some other substance?

All we can know from our K-9 partners is that something they have been trained to respond to is present. As to what it is, people have to find it. There was no evidence that people could point to for purposes of claiming jet fuel.

Come on, put your thinking cap on please

Keep in mind, too, that of all the human senses, our sense of smell is our weakest and least reliable.

I don't know about NYC, but here in SF we generally don't store jet fuel in our buildings. So unless the WTC wasn't also a jet fuel storage facility then something brought that fuel into the tower. I wonder what that could've been.

Care to field that one jammonius?

As jet fuel is functionally equivalent to and interchangable with kerosene and heating oil, all oil heated buildings do, in fact, contain the functional equivalent of jet fuel.

So, indeed, I can field that one.

 

[jammonius]

The RADAR backs them up. The impacts only a plane going about 470 mph and 590 mph could make; impacts backed up by eyes, and video play back match the exact time RADAR data showing 11 and 175 flights ending at the WTC to the second.

Not surprising these facts fail to make headway with the super logic disaster of jet engines being Plymouth Wheel Covers; we are stuck with delusions made up with failed logic about Dick Oliver.

This poster keeps on claiming radar this and radar that.

Can posters or lurkers please remind this poster that key radar data was unavaible on 9/11 for a number of reasons including:

1--Military exercises and games simulating hijacking of planes;

2--Key radar installations that just so happened to be taken off line that day for maintenance.

3--The fact that radar can prove some things, but not others, like what actually hit the WTC, if anything did at all that could be picked up reliably by radar.

Beyond that, radar claims are possibly a derail. This doesn't mean we can't discuss radar, so I'm willing to go there if Beachnut is willing to be honest and specific about it. However, it might be better to do radar in another thread.

At most, we can do radar here for what happened at the North Tower, I would think.

 

[BigAl]

This poster keeps on claiming radar this and radar that.

Can posters or lurkers please remind this poster that key radar data was unavaible on 9/11 for a number of reasons including:.

Irrelevant.

Radar data is available now. Flights 11 and 175 hit the towers

Everything you claim is either wrong or irrelevant or incoherent rambling.

 

[sylvan8798]

Further, just think about DeVona's statement. It is impossible for confirmation to have consisted in anything other than what people were getting from teevee.

He probably wasn't watching TV at the time. Just a guess. Why would there be no other channels of knowledge open to the police besides the television? Like, say, the FAA? or the local police traffic copters? or the Transportation Authority? or any of a myriad of other sources? Is the TV the only source of knowledge on your planet?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Its advangage is:

1--Size and angle showing the overall shape as well as size of the hole in the structure as well as extent of fire at that particular time. The size of the hole enables us us to say that hole is too small to have absorbed a Boeing 767 and that since there was no debris below, as reported by multiple credible witnessds, including OLPT and Chief Cassano, the claim a big Boeing hit the building is basically refuted by the evidence revealing the hole was not large enough to have absorbed the entire presumed jetliner.

Show us how it is not large enough. list all assumptions made and show working.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadhorse,_Alaska

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Granted, some might argue the plane disintegrated or whatever, but the degree of disintegration that would have resulted in no debris would require an extreme form of disintegration and a rather untenable argument, imho.

Some might argue??????? Are you completely bonkers? This what happens when a jet aircraft hits something hard at around 500mph

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=phantom+test+nuclear&aq=f

Is that not extreme enough for you! Please show us why a 767 would fare any better than that Phantom, list all assumptions made and show working.

Jammo, still flogging I see......how about a beating a dead horse song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bgKm9RTq4

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It's hazy because of the smoke in the air and it's blue because it's in the shadowed side of the building (look on the far right side where to see where it's washed out by sunlight).

Here's a tip for you, each exterior panel (all of them consisted of three columns) was ~10 feet wide. If you count the columns under the north towers punch out hole you will see that it is exactly 3 columns wide, or one exterior panels wide. This coincides with the one exterior panel shown outside the Greek church. You can now use this knowledge of panel size (~10' wide, ~30' tall) to get a good estimate of the size of the hole in the south tower (hint, it's the size of a 767).

 

[TJM]

The above is simply not worthy of your potential level of analysis. You are not interpreting the data properly.

By 0923, teevee had already included the apparent "live" image and apparent teevee narration of the famous ""...there's another one..." declaration. Plus, by 0923, the whole thing had been solved and Osama binLaden had already been fingered as the culprit, I do believe.

Further, just think about DeVona's statement. It is impossible for confirmation to have consisted in anything other than what people were getting from teevee.

This is by far the most moronic thing I've heard from you to date. This man just witnessed an explosion (even by your standards), debris, fire and human beings begin raining down on him. OK, let's just put that aside for the moment and just answer this question: When the hell did this man have the time to TURN ON A GOD DAMNED TELEVISION SET! Did you even read his report? This is assuming he still had electrical power after the crash.

I have already mentioned that there are witnesses like that. Reality is almost always a hodge-podge and is almost never completely one way or another. I was the one who called attention to this grouping of "smell" witnesses. Furthermore, the claim is that the K-9s smelled jet fuel. Now, goodness knows I respect K-9s and I am sure the K-9s smelled something, but really, ask yourself this:

How does a police officer know a dog is smelling jet fuel?

Does the dog bark a certain number of times if it's jet fuel and a different number if it's some other substance?

All we can know from our K-9 partners is that something they have been trained to respond to is present. As to what it is, people have to find it. There was no evidence that people could point to for purposes of claiming jet fuel.

Come on, put your thinking cap on please

Keep in mind, too, that of all the human senses, our sense of smell is our weakest and least reliable.

He didn't say his dog reacted to it, or even if his dog was present. He reported the smell of burning jet fuel.

As jet fuel is functionally equivalent to and interchangable with kerosene and heating oil, all oil heated buildings do, in fact, contain the functional equivalent of jet fuel.

So, indeed, I can field that one.

The World Trade Center was heated by steam.

Triple failure for jammonius.