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

[BillyRayValentine]

Hey Lurkers,

Not only are we on a new page, requiring a reminder to lurkers to do their thing, we have, in the above, a dim but recognizable hint of dawning realization in the above post.

No plane claims are, indeed, based upon "...a lot of compiled data..."

Good grief. You're they guy that was pushing that Dick Oliver video as no-planer evidence, right?

Friend, stop embarrassing yourself. The rattle and hum of NYC is substantial, and the cityscape affects views. What one sees and hears in NYC can vary greatly simply by moving a few feet. Your entire analysis is laughable to anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the city.

Don't mean to be too prickly, but the fact that I watched the second plane come in from lower Manhattan leaves me with a very low tolerance for no-planer stupidity.

 

[Oystein]

...
Don't mean to be too prickly, but the fact that I watched the second plane come in from lower Manhattan leaves me with a very low tolerance for no-planer stupidity.

To make this crystal clear and leave no wiggling room for jammonius: Are you saying you were in New York City that day, and you saw the second plane directly, with your own eyes?

Where in NYC were you?
Did you see it crash?
Did you hear it or the crash?

 

[DGM]

I'm very disappointed that jammonius did not see fit to address my questions. I'm still holding out hope that he simply just missed them. I'll quote them here for his convenience.

Jammonius:
Quick question (and by that I mean you don't need to post anything other then material concerning my question), What do you think is the difference between the sound of an explosion as opposed to say, an plane hitting a building?

Also, if you don't mind, How do you suppose would be the best way for someone that's never heard a plane crash to describe said sound?

 

[Oystein]

I am again watching the Dick Oliver broadcast - the breaking news on WNYW, beginning at 8:48:10, less than 2 minutes after the crash:


How can one miss, among all the professional caution Oliver employs to avoid jumping to early conclusions, the key observations:
"Jim, just a few moments ago, something believed to be a plane crashed into the South Tower of the WTC. ... It appears to be something coming from the outside due to the nature of the opening on about the hundredth floor of the South Tower of the WTC ... We have no idea of what happened, but we did hear of what sounded like, sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom." (still 8:49am)

How can anybody be more clear? What Dick Oliver heard prior to the crash, and what he saw in clear daylight, is very much indicative of a PLANE crash.

Maybe jammonius wants to prefer that Oliver lied about what he saw or heard?

Later in the talk, when the process of interpretation begins, he starts leaning to the idea that it was maybe something from the inside, as Jim Ryan imagines that there should be airplane debris visible somewhere, and Oliver can't imagine that a plane should hit a building in broad daylight. But these statements are clearly products of their imagination, and therefore are not evidence at all.


But we can't stress enough two key observations made directly on the scene by Dick Oliver and related to us raw within less than 2 minutes of the event:
- He heard something that sounded like an aircraft and then the tremendous boom
- The whole in the building looks as if it was made by something coming from the outside, as there are a lot of pieces of the structure going in.


jammonius, you should contemplate that testimony by Dick Oliver. And keep contemplating.



You should also not forget that David Stollick, although later failing to mention if he heard something before the exlosion or not, first (only seconds after the crash, reacted raw with the words: "Sounded like a plane crash!". Together with Oliver's recollection "we did hear of what sounded like an aircraft", any sane person would now conclude that a plane crash is indeed the best explanation of what all our witnesses describe, together with what we see and hear in the videos.

 

[dafydd]

 

[dafydd]

Good grief. You're they guy that was pushing that Dick Oliver video as no-planer evidence, right?

Friend, stop embarrassing yourself. The rattle and hum of NYC is substantial, and the cityscape affects views. What one sees and hears in NYC can vary greatly simply by moving a few feet. Your entire analysis is laughable to anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the city.

Don't mean to be too prickly, but the fact that I watched the second plane come in from lower Manhattan leaves me with a very low tolerance for no-planer stupidity.

Well Jammonious,are you calling this man a liar?

 

[phunk]

However, seen below is the "big" image:

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

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

How big would you estimate that hole is?

Cut the crap and post up a size claim if you think doing so will advance some point you, and you alone, might like to make. I characteristically, habitually, and consistently do not play in other posters' 20 questions drills as that drill is childish, stupid and unworthy of reasoned, mature discussion.

I will continue to search for the way to say the above until the simple-minded rhetoric ceases to be posted.

Excuse me sir, but you are the one who needs to cut the crap.

You are the one that's already posted a size claim to advance some point that you, and you alone, are trying to make. You said the hole was too small. So, how big was it and how big should it have been? Stop the rhetorical games and back up your claim.

 

[phunk]

Would you be willing to repost the pictures for sake of comparison. I challenge your assertion the large one gives the best detail. I also challenge the assertion you can make a reasoned statement that the big one clearly shows something entered into, rather than exited from, the building.

There is some clear evidence that something entered rather than exited the building. The missing exterior panels from the hole on the north side of the building did not fall to the street. They were pushed into the building.

 

[sts60]

Hey Lurkers,

Not only are we on a new page, requiring a reminder to lurkers to do their thing, . . .

Lurker / Truther	2 	2.35%
Lurker / Debunker	80 	94.12%
Lurker / Undecided	3 	3.53%

Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

 

[sylvan8798]

Hey Lurkers,

Not only are we on a new page, requiring a reminder to lurkers to do their thing, we have, in the above, a dim but recognizable hint of dawning realization in the above post.

No plane claims are, indeed, based upon "...a lot of compiled data..."

Keep on coming, Sylvan, you're getting warm...

You've gone over the cliff. Do NOT, EVER, attempt to project any of your ridiculous ideas on me.

 

[jammonius]

There is some clear evidence that something entered rather than exited the building. The missing exterior panels from the hole on the north side of the building did not fall to the street. They were pushed into the building.

Actually, your post is an exercise in overstatement, at best, and delusion, at worst. You do not have any information enabling you to say what is inside the building. Any other claim by you is absurd.

The photo you rely on is large, but unclear as to conditions on the OUTSIDE of the building, let alone INSIDE.

Your declaration is also at odds with Our Jim Ryan, whom I've already quoted and who another poster sought to argue with. Fine. The other poster(s), including you can argue with Jim Ryan's interpretation.

I have already said the Dick Oliver video is, in my view, clearer and sharper. If you look, it shows clading and building material extending outwards:

Furthermore, Our Lady of the Path Train (OLPT) made it very clear that her on the scene observation led her to conclude the explosion occurred inside and not outside and that is what she clearly and cogently said:

OLPT

Note, too, that the network image is not as clear for purposes of detailed assessment. It is dark, filtered, blurry, and indicative of an intent to keep the situation hidden from view, rather than observed. However, the network versions are not all the same. Here's one that may not be as clear as the Dick Oliver version, it does, nonetheless show outward leaning clading, predominantly and in no uncertain terms, unless, that is, you are a person who is bound and determined to see things that are consistent with the common storyline, come what may. Note, too, that this version actually comes from the Dick Oliver video and is, in some respects, clearer than the one used to create that large photo posted elsewhere. Look at the detail showing outward slant:

Lurkers, it is very clear that I am the one posting up the evidence, naming names and quoting witnesses. There are very few examples in this thread of other posters independently posting up witness accounts. What posters here do is take exception to, nit-pick and otherwise seek to minimize the value of the witnesses I post up, all the while failing and failing utterly to post up reliable ones of their own. Newspaper "stories" about what someone said someone else said last year or the year before, do not count as actual witness statements.

 

[jammonius]

Good grief. You're they guy that was pushing that Dick Oliver video as no-planer evidence, right?

Friend, stop embarrassing yourself. The rattle and hum of NYC is substantial, and the cityscape affects views. What one sees and hears in NYC can vary greatly simply by moving a few feet. Your entire analysis is laughable to anyone who's even vaguely familiar with the city.

Don't mean to be too prickly, but the fact that I watched the second plane come in from lower Manhattan, leaves me with a very low tolerance for no-planer stupidity.

Well, let's deal with first things first. 5 times out of 10, when people say what you have said above, and I quote: "...I watched the second plane come in from lower Manhattan..." they are referring to what they saw on what they claim was "Live" teevee.

So, I need here merely to double check for sake of accuracy: Does your statement refer to what you saw while located in lower Manhattan, or across the river, perhaps, either inside with a view of the South Tower or outside with such a view?

If your statement pertains to a view from somewhere where you saw it with your eyes, unaided by teevee, please feel free to give as much or as little detail as you are comfortable with giving. I will take what you say at your word and consider it to be a valid witness statement to be considered with other valid witness statements, like, say, that of jr343 and foolmewunz.

Now let's look at second things: Your post about what information the Dick Oliver videos reveal is, quite frankly, not up to speed. You appear to need to digest the forbidden thread as well as this one a little more closely as your statements about what the Dick Oliver video reveals is incomplete, to put it no more harshly than that.

See:

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


After getting caught up to date, do better in your next post.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Actually, your post is an exercise in overstatement, at best, and delusion, at worst. You do not have any information enabling you to say what is inside the building. Any other claim by you is absurd.

The photo you rely on is large, but unclear as to conditions on the OUTSIDE of the building, let alone INSIDE.

Your declaration is also at odds with Our Jim Ryan, whom I've already quoted and who another poster sought to argue with. Fine. The other poster(s), including you can argue with Jim Ryan's interpretation.

I have already said the Dick Oliver video is, in my view, clearer and sharper. If you look, it shows clading and building material extending outwards:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/2010-05-06_181415.jpg?t=1273606581

Furthermore, Our Lady of the Path Train (OLPT) made it very clear that her on the scene observation led her to conclude the explosion occurred inside and not outside and that is what she clearly and cogently said:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/OLPT.jpg?t=1273606715
OLPT

Note, too, that the network image is useless for purposes of detailed assessment. It is dark, filtered, blurry, and indicative of an intent to keep the situation hidden from view, rather than observed.

Lurkers, it is very clear that I am the one naming names and quoting witnesses. There are very few examples in this thread of other posters independently posting up witness accounts. What posters here do is take exception to, nit-pick and otherwise seek to minimize the value of the witnesses I post up, all the while failing and failing utterly to post up reliable ones of their own. Newspaper "stories" about what someone said someone else said last year or the year before, do not count as actual witness statements.

It never ends...flog flog flog


http://rlv.zcache.com/alimony_is_li..._horse_tshirt-p235461500867741602t5tr_400.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Do not hotlink images. See Rule 5.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Well, let's deal with first things first. 5 times out of 10, when people say what you have said above, and I quote: "...I watched the second plane come in from lower Manhattan..." they are referring to what they saw on what they claim was "Live" teevee.

So, I need here merely to double check for sake of accuracy: Does your statement refer to what you saw while located in lower Manhattan, or across the river, perhaps, either inside with a view of the South Tower or outside with such a view?

If your statement pertains to a view from somewhere where you saw it with your eyes, unaided by teevee, please feel free to give as much or as little detail as you are comfortable with giving. I will take what you say at your word and consider it to be a valid witness statement to be considered with other valid witness statements, like, say, that of jr343 and foolmewunz.

Now let's look at second things: Your post about what information the Dick Oliver videos reveal is, quite frankly, not up to speed. You appear to need to digest the forbidden thread as well as this one a little more closely as your statements about what the Dick Oliver video reveals is incomplete, to put it no more harshly than that.

See:

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


After getting caught up to date, do better in your next post.

Flog flog flog.....do you really imagine anyone is seeing anything than utter and total insanity in your posts? Can you really be that unaware of reality?


http://www.zentastic.com/iamimport/2005/08/dead-horses-3.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Do not hotlink images in your posts. See Rule 5.

Does this horse look live to you????

 

[jammonius]

Hey Sheeplesnshills,

I wonder whether you would consider removing the image in post# 634? I think you do yourself a disservice by seeking to gross us out with distasteful images.

I mean, for goodness sake, you were better off seeking to send us all off on a wild goose chase arguing about why an IMPACT CRATER should be created by a steel beam crashing into West and Cedar, where no such crater was seen, as you did in post# 411.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5898641&postcount=411

For as bad as that post was, at least it wasn't gross.

I hope you will choose the high road and modify post # 634.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

I am again watching the Dick Oliver broadcast - the breaking news on WNYW, beginning at 8:48:10, less than 2 minutes after the crash:


How can one miss, among all the professional caution Oliver employs to avoid jumping to early conclusions, the key observations:
"Jim, just a few moments ago, something believed to be a plane crashed into the South Tower of the WTC. ... It appears to be something coming from the outside due to the nature of the opening on about the hundredth floor of the South Tower of the WTC ... We have no idea of what happened, but we did hear of what sounded like, sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom." (still 8:49am)

How can anybody be more clear? What Dick Oliver heard prior to the crash, and what he saw in clear daylight, is very much indicative of a PLANE crash.

Maybe jammonius wants to prefer that Oliver lied about what he saw or heard?

Later in the talk, when the process of interpretation begins, he starts leaning to the idea that it was maybe something from the inside, as Jim Ryan imagines that there should be airplane debris visible somewhere, and Oliver can't imagine that a plane should hit a building in broad daylight. But these statements are clearly products of their imagination, and therefore are not evidence at all.


But we can't stress enough two key observations made directly on the scene by Dick Oliver and related to us raw within less than 2 minutes of the event:
- He heard something that sounded like an aircraft and then the tremendous boom
- The whole in the building looks as if it was made by something coming from the outside, as there are a lot of pieces of the structure going in.


jammonius, you should contemplate that testimony by Dick Oliver. And keep contemplating.



You should also not forget that David Stollick, although later failing to mention if he heard something before the exlosion or not, first (only seconds after the crash, reacted raw with the words: "Sounded like a plane crash!". Together with Oliver's recollection "we did hear of what sounded like an aircraft", any sane person would now conclude that a plane crash is indeed the best explanation of what all our witnesses describe, together with what we see and hear in the videos.

Straight up: Do you have the capacity for complete, fair and objective assessment of what Dick Oliver said and meant or not?

At a minimum, you need to include what Dick Oliver said as reported in the OP of the forbidden thread.

See post # 1

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

Dick Oliver is not a hard study or a complex witness. You need to stop posting up incomplete assessments of him as a witness. You aren't fooling the Lurkers, or anyone else, save only, perhaps, yourself.

 

[jammonius]

And yet again you managed to dance around and never touch the questions he posed to you.

Hey HawksFan,

Nice to hear from you. I do hope there's something of substance you will choose to add to the thread at this point.

thanks

 

[jammonius]

I'm very disappointed that jammonius did not see fit to address my questions. I'm still holding out hope that he simply just missed them. I'll quote them here for his convenience.

Why, then, don't you offer up your own answers to see if that facilitates discussion you crave of the sound expected from crashes. By the way, in double checking for accuracy of understanding, I assume, for purposes of this thread that what you are really interested in is what a Boeing 767 @ 500mph+/- sounds like when hitting one of the Twin Towers of the WTC, correct?

Surely you aren't interested in sending us off on a wild goose chase about the sound of plane crashes of all types, are you?

Consider, too, that I have already posted up a number of witnesses, including FIRST NO PLANER candidates, Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory and Battalion Chief Stephen King each of whom relied on their sense of hearing to say they didn't think a jetliner was involved and, in Gregory's case, didn't see one -- WHILE STANDING THERE, no less.

Come on, would you get up to speed, please.

thanks

 

[Oystein]

Actually, your post is an exercise in overstatement, at best, and delusion, at worst. You do not have any information enabling you to say what is inside the building. Any other claim by you is absurd.

The photo you rely on is large, but unclear as to conditions on the OUTSIDE of the building, let alone INSIDE.
...
I have already said the Dick Oliver video is, in my view, clearer and sharper. If you look, it shows clading and building material extending outwards:

How then do you explain that Dick Oliver himself, watching the exact same thing at the exact same time from the exact same spot - because he was right next to the camera - described what he saw with his own eyes thusly:

"It appears to be something coming from the outside due to the nature of the opening on about the hundredth floor of the South Tower of the WTC. [...] There are pieces of the superstructure of the WTC sticking out, but a lot going in."
(both statements uttered before 8:50, that is within 4 minutes of the crash, and before Jim Ryan says anything, or the connection is broken)

Was Dick Oliver deluded? Lying? Did he have bad eye sight?

Furthermore, Our Lady of the Path Train (OLPT) made it very clear that her on the scene observation led her to conclude the explosion occurred inside and not outside and that is what she clearly and cogently said:
...

Tell us again, was the Lady 80 feet underground on a subway train? And is it true that she is therefore not a eye witness of the explosion? Is it true that she is only interpreting the fact that things are flying out the broken windows minutes after the crash?

A simple "Yes to all" will suffice. No word salad ordered with that

 

[Oystein]

Hey Sheeplesnshills,

I wonder whether you would consider removing the image in post# 634? I think you do yourself a disservice by seeking to gross us out with distasteful images....

In the same spirit, we could request that you edit a multitude of your gross and distasteful postings.

It will be quite enough if you just stop posting them.