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

[Oystein]

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

Yes, I am. You are not. He clearly said THEY heard something like a plane before the crash, and he says that something seems to have hit the tower from the outside, because that's what the hole in the tower looks like.

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.

You are referring me to a gross and distasteful word salad.

 

[Oystein]

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

HawksFan has evidently spotted several questions of substance that you have ignored, because he knows that you know that answering them as crisply and concisely as they are put would make you contradict yourself and write something true for the very first time.

 

[Oystein]

In jammos world, things that some people don't hear (ETA: or maybe hear but don't explicitly mention) trump things that other people do hear, or smell, or see. A strange world indeed.


jammo, quick:
1. Is it true, that "Sean" and "Rosa" both told us who they were, where they were, that they had a clear view on WTC, and that they saw a plane hit it?
2. Do you think that they both must have known whether their statements are true or untrue?
3. Is it true that you, jammo, assume both their statemennts to be untrue, i.e. they did not, in fact, see a plane crash into WTC?
4. Does it follow from 1.-3. that you imply both of them lied?

A simple "yes to all" will suffice, no word salad ordered

for jammonius

Just 4 yes/no-questions. You'll be done in a few seconds. Crisp and concise

 

[Oystein]

Did you happen to see or hear anything on 9/11 from the vantage point of being in lower Manhattan that day, by chance?

I hope you are not basing all, or mostly all, of what you hold to be true about 9/11 upon what you did not see or hear or smell on teevee, or anywhere else, are you?

for jammonius

Just 2 yes/no-questions. You'll be done in a few seconds. Crisp and concise

 

[Oystein]

The old dodging technique "20 questions are evil": Refuse to say out loud facts that are directly contradicting your claims. It is an absolutely essential tactic for jammonius to keep his mind closed and free from all enlightment. Ok, I'll scream it:

The openings in both towers coincide perfectly in shape, size and other characteristics with the shape and size of Boeing 767s. Right?

A simple "yes" will suffice - no word salad ordered

for jammonius

Just 1 yes/no-questions. You'll be done in a few seconds. Crisp and concise

 

[Oystein]

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.

Bumped for jammonius - nothing to reply to, just something to ponder

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Do you comprehend anything anyone posts? No one here other than you said there had to be a crater.....I just asked you to show why you assumed there would be. As usual you did not back up your assumption with any data.

So you continue to flog flog flog the poor dead horse
http://www.blooddeepthemovie.com/images/dead horse logo.jpg

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Lashl keep removing my dead horse pictures....how do I post an image that does not incur her undoubtedly deserved wrath?

 

[LashL]

Lashl keep removing my dead horse pictures....how do I post an image that does not incur her undoubtedly deserved wrath?

As I explained in a PM to you, hotlinking is not permitted. You can post the images but first you have to load them to a site that allows hotlinking (such as PhotoBucket or ImageShack or a similar site) or you can upload them to your user space here at the JREF forum and post them that way.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I bet Lashl's phone number would be a hot-link! I'd also bet she would not permit it....

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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?

Yes, I was here. I've lived in the West Village for 20 years. I saw the first hole from Greenwich St., apparently moments after it happened, and ran across the Westside Highway (I had been on my way out for a run) to Pier 40. Not long after getting there and walking out a bit, my eye caught the plane coming in over the harbor. You had to happen to be looking at the right time- it was fairly easy to miss against the horizon.

I didn't see the actual impact or or have a direct view of the affected area of the building. I was almost a mile away, so I heard very little - sirens were screaming steadily at that point, so whatever sound might have reached me from a mile away would have been drowned out.

I did see parts of the resulting fireball and loads of smoke. And since I saw the plane and its path beforehand, and I'm a sane person, I was quite certain that the fireball and smoke I saw were the results of the plane crashing into the building.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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.

Good God, man. That ridiculous OP wherein you parse the Dick Oliver video is precisely what I was referring to. All of the claims you make are either flat out wrong in an incredibly stupid, amateurish way (the sound recorded sounds EXACTLY like a jet roaring in at high speeds) or they are irrelevant and silly (your focus on what amounts to ambient noise in NYC, ex.). I mean seriously, your ignorance as to cityscapes, particularly that of NYC, is glaring. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Yes, I was here. I've lived in the West Village for 20 years. I saw the first hole from Greenwich St., apparently moments after it happened, and ran across the Westside Highway (I had been on my way out for a run) to Pier 40. Not long after getting there and walking out a bit, my eye caught the plane coming in over the harbor. You had to happen to be looking at the right time- it was fairly easy to miss against the horizon.

I didn't see the actual impact or or have a direct view of the affected area of the building. I was almost a mile away, so I heard very little - sirens were screaming steadily at that point, so whatever sound might have reached me from a mile away would have been drowned out.

I did see parts of the resulting fireball and loads of smoke. And since I saw the plane and its path beforehand, and I'm a sane person, I was quite certain that the fireball and smoke I saw were the results of the plane crashing into the building.

How can sane rational skeptics such as yourselves, entertain asinine theories such as the "no planes" or "pentagon missile" theories, over and over, with people who have consistently demonstrated the inability to accept new information into their world-views.

(reference to definition of insanity)

Why, like some senior members and high contributers have suggested, do you not make a collective decision to ignore these posters? Why not have an official JREF 9/11 Conspiracy list, with each topic that has been thoroughly debunked, listed, described, and linked. Then, make it a 9/11 forum specific rule that any posts re-hashing the unwaveringly factual, agreed upon concepts, a forum violation.

The benefit of this would be that in order for new, relevant theories/facts/hypothesises to be presented, they must be first be cross-checked with the JREF 9/11 Fact Index. Relevant new information presented could potentially alter the fact index.

Jumbo-jet planes hit buildings and fields, people. To say they somehow didn't is unfathomably stupid. I visit JREF to get concise and easily cross-checked facts in order to educate my personal opinion. Why do you guys come here? Certainly its not to laugh anonymously at the unfathomably stupid.

Lets get rid of the unfathomable and the stupid at JREF. If we throw away personal beliefs for the time being; what are your thoughts? any ideas? Mods?

 

[Oystein]

Yes, I was here. I've lived in the West Village for 20 years. I saw the first hole from Greenwich St., apparently moments after it happened, and ran across the Westside Highway (I had been on my way out for a run) to Pier 40. Not long after getting there and walking out a bit, my eye caught the plane coming in over the harbor. You had to happen to be looking at the right time- it was fairly easy to miss against the horizon.

I didn't see the actual impact or or have a direct view of the affected area of the building. I was almost a mile away, so I heard very little - sirens were screaming steadily at that point, so whatever sound might have reached me from a mile away would have been drowned out.

I did see parts of the resulting fireball and loads of smoke. And since I saw the plane and its path beforehand, and I'm a sane person, I was quite certain that the fireball and smoke I saw were the results of the plane crashing into the building.

Thanks so much!
Pier 40 is the square slab to the west of West Houston Street, right?
On Google Maps
(I labelled 343 West Street to get an approximate position, Pier 40 is to the left of that).
So you were about 2000m or a little over a mile away. And the explosion was drowned out. Cool.

Did you make that connection plane-fireball immediately, or did it occur to you only later, for example, when you had a first chance to hear any broadcast news?

Do you say you had just come out of your house when you saw the hole of the first crash? That would mean you were probably deep inside your house, maybe in a staircase or an elevator, when the first plane passed over the West Village?

(I am anticipating jammonius' questions here, but think you'd prefer them put by someone who believes you saw what you saw which was a plane that later crashed, rather than by a troll who will spin your words any way he chooses)

 

[fitzgibbon]

Lets get rid of the unfathomable and the stupid at JREF. If we throw away personal beliefs for the time being; what are your thoughts? any ideas? Mods?

Throw away the unfathomable and the stupid and that pretty much shuts down the 9/11 sub-forum (not that that'd be a bad thing necessarily). Ignoring isn't really an option either because then the latest, greatest search-challenged troll comes in, reposts something that's be debunked multiple times before, gets ignored and then parses and equates being ignored as having scared skeptics into silence, running away declaring victory.

Truthers are like a perennial but incurable low-grade infection that can be kept at bay with the simple antibiotics of facts and logic. The daily ministrations are annoying but analogous to the proverbial ounce of prevention.

HTH
Fitz

 

[dafydd]

Throw away the unfathomable and the stupid and that pretty much shuts down the 9/11 sub-forum (not that that'd be a bad thing necessarily). Ignoring isn't really an option either because then the latest, greatest search-challenged troll comes in, reposts something that's be debunked multiple times before, gets ignored and then parses and equates being ignored as having scared skeptics into silence, running away declaring victory.

Truthers are like a perennial but incurable low-grade infection that can be kept at bay with the simple antibiotics of facts and logic. The daily ministrations are annoying but analogous to the proverbial ounce of prevention.

HTH
Fitz

And reading the truther nonsense is entertaining too,if you can forget about the underlying seriousness of the subject for a while.

 

[fitzgibbon]

T'is fact. I tend to overlook the inherent entertainment value in some of the truthers that post.

 

[sylvan8798]

Does this horse look live to you????

Maybe it was in the shanksville horse trailer?

 

[dafydd]

T'is fact. I tend to overlook the inherent entertainment value in some of the truthers that post.

Yes and Jammonious is an outstanding example of the rib-tickling qualities of the truther.

 

[jammonius]

Do you comprehend anything anyone posts? No one here other than you said there had to be a crater.....I just asked you to show why you assumed there would be. As usual you did not back up your assumption with any data.

Our posting stylyes are different, sheeplesnshills. I do not ask posters to prove or re-prove propositions that are the functional equivalent of demanding proof that twice two is four. You, on the other hand, make such requests.

I refer to them as wild goose chases.

Impact craters are the natural outcome of objects crashing into the ground and is an accepted proposition in all realms of reason, EXCEPT 9/11 denial, rationalization and related processes.

There is no impact crater seen here where such a crater would be mandated by a heavy (as Oystein called it) steel beam crashing to ground, based on the assumed speed and acceleration resulting from a 300m height, less angular calculation, based on Galileo's formula for falling objects, and landing as shown here:

There is no crater; and, for that matter, next to no visible damage or other evidence the item crashed from 1000ft above at all. It is as though the item were laid there by the flat bed truck parked across the street a few cars down, as seen below:

Instead of recognizing that the absence of a crater or other visible damage disproves the claim the perimeter beam with wheely was ejected from the 90something floor of the North Tower, you, on the other hand demand proof of what is a crater and what causes them.

That is a wild goose chase, literally demanding that we treat each other like kids:

Let's play IMPACT CRATER

FALLING OBJECT

LOOKY, LOOKY, CRATER!

Link to worksheet for crater calculation:

http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/education/activities/pdf/make_a.pdf


Sheeplesnshills, there is no crater where a crater or similar damage would be mandated by the mass of the object and the distance it is presumed to have fallen.

You can complete the above linked worksheet if you want. As for me, NO, I decline to play that game.