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

[sylvan8798]

I like salad, posters. Let's consider using "word sewage" as it is so much more appropriate in this case...

 

[sylvan8798]

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:

You're so funny when you try to talk physics.

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:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2970[/qimg]

What about the damage to the black truck? Added for effect? You do realize they would have needed a crane to move that thing don't you?

 

[jammonius]

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,

While you did not address your above quoted reply to my request that you post up your experience, I am much obliged you did so. I also think this thread and forum are much enriched by your offering your first hand witness experience.

I accept it at face value and consider it to be valid data.

As you may be able to anticipate, however, your information does NOT in any way contradict the claim NO WIDEBODY BOEING 767 JETLINERS hit the WTC; and, to be fully candid, there is not one word in the quoted description of what you saw and of what you heard that would allow for the conclusion that WIDEBODY JETLINERS crashed into the WTC. Not one word, let alone sentence, that you have stated above allows for that conclusion.

Let me hasten to add, one can infer, based on what you saw and heard, that a plane hit WTC2; however, as to WTC1, the North Tower, one cannot even reasonably infer a plane was involved OTHER than based on where the hole was located which is a factor that MIGHT BE consistent with some sort of flying object or another, but a plane would be only one of many such possibilities. Hence, the making of inferences as to whether it was a plane or not, let alone what type, cannot be reasonably done based on what you saw and heard, as to the North Tower. Any sort of plane-related claim, based on your experience is pure speculation.

I am, of course, willing to discuss this with you at greater depth.


Respectfully,

jammonius

 

[Macgyver1968]

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:


qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2970[/qimg]


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.

So how did that pickup truck get its bed crushed?

Edit: Oops..someone already asked that question while I was posting...but feel free to answer anyway, Jam.

 

[twinstead]

What bed? Can't you see there's no physical damage in that picture?

 

[A W Smith]

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:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2114


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:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2970


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.

Lurkers and posters alike, Jammonious is now asserting that lower Manhattan is paved with the materials highlighted below in his hyperlink

Review and prepare materials listed on the student sheet. The following materials work
well as a base for the "lunar surface." Dust with a topping of dry tempera paint, powdered drink mixes
glitter or other dry material in a contrasting color. Use a sieve, screen , or flour sifter. Choose a color that
contrasts with the base materials for most striking results. All purpose flour (reusable in this activity and
keeps well in a covered container); Baking soda (it can be recycled for use in the lava layering activity or
for many other science activities). Reusable in this activity, even if colored, by adding a clean layer of
new white baking soda on top. Keeps indefinitely in a covered container. Baking soda mixed (1:1) with
table salt also works. Corn meal (reusable in this activity but probably not recyclable. Keeps only in
freezer in airtight container.). Sand and corn starch mixed (1:1), sand must be very dry. Keeps only in
freezer in airtight container.

What a jackass

Entire cranes have fallen off their towers in Manhattan Jammonius without causing craters. The pavement in the city is 14-16 inches thick. There's no way around this Jammonius, You asserted there was no loud impact sound from the panel hitting the ground. We presented you with that sound recorded in an office at liberty plaza. When we presented you with the wingspan and width of the towers in relevance to the plane impact hole you yourself brought up as "too small" in size You ran away and hid claiming "20 questions" . Seems you are bouncing around in desperation spewing word salad in defense of your mentality ill hypothesis.

 

[BigAl]

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.
.

Unsubstantiated generalization much?

So what? Every claim you make is either wrong on the facts, irrelevant or incoherent. None of your claims in any way address any of the massive amount of evidence and of eyewitnesses that support the basic story of 9/11, that 19 Arab Islamists hijacked 4 757/767 jets on 9/11 and crashed two of them into the WTC towers which caused them to burn and collapse.

I was an eyewitness to an accident at a NYC construction site. A crane dropped several I-beams tens of floors to the NYC street. There was no significant damage done to the street.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

There are at least four other factors that would come into play as to whether or not there was a crater.....do you know what those are?

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

[/QUOTE]

Science and research is not a game....its hard work. You make the assertion that there should have been a crater, you do the work to show that your assertion is valid. Please list all assumptions made and show working.


Keep flogging though.....here is a new dead horse as the other ones are now more ground meat than anything else.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

BillyRayValentine,

While you did not address your above quoted reply to my request that you post up your experience, I am much obliged you did so. I also think this thread and forum are much enriched by your offering your first hand witness experience.

I accept it at face value and consider it to be valid data.

As you may be able to anticipate, however, your information does NOT in any way contradict the claim NO WIDEBODY BOEING 767 JETLINERS hit the WTC; and, to be fully candid, there is not one word in the quoted description of what you saw and of what you heard that would allow for the conclusion that WIDEBODY JETLINERS crashed into the WTC. Not one word, let alone sentence, that you have stated above allows for that conclusion.

Let me hasten to add, one can infer, based on what you saw and heard, that a plane hit WTC2; however, as to WTC1, the North Tower, one cannot even reasonably infer a plane was involved OTHER than based on where the hole was located which is a factor that MIGHT BE consistent with some sort of flying object or another, but a plane would be only one of many such possibilities. Hence, the making of inferences as to whether it was a plane or not, let alone what type, cannot be reasonably done based on what you saw and heard, as to the North Tower. Any sort of plane-related claim, based on your experience is pure speculation.

I am, of course, willing to discuss this with you at greater depth.


Respectfully,

jammonius

 

[A W Smith]

Unsubstantiated generalization much?

So what? Every claim you make is either wrong on the facts, irrelevant or incoherent. None of your claims in any way address any of the massive amount of evidence and of eyewitnesses that support the basic story of 9/11, that 19 Arab Islamists hijacked 4 757/767 jets on 9/11 and crashed two of them into the WTC towers which caused them to burn and collapse.

I was an eyewitness to an accident at a NYC construction site. A crane dropped several I-beams tens of floors to the NYC street. There was no significant damage done to the street.

I know where a whole lotta girders fell. Check out west street. See any craters there? So Jamonius seeing as there's no craters on west street
do you "Here now assert" that no buildings fell on 9/11? I apologize to lurkers and posters that this huge image makes my post a baloneyness width.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

As you may be able to anticipate, however, your information does NOT in any way contradict the claim NO WIDEBODY BOEING 767 JETLINERS hit the WTC; and, to be fully candid, there is not one word in the quoted description of what you saw and of what you heard that would allow for the conclusion that WIDEBODY JETLINERS crashed into the WTC. Not one word, let alone sentence, that you have stated above allows for that conclusion.

where did he say that he saw a "widebody Boeing 767 Jetliner"......he just said he saw a plane. We all (except You of course) found out later that it was a United Airlines Boeing 767 which had been hijacked and tracked by Radar until it disappeared at the exact moment he (and many many others) saw it hit the South Tower.

He saw a plane, Radar and other evidence (DNA video etc etc) showed it was a particular United Airlines 767 so by any measure that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact it was a "widebody Boeing 767 Jetliner"

All that left is your lack of "reasoning" powers. And thats probably something that only medication might be able to help with.

Keep flogging though.....it probably is diverting you from being a real danger to yourself or others.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

BillyRayValentine,

While you did not address your above quoted reply to my request that you post up your experience, I am much obliged you did so. I also think this thread and forum are much enriched by your offering your first hand witness experience.

I accept it at face value and consider it to be valid data.

As you may be able to anticipate, however, your information does NOT in any way contradict the claim NO WIDEBODY BOEING 767 JETLINERS hit the WTC; and, to be fully candid, there is not one word in the quoted description of what you saw and of what you heard that would allow for the conclusion that WIDEBODY JETLINERS crashed into the WTC. Not one word, let alone sentence, that you have stated above allows for that conclusion.

Let me hasten to add, one can infer, based on what you saw and heard, that a plane hit WTC2; however, as to WTC1, the North Tower, one cannot even reasonably infer a plane was involved OTHER than based on where the hole was located which is a factor that MIGHT BE consistent with some sort of flying object or another, but a plane would be only one of many such possibilities. Hence, the making of inferences as to whether it was a plane or not, let alone what type, cannot be reasonably done based on what you saw and heard, as to the North Tower. Any sort of plane-related claim, based on your experience is pure speculation.

I am, of course, willing to discuss this with you at greater depth.


Respectfully,

jammonius

Stop your parsing games. To clarify, the "plane" that I saw was a large jet. No question about it. This was confirmed later by a friend who worked on Broad St. on a high floor looking south a cross the harbor. He and a few colleagues watched the the plane, er, jet's entire approach in disbelief. It passed only a few hundred yards away, almost at at eye level. Close enough to identify the carrier, etc.

This isn't a very happy memory for my friend, as you can imagine. Which, again, speaks to why I have so little tolerance for your delusional nonsense.

And your hyper-politeness scores no points with me, in light of the deranged lies you propagate. I made the mistake of looking up some of your old posts regarding the rubble pile being "flat", and so on. Yikes.

 

[jammonius]

I know where a whole lotta girders fell. Check out west street. See any craters there? So Jamonius seeing as there's no craters on west street
do you "Here now assert" that no buildings fell on 9/11? I apologize to lurkers and posters that this huge image makes my post a baloneyness width.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/ground_zero_arial2_ort-1.jpg[/qimg]

Oh boy, yet another exercise in fooling yourself. This is not a DEW thread, so I will not reiterate the claim already staked out and supported in various and sundry threads that the Twin Towers did not collapse and were, instead, turned to dust. As you might know, dust does not cause craters in ashphalt and cement very easily.

While not using the word "dust" to describe the annihilation of the Twin Towers, FDNY Lt. Brian Becker was accurate enough in noting that the building "melted" to convey what happened from an eyewitness perspective:

"I don't remember specifically, but I remember it was, like, we got to get out of here. So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there."

Other indicators of self-deception, over and above AWSmith's posting of a photo showing GZ was flat, are the tactic of analogizing a 300m free fall by that steel beam with wheely thingy to much smaller, lighter parts of cranes falling, at most, 15m, without even showing the detail of what was destroyed and where, in any event, the degree of destruction exceeds that of the perimeter beam with wheely thingy that destroyed nothing at all.

Keep in mind, it is only an inference that some posters offer up, even if they do it rhetorically, suggesting the perimeter beam with wheely thingy did a little damage to a pickup truck. A multi-ton steel perimeter beam should have pulverized that truck, turning it into sharpnel and then continued on to create an impact crater, along with losing the wheely somewhere in chaos phase, could some posters but admit it.

Not one poster here has even been perplexed by the image of a wheely stuck upright in a steel beam after fallling more than 300m.

That is ... (fill in the blank, posters

Posters can only be said to be engaging in more denial and in more rationalization, and in more beating of dead horses. After all, what we each post confirms our own actions, and not that of others.

Lurkers, how many images of horses have I posted? Answer: 1, serving the purpose of demonstrating the old adage that ""...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink...".

Other posters, however, continue to beat up on our equine friends. What a shame.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Let me hasten to add, one can infer, based on what you saw and heard, that a plane hit WTC2; however, as to WTC1, the North Tower, one cannot even reasonably infer a plane was involved OTHER than based on where the hole was located which is a factor that MIGHT BE consistent with some sort of flying object or another, but a plane would be only one of many such possibilities.

jammonius

Curious.....what other kind of "flying object" could make hole in a building the same shape and size of a Boeing 767?


I know of no other real possibilities............please enlighten us of a at least a few of your "many" possibilities. Or is this just yet another of your baseless assertions?

Keep flogging.......lots of dead horses to go.......

 

[beachnut]

... supported in various and sundry threads that the Twin Towers did not collapse and were, instead, turned to dust. As you might know, dust does not cause craters in ashphalt and cement very easily.

...

RADAR data proves it was flight 175 and 11 that hit the towers so when people thought they heard or saw a plane, they did. You can make insane claims of jet engines being Plymouth wheel covers, and then it is easy to see how you can twist the topic of this thread anyway you want in your own mind which makes believe fuselages are horse trailers.

As for the insanity of the WTC turning to dust, steel turning to dust, it is self-debunking.

 

[A W Smith]

Oh boy, yet another exercise in fooling yourself. This is not a DEW thread, so I will not reiterate the claim already staked out and supported in various and sundry threads that the Twin Towers did not collapse and were, instead, turned to dust. As you might know, dust does not cause craters in ashphalt and cement very easily.

While not using the word "dust" to describe the annihilation of the Twin Towers

Does this look like "dust" to you? or perimeter columns strewn all over west street? Let me ask you this Jammonious, Is this debris in the pile across west street

• More than
• less than
• equal to

the mass of the column panel with the wheel in it?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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)

Yes, Pier 40 is the big square one. It's huge, actually, with athletic fields and parking inside.

As for the sound of the first jet, I myself never heard it. Which could be explained by a few million different reasons, obviously. But others did hear it. I remember someone saying it "must have been a Cessna" or something like that. (We were a fair distance away, so not an unreasonable guess if you failed to properly take this into account.) Somebody else immediately said "No way, that's gotta be the same jet I just heard about a minute ago. That thing was LOUD." A few other people agreed, as best I remember.

 

[A W Smith]

As far as "dustification". (an invented word by mentally ill idiots not even in my spell check) Were they bidding on 300,000 tons of scrap metal? or 300,000 tons of dust Jammonious?
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
Or were the bids just part of the "Psyop"

 

[BigAl]

... While not using the word "dust" to describe the annihilation of the Twin Towers, FDNY Lt. Brian Becker was accurate enough in noting that the building "melted" to convey what happened from an eyewitness perspective:

"I don't remember specifically, but I remember it was, like, we got to get out of here. So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there."

The concepts of simile and metaphor continue to confuse J.

Other indicators of self-deception, over and above AWSmith's posting of a photo showing GZ was flat, are the tactic of analogizing a 300m free fall by that steel beam with wheely thingy to much smaller, lighter parts of cranes falling, at most, 15m, without even showing the detail of what was destroyed and where

What about me? I saw tons of steel hit a NYC street without causing any apparent damage.

in any event, the degree of destruction exceeds that of the perimeter beam with wheely thingy that destroyed nothing at all.

The wheel didn't penetrate steel, it wedged into a glass window.

Not one poster here has even been perplexed by the image of a wheely stuck upright in a steel beam after fallling more than 300m.

The wheel didn't penetrate steel, it wedged into a glass window.
[/QUOTE]

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Oh boy, yet another exercise in fooling yourself. This is not a DEW thread, so I will not reiterate the claim already staked out and supported in various and sundry threads that the Twin Towers did not collapse and were, instead, turned to dust. As you might know, dust does not cause craters in ashphalt and cement very easily.

So why are there girders all over the ground and in big heaps? were they all dumped there by the NWO after the buildings were "dustified"????

Other indicators of self-deception, over and above AWSmith's posting of a photo showing GZ was flat,

What picture? I have seen none that proves the ground was flat and many that showed it was not and as you know I witnessed myself that it was not. Are you saying I am a liar?

are the tactic of analogizing a 300m free fall by that steel beam with wheely thingy to much smaller, lighter parts of cranes falling, at most, 15m,

What weight as the panel? What weight was the crane in the picture?
If you do not know that you are just making baseless assertions (again)

without even showing the detail of what was destroyed and where, in any event, the degree of destruction exceeds that of the perimeter beam with wheely thingy that destroyed nothing at all.

Please show what it should have destroyed. List all assumptions and show working.

Keep in mind, it is only an inference that some posters offer up, even if they do it rhetorically, suggesting the perimeter beam with wheely thingy did a little damage to a pickup truck."

It didn't hit the truck. A length of that piping seems to have done that.

A multi-ton steel perimeter beam should have pulverized that truck, turning it into sharpnel and then continued on to create an impact crater, along with losing the wheely somewhere in chaos phase, could some posters but admit it.

Please show that it hit the truck and why it would make an impact crater.

Not one poster here has even been perplexed by the image of a wheely stuck upright in a steel beam after falling more than 300m.

I can think of one good reason the wheel is still stuck in the panel. (Hint: what attaches the wheel to the plane

Posters can only be said to be engaging in more denial and in more rationalization, and in more beating of dead horses.

No only one poster is doing that and that one person is you.

Keep flogging away but you are only further convincing every other reader that you are as mad as a hatter.