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

[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.

I'm not sure if we're going to get much further in dialogue or not because you appear to be on the verge of considering the chip you have apparently placed on your shoulder to have been knocked off. One sure indicator of the placement of chip on shoulder is that of calling attention to the existence of painful personal experience.

You've done that. I am not seeking to offend you and would suggest you take the chip off your shoulder; or, if it is deemed to be knocked off, please know that you will have knocked it off yourself and that it has nothing whatever to do with me.

I am here engaging in rational, calm discussion. That and nothing more.

I will continue to accept the post of your eyewitness account at face value, in all respects, without exception, apparently, even if you do not do so.

While I accept ALL that you have said at face value in the original post of your eyewitness experience and while there appears to be NO DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN US as to what your experience says about the hole in the North Tower -- which is fully within the scope of this thread -- we do have a disagreement about what your statement can be said to impart concerning the explosion at the South Tower.

OK, we have a disagreement as to the South Tower, but not the North Tower.

I accept at face value the following statement:

"...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...."

Because I accept at face value the above statement, I cannot properly accredit the following additional inferences that you seem to now draw from your own statement. You now infer as follows:

"...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. ..."

The above attempt at drawing inferences has the hallmarks of rationalization as demonstrated as follows, admittedly, via a process that can fairly be called parsing and I am sorry if that offends you:

"To clarify, the "plane" that I saw was a large jet. No question about it."

1--As the type of aircraft is a quintessentially important part of the no plane claim, anyone who was trying to use their first hand experience to refute it, would NOT have to clarify that issue if they were certain about it. Your own, earlier, description would not allow you to be certain about what kind of aircraft was involved, based on the content of what you said, as follows:

"...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..."

You are clearly describing something that was hard to see, or, as you say exactly, "easy to miss against the horizon". Plus, there are other reasons why it would be easy to miss, including, by way of example, the common storyline claim that the 767 was hauling along at 550mph.

Furthermore, here is an approximation of what can be seen from Pier 40 on a sunny day:

Look, you want to be able to say you saw a widebody jetliner. That is apparent because you then say you sought confirmation from other sources. A process, itself, that is consistent with not being sure; hence, the need to double check with others. You now say:

"...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. .."

So, you are relying, then, not on what you saw, but on what others say they saw. I'll make the following request of you:

Please ask the person(s) that are the sources of the above quote from you to post up their experience directly if you would?

Absent a direct posting of direct personal experience, I do not consider the account to be a proper source of evidence.

Finally, your original account is accepted at face value. It does not permit an inference of a widebody jetliner and you did not appear to have made that claim; instead, and to your credit, you merely described what you saw and what you heard. I here reiterate that I am much obliged for your having done that.

 

[dafydd]

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"????





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?



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)



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



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




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



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



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.

[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/dead_horse_5.jpg[/qimg]

At least hatters had mercury poisoning as an excuse.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Lurkers,

I do not respond to posts that are mere declarations and that offer no support at all. I especially do not respond to posts that are simply repetitive, to put it no more harshly than that. However, we are now onto a new page and I should like to call on lurkers to post their experience, just as BillyRayValentine did.

His experience is very useful and very helpful to this thread. I feel certain there are others.

In that respect, then, it might be important to make sure the bogus RADAR CLAIM that Beachnut keeps posting over and over again does not serve to making you think there were jetliners present, even though you didn't see any.

Beachnut's RADAR claims are false.

Here, for reference, is a map of relevant military radar locations:

As Beachnut does not substantiate his radar claims, he obviously doesn't tell you the weaknesses of the claim, let alone the fact that the weaknesses of the claim are among the items of information that we have from fairly reliable sources, considering the overall picture that we do not have reliable sources for much of anything associated with what happened on 9/11.

All of that was a way of having to admit some sources confirming the absence of RADAR data come from the overall discredited 9/11 Commission Report.

Military radar in Massachusetts, which is used by NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), was out of use the morning of 9/11 in order to undergo maintenance work. [9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 ; 9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 ]

Beachnut didn't tell you that did he?


The J53 radar in North Truro, Massachusetts, is one of a number of radar sites that NEADS receives data from. [United States Space Command, 12/30/1995; Jane's C4I Systems, 9/1/2005; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 10/23/2006 ] It has a range of 250 miles. According to Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond, the assistant air surveillance technician at NEADS, J53 is scheduled to go down this morning for some major repairs to be carried out. [9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 ; 9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003]

Basically, any and all references to 9/11 and RADAR are, well, FUBAR. There was no way to make sense out of anything that was happening and some people who were involved, admitted as much.

Colin Scoggins, the military liaison at the FAA’s Boston Center, claims he makes his first call to NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) regarding Flight 11. He later recalls that he informs NEADS that the aircraft is “20 [miles] south of Albany, heading south at a high rate of speed, 600 knots.” [Griffin, 2007, pp. 43] Flight 11 was over Albany at 8:26 (see (8:26 a.m.-8:29 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001 ] At such a high speed, it would have reached 20 miles south of there around 8:28. However, Scoggins says he is quite certain he only arrives on the floor at Boston Center at around 8:35. He says that although he’d later tried to write up a chronology of events, he “couldn’t get a timeline that made any sense.”

So, come on Lurkers, don't be afraid to post up the fact that you saw and heard an explosion on 9/11, and nothing else, because those who claim widebody jetliners were involved don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone who saw something saw fireballs and smoke, just as BillyRayValentine confirms he saw. Mind you, I am not here putting words into BillyRayValentine's mouth; rather, I am quoting him. That and nothing more.

It is important to quote what people saw and heard.

COME ON LURKERS

 

[jammonius]

At least hatters had mercury poisoning as an excuse.

We've already had the witness statement of Adrienne Walsh who confirmed, just as the photo relied on in the post you quoted showed, that it was mostly the clading laying around, not steel beams. The steel was turned to dust, hence that is why there was such a small richter scale signature associated with the event.

Look, I took posters through all of that in the GZ was flat thread. Look it up.

Have posters given up on trying to refute the NO PLANE claim and are now wanting more reality on what destroyed the Twin Towers? Fine, posters can find that already posted in the GZ was flat thread, but I'm not willing to discuss that in this thread.

 

[BigAl]

Lurkers,

I do not respond to posts that are mere declarations and that offer no support at all. I especially do not respond to posts that are simply repetitive, to put it no more harshly than that. However, we are now onto a new page and I should like to call on lurkers to post their experience, just as BillyRayValentine did.

His experience is very useful and very helpful to this thread. I feel certain there are others.

In that respect, then, it might be important to make sure the bogus RADAR CLAIM that Beachnut keeps posting over and over again does not serve to making you think there were jetliners present, even though you didn't see any.

Beachnut's RADAR claims are false.

Here, for reference, is a map of relevant military radar locations:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/JSS_2050081722-32156.jpg?t=1273683394[/qimg]

Every the claim you make is either wrong on the facts, irrelevant or incoherent.

Here's the track for all 4 planes.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_ Data_ Study_all _aircraft.pdf​

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.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Furthermore, here is an approximation of what can be seen from Pier 40 on a sunny day:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/pier40.jpg?t=1273681885[/qimg]

Wrong. Completely, utterly and incompetently wrong. I was about 2/3 of the way out on the pier, facing due south, with an unobstructed view. Your "approximation" is nothing of the sort.

One other point I will clarify is that the fact that the plane was hard to see from where I was, i.e. you had to be looking at the right place at the right time, did not preclude me from realizing that it was a large jet. Taking distance into account isn't that difficult a concept to apply. Really.

As for the rest, I think I'll go ahead move along now. Your jumbled, impenetrable mess of an argument doesn't deserve any more attention. And if you think I'd ever knowingly subject a friend to your offensive delusions, you're even loopier than I thought.

 

[carlitos]

It is important to quote what people saw and heard.

Yup.

The issue is only and ever to honestly and accurately interpret what people have said.

Indeed.

Our Lady PT said there was an explosion a huge explosion SOUND.

See what you did there?

Witnesses say what witnesses say. All we can do is interpret them.

Indeed.

- - - -

COME ON LURKERS

Lulz.

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

 

[jammonius]

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"

Hey Lurkers,

Once again, don't be shy about posting up what YOU actually SAW and what YOU actually HEARD. That is real.

In sharp contrast, AWSmith, in the above quote relies on a propaganda, English only, Chinese website, as the SOURCE of a claim WTC steel was shipped to China. Plus that, the website article isn't even a direct source. It says:

"A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports."

""According to media reports" means the source isn't even coming from China.org, even though the website is supposedly about Chinese business. We do not have the foggiest clue where that "story" came from and no indication whatsoever of whether and how reliable it is. That story is useless and comes nowhere close to being satisfactory or acceptable as evidence. In addition, much, if not most, of the actual article concerns a description of a shipment of steel from India that it actually goes on to describe as if that event (shipment from India of some other, unrelated scrap steel) actually happened.

Look. Lurkers and Posters alike, please demand better. These folks who are so keen to call me names, barely within the limits of civility, are obviously willing to fool themselves with bogus claims, which they seek to substantiate with links to stupid, inconclusive and unreliable sources.

One of the main reasons for calling upon Lurkers to post their experience is that posters here rely on third-hand indirect sources quoting other and unnamed sources for purposes of major claims, like where the supposed steel from the WTC went.

We can do better than that simply by asking people to post up what they saw and what they heard.

AW Smith's source and question:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

Or were the bids just part of the "Psyop"

Well, AWSmith, sourcing a cliam like that to china.org.cn is, indeed, a part of the PSYOP. As you may know, false claims from governmental sources CANNOT be disseminated in US sourced media outlets; but, so-called "COVER STORIES" can be sourced abroad, as in CHINA.

Stop fooling yourself and, by all means, stop trying to fool posters and lurkers. You are slipping badly.

 

[jammonius]

Every the claim you make is either wrong on the facts, irrelevant or incoherent.

Here's the track for all 4 planes.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_ Data_ Study_all _aircraft.pdf​

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.

Lurkers,

We are not being shown a darn thing about radar or what it proves in the above post. We've simply been sent out on a wild goose chase to go look at some widely discussed and often refuted pdf. document given to the NTSB to review, that they then make no claims at all about its authenticity.

That is equivalent to a dirty trick. Once again, you are being made to think there's some evidence out there somewhere, just at the next link, or the next source, or some other kind of evidence that hasn't been considered yet, or taking everything that is false in itself and then asserting by putting all of the false stuff together into one batch makes it true.

That is what the common storyline of 9/11 consists in: A lot of easily falsifiable claims that are considered true because so many of them are false.

Lurkers, come on. Post up!

 

[jammonius]

Wrong. Completely, utterly and incompetently wrong. I was about 2/3 of the way out on the pier, facing due south, with an unobstructed view. Your "approximation" is nothing of the sort.

One other point I will clarify is that the fact that the plane was hard to see from where I was, i.e. you had to be looking at the right place at the right time, did not preclude me from realizing that it was a large jet. Taking distance into account isn't that difficult a concept to apply. Really.

As for the rest, I think I'll go ahead move along now. Your jumbled, impenetrable mess of an argument doesn't deserve any more attention. And if you think I'd ever knowingly subject a friend to your offensive delusions, you're even loopier than I thought.

In the end, this thread can still be grateful you posted up what you actually saw and heard. That won't ever change. You could also have posted up a street map view of what you actually saw. In so doing, it would not have been necessary for me to approximate. I did the best I could with what information I had.

I accept you at your word that your view was different. As nearly as I can tell, this is Pier 40. I don't quite know where you were relative to what this photo shows:

As nearly as I can tell, even assuming you were up against the building shown, your view would not have been dramatically different. I just do not know. If you could post a street image from Google Maps, it would be helpful. Indeed, you already know that. I had already said I feared we would not get much further as you appeared to have a proverbial "chip on your shoulder."

Look, you are not posting your experience for me. I am not the point, obviously. Rather, the plain fact of the matter is that what happened on 9/11 has not ever been fully or properly explained, even if you give the common storyline the benefit of the doubt or otherwise want to believe it.

Having people who were actually present and who saw and heard something post what they saw and heard is in the nature of a public service. Hear this: Having people post up their experiences in a forum where there is an active NO PLANE claim actually helps to get accuracy. Anyone can post up at some propaganda website that is intended to make everyone feel good about believing in the common storyline. Falsity is more likely to arise in a context of uncritical true believers, don't you think?

So, come on, can't we set aside our differences for purposes of getting some accurate information? Can't hurt

With that said, it is too bad the rest of your posts depart so dramatically from the one containing your actual experience. Just by way of example, in the above post, you find a reason to discourage people from posting up what they actually experienced as an apparent punishment or some such to me.

That is bizarre.

Facts are facts. You, yourself, in stating as you did as follows are seeking to justify hiding of facts:

"...And if you think I'd ever knowingly subject a friend to your offensive delusions, you're even loopier than I thought..."

One inference to be drawn from the above is that you know your friends saw and heard an explosion.

That and nothing more because that is the reality, just as you, yourself, described it.

 

[Oystein]

...
Furthermore, here is an approximation of what can be seen from Pier 40 on a sunny day:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/pier40.jpg?t=1273681885[/qimg]
...

LIAR

That photo is so obviously NOT taken from Pier 40 (pier 40 is as pier for FSM's sake, a structure extending out into the river, and not a multi-lane highway!) that you must absolutely know your statement to be false, and therefore you are a LIAR, jammonius.

Stop lying, and start answering the many questions you have dodged so far. The questions which you know you can answer crisply and concisely without word salad. Answers that you know will prove all that you vomit into this thread to be false - deceptions and lies.

 

[DGM]

One inference to be drawn from the above is that you know your friends saw and heard an explosion.

That and nothing more because that is the reality, just as you, yourself, described it.

I'm puzzled as to why you won't address my questions as to what a plane crashing into a building should have sounded like and what you think some one that has never heard this should have described it as. You base a lot of your dismissal (or confirmation) of witnesses on this but never describe why a plane hitting a building shouldn't sound like an explosion.

I wish you could elaborate.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I am here engaging in rational, calm discussion.

Evidence?

 

[Oystein]

...One inference to be drawn from the above is that you know your friends saw and heard an explosion.

That and nothing more because that is the reality, just as you, yourself, described it.

You are vomiting stinking lies about your fellow posters.

BillyRay has been crisp and clear about that fact that his friend saw the plane so close and so clearly, he could indetify the airline. That his friend crisply and clearly described altitude and path, which ended inside WTC2.

You know that, because you read his posts. No amount of word salad can hide the fact that you are inventing falsehoods to smear the name of your fellow poster.

Your claim of taking witnesses serious is a blatant, deliberate, and unexcusable lie.

Stop the lying. Stop the stinking lying.

 

[jammonius]

I'm puzzled as to why you won't address my questions as to what a plane crashing into a building should have sounded like and what you think some one that has never heard this should have described it as. You base a lot of your dismissal (or confirmation) of witnesses on this but never describe why a plane hitting a building shouldn't sound like an explosion.

I wish you could elaborate.

There is no need for you to be puzzled. I do not play "20 questions," as I am not your pupil and would not sign up for a course taught by you as I do not like your teaching style.

If there is anything that is unclear about my not playing "20 questions" or my "not being a student" let alone a "student in a class of yours" please revert and I will try to make it clearer still.

Meanwhile, if there's something you want to say about sound or crash sound or any other kind of sound, come on out and scream it!

 

[beachnut]

Lurkers,

Intelligent readers who messed up and found jet engines are Plymouth wheel covers cult member jammonius post. The readers already know you think jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel-covers, fuselage parts are horse trailers, and steel can be turned to dust with a beam weapon delusion.

I do not respond to posts that are mere declarations and that offer no support at all. I especially do not respond to posts that are simply repetitive, to put it no more harshly than that. However, we are now onto a new page and I should like to call on lurkers to post their experience, just as BillyRayValentine did.

Oops. There goes that rule as you failed to twist statements into your fantasy you break your own rules. I do not... which part of do not...

His experience is very useful and very helpful to this thread. I feel certain there are others.

With RADAR you have solid evidence of flight 175 and 11; so you can back up the statements of they "heard an aircraft". If you have not clue on RADAR, which you are proving, you may need to study more and get the big picture.

In that respect, then, it might be important to make sure the bogus RADAR CLAIM that Beachnut keeps posting over and over again does not serve to making you think there were jetliners present, even though you didn't see any.

Bogus? The RADAR is real data not twisted delusions about what people said you make up out of ignorace.

Beachnut's RADAR claims are false.

Here is the Flight path of Flight 11 from RADAR data. Anyone can get the raw data and check this flight path. You failed to figure out RADAR and how it is recorded so the data can be used to show the flight path. I have ordered RADAR data when I worked as an USAF accident investigator. 90 percent of the country is covered with RADAR. For instance, 3 to 5 simultaneous RADAR sites were tracking Flight 77 as it impacted the Pentagon. The coverage around NYC is redundant so when you fly you don't die. RADAR is used to ensure separation of flights! This comes in handy when we fly in the clouds and can not see air traffic.

Your statement my claims are false is a lie if you repeat it now after being exposed to the evidence. But you will deny the evidence and make up some moronic delusion like steel turns to dust which was made up by the insane Judy dustification nut case failed engineer.

Here, for reference, is a map of relevant military radar locations:

Military RADAR? We don't live in a military state, those RADAR were used to protect the USA, not control and direct commercial air traffic. You forgot the ATC radars which cover the USA. Big time research failure.

As Beachnut does not substantiate his radar claims, he obviously doesn't tell you the weaknesses of the claim, let alone the fact that the weaknesses of the claim are among the items of information that we have from fairly reliable sources, considering the overall picture that we do not have reliable sources for much of anything associated with what happened on 9/11.

Hogwash.

All of that was a way of having to admit some sources confirming the absence of RADAR data come from the overall discredited 9/11 Commission Report.

The RADAR data is available, anyone can download it and check the flight path. Are you unable to download evidence and check it?

Military radar in Massachusetts, which is used by NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), was out of use the morning of 9/11 in order to undergo maintenance work. [9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 ; 9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 ]

lol, ATC RADAR was not down on 911. You are confused and using the wrong information. This is as bad as saying jet engine parts are wheel covers, you must get all your data first before you make up lies.

Beachnut didn't tell you that did he?

The truth...

Radar coverage
Since centers control a large airspace area, they will typically use long range radar that has the capability, at higher altitudes, to see aircraft within 200 nautical miles (370 km) of the radar antenna. They may also use TRACON radar data to control when it provides a better "picture" of the traffic or when it can fill in a portion of the area not covered by the long range radar.
In the U.S. system, at higher altitudes, over 90% of the U.S. airspace is covered by radar and often by multiple radar systems

Simple research, and using the RAW RADAR data anyone can check the flight path of 11 and 175. ... doing so will destory your delusions.

But I have flown since 1973 and know the USA is covered by RADAR and it is stored and can be used to find your flight path.

The J53 radar in North Truro, Massachusetts, is one of a number of radar sites that NEADS receives data from. [United States Space Command, 12/30/1995; Jane's C4I Systems, 9/1/2005; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 10/23/2006 ] It has a range of 250 miles. According to Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond, the assistant air surveillance technician at NEADS, J53 is scheduled to go down this morning for some major repairs to be carried out. [9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003 ; 9/11 Commission, 10/27/2003]

Nothing to do with ATC RADAR. You are off on some tangent trying to support your lie, or your ideas that are based on incomplete knowledge and ignorance.

Basically, any and all references to 9/11 and RADAR are, well, FUBAR. There was no way to make sense out of anything that was happening and some people who were involved, admitted as much.

The only thing that is fubar are you ideas on 911, which amount to delusional lies.

Colin Scoggins, the military liaison at the FAA’s Boston Center, claims he makes his first call to NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) regarding Flight 11. He later recalls that he informs NEADS that the aircraft is “20 [miles] south of Albany, heading south at a high rate of speed, 600 knots.” [Griffin, 2007, pp. 43] Flight 11 was over Albany at 8:26 (see (8:26 a.m.-8:29 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001 ] At such a high speed, it would have reached 20 miles south of there around 8:28. However, Scoggins says he is quite certain he only arrives on the floor at Boston Center at around 8:35. He says that although he’d later tried to write up a chronology of events, he “couldn’t get a timeline that made any sense.”

... you made a post with big letters exposing your tangential move to twist information while ignoring ATC RADAR systems. This has nothing to do with know the exact track of flight 11 and 175 which are stored and can be use after the fact to see exactly where the flights went.

So, come on Lurkers, don't be afraid to post up the fact that you saw and heard an explosion on 9/11, and nothing else, because those who claim widebody jetliners were involved don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone who saw something saw fireballs and smoke, just as BillyRayValentine confirms he saw. Mind you, I am not here putting words into BillyRayValentine's mouth; rather, I am quoting him. That and nothing more.

RADAR shows flight 175 and 11 impacted the WTC. You have to post lies and failed analysis as a smoke screen to protect your delusion. People saw Flight 11 and 175 impact the WTC, you are calling them liars.

It is important to quote what people saw and heard.

They heard Boeing 767 impact the WTC. They saw Boeing 767s impact the WTC. RADAR data from ATC RADAR systems are the hard evidence to confirm those observations. Those people were right, you are trying to make up lies to satisfy your delusions.

COME ON LURKERS

Intelligent viewers can learn more about RADAR than I and see you have delusions and failed logic. My point which is on topic is RADAR proves the people heard Flight 11 and Flight 175 impact the WTC. No matter what they said it sounded like it was Flight 11 and 175 and RADAR is evidence you can't refute, and you don't understand.

 

[DGM]

Meanwhile, if there's something you want to say about sound or crash sound or any other kind of sound, come on out and scream it!

OK! The sound of an aircraft hitting the north or south towers sounds exactly like a (large, huge or any other way to describe) explosion. Therefor all of the witness describe the sound of a plane hitting the towers.

BTW I also don't play "20 questions" so don't try to prove me wrong.

 

[DGM]

I thought I should also add:

A large panel from the towers with a wheel stuck in it will never leave a crater in a NYC street.

Since I'm the leading authority on this, it has to be fact.*

* If anyone wants to dispute this just name someone that is publicly acknowledged as being more experienced (in a DGM authorized investigation)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

At least hatters had mercury poisoning as an excuse.

Well seeing as its likely that Jammo is not gainfully employed (what on earth could he do???) its possible that perhaps toxic mould in his bedroom is responsible for his symptoms.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

That is what the common storyline of 9/11 consists in: A lot of easily falsifiable claims that are considered true because so many of them are false.

WTF? if they are easily falsified why have you and every other thruther, ever, failed to do so? And why would anyone (other than a truther) consider something to be true because its false??? that makes no sense at all

Lurkers, come on. Post up!

They have and they all think you are insane! Why don't you try banging your head against a wall instead? It would be much easy on the expired equines.......