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

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Jammo what do you think happens when a Widebody Boeing 767 Jetliner hits a building at 450 or so mph? It causes an explosion which can be seen and heard.
The fact that someone saw and heard the explosion but not the plane merely shows they were not looking in the right plane at the the right time.
Those that were looking at the right place at the right did see a plane.....and we have the Naudet video to prove it.

Now if you can prove the Naudet video was faked..........no not one of your "assertions", actual proof that would stand up in a court..............luckily I'm not going to hold my breath whilst I wait for you to do that or I'd end up like one of those horse you like to beat.

 

[A W Smith]

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,

No steel here Jammonius? This is all cladding in the foreground? You never answered my question Jammonius. The debris in this photo,

1. Weighs less than the column tree with the embedded wheel
2. Weighs more than the column tree with the embedded wheel
3. Is equal in weight to the column tree with the embedded wheel
4. Where is the crater from all this debris on west street?

 

[X]

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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/pier40-2.jpg?t=1273687336[/qimg]

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."

Did you happen to notice that compass on the top left corner, jammonius, or where you to excited to have a picture you could twist to your perverted fantasy?

Ilm asking because, well, he said he was facing due SOUTH.
That picture points roughly WEST. A touch NORTH of due WEST, actaully.
It's off by more than 90 degrees, and that's assuming it was taken anywhere near the real location.

That view is therefore completely different than his was. In fact, that picture is utterly useless for determining what his view consisted of. As was the previous one.

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.

You don't think that's going to stop his twisting, do you?

 

[George 152]

Did you happen to notice that compass on the top left corner, jammonius, or where you to excited to have a picture you could twist to your perverted fantasy?

Ilm asking because, well, he said he was facing due SOUTH.
That picture points roughly WEST. A touch NORTH of due WEST.
It's off by more than 90 degrees, and that's assuming it was taken anywhere near the real location.

That view is therefore completely different than his was. In fact, that picture is utterly useless for determining what his view consisted of. As was the previous one.






You don't think that's going to stop his twisting, do you?

Not fair using fact to demolish a kooks argument.
Especially something as simple as the compass direction

 

[X]

Not fair using fact to demolish a kooks argument.
Especially something as simple as the compass direction

Don't worry. Jammonius is invulnerable to facts.

 

[jammonius]

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.

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...

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.

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


[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1175Flightpathbasedonevidence.jpg[/qimg]
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.

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.

Hogwash.

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

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.



The truth...

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.

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.

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

... 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. [/SIZE]

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.

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.

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.

Hey Lurkers,

I told you so. Beachnut posted up the following dumb drawing as proof a widebody jetliner hit the North Tower:

That little simple-minded drawing not only doesn't prove anything, it sure as heck does not in any way shape or form contradict the actual radar statements that I posted up; let alone any of the many and varied eyewitness accounts that I have now posted up, including, by way of recent example, Sgt. DeVona, (no picture) and Our Man with Baby Girl (OMBG):

Real people and real evidence.

Lurkers, I don't know if you've noticed, but the debunker posse, that apparently far, far outnumbers me in this forum, has apparently given up completely on trying to match anything close to either the number or the quality of eyewitnesses that support the NO PLANE claim with matching ones from PLANE SPOTTERS.

In fact, the most recent NO PLANE witness as it pertains to the North Tower is none other than Our BillyRayValentine. Despite being in the West Villiage, he neither saw nor claims to have heard a widebody 767 hauling butt 1000ft above him @ 500mph+/- and does not dispute the fact that he cannot confirm a jetliner hit the North Tower. (period)

And, BigAl's b&w drawing that could have been prepared on a 1st generation Atari PC likewise doesn't put a dent into the NO PLANE evidence that has now crescendoed far past that of PLANE SPOTTING.

As I said, BigAl, if you want to "talk Radar" open a thread. All you've done here is embarrass yourself.

sheesh

 

[Oystein]

Hey Lurkers,

...and Our Man with Baby Girl (OMBG):

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/slide3-3.jpg?t=1273698984[/qimg]

Real people and real evidence.
...

The real person who affirmed twice the question which was posed to him by Dick Oliver: "Did you see anything hit the building?" (OMBG nods) "Something hit the building?" (OMBG: "Yeah")

Cool.

 

[jammonius]

No steel here Jammonius? This is all cladding in the foreground? You never answered my question Jammonius. The debris in this photo,

1. Weighs less than the column tree with the embedded wheel
2. Weighs more than the column tree with the embedded wheel
3. Is equal in weight to the column tree with the embedded wheel
4. Where is the crater from all this debris on west street?

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Image276.jpg[/qimg]

Look, I have used the picture you've now posted twice as proof GZ was flat. The aluminum clading seen in the photo has obviously been arranged but serves mostly to confirm how flat the area was. Do you see how the remnant of the North Tower wall that, itself, only stood about 4 storys at its peak towers over all the workers and the remnant clading and such few beams as are left from what had been a combined 242 STORYS OF SKYSCRAPER (WTC 1+2+3)?

Any further posting on the flatness of GZ and/or the composition of the remnant dust and debris will need to be in another thread as far as I am concerned. I have been there, done that, and I got the Tshirt, too

 

[carlitos]

"GZ was flat"

^∞

 

[Oystein]

[word salad and lies snipped]

Any further posting on the flatness of GZ and/or the composition of the remnant dust and debris will need to be in another thread as far as I am concerned. I have been there, done that, and I got the Tshirt, too

If you consider that topic to be a derail, why do you introduce it? Word salad addiction? Hunger for dead horses? Or just a technique to write yet another post without answering any of the many important question you have left open?

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers,

I told you so once again. Posters here DO NOT post up THEIR OWN witness accounts. Instead, all they do is try to find ways to quibble with those that I post up that show that ALL who came to Dick Oliver's mic, either in front of it or behind it, said they heard an explosion or a bomb which is precisely what OMBG said.

Hey STS60, since you appear to have an interest in survey counts, by now I am sure you will have noticed the number of reliably sourced NO PLANE witnesses far exceeds the number of reliably sourced PLANE SPOTTERS, and it is not even close.

Maybe some of you guys will need to prevail upon BillyRayValentine to call on his friends who claim to have seen something, to do so, now that BillyRay has told us he's so mad at me he's not even going to try to post up any PLANE SPOTTING CLAIMS.

 

[dafydd]

The lurkers are not supporting you.

 

[dafydd]

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.

Billy saw the plane Jammonious.Are you calling him a liar? Have you thought about seeking medical attention?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hey Lurkers,

I told you so. Beachnut posted up the following dumb drawing as proof a widebody jetliner hit the North Tower:

Jammo, how would you like radar data represented if not a plot on a map?

That little simple-minded drawing

How can a drawing be simple minded? I know you are supremely equipped to recognise simple mindedness but its just a plot of Radar data, it doesn't have a mind, simple or otherwise.

not only doesn't prove anything, it sure as heck does not in any way shape or form contradict the actual radar statements that I posted up; let alone any of the many and varied eyewitness accounts that I have now posted up, including, by way of recent example, Sgt. DeVona, (no picture) and Our Man with Baby Girl (OMBG):

It shows where the plane went and where it stopped going anywhere. What else do you want radar data to show? The fact that some people didn't see a plane where they were not looking is utterly irrelevent. Do you think you were a witness to the first or second plane because you didn't see it????

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/slide3-3.jpg?t=1273698984[/qimg]

Real people and real evidence.

Yes and none of them contradict their being a plane, they simply just didn't see it like almost everyone in the world at the time. Not seeing something where you cannot see it is proof of absolutely nothing!

Lurkers, I don't know if you've noticed, but the debunker posse, that apparently far, far outnumbers me in this forum, has apparently given up completely on trying to match anything close to either the number or the quality of eyewitnesses that support the NO PLANE claim with matching ones from PLANE SPOTTERS.

Yes about 100-1 There is only you. Not a single witness who claims to have been a position to have seen the plane says they did not seen it. Not one.

In fact, the most recent NO PLANE witness as it pertains to the North Tower is none other than Our BillyRayValentine. Despite being in the West Villiage, he neither saw nor claims to have heard a widebody 767 hauling butt 1000ft above him @ 500mph+/- and does not dispute the fact that he cannot confirm a jetliner hit the North Tower. (period)

OMG you really can't be this stupid!

And, BigAl's b&w drawing that could have been prepared on a 1st generation Atari PC likewise doesn't put a dent into the NO PLANE evidence that has now crescendoed far past that of PLANE SPOTTING.

As I said, BigAl, if you want to "talk Radar" open a thread. All you've done here is embarrass yourself.

You have been embarrassing yourself since your very first post with the wheel covers.....hasn't stopped you. Please let us know exactly how you think radar data should be presented?


Keep flogging that poor horse

 

[beachnut]

Hey Lurkers,

... the following dumb drawing as proof a widebody jetliner hit the North Tower:

That little simple-minded drawing not only doesn't prove anything, it sure as heck does not in any way shape or form contradict the actual radar statements ...

Another lie. The simple diagram was created with RADAR data.

The source is the NTSB. Real evidence, now deluisonal posts of insane talk of steel turned to dust.

All the WTC steel was collected, no steel was dustified. Another lie from Judy Wood and you. The RADAR data proves those who think they heard a 767/airliner/jet on 911 were right.

 

[jammonius]

The lurkers are not supporting you.

The "support" I am requesting is that Lurkers and posters, especially newer ones, post up what they saw and heard on 9/11 from an actual eyewitness perspective. That is all I am asking.

The most recent contribution along the lines of the ongoing request I have was that of BillyRayValentine. I take all such posts at their word. People will very likely tell the complete and honest truth about something like that because it was undoubtedly a transcendental event.

No games, no gimmicks, no winners and no losers, no being "lapman right" and no being "jammonius wrong" either, no exaggeration and, goodness knows, no gamesmanship.

Just asking people to say what they saw and heard; and, thank goodness, some are responding. I hope more will do so.

All the best

 

[BigAl]

Hey Lurkers,

I told you so once again. Posters here DO NOT post up THEIR OWN witness accounts. Instead, all they do is try to find ways to quibble with those that I post up that show that ALL who came to Dick Oliver's mic, either in front of it or behind it, said they heard an explosion or a bomb which is precisely what OMBG said.

Hey STS60, since you appear to have an interest in survey counts, by now I am sure you will have noticed the number of reliably sourced NO PLANE witnesses far exceeds the number of reliably sourced PLANE SPOTTERS, and it is not even close.

Maybe some of you guys will need to prevail upon BillyRayValentine to call on his friends who claim to have seen something, to do so, now that BillyRay has told us he's so mad at me he's not even going to try to post up any PLANE SPOTTING CLAIMS.

I've met dozens of people that were at WTC on the morning of 9/11. A few are good friends. Two were first responders. None of them saw or heard anything that conflicts with the basic story, that two hijacked jets caused all the death and destruction.

Consider them all lurkers.

You are one sick puppy.

 

[BigAl]

Look, I have used the picture you've now posted twice as proof GZ was flat. The aluminum clading seen in the photo has obviously been arranged but serves mostly to confirm how flat the area was. Do you see how the remnant of the North Tower wall that, itself, only stood about 4 storys at its peak towers over all the workers and the remnant clading and such few beams as are left from what had been a combined 242 STORYS OF SKYSCRAPER (WTC 1+2+3)?

Yup, a few floors above street level. That's what happens when two one-acre buildings that are 95% air collapse into 5 levels of sub-basement.

All the claims you make are 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.

 

[X]

Are we back to the old "did not see" = proof it didn't happen?


Hey, Jammonius: I didn't see see the guy who stole my bike. Does that mean my bike was never stolen? NO THEFT theory?

I suppose the cut lock, missing bike, and footprints leading up to it and tire tracks leading away are all evidence of NO THEFT. After all, I am a NO THEFT witness, by your logic.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Good God... Jam tried to represent the perspective of being out on a pier by using an image taken from the road?

Did you happen to notice that compass on the top left corner, jammonius, or where you to excited to have a picture you could twist to your perverted fantasy?

Ilm asking because, well, he said he was facing due SOUTH.
That picture points roughly WEST. A touch NORTH of due WEST, actaully.
It's off by more than 90 degrees, and that's assuming it was taken anywhere near the real location.

That view is therefore completely different than his was. In fact, that picture is utterly useless for determining what his view consisted of. As was the previous one.

OMG... he did what?? He took the Google Maps streetview facing the wrong direction and tried to use that to refute a direct witness??