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

jammonius said:
Well, since you mention it, I tried to put the view out on the pier, but couldn't get it to go out there. That, by the way, is why I posted the western view to show the building.

Mind you, I assume one can get out on the pier; and, perhaps there's a way to get Google Maps to go there. I couldn't get it to do that.

By the way, again, if the objective here is to try to understand what BillyRayValentine saw, shouldn't the response be simply that of posting up a more suitably located view of where he was? At a minimum, couldn't posters ask me (double check...) as to why I posted a particular view, rather than posting up accusations?

Either posting up your own "google street views" that you think are better; or, at a minimum, asking me why I posted the views I posted, would have been the more reasoned responses. What posters, including you, have done is simply make a "GOTCHA" claim that doesn't advance the discussion one bit. All that occurs when a post claims "gotcha" is that something is revealed about that poster; namely, a strong desire to be able to say "jammonius wrong" or worse is revealed. That is a stupid game. Who cares who's right and who's wrong? If you've got better information, post it.

Do the words anal retentive mean anything to any of you?

After a proper self-assessment, please consider posting up a better situated street view from google or somewhere else you might have access to and let the information speak for itself.

I would have thought the above was self-evident, Lurkers. :eye-poppi

By the way, as we're onto a new page.....LURKERS....etc. ;)
Click to expand...


You don't even know how "Streetview" is created do you? :covereyes

and you obviously have no clue about what "Anal retentive" means either :D
Are you autistic? You seem to have difficulty in comprehending how people think and your use of big words and phrases out of context is telling......
 
The only thing Jammonius's posts have advanced in this thread is the idea that yes, a completely untenable position CAN still be argued after 20 pages.
 
jammonius said:
Let me rewrite the above so as to make it a post that comports with my style of posting.

"In the above quote you assert you saw GZ in October 2001, are you sure about that; and, if so, could you please describe the location from which you viewed GZ?
thanks"

Well, since you've asked me to double check for accuracy, here's what I've done. I recall taking 2 or 3 photos with a film pocket camera, a fixed lens 35mm jobbydo, with a slight zoom. From the peek hole, the zoom did a pretty good job of bringing GZ into view, but SAIC had, in fact, succeeded in making it difficult to see much. That fact remains true to this day.

Anyway, the photos weren't that good and I did not keep them in any special place. I have just looked "high" but not "low" for them and, had I found them, I would have posted them. Alas, no luck.

I did, however, also double check dear diary from that time and, after redacting, the parts detailing what I did with, or for, that one, the other one and especially that one and that one, and what the consequences were for so doing, I succeeded in selecting out this much that is OK for public viewing:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/sawgzdeardiary.jpg?t=1273751858[/qimg]

I must, however, admit that the date associated with the above deardiary enter was 11/30/01, not October '01. However, the date of entry was not necessarily the date I saw GZ. As best I can recall, I saw GZ before 11/30, but probably not by more than 1 or 2 weeks. So, I here amend my claim to be that I saw GZ in November '01; and, upon that claim I stand.
Click to expand...


Dear Diary?????:boggled: Strange that all through these discussions you never mention this visit until after you are accused of lying by eyewitnesses about what the piles of debris looked like........
 
jammonius said:
In another thread, started by CompusMentus, a very interesting youtube video was posted for purposes primarily of discussing the SOUND ISSUE:

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174033

That thread got off to a good start, I think, and might be worth revisiting for more dialogue. Meanwhile, that thread also relates to this one in ways that I will here begin to touch on and probably continue. In some ways the video, a 6:01 jobbydo, is as revealing as the Dick Oliver videos are. Put the three together and, to be candid, posters, the common storyline of 9/11 is effectively destroyed, utterly and completely.

Cherish this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuIACIpon7w&feature=player_embedded#!

By way of overview, the video contains a variety of important images and sounds, including the explosion sound at WTC2 and comments from passersby.

I think I will start comment on what I had called CM's video by saying of all the comments mentioned over the course of 6minutes starting seconds before the explosion at WTC2 the word "PLANE" is NOT heard once, as best as I can tell. I is worthwhile to listen and listen carefully, perhaps the word is there and I missed it. That is possible. So if you find it, fine. I do not have a complete transcript and it would save time if people looked and listened for content rather than for "gotcha" purposes, but, posters have to do what posters have to do.

Among the comments are:

1:20-24 "...that guy's dead right over there..."

I think this is what the comment referred to:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/SoundsVideo/112.jpg?t=1273753496[/qimg]
Note: I intentionally selected a blurry image. If you pause at about 115 you will see why the blurry image was selected. It is very sad.

2:24 "...[inaudible word(s)] ... was looking down, I was looking up I was watching it come at us..."

The above is the closest comment I heard that might, conceivably have something to do with a plane. More likely it refers either to the car or the piece of debris that hit the person who was said to have died.

The video does an excellent job, I think, of substantiating OLPT's claim that the explosions came from inside. It shows an outward slant, consistent with the observations of OLPT and others that it was an internal explosion. Plus, we can basically see the damage in both towers seems to come from inward to outward. In WTC2, the side shown was, in fact, an inward to outward blast. What is interesting, perhaps, is that the WTC1 effects look to be slanted outward to an even greater degree than that associated with WTC2 where the seen effects are supposed to have come from inside to outside. Check it out and see what you think (I did not say feel or want to believe):

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/SoundsVideo/402lightinsideKEY.jpg?t=1273754822[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/SoundsVideo/408wtc2firebentoutwardtoo.jpg?t=1273754868[/qimg]

With all of that shown, I have still not addressed the most glaring and most important aspect of CMs video; namely, the SOUND of the second explosion; and, the SOUND of the annihilation of WTC2 that is also depicted in the CM video.

If posters want to stake out their claims about those SOUNDS before I do, feel free.

Later (like tomorrow)
Click to expand...

Flog flog flog......what have you got against dead horses???

Its dead.......move on.
aa-deadmount-425.jpg
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Are you autistic? You seem to have difficulty in comprehending how people think and your use of big words and phrases out of context is telling......
Click to expand...

Ya know..I'm starting to think this too...it does make perfect sense. Another poster on another board (who believes UFO sightings are giant 4-winged dino birds capable of lifting cars) has ASD and their posting styles are very similar. Not that that means anything...it just wouldn't surprise me a bit.
 
jammonius said:
Well, since you mention it, I tried to put the view out on the pier, but couldn't get it to go out there. That, by the way, is why I posted the western view to show the building.
Click to expand...

Google's street view images are taken from a car covered in cameras. You can't drive onto the pier.
 
jammonius said:
I must, however, admit that the date associated with the above deardiary enter was 11/30/01, not October '01. However, the date of entry was not necessarily the date I saw GZ. As best I can recall, I saw GZ before 11/30, but probably not by more than 1 or 2 weeks. So, I here amend my claim to be that I saw GZ in November '01; and, upon that claim I stand.
Click to expand...

You expect us to accept this as evidence??? Are you nuts? A scan of something with a couple of words scrawled on it?
 
sylvan8798, thanks for posting that. Sometimes, when we spar online with delusional ranters, we almost forget that we are talking about terrorists flying planes into buildings and killing people. I think I'm going to take my own advice and go back to ignoring this guy.
 
carlitos said:
sylvan8798, thanks for posting that. Sometimes, when we spar online with delusional ranters, we almost forget that we are talking about terrorists flying planes into buildings and killing people. I think I'm going to take my own advice and go back to ignoring this guy.
Click to expand...

Yep, they trivialize the horror and brutal reality of what happened as they turn it into a parlor game. That's what really gets under my skin, and occasionally compels me to temporarily de-lurk.

As for this particular thread, I hate to say it, but I think we've been had. Notice how he's ratcheting up the crazy and unctuosity in equal parts. I don't think that's an accident. This troll means to provoke, nothing more. Best to ignore him.
 
BillyRayValentine said:
Yep, they trivialize the horror and brutal reality of what happened as they turn it into a parlor game. That's what really gets under my skin, and occasionally compels me to temporarily de-lurk.

As for this particular thread, I hate to say it, but I think we've been had. Notice how he's ratcheting up the crazy and unctuosity in equal parts. I don't think that's an accident. This troll means to provoke, nothing more. Best to ignore him.
Click to expand...

You are probably right,the comedy value is exhausted now,the ignore button is calling,the only problem is that Jammonious would regard that as some kind of victory.
 
BillyRayValentine said:
As for this particular thread, I hate to say it, but I think we've been had. Notice how he's ratcheting up the crazy and unctuosity in equal parts. I don't think that's an accident. This troll means to provoke, nothing more. Best to ignore him.
Click to expand...

You're most likely correct. Beyond a certain point, we have to wonder how much of what they write these fantasy peddlers actually believe in. Some of it is too tortured to be genuine. I mean, we're pretty sure Ace Baker actually believes what he's put forth here, as well as Christophera, but some other trolls are so Poe-capable that you really wonder if they're honest about what they post. I mean, come on, Oliver heard a bus stopping? A subway?? Actual eyes-on-the-jet witnesses support the No Plane proposals?? When logic torturing reaches that level, you have to stop and realize that there are very few people who can honestly be that oblivious, and while it's possible that Jam is truly one of them, the odds are better that he's making the wildest distortions he can just to yank everyones chains.

So yes, he's best left alone in his corner of the basement. I agree.
 
dafydd said:
You are probably right,the comedy value is exhausted now,the ignore button is calling,the only problem is that Jammonious would regard that as some kind of victory.
Click to expand...

To that I would have to say; "So What?" He lives in his own bitter little deluded world. This is the only place he can get any attention. Let him declare victory and fade away. Nothing whatsoever will be changed.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
What chemical reaction or other reaction could the mythical DEW cause that would cause a pile of debris to stay hot for years that would not be simply be, gasp, a smoldering fire? What technology was this DEW now that you bring it up? Can you point us to the basic science behind it?
Click to expand...

You'll never actually get an answer to these questions. I can however shed light on to the "dousing for years" claim. As you said they were using water to fight the smoldering fires. Jammonius has also pictured water being applied years after the fires had gone out. Of course to the rational mind (and anyone that's ever seen construction in a city) this is done to control dust and is required of ALL construction sites (not just WTC). I believe he even went so far as to claim the washing of truck tires before leaving the site was odd (which of course is routine). He really does go to great lengths to affirm his delusion.
 
They douse the infield dirt during major league baseball games. Maybe DEW explains the home run numbers.
 
No, no, he's right. I've seen a number of construction areas where water trucks are trundling along spraying water. Only now do I realize that each of these sites had been struck by some sort of directed-energy weapon.

Now, if only jammonius could tell us what kind of directed-energy weapon, and where it was supposed to be... But that would require him to actually know what he's claiming, wouldn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom