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

[beachnut]

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

Its dead.......move on.

Time to call in the blaster dude.

The blaster's job is to blow the horse up! With up to or over 100 pounds of dynamite placed on, over and around the carcass, the fuse is lit and the horse blown to pieces. National Forest Service logic, no "large pieces" to attract bears, mountain lions which in turn would endanger human life. There is one caution to this procedure. Before lighting the fuse be sure to remove the iron shoes from the horse. If not, someone could get hit with flying shrapnel. source

I was looking for the instructions put out by the forest service or other department which shows how to blow up the horse using CD.

Steel turning to dust, jet engines are wheel covers, and fuselage parts are horse trailers it is standard procedure to twist statements to match a fantasy and ignore reality.

 

[DavidJames]

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.

For Jammonious, there is no defeat, but I think the closest would be if his nonsense would echo without a response. People like him are in it for the thrill of "debate". There should be no fear that a lurker might be persuaded. His ideas are so whacked that only the hopeless are at risk to believe him.

Dialog with people like him reward and encourage them.

 

[jammonius]

Lurkers,

If you are interested in an assessment of video information about the explosions at the WTC on 9/11, this thread contains 3 that are quinessential:

Dick Oliver videos 2

CMs video

And I would add to that the one found at the following link containing all 43 known versions of the "second hit" meaning the explosion at WTC2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

I will post up relevant stills from some of them. It is remarkable, I think, that the sound of a jetliner presumed to be 800ft up @ 550mph is completely missing from some of the 43 versions, and, even if there is background sound and clearly audible voices and other sounds, even in those, the presumed jetliner makes no discernible sound or is not heard above background noise or otherwise inexplicably absent in ALL 43 versions, based on my first "go round" with that ALL 43 video, linked above.

On the other hand, CMs video contains an audible sound that overshadows all other sounds, albeit for only 1-2 seconds prior to the crash, it is none the less a sound. Then, however, there is almost NO SOUND heard in the CM video in connection with the annihilation of the WTC, albeit, the cameraperson in the CM video is, by then, in a different location. Still, the dust cloud almost comes to where that camera is and the distance away is still relatively short.

Further, the audio in the CM video is remarkably consistent with the way that both jr343 and Asst. Commissioner Gregory described the sound. As you know, neither of them saw a plane.

I see that no one has chosen to take me up on the suggestion some posters might want to listen to CMs video and post up soundbites.

Perhaps a Lurker or two would be willing to participate in that process.

It will benefit one's general understanding of the available video information from 9/11 in NYC to do this. All it takes is a little interest in objectivity, something that appears to have gone missing in these parts lately, imho.

 

[beachnut]

Dick heard an aircraft; he was right. 911 truth make up lies and can't figure out 911 after 8 years. If Dick said steel turned to dust, he would be wrong and possibly insane.

 

[dafydd]

Lurkers,

If you are interested in an assessment of video information about the explosions at the WTC on 9/11, this thread contains 3 that are quinessential:

Dick Oliver videos 2

CMs video

And I would add to that the one found at the following link containing all 43 known versions of the "second hit" meaning the explosion at WTC2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

I will post up relevant stills from some of them. It is remarkable, I think, that the sound of a jetliner presumed to be 800ft up @ 550mph is completely missing from some of the 43 versions, and, even if there is background sound and clearly audible voices and other sounds, even in those, the presumed jetliner makes no discernible sound or is not heard above background noise or otherwise inexplicably absent in ALL 43 versions, based on my first "go round" with that ALL 43 video, linked above.

On the other hand, CMs video contains an audible sound that overshadows all other sounds, albeit for only 1-2 seconds prior to the crash, it is none the less a sound. Then, however, there is almost NO SOUND heard in the CM video in connection with the annihilation of the WTC, albeit, the cameraperson in the CM video is, by then, in a different location. Still, the dust cloud almost comes to where that camera is and the distance away is still relatively short.

Further, the audio in the CM video is remarkably consistent with the way that both jr343 and Asst. Commissioner Gregory described the sound. As you know, neither of them saw a plane.

I see that no one has chosen to take me up on the suggestion some posters might want to listen to CMs video and post up soundbites.

Perhaps a Lurker or two would be willing to participate in that process.

It will benefit one's general understanding of the available video information from 9/11 in NYC to do this. All it takes is a little interest in objectivity, something that appears to have gone missing in these parts lately, imho.

Goodbye.

 

[HawksFan]

Quite frankly, jammonius, no we wouldn't. Your delusions are getting quite boring and your expectations that everyone else answer your questions while you avoid answering theirs for fear of playing "20 questions" or "gotcha" is getting rather irritating, which I expect was the desired outcome.

Face it. You've convinced no one and your odds of ever doing so are astronomical.

 

[triforcharity]

We are at impasse. I also saw what was called "the pile" and I was taken in by that description. I was perplexed that a long ladder was extended above it, pointed downward so as to conduct the dousing (of the effects of DEW) that went on day-in-and-day-out for several years (you read that correctly). In any event, one had to look down in order to see anything.

Here is a photo that shows the extended ladder with hose pointing DOWNWARD on 9/11 itself. That is both characteristic and symbolic that the pile had no height to it at all.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ABCphotos/ht_09ffcotten20_wtc_100212_ssv.jpg?t=1273713602[/qimg]
.

That hose is not pointed down. That hose is pointing OUT, laterally, from the tower. GRAVITY is bringing it down.

The one in the background is pointing down. HOWEVER, that tower is most like 50+ feet in the air.

GZ was never flat.

 

[jammonius]

Quite frankly, jammonius, no we wouldn't. Your delusions are getting quite boring and your expectations that everyone else answer your questions while you avoid answering theirs for fear of playing "20 questions" or "gotcha" is getting rather irritating, which I expect was the desired outcome.

Face it. You've convinced no one and your odds of ever doing so are astronomical.

HawksFan, let me start by assuming you are speaking for yourself in the above, absent some sort of understanding or agreement that you are posting for a group.

As is my custom, in making assumptions I like to double check the accuracy of them before proceeding too far. So, are you speaking for yourself in the above; or, have you, say, exchanged PMs with a group of posters/lurkers and been asked to post up on their behalf?

With that frame reference in mind, it has not ever been my objective to convince anyone of anything and I am not here seeking to improve the odds of doing what I haven't been seeking to do from astronomical to merely long, or otherwise.

I have, however, offered up information for discussion, for honest discussion, and not for purposes of proving someone right or wrong. I customarily do not make declarations about who is right and who is wrong. That is not the point. I have not set traps and I sure haven't ever, not one time, declared "victory" or "defeat" either for myself or for anyone else, I don't think, and it is not my intention to do that. I won't do that because that has not ever been the objective in the first or second place.

I do hope what I am saying here will be grasped and understood.

This might, however, be likened unto an exercise in assessing the question "how do we know what we think we know?" Even there, however, the idea is not to prove that "I know" and "you don't" or vice versa. Objective assessment is what I recommend, and personal stock taking.

Convince yourself. Be comfortable in your own assessment and don't be afraid to come on out with what you have to say in regard to the question posed; namely:

How do we know what we think we know?

In addressing that question, be relaxed, calm and dispassionate. Take it easy, breezy, and be comfortable in your own skin, as it were. That is what I seek to do, just so you know. If you need it, permit me to suggest the following:

Figuratively speaking, of course. Hint: I am not a fan of BigPharma

 

[jammonius]

That hose is not pointed down. That hose is pointing OUT, laterally, from the tower. GRAVITY is bringing it down.

The one in the background is pointing down. HOWEVER, that tower is most like 50+ feet in the air.

GZ was never flat.

Thank you for your assessment. The eye sees what the beholder wants it to see, I suppose. One enters into a strange place, however, when one seeks to turn what is down into what is up. This brings to mind a couple of literary classics, one suppposes. 1984 and Alice in Wonderland certainly come to mind.

GZ was flat and no steel was shipped to China.

Grasp this: Before any new skyscraper is built on GZ, they had better make sure that site is fully remediated as the effects of DEW are non-self-quenching.

By the way, I sure hope the remnant steel used in the USS New York wasn't used for any part of the hull that is below the waterline...

 

[Edx]

GZ was flat

It amazes me that someone like you can deny whats easily seen in pictures.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'll chime in here before some idiot assumes HawksFan is speaking only for himself.

Quite frankly, jammonius, no we wouldn't. Your delusions are getting quite boring and your expectations that everyone else answer your questions while you avoid answering theirs for fear of playing "20 questions" or "gotcha" is getting rather irritating, which I expect was the desired outcome.

He's playing "go fetch a rock". The point of his game is to get us to go fetch rocks to knock down his house of straw. When someone suggests he fetch his own rocks, and use them to build a better foundation for his argument, he restates his principled refusal to play "20 questions" or "gotcha".

Instead of fetching rocks, I'm gonna blow.

 

[jammonius]

It amazes me that someone like you can deny whats easily seen in pictures.

There's a thread on what the pictures of GZ reveal. Let's not try to discuss that issue in this thread.

What I will say, however, is that one has to be very careful in making height declarations based on photos. That applies to any topic, not just the flatness of GZ.

For instance, are you familiar with a certain photo of GZ that shows firefighters next to a flag and flag pole? If so, how high up would you say that flagpole and those firefighters are?

 

[TJM]

Figuratively speaking, of course. Hint: I am not a fan of BigPharma

I said it before and I'll say it one last time; This thread was finished a long time ago. You've been doing nothing but entertaining us ever since. But now you've become boring and predictable. Your one trick is broken.

Get well.

(NSFW)

 

[jammonius]

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.

Double checking for accuracy of understanding. Is post #651 fully accurate as to what you saw on 9/11?


For reference:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5923435&postcount=651

"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."

Would you agree with me that any person who is a witness to an event really does more than one thing in being a witness. A person serves as a vehicle for transmitting information and a person also serves as an interpreter of the events thusly reported. Agreed?

I accept your statement as quoted above at face value, without exception.

Chances are, however, you interpret your statement differently than I do. Matters of interpretation are not at all associated with declarations of truth or falsity. Obviously, people interpret things differently.

I have not ever called you a liar. I have, however, "parsed" your statement for purposes of explaining how I interpret your statement and not for purposes of changing either your statement or your interpretation of your statement.

I hope this serves bring about a greater sense of ease and a lesser degree of apparent angst.

all the best

Once again, thank you very much for adding your personal experience. I could not be more sincere in saying your experience adds greatly to the quality of this thread that DGM started.

 

[HawksFan]

Thanks for your concern, jammonius, but I'm quite calm and relaxed. In fact I'll be heading out this afternoon for a nice ride on the motorcycle and I can safely bet that I won't run into one single DEW advocate or no-planer in my travels. You are in such a minority that I can hardly think it even qualifies as a group. Nothing of any substance has been brought to the table by any truther, really, let alone the no-planers such as yourself.

 

[jammonius]

For Jammonious, there is no defeat, but I think the closest would be if his nonsense would echo without a response.

It is true there is no defeat AND there is no victory. I am not posting to "win" or to "lose". Are you?

People are free to post or not post as they see fit. Strikes, boycotts and other forms of dissent are perfectly acceptable.

People like him are in it for the thrill of "debate". There should be no fear that a lurker might be persuaded.

I have articulated my purposes. Your post as quoted above shows little or no appreciation of how I, myself, have described my reasons for posting. Are you aware of them?

His ideas are so whacked that only the hopeless are at risk to believe him.

Thank you for your comment. As a generalization it is clear. As to specifics, your post adds nothing whatever, does it?

Dialog with people like him reward and encourage them.

Dialog is rewarding and encouraging. So, if your objective is to neither reward nor to encourage me, then, yes, you and others might be better off by not posting another post in this thread if withholding of reward and of encouragement is important to you.

Enjoy the other threads in this forum; and, faretheewell.

 

[sylvan8798]

Thank you for your assessment. The eye sees what the beholder wants it to see, I suppose.

Yours certainly does, as you have made clear. Triforcharity was THERE. None of it was what he wanted to see, trust me.

HawksFan has my imprimatur to speak for me.

 

[jammonius]

He'll just wave it away and say its faked He could have been on the plane himself and he would deny there was one.

The video segment you have posted is also to be found in the 10 min. compilation of all 43 known videos of the second explosion, most, but not all, of which show some variation on "the shadow thingy."

I referenced that video compilation in post# 783, above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

Using the 10 min video as the discussion source, you may find your video segment beginning at or about the 1:46 mark corresponding to the following image:

That particular clip is noteworthy for the clarity of the human voices, conveying dismay, angst, dread and, perhaps, fear. It is, indeed, a freightening thing to watch.

The sound quality of the voices, however, stands in sharp contrast to the lack of any sound at all coming from "shadow thingy" and, a barely audible explosion coming at about the 17sec time frame in the clip you posted.

A widebody Boeing 767 at 800ft @ 550mph should be ear-splittingly loud and environmentally disturbing. However, in the particular video underdiscussion, the plane appears to me to just glide along and to be slower than is depicted in some of the other videos in the All 43 compilation; and certainly not a 550mph juggernaut. But hey, that is just me, posters are free to interpret the data as they see it. It also seems to me the shadow thingy in the video you posted is not heard at all. Zero, zilch, nada. Once again, that is my interpretation. That is what I hear.

Thanks for your post.

 

[jammonius]

Yours certainly does, as you have made clear. Triforcharity was THERE. None of it was what he wanted to see, trust me.

HawksFan has my imprimatur to speak for me.

I am not recalling, at the moment, Triforcharity's posting of that eyewitness experience. Do you have a link?

thanks

More later.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Post #783, IMHO, is a clear example of his mental disorder..what ever it may be (autism, paranoia..etc). I've seen this in others. Presenting something as evidence, and only focusing in on one particular aspect which they believe supports their case, while ignoring anything else in the evidence that contradicts their beliefs...it is ignored and is seen as irrelevant.

Jam believes that DEW's were used to create the holes in the towers, and pyrotechnics were used to make the explosions...no planes...nothing striking the tower. Yet, he posts a video that has numerous examples of something very plane-like striking the towers. His only focus is the sound of the engines, that he believes should be heard, but isn't...which in his mind is evidence for his belief. He completely ignores the fact that videos show something actually hitting the building, which completely contradicts his DEW+pyrotechnics theory. This is ignored, and seen as irrelevant.

Many of us are here for the Lulz...but they have faded...it's time to put this pony to pasture.

edit:

The sound quality of the voices, however, stands in sharp contrast to the lack of any sound at all coming from "shadow thingy" and, a barely audible explosion coming at about the 17sec time frame in the clip you posted.

A widebody Boeing 767 at 800ft @ 550mph should be ear-splittingly loud and environmentally disturbing. However, in the particular video underdiscussion, the plane appears to me to just glide along and to be slower than is depicted in some of the other videos in the All 43 compilation; and certainly not a 550mph juggernaut. But hey, that is just me, posters are free to interpret the data as they see it. It also seems to me the shadow thingy in the video you posted is not heard at all. Zero, zilch, nada. Once again, that is my interpretation. That is what I hear.

And yet another example. The clip is clearly shot from a significant distance from the towers, yet Jam claims it's only 800ft away. He expects to hear the sound of loud engines, even though the people are inside and behind a plate glass window...as no "street sounds" are audible in the clip. He even refers to the "shadow-thingy", which contradicts the DEW/pyrotechnics theory.