Claim: New 9/11 Survivor Provides Explosive New Evidence

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

It seems the only "new" evidence he gives is that the plane was actually going really slow, and that there's some photos he took that day.

I'll wait and see the photos, but this is the most underwhelming "new" evidence I've seen. Particularly because it's wrong. Even AE911 says the planes were going very fast - in fact many truthers make that a point of evidence, that the planes were going too fast to be real planes. AE911 does not dispute the speed of the planes, so what are they going to make of Ricky's testimony?

He claims he went from tower 1 to tower 2. So he would have been on the ground at the north lobby entrance, or the west. The second plane was coming from the south. How visible would it have been from the lobby doorway? And he says it hit overhead, does that mean he walked around to the south? I look forward to seeing his photos, which apparently Richard Gage is going to show later today (or maybe Saturday).

Ricky says: "When these pictures come out, everything you say will be legitimized". Which seems incredibly unlikely.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member
What?

Explosive, amazing, game-changing phenomenal evidence is here...er...coming in a few days?

Oh, I totally believe that it's true this time!!
 
With technology today, cameras can shoot objects moving at very high speeds. What's this guy's point?

Pictures taken can depict/prove an aircraft's speed? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member
This is actually more significant than you might immediately imagine.... According to A&E, the buildings "fell into their own footprint", right?

Oops.....

2ndStageCollapseExplosionPrematureRevealedZoom2-600x463.jpg 037_15-600x402.jpg 028_10-600x402.jpg 045_23-600x402.jpg
 

Oystein

Senior Member
This is actually more significant than you might immediately imagine.... According to A&E, the buildings "fell into their own footprint", right?
Wrong, actually.

According to A&E, Building 7 "fell into its own footprint", and that is somehow proof of CD. The twin towers however, they say, fell widely outside of the footprints - and that is proof of CD, too!
(About half of the petition signers who employ the word "footnote" in their personal statement got this wrong, too, and also claim the twins fell into the footprint - no one there is bothered by the inconsistency)
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The photos of the collapse and some of the photos later were taken from an upper floor of a building on Rector St and Trinity Place:
https://www.google.de/maps/@40.7077...!1e1!3m2!1ssstC-fGDXlXkHI8srMf6Gg!2e0!6m1!1e1

Shots of the clean-up operation were taken from another high-up vantage point - possibly the Woolworth building.

Shots on the ground on a rainy day. When did it first rain after 9/11?
The first date with rain observed at the Central Park weather station was Sept 14. No details of amount of rainfall though.

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/New_York_City_Central_Park/09-2001/725033.htm

However JFK airport does record rainfall amounts. There was 20.83mm of rain on the 14th, which is clearly an over-precise conversion from 0.82". Then another 14.22mm (0.56") on the 15th. So, quite a wet period.

upload_2014-10-23_15-19-15.png
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/09-2001/744860.htm
 

BombDr

Senior Member
Wrong, actually.

According to A&E, Building 7 "fell into its own footprint", and that is somehow proof of CD. The twin towers however, they say, fell widely outside of the footprints - and that is proof of CD, too!
(About half of the petition signers who employ the word "footnote" in their personal statement got this wrong, too, and also claim the twins fell into the footprint - no one there is bothered by the inconsistency)
Iv heard all combinations of claims, invoking psuedo-demo-psycho-sciency nonsense...

The other favourite words are:

1. Pyroclastic
2. Freefall
3. Nano-thermite
 

CharlyAndy

New Member

It seems the only "new" evidence he gives is that the plane was actually going really slow, and that there's some photos he took that day.

I'll wait and see the photos, but this is the most underwhelming "new" evidence I've seen. Particularly because it's wrong. Even AE911 says the planes were going very fast - in fact many truthers make that a point of evidence, that the planes were going too fast to be real planes. AE911 does not dispute the speed of the planes, so what are they going to make of Ricky's testimony?

He claims he went from tower 1 to tower 2. So he would have been on the ground at the north lobby entrance, or the west. The second plane was coming from the south. How visible would it have been from the lobby doorway? And he says it hit overhead, does that mean he walked around to the south? I look forward to seeing his photos, which apparently Richard Gage is going to show later today (or maybe Saturday).

Ricky says: "When these pictures come out, everything you say will be legitimized". Which seems incredibly unlikely.
Mick, your comment seems to be primarily an attack on Ricky's credibility, i.e. ad hominem. I think we should cut him a little slack when he reports the speed of the plane. That has been measured from frame-by-frame analysis of the videos. Do you mean also to impeach his reporting of hearing many explosions? It seems that you have taken an unassailable position against the so-called "truthers." I think you should recuse yourself in analyzing the existing data on the 911 events. No "new" information is necessary.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, your comment seems to be primarily an attack on Ricky's credibility, i.e. ad hominem. I think we should cut him a little slack when he reports the speed of the plane.
No, I disputed his account of the speed of the plane based on it contradicting every other know account and numerous videos, and the after-effects of the impact. I also pointed out contradictions in what he said. I did not attack him as a person.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
Even though he didn't actually measure the speed of the plane, I can believe that Ricky was honestly mistaken. Prior to an impending calamity like that, things many times appear to be in slow motion. (I have experienced that myself.) I was thinking more of his reporting multiple explosions. Many others who were on the scene reported these explosions too, first responders included. These explosions could not have been caused by the airplane impacts. In my opinion Ricky told things as he experienced them. He seemed quite an honest witness.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
Yes, as he remembers them. His memories of explosions, however, are corroborated by many other independent observers who were on the scene that day. Just because he remembers hearing explosions doesn't mean he's mistaken.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
If he was, as he states, "blown back 20 feet" as "debris came raining down" from the impact above, how was he not hit by that debris?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Just because he remembers hearing explosions doesn't mean he's mistaken.
But remembering that the plane was moving "slow" DOES mean his memory is mistaken.

PS: He also indicates that a plane dramatically banking is... unknown to him. I'm sure it looked dramatic to see a large plane doing that, but it's certainly not outside its flight capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
He had his hands on the lobby doors, then heard the second plane coming in and had time to get out a camera and take pictures of the second plane impacting? I doubt that.

 

CharlyAndy

New Member
If he was, as he states, "blown back 20 feet" as "debris came raining down" from the impact above, how was he not hit by that debris?

If your question is rhetorical, it is an attack on either his honesty or his ability to remember things correctly. If it is not rhetorical then you want to know the answer. Which is it?
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
But remembering that the plane was moving "slow" DOES mean his memory is mistaken.

I concur. I also believe that his memory was mistaken about the speed of the plane but since his memory of explosions has been corroborated by many other witnesses I tend to believe the statements about explosions.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
If your question is rhetorical, it is an attack on either his honesty or his ability to remember things correctly. If it is not rhetorical then you want to know the answer. Which is it?
I'm not sure how my question could be taken as rhetorical. His story contains conflicting elements. I'm asking about one of them.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
Honest, but essentially useless, as much of what he remembers is demonstrably false.

Could you provide that demonstration for us? I think that the his recollection of explosive blasts is demonstrably true because it has been corroborated by many other witnesses. Could you debunk that?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I concur. I also believe that his memory was mistaken about the speed of the plane but since his memory of explosions has been corroborated by many other witnesses I tend to believe the statements about explosions.
I think that's called 'cherry picking'.

Dont get me wrong, I believe there were explosion like sounds. I also believe him that FOR HIM the plane was moving in "slo-mo", since he specifically said "everything went like slo-motion after that".

Although it sounds like perhaps his memory of where he was at the specific time is mistaken. (Not odd in such a situation)

Bottom line he says he has certain pictures that he later didnt produce. False memory after 11 years of trauma is not odd and nothing to be ashamed of. That's why police try to interview witnesses immediately after an event AND then interview them again (if not several times) a few days after the event. The brain is a strange device when stress is at play.
 

Chew

Senior Member
If he was, as he states, "blown back 20 feet" as "debris came raining down" from the impact above, how was he not hit by that debris?
He said the impact blew him back 20 feet and as he "regained" the debris started hitting the ground. Funny how no one else was blown back 20 feet by the impact.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
"Explosions" is open to interpretation. Magnitude of the "explosions"? When? From where?

Have you never heard an explosion and not known its "magnitude?" "When?" I think Ricky could be excused if he didn't look at his watch and note the time. He probably couldn't tell the exact frequency of the explosions either. "From where?" Put yourself in his shoes. He was not conducting a scientific experiment so it's not surprising if he didn't know where. What is your intent here? To cast doubt on Ricky's testimony or to get at the facts of 911 or maybe something else?
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
I provided demonstrations above.
Lots of people heard load bangs. That would be entirely expected, given the events.
Yes, given the events that actually happened, the events that are not accounted for in the conventional theory. Are you implying that it is to be expected that lots of people just happened to hear bangs that weren't there or that bangs like that usually occur when high-rise buildings collapse due to office fires? (It can't be the latter since no steel frame high-rise buildings had usually, or even ever, collapsed due to fire before 911.)
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
He said the impact blew him back 20 feet and as he "regained" the debris started hitting the ground. Funny how no one else was blown back 20 feet by the impact.

But they were. Check out testimony by Mr. McIlvane about the fatal injuries his son suffered. Full frontal damage as the lobby of one of the buildings exploded.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
I provided demonstrations above.
Lots of people heard load bangs. That would be entirely expected, given the events.
Could you produce the demonstrations again? Do they demonstrate that each and every one of the reports them are false? Do they refute the sonic record too?
 

Chew

Senior Member

But they were. Check out testimony by Mr. McIlvane about the fatal injuries his son suffered. Full frontal damage as the lobby of one of the buildings exploded.
So only one other person was blown back by the impact? And he died? While thousands of other people equidistant from the impact experienced nothing? Yeah, ok.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member

But they were. Check out testimony by Mr. McIlvane about the fatal injuries his son suffered. Full frontal damage as the lobby of one of the buildings exploded.
can you please start adding links and source quotes to your posts. (and photos where applicable).
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

https://www.metabunk.org/metabunks-no-click-policy.t5158/



what makes you think he was in the lobby? are you thinking of a different victim?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What is your intent here? To cast doubt on Ricky's testimony or to get at the facts of 911 or maybe something else?
The intent is to example claims of evidence to see if they hold up. Here it seems like they do not, as even you admit his recollections are not exactly the same as what happened, and the other things he said simply repeat what other people said.
 

CharlyAndy

New Member
So only one other person was blown back by the impact? And he died? While thousands of other people equidistant from the impact experienced nothing? Yeah, ok.

"So only one..." straw man argument. I did not say that only one person was blown back. Many were. "While thousands..." another straw man. If you say that none of the thousands experienced anything, you have to provide evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And specifically the claim here was that he was going to provide "explosive new evidence". Which he did not. Hence that claim was wrong.
 

Chew

Senior Member

"So only one..." straw man argument. I did not say that only one person was blown back. Many were. "While thousands..." another straw man. If you say that none of the thousands experienced anything, you have to provide evidence.
You'll want to look up exactly what a "Straw man argument" is. Another thing to look up is "cargo cult skepticism". Just because you can type out the name of a logical fallacy doesn't mean you understand that logical fallacy.
 
Top