It has been contested that Dick Oliver was confused as to what he heard on 9/11. It was claimed that he was confused as to whether the sound heard on this video (presumably also heard by him) was that of an airplane.
As we can clearly hear he says " what was that" after the sound of the crash was heard. Also when his camera man says " a plane crashed into the towers" (paraphrased) he does not correct him by saying something along the lines of "but I didn't hear a plane" or "all I heard was a bus (or subway ) go by".
My questions here are;
A: Can it be logically argued using this video that no plane flew over head?
B: Can we take it, that considering the fact that Mr Oliver did not question his camera man when he stated that a plane crashed into the towers that the sound he heard was that of a plane?
C: Should a person making these "no-plane" claims (considering the bulk of evidence against his claim) be expected to back his claims with extraordinary, irrefutable proof considering the extraordinary nature of the claim?
D: This is directed to anyone claiming there was no-plane, Why do you think you can ignore as planted or dis-info (or a gotcha) all evidence that disproves your belief (I have to say belief because you have not presented a theory or hypothesis)?
B: Can we take it, that considering the fact that Mr Oliver did not question his camera man when he stated that a plane crashed into the towers that the sound he heard was that of a plane?
We could. Or Mr. Oliver and the cameraman are so tight as to preclude Mr. Oliver questioning the cameraman's identification of the sound as a plane crash. Which would require the cameraman to be "in on it".
C: Should a person making these "no-plane" claims (considering the bulk of evidence against his claim) be expected to back his claims with extraordinary, irrefutable proof considering the extraordinary nature of the claim?
It has been contested that Dick Oliver was confused as to what he heard on 9/11. It was claimed that he was confused as to whether the sound heard on this video (presumably also heard by him) was that of an airplane.
Would you mind providing a context for the above quoted claim?
In particular, by whom has it "...been contested that Dick Oliver was confused as to what he heard on 9/11?"
Certainly, DGM, in the now closed and hidden thread that raged for 43 pages from March 26 to April 17, 2010, the characterization that you have given as quoted above does not describe the way in which the Dick Oliver video was presented. That thread was entitled:
"What Fox reporter Dick Oliver saw and heard on 9/11 (no plane)"
As we can clearly hear he says " what was that" after the sound of the crash was heard. Also when his camera man says " a plane crashed into the towers" (paraphrased) he does not correct him by saying something along the lines of "but I didn't hear a plane" or "all I heard was a bus (or subway ) go by".
I do not think it proper to engage in paraphrase as done above, and then follow the paraphrase with a characterization centering on a presumption that a correction was called for from Dick Oliver and that the lack of a correction can then be presumed to have the meaning that you are attributing.
Would you mind indicating why you found it necessary or appropriate to characterize the information in the video in that way?
For sake of background, would you consider the following to be an adequate factual index from which to base our understanding of the content of the video:
0:00 to 0: 13 studio anchor, Jim Ryan, references the time as being a "3 hours and a few minutes" after 8:45AM, which he gives as the time of the video that is about to be shown. He describes it as video of "the first crash."
0:13 to 0:18 A camera view appears that allows us to presume the camera is located on the ground, on the sidewalk, near the curb, showing a ground level view ranging upward to about tree level in the far background and up to about 6feet up from ground level in the near background, covering the sidewalk where a few passersby can be seen either in part or in full.
**0:18 to 0:24There is then a relatively loud sound that can be described as various things that has a rhythmic pattern. During this six second interval, neither Dick Oliver nor his cameraman saw anything or move. And, none of the passersby react to the sound during this segment, except that one lady, in a blue blouse, slows and looks into City Hall Park.
This is the lady in blue shown looking toward City Hall Park:
We know the location here is "near City Hall" on Park Row, near Beekman Street.
0:22 to 0:23 There is a visible distortion in the camera, while the onrushing sound is still heard. Then, at about the 0:23 mark a collision that sounds like a car crash is heard. The collision is at some distance, but is pretty intense.
This is a still shot from the video roughly capturing the interval just before the glitch, the glitch itself, to just after the glitch:
0:23-0:25 The noisy sound can still be heard after the collision, at almost, but not quite the same intensity as before the collision sound. The reaction of two passersby can be clearly seen in this segment. One is a woman entering from the leftside the other a man passing through who has entered from the rightside. Neither of these passersby pays any attention at all to the sound UNTIL the collision is heard, to which she almost instantly reacts.
Woman on right after the crash, but before she reacts:
Man who had entered from right following lady in blue after crash and after both he and lady on left react:
0:26 More or less contemporaneously with the above two stills, Dick Oliver says "what the hell was that" in response, not to the sound, but to the collision.
0:28 In response to Dick Oliver saying "what the hell was that?" someone says "sounded like a plane crash."
0:27-0:29 The noise is diminishing and two squeaks are heard.
0:28-0:37 A this point the camera begins a process of moving from the foot shots and somewhere at about the 32sec mark we see, for the first time, the sky in the direction of the WTC, and we see at least two buses, a number of passersby and the face of Dick Oliver.
0:37-0:51 Dick Oliver makes a number of comments in this time segment, including, "Beth come back to us" which he repeats. We also see in this interval smoke ranging in color from medium gray to light gray, and predominantly light gray. The observed smoke color is completely inconsistent with a jetliner crash because kerosene burns in very thick, black billowy smoke.
The smoke is not black, not thick and billowy and is, instead, more wispy, and more light gray than any other color.
0:40to 0:51 As the predominantly light gray smoke is being seen, the narration continues with questioning as to what is seen "come to us" is repeated and so on.
0;51 to 1:01 The location of the smoke is identified as the WTC and someone says "it's just [pronounced:jist] an explosion."
1:03to1:16 We return to the anchor, Jim Ryan, who says various things.
**Opinion: This is the most revealing part of the video. The passersby are not at all surprised by the sound making it unlikely a jetliner at 1000ft and <500mph is coming their way.
My questions here are;
A: Can it be logically argued using this video that no plane flew over head?
First of all, no plane is seen in the video, thus, one would hard pressed even to ask if the video can allow an argument at all, one way or another, about any sort of plane, let alone a Boeing 767 jetliner, in my opinion.
B: Can we take it, that considering the fact that Mr Oliver did not question his camera man when he stated that a plane crashed into the towers that the sound he heard was that of a plane?
Perhaps, but, doing so would involve negation of, or, at a minimum, nonconsideration of the statement by the same cameraman a some 30 seconds later that "it was just an explosion." Which can be taken as a clarification of his earlier statement.
By the way, it is also at this point that the danger of the use of paraphrase becomes apparent. This post states:
"... " a plane crashed into the towers" (paraphrased) ..."
However, what the cameraman actually says is:
"...sounded like a plane crash"
That is different. Firstly, it confirms he did not see a plane and is reporting his sense impression limited to the sense of sound. Secondly, as the sound he heard can be presumed to have been the crash sound emanating from the 90something floor of the North Tower, it is rreasonable to assume a plane did it because flying objects of some kind are among the things that can reasonably have caused a crash at that height. The problem, of course, is: What kind of object and how was it propelled? Those questions cannot be answered by the cameraman's statement.
What we can all agree on is that a hole was caused in the upper region of the WTC North Tower, that looked like this:
C: Should a person making these "no-plane" claims (considering the bulk of evidence against his claim) be expected to back his claims with extraordinary, irrefutable proof considering the extraordinary nature of the claim?
There has not ever been an officially sanctioned and validly made investigation of what happened on 9/11.
D: This is directed to anyone claiming there was no-plane, Why do you think you can ignore as planted or dis-info (or a gotcha) all evidence that disproves your belief (I have to say belief because you have not presented a theory or hypothesis)?
It is improper to presuppose the existence of information, let alone a large quantity of it, without saying what it is and allowing it to be assessed for validity. That is all the more apparent in a context where no official source of an investigatory outcome has even been cited as a frame of reference in the quoted post.
Permit this observation:
If one is going to presume a condition described as "...all evidence that disproves your belief ...", then one should at least provide one reference to where that evidence can be found, together with some assurance as to the validity of that source.
In my opinion, one can reference, at most, two sources NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report. However, it is known that neither of them are authoritative or accepted as such and that both have more flaws than one can shake a stick at.
Also, this thread should not be viewed as an invitation to cut and paste wantonly from posts that have been sent to AAH, and it most certainly should not be viewed as an invitation to repeat the bad behaviour that was rampant in that thread (including incivility, hotlinking, spamming photos, etc.), nor to whine about the fact that the previous thread was dumped to AAH.
Firstly, it confirms he did not see a plane and is reporting his sense impression limited to the sense of sound. Secondly, as the sound he heard can be presumed to have been the crash sound emanating from the 90something floor of the North Tower, it is rreasonable to assume a plane did it because planes are the only thing that can reasonably have caused a crash at that height.
Certainly, DGM, in the now closed and hidden thread that raged for 43 pages from March 26 to April 17, 2010, the characterization that you have given as quoted above does not describe the way in which the Dick Oliver video was presented. That thread was entitled:
"What Fox reporter Dick Oliver saw and heard on 9/11 (no plane)"
I do not think it proper to engage in paraphrase as done above, and then follow the paraphrase with a characterization centering on a presumption that a correction was called for from Dick Oliver and that the lack of a correction can then be presumed to have the meaning that you are attributing.
Would you mind indicating why you found it necessary or appropriate to characterize the information in the video in that way?
No problem. I "paraphrased" because I did not want to go back and transcribe his exact words (although I do believe I got them right). You (again in another thread) said that first impressions are crucial. I was pointing out that Mr Oliver did not see it fit to correct his camera man when he said it was a plane crash. Do you have a problem with this?
It is improper to presuppose the existence of information, let alone a large quantity of it, without saying what it is and allowing it to be assessed for validity. That is all the more apparent in a context where no official source of an investigatory outcome has even been cited as a frame of reference in the quoted post.
Again repeating something does not make it true....
In my opinion, one can reference, at most, two sources NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report. However, it is known that neither of them are authoritative or accepted as such and that both have more flaws than one can shake a stick at.
Also, this thread should not be viewed as an invitation to cut and paste wantonly from posts that have been sent to AAH, and it most certainly should not be viewed as an invitation to repeat the bad behaviour that was rampant in that thread (including incivility, hotlinking, spamming photos, etc.), nor to whine about the fact that the previous thread was dumped to AAH.
I have no intention of breaking the rules or engage in "incivilities". As you might notice from my last post I also have no intention of allowing jammonius to drift off topic. If he doesn't like it....tough, he can go away and everyone will see he can't support his claims.
He must of heard a 767, because this is proved by RADAR to be the impact of 767. The hole is the exact dimention of a 767 going at high speed. OOPS, Proof of a 767 impact, and with RADAR data, it proves exactly which plane was used.
I apologize if you thought that was directed to you personally, DGM. It was not. Rather, I was quoting the very good advice in the last line of your opening post, and then adding to it for general application. Again, my apologies if that wasn't clear.
I apologize if you thought that was directed to you personally, DGM. It was not. Rather, I was quoting the very good advice in the last line of your opening post, and then adding to it for general application. Again, my apologies if that wasn't clear.
I didn't actually think it was directed to me personally. I know this thread is dangerously close to one already in AAH (and based on the same). I quoted you as to put an exclamation point on the need to keep civil and on topic.
We are early on in the thread. The above is hard to fathom and seems to be a bit gratuitous. Why? But, let me offer a contrast.
Please note in the OP the use of "paraphrase." I cannot help but wonder whether if I had done that, the words "lie" and "false" and such like would have proliferated. It is to be noted, I did not do find it necessary to go in that direction at all.
Another issue I think I'd like to signal a concern about at the outset is that of "cherry picking." That process is not all bad by any means. First of all, in quoting witnesses, only their answers are important, usually. Questions are not the evidence; rather the answers are.
Secondly, 9/11 is a political event based on how it was responded to; namely: WAR.
Hence, snipets from people's first impressions are important because they are not caught up in or biased by subsequent needs to conform to the social pressure brought on by the need to conform to a political side in a war situation.
So, cherry picking is not necessarily a negative. It is only negative if something is taken so as to change the intent, seen in a larger context. However, that larger context does not include the political pressure to conform. In fact, that is the circumstance that proper cherry picking seeks to avoid.
We are early on in the thread. The above is hard to fathom and seems to be a bit gratuitous. Why? But, let me offer a contrast.
Please note in the OP the use of "paraphrase." I cannot help but wonder whether if I had done that, the words "lie" and "false" and such like would have proliferated. It is to be noted, I did not do find it necessary to go in that direction at all.
Another issue I think I'd like to signal a concern about at the outset is that of "cherry picking." That process is not all bad by any means. First of all, in quoting witnesses, only their answers are important, usually. Questions are not the evidence; rather the answers are.
Secondly, 9/11 is a political event based on how it was responded to; namely: WAR.
Hence, snipets from people's first impressions are important because they are not caught up in or biased by subsequent needs to conform to the social pressure brought on by the need to conform to a political side in a war situation.
So, cherry picking is not necessarily a negative. It is only negative if something is taken so as to change the intent, seen in a larger context. However, that larger context does not include the political pressure to conform. In fact, that is the circumstance that proper cherry picking seeks to avoid.
from Wiki Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
It's going to be hard to have a discussion if we can't agree on terms.
We are early on in the thread. The above is hard to fathom and seems to be a bit gratuitous. Why? But, let me offer a contrast.
Please note in the OP the use of "paraphrase." I cannot help but wonder whether if I had done that, the words "lie" and "false" and such like would have proliferated. It is to be noted, I did not do find it necessary to go in that direction at all.
Another issue I think I'd like to signal a concern about at the outset is that of "cherry picking." That process is not all bad by any means. First of all, in quoting witnesses, only their answers are important, usually. Questions are not the evidence; rather the answers are.
Secondly, 9/11 is a political event based on how it was responded to; namely: WAR.
Hence, snipets from people's first impressions are important because they are not caught up in or biased by subsequent needs to conform to the social pressure brought on by the need to conform to a political side in a war situation.
So, cherry picking is not necessarily a negative. It is only negative if something is taken so as to change the intent, seen in a larger context. However, that larger context does not include the political pressure to conform. In fact, that is the circumstance that proper cherry picking seeks to avoid.
If you consider the ramifications of the manifestation of the aligning of incongruent discrepancies, you will find a severely recklessly ambiguous parlance from which one can expect certainty without pretext. But don't undertake the endeavor if strong-willed individuals are ceremoniously concluded.
So, we're agreed this thread arises out of the one I previously started. Speaking for me, and just for me, I do not have a chip on my shoulder. I am not out to get anyone and I am not in the least bit angry, edgy or anxious to prove a point.
It's all ok. We are having a discussion.
No problem. I "paraphrased" because I did not want to go back and transcribe his exact words (although I do believe I got them right).
I'm a bit baffled by the above. The words are very few in number. I see no reason why we cannot agree that the cameraman said:
"sounds like a plane crash"
Neither more, nor less at that time segment.
He later said:
"it was just an explosion"
(Note: I am willing to entertain the possibility someone other than the cameraman made that statement)
You (again in another thread) said that first impressions are crucial. I was pointing out that Mr Oliver did not see it fit to correct his camera man when he said it was a plane crash. Do you have a problem with this?
Yes, I have a problem. I think you are basing the above on the paraphrase and not on the actual statement. I fear, in fact, that if we do not resolve this issue early on it could taint the thread.
In may view, based on the statement "sounds like a plane crash" means there was no reason to correct anything as that was a reasonable supposition based on the source of the sound -- 1000ft above.
Your paraphrase does not acknowledge that the statement is limited to a sense impression based solely on sound and changes both the statement and your subsequent conjecture about whether a reply from Oliver was called for.
Plus, Oliver was quite clear, was he not? He didn't know what it was and did not recognize the sound. Do you recognize that that Oliver said at a later date that he did not recognize the sound he heard?
Dick Oliver did not see a plane and does not describe the sound of a jetliner. He, instead, says:
"I was near City Hall waiting to do a live shot on the mayoral primary. We were in commercial when we heard a wishhhhhh. I didn’t know what it was. Then we heard a crash, and I said to my cameraman, “What the hell was that?” Because the trees were in bloom, I couldn’t see a thing."
While accusation and gotcha questioning is not uncivil, it is also less than friendly in my view. If I wanted to express the concerns you have expressed above, here's how I would have done it:
Indexing a piece of information can be either objective or subjective, while posing as objective. I am not sure I accept the index you put forward as your doing so could be considered a controlling mechanism. In fact, here are my objections to your "index"
Then list changes.
By the way, while I do not mandate that people answer questions, because questioning is likewise a control technique, I would like to know if you'd be willing to address the following:
List the questions for which answers are desired
That is how I would have put it because I have no desire to impugn motives or make negative assumptions about why people post what they post. I assume your good faith and will continue to do so, even if you show tendencies that you do not attribute good faith to me.
Everything we know today. You know the collective stories of all the witnesses and investigations .
Here we simply have a sharp, deep and, perhaps, insurrmountable obstacle to discussion. I do not accept the presumption that there is a base that allows you to say: "[e]verything we know today" in a manner that suggests the common storyline of 9/11 is presumably proven. Hear this: The common storyline of 9/11 is objectively NOT proven because there is no official source that can be cited for that proposition.
Further, the statement that "[y]ou know the collective stories of all the wiitnesses and investigations" is nothing more (or less) than something you are presuming but not demonstrating. It actually causes me some concern that I am the one who quotes more actual witnesses than virtually anyone else. The witnesses I name and quote are not invisible. They stand for something. They contradict the official storyline and I am not about to allow sweeping generalizations to dismiss them.
So, I'll put it this way, either you post up proof of your wide generalizations in a way that allows them to be assessed or please know, without any doubt whatsoever, that I do not accept your quoted claims and will go so far as to say that unless you source them, you are engaging in improper presumption.
Repeating something does not make it true...
Again repeating something does not make it true....
Your quoted statement is not followed by a single source or other form of validation. Your claim is, therefore, untenable as a matter of reasoned discussion. What you "believe" is a subjective matter. Please post up objective proof.
If you consider the ramifications of the manifestation of the aligning of incongruent discrepancies, you will find a severely recklessly ambiguous parlance from which one can expect certainty without pretext. But don't undertake the endeavor if strong-willed individuals are ceremoniously concluded.
If you consider the ramifications of the manifestation of the aligning of incongruent discrepancies, you will find a severely recklessly ambiguous parlance from which one can expect certainty without pretext. But don't undertake the endeavor if strong-willed individuals are ceremoniously concluded.
Exactly . Many times it has been attempted to achieve a bifurcation in his view but the insistence on the primacy of a single data point overriding the overall picture has rendered all efforts futile.
Right I thought he achieved just the right flavor and I have to admit that it takes a lot of crust to express oneself in such a clear, dead-pan manner.
from Wiki Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
It's going to be hard to have a discussion if we can't agree on terms.
No I do not agree that that is what is meant by cherry picking. Indeed, if that were a valid definition of cherry picking, it would be impossible to quote anyone at anytime.
Statements between and amongst people almost always disagree. Thus, if the criterion is that "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position" is requiste to what is called cherry picking we are at impasse.
In taking one side in a dispute, it is expected that one will cite the sources that support it. It is incumbent upon the otherside to actually cite counter sources and it is not appropriate for the other side to merely say "cherry picking" and let it go at that.
Yes, sources conflict, but it is the duty of the side that claims a conflicting source exists to post it up.
So, yes, you are right. We disagree on cherry picking and I have here said why I think we disagree. Agreement might be possible, but, at present, we apparently do not have it.
So, we're agreed this thread arises out of the one I previously started. Speaking for me, and just for me, I do not have a chip on my shoulder. I am not out to get anyone and I am not in the least bit angry, edgy or anxious to prove a point.
Yes, I have a problem. I think you are basing the above on the paraphrase and not on the actual statement. I fear, in fact, that if we do not resolve this issue early on it could taint the thread.
The statement I was questioning (and what this thread is about) is Mr Olivers statement "what was that". I'm not confused at all. He says this after the sound of the crash is heard. I have no clue why you think he's questioning the sound before that was a plane.
In may view, based on the statement "sounds like a plane crash" means there was no reason to correct anything as that was a reasonable supposition based on the source of the sound -- 1000ft above.
And this somehow supports your view it was not a plane? jammonius try to focus and stay on one aspect of the discussion at a time. Remember we're talking about first impressions on this one video,not what he says later (something you said was important).
Forgive me for my ignorance but I didn't participate in the first Dick Oliver thread and don't really know Jam's full take on this. Is the jist of his argument that the sound of the approaching jet and the sound of the resultant explosion are unconnected?
He must of heard a 767, because this is proved by RADAR to be the impact of 767. The hole is the exact dimention of a 767 going at high speed. OOPS, Proof of a 767 impact, and with RADAR data, it proves exactly which plane was used.
I am pleased that this RADAR claim has been posted early on. I here request that you cite the source of the radar claim you are relying on. What interests me about the radar claim is that we know the NTSB firmly and unequivocally distanced itself from the 9/11 incidents and specifically indicated it made no finding as to what happened.
We also know that data inputs included simulated tampering.
Furthermore, while I have not fully confirmed the following claim, it is my current understanding that NIST did not rely on radar data in its report.
This is not to say NIST had to rely on radar, it is only to say NIST did not do so. Certainly, in NCSTAR1, the overall summary of NIST's findings, the word "radar" is nowhere to be found. Furthermore, in determining the issue of the speed of the alleged aircraft, NIST seems to have relied solely on videos.
So, permit me to request you post a cite to the radar data you so frequently mention, but never with any way to confirm what you are talking about. No cite, no link and certainly no analysis at all.
My statement here is that radar data in the 9/11 context are highly suspect and have no official recognition as to validity. I am not making that up. NTSB disavowed making any determination about any aspect of 9/11.
Based on prior experience, people here do not like it when I make those factual claims or observations about validity of sources and posters then try to take that to extremes, as already evidenced in this thread in post # 6. However, NTSB did not investigate 9/11 and disavowed making any findings about it. I am not making that up. That is a fact and it is one that matters for the purpose of assessing validity and reliability of sources, including radar claims.
Forgive me for my ignorance but I didn't participate in the first Dick Oliver thread and don't really know Jam's full take on this. Is the jist of his argument that the sound of the approaching jet and the sound of the resultant explosion are unconnected?
once again, this entire line, the no planer take on this video, amounts to,
"The people in the video didn't react the way they do in hollywood movies (the only frame of reference most have for such a thing) so there is something wrong with this video, and hence it must have been part of the fabrication."
You can debate, discuss, use your limited investigoogling expertise all you want on this, but that is what it amounts to...and IT DOESN'T HOLD WATER here.
Bring me some hard evidence that anything on this video was faked, and we have a starting point (and opinion does not count as evidence).
TAM
edit: for what it is worth, I remember touring NYC in the late 1990s. There were CONSTANTLY the noises of loud trucks, police cars, ambulances, etc... I would look up, and around, every few seconds. The locals, however, unphased by any of it, just simply went about their day. I think that needs to be kept in mind when looking at this clip.
97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll.
I typed it becase I sensed there was a possibility of confusion based on the use of paraphrase as opposed to what was actually said.
The statement I was questioning (and what this thread is about) is Mr Olivers statement "what was that". I'm not confused at all. He says this after the sound of the crash is heard. I have no clue why you think he's questioning the sound before that was a plane.
Wait. Your OP included two claims in one paragraph. You said:
"As we can clearly hear he says " what was that" after the sound of the crash was heard. Also when his camera man says " a plane crashed into the towers" (paraphrased) he does not correct him by saying something along the lines of "but I didn't hear a plane" or "all I heard was a bus (or subway ) go by".
I am trying to engage with you on the basis of your OP, DGM, but I have to use what you posted. I am trying to do that as best I can.
So, here's what we agree on:
Yes, Oliver says "what the hell was that" after the crash sound heard at 0:23+/-. At 0:26 Oliver says "what the hell was that" and at 0:28 cameraman says "sounds or sounded like a plane crash".
As to the sound before the crash, the whole point, I thought, was whether that sound, consisting in 6 seconds, can be said to be that of a jet or not. I thought that was an important 6 seconds, but if that is something you have not included in this thread, then, fine, we can drop it like a hot potato.
And this somehow supports your view it was not a plane? jammonius try to focus and stay on one aspect of the discussion at a time. Remember we're talking about first impressions on this one video,not what he says later (something you said was important).
Wait, I don't understand what your intent is in the above statement at all. Are you suggesting we are not to consider the statement "it was just an explosion" uttered 30 seconds later?
... we know the NTSB firmly and unequivocally distanced itself from the 9/11 incidents and specifically indicated it made no finding as to what happened.
FALSE, the NTSB supported the FBI as needed. This is false or a lie based on ignorance.
This is pure junk, the NTSB supported the FBI because the 911 aircraft impacts were not accidents; the NTSB does accidents and in a criminal case they provide technical support; RADAR data. 911 truth is 8 years of delusions and willful ignorance.
We also know that data inputs included simulated tampering.
The NTSB supplied products to the FBI. Another tangential opinion which means nothing.
The photo shown is the exact impact a 767 at the speed it was going would make in the WTC, the wing span is exactly that of a 767. It is amazing how 911 truth believers present evidence which debunks their delusions.
RADAR is science, 911 truth avoids science, math and physics; nothing new for 911 truth which bases all their delusions on opinions and faulty analysis.
"The people in the video didn't react the way they do in hollywood movies (the only frame of reference most have for such a thing) so there is something wrong with this video, and hence it must have been part of the fabrication."
Very good analysis. I wonder how many actual people he has seen reacting to a low-flying aircraft, outside of the exaggerated ducks and exclamations of the movies. His belief is based on performing arts and I'm sure he doesn't realize it.
Forgive me for my ignorance but I didn't participate in the first Dick Oliver thread and don't really know Jam's full take on this. Is the jist of his argument that the sound of the approaching jet and the sound of the resultant explosion are unconnected?
I note you do not address your post to me and rather, addressed it generically. Let me double check, here. Are you not wanting to engage in direct conversation with me?
I have proposed discussion of the 6 seconds of noise sound heard from 0:18 to 0:24+/- at which point the crash is heard and then from 0:24 to 0:28 during which interval the noise sound continues but gradually diminishes and ceases almost entirely folowing two distinct squeaks heard at about 0:27-28, maybe 29.
We know that at that time -- 0:18-0:28 the camera was on the sidewalk next to the curb.
We also know that the sidewalk sits atop the confluence of two subway lines that intersect one another. We also know the following:
I think the picture speaks for itself. However, to be clear, as two subway lines are underneath the camera and as two buses are alongside the camera, the noisy sound heard from 0:18-0:28 might be that of those devices. Plus, Dick Oliver never was ab le, either during the event or afterwards to say he thought he heard a jet. In my view, a jet is a common, easily recognizable sound and that if he had heard one he would have known it.
Wait. Your OP included two claims in one paragraph. You said:
"As we can clearly hear he says " what was that" after the sound of the crash was heard. Also when his camera man says " a plane crashed into the towers" (paraphrased) he does not correct him by saying something along the lines of "but I didn't hear a plane" or "all I heard was a bus (or subway ) go by".
I am trying to engage with you on the basis of your OP, DGM, but I have to use what you posted. I am trying to do that as best I can.
So, here's what we agree on:
Yes, Oliver says "what the hell was that" after the crash sound heard at 0:23+/-. At 0:26 Oliver says "what the hell was that" and at 0:28 cameraman says "sounds or sounded like a plane crash".
As to the sound before the crash, the whole point, I thought, was whether that sound, consisting in 6 seconds, can be said to be that of a jet or not. I thought that was an important 6 seconds, but if that is something you have not included in this thread, then, fine, we can drop it like a hot potato.
That is the point. The reason I discounted it was because you said Mr Oliver's statement "what was that" was in reference to the plane not the crash. Remember?
Wait, I don't understand what your intent is in the above statement at all. Are you suggesting we are not to consider the statement "it was just an explosion" uttered 30 seconds later?
There is no basis for the above claims. It is always and ever a matter of making harsh accusations and never one of honest disagreement. Look, beachnut, there is no need for that. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already bankrupted us on all levels. There is no need for wartime propaganda.
Lighten up, please.
Here is one of the four identical statements actually made by NTSB that I was referencing in my prior post:
NTSB Identification: DCA01MA064.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Arlington, VA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757-200, registration: N644AA
Injuries: 64 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.
I rely solely on what the NTSB said, and in particular:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I am not seeking to add to or subtract from what the NTSB said. I am simply quoting them and relying on the normal meaning of the words they used.
Please consider toning it down a little. You can say you disagree, but I do not think it necessary for you to use the word "false" or other words that seek to cast what I say outside the realm of a good faith disagreement with you.
This is pure junk, the NTSB supported the FBI because the 911 aircraft impacts were not accidents; the NTSB does accidents and in a criminal case they provide technical support; RADAR data. 911 truth is 8 years of delusions and willful ignorance.
The above is, in part, your take on the matter. That part is fine. However, I do not know why you find it necessary to say the language I quoted excludes every aspect of interpretation that I offer. The NTSB has aircraft crash expertise. It is what they do. The alleged 9/11 crashes are not the only criminal crashes on record, but they are the only ones on record for which NTSB made no finding.
It is easy to determine whether a distinction can be said to make a reasonable difference. Merely describing the crashes of 9/11 as criminal does not adequately distinguish them from crashes for which a competent forensic determination of cause is important.
Furthermore, you cannot have it both ways. Even assuming the NTSB's lack of a determination is excused, that does not result in there having been a valid determination of the cause of the crashes that can be sourced or relied on. The FBI may have bogarted jurisdiction, but the FBI did not and cannot make a determination of what happened because that is not the kind of expertise the FBI has.
No tampering with RADAR data. Another false ideas or a lie based on ignorance, hearsay, or delusions; or some combination.
The above has little meaning. I quoted the NTSB's statement.
The photo shown is the exact impact a 767 at the speed it was going would make in the WTC, the wing span is exactly that of a 767. It is amazing how 911 truth believers present evidence which debunks their delusions.
Beachnut, the above is not a well-founded statement. A plane crashing into a steel building should not leave the outline of a plane. First of all, the wings, you know, the ones that often contain the warning you can see from the exit row that says: NO STEP say that for a reason; namely, the wings are rather fragile. They snap off. They are hollow and thin and they cannot penetrate steel.
People scoff when I post up the roadrunner image running through the North Tower. However, that is what your quote mandates as a reasonable response. I won't post it here as I understand people take offense to it.
I wonder why people do not take offense to your roadrunner-like proposal as quoted above?
That is rich.
RADAR is science, 911 truth avoids science, math and physics; nothing new for 911 truth which bases all their delusions on opinions and faulty analysis.
You know what, I am here going to call a halt to this as it is in the nature of the attempt put forth by some to stake out a claim of entitlement to bogart sympathy for victims and/or appeals to patriotism. You do not have a monopoly on science and you do not own appeals to science. That appeal and that discipline belong equally to me. So I here request you cease and desist and stand-down immediately from trying to monopolize science. Is that clear?
Forgive me for my ignorance but I didn't participate in the first Dick Oliver thread and don't really know Jam's full take on this. Is the jist of his argument that the sound of the approaching jet and the sound of the resultant explosion are unconnected?
You know what, I am here going to call a halt to this. You do not have a monopoly on science and you do not own appeals to science. That appeal and that discipline belongs equally to me. So cease and desist and stand-down immediately. Is that clear?
Here we have a disagreement. I think in discussions of this nature, "the exact words" are important and can make the difference between being correct and being incorrect.
That is the point. The reason I discounted it was because you said Mr Oliver's statement "what was that" was in reference to the plane not the crash. Remember?
No, I don't exactly remember it that way. I have always thought Oliver was responding to the crash. But, my whole point was that if the noise was that of a jet, there would have been a reaction to it and/or a connection of it to the crash. However, I know that can sound a bit confusing. In fact, this is what I said in the OP of the prior thread in re the exchange of the words "what the hell was that" etc.:
"0:26 A voice is heard to say "what the hell was that" in response, not to the sound, but to the collision. I consider that significant because based on the location of the camera, if a jetliner had passed overhead at about 1000 ft above street level, I think people at that vantage point would have known it was a jetliner and would not have asked "what the hell was that."
So, that is what I said way back in the OP of the prior post. I am willing to clarify anything that needs to be clarified. At this point, we know the person who said "what the hell was that" was Dick Oliver and we know the person who responded "sounds like a plane crash" the cameraman. We have also analyzed a number of passersby for their movements, etc. We know more now than we did on 3/26.
The thread is about the sound before Mr Oliver says "what was that". Remember, first statements.
That is not absolutely clear. The sound before he says "what was that' was the crash, the thump, and the six seconds of noise, potentially. Please advise what you would like the thread to focus on and I will abide in your choice in the matter.
Neither am I a mod, but I stand by the thrust of my post (that I have now modified) that no one has a monopoly on the appeal to science. Is that clearer?
Beachnut tried to insert a red herring about radar and did so on the basis of improper language, imho. That post merited the kind of response it received in order to prevent silence from being seen as acquiescence. However, I see your point that the radar issue was technically off topic.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
