Yup. So what? The guy had no clue which direction the jet was coming from because he was behind a wall of buildings that blocked vision and confused sound direction clues.
No-planers are mentally deranged. "thingy" is a lame attempt on your part to dodge being called a no-planer. The dodge doesn't work. What do you think hit the towers and made them sway?
The record volume was clearly turned down on the camera. Other videos show shouts and screams when the plane hits.
Here are videos of Flight 11 and Flight 175 that show what people heard. If you were inside a building or on a firetruck with the siren running, the sound wasn't easy to tell from all the other traffic noises in rush hour NYC.
For instance;
Greetings big al,
Nice to be in dialogue here. OK, I think you may be onto something here.
I would like to know if you'd like to address these videos one at a time and assess the content of them, consisting in the sights, the sounds and the comments.
If you are willing to do that, one at a time, then let me start with the first one, the one found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
OK, here's what I see and hear, speaking just for me, of course; and it is unlikely posters will agree with me, but that is fine. We all have the right to say what we see and what we hear and what we deduce from use of those sense impressions:
0:00 to 0:12 A TV talking head identifies the time as 3 hrs and a few minutes after 8:45am, meaning at or about noon on 9/11. He uses the phrase "first crash took place." [He does not ever use the word jetliner or even plane]
0:12 to 0:18(+/-) A camera is aimed at the sidewalk and shoes are seen along with people walking. Voices can be heard, but not much else
0:18 to 0:22 An onrushing sound, consistent with relatively low speed and not at all consistent with a high velocity sound, can be heard that, to me, speaking just for me, sounds like a subway train traveling at 30mph+/-; but does not sound like jet engines at or near full throttle to me at all.
I repeat nothing at all like a jetliner at any speed, let alone full throttle, 1000ft above street level. Furthermore, the sound should have been heard for a lot longer than it was and should have increased in intensity, rather than have a consistent level for the full timing interval. But, the video contains only voice chatter from about 0:13 to 0:18, at which time the onrushing sound appears, not in gradual increments, but all at once and sounds, to me, as I said, like a subway.
To me, jet engines are an everyday occurrence, my hearing is slightly above average, and I here assert the sound in the video does not sound like that of jet engines to me.
I accept that everyone else here will say that the sound they hear sounds exactly like they'd expect two jet engines to sound.
So, there might be some here who will acknowledge we have a disagreement, but mostly, people will declare themselves right and me wrong. I get it.
I do no such thing. I describe what I hear and I acknowledge you have the right to describe what you hear and I respect that we disagree. You hear the sound of an oncoming Boeing 767-200. I hear the sound of a subway. OK?
0:22 to 0:23 There is a visible shaking of 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.
0:23-0:25 The sound that I say is a subway can still be heard after the collision, at almost, but not quite the same intensity as before the collision sound. I therefore deduce that I am likely correct that what is heard is a subway train because had it been a jetliner, the 'rushing' sound would have ceased from and after the point of collision. The collision was at the 0:23 marker and the 'rushing' sound continues past that point. The 'rushing' sound then diminishes, which I think is consistent with the subway train either coming to a stop or fading in intensity as it travels away from the camera, consistent with a doppler effect.
0:26 A voice is heard to say "what the hell was that." 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."
0:28 Now, to be sure in response to the query "what the hell was that?" someone says "sounded like a plane crash." I grant you that. That is a valid witness statement as to what that person heard. I, on the other hand, disagree for the reasons I have stated above. Did you see them?
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.
0:37-0:51 We also see in this interval smoke ranging in color from medium gray to light gray, and predominantly light gray. To me the observed smoke color is completely inconsistent with a jetliner crash because kerosene burns in very thick, black billowy smoke.
To me, speaking just for me, the color is inconsistent with jet fuel. I know posters here will have physics and math and all sorts of other explanations that says that the color of the smoke is just exactly what it should be for a jetliner crash. I get it.
However, I, on the other hand, simply disagree. The smoke is not black, not thick and billowy and is, instead, more whispy, and more light gray than any other color; and not, therefore, consistent with a jet fuel based fire at all.
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."
That narration is consistent with my claim that what happened was "it's just an explosion."
So, this is a point in my favor, as I see it. I acknowledged that at 0:28 or so, someone said something consistent with your claim that it was "a plane." i wonder whether you are willing to acknowledge that someone said something in the video that is consistent with my claim of explosion but not a jetliner crash?
1:03to1:16 We return to the anchor who says various things, BUT, who never says it was a plane crash, let alone a jetliner crash. He does give a name, that of Dick Oliver, who is a witness. I wonder if anyone has contacted him recently?
big al, that is how I see your first video. As you can tell, it takes a little time to go through these videos to assess them. That is why I recommend doing this one at a time. If you flood us with 5 videos, it is akin to overload.
So, is it ok with you if we take these one at a time?
Let me know your thoughts on my interpretation of what I think the video shows and what it sounds like and what the people in it say.
For those of you who want to call me a liar and such like. I understand. However, I would suggest you not do that; and, instead, just be honest with yourselves and provide your own reasoning and your own interpretation as honestly as YOU can.
Suffice to say, big al, I think this video supports no plane theory to a faretheewell. You have my sincere thanks for posting it up.
