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.
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.
