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

[jammonius]

Definition of cherry picking:


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.

 

[DGM]

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.

Why you felt the need to type this I have no clue

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)

That's what he said. Again why you felt the need to type all this is beyond me.

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).

 

[CompusMentus]

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?

Compus

 

[jammonius]

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.

 

[DGM]

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?

Compus

Yes, It's his contention the sound of the approaching jet (obvious to you and me) is that of a bus or a subway train.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

 

[Mince]

What you "believe" is a subjective matter. Please post up objective proof.

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.

 

[jammonius]

Why you felt the need to type this I have no clue

We're going downhill fast, DGM. I am beginning to sense that we are not going to be able to engage in meaningful discussion.

That's what he said. Again why you felt the need to type all this is beyond me.

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?

Please advise.

 

[beachnut]

... 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.

No tampering with RADAR data. Another false ideas or a lie based on ignorance, hearsay, or delusions; or some combination.

... NTSB did not investigate 9/11 and disavowed making any findings about it. I am not making that up.

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.

 

[Mince]

"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.

 

[jammonius]

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?

Compus

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.

 

[DGM]

I typed it because I sensed there was a possibility of confusion based on the use of paraphrase as opposed to what was actually said.

I only used "paraphrased" because I could not remember the exact words. There is really no importance as to the exact words.

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".

Agreed.

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?

Please advise.

The thread is about the sound before Mr Oliver says "what was that". Remember, first statements.

 

[jammonius]

FALSE, the NTSB supported the FBI as needed. This is false or a lie based on ignorance.

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.

You have the right to dispute data, but the claim I made was based on data.

The NTSB supplied products to the FBI. Another tangential opinion which means nothing.

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?

 

[tsig]

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?

Compus

/j/ What explosion?/j

 

[tsig]

No I do not agree that that is what is meant by cherry picking. Indeed, if that were a valid definition of cherry picking

Statements between and amongst people almost always disagree agree.



So, yes, you are right. We disagree agree on cherry picking and I have here said why I think we disagree agree.

Glad we agree on that.

Please make it clear when you are changing a members words.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[DGM]

There is no basis for the above claims. It is always..........<snipped>

Please don't reply in length to post that do not concern the OP. This is off topic.

Please try to focus.

 

[tsig]

snip


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?

It's a public forum and the only ones who can say that (and back it up) are mods and admins.IANAM*

*i am not a mod

 

[jammonius]

I only used "paraphrased" because I could not remember the exact words. There is really no importance as to the exact words.

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.

Agreed.

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.

 

[jammonius]

It's a public forum and the only ones who can say that (and back it up) are mods and admins.IANAM*

*i am not a mod

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?

 

[jammonius]

Please don't reply in length to post that do not concern the OP. This is off topic.

Please try to focus.

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.