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

[I Ratant]

The guy with the extremely lame pony is trying his one trick again.

 

[DGM]

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.

I also believe the exact words are important. I also believe that words need to be viewed in the context of event before they are said and not viewed in a vacuum.

Do you agree?

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.

So should I take it you think the sound heading up to the crash is unrelated to the crash itself?

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.

The sounds in the video and what Mr Oliver believed to have heard. I thought I made that relatively clear in the OP.

 

[DGM]

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.

And there was no need for you to reply at length. If the post directed to you is off topic or baiting you off topic just ignore it. You can't get in trouble for that. OK? That's the only way this thread is going to survive.

 

[Mince]

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.

The "no step" indication on aircraft wings is not prompted by a concern for its structural integrity; it is used, principally, on the moving parts of the wing, i.e. flaps, so that maintenance workers don't get their body parts pinched in the mechanism when the structural mechanics work on that system. Also, "no step" is used in places where falling to the deck is exceedingly likely. As an aviation electronics technician for the U.S. Navy, I've stepped on many aircraft wings, namely the EA-6B Prowler. The "no step" caution is not used because they fear a 200-lb human might snap off the wing.


ETA: Consider the logic of the implication of your statement. To wit: you have enough knowledge of physics, materials, airplane construction and building performance to determine that "[a] plane crashing into a steel building should not leave the outline of a plane" (a direct quotation from you), but the architects (heh) of 9/11's complex scenario did not?

 

[sylvan8798]

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.

And yet, you are unwilling to accept that if he heard a bus, he would have known that as well. You think you are being uber-logical, but you aren't.

 

[sylvan8798]

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.

Pfffffttttt....

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?

In what way does a discipline about which you know so little belong equally to you and to those of us who know- oh gee how can I say this? - VASTLY, more than you do about it?

 

[A W Smith]

If a "no step" sign is cautionary to prevent the wings from falling off an aircraft if someone were to step on it. WTF do you suppose holds the 150 ton fuselage in the air while its flying? Reverse DEW?

 

[apathoid]

jammonius is probably is getting his aircraft expertise from TruthSleuth, a "flight 1549 was an inside j0rb" troother.

"...Also in this picture are dozens and dozens of "survivors"... it's hard to count because the picture is so fuzzy and distant (a common theme... distant and fuzzy pics). How can more than 20 people stand on a wing and not collapse it?"

Apparently, 20 people standing on an airliner wing should snap it clean off(nevermind the 5000 gallons of fuel and 4 ton motors it holds. )

 

[beachnut]

The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

911 truth believers always debunk themselves and seem to miss the facts.

The NTSB supplied RADAR data to the FBI which clearly proves Flight 11 and Flight 175 impacted the WTC. FOIA were made and RADAR data is available and proves 11 and 175 impacted the WTC towers.

The RADAR data makes speculation about what was heard on 911 a farce, and proves the sound on the video was flight 11. Time of the video and time of the RADAR returns and sound can be used to verify 11 was the sound on the video. RADAR is evidence ignored by those who prefer delusions.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

False, but it would be unfair to expect someone who has explicitly rejected math and physics to understand that the wings can support several times the weight of the plane, or the concept of kinetic energy.

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?

No one has a monopoly on science, but some have a clue.

 

[cyclonic]

The guy with the extremely lame pony is trying his one trick again.

It's not a pony, it's a jackass.

 

[Oystein]

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 think wording here is important! He did not say "What was that?", but "what the hell was that". This expletive often turns a simple question (request for info) into something more of an exclamation.
Also, his camera man did not say "a plane crashed..." (which would indicate certainty) but "sounded like a plane crash". Usually, us debunkers know how to respond to conclusions based on "sounded like..."-sentences: "sounded like" is not equal to "is".

This being said, I think we can conclude with some certainty the following, pertaining to the title of this thread:
"Was Dick Oliver confused about what he heard on 9/11?"
-> Yes, initially he surely was. He had heard, but not seen an extraordinary event to which he could not immediately formulate a complete and consistent theory.
To which I say: Duh!

As for correcting his camera man etc.: It is hard to guess why people say the things they say, especially in a moment of surprise or shock. It is much harder to guess why people do not say the millions of things they could have potentially said, and that line of "reasoning" to me seems ridiculous.

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)?​

A. If this video was the only evidence we have of 9/11, I think we would do what the camera man did: It sure did sound like a plane crash. More precisely: Everybody who did form an opinion an what was heard before the crash said "sounded like a plane".
Of course, we should always keep our minds open for other possibilities. Of course, the sound could be something else (although I still have no viable idea). Or it was a plane, but one that had nothing to do with the crash sound. Or the plane sound could have been edited into the video. Or the entire video of course could be just an enactment and not even be shot on 9/11 (with some SFX to create the illusion of smoke and dust). So logically, the possibilities are endless, including no plane, or no 9/11.
But the video is only one piece of evidence among thousands. Taking the whole body of what we know already, no-plane is preposterous.

B. No, we can not, since we can not guess the thought processes of the man. He was obviously at work when the scene unfolded, and thus quite possibly distracted. Then, the crash obviously caught everybody's attention, and within seconds they must have realized there was something big to be reported upon. Whhich means for the news man Oliver: Get in contact with his production manager Beth, look out for witnesses, try to witness himself as much as he can. Think about what to do with the camera (which was the kind of TV equipment that is linked by cable to some base station or the broadcasting van at the curb - cable length as an issue). We can not expect him to say everything in that situation that could be said, and thus we can not draw any conclusions whatsoever from anything he did not say.

C. A no-planer must get in his head that he can't get too much out of the surprised exclamations and confused first assumtions, uttered within seconds of an event they only heard.
The no-planer, when discussiong this video, would strictly have to stick to analyzing the sounds as recorded, and not the reaction (or lack thereof) of any passerbyers. His argument, repeated ad nauseam, and presented entirely without any own effort of substantiating it, was: If there had been a plane, it would have been much louder than anything we hear in the video, and so loud in fact that it would have forced every person there in Park Row to exhibit a clear reaction (covering ears, ducking). This is really the only point worth debating. Some debunkers have looked up quotes for the loudness of jet engines at close distance, and offered first attempts at calculating the sound at a distance from flight path to Park Row. As far as I have seen, no one has established that flight path well enough, and no one has made any effort at figuring out which buildings, if any, might have been in the way to effect the propagation of sound.
Given all the other evidence that points to a plane crash, the burden of proof rests firmly on the no-planer. We should lean back, and wait until jammonius has presented his assumptions and his calculations.
We should otherwise not feed the troll.

D. I, too, would like to know what the alternative theory is that would replace the incumbant theory, aka "common storyline".

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.

Dick Oliver later stated, apparently, that he heard a "wishhhhhhh" and then a crash, and did not know at the time what it was.
I think he may be excused - if he was busy, and if his short term memory of the sound he thinks he remembers is seconds later pushed to the corner by a multitude of stronger impressions and hectic thoughts about how to procede, there really is no wonder why he may have misremembered the sound.

It must be pointed out that we hear nothing in the video that anybody would describe as "wishhhhhh". Even jammomius only heard a "roar" on top of the normal streetside sounds (wind, birds, people walking, street traffic, chatter, the constant hum of NYC). If Oliver thought there was a significant sound prior to the crash, he either describes it imprecisely, or misremembers.

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

Ok, so let's ask that question: Does the video allow an argument at all, one way or another, about any sort of plane, or the absence thereof?

What is YOUR answer to that question, jammonius?

If your answer is "yes, the video does allow an answer" - what then is the purpose of sentences like the one I quoted - mere rethoric, maybe?

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

Ah great! Can we therefore expect that you will never again quote Dick Oliver's "what the hell was that?" and try to construe an argument from it? It is only a question

 

[Oystein]

...
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.

...

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.
...

All this begs two questions:

A) What did the FBI determine?
Can we agree, without digging for sources at this point, that the FBI concluded, with technical assistance given by the NTSB, that planes were intentionally crashed into either of the twin towers?

B) The NTSB did not do nothing - by their own account, they assisted the FBI. Why would they write they assisted the FBI with the crashes of 4 planes, when in fact no planes crashed? Why would they not write "there were no plane crashes"?
I see two possibilities here:
Either, there were indeed plane crashes of the nature that the FBI investigated - specifically, AA11 and UA175 crashing in NYC
Or the NTSB is part of the conspiracy.
Which is it, jammomius, or do you see another reasonable alternative?

 

[progge]

Note on the NTSB reference

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.

All three sentences cited above are wrong in every conceivable manner. The NTSB determined several aspects of 9/11, one of them was the flight paths of the four 9/11 planes, and the NTSB did so by evaluating radar data.
Recorded Radar Data Study all Four Aircraft
Flight Path Studies
NTSB Briefing for the 9/11 Commission

This is from the AA 11 FPS, in particular:

The airplane impacted the North Tower at approximately 8:46:40 EDT (point I).

NTSB Flight Path Study

What happened ≠ why it happened. Jammonius is questioning the What, the NTSB refused to determine the Why, but they have pretty much to say about the What, cf. the Flight Path, ATC and FDR Reports.
And btw, more than 80 NTSB personnel were involved in the investigation:

On September 11, 2001, terrorists took command of American Airlines flight 11, United Airlines flight 175, American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93. The first two airplanes were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City and the third was crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth airplane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, presumably during an intervention by passengers on the flight. It quickly became apparent that the attacks involved criminal intent. Therefore, they were under the jurisdiction of the FBI rather than the NTSB. However, the Safety Board provided extensive support to the FBI, involving more than 80 NTSB personnel in the investigations.

Another NTSB source

 

[jammonius]

I also believe the exact words are important. I also believe that words need to be viewed in the context of event before they are said and not viewed in a vacuum.

Do you agree?

Of course I agree. The ability properly to contextualize is a key component in objective consideration of data in a search not only for truth, but also for meaning; and, above meaning, for significance.

Here's one other thing I might add: Emotion, and emotional display, such as taunts, hints of anger, statements of indignation, righteous or otherwise, strong language, such as use of words like "liar" and "jackass" are all, to me, indicators of a lack of objectivity that might serve as clues that the person using words of that nature has probably not achieved the necessary degree of objectivity to engage in proper contextualization and/or other forms of more subtle and more rigorous analysis.

So should I take it you think the sound heading up to the crash is unrelated to the crash itself?

In a word, "yes." Furthermore, I think those who support the common storyline are likely to fight that observation tooth and nail until Kingdom Come because the need to link that sound to a jetliner approaching 1000ft up and at close to 500mph is crucial to the common storyline.

On the other hand, if the Dick Oliver video cannot support the sound of an onrushing, low flying jetliner, then the common storyline is seriously compromised and the no plane theory is seriously supported.

To be clearer still, the Dick Oliver video is a singularly important piece of data because neither the sound nor the reactions of the passersby supports the theory that a widebody jetliner was encroaching their space. A widebody jetliner, 1000ft up and at nearly 500mph would have been an extreme environmental intrusion causing unimaginable, ear splitting and nerve shattering disturbance, wake vortex, vibratory impacts and shock such that people would have reacted in no uncertain terms.

Pretense that the foregoing is not true and accurate is, in my view, indicative of a failure of objectivity.

People are not oblivious to impacts that are as threatening as a full throttle widebody jet 1000ft above ground.

Here's what the sky above City Hall Park, admittedly canted towards the north, but nonetheless in the presumed path of approach, looks like:

And, here is the view canted more towards the west:

I think the last refuge of those who seek to downplay this information will likely consist in claims about the trees blocking the view and atenuating the sound. I do not think there are enough trees in City Hall Park to have shielded people from the impacts of a widebody jetliner 1000ft up, two blocks west and at a speed of close to 500mph. Others are, of course, free to disagree. I am here stating my position on the matter.

The sounds in the video and what Mr Oliver believed to have heard. I thought I made that relatively clear in the OP.

Got it. I find there's no harm in double checking for accuracy.

 

[BigAl]

Here's what the sky above City Hall Park, admittedly canted towards the north, but nonetheless in the presumed path of approach, looks like:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/skyparkrowKEY.jpg?t=1272289000[/qimg]

And, here is the view canted more towards the west:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/skyparkrowKEY2.jpg?t=1272289299[/qimg]

What's your point? Any fast jet would only be visible for fractions of a second between those towers and even then, most people were looking in the wrong direction of had their view obscured by something close by.

Lots of people saw a plane. It was visible for only a few seconds and only from about 1/3rd of the compass and only if you were outdoors and only if you have an unobstructed view and happen to be looking in the right direction. If you had your Walkman on and cranked up you might not hear the jet at all.

 

[Mince]

Is this photo properly contextualized?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

But the sound does not sound anything like either a bus nor a subway train. You are the only person to post that the sound is anything other than a jet aircraft.
The lady in blues looks away and up so if she is searching for the source of the sound then why would she look up and away from the "bus" or "subway"

The video has not been used as the sole proof that there was a plane, however nothing whatsoever in it indicates that there was no plane and a sound which the vast majority consider to be a jet seems to indicate that there was a jet.
The smoke looks pretty dark to me, and in any case you have not shown that jet fuel, spread and ignited as supposed, would indeed make the dark smoke you say it would. Please prove this first before contending that the colour means anything.