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

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Add that the sound of the plane would trail the plane by a second or two and that the would would be reflected off the buildings its very unlikely that people at street level where the video was made would have been able to see the plane even if the trees were not there because where the sound was coming from was not where the plane was at that time. The Naudets and the firemen they were with were lucky in that the plane flew over them in an area of lower buildings so that they could hear and then see the plane before it hit. The high def version of the video is much clearer than the youtube version and its clearly a 767 or A300. And one of the firemen identifies it as an American Airlines aircraft. Jammo,Are you accusing the Naudets and those members of the NYFD present of being mass murderers?

Jammo, Why are you not explaining how the Naudet video could have been faked and what evidence you have for that taking place? The Naudet video clearly shows a plane at the same time and in the same place as the oliver video has the audio only. If it looks like a plane (in the Naudet video) and sounds like a plane (in both videos) it almost certainly was a plane.

 

[jammonius]

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".

The above goes in the direction of objectivity, in my view, and I would encourage more like it from all concerned with this thread. I'm not here claiming a monopoly on objectivity, rather, I am merely saying I think objectivity is on display in the above statement.

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!

In contrast with the first paragraph above quoted and commented upon, the second is, in my view, less objective. The first reason why it is less objective is that it tries to formulate a subjective conclusion; namely: whether Dick Oliver was confused. I do not think it appropriate to try to go in that direction.

Secondly, let's consider the presumed phenomenon, which is that a widebody jetliner had onrushed from north to south on the west side of Manhattan, 1000ft up at close to 500mph. Jetliners are an everyday sound, albeit, not at the speed or noise level caused by full throttle engines -- an ear shattering 140dB. Yet, it is more fairly said, I think, that because jets are everyday occurrences, people know them when they hear them.

Dick Oliver did not recognize a jet from what he heard. That much is an objective conclusion.

So, the better inference, quite frankly, is that because the sound heard on the mic, via youtube, is neither loud enough, nor of the right pitch for a jet and because Dick Oliver did not recognize it as a jet, it, the sound, was not that of a jet.

That inference -- not a jet -- is further supported by the reactions of the passersby in the video and by the second statement of the cameraman "it was just an explosion."

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.

If I understand you to say it is not possible to answer why Oliver did not correct his cameraman, then, in that event, I think the quoted answer is objective and reasonable.

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.

The above is wide-ranging and therefore not easily sorted out, especially in a message board context. Put succinctly, the last conclusion is not well-supported by what precedes it. This refers to the last statement: "Taking the whole body of what we know already, no-plane is preposterous".

No, that is not a well-formed conclusion at all.

Let's examine the statement "sounded like a plane crash."

Frankly, few people have actually ever heard a plane crash because that is not an everyday experience. True, people may have seen it in the movies, but how realistic is that?

Another thing:

Plane crashes do not sound alike. One crashing into water, as often happens, will not sound the same as one crashing in fields or in residential areas. The puddle jumper plane that crashed in Manhattan, taking the life of, I believe it was a major league baseball player, a couple years ago, probably did not sound the same as the crash sound into the North Tower.

Indeed, the principle reason why the cameraman said "sounded like a plane crash' is very likely based on where the sound came from, namely, above. Others, however, thought it was either a missile or, at most, a small plane and not a jetliner.

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.

I concur in the above.

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.

I am surprised by the above reply because the reply does not properly examine the appropriateness of the underlying question, which was:

"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?"

Come on! That is not a properly phrased query by any means. It is loaded, stacked against and presumptuous in the extreme. The strength of the underlying common storyline cannot be presumed in that manner. Furthermore, one wonders why do proponents of the common storyline think they need to tilt the balance in their favor to such an extraordinary degree in the first place? It can fairly be said that those who support the common storyline seem to want a 10 shot handicap at the start of a nine hole round of golf. Is the common storyline weaker than I thought it was?

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

The above has hallmarks of 'rhetoric' and so I need to double check for accuracy of understanding:

Are you suggesting you're willing to search the database of information in search of an alternative theory, or do you mean you want someone else to put one forward so that you may then question it?

Dick Oliver later stated, apparently, that he heard a "wishhhhhhh" and then a crash, and did not know at the time what it was.

He did not use the words "at that time". True, you are not definite in saying those words were within his statement, but, your sentence is not clear in that respect. The point of Dick Oliver's statement is that he describes the characteristics of the sound that he had in mind that, quite frankly, are not the actually characteristic of the sound in the video. Thus, I contend that Dick Oliver was dismissing the ordinary bus sound and, in fact, heard something else that is not readily heard on the video, absent very close scruthiny and, perhaps, technical assessment with professional equipment.

The sound in the video is only marginally, at best, described as a wishhhhh and is, instead, consistent with a hodge-podge of sound, as I presently "hear" it.

Posters here have been very reluctant to concede that the buses sitting next to the curb are a factor at all.

I suggest that objectivity demands that some consideration be given to the buses, posters. Let me float this idea:

Would posters be willing to consider that the sound of the buses might have obscured and/or combined with the sound generated by whatever caused the explosion?

Frankly, the sound is simply not loud enough to assume any part of it is caused by a jetliner 1000ft up and at close to 500mph. Upon that contention, I will stand. However, whatever caused the hole in the North Tower and the explosion there almost certainly did have a sound and a descriptor of that sound as a "wishhhhh" but not a descriptor that says "jet" is a clue as to what that sound was and what that sound was not.

Dick Oliver did not think he heard a jet or a jetliner.

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.

The above is too subjective to be meaningful, in my view.

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.

Well, posters, there it is, coming at the end of the post. The above is a fair and an objective statement, in most respects, and it is an important one. For whatever Dick Oliver may be said to have heard, he does not describe the sound of a jetliner and he also does not describe the sound that is actually heard in the video. To the extent I would dispute the above quote is in connection with the subjective and speculative claims that Dick Oliver is "imprecise" and/or "misremembers." We have no objective basis for making those statements, in my view. Rather, we have a basis for saying Dick Oliver is a source who confirms there was no jetliner 1000ft up at a speed of close to 500mph because he heard no such thing. That is what we may fairly say, posters.

Bingo. We are closer in our assessment. Mind you, we are not in agreement, but we are closer; and, equally important, I think we are showing one another that we can do this with some objectivity on all sides.

Overall, and despite some obvious disagreements, I am comfortable in saying:

Well done, Oystein.

 

[Oystein]

...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.

While "jackass" is clearly derogatory, the word "liar" has a quite precise and objective meaning to it, and a person or his utterances can in fact often be analyzed to determine, objectively, whether he is in fact a liar or not.

...
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.

You keep repeating this assertion, but we are all still waiting for you objective analysis of whether it is true or not. You need to demonstrate
- the sound produced of a 767, given the configuration and speed as per common story line
- establish the geometry of the flight path as per common story line
- establish with some precision the spot on the ground where the camera was locate and the scene filmed
- account for all buildings between that spot and the alleged flight path - their height, location, and whether or not their tops would be in the way, obstructing the propagation of sound
- calculate, using established physical formulae, the atenuation of the jet sound due to distance and obstacles and arrive at a reasonable dB range, that our passervyers would be subjected to
- explain why that sound level would bother typical New Yorkers enough to make them react visibly, given their being used to enhanced city noises 24/7.

An analysis like this would earn the lable "objective". All else is subjective and can safely be dismissed as uneducated, irrelevant opinion.

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]

Thanks for posting this image. This is certainly a nice start to answering at least one of the questions any objective analysis of the video would have to answer - that of possible obstacles in the sound propagation path.

I have two problems with this and the next photo:
1. I have no idea where the flight path would be in the sky on these pictures. Apparently, a very wide angle camera lens was used to snap these pictures, and I suspect the flight path would be much lower in the photo than you and I would guess.
Can you please indicate the alleged flight path somehow?
2. Both photos were not taken on the same location as the Dick Oliver video.

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

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

Here, it is much more obvious that we are quite far from the location of the Dick Oliver scene: on the other side of of the street, (Park Row) and more than, I'd estimate, 400 feet farther north-east.

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.
...

I am quite sure that no one here would claim that trees are sufficient to arenuate sound from "stunningly frightning" to "ordinary street noise level". I am quite sure that everybody, including you, would argue that trees are absolutely sufficient to explain why a plane could not be seen. As Dick Oliver himself put it:
"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. I ran down the block to Park Row, where the trees opened up, and
I could see smoke pouring out of the World Trade Center."
(See http://www.allisongilbert.com/pdfs/Covering_Catastrophe_Ch_1.pdf - page 10/11)
Oh by the way: The Oliver-quote continues:
"...I said, “Wow, it looks like either something hit it or something exploded out of it.”"

 

[jammonius]

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:


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:


Another NTSB source

Your post is misleading. If you want to go in-depth, start a new thread.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
This thread has no reason to exist.
It's about a lunatic idea which can't possibly be made sense of.

 

[twinstead]

Your post is misleading

Frankly, "your post is misleading" doesn't mean anything. You could say that in response to ANYTHING you don't want to deal with.

 

[I Ratant]

Frankly, "your post is misleading" doesn't mean anything. You could say that in response to ANYTHING you don't want to deal with.

.
Fixt that fer ya.
The idea is insane, that as one witness couldn't -see- one of the 4 planes involved in the attacks, none of the planes did anything.
Endless debating on this is feeding lunacy.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/200523253-001.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=F5B5107058D53DF592EB6C0189ECD227EB5F0DE335B3F35ACE4AC9E8E104E3CF6529E79887609E4F[/qimg]


Is this photo properly contextualized?

Looks like all the leaves are gone.

Where have all the leaves now gone.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You can lead a lame one-trick equine to information, but you can't make it think.

Your post is misleading.

Nonsense.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[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]

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.

Downplay what information??? You contend that the noise is not loud enough to be a plane and sounds like a bus or Train, no one agrees with you so all we have is your opinion.
With all due respect, we need no "last refuge" from your opinions. What qualifies you in any way to consider your opinion of any significant value?

What profession are you in? What are your professional qualifications? How widely traveled are you?, have you been to New York City? How old are you?
have you ever been diagnosed as suffering from any form of mental illness or impairment?

I am a professional Mech Eng with 27 years with my current company, HND in Mech Eng, MBA, travel widely all over the world as part of my job and for pleasure, I have been to New York City, I saw the piles of debris burning post 911 and have never been diagnosed with any mental illness or impairment.
Why should I or anyone else consider your opinion of any import at all?

Do you really think a court of law would consider your opinion as "Evidence"?

 

[beachnut]

Sure sounded like a 767; what else has the exact spectrum of sound as a 767?

Where was the exact spot of the video camera on the ground? Anyone have a google earth jpeg, close up?

I bet the frequency response of the sound is that of a 767 acceleration to 470 KIAS with the exact engines of a 767 at 100 percent throttle setting. Given this and all the other evidence available, not matter what the listener thinks he or she heard on 911 in downtown NYC, after the fact the evidence proves it was Flight 11, and then Flight 175. To deny this is delusional, not rational thinking.

Anyone have the location worked out with an easy graphic? Thanks, good morning.

 

[CompusMentus]

(See http://www.allisongilbert.com/pdfs/Covering_Catastrophe_Ch_1.pdf - page 10/11)

Thanks for that link Oystein.

Let's cut to the core.

It can now be seen why people are quick to jump on Jam's theories in this and other threads. Jam has taken, in stark isolation, a slightly ambiguous utterance from Dick Oliver and extrapolated from that a most unlikely scenario (that the damage to the tower was caused by a DEW).

I have to wonder whether Jam has read the document Oystein links to above?

Forget Dick Oliver for a few seconds Jam and tell us what is your opinion of the other witness statements in that document? Taken the preponderance of evidence written there that something other that a DEW weapon (namely a *********** huge jet) caused the damage to the tower, do you agree this may falsify your theory?

Compus

 

[progge]

Your post is misleading. If you want to go in-depth, start a new thread.

No need to. You were wrong, I (as well as others) showed why, and that’s all about it. Noone needs you to acknowledge this.
I agree that the NTSB/radar issue was OT. Sorry for distraction.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Jam has taken, in stark isolation, a slightly ambiguous utterance from Dick Oliver and extrapolated from that a most unlikely scenario (that the damage to the tower was caused by a DEW).

I think you are misunderstanding Jammos thinking process. He KNOWS that a Directed energy weapon caused the towers to collapse so therefore any evidence to the contrary is therefore clearly false. The Naudet video clearly shows a plane hitting the North Tower (WTC1) so it MUST be faked and so needs no further discussion.
Similarly the Oliver Video, since no plane is visible, may in fact be real and since he KNOWS there was no plane then the sound, if real, has to be a bus or train. In his mind he therefore turns minor and unimportant evidence for there being a plane into proof there was not.

 

[DGM]

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.

If this was the only evidence then I would agree. As you know it is not. Perhaps we should compare the sound (and sights) in the Naudet video considering we can say without a doubt (considering the crash sound is it both) that both are of the same event and are relatively close together (geographically).

To be clearer still.............

No need.

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

So how do you feel about us using the Naudet video (I'm sure someone can post a link)to double check (and provide evidence for) what the sound before the crash (sound) was?

Do you agree this would be a good way to determine what that sound was and if it's related to the crash (sound)? If not how else would you suggest and why you think it would not be?

 

[Macgyver1968]

I have two problems with this and the next photo:
1. I have no idea where the flight path would be in the sky on these pictures. Apparently, a very wide angle camera lens was used to snap these pictures, and I suspect the flight path would be much lower in the photo than you and I would guess.

Let me help you with that:

The red arrow is the approx. flight path of the first aircraft. The green line shows the distance between them. (around 1700 ft.) and the green X indicates the approx. position of Dick Oliver.

Jam just claimed the sound would be around 140dB...which is the decibel level of a jet engine at 100 ft. When in fact the plane was around 1700 ft away from his location.

It's also the reason that the "lady in blue" looks up and to the right in the video, as that would be the direction the sound was coming from.

 

[CompusMentus]

So how do you feel about us using the Naudet video (I'm sure someone can post a link)to double check (and provide evidence for) what the sound before the crash (sound) was?

The sound quality seems quite good in this one.






Compus

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for acknowledging some agreement and the objectivity in my post.

In contrast with the first paragraph above quoted and commented upon, the second is, in my view, less objective. The first reason why it is less objective is that it tries to formulate a subjective conclusion; namely: whether Dick Oliver was confused. I do not think it appropriate to try to go in that direction.

By "confused" I merely meant that he didn't know what he had heard, one way or another. May I quote:
"...we heard a wishhhhhh. I didn’t know what it was. Then we heard a crash... I said, “Wow, it looks like either something hit it or something exploded out of it.”"
I think you can agree that this is what Oliver said, and presumably meant? That he did not know what it was?

Secondly, let's consider the presumed phenomenon, which is that a widebody jetliner had onrushed from north to south on the west side of Manhattan, 1000ft up at close to 500mph. Jetliners are an everyday sound, albeit, not at the speed or noise level caused by full throttle engines -- an ear shattering 140dB. Yet, it is more fairly said, I think, that because jets are everyday occurrences, people know them when they hear them.

This is your subjective opinion. It is, as such, nearly worthless.

You should really do some work and present an objective analysis on what noise level to expect from a 767 given the plane configuration and speed, features of the topology of lower Manhattan, and the geometry of the flight path. This involves some sience and math and reference to measured values both for 767-type planes and the psychology of city dwellers with regard to noises.

Dick Oliver did not recognize a jet from what he heard. That much is an objective conclusion.

Correct.
Another objective conclusion is: He did not rule out a jet from what he heard.
Both conclusions are covered by the statement "I didn’t know what it was"
Agreed?

So, the better inference, quite frankly, is that because the sound heard on the mic, via youtube, is neither loud enough, nor of the right pitch for a jet and because Dick Oliver did not recognize it as a jet, it, the sound, was not that of a jet.

Again, this inference is purely subjective and not shared by anybody else yet. Repeating your very subjective opinion on the meaning of Dick Olivers subjective reporting of his subjective impressions, as he subjectively remembers them, clearly will not get us very far in establiching the physical facts.
As for your subjective opinion that the sound in the video is not loud enough: That is your opinion, and yours alone so far. You need to substantiate that objectively. I believe the only or best way to do so would be to establish the topology of the scene, geometry of the flight path, properties of a 767 in flight, and use physics to determine a plausible range for the expected loudness.

That inference -- not a jet -- is further supported by the reactions of the passersby in the video and by the second statement of the cameraman "it was just an explosion."

Again, the lack of reaction can be explained in more than one way, both using physics (the sound of a plane might not be expected to be as loud as you opine) and psychology (New York passerbyers are subjected to a lot of noises every day).

If I understand you to say it is not possible to answer why Oliver did not correct his cameraman, then, in that event, I think the quoted answer is objective and reasonable.

I think we are in agreement here.

The above is wide-ranging and therefore not easily sorted out, especially in a message board context. Put succinctly, the last conclusion is not well-supported by what precedes it. This refers to the last statement: "Taking the whole body of what we know already, no-plane is preposterous".

No, that is not a well-formed conclusion at all.

I disagree. You can't tackle evidence one by one and ignore so much. It has been pointed out to you that your subjective conclusion "no plane" stands against a very large body of evidence that does in fact point to a plane impacting WTC1. Let me repeat some:

- The Naudet video: Jules Naudet, in the presence of NYFD chief Joseph Pfeiffer, records the sound of a plane flying by; everybody in the video looks up to search for the source of the sound. Obvisously, Naudet himself sees something that makes him pan his camera towards the WTC. There, we see a "blob" entering the north tower, immediately followed by an explosion.
- CNN's vice-president for finances, Sean Murtagh relates in no unclear terms 3-4 minutes after the impact live on TV what he saw with his very own eyes from the 21st floor of 5 Penn Plaza: A large commercial airliner, with two engines, possibly a 737, flying low over the island of Manhattan, wings wiggling, slamming straight into one of the towers.
- The NTSB did an extensive analysis of plenty of radar data of all 4 planes, and established their flight paths. AA11 got lost over or very close to NYC, according to publicly available data, which progge linked to in an earlier post today.
- American Airlines and United Airlines must be missing 2 planes each, because if they had all their planes safely accounted for on 9/11, there would be way to many people crying foul (pilots, maintenance crews, caterers, management, share holders, insurance companies).
- Remains of at least 46 of the people supposed to have been aboard AA11 when it took off in Boston were found in the rubble at and around ground zero and have been identified through DNA testing.
- There is seismic data consistent with the impact and energy (I am talking specific and objective physical properties with numbers here) of a 767 at around 450 mph crashing in lower Manhattan.
- In the AAH-thread on the current topic, we have seen pictures of plane parts among the debris around the WTC after the first impact. The NTSB states on their site that they gave their expertise to help identify plane parts in all 3 (or 4, if you count the towers separately) sites (see progge's post, linked above).

You must not ignore all of this context and cannot rely solely on your subjective interpretations of subjective reactions, or lack thereof. You definitely need a stronger standard of evidence!

Let's examine the statement "sounded like a plane crash."

Frankly, few people have actually ever heard a plane crash because that is not an everyday experience. True, people may have seen it in the movies, but how realistic is that?

Another thing:

Plane crashes do not sound alike. One crashing into water, as often happens, will not sound the same as one crashing in fields or in residential areas. The puddle jumper plane that crashed in Manhattan, taking the life of, I believe it was a major league baseball player, a couple years ago, probably did not sound the same as the crash sound into the North Tower.

Indeed, the principle reason why the cameraman said "sounded like a plane crash' is very likely based on where the sound came from, namely, above. Others, however, thought it was either a missile or, at most, a small plane and not a jetliner.

You might be right.
It is, in my opinon, just as likely that he based his opinion on his hearing a plane just before the crash.
Either proposition is just a subjective opinion, correct?
In fact, both might be right at the same time.

I am surprised by the above reply because the reply does not properly examine the appropriateness of the underlying question, which was:

"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?"

Come on! That is not a properly phrased query by any means. It is loaded, stacked against and presumptuous in the extreme. The strength of the underlying common storyline cannot be presumed in that manner. Furthermore, one wonders why do proponents of the common storyline think they need to tilt the balance in their favor to such an extraordinary degree in the first place? It can fairly be said that those who support the common storyline seem to want a 10 shot handicap at the start of a nine hole round of golf. Is the common storyline weaker than I thought it was?

I refer to the bulk of evidence for the common storyline; I presented a selection thereof above: Video, eyewitnesses, NTSB-analysis, seismic data, DNA evidence, photos of plane parts, ...
The strength of the common storyline is not presumed but well established.

The above has hallmarks of 'rhetoric'...

I can guarantee you that my statement was not the least bit meant as rhetoric. I must say that I feel slightly indignated at this unkind presumption on your part.

...and so I need to double check for accuracy of understanding:

Are you suggesting you're willing to search the database of information in search of an alternative theory, or do you mean you want someone else to put one forward so that you may then question it?

Absolutely yes to both!
I am absolutely open to any and all evidence anyone might put forward, whether it supports or conflicts with the common theory. However, I have yet to see any evidence that clearly is in conflict with the common storyline and can not be easily reconciled with it.
I am also absolutely open to any new theory and very willing to test its merits - because that is precisely the scientific method! An incumbent theory will be replaced by an alternative theory if and only if someone proposes such an alternative, AND it explains the ALL of the known observations better than the incumbent. If a ney hypothesis fails that test, the old one remains standing, even if it contains inconsistencies or some not yet explained observations.

We are ALL dying to learn a new theory! We really really are!

Just a warning: Simply suggesting "DEW", without specifying what kind of weapon has done what, how, from where, will not do. Not by a longshot.

He did not use the words "at that time". True, you are not definite in saying those words were within his statement, but, your sentence is not clear in that respect.

You are right, "at that time" were my words, not his.

The point of Dick Oliver's statement is that he describes the characteristics of the sound that he had in mind that, quite frankly, are not the actually characteristic of the sound in the video. Thus, I contend that Dick Oliver was dismissing the ordinary bus sound and, in fact, heard something else that is not readily heard on the video, absent very close scruthiny and, perhaps, technical assessment with professional equipment.

You may contend anything as your heart wishes, the whole day long, and continue to do so until death doth thee part from your very private, subjective opinions. However, your subjective interpretation of what Dick Oliver did NOT say about his subjective experiences, is just that: your subjective interpretation. It bears no weight whatsoever in this discussion.

The sound in the video is only marginally, at best, described as a wishhhhh and is, instead, consistent with a hodge-podge of sound, as I presently "hear" it.

Come on, don't tip-toe around the obvious: There is no "wishhhhh" sound, and Dick Olivers recollection of it is in all likelihood imprecise. Eyewitness testimomies tend to be that way!

Posters here have been very reluctant to concede that the buses sitting next to the curb are a factor at all.

I suggest that objectivity demands that some consideration be given to the buses, posters. Let me float this idea:

Would posters be willing to consider that the sound of the buses might have obscured and/or combined with the sound generated by whatever caused the explosion?

You have been very reluctant to concede that the plane that was filmed by Naudet, seen by Sean Murtagh, heard by the lady in blue and the camera man, missed by American Airlines, tracked by the NTSB, recorded by the Columbia University seismological equipment, taken by the passengers who boarded in Boston and ended as human remains at ground zero, and that left debris near the towers, is a factor at all.

Would you be willing to consider that what sounds like a plane might, in fact, be a plane?

Frankly, the sound is simply not loud enough to assume any part of it is caused by a jetliner 1000ft up and at close to 500mph. Upon that contention, I will stand.

This contention represents your, and only your, subjective opinion. It is, as such, worthless.

However, whatever caused the hole in the North Tower and the explosion there almost certainly did have a sound and a descriptor of that sound as a "wishhhhh" but not a descriptor that says "jet" is a clue as to what that sound was and what that sound was not.

Where do you derive this certainty from? Surely not from the video - there is no significant "whishhhhh" in it. You base your entirely subjective opinion on one thing only: the subjective account of the way Dick Oliver remembered a subjective experience.

Do you have any recording, or any other witness, corroborating that observation to near-certainty? Then the time to present that evidence is now.

Dick Oliver did not think he heard a jet or a jetliner.

He also never said that what he heard was not a plane. He simply did not know. One person's ignorance is a weak basis for your entirely subjective opinions indeed.

The above is too subjective to be meaningful, in my view.

But that is the precise point of my statement: Witness testimonies are always, necessarily, a very subjective thing! You must always always be skeptic about witness accounts! Memory is a tricky thing!

Well, posters, there it is, coming at the end of the post. The above is a fair and an objective statement, in most respects, and it is an important one. For whatever Dick Oliver may be said to have heard, he does not describe the sound of a jetliner and he also does not describe the sound that is actually heard in the video. To the extent I would dispute the above quote is in connection with the subjective and speculative claims that Dick Oliver is "imprecise" and/or "misremembers." We have no objective basis for making those statements, in my view. Rather, we have a basis for saying Dick Oliver is a source who confirms there was no jetliner 1000ft up at a speed of close to 500mph because he heard no such thing. That is what we may fairly say, posters.

No, that is not at all fair to say.

Dick oliver does NOT at all confirm positively there was no airliner. Imprecision is the hallmark of ALL human perception and memory. You can not conclude that A exists from just one witness who is unsure of what he witnessed, when against that one ignorant witness you have a body of hard, objective evidence, and witnesses who are VERY sure about what they saw!

 

[sylvan8798]

I believe the only or best way to do so would be to establish the topology of the scene, geometry of the flight path, properties of a 767 in flight, and use physics to determine a plausible range for the expected loudness.

Even taking the space between the plane and the camera crew to be an open field, one would not find that the people walking through the scene would be throwing themselves to the ground in agony or being buffeted about by the wake of the plane. Making an assumption of an open field would provide an upper bound on the expected decibel level, which some have placed at maybe 90 to 116 dB, neither of which would be causing the effects jammonius claims.

 

[DGM]

I just wanted to commend you on your excellent (and very patient) post.
Well done

We are ALL dying to learn a new theory! We really really are!

Just a warning: Simply suggesting "DEW", without specifying what kind of weapon has done what, how, from where, will not do. Not by a long shot.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I don't think any of us are married to the "official story". We just argue in favor of it because it's the only cohesive one out there.

One aspect of the DEW argument that makes the "theory" a non-starter is the fact that is originator (Dr Wood) can not account for (or even venture to guess) at the amount of energy required to do what is claimed.

I sit in anticipation of jam's response (although I feel it will be a wordy hand-wave)