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

[I Ratant]

I have listened once to the first 2:30 of the video and have put it on pause in order to say that what is presented up to that point is clearly and convincingly consistent with:

NO PLANE

This is just an initial report. We would all do well to both look at and listen to this entire piece. It is fascinating as it occurs post North Tower hit and pre-South Tower. Thus, it is not prejudiced in favor of the psyop that was then and there unfolding, as those of us who view the matter as a psyop would put it.

It is acknowledged there are going to be differences of opinion here, but I was moved by this video to post as here presented.

.
In polite society, presenting one's movements in public is considered crass.

 

[I Ratant]

Thanks for the above. As well, I will here rely on your prior posting of a 116dB sound level that you provided in the verboten thread.

116db is ear splitting and attention getting in no uncertain terms.

.
The well-known sound of the Plymouth wheel cover hitting the curb.

 

[jammonius]

That jammonius. The line above this one. This was his first impression. I've read somewhere that these are important.

The above is a bit indirect. Are you making a "consistency" claim? If so, hadn't you ought to come right out and scream it?

As for me, I think the new 10min video that comes from Dick Oliver and his cameraman David S_____, is a stunningly valuable piece of information for where we are at present. This includes the noticable shift in tone of discussion brought on by Oystein who has clearly entered the realm of reason and of objectivity.

Let me be clear here: I am not claiming my posts are objective and reasonable as that is not for me to say. My posts stand and fall on their own merit. I do, however, recognize factors of objectivity in Oystein's recent posts. It is my hope, therefore, that that pattern of assessment continues over and into the new longer version of Dick Oliver.

It is too soon, in my view, to start picking and choosing either visual or audio snipets from the newly posted 10min video.

If anyone has a program thingy that can prepare a transcript of the audio, that would helpful.

As for me, and based on one viewing, I think there's something in the video to suit all tastes and to fit all sizes. That said, I think the video is a "better fit" for the NO PLANE claim than it is for the PLANE SPOTTER claim. Here's why, as I see it initially, based, as I said, on a once over:

Here's what the video offers to NO PLANERS like me:

Much of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of NO PLANE;

All of what cameraman David S_____ says is supportive of NO PLANE;

All of what man with baby girl says is uspportive of NO PLANE;

All of what young woman from Path Train says is supportive of NO PLANE; and

A little bit of what Jim Ryan (anchor) says is supportive of NO PLANE.

Here's what the video offers to PLANE SPOTTERS like AJM:

Some of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of PLANE;

All, including hook, line and sinker, of what Rosa blanka-blanka (I am not being impolite, I didn't grasp her last names the first time through) says is supportive of PLANE.

Rosa blanka blanka is not new to the world of 9/11. Her vantage point at Hudson and Franklin has, I think, been challenged as to what she could actually see. Plus, it is noteworthy that she makes no comment at all about the sound. As the Dick Oliver theme centers largely on what was heard, in a certain sense Rosa blanka blanka might be a derail.

Nonetheless, here's a first pass at a street view from Hudson and Franklin:

 

[jammonius]

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

Objectivity is essential in unraveling the 9/11 psyop.

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?

Not knowing what something is differs signficantly from 'confusion" so, no, I do not think "confused" is an apt descriptor. Whatever caused the explosions on 9/11 is very clearly in the nature of new weaponry no more identifiable to us as the mass destruction at Hiroshima was to those who witnessed and survived that new display of advanced weaponry.

By the way, just as an aside, DEW is just like Nukes were in the 1940s. One could not discuss them from a perspective of "serial numbers" and or specifics, down to and including the shape of the devices, let alone their components, at anything other than a general level, based on then publicly available information. There is a lot of information available on DEW and that can be discussed. However, the publicly available info is merely what we are permitted to know and is not adequate to satisfy those who "want more proof." Any such desire for more proof can show-stop any DEW discussion.

The reason Dick Oliver couldn't be more specific is that he had heard something that hadn't been used before. That is what baffled people, Oystein.

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

That is not accurate. Subjective opinions are anecdotal and anecdotes are data. Most of what we experience is subjective. It serves no useful purpose to be that doctrinaire about subjective experience.

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.

I will take what you say into consideration.

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?

Not exactly. I think you over simplify. The oversimplification consists in the fact that jets are a common, everyday experience. People know how they sound. Thus, when they hear them, they can usually identify them and/or narrow down the range of possibilities. Thus, by NOT mentioning a jet and by not knowing what was heard, despite having heard something that he could provide a descriptor of -- wishhhhh -- and not conclude that it was a jet is far more telling and is far more indicative of it NOT being a jet than you are allowing for.

That is why I think you have engaged in oversimplification.

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.

In the above, you continue to under appreciate the value of subjective assessment. This recalls the time period when it was fashionable "not to do nuance." However, nuance, subtlety, differentiation are all a part of objective analysis.

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).

That might be true; however, everyday experiences, including the sound of jets, do not need to be confirmed by the kind of analysis you speak of as a prerequisite for making statements about the sound that jets make. That sound can be taken notice of, absent a foundation of proof, at least up to a certain point.

The absence of any reaction to a low flying jet is, indeed, indicative that no such thing was present.

I think we are in agreement here.

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:

In the above, we have the crux of your post. In other threads, I have dealt with each element of "proof' that you list. Thus, your failure to mention the fact that refutation of those elements exists, thus creating controversy about them, shows that you have engaged in incomplete analysis.

For instance, I have shown that DNA claims are not based on admissible evidence or on forensic determinations. The DNA claims include:

a) Items published in an Opinion column of a military publication.
b) Items published as an experiment, but not as a forensic evaluation and which came to an indefinite conclusion, in any event.
c) Items that may have come from the Pentagon, where there were known victims inside the structure itself, but which obfuscated the extent, if any, to which passengers were identified.

I here repeat my challenge: Show one source of admissible DNA evidence. You cannot.

In addition, the Naudet video is noteworthy for what it does not show; namely, a jetliner. The Naudet video shows a blurry blob. Any other characterization is simply false.

Now, with that frame of reference in mind, let us explore, briefly, your list:


- 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.[/QUOTE]

I'm comforatable with the above, as you acknowledge it shows a blob.

- 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 above is one new claim that I have not addressed in the past: Sean Murtagh. His teevee commentary has the hallmarks of an Easter egg in that while he works for CNN, he does not work in a news reporting capacity. Indeed, his claims take on the characteristic of being too good to be true. I suppose one could post up a street view of where he said he was, but I don't really see much need in doing so.

At best, Sean Murtagh contradicts Dick Oliver and everything we can see and hear in the Dick Oliver videos from everyone involved, with one exception: Rosa blanka blanka.

- 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.

I have fully addressed the NTSB. The NTSB supports the no plane claim in no uncertain terms.

- 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).

The above is not proof of anything, at all, whatsoever. You might as well admit it and be done with it, Oystein.

- 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.

The above claim is not supported by evidence. Your own source, as quoted above, is sourced to a NYC gossip rag:

Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/09/11/2002-09-11_more_than_half_of_victims_idd.html. Retrieved 2008-05-24.

Newspaper accounts are not evidence. I have told you, you cannot support your DNA claims with admissible evidence. You have confirmed my statement in your own post.

- 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.

That seimic data does not prove a jetliner hit the WTC.

- 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).

The pictures you reference were supported by claims that clearly were not sufficient for purposes of evidence. Those pictures were supported by claims that specifically stated:

"...it is postulated that..." and "...it is believed..."

Clearly, those phrases convey that the proof of the claims had not been competently established. And, Oystein, you know that.

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!

It saddens me that you found it necessary to make the above statement. I had already refuted almost all of the claims and you didn't mention that refutation at all. I have here, in concise form, reiterated the process of refutation of your claims.

Granted, refutation doesn't mean that I am right and you are wrong. What it does mean, however, is that you must acknowledge that the proof that you rely on with respect to 9/11 is not universally accepted and is not supported by even so much as an authoritative investigatory outcome.

After all, Sean Murtagh was a teevee witness who, to my knowledge, never even testified anywhere, like say, before the 9/11 Commission or NIST -- not that that would have meant much -- but at least it would have been one or another semi-official or supposedly authoritative investigatory source. You do not have that with respect to him, at all.

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.

Hmmm, let me think about the above

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.

I have refuted the above in no uncertain terms. One that really sticks out for how stark it is is that your DNA claim was sourced to the

NY DAILY NEWS

That is rich!

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.

Please don't be indignated. There are enough posters around here who consistently post from an indignated perspective. They are already overrepresented here.

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.

I think the new 10min. Dick Oliver video might be useful here.

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.

I have mentioned DEW above.

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

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.

Nope, I don't think your assessment is accurate at all. We have the right to rely on conclusions reasonably drawn from everyday, common occurrences. Not being able to identify a jet based on sounds heard is highly reliable as an indicator no jet was present. On that, I will stand.

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!

I don't think the video has been fully analyzed. Generally, each time I look at and listen to it, I gather more information.

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.

Nope, I have addressed your attempt at a hodge-podge catch-all. Your attempt fails.

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

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

Nope, your claim is false.

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.

Everyday 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.

Let's all look at the new 10min joby-do.

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.

I have addressed the above and shown that your premise is an over-simplification.

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!

I agree that reliance on witness statements and witness statements alone is incomplete, uncertain at best and merely one factor among many in trying to determine what happened in a given event or circumstance.

We do the best we can with what we have.

No, that is not at all fair to say.

I disagree.

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!

Yes he does.

 

[BigAl]

For instance, I have shown that DNA claims are not based on admissible evidence or on forensic determinations. The DNA claims include:



a) Items published in an Opinion column of a military publication.
b) Items published as an experiment, but not as a forensic evaluation and which came to an indefinite conclusion, in any event.
c) Items that may have come from the Pentagon, where there were known victims inside the structure itself, but which obfuscated the extent, if any, to which passengers were identified.

I here repeat my challenge: Show one source of admissible DNA evidence. You cannot.

Done that. You ignored that. (DTYIT in the future.)

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts about DNA.

The rest of your post is no better, I'd respond point by point but you can make stuff up and type faster than I can.

 

[Macgyver1968]

By the way, just as an aside, DEW is just like Nukes were in the 1940s. One could not discuss them from a perspective of "serial numbers" and or specifics, down to and including the shape of the devices, let alone their components, at anything other than a general level, based on then publicly available information. There is a lot of information available on DEW and that can be discussed. However, the publicly available info is merely what we are permitted to know and is not adequate to satisfy those who "want more proof." Any such desire for more proof can show-stop any DEW discussion.

The difference between nukes of the 40's and your imaginary DEW, is that all of the scientific theory that the bombs were based on were already known to science. No one in the science community has even theorized about an energy capable of turning steel into dust in a "cold" reaction.

While the Manhatten project was secret, the Nazis were working on their own bomb. If the technology is available to create a DEW as you describe, why aren't other countries working on DEWs of their own? An energy weapon that could turn steel to dust would be of great tactical and strategic value.

 

[jammonius]

Done that. You ignored that. (DTYIT in the future.)

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts about DNA.

The rest of your post is no better, I'd respond point by point but you can make stuff up and type faster than I can.

I'm not seeking any unfair advantage over you at all. If you'd like to discuss DNA in particular, please feel free to start a thread or post a link to one that you think contains information you value.

It is not my fault that DNA claims are sourced to the Daily News, BigAl. I am not making that up. I am also not making up the source of that DMORT article: It is from the Opinion section entitled Commander's Column if I remember correctly. The other reference was to that AFIP study that some so often cite that is not a forensic evaluation, but only "an experiment."

There are others, of course, but they are no better.

The DNA claim fails, BigAl. Once again, it is not my fault you haven't got any reliable evidence or source of it.

 

[jammonius]

The difference between nukes of the 40's and your imaginary DEW, is that all of the scientific theory that the bombs were based on were already known to science. No one in the science community has even theorized about an energy capable of turning steel into dust in a "cold" reaction.

While the Manhatten project was secret, the Nazis were working on their own bomb. If the technology is available to create a DEW as you describe, why aren't other countries working on DEWs of their own? An energy weapon that could turn steel to dust would be of great tactical and strategic value.

Actually, it is my current understanding that the Nazis gave a higher priority to DEW than they did to Nukes and weren't really all that far along in nukes. On the other hand, see what you dig up concerning the "Nazi Bell."

all the best

 

[BigAl]

I'm not seeking any unfair advantage over you at all. If you'd like to discuss DNA in particular, please feel free to start a thread or post a link to one that you think contains information you value.

DTYIT

It is not my fault that DNA claims are sourced to the Daily News, BigAl.

My citations for DNA never mentioned the press or came from the press.

You continue to lie and misrepresent the DNA info that has been presented to you.

 

[BigAl]

Actually, it is my current understanding that the Nazis gave a higher priority to DEW than they did to Nukes and weren't really all that far along in nukes.

all the best

That's an interesting claim given that it was 1957 when the first device and physical process that could "direct energy" was invented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser

 

[Bell]

Actually, it is my current understanding that the Nazis gave a higher priority to DEW than they did to Nukes and weren't really all that far along in nukes. On the other hand, see what you dig up concerning the "Nazi Bell."

all the best

Hey! I'm no Nazi!

 

[jammonius]

DTYIT

My citations for DNA never mentioned the press or came from the press.

You continue to lie and misrepresent the DNA info that has been presented to you.

Well, I guess we just have ourselves a big fat mess, then, don't we? You say DNA proves every aspect of 9/11 and that you've demonstrated it time and time again. I say the DNA evidence is not specific to passengers, nor would one expect it to be given the level of complete, total and abject annihilation found at the WTC, for instance.

DNA claims are, for the most part, completely FUBAR because of the strong emotion attached to the subject matter. Let's be clear about that. No one likes to think about the victims being blown to smitherings and discussion of DNA evokes strong emotion.

You know that and I know that.

Generally speaking, a DNA discussion can derail objective consideration of 9/11. I hope that does not happen here.

I say the DNA claims are based on smoke, mirrors and the Daily News and you go right to the edge of what it is permissible to say about another poster, possibly from a perspective of indignation. I hope that is not the case.

Perhaps we'd be better off just agreeing not to raise the topic any more. What say you about that?

When I say DNA claims are sourced to unreliable newspaper accounts, I mean that pretty much across the board.

Here are three more examples:

44.↑ Sachs, Susan (2001-09-15). "After the Attacks: The Trade Center; Heart-Rending Discoveries as Digging Continues in Lower Manhattan", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.
45.↑ Gardiner, Sean; Rayman, Graham (2001-09-15). "Hijackers May Have Used Handcuffs". AM New York. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.
46.↑ O'Shaughnessy, Patrice (2002-09-11). "More Than Half Of Victims Id'd", Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.

 

[BigAl]

Well, I guess we just have ourselves a big fat mess, then, don't we? You say DNA proves every aspect of 9/11 and that you've demonstrated it time and time again. I say the DNA evidence is not specific to passengers, nor would one expect it to be given the level of complete, total and abject annihilation found at the WTC, for instance.

DNA claims are, for the most part, completely FUBAR because of the strong emotion attached to the subject matter. Let's be clear about that. No one likes to think about the victims being blown to smitherings and discussion of DNA evokes strong emotion.

You know that and I know that.

Generally speaking, a DNA discussion can derail objective consideration of 9/11. I hope that does not happen here.

I say the DNA claims are based on smoke, mirrors and the Daily News and you go right to the edge of what it is permissible to say about another poster, possibly from a perspective of indignation. I hope that is not the case.

Perhaps we'd be better off just agreeing not to raise the topic any more. What say you about that?

When I say DNA claims are sourced to unreliable newspaper accounts, I mean that pretty much across the board.

Here are three more examples:

44.↑ Sachs, Susan (2001-09-15). "After the Attacks: The Trade Center; Heart-Rending Discoveries as Digging Continues in Lower Manhattan", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.
45.↑ Gardiner, Sean; Rayman, Graham (2001-09-15). "Hijackers May Have Used Handcuffs". AM New York. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.
46.↑ O'Shaughnessy, Patrice (2002-09-11). "More Than Half Of Victims Id'd", Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts I presented about DNA evidence for 9/11. I never cited the press as a source, for one thing.

 

[TJM]

At first I thought it was a plane

Bump.

Just in case that got burried underneath some word salad.

 

[lapman]

Done that. You ignored that. (DTYIT in the future.)

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts about DNA.

The rest of your post is no better, I'd respond point by point but you can make stuff up and type faster than I can.

Remember, he has lied and misrepresented facts about the NTSB. So this shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Mince]

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts I presented about DNA evidence for 9/11. I never cited the press as a source, for one thing.

You might be an indignant indigent.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Objectivity is essential in unraveling the 9/11 psyop.

You have not shown such a psyop existed so why are you trying to unravel one?

Not knowing what something is differs signficantly from 'confusion" so, no, I do not think "confused" is an apt descriptor. Whatever caused the explosions on 9/11 is very clearly in the nature of new weaponry no more identifiable to us as the mass destruction at Hiroshima was to those who witnessed and survived that new display of advanced weaponry.

To Physicists at the time the possibility of a nuclear bomb was well known and was not a secret. The bomb violated no know physical laws.

By the way, just as an aside, DEW is just like Nukes were in the 1940s. One could not discuss them from a perspective of "serial numbers" and or specifics, down to and including the shape of the devices, let alone their components, at anything other than a general level, based on then publicly available information. There is a lot of information available on DEW and that can be discussed. However, the publicly available info is merely what we are permitted to know and is not adequate to satisfy those who "want more proof." Any such desire for more proof can show-stop any DEW discussion.

No they are not. They is zero evidence that a weapon like that is even theoretically possible, no evidence that such weaponry was built and no evidence that one was used on 911. A program to build such a weapon even if it was theoretically possible would involved tens of thousands of people all of whom would be complicit in mass murder of their own fellow citizens. Are you saying that all of them would keep quiet?

The reason Dick Oliver couldn't be more specific is that he had heard something that hadn't been used before. That is what baffled people,

A jet? the noise sound just like a jet. No one was/is baffled other than you.
Oliver was likely just absorbed in what he was doing and did not pay much attention to the plane until the explosion when he was caught by surprise.
Not paying attention is not the same as being baffled!

Not exactly. I think you over simplify. The oversimplification consists in the fact that jets are a common, everyday experience. People know how they sound. Thus, when they hear them, they can usually identify them and/or narrow down the range of possibilities. Thus, by NOT mentioning a jet and by not knowing what was heard, despite having heard something that he could provide a descriptor of -- wishhhhh -- and not conclude that it was a jet is far more telling and is far more indicative of it NOT being a jet than you are allowing for.

That is merely your worthless opinion.

The absence of any reaction to a low flying jet is, indeed, indicative that no such thing was present.

That is merely your worthless opinion. I observe people like that all the time. I look at jets, helicopters etc, many others simply ignore them.

In addition, the Naudet video is noteworthy for what it does not show; namely, a jetliner. The Naudet video shows a blurry blob. Any other characterization is simply false.

The original hi def video clearly shows the plane, as a 767 or A300 not a blurry blob. The dimensions of the hole make it a 767. Get yourself a decent Hi Def TV and the Naudet DVD before making stupid ill informed comments.

- 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.

I'm comforatable with the above, as you acknowledge it shows a blob.

The youtube shows a blob, the original video does not. It shows a plane quite clearly.

The above is one new claim that I have not addressed in the past: Sean Murtagh. His teevee commentary has the hallmarks of an Easter egg in that while he works for CNN, he does not work in a news reporting capacity. Indeed, his claims take on the characteristic of being too good to be true.

Why do you find it strange that in such a heavily populated area that someone who works for a TV company should one of the hundreds of witnesses?

I suppose one could post up a street view of where he said he was, but I don't really see much need in doing so.

Why not......you are obsessed with where Oliver was so why not Murtagh

At best, Sean Murtagh contradicts Dick Oliver and everything we can see and hear in the Dick Oliver videos from everyone involved, with one exception: Rosa blanka blanka.

I see no contradiction. He sees a plane which hits the tower. Oliver hears a plane that hits the tower. Where is there any contradiction?

I have fully addressed the NTSB. The NTSB supports the no plane claim in no uncertain terms.

LOL, where do they support no plane?

That seimic data does not prove a jetliner hit the WTC.

Nor does it prove one did not, but it does prove something hit something......and as we have multiple eyewitesses and hi def video of a plane hitting the tower at that very instant then it seems BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that in fact thats exactly what the Seismic data is showing. How would a DEW cause a seismic shock? They have no mass.

The pictures you reference were supported by claims that clearly were not sufficient for purposes of evidence. Those pictures were supported by claims that specifically stated:

"...it is postulated that..." and "...it is believed..."

Clearly, those phrases convey that the proof of the claims had not been competently established.

No all they prove is that you are not competent in the use of the English language when used in scientific and technical papers. Absolute prove rarely exists in real life so Scientific people tend not to make absolute statements.

 

[jammonius]

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts I presented about DNA evidence for 9/11. I never cited the press as a source, for one thing.

Well, now that you mention it, I think your citation as even worse than newspaper. You relied on MYSPACE as a source of one of your DNA claims, BigAl. That was an absurdity.

Look, I'm not going to address this anymore as it is off topic and also too emotionally driven. One clue that it is too emotional is the need for some to resort to name calling and use of harsh terms like "liar."

I don't know what the point of stuff like that is. But I'm pretty sure some emotional need is involved.

 

[jammonius]

Bump.

Just in case that got burried underneath some word salad.

It is time to return to the new Dick Oliver footage. Here's what I said above at post #103:


"It is too soon, in my view, to start picking and choosing either visual or audio snipets from the newly posted 10min video.

If anyone has a program thingy that can prepare a transcript of the audio, that would helpful.

As for me, and based on one viewing, I think there's something in the video to suit all tastes and to fit all sizes. That said, I think the video is a "better fit" for the NO PLANE claim than it is for the PLANE SPOTTER claim. Here's why, as I see it initially, based, as I said, on a once over:

Here's what the video offers to NO PLANERS like me:

Much of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of NO PLANE;

All of what cameraman David S_____ says is supportive of NO PLANE;

All of what man with baby girl says is uspportive of NO PLANE;

All of what young woman from Path Train says is supportive of NO PLANE; and

A little bit of what Jim Ryan (anchor) says is supportive of NO PLANE.

Here's what the video offers to PLANE SPOTTERS like AJM:

Some of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of PLANE;

All, including hook, line and sinker, of what Rosa blanka-blanka (I am not being impolite, I didn't grasp her last names the first time through) says is supportive of PLANE."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5872886&postcount=103

We can all benefit from taking a close and an objective look at the newly posted Dick Oliver video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQMiAR3cYQ&feature=player_embedded


We are on the verge of making some progress here if we don't get derailed, posters.

good luck to us

 

[I Ratant]

...
We are on the verge of making some progress here if we don't get derailed, posters.

good luck to us

.
It's painfully obvious to us that Inigo Montoya's cogent phrase is applicable.
"None of the words you use mean what they think they do."