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

[BigAl]

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.
.

You continue to lie and misrepresent my citations for DNA evidence for 9/11.

 

[jammonius]

.
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."

This video is important and contains excellent NO PLANE information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQMi...layer_embedded

 

[TJM]

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

Absolute waffle.

We heard Dick Oliver say he thought he heard a plane at first. Then "something internal". Then later still he suggests a missile or drone aircraft. In short, he believed at the time that something flew into the WTC Towers.

This cuts the heart right out of your argument.

Dick Olivers first impression was an airplane hit WTC1. This is a fact. It is not refutable.

 

[DGM]

Absolute waffle.

We heard Dick Oliver say he thought he heard a plane at first. Then "something internal". Then later still he suggests a missile or drone aircraft. In short, he believed at the time that something flew into the WTC Towers.

This cuts the heart right out of your argument.

Dick Olivers first impression was an airplane hit WTC1. This is a fact. It is not refutable.

I think you might be confused. In the Oliver video no one reacted like the should have so there could not be a plane. In the Naudet video they did react but only because they heard and saw the "blobby" DEW thing. Does that clear it up?




That actually hurt my head to type.

 

[lapman]

This video is important and contains excellent NO PLANE information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQMi...layer_embedded

Wow. That video shows the smoke and fire that you claim didn't exist? How do you explain that?

ETA. This video does have an explanation for the source of the interference in the first video that jamm misinterpreted. The tape was not from the camera, but from the studio. They state that their antenna is on top of the North Tower. So the aircraft striking and exploding in the building would have easily caused what we saw.

Wow, at 8:00 they have an actual eyewitness to the crash. Oops. You fail again, jamm.

 

[Resume]

This video is important and contains excellent NO PLANE information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQMi...layer_embedded

Excellent and NO PLANE information do not belong in the same sentence. Deluded however . . .

 

[Oystein]

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

I have no program, but I manually transcribed part of what was said - my choice, of course:

At 1:52:
Dick: „We have no idea of what happened, but we did hear of what sounded like, uh, sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom. I don't know whether we can confirm this was an aircraft or not. David, what did you hear? What would you say you heard? This is our camera man Dave Stollick (?)“
David: „Incredible explosion, very very loud“
Dick: „How about you, hun?“
Woman: „Sounded like a bomb“
Dick: „Well it could be, could be something internal as well. There are pieces of the superstructure of the WTC sticking out, but a lot going in. As I said, this appears to be about the 100th floor of the south tower of the WTC“

At 5:35:
Dick: „And I did hear some kind of a screech or some kind of a wail before a tremendous boom so uhhh I first thought it was a plane“

Around 6:40
Dick: „Excuse me sir, did you see what happened?“
First passerbyer: „Yeah I saw something, and like Bamm
Dick: „Did you see anyhing hit the building?“
First passerbyer: (nods) „That was the boom“
Dick: „Something hit the building?“
First passerbyer: „Yeah!“

Around 7:00
Second passerbyer explains she was on a fast train when she heard an explosion. She asserts it came from the inside, but then again, she was on a train then.

From 8:00
Rosa Cardona Rivera
„I'm at 99 Hudson Street and I was standing outside actually on the side of the building [14th floor] smoking a cigarette and I hear a plane and I don't usually see planes in this area, then all of a sudden I saw go right into the uhh to the WTC, to the building.“
„So you saw a plane crash into the side of the WTC?“
RCR: „Yes sir. … It was a big plane“

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

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

Actually, little of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of no plane. We should not take his reasoning and interpretation as his observations. Here is ALL that Dick Oliver observed, as related in this clip:

• "There are pieces of the superstructure of the WTC sticking out, but a lot going in."
• "we did hear of what sounded like, uh, sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom"
• "I did hear some kind of a screech or some kind of a wail before a tremendous boom"
• At one point he explains that he sees no plane or parts thereof (I did not transcribe that part)

Everything else he says is not observation, but interpretation, and he is simply careful there not to rule anything out until one interpretation is confirmed.
Three of the four obeservations point to YES plane, the fourth points to nothing really, as Oliver's expectation that a plane should be seen sticking out of the fassade is a layman's expectation and just wrong.

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

David Stollick (??) gets to say exactly one sentence:

• "Incredible explosion, very very loud"

We must note that he says nothing at all that points to NO plane, and he says nothing that points to YES plane. His description is in line with ANY hypothesis advanced by anyone.

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

False. He reports a "boom" (everybody does, but confirms Dick's two question "Did you see anything hit the building?" with a nod and a "yeah".

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

When considering her testimony, it is important to keep in mind where she was when the boom occurred: ON THE TRAIN. We don't know if the train was moving and noisy, or if the doors were closed or open. But we know one thing: A train has a roof. It is in most cases hard, if not impossible, to see the top of a 110 floor skyskraper from inside a train. I think we can safely discard her testimony. Yes, she did observe things coming out of the tower well after the crash, but that is to be expect in any of the hypothesis we are considering here. Her observation is merely of things coming out of the building, all else she says is her (uninformed, because she could not witness the event from inside a train) interpretation.

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

Jim Ryan is not an eyewitness.

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

Some of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of PLANE;

Most of what Dick Oliver says is supportive of YES plane, see above

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 Cardona Rivera. If any words at all were spoken with diligent clearness, it was her name.

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.

I hope you do not try to pass this by as either your interpretation, or an argument? She is not new to the world of 9/11 precisely she is one of the first eyewitnesses on record! If this quib of yours is not rhetoric, nothing is!

Plus, it is noteworthy that she makes no comment at all about the sound.

FALSE, and grossly so. Please listen carefully to 8:00:
"I'm at 99 Hudson Street and I was standing outside actually on the side of the building [14th floor] smoking a cigarette and I hear a plane"

As the Dick Oliver theme centers largely on what was heard, in a certain sense Rosa blanka blanka might be a derail.

Obvious rhetoric based on a false assertion.

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

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/hudsonfranklin.jpg?t=1272380294[/qimg]

She points out later in the video that she was NOT at street level, but on a sort of balcony on the 14th floor. If you have ever been to the 14th floor of a building, you know how what you can see from there may differ vastly from what you can see at street level.

 

[CompusMentus]

.
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."

And Lincoln:-

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Jams dogs extra tail is growing very long in the telling.


Compus

 

[Oystein]

...You [BigAl] say DNA proves every aspect of 9/11 and that you've demonstrated it time and time again.

(my italics)
He did NOT say that ("every" aspect). That is another LIE on top of another lie.

Stop the lying!

 

[Mince]

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.

It sounds like you're becoming indignant.

Wait a minute: did Dick Oliver say he heard a "whale"? So now a whale hit the WTC buildings. Here comes a new sect of truthers: The Whalers.

 

[I Ratant]

Oliver's video can be disregarded in its entirety, and -nothing- about the fact of the plane impacting WTC Tower 1 will be altered in the slightest.

 

[Oystein]

Objectivity is essential in unraveling the 9/11 psyop.

You would exhibit some degree of objectivity if you refrained from jumping to conclusions ("psyop") before any evidence for that conclusion has been presented.

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.

There is nothing clear at all about this. The nature of entirely unkown things is that their properties are entirely unknown. You are begging the question by assuming that the event ear-witnessed by Dick Oliver has no possible explanation within the realm of everything we know. This assertion, your premise, is FALSE. There is at least one explanation that does manage to explain the entire set of observations. It is the explanation that was first on Dick Oliver's mind: "I first thought it was a plane"

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.

I agree with that. Will you also agree that before 9/11, neither Dick Oliver nor anybody else has heard a passenger plane that was used as a missle against a highrise building?
That's what baffled people, jammonius.

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.

I was not referring to the anecdotes as being worthless, I was referring to your highly subjective interpretation of these anecdotes as worthloess. Interpretation of anecdotal data is NOT data itself.

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.

Well, good thing is, we have Dick Oliver on record saying these things only a few minutes later:

"we did hear of what sounded like, uh, sounded like an aircraft, and then a tremendous boom. ... And I did hear some kind of a screech or some kind of a wail before a tremendous boom so uhhh I first thought it was a plane"

Is it fair to assume now that Dick Oliver did in fact hear a sound before the crash sound that sounded to HIM like a plane?

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.

Wrong.
Just this afternoon, I was working on my roof-top terrace, preparing things for spring (cleaning pots for plants to be planted...) when a large 4-engine jetplane passed nearly overhead (maybe 10°-15° from zenith at closest point). We have a NATO airbase not far from here that is host to an E-3A wing and also hosts some 707s and KC-135 E's - all of these are basically variations of the Boeing 707. I did hear the plane approaching, but as I was busy, and the sound of a jet not so very unusuall, I certainly did not react to it for more than 6 seconds.
Only when I noticed that it was coming unusually close did I look up.
It was close to zenith then, and hmmm maybe 1500 feet up.
Despite the fact that most, if not all, of these planes are equipped with very old and loud engines that have elicited a lot of protests from the population around the base, the plane was not really loud. Ok, it wasn't going at 450mph, more like landing approach. But it was really nearly directly overhead, no buildings and no trees in the way at all, and I live in a quiet small city, not Manhattan with its hustle and bustle.

So from today's personal experience, it would be entirely reasonable for any person to not react to the sound of a plane for several seconds.

I hope you count this anecdote as data and consider it appropriately.

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

I have already seen how you discussed this topic with BigAl: lies and evasion noted.

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.

It has already been pointed out to you that youtube clips of this scene are not the original data but decreased in size and compressed in quality. It has been pointed out to you that a high resolution version of the Naudet video, as apparently is out for sale on DVD, very clearly shows a plane, nut just a blurry blob.

I note that you fail to acknowledge this info that has been directed at you in the "verboten" thread. Before we discuss the Naudet video, could you please explicitly acknowledge that you have read and understood the previos paragraph? So that the next time you describe the plane in the Naudet video as a "blurry blob", we all know in full clarity that you are consciously trying to deceive us? Thanks.

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

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.

In that interview, he works in an eyewitness capacity

Indeed, his claims take on the characteristic of being too good to be true.

jammonius, everybody sees through this lame rhetoric. What you really want to say is: It is too damning for your private pet theory, and so you reject it because you don't like it. However, you know and I know that you implicate Sean Murtagh in the mass murder of more than 2000 people. Right?

Now that is what can fairly be described as RICH.

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.

Methinks jammonius is afraid he might be forced to conclude that Murtagh did not lie.

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.

FALSE. Murtagh corroborates Oliver.

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

FALSE.

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

Strawman: This is not what I said, and you know that, jammonius.
I said the seismic data is consistent with a jet.
You need to show that the seismic data is also consistent with your DEW hypothesis.

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.

FALSE. These pictures stand and fall on their own merit. It is not at all of interest how they were interpreted in the context of the NIST reports. NIST was not at all chartered with assessing plane debris outside the WTC, so they make it clear that the conclusions they present are not THEIR conclusions. Nothing in that use of words can be construed, by objective analysis, to imply any degree of uncertainty.

...
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.

FALSE.
Several authoritative investigations have determined that planes were crashed into the towers.

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 --

Why do you mention this, if it doesn't mean much? Rhetoric 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.

I have his first-hand eyewitness testimony right before me. What more do we need? Has Dick Oliver testified anywhere? No? Why then do you rely on Oliver so much but want to throw out Murtagh?

Murtagh stands and falls on its own merits as anecdotal evidence. Can we agree on that? If you throw out Murtagh, will you agree to also throw out Oliver - entirely?

Hmmm, let me think about the above

Please do. Analysing the expected loudness of a 767 in that setting is the only objective thing that could possibly save your case.

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!

You know that it was not only sourced there, and I already read that you misrepresent the sources on the DNA-topic you have been shown by other posters. There clearly is no reason to debate this for you as long as you choose to lie and misrepresent.

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

Absolutely. The one where Dick Oliver confirms that he thought he heard the screech and wail of an airplane before the crash

I have mentioned DEW above.

Yes, you have mentioned, but you have not formulated any theory at all that would allow us to have it tested against ANY of the known observations, let all ALL of them.

Therefore, as I explained to you before, just mentioning "DEW" does not amount to any hypothesis at all, and not by a longshot.

...
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.

You will have to step off of that stand now that you know that Dick Oliver DID think he heard an airplane before the crash.

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

Hmm are you judging my statements? Why?

Don't give me that dishonest confused look! You know already that EVERY poster except you, that is at least 2 dozends, in the verboten thread identified the sound as that of a plane.

You know also have learned that even Dick Oliver thought it sounded like an airplane.

So may I ask you again, and please don't dodge that question: Now that you know that EVERYBODY except you thinks it sounds like an airplane, would you consider that it might, in fact, be an airplane?

Nope, your claim is false.

An argument isn't the automatic gainsaying of anything a person says

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

You fail to consider all the possibilities that could lead to a person being unsure if he heard an airplane or not:
* Distraction
* Faulty memory in a highly loaded, stressful situation
* Do you remember how Dick calls out to a certain "Beth" to come back to him? Do you know who and where this Beth is? Lemme explain to you. As related in http://www.allisongilbert.com/pdfs/Covering_Catastrophe_Ch_1.pdf Dick Oliver later described the scene as follows: "I started screaming to the control room producer, Beth McCauley, in my microphone: “Beth, Beth, Beth, come back to me, come back to me.” My cameraman had enough cable to bring the camera to my location. I kept yelling, “Come back to me, come back to me!”". Can you see what I am getting at? beth is at her office, a remote control room. How could she get back to Oliver? Would you agree that he most likely used some sort of earphone to go with the microphone he speaks into to talk to Beth? So - would you consider the possibility that Oliver's hearing was impaired by an earphone?

Yes he does.

This is not the argument clinic.

 

[dafydd]

How can anyone with more than half a brain cell believe that there were no planes? I find this very puzzling.How did this insane idea start?

 

[CompusMentus]

How can anyone with more than half a brain cell believe that there were no planes? I find this very puzzling.How did this insane idea start?

Lobotomy?


Compus

 

[Mince]

How can anyone with more than half a brain cell believe that there were no planes? I find this very puzzling.How did this insane idea start?

I don't really believe he does. I believe he is just being ridiculoulsy and sensationally obstinate to garner attention he likely wouldn't get anywhere else. It gives him attention he probably does not get away from the internet.

 

[carlitos]

If I find the time and create the infrastructure, will all posters expending effort replying to jammonius consider changing gears and expending more or less similar effort in tutoring underprivileged children in Math, Reading and the Sciences? We are wasting a lot of brainpower here, people.

 

[Mince]

If I find the time and create the infrastructure, will all posters expending effort replying to jammonius consider changing gears and expending more or less similar effort in tutoring underprivileged children in Math, Reading and the Sciences? We are wasting a lot of brainpower here, people.

Agreed. And I impose upon myself the rule that I shall not again (after this post) post in a thread started by jammonius or whose principle theme involves jammonius himself or an idea conjured by jammonius. A lot of effort is being wasted trying to convince someone a green car is green.

 

[TJM]

We are wasting a lot of brainpower here, people.

The lurkers! Are they not worth our brain power?? Won't somebody think of the lurkers?!?11

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"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."

ROTFLOL, her name is crystal clear to me and is actually shown on the video. You have to be the least observant person I have ever heard off! Go look at the video again and see if you can her name right if nothing else

 

[Thunder]

when No-Planers get ANY attention....and ANY audience...they win.

it doesn't matter how the argument goes. just the fact that they are getting attention means they win.

there are a few ideas in this world that simply deserve zero attention. "no planes at the WTC" is one of them.