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

[sheeplesnshills]

When Jammy gets back maybe he could explain how one can hear the "Subway" from inside a conference room at 1 Liberty Plaza???

I surmise there was a bus stop and/or a subway grill in that room or maybe in the corridor outside. We can't see one so that proves that there was one.

 

[A W Smith]

For the timer you can copy the url and past it into winamp (open url). playing with the mixer you can turn down the bass and crank it up.
http://911digitalarchive.org/sonicmedia//repository/media/child_864.mp3
The audio starts with a female voice in an English accent.
00:02 "So I can imagine that there is a bar chart, if you like, driven out of that survey"
00:07 another female voice "umm hmmm"
00:08 English: So back to the C.I.O., you will see business people confirming that...................
00:35 the jet engine sound becomes apparent on the audio (1600+ feet north of the north tower and closing)
00:37 the initial bang sound of the impact
00:39 a male voice asks "what the heck was that?
00:40 a female voice says "could that be ummmm, the Concorde? Just then?
00:45 another male voice Wow, heh heh.
00:47 The secondary impact sound consistent with that of the panel hitting the street
00:48 second male "it sounds line sumthin crashed, heh"
00:52 English female "gotta be something, something did crash"
00:55 another female Ahhhuuuh!!!
00:56 another female: My!....(incoherent)..that was just like that airplane that I just....thought... (interrupted by another female)
00:59 third female "Oh my god"
01:00 first male"oh my gosh"
01:04 Another male: that was,,pretty close to us.
01:05
01:08 male: Lets open the blinds here.

My wife just got home, made me turn off the surround sound, headphones are blown out and it sounds muddled, Will pick this up later. Time to eat anyway.

 

[dafydd]

I'm still a bit fogged as to how this no-plane thing started in the first place.Was it an April 1st joke that got out of hand? I'm even more fogged on how anyone could give it any credence.

 

[DC]

I'm still a bit fogged as to how this no-plane thing started in the first place.Was it an April 1st joke that got out of hand? I'm even more fogged on how anyone could give it any credence.

i think a lack of physical knowledge.

planes dont enter buildings, doh!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think jammonius is on to something with this Concorde/Concourse thing; it seems much more plausible to me that someone hearing a loud noise and a crash from above them might think it was an underground shopping centre rather than an airplane. But I don't think s/he's going far enough with it. For example, the letter 'n' is one of the most indistinct in the English language, and hence one of the easiest to make people think was said, when in fact it wasn't. So, everybody who said 'I saw a plane', 'It looked like a plane', or I think it was a plane', clearly actually said 'I think it was a play'. After all, New York is famous as a centre for the performing arts; which is more commonplace, low-flying aircraft or theatrical performances? And the underlying meaning of the phrase is obvious; a play, a piece of fiction intended to convey the image of a series of events that have not actually happened. Every witness so far claimed to have seen a plane, is in fact openly and specifically stating their conviction that the events of 9/11 were a program of deception!

But maybe it goes further than that. Did these attacks really happen in New York? Or was the location itself misheard, and in fact all the witnesses and commentators were referring to stewed pork? If so, the spurious claim of Islamic extremists carrying out terrorist attacks is completely exploded; what good Moslem would have any part in an attack involving stewed pork? Clearly, the attack was a deception carried out by Malaysians, and all the witnesses are asserting this repeatedly.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

I think jammonius is on to something with this Concorde/Concourse thing; it seems much more plausible to me that someone hearing a loud noise and a crash from above them might think it was an underground shopping centre rather than an airplane. But I don't think s/he's going far enough with it. For example, the letter 'n' is one of the most indistinct in the English language, and hence one of the easiest to make people think was said, when in fact it wasn't. So, everybody who said 'I saw a plane', 'It looked like a plane', or I think it was a plane', clearly actually said 'I think it was a play'. After all, New York is famous as a centre for the performing arts; which is more commonplace, low-flying aircraft or theatrical performances? And the underlying meaning of the phrase is obvious; a play, a piece of fiction intended to convey the image of a series of events that have not actually happened. Every witness so far claimed to have seen a plane, is in fact openly and specifically stating their conviction that the events of 9/11 were a program of deception!

But maybe it goes further than that. Did these attacks really happen in New York? Or was the location itself misheard, and in fact all the witnesses and commentators were referring to stewed pork? If so, the spurious claim of Islamic extremists carrying out terrorist attacks is completely exploded; what good Moslem would have any part in an attack involving stewed pork? Clearly, the attack was a deception carried out by Malaysians, and all the witnesses are asserting this repeatedly.

Dave

The Chinese Whispers theory.Well,it's as plausible as the no-plane theory.I'm expecting the no-buildings theory from a truther any day now.

 

[dafydd]

The lurkers have emerged.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174815

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Welcome to the thread and thank you for your contribution.

Rest of drivel snipped I'm afraid ...

Due to being away for birthday weekend have only got round to replying just now ...but I see you are still engaged in this relentless over-interpretation of minor details ... sheeesh !!!

Now, jammonius you can play this spectacularly abstruse "interpretation" game all day if you wish ... but it is utterly meaningless.

Yes, you have the right to "interperate" anything anywhich way you wish, but that will NEVER detract from simple, plain ol'-fashioned common sense which tells you it was an aircraft.

Common sense will ALWAYS trump this kind of tortured hermeneutics ...

As a mother and grand-mother I am waaay beyond the psuedo-intellectualized psyco-babble you are so fond of engaging in.

You can play semantics till the cows come home jammonius ... your still wrong ... period.

So, please, do not respond to this, you will simply NEVER manage to convince me of your stance, your points are, frankly, pointless and I refuse to play ... jam, you still have a lot of growing up to do yet !!!

Hopefully, one day you will see ...

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I'm still waiting for my scotch from our lurker....in a bottle with a straw please.

My apologies, I was away enjoying a few wee ones myself for my birthday ... so here ya go ... *hands over bottle* ...

 

[jammonius]

Stop abusing horses folks!

Well, posters and lurkers,

When I indicated in post # 424 that I was going to take a 24 hr break, I did so, in part, because there was then and there taking place a slaughter of innocent horses as confirmed by an extraordinary number of posts containing images of horses that posters had just then and there either beaten to death or had let die of de-hydration as a result of not allowing the poor things to drink the water of truth that I had led them to.

Keep in mind, as always, that what each poster posts up says something about THAT poster and nothing whatever about anyone else.

So, here's the only photo of horses that I've ever posted up:

Also, and almost as important as calling for a halt to the slaughter of innocent horses and a return to your senses, posters, is that I must call attention to the deep damage and awful harm being done to OUR LADY OF THE CONCOURSE (OLC). I must insist, posters, that you call her by her right name CONCOURSE and not CONCORDE or CONCORDIA or any other derivative of CONCOURSE.

By abusing what she said and changing it to suit your purposes you are causing OLC to weep.

Look, posters, here's why OLC is weeping:

1--You are insisting on making her give the WRONG ANSWER. Our Lady does not want to be discredited by being made to give the wrong darn answer.

2--Look, posters, this is obvious: The common storyline of 9/11 DOES NOT call for the Concorde to have crashed into the North Tower.

3--If the common storyline of 9/11 had wanted the Concorde to crash into the North Tower, it could bloody well have just said so. After all, the Naudet video and the Pavel Hlava video are each blurry and/or indeterminate enough to have supported a claim that what WASN'T seen in either of those videos was a CONCORDE just as easily (or impossibly, as it were) as it could be claimed that what isn't seen in either of them is a BOEING 767.

4--It doesn't matter in the least bit what you call the blurry blob or the missing plane from either the Naudet or the Hlava videos, if the common storyline had wanted a Concorde, it could have had one!

Look at this:

Concorde from Hlava video

Concorde from Naudet video

See, it doesn't matter what you call the blob, it could just as easily be a CONCORDE or a BOEING 767 or a FLYING PIG.

BUT, the common storyline mandates a Boeing 767 and not a Concorde. So, posters, all you're doing in arguing 'til you folks are blue in the face that OLC says "Concorde" is to MAKE HER WRONG.

Look, posters, I know why you likely want her to say "Concorde" you want her to say that because a Concorde is a kind of jetliner and goodness knows you have a serious shortage of witnesses who say they saw or heard a jetliner. So, believe me, I understand the problem you have.

Elsewhere in the Ginny Carr audio, someone says "bomb" but that didn't make it into the transcription posted in the thread and it is probably as pointless to suggest you folks listen again as it is to ask that you stop misinterpreting OLC by making her give the wrong answer.

I know you don't want to admit that, but at the same time, you want desparately to have someone, anyone, let alone OLC, say something that you can then claim is consistent with a jetliner. How, on earth, someone could reasonably interpret the crash sound in the audio as "the Concorde" when preceding the crash sound there is, at most, a two second zhoop, is beyond me. The sound interval preceding the crash sound in the Ginny Carr video is totally and completely at odds with the Dick Oliver audio, UNLESS, you folks come to your senses and admit the sound heard in the Dick Oliver video is that of the buses seen and the subways understood to be in the range of the mic in that video.

The problem is, you can't make OLC give the WRONG answer and the RIGHT one that is demanded by the common storyline, each at the same time, posters. Get a grip. It doesn't work that way.

So, please, give OLC a break and stop trying to make her wrong. Let her be right that what she said was CONCOURSE, so that she can return to her serenity.

Our Lady of the Concourse

 

[jammonius]

I'm still a bit fogged as to how this no-plane thing started in the first place.Was it an April 1st joke that got out of hand? I'm even more fogged on how anyone could give it any credence.

Wait a minute. In the above post, you simply cannot be serious. It is not just the Dick Oliver videos that put the issue of NO PLANE firmly and securely within the realm of reason, occurring as they do, on the day of 9/11/01, itself.

The fact of the matter is that all else that has ever been presented as being proof of a jetliner crash is utterly and completely indeterminate.

Here's another still from the Pavel Hlava video, with the help of "an arrow" used to alter the image in order to "point" to a nonexistent Boeing 767.

It is no different and no better in the Naudet video; it, too, is indeterminate. Plus, to resolve the doubt, there are the on the scene witnesses, many of whom I have both quoted and given colorful nicknames to, in order to help facilitate reality and to show that the evidence confirms there were no planes on 9/11 at the WTC. Keeping in mind, we've already done a full thread on Flight 93 and a tad on the Pentagon as well.

The Ginny Carr audio is also sitting in this thread and is under discussion. The capacity for denial and for rationalization has already been turned on full force in connection with that audio that cannot in any reasonable way be said to offer support for the claim a jetliner had crashed. And yet, the denial persists.

I'll bet there are posters here who will swear up and down on a stack of horses they will have slaughtered (please stop doing that, it is cruel) that they can see a Boeing 767 in the Pavel Hlava video.

That is rich.

 

[I Ratant]

Jammy, take another 24 off... days, weeks or months.
We won't mind at all.

 

[jammonius]

By the way, posters and lurkers, I have come across the name of JACK SHEA as an FBI person who had something to do with the Flight 93 investigation. His name came up in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article that was noteworthy for being meaningless fluff, babble and propaganda, but it did provide a name.

Jack Shea
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011029newsmaker1029p3.asp

 

[jammonius]

Jammy, take another 24 off... days, weeks or months.
We won't mind at all.

I will post within the rules, as I please. Why don't you stop posting up images abusing horses or acquiescing in that kind of posting, and monitor the timing of your own posting.

 

[DGM]

jammonius:
Do you plan to address the questions as to how you decided the panel that (if it) fell from the towers would have left a particular?

 

[BigAl]

By the way, posters and lurkers, I have come across the name of JACK SHEA as an FBI person who had something to do with the Flight 93 investigation. His name came up in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article that was noteworthy for being meaningless fluff, babble and propaganda, but it did provide a name.

Jack Shea
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011029newsmaker1029p3.asp

Off topic!

 

[X]

Also, and almost as important as calling for a halt to the slaughter of innocent horses and a return to your senses, posters, is that I must call attention to the deep damage and awful harm being done to OUR LADY OF THE CONCOURSE (OLC)I must insist, posters, that you call her by her right name CONCOURSE and not CONCORDE or CONCORDIA or any other derivative of CONCOURSE.

By abusing what she said and changing it to suit your purposes you are causing OLC to weep.

hiliting mine


Oh, the irony.

Serious question, jammonius: What makes your interpretation (Concourse) correct and the interpretation of many others (Concorde) wrong?

A preferred outcome, perhaps?

Look, posters, here's why OLC is weeping:

1--<snip nonsense>

2--Look, posters, this is obvious: The common storyline of 9/11 DOES NOT call for the Concorde to have crashed into the North Tower.

3--If the common storyline of 9/11 had wanted the Concorde to crash into the North Tower, it could bloody well have just said so. After all, the Naudet video and the Pavel Hlava video are each blurry and/or indeterminate enough to have supported a claim that what WASN'T seen in either of those videos was a CONCORDE just as easily (or impossibly, as it were) as it could be claimed that what isn't seen in either of them is a BOEING 767.

4--It doesn't matter in the least bit what you call the blurry blob or the missing plane from either the Naudet or the Hlava videos, if the common storyline had wanted a Concorde, it could have had one!

Look at this:

<snip more nonsense>

Read carefully:

It was explained quite clearly that the Concorde used (while it still flew) the New York Airport.
Thus, it is entirely plausible that the lady was asking "Was that the Concorde", thinking it might have been generating a supersonic boom as it passed by.
Edit: More likely, as BigAl points out below, the Concorde was a loud aircraft, and she associated it to a loud noise. Even more likely since the COncorde would not have been flying supersonice near a city.

Nobody ever said anything about the Concorde crashing into the World Trade Center. That erroneous and asinine interpretation belongs only to you.

And before you jump on me for making an assumption, think about how many spurious assumptions you mkae regularly, and refuse to back up. At least mine is plausible, and fits well with the audio.
(Concorde sounding infinitely closer to what was said than Concouse)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I will post within the rules, as I please. Why don't you stop posting up images abusing horses or acquiescing in that kind of posting, and monitor the timing of your own posting.

"Flogging a dead horse", (alternatively "beating a dead horse" in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental etc) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

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

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I will post within the rules, as I please. Why don't you stop posting up images abusing horses or acquiescing in that kind of posting, and monitor the timing of your own posting.

Idiom: Flogging a dead horse

Idiom Definitions for 'Flogging a dead horse'
If someone is trying to convince people to do or feel something without any hope of succeeding, they're flogging a dead horse. This is used when someone is trying to raise interest in an issue that no-one supports anymore; beating a dead horse will not make it do any more work.

British English British English | Category: Animals

View examples in Google: Flogging a dead horse

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/flogging+a+dead+horse.html

 

[Oystein]

Whether she said Concorde or Concourse or Comfort or Contort or Pompous or Cold Horse - who cares????

Why not talk about Our Lady of the Plane (OLP) who said "the plane that I just saw"?