The onus is on you to provide what the aircraft should have sounded like. You have failed to do so and generally run away from requests like this. As someone that lives near a busy airport, I can state with some authority that the sound on the videos is of an jet airliner. There is nothing else that makes that sound that I have found. You have been asked repeatedly to prove your contention that it sounded like something else. You have failed to provide this prove and usually move the goal posts.
Your claim is false. I have proven the contention there is no sound of a jetliner in the videos in a number of ways. Let me give a few examples:
1--The passersby in the Dick Oliver video do not respond as if a jetliner is near them and the sound that can be heard is that of the buses that are next to the camera, literally, and the subway atop which the camera sits, again literally.
2--The verifiable witnesses uniformly report an "explosion" and not a "plane crash."
So, right there, I am basing my assertion on what the data show. What the direct evidence indicates. Witnesses are forms of direct evidence; even moreso than are video cameras.
3--The video evidence that informs this thread, as shown in Bill Smith's example, easily show that the videos do not properly support the claim a 767 is involved.
In the first of the two new analytical videos linked by Bill Smith, the video plane images don't match. In the second, which is actually the so-called "best angle" video, the sound of a jetliner is not heard. That sound is not that of a jetliner. True, posters can disagree about that; and so be it. However, disapgreement does not prove the one or the other. In addition to no sound of a jetliner, there is also a woefully stupid depiction of a plane crash in that video; thus falsifiying it separate and apart from the sound issue. And, recall, we have an eyewitness, Stephen Gregory, who also describes the sound as being something other than a plane. So, to the extent you say you can hear a jetliner better than I can hear a jetliner; or, as is your wont, that you are right and I am wrong, that issue is resolved on the basis of what the best eyewitness said; namely, he (Stephen Gregory) didn't think he heard a pland and he knows he didn't see one.
You are trumped, out in the open this time, Lapman, so that even the Lurkers know it now.
Even in the so-called "best video" there is no explosion on impact, no debris and no other indicator of a actual jetliner crash. And, in addition, NIST fudged their analysis in that respect by obfuscation of the obvious falsity
Note this, lurkers:
In 43 different video versions, not one of them provides an image that one can comfortably say is a Boeing 767. In the very best of the lot, the image is fuzzy, off color and opaque. In the very worst of the lot, the image doesn't even remotely look like a jetliner and could be one of a million different things, for all we know.
LOOK AT THE VIDEO
Epistemologically understood, people form their impressions based mostly on what they see and what they hear, combined and synthesized, to form what can be properly called a "database." Based on the information derived from what the actual witnesses really said (including the witnesses Edx tried to rely on), they almost unanimously say they saw and they heard an explosion. That is near onto 100% true with respect to the North Tower and is also true for the South Tower, once the ambiguity contained in the statements actually made by the PLANE SPOTTERS are taken into consideration.
Had the database they had been supportive of "a plane crash" it is very clear that they would have said "plane crash" rather than "explosion" because that is a more specific description of an event and a more dramatic and compelling experience as well. They would also have said "I saw" rather than "we saw" which is a clear attempt to say the following: "While I was standing there, I didn't see a plane, I only saw that on teevee; but someone near me must have seen the plane because I thouht I heard someone say they saw a plane."
That is how rationalization and justification of the common storyline works.
By the way, I am quoting eyewitness Asst. Commn. Stephen Gregory, the highest ranking firefighter on duty, who said "...I didn't see a plane while I was standing there, I only saw that later on teevee..." (paraphrase)
Put simply, when one sees a plane crash one does not report that one has seen an explosion.
In summary, I have supported the NO PLANE claim with live, real and verifiable witness accounts; video, audio, investigation incongruities involving, among other things, the following:
a--The cover for fraud and deception allowed by the military exercises then and there taking place that hopelessly confound any claims based on radar data or other indicators of actual flights versus imaginary ones.
b--The lack of any real identification of plane parts, thus the complete lack of verification that any crash(es) occurred.
c--The phony DNA data claims that are not data, but are, instead, "experiments" or forms of "exercises" that are misleadingly presented as being investigatory of 9/11 when they were not intended or done for that purpose, with the possible exception of identification of victims of the explosion at the Pentagon. Talk about "cannon fodder"? sheesh
d--Fraudulent NIST study that proved nothing at all and only obfuscated the nature of the event, without explaining what happened.
Lapman, I suggest you stop claiming the lack of substantiation on my part; and, instead, openly admit that the claim there are "1000s of witnesses" is false. Doing that would set you on a course leading to the right direction; namely, that direction that will enable you to distinguish the real from the unreal.
