OK, Oystein, we may be making some progress here. As you know, I assert 7 contain a sound consistent with a possible jet claim. I will listen again.
Cool
I think you are correct in placing some focus on segment # 12.
I did not really focus on segment #12, I focussed on all 43 equally. It just so turns out that segment #12 differs slightly, and with good reason, from the other segments. That is not a matter of focussing, just a matter of fact.
That is the one that devastes the plane spotter claim. Video segment # 12, as I have said from early on, is the one that posters and lurkers need to concentrate on.
You have focused on #12, and that is commendable. But, your analysis of it is flawed. The sound of the jetliner should have been as loud or louder than the explosion and for a longer time. Furthermore, the people there should have heard a jet. Yet, as I am sure you will acknowledge, they do not say anything consistent with a plane crash. They say "they're bombing it."
I think video segment # 12 destroys the claim a jetliner crashed into the South Tower.
You are wrong and stupidly, or more probably deceivingly so.
Your claim that the BANG of a plane crash should be softer than the sound of jet engines at normal cruise throttle is unsupported and wrong. As you have noted elsewhere, the engines of a 767 are designed to minimize sound emissions. Neither 767s nor office towers are designed to minimize sound emissions upon plane crashes. If you ever witnessed a car crash, you know that such a crach is much louder than a car driving. The same is true for plane crashes. A tremendous amount of kinetic energy is available to swing an entire tower, plus a good portion of the kerosine explodes. It is utter foolishness not to expect these explosions to be extremely loud - and they were.
Segment #12 was taken, as I have said before (and as you should acknowledge) from very far away somewhere in Brooklyn. We see in front of the twin towers one of the pylons of Williamsburg Bridge, which is about 2 miles from the WTC. The camera is itself situated maybe another mile from the bridge, so total distance to the WTC is about 3 miles. The plane was approaching the South Tower from the other side, i.e. most of its way, the plane was even farther away.
Because of the distance, it is not at all clear that the sound of a jet engine would rise above the background hum of Brooklyn and be picked up by a camera mic. In fact, the sound of the explosion, which every sane person would expect to be MUCH louder than the engines, is barely audible at about 3:18.
Also, at a distance of 3 miles and approaching from the far side, a greyish plane against the blue-greyish background of the sky, would be barely visible to the naked eye, especially if that eye is focussed on the smoke and burn of WTC1. No wonder really that these people, miles away and on the far side, did not notice the approaching plane. They were simply not in a position to see or hear it. Recruiting someone who is not in a position to witness event A as a witness for the non-existance of A is foolishness at best and deception at worst.
Your claim is false. You have engaged in over generalization and have thus not dealt adequately with what the data actually show.
Wrong. I have not generalized. I have couted and summarized.
That is demonstrably false,imho.
If it is demonstrable, deomonstrate it (that at least one camera close enough to pick up the sound of engines and having sound on at all failed to pick up a sound that can reasonably described as that of jet engines)
However, as we go forward, I think we may need to post an assessement of the video segment sound, one by one.
Only those that have live sound in them are necessary for that excercise.
After all, that is what data are for. There has never been any useful point served by posters ranting and raving about what they believe. All we need do is LOOK at and LISTEN to the video and then post our findings.
At long last, we are doing that.
Yes, I did, and found that all cameras that could possibly have picked up the sound of jet engines did pick up the sound of jet engines.
...
OK, you are seeking to minimize the importance of the witness claiming there are others who contradict him. But, you do not post any who do. I have repeatedly said that there are more reliable NO PLANE witnesses then PLANE SPOTTERS.
Liar. Your response was to my posting two who: Dick Oliver and his camera man.
...
The witnesses INSIDE THE DICK OLIVER VIDEOS are one source of proof of that claim. All witnesses INSIDE THE DICK OLIVER VIDEOS, said "explosion" in one or another.
Which is undisputed and beside the point. We all agree that there was an explosion. The cause of the explosion ist what matters: Was it a plane, or was it a DEW?
True, a couple of them speculated about planes, including Dick Oliver himself, but a fair representation of what he said requires the conclusion that a) he didn't know what happened; and b) ultimately agreed that what happened was an explosion originating from inside the building.
Liar. The opposite is true. Dick Oliver clearly states that he and others had heard a plane before the explosion, and upon assessing what the damage to the Tower looked like from his vantage point, he concludes tentatively that whatever it was more likely came from the
outside as the perimeter columns were bent outside-in.
...
So, ultimately, it is wrong to seek to isolate my best witness. Stephen Gregory is not alone by any means. As to reliable and verifiable witnesses, he is, in fact, in the majority.
One witness is just that: One witness. You seek to isolate scores of witnesses to distort and minimize their importance. Don't whine if we do the same with yours.
As noted, you have not properly characterized either the witnesses nor the nature of the information on the videos.
Have I improperly characterized either? How so?
...
Your claim is stupidly false. The consensus I referred to was among the actual witnesses, those inside the Dick Oliver video who stepped up and said what they saw.
Stupidity. They did not form a consenus in the video as they did not debate.
Furthermore, you had no basis to be confused about that. As you know, I don't get involved in what people who post "believe". I neither question beliefs nor engage in disputes about what people believe. So, you had no basis for confusing consensus among posters with anything I was referring to. Once again, I was referring to the "explosion" consensus that was shown, objectively and verifiably, to have existed among the actual, on the scene witnesses.
Consensus about "explosion" is trivial. No need to discuss that.
You are once again a liar, as you know that there is no subway station where the Oliver camera crew was locetd.
Once again your claim is stupidly false. I posted the subway map to show that not one but two subways intersect right underneath where Dick Oliver stood. sheesh
You can't hear subways away from subway stations. That's why I made the relevant claim that there was no subway
station at that location.
Several New York City residents have told you that you can't hear subways in NYC away from stations.
So your claim is refuted.
Not one bit weaker than your claim about seeing something.
If you insist on that, then you render Matthews useless as a witness. His statement is inadmissible as evidence.
This is your private non-expert opinion and was clearly pulled out of your arse.
Back it up or retract it.
At least one laywer here has already informed you that you are plain wrong: Statements starting with the word "We" are in fact admissable as evidence even in court, as everybody (except you again) is able to correctly discern its meaning.
Hearsay is inadmissible. Lawyers agree with that.
That in itself is hearsay.
...
It was a real stretch for you to come up with yet another way to call me a liar. Your posting in that vein is stupid.
No, actually, it was easy and straightforward.
We are here to debate, i.e. to exchange arguments to inform the other side. You are teaching us all the time. In fact, you are often preaching in a very condescending manner.
No need for you to dodge a request for your teaching
