What Fox reporter Dick Oliver saw and heard on 9/11 (no plane)

Discussion in '9/11' started by Hunter Rose, Aug 16, 2011.

  1. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a 1min16sec video segment from WNYW (New York's Fox station) out there that contradicts the Naudet video of the first explosion at the World Trade Center, North Tower (WTC1).

    The video can be seen here:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ"]9/11 WTC Rare Video of First Plane Attack - WNYW TV - YouTube[/ame]

    Here's a rough summary of the video:

    0:00 to 0: 13 studio anchor, Jim Ryan, references the time as being a "3 hours and a few minutes" after 8:45AM, which he gives as the time of the video that is about to be shown. He describes it as video of "the first crash."

    0:13 to 0:18 As the camera is focused at ground level to about tree level in the far background and up to about 6feet up from ground level in the near background, covering the sidewalk where a few passersby can be seen either in part or in full.


    **0:18 to 0:24There is then a sound that can be described as various things, but not as that of a jetliner. Certainly, none of the passersby even react to the sound during this segment, so it is unlikely a jetliner is flying over Manhattan, 1000ft above ground at <500mph, as any such event would not result in nonchalance by passersby who were as close as these were. They are seen to be nonchalant.

    We know the location here is "near City Hall."



    0:22 to 0:23 There is a visible shaking of the camera, while the onrushing sound is still heard. Then, at about the 0:23 mark a collision that sounds like a car crash is heard. The collision is at some distance, but is pretty intense.

    0:23-0:25 The sound that I say is a subway can still be heard after the collision, at almost, but not quite the same intensity as before the collision sound. The reaction of two passersby can be clearly seen in this segment. One is a woman entering from the leftside the other a woman passing through who has entered from the rightside. The woman on the left pays no attention at all to the sound UNTIL the collision is heard, to which she almost instantly reacts.

    The woman on the right walks by and appears to look up a second or two before the collision sound is heard. That would be consistent with her seeing the fireball and the light gray smoke it emitted as that would be visible before the collision sound is heard.

    0:26 A voice is heard to say "what the hell was that" in response, not to the sound, but to the collision. I consider that significant because based on the location of the camera, if a jetliner had passed overhead at about 1000 ft above street level, I think people at that vantage point would have known it was a jetliner and would not have asked "what the hell was that."

    We know that the teevee reporter on the scene is Dick Oliver.

    Dick Oliver did not see a plane and does not describe the sound of a jetliner. He, instead, says:

    The video continues:

    0:28 In response to Dick Oliver saying "what the hell was that?" someone says "sounded like a plane crash." That is a valid witness statement as to what that person heard. However, the person is offering a guess and not something the person saw.

    0:28-0:37 A this point the camera begins a process of moving from the foot shots and somewhere at about the 32sec mark we see, for the first time, the sky in the direction of the WTC.

    0:37-0:51 We also see in this interval smoke ranging in color from medium gray to light gray, and predominantly light gray. The observed smoke color is completely inconsistent with a jetliner crash because kerosene burns in very thick, black billowy smoke.

    The color is inconsistent with jet fuel. I know posters here will have physics and math and all sorts of other explanations that says that the color of the smoke is just exactly what it should be for a jetliner crash. I get it. However, in so doing, posters will be engaging in rationalization.

    The smoke is not black, not thick and billowy and is, instead, more wispy, and more light gray than any other color; and not, therefore, consistent with a jet fuel based fire at all.

    0:40to 0:51 As the predominantly light gray smoke is being seen, the narration continues with questioning as to what is seen "come to us" is repeated and so on.

    0;51 to 1:01 The location of the smoke is identified as the WTC and someone says "it's just [pronounced:jist] an explosion."

    That narration is consistent with my claim that what happened was "it's just an explosion."

    1:03to1:16 We return to the anchor, Jim Ryan, who says various things, BUT, who never says it was a plane crash, let alone a jetliner crash.

    **This is the most revealing part of the video. The passersby are not at all surprised by the sound making it unlikely a jetliner at 1000ft and <500mph is coming their way.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A textbook use of cherry picking.
     
  3. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is improper to presuppose the existence of information, let alone a large quantity of it, without saying what it is and allowing it to be assessed for validity. That is all the more apparent in a context where no official source of an investigatory outcome has even been cited as a frame of reference in the quoted post.

    Permit this observation:

    If one is going to presume a condition described as "..cherry picking ...", then one should at least provide one reference to where that evidence can be found, together with some assurance as to the validity of that source.

    In my opinion, one can reference, at most, two sources: NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report. However, it is known that neither of them are authoritative nor accepted as such and that both have more flaws than one can shake a stick at.
     
  4. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please show me the testimony from Dick Oliver in which he agrees with your theory.
     
  5. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is contained in my first post. I break down the video for you.

    Any rebuttal?
     
  6. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are early on in the thread. The above is hard to fathom and seems to be a bit gratuitous. Why? But, let me offer a contrast.

    An issue I think I'd like to signal a concern about at the outset is that of "cherry picking." That process is not all bad by any means. First of all, in quoting witnesses, only their answers are important, usually. Questions are not the evidence; rather the answers are.

    Secondly, 9/11 is a political event based on how it was responded to; namely: WAR.

    Hence, snipets from people's first impressions are important because they are not caught up in or biased by subsequent needs to conform to the social pressure brought on by the need to conform to a political side in a war situation.

    So, cherry picking is not necessarily a negative. It is only negative if something is taken so as to change the intent, seen in a larger context. However, that larger context does not include the political pressure to conform. In fact, that is the circumstance that proper cherry picking seeks to avoid.
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. It is not.

    I specifically asked you for the reporter's agreement with your conclusions.

    I assert that you came to the wrong conclusions. The only person who would know is the reporter himself.

    What does he think about your theory?
     
  8. chillyrooster

    chillyrooster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i agree with the no planes theory because as i have examined all 9 networks no one on ground reporting or witnessing saw or heard a plane only on a screen monitor or actors on phone say they saw a plane
     
  9. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No rebuttal? Ok we'll list this as one more witness for NO PLANE.
     
  10. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Cherry picking"? You mean like "uranium from Africa" and "yellow cake", as was used in the POTUS speech for the planned invasion of Iraq? You know, that country that was behind 9/11?
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who claimed Iraq was behind 9/11?
     
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    2,792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apples and oranges.

    try to stick to the topic
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rebuttal to what?

    I asked you to show me the testimony of the witness. I ask you to show me that he agrees with your conclusion. You have failed to do so.

    How can you list this person as a witness for no plane without even speaking to them?
     
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    All part of the same rehearsed, staged pie.

    Try and use a little forethought on occasion.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's the reason (we were told) that we had to invade Iraq by our former head terrorist.
     
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This post has nothing to do with Dick Oliver.

    Uranium from Africa has nothing to do with Dick Oliver.

    Iraq has nothing to do with Dick Oliver.
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My apologies. I didn't mean to bring up uncomfortable points. I'll try and stick to responding to your agenda. Ok?
     
  19. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,977
    Likes Received:
    3,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't help asking the obvious (to me) common sense question regarding this kind of claim.

    Stepping back a little, if the claim is that there were in fact no places crashing in to the WTC buildings, it poses a huge "why?". The implication is the conspiracy to demolish the buildings under the cover of a fake terrorist attack for insurance money and/or promote war in the Middle East.

    If you were making such a plan and had explosives but no planes, why would your fake terrorist attack involve planes striking the building, requiring some kind of massive scheme faking news footage (some live) and private videos and generally convincing the thousands of eye witnesses there was more to what they saw. Why bother with all that hassle? Wouldn't a fake bomb attack be a much more practical method?
     
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    2,792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it was not actually.

    Even if Bush did exploit 911 to invade Iraq it does not prove 911 was staged in fact you have no evidence it was staged or an inside job.

    You've been debunked and taken to task on every thread and proven to be unable to defend your lame argument.

    There fore it is apples and oranges to compare use of cherry picked statements concerning 911 and quotes from Bush concerning Iraq.
     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    2,792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When did he tell us this?
     
  22. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is a truther thread. Stick to your own agenda. You folks keep making threads, changing the subject in your own threads to avoid answering direct questions, and then complaining when the thread gets "derailed"

    Instead of diving off the cliff into who does the most cherry picking, why don't you show that this claim provides the whole context and that no cherry picking was involved? Why don't you provide the direct testimony of Dick Oliver. That would clear everything up, and rebut the charge of cherry picking.
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So clearly no one thinks it's important to talk with Dick Oliver in regards to what Dick Oliver saw.

    Who would know more about what Dick Oliver saw, then Dick Oliver?
     
  24. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dick Oliver..he any relation to Dick Olivers?
     
  25. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This is so simple it's stupid.:-D The plane does not pass through the open skyline before it comes into view which proves a fake plane was added.
    [​IMG]

    Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddGXuy0ep7g"]Unseen 911 Footage Finally Released By FBI, DOJ - YouTube[/ame]

    Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.
     

Share This Page