DID BIG PLANES REALLY HIT THE WTC  ON SEPTEMBER 11 2001 ? 

 

A PLANE HUGGERS NIGHTMARE : TWO DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL STORY GET HOPLELESSLY TANGLED IN THEIR OWN CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS

 

DEBATES  WITH ERIC AND BRIAN SALTER

An archived list discussion debate with comments by Gerard Holmgren.

Since Sept 11 2001 , a steady stream of research has provided proof from a multiplicity of angles that the terrorist attacks were planned and carried out by the US govt and its agencies. Much of this evidence is summarised here  with the detailed research to support it linked here.

As each aspect of the evidence has emerged, it has had to fight its way through a storm of opposition from people who claim to be members of the “911 truth movement “, but actually spend most of their time rubbishing the research which proves the Govt’s involvement.

 

There has been particularly hysterical resistance to the fact that no large passenger jets hit the WTC, contrary to the impression created by videos which appear superficially to show a large jet flying into the Sth tower (the second hit ) .

Some of the evidence demonstrating that these videos were a stage managed illusion can be found here.
http://thewebfairy.com/911
http://9/11hoax.com
http://missilegate.com/
(actually a subset of thewebfairy.com/911 with it's own name)

Two of the most vocal critics of the proof that no large planes hit the WTC on Sept 11 are Eric and Brian Salter. Eric Salter's attack on the evidence can be seen here.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

 

It may be helpful for those who are trying to sort their way through the maze of claim and counter claim to know the events which precipitated the posting of the above page.

It may also be helpful for them to see how the Salters fare in a direct debate with those whom they so loudly criticize. Two such debates have taken place on public email lists - one in April 2004 - before Eric Salter posted his critique, and one in July/August 2004 - after he had posted it.

The full and unedited text of those email debates is reproduced here. As in any combative debate conducted in front of a list of people still trying to make up their minds, there is some verbal jousting, which although it may have been relevant at the time, in hindsight, can potentially distract from from the main points of debate . The text below would probably be more informative and more succinct if some of this were deleted.

However, if one of the protagonists in the debate assumes license to edit, it becomes a dangerously fine line between what is legitimate editing for clarity and what is a manipulative rewrite of the exchange. So I thought it most honest to leave the exchange totally unedited. Thus, no one can accuse me of distorting it.

I have added comments between some of the mails. I have corrected some of the worst of the typos, and added guide notes or markings to avoid any confusion over who is saying what.

It began when I mailed out a major update of my compilation "The truth about Sept 11".

Some of the recipients mailed it out to their lists. One of these indirect recipients was Eric Salter, someone whom I had never heard of before. He was upset by the section promoting the no WTC planes evidence and wrote a rebuke to it, which was forwarded back to me by my original recipient. This precipitated a debate between Eric and myself, which then precipitated the posting of his webpage linked above. Later, there was another debate between myself and the two Salters. I have removed the email addresses of everyone concerned except myself, the Salters and Webfairy.

In retrospect, there are some things I would have written differently during the debate, and I expect the Salters would say the same, but nevertheless, here it is - warts and all - a very revealing example of how the 767 delusion stands up in a debate situation, as opposed to a misleading presentation in an unchallengeable forum, as in the webpage presented by Eric Salter.

ERIC SALTER’S INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE EVIDENCE KIT. APRIL 7 2004

Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: April 7, 2004 8:36:05 AM GMT+07:00
To: consortium
Subject: Re: [consortium]A Valuable Update of 9/11 Info!
On Apr 6, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Eric Salter wrote:

Pondo,
I come out of the woods once again to play the debunker. I was reading this post and feeling pretty good about it until I came across the video "analysis" which claimed evidence that no 767s hit the WTC. I'm livid. This is all pure hokum. Another embarrassment which will end up discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. Amateurs pouring over freeze frames from highly compressed mpeg movies on the internet is bound to get you into trouble.
Did any of these folks interview the thousands of witnesses and ask them what they saw?

(Salter quotes excerpt from evidence compilation )

2.3 What hit WTC towers? They are alleged to have been AA  11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767's. A close viewing of the videos reveals that  neither object was a Boeing 767.

2.3.1 http://thewebfairy.com/911

(end excerpt)

the claim of a missile at this link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~whatzit/
is ridiculous. What I see in the frames is a defect in the video tape we call a "drop-out". you can see that the "missile" is aligned along a horizontal distortion in the image. It's hard to see the dropout because of the data compression of mpeg movies which blurs edges and creates what we call "artifacts".

going further:  http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/index2.html  makes another bad analysis of the 1st strike from the firefighter documentary footage. Here's some of it:

(Salter quotes WF )

"Notice this object divebombing the building. It is not a plane."

(End WF quote)

No, it's not "divebombing" the WTC. The camera is looking up, creating the illusion that the horizontal path of the airplane is vertical. Video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going to look distorted and unrecognizable. I've been working with freeze frames of video for 10 years, and what I see in these frames is pretty much what I would expect an airplane to look like.

(Salter quotes excerpt from evidence kit )

2.3.2 The 9/11 video footage of the planes striking the WTC was fake. By Scott Loughrey http://www.mediacriticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html

(end excerpt)

from the above link:  (Salter quotes Loughrey )

"Strangely, UA 175 is also not affected by the Sun. For example, sometime during the day of 9/11/01 CNN broadcast more "amateur" footage of UA 175 from a position east of the WTC. In this footage we see the jet arriving in silhouette. It remains in shadow until it disappears into the South Tower."   (End Loughrey quote)

duh!! the plane is passing through the shadow of the smoke.

(Salter quotes Loughrey)

Why did all of these amateur videographers risk losing their subject zoom-out just as UA 175 arrives? Didn't they feel that the subject matter was already of intense interest to them? Surely this scene didn't need dramatic embellishment added.
(End Loughery quote )

Idiot. Zooming out helps to ensure that you keep your subject in frame and capture all the action. Zooming in is where you risk losing the subject. Besides, you can't prove anything about the source of the footage from the behavior of the camera operator.

(Salter quotes excerpt from evidence kit )

Given that a close examination of the 2nd WTC crash video, demonstrates that it cannot be a real plane, but the incident was shown live, here is the documentation that realistic looking objects can easily be edited into a live broadcast in real time.

2.3.3 Lying with Pixels. By Ivan
Imato MIT's Technology review. July/August 2000
http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp

(End excerpt)

There is not enough information here on how the technology works to conclude whether it could have been used. Besides, just interview the thousands of witnesses and see if they saw a plane or not.

(Salter quotes evidence kit)

2.3.4 Having demonstrated that none of the objects which hit the three buildings were the planes alleged by the govt to have been involved , then where did those planes go? Official aviation records records say that AA11 and AA77 did not exist.

(End excerpt)

Typical presumptuous arrogance. Nothing has been demonstrated whatsoever. I think there are anomalies in the video record that are interesting, but nothing that suggests that there were not airliners that struck the WTC. Sorry for the angry tone of this, but this crap can't be tolerated.
Eric

---

GERARD HOLMGREN REPLIES APRIL 7

---

Deconstruction below

[[Amatuers ]]

Already a sign of desperation, when one chooses to play the man (or woman) instead of the ball. We are all amateurs at this. Perhaps Eric prefers the "professional" analysis from people like Purdue, and the pentagon and WTC ASCE reports, and people like Prof Eagar who talk about jet fuel melting steel. Perhaps he prefers the "professional analysis " of those who pontificate over "intelligence failures". Quit the name calling and stick to the facts.

[[Pouring over freeze frames]]

Really ! Well, we wouldn't want to actually *look* at what's on the videos would we ? How "amateur" can one get ? Freeze frame analysis ! What a hopeless way to deconstruct video evidence! Who ever heard of examining frames of video individually, in order to more closely determine what they show ?

[[from highly compressed mpeg movies on the internet is bound to get you into trouble.]]

Ah, the internet ! It must be crap if its on the internet! Perhaps Eric can suggest a more appropriate medium for the publication of the research? A book ? A photograph album to be sold on street corners? TV ? (Fine , lets just get hold of a few billion somewhere and set up our own network).

What would Eric suggest as a more rigorous form of analysis? Simply watching it on the TV news at full speed and believing that its what the newsreader tells us it is, because its too fast to really see it properly anyway? That's real analysis is it ? So lets deconstruct the above sentence.

Eric believes that no frame by frame analysis of the video should be conducted - certainly not by people who aren't being paid for it - and that any analysis which might be conducted should not be published on the internet. Hmmm... a riveting and powerful argument that it was 767s which hit the towers.

Or if this is not what Eric is saying, then perhaps he can kindly unscramble the gobildygook filler for us, and tell us what he actually meant to say - in plain English, please.

[[What I see in the frames is a defect in the video tape we call a "drop-out". you can see that the "missile" is aligned along a horizontal distortion in the image. It's hard to see the dropout because of the data compression of mpeg movies which blurs edges and creates what we call "artifacts".]]

Is that so? Now this is new to me. Video doesn't really show what it filmed! Remarkable ! Now since the "artifact" phenomena is so common, perhaps Eric can give us another five examples of planes captured in flight, and not looking like planes because of the easily recognizable "artifact " effect. After all, planes are caught on video all the time, so there should be thousands of such examples available. I await the supply of other examples.

Furthermore, at what point does the "plane" reappear out of the "horizontal distortion" ? Ah, I get it ! It miraculously stays right along the "horizontal distortion line' for the entire clip. So we never get to actually see it. Now this really is a novel way of analysing video.

" I can't see a 767 in the video. But because I know there's one there (because the govt told me, so it must be true), then there must be a horizontal distortion line in the video which has swallowed up its image - well, not swallowed it up, just made it a completely different size and shape. "

[[ Blurs edges ]]

If it "blurred edges" then we would see what looked like a plane with blurred edges. We wouldn't see a squat triangular shaped object, less than half the size it should be. Neither does video selectively compress. The plane is hiding between the pixels ! Compressed out of existence !

[[ no, it's not "divebombing" the WTC. The camera is looking up, creating the illusion that the horizontal path of the airplane is vertical. Video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going to look distorted and unrecognizable. I've been working with freeze frames of video for 10 years, and what I see in these frames is pretty much what I would expect an airplane to look like.]]

Which means that Eric should be able to supply thousands of such examples of planes filmed from the ground which a) don't look like planes, and b) appear to be divebombing, when they're flying more or less level. BTW Eric, if

[[. the camera is looking up, creating the illusion that the horizontal path of the airplane is vertical. ]]

Then why doesn't the second "plane" also look like it's divebombing, since that's what we "expect"? Ah - well you see, sometimes video shows what's really there, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it distorts altitudes and directions and sometimes it doesn't.

And how do we know which is which? When it doesn't show what we expect. So if video doesn't show what we expect it to show, then we know that the "artifact " effect has set in, and if it does show what we expect, then we know we know that the artifact effect is not present. Is it possible that video behaves consistently and just shows what's there? What a radical concept!

[[video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going to look distorted and unrecognizable. ]]

Yes , Eric is right - it really is quite impossible to get a clear video of a plane which actually looks like a plane. Its never been done! Video technologists have been agonizing over this problem for years. "When we will be able to invent a video camera that enables a plane to actually look like a plane? " cry the distressed executives to their technological development teams. "Why is this so difficult?"

And just to reinforce his point, Eric will doubtless send us a heap of other "whatzits" filmed at airports, from news video footage, planespotters stuff posted on the web, etc. Whatztits are everywhere! This is what planes actually look like when one videos them !

If Eric is claiming that "whatzits" are what we would "expect" planes to appear like on video, then he must supply the historical evidence for that. If there isn't any, then he must explain why something which has never been observed to occur has suddenly become what we 'expect".

 

Once again I must point out that poor resolution does not change the fundamental size and shape of objects. A poor resolution of a plane will simply look like a poor resolution of a plane, and when the resolution gets bad enough, it won"t look like anything. A poor resolution shot of a bus doesn't look like a horse, a poor resolution shot of an apartment block doesn't look like a teepee. The object is many times smaller than it should be, and is completely the wrong shape.

 

[[Duh!! the plane is passing through the shadow of the smoke.]]

Sorry, no it isn't. Take a look at the beginning of the footage. There is no smoke anywhere near. Or maybe - since video resolution is so notoriously poor - we just can't can't see the smoke. Its along a horizontal distortion line, hiding between the pixels, just like the "plane" in the first impact. So in the second video, that notoriously hard to film object - the plane - has suddenly become very recognizable, and now its the smoke that's disappearing into the black hole of the our horribly primitive photographic technology - which it seems, just can't perform the simple act of showing what's there.

[[There is not enough information here on how the technology works to conclude whether it could have been used.]]

Yes there is. It even gives a description of the speed at which the pixel manipulation can be conducted and describes the tracking technology used to lock onto a moving object, and the method by which a nonexistent object can be edited in. At the very least, it demonstrates that live video manipulation is well and truly here, so that one can not use the fact that it was a live broadcast to claim that manipulation is impossible.

Eric's attitude is quite irresponsible. He shows no interest in this information, and no interest in exploring the possibility. Clearly he's only just become aware of it - which is strange for a video "professional". ( Or is he an amateur? If so, then why not has he followed his own advice and excluded himself from the debate?)

So I have a question for Eric. Do you work professionally with video? If so, in what capacity ? If so, why were you not already aware of the development of live video animation? If "amateur" can dig this up, why was a professional unaware? If you are not a professional, then what qualifies you to sneer at other amateurs, and claim to be an amateur expert on the subject?

But back to live video animation. I have little respect for those who make up their minds in such reckless, cavalier fashion, without study or consideration. Eric, having been informed of the important revelation of live video manipulation shows no interest whatsoever in its implications, but simply dismisses it as "not enough information".
 

CONTINUE          INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES           HOME