How about thinking? How about looking for more? I've been studying this WTC planes question for over a year, and its only in the last few months that I've become confident enough that I've worked through every possibility and every possible counter argument, that I now aggressively push the conclusion that I've come to over that period. When I first became aware of the video material posted by Webfairy, the very first questions I asked her was "could this video be a hoax" "could it be just poor resolution?"

Does Eric seriously think that we just took one cavalier look at the video and immediately started aggressively publishing hard opinions on it? He probably does, because its clearly the way he works.

From his tone, he's given no thought to this, just made a snap decision that 767s must have hit the tower (after all, the govt tells us, so it must be true !) and then proceeds to reinvent the laws of video, just as the proponents of the govt stories on the pentagon and the WTC demolition have found it necessary to reinvent the laws of physics.

Never before have I heard anything about how "poor resolution" or "horizontal distortion" makes planes so damned difficult to film ( but only sometimes it seems, sometimes its smoke that's the problem), and all of a sudden complete new theories miraculously appear to try to explain why the videos don't show what the govt tells us they should show. The possibility that the govt might be lying seems to be beyond the pale for people like Eric.

[[Besides, just interview the thousands of witnesses and see if they saw a plane or not.]]

Now this really takes the cake.
What "thousands of witnesses"? Perhaps Eric can find some? I've looked hard and can't find any witnesses to a big plane. This is circular delusion at at its worst.

"We know that there were 767s. Because we know there were 767s, then there must be thousands of witnesses. Aha, because there must have been thousands of witnesses to such an event, then we know there *are * thousands. And because there's thousands of witnesses, that proves the planes."

You can't just blindly assume that there are witnesses. You have to find them. Its called research. Let me introduce you to the concept, Eric. Here's one of your treasured witness reports.

http://www.likeanorb.com/wtc/index.php?Number=5

"until the second explosion happened. We couldn't see that there'd been a plane, and figured some debris from the first tower had set off a gas line in the second."

Evan Fairbanks, one of the videographers of the second hit is quoted as saying "It looked like a cheap miniature model. It disappeared into the building like a bad special effect" If Eric has studied the reports of the first strike, he will know that there is not a single witness to a large plane. All witnesses said that it was something small. All early media reports had it as a small plane.

It didn't become a large plane until after the second strike - and only when AA issued a statement saying that it had lost AA 11 into the WTC - a flight which didn't exist according to official records. So lets look at Eric's research and reasoning standards. The official documentation confirms that AA 11 didn't fly and that UA 175 didn't crash. Eric describes a search of official databases to dig this up as

[[ typical presumptuous arrogance. ]]

Typical of what, Eric ? Please refrain from this kind of meaningless filler and use plain English.

Are you saying that people who take the trouble to search official databases and report the findings are typically arrogant and presumptuous? Or are you disputing the results of the searches ? Please make you position clear.

Then, the witness reports support the official documentation by their absence of large plane assertions in combination with positive statements that it was something other than a large plane. In response to which Eric wildly and irresponsibly asserts thousands of mythical witnesses that support the govt story - but can't/won't produce any.

Then the video evidence corroborates the combination of official documentation and witness reports by showing clearly that neither object is a 767, and Eric invents new properties of video to creatively assert that the fact that we can't see any 767s on the video actually proves that they were there, because 767s on video never actually look like 767s. And then vaguely shrugs off things such a plane melting away into nothing without leaving a hole in the building, as "anomalies" and as "interesting", while appearing to actually show no interest whatsoever.

Now I would like Eric to produce some actual evidence for the unsubstantiated assumption that 767s hit the towers.

Since there are allegedly "thousands" of witnesses to a large plane, I am asking Eric to produce 50 of them. Less than 5% of those available -which is not an unreasonable proportion to ask for (unless of course, Eric was exaggerating a little with the " thousands" claim - in which case I seek an acknowledgment and retraction)

I would also like Eric to produce 5 examples of verifiable footage of any kind of large Boeing passenger jet (even 737s and 707s will do) which look anything like the object going into the Nth Tower. After all, it is, according to Eric, what we would "expect" a video of a plane in flight to look like, so such examples shouldn't be too hard to find.

I would also like Eric address the question of why the Sth tower "plane" melts away into nothing without leaving a hole in the building. Since this "anomaly" is so "interesting", then lets get interested. What caused this Eric? It struck a patch of "horizontal distortion" did it, and hid between the pixels, just like the Nth tower plane managed to do for its entire flight path?


ERIC’S REPLY . He has included all of my text, around which I have added double brackets.

Subject:Re: [consortium]A Valuable Update of 9/11 Info!

---

[[Deconstruction below. "Amateurs " 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.]]

I'm not an amateur. I've been a video professional for 11 years. I said nothing about intelligence failures. I don't believe in intelligence failures, I believe that the wtc was demolished.

[[Pouring over freeze frames Really ! Well, we wouldn't want to actually *look* at what's on the videos would we 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 it 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 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 gobbledygook filler for us, and tell us what he actually meant to say - in plain English, please.]]

What a bunch of hysterical ranting. The problem is not with freeze frame analysis, nor with the internet, but with using freeze frames from mpeg movies. Mpeg movies, as I explained in my post, introduce what are called "artifacts" because of the compression process which reduces the movies to a fraction of their size, both in terms of resolution and bandwidth. I believe that analysis should be done, but on the full quality original video, not mpeg movies. Do a search and learn about mpeg compression if you think my explanation is gobbledygook.

[[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 analyzing video.]]

The link I gave for the example of the drop out shows a close-up of the top of the wtc. The images shown don't show the impact of the plane, only what is mistakenly interpreted as a "missile". anyone like myself who has seen enough dropouts from editing for years would tell you the same thing about this analysis.

[[" 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 here 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. "]]

Again, the stills at the top of the page I referenced don't show the impact, so one wouldn't see a 767 in those frames. This is only in regards to the "missile" analysis.

[[ 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!]]

I admit that blurred edges is not an accurate description of what I was trying to describe.

[[[[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 thousand of such example 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.]]

This is crap. My analysis stands.
The firefighter video shows an aircraft flying on a more or less horizontal
path, certainly nowhere near "divebombing". the second plane was shot
at a different angle.

[[ And how do we 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".]]

Again, the way the plane looks in the video is how you would expect it to look, given what video does to small details. This ranting and raving about things you know nothing about is very revealing.

[[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.]]

The smoke is out of frame, above the top of the picture. Sorry!

[[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 it. 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 amateur, and claim to be an amateur expert on the subject?]]

11 years of experience in video editing and motion graphics.
http://www.ericsalter.tv/

[[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". How about thinking? How about looking for more. I've been studying this WTC planes question for over a year, and its only in the last few months that I've become confident enough that I've worked through every possibility and every possible counter argument, that I now aggressively push the conclusion that I've come to over that period. When I first became aware of the video material posted by Webfairy, the very first questions I asked her was "could this video be a hoax" "could it be just poor resolution?"]]

given the ridiculous "missile" analysis, I'm not impressed by this chest beating.

[[Does Eric seriously think that we just took one cavalier look at the video and immediately started aggressively publishing hard opinions on it? He probably does, because its clearly the way he works. From his tone, he's given no thought to this, just made a snap decision that 767s must have hit the tower (after all, the govt tells us, so it must be true !) and then proceeds to reinvent the laws of video, just as the proponents of the govt stories on the pentagon and the WTC demolition have found it necessary to reinvent the laws of physics. Never before have I heard anything about how "poor resolution" or "horizontal distortion" makes planes so damned difficult to film ( but only sometimes it seems, sometimes its smoke that's the problem), and all of a sudden complete new theories miraculously appear to try to explain why the videos don't show what the govt tells us they should show. The possibility that the govt might be lying seems to be beyond the pale for people like Eric.]]

You need to take the original full-quality footage to labs with experience with analyzing video footage. Then maybe you'll listen to what I'm saying.

[[ Besides, just interview the thousands of witnesses and see if they saw a plane or not.]]

Now this really takes the cake. What "thousands of witnesses"? Perhaps Eric can find some? I've looked hard and can't find any witnesses to a big plane. This is circular delusion at at its worst. "We know that there were 767s. Because we know there were 767s, then there must be thousands of witnesses. Aha, because there must have been thousands of witnesses to such an event, then we know there *are * thousands. And because there's thousands of witnesses, that proves the planes." You can't just blindly assume that there are witnesses. You have to find them. Its called research. Let me introduce you to the concept Eric. Here's one of your treasured witness reports.

http://www.likeanorb.com/wtc/index.php?Number=5

 "until the second explosion  happened. We couldn't see that there'd been a plane, and figured some debris
from the first tower had set off a gas line in the second."

[[Evan Fairbanks, one of the videographers of the second hit is quoted as saying "It looked like a cheap miniature model. It disappeared into the building like a bad special effect" If Eric has studied the reports of the first strike, he will know that there is not a single witness to a large plane. All witnesses said that it was something small. All early media reports had it as a small plane. It didn't become a large plane until after the second strike - and only when AA issued a statement saying that it had lost AA 11 into the WTC - a flight which didn't exist according to official records. ]]

I'm not opposed to the idea that the planes that hit the wtc were not the ones that the govt claims. What I'm opposed to is the idea that on the second hit, the plane was superimposed electronically. If it was superimposed, you would not have seen the second plane pass into a shadow and then back into the sun. a computer generated object would have computer generated lighting and shading. Why would they program the cg plane to pass through a shadow? it makes no sense at all.

[[So lets look at Eric's research and reasoning standards. The official documentation confirms that AA 11 didn't fly and that UA 175 didn't crash. Eric describes a search of official databases to dig this up as]]

I would want to know of numerous witnesses who complained that what they say in person did not match the video that was played over and over again on TV. there should be an uproar from the thousands of people who were there in person. It's safe to say they've nearly all seen the event replayed on TV

[[[["typical presumptuous arrogance. "]]]]

This line was only in regards to the claim that it had been conclusively demonstrated that no 767s had hit the wtc.

[[Typical of what, Eric? Please refrain from this kind of meaningless filler and use plain English. Are you saying that people who take the trouble to search official databases and report the findings are typically arrogant and presumptuous? Or are you disputing the results of the searches ? Please make your position clear.]]

CONTINUE      INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES      HOME