Blank

[[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/wont 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. ]]

I think the burden of proof is on you, Gerald, to provide an professional analysis of the full quality video by trained experts before expecting the rest of the 9/11 community to go out on a limb.

[[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?]]

Show me a photo of the south tower after the impact without a hole. I can see smoke coming out of the impact site in the video of the 2nd hit after the plane has entered the building. As far as the "melting" goes, I would venture that the skin of the wtc was thin and wouldn't offer much resistance to the plane at all. Someone experienced in materials science should be consulted on this point.
Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS: There were many aspects of this reply which I could have taken apart, but I felt it important to focus the debate along some clearly defined methodical lines. So I focused on the two major points raised by Eric in amongst all the verbal jousting.

Witnesses: In his first post Eric claimed on two occasions that there were thousands of witnesses to large planes hitting the towers.

[[Did any of these folks interview the thousands of witnesses and ask them what they saw?]]
[[besides, just interview the thousands of witnesses and see if they saw a plane or not.]]

However, he failed to back this up with a single example. So in my reply post I asked him to provide 50 - less than 5% of the number of alleged reports he was claiming. He ignored this request.

The other important question was in relation to Eric's claim that the small fuzzy non plane looking thing, seen approaching the Nth tower was in fact what we would expect a 767 to look like. So in my reply I asked him to provide similar examples. This request was also ignored. This was my question.

[[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".]]

and

[[ 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.]]

This is what passed for an answer from Eric

[[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. ]]

Simply restating the original claim is not the same thing as providing an example of this allegedly common phenomenon. Was it too much to ask for five examples if its something which happens all the time ? Was it too much to ask for 50 witness reports if there are thousands?

So in my next mail, I decided to pursue these two aspects, as well as seeking a clarification from Eric about exactly how he perceived the appearance of the object in flight towards the Nth Tower.

I wrote this on August 8.

Now that the dust has settled from the initial skirmish about the WTC objects, I think that the discussion is better served by examining each strike as a separate issue. They were two separate events with two separate objects and two quite different looking videos. So I'm going to focus the discussion more, by confining this mail to the issue of the Nth Tower strike (the first one).

There is only one piece of footage of this. The debate concerns the question of what the object on the video is. Eric says its a 767. WF and I say we're not sure what it is, but we are sure what its not.
Lets review the three main areas
of evidence which can help to establish the truth.
1) Video evidence
2) Witness evidence
3) Documentation evidence.

As far as 1) is concerned, there's not much point in having an "is so ! " "is not ! " shouting match over whether the object looks like a 767. Each person has their own eyes and their own brain. I simply invite everyone to take a good look at that object, and then search the web for other footage and photos of 767s and see if they can reconcile the two. I also remind people that the 159 ft wingspan of Boeing 767 is about 2/3 the width of the tower that the alleged 767 is approaching. Please take those dimensions into consideration as well.

However, I will ask Eric to clarify his position on this, because he hasn't made it exactly clear.

Is Eric claiming

a) That - in the absence of any other evidence or considerations, the object on the video is clearly recognizable as a Boeing 767 and can't be anything else. ?

Or b) That the resolution of the video is so poor, that we can't really tell what it is, and that its plausible to suggest that - amongst other possibilities - it could be a Boeing 767. ? Its difficult to debate Eric any further on this question until he makes it clear exactly what he is claiming.

In relation to 2), I reiterate that every witness report and every early media report described the Nth Tower object as a small plane/object. Eric has claimed that there are "thousands" of witnesses to a large jet hitting the Nth tower. In the light of this dramatic claim, I am - for the third time - asking Eric to produce 50 of them. Not an unreasonable proportion of the alleged number. Why has he not done so?

In relation to 3). As contained in the evidence compilation I put together, official records from the Bureau of Transportation state that there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11 2001.

Now lets review who's making what claims, and the evidence for them. I am making no claims about what the object was, only what it was not - any kind of large passenger jet. Thus I have nothing to prove in terms of claims about what it is.

Eric, on the other hand is making a very specific claim about exactly what the object is, and thus faces a more onerous burden of proof. Lets look at the evidence for my claim.

a) The video shows an object far too small, of the wrong shape, following a flight path which appears to be of dubious plausibility for such a craft.

b) all witness reports and early media reports are consistent with the object we see on the video - a small object.

Lets look at the evidence for Eric's claim.

The govt and the media tells us that it was AA11 ( A Boeing 767) - a claim debunked by official aviation records. Even if AA11 existed, that wouldn't prove anything about whether it hit the tower. But given that the alleged existence and alleged fate of the nonexistent AA 11 is the *only* "evidence" (and I use the word loosely) that the object in question is a Boeing 767 - then where's the evidence for a 767 ? What's left of the official story?

COMMENTS :As we'll see, Eric decided at this stage that he had enough and backed off. After claiming thousands of witnesses, he refused repeated requests to supply even one. After claiming that the object approaching the Nth tower looked exactly like what we would expect a 767 to look like, he refused repeated requests to supply even one supporting example of this alleged normalcy.

And he also refused a request to even clarify his position about the appearance of the object. Was he admitting that it looked nothing like a large plane, and trying to provide an explanation for this, or was he saying that it actually looked like a large plane and that any reasonable person would easily identify it as such in the absence of other considerations ? He appeared to be hedging his bets on this distinction. Surely we have a right to know exactly what position he is arguing ? But Eric was less than keen to clarify his position.

I forwarded this exchange to WF. She said that it was such a good example of 767 debunking that she would like to post it various groups. Although I also thought that it would be beneficial to the cause to distribute the exchange, being the ethical type I am, I thought that I should ask Eric first, before blasting what had been only a semi public exchange out across the net - an exchange which could seriously embarrass him. I felt he should be given a chance to reflect on his hasty outburst So, via Pondo, my original contact, I asked Eric if he had a problem with the exchange being circulated. Not surprisingly, he did.

This was his reply.

From: Eric Salter <ericsalter@mindspring.com>
Date: April 8, 2004 7:36:09 AM GMT+07:00
To:
Subject: Re: For Eric
(Pondo relaying my request to Eric )
Dear Eric, Webfairy via Gerard directly below asks permission to send our comments to a wider audience. It's fine with me. Okay with you also? ---- Pondo

Begin forwarded message:
Given the tone of the debate, I feel hesitant. The last thing I need right now is to be involved in a flame war. My original postings were worded casually for the consortium, and I request that they not be forwarded. I'm working on another response which will be okay to post responses to.
-e

I replied April 8
Convey to him that I respect his hesitancy, and will tell WF not to distribute the initial exchange at this stage.

COMMENTS: This becomes important later. Note the final line of Eric's mail

[[I'm working on another response which will be okay to post responses to.]]

Quite clearly Eric was saying that he intended to continue the debate - after thinking things through more carefully -and that he felt uncomfortable with the outcome of the exchange so far.

I had every right to distribute that exchange, and thus displayed a high standard of ethics in even asking Eric, let alone giving him the right to veto it. Later we'll see how Eric repaid this generous gesture - one designed to reduce the tone of animosity in the debate and also to give him a graceful exit, if that's what he was looking for.

Then Eric wrote to me privately.

April 8 2004.
Gerard,
I'm working on a longer response, but it will have to wait until I'm satisfied with my research. One thing: can you give me a link to a complete listing of the WTC impact witnesses that you used?

My reply. April 9, 2004.

I'll post that stuff to the group, when I'm ready. I would appreciate a cooperative and respectful approach on this, Eric I understand that your initial harsh words may have been provoked by anxiety caused by a strong challenge to something fairly central to your paradigm, and that you lashed out at the messenger. I understand how this can happen, and bear you no ill will for it.

Having said that, you now need to earn some trust with me by taking a more serious, respectful and less adversarial approach. When I'm satisfied that this process is under way, then I'll be more trusting, but at this stage its a little early to ask me to start treating you like a trusted colleague and feed you the fruits of my research at the risk that you'll throw it back in my face, with twistings,misrepresentations and insults.
I'll await your longer response.
I'm glad to see that you're taking it more seriously now.

COMMENTS : Once again, I 've tried to reduce the level of heat. And my meaning is quite clear here. I'm telling Eric that when he continues the public debate (as he's indicated he will ), that I will post my witness reports to the group discussion, but given his attitude, I'm not going to feed them to him in private. Especially as he was refusing to answer the three direct questions I had asked him in relation to his previously made comments.

It was presumptuous in the extreme to make such reckless claims as "thousands of witnesses " - then repeatedly refuse requests to supply any - then run away from the debate without admitting that he didn't actually have any witnesses - and then ask that I become his private research assistant for whatever purposes he might choose to use it for. Lets continue the witness debate in front of the list - where he had started it.

So the weeks went by, as I waited for Eric to rejoin the debate with his "response which will be okay to post responses to."

So, given the ethical manner in which I had dealt with our first exchange, in agreeing not to broadcast it, it was with some surprise and annoyance, that the next I heard of Eric was this - forwarded to me by Pondo.

The weeks went by, as I waited for Eric to rejoin the debate with his "response which will be okay to post responses to." So, given the ethical manner in which I had dealt with our first exchange, in agreeing not to broadcast it, it was with some surprise and annoyance, that the next I heard of Eric was this - forwarded to me by Pondo.

From Brian Salter, May 20 2004
New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?

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

It seems that Eric had changed his mind about "a response which it will be OK to post responses to." and preferred to hide in a forum which he had all to himself.

Well, that's OK, except for one glaring breach of ethics. Remember that I had generously offered Eric the chance to veto distribution of our email exchange, an offer which he had gladly accepted. The way he repaid this was to take highly selective quotes from the very same exchange which he had asked me not to distribute - and post them on his website in a context which considerably distorted my comments. One only has to compare the excerpts posted at the above link, with the original context in which they were written.

You can't get much lower than this, but Eric tries hard. The most offensive misrepresentation of the debate was this.

"I asked Holmgren to provide me with the complete list of these eyewitness reports and he refused."

This is not only untrue. Its a direct reversal of what happened. Lets review what actually took place.

Salter opened the debate by claiming thousands of witnesses.

[[Did any of these folks interview the thousands of witnesses and ask them what they saw?]]

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

I was the one who asked Eric to supply the witnesses he had claimed

After this request was ignored,I asked

[[ Eric has claimed that there are "thousands" of witnesses to a large jet hitting the Nth tower. In the light of this dramatic claim, I am - for the third time - asking Eric to produce 50 of them. Not an unreasonable proportion of the alleged number. Why has he not done so?]]

This prompted him to withdraw from the debate.

(Note, "third time" was a mistake, I should have said "second time". I got it mixed up with a similar debate I was having with someone else at the same time.)

As an aside to this, I made a comment that witness evidence did not support a large plane, one which I was certainly prepared to back up with documentation had Eric been prepared to continue with the debate.

In response, Salter - while still refusing to retract his public outburst against me, and still refusing to either substantiate or withdraw his extravagant claim of "thousands of witnesses - asked me to become his private research assistant. Naturally, I was not interested - but was quite prepared to provide the evidence to the debate - which Eric had clearly indicated he would be continuing.

Eric had written

[[I'm working on another response which will be okay to post responses to.]] and

[[I'm working on a longer response, but it will have to wait until I'm satisfied with my research. ]]

to which I had replied

[[I'll post that stuff to the group, when I'm ready. ]]

and

[[I'll await your longer response. ]]

So there I was, waiting for him to return to the debate, and the next thing I know, he has published this outright lie on the website, about me refusing to provide the witnesses - a complete reversal of the truth.

By contrast, Eric - after accepting without thanks my generous offer of the right to veto distribution of this exchange - then spent the next few weeks working on a web page in which he published a highly selective and distorted collection of snippets from the very same exchange - designed to manipulate the exchange into something more favourable to his cause - while having given me and the rest of the list the impression that his next action would be to return to the debate.

However, this was only the entree to the real debate. There was a fresh exchange in July, and this is very revealing about how the arguments of the Salters stand up to critical analysis and questioning. CONTINUE INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES HOME