In
July, Brian Salter launched this salvo at the no plane argument proponents.
In the interests of keeping a clear thread to the discussion,I'll try to
restrict this to mail between the Salters and myself, except where mail from a
third party significantly influences the course of the debate.
From:
Brian Salter
Date: July 20, 2004 2:33:02 PM GMT+07:00
Subject:
Re: [911truthalliance] Re: bogus evidence vs. 911 truth
Most of the
claims promoted here by Holmgren have been refuted in detail by Eric salter in
these two articles, which were posted and widely read well before Holmgren
released his latest 9/11 compilation:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit2.html
Anyone who continues to promote these claims as undisputed, solid
evidence without at least acknowledging the debate and coming up with a
convincing, substantive counter-rebuttal (which absolutely hasn't happened yet)
is acting in bad faith and disregard for the principles of intellectual fair
play and respect. Some of the critiques of the theories in question have been
unwisely personalized and mocking, but by far it is the side represented by
Holmgren, Loughrey, Webfairy, Jayhan, et. al., who bear the responsibility in
general to learn some respect for intellectual fairness and peer review, if they
want to be respected in turn. Moreover I also offer these two articles as
reliable testimony from a trained and experienced video professional refuting
the notion that the "video analysis" techniques that have been offered by
Webfairy, Loughrey, etc. do not meet any kind of legitimate standard that could
form the foundation of a genuine scientific investigation. In fact, they are
laughable in many respects. And that's a word I do not use lightly.
There are certain points in time when it is completely fair to demand a
reckoning and decide "go or no-go" on certain ideas and claims; it is not a
'witch hunt' to do so, especially when this general school of thought has been
around for quite a while without making anything close to a decisive
breakthrough. Nico, in my opinion you need to see that, despite some rancor and
possibly bad choice of words & tactics as I too have argued against
previously, that the critics of this "video analysis" school are acting
completely within reason when it comes to the facts. I agree with Victoria, that
the real problem is not that the WTC video crowd shouldn't be exploring their
ideas, but that they are greatly overpromoting them relative to their true
merits, and refusing to acknowledge and respect fair critiques (which makes
their side much more to blame for the polarization and escalation that has
happened).
-Brian
Gerard
Holmgren July 26
Still,
neither Brian nor Eric Salter will answer this basic question. This question,
repeated below, is one of those which Eric ran from during our debate. I'll give
Brian the benefit of the doubt that Pondo didn't forward it to him, the last
time I asked a few days ago. So here again is the question.
In relation to
the Nth Tower, is Salter claiming
a) That the appearance of the object
seen to be approaching the Nth Tower is unmistakably a 767, can be clearly seen
as such and cannot be anything else.
b) That the appearance of the
object, while unable to be identified down to the exact model, is unmistakably a
large passenger jet of similar size to a 767, can be clearly seen as such and
cannot be anything else.
c) That the object is so indistinct, that it's
very difficult to tell what it is, or its size, and that its plausible to
speculate - amongst other possibilities - that it could be a large passenger
jet.
I'd like an answer this time. The prerequisite for any debate is
that those debating are actually prepared to state their position.
Eric
Salter July 26
At
3:04 AM +1000 7/26/04, Gerard Holmgren wrote:
[[
Still, neither Brian nor Eric Salter will answer this basic question. This
question, repeated below, is one of those which Eric ran from during our debate.
I'll give Brian the benefit of the doubt that Pondo didn't forward it to him,
the last time I asked a few days ago. So here again is the question.
In
relation to the Nth Tower, is Salter claiming
a) That the appearance of
the object seen to be approaching the Nth Tower is unmistakably a 767, can be
clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.]]
Holmgren
is being sloppy once again. My article is clear in stating that although the
plane is not clearly identifiable as a 767, it can be determined that its
approximately the size of a 767, flies on a path close to horizontal, and makes
the sound of a multi-engined jet aircraft. All of these points flatly refute
"whatzit" or "missile" analyses. In short, there is absolutely no solid evidence
to conclude that it is not a 767.
b) That the appearance of the object,
while unable to be identified down to the exact model, is unmistakably a large
passenger jet of similar size to a 767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot
be anything else.
Once again, a mischaracterization of my argument. My
argument is that it is reasonable to assume it is a 767, and unreasonable to
assume it could not be a 767.
c) That the object is so indistinct, that it's
very difficult to tell what it is, or its size, and that its plausible to
speculate - amongst other possibilities - that it could be a large passenger
jet.
No, it is possible to roughly measure it's size, which I did It is
the size of a passenger jet. Could it be another type of plane roughly the size
of a 767? Sure, but there's no clear evidence to make that conclusion.
It's
a joke for Holmgren to be demanding a 'debate'. I've already put forward a
methodical scientific debunking of the no-plane nonsense and we have yet to hear
Holmgren rebut those arguments. All we have heard is arrogant, defiant hot air.
I have heard from some on this list and the responses were unanimously in favor
of my article. It's time for the rest of you to speak up about this if we are to
move forward. It's clear from the debate so far that neither Holmgren or
Loughrey are going to respond rationally or reasonably to me. So to the rest of
you I ask , do you want a scientific investigation where individuals stand ready
to abandon discredited theories, or do you want stubborn egotism? Speak up.
Eric Salter
Leonard
Spencer July 26.
Eric
Salter writes:
"I've already put forward a methodical scientific
debunking of the no-plane nonsense".
I wasn't aware of this. I was aware
only of his remarkably unmethodical and unscientific piece called "The WTC
Impacts: 767 or "Whatzits?", whose factual and analytical shortcomings have been
comprehensively exposed by
Marcus Icke at http://www.geocities.com/aa11analysis/
If, suitably humbled by Icke's critique, Salter has now come up with
something a little more rigorous then he really should tell us where we can find
it. I must say though that the signs are not promising. He writes for
instance:
"...(it)
can be determined that (it) is approximately the size of a 767, flies on a path
close to horizontal, and makes the sound of a multi-engined jet aircraft. All of
these points flatly refute "whatzit" or "missile" analyses".
Oh
dear. This is just the sort of distressingly woolly thinking that so
characterized his first analysis. How on earth do any of these points 'flatly
refute' anything? Are planes that are approximately the size of a 767 and fly
close to the horizontal unable to fire missiles? I didn't know that. And he
really must think again about the engine noise. Best estimates suggest that the
plane that hit WTC1 was traveling at around 470 mph as it approached the tower.
This is not far off the top cruising speed of a 767. It was flying at around 800
feet. If the plane were a 767, the noise it made in the Fireman's Video would
have been deafening. Those firemen would have been clutching their ears in pain
as it passed over. The noise it actually made was a rather gentle, unlaboured
drone.
Salter also states:
"My
argument is that it is reasonable to assume it is a 767, and unreasonable to
assume it could not be a 767".
Oh
dear again. I must inform Mr. Salter that a proper investigation makes no
assumptions whatsoever. It starts with an open mind. It collects together all
the available evidence, assesses it carefully and methodically and allows that
evidence - and only that evidence - to dictate its conclusions. In the case of
the first plane there is only one piece of primary evidence and that is the
Fireman's Video. This is because it is the only evidence that actually shows the
plane and the impact, the very issues under scrutiny and debate. The Fireman's
Video actually offers several excellent reasons for concluding that the plane is
not a 767.
One is that the plane has no engines attached to its wings;
excuse me for being persnickety, but I'm afraid 767s do have engines on their
wings. Another is that the wings are not raked back like a 767's. Also, when a
767 crashes into a building, I'm pretty sure the 'engine holes' it creates
correspond with where the engines should be on the plane; they don't
miraculously erupt as isolated blisters, far removed from where the plane has
struck, some time after the wings have disappeared into the building. A decent
set of stills from this remarkable sequence can be found at
http://serendipity.li/wot/aa11_missileframes.html
Salter falls into a big but avoidable trap. He appears to believe it
legitimate to assume that the first plane was a 767 and think that the onus of
proof therefore lies only with those who disagree with this assumption. This is
of course quite wrong. The onus of proof lies equally with those who claim it
was a 767. They must make their case, on the basis of the evidence, just like
everyone else. I am still waiting for Mr. Salter to do so.
Regards
Leonard Spencer
Gerard
Holmgren July 26
I
take it from Eric's reply that his answer to my question is (b).
That the
object seen on the video approaching the Nth tower can be clearly identified as
a large passenger jet, approximately the size of a 767.
Ultimately, each
person must look at the video themselves, and there's no point in having an "is
so ! " "is not ! " argument.
However, we have finally established Eric's
position. One has only to look at the video to see that its a large plane with a
wingspan of approximately 160 ft, and no speculation or circumstantial evidence
is needed to back up this identification. We can see the plane in flight and
identify its approximate size.
So let us review Salter's theory so far. The
size of the object in flight can be clearly seen as a large passenger jet, with
a wingspan of approximately 160 ft.
In his article, Salter labels
certain parts of the object as "wing or engine ".
Therefore, in viewing the
object, Salter is unable to distinguish whether certain parts of the object
represent the 70 ft wing or the 10 ft engine. Nevertheless there is no doubt
about the size of these parts of the object They are either 10 ft - in which
case, they represent the engine, which proves that the 70 ft of wing which we
can't see is there, or else they are 70 ft - which means we actually can see the
wingspan after all. So regardless of whether the parts in question are 10 ft or
70 ft, we can see them and clearly identify their size. We are also able to
clearly distinguish they are either cylindrical in shape if they are 10 ft or
else flat and thin if they are 70 ft. One or the other, it doesn't matter which.
We can clearly see that are either wings or not wings.
In his article Salter
writes
[[The
extent of the wings is difficult to see, and this might cause the plane to still
look too small]]
And
later ( in reference to the wings )
[[It
is the nature of video to blur very small details. As is clear in this image, an
object has to occupy at least several pixels to start to register any detail,
and judging by the size of the plane, the wing tips might be as little as one
pixel in width. Hence, they are not visible. This does not mean that they are
not there and that the object is not a 767.]]
So
we can't see the wings, but nevertheless the object can be clearly identified as
having a wingspan of about 160 ft. The plane doesn't look like the size it is,
but its size can be clearly seen as being larger than what it looks. The 160 ft
wingspan which we can't see can be clearly seen.
So, according to Salter, we
can see the shape and size of the plane, even though we can't actually see it.
In an earlier email in reply to me, Salter wrote the following
[[.
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".]]
So
Eric gives a solid technical reason why we can't see the thing which we can see.
There does seem to be some confusion in Eric's mind about whether or not we
can see the wingspan of the object in question.
So I'll ask the question
again, in a different way and see if Eric can make his position clearer.
Is
Eric claiming that we can see a wingspan of approximately 160 ft, or that we
can't see a wingspan of approximately 160 ft ?
Eric
Salter July 26
[[Salter
falls into a big but avoidable trap. He appears to believe it legitimate to
assume that the first plane was a 767 and think that the onus of proof therefore
lies only with those who disagree with this assumption. This is of course quite
wrong. The onus of proof lies equally with those who claim it was a 767. They
must make their case, on the basis of the evidence, just like everyone else. I
am still waiting for Mr. Salter to do so.]]
No,
the burden of proof lies squarely with the 767 skeptics. I see no need to
decisively identify the plane as a 767, only to determine if there is a strong
case to deny that identification. We don't lose any ground not questioning this
aspect of the story as we have so much other stronger evidence. However, we risk
being debunked as crackpots when going out on a limb with no-plane or substitute
plane theories.
I've read Marcus Icke's article and I'm not at all
impressed. A response is coming soon, delayed for personal reasons until the
right time. At least we're to the point now where we are no longer talking about
holographic projections and whatzits floating around in the compression
artifacts. The skepticism about the identity of the 767 at WTC1 are at least
somewhat plausible, compared to the other no-plane garbage. Remember that my
original article was aimed at theories of missiles and divebombing whatzits, and
not the finer point of one large airliner vs another. Anyhow, in several weeks
my responses to Icke will be posted and we can talk more then.
Gerard
Holmgren July 26.
I
notice that Eric is still avoiding stating his position. I realize that he was
responding not to me, but to Leonard, but nevertheless, my question is very
simple, and there is no reason not answer it promptly, since he found time to
address the more complex question of campaign strategy and "risk" management.
How can we discuss these things if we don't first know exactly what the
arguments are? He added further confusion to his position with this
statement.
[[I
see no need to decisively identify the plane as a 767, only to determine ** if
there is a strong case to deny that identification. ** ]]
(My
emphasis)
This seems to back away from what appeared to be his
previously stated position in response to my original question.
I will
clarify the situation with a reminder of what that question was
I asked
Eric whether his position in relation to the Nth Tower is
a) That the
appearance of the object seen to be approaching the Nth Tower is unmistakably a
767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.
b) That
the appearance of the object, while unable to be identified down to the exact
model, is unmistakably a large passenger jet of similar size to a 767, can be
clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.
c) That the object is
so indistinct, that it's very difficult to tell what it is, or its size, and
that its plausible to speculate - amongst other possibilities - that it could be
a large passenger jet.
He gave an answer which was somewhat rambling,
but which I took to be a specific endorsement of the b) option. So from there I
outlined confusion over his position in relation to whether we could actually
see the wings or not.
However, I'm going to now have to shelve the wings
question for the moment to return to the question above, because Eric now seems
to be backing away from his apparent endorsement of the b) option.
He
now seems to be arguing that he has no need to state any position of his own.
That one can simply assume (on unspecified grounds) that the object is a 767 and
that the onus is on critics to specifically provide strong disputation of this
unsubstantiated assumption.
Very well. Because the case that it is not a
767 is so overwhelmingly provable,I accept Salter's plea for the grounds of
debate to be heavily skewed in his favour. It is up to me to provide strong
grounds that its not a 767. Salter has only to demonstrate that its possible
that it *might * be a 767.
I accept the challenge.
In order to
counter Salter's argument, that it *might* be a 767,I need to know the basis of
this argument.
I'm sure that even Salter will agree that a simple repetitive
statement of a concluding position does not count as argument.
If I am
to prove that the assumption of a 767 is wrong, I must be told the grounds on
which the assumption is said to be based. We must examine these grounds clearly
and methodically, one at a time. The first which I wish to examine is the
alleged appearance of the object in flight approaching the NTh Tower.
There are three possible observations of this object from which one
could build the argument that it *might * be a 767.
I will state them
again.
a) That the appearance of the object seen to be approaching the
Nth Tower is unmistakably a 767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be
anything else.
b) That the appearance of the object, while unable to be
identified down to the exact model, is unmistakably a large passenger jet of
similar size to a 767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.
c) That the object is so indistinct, that it's very difficult to tell
what it is, or its size, and that its plausible to speculate - amongst other
possibilities - that it *might* be a large passenger jet.
If Eric will
state which of these observations he endorses, then I can proceed with the
process of building the strong argument which he has challenged me to provide.
Eric
Salter July 27
[[b)
That the appearance of the object, while unable to be identified down to the
exact model, is unmistakably a large passenger jet of similar size to a 767, can
be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.]]
Yes,
this would be closest to my position, as should be obvious by what I have said
so far. The Naudet video clearly shows a plane roughly the size of a 767, and
the sound of the plane is that of a multiple engine jet aircraft.
[[Very
well. Because the case that it is not a 767 is so overwhelmingly provable,I
accept Salter's plea for the grounds of debate to be heavily skewed in his
favour. It is up to me to provide strong grounds that its not a 767. Salter has
only to demonstrate that its possible that it *might * be a 767. I accept the
challenge.]]
Good.
Let's see the proof.
CONTINUE
INDEX OF SEPT 11
ARTICLES HOME