Gerard
Holmgren July 26
Since
we have cleared up Eric's position as being that the Nth Tower video clearly
shows a plane with a wingspan of approximately 160 ft, then my next question to
Eric is this. Can we see the 160 ft wingspan on the video ?
Eric
Salter July 26
At
6:33 PM +1000 7/26/04, Gerard Holmgren wrote:
[[Since
we have cleared up Eric's position as being that the Nth Tower video clearly
shows a plane with a wingspan of approximately 160 ft, then my next question to
Eric is this.
Can we see the 160 ft wingspan on the video
?]]
Hah!
I see where this is going. Trying to twist my words around and play tedious
debating tricks. I was quite clear on the fact that the full wingspan is NOT
visible in my article and I explained why. I am not going to debate with someone
who plays games and misrepresents my words, so this debate is over. My thoughts
on the nature of the plane that hit the WTC1 will be dealt with in my
forthcoming response to Marcus Icke's article.
Eric Salter
Leonard
Spencer July 27
Eric
Salter writes:
"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".
So
there we have it. Salter accepts no burden of proof and is prepared to make his
case simply on the basis of an assumption. He does not of course state why he
considers it acceptable to proceed on the basis of an assumption. Is the
official account really that well-established? Is that passport found in the
rubble, or that holdall containing flying manuals and a copy of the Koran,
really all that convincing?
The problem with commencing an investigation
on the basis of an assumption is that it often fails to give due weight and
credence to any evidence that challenges that assumption. In extreme cases, it
can even lead to the denial of that evidence. Salter falls into this trap big
time.
I gave three rather meaty reasons why scrutiny of the Fireman's
Video might lead us to conclude that the first plane was not a 767. Salter does
not even attempt to address those reasons. Let me repeat them:
1) The
plane in the Fireman's Video has no engines attached to its wings. 767s by
contrast have engines attached to their wings.
2) The plane in the
Fireman's Video has wings that extend in a perpendicular fashion from its
airframe. A 767 however has raked back wings.
3) The explosions in
WTC1's facade bear no immediate relation to the plane itself. They are
independent of it. This means that the explosions were caused either by bombs
pre-planted in the building or by missiles fired from the plane itself. We would
not observe such bizarre phenomena if the plane were a regular passenger jet of
any kind.
It is hardly unreasonable therefore to conclude that the plane
in the video is not a 767. Simply ignoring these issues and blithely repeating
an unsubstantiated assumption to the contrary is just not acceptable in a
serious debate.
Having carefully avoided these substantive evidential
points, Salter then states:
"we
risk being debunked as crackpots when going out on a limb with no-plane or
substitute plane theories".
As
investigators our prime responsibility is to get the facts straight on the basis
of the available evidence. If the facts point to a scenario that is wildly at
variance with the official account, then so be it. There is nothing to be gained
by denying the facts simply to make them fit with the official account. If we
are telling the truth, then however much we may be branded as crackpots now,
history will vindicate us. The main obstacles to arriving at the truth are an
unwillingness to look at the evidence with a cold dispassionate eye and sloppy,
assumption-led reasoning.
As it happens the substitute plane theory is
presently the only one that fits all the known facts. It may not go down well in
Texas but maybe that's one reason why the perpetrators felt they could get away
with such an audacious conjuring trick.
Leonard Spencer
Gerard
Holmgren July 27
[[Trying
to twist my words around and
play tedious debating tricks.
]]
It
is indeed puzzling that Eric responds to the opportunity to state his opinion,
as an attempt to twist his words. How I can twist anything, if Eric is the one
stating his own opinion - in his own words?
Indeed, the very reason I
have asked Eric for confirmation of his opinion, is to make sure that I can not
be accused of putting words into his mouth. I want his opinion to be crystal
clear to everyone before I comment. This is the second time that Eric has run
away. Clearly, he's afraid to debate me on a level playing field. Actually - a
debate which was openly skewed in his favour, by mutual agreement.
One
wonders what level of concession he needs to have a chance of staying in the
debate. Lets review. I offer a situation where the onus is on me to provide
strong grounds that it was not a 767, and Eric is required only to demonstrate
that it *might * be a 767. I think that's a significant advantage.
And
yet, all I have to do is ask Eric a question - and he's high-tailing it for the
hills - again.
Eric, if its your opinion that we can't see the wings on
the video, then all you have to is say so.
Eric has said that the full
wingspan is not visible. I would like to know approximately how much of the
wingspan he thinks is visible. It doesn't have to be exact. Say - 1/4?, 1/2 ?
3/4 ? An approximation like that is near enough.
Come back Eric ! We've
barely started ! I was so looking forward to this little chat.
At the
moment, I am forced to assume that Eric will again forgo this golden opportunity
to show how ridiculous my argument is, and will instead run off to hide behind
his website again, and spread more lies, in a situation where those being
slandered cannot answer. Very brave ! So in the meantime, I will summarize what
little of the Salter theory he was good enough to make clear.
At the
risk of being accused of twisting his words, I am going to present what I
believe to be the best interpretation of Eric's reference to the "full
wingspan." And review on that basis.
If Eric wishes to return to the
debate to correct any alleged misinterpretation of his words, then he is more
than welcome to do so - as long as he remembers that the reason I am forced to
put my own interpretation on his words is because he has run off, refusing to
clarify, and accuses me of twisting his words simply because I asked his
opinion.
In his article, Eric labels part of the object as "wing or
engine". In the absence of a clarification from Eric, one can best interpret
this to mean that Eric believes that no more than the wingspan which extends to
the engine - and possibly less - is visible on the video. About 15 ft of each 70
ft wing. This is indeed intriguing. We can "clearly" identify the object as a
large passenger jet of similar size to a 767 (wingspan about 160 ft) but can see
a maximum of 50 ft of wingspan. Not so clear after all, it would seem...
Or perhaps Eric meant that the fuselage and tail are clearly visible,
but for some reason we can't see the wings at all. This is doubly strange.
You see, if its "clearly identifiable " as a plane of this size, but
most of the wings, can't be seen at all - then one can only justify the claim of
"clearly" on the basis that the fuselage and tail are in such sharp detail, that
it makes up for the fact that a large portion of the plane is not there at all -
not even unclearly. So, if we could see such details as windows, doors, company
logo, paint scheme, wing roots, tail fins etc. - then we could say that although
most of the wings have mysteriously disappeared, the rest of the plane is so
clear that we are justified in labeling it as "clearly" as a plane of that size,
because we can clearly make out parts which specifically identify it, and imply
that the mysteriously missing wings are actually there, even if we can't see
them.
Alas, we can see no such detail on the alleged fuselage. Please -
if anybody thinks they can identify such details, then do let me know.
And when one stops to think, even if we could see such detail, wouldn't
it then be doubly strange that we can see windows, etc., but most of the wings
have gone missing? A conundrum indeed! However, as we all know - all things were
possible on Sept 11 ! It was a strange day.
But wait ! I must apologize.
Eric did indeed provide a reason in his article why the wings were invisible.
[[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
its only the tips which are missing. This appears to contradict Eric's
implication in the "wing or engine" label, that most of the wing is missing. How
long is the "tip". 10 ft ? If so then approximately 140 ft of wingspan should be
visible. About 60 ft of each wing. And yet, if only the tips are missing, then
how are we are unable to distinguish 60 ft of flat wing from 10 ft of
cylindrical engine ? - according to Eric's article.
You see, this is why
I asked Eric the question which so offended him. At one point in the article he
suggested that the portion of wing which * might * be visible could not be
distinguished from the engine - thus implying that no more than 50 ft of
wingspan was visible.
But in another part of the article, he claimed
that only the tips were invisible, implying that something like 140 ft was
visible. So naturally, I wanted him to clarify his opinion before commenting, to
ensure that I did not twist his words. And oddly, he twisted this into an
accusation that I was misrepresenting him.
So - we can't see tail fins,
can't distinguish 60 ft of flat wing from 10 ft of cylindrical engine - or
perhaps just can't see much wing at all (Eric isn't sure which), can't see
windows, doors, company logo, or paint scheme. But we can "clearly" identify it
as a plane of the approximate size of a 767.
Let it be put on the record
that Eric has run from me a second time. Any
time he's ready to try
again....
L.
L July 30
Could
someone please tell me why Eric Salter's article is incorrect in its main
assertion that the hole in the North Tower is in fact the proper size for a
commercial airliner?
Also, did his explanation of the aluminum tubed
exterior (?) not go some distance towards explaining why the planes entered the
buildings with so little resistance?
It is essential to keep
possibilities open, but there is so much ad hominem in this forum that little
real analysis or progress gets made.
Gerard
Holmgren July 30
I
never questioned that the hole is approximately the right size for a plane of
that size. It's just that that does not provide any proof that it was made by an
object of that size. In fact, if you think it through, its strong evidence that
it wasn't. If anyone doesn't understand this point, I'll elaborate.
What
I was trying to do was go through the various aspects of the evidence
systematically.
First video of the approach of the object. Then
forensic. The size of the hole is forensic evidence, not a direct video of the
object itself.
Salter refuses to discuss the video which actually shows
the approach of the object. He wants to jump straight to the size of the hole
issue. I only had to ask him "can we see the wings ? " and he ran off. The
sooner someone is prepared to go through the video of the approach of the
object, the sooner we can move on to the issue of the hole size. I find it
astounding that we have direct visual proof of what the object was (not ), but
people like Salter want to gloss over this in favour of circumstantial evidence
(the size of the hole). The size of the hole would be a very important point if
there were no direct visual of the object itself.
Given that we do have
direct visual evidence, the size of the hole becomes peripheral in its
importance. That's not to say that it should be completely ignored - a thorough
analysis will look at everything - but to suggest that circumstantial evidence
such as the size of the hole is more important that direct visual evidence is
absurd.
This argument is equivalent to the following hypothetical
situation. A video is produced of a handgun murder. We know that its a handgun,
because we can see the murderer using a handgun to shoot the victim.
The
defense argues that the gunshot wounds are consistent with a rifle not a
handgun, and therefore the guy with the handgun couldn't have done the shooting,
and argues that the video of the accused using the handgun to shoot the victim,
is such poor resolution that its really someone using a rifle, and since the
accused doesn't own a rifle, he can't have done the shooting.
We have a
direct visual record of the object in fight. I don't mind discussing the size of
the hole, once we've finished with the direct visual object, but I refuse to
accept a situation where the direct video of the object is considered
circumstantial, and the circumstantial evidence - the size of the hole - is
considered as direct evidence.
An object cannot make a hole smaller than
itself, but it can make a hole bigger than itself.
Brian
Salter July 30
On
Jul 29, 2004, at 9:40 PM, Gerard Holmgren wrote:
[[I
never questioned that the hole is approximately the right size for a
plane
of that size. It's just that that does not provide any proof that it
was
made by an object of that size. ]]
Well,
there we have it. Any evidence not convenient to Holmgren's theory has no
reliable meaning whatsoever. How postmodern. And for some reason, the entry hole
left by the WTC aircraft is not proper evidence, despite being captured in great
detail in hundreds of high-resolution photographs, whereas the mediocre and
low-resolution Naudet video must be the sole deciding factor before we can "move
on to the issue of the hole size". Hmmm.
[[
Salter refuses to discuss the video which actually shows the approach of the
object. He wants to jump straight to the size of the hole issue. I only had to
ask him "can we see the wings ? " and he ran off. The sooner someone is prepared
to go through the video of the approach of the object, the sooner we can move on
to the issue of the hole size. ]]
Holmgren
seems to be applying the old concept, "Tell a lie often enough and it will
become the truth." Eric has in fact already addressed the video footage and the
very poor visibility of the wings in particular in completely adequate detail
and with technical expertise:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
In contrast to Holmgren's lie that Eric is using the issue of the entry
hole to avoid discussing the video, Eric has in fact already addressed BOTH of
these issues on the important points. On the contrary, it is Holmgren who is
clearly trying to avoid the devastatingly clear evidence provided by the entry
hole size and shape. By resorting to such transparent and heavy-handed attempts
to skew the weight of various types of evidence and exert unilateral control
over the topic of debate, Holmgren has now made it plain that his case is at an
end.
Eric's analysis treats the quality of the video evidence honestly
and accurately -- he makes it clear that the image of the aircraft in the Naudet
video is low resolution and indeterminate in detail, and he doesn't claim to see
more than what is there. But he has shown, by applying a full professional
knowledge of video, that what appears in the Naudet video is completely within
the normal bounds of what a 767 (or airliner of very similar size, to be
technical about it) would be expected to look like on video in this limited
context, given the technical constraints of video and the circumstances of the
filming, and that there is no aspect of the appearance of the plane in this
footage which is outside of these bounds or surprising in any way. Therefore,
the footage quite simply does not provide any reliable evidence that something
other than a 767 or similar airliner hit WTC1 (note also that a plane
substitution scenario would also not imply any good reason that I am aware of
for the substitute plane to be other than a 767 airliner either, therefore the
BURDEN OF PROOF still overwhelmingly comes down on the side of any non-767
hypothesis even in light of that possibility). Over more than a month since his
analysis was first posted, it has not been refuted. (And on this point, I think
that any refutation will require, without exception, on-the-record statements
from someone with equal or better video credentials and experience than Eric
showing specifically that he is in error.)
So the argument Holmgren is
presenting is something like, "OK, now here we have a long-distance telephoto
shot showing a tiny brownish colored figure running up a mountainside. Now, it
could be a human, but can you absolutely PROVE that? Of course you can't! Can
you prove precisely that it's of normal human height? No, it could be eight feet
tall! Since you and all the other traitors and disinfo agents can't absolutely
prove that it's a human, then it means I have proven that it is actually
BIGFOOT!" or, "Now, here we have what is supposedly a photo of a flower garden
taken from 50 yards away. But is this thing here really a daisy? Can you prove
that it is a daisy? No, all that your wacko analysis can prove is that it's a
blurry blob of white and yellow, nothing more than that... which only proves
that my theory is correct: It's a fried egg on a stick!"
-Brian
Gerard
Holmgren July 30
Since
Eric Salter ran away simply because I asked him to clarify approximately how
much of the wingspan he believed was visible, then perhaps Brian will take up
the cause.
Brain summarized his view of the argument thus
[["OK,
now here we have a long-distance telephoto shot showing a tiny brownish colored
figure running up a mountainside. Now, it could be a human, but can you
absolutely PROVE that? of course you can't! can you prove precisely that it's of
normal human height? no, it could be eight feet tall! since you and all the
other traitors and disinfo agents can't absolutely prove that it's a human, then
it means I have proven that it is actually BIGFOOT!" ]]
This
would appear to contradict Eric's view. Because Eric stated clearly and
unambiguously that although the appearance of the object seen on the video to be
approaching the tower could not be definitively discerned as a 767, that it
could be discerned beyond argument as a large passenger jet of similar
proportions to a 767.
This was how I defined option b) of the
possibilities, and Eric was happy to endorse this as his opening statement.
[[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.]]
Eric
replied
[[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,
]]
So,
in Eric's view, Brian 's analogy of the situation that its
[[showing
a tiny brownish colored
figure running up a mountainside. Now, it could be a
human, but can
you absolutely PROVE that? ]]
is
not really accurate. In Eric's view, it's more like "Its definitely a human and
fairly tall."
That's fine if Brian wants to take a different view from
Eric. I am by no means crowing that they are "disagreeing". It's healthy for
people who are basically in agreement to disagree about details. Scott and WF
disagree about holograms. I am simply making sure that we clarify Brian 's
position, so that we start the debate without any misunderstandings about what
his position is.
From what he has written above. I take it that Brian 's
position is this.
That the visual of the object, aside for the moment,
from other factors of the debate shows that
"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."
Does this accurately represent your view of the
visual of the object, Brian ?
Gerard
CONTINUE
INDEX OF SEPT 11
ARTICLES HOME