Brian Salter July 30
Holmgren,
This is getting pathetic. I can see your game -- you're desperately trying to turn the tables by trying to goad me into making some absolute specific claim about the appearance of the plane in the video, and going about this by forcing me to restate my case over and over again in the vain hope that I'll eventually slip up somewhere and say something inconsistent to give you a "gotcha".

Well it ain't gonna happen, you loser. I've made my position clear -- the video on its own is inadequate to make any precise identification other than that of a large plane with a roughly 767-sized fuselage and poorly visible wings that nonetheless reveal their existence clearly by casting a large shadow on the WTC in a way that would be expected of 767 wings. This is what I can argue objectively and scientifically based on the video evidence. The impact hole adds more clues - shape of airplane wings and wingspan.

Therefore we have three quite solid and complimentary positive pieces of evidence supporting the existence of a 767 or very similar aircraft: fuselage size, existence of obvious large wings based on shadows, and quite accurate 767 wingspan of entry hole. And absolutely no positive pieces of evidence to support the existence of something radically different than a 767, which, as I have shown with my previous post, is a notion that starts from a logically faulty foundation in terms of the overall scenario as well.

I do not claim absolute laboratory-standard "proof" of a 767, because that level of proof simply does not exist, nor does it exist for any other identification, and is unavailable to any of us. but I do claim that the relative weight of the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports a 767 or very similar aircraft, and this claim is backed up and argued thoroughly.

You are in no position to force me to conform to your multiple choice answer game; I have the right to formulate my position in my own way, and not be forced to accept your wording and formulation. It is you, who has made absolute claims of proof that the video CANNOT be a 767 and absolutely must be a radically different than a 767, who have something to answer for.

I am not going to "humour you" further. I have stated my interpretation of the evidence adequately and very clearly. You, on the other hand, are still looking for excuses not to acknowledge all of the gross errors that Eric revealed in the work of Webfairy, Loughrey, and you, which you have still neither decently acknowledged or refuted.
-Brian

 

Gerard Holmgren July 30
Brian writes.

[[the video on its own is inadequate to make any precise identification other than that of a
large plane with a roughly 767-sized fuselage and poorly visible wings ]]

I'm not sure why it was so difficult to get this answer out of Brian, but it looks like we finally have one. The appearance of the object precisely identifies it as a large passenger jet of the approximate dimensions of a
767. This was option b) all along. Good, now we can move on.

I now need some clarification on your claims in relation to the wings and engines. You see, Eric's position on this was unclear. In one part of the article he asserts that parts of the object can be identified as "wing or engine", while in another place he describes the "wingtips" as not visible.

Since we are allegedly looking at something with a wingspan of about 160 ft, then the assertion that only the "tips " are not visible implies that we can see something like 140 ft of wingspan - give or take a bit. If so, how are we unable to discern approximately 60 ft of flat wingspan from a cylindrical 10 ft engine - the confusion occurring equally on both sides of the object?

This was what I was trying to get Eric to answer earlier. Can you clear this up for us please Brian ? Is it only the tips which are not visible or is it the entire wingspan beyond the position of where you would expect the engines to be?

Furthermore, according to Eric, we can estimate sizes of things in relation to this object accurately enough that we can "precisely " identify it as being a plane of approximately 160 ft long with approximately 160 ft wingspan - give or take a bit.

So, given that we are in no doubt as to the approximate size of the object, how does that reconcile with the claim that we are unable to tell whether certain parts of it represent a size of approximately 60 ft or a size of approximately 10 ft ?

I would also like to know this. What has been clearly established is that Eric is not claiming the wings to be clearly identifiable as such, nor the engines. Otherwise something wouldn't be labelled "wing or engine". It follows therefore that the assertion that they must be either "wing or engine" is based not on a visual observation of what they look like, but on a deduction - extrapolated from what the rest of the object looks like.

So - we have something which can be "precisely identified" by its visual appearance alone, as a plane - approximately 160 by 160, but we can't actually see the wings or engines clearly enough to identify them. We are forced to deduce their ID from the presence of some other part of the object which we can see with "precise identification"

The remaining possible major features of a plane are
a) The fuselage
b) The tail
c) The tail fins.

In order for us to observe that wings and engines are only a deduction, but the visual ID as a whole is "precise", then clearly one or more of the three above must be very, very clear. So clear that they leave us no choice but to make the deduction to which you have alluded. So please list the visual status as you see it for

a) fuselage
b) tail
c) tail fins.

Could you please define each one as either "very clear " "moderately clear" "doubtful" or "not discernible". What I am asking for is the direct visual status of each of these parts, without the need to deduce them from the other parts.

 

Brian Salter July 30
Holmgren,
The tactic that you're trying to use is fallacious and is not going to go anywhere. I have already said everything that needs to be said about the Naudet video to support Eric's & my position. You are now asking questions for specific details that I have already argued clearly cannot be measured to detected accurately in the poor quality, low-resolution Naudet footage, and you must know this already -- in fact I already have addressed the wings issue in a completely adequate way, which you will no doubt ignore and instead continue your childish lies that Eric and I have "run away" from this. Furthermore, none of the impossible details you are demanding will lead to a refutation of any part of the evidence that I have already enumerated as supporting my case, so this is an unproductive red herring and not one that I need to deal with.

You have failed to point out a single technical error or logical flaw in Eric's and my treatment of the evidence, while continuing to deny with your silence the fact that we have already pointed out many errors in your efforts to this point. I don't need to continue with this; it is not a genuine debate on fair terms. It is just your game.

Today I have received a handful of private off-list emails that leave me feeling confident that I have stated everything I need to state to make my case convincingly to fair and open-minded people, especially on the crucial and decisive issue of burden-of-proof. Moreover continuing this further would compel me to continue wasting my energy addressing the illegitimate, disrespectful, and abusive tactics used by you and Webfairy, and that's a waste of time since anyone can judge this aspect matter for themselves by now.

I will state again what I mentioned a couple days ago -- the fact that Nico Haupt, who has been very protective and defensive of what he calls the "video analysts" including Holmgren & Webfairy, has publicly stated on the 911truthalliance list that he considers the work done by Eric and I to be completely fair and legitimate approach to critique. Coming from him, that only illustrates how ridiculous the terms of this "debate" have been. So I'm comfortable with following John's advice to let "the jury" decide -- time will tell.

I'm signing off; please remove me from these threads.
-Brian

 

Gerard Holmgren July 30
Brian Salter writes

[[it is not a genuine debate on fair terms. It is just your game.]]

This is indeed an interesting view. I accepted a debate which was heavily skewed in favour of the Salters. The burden of proof was on me, but not on them. They demanded that I provide proof - but then refuse to answer legitimate questions, which I ask in the process of building my case. Are they suggesting that in addition to facing the sole burden of proof, I am not allowed to ask questions of those who refuse to accept the same burden?

Lets look at the significance of this question, which sent both of the Salters running for cover - one after the other.

Brian had already established his position in relation to the appearance of the object as being "precisely identifiable " as a large passenger jet of the approximate size of a 767. Mind you, even getting that out of him was like pulling teeth, but he finally spat it out under persistent questioning.

This logically led to a further question. Brian had admitted that neither the wings nor the engines of such a plane could be seen in any discernible fashion. Thus the assertion that the appearance of the object is "precisely identifiable" as a large jet must depend on clear identification of some other part of the plane - which can only be one of, or some combination of, fuselage, tail and tail fins.

Obviously, in order to deduce the existence of wings and engines which can't be seen, one must be alleging a very clear identification of fuselage and/or tail, and/or tail fins.

So naturally, I wanted Brain to specify which of these he claims can be "precisely identified" If none of them can be, then clearly the statement that the appearance of the object can be precisely identified as large jet does not stand up to questioning. Bear in mind that at no time have I argued with Brian, or disputed his answers, I've simply asked him to clarify his position, and then based on his answer, asked another question which logically follows. I haven't yet even stated any opinions on specific points - I'm just gathering information about the opposing argument.

In fact, I was letting Brian get away with quite a lot already. It is questionable whether one can justifiably call a plane without visible wings or engines "precisely identifiable", even if one has a clear ID of some other part of the plane.

Nevertheless, I didn't argue about this. I simply asked Brian to specify which part of the plane was "precisely identifiable."

If the object can be "precisely identified" as a large passenger jet, then one should be able to state with confidence at least one part of the plane which is precisely identifiable. Brian refuses to do so.

One would think that at this point, he would be closing the fist of his argument around me, eager to point out which part of the plane is "precisely identifiable". But no ! Just as victory is within his grasp, just as Brian has the chance to deliver the knockout blow, by pointing to that part of the plane which is "precisely identifiable" he suddenly complains that I am demanding "impossible details."

Can somebody explain how a visual ID of a plane can be "precisely identified", but it is an "impossible detail" to state which parts) of the plane can be "precisely identified" ?

I do not wish to put words into Brian 's mouth, but considering that he decided to high tail it for the hills in response to this conundrum, I am left to make my own observation about what conclusion can be drawn from it.

That the Salter's were not telling the truth when they said that they believed that the appearance of the object seen in flight towards the Nth tower was unmistakably a large passenger jet and could not be anything else. That if they had been truthful, they would have taken option c)

That the object is so indistinct that we can't tell what it is, and that its plausible to speculate - amongst other possibilities that it *might be* a large passenger jet.

I will now state this position as having been agreed to under questioning by Brian.

After admitting that the wings and engines were not identifiable, he was given the opportunity to specify which part of the plane was - but admitted that this was a demand for an "impossible detail."

Therefore he admits there can be no positive identification of a large plane.

And yet, under the terms of the heavily skewed debate which I accepted , my case is not yet proven. Brian still has the chance to debate forensic evidence and witness evidence. Remember, under the terms of the debate, the onus was on me to prove that its not a 767, Brian had only to show that it *might be*.

So the fact that I've proven him wrong in his assertion that it can be clearly seen as a large jet is only the first hurdle I have to cross. Brian still has the chance to use forensic and witness evidence to show that it *might be * a 767.

I wonder why he chooses to run away now. Because forensic and witness evidence was the part that he always said he really wanted to get to. This was where he would expose me for the fool I am He always said that the visual of the object didn't really matter all that much anyway.

And yet, simply because I crossed the first hurdle in my argument, by proving him wrong on a point which he always claimed to be peripheral anyway, he runs like a scared rabbit.

I now invite anyone else who wishes to take up Brian 's cause from this point on. You can either accept that the object seen in flight towards the Nth Tower is too indistinct to provide any direct visual evidence that its a large passenger jet, and move on from there - or, if you prefer, you can dispute this point, by answering the question which Brian refused to.

Any takers ?

 

Eric Salter July 30
Remove me from further postings.
Eric

 

Gerard Holmgren July 30
Eric Salter writes

[[Remove me from further postings. Eric ]]

I shall do so Eric. I so enjoyed the spirited defence which you mounted. I think you got as far as stating that you think the video unmistakably shows a large passenger jet of unspecified type, before bailing out, when asked to specify approximately how much its wingspan we could unmistakably see.

So, alas, we will never know your answer. Although doubtless, just like the last time you ran away from me, you will reappear on your website to snipe and slander from behind a rock, where you can selectively edit the emails of others, and don't have to answer difficult questions (or even easy ones).

Bon Voyage Eric ! Next Loser ?

 

COMMENTS : Nobody on the list who had expressed support for the Salters was prepared to move the debate onwards. I was perfectly happy to progress through the visual evidence, to the forensic evidence, then the witness evidence - first North Tower, then South Tower.

This debate does not in itself provide much direct evidence for the no planes case. That proof can be found in other places. However, it is an interesting demonstration of how inept the 767 case is. It lays bare the need for its proponents to resort to misrepresentation, long rambling evasions, distraction, double standards, logical fallacies, and the tiresome repetition of concluding opinions, trying to give the impression that such repetitions were actually points of evidence for the often stated conclusions.

Lets consider. To start with, the Salter's loudly demanded a debate which was quite unfairly skewed in their favour. The sole burden of proof on one side. That in itself does not display a lot of confidence. Undaunted by this, I eagerly accepted this challenge. This is a strong indicator of the relative confidence of the two sides in their ability to argue their case.

I chose a Socratic method of building an argument. That is, to ask questions which lead to mutual points of agreement, and use each point of agreement as a springboard for the next series of questions to lead to the next point of agreement. The Salters objected to this too. Having placed the sole burden of proof on me, they then believed that they also had the right not to answer questions which might clarify exactly what argument I was being asked to disprove. How am I to disprove an argument, if I am forbidden to know what the argument is ?

One can only conclude either that the Salters knew that their argument was weak and thus tried to avoid clarifying it - or else that they are so philosophically challenged that they are unable to distinguish between a statement of opinion and the argument used to arrive at that opinion. That is - they thought that by simply stating their conclusion over and over, that they were actually clarifying their argument for it.

If their reasoning faculties really are so poor as to believe that the simple repetition of an opinion is the same as providing an argument, then I can understand their frustration. They thought they were providing arguments and that I was stalling and pretending that they were not.

However, if this really was their belief, then at the risk of sounding harsh, I have to say that anybody who doesn't understand the distinction between an opinion and the argument used to reach the opinion cannot be taken seriously.

Whether through dishonesty or poor thinking, the Salters continually tried to present concluding opinions as arguments, and then accused me of stalling or entrapment techniques, simply for pointing out the difference, and requesting that they state their argument point by point, instead of simply repeating garbled, verbose renditions of their concluding opinion.

For all the agonizing twisting and turning displayed by the Salters, the questions were really quite harmless.

As part of their argument that a 767 hit the Nth tower, there were three possible opinions that a 767 proponent might have about the appearance of the object. a) Definitely a 767 b) Inconclusive on a 767, but definitely a large passenger jet. c) Simply not identifiable.

I wanted to know which of those opinions they held. I never claimed that it was the sole point of relevant argument. I simply maintained that it was one relevant point, and I wanted clarification of their position in relation to it.

And yet trying to get them to answer this simple question was like squeezing blood out of a stone. Which was strange, because after much agonized twisting and turning, they eventually both chose option b. Never mind that I made a huge concession here. I thought the answer was ridiculous, based on what I can see in the video, but I never disputed their answer. I simply asked what specific part of the plane could be definitely identified. In fact Eric bailed out before I even got this far.

But Brian complained that identifying such details was impossible. If one cannot discern wings, engines, tail, fuselage or tail fin, then one cannot discern a plane. And if any of these could be discerned, why did Brian describe such details as "impossible." ?

Brian was eventually forced to concede by default that his real opinion was option c.

This reveals further the lack of honesty in his debating strategy, although I suspect that he was lying to himself more than to me.

I don't know why they pretended to support option b, when they really knew that c was more accurate. An admission of option c by no means proved my case. I had barely started. All I had proved was that there was no visual evidence that the object was a large jet. At this stage, this still left open the possibility that it might have been one.

And they had both said that this point was peripheral anyway, so having to concede it should not have been much trauma for them. Indeed, getting it out of the way opened the door to the debate which they had claimed was where their case would be proved - forensic and witness evidence. They could have reached this point much sooner if they had been prepared to provide direct answers to direct questions promptly and tell the truth about option c rather than b . Nevertheless, having finally reached, in torturous fashion, the point where Brian claimed that my case would flounder, he suddenly bailed out.

One can only deduce that they suffered a massive loss of confidence in their argument - if indeed they ever had any. Keep in mind that they had demanded - and been granted - a huge advantage in the fundamental grounds of the debate. Any time they would like to try to again, I am ready to pick it up from the point we left off.

I threw out the invitation to continue it on that list to any who felt so inclined. There were no takers.

I will however add two brief exchanges which occurred later. The fact that I was prepared to so comprehensively address the question below gives the lie to Brian Salter's accusation that I was playing delaying games in order to avoid addressing the "size of hole issue. "

Earlier, I pasted this mail.

 

CONTINUE        INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES      HOME