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.

 

He posted a follow up on August 9

Regarding this answer to my question below. What is it about Salter's argument regarding the size of the airliner in flight IN THE VIDEO that disagrees with the hypothesis that it may be a 767 sized airliner?

I acknowledge that the hole is circumstantial evidence and the video direct evidence, but was under the impression that Salter had analyzed the DVD footage (the best available?) and determined that the video evidence did indicate a plausible 767-sized object? Of course, given that the video is so limited in quality, it is difficult to deduce anything from it, thereby increasing the reliance on the size of the hole.

What do you hypothesize made the 767 sized and shaped hole in WTC North?

[[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.]]

This is hard to accept without a qualified competing theory to account for the data.

[[ An object cannot make a hole smaller than itself, but it can make a hole bigger than itself.]]

How? What other theory accounts for the available facts? Were charges placed in the building that were able to create a 767 shaped hole in the building's skin? What DID happen?

 

I replied with this on August 12

Firstly to the point of Salter claiming that the video did show an object the size of a 767, in flight towards the tower. Actually, when I started asking Eric questions in relation to this claim, he simply ran away and refused to answer my questions. I refer you to the exchange we had. Given how many posts there were, you may have missed it, so if you did, I can summarize the way that he painted himself into a corner on this, or even forward you the relevant exchanges if you wish, in case you suspect me of misrepresenting the discussion which took place.

Then I took it up with Brian, and under questioning, he finally admitted that no such thing as a large plane could be sighted in the Nth tower video.
I didn't even argue with him to force him into this admission. I simply asked him questions of clarification, which led logically from his previous answers and he painted himself into a corner, in which he was forced to admit that no such thing as a large aircraft could be seen approaching the tower.

After this admission, he too fled the debate.

Again, if you missed this exchange, I can summarize it or forward you the actual mails, as you prefer.

So Brian actually admitted that the object seen in flight could not be discerned as a large jet.

Having established this, I was happy to move on the forensic evidence, but the Salter's, after initially crowing that this was what it was really all about, were suddenly disinterested - just when it got to the bit that they always said was their coup de grace.

So now to the forensic evidence about which you have inquired, and which the Salters were too afraid to debate with me.

This statement

[[An object cannot make a hole smaller than itself, but it can make a
hole bigger than itself.]]

is self evident. If an object bursts through another object, its is possible that it may make a hole exactly matching its own profile, but it is by no means certain that this will happen. For example, if a car crashes through the wall of the house, does it always make a car shaped and sized hole like a cartoon character running through a wall ? Of course not. Other parts of the wall can be torn away, making a hole considerably bigger and of quite different shape.

An object cannot make a hole smaller than itself. So, if the hole profile fits a 767, then its possible, in the absence of other considerations, that it could be made by a 767, but also possible that it could have been made by something smaller, or by some other means. So further inquiry is needed, which I will present below.

You mention charges. Of course. It could be either charges placed in the building, and/ or charges within whatever object actually hit the building. It is also possible that some kind of laser/energy beam type weapon could have been used to make a hole matching the approximate profile of the alleged plane. I will now prove that some option or combination of these frame up techniques was used. Which brings us to this statement.

[[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. ]]

I will upgrade "strong evidence " to "proof".

The back up for this is the lack of wreckage. A crashed plane doesn't just disappear. It doesn't burst through a wall and then just vaporize into nothing. The wreckage has to go somewhere. Where is the hulk of the plane lying in the building? Of all the witness reports from people who escaped from above or around the damage area, I have not seen any mention of the hulk of a plane being in the way or in sight. The alleged plane is about 160 ft long. Each wing is about 70 ft long. Each engine is about 10ft by 10 ft, weighing about 61/2 tons each. In all, about 70 tons - about 25 tons of which is steel and titanium - two extremely robust materials.

This amount of material doesn't just go "poof " into smoke and vanish. And if you've read my article about the pentagon crash, you'll see that I conclusively proved that never in the history of aviation disasters has a plane simply vanished into nothing in a crash, and I gave quantitative reasons why this is impossible I linked to over a thousand photos of planes which crashed into mountains, streets, forests, nose dived into fields at high speed, collided with other aircraft, or had bombs planted aboard. Even in the worst cases, tons and tons of recognizable wreckage remained.

Not only that, but there a pattern to the wreckage. In really bad crashes, where only a few tons is easily identifiable - it scatters widely - sometimes over several miles. In not so severe crashes, where most of the wreckage stays in a small area, the aircraft stays largely intact. So you can't have a plane, on the one hand passing through a wall so decisively intact that it makes a shape of itself, but also leaving only wreckage either too finely ground or too widely scattered to give any chance of identification.

If you think about the physics of this, its obvious. If you throw a freshly painted egg against a wall gently, so that it just cracks, it falls to the ground largely intact, in the one spot, with a few bits broken off and stuff oozing from it. It doesn't vanish. It's become non functional, but its still there and clearly visible - more or less in one piece. And the mark it has made on the wall will more or less correspond to its shape and size.

If you hurl it against the wall so violently, that nothing appears to be left of it, its because it has scattered far and wide. And the mark on the wall will in now no way represent its shape or size.

Now lets look at a more analogous example, one where one object passes through another - a wooden model plane though a glass window.

If you throw it such that it slices through the window, making a neat shape of itself, then by definition, it was relatively undamaged on the way through - otherwise it couldn't have punched a neat shape of itself, if it had broken up before the wings passed through. This means that once inside, it will come to rest, more or less intact.

If you throw it such that it smashes itself so violently that it scatters so widely that it seems that virtually nothing is left of it, then although it may break the window, it can't make a neat shape of itself. The smashing effects of violent impacts are not delayed while the model makes mincemeat of the window in a neat plane shape, and then after passing through, suddenly disintegrates, beyond anything recognizable. This happens in cartoons, but not in the real world. The damage will be instantaneous, thus deforming it, before the wings can pass through in one piece, still fixed in their right place to make a shape of themselves, complete and in correct alignment to the fuselage.

In real crashes, the tail nearly always survives, reasonably undamaged, because most of the impact has been absorbed by the time it takes the shock of impact.

So how does plane wreckage not scatter - (where are the pieces flying all over the streets of Manhattan ?) and remain confined to such a small area, in fact so beautifully intact, that it all fits through a hole of the same size and shape of the aircraft, and finishes up inside a relatively small area of building - and yet vanish into nothing, once its done so ? Quite simply, it doesn't. Its impossible.

But that's only one arm of the argument. Lets hypothetically concede the impossible, and say that the plane flew through a hole, almost exactly fitting itself and then somehow disintegrated into tiny pieces so small, that it effectively vanished.

In order for 45 tons of aluminium, and 25 tons of steel and titanium to vanish - *after* it sliced its way cleanly through a wall, which it didn't shatter against, then the only thing which could effectively vaporize it is a massive explosion of some sort.

In my Pentagon article,
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=64
I proved that this is quantitatively impossible. Kero can't even melt this material, let alone vapourize it. Kero is not a violently explosive substance anyway. And even if it was, and even if it could vapourize these metals given a large enough amount of fuel, you'd need about 15lbs of metal to be vapourized by each gallon of Kero - with the maximum possible fuel load.

So I've conceded impossibility after impossibility, and still can't get the plane to disappear, after slicing a neat profile of itself. But, nevertheless, I'm going to concede yet another impossibility - I'm going to hypothesize against all historical precedent, all laws of physics and all common sense - that after slicing cleanly through the wall, making a hole its own shape and size, that the plane was subject to an explosion so massive that it simply disappeared. Perhaps it was loaded with explosives ?

If so - how does a massive explosion turn a 70 ton plane into fairy dust, and yet negligibly, if at all, affect the building which the plane is inside?

Answer - it doesn't. If something blew the plane into smithereens, after it passed through the wall, then it would also have to have blasted the hell out of the building. And yet, what we see is a neat slice matching *only * the approximate profile of the entry damage and no ancillary damage. This is quite impossible.

Thus, the approximately 767 shaped hole, when combined with the lack of significant wreckage is definitive proof that the object cannot have been a plane of that size. If a plane of that size had sliced through the wall, and then blown up into nothing, we would see a hole much, much bigger, and of different shape to the object.

It can't have made a neat cartoon type hole of itself, unless it entered right into the building virtually intact. If it did this, then it can't have subsequently expired into nothing from the impact which left it virtually undamaged on the way in. Impact physics don't work like that, except in cartoons and in the minds of people who are determined to believe that planes flew into buildings on Sept 11.

And if it broke up against the wall, then it can't have made a neat cartoon shape of itself - and not rained wreckage onto the streets. And if it blew up into effectively nothing, after passing through the wall intact enough to make a cartoon shape, then the explosion should have caused massive extra damage, obliterating the shape of the initial impact hole.

So that's game, set and match. What the Salters claimed as their prime piece of evidence is actually proof that no large plane flew in there. And I was perfectly willing to get to this part of the evidence in a logical chain of examination of all points along the way, but they both ran off, apparently terrified by questions which asked nothing more than they clarify their exact position on various aspects of the visual evidence. Not being an explosives expert, I can't comment on the exact techniques necessary to simulate such a hole for the frame up, but I can observe that the technology of planned explosive charges is well and truly sophisticated enough to create a hole any size and shape they wanted.

And that's without examining the possibility of laser/energy beam type weapons.

Thus, such a postulation while not directly provable in isolation from other evidence, is technically plausible.

When one has ruled out the impossible - as we have done in relation to a large plane, then the technically plausible -the remaining range of possibilities - becomes effectively proven.

The apparent 767 sized and shaped hole is definitive proof that it wasn't a plane of that size. Those who did the frame up, and organized a hole which approximately matches the alleged plane, did it with those in mind who don't really think things through properly, as their main target audience.

 

COMMENTS: I was quite willing to debate this point further, but no-one on the list challenged it. Does my reply sound like someone who was afraid to debate the forensic evidence, and hadn't thought about it ?

In fact, I felt a certain sense of frustration in not being able to get to it. However, I felt it necessary to make sure that each point of argument along the way was fully dealt with before moving on to the next point. My experience tells me that if one does not enforce this, then tellytubblers like the Salters will invoke the "Fruit loop ". That is, once they have nowhere to go on one particular point, rather then concede it and move on in a logical fashion, they will jump dramatically to some completely different aspect. Once they are boxed in on that aspect then they will jump again. Once they have exhausted all escape routes, they will jump back to the first question and begin the debate all over again, denying that you ever had them boxed in on that aspect. And thus they sail round and round the fruit loop, never allowing any point to be concluded or logically linked to any other point.

Quite possibly, the hysterical and abusive tone adopted by Brian Salter during this debate related to his frustration at my determination to stick to one question until it was answered and my refusal to allow invocation of the fruit loop.

A stunning example of this fruit loop mentality was provided by Jim Hoffman in the following exchange.

 

 

Jim Hoffman July 29

As the message to which I reply shows, both Gerard and Webfairy are very skillful debaters. In the piece here, Gerard ridicules the questioning of interpretations he draws from WTC crash footage by equating refusals to draw the same conclusions with a series of ludicrous assertions about photos and videos having hundreds of times the resolution of the WTC crash videos. In doing so he effectively hides two facts:

1. The information content of images/video is proportional to their resolution.

2. The conclusions that the no-planers draw from the WTC videos are entirely unsupported.

What are those conclusions? Well it's a little hard to tell as we have
a whole smorgasbord of no/pod-planer theories to choose from. We have:
no real planes, but ones simulated by holograms

· no real planes, but a vast conspiracy of the media to insert faked footage into the public record

· napalm-loaded planes

· explosives in the towers detonated to simulate the plane strikes.

· much smaller planes (that magically make holes in the towers matching the profiles of 767s)

· a "pregnant" 767 (The originators of this theory apparently didn't bother to look at the underside of a modern airliner.)

· a cargo version of a 767-300, with a missle-firing pod mounted underneath

· various combinations of missile strikes, with the missiles coming from the planes and/or other sources

It's much easier to defend a theory with morphing capability.

Earlier messages from Gerard ridiculing a few WTC crash eyewitnesses effectively hides a third fact:

3. Hundreds must have witnessed the South Tower crash. If it wasn't a plane, or was something much different than a 767, there should be abundant eyewitness evidence to that effect.

Webfairy, whose post follows Gerard's below, uses a clever form of straw-man argument. She (justifiably) attacks Daniel Hopsicker's silly theories about the hijackers, but in doing so implies that anyone opposing the no-planer theories subscribes to the Hopsicker's theory.

>The notion of Hijackers Slamming Planes into Buildings is the justification for the War on Terror.

True enough, but, AFAIK, Hopsicker is about the only one in the 9/11 Truth Movement who believes it. Most of us think the planes were piloted by automated/remote-control.

Webfairy sets up another false dichotomy, stating:

>The 911 Half-Truth Movement intends to limit the perps to Bushies who can be safely voted out while we endure ever tighter surveillance "for our own good."

As if only those embracing the no/pod-planes theories are hip to the attacks being the work of more than just the Bush Administration.
-Jim

 

The Webfairy  Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 Subject: Blind People Running with Scissors

In a fortunately less gullible time, the Randy King case was prosecuted with video evidence.
Without video evidence, it would have been just another anonymous beating.

What if the hue and cry had come up then, and supposedly responsible experts came forth with testimony that Rodney King had a gun, but the video artifact screened it out. How bout, Rodney King was throwing punches, but he did it between the frames. It was a friendly conversation, but you can't see that because of the resolution. These are much more creative times.

Next we'll have borg troopers shooting rubber bullets at mothers withbaby carriages protesting milk rationing.
The newsbunnies will tell us this was a terrorist insurrection with mini-tanks, and if they want to tell you that's what to see, that's what you'll have to see or else.

We have excuses why close things don't have to appear larger than the same object in the distance.
We have excuses why planes melt like butter, how planes can crash now and explode later, how planes have interchangable wings and engines, or maybe none at all but it don't matter.

We are dealing with elementary matters here. Planes have flight paths. Planes don't have interchangable wings and engines, or no visable wings at all. Planes don't divebomb from an extreme angle, or poop out dust clouds that explode later. They just don't.

I'm not posing as some expert telling you these things. Hopefully you had them figured out sometime shy of kintergarden.

But that's what the videos show. All it takes is slowing them down, a perfectly respectable technique seen in instant replays and admissible as evidence in court. The videos show cartoon planes and animations without perspective, and controlled demolitions, and even a pillar of steel that turns to dust and blows off sideways.

My flash renditions are handy, but anyone with enough interest can be their own expert by downloading Quicktime Alternative or Real Alternative, a custom version of Media Player that can do slow motion and full screen enlargement right in the player.
http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm

A lot of the video archives have been taken down lately, but plenty remain for anyone willing to look for themselves.
http://www.altavista.com/video/default  Type in WTC. See for yourself.

If we have to have an "expert," I would suggest Daniel Hopsicker. He's the one who was railing against the lack of GumShoe evidence at the 911 HalfTruth Conference. He should interrogate the witnesses himself. Videos ARE Witness, the only witness not truamatized by Shock and Awe, since cameras cannot feel.

Video can be chopped and cheezed, and this shows in slow motion too. The human eye cannot follow 30 frames per second, but the miracle of video allows us to slow down time. This is a respected technique which has been used scientifically since video was invented.

I would suggest Daniel Hopsicker because he is a Plane TRUE Believer. He thinks the international drugtrafficers he has been documenting were "hijackers" who died on a suicide mission to crash planes into buildings, the whole rigamarole.

I would suggest that HE enlarge the footage. His article 911's Big Dirty Secret -- Trafficing with the Taliban has the perps down cold. Once he sees these guys as live handymen for the international drug conspiracy instead of dead suicide hijackers, the dirty guts of their plot will be exposed. Suddenly the CIA agent supposedly surveilling the German Taliban becomes their handler instead, a handler chronicled by Michael Wright  http://thewebfairy.com/wright/   Along with Mohammed Atta's connections to Oklaholma City and Norman Oklaholma, Boren territory.

 

CONTINUE     INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES       HOME