Hopsicker's
got great evidence as to the nature of the conspiracy and the perps who pulled
it off, if only he would stop planehugging long enough to notice and put his
evidence together freshly, noting that many of his "hijackers" are still alive.
Nothing about NO Planes does damage to the actual evidence researchers
have dug up over these three plus years. The crime can be seen in a different
light. The 911 Coverup Commission concluding that we need "more security" have
connections to Iran Contra, the CNP, and the Phoenix Project.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Iran+contra+Hamilton
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+Ben-Veniste
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+Thompson
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+khashoggi
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+bush
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+Boren
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+drug+running
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 Hopsicker can attest from his Barry and the Boys, the drug gang who's
Florida outpost coddled Mohammed Atta infests the moneyed regions of both
political parties, if not equally, then close enough.
http://barryandtheboys.com
The notion of Hijackers Slamming Planes
into Buildings is the justification for the War on Terror. Why it is protected
so fanatically by the 911 So-Called Truth Movement is a constant wonder to me.
Hopefully, Hopsicker believes in video. He knows his camera will take
pictures of what's in front of it, and when he puts footage on the web, it is
not just unrecognizable artifact or whatever the camera happened to feel like
recording. He doesn't have to look between the frames for the subject.
Perhaps he is so tied into the shock and awe trauma conditioning that he
can't get past the rationalistic notions that poopoo video in favor of stuff
that sounds good playing on one's bellyscreen in response to one's beliefs, but
I've always thought of him as a good man and a brave researcher and just have to
hope he will dissect video for himself and have an "AHA!!" moment when he sees
the NoPlane.
Gerard
Holmgren July 29
Jim
Hoffman writes
[[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.]]
In
that case Jim, present the witnesses to a large plane. Hundreds of people saw it
? A 767 would be kind of hard to miss if it was there. Whereas a small,
supersonic object would be easy to miss. Present your witnesses, Jim .
But in the meantime, is anyone willing to pick up the Nth tower video
debate after Eric Salter bolted and ran for cover ?
After all, this is
where the debate started, and I was in process of logically following one thread
through to its logical conclusion when Salter high - tailed it for the hills.
I'm willing to go logically and methodically through each aspect of the
evidence, one at a time - first video, then forensic, then witness, then flight
documentation. First the Nth Tower, then the Sth tower. This is how one builds
an argument.
But the plane huggers want to flip wildly between one
thread and another, using witness evidence for the Sth Tower as a counter to
video evidence of Nth tower. This is to avoid having to follow any of their
insane ideas through to their logical conclusions.
They were in the
process of getting creamed over the Nth tower video, so they suddenly want to
talk about witnesses to the Sth tower. All in good time. But allow me to
continue with the thread I was on - the Nth Tower video evidence. Are you now
all afraid to continue that thread ?
How about you,Jim ? Start at the
beginning. In relation to the Nth tower are you 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.
Another
list member provided this reply. July 30
Jim
Hoffman wrote:
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.
I myself
know very many people who live in New York and also in New Jersey. Not a single
one of them actually saw a plane hit any building on September 11, 2001. As far
as I have been able to determine, none of them personally knows anyone who
actually witnessed a plane hit any building on September 11, 2001. However, like
the overwhelming majority of the US population, they saw the event on
television. Which is also how they have all come to know of the existence of
Thing and Cousin It.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet serious money,
that if Webfairy conducts an analysis of the images of both Thing and Cousin It,
the footage will NOT show ANY signs of having been doctored even though Thing is
not always the same.
Thing and Cousin It have been seen -ON TV- by
thousands and thousands of people. How did they accomplish this? In front of our
very eyes??
Surely the images of plane and car crashes that we see on
film are all true. Surely the footage of planes crashing into buildings is as
real as the hijackers themselves. Everybody knows that the camera does not lie.
Everyone knows there is really no such thing as special effects. Such loony
film-warping theories are the fodder of outer-fringe conspiracy theorists and
terrorist-sympathizers who continue to doubt the existence of Thing and Cousin
It despite the mounds and mounds of eyewitness evidence and proof to the
contrary.
Jim
Hoffman July 30
Of
my three points:
> 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.
>
>
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.
Gerard and Naserian
jump on the last one, while entirely missing the point, which is that hundreds,
if not thousands, of people watching the burning North Tower must have seen the
jet approaching the South Tower, and if it were something obviously different
from the 767 that was Flight 175, it would have generated lots of reports.
Nasarian claims an unspecified number of friends didn't see the plane.
Were they even watching?
Gerard wants me to produce witnesses. That's
sort of like looking for witnesses that the sun rose yesterday. I've done some
research and I can't find any actual witnesses to that. There are assertions
that the sun rose at a certain time, and there are probably webcam recordings of
it, but those could all be part of an elaborate hoax. :-)
Peter Meyer is
right that the government should have to produce proof for its story. Since it
won't, and since most people believe their story,the burden of proof (or
persuasion) falls on the skeptics, by default.
The more fundamental
point that the no-planers fail to address is the emphasis they place on the
ghost/pod-plane theories versus the demolitions.
All the no-planers I
know of accept that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished, yet their often highly
public efforts eclipse this core fact of the mass murder of 9/11/01 with
speculations about the WTC crashes seen as ludicrous by just about everyone
outside of 9/11 conspiracy-discussion circles.
The finding that the
buildings were demolished is supported by vast bodies of hard and
self-corroborating photographic, video, seismic, thermal, and metallurgical
evidence, and the official story rests on a theory that has never been
demonstrated outside of terrorist incidents: top-down "progressive collapse".
That is, the official story runs counter to the scientific method in the most
basic way.
Contrast that to the hodgepodge of WTC crash theories, all
based on some combination of radically overreaching conclusions from very low
resolution video of questionable authenticity, ignorance of crash dynamics,
unwarranted conclusions about eyewitness reports or the lack thereof, etc.
-Jim
COMMENT
:
Hoffman
claims that he made "3 points ". Lets look at point 2.
[[ 2. The conclusions that the no-planers
draw from the WTC videos are entirely unsupported. ]]
Whatever
school of logic Hoffman attended, he should ask for his money back. The simple
restating of a concluding opinion is not a point relevant to supporting the
conclusion. One can't use a conclusion as a point of evidence for itself. Little
wonder it was ignored.
Lets look at point 1.
1.
The information content of images/video is proportional to their resolution.
So is Hoffman arguing that we can't see a large plane, and there's a
good reason for that - or that we can see a large plane ? This goes back to the
same clarification demanded of the Salters - which they took such offence to. If
one is arguing that we can't see a plane, then Hoffman 's allegation becomes
relevant to the debate. But if one is arguing that the object looks like a large
plane anyway - i.e., that poor resolution has not obscured its ID, then why
bother bringing up poor resolution at all ? So for Hoffman 's first point to
have any relevance to the debate, he would first have to answer the same basic
question which put the Salters into such a spin. So I asked him and he declined
to answer.
He thus declined to state his position on whether the object
is identifiable, but then expected us to take seriously as "a point " of
argument that there’s a good reason why the object is (perhaps) not
identifiable,which has no relevance unless one is agreeing that the object is
not identifiable from its visual appearance.
But
the best is yet to come from Hoffman. From his above two posts, his third point.
July 29
[[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.]]
July
30.
[[Gerard
wants me to produce witnesses. That's sort of like looking for witnesses that
the sun rose yesterday. I've done some research and I can't find any actual
witnesses to that. There are assertions that the sun rose at a certain time, and
there are probably webcam recordings of it, but those could all be part of an
elaborate hoax. :-)]]
Hoffman
's technique is to assert that a unique event is in fact a routine event which
is intrinsically beyond argument. Stripping away the veneer of his sarcastic
language, his argument is actually "The fact that it happened is the proof that
it happened."
Hoffman asserts that the alleged crashing of two large
planes into the WTC is analogous to the rising of the sun. Does NY radio
broadcast something like this each morning ?
"Good morning NY ! Sunrise
this morning is at 6.48, high tide at 10. 43, the Nth tower will be hit at 8.43
and the South Tower at 9.05. We have our roving reporter Matthew in the chopper
over the skies of Manhattan - Matt, what will the Sth tower strike look like
this morning ? "
"Well, Bobby, because its getting earlier now, due to
the summer coming on, its not quite as spectacular as it has been in the last
few weeks, but there's but there's a decent fireball to be seen from the South
side, because it comes in a bit lower now "
So there we have the essence
of the 767 argument, in relation to the Nth tower.
1. Because we can't see a
large plane on the video, that proves its there.
2. Because we can't find
any witnesses to a large plane, that proves that hundreds of people of saw it.
Such reasoning could have profound implications for our criminal justice
system.
"I know he had a gun because I can't see one on the security
video. The video is such poor resolution that no gun is visible. So I think its
reasonable to assume that he had one, and unreasonable to assume that he didn't.
And if he had a gun, then hundreds of people would have seen it "
"Do
you have any of those witnesses ? "
"No-I couldn't find anybody who saw
him with a gun, which just goes to show how obvious it is that he had one. I
don't have any witnesses that the sun rose this morning, but we know it did."
"So in summary, the evidence is - the security camera fails to show the
defendant with a gun and there are no witnesses that he had one ? "
"That's right. "
"We find the defendant guilty ! "
If
anybody alleges that these email exchanges did not take place, or that I have
dishonestly edited or selectively chosen them,I can forward the original mails.
Because Eric Salter changes his webpage from time to time, if anything I
have alluded to from the webpage no longer accurately represents the page, I can
provide the back ups of his previous versions, if required.
HOME
INDEX OF SEPT 11
ARTICLES