|
SALTER DEBATES -- Part 2
[[Did any of these folks interview the thousands of witnesses and ask them what they saw?]] I was the one who asked Eric to supply the witnesses he had claimed [[Since there are allegedly "thousands" of witnesses to a large plane,I am asking Eric to produce 50 of them. Less than 5% of those available -which is not an unreasonable proportion to ask for (Unless of course Eric was exaggerating a little with the " thousands" claim - in which case I seek an acknowledgment and retraction)]] After this request was ignored,I asked [[ Eric has claimed that there are "thousands" of witnesses to a large jet hitting the Nth tower. In the light of this dramatic claim, I am - for the third time - asking Eric to produce 50 of them. Not an unreasonable proportion of the alleged number. Why has he not done so?]] This prompted him to withdraw from the debate. (Note, "third time" was a mistake, I should have said "second time". I got it mixed up with a similar debate I was having with someone else at the same time.) As an aside to this, I made a comment that witness evidence did not support a large plane, one which I was certainly prepared to back up with documentation had Eric been prepared to continue with the debate. In response, Salter - while still refusing to retract his public outburst against me, and still refusing to either substantiate or withdraw his extravagant claim of "thousands of witnesses - asked me to become his private research assistant. Naturally, I was not interested - but was quite prepared to provide the evidence to the debate - which Eric had clearly indicated he would be continuing. Eric had written [[I'm working on another response which will be okay to post responses to.]]and [[I'm working on a longer response, but it will have to wait until I'm satisfied with my research. ]] to which I had replied [[I'll post that stuff to the group, when I'm ready. ]]and [[I'll await your longer response. ]] So there I was, waiting for him to return to the debate, and the next thing I know, he has published this outright lie on the website, about me refusing to provide the witnesses - a complete reversal of the truth. Sinking even lower, Salter goes on to create the impression that I had started the witness debate, something which he had always thought was peripheral. From the website "Regardless, witness testimony does not count as hard evidence. With the multiple videotapes and photographs of the 2nd impact, I don't think reasonable people have felt it necessary to collect eyewitness testimony to support the official story of 767 impacts. That doesn't mean that those witnesses don't exist." Quite a turnaround from his opening salvo! [[Did any of these folks interview the thousands of witnesses and ask them what they saw?]] I have provided the exact exchanges which took place between us. Nothing edited. By contrast, Eric - after accepting without thanks my generous offer of the right to veto distribution of this exchange - then spent the next few weeks working on a web page in which he published a highly selective and distorted collection of snippets from the very same exchange - designed to manipulate the exchange into something more favourable to his cause - while having given me and the rest of the list the impression that his next action would be to return to the debate. However, this was only the entree to the real debate. There was a fresh exchange in July, and this is very revealing about how the arguments of the Salters stand up to critical analysis and questioning. 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. 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. Good. Let's see the proof. 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. 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 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 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 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 Brian Salter July 30 On Jul 30, 2004, at 8:10 AM, Gerard Holmgren wrote: Since Eric Salter ran away simply because I asked to clarify approximately how much of the wingspan he believed was visible, then perhaps Brian will take up the cause. I do not contradict Eric's view. On the contrary, you are just reinforcing my point. Eric has been very methodical and accurate about not making unsupported claims. He is disrupting the claim that the Naudet footage proves that the aircraft CANNOT be a 767, and he has argued this point successfully. You have repeatedly made the claim that you can prove with certainty that the WTC1 aircraft could not have been a 767. Now you are pretending as if you didn't, and trying to manipulate the discussion to make it seem like Eric is the one who is making overreaching claims. It's really a transparent tactic, and it's not working. And this is not the way that sincere truthseekers operate. It also seems to me that with this latest argument morph / change of subject, you are trying to avoid answering some points that I made in a previous email, a particularly important that Eric has already long-since answered the "questions" you have been raising about the visibility of the wings. What do you have to say to that? I've noticed that now you seem to have dropped the wings issue without comment -- is this the case? [[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 is not really accurate. In Eric's view, it's more like "Its definitely a human and fairly tall." Eric and I are not disagreeing. You are grasping at straws. The analogy I made is perfectly consistent with everything Eric has said. To approach this debate methodically, one must address the evidence one step at a time. The first step is simply to ask, does the Naudet video offer sufficient detail to make a precise identification? does it provide any reliable, unequivocal evidence of any sort that the aircraft which hit WTC1 was NOT a 767? The answer to both these questions, spelled out in detail by Eric, is unquestionably NO. Therefore, if one is going to argue about what hit WTC1, one must start with other evidence. But what is this other evidence? furthermore, such arguments only stand a chance of helping rather than hurting the cause of 911 truth if they are overwhelmingly supported and a slam-dunk case. As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, other issues like the wtc demolition have been backed up with scientific arguments which cannot be denied based on subjective interpretation. This is the crucial difference! thus the status of the evidence is completely at a different level compared to the WTC video analysis, which leaves a gigantic margin for interpretation and opinion -- to put it mildly. So, what is your supporting evidence that something other than a 767 or similar sized aircraft hit WTC1? please show any evidence for a plane substitution which gives any substantive reason to believe that the substitute was significantly different than the original flight 11 767. Please give a thorough and logical reason for why the planners of the 911 op would have needed to substitute a different type of aircraft, and explain why it would be worth it for them to take that risk. Please explain how an aircraft that was significantly different in size and shape to a 767 would leave an entry hole that very closely fits a 767 in both size and shape. To sum up: because the video in not conclusive one way or the other, AND there is abundantly adequate evidence that a 767 impacted the south tower, AND no one has offered a reason why there would be a special plane substitution just for the north tower, AND no one has offered a logical reason why the plotters would take the enormous risk of using an aircraft that was obviously and blatantly not a 767, AND the north tower impact hole is a near-perfect match for a 767, AND it is absolutely not necessary to argue that the WTC1 plane was not a 767 in order to fundamentally question the official story concerning the 9/11 "hijacking", it is obvious to me that there is no solid basis to offer the public arguments in favor of a non-767 theory, and that it only distracts from the better parts of the case. One can posit a plane substitution which involved an identical or closely similar aircraft. But in this case, it would be the supporting evidence and documentation - flight records and other such info - which was truly important, and looking at the video will still be as inconclusive as ever before, in fact still a red herring, since even in the case of a substitution there is still no logical starting point to assume a radically different type of aircraft. This is where the fundamental logic comes in -- where the video is indeterminate, theorizing about the video itself does not add to the case at all! It doesn't help us break 9/11! you can say, "OK, the Naudet video and other supporting evidence clearly show that an aircraft very closely resembling a 767 in size and shape impacted the north tower. But it might not have been a 767! It could have been some other aircraft that was almost identical!" to which any reasonable person would say, "So what?" to repeat my point -- a non-767 argument only has merit at this point if there is some really powerful and compelling form of evidence OTHER THAN THE VIDEO which supports it. And I do not believe that any such evidence yet exists -- all we have is more stuff in the category of amateur subjectivity, such as speculation about the sounds on the video. (BTW, like Eric I also work in the media field --I happen to have professional experience as a sound engineer and sound effects designer, and nothing about the sounds on the video strikes me as anomalous). Eric and I have made the point quite clearly: until there is a stunning quantum leap forward in the quality of evidence provided (as well as providing necessary logical explanations for these far-reaching claims, which are still missing), and there is either honest acknowledgment or genuine rebuttal of all the numerous errors and gaffes that Eric has methodically and fairly exposed in his two critiques, non-767 theories about the WTC impacts are dead in the water as far as claims of proof (such as Holmgren has made totally emphatically and unequivocally in his most recent 9/11 summary), and are at best a tangential curiosity investigation-wise, given their current state. And this is an important point: Eric and I have been completely fair in saying over and over that if new and substantially better quality evidence can be put on the table, then the outlook can change. But as the saying goes, the ball is in the other court. Up to this point we have seen no improvement in the evidence, and even a stubborn insistence on making the same errors that have already been exposed! (as I pointed out about some aspects of Loughrey's new piece). There is actually very little ground even to have a debate at this point. Holmgren, you have failed to improve the state of the evidence for your side -- all you have done so far is to raise side issues about terms and method of debate. -Brian Gerard Holmgren July 30 I asked Brian a very simple question. The rambling response was anything but direct, and still leaves me in some confusion as to exactly what Brian 's position is. Of course, I know that he thinks that a 767 hit the Nth tower. What I am trying to establish is the exact process of reasoning and observation which leads Brian to this assertion. To this end I asked him a very specific question in relation to what he believes can be seen on the video of the object in flight towards the Nth tower. Not what he deduces it might be, (we already know that ) but of his opinion of what can be directly seen on the video. Below are two possible options. From our previous correspondence, I thought that Brian was choosing the C) option, but this mail seems to imply that it might actually be B). But I couldn't tell from the ramble below, so I'm asking Brian, just to clarify the point, so that we can then move on to the wing question, which he requested I address. I am more than keen to do so. I am pleased to see that unlike Eric, who regarded questions in relation to the wingspan as tedious game playing, Brian is champing at the bit to address the question. So am I, Brian . So as a precursor to discussion of the wings, will you please clarify for the list your precise opinion on these two options. 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. Once this question is out of the way, then we have a reference point for debate. Brian Salter July 30 Holmgren, my reasoning was perfectly clear and you know it -- you're playing dumb. 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, I agree. It is totally, totally illogical to consider the video evidence by itself without taking into account the other contributing evidence, and your attempt to artificially isolate the discussion to the video itself shows how you are backed into a corner and have nothing to stand on. The video does not contradict in any way a 767. Based on the video alone, what appears theoretically *could* be something somewhat different than a 767. But the fuselage is visible enough to make a rough estimate of its size, and this rough estimate corresponds well to a 767. The wings are barely visible, but the shadow they cast as the plane impacts the side of the building is unmistakable. At this point, we must leave illogic-land of Holmgren and do what reasonable thinking people do: address the other contributing pieces of evidence. This is how the arguments would work in a courtroom. In this case, since we already know that we are dealing with an object that has a roughly 767-sized fuselage which definitely has large wings which cast a shadow, we can look at the impact hole for clues about those wings. And guess what -- there's a remarkably clear outline of gashes in the building's facade, obviously cut by two wings. And this outline fits a superimposed shape & wingspan of a 767 basically to a tee! Thus, the evidence which exists very strongly supports the existence of a 767 or airliner with virtually the same shape and size. You have not offered any scientifically plausible explanation for the knife-like wing gashes being caused by something other than wings the size of those on a 767. Making an estimate of the wingspan based on the video alone is totally pointless and irrational, and you're deliberately wasting time by asking for this. This is the reason why Eric made an estimate of the fuselage but not the wings. Unlike you, Loughrey, and Webfairy, Eric is careful and meticulous with the evidence, and doesn't try to make claims about the images in the video which aren't reliable. You're playing the same nasty game of innuendo as Webfairy by trying to stir up an artificial sense that Eric is hiding something because he didn't do the wingspan estimate of the video. He didn't do it because he's approaching this analysis with honesty. Same goes for the way that Eric and I decline to state that the video itself absolutely proves there is a 767 -- we take this position not to be shifty and hide something, but because we are approaching this debate with exacting scientific standards. The evidence does NOT support the existence of some drastically different type of plane or missile. Therefore, even though there is no absolute proof for a final aircraft identification based on the video, this doesn't mean that all speculations are equally supported and deserve equal consideration. This is self-apparent to any reasonable person. [[ 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.]] Disagree -- the COMBINATION of the video and impact hole evidence logically and rationally put together, rather than irrationally subjected to your pick-n-choose filtering approach to the evidence (a timeless and familiar tactic of sophists and cons), overwhelmingly favors a 767 or very similar aircraft. The speculation that it was something radically different is contradicted by the available evidence, and there is no positive evidence whatsoever to support this. All of the existing positive evidence is either ambiguous or supportive of a 767. Eric has shown in his critiques that the "analysis" behind the claims of the video definitely disproving a north tower 767 is almost totally fraudulent and based on GROSS errors and comically amateurish misinterpretations. You have made the definite claim of proof that the video contradicts a 767 with certainty. This is on the record, and thus it is you and not Eric and I who is making claims beyond the evidence, and bear the burden of proof. You, Webfairy, et al, have been resoundingly proven wrong on your unequivocal claim of final no-767 "proof", and now you're playing shift-the-focus games to avoid admitting this in an honest way. You are trying to twist the discussion around to make it look like Eric and I are the ones overreaching while you are the one acting like you're taking the high ground and doing things carefully by the numbers. I can see right through this and I'm sure many others can too. Here is documentation showing that your new affectation of being cautious and just putting ideas on the table for consideration is a defensive fraud and put-on. These are some items from you most recent 9/11 evidence kit which simply and clearly state the kind of claims of finished, absolute proof which you have now implicitly slinked away from, and are trying to distract attention from by engaging in an all-out flurry of nastiness to try and grasp at any straw which will put Eric and me on the defensive: 2.3 What Hit the WTC towers? They are alleged to have been AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767s. A close viewing of the videos reveals that neither object was a Boeing 767. 2.3.1 http://thewebfairy.com/911 2.3.2 The 9/11 video footage of the planes striking the WTC was fake. By Scott Loughrey http://911hoax.com/ Since there is no annotation to the Webfairy link, it can only be taken as a blanket endorsement of anything on the site. However you have not answered Eric's accurate and informed critique of the many technical errors and basic misrepresentations in Webfairy's work. Thus you are totally hypocritical in posturing yourself as the one to set up terms of debate. You are already in default of any standard of fair play already. The ball is in your court and you're trying to deny that. -Brian Gerard Holmgren July 30 Brian asserts that I'm playing dumb. Then humour me Brian, by answering the question I asked , and paint me into a corner with nowhere to go. Because the evasive rant below still does not answer the very specific question I asked. Your reply is so evasive as to be almost meaningless. Thus I can still not address your position without the possibility that you will later accuse me of twisting your words, because you are still refusing to tell the list even the first of the many points on which you you build your (very) often stated conclusions. I am in no way suggesting that this debate will be confined to visual evidence alone. But I do like to establish things on a point by point by point basis. There is value in deconstructing things and then putting them back together. What is still not entirely clear to me is whether Brian is claiming that his assertion that its a 767 or similar is based on an observation that the object in flight is clearly a large plane, *from its appearance alone * and then that is further backed up by forensic evidence, such as hole size, wreckage etc., or whether Brian is claiming that the visual on its own is inconclusive, ie that it *might be * a large plane and that he is relying on the forensic evidence to complete the case. I would like to get this point straight. How can I tackle Brian 's argument, when I don't know the basis of it? For example he replied in response to this option (GH question) [[b) That the appearance of the object, while unable to be identified (BS reply) " yes, I agree. " But then goes on "it is totally, totally illogical to Later Brian responded to the alternative option (GH question) [[c) That the object is so indistinct, that it's very difficult to tell (BS reply) "disagree -- the COMBINATION of the video and impact hole evidence logically and rationally put together..." So once again, Brian refuses to comment on what the object looks like. All he's doing is answering a specific question about a specific point with a restatement that when you add everything up, its a big plane. Brian, we already know that you believe that *when you add it all up * its a big plane. So now we want to know specifically *what * you are adding up. My question related to the *appearance* of the object in flight. Brian apparently is refusing to comment on the appearance of the object in flight, because he believes that it would be illogical to do so. Excuse me! The object has an appearance does it not? I have at no time suggested that Brian 's comment on the appearance of the object will be held as a final opinion on what it is. I just want to know what he thinks it *looks like. * - as its in flight towards the building. Is Brian saying that he has *no opinion whatsoever * about what it looks like ? Does it look like "nothing" ? The object has a visual appearance, does it not Brian ? You can see an object of some kind there, can you not, Brian ? So describe the object Brian - *as you see it *. We can add things up later. I think everyone knows the two options by now. Brian, just answer b or c, and then you can look forward to painting me into a corner from which there will be no escape ! Victory is within your grasp, Brian ! Because answering the question will force me to move on to the question of the wings. You said yourself that you were very keen to address this. I must admit, that I am quailing somewhat Brian, at the prospect that once you answer this question - b or c - that I will then be plunged into a desperate situation where you can back me into a corner and expose my arguments for the tomfoolery they are. Nevertheless Brian, I march bravely to my doom, by promising to move on the question of the wings - once you answer - b or c. 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 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 labeled"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 Continued in Part 3 |
| In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources. |
