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. Brian 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."

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 figure running up a mountainside. Now, it could be a human, but can you absolutely PROVE that? ]]

is not really accurate. In Eric's view, it's more like "Its definitely a human and fairly tall."

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://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html
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
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.]]

(BS reply)

" yes, I agree. " But then goes on "it is totally, totally illogical to
consider the video evidence by itself without taking into account the other contributing evidence, "

Later Brian responded to the alternative option

(GH question)

[[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]]

(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.

 

CONTINUE     INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES      HOME