Plane or No Plane?
Definitely a contentious issue for 9/11.
Against the no-plane argument: Eric Salter.
For the no-plane argument: Gerard Holmgren.
I think both sides have points, and I think it is just as silly to say there were no planes involved at all in 9/11 as is to say that the four planes on 9/11 were the official flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. I think there were real flying things used on 9/11, but not flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. What exactly was used isn't clear.
Just a simple example: in the figure Eric Slater shows the front-on profile of a 767 lined up with the hole in the WTC facade (north tower). The problem is the 767 profile never seems to line up quite right with the hole in the buildings.
The imprint in the building is very close to the profile, but where is the hole from the massive starboard engine? There is intact facade there. Even the hole for the port engine is small. And where did the tail go? The plane went into the building all the way but the huge tail seems not to have left an imprint on the facade, unlike the thin wingtips.
This evidence, which is very official, strongly casts doubt that a 767 hit the North tower. And we can't just dismiss this an anomaly. There HAS to be an explanation.
The best explanation is that something other than a 767 hit the North tower.
Against the no-plane argument: Eric Salter.
For the no-plane argument: Gerard Holmgren.
I think both sides have points, and I think it is just as silly to say there were no planes involved at all in 9/11 as is to say that the four planes on 9/11 were the official flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. I think there were real flying things used on 9/11, but not flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. What exactly was used isn't clear.
Just a simple example: in the figure Eric Slater shows the front-on profile of a 767 lined up with the hole in the WTC facade (north tower). The problem is the 767 profile never seems to line up quite right with the hole in the buildings.
The imprint in the building is very close to the profile, but where is the hole from the massive starboard engine? There is intact facade there. Even the hole for the port engine is small. And where did the tail go? The plane went into the building all the way but the huge tail seems not to have left an imprint on the facade, unlike the thin wingtips.
This evidence, which is very official, strongly casts doubt that a 767 hit the North tower. And we can't just dismiss this an anomaly. There HAS to be an explanation.
The best explanation is that something other than a 767 hit the North tower.
posted by spooked at 11:26 AM
5 Comments:
As an amateur sleuth goes- well, you got the "amateur" part down.
As for the "sleuth" part...I don't think you'll learn much from Gerald Holmgren.
Oh man, where do I start...
Holmgren, putting on his Audio Engineer's hat- the one with the holes in it, so he can talk through it: "...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..."
It's called "microphone compression and limiting", Holmgren. Not to mention the dialable volume gain on your household audio reproduction device. Yes, believe it or not, media devices seldom if ever provide realistic re-creations of capital-R reality. If you had actually been there...it would have been louder.
But not THAT loud. As for the idea that "the fireman would have been clutching their ears"...I used to live in the flight path of an International Airport- Sky Harbor, in Phoenix. Those jets used to make their final approach at a lot lower than 800 feet. They were loud some times, but I never had to clutch my ears. See, there's this thing called the Inverse Square Law...oh, why bother.
Reading those debates between Salter and Holmgren reminded me of the set piece in Joseph Heller's book Good As Gold, where the protagonist gets heckled and ridiculed, gang-tackled by his entire family for trying to explain some basic scientific principle like the law of gravity.
Holmgren's a flat weasel, that's all there is to it. The No-Planers all argue the same way: they fill any blank space in the record of events with their own fantasies and suppositions, and dare the opposition to prove them wrong. Except there's nothing there to begin with...
You know, "prove the moon isn't made out of green cheese."
"Nobody really saw those planes fly into the WTC. Prove me wrong."
What proof would be sufficient, for Holmgren? There's always another dodge. The guy's a solipsist, he thinks he's the David Hume of the digital age.
Salter eventually figured it out, to his credit. And left the detritus behind, the carny marks doing Gerald Holmgren's Guided Meditation Course. The ones who have never been to New York.
Never argue with someone who bases their position on "analyzing" video footage.
Digital Video Scryers. Only instead of a crystal ball, you squint into the wilderness of mirrors created by blowing some distantly filmed DVD footage up to the approximate resolution of a hounds-tooth fabric sport coat, looking at a shiny silvery jet crashing into shiny silvery windows, thinking you know what you're looking at. And you think you know how to gauge scale because you're looking at images like this, this garbage? I've found little badges in Cracker Jack boxes and gum machines that look like Galen Rowell photographs, compared to that noise.
I also think you could use a course in visual perception psych. Squint long enough, and all sorts of things happen to those funny little receptors in there. First your eyes start playing tricks on you, and then your mind starts playing tricks on your eyes...not that even four days without sleep could ever be as bad as low-rez digital video footage, mind you.
The ONLY crash that's suspicious is Flight 93. Not that I presume to know for sure what happened...if you're seeking Certainty, you'll find much better odds of finding it in the No-Planer Community.
well rdr, i gree fully with your comment.
howver, you'll probabely be classified as a psyop, as the mindframe seems to be set.
Psyops have a habit of making up stuff and claiming Holmgren said it, since what he actually said makes too much sense.
I don't find any link in the psyoper's screed, and doubt Holmgren would bother with such a minor point.
http://missilegate.com shows the first hit broken down into 1/60th of a second increments.
One can see the explosions developing independently of one another, creating the "plane shape hole" in the complete absense of a plane.
http://missilegate.com/perspective.htm
is a demonstration of Perspective, the unbreakable law of nature that says close things look bigger than the same thing farther away.
The Plane Shape Hole appears at the farthest away point we are concerned with. If there were a plane in the footage, it would look larger than the plane shape hole while it was closer to the camera.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/marcus/perspective
shows how a plane flying overhead would have looked when it was closer to the camera, flying toward the building.
Nada. It's not there.
It's not a problem with how loud planes are, it's a problem of how a big ole plane managed to disguise itself as Blob 11,
http://missilegate.com/blob11/
a flying pig
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig
Nothing like being accused of being a "psyopper" by a totally anonymous poster.
Perhaps I should change my blogger tag to the one I use in most on-line forums-robertdreed.
Technically speaking, there's a break between the "t" the "d", and the 3rd "r." Some people don't get that, even when given my initials as a hint, for reasons which I still find much more explainable than someone's manifest inability to get the difference between looking at a hole in a building, and looking at a comically low-resolution close-up still photo from a distantly filmed digital video of a hole in a building.
I find the presumption of possessing a preternatural ability to estimate the actual size of distant visual features in measured feet to within a few percentage points of error, reckoning with nothing more than their unaided vision, to be similarly inexplicable.
Anyway, if any of you counterintelligence sleuths want to check in with the people who have been acting as my control agents for the past few years, call California Co-op Cab at 916-444-7777, and ask the office about me. My cover's been put in place fairly convincingly, there's even a picture of me up on the wall over at the barn there on Glide Avenue, from one of the Christmas parties.
The presence of elaborately devised false trails points toward the likelihood that someone somewhere has put a high priority on covering up the truth.
It's not a matter of me being "anonymous" -- this board requires hoops for an ID, while Anonymous is default.
It's a matter of lying about what Gerard Holmgren said, and debunking that, while entirely ignoring the actual issue.
It's that matter of pretending there is no such thing as perspective.
Again, an object big enough to make a plane shape hole would have looked LARGER THAN THE PLANESHAPE HOLE when it was closer to the camera.
This doesn't happen.
The object demonstrates the perspective view of a much smaller object.
http://missilegate.com/blob11
The "plane shape hole" is the product of multiple discrete explosions with no plane in sight.
http://missilegate.com
Incidentally, if you havent figured it out, I am The Webfairy.
http://thewebfairy.com/911
Post a Comment
<< Home