-------- Original Message --------

Subject:  Re: Knocks on the Psyche
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:18:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:  Nico Haupt <nicohaupt@...>




  --- jeff strahl <jstrahl@...> schrieb:

>> The website dogging Michael Elliot's did not
>> suddenly appear after Toronto,
>> it was on-line well before that.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>


911review.com was created in February 2004, weeks
before Toronto.

I think, it was a personal revenge act by Jim Hoffman
(with help from his friend Paul Borneo), hurt in his
ego, that it was implied last year, he was tied to the
NSA (They are one of the sponsors of his institute).

( i still think, the NSA ties are overexaggerated, but
he had the proper chance to respond.
I personally have much respect of Hoffman and i think,
he's a genius, but as i said, much hurt in his ego)


However what strikes me more, is that at particular
the same time of a promotion campaign for
911review.COM, once again Mark Robinowitz (then
bitching against "pod  people" and "no planers" in the
911truth alliance list), started to harrass
911review.ORG, because of his association with
TheWebfairy.

The harsh input of Robinowitz also convinced Bill
Douglas (911Visibility) to back up from 911review.ORG
and influenced ny911truth.org to remove
letsroll911.org from their link list  (at that time, i
wasn't member of ny911truth any longer).

Their main decisions are currently manipulated by Nic
Levis over there, who never stopped his "3 week
vacation" in late 2003 in NYC and i still wonder,
where he got his money from!!!!!

He turned ny911truth into a coffeeshop meeting.

This was an activist group, i co-created for much more
progressive action, but Levis blocked all my ideas,
questioned the message on the banners, and manipulated
two other members against me, used his "reverse
psychology"  tricks against me, telling me, that i
have a 'movement complex' and belittered my early
steps in late 2001, to unite 911truth seekers.

I'm currently only in touch with some members over
there, which i still respect, and they're also less
active on the streets for the same reasons.


The strange irony is, that 911review.ORG was also on
the first generation of 911visibility posters, which
got later shipped to NYC.

It was also the strong input of Angie and me, who
finally "convinced"  Bill Douglas to change the
message on these posters.

(His original idea was much more partisan, anti-Bush
only, which i thought, would backfire and only work
REPS into their hands)

We couldn't convince him for a second print with the
message "9/11 inside job". Douglas basically
blackmailed and belittlered ny911truth. We should say
YES or:
NO Posters!

At the same time, Levis decided , we should more
cooperate with 9/11 family members and drop one banner
"for a while", replace it with another, softer
message.


My suggestion was, to run BOTH banners, but he
manipulated my suggestion as "sabotage" against
families.

What a joke. I'm almost in personal touch with the
Jersey Girls since months in a very small private
mailing list, run by Allan Duncan.

After some weeks, Levis also manipulated our leaflets
and on one day i missed sections on WTC 7.

After too many fights with Levis, i decided to leave
ny911truth.
I have to admit, that i also failed to deal with this
more properly, if i would be less outraged, but that's
my temper. However, i failed.


I wonder now, if the whole witch hunt on "9/11
scientists" was well orchestrated from Robinowitz
("peak oil supporter"), with the main goal to sabotage
ALL 9/11 scientists.

When i spoke once with Paul Borneo on the phone to
argue, that his project would more hurt the whole
movement than 911review.ORG only, he wasn't convinced.

He used the same self-brainwashed slang, that
911review.org would "discredit" the movement, the same
slang "Robinowitz" is using.

How can a small detail (pod/flash) "discredit" a whole
movement, which isn't even picked up or discredited in
mainstream media, like they did with Pentagon
research??

Did Robinowitz convince Jim Hoffmann to start this
project??

Robinowitz was also aware of Dave v.Kleists doku "9/11
In Plane Site" , weeks in advance.
He also released a review, well planned, 2 WEEKS
before its release, to SMEAR IT.

Some weeks earlier, he started the anti-"pod" and "No
planer" campaign.

Only a few weeks later, letsroll911 was smeared with
the hate campaign, one "anonymous" netizen (we have
some of his IPs) tried now to tie Jayhan's roomate to
FEMA, this info well planted on libertyforum, leaked
to WRH and mirrored at forums on globalresearch and
cooperativeresearch.

Robinowitz also promoted the Jayhan-Roomate-FEMA-story
in the 9/11 truth alliance list, without questioning
their credibility and logic of it.

I'm not saying, that Douglas and Robinowitz are
COINTELPRO.


Honestly, i met both and their intellect is too thin
stretched for it, but at the latter, i think,
Robinowitz is played by someone else.

(I wouldn't say the same on Levis. He's intelligent
enough, to be german INTEL
I told him already months ago, i will dig on this.)

But also follow the "peak-oilers":
Colin Campbell (Ex-British Petroleum and Amoco),
Kjell Aleklett.

Don't get distracted by Ruppert.

In my opinion, Ruppert is played too and just a
nutcase,  harmless but with a sherlock holmes complex:
Too much narrative, less "evidence".

Better ask yourself:

Why is ASPO (in cohut with Schlumberger) and all these
wannabee geologists and Ruppert-friends not promoting
9/11 Truth and the InsideJob -idea on their websites??


Why did Ruppert suddenly claim, he found the "holy
grail" and a whistleblower at  NORAD, when Honegger,
woodybox and me were already some steps further, could
even almost prove, that some 9/11 flights were part of
  terror drills (i call it amalgam virgo 1.5) and
grounded in cleveland ??!!

The whole discussion on "TwinFlight 11" and the
"Cleveland Mystery Airport" suddenly stopped with the
smear campaign against all "no planer", "pod people"
and other "9/11 scientists".

This WAS calculated sabotage!!

nico


> on 7/28/04 8:43 PM, The Webfairy at
> webfairy@... wrote:
>

>> > Chosso was not on the well paid "Steering
>
>
> Committee" in the advance of

>> > the conference.
>> > I have messages from Dave McGowan's supporters
>
>
> arguing with these well

>> > funded theoretically respectable Steering Committe
>
>
> members. The

>> > political agenda stands out strongly.
>> > Except for the ringer, I am certainly not
>
>
> suggesting that any of the

>> > participants were consciously influenced by the
>
>
> money influx.

>> > However, the sudden appearance of a number of
>
>
> dodgy websites,

>> > particularly the one dogging Michael Elliott's
>
>
> site with a similar name

>> > give me great suspicion, since I have almost no
>
>
> belief in "coincidence"

>> > left.
>> >
>> >
>> > jeff strahl wrote:
>> >
>
>
>>> >> Which therefore means that "involvement" *in this
>>
>>
> case* does *not* mean

>>> >> "control", unless one wants to argue that Chosso
>>
>>
> exposed this in order for

>>> >> everyone to know that he is really working for
>>
>>
> Khashoggi. If this is all

>>> >> about saying that some pretty dubious elements
>>
>>
> participated in Toronto, then

>>> >> i have to tell you "good morning, where ya been?"
>>> >>
>>> >> Jeff
>>> >>
>>> >> on 7/28/04 5:18 PM, Scott Loughrey at
>>
>>
> scottl44@... wrote:

>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>
>>
>>>> >>> From:
>>>> >>> http://madcowprod.com/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> "Khashoggi?s involvement in the International
>>>
>>>
> 9/11

>>>> >>> Inquiry was discovered through the efforts of
>>>
>>>
> two of

>>>> >>> the most-respected researchers in attendance,
>>>
>>>
> Canadian

> >>> economist Michel Chossudovsky and German author
> >>> Mathias Broeckers."
> >>>
> >>> Hopsicko says Chosso has.
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -

> now, webfairy, well over a year ago i challenged you on the cia-drugs
> list concerning your "whatzit" video work as to when you were going to
> seek out the evaluation and endorsement from a trained image analysis
> expert for it.  have you ever made an attempt at this?
>
> -brian


The closest that has come forward is your "evil twin."
Interchangable wings and engines. Flat world where everything is the
same size, and sideways and up is the same thing.
Maybe this sort of notion is genetic.
http://www.sitbot.net/cgi-bin/htsearch.cgi?words=Salter+Whatzit
Our dustup from a couple years ago

It's a pity shame, since you're one of the few with a real handle on the
purpose and nature of the dialectic and the bi-partisan nature of the
plot against us.
http://www.sitbot.net/cgi-bin/htsearch.cgi?words=Collectives+vs+individuals+salt\
er


Brian Salter wrote:

>
> On Jul 29, 2004, at 11:19 PM, The Webfairy wrote:
>
>> What I know for sure is that the day before Farenheit 911 appeared in
>> theatres, an article appeared on oilempire.us making false
>> characterizations of me, Gerard Holmgren, and the verasity of my work.
>
>
> as i noted in my previous post, i am opposed to the tactics that mark
> robinowitz has used in his critiques, which i consider unconstructive
> and inflammatory.  he has also circulated proven disinfo, such as the
> allegation that jayhan was connected to FEMA and so forth.
>
>> I have never said or even thought that everyone who opposes, hasn't
>> really seen, or disagrees with my work is cointelpro.
>
>
> i'm glad to hear this... i forgot that you didn't actually accuse my
> brother of being cointelpro, you just accused him of not existing.  i
> didn't earn such a cool slander, tho -- you have only accused me of
> being a teletubby.
>
>> My work  is certainly toxic to the cointelpro faction committed to
>> the notion that real hijackers slammed real planes into buildings,
>> justifying the "War on Terror" that benefits police state tactics and
>> arms manufacturers.
>> It is toxic to the notion we should trust the media version of events.
>
>
> if i believed that your work is accurate and correct, then i would
> believe that it was also the "smoking gun" that could bring down the
> whole facade.  but, i don't agree with your work and i think it is
> highly flawed.  it may be hard for you acknowledge, but adopting your
> theory is not required to challenge the official notion of the 9/11
> 'hijackers' and who was really behind the whole deal.
>
>> This is why my work has come under particular attack from those
>> rehashing Eugenics notions as "Peak Oil".
>
>
> it might surprise you to hear that, even though i'm a skeptic of your
> work, i have also taken a fair amount of abuse from the "peak oil"
> crowd for being a doubter...
>
> now, webfairy, well over a year ago i challenged you on the cia-drugs
> list concerning your "whatzit" video work as to when you were going to
> seek out the evaluation and endorsement from a trained image analysis
> expert for it.  have you ever made an attempt at this?
>
> -brian
>
>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: Those hilarious witness reports
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:02:54 -0700
From:  jeff strahl <jstrahl@...>



John

You really seem detached from reality. Bob Kerrey has been all-out
warmongering during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Neither he, nor Cleland
nor Krugman are in the slightest bit likely to endorse the demolition
contention, any more than John Kerry. American Society of Civil Engineers
did a hatchet job on the collapse, basically endorsing the pancaking
fiction, even though one of the investigators, Prof Astaneh Asl of UC
Berkeley, admitted the evidence was largely destroyed, which made any
investigation problemmatic. The engineering community is likely to be like
Van Romero,  who suddenly retracted his "demolition" verdict, rendered on
Sept 13, 2001, after 2 days. The demolition contention relies on simple,
high school level physics, does not require experts to vett it.

Jeff

on 7/28/04 8:43 PM, John Kaminski at skylax@... wrote:

> Thanks Jeff. I hadn't seen that Heller piece. It's good and clear. But so was
> yours
> and Hoffman's. I basically understand about the time to fall and the outward
> angles
> of debris, but I fear the public perceives all that as subjective
> hairsplitting
> (even though we know it isn't) without enough emotional clout to override the
> dumbed-down public's preference for accepting the government's hollow story.
>
> It may be satisfying to condescend to "anointed experts" but I'm thinking
> media
> impact. How about an official judgment from the American Society of
> Professional
> Engineers? That kind of impact. Has there ever been a report from the guys who
> built the towers? Something that would smack the public in the face, and make
> the
> demolition of all the three (?) towers impossible to deny.
>
> As I am now arguing with Gerard and his allies about the distracting
> irrelevance of
> holograms and missiles, I am arguing with you about the need to get widely
> known
> personages to endorse the tower demolition contention, people on the order of
> Max
> Cleland, Bob Kerrey or Paul Krugman. Then others would follow. And such an
> endorsement would be made more likely by getting a big engineering firm to
> publicly
> endorse therse findings. That's what I meant to say.
>
> Get somebody nobody can ignore saying this, that's what is needed.
>
> jk
>
>
>
> jeff strahl wrote:
>
>> And what is a "reputable source" re engineering, John? I with an engineering
>> degree am not reputable? Jim Hoffman, a computer engineer with lots of
>> experience in combustion engineering experience, isn't either? Haw about
>> Dave Heller, who has degress in physics and architecture?
>> http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.shtml
>> Or Jerry Longspaugh? Are you all of a sudden impressed with those whom the
>> system annoints as "experts"?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> on 7/28/04 12:07 PM, John Kaminski at skylax@... wrote:
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>> This response seems to tilt the balance of this argument against Gerard and
>>> The Webfairy, who seem to be more intent on slamming the intentions and
>>> reputations of people who are trying to rationally critique fanciful
>>> interpretations of questionably judged and possibly suspiciously manipulated
>>> videos. It is a violation of what I call the Sam Ervin rule (he of Watergate
>>> fame), which states that if you can't refute a person's arguments, you
>>> attack
>>> their character.
>>> Further, to judge witness statements as "hilarious" with no buttressing
>>> explanations is tantamount to admitting your thesis won't hold up under
>>> impartial analysis. I think the time is fast approaching, if it's not here
>>> already, that these hologram/no plane/missile firing theses should be
>>> heavily
>>> criticized in a very public way as distracting disinformation that actually
>>> aid
>>> the government coverup by causing confusion among the minds of the
>>> undecided.
>>> This decision, however, should be withheld until someone with professional
>>> video analysis who is not a party to this discussion can render an impartial
>>> judgment as to the veracity of the Webfairy/Holmgren/Loughrey/Jayhan
>>> interpretations. Without this authentication, their claims pose a disastrous
>>> threat to the 9/11 truth movement, in the event those claims should be
>>> proven
>>> false.
>>> And in the unlikely event their interpretations were to be judged correct,
>>> we can all apologize to them and venerate them as saints to the movement.
>>> Until
>>> that time, and despite their undeniable contributions to other aspects or
>>> the
>>> investigations, these videos should be regarded as the greatest threat to
>>> uncovering the real story about 9/11.
>>> Along these same lines, we all need to scour our engineering connections to
>>> get some reputable source to issue a report saying the collapse of the
>>> towers
>>> could not have been caused by the plane impacts (because of the too-short
>>> time
>>> it took them to fall). Until this is professionally verified, doubters are
>>> always going to say, "Well, that's just your theory ...."
>>> Best wishes,
>>> John Kaminski
>>>
>>>
>>> gerard holmgren wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since Eric Salter has decided to slink off back to his troll cave to lick
>>>> his wounds and continue sniping from under a rock, where no-one can shoot
>>>> back, I can now turn my attention to some drivel about eyewtiness evidence
>>>> which was sent earlier by
>>>> rainesco@...
>>>>
>>>> The message is reproduced below, after which comes my reply.
>>>>
>>>> Message begins
>>>>
>>>>> I am not personally going to participate in squabbling over what hit the
>>>> towers (or didn't).  I did enough searching months ago that a the entire
>>>> spectrum of arguments against planes is null for me.  What type of planes
>>>> may be open to question, as well as how the situation was handled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eyewitness accounts from two survivors, one in each of the two towers:
>>>>>
>>>>> ... account from George Sleigh who saw the first impact and who not only
>>>> identified the plane as a passenger jet, but was close enough to see people
>>>> in the cockpit:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/wtc.survivor/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are accounts of the second hit from Stanley Praimnath:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gettysburgpresbyterian.org/sermons/020908.ihtml
>>>>> http://www.cbn.com/living/amazingstories/groundzero/wtc-praimnath.asp
>>>>>
>>>>> =====
>>>>>
>>>>> Snips from other pages --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 9:06 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 carrying 65 people
>>>> from Boston to Los Angeles, sliced into the midsection of Two World Trade
>>>> Center. Another grisly shower of debris rained down.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This landing gear, it landed on a woman," Kelly said. "She was five, 10
>>>> feet away from me. She was lying on her back, but her clothes half torn off
>>>> and it looked like her back was gone."
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> "So little (airplane) debris has been recovered that there's really no way
>>>> to quantify it," FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said. The only pieces on
>>>> display at the landfill were a piece of United 175's fuselage and several
>>>> pieces of landing gear.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 175:
>>>>>
>>>>> part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5
>>>>> a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC
>>>>> an engine on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC
>>>>>
>>>>> FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 11:
>>>>>
>>>>> a piece of landing gear on West Street 5 blocks south of the WTC
>>>>> life jackets and portions of seats on the roof of the Bankers Trust
>>>> building
>>>>> To this list we might add the passport of one of the alleged hijackers of
>>>> the flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the aircraft remains documented in FEMA's report, there
>>>> exist several photographs of jet engine parts, apparently from Flight 175,
>>>> taken by pedestrians.
>>>>>
>>>>> That these remains (excluding the passport) passed through the buildings
>>>>> is
>>>> consistent with the fact that landing gear and engines are the densest
>>>> parts
>>>> of jetliners, and that having missed the core, the fuselage of Flight 175
>>>> had enough momentum for some of it to make it out of the tower by punching
>>>> through the east corner of the tower's wall.
>>>>
>>>> message ends.
>>>>
>>>> OK. lets take the relevant extract from the first link.
>>>>
>>>> [[Aftering hearing  the whining engine of the jet, "I looked up out of the
>>>> window and just a few feet away from the building was this huge jet plane,"
>>>> he said.
>>>>
>>>> "The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought
>>>> to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air,' but I still thought it would
>>>> clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me.]]
>>>>
>>>> This really is a howler. A  speed of 450 mph, translates to approximately
>>>> 220 yards per second. How far is a  "few feet ". A 100 ft ? About 30 yards
>>>> ?
>>>> So he had 1/7 of a second to spot "people in the cockpit" and the lowered
>>>> landing gear, and have a thought that it was going to clear the building.
>>>>
>>>> Much less actually. Because if it hit  "a few floors " above him -  , thats
>>>> 20 - 40 ft above him - add the height of the plane, and the people in the
>>>> cockpit are 30 - 60 ft higher than him.
>>>> So when the plane is 60 ft away, he's looking up at the bottom of the
>>>> plane at  angle of between 25 and 45 degrees - from an office window - but
>>>> he can see the people in the cockpit ?
>>>>
>>>> So the people must have disappeared from his view when it got to with about
>>>> 50 ft.
>>>>
>>>> So he had about 1/14 of a second to see them.
>>>>
>>>> Lets say his description of a "few feet " is way out, and it was actually
>>>> much further. Fair enough, you can't expect people to be accurate in a
>>>> situation like that.
>>>>
>>>> As anyone can observe, sometimes its hard to see through the windscreen of
>>>> a
>>>> stationary car to see the people in it, when its only a few yards away,
>>>> depending on reflections. Try it, the next time you walk along a street
>>>> with
>>>> heavy traffic.
>>>> So how close would something have to be before you could spot people
>>>> through
>>>> the windscreen - with the object travelling at 220 yards per second.
>>>> Lets be generous and say that they became visible at a distance of 50
>>>> yards - and that is generous. And since the plane passed above him, the
>>>> angle to the cockpit became too steep to see them at a distance of 20
>>>> yards.
>>>> So  he had 1/7 of a second to see them.
>>>> Moving right along...
>>>>
>>>> The second link.
>>>>
>>>> This one doesn't even contain any witness reports, so I'm not sure why it
>>>> was included. Perhaps as filler to try to make it look like the post had
>>>> some content.
>>>> Or perhaps the poster thinks that this extract qualifies as a "witness
>>>> report"
>>>>
>>>> [[As he would later tell his story, those were his final words before he
>>>> spotted it: a gray shape on the horizon, an airplane, flying past the
>>>> Statue
>>>> of Liberty. The body of the United Airlines Flight 175 jet grew larger
>>>> until
>>>> he could see a red stripe on the fuselage. ]]
>>>>
>>>> Talk about whacko ! Eric and I were debating the Nth Tower - and someone
>>>> pulls out a witness report of the Sth tower to try to prove what hit the
>>>> NTh
>>>> tower !
>>>> But while we've got this alleged witness report to a completely seperate
>>>> event, I might as well demolish that too.
>>>>
>>>> Check the verification. This was published in the new York times on May 26
>>>> 2002.
>>>> Months after the event. The official story was burned into people's pysches
>>>> by then. Unless there are extraordinary reasons otherwise, the witness
>>>> accounts which matter are those which are reported immediately the event
>>>> happens, before any official line develops.
>>>>
>>>> And its not even a witness report. Its a narration by the NY times writer.
>>>> A
>>>> witness report is a statement from a witness, not a retrospective
>>>> commentary
>>>> on someone's experience - in the second person- penned months after the
>>>> event, by someone who wasn't there.
>>>> Even direct statements quoted in the paper are dubious because, they are,
>>>> by
>>>> definition, second hand, and we have no direct evidence that the person
>>>> referred to said anything of the sort.
>>>> A prime example of this was the Lincoln Liebner witness report  in
>>>> relation the pentagon. Liebner was in direct quotation marks as saying that
>>>> he saw an AA jet hit the pentagon. But a search through Lexis Nexus
>>>> revealed
>>>> that the quote a complete fabrication. It started with a press conference
>>>> by
>>>> Victoria Clarke, in which she made a second hand reference to a man called
>>>> Licoln Liebner who had seen "what happened " and then rushed into the
>>>> building to help injured people. The press never met Liebner and Clarke
>>>> made
>>>> no reference to any kind of plane, let alone an AA jet. Within a few hours
>>>> the story had evolved into a direct quote from  Liebener  seeing an AA jet
>>>> crash into the building, with the original press conference completely
>>>> disappearing from the story.
>>>> So then we get second hand crap like this - published 8 1/2  months
>>>> later - and people want to call it a  "witness report "  to what kind of
>>>> object hit the building, when it doesn't even quote the witness on anything
>>>> related to the identification of the object.
>>>>
>>>> The third link
>>>>
>>>> [[He works as a loan officer for the Fuji Bank in New York City. His office
>>>> was located on the 81st floor of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. While
>>>> on
>>>> the phone, he looked out the window and saw something that he'll never
>>>> forget.
>>>>
>>>> Stanley: I was looking towards the Statue of Liberty and in mid-sentence, I
>>>> said, "I have got to go. A plane is aiming for me." That's all I said. I
>>>> dropped the phone, and I jumped towards my desk, which was 6 or 7 feet
>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>> I said, "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." And I went into the fetal
>>>> position. I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried.
>>>>
>>>> Just before I jumped there, I saw this plane eyeball-to-eyeball. It was
>>>> like
>>>> the biggest thing I've ever seen coming towards me. But it was happening in
>>>> slow motion, giving me enough time to jump under my desk.
>>>>
>>>> Later on, when I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that
>>>> it made, whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I
>>>> said what I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a
>>>> doubt
>>>> that my Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch.]]
>>>>
>>>> So he had enough time to jump towards the desk, 6 or 7 feet away - and dive
>>>> under it. That takes at least  1 1/2 seconds - try it -so the plane had to
>>>> be at least 300 yards away when he got his last look at it .
>>>>
>>>> But it gets better. It seems that he was huddled under his desk and
>>>> praying - before the plane hit.
>>>>
>>>> "I said, "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." And I went into the fetal
>>>> position. I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried...Later on,
>>>> when
>>>> I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that it made,
>>>> whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I said what
>>>> I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that my
>>>> Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch."
>>>>
>>>> So what he's saying is that he thinks the plane swerved in response to his
>>>> prayer. So he's saying that he said the prayer before the plane hit. And he
>>>> was already huddled under his desk before he started praying.
>>>>
>>>> So lets give him 1 1/2 seconds to get under his desk, another 1/2 second to
>>>> get into the fetal position and two seconds to say a prayer. 4 seconds.
>>>> From
>>>> his quote, it sounds like it should be about double that, but i always
>>>> weight the benefit of the doubt to the opposite POV. 4 seconds.  So the
>>>> plane was a *minimum* of 900 yards away when he got his last look at it,
>>>> before he started jumping under his desk. More than 1/2 mile away.
>>>>
>>>> "Just before I jumped there, I saw this plane eyeball-to-eyeball. "
>>>>
>>>> This kind of crap over-rules video of the event as evidence ?
>>>>
>>>> Even if these witness reports stood up to scrutiny, as being internally
>>>> consistent, if they contradict video... what happens in a courtroom, if a
>>>> person presents an alibi that they were at home at the time, and then the
>>>> prosecution pulls out the security video which shows them holding up the
>>>> bank ?
>>>>
>>>> Ah , of course ! They aquit him. They say "Well he says he was at home
>>>> watching TV, so clearly this is actually a video of him sitting at home
>>>> watching TV, not a video of him holding up the bank."
>>>>
>>>> Everyone knows that video of the event, can't match it as evidence with
>>>> second hand drivel printed in a newspaper months later...
>>>>
>>>> If there were hundreds of consistent witness reports,which stood up to the
>>>> test of internal plusibility, then that would at least make a case for
>>>> re-examining the situation and trying to work out why they contradicted the
>>>> video. But this stuff linked above is pure garbage.
>>>>
>>>> If people want to make the absurd suggestion that witness evidence is
>>>> more relaible than video evidence, then at least check the verification
>>>> standards and give them a cursory critical analysis before insulting our
>>>> intelligence with this type of rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> And then follows a whole lot more stuff about 175 - from Fema - you know,
>>>> the people who tell us that the kero melted the Towers, but didn't burn the
>>>> hijackers passport .
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the interesting idea that a statement from Fema is a more
>>>> truthful record of the event than a video of it, one wonders why a
>>>> discussion about the Nth tower should provoke an avalanche of stuff about
>>>> the Sth tower.
>>>>
>>>> The two are totally seperate events and seperate videos, and have to be
>>>> examined as such.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the 767ers feel the need to resort to such pathetic drivel to
>>>> prop up the govt story, says something about the strength of their case.
>>>
>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: Blind People Running with Scissors
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:42:40 -0400
From:  <naserian@...>
Reply-To:  naserian@...



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

I myself know very many people who live in New York and also in New Jersey.
Not a single one of them actually saw a plane hit any building on September
11, 2001. As far as I have been able to determine, none of them personally
knows anyone who actually witnessed a plane hit any building on September
11, 2001. However, like the overwhelming majority of the US population,
they saw the event on television. Which is also how they have all come to
know of the existence of Thing and Cousin It.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet serious money, that if Webfairy conducts
an analysis of the images of both Thing and Cousin It, the footage will NOT
show ANY signs of having been doctored even though Thing is not always the
same.
Thing and Cousin It have been seen -ON TV- by thousands and thousands of
people.
How did they accomplish this? In front of our very eyes??

Surely the images of plane and car crashes that we see on film are all true.
Surely the footage of planes crashing into buildings is as real as the
hijackers themselves.
Every knows that the camera does not lie.
Everyone knows there is really no such thing as special effects. Such loony
film-warping theories are the fodder of outer-fringe conspiracy theorists
and terrorist-sympathizers who continue to doubt the existence of Thing and
Cousin It despite the mounds and mounds of eyewitness evidence and proof to
the contrary.

What I know for sure is that the day before Farenheit 911 appeared in
theatres, an article appeared on oilempire.us making false
characterizations of me, Gerard Holmgren, and the verasity of my work.
At the same time, my site mysteriously disappeared from the internet for
17 days, equally mysteriously reappearing as soon as Farenheit911 fell
out of the top ten movies.

I have never said or even thought that everyone who opposes, hasn't
really seen, or disagrees with my work is cointelpro.

My work  is certainly toxic to the cointelpro faction committed to the
notion that real hijackers slammed real planes into buildings,
justifying the "War on Terror" that benefits police state tactics and
arms manufacturers.
It is toxic to the notion we should trust the media version of events.

We discordians seldom pray. It is much too easy to have one's prayer
answered and then being stuck with it.
Despite this, I prayed daily and constantly for 6 months that I would be
able to discover something through my research that could break the spel
leading us to doom..
I discovered the lack of a flight path or plane in the first hit, and
noticed a little divebombing thingie instead.
Since then I have been called every name and accused of being every evil
thing repeatedly, even by people I respect.
None of this puts a plane into that video, the purpose being simply to
wear me down, spoil my reputation and break my heart.

I do not believe this is a cointelpro effort overall. Plaguepuppy's post
on the Fractal Nature of Evil, "Turtles all the way Down"
provides a much better explanation for how people find their own comfort
level and fight every notion that things are worse than they can accept.

There is a silver lining to the hideous cloud of the notion that 911 was
accomplished by secret technology.
The same forces harnessed to project images on the sky and turn
buildings to dust could just as well be powering our cars and heating
our homes and powering industry with limitless pollution free energy.
This is why my work has come under particular attack from those
rehashing Eugenics notions as "Peak Oil".
At the same time, those I point to as perps are busily buying up the
world's water supplies, so this can be their new monopoly after they
depopulate us.





Brian Salter wrote:

>
> webfairy,
>
> i can imagine that one of the things you like about those statements
> from nico concerning john gray and other ongoing issues is that they
> could be interpreted as an accusation that anyone and everyone who is
> critical of no-plane/pod/911 video theories is part of a cointelpro
> campaign.
>
> but if this is what you're thinking, nothing could be further from
> the  truth, because in fact i have recently been taking the lead on
> the  911truthalliance list to dig up the dirt on john gray, even
> continuing  to press the issue there after nico had temporarily
> dropped it.  i have  also been consistently criticizing the nasty and
> divisive tactics used  by mark robinowitz (oilempire.us) that nico
> complains about.  nico and  i have been in touch on this and are in
> agreement about this particular  problem even though we respectfully
> disagree on the overall value of  the WTC video analysis school.  if
> you like i could forward a couple of  my posts to the truthalliance
> where i condemn unconstructive,  ridicule-based attacks on these issues.
>
> in fact, i should note that nico specifically stated on the
> truthalliance list that he considered eric's 911 video critiques to
> be  fair and legitimate in their approach, in contrast to robinowitz
> et al.   take note of this, as well as the fact that i have been
> linking to  some of nico and woodybox's research (e.g. "the lost war
> drill" and  "cleveland airport" series) on QQ.net.
>
> the following is a recent post of mine to the 911truthalliance list,
> after the hopsicker piece came out, with some of my research into
> gray  / khashoggi.  it's out of context vis a vis some earlier debate
> so some  of the side issues might not be clear, but the critical info
> should be  clear enough.  nico has privately expressed to me his
> appreciation for  my support for him on the john gray issue.
>
> this post of mine was enough to change the minds of several key
> people  who had previously been very defensive and had accused nico
> and other  john gray critics of a smear campaign.  i would also point
> out that i  am more cautious and a bit softer on the toronto inquiry
> organizers and  911truth people because i do not personally have
> access to some of the  inside observers that nico does.  but i take
> all of his concerns very  seriously.
>
> -brian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------
>
> From:       Brian Salter <bsalter@...>
>     Subject:     Re: [911truthalliance] Barrie Zwicker in detail on
> John Gray
>     Date:     July 21, 2004 1:37:03 PM GMT+07:00
>     To:       trahila@...
>     Cc:       911truthalliance@... Truthalliance
> <911truthalliance@...>
>
> the new flap over hopsicker's john gray piece makes me feel compelled
> to send an email to the list that i had written up about a week ago
> but  kept in my out box because there was too much other stuff going
> on.   but i have done some additional research that i think needs to
> be seen  and considered.  i believe that the explanations about
> grey's  background that have been offered by nic, ruppert, and zwicker
> are not  convincing and do not address all of the apparent facts.
> there are  some claims make by hopsicker for which i am not aware of
> any direct  evidence for, and these are hopsicker's claims alone.
> among these are:  a) that gray is currently 'working for' adnan
> khashoggi or serving as a  money conduit.  b) that gray is controlling
> any aspect of 911truth, the  toronoto inquiry, etc.  c) that anyone
> working with gray is operating  on bad intentions.   i am also not
> aware of any genesis-related case  where gray is named as a defendant
> (but also, i did not read all of the  court complaints, of which there
> are quite a few).
>
> HOWEVER, i feel that it can be proven that gray DOES have a
> background  involving khashoggi that goes far beyond the threadbare
> "explanations"  that have been offered in his defence so far.  i
> submit my case that  this matter deserves, at a minimum, much closer
> scrutiny and real  documentation, not verbal assurances.  what follows
> is what i wrote  previously, with some annotations in regards to
> hopsicker's new  allegations.  for the record, i'm not in contact with
> either hopsicker  or chossudovsky about these matters so this
> represents only my own  research and my own opinions, and this does
> not represent an  endorsement of the claims by hopsicker that i
> specified above.
>
> (approx 14 July 04)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> a week in bed with the flu has left me behind with my emails, but
> this  is one i need to address and have been thinking about quite a
> bit.   there seems to be a consensus now that the dispute over john
> gray is  past, but i do not share in this consensus.  in fact, i
> continue to be  mystified by the threadbare and inconsistent nature of
> the explanations  offered by his supporters and have even more
> questions now.  i might  have let this one rest except for the fact
> that i and others have been  scurrilously accused by bill, lori, nic,
> zwicker, et. al. of being  "disruption" agents.  so, let me explain.
>
> the story we have on the table about gray's past run-in with the
> GenesisIntermedia (GENI) fiasco and khashoggi goes something like
> this:  gray hooked up with genesis early on and made a deal with them
> to  develop and market a video & audio product line based on his
> books.  then, years later, international con man khashoggi moved in on
> genesis  and more or less hijacked the company late in the game,
> running various  scams manipulating the company's stock and
> victimizing many including  gray, who lost a lot of money though all
> this, including his sale of  his genesis stock to khashoggi (whom he
> apparently never even met).
>
> now this really seems to put everything in the clear, but actually
> it's  not the whole story.  as a kind of litmus test for how this
> matter is  being handled by gray's defenders, i have been waiting for
> someone to  mention a certain name: ramy el-batrawi.   and explain his
> role.  but  no one has.  and i find this the most perturbing part yet,
> because it  is el-batrawi who was the lynchpin and connector between
> genesis and  khashoggi.
>
> who is el-batrawi?  he is a long-time business partner and friend of
> khashoggi.  the two first worked together in 1988, and had already
> done  several business deals together when el-batrawi formed genesis
> in 1993.   he was with the company from its inception and served as
> its chairman  and CEO from 1993 until 2001 when he stepped down as a
> result of the  stock scandal.
>
>> GenesisIntermedia Chief Executive Ramy El-Batrawi told Bloomberg
>> News  that he has worked with Kashoggi on deals dating back to 1988
>> and  speaks with him "almost every day."
>
> http://www.larta.org/pl/NewsArticles/9January01LATimes.htm
>
>> 21. At relevant times, defendant Ramy El-Batrawi (“El-
>> Batrawi”) was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for the Company.
>> El-Batrawi has known defendant Khashoggi for fifteen years and
>> worked with him on deals for years before the events alleged in
>> this complaint. During the Class Period, he and Khashoggi spoke
>> almost every day.
>
> http://securities.stanford.edu/1021/GENI01/20011025_o01c_0109125.pdf
>
>> 4. Defendant Ramy El-Batrawi ... served as Chairman of the Board and
>> as the Company's Chief Executive Officer from its inception in
>> October  1993 until his
>> resignation in October 2001.
>
> http://corporate-law.widener.edu/documents/complaints/19222-001.pdf
>
> [note: hopsicker alleges that attorney michael roy fugler was
> involved  with the incorporation of the company.]
>
> in addition, genesisintermedia was apparently just one of several
> el-batrawi / khashoggi joint projects which were launched in the
> early  to mid-90s.  from research previously posted by nico:
>
>> Genesis is a code used by Khashoggi associated with a
>> number of businesses he and Rami El-Batrawi created in the Tampa, FL
>> area (I
>> think of Tampa as home of Sami Al-Arian) in the mid-1990s, including
>> Genesis
>> Aviation.
>
>
> thus it is amply documented that genesisintermedia was closely within
> khashoggi's orbit from the very start.
>
> with this fact in mind, consider the version of events communicated
> by  gray to mike ruppert in their face to face conversation in
> toronto,  quoted here from ruppert's email:
>
>>  "He said that he had never met Khashoggi and that he had lost a great
>> deal of money as a result of Khashoggi's manipulations of the company
>> which had been handling his products. He said that Khashoggi was a
>> late-comer in that K's arrival in the company happened AFTER Gray had
>> started doing business with the company.
>
>
> the fact of khashoggi being a "late-comer" is almost meaningless --
> in  fact, it is outright misleading -- without mention of el-batrawi's
> role  in the stock scam -- but he has apparently left it conveniently
> unmentioned based on what we've seen so far. nor does he mention that
> he had been doing business for years with  el-batrawi, who had
> FOUNDED  genesis, and that this business had occured during a period
> where  el-batrawi and khashoggi were working actively together on
> other  projects.  in fact, at some point, gray had become a part owner
> of  genesis[!].  (i have not been able to find out when this occured
> but  tentatively i think it's reasonable to assume it was early on,
> when  gray and batrawi first made the licensing / marketing deal).
> this  leads obviously to the question, what kind of relationship did
> gray  have with el-batrawi when he was working with genesis?
>
> first, observe that el-batrawi was the dominant figure in genesis'
> day-to-day business activities:
>
>> 50. Prior to June 1999, GENI was a privately held California-based
>> marketing and promotions company controlled by Defendant Ramy
>> El-Batrawi,
>> which was trying to break into the market for interactive multimedia
>> technologies and
>> the internet. As the Prospectus for its Initial Public Offering
>> dated  June 14, 1999,
>> disclosed, however, GENI had achieved little success from its
>> efforts  and most of its
>> revenue was derived from related-party transactions. In essence, it
>> was little more
>> than its founder, Mr. El-Batrawi, and some ideas.
>
> http://www.mjktrustee.com/pdf/Amended_Complaint.pdf
>
> the media division of genesis, set up by el-batrawi, created and
> published gray's new video series, which was hit the market in 1994
> (which is when genesis really began its business activities).
>
> el-batrawi was an also an executive producer of gray's 1997 CD, "Men
> are from Mars, Women are from Venus - Songs for Loving Couples"
> http://www.artistdirect.com/store/artist/album/0,,250796,00.html
>
> gray's products were a critical revenue source for GENI:
>
>> 33.  Incorporated on October 28, 1993, GenesisIntermedia.com, Inc.
>> did  not commence substantial operations until 1994. From inception
>> through  June 1997, the Company devoted substantially all its
>> resources to  selling products the Company owned or had purchased
>> rights to sell  through conventional marketing methods. The Company
>> sold these  products to the general public through the use of
>> infomercials, radio  advertisements, print media and retail outlets.
>> A substantial portion  of the Company's product revenue has come from
>> its Men Are From Mars,  Women Are From Venus product series authored
>> by John Gray, Ph.D.
>
> http://www.wyca.com/complnts/geni-com.htm
>
> thus, it is amply documented that gray and el-batrawi had a close
> working relationship, that this was central to genesis business-wise,
> and they must have known each other well during this period.
>
> it is also interesting to note that the relationship between gray and
> el-batrawi went beyond "just business" -- in the acknowledgements of
> his 1997 book "Mars and Venus on a Date", gray credits el-batrawi in
> a  section which begins: "I thank the following family members and
> friends  for their suggestions and valuable feedback to the ideas in
> this  book..."
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5206/venusonadate.html
>
> note that this book was not a genesis product -- it was published by
> harper-collins. therefore, it is documented that there was a positive
> personal relationship between gray and khashoggi's partner
> el-batrawi,  over and above their business relationship at genesis.
>
> this brings us to the next stage in the story -- the genesis IPO and
> the entry of khashoggi soon after.  khashoggi did not come into the
> picture as a con-man out of the blue who ruined a perfectly good,
> successful company.  in fact, genesis was already on the rocks after
> a  trumped-up IPO in july 1999, desperate for cash and with its stock
> price down to $1.33 from an initial offering of $8.50.  khashoggi
> saved  the company with an infusion of cash loaned to his friend
> el-batrawi,  and his assistance in bringing in resources for the scam
> which would  inflate genesis stock to over $25.
>
> a good summary of this stage is christopher byron's july 2001 article
> from the new york observer:
> http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4640
>
> note especially how byron shows how gray's friend and confidante
> el-batrawi was already playing games with the funds raised from the
> july 1999 IPO, BEFORE khashoggi came in and began his active
> involvement at the end of 1999.
>
> the entire affair and its aftermath are summed up in this
> businessweek  article:
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_19/b3832095_mz020.htm
>
> now, to return to gray's assertion of being a victim of khashoggi:
>
>>  "He said that he had never met Khashoggi and that he had lost a great
>> deal of money as a result of Khashoggi's manipulations of the company
>> which had been handling his products. He said that Khashoggi was a
>> late-comer in that K's arrival in the company happened AFTER Gray had
>> started doing business with the company."
>
>
> there are two problematic issues here.  first, gray is saying that he
> lost money through lost sales of his products, allegedly as a result
> of  khashoggi's manipulations.  however, numerous sources confirm
> that  genesis had not met with success in diversifying its revenue
> sources at  the time of its IPO, and did not add any new revenue
> sources of any  significance in the subsequent period.  but overall
> revenues remained  relatively steady during the 2000-01 period, which
> can be verified  here:
> http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/
> CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=GENI
>
> thus, since gray's products were a main revenue source for genesis,
> but  its overall revenues did not decline, i would hope we could see
> some  real documentation of what gray said he lost.  i think this is
> reasonable to ask.  for example, his royalties should show a clearly
> anomalous decline in sales of his CDs and videos marketed by genesis
> during the relevant period.  (note also that by 1998 at the latest,
> gray was working with other publishers for his new videos, and there
> were no new genesis products that i could find).
>
> the second issue is that gray was also a PART OWNER of genesis, thus
> the rise in the stock price engineered by el-batrawi and khashoggi
> beginning in late 1999 was in his interest insofar as his stock
> ownership was concerned.  we need to know how many GENI shares he
> owned, when he aquired them, and when he sold them and for what
> price.   the victims of el-batrawi and khashoggi's scam were those who
> were left  holding GENI stock after 9/11, when its value finally
> collapsed (which  also ties in to the important fact that the GENI
> scam has been  implicated in connection with pre-9/11 INSIDER
> TRADING).  this included  individual stockholders as well as the
> brokerages which had borrowed  GENI stock in exchange for cash
> collateral, which was the central  mechanism of the scam.  GENI part
> owner john gray, on the other hand,  was one of the lucky ones who
> cashed out early, as noted in nico's  post:
>
>> John Gray was paid by Adnan Khashoggi a significant amount for all
>> of  his
>> stock in GenesisIntermedia the month before the attack on America.
>> He  has
>> remained close to Michael Roy Fugler (another B Team player) who
>> filed  a
>> lawsuit against Daniel (Hopsicker) to attempt to have his book on
>> Barry Seal
>> "Barry & the boys" snuffed...."
>
>
> so, i can see why gray would mention alleged problems with his
> product  revenues but not mention his ownership and sale of GENI
> stock.  if the  info above is not correct, then let's see a documented
> refutation asap.
>
> on top of this, one of the legal complaints contains a very alarming
> disclosure.
>
> the suit filed by ruined broker MJK indicates that SOME STOCK
> PURCHASES  IN THE EL-BATRAWI / KHASHOGGI SCAM WERE MADE THROUGH AN
> ACCOUNT IN JOHN  GRAY'S NAME!
>
>> 94. For example, in August 2001, Mr. El-Batrawi himself bought more
>> than $23 million in GENI stock,[9] and Mr. D Angelo that same month
>> bought $30
>> million in GENI stock, at the same time he was selling about $27
>> million in GENI
>> stock. In fact, from June through September 2001, Mr. D Angelo
>> cumulatively
>> bought more than $67.2 million and sold $68.7 million in GENI
>> stock.10  On more
>> than one occasion during that time, Mr. D Angelo proudly maintained
>> that he alone
>> was the market for GENI...
>> [footnote] 9 This number includes purchases made through accounts in
>> Mr. El-Batrawi s name, in the name of
>> GenesisIntermedia.com, in the name of Genesis Diversified, and in
>> the  name of John Gray, a part owner of GENI.
>
> http://www.mjktrustee.com/pdf/Amended_Complaint.pdf
>
> now this requires some explaining.  and gray certainly hasn't
> explained  it, because all he has mentioned is losing money through
> mismanaged  product sales, but this has nothing to do with product
> sales.   futhermore, since el-batrawi was totally involved in the
> illegal  activities which supposedly victimized gray, the latter
> should have had  plenty of opportunities as both a licensor of
> genesis' main product  line and stockholder to seek legal remedy for
> this betrayal.  but i've  not been able to find any indication that he
> has done so.  if this is  the case, then why?
>
> and indeed, if gray was truly relieved and eager to talk about how
> khashoggi came out of the blue and ruined his business relationship
> with genesis, why isn't he also chomping at the bit to mention how
> the  person who really would bear the guilt for conning him was not so
> much  khashoggi as his longtime friend and business partner ramy
> el-batrawi,  who had been with genesis from the start and had run the
> show all  along?  if gray was eager for this to be known and
> understood, then why  has he put forth the technically true but
> misleading story that  khashoggi was a "latecomer" whom he had never
> met, when in fact it was  his longtime partner el-batrawi who was
> running most of the nuts and  bolts of the stock scam AND USING GRAY'S
> ACCOUNT TO MAKE SOME THE  TRANSACTIONS?
>
> and so, why haven't any of gray's defenders given an explanation
> which  accounts for his relationship with khashoggi's henchman,
> el-batrawi?   anyone who wants to work with gray should have had this
> answered  already.
>
> one thing is for sure, we're not going to hear much from gray's
> supposedly "ex" friend and business partner el-batrawi himself.  as
> noted in the businessweek article, he's just as elusive as khashoggi:
> "El-Batrawi could not be located and has not responded to the suits.
> One of his attorneys declined to comment."
>
> what it looks like to me is that no one has really done "due
> dilligence" on gray before deciding to work with him.  i certainly
> see  no evidence of this being done.  all we have been offered are
> word-of-mouth assurances which have not been verified.  now, mark my
> words -- i can certainly imagine possibile explanations where gray
> still comes out being the innocent victim, and i'm still completely
> open and ready to hear a credible and COMPLETE explanation.  and i
> don't see any evidence that anyone who is working with gray is
> operating with ulterior motives, so i'm not implying such an
> accusation.  i just see extreme lack of effort to check him out --
> and  a very weird defensiveness at the same time.
>
> at this point, blind faith and verbal assurances are not going to be
> adequate.  this needs to be looked at seriously, and documented,
> third-party-verifiable proof of gray's version of the story ought to
> be  presented.  those who insist that an issue like this must be
> settled on  "trust" are actually the ones violating the trust we need
> in this  movement.  sometimes, trust requires verification.  of course
> this will  take some effort so i wouldn't expect such a thing to
> happen  immediately while we all have so many things on our plates and
> are busy  with various urgent projects.  but at some point, it needs
> to, and i  will continue paying close attention to what is being said,
> and if  further explanations about gray's background manage to address
> all the  facts, or continue to be full of holes.
>
> -brian
>
> ps: following below are some responses to zwicker's comments:
>
> On Jul 3, 2004, at 6:15 AM, trahila@... wrote:
>
>>
>> Have just seen some of this back 'n' forth about John Gray.
>> Without -- I emphasize -- having read Nico's email in detail, let me
>> make the following observations:
>
>
> without having read in detail?  so zwicker admits he's not taking
> this  seriously.
>
>>
>> 1 -- Each of us has followd a different path to where we are, and will
>> have a different journey as we continue our becoming.
>
>
> so, does this postmodern, new age pablum means we aren't allowed to
> challenge each other on judgements which could affect this entire
> movement?
>
>> 2 -- Although I suspect there's something of a "guru industry," I
>> cannot
>> sit in judgment as to the validity of the insights of Ram Das or John
>> Gray or others who chose a path of serious "truth seeking," through
>> study or discipleship.
>
>
> this is not about "truth seeking"... i don't care if someone wants to
> follow a guru, but this is about someone having spent a decade of his
> life as personal secretary to the rockefeller of gurus, who runs a
> notoriously exploitative and money-grubbing organization.  an
> organization that has been implicated in massive systemic child
> neglect  & abuse, and whose leaked secret documents have shown it to
> be a  classic "secret society" type structure whose inner elite core
> completely misrepresent their real ideology to lay members and
> outsiders (see for example
> http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/soma/index.shtml for some sworn
> court  transcripts on the subject).  the maharishi is one of the
> world's  richest men, controlling an empire of 3-5 billion dollars, a
> great deal  of which he has made through real estate speculation, and
> once formed a  close allegiance with former philippines dictator
> ferdinand marcos.  i  don't know what gray's current attitude is
> towards maharishi and his  org, but he is clearly not concerned with
> being associated with them  since he co-headlined a 2002 new age
> conference with marharishi's US  political front man john hagelin.
> this stuff matters, especially  since so far we are being asked to
> believe gray's side of the story  based on just second hand verbal
> assurances.
>
>> 3 -- John Gray's work, quite a few books, is available for any of us to
>> peruse. In my view he has helpful insights to offer. As far as I know,
>> he is contributing a lot more healing and benign education helping
>> people get along with each other than the vast majority of us ever
>> accomplish.
>
>
> this is just opinion.  personally, i side with numerous critics who
> have pointed out how gray's work reinforces regressive and limiting
> gender stereotypes.
>
>> 4 -- John has a personal life history which I think helps explain
>> why  he
>> would become a 9/11 skeptic. He has reason to be deeply suspicious of
>> the power elite. His father, a Texas oil millionaire, tried to warn the
>> authorities in Dallas, prior to Nov. 22, 1963, that JFK's life was in
>> danger. He had heard the rumours circulating. Later, John's father
>> divested himself of all his oil industry assets and told his
>> children  he
>> wanted them to promise never to have anything to do with the oil
>> industry, which he called the dirtiest and most corrupt and murderous
>> industry on the face of the Earth.
>
>
> if gray is trying to carry on his father's effort to stop the kind of
> political elements that did in JFK, he's going about it in some very
> strange ways.  for example, he has given his personal endorsement to
> gary smalley, a leading spokesman and central figure in the "promise
> keepers" movement, a notorious front organization for social
> engineering and mass brainwashing with numerous ties to the extremist
> christian right, and whose main financial angel is -- guess who! --
> nelson bunker hunt.  strange endorsement for someone who is supposed
> to  be continuing the fight against JFK's killers and their ilk.
>
> incidentally, it's commonly noted by those who follow PK that gray's
> philosophy about gender & relationships is largely compatible with
> what  is taught in by PK, with the exception of their religious
> orientation.
>
>> 5 -- I asked John personally about what connection, if any, he has or
>> had with Adnan Khashoggi. Khashoggi, I have been aware since the early
>> 1980's is one of the most disgusting international con men, and
>> there  is
>> plenty of competition in that category. K is clearly a "merchant of
>> death." John satisfied me that he is aware of the anti-life nature of
>> Khashoggi's activities, that he has not associated with him and would
>> never want to, that he was caught up in the aftermath of dirty dealings
>> by Khashoggi and other dot com crooks and in fact was one of their
>> victims. I studied a court document and an article from Business Week
>> and some other materials that were sent to me and could not see how
>> John
>> was in league with Khashoggi or the others.
>
>
> i'll let this statement stand on it's own merits in light of the info
> i  provided above. but i'd like to know what the "other materials"
> were  since he admitted not reading nico's carefully.
>
>> 6 -- It's hard to see how John has anything to gain, in any way, from
>> helping the 9/11 skeptics' movement. It seems fairly clear he risks
>> losing considerably. He has a career, a reputation, and the associated
>> income, which could be at risk. To see the flak that Michael Moore is
>> taking, is to see what can happen to anyone willing to stand up and ask
>> difficult questions. But for Moore the publicity helps sell books and
>> get people into cinemas. That would not necessarily apply to a
>> non-political celebrity.
>
>
> making a comparison to michael moore is already starting off on the
> wrong foot in my particular view, given that i'm not convinced that
> moore's fabulously lucrative limited-hang-out ("we should have
> invaded  saudi arabia instead") is really doing more good than harm in
> the long  run.
>
> the argument that gray is risking it all is purely speculative.
> there  are so very many examples from the past which show that one
> cannot rely  on this argument on faith.  when daniel ellsberg leaked
> the pentagon  papers, one could say that he was a self-sacrificing
> hero, risking it  all and throwing his fate to the wind.  but research
> by douglas  valentine and others has since shown that this leak was
> actually  desired and vetted by higher powers in the establishment who
> wanted to  divert scrutiny away from the CIA and towards the
> pentagon.  ellsberg  may or may not have known this, but he and
> several others involved in  the leak all went on to become members of
> the CFR and hold other  establishment positions.  hmm.  similarly, one
> could have imagined that  a young john kerry was risking it all and
> giving the finger to his  boston brahmin roots when he became a major
> figure in the vietman  anti-war movement.  but look where he is now!
> there are lingering  questions about what the young skull-and-bones
> member's motives really  were.  and there are many today who still buy
> into the myth that  popular philosopher and author bertrand russell
> became an estranged  black sheep from the aristocracy when he took up
> his "pacifist"  activism.  they have never read the "fine print" of
> russell's career to  find out what he really represented:
> http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/russell.html
> many in the 9/11 truth movement think that russell should be its
> model... just goes to show how frighteningly behind the curve people
> are in understanding how subtle the manipulation and infiltration of
> popular movements can be, and how exacting and unbending our watchdog
> efforts need to be in turn.
>
> [note: i would also add the gray's quite recent harrassment lawsuits
> against journalists who have published articles questioning his
> 'credentials' do not in my eyes indicate someone who is currently in
> a  mood to throw his career to the wind...]
>
>> 7 -- I for one welcome those people who have "names" who are willing to
>> step up to the plate. If they are not perfectly informed (who among us
>> is?), if their bona fides are not exactly as we would wish (if John's
>> Ph.D. can be questioned, how about those of us with no degrees?), I
>> don't see these as reasons their help should not be welcomed.
>
>
> i would not associate myself with someone who is lacking in moral
> integrity to the point that he not only misrepresents his credentials
> to a mass audience WHO ARE CHANGING THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR AND
> RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON THE ASSURANCE OF HIS EXPERTISE, but also
> launches bullying harrassment lawsuits against small-time independent
> journalists and writers who discuss the facts.  here is gray
> displaying  his benign "truth seeker" mindset concerning his critics:
>
> http://www.insideedition.com/investigative/johngray.htm
>
> but unfortunately, this nasty tenaciousness doesn't seem to apply to
> the deep political and economic system implicated in the 9/11 scandal
> -- gray says we should be preparing to "forgive the government" after
> weeding about a few bad apples with bad male brain chemistry.
>
> a view that i don't see as "helping" our movement.  on the contrary,
> it's horribly disempowering.
>
>> 8 -- John is helping out financially with various aspects of the 9/11
>> skeptics movement. In my own case there are no gifts. The money has to
>> be paid back. But there is risk involved. Those willing to invest in
>> risky ventures are normally accorded accolades in our
>> entrepreneurial-oriented economy.
>
>
> so?
>
>> 9 -- In the last while I see what could be construed as a campaign to
>> divide 9/11 skeptics. It may not be an orchestrated campaign, but it
>> might as well be.
>
>
> so zwicker feels that all the checking he needs to do to settle any
> questions about gray is to skim a couple articles and say "i just
> can't  see it", but it's ok to accuse gray's critics of sinister ill
> intent  based on no evidence at all.   what a marvelous double-standard.
>
>> 10 -- My own approach is to avoid attacking others who are going in the
>> same general direction, unless and until they prove themselves
>> inauthentic and/or destructively disruptive. We need to keep our
>> energies focussed on moving ahead...whether we are Michael Moore, or
>> any
>> of those reading this, or John Gray.
>
>
> here is the same crypto-totalitarian mantra -- no internal criticism
> is  allowed, and will smeared as "attacks"; those who rock the boat
> are  trying to divide us, and the only way we can succeed is by
> dropping  criticism and watchdog efforts, and adopt a muddy-headed
> standard  "everybody is right as long as we all feel good".
>
>> 11 -- We can, I hope, stand questioning among ourselves as to
>> strategies
>> and tactics and philosophies. Our backgrounds and who we associate with
>> are also not necessarily irrelevant.
>
>
> yes, indeed.  so why do points 1-10 contradict this ethic in so many
> ways?
>
>
>
>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  kaminski lies again
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:04:03 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>



Kaminski has already been caught lying in stating that I had dismissed
witness reports with  "no " analyisis, when he was well aware that I had
written a susbstantial analysis. That he did';t like the analysis was not
the point. He lied that I simply hadn't done one.

Now he lies again with this outrageous misrepresentation.

[[your rabid campaign to complicate the 9/11 investigation with
the hologram red herring. ]]

hologram ?

have I ever calimed that hologram was used at the NTh Tower ? No.
has WF ever claimed a holgram for the Nth Tower ? No.

And the Nth Tower was the debate under way, until Eric Salter decided to cut
and run. So, for the subject immediately under debate, no-one is saying
anything about holograms. Except Kaminski, malicioulsy misrepresenting the
argument, presumably because he thinks that everyone is as narrow minded as
he is, and will start singing loony tunes, if one just mentions the dreaded
"hologram" word - even though its got nothing to do with the issue on which
Salter just recieved such a thrashing.

     The argument is that the object involved is something much smaller than
a 767, and perhaps not a plane at all.

    Kaminski can't even think creatively enough to consider the possibility
that we might be right on one tower and wrong on the other. They are
seperate events and seperate videos.

    Now to the Sth tower. Hologram is hardly central to the argument. WF is
convinced that one was used, but agrees that some of the videos were done
entirely with faked video. Scott doesn't buy the hologram, but is in total
agreement that its an illusion , according to him, all done with faked
video.

    I'm somewhere between. I think WF has put forward some good arguments for
a hologram being used in addition to faked video, but I think there are
still some significant issues to work through, and I'm open minded on this
question.

    So what we "no planers" have is absolute agreement that Sth tower was an
illusion - however generated, and some differences and doubts on exactly how
the illusion was done.

    Even if WF is wrong on the hologram, it doesn't make it a real plane.
Scott's position may turn out to be better argument. Its still not a real
plane.

    So ,in summary we have a concensus that the plane is a fake, a position
which will still hold true, even if the hologram argument doesn't stand up.
    But Kaminski maliciously misrepresents it as all about holograms.

In fact this an extract which I wrote to the group not long before, which
shows my position on the hologram issue. jeff strahl had raised some
sensible objections to the idea, and I replied thus.

[[Good questions, which need close examination. this is why we need to
carefully think through all the possibilities. However, the plane from the
rear view does not look like its going in. It melts away into nothing
without leaving a hole in the wall. So we have ruled out the possibilioty
that its a real plane.

    And the side on "blue plane " shot is not a hologram or a real plane, but
a fake video. Thats proven.
    I analyzed it frame by frame, and nobody even attempted to debunk the
analysis.

Jeff raises legitimate questions and problems with a number of the theories
surrounding an atempt to give a precise explanation of exactly how the
illusion was achieved. However, these cannot be properly examined , while
some cling to the insane idea that it was a real plane.

    Real planes don't melt away into nothing, they don't fly in the opposite
direction to which they are banking, they don't violate laws of perspective,
they dont alternate bewteen 0 velocity and 1200 mph frame by frame and they
dont disappear into buildings without making a hole and without breaking off
any parts.

    All of this behaviour can be observed in the various Sth Tower hit
videos. So it is not a plane on the video.

    As long as we are all agreed on that, then we can have a reasonable
discussion about the various theories of  exactly how the strike and the
illusion masking it were achieved.]]

So, I've made my position clear. That I'm adamant that its a fake plane on
the video, but still acknowledge many issues and possibilities to work
through before coming to a strong position on exactly how it was done.

So we have two towers at issue, no hologram suggested by anyone for one of
them, and only one person strong on a hologram for the second, and the
hologram not central to the more general proof that its a faked plane.

But Kaminski maliciously misrepresents this as my "hologram red herring".

So Kaminski has managed to lie about me twice in one session. Nice work
,John.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Kaminski <skylax@...>
Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 4:42
Subject: Re: kaminski's secret reponse


>Gerard,
>    I can't possibly keep up with this flurry of e-mails tonight, and worse
>I've lost the original e-mail you sent challenging me to a debate so I
can't
>check how you addressed it, but I was under the impression you sent it just
to
>me, which is why I replied only to you. If you did copy in everyone I would
>appreciate a copy of it from someone, but in my bleary-eyed state in the
middle
>of the night, I did just reply to you under that impression.
>    Your assertion that I was trying to hide my response is paranoid
hogwash.
>There's nothing in it I would wish to hide from anyone, and your labeling
it a
>"secret response" is very typical of the emotional browbeating you and WF
use
>in your responses, further fueling suspicions on the part of most people on
>this list that you are in this debate for purposes OTHER than to find out
what
>really happened.
>    I think it's fair to conclude that the paranoid persecution complex you
and
>WF brandish in dealing with honest inquiries questioning your conclusions,
and
>your willingness to cast aspersions on the motivations of others for doing
so,
>is indicative of your rabid campaign to complicate the 9/11 investigation
with
>the hologram red herring. Same purpose for both.
>    On that note, I will commence our e-mail debate tomorrow. I have no
>position to defend. I'm only trying to discern what happened and how we may
>most effectively convince the public to call for a new investigation into
9/11.
>But your twisting of other people's words has left me with the distinct
>impression that your purpose — and the purpose of the entire hologram
argument
>— is something else.
>    Good night to all.
>
>John Kaminski
>
>
>
>gerard holmgren wrote:
>
>> This is a reply to a mail I just recieved from John Kaminski.
Interestingly,
>> he sent this mail not to the whole group, but just to me. I think the
>> reasons for that will become obvious when one  reads the exchange.
>>
>> Here is Kaminski's message.
>>
>> I disagree, Gerard. I think those witness accounts are authentic and
>> sincere.
>> >You can't quantify response parameters or second-guess behaviors or
>> perceptions
>> >in a disaster situation. People see what they see and do what they do.
All
>> >you're doing is saying they couldn't be authentic because they don't
meet
>> your
>> >preconceived criteria — AND BECAUSE YOU ARE WEDDED TO A THEORY THAT YOU
ARE
>> >TRYING TO PROVE. Why should I believe your assessment any more than
their
>> >testimony. In fact, the deciding factor over which set of testimony to
>> choose
>> >could well be your motivation to prove them liars. I'm not saying it is,
>> but it
>> >could be. I happen to believe their testimony. It sounds plausible.
>> >
>> >Best wishes,
>> >John K.
>>
>> Here is my reply.
>>
>> A dishonest response ,John. You are free to say that you think my
analysis
>> is flawed. But  thats not what you said.
>>
>> "No analysis" is not the same as "flawed analysis".
>>
>> At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were
>> simply negligent, in not noticing that I had written an extensive
analysis.
>> But now you have easily moved from the position of "no analysis" to "
flawed
>> analysis", without any acknowledgement of having previously missed it ,
and
>> then subsequently taken a look over it.
>>   If you had done this, you would have replied with something like
>>
>> " I apologize. I see that you did extensively analyse these reports.
Having
>> now read that, I think your analysis is flawed because..."
>>
>> But no, you've tried to cover up your initial lie , John.
>>
>> You wote
>>
>> [[Further, to judge witness statements as "hilarious" with no buttressing
>> explanations is tantamount to admitting your thesis won't hold up under
>> impartial analysis. ]]
>>
>> "No buttressing explanations" is unambigous language John. You
deliberately
>> lied about what I had written, both to try to discredit me, and to avoid
>> having to actually address the analysis which I "didn't do".
>>
>> Interesting behavior John. You yourself, have never produced a skerrick
of
>> research about S11. You've relied totally upon other people's research,
>> including mine. You continue to use my research to promote yourself as an
>> S11 critic, while delibetately lying about me in an effort to discredit
me.
>>
>> On second thoughts about the radio debate, I'll hold off on that for the
>> moment, unless I have  some sort of a guarentee that you are not setting
me
>> up. I think it would be unwise to hand over moderation and control of a
>> debate to  someone who has just been caught red handed, deliberately
lying
>> about what I wrote.
>>
>> But I repeat the challenge to debate you on a level playing field, in
print
>> , in front to of this list - the same challenge which Eric salter has
twice
>> quailed at. Choose your tower, John.
>
>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: Those hilarious witness reports
Date:     Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:39:38 -0400
From:     Robert Ballan <RBALLAN@...>


Dear All,

More than anything else, this thread speaks volumes on
the effectiveness of the big lie techniques perfected
in the 1930s in Germany.

Reasonable people are unable to agree upon the facts of a supremely
public event.  We are being encouraged to doubt the reliability of image
capturing technology, eyewitness testimony and common sense.  At the
root of the dispute are officials that refuse to level with the public
about the source of the attack and the methods of its implentation.
Worse yet, officialdom seems intent on sponsoring, with highly
questionable and unsupportable assertions, an explanation that fails to
fit the available facts and flies in the face of logical analysis.

The sad truth is that we (even collectively) lack the means to to
definitively arrive at the undisputed truth about those mass murders on
a stunningly clear morning in 2001.  The time, effort and eloquence we
spend ridiculing each other's ideas could better be spent by besieging
the government of the United States to come clean about who murdered us
and why.

Our discussions are reminicent of the parable of the blind men and the
elephant.  If we accepted the proposition that the official version is
dog-do and then used our collective body of  information to demonstrate
that several alternative scenarios exist that cannot be ruled out and
which fit the facts better than suicidal-Arabs-that-hate-our-freedom
script, we might begin to persuade people that the truth is being hidden.

Just my two cents boys and girls.

On another issue, the idea of debates is a good one.  It would get
people thinking.  The Republican convention is coming up fast and their
presumptive nominees will play the 9/11/01 card at a site near ground
zero.  We are on the verge of letting an important opportunity for
public education and opinion formation slip by.

Best regards,

Bob

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: Eric Salter and the asize of the hole
Date:  Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:40:39 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>



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
circumstantail 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. thats 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 eqivilant to the follwing hypothetical situation. A
video is produced of a handgun murder. We know that its a handgum, because
we can see the murderer using a handgun to shoot the victim.

    The defence 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 flight. 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leland Lehrman <leland@...>
Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:14
Subject: Eric Salter and Nico Haupt on 911truth cointelpro


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 commerical 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.

Leland



R. Leland Lehrman
815 Camino Don Emilio
Santa Fe, NM  87507
(505) 474-7998

Ah, yes, Indesputable witnesses!!!
The fire raged freely with all the firemen called off the scene, but
despite this, Judge's friend could find an intact arm with a bracelet on
it hours later. Funny how flame resistant people-parts are, while plane
parts get completely consumed.
Yep. And she could recognize the plane she flew on so often, even tho it
was completely consumed by fire except for some mysteriously unburned
pieces of mystery debris.
The flight records database shows that many different planes flew that
route, but that doesn't matter when the story is so preposterous to
begin with.

I believe parts of Peggy Elgas's story tho.
She describes the "plane" vanishing into the building.
It might as well be a description of someone watching the Ghostplane video.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/11.html

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I
watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into
the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to
simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage
as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that
encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be
several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of
churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started
at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the
right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling
rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then
it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing
fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the
Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane
slip into the building."


gerard holmgren wrote:

>WF writes
>
>[[Slow motion video is like looking at an event through a microscope.
>
>
>>We can see things we can't see with the naked eye.]]
>>
>>
>
>Ah, but its the other way round you see! Judge's sharp eyed witness at the
>pentagon discerned a tail lying on the lawn, something which photos were
>unable to pick up. Witnesses cant lie - photos and video always lie.
>
>John Kaminski attempt to debunk this very legitimate report from Judge's
>witness by pointing to photographic evidence. He claims - quite offensively
>that Judge's witness is lying - all to support a theory which HE IS TRYING
>TO PROVE - namely that no plane hit the pentagon.
>   Penny Elgas clearly saw a 757 pass through a hole smaller than itself,
>without breaking off any parts. Kaminski offensively claims that this report
>is also a lie, all because he's trying to prove that no plane hit the
>pentagon. Elgas makes it clear that from her report that she can conciously
>register seperate images faster than the 30 frames/second of video.
>     Witnesses don't lie.
>
>Sorry, WF. Your crackpot theories that a video can pick up things which the
>naked eye can't are disproved by the Penny elgas report. It would offensive
>to claim she's lying and circular reasoning to quibble over whether what
>she's saying is possible.
>
>Which means that a 757 hit the pentagon. We have two witnesses who say so.
>It would be offensive to deconstruct their reports for plausibility testing.
>   Or perhaps they only lie in washington DC, but are a more truthful breed
>in NY, John?
>
>It seems that after Elgas saw the tail disappear into the building that it
>then got spat back out to finish up on the lawn, so that Judge's witness
>could see it. We know this because witness evidence is unquestionable.
>They were both telling the truth. it would be offensive and petty to quibble
>otherwise.
>
>And how about you JIm ?  Witnesses tell the truth in NY  but lie in DC ? Or
>are you now saying that a plane hit the pentagon, because Elgas and Judge's
>witness are both telling the truth?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
>
>Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:01
>Subject: Re: Next loser !
>
>
>
>
>>I want to add that whatever video lacks in resolution it more than makes
>>up for by traversing TIME.
>>A video is not a single frame, it is a time passage of an event.
>>The human eye cannot see 30 frames per second.
>>Magic acts work because the eye is slow and easily distracted.
>>Slow motion video is like looking at an event through a microscope.
>>We can see things we can't see with the naked eye.
>>
>>They are reminding me of the doctors who didn't believe in the Germ
>>theory, and poopoo'ed microscopic evidence cos it was so fantastic, and
>>when they looked at their hands they couldn't see no germs.
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: Next loser !
>>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:26:23 +1000
>>From: gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[[Hundreds must have witnessed the South Tower crash.  If it wasn't
>>  a plane, or was something much different than a 767, there should be
>>  abundant eyewitness evidence to that effect.]]
>>
>>In that case Jim, present the wintesses to a large plane.  Hundreds of
>>people saw it ? A 767 would be kind of hard to miss if it was there. Wheras
>>a small, supersonic object would be easy to miss.
>>
>>Present  your witnesses, Jim.
>>
>>But in the meantime, is anyone willing to pick up the Nth tower video
>>
>>
>debate
>
>
>>after Eric Salter bolted and ran for cover ?
>>
>>After all, this is where the debate started, and I was in process of
>>logically following one thread through to its logical conclusion when
>>
>>
>Salter
>
>
>>high - tailed it for the hills. I'm willing to go logically and
>>
>>
>methodically
>
>
>>through each aspect of the evidence, one at a time -  first video, then
>>forensic, then witness, then flight documentation. First the Nth Tower,
>>
>>
>then
>
>
>>the Sth tower. This is how one builds an argument.
>>
>>But the plane huggers want to flip wildly between one thread and another,
>>using witness evidence for the Sth Tower as a counter to video evidence of
>>Nth tower. This is to avoid having to follow any of their insane ideas
>>through to their logical conclusions.
>>
>>They were in the process of getting creamed over the NTh tower video, so
>>they suddenly want to talk about witnesses to the Sth tower. All in good
>>time. But allow me to continue with the thread I was on - the Nth Tower
>>video evidence. Are you now all afraid to continue that thread ?
>>
>>How about You ,Jim ? Start at the beginning. In relation to the NTh tower
>>are you claiming
>>
>>a) That the appearance of the object seen to be approaching the Nth Tower
>>
>>
>is
>
>
>>unmistakeably 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 unmistakeably 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jim Hoffman writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As the message to which I reply shows, both Gerard and Webfairy are
>>>very
>>>skillful debaters.  In the piece here, Gerard ridicules the questioning
>>>of interpretations he draws from WTC crash footage by equating refusals
>>>to draw the same conclusions with a series of ludicrous assertions about
>>>photos and videos having hundreds of times the resolition of the WTC
>>>crash videos.  In doing so he effectively hides two facts:
>>>
>>>1. The information content of images/video is proportional to their
>>>  resolition.
>>>
>>>2. The conclusions that the no-planers draw from the WTC videos are
>>>  entirely unsupported.
>>>
>>>What are those conclusions?  Well it's a little hard to tell as we have
>>>a whole smorgasbord of no/pod-planer theories to choose from.  We have:
>>>
>>>* no real planes, but ones simulated by holograms
>>>* no real planes, but a vast conspiracy of the media to insert
>>> faked footage into the public record
>>>* napalm-loaded planes
>>>* explosives in the towers detonated to simulate the plane strikes.
>>>* much smaller planes (that magically make holes in the towers matching
>>> the profiles of 767s)
>>>* a "pregnant" 767 (The originators of this theory apparently didn't
>>>bother
>>> to look at the underside of a moder airliner.)
>>>* a cargo version of a 767-300, with a missle-firing pod mounted
>>>underneath
>>>* various combinations of missle strikes, with the missles comming
>>> from the planes and/or other sources
>>>
>>>It's much easier to defend a theory with morphing capability.
>>>
>>>Earlier messages from Gerard ridiculing a few WTC crash eyewitnesses
>>>effectively hides a third fact:
>>>
>>>3. Hundreds must have witnessed the South Tower crash.  If it wasn't
>>>  a plane, or was something much different than a 767, there should be
>>>  abundant eyewitness evidence to that effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>Webfairy, whose post follows Gerards below, uses a clever form of
>>>straw-man
>>>argument.  She (justifiably) attacks Daniel Hopsicker's silly theories
>>>about
>>>the hijackers, but in doing so implies that anyone opposing the
>>>no-planer
>>>theories subscribes to the Hopsicker's theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The notion of Hijackers Slamming Planes into Buildings is the
>>>>>justification for the War on Terror.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>True enough, but, AFAIK, Hopsicker is about the only one in the 9/11
>>>Truth
>>>Movement who believes it.  Most of us think the planes were piloted by
>>>automated/remote-control.
>>>
>>>Webfairy sets up another false dichotomy, stating:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The 911 Half-Truth Movement intends to limit the perps to Bushies who
>>>>>can be safely voted out while we endure ever tighter surveillance "for
>>>>>our own good."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>As if only those embracing the no/pod-planes theories are hip to the
>>>attacks being the work of more than just the Bush Administration.
>>>
>>>-Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:34:28 +1000, "gerard holmgren"
>>><holmgren@...> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, there's also a photographic record of the tail of the plane on
>>>>the
>>>>pentagon lawn. Its just that you can't see it because of poor
>>>>resolution.
>>>>Planes don't photograph very well, you see.
>>>>   After all, John Judge has a witness report to the sighting of this
>>>>   tail,
>>>>so obviously it was there, and just didn't show up because of the poor
>>>>resolution of the photo.
>>>>We wouldn't want to call the witness a liar, would we? Nobody lies about
>>>>S11 issues, after all ! Its only cameras that lie.
>>>>
>>>>   But then, I'm not a photographic expert so I shouldn't be commenting
>>>>   on what the photo shows or does not show.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It really is irresponsible for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>people
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>who are not video professionals to look at a video and comment on what's
>>>>there.
>>>>   Because of my lack of professional  video qualifications, I am also
>>>>   now
>>>>withdrawing my support for the claim that WTC towers even went down at
>>>>all.
>>>>I thought I saw video of collpasing buildings, but video doesn't have
>>>>very
>>>>good resolution, you see.The buildings are still standing, its just that
>>>>you
>>>>cant see them because of poor resolution.
>>>>
>>>>   Actually,  last weekend I was watching the football on TV and the
>>>>broadcaster irresponsibly called a goal being kicked, because he
>>>>
>>>>
>thiought
>
>
>>>>it
>>>>saw the ball sailing between the posts.
>>>>   As it turned out, it was a bird flying between the posts and the ball
>>>>   was
>>>>down the other end of the field. The broadcaster was sacked because
>>>>
>>>>
>being
>
>
>>>>a
>>>>broadcaster and not a video expert, he had irresponsibly called the
>>>>
>>>>
>goal,
>
>
>>>>without first gaining clearance from the video expert who sits next to
>>>>him
>>>>in the box and tells him whats happening.
>>>>
>>>>On another occasion, there was a slow motion replay of two players
>>>>running
>>>>into each other, but you couldn't actually see the collision, because
>>>>
>>>>
>one
>
>
>>>>player melted away into nothing just before the collision. This
>>>>frequently
>>>>happens on  slow motion replays, because of video's poor resolution.
>>>>
>>>>This is why players are so seldom suspended on striking charges, because
>>>>the
>>>>video replays are not clear enough. Just as the punch looks like it
>>>>
>>>>
>about
>
>
>>>>to
>>>>be thrown, the guy's arm disappears. Damn video resolution ! And on one
>>>>occasion, a guy was cleared of a charge of kicking another player,
>>>>because
>>>>although the video appeared to show him kicking the guy in the stomach,
>>>>the
>>>>tribunal ruled that it only looked like another player he was kicking -
>>>>but
>>>>it was actually the ball. Poor resolution created the optical illusion
>>>>that
>>>>the ball was an opposition player.
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
>>>>Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:00
>>>>Subject: Blind People Running with Scissors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In a fortunately less gullible time, the Randy King case was prosecuted
>>>>>with video evidence.
>>>>>Without video evidence, it would have been just another anonymous
>>>>>
>>>>>
>beating.
>
>
>>>>>What if the hue and cry had come up then, and supposedly responsible
>>>>>experts came forth with testimony that Rodney King had a gun, but the
>>>>>video artifact screened it out.
>>>>>How bout, Rodney King was throwing punches, but he did it between the
>>>>>frames.
>>>>>It was a friendly conversation, but you can't see that because of the
>>>>>resolution.
>>>>>These are much more creative times.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

(Nico Haupt is the guy who goes to Ground Zero with the "Bush Engineered
911" banner.)
He was a founder of the New York 911 Truth movement.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Knocks on the Psyche
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:58:43 +0200 (MEST)
From: Nico Haupt <nicohaupt@...>
To: jeff strahl <jstrahl@...>



  > Honestly, Nico, did you think that *i* was arguing in any way on behalf
  > of
  > Levis, Douglas, 911"Truth", or any of those? I was arguing against a
  > perspective that Toronto was entirely a disinfo job sponsored by the
likes
  > of Khashoggi. And i don't think he's the worst behind the scene person re
  > those people, though i can't prove any of my suspicions.
  >
  > Jeff

Jeff,

i understand your perspective and it was pretty clear.

I just tried the opportunity to speak out, because i'm currently strongly
handicapped to participate in any debate, for many technical and personal
reasons.

I tried to give my perspective in time, since it was me, who pushed the
Gray/Kashoggi-issue first in the 9/11 Truth Alliance list, after i tried to
ping diplomatic channels first.

However, it didn't work out.
I was waiting for the Broeckers article, then i decided immediately to
challeng Bill Douglas, Nic Levis and others over there.

However, their "response" was worse than i thought. They flamed me as
disruptive and used the opportunity to bash all progressive voices,
including Angie D'Urso, one of the founding members of ny911truth.org.

We both left this group months ago under protest against Nic Levis
disturbing and diversive strategy campaigns (incl. an invitation of Scott
Ritter to ny911truth)

I just tried to point out, that i didn't know about the Gray-Kashoggi link
until right after the PHASE II conference, but was aware of a potential
sponsorship of Gray weeks before the conference.

I don't think, we can say that PHASE II was completely sponsored by Gray,
but we also cannot rule out that he was the biggest sponsor.

In fact, my informations and sources pointed on him as the main sponsorship
and i knew this in advance of Nic Levis and other sources.


The issue in how far Gray was either manipulated, screwed or still actively
involved with Kashoggi, is a different topic, but scandalous enough, to
define it as a cover-up. Gray's second hand opinion stands here against
individual research.

However, his association alone with any further explanation in time is
already a scandal, it doesn't even matter, if well planned, based on
incompetence or sloppery.


Those, who got involved and those who are responsible for the cover-up,
have to resign.

I will NOT withdraw from my request. I even know, that Levis tried to get
Gray's money to ny911truth.org and other "channels".

I will not be silent about this. This is also not an ego issue.
I'm doing here my job as a researcher, journalist and activist on demand.


I also think, it smacks like yet another sabotage from within the 9/11
truth movement, when we finally found a holy grail on the real whereabouts
of flight 11, 175 , some disinfo activists started a smear and sabotage
campaign against the "no-planers" or so called "pod-people".

This is not a damn coincidence either.

Many of these saboteurs against Phil Jayhan/Letsroll, Webfairy, Gerard
Holmgren, M.Elliott and they even tried to get articles by woodybox and me
to draw into the same club is scandalous as well.

I have a personal blacklist and Mark Robinowitz (oilempire.us) is right at
the top, who was one of the first and strongest campaigners.

I will not say, if he was manipulated as well, but one must wonder, why the
loudest voices came from the "peak oil corner".

Finally it's more than odd to leak all these private debates to anti-
semitic websites and supporters.

There IS cointel-pro going on within 9/11 truth and it's very easy to trace
it back to only 2-4 "voices".

i hope, these insights make some people really think.

nico aka ewing2001


  > on 7/28/04 6:36 PM, Nico Haupt at nicohaupt@... wrote:
  >
  > > To avoid more rumours:
  > >
  > >
  > > The cover-up on Gray and Kashoggi started right at the top from Phase
II
  > > and 911truth.org, backed by their new speakers Nic Levis.
  > >
  > > I knew from some of these new "sponsorships" and other obscure and
  > > diversive strategies from Nic Levis in advance and that's why i left
  > > ny911truth.org under protest.
  > >
  > > When i heard, that there was even a Gray-Kashoggi link, i asked for a
  > > statement from 911truth.org and was attacked for these questions by Nic
  > > Levis and Bill Douglas (911 Visibility/911Truth)
  > >
  > > I still think, that Nic Levis and some others from PHASE II have to
  > resign
  > > over this cover-up scandal.
  > >
  > > It was Matthias Broeckers, who wrote first in public about the
  > Gray-Cover-
  > > up, then it was me on my blog. Chussodowski protested the Gray-Kashoggi
  > > connection in Toronto, but was pleased by PHASE II organizer to put his
  > > criticism on hold.
  > >
  > >
  > > Hopsicker just stretched the story a bit too much, but so what?
  > > Don't hit the second generation messenger.
  > >
  > > The responsibility is at 911Truth, the credibility is strongly hurt.
  > >
  > > more here:
  > >
  > > Hopsicker picks up the John Gray-Kashoggi Controversy
  > > http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=571
  > >
  > >
  > > Nico aka ewing2001
  > >
  > >
  > >> From:
  > >> http://madcowprod.com/
  > >>
  > >> "Khashoggi’s involvement in the International 9/11
  > >> Inquiry was discovered through the efforts of two of
  > >> the most-respected researchers in attendance, Canadian
  > >> economist Michel Chossudovsky and German author
  > >> Mathias Broeckers."
  > >>
  > >> Hopsicko says Chosso has.
  > >>
  > >> Scott
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> --- jeff strahl <jstrahl@...> wrote:
  > >>
  > >>> Chosso was one of the key participants in Toronto. I
  > >>> have yet to see him say
  > >>> he was funded by Khashoggi. And you have failed to
  > >>> stand up for Hopsicko, i
  > >>> notice.
  > >>>
  > >>> Jeff
  > >>>
  > >>> on 7/28/04 10:13 AM, The Webfairy at
  > >>> webfairy@... wrote:
  > >>>
  > >>>> The info was from Bruckner and Chossudovsky.
  > >>>> Simply reporting it makes it bullshit if you don't
  > >>> like the reporter?
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> jeff strahl wrote:
  > >>>>
  > >>>>> Yeah, let's forget that Daniel Hopsicko who runs
  > >>> madcow is firmly of the
  > >>>>> opinion that Arab hijackers took over planes and
  > >>> brought down the WTC towers
  > >>>>> and hit the Pentagon. What a great source for
  > >>> info. Which is bullshit.
  > >>>>>
  > >>>>> Jeff
  > >>>>>
  > >>>>>
  > >>>>> on 7/27/04 9:13 PM, The Webfairy at
  > >>> webfairy@... wrote:
  > >>>>>
  > >>>>>
  > >>>>>
  > >>>>>> I notice Kaminski also calls rationalizing
  > >>> rationalists "empiricist"
  > >>>>>> having obviously never looked up the word.
  > >>>>>> Empiricism traditionally meant that experience
  > >>> from the senses -- stuff
  > >>>>>> like looking at videos -- was the path to
  > >>> knowledge.
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>> Kaminski needs to eat, and maybe some of that
  > >>> khashoggi money made it
  > >>>>>> his way. The news that the Toronto 911 "Truth"
  > >>> conference was paid for
  > >>>>>> by the same gang that's running the 911 Coverup
  > >>> commission is one of
  > >>>>>> those things that went straight to the memory
  > >>> hole.
  > >>>>>> http://madcowprod.com -- take a good look at
  > >>> this.
  > >>>>>> It shows exactly who is finding us "Toxic" to
  > >>> their movement.
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>> I've been blackballed by Rense for a really long
  > >>> time.
  > >>>>>> The only mention my site got was when their
  > >>> webmaster cracked my
  > >>>>>> ghostplane .wmv and then tried to deny me
  > >>> credit.
  > >>>>>> When Leonard Spencer told them that I was indeed
  > >>> the source of the
  > >>>>>> footage, they had no choice but give me a
  > >>> credit.
  > >>>>>> Heh. Great victory.
  > >>>>>> It ran out my bandwidth and left me with a
  > >>> thousand dollar overcharge so
  > >>>>>> I had to upgrade my account.
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>> Scott Loughrey wrote:
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> Truthout, working for the Coup:
  > >>>>>>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/072704A.shtml
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> "With countless police, intelligence and
  > >>> journalistic
  > >>>>>>> examinations and two special congressional
  > >>> inquiries,
  > >>>>>>> the Sept. 11 attacks have been among the most
  > >>>>>>> investigated criminal acts in history..."
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> Truthout seems to be leading the way in what
  > >>> will be a
  > >>>>>>> rewrite of history. More "Left" publications
  > >>> will
  > >>>>>>> shortly follow this idea that 9/11 was
  > >>> "investigated".
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> * * *
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> Kaminski takes another cheap shot at "No Plane"
  > >>>>>>> theorists such as myself:
  > >>>>>>> http://www.rense.com/general54/911pprobe.htm
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> "...and the topper in this category is Scott
  > >>>>>>> Loughrey's recent articulation of his no-planes
  > >>> theory
  > >>>>>>> that asserts 9/11 was all done with mirrors
  > >>> (and
  > >>>>>>> explosives in the buildings...these fanciful
  > >>>>>>> speculations have destroyed the 9/11 truth
  > >>>>>>> movement..."
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> He's talkinga about this article which hardly
  > >>> anyone
  > >>>>>>> has seen:
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>
  > >> http://www.media-criticism.com/No_Planes_Summary_2004.html
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> This is the second time that Kaminski has been
  > >>> allowed
  > >>>>>>> to take a shot at me on Rense. Meanwhile,
  > >>> Rense will
  > >>>>>>> not link to my site (http://www.911hoax.com ).
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> So, between cheap shot artists like Kaminski
  > >>> knocking
  > >>>>>>> me to Rense's daily audience of a million
  > >>> people (with
  > >>>>>>> no opportunity to fight back), and disinfo
  > >>> outlets
  > >>>>>>> like Truthout stashing 9/11 anomalies into the
  > >>> Memory
  > >>>>>>> Hole, I feel much despair for the 3,000 victims
  > >>> of
  > >>>>>>> 9/11 right now.
  > >>>>>>>
  > >>>>>>> a momentarily depressed,
  > >>>>>>> Scott

(Nico Haupt is the guy who goes to Ground Zero with the "Bush Engineered
911" banner.)
He was a founder of the New York 911 Truth movement.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: Knocks on the Psyche
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:58:43 +0200 (MEST)
From:  Nico Haupt <nicohaupt@...>
To:  jeff strahl <jstrahl@...>



> Honestly, Nico, did you think that *i* was arguing in any way on  behalf
> of
> Levis, Douglas, 911"Truth", or any of those? I was arguing against a
> perspective that Toronto was entirely a disinfo job sponsored by the
likes
> of Khashoggi. And i don't think he's the worst behind the scene person re
> those people, though i can't prove any of my suspicions.
>
> Jeff

Jeff,

i understand your perspective and it was pretty clear.

I just tried the opportunity to speak out, because i'm currently strongly
handicapped to participate in any debate, for many technical and personal
reasons.

I tried to give my perspective in time, since it was me, who pushed the
Gray/Kashoggi-issue first in the 9/11 Truth Alliance list, after i tried to
ping diplomatic channels first.

However, it didn't work out.
I was waiting for the Broeckers article, then i decided immediately to
challeng Bill Douglas, Nic Levis and others over there.

However, their "response" was worse than i thought. They flamed me as
disruptive and used the opportunity to bash all progressive voices,
including Angie D'Urso, one of the founding members of ny911truth.org.

We both left this group months ago under protest against Nic Levis
disturbing and diversive strategy campaigns (incl. an invitation of Scott
Ritter to ny911truth)

I just tried to point out, that i didn't know about the Gray-Kashoggi link
until right after the PHASE II conference, but was aware of a potential
sponsorship of Gray weeks before the conference.

I don't think, we can say that PHASE II was completely sponsored by Gray,
but we also cannot rule out that he was the biggest sponsor.

In fact, my informations and sources pointed on him as the main sponsorship
and i knew this in advance of Nic Levis and other sources.


The issue in how far Gray was either manipulated, screwed or still actively
involved with Kashoggi, is a different topic, but scandalous enough, to
define it as a cover-up. Gray's second hand opinion stands here against
individual research.

However, his association alone with any further explanation in time is
already a scandal, it doesn't even matter, if well planned, based on
incompetence or sloppery.


Those, who got involved and those who are responsible for the cover-up,
have to resign.

I will NOT withdraw from my request. I even know, that Levis tried to get
Gray's money to ny911truth.org and other "channels".

I will not be silent about this. This is also not an ego issue.
I'm doing here my job as a researcher, journalist and activist on demand.


I also think, it smacks like yet another sabotage from within the 9/11
truth movement, when we finally found a holy grail on the real whereabouts
of flight 11, 175 , some disinfo activists started a smear and sabotage
campaign against the "no-planers" or so called "pod-people".

This is not a damn coincidence either.

Many of these saboteurs against Phil Jayhan/Letsroll, Webfairy, Gerard
Holmgren, M.Elliott and they even tried to get articles by woodybox and me
to draw into the same club is scandalous as well.

I have a personal blacklist and Mark Robinowitz (oilempire.us) is right at
the top, who was one of the first and strongest campaigners.

I will not say, if he was manipulated as well, but one must wonder, why the
loudest voices came from the "peak oil corner".

Finally it's more than odd to leak all these private debates to anti-
semitic websites and supporters.

There IS cointel-pro going on within 9/11 truth and it's very easy to trace
it back to only 2-4 "voices".

i hope, these insights make some people really think.

nico aka ewing2001


> on 7/28/04 6:36 PM, Nico Haupt at nicohaupt@... wrote:
>
> > To avoid more rumours:
> >
> >
> > The cover-up on Gray and Kashoggi started right at the top from Phase
II
> > and 911truth.org, backed by their new speakers Nic Levis.
> >
> > I knew from some of these new "sponsorships" and other obscure and
> > diversive strategies from Nic Levis in advance and that's why i left
> > ny911truth.org under protest.
> >
> > When i heard, that there was even a Gray-Kashoggi link, i asked for a
> > statement from 911truth.org and was attacked for these questions by Nic
> > Levis and Bill Douglas (911 Visibility/911Truth)
> >
> > I still think, that Nic Levis and some others from PHASE II have to
> resign
> > over this cover-up scandal.
> >
> > It was Matthias Broeckers, who wrote first in public about the
> Gray-Cover-
> > up, then it was me on my blog. Chussodowski protested the Gray-Kashoggi
> > connection in Toronto, but was pleased by PHASE II organizer to put his
> > criticism on hold.
> >
> >
> > Hopsicker just stretched the story a bit too much, but so what?
> > Don't hit the second generation messenger.
> >
> > The responsibility is at 911Truth, the credibility is strongly hurt.
> >
> > more here:
> >
> > Hopsicker picks up the John Gray-Kashoggi Controversy
> > http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=571
> >
> >
> > Nico aka ewing2001
> >
> >
> >> From:
> >> http://madcowprod.com/
> >>
> >> "Khashoggi’s involvement in the International 9/11
> >> Inquiry was discovered through the efforts of two of
> >> the most-respected researchers in attendance, Canadian
> >> economist Michel Chossudovsky and German author
> >> Mathias Broeckers."
> >>
> >> Hopsicko says Chosso has.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- jeff strahl <jstrahl@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chosso was one of the key participants in Toronto. I
> >>> have yet to see him say
> >>> he was funded by Khashoggi. And you have failed to
> >>> stand up for Hopsicko, i
> >>> notice.
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>> on 7/28/04 10:13 AM, The Webfairy at
> >>> webfairy@... wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The info was from Bruckner and  Chossudovsky.
> >>>> Simply reporting it makes it bullshit if you don't
> >>> like the reporter?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> jeff strahl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, let's forget that Daniel Hopsicko who runs
> >>> madcow is firmly of the
> >>>>> opinion that Arab hijackers took over planes and
> >>> brought down the WTC towers
> >>>>> and hit the Pentagon. What a great source for
> >>> info. Which is bullshit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> on 7/27/04 9:13 PM, The Webfairy at
> >>> webfairy@... wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I notice Kaminski also calls rationalizing
> >>> rationalists "empiricist"
> >>>>>> having obviously never looked up the word.
> >>>>>> Empiricism traditionally meant that experience
> >>> from the senses -- stuff
> >>>>>> like looking at videos -- was the path to
> >>> knowledge.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kaminski needs to eat, and maybe some of that
> >>> khashoggi money made it
> >>>>>> his way. The news that the Toronto 911 "Truth"
> >>> conference was paid for
> >>>>>> by the same gang that's running the 911 Coverup
> >>> commission is one of
> >>>>>> those things that went straight to the memory
> >>> hole.
> >>>>>> http://madcowprod.com -- take a good look at
> >>> this.
> >>>>>> It shows exactly who is finding us "Toxic" to
> >>> their movement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've been blackballed by Rense for a really long
> >>> time.
> >>>>>> The only mention my site got was when their
> >>> webmaster cracked my
> >>>>>> ghostplane .wmv and then tried to deny me
> >>> credit.
> >>>>>> When Leonard Spencer told them that I was indeed
> >>> the source of the
> >>>>>> footage, they had no choice but give me a
> >>> credit.
> >>>>>> Heh. Great victory.
> >>>>>> It ran out my bandwidth and left me with a
> >>> thousand dollar overcharge so
> >>>>>> I had to upgrade my account.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Scott Loughrey wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Truthout, working for the Coup:
> >>>>>>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/072704A.shtml
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "With countless police, intelligence and
> >>> journalistic
> >>>>>>> examinations and two special congressional
> >>> inquiries,
> >>>>>>> the Sept. 11 attacks have been among the most
> >>>>>>> investigated criminal acts in history..."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Truthout seems to be leading the way in what
> >>> will be a
> >>>>>>> rewrite of history.  More "Left" publications
> >>> will
> >>>>>>> shortly follow this idea that 9/11 was
> >>> "investigated".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kaminski takes another cheap shot at "No Plane"
> >>>>>>> theorists such as myself:
> >>>>>>> http://www.rense.com/general54/911pprobe.htm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "...and the topper in this category is Scott
> >>>>>>> Loughrey's recent articulation of his no-planes
> >>> theory
> >>>>>>> that asserts 9/11 was all done with mirrors
> >>> (and
> >>>>>>> explosives in the buildings...these fanciful
> >>>>>>> speculations have destroyed the 9/11 truth
> >>>>>>> movement..."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He's talkinga about this article which hardly
> >>> anyone
> >>>>>>> has seen:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >> http://www.media-criticism.com/No_Planes_Summary_2004.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is the second time that Kaminski has been
> >>> allowed
> >>>>>>> to take a shot at me on Rense.  Meanwhile,
> >>> Rense will
> >>>>>>> not link to my site (http://www.911hoax.com ).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, between cheap shot artists like Kaminski
> >>> knocking
> >>>>>>> me to Rense's daily audience of a million
> >>> people (with
> >>>>>>> no opportunity to fight back), and disinfo
> >>> outlets
> >>>>>>> like Truthout stashing 9/11 anomalies into the
> >>> Memory
> >>>>>>> Hole, I feel much despair for the 3,000 victims
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> 9/11 right now.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a momentarily depressed,
> >>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

--
NEU: WLAN-Router für 0,- EUR* - auch für DSL-Wechsler!
GMX DSL = supergünstig & kabellos http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: Scalr/conventional
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:38:57 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>



Good questions, which need close examination. this is why we need to
carefully think through all the possibilities. However, the plane from the
rear view does not look like its going in. It melts away into nothing
without leaving a hole in the wall. So we have ruled out the possibilioty
that its a real plane.
    And the side on "blue plane " shot is not a hologram or a real plane, but
a fake video. Thats proven.
    I analyzed it frame by frame, and nobody even attempted to debunk the
analysis.

Jeff raises legitimate questions and problems with a number of the theories
surrounding an atempt to give a precise explanation of exactly how the
illusion was achieved. However, these cannot be properly examined , while
some cling to the insane idea that it was a real plane.
    Real planes don't melt away into nothing, they don't fly in the opposite
direction to which they are banking, they don't violate laws of perspective,
they dont alternate bewteen 0 velocity and 1200 mph frame by frame and they
dont disappear into buildings without making a hole and without breaking off
any parts.
    All of this behaviour can be observed in the various Sth Tower hit
videos. So it is not a plane on the video.
    As long as we are all agreed on that, then we can have a reasonable
discussion about the various theories of  exactly how the strike and the
illusion masking it were achieved.
-----Original Message-----
From: jeff strahl <jstrahl@...>
To: gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>; Rosalee Grable
<webfairy@...>
Cc: Leonard Spencer <leonardspencer3@...>; prez@...
<prez@...>; brian@...
<brian@...>; Eric Salter <ericsalter@...>;
PainfulQuestions@... <PainfulQuestions@...>; SirDave@...
<SirDave@...>; pm@... <pm@...>;
mark@... <mark@...>; carbonbased@...
<carbonbased@...>; skylax@... <skylax@...>;
longspaugh@... <longspaugh@...>; vyzygoth@...
<vyzygoth@...>; rick-stanley@...
<rick-stanley@...>; rainesco@...
<rainesco@...>; j_hoffman@... <j_hoffman@...>;
leland@... <leland@...>; jr@... <jr@...>; akd@...
<akd@...>; rballan@... <rballan@...>
Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:01
Subject: Re: Scalr/conventional


>Any such argument  would have to explain the South Tower hit looking like a
>large plane which almost missed and hit the tower's corner. If this was
>intentional, what ever for?
>And any plane which could project a hologram around itself, if it were to
>impact, would instantly lose that image, not look like it was going in, in
>whatever weird way it looks like it's going in, right? And if a plane fired
>off a missile, what happened to it in the video after it turned around? Did
>it project a hologram of invisibility while turning?
>
>Jeff
>
>on 7/28/04 7:06 PM, gerard holmgren at holmgren@... wrote:
>
>> [[I realize that conventional holography could not create the
>>> superficially convincing images we saw of UA-175, ]]
>>
>> Is this really so ? I am by no means discouraging discussion of scalar
>> technology, but I wish to point out that someone I know who has worked
with
>> holograms, says that its entirely feasible with the conventional
technology
>> he worked with.
>> Note that this person worked with it commercially - in the advertising
>> industry, and some years ago - so he's nowhere near the cutting edge.
>>
>> He agreed that with the technolgy with which he was familiar , it would
be
>> virtually impossible to project the image through the air. However he did
>> say that it would be entirely feasible for a craft to project its own
>> hologramic image around itself.
>> So, unless anybody wants to dispute this, we should, at the same time as
>> exploring the scalr option, bear in mind that even without scalar
technology
>> its still quite possible, pending a close examination of at what point in
>> the video the alleged hologram disappears, and reconciling this with the
>> timing of the impact.
>> Another possibility to explore is that a craft cloaked in a hologramic
>> image fired a missile, and then sped off, which would mean we are dealing
>> with two objects - the "plane" and the object which struck the building.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...>
>> To: gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>
>> Cc: Leonard Spencer <leonardspencer3@...>; prez@...
>> <prez@...>; brian@...
>> <brian@...>; Eric Salter <ericsalter@...>;
>> PainfulQuestions@... <PainfulQuestions@...>; SirDave@...
>> <SirDave@...>; jstrahl@... <jstrahl@...>;
>> pm@... <pm@...>; mark@...
>> <mark@...>; carbonbased@...
<carbonbased@...>;
>> skylax@... <skylax@...>; longspaugh@...
>> <longspaugh@...>; vyzygoth@... <vyzygoth@...>;
>> rick-stanley@... <rick-stanley@...>;
>> rainesco@... <rainesco@...>; j_hoffman@...
>> <j_hoffman@...>; leland@... <leland@...>; jr@...
>> <jr@...>; akd@... <akd@...>; rballan@...
>> <rballan@...>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:44
>> Subject: Re: Salter cuts and runs again.
>>
>>
>>> This is the message from Plaguepuppy that I referenced yesterday.
>>> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:14:39 -0700
>>> Subject: More Tesla ruminations
>>> From: "PlaguePuppy" <plaguepuppy@...>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jean, you've described the retrofitting of a copper sprinkler system,
>>> new railings and such not too long before the demolitions, and
>>> speculated that the pipes could have been filled with explosives.  That
>>> would have been pretty ineffective with conventional explosives, but
>>> could have all fit together to make a big tuned antenna for scalar
>>> purposes.  The framework of the columns and floors was like a giant 3-D
>>> breadboard on which and desired antenna geometry could be created.
>>> Isn't it funny how energetically those big aluminum facing strips on the
>>> outside columns got blown out away from the towers?
>>> http://www.skfriends.com/images/biggart/04-wtc-Biggart5-24.jpg
>>>
>>> You spoke before about problems with electrolysis caused by the
>>> steel-aluminum interface that covered the entire outside of the
>>> building, and it seems that the designers would have forseen the
>>> problem.  But if the building was designed from the beginning to be
>>> imploded, perhaps that huge interface of dissimilar metals (interfaces,
>>> especially highly stressed ones, seem to act as transducers of scalar
>>> waves into other forms of energy) was deliberately included to enhance
>>> the Tesla fireworks.
>>>
>>> I'm encouraged that Stefan Grossmann confirms the existence of scalar
>>> technology as per Bearden, and specifically mentions scalar holography
>>> in "9-11 Test for Websleuths"
>>> (http://www.cloakanddagger.ca/media/Grossmann/081%209-11%20Tests.htm,
>>> near the end).
>>>
>>> I realize that conventional holography could not create the
>>> superficially convincing images we saw of UA-175, but the scalar
>>> holographic technique Bearden describes could.  Not to get drawn into
>>> discussions of space-time and the aether, but from what I've seen of the
>>> 9-11 evidence either scalar waves and the associated technology exist
>>> pretty much as Bearden describes it, or there is something else so much
>>> like it as to be functionally identical.
>>>
>>> In the history of the scientific understanding of electromagnetic
>>> waves there is no question that the tensor field was very much implied
>>> by Maxwell's original equations.  This essentially rigid framework of
>>> the scalar field looked too much like the luminiferous (light-bearing)
>>> ether, and ultimately to the great unnamable of the Taoist, for the
>>> newly emerging orthodoxy to feel comfortable with.  Maybe they were
>>> uncomfortable with the idea of a "rigid" substance that material objects
>>> can pass through - I still find that counter-intuitive.  By the simple
>>> expedient of deleting the scalar (a magnitude not associated with a
>>> directional vector) term in Maxwell's equations they made the scalar
>>> field disappear, and with it the possibility of imagining scalar waves.
>>>
>>> The novel feature of scalar holography is that the two scalar
>>> beams needed to create the images are invisible, and can come from far
>>> away with no signal loss.  The point of the exercise is to modulate the
>>> two scalar beams to create an interference pattern at the point of
>>> intersection.  In this case the interference can be "tuned" to create
>>> visible light to create a desired image.  No problem looking solid -
>>> just make the light produced an exact replica of the light exiting the
>>> surface of a real plane.
>>>
>>> That raises the question of why they didn't make it look like the real
>>> Flight 175, why the pod and bogus markings, why no windows?  Why go to
>>> the trouble of making it look almost but not quite like the real thing?
>>> Is this just more revelation of the method, or did they use the pod to
>>> hide a missile hanging off the drone that just couldn't fit within the
>>> image of the fuselage?  At least the missile looked real enough...
>>>
>>> Pup
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Jean Gordon <mailto:jgordon@...>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 25, 2004 7:15 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: Idea to Counter 9-11 Commission Whitewash
>>>
>>> on 7/25/04 8:47 PM, plaguepuppy@...
>>> <mailto:plaguepuppy@...> at plaguepuppy@...
>>> <mailto:plaguepuppy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a new edition of Griffin's book due out in a few more
>>> days - I just heard him being interviewed on KPFA.
>>>
>>> I left a comment that hasn't been posted yet on Amazon, about
>>> what happens when you pour jet fuel down elevators.  One of the
>>> "reviewers" claimed that you could melt the core that way, but
>>> then the same guy made the astute observation that/ " 6. Name
>>> hufschmid is popular in Germany. Isn't that where many terrorist
>>> cells were found?"/
>>>
>>> /
>>>
>>> /
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>> Please see the following email message. I think its a great
>>> idea. Of course, in addition to David Ray Griffith's book,
>>> you can also link to books that you or others you believe
>>> have published.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Brad Hudson <mailto:hudsonwon1@...>
>>> *To:* DavRayGrif@... <mailto:DavRayGrif@...>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:38 AM
>>> *Subject:* I'm completely furious today... But I have a plan.
>>>
>>> Not that I didn't expect this, but the 9/11 Commission's
>>> final report came out today and of course, everything was
>>> just one big "intelligence failure" and it's not Bush's
>>> fault... It's not Clinton's fault... No one could have
>>> imagined it... The FBI & CIA need to work better together...
>>> Etc, etc... In other words, it's all /total bullsh*t.
>>> Thomas Kean even said that "9/11 WAS PREVENTABLE" and that
>>> "They all FAILED" according to CBS NEWS last December.
>>>
>> /http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml
>>> /And yet, this "It's-Nobody's-Fault" bullsh*t is actually
>>> ranked number 2 on Amazon.com?!? NO..... We can't let 9/11
>>> go out like the Warren Commission regarding JFK.
>>> We have GOT to counter this.
>>>
>>
/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/flex-sign-in/ref=cm_custrec_f_glance/103-
>> 1044320-3150249
>>> */"The New Pearl Harbor"/* should be the one that is ranked
>>> in the top 5, not this bi-partisan, watered down propaganda.
>>> People need to read the truth about 9/11 and that can only
>>> be found in this book.
>>> */I am proposing that we all go to Amazon and let our voices
>>> be heard by using this option:
>>> /What's Your Advice?
>>> *Is there an item you'd recommend instead of or in addition
>>> to this one? Let the world know! Enter the item's ASIN
>>> (what's an ASIN?) in the box below, select advice type, then
>>> click Submit.
>>>
>>> *I recommend:* in addition to this book
>>> instead of this book
>>> We use the INSTEAD option and submit /"TNPH's"/ ISBN number
>>> *1566565529.
>>> /We can NOT let this "intelligence failure" BS be the
>>> "final" word on 9/11!!!
>>> /*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I want to add that whatever video lacks in resolution it more than makes
up for by traversing TIME.
A video is not a single frame, it is a time passage of an event.
The human eye cannot see 30 frames per second.
Magic acts work because the eye is slow and easily distracted.
Slow motion video is like looking at an event through a microscope.
We can see things we can't see with the naked eye.

They are reminding me of the doctors who didn't believe in the Germ
theory, and poopoo'ed microscopic evidence cos it was so fantastic, and
when they looked at their hands they couldn't see no germs.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Next loser !
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:26:23 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>




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

In that case Jim, present the wintesses to a large plane.  Hundreds of
people saw it ? A 767 would be kind of hard to miss if it was there. Wheras
a small, supersonic object would be easy to miss.

Present  your witnesses, Jim.

But in the meantime, is anyone willing to pick up the Nth tower video debate
after Eric Salter bolted and ran for cover ?

After all, this is where the debate started, and I was in process of
logically following one thread through to its logical conclusion when Salter
high - tailed it for the hills. I'm willing to go logically and methodically
through each aspect of the evidence, one at a time -  first video, then
forensic, then witness, then flight documentation. First the Nth Tower, then
the Sth tower. This is how one builds an argument.

But the plane huggers want to flip wildly between one thread and another,
using witness evidence for the Sth Tower as a counter to video evidence of
Nth tower. This is to avoid having to follow any of their insane ideas
through to their logical conclusions.

They were in the process of getting creamed over the NTh tower video, so
they suddenly want to talk about witnesses to the Sth tower. All in good
time. But allow me to continue with the thread I was on - the Nth Tower
video evidence. Are you now all afraid to continue that thread ?

How about You ,Jim ? Start at the beginning. In relation to the NTh tower
are you claiming

a) That the appearance of the object seen to be approaching the Nth Tower is
unmistakeably 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 unmistakeably 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.




Jim Hoffman writes



>As the message to which I reply shows, both Gerard and Webfairy are
>very
>skillful debaters.  In the piece here, Gerard ridicules the questioning
>of interpretations he draws from WTC crash footage by equating refusals
>to draw the same conclusions with a series of ludicrous assertions about
>photos and videos having hundreds of times the resolition of the WTC
>crash videos.  In doing so he effectively hides two facts:
>
>1. The information content of images/video is proportional to their
>   resolition.
>
>2. The conclusions that the no-planers draw from the WTC videos are
>   entirely unsupported.
>
>What are those conclusions?  Well it's a little hard to tell as we have
>a whole smorgasbord of no/pod-planer theories to choose from.  We have:
>
>* no real planes, but ones simulated by holograms
>* no real planes, but a vast conspiracy of the media to insert
>  faked footage into the public record
>* napalm-loaded planes
>* explosives in the towers detonated to simulate the plane strikes.
>* much smaller planes (that magically make holes in the towers matching
>  the profiles of 767s)
>* a "pregnant" 767 (The originators of this theory apparently didn't
>bother
>  to look at the underside of a moder airliner.)
>* a cargo version of a 767-300, with a missle-firing pod mounted
>underneath
>* various combinations of missle strikes, with the missles comming
>  from the planes and/or other sources
>
>It's much easier to defend a theory with morphing capability.
>
>Earlier messages from Gerard ridiculing a few WTC crash eyewitnesses
>effectively hides a third fact:
>
>3. Hundreds must have witnessed the South Tower crash.  If it wasn't
>   a plane, or was something much different than a 767, there should be
>   abundant eyewitness evidence to that effect.
>
>
>Webfairy, whose post follows Gerards below, uses a clever form of
>straw-man
>argument.  She (justifiably) attacks Daniel Hopsicker's silly theories
>about
>the hijackers, but in doing so implies that anyone opposing the
>no-planer
>theories subscribes to the Hopsicker's theory.
>
>
>>>The notion of Hijackers Slamming Planes into Buildings is the
>>>justification for the War on Terror.
>
>
>True enough, but, AFAIK, Hopsicker is about the only one in the 9/11
>Truth
>Movement who believes it.  Most of us think the planes were piloted by
>automated/remote-control.
>
>Webfairy sets up another false dichotomy, stating:
>
>
>>>The 911 Half-Truth Movement intends to limit the perps to Bushies who
>>>can be safely voted out while we endure ever tighter surveillance "for
>>>our own good."
>
>
>As if only those embracing the no/pod-planes theories are hip to the
>attacks being the work of more than just the Bush Administration.
>
>-Jim
>
>
>
>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:34:28 +1000, "gerard holmgren"
><holmgren@...> said:
>
>> Actually, there's also a photographic record of the tail of the plane on
>> the
>> pentagon lawn. Its just that you can't see it because of poor
>> resolution.
>> Planes don't photograph very well, you see.
>>    After all, John Judge has a witness report to the sighting of this
>>    tail,
>> so obviously it was there, and just didn't show up because of the poor
>> resolution of the photo.
>> We wouldn't want to call the witness a liar, would we? Nobody lies about
>> S11 issues, after all ! Its only cameras that lie.
>>
>>    But then, I'm not a photographic expert so I shouldn't be commenting
>>    on what the photo shows or does not show.

>>  It really is irresponsible for
>
>people
>
>
>
>>
>> who are not video professionals to look at a video and comment on what's
>> there.
>>    Because of my lack of professional  video qualifications, I am also
>>    now
>> withdrawing my support for the claim that WTC towers even went down at
>> all.
>> I thought I saw video of collpasing buildings, but video doesn't have
>> very
>> good resolution, you see.The buildings are still standing, its just that
>> you
>> cant see them because of poor resolution.
>>
>>    Actually,  last weekend I was watching the football on TV and the
>> broadcaster irresponsibly called a goal being kicked, because he thiought
>> it
>> saw the ball sailing between the posts.
>>    As it turned out, it was a bird flying between the posts and the ball
>>    was
>> down the other end of the field. The broadcaster was sacked because being
>> a
>> broadcaster and not a video expert, he had irresponsibly called the goal,
>> without first gaining clearance from the video expert who sits next to
>> him
>> in the box and tells him whats happening.
>>
>> On another occasion, there was a slow motion replay of two players
>> running
>> into each other, but you couldn't actually see the collision, because one
>> player melted away into nothing just before the collision. This
>> frequently
>> happens on  slow motion replays, because of video's poor resolution.
>>
>> This is why players are so seldom suspended on striking charges, because
>> the
>> video replays are not clear enough. Just as the punch looks like it about
>> to
>> be thrown, the guy's arm disappears. Damn video resolution ! And on one
>> occasion, a guy was cleared of a charge of kicking another player,
>> because
>> although the video appeared to show him kicking the guy in the stomach,
>> the
>> tribunal ruled that it only looked like another player he was kicking -
>> but
>> it was actually the ball. Poor resolution created the optical illusion
>> that
>> the ball was an opposition player.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
>> Date: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:00
>> Subject: Blind People Running with Scissors
>>
>>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >In a fortunately less gullible time, the Randy King case was prosecuted
>> >with video evidence.
>> >Without video evidence, it would have been just another anonymous beating.
>> >
>> >What if the hue and cry had come up then, and supposedly responsible
>> >experts came forth with testimony that Rodney King had a gun, but the
>> >video artifact screened it out.
>> >How bout, Rodney King was throwing punches, but he did it between the
>> >frames.
>> >It was a friendly conversation, but you can't see that because of the
>> >resolution.
>> >These are much more creative times.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Implauisble reports and distorted memories.
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:01:32 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>



An implausible report does not necessarily mean that witness is lying,
although its a possibility. Its easy for people to get distorted memories.
    I have a clear memory of what I think I saw the first time that I saw the
WTC strike on TV.
    This is a memory of viewing a video, so unlike a live experience, I am
able to test the memory  accuarately against the video - which is still
there as a record.
    And I find that I've remembered it quite differently from what the video
actually shows.
    I remember the plane flying over a street crowded with people and that
there were audible gasps coming from the crowd and people looking up and
pointing it at it as it flew towards the building in a curious looping
motion, making a flightpath almost like a sine wave.
    Thats nothing like what the video shows, but its how I remember my first
viewing of it. If this were memory of a live event, of which there was no
video record, I would be confidently stating that as being what I saw, when
in fact , my mind has played tricks, juxtaposing assumptions planted by
subsequent events on to the memory.
People do this all the time, probably more so, if they've witnesses
something shocking and traumatic, which is why witness reports vary so much
and are often implausible and internally inconsistent. In some cases, the
witness may be lying or exaggerating, but its not necessary to make that
accusation, exept in some very obvious cases.
    I make no comment on whether those witnesses are lying, exaggerating or
genuinely describing what they think they saw. I am simply observing that
what they allege to have seen is  not possible.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  kaminski's secret reponse
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:02:19 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>



This is a reply to a mail I just recieved from John Kaminski. Interestingly,
he sent this mail not to the whole group, but just to me. I think the
reasons for that will become obvious when one  reads the exchange.

Here is Kaminski's message.

I disagree, Gerard. I think those witness accounts are authentic and
sincere.
>You can't quantify response parameters or second-guess behaviors or
perceptions
>in a disaster situation. People see what they see and do what they do. All
>you're doing is saying they couldn't be authentic because they don't meet
your
>preconceived criteria — AND BECAUSE YOU ARE WEDDED TO A THEORY THAT YOU ARE
>TRYING TO PROVE. Why should I believe your assessment any more than their
>testimony. In fact, the deciding factor over which set of testimony to
choose
>could well be your motivation to prove them liars. I'm not saying it is,
but it
>could be. I happen to believe their testimony. It sounds plausible.
>
>Best wishes,
>John K.

Here is my reply.

A dishonest response ,John. You are free to say that you think my analysis
is flawed. But  thats not what you said.

"No analysis" is not the same as "flawed analysis".

At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were
simply negligent, in not noticing that I had written an extensive analysis.
But now you have easily moved from the position of "no analysis" to " flawed
analysis", without any acknowledgement of having previously missed it , and
then subsequently taken a look over it.
   If you had done this, you would have replied with something like

" I apologize. I see that you did extensively analyse these reports. Having
now read that, I think your analysis is flawed because..."

But no, you've tried to cover up your initial lie , John.

You wote

[[Further, to judge witness statements as "hilarious" with no buttressing
explanations is tantamount to admitting your thesis won't hold up under
impartial analysis. ]]

"No buttressing explanations" is unambigous language John. You deliberately
lied about what I had written, both to try to discredit me, and to avoid
having to actually address the analysis which I "didn't do".

Interesting behavior John. You yourself, have never produced a skerrick of
research about S11. You've relied totally upon other people's research,
including mine. You continue to use my research to promote yourself as an
S11 critic, while delibetately lying about me in an effort to discredit me.

On second thoughts about the radio debate, I'll hold off on that for the
moment, unless I have  some sort of a guarentee that you are not setting me
up. I think it would be unwise to hand over moderation and control of a
debate to  someone who has just been caught red handed, deliberately lying
about what I wrote.

But I repeat the challenge to debate you on a level playing field, in print
, in front to of this list - the same challenge which Eric salter has twice
quailed at. Choose your tower, John.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  witness reports -revisit
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:54:16 +1000
From:  gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>



Below from "rainesco" is a defence of the witness reports which does not
adress the specific criticisms made of them.It would be helpful if, when
specific analtyical criticsm is made, if the other side of the debate would
move on and specifically address the arguments put forward, rather then
simply rambing on with vague generalities.

This is my reply to the conter -rant .

Let me summarize the specific critical analysis I made.

In relation to wintess report 1, we are required to believe one of the
follwing.

a) The wiitness was able to concously register an image of people in the
cockpit ,as well as noticing that the landing gear was down - with only 1/14
of a second to see the people.

b) That this was achieved in 1/7 of a second, providing we accept that the
witness was able to see through the bottom of the plane into the cockpit.

c) That the witness was able to discern the people in the cockpit in a more
reasonable time frame, (like 1/2 second), on the proviso that we accept that
he spotted them from more than 150 yards away -if the plane was doing about
450mph.

d) The plane was travelling at a speed of something like 200 mph, and the
witness spotted them in half a second from about 75 yards away.

Please state which of these options you think the most plausible.

In relation to witness report 2, we are required to believe that

a) the person was "eyeball to eyeball " with a plane which was more than
half a mile away when he last saw it.

b) The plane was travelling at only about 200 mph, which would enable him to
be "eyeball to eyeball " with it at a minimum distance of 450 yards at last
sighting.

c) The plane was travelling at 100 mph which enables him to be "eyball to
eyeball "at 200 yards.

d) The plane was travelling at 450 mph and he was "eyeball to eyeball" at
400 yards, and then jumped 6 or 7 ft across the room, dived under his desk,
huddled into a feotal  position and then  said a prayer - all in 2 seconds.

Please state which of these options you consider to most plausible.

None of these criticisms require that the person should be entirely accurate
with their report. Such a demand is unreasonable. However, it is reasonable
to ask that the very thing which allegedly makes these reports interpretable
as someone being able to clearly identify it as a large plane - that they
saw it clearly and close up, is reconcilable with the time in which they had
to see it, and the main thrust of what they are said to have done and seen.

I notice that rainesco also attempted to twist my words into a ridicule of
their christian beleifs. I made no comment on this. I observed only that the
alleged witness said himself that the sequence of events was

1) See the plane from close enough to call it "eyeball to eyeball "

2) Jump 6 or 7 feet across the room.

3) dive under the desk

4) huddle into a curled position

5) Say a prayer.

And all of this alleged to have been done in the time between seeing the
plane "eyeball to eyeball" and before it impacted.

I allowed the witness the benefit of the doubt of being able to do all this
in the miraculously quick time of 4 seconds, which then places the plane
more than half a mile away at last sighting.

Please make your counter arguments to the point and specific, as I did with
mine.
-----Original Message-----
From: rainesco@... <rainesco@...>
To: gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>; Leonard Spencer
<leonardspencer3@...>; prez@... <prez@...>;
brian@... <brian@...>; Eric Salter
<ericsalter@...>
Cc: PainfulQuestions@... <PainfulQuestions@...>; SirDave@...
<SirDave@...>; jstrahl@... <jstrahl@...>;
pm@... <pm@...>; mark@...
<mark@...>; skylax@... <skylax@...>;
longspaugh@... <longspaugh@...>; vyzygoth@...
<vyzygoth@...>; rick-stanley@...
<rick-stanley@...>; rainesco@...
<rainesco@...>; j_hoffman@... <j_hoffman@...>;
leland@... <leland@...>; jr@... <jr@...>; akd@...
<akd@...>; rballan@... <rballan@...>;
webfairy@... <webfairy@...>
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 5:18
Subject: Re: Those hilarious witness reports


>Both Sleigh and Pranmouth are Christians.  They will naturally reference
prayer and God -- as would almost anyone of any religious belief.  It has
nothing to do with their personal observations that morning.  However, it
would be relevant if one were to assert (for instance) that they were lying
about what happened.  Both of them have spoken about events that day to
Christian groups.   If they are lying or deliberately misstating events,
they should be condemned.
>
>However, arguments by someone who wasn't even present and doesn't
personally know them, who a priori rejects their eye-witness accounts --
even with probable perception mismatch (for intance, the actual distance
from the tower at the time of sighting) -- and then proceeds through a
parade of pseudo-debunking rabbits using the de rigeur ridicule which is
waved like a magician's wand to make certain facts disappear, isn't worth
the time and energy to further engage if the purpose of the majority is to
put together the best factual, logical, documented, concise, and coherent
available evidence in a meaningful way.
>
>The two men's accounts were both mentioned rather than only the North Tower
because ... well, duh ... there are still opponents of any plane theory.
>
>It's pretty clear from the postings which participants have got so much ego
invested in their theories that it's unlikely a genuine consensus will
emerge to get anything really useful accomplished as a group, as this one is
currently composed.
>
>VA
>
>There are "about 71" Google results for "george sleigh" "world trade".
Two of the earliest reports about Sleigh's experience were published within
days.
>
>Survivor saw inside hijacked jet
>September 14, 2001
>http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/wtc.survivor/
>
>George Sleigh escaped from the north tower of the World Trade Center before
it collapsed
>
>LONDON, England -- A British-born architect who survived Tuesday's attack
on the World Trade Center watched in horror from his 91st-floor office as a
hijacked jet smashed into the building.
>
>George Sleigh, 63, originally of Gateshead, England, told the Newscastle
Evening Chronicle he was close enough to the point of the initial impact to
see people in the cockpit of the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 767.
>
>"When I close my eyes and picture that airline coming towards me and the
people in the cockpit it is like a dream," Sleigh said.
>
>Aftering hearing the whining engine of the jet, "I looked up out of the
window and just a few feet away from the building was this huge jet plane,"
he said.
>
>"The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought
to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air,' but I still thought it would
clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me.
>
>"I couldn't believe it, even now it seems insane that anyone would do that,
even a crazed terrorist."
>
>After the jet hit the north tower, Sleigh -- who worked for the American
Bureau of Shipping at the WTC -- hid under his desk from debris raining down
before fleeing down a fire escape to safety.
>
>Sleigh said the stairwells became increasingly congested as hundreds of
office workers fled, some of them badly burned. After 30 minutes he reached
the 25th floor, where he saw the first firefighters going up the stairs to
tackle the flames.
>
>"Their faces were grim as though they knew what they would be encountering
when they got there," he said. "When I saw afterwards how the towers fell I
knew those men wouldn't have made it. It was heartbreaking."
>
>=====
>
>Personal accounts of horror and luck
>Special report: terrorism in the US
>Saturday September 15, 2001
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601152,00.html
>
>George Sleigh, aged 63, an architect from Tyneside, was sitting at his desk
on the 91st floor of the World Trade Centre when he saw the first hijacked
plane approach.
>
>"I looked up out of the window and just a few feet away from the building
was this huge jet plane. The wheels were down and I could see the people in
the cockpit. I thought to myself 'Man, this guy is low in the air' but I
still thought it would clear us. But then it just smashed straight into the
tower, just a few floors above me. After the impact there was a massive
explosion and the ceiling in our office started to fall in. I knew that I
had to get out of there as quickly as I could and I ran straight to the
emergency exit. At first the stairwell was quite empty but as I moved down
through the floors it became more congested. Some of them were cut and
injured, some were burned, their skin was hanging off." Mr Sleigh made it to
the ground floor but was then injured. "I learned afterwards that I'd been
hit by pieces of shrapnel and had cuts to my legs and neck. I must have been
knocked unconscious because the next thing I remember is a police officer
dragging me to my feet."
>
>=====
>
>There are "about 395" Google results for "stanley praimnath" "world trade".
>
>Most of the hits for both searches are repetitious material.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gerard holmgren <holmgren@...>
>Sent: Jul 27, 2004 7:27 AM
>To: rainesco@..., Leonard Spencer <leonardspencer3@...>,
> prez@..., brian@...,
> Eric Salter <ericsalter@...>
>Cc: PainfulQuestions@..., SirDave@..., jstrahl@...,
> pm@..., mark@..., skylax@...,
> longspaugh@..., vyzygoth@...,
> rick-stanley@..., rainesco@...,
> j_hoffman@..., leland@..., jr@..., akd@...,
> rballan@..., webfairy@...
>Subject: Those hilarious witness reports
>
>Since Eric Salter has decided to slink off back to his troll cave to lick
>his wounds and continue sniping from under a rock, where no-one can shoot
>back, I can now turn my attention to some drivel about eyewtiness evidence
>which was sent earlier by
>rainesco@...
>
>The message is reproduced below, after which comes my reply.
>
>Message begins
>
>>I am not personally going to participate in squabbling over what hit the
>towers (or didn't).  I did enough searching months ago that a the entire
>spectrum of arguments against planes is null for me.  What type of planes
>may be open to question, as well as how the situation was handled.
>>
>>Eyewitness accounts from two survivors, one in each of the two towers:
>>
>>... account from George Sleigh who saw the first impact and who not only
>identified the plane as a passenger jet, but was close enough to see people
>in the cockpit:
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/wtc.survivor/
>>
>>
>>These are accounts of the second hit from Stanley Praimnath:
>>
>>http://www.gettysburgpresbyterian.org/sermons/020908.ihtml
>>http://www.cbn.com/living/amazingstories/groundzero/wtc-praimnath.asp
>>
>>=====
>>
>>Snips from other pages --
>>
>>
>>At 9:06 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 carrying 65 people
>from Boston to Los Angeles, sliced into the midsection of Two World Trade
>Center. Another grisly shower of debris rained down.
>>
>>"This landing gear, it landed on a woman," Kelly said. "She was five, 10
>feet away from me. She was lying on her back, but her clothes half torn off
>and it looked like her back was gone."
>>
>>-----
>>
>>"So little (airplane) debris has been recovered that there's really no way
>to quantify it," FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said. The only pieces on
>display at the landfill were a piece of United 175's fuselage and several
>pieces of landing gear.
>>
>>-----
>>
>>FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 175:
>>
>>part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5
>>a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC
>>an engine on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC
>>
>>FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 11:
>>
>>a piece of landing gear on West Street 5 blocks south of the WTC
>>life jackets and portions of seats on the roof of the Bankers Trust
>building
>>To this list we might add the passport of one of the alleged hijackers of
>the flight.
>>
>>In addition to the aircraft remains documented in FEMA's report, there
>exist several photographs of jet engine parts, apparently from Flight 175,
>taken by pedestrians.
>>
>>That these remains (excluding the passport) passed through the buildings
is
>consistent with the fact that landing gear and engines are the densest
parts
>of jetliners, and that having missed the core, the fuselage of Flight 175
>had enough momentum for some of it to make it out of the tower by punching
>through the east corner of the tower's wall.
>
>message ends.
>
>OK. lets take the relevant extract from the first link.
>
>[[Aftering hearing  the whining engine of the jet, "I looked up out of the
>window and just a few feet away from the building was this huge jet plane,"
>he said.
>
>"The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought
>to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air,' but I still thought it would
>clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me.]]
>
>This really is a howler. A  speed of 450 mph, translates to approximately
>220 yards per second. How far is a  "few feet ". A 100 ft ? About 30 yards
?
>So he had 1/7 of a second to spot "people in the cockpit" and the lowered
>landing gear, and have a thought that it was going to clear the building.
>
>Much less actually. Because if it hit  "a few floors " above him -  , thats
>20 - 40 ft above him - add the height of the plane, and the people in the
>cockpit are 30 - 60 ft higher than him.
>   So when the plane is 60 ft away, he's looking up at the bottom of the
>plane at  angle of between 25 and 45 degrees - from an office window - but
>he can see the people in the cockpit ?
>
>So the people must have disappeared from his view when it got to with about
>50 ft.
>
>So he had about 1/14 of a second to see them.
>
>Lets say his description of a "few feet " is way out, and it was actually
>much further. Fair enough, you can't expect people to be accurate in a
>situation like that.
>
>As anyone can observe, sometimes its hard to see through the windscreen of
a
>stationary car to see the people in it, when its only a few yards away,
>depending on reflections. Try it, the next time you walk along a street
with
>heavy traffic.
>So how close would something have to be before you could spot people
through
>the windscreen - with the object travelling at 220 yards per second.
>   Lets be generous and say that they became visible at a distance of 50
>yards - and that is generous. And since the plane passed above him, the
>angle to the cockpit became too steep to see them at a distance of 20
yards.
>So  he had 1/7 of a second to see them.
>    Moving right along...
>
>The second link.
>
>This one doesn't even contain any witness reports, so I'm not sure why it
>was included. Perhaps as filler to try to make it look like the post had
>some content.
>Or perhaps the poster thinks that this extract qualifies as a "witness
>report"
>
>[[As he would later tell his story, those were his final words before he
>spotted it: a gray shape on the horizon, an airplane, flying past the
Statue
>of Liberty. The body of the United Airlines Flight 175 jet grew larger
until
>he could see a red stripe on the fuselage. ]]
>
>Talk about whacko ! Eric and I were debating the Nth Tower - and someone
>pulls out a witness report of the Sth tower to try to prove what hit the
NTh
>tower !
>But while we've got this alleged witness report to a completely seperate
>event, I might as well demolish that too.
>
>Check the verification. This was published in the new York times on May 26
>2002.
>Months after the event. The official story was burned into people's pysches
>by then. Unless there are extraordinary reasons otherwise, the witness
>accounts which matter are those which are reported immediately the event
>happens, before any official line develops.
>
>And its not even a witness report. Its a narration by the NY times writer.
A
>witness report is a statement from a witness, not a retrospective
commentary
>on someone's experience - in the second person- penned months after the
>event, by someone who wasn't there.
>Even direct statements quoted in the paper are dubious because, they are,
by
>definition, second hand, and we have no direct evidence that the person
>referred to said anything of the sort.
>   A prime example of this was the Lincoln Liebner witness report  in
>relation the pentagon. Liebner was in direct quotation marks as saying that
>he saw an AA jet hit the pentagon. But a search through Lexis Nexus
revealed
>that the quote a complete fabrication. It started with a press conference
by
>Victoria Clarke, in which she made a second hand reference to a man called
>Licoln Liebner who had seen "what happened " and then rushed into the
>building to help injured people. The press never met Liebner and Clarke
made
>no reference to any kind of plane, let alone an AA jet. Within a few hours
>the story had evolved into a direct quote from  Liebener  seeing an AA jet
>crash into the building, with the original press conference completely
>disappearing from the story.
>   So then we get second hand crap like this - published 8 1/2  months
>later - and people want to call it a  "witness report "  to what kind of
>object hit the building, when it doesn't even quote the witness on anything
>related to the identification of the object.
>
>The third link
>
>
>[[He works as a loan officer for the Fuji Bank in New York City. His office
>was located on the 81st floor of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. While
on
>the phone, he looked out the window and saw something that he'll never
>forget.
>
>Stanley: I was looking towards the Statue of Liberty and in mid-sentence, I
>said, "I have got to go. A plane is aiming for me." That's all I said. I
>dropped the phone, and I jumped towards my desk, which was 6 or 7 feet
away.
>
>I said, "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." And I went into the fetal
>position. I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried.
>
>Just before I jumped there, I saw this plane eyeball-to-eyeball. It was
like
>the biggest thing I've ever seen coming towards me. But it was happening in
>slow motion, giving me enough time to jump under my desk.
>
>Later on, when I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that
>it made, whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I
>said what I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a
doubt
>that my Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch.]]
>
>So he had enough time to jump towards the desk, 6 or 7 feet away - and dive
>under it. That takes at least  1 1/2 seconds - try it -so the plane had to
>be at least 300 yards away when he got his last look at it .
>
>But it gets better. It seems that he was huddled under his desk and
>praying - before the plane hit.
>
>"I said, "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." And I went into the fetal
>position. I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried...Later on,
when
>I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that it made,
>whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I said what
>I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that my
>Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch."
>
>So what he's saying is that he thinks the plane swerved in response to his
>prayer. So he's saying that he said the prayer before the plane hit. And he
>was already huddled under his desk before he started praying.
>
>So lets give him 1 1/2 seconds to get under his desk, another 1/2 second to
>get into the fetal position and two seconds to say a prayer. 4 seconds.
From
>his quote, it sounds like it should be about double that, but i always
>weight the benefit of the doubt to the opposite POV. 4 seconds.  So the
>plane was a *minimum* of 900 yards away when he got his last look at it,
>before he started jumping under his desk. More than 1/2 mile away.
>
>"Just before I jumped there, I saw this plane eyeball-to-eyeball. "
>
>This kind of crap over-rules video of the event as evidence ?
>
>Even if these witness reports stood up to scrutiny, as being internally
>consistent, if they contradict video... what happens in a courtroom, if a
>person presents an alibi that they were at home at the time, and then the
>prosecution pulls out the security video which shows them holding up the
>bank ?
>
>Ah , of course ! They aquit him. They say "Well he says he was at home
>watching TV, so clearly this is actually a video of him sitting at home
>watching TV, not a video of him holding up the bank."
>
>Everyone knows that video of the event, can't match it as evidence with
>second hand drivel printed in a newspaper months later...
>
>If there were hundreds of consistent witness reports,which stood up to the
>test of internal plusibility, then that would at least make a case for
>re-examining the situation and trying to work out why they contradicted the
>video. But this stuff linked above is pure garbage.
>
>   If people want to make the absurd suggestion that witness evidence is
>more relaible than video evidence, then at least check the verification
>standards and give them a cursory critical analysis before insulting our
>intelligence with this type of rubbish.
>
>And then follows a whole lot more stuff about 175 - from Fema - you know,
>the people who tell us that the kero melted the Towers, but didn't burn the
>hijackers passport .
>
>Apart from the interesting idea that a statement from Fema is a more
>truthful record of the event than a video of it, one wonders why a
>discussion about the Nth tower should provoke an avalanche of stuff about
>the Sth tower.
>
>The two are totally seperate events and seperate videos, and have to be
>examined as such.
>
>The fact that the 767ers feel the need to resort to such pathetic drivel to
>prop up the govt story, says something about the strength of their case.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: Knocks on the Psyche
Date:  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 03:36:37 +0200 (MEST)
From:  Nico Haupt <nicohaupt@...>



To avoid more rumours:


The cover-up on Gray and Kashoggi started right at the top from Phase II
and 911truth.org, backed by their new speakers Nic Levis.

I knew from some of these new "sponsorships" and other obscure and
diversive strategies from Nic Levis in advance and that's why i left
ny911truth.org under protest.

When i heard, that there was even a Gray-Kashoggi link, i asked for a
statement from 911truth.org and was attacked for these questions by Nic
Levis and Bill Douglas (911 Visibility/911Truth)

I still think, that Nic Levis and some others from PHASE II have to resign
over this cover-up scandal.

It was Matthias Broeckers, who wrote first in public about the Gray-Cover-
up, then it was me on my blog. Chussodowski protested the Gray-Kashoggi
connection in Toronto, but was pleased by PHASE II organizer to put his
criticism on hold.


Hopsicker just stretched the story a bit too much, but so what?
Don't hit the second generation messenger.

The responsibility is at 911Truth, the credibility is strongly hurt.

more here:

Hopsicker picks up the John Gray-Kashoggi Controversy
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=571


Nico aka ewing2001


> From:
> http://madcowprod.com/
>
> "Khashoggi’s involvement in the International 9/11
> Inquiry was discovered through the efforts of two of
> the most-respected researchers in attendance, Canadian
> economist Michel Chossudovsky and German author
> Mathias Broeckers."
>
> Hopsicko says Chosso has.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> --- jeff strahl <jstrahl@...> wrote:
>
> > Chosso was one of the key participants in Toronto. I
> > have yet to see him say
> > he was funded by Khashoggi. And you have failed to
> > stand up for Hopsicko, i
> > notice.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > on 7/28/04 10:13 AM, The Webfairy at
> > webfairy@... wrote:
> >
> > > The info was from Bruckner and  Chossudovsky.
> > > Simply reporting it makes it bullshit if you don't
> > like the reporter?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > jeff strahl wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yeah, let's forget that Daniel Hopsicko who runs
> > madcow is firmly of the
> > >> opinion that Arab hijackers took over planes and
> > brought down the WTC towers
> > >> and hit the Pentagon. What a great source for
> > info. Which is bullshit.
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> on 7/27/04 9:13 PM, The Webfairy at
> > webfairy@... wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> I notice Kaminski also calls rationalizing
> > rationalists "empiricist"
> > >>> having obviously never looked up the word.
> > >>> Empiricism traditionally meant that experience
> > from the senses -- stuff
> > >>> like looking at videos -- was the path to
> > knowledge.
> > >>>
> > >>> Kaminski needs to eat, and maybe some of that
> > khashoggi money made it
> > >>> his way. The news that the Toronto 911 "Truth"
> > conference was paid for
> > >>> by the same gang that's running the 911 Coverup
> > commission is one of
> > >>> those things that went straight to the memory
> > hole.
> > >>> http://madcowprod.com -- take a good look at
> > this.
> > >>> It shows exactly who is finding us "Toxic" to
> > their movement.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've been blackballed by Rense for a really long
> > time.
> > >>> The only mention my site got was when their
> > webmaster cracked my
> > >>> ghostplane .wmv and then tried to deny me
> > credit.
> > >>> When Leonard Spencer told them that I was indeed
> > the source of the
> > >>> footage, they had no choice but give me a
> > credit.
> > >>> Heh. Great victory.
> > >>> It ran out my bandwidth and left me with a
> > thousand dollar overcharge so
> > >>> I had to upgrade my account.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Scott Loughrey wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Truthout, working for the Coup:
> > >>>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/072704A.shtml
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "With countless police, intelligence and
> > journalistic
> > >>>> examinations and two special congressional
> > inquiries,
> > >>>> the Sept. 11 attacks have been among the most
> > >>>> investigated criminal acts in history..."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Truthout seems to be leading the way in what
> > will be a
> > >>>> rewrite of history.  More "Left" publications
> > will
> > >>>> shortly follow this idea that 9/11 was
> > "investigated".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * * *
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kaminski takes another cheap shot at "No Plane"
> > >>>> theorists such as myself:
> > >>>> http://www.rense.com/general54/911pprobe.htm
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "...and the topper in this category is Scott
> > >>>> Loughrey's recent articulation of his no-planes
> > theory
> > >>>> that asserts 9/11 was all done with mirrors
> > (and
> > >>>> explosives in the buildings...these fanciful
> > >>>> speculations have destroyed the 9/11 truth
> > >>>> movement..."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> He's talkinga about this article which hardly
> > anyone
> > >>>> has seen:
> > >>>>
> >
> http://www.media-criticism.com/No_Planes_Summary_2004.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is the second time that Kaminski has been
> > allowed
> > >>>> to take a shot at me on Rense.  Meanwhile,
> > Rense will
> > >>>> not link to my site (http://www.911hoax.com ).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, between cheap shot artists like Kaminski
> > knocking
> > >>>> me to Rense's daily audience of a million
> > people (with
> > >>>> no opportunity to fight back), and disinfo
> > outlets
> > >>>> like Truthout stashing 9/11 anomalies into the
> > Memory
> > >>>> Hole, I feel much despair for the 3,000 victims
> > of
> > >>>> 9/11 right now.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> a momentarily depressed,
> > >>>> Scott
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

--
NEU: WLAN-Router für 0,- EUR* - auch für DSL-Wechsler!
GMX DSL = supergünstig & kabellos http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Hopsicker's got great evidence as to the nature of the conspiracy and
the perps who pulled it off, if only he would stop planehugging long
enough to notice and put his evidence together freshly, noting that many
of his "hijackers" are still alive.

Nothing about NO Planes does damage to the actual evidence researchers
have dug up over these three plus years.
The crime can be seen in a different light. The 911 Coverup Commission
concluding that we need "more security" have connections to Iran Contra,
the CNP, and the Phoenix Project.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Iran+contra+Hamilton
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+Ben-Veniste
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+Thompson
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+khashoggi
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+bush
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+Boren
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Iran+contra+drug+running

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

As Hopsicker can attest from his Barry and the Boys, the drug gang who's
Florida outpost coddled Mohammed Atta infests the moneyed regions of
both political parties, if not equally, then close enough.
http://barryandtheboys.com

The notion of Hijackers Slamming Planes into Buildings is the
justification for the War on Terror. Why it is protected so fanatically
by the 911 So-Called Truth Movement is a constant wonder to me.

Hopefully, Hopsicker believes in video. He knows his camera will take
pictures of what's in front of it, and when he puts footage on the web,
it is not just unrecognizable artifact or whatever the camera happened
to feel like recording. He doesn't have to look between the frames for
the subject.

Perhaps he is so tied into the shock and awe trauma conditioning that he
can't get past the rationalistic notions that poopoo video in favor of
stuff that sounds good playing on one's bellyscreen in response to one's
beliefs, but I've always thought of him as a good man and a brave
researcher and just have to hope he will dissect video for himself and
have an "AHA!!" moment when he sees the NoPlane.


John Kaminski wrote:

>Hello All,
>    This response seems to tilt the balance of this argument against Gerard and
>The Webfairy, who seem to be more intent on slamming the intentions and
>reputations of people who are trying to rationally critique fanciful
>interpretations of questionably judged and possibly suspiciously manipulated
>videos. It is a violation of what I call the Sam Ervin rule (he of Watergate
>fame), which states that if you can't refute a person's arguments, you attack
>their character.
>    Further, to judge witness statements as "hilarious" with no buttressing
>explanations is tantamount to admitting your thesis won't hold up under
>impartial analysis. I think the time is fast approaching, if it's not here
>already, that these hologram/no plane/missile firing theses should be heavily
>criticized in a very public way as distracting disinformation that actually aid
>the government coverup by causing confusion among the minds of the undecided.
>    This decision, however, should be withheld until someone with professional
>video analysis who is not a party to this discussion can render an impartial
>judgment as to the veracity of the Webfairy/Holmgren/Loughrey/Jayhan
>interpretations. Without this authentication, their claims pose a disastrous
>threat to the 9/11 truth movement, in the event those claims should be proven
>false.
>    And in the unlikely event their interpretations were to be judged correct,
>we can all apologize to them and venerate them as saints to the movement. Until
>that time, and despite their undeniable contributions to other aspects or the
>investigations, these videos should be regarded as the greatest threat to
>uncovering the real story about 9/11.
>    Along these same lines, we all need to scour our engineering connections to
>get some reputable source to issue a report saying the collapse of the towers
>could not have been caused by the plane impacts (because of the too-short time
>it took them to fall). Until this is professionally verified, doubters are
>always going to say, "Well, that's just your theory ...."
>Best wishes,
>John Kaminski
>
>
>gerard holmgren wrote:
>
>
>
>>Since Eric Salter has decided to slink off back to his troll cave to lick
>>his wounds and continue sniping from under a rock, where no-one can shoot
>>back, I can now turn my attention to some drivel about eyewtiness evidence
>>which was sent earlier by
>>rainesco@...
>>
>>The message is reproduced below, after which comes my reply.
>>
>>Message begins
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am not personally going to participate in squabbling over what hit the
>>>
>>>
>>towers (or didn't).  I did enough searching months ago that a the entire
>>spectrum of arguments against planes is null for me.  What type of planes
>>may be open to question, as well as how the situation was handled.
>>
>>
>>>Eyewitness accounts from two survivors, one in each of the two towers:
>>>
>>>... account from George Sleigh who saw the first impact and who not only
>>>
>>>
>>identified the plane as a passenger jet, but was close enough to see people
>>in the cockpit:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/wtc.survivor/
>>>
>>>
>>>These are accounts of the second hit from Stanley Praimnath:
>>>
>>>http://www.gettysburgpresbyterian.org/sermons/020908.ihtml
>>>http://www.cbn.com/living/amazingstories/groundzero/wtc-praimnath.asp
>>>
>>>=====
>>>
>>>Snips from other pages --
>>>
>>>
>>>At 9:06 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 carrying 65 people
>>>
>>>
>>from Boston to Los Angeles, sliced into the midsection of Two World Trade
>>Center. Another grisly shower of debris rained down.
>>
>>
>>>"This landing gear, it landed on a woman," Kelly said. "She was five, 10
>>>
>>>
>>feet away from me. She was lying on her back, but her clothes half torn off
>>and it looked like her back was gone."
>>
>>
>>>-----
>>>
>>>"So little (airplane) debris has been recovered that there's really no way
>>>
>>>
>>to quantify it," FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said. The only pieces on
>>display at the landfill were a piece of United 175's fuselage and several
>>pieces of landing gear.
>>
>>
>>>-----
>>>
>>>FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 175:
>>>
>>>part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5
>>>a piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC
>>>an engine on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC
>>>
>>>FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 11:
>>>
>>>a piece of landing gear on West Street 5 blocks south of the WTC
>>>life jackets and portions of seats on the roof of the Bankers Trust
>>>
>>>
>>building
>>
>>
>>>To this list we might add the passport of one of the alleged hijackers of
>>>
>>>
>>the flight.
>>
>>
>>>In addition to the aircraft remains documented in FEMA's report, there
>>>
>>>
>>exist several photographs of jet engine parts, apparently from Flight 175,
>>taken by pedestrians.
>>
>>
>>>That these remains (excluding the passport) passed through the buildings is
>>>
>>>
>>consistent with the fact that landing gear and engines are the densest parts
>>of jetliners, and that having missed the core, the fuselage of Flight 175
>>had enough momentum for some of it to make it out of the tower by punching
>>through the east corner of the tower's wall.
>>
>>message ends.
>>
>>OK. lets take the relevant extract from the first link.
>>
>>[[Aftering hearing  the whining engine of the jet, "I looked up out of the
>>window and just a few feet away from the building was this huge jet plane,"
>>he said.
>>
>>"The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought
>>to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air,' but I still thought it would
>>clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me.]]
>>
>>This really is a howler. A  speed of 450 mph, translates to approximately
>>220 yards per second. How far is a  "few feet ". A 100 ft ? About 30 yards ?
>>So he had 1/7 of a second to spot "people in the cockpit" and the lowered
>>landing gear, and have a thought that it was going to clear the building.
>>
>>Much less actually. Because if it hit  "a few floors " above him -  , thats
>>20 - 40 ft above him - add the height of the plane, and the people in the
>>cockpit are 30 - 60 ft higher than him.
>>   So when the plane is 60 ft away, he's looking up at the bottom of the
>>plane at  angle of between 25 and 45 degrees - from an office window - but
>>he can see the people in the cockpit ?
>>
>>So the people must have disappeared from his view when it got to with about
>>50 ft.
>>
>>So he had about 1/14 of a second to see them.
>>
>>Lets say his description of a "few feet " is way out, and it was actually
>>much further. Fair enough, you can't expect people to be accurate in a
>>situation like that.
>>
>>As anyone can observe, sometimes its hard to see through the windscreen of a
>>stationary car to see the people in it, when its only a few yards away,
>>depending on reflections. Try it, the next time you walk along a street with
>>heavy traffic.
>>So how close would something have to be before you could spot people through
>>the windscreen - with the object travelling at 220 yards per second.
>>   Lets be generous and say that they became visible at a distance of 50
>>yards - and that is generous. And since the plane passed above him, the
>>angle to the cockpit became too steep to see them at a distance of 20 yards.
>>So  he had 1/7 of a second to see them.
>>    Moving right along...
>>
>>The second link.
>>
>>This one doesn't even contain any witness reports, so I'm not sure why it
>>was included. Perhaps as filler to try to make it look like the post had
>>some content.
>>Or perhaps the poster thinks that this extract qualifies as a "witness
>>report"
>>
>>[[As he would later tell his story, those were his final words before he
>>spotted it: a gray shape on the horizon, an airplane, flying past the Statue
>>of Liberty. The body of the United Airlines Flight 175 jet grew larger until
>>he could see a red stripe on the fuselage. ]]
>>
>>Talk about whacko ! Eric and I were debating the Nth Tower - and someone
>>pulls out a witness report of the Sth tower to try to prove what hit the NTh
>>tower !
>>But while we've got this alleged witness report to a completely seperate
>>event, I might as well demolish that too.
>>
>>Check the verification. This was published in the new York times on May 26
>>2002.
>>Months after the event. The official story was burned into people's pysches
>>by then. Unless there are extraordinary reasons otherwise, the witness
>>accounts which matter are those which are reported immediately the event
>>happens, before any official line develops.
>>
>>And its not even a witness report. Its a narration by the NY times writer. A
>>witness report is a statement from a witness, not a retrospective commentary
>>on someone's experience - in the second person- penned months after the
>>event, by someone who wasn't there.
>>Even direct statements quoted in the paper are dubious because, they are, by
>>definition, second hand, and we have no direct evidence that the person
>>referred to said anything of the sort.
>>   A prime example of this was the Lincoln Liebner witness report  in
>>relation the pentagon. Liebner was in direct quotation marks as saying that
>>he saw an AA jet hit the pentagon. But a search through Lexis Nexus revealed
>>that the quote a complete fabrication. It started with a press conference by
>>Victoria Clarke, in which she made a second hand reference to a man called
>>Licoln Liebner who had seen "what happened " and then rushed into the
>>building to help injured people. The press never met Liebner and Clarke made
>>no reference to any kind of plane, let alone an AA jet. Within a few hours
>>the story had evolved into a direct quote from  Liebener  seeing an AA jet
>>crash into the building, with the original press conference completely
>>disappearing from the story.
>>   So then we get second hand crap like this - published 8 1/2  months
>>later - and people want to call it a  "witness report "  to what kind of
>>object hit the building, when it doesn't even quote the witness on anything
>>related to the identification of the object.
>>
>>The third link
>>
>>[[He works as a loan officer for the Fuji Bank in New York City. His office
>>was located on the 81st floor of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. While on
>>the phone, he looked out the window and saw something that he'll never
>>forget.
>>
>>Stanley: I was looking towards the Statue of Liberty and in mid-sentence, I
>>said, "I have got to go. A plane is aiming for me." That's all I said. I
>>dropped the phone, and I jumped towards my desk, which was 6 or 7 feet away.
>>
>>I said, "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." And I went into the fetal
>>position. I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried.
>>
>>Just before I jumped there, I saw this plane eyeball-to-eyeball. It was like
>>the biggest thing I've ever seen coming towards me. But it was happening in
>>slow motion, giving me enough time to jump under my desk.
>>
>>Later on, when I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that
>>it made, whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I
>>said what I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt
>>that my Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch.]]
>>
>>So he had enough time to jump towards the desk, 6 or 7 feet away - and dive
>>under it. That takes at least  1 1/2 seconds - try it -so the plane had to
>>be at least 300 yards away when he got his last look at it .
>>
>>But it gets better. It seems that he was huddled under his desk and
>>praying - before the plane hit.
>>
>>"I said, "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." And I went into the fetal
>>position. I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried...Later on, when
>>I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that it made,
>>whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I said what
>>I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that my
>>Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch."
>>
>>So what he's saying is that he thinks the plane swerved in response to his
>>prayer. So he's saying that he said the prayer before the plane hit. And he
>>was already huddled under his desk before he started praying.
>>
>>So lets give him 1 1/2 seconds to get under his desk, another 1/2 second to
>>get into the fetal position and two seconds to say a prayer. 4 seconds. From
>>his quote, it sounds like it should be about double that, but i always
>>weight the benefit of the doubt to the opposite POV. 4 seconds.  So the
>>plane was a *minimum* of 900 yards away when he got his last look at it,
>>before he started jumping under his desk. More than 1/2 mile away.
>>
>>"Just before I jumped there, I saw this plane eyeball-to-eyeball. "
>>
>>This kind of crap over-rules video of the event as evidence ?
>>
>>Even if these witness reports stood up to scrutiny, as being internally
>>consistent, if they contradict video... what happens in a courtroom, if a
>>person presents an alibi that they were at home at the time, and then the
>>prosecution pulls out the security video which shows them holding up the
>>bank ?
>>
>>Ah , of course ! They aquit him. They say "Well he says he was at home
>>watching TV, so clearly this is actually a video of him sitting at home
>>watching TV, not a video of him holding up the bank."
>>
>>Everyone knows that video of the event, can't match it as evidence with
>>second hand drivel printed in a newspaper months later...
>>
>>If there were hundreds of consistent witness reports,which stood up to the
>>test of internal plusibility, then that would at least make a case for
>>re-examining the situation and trying to work out why they contradicted the
>>video. But this stuff linked above is pure garbage.
>>
>>   If people want to make the absurd suggestion that witness evidence is
>>more relaible than video evidence, then at least check the verification
>>standards and give them a cursory critical analysis before insulting our
>>intelligence with this type of rubbish.
>>
>>And then follows a whole lot more stuff about 175 - from Fema - you know,
>>the people who tell us that the kero melted the Towers, but didn't burn the
>>hijackers passport .
>>
>>Apart from the interesting idea that a statement from Fema is a more
>>truthful record of the event than a video of it, one wonders why a
>>discussion about the Nth tower should provoke an avalanche of stuff about
>>the Sth tower.
>>
>>The two are totally seperate events and seperate videos, and have to be
>>examined as such.
>>
>>The fact that the 767ers feel the need to resort to such pathetic drivel to
>>prop up the govt story, says something about the strength of their case.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Anybody who says anything that contradicts Eastman's
fantasy gets slimed.
It is a tradition.
It made researchers mostly back off the Pentagon for a real
long time. Now his story is becoming fashionable with the
Alternative Official Story crowd, but that does not make it
real either.

The "Pentagon Video" is not a video at all, but an
increasingly sophisticated ploy to re-engineer five frames
of crappy artwork done on a deadline into what can be
passed off as video.
To any extent proof matters anymore, I've got proof of the
chicanery involved.

I decompiled both the MSNBC flash
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/msnbc.htm
and the flash at 0911.site.voila.fr/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/voila.htm

These show two different techniques for morphing one image
into the next, giving a fool-the-eye impression of a video,
and of a plane.

Brad recently made a page from this video, which I managed
to crack very poorly.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html
It is a file with multi-streams, and ASF Tools only sees
the first one, here the
56k stream.
http://fakepentagoncamera.batcave.net/

The frames in this video morph like
http://thewebfairy.com/voila.htm
but the second frame is still startlingly blue in the
foreground, like the early still efforts.

About the replaced second frame
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/comparison.htm

This page has links to closeups from and articles about all
the different versions of the Pentagon Art Frames that I
was able to find.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/multiframes.htm
You can see that some of them have the second frame swapped
out.

The Blue-green just didn't read convincingly.

For people who have trouble distinguishing what is real
from Cartoon, the so-called "Small Plane Theory" is a
natural. Eastman's elaborately detailed yarn paints a vivid
picture on one's imagination, but Imagination is still
Imaginary.

Planes do not fly on the ground. Never have, never will. A
photoshopped blotch is not a plane tail.
If a "plane", big or small, is travelling fast enough to be
nothing but blur, the "plane" would not have stopped for a
coy beauty shot before proceeding.

Eastman's alleged "theory" is smoke and cover, wasting
hundreds of man-hours drawing lines, and arguing the both-
sides-false dichotomy of whether it was a big plane or a
little plane, steering people far as possible away from
Meissen's original theory that it was a shape charge
missile.

The scariest thing about Eastman's M-16 Fairy Tale is that
it is being adopted by the Alternative Official Story,
ready to be sued as an excuse for a a purge of whatever
elements of the military are not loyal to the Coup. We have
many instances where someone innocent has been framed with
phony stories.

I know this post will result in another Eastman slime
attack.
He writes a lot of interesting and important stuff that's
true and we better listen, and then always tucks his phony
pentagon extravaganza as the punchline, and woe be anyone
who doesn't toe his line.

If anybody can stop counting lightpoles long enough, it
would be good to look at the Pentagon Turn To Dust event,
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/dust.htm ,
and how something was going on that turned most of the
Pentagon footage Blue, or purple.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/dust.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon

----- Original Message -----

From: david white

To: plaguepuppy@...

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:35 PM

Subject: flashes in WTC collapse clouds

After looking at various angles of the WTC clouds, I think the 'flashes from unexploded charges at the edges of the cloud' or however it was worded, are actually reflections, probably from sections of the external columns which I believe were shiny.  This does not in any way diminish the possibility of charges inside the building, but we should try to be as accurate as possible, don't give the other side any ammo!

Also, I have seen on some web sites the cloud, I think from the first collapse, that seems to 'glow' a few seconds after starting to collapse.  One site even called it 'nuclear glow' and claimed it might be alpha radiation!
http://thewebfairy.com/911/glow/

http://911.justiceforwoody.org/videos/docs/tower1_dust_cloud_afterglow.mpg

from

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7

If you look at the whole picture, at about 46 seconds in, yes, the cloud glows, but so does the sky, and other parts lighten up.  I was involved in video production and TV stations for 20 years, this is simply the camera iris being opened up, overexposing the brightest parts of the image.  Another possible explanation (both may be involved), the cloud may have dispersed enough to allow sunlight to penetrate through and light up the closest dust, like a star can light up an interstellar dust cloud between us and the star.

The less we invoke aliens and secret technology, the easier it will be to convince the sheeple that we are right!

Keep getting the word out!

/*Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 18:24:28 -0700
Subject: Turtles all the way down... some thoughts about the fractal
nature of evil
From: "PlaguePuppy" <plaguepuppy@...>


it has to start with perception, at some point people just have to
see it. *
/

/As Thomas Huxley concluded a lecture on Darwin, he was immediately
accosted by a little, old lady who challenged him to refute her
conviction that the world, which was flat, rested on the back of a
turtle. Before Huxley had a chance to respond, the lady concluded:/
//
/"I know what you are going to ask, Mr. Huxley, and the answer is
‘turtles all the way down.’"
/
The question of course being "but what does the turtle stand on." What
for Huxley (or Bertrand Russell in another version) is an obvious
"gotcha" is no problem for the LOL, who is not put off by the idea of
infinite regression. That vertigo of the depths that puts so many people
off at the idea of infinite recursion, or for that matter an infinite
universe, also keeps them from wanting to see too far into the depths of
the deception and manipulation that came to their most intense focus on
9-11.
By an odd dynamic, stopping short of seeing the full strangeness and
perversity of 9-11 actually makes on an agent of the ongoing cover-up
(in some cases a witting agent, but usually not). By the act of staking
out a claim to one particular level among the many limited fallback
stories, and rejecting everything beyond that as a conspiracy theory one
becomes a gatekeeper, saying in effect "the outer limit of acceptable
consensus reality ends here." This allows the gatekeeper to encourage
others to take action that would seem rational based on that particular
fallback position: e.g. simple incompetence==>vote them out. But these
are all safe channels for the energies of protest, guaranteed to make
some people feel better but have no effect on the outcome.
The underlying problem is cognitive dissonance, and the attachment
people feel to their particular model of the world. The human brain is
wired in such a way that the highest-level constructs, the "world view,"
is very hard to change. Changing higher-level assumptions about the
world has a lot of practical consequences and cannot be undertaken
lightly by creatures in an environment or relative scarcity, where a
less-than-optimal survival strategy could lead to death.
But living in largely human-made world that can change much more quickly
than the natural world we are adapted to, and because of that our
"ontological conservatism" can work against us. We live in a world based
on artificial abundance that dulls our survival instincts, and creates a
new mediated reality whose fundamental structure can change almost
overnight. That great stack of turtles receding into the abyss may in
fact be finite, but for practical purposes it might as well be. Only a
willingness to accept that there could be one more level of deception
beyond what we have understood will allow us to find the real contours
of this all-encompassing fake reality that is attempting to control us all.
Pup

     ----- Original Message -----
     *From:* jeff strahl <mailto:jstrahl@...>
     *Sent:* Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:01 PM
     *Subject:* Re: Sr International Co v. World Trade Center, et al
     1:01cv9291

     My opinion of Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Freedom, has
     changed over the last few months. A day before the San Francisco
     inquiry, he was on KPFA radio, and said that 9/11 was the result of
     blowback, a CIA operation which had "*unanticipated consequences*",
     something he was prompted to say by the show's host, Philip Maldary,
     a real scum. A friend of mine who knows him well asked him at the
     Inquiry why he did so, and he said he didn't wanna antagonize that
     host. And last week on KPFA again, he said Saudi Arabia was the
     force behind 9/11, and that a "real war on terrorism" should target
     the Saudis. These people don't see at all through the BS, they help
     build it up.

     Jeff

     on 5/8/04 9:48 PM, davidk@...
     <mailto:davidk@...> at davidk@...
     <mailto:davidk@...> wrote:


         John Leonard is one of the greatest living American writers. He
         has earned his prestige. So I'll join his War On Freedom Yahoo
         group!

         Gore Vidal is another great writer who got involved from a
         similar angle. He wrote a review of the book The War on Freedom
         for The Observer, the review was called The Enemy Within. It's a
         good thing we still have a few of these old school Writers who
         think for themselves, and see through the shallow B.S. now
         called "news"!

         attorney@... <mailto:attorney@...> sent this to us:

         John Leonard sent 2 email replies to me -- please see below. Of
         course anyone who wants should write him.

         *Dear Sir,
         i am quite excited to receive your mail no, i don't have any
         such personal contacts. i am on the west coast california) -
         everything by internet.
         my approach is to break it down to something very simple - i use
         the
         analogy of your household gas stove, which burns at least twice as
         hot as a building fire, and the steel griddle is not affected at
         all by the
         heat.
         i will send you my draft countermotion to the AGM, which i must
         complete by 5/11 there is a website, 911physics.org, are you
         familiar with it?
         i also want to use psychological arguments, about how people
         rationalize facts away and wait on authority figures, instead of
         using their eyes and heads to see what is in front of their nose.
         it has to start with perception, at some point people just have to
         see it.
         the evidence is so strong that degrees are superfluous, might even
         confuse their holders.
         like the reporter on the soundtrack on the video at wtc.net, he says
         right out, this is the 3rd time today we're seeing what looks like a
         controlled demolition. before the propaganda set to work with
         conditioning by repetition, his perception worked fine.
         i think i shall also forward your correspondence to the
         911truthalliance list serve and to the one i moderate,
         waronfreedom yahoogroups, if you dont' mind
         also are you in touch with Lehrman in NYC who is also trying to work
         on the Swiss Re lawyer? his letter is posted at the serendipity
         site.
         have you posted anything about this on the web yourself?
         hmm.. i've looked you up on google - you're in california too!
         intellectual property, maybe you can help me out sometime with
         publishing problems.
         keep the faith
         john

         *


         *To:* "attorney@... "
         *CC: *Karsten Thamm
         *Subject: *proxy
         *Date: *Sat, 08 May 2004 12:39:33 -0700
         *Show Full Headers* *Back To [INBOX]* hi again
         i probably won't attend the general meeting. its on may 26 in munich
         if you want to go, there is a provision for shareholders to speak to
         the meeting i would give you a proxy there is simultaneous
         interpreting too
         you might also meet with management, as a lawyer you would have more
         status than i hope some german activists will come too to
         leaflet the shareholders
         best
         john


         ----- Original Message -----
         From: Scott Loughrey
         Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 03:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
         To: "attorney@... " , davidk@...,jeff strahl
         ,Gerard Holmgren ,PlaguePuppy
         Subject: Re: Re: Sr International Co v. World Trade Center, et
         al 1:01cv9291

          > Nico says that he has no info on the three lawyers
          > defending against Silverstein. However, he does
          > recommend we contact John Leonard ASAP
          > (leonardjp@...):
          >
          > 9/11 Truth-Shareholder stunt at Muenchner Rueck
          >
         http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=157
          >
          > John Leonard (german Publisher "War on Freedomw") and
          > Karsten "Grolo" Thamm bought shares from german
          > WTC-Reassurance company Muenchner Rueck to co ntribute
          > in their forums with a counter motion by May 11,
          > "objecting to the payment of up to $1 billion in
          > damages when it was obviously an insurance fraud"
          > http://home.mayn.de/grolo/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=79#post95
          >
          > * * *
          >
          > Maybe Leonard has "expert witnesses" with fancy
          > degrees lined up to testify in a courtroom.
          >
          > Do you (attorney@email) want to contact him about this
          > letter/campaign?
          >
          > Scott
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- "attorney@... " wrote:
          >
          >
          > OK. What scientific disciplines are represented?
          > I know that we've got one physician and scientist.
          > Any physicists or engineers?

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:17:20 +1000
From: "Gerard Holmgren" <holmgren@...>

A reminder about UA 93. An FAA n number search shows that the reg of the
plane is still valid, giving a documentation oriented aspect to evidence
that whatever was shot down in PA was not 93. And using common sense, since
we've established the other three crashes were fake/subsitute planes - why
should the fourth be real?
    I have a media report saying that 93 landed at cleveland due to a bomb
scare. This was later changed to be delta 1989. I think the possibility that
it landed at cleveland should be looked into more closely.
   I searched BTS records for a month after, to see if i could catch it
leaving Cleveland, but there's no record. Of course it could have left on a
non-registered flight of some kind. if so, then its almost impossible to
pick up its trail from there, unless someone can work out a program which
can scan the BTS  with an automated search rather than picking through it
manually as I've been doing.
-----Original Message-----
From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:33
Subject: Re: [Research] eyewitness testimony


  >I have no doubt that video manipulation, live insertion techniques were
  >used on the Beauty Shot footage of the "Plane Everybody Saw." It
  >hippityhops across the screen, banking sharply while moving straight
  >ahead, with no sense of perspective.
  >It has half the frames of a normal video.
  >http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash/
  >On closeup, it shows signs of "film bleed" which is a terribly peculiar
  >effect for digital footage.
  >
  >Singleshot.avi is a footage I haven't done nearly enough with.
  > http://webfairy.911review.org/video/collected/singleshot.avi
  >The hit is covered at
  > http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/newjetcrash.htm
  >Early in the footage, there is a shift between what appears to be an
  >actual plane and a cartoon plane.
  >This is another footage with half the normal frames, and tho it
  >supposedly was taken with one camera from a particular location, the
  >"plane" is unaffected by perspective and shadow. The scene behind it
  >looks like a Flight Simulator landscape rolling past a still plane.
  >
  >But this is an entirely different technique than the Krash beautyshot.
  >
  >To make live video insertion is an incredibly sophisticated process. The
  >company that did this, and went bankrupt in 2002,  just happens to
  >appear on pir.org's list of Moonie Fronts.  I have collected the
  >research on this company, but haven't had time to deal with it. If
  >anybody wants to research this angle, I'd be happy to zip up what I've
got.
  >I've also got pictures of the entire Flight 93 supposed crash site,
  >taken last year, keyed to hand drawn maps.
  >The place ajoins a secret base, by no particular coincidence.
  >Haven't had time to deal with those either.
  >Nobody's paying much attention in Flight 93's direction, but the
  >database on this one is as snarky as the rest.
  >It may well have been an entirely different plane that got turned to
  >dust leaving it's only debris 6 miles away in the opposite direction
  >from the wind.
  >
  >The "Crash site" was another Pentalawn, a scorched field with no plane
  >in it, and a few fires oddly burning in the background.
  >I'll try to turn my attention to Flight 93 as soon as I'm done with the
  >farking Pentagon and the phoney baloney "Small Plane Theory" that is
  >nothing but an illustrated Fairy Tale and increasingly elaborate hoax.
  >
  > http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon
  >Suggestions and comments welcomed.
  >
  >Of all the amateur and "amateur" footage I've come across, the
  >Mindblower stands out as untouched except by  the original author who
  >made his own slow motion closeup from his own footage.
  >My version has been brightened with the autolevels command, but it
  >elsewise pretty much untouched, since the closeup was in the original.
  > http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/mindblower.htm
  >Perhaps someone in New York could get ahold of the author.
  > http://manos.com and find out what the deal is.
  >
  >What I believe to be a scalar holographic image is only one of many
  >scalar effects I see in conjunction with 911.
  >First and foremost would be the pillar of steel turning to dust in front
  >of live television,
  > http://thewebfairy.com/911/glow
  >This Turn To Dust event was also caught in some camera-planet footage,
  >none of which looks intentional.
  >Maybe some day I can process this too.
  >
  >I would like people to come to the realization that Scalar Technology is
  >real, because it could just as well be heating our homes and running our
  >lights and powering our cars, rather than the world of scarcity pushed
  >by those caught in a Leave it to Beaver universe.
  >
  >
  >
  >Gerard Holmgren wrote:
  >
  >> The last time we debated this, webfairy scored a very important point,
  >> which I specifically asked others to answer (actually I can't remember
  >> if it was this group- it may not have been, so my apologies if
  >> not)...anyway, whichever group it was, there was a deafening silence
  >> in response to webfairy's point. I hope thats not repeated here.
  >>    I had been arguing that just because holograms might be possible,
  >> that doesn't prove that one was used, and that because the whole thing
  >> could be expalined by video manipulation, and there didn't seem to be
  >> significant eyewitness evidence to a large plane, that there was no
  >> real evidence for a hologram.
  >>    However...webfairy replied that if a video has been faked, one can
  >> tell this due to decimation. There are two methods. Every second frame
  >> can be taken out and replaced with the manipulated pixels or there's a
  >> manipulation every four, which creates jerky movement. iIcan't
  >> remember the exact technicalities of how that one's done, but i'm sure
  >> that WF can refresh us on that.
  >>    Webfairy claimed that some of the cartoon footage shows no sign of
  >> such manipulation. Subject to the questions below, this appears to be
  >> almost a knockout argument for hologram over manipulated video.
  >>    What I asked in response to this was whether anybody
  >> a) disputed that the videos in question show no sign of decimation
  >> b) disputed that video manipulation is always traceable through such
  >> analysis.
  >>
  >> There was a deafening silence, and the discussion abrubtly ended.
  >> Consequently, I have swung from being almost dismissive of the holgram
  >> argument to almost convinced of it. (Not the first time, I've been on
  >> the see-saw about this one).
  >>
  >> However, webfairy made a very important point, that we shouldn't start
  >> calling video faked simply because it doesn't show what we expect it
  >> to. If the video shows a cartoon plane, and doesn't show any sign of
  >> having been tampered with, then we must accept that the video actually
  >> captured a cartoon plane - the best explanation for which is a hologram.
  >>    I'm open to anybody who wants to take issue with webfairy's
  >> assertions about the tell-tale nature of manipulated video, but I will
  >> be very disappointed if this point is again met with stony silence.
  >>
  >>     *-----Original Message-----*
  >>     *From: *brad m <greenmannowar@...
  >>     *Date: *Monday, March 29, 2004 2:21
  >>     *Subject: *Re: [Research] eyewitness testimony
  >>
  >>     A lot of stuff i have seen does point to video manipulation., I
  >>     have compared pics from different videos, an framed them all out,
  >>     some show the angle of smoke coming from the towers, different
  >>     from other pics or vids just before the second hit. Light/sun
  >>     reflections appearing and dissappearing, in some pics, and not
  >>     others, and some other reasons that point to vid manipulation IMHO.
  >>     *plane2.batcave.net/smoke-right.html*
  >>     <http://plane2.batcave.net/smoke-right.html>
  >>
  >>     *plane.batcave.net/angle-smoke.html*
  >>     <http://plane.batcave.net/angle-smoke.html>
  >>
  >>     *wtc1.batcave.net/2.html* <http://wtc1.batcave.net/2.html>
  >>
  >>     BUT...
  >>     This brings up a big problem to me, as does the holograms. Why put
  >>     a bomb attatched to the bottom of the plane in several different
  >>     views?
  >>
  >>     There is a thread here i have been somewhat active in, the main
  >>     point here is that a misle was fired just before the second plane
hit.
  >>
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3&postdays=0&postorde\
r=asc&start=0&sid=4b46ace9bd6e329bac1cfd93855aff4b
  >>
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3&postdays=0&postorde\
r=asc&start=0&sid=4b46ace9bd6e329bac1cfd93855aff4b>

  >>     I have a curious frame i took from one video here....
  >>     http://physics911.org/net/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=27
  >>     This thing in front of the pane, might just be a "ghost" created
  >>     from different frames being layed upon each other due to the speed
  >>     of the craft, but it is curious all the same....
  >>
  >>     I am not big on the hologram thing, but the object hanging off of
  >>     175 could possibally be where the hologram originates, creating a
  >>     point that would make it hard to duplicate.
  >>     like i said i am not big on the hologram stuff, but then again,
  >>     its real strange the way that plane just dissappeared into the
  >>     building, i dont see an easy answer one way or the other.
  >>     http://swallowplane.batcave.net/
  >>
  >>     Brad
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>     */Scott Loughrey <scottl44@...>/* wrote:
  >>
  >>         I just interviewed a guy named Dan in NYC who saw the
  >>         second plane hit the WTC. In short, what he saw could
  >>         have been a disguised missile. He was 1 1/2 to 2
  >>         miles away, looking at the burning North Tower from
  >>         the Brooklyn side of the river.
  >>
  >>         He didn't hear it prior to looking up.
  >>
  >>         He heard no screeching of metal as the jet hits the
  >>         steel building.
  >>
  >>         He can't remember the size of the plane.
  >>
  >>         The plane pretty much came out of nowhere.
  >>
  >>         No news agencies or government officials had ever
  >>         contacted him to ask what he saw.
  >>
  >>
  >>         So, if we accept that some effort was made to disguise
  >>         a missile for the benefit of New Yorkers we come down
  >>         to two answers for why the network news had such
  >>         spectacular video. The two I know of are holograms
  >>         were used, or the networks screened tampered video.
  >>
  >>         It still seems to me like the video was tampered; and
  >>         that holograms were not used. I have a lot of reasons
  >>         for this opinion. One of them is that the networks
  >>         did air video of the disguised missile. For example,
  >>         see pic #1 from this page:
  >>
  >>
http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=EastViews*53.asp&PageNum=53
  >>
  >>         Or:
  >>
http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=ZoomEast&PageNum=15
  >>
  >>         (Thanks to Web Fairy for the images.)
  >>
  >>         For more information about my digital alteration
  >>         theory see:
  >>
  >>         http://www.media-criticism.com/911_Video_Movie_01_2004.html
  >>         http://www.911hoax.com
  >>
  >>         peace,
  >>         Scott
  >>

This message was met with stony silence too.
Messages that  could not be true unless the world is flat and without
perspective and cameras record whatever they feel like get lots of play,
but but as soon as their rationalizations are challenged, the response
is the silence of the void.


Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:53:05 +1000
Subject: Re: eyewitness testimony
From: "Gerard Holmgren" <holmgren@...>


The last time we debated this, webfairy scored a very important point,
which I specifically asked others to answer (actually I can't remember
if it was this group- it may not have been, so my apologies if
not)...anyway, whichever group it was, there was a deafening silence in
response to webfairy's point. I hope thats not repeated here.

    I had been arguing that just because holograms might be possible,
that doesn't prove that one was used, and that because the whole thing
could be expalined by video manipulation, and there didn't seem to be
significant eyewitness evidence to a large plane, that there was no real
evidence for a hologram.
    However...webfairy replied that if a video has been faked, one can
tell this due to decimation. There are two methods. Every second frame
can be taken out and replaced with the manipulated pixels or there's a
manipulation every four, which creates jerky movement. iIcan't remember
the exact technicalities of how that one's done, but i'm sure that WF
can refresh us on that.

    Webfairy claimed that some of the cartoon footage shows no sign of
such manipulation. Subject to the questions below, this appears to be
almost a knockout argument for hologram over manipulated video.
    What I asked in response to this was whether anybody
a) disputed that the videos in question show no sign of decimation
b) disputed that video manipulation is always traceable through such
analysis.

There was a deafening silence, and the discussion abrubtly ended.
Consequently, I have swung from being almost dismissive of the holgram
argument to almost convinced of it. (Not the first time, I've been on
the see-saw about this one).

However, webfairy made a very important point, that we shouldn't start
calling video faked simply because it doesn't show what we expect it to.
If the video shows a cartoon plane, and doesn't show any sign of having
been tampered with, then we must accept that the video actually captured
a cartoon plane - the best explanation for which is a hologram.
    I'm open to anybody who wants to take issue with webfairy's
assertions about the tell-tale nature of manipulated video, but I will
be very disappointed if this point is again met with stony silence.

     *-----Original Message-----*
     *From: *brad m <greenmannowar@...
     <mailto:greenmannowar@...>>
     *Date: *Monday, March 29, 2004 2:21
     *Subject: *Re: [Research] eyewitness testimony

     A lot of stuff i have seen does point to video manipulation., I have
     compared pics from different videos, an framed them all out, some
     show the angle of smoke coming from the towers, different from other
     pics or vids just before the second hit. Light/sun reflections
     appearing and dissappearing, in some pics, and not others, and some
     other reasons that point to vid manipulation IMHO.
     *plane2.batcave.net/smoke-right.html*
     <http://plane2.batcave.net/smoke-right.html>

     *plane.batcave.net/angle-smoke.html*
     <http://plane.batcave.net/angle-smoke.html>

     *wtc1.batcave.net/2.html* <http://wtc1.batcave.net/2.html>

     BUT...
     This brings up a big problem to me, as does the holograms. Why put a
     bomb attatched to the bottom of the plane in several different views?

     There is a thread here i have been somewhat active in, the main
     point here is that a misle was fired just before the second plane hit.

    
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3&postdays=0&postorde\
r=asc&start=0&sid=4b46ace9bd6e329bac1cfd93855aff4b
    
<http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3&postdays=0&postord\
er=asc&start=0&sid=4b46ace9bd6e329bac1cfd93855aff4b>

     I have a curious frame i took from one video here....
     http://physics911.org/net/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=27
     This thing in front of the pane, might just be a "ghost" created
     from different frames being layed upon each other due to the speed
     of the craft, but it is curious all the same....

     I am not big on the hologram thing, but the object hanging off of
     175 could possibally be where the hologram originates, creating a
     point that would make it hard to duplicate.
     like i said i am not big on the hologram stuff, but then again, its
     real strange the way that plane just dissappeared into the building,
     i dont see an easy answer one way or the other.
     http://swallowplane.batcave.net/

     Brad



     */Scott Loughrey <scottl44@...>/* wrote:

         I just interviewed a guy named Dan in NYC who saw the
         second plane hit the WTC. In short, what he saw could
         have been a disguised missile. He was 1 1/2 to 2
         miles away, looking at the burning North Tower from
         the Brooklyn side of the river.

         He didn't hear it prior to looking up.

         He heard no screeching of metal as the jet hits the
         steel building.

         He can't remember the size of the plane.

         The plane pretty much came out of nowhere.

         No news agencies or government officials had ever
         contacted him to ask what he saw.


         So, if we accept that some effort was made to disguise
         a missile for the benefit of New Yorkers we come down
         to two answers for why the network news had such
         spectacular video. The two I know of are holograms
         were used, or the networks screened tampered video.

         It still seems to me like the video was tampered; and
         that holograms were not used. I have a lot of reasons
         for this opinion. One of them is that the networks
         did air video of the disguised missile. For example,
         see pic #1 from this page:

         http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=EastViews*53.asp&PageNum=53

         Or:

         http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=ZoomEast&PageNum=15

         (Thanks to Web Fairy for the images.)

         For more information about my digital alteration
         theory see:

         http://www.media-criticism.com/911_Video_Movie_01_2004.html
         http://www.911hoax.com

         peace,
         Scott

This is one of the messages Salter  pleaded to not have publicly posted.
Then he hides behind the safety of his brother's website and lets fly.

*-----Original Message-----*
*From: *Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@...
<mailto:holmgren@...>>
*To: *President, USA Exile Govt. <prez@...
<mailto:prez@...>>
*Date: *Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:16
*Subject: *Re: [consortium]A Valuable Update of 9/11 Info!

Deconstruction below.


> "Amateurs "



Already a sign of desperation, when one chooses to play the man (or
woman) instead of the ball.
We are all amatuers at this. Perhaps Eric prefers the "professional"
analysis from people like Purdue, and the pentagon and WTC ASCE reports,
and people like Prof Eagar who talk about jet fuel melting steel. Perhas
he prefers the "professional analysis " of those who pontificate over
"intelligence failures". Quit the name calling and stick to the facts.


>  pouring over freeze frames

Really ! Well, we wouldn't want to actually *look* at whats on the
videos would we we. How "amatuer" can one get ? Freeze frame analysis !
What a hopeless way to deconstruct video evidence! Who ever heard of
examining frames of video individually, in order to more closely
determine what they show ?


>  from highly compressed mpeg movies on the internet is bound to get
> you into trouble."


Ah, the internet ! It must be crap if its on the internet! Perhaps Eric
can suggest a more appropraite medium for the publication of the
research? A book ? A photograph album to be sold on street corners? TV ?
(Fine , lets just get hold of a few billion somewhere and set up our own
network).

What would Eric suggest as a more rigourous form of analysis? Simply
watching it on the TV news at full speed and believing that it what the
newsreader tells us it is, because its too fast to really see it
properly anyway? Thats real analysis is it ?

So lets deconstruct the above sentence. Eric believes that no frame
by analysis of the video should be conducted - certainly not by people
who aren't being paid for it - and that any analysis which might be
conducted should not be published on the internet.
    Hmmm... a rivetting and powerful argument that it was 767s which hit
the towers.

Or if this is not what Eric is saying, then perhaps he can kindly
unscramble the gobildigook filler for us, and tell us what he actually
meant to say - in plain English, please.


> 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".



Is that so? Now this is new to me. Video doesn't really show what it
filmed! Remarkable ! Now since the "artifact" pehenonomen is so common,
perhaps Eric can give us another five examples of planes captured in
flight, and not looking like planes because of the easily recognizeable
"artifact "  effect. After all, planes are caught on video all the time,
so there should be thousands of such examples available. I await the
supply of other examples.

     Furthermore, at what point does the "plane" reappear out of the
"horizontal distortion" ?

Ah, I get it ! It miraculaously stays right along the "horizontal
distortion line' for the entire clip. So we never get to actually see
it. Now this really is a novel way of analysing video.

    " I can't see a 767 in the video. But Because I know there's one
there (because the govt told me, so it must be true), then there must be
a horizontal distorition line in the video which has swallowed up its
image - well, not swallowed it up, just made it a completely different
size and shape. "


> blurs edges

If it "blurred edges" then we would see what looked like a plane with
blurred edges. We wouldn't see a squat triangular shaped object, less
than half the size it should be. Neither does video selectively
compress. The plane is hiding between the pixels ! Compressed out of
existence !


> no, it's not "divebombing" the wtc.  the camera is looking up,
> creating the illusion that the horizontal path of the airplane is
> vertical.  video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does
> not handle edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the
> airplane is going to look distorted and unrecognizable.  i've been
> working with freeze frames of video for 10 years, and what I see in
> these frames is pretty much what i would expect an airplane to look like.



Which means that Eric should be able to supply thosands of such example
of planes filmed from the ground which a) don't look like planes, and b)
appear to be divebombing, when they're flying more or less level. BTW
Eric, if


> .  the camera is looking up, creating the illusion that the horizontal
> path of the airplane is vertical.


then why doesnt the second "plane" also look like it's divebombing,
since thats what we "expect"? Ah - well you see, sometimes video shows
whats really there, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it distorts
altitudes and directions and sometimes it doesn't.

And how do we we know which is which?

When it doesn't show what we expect.

So if video doesn't show what we expect it to show, then we know that
the "artifact " effect has set in, and if it does show what we expect,
then we know we know that the artifact effect is not present.

Is it possible that video behaves consistently and just shows whats
there? What a radical concept!


> video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle
> edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going
> to look distorted and unrecognizable.


Yes , Eric is right - it really is quite impossible to get a clear video
of a plane which actually looks like a plane. Its never been done! Video
technologists have been agonaizing over this problem for years. "When we
will be able to invent a video camera that enables a plane to actually
look like a plane? " cry the distressed executives to their
technological development teams. "Why is this so difficult?'
    And just to re-inforce his point, Eric will doubtless send us a heap
of other "whatzits" filmed at airports, from news video footage,
planespotters stuff posted on the web, etc. Whatztits are everywhere!
This is what planes actually look like when one videos them ! If eric is
claiming that "whatzits" are what we would "expect" planes to appear
like on video, then he must supply the historical evidence for that. If
there isn't any, then he must explain why something which has never been
observed to occur has suddenly become what we 'expect".

Once again I must point out that poor resoltion does not change the
fundamental size and shape of objects. A poor resolution of a plane will
simply look like a poor resolution of a plane, and when the resolution
gets bad enough, it won"t look like anything. A poor resolution shot of
a bus doesn't look like a horse, a poor resolution shot of an apartment
block doesn't look like a tee-pee. The object is many times smaller than
it should be, and is completely the wrong shape.

> duh!!  the plane is passing through the shadow of the smoke.


Sorry, no it isn't. Take a look at the beginning of the footage. There
is no smoke anywhere near.
Or maybe - since video resolution is so notoriously poor - we just
can't can't see the smoke. Its along a horizontal distortion line,
hiding between the pixels, just like the "plane" in the first impact. So
in the second video, that notoriously hard to film object, the plane
has suddenly become very recognizable, and now its the smoke thats
disappearing into the black hole of the our horribly primitive
photographic technology - which it seems, just can't perform the simple
act of showing whats there.


> there is not enough information here on how the technology works to
> conclude whether it could have been used.



Yes there is. It even gives a description of the speed at which the
pixel manipulation can be conducted and describes the tracking
technology used to lock onto a moving object, and the method by which a
non-existent object can be edited it. At the very least, it demonstrates
that live video manipulation is well and truly here, so that one can not
use the fact that it was a live broadcast to claim that manipulation is
impossible. Erics attitude is quite irresponsible. He shows no interest
in this information, and no interest in exploring the possibility.
Clearly he's only just become aware of it - which is strange for a video
"professional". ( Or is he an amatuer? If so, then why not has he
followed his own advice and excluded himself from the debate?)

So I have a question for Eric.

Do you work professionally with video? If so, in what capacity ? If so,
why were you not already aware of the development of live video
animation? If "amatuers" can dig this up, why was a professional
unaware? If you are not a professional, then what qualifies you to sneer
at other amatuers, and claim to be an amatuer expert on the subject?

But back to live video animation.I have little respect for those who
make up their minds in such reckless, cavalier fashion, without study or
consideration. Eric, having been informed of the important revelation of
live video manipulation shows no interest whatsover in its implications,
but simply dismisses it as "not enough information". How about thinking?
How about looking for more. I've been studying this WTC planes question
for over a year, and its only in the last few months that I've become
confident enough that I've worked through every possiblity and every
possible counter argument, that I now aggressively push the conclusion
that I've come to over that period. When I first became aware of the
video material posted by webfairy, the very first questions I asked her
was "could this video be a hoax" "could it be just poor resolution?"

Does Eric seriously think that we just took one cavalier look at
the video and immedaitely started aggressively publishing hard opinions
on it? He probably does, because its clearly the way he works.
  From his tone, he's given no thought to this, just made a snap decision
that 767s must have hit the towers (after all, the govt tells us, so it
must be true ) and then proceeds to reinvent the laws of video, just as
the proponents of the govt stories on the pentagon and the WTC
demolition have found it necessary to reinvent the laws of physics.
Never before  have I heard anything about how "poor resolution"  or
"horizontal distortion" makes planes so damned difficult to film ( but
only sometimes it seems, sometimes its smoke thats the problem), and all
of a sudden  complete new theories miraculously appear to try to explain
why the videos don't show what the govt tells us they should show. The
possibility that the govt might be lying seems to be beyond the pale for
people like Eric.

besides, just interview the thousands of witnesses and see if they saw a
plane or not.
Now this really takes the cake. What "thousands of witnesses"? Perhaps
Eric can find some? I've looked hard and can't find any witnesses to a
big plane. This is circular delusion at at its worst. "We know that
there were 767s. Because we know there were 767s, then there must be
thousands of witnesses. Aha, because there must have been thousands of
witnesses to such an event, then we know there *are * thousands. And
because there's thousands of wintesses, that proves the planes."

You can't just blindly assume that there are witnesses. You have to find
them. Its called research. Let me introduce you to the concept Eric.

Here's one of your treasured witness reports.
http://www.likeanorb.com/wtc/index.php?Number=5
"until the second explosion happened. We couldn't see that there'd
been a plane, and figured some debris from the first tower had set off a
gas line in the second."

Evan Fairbank, one of the videographers of the second hit is quoted as
saying "It looked like a cheap minature model. It disappeared into the
building like a bad special effect"

If Eric has studied the reports of the first strike, he will know that
there is not a single witness to a large plane. All witnesses said that
it was something small. All early media reports had it as a small plane.
It didn't become a large plane until after the second strike - and only
when AA issued a statement saying that it had lost AA 11 into the WTC -
a flight which didn't exist according to official records.

So lets look at Eric's research and reasoning standards. The official
documentation confirms that AA 11 didn't fly and that UA 175 didnt
crash. Eric describes  a search of official databases to dig this up as


> " typical presumptuous arrogance.  "


Typical of what, Eric ? Please refrain from this kind of meaningless
filler and use plain English.
Are you saying that people who take the trouble to search official
databases and report the findings are typically arrogant and
presumptuous? Or are you disputing the results of the searches ? Please
make you position clear.

Then, the witness reports support the official documentation by their
absence of large plane assertions in combination with positive
statements that it was something other than a large plane. In response
to which Eric wildly and irresponsibly asserts thousands of mythical
wintnesses that support the govt story - but can't/wont produce any.

Then the video evidence corroborates the combination of official
documentation  and wintess reports by showing clearly that neither
object is a 767, and Eric investns new properties of video to
creatively assert that the fact that we can't see any 767s on the video
actually proves that they were there, because 767s on video never
actually look like 767s. And then vaguely shrugs off things such a plane
melting away into nothing without leaving a hole in the building, as
"anomalies" and as "interesting", while appearing to actually show no
interest whatsoever.

Now I would like Eric to produce some actual evidence for the
unsusbtatiated assumption that 767s hit the towers.

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 exxagerating a little with the " thousands" claim - in which
case I  seek an acknowledgement and retraction)

I would also like Eric to produce 5 examples of verifiable footage of
any kind of large Boeing passenger jet (even 737s and 707s will do)
which look anything like the object going into the Nth Tower. After all,
it is, according to Eric what we would "expect" a video of a plane in
flight to look like, so such examples shouldn't be too hard to find.

I would also like Eric address the question of why the Sth tower "plane"
melts aweay into nothing without leaving a hole in the building. Since
this "anomaly" is so "interesting", then lets get interested. What
caused this Eric? It struck a patch of "horizontal distortion" did it,
and hid between the pixels, just like the Nth tower plane managed to do
for its entire flight path?







*-----Original Message-----*
*From: *President, USA Exile Govt. <prez@...
<mailto:prez@...>>
*To: *Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@...
<mailto:holmgren@...>>
*Date: *Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:36
*Subject: *Fwd: [consortium]A Valuable Update of 9/11 Info!

GREETINGS, GERARD!

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *"President, USA Exile Govt." <prez@...
<mailto:prez@...>>
*Date: *April 7, 2004 8:36:05 AM GMT+07:00
*To: *consortium
*Subject: Re: [consortium]A Valuable Update of 9/11 Info!
*
Dear Eric, Yes, this would certainly seem to be hokum even if the
argument is that a retrofitted 767 isn't a 767. I'll relay this to
Gerard for his comment(s). -- Pondo


On Apr 6, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Eric Salter wrote:

Pondo,

I come out of the woods once again to play the debunker.  I was reading
this post and feeling pretty good about it until I came across the video
"analysis" which claimed evidence that no 767s hit the WTC.  I'm livid.
This is all pure hokum.  Another embarrassment which will end up
discrediting the 9/11 truth movement.  Amateurs pouring over freeze
frames from highly compressed mpeg movies on the internet is bound to
get you into trouble.

Did any of these folks interview the thousands of witnesses and ask them
what they saw?


*2.3 What hit WTC towers? *
*  *
*They are alleged to have been AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767's.  A
close viewing of the videos reveals that neither object was a Boeing 767.*
* *
*2.3.1  http://thewebfairy.com/911*

the claim of a missile at this link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~whatzit/
is ridiculous.  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".

going further:
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/index2.html
makes another bad analysis of the 1st strike from the firefighter
documentary footage.  Here's some of it:

"Notice this object divebombing the building. It is not a plane."
no, it's not "divebombing" the wtc.  the camera is looking up, creating
the illusion that the horizontal path of the airplane is vertical.
video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle
edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going
to look distorted and unrecognizable.  i've been working with freeze
frames of video for 10 years, and what I see in these frames is pretty
much what i would expect an airplane to look like.

* *
*2.3.2  The 9/11 video video footage of the planes striking the WTC was
fake.  By Scott Loughrey*
*http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html*

from the above link:

  Strangely, UA 175 is also not affected by the Sun. For example,
sometime during the day of 9/11/01 CNN broadcast more "amateur" footage
of UA 175 from a position east of the WTC. In this footage we see the
jet arriving in silhouette. It remains in shadow until it disappears
into the South Tower.

duh!!  the plane is passing through the shadow of the smoke.

  Why did all of these amateur videographers risk losing their subject
zoom-out just as UA 175 arrives? Didn't they feel that the subject
matter was already of intense interest to them? Surely this scene didn't
need dramatic embellishment added.

idiot.  zooming out helps to ensure that you keep your subject in frame
and capture all the action.  zooming in is where you risk losing the
subject.  besides, you can't prove anything about the source of the
footage from the behavior of the camera operator.

* *
*Given that a close examination of the 2nd WTC crash video, demonstrates
that it cannot be a real plane, but the incident was shown live, here is
the documentation that realistic looking objects can easily be edited
into a live broadcast in real time.*
* *
*2.3.3 Lying with Pixels. By Ivan Imato  MIT's Technology review.
July/August 2000*
*http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp*
* *

there is not enough information here on how the technology works to
conclude whether it could have been used.  besides, just interview the
thousands of witnesses and see if they saw a plane or not.

*2.3.4 Having demonstrated that none of the objects which hit the
three buildings were the planes alleged by the govt to have been
involved , then where did those planes go?  Official aviation records
records say that AA11 and AA77 did not exist .*
* *

typical presumptuous arrogance.  nothing has been demonstrated whatsoever.

I think there are anomalies in the video record that are interesting,
but nothing that suggests that there were not airliners that struck the WTC.

sorry for the angry tone of this, but this crap can't be tolerated.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium@...
http://lists.sixminutes.com/mailman/listinfo/consortium

We couldn't see that there'd been a plane,

Date: 2004/03/30 03:46
From: The Webfairy <webfairy@...>
To: research@...

-------- Original Message --------

I am not saying that the blue/bluegreen/purple effects were visable to the naked eye.
Analog TV cameras picked up the effect, digital cameras show the effect in a limited way or not at all.
The effect was not limited to the Pentagon, either, but in Pentagon footage it is particularly dramatic.

Thanks for the info. All "Free Energy" devices produce energy thru a catalystic effect.
Blacklightpower.com seems to have done a great job of avoiding the shunned and mind-control-meme-mined term "scalar". Thanks for the link.

"Scalar" is not so mysterious or contaminated with UFOs or Martians or whatever.
Scalar simply refers to fractal mathematics, since fractals are the same at any scale.

Maxwell's equations originally contained scalar variables, but these were snipped out for "simplicity."

Once a scalar catalytic action has started, it is very hard to stop.
This is why the deep bowels of the WTC hole kept burning for weeks at incredible temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

Scalar Wars -- The Brave New World of Scalar Electromagnetics
by Bill Morgan
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

Not believing in this stuff is the main roadblock that lets them get away with their Eugenics/Peak Oil agenda.

Bearden has a device patented and ready for production. All he needs is as much money as the US spends in Iraq in a single day.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm
The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator,
Extracting Energy from a Permanent Magnet with Energy-Replenishing from the Active Vacuum
from Thomas E. Bearden, Ph.D. James C. Hayes, Ph.D. James L. Kenny, Ph.D. Kenneth D. Moore, B.S. Stephen L. Patrick, B.S.

The Pentagon Turn-to-Dust page shows the power of scalar energy being used for non-peaceful use.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/dust.htm
The page requires Flash.
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alternates/

So does the spire of steel debris turning to dust on live television.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/glow/glow.mov
Requires Quicktime, or even better, Quicktime Alternative
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alternative.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=plaguepuppy+scalar
Plaguepuppy has done a good job documenting scalar effects, tho he didn't believe in such things when he started.

Mark S Bilk wrote:

 In-Reply-To: <407623B3.3060600@...>; from webfairy@... on Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:16:51PM -0500
Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911

On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:16:51PM -0500, The Webfairy wrote:
>...
>When you talked to me on the phone right after I got rescued, I remember
>you were saying something about some ultraviolet technology?
>You were claiming it wasn't scalar, and I was saying "that's what scalar
>means!!"
>But I forgot the name of it.

Dr. Randell Mills discovered a catalytic "hydrino" process by
which hydrogen can be made to yield about 100 times as much
energy as is obtained by burning it in the usual way.  Much of
this energy comes in the form of very short wavelength
ultraviolet light, which, however does not have a blue color,
or any other color, being way beyond the visible spectrum.
Mills provides complete information on how to reproduce this
phenomenon, and it has been validated by people outside his
group:

  http://www.blacklightpower.com

In reading much of the literature about this process, I have not
encountered any that relates it to "scalar technology".  And
despite the fact that many people glibly use the term, I've
never seen any meaningful evidence that "scalar technology" even
exists.  The same goes for technology yielding any useful amount
of power from "zero point energy".

>With all the ultra-violet blue and purple
>http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/bluepentagon.htm
>I've been thinking you were on to something!
>http://www.google.com/search?q=ultraviolet+laser+tesla+weapon+secret

I'm afraid my present software can't reproduce the wmv movie,
although I may be able to see it in a week or two.  The still
pictures on the page are uniformly blue, but each in a very
different degree, and there are a multitude of others that aren't
blue at all, so these few may just be the result of errors in
reproduction somewhere along the line.  I've never heard of any
evidence that exotic energy phenomena were involved in the
Pentagon attack, just explosives and incendiaries.

However, this story describes a gruesome new weapon used by the
U.S. military to murder Iraqis, which may involve some secret
and very powerful source of energy:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bildjg%24b7d%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: WTC early in attack (fwd)
Date:  Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
From:  rcu@...
To:  Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...>
CC:  the_webfairy@...
References:  <Pine.GSO.4.58.0407261726150.3617@...>
<001901c47380$b2382a90$2b02a8c0@grassyknoll>



that thread again is
http://tinyurl.com/6qlgb

come on in and join it if you want; the group triangle.general is unmoderated

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Rosalee Grable wrote:

> Hi.
> I'm having disk corruption problems, and lost the great thread you sent last
> week.
> Great work, hope I'll have my computer working long enough to participate!!
> Usually I have my mail file on a different drive from my operating system,
> but I didn't and lost roughly ten days mail.
>
> best to cc messages to the_webfairy@... til I get my problems squared
> away.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rcu@...>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: WTC early in attack (fwd)
>
>
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:08:27 -0400
> > From: rcu@...
> > Newsgroups: triangle.general
> > Subject: Re: WTC early in attack
> >
> > >> [I]f smoke, it is NOT normal for it to then move DOWN.  Or if it's
> > >> dust (which I doubt, since it looks just like the obvious tan-gray
> > >> smoke rising above the impact hole), it is not normal for it to become
> > >> a dense narrow tall cylinder and stay that way even while drifing
> > >> laterally with the wind for several city blocks.
> >
> > Joshua writes:
> >
> > > How do you know what is normal or not in the air over a densely
> > > constructed city landscape?
> >
> > I don't; feel free to read "it is not normal" as merely "I find it odd."
> >
> > If you know of any precedent for a falling smoke cloud, or for a tubular
> > dust cloud on a good-weather day, please share.
> >
> > I note webfairy's remark that the characteristic color of burning jet fuel
> > is black, not tan-gray.  Is that true?  Do you think that also might
> > change over a densely constructed city landscape?
> >
> > I don't claim to disprove the coincidence theory of 9/11.  I just think it
> > has a lot more explaining to do.  And lying documentaries don't help.
> >
> >
> > Ray Ubinger
> > http://governyourself.com
> >
>
>

gerard holmgren <mailto:holmgren@...> -- Third request to
     Eric Salter

*Date: 2004/07/26 05:47
From: "gerard holmgren" <holmgren@...>

*

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I notice that Eric is still avoiding stating his position. I realise 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
unmistakeably 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 unmistakeably 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 awswer 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 unsusbtantiated assumption.


Very well. Because the case that it is not a 767 is so overwhelmingly
proveable, 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 demostrate 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 appraoching 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
unmistakeably 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 unmistakeably 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 buidling the strong argument which he has
challenged me to provide.





-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Salter <ericsalter@...>
To: Leonard Spencer <leonardspencer3@...>; holmgren@...

Date: Monday, July 26, 2004 2:12
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Introducing the No Planes Theory]


  >>
  >>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.
  >
  >