From:Eric Salter <ericsalter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:Fri, May 28, 2004 8:50 am
To:"senhor san" <dharma@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, <sf911truthalliance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
(more)
Subject:Re: Dear Eric Salter -- Would you please subject the Pentagon
"small-plane" thesis to your exacting analysis?
Dick,
Thank you for your feedback on my article. As for the Pentagon
crash, I don't think there's much I can do with that one. I took on
the WTC impacts because my specialty is video, and most of the
arguments there focused around the visual record. The only images we
have of the Pentagon crash are from the Pentagon security camera.
That's not much to go on, assuming these images are reliable to begin
with. There have been a lot of charged arguments back and forth
about the Pentagon, and I'm reluctant to take a strong stand on this,
mainly because I haven't studied this issue as much as I should have.
I feel there are strange anomalies in the physical evidence, but what
I really want to see is for someone to track down and talk to the
eyewitnesses about the no-plane scenarios. If there was a fly-over,
there should be a sizeable number of witnesses who would be willing
to entertain that possibility. If the witnesses balk at this, then I
think the case becomes much harder to sell to the public no matter
what the physical evidence. I think the public would generally
identify with these eyewitnesses as people like themselves and would
be somewhat hesitant to question their veracity. Just my two cents.
Sincerely,
Eric Salter
Dear Eric,
First of all, a good mind is a good mind.. If you don't have a good mind
(a scientific, methodical, logical mind) your video expertise would not
count for much -- and with that kind of mind yhou can contribute
anywhere.
I have several compilations of witness statements. Three people saw
a two planes, one re****ting it veering away "as the other crashed."
Also I have interviewed Sgt. Willima Lagasse who not only saw
the Boeing headed towards the Pentagon, but was actually
blown into his car by the turbulence as it passed.
I know of no one outside the Webfairy "Hologram" school
who say there was no plane.
Actually there were at least four planes.
Boeing 757 -- seen by all approaching from the Hotel
The Killer jet -- leaving downed lamp posts and holes
in the Pentagon wall indicating an approach more from the
southwest.
The C-130 flown by O'Brian that went through the
smoke of the crash just 30 seconds after the event.
(Either a command plane, a spy plane to spot any
frame-up giveaway signs or a fake debris drop.)
A four-engine large plane that was doing dives in the
forbidden airspace over the Capitol -- photographed
and videotaped and shown on the BBC (a distraction
plane)
So the term "no plane" certainly does not describe
what I have called the "small plane" thesis.
Your specialty is video -- I wish you would look at the smoke
trail in the security camera video , and the white hot exposion
and the change in contrast between the second frame and the
rest. Would a bright flash turn up the contrast in a video
camera?
Also, I was very impressed how the smoke is drawn into
the explosion updraft in pictures 2,3,4 and 5. Compare that
exactness with, say, the Berg video or the fake bin Laden tapes.
(Why be so minutely correct on this aspect, while allowing
really big errors, like the next days date on the video camera?
You say the only images we have of the Pentagon crash are
from the Pentagon security camera - but that is not quite correct.
There are digital camera immages of the wall after the crash and
before its collapse 20 m8inutes later. Of great im****tance is
whether the imprint on the wall is consistent with a cra****ng 757 --
and some of that depends on interpreting what is shown.
At any rate, I do not agree that "there is not much to go on" with
the videos -- I see multiple lines of evidence bits (smoke trail, tail
fin,
explosion, image pro****tions and lengths) all pointing to the same
conclusion, all mutually reinforcing "small-plane" thesis.
Also the fact that arguments "go back and forth" should never
deter you -- since if this is the crime of the century then there are
going to be agents of a coverup attempting to mouth down those
pointing out the evidence. You can'b e believe that the people who
bought up all the newspapers and media networks to control opinion
would not also put spin agents and disinfo propagandists on the
internet, do you?
But I certainly agree and bewail the fact that you "havent studied
this issue as much as [you] should have."
Why not, when the evidence is the best around and intelligent people
(Prof. A,K. Dewdney, physics911 group, etc.) have reached definite
conclusions in favor of the small-plane finding.
And yes, there are witnesses and they sup****t the small plane thesis.
Check the quotes.
I implore you to have one good 10 minute look at the evidence on just
this one page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimedata/message/3
You will find your witness information here and in the included link in
that section.
|
