Marvelous critical review of WTC "no plane" theories by Eric Salter

[JackRiddler]

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Clear and complete, does away with small plane, media projection, hologram, pod, missile and flash fallacies. Links to other items that dispense with no-plane at Pentagon.

Also: Is Morgan Reynolds our friend?

Choice quote on how the discussion has sadly gone (the man does long paragraphs, but every word is on-target).

"In between the two fronts of this information war there is a lot of grey area, with quite a bit of room for principled disagreement about both evidence and tactics. Of course, principled disagreement is exactly the opposite of the obnoxious behavior of the no-planers, some of which I've documented in my articles. This behavior creates an acrimonious and divisive atmosphere in a movement that prevents productive work, and is usually the M.O. of deep cover agents. But I'm not suggesting no-plane advocates are agents. In fact I believe that most are deluded "useful idiots," as the terminology goes. As such, their offerings are misinformation, not disinformation. But that doesn't mean that the spooks wouldn't flood lists and forums with vociferous multiple-pseudonym supporters of these theories, in a tactic similar to the astroturfing of mainstream politics. If I were in charge of the cover up I would let the authentic fools emerge and then use mind control to encourage egomaniacal, narcissistic, and aggressive tendencies. But while general comments on what theories constitute disinfo are reasonable, it's useless to let fly specific accusations of disinfo activity regarding individuals. There is never any evidence. Charges going back and forth is what the cover-up crew wants. Divide and conquer. Given the historical record of COINTELPRO, the ones making the accusations are most likely to actually be the agents."

[spooked911]

1. I'm not sure who is doing the accusations here!

:)

As far as the no-plane theories, I think they make more sense for the Pentagon and flight 93, where clearly whatever crashed there was not a normal 757, and most likely the crashes were hoaxes.



My reasoning has been, if they faked the Pentagon hit and flight 93, perhaps they faked the WTC hits somehow as well. I think it is quite likely that non-767's hit the WTC, since 767 profiles never seem to line up quite right with the holes in the buildings. What really did hit the WTC is quite up in the air, considering no proof has ever been brought out showing 767's hit the WTC-- such as engines or black boxes.

Operationally, using explosives, a few old plane parts and other technology to fake a plane crash is preferable to piloting a real plane with real people on it-- IF you assume MIHOP.

[sabbat hunter]

2. check link

if you check the link you will see how the hole DOES indeed match up with a 767.


i dont believe in MIHOP or LIHOP, but i do believe in the bush administration incompetence.


david

[spooked911]

3. the imprint is close, but where is the hole from the massive

starboard engine? There is intact facade there. Eve the hole for the port engine is small. And where did the tail go? The plane went into the building all the way but the huge tail seems not to have left an imprint on the facade, unlike the thin wingtips.

I'm just saying it is weird. If you can explain it, please do.

[Woody Box]

4. This stuff is obsolete and a waste of time

and makes me yawn.

Salter's critic of the video analyzers (the so-called "no-planers") maye be be right generally or in particular, but the question if the plane that hit the North Tower (f.e.) was "small" or a 767 belongs to the least important 9/11 questions at all.

Of much more relevance is the question if the North Tower Plane was the one we are told it was, i.e. American Airlines N334AA from Boston. Since the release of the 9/11 report, evidence has been mounting that it was NOT the Boston plane (-> phantom flight 11).

I don't understand why Salter wastes his time to argue with people he doesn't accept as serious researchers on a fruitless subject that has been discussed years ago.

And, by the way, Nico Haupt is a planeswapper, no noplaner.

[philb]

5. Its useful but I wouldn't call it marvelous; he goes beyond the facts

and evidence in some of his analysis into opionion. He makes a good case against some theories but not others.


And he doesn't deal with the major anomolies in the record regarding the 2 flights:
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html
http://www.flcv.com/offco175.html
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

[philb]

6. Are you sure he credibly explained away the missiles and pods at WTC?

Missiles and pods and Flight 175

Some of these show a plane and (missile?) entering WTC2; plus delayed explosion
And some show objects including (missile?) exiting WTC2
http://investigate911.batcave.net/nose.html
http://www.911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html
http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/index.htm
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=58131

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php


This isn't an issue I've followed much, but I haven't seen a credible debunking of missiles and pods with Flight 175;

both firemen and policemen at WTC reported missiles
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

How does Eric explain these?

another with ok pictures but needs translation
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/

there's a translator at: http://www.altavista.com/