Way back when I sent out an Email that said that Bush saw the first plane hit the WTC and that this couldn't have happened, one of my NYC supporters told me that she DID see the first plane hit the WTC, but that isn't the point.
Bombs were installed into the WTC on the previous Friday, so they are what brought the WTC down in a controlled implosion. Moreover, people heard bombs exploding as they were racing away from those towers that morning. So what I have published is true blue. I highly recommend that you begin reading with the 4th edition as that is true. If anyone can prove that what I have published is not accurate and convince me, then I will change what I have published as I don't want to publish inaccuracies. Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net Click on Magazine icon to access all editions. -----Original Message----- >From: The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jan 22, 2006 5:45 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Catapult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ctrl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [cia-drugs] Re: [planehuggers] Proof That NO 767-Sized Plane Struck >WTC1, And Holmgren's Excellent Argument > >Bilk STILL doesn't get it about Perspective. >He seems to live in a flat world where anything can be any size it feels >like, like a pre-renissance painting. > >A "plane" cannot be big and small at the same time, no matter how many >twisty twirls Bilk's "logic" takes. >It can't be fuzzy and clear,close and far, simultaneously. >That is slither, not logic. > >The little dive bombing object is not large enough to create the plane >shape hole. >Whatever the little divebombing object(s) is, offers a perspective view >of something much smaller than any plane. >At it's closest approach to the building, it is about the same size as >the thingie on the corner. >http://thewebfairy.com/911/hole >which appears to be about the size of a car. > >http://missilegate.com/blob11 >The object(s) do an excellent job of showing perspective for small >objects, actually appearing larger when they are closer to the camera >just as they ought. > >But there is no object that appears larger than the plane shape hole. >EVERY object, always and without exception, will look larger when it is >closer. >On any scale, through lenses, in mirrors, to the eye, >always,always,always an object will look bigger when it is closer. >There are no exceptions. >This is a fundamental constant of the universe. > >The Plane Shape Hole is the SMALLEST the plane would have appeared, cos >that's when it was farthest away, if there had been a plane to make the >hole. >No bigger than the plane shape hole object is seen in the first hit footage. >If it were there, it would have dominated the scene like the first hit >animation >http://thewebfairy.com/911/marcus/perspective > >Today people are pretty much unaware of the :aw of Perspective because >it was exiled, along with geometric quanternions, to Art, where today >conic geometry is used for developing complex perspectives to make video >games look real. > >Perspective is still out there tho, making close things look bigger than >small things at the precicely defined ratio that makes surveyor >equipment work. >http://missilegate.com/perspective1.jpg > >ron_winn wrote: >> Mark, you have fallen into a simple trap. You go for the "distorting >> agencies" which is one of the two options. If you have a distorted >> picture of an animal taken of a pride of lions who are laying down >> then you can argue convincingly that that animal is a lion. If you >> have a distorted picture of a plane and it cannot be reverse >> engineered and it is not on the ground at an airport with other >> passenger planes then you can't argue it is a large passenger jet. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Mark S Bilk <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; >> political-research@yahoogroups.com >> <mailto:political-research@yahoogroups.com> ; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:08 AM >> *Subject:* [planehuggers] Proof That A 767-Sized Plane Struck >> WTC1, And Holmgren's Bogus Argument >> >> The argument quoted about 110 lines below, posted by Gerard >> Holmgren, is an example of *sophistry* -- "a deliberately >> invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the >> hope of deceiving someone". >> >> His principal method of deception here is a *false dichotomy* >> -- lying to the reader by saying they must select one of only >> two choices, both of which lead deceptively to the conclusion >> that Holmgren's claim is correct (that a large airplane did not >> hit WTC1). This type of lie is very commonly used to convince >> people to believe things against their own interest: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy >> >> Holmgren's two choices are that either the Naudet WTC1 aircraft >> image looks exactly like an airplane the size and shape of a >> 767, or that it doesn't at all and therefore other evidence is >> needed to identify it. >> >> Of course the answer is that the image looks exactly like that >> of a large 767-style airplane after that image was passed through >> a sequence of distorting agencies -- >> >> 1. poorly focussed through a lens that was set for a scene about >> ten feet away, >> >> 2. scanned by a camera that alternately omits odd and even video >> lines on successive fields (interlaced scanning), >> >> 3. and then compressed one or more times with lossy algorithms >> primarily designed to minimize the digital bandwidth of the >> signal, and which therefore throw away or alter small, faint, >> and rapidly moving details that are not visible to a viewer >> watching at full speed at a normal distance from the screen. >> >> Now here is the fundamental method of reasoning that such a >> situation requires: To identify the original object one simply >> asks, "What original object image, when passed through this >> known set of distorting agencies, ends up looking like the final >> (Naudet) image?" >> >> Note that this correct method of reasoning, which is used by all >> competent engineers and scientists for interpreting audio, video, >> and every other type of physical data, is not either of the two >> methods that Gerard Holmgren says are the only possible choices >> in his false dichotomy argument. >> >> Here's an example: If you were wearing green sunglasses and >> walking through a zoo, and saw a horse-shaped animal covered in >> green and black stripes, would you think it was actually a green >> striped animal secretly created by the government? If you were >> Webfairy or Holmgren, always pushing the most bizarre and >> unbelievable interpretation of the evidence, then you would. >> But if you were an intelligent, sane, and honest person seeking >> the truth, you would simply ask yourself, "What object, if seen >> through the known distorting agency of the green sunglasses, >> would end up looking like a horse with green and black stripes?" >> And of course you would conclude that it was an ordinary white >> and black striped zebra. >> >> So has anyone applied this method to the Naudet WTC1 aircraft >> image? Yes: Eric Salter, the person who has done far more than >> anyone else to debunk the torrent of disinformation constantly >> spewed forth by Webfairy and Holmgren, and has therefore been >> targeted by them with incessant smear campaigns. Here is the >> Web address of that work: >> >> http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html#holmgrenplane >> >> Your browser should position the page so you start reading at a >> paragraph beginning with the phrase "Holmgren attempts". If you >> don't see that phrase, do a string search for it (usually by >> pressing Control-F). Salter begins with a picture of a 767 in >> the correct orientation (ironically provided by Holmgren), shrinks >> it so it has a 20 by 20 pixel resolution to match the aircraft >> image in the Naudet video (actually it should have a resolution of >> only 10 in the vertical direction because of interlaced scanning), >> and shows the result with the usual interpolation performed by >> video display programs. >> >> Except for different coloration (the tail of the WTC1 plane was >> brightly reflecting the sun), the image is nearly identical to >> that in the Naudet video! All of the "blobs" are in the same >> positions! The wings are more visible, but if half of the 20 >> scan lines were removed to simulate interlaced video displayed >> one field at a time, the wings would be much less visible, and >> would appear and disappear in various fields, just as they do >> when you watch the video at high magnification in slow motion. >> >> The Subject line of Holmgren's e-mail, "...the question which >> so terrified Salter", is part of the Webfairy-Holmgren smear >> campaign. Salter *has* answered Holmgren's deceptive >> false-dichotomy question by performing the above analysis, thus >> *demonstrating* the correct method and reasoning, which is >> neither of Holmgren's two false choices. And in doing so he has >> demonstrated that the Naudet aircraft image *was* produced by >> a large 767-style airplane. (Of course the video contains no >> information that can indicate whether it was a passenger, freight, >> or military plane of that size and shape, let alone Flight 11 >> in particular, if that flight even existed on that day.) >> >> As I've explained elsewhere, the motion of entry of the planes >> into the towers, and the holes they left, are entirely consistent >> with the way large planes would behave in collision with the >> tower columns according to the principles of physics. This >> provides confirmation of the analysis of the videos. >> >> Mark >> >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:35:14PM -0600, Webfairy wrote: >> >-------- Original Message -------- >> >Subject: FW: Will Bilk answer the question which so terrified >> Salter ? >> >Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:33:17 +1100 >> >From: Gerard Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: 'The Webfairy' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> >Mark Bilk has made it clear that he believes that a large >> passenger jet >> >hit the Nth tower of the WTC. >> > >> >I think we can all agree that the simple stating of an opinion is >> not >> >the same as constructing an argument for that opinion. >> > >> >I think we can also agree that if the validity of an opinion is >> to be >> >tested and debated, then all parties must be made aware of >> exactly what >> >argument is being employed in order to reach the opinion which is >> the >> >subject of the debate. >> > >> >I think we can also agree that there is a video which shows the >> object >> >under discussion in flight towards the WTC. >> > >> > From this point of agreement, the possibilities diverge. There >> are two >> >quite different arguments which Bilk could use in support of his >> >opinion. Because I am not clear which of these arguments he >> chooses to >> >use, I would like him to clarify that for us, so that we know >> what we >> >are arguing about. >> > >> >Here are the possible arguments which one might develop in order to >> >sustain the opinion that a large jet hit the Nth tower. >> > >> >(If anyone thinks of any potential argument which I overlooked, then >> >please let us know ) >> > >> >1) The video of the object quite clearly shows from visual >> observation >> >alone that it is a large passenger jet. Argument becomes superfluous >> >because it is a matter of direct sensory observation, much as >> >distinguishing an image of a horse from that of an elephant, and if >> >someone else sees the image differently, there is no rational >> process by >> >which the difference of opinion can be resolved. >> > >> >Is this Bilk's argument ? If so, perhaps he can explain why he >> has spent >> >so much time on explaining why the object does not look like a large >> >passenger jet ? Resolution, pixels etc. Ultimately it either >> looks one >> >or it doesn't. >> > >> >2) Direct observation of the object is inconclusive. It is unclear, >> >indistinct, not identifiable from its appearance. Thus direct visual >> >observation neither confirms nor rebuts the assertion that it is >> a large >> >passenger jet. The object could be plausibly speculated to be any >> number >> >of objects, known or unknown. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion >> >that it is a large passenger jet, one has turned to evidence of an >> >ancillary nature -- eg forensic, witness, documentation, and in that >> >ancillary evidence has found strong indications that the object >> was a >> >large passenger jet. Since the visual data, although not >> confirming such >> >an identification does not actually contradict it, one is therefore >> >concluding that it's a large passenger jet on grounds other than the >> >visual appearance of the object. >> > >> >Is this Bilk's argument ? >> > >> >Either argument may well be valid, subject to testing through the >> debate >> >process, but one cannot simultaneously argue both positions. >> > >> >One cannot simultaneously argue poor video resolution as a reason >> for it >> >not being visually identifiable as a large jet, while at the same >> time >> >claiming that it is visually identifiable as a large jet. >> > >> >One or the other. >> > >> >So if Bilk will specify for us which argument he subscribes to, >> then a >> >debate can proceed. >> > >> >Eric and Brian Salter and Jim Hoffman, when pressed on this >> question all >> >refused to identify their argument in the debate linked here >> > >> >http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.hrml >> <http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/salter.hrml> >> > >> >Perhaps Bilk can show them how its done. >> > >> > Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
