This author contends that the news media deliberately introduced visual anomalies
with their video in order to discredit subsequent visual analyses of it. This enables
some of the more obvious critics of the real 911 Truth Movement to denounce
those who examine the video. Brian Salter is a favorite tool of this group of
people. By upholding Salter's critical analyses
Rense, WING TV, John Kaminski and
lately Michael Elliott have
staked a claim in the "see no video" camp.
Now that David vonKleist's sensational new video
911: In Plane Site has
been published, how can it be discredited sufficiently to prevent its entry into the
general public's conciousness?
In Brian Salter's recent offering, he disputes
David vonKleist's conclusions
about a very curious segment of video that CNN apparently only screened once. VonKleist
says the video shows two towers still standing, and argues that the smoke
plume is an indication of an explosive near WTC 6 (in the foreground). Salter
contends that vonKleist is wrong about the two
towers still standing. By supporting Salter, Kaminski and Rense seem to be implying that
people should heed Salter and not view vonKleist's
sensational 911: In Plane Site, now taking the nation by storm. It is an
old trick.
 |
| 1 |
| (Click to enlarge) |
|
However, Salter's critical examination of the video clip does not make logical
sense. The mistakes are obvious, even from first glance. Let's start with the
arial map that he kindly provides.
 |
| 2 |
| (Click to enlarge) |
|
We'll accept it as factual. Note that the light that strikes the north face
of 3 World Financial Center does not remotely look like the light striking the
North Tower, the only Tower that Salter claims is standing. 3 World Financial Center's
North face is brightly lit, the North face of the North Tower has no similiar lighting.
In addition, note the rooflines of the two top edges of the North tower that
Salter claims is the only one standing. Note the roofline of the perspective that
Salter claims we are seeing:
 |
| 2 |
| (Click to enlarge) |
|
They are different. In fact, the two edges in the CNN clip do not appear
to meet.
Returning to the CNN clip, note that the West wall of the
tower that Salter claims is the only one standing is light, particularly in the
lower half. Since the Sun was currently low and from the East at 9:04 a.m., that
is a nice trick.
Also, why is the upper part of the North Tower so dark? According
to most of the documentation the wind was blowing strong to the Southeast. Salter
is claiming that after the South Tower fell the smoke wrapped around the North
Tower in the opposite direction of the wind. That's another nice trick.
|
|
| 1 |
| (Click to enlarge) |
|
Another problem with the imagery is the lack of contrast. Since the Sun is
low to the East there should be long, dark shadows heading West. However,
this footage has far less contrast than it should. The image looks like it was
filmed with a special filter (maybe a Coke bottle). Simply claiming it was
shot from a window doesn't explain the lack of overall contrast.
Yet another cause for suspicion is the somewhat nervous camera work. Salter's
sole basis for stating that there is one Tower here is the perceived antenna line
above the two rooflines. However, with the camera tilting down it is difficult
to verify that this line exists. Jerky camera work is not always reliable, particularly
what CNN served up on 9/11/01.
The video is suspect. It looks to this viewer to have been aired deliberately in order
to discredit those who criticize the rest of CNN's coverage. The hysteria being
aroused by Brian Salter is being frequently upheld by John Kaminski, Jeff Rense, WING TV and
Michael Elliott. This undermines their legitimacy within the 911 Truth Movement
and casts suspicion over what their true motives are.
|