Incontestable is Best
A message sent 2004-10-12 by Peter Meyer
to a group of 9/11 researchers

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen,

A friend wrote (and this message started out simply as a reply to him):

>Here is some good analysis of images that have been used to make 

>several charges about 9/11.
> I find this article (by Eric Salter) well-written and I've put a link to it from That doesn't imply that I agree with him on most issues, but I do agree largely with his "Conclusion" on that page. On a certain 9/11 discussion list in recent months there has been robust debate on the question of what hit WTC1 and WTC2. I've contributed almost nothing to this debate, since I think the video evidence is insufficient for a conclusion, although it seems to me the video evidence of the WTC1 object suggests that it is NOT a Boeing 767 (apparently no engines on wings). Brian Salter has a web page which says: It's a 767 because we can't prove that it's not. This is illogical. Anyone claiming that the WTC1 object is of-class-X has to produce evidence of this claim, and Salter does not have persuasive evidence that it was a 767. His claim has been disputed by Marcus Icke. Search on the above web page for "Salter" and "Icke" for the web links if you are interested. These articles by Leonard Spencer are also relevant: (the first webpage to draw attention to the pod, in October 2002) >I think the pod and missile theories deserve to go on the deep back burner.
>This situation is so reminiscent of lay "analysis" of Apollo footage,
>the Zapruder footage, etc. I agree with my friend here that it is preferable that this debate not be occurring (at least, with such intensity and so publicly), since it distracts from more convincing evidence that the official story is false. The main evidence, which I think is convincing, is: (i) The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of plane impacts and the resulting fire. I believe this would be the conclusion of a proper investigation by structural engineers if a free investigation were permitted, which presently it is not. (See and (ii) Whatever caused the damage to the Pentagon was obviously not a Boeing 757. The photographic evidence, as well as rational considerations, demonstrate this. No need for engineering experts. (See and the recently-appeared (iii) The collapse of WTC7 at 5 pm on 9/11 is explicable only as a controlled demolition. Again no need, anyone can see this from the video. (See and These three items establish a strong prima facie case that the official story is false. Arab hijackers could not have produced a controlled demolition of any of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, and no 757 hit the Pentagon, thus not one piloted by an Arab hijacker. (Which is not to say that there were no Arab wannabe hijackers, just that the role of Atta & Co. was most likely that of patsies set up to give apparent support to the official story. Like Oswald in 1963.) For the purposes of showing that it was an inside job there is no need to consider anything beyond (i)-(iii) above. Of course, one can speculate about missiles, substitute planes, etc., as I and others have done, and this has value, but I believe it is an error to allow contention on these matters to distract attention from the effort to make known (by the general population) the persuasive evidence outlined above. However, it seems that our efforts to inform the American public of the perfidy and treason of their political leaders has not produced enlightened individuals in sufficient numbers to make much of a difference to the progress of the NWO program, which will no doubt be pursued with renewed vigor after this matter of regime change, or not, is decided in a few weeks (perhaps it's really a contest between the pro-Bush designers of the voting machines and the anti-Bush CIA). So the question of whether it is a strategic error not to concentrate on the core incriminating evidence may be largely irrelevant to post-election events. The many millions who believe that Bush gets messages from God are unlikely to be swayed by reason. On this subject I recommend the following article: Peter Meyer P.S. Of course, showing that the official story is false is just the first step. Only when this is generally recognized can there be a serious public inquiry as to what actually happened and who planned and carried out the mass murder of 9/11. So far there has been no such inquiry; the Kean Report was merely a shameless cover-up.

Deciphering the 9/11 Distractions
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Serendipity Home Page