IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence?, Evidence of FEMA/ASCE (UA175) evidence tampering

DoYouEverWonder
post May 15 2011, 06:02 PM
Post #81





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (questionitall @ May 15 2011, 02:48 PM) *
Thanks to the NIST cumulus dataset (and some terrific help with finding all the damning information I need therein) I've been able to conclusively show the United Airlines flight 175 wreckage had been planted on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 and the FEMA evidence of it had definitely been Adobe Photoshop falsified! As such I've just posted a rather amateurish but well intended YouTube video to that effect which I hope will draw more attention to this issue. You can find that video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1FrcqxyL8

Can you slow down your slides?

I'm not getting any audio and the slides are flying by too fast to read (and I'm a fast reader).

Thanks

Edit: Scratch the comment about no audio - there is a sound track on some parts.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: May 15 2011, 07:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post May 16 2011, 02:28 PM
Post #82





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ May 15 2011, 06:02 PM) *
Can you slow down your slides?

I'm not getting any audio and the slides are flying by too fast to read (and I'm a fast reader).

Thanks

Edit: Scratch the comment about no audio - there is a sound track on some parts.



Hello - this video was a test piece for me. I've never done anything like it before and I'm not all that savvy with this computer technology. Not only that but the material I was given was not of the highest resolution. I'm currnetly downloading the original material from the NIST Cumulus dataset and once I have it I'll be posting it. In the meantime here are the links to the two photographs in that video.

http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y...feature=related

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5712188436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711626411/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post May 16 2011, 03:48 PM
Post #83





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (questionitall @ May 16 2011, 02:28 PM) *
Hello - this video was a test piece for me. I've never done anything like it before and I'm not all that savvy with this computer technology. Not only that but the material I was given was not of the highest resolution. I'm currnetly downloading the original material from the NIST Cumulus dataset and once I have it I'll be posting it. In the meantime here are the links to the two photographs in that video.

http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y...feature=related

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5712188436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711626411/


Here is a link to the Natsaha Sealy image found in the NIST Cumulus dataset # 29...http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post May 16 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #84





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (questionitall @ May 16 2011, 03:48 PM) *
Here is a link to the Natsaha Sealy image found in the NIST Cumulus dataset # 29...http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/


Due to security issues I had to delete the site where I'd posted the Natasha Sealy photograph and Tami Michaels video footage...sorry!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Sep 11 2019, 09:02 AM
Post #85





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



BREAKING NEWS: MATT NELSON AND FRIENDS SOLVE PHOTOSHOP MYSTERY - NOT!
With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence and set the record straight on why Matt Nelson and his friend waypastvne are sadly mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage not having been surreptitiously modified [Photoshopped].
According to waypastvne (the supposed expert in digital art) Baker's image has not been altered in the manner I've described, simply because he/she "looked at the photos and didn't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop." Rather, "You just need to look at it at the right perspective." With that being said they marked key features like the leftmost protuberance on the larger chunk of fuselage with red arrows to make their point. But the problem is that supposed obstruction is clearly resting hard against the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....]. Indeed, is it's well outside the window opening. And in light of the fact that the smaller chunk of fuselage had been propped up against that all too obvious rust coloured piece of metal, and inline with the larger chunk of fuselage, further proving my point that someone paint brushed out [Photoshopped] the aforementioned window opening is the fact that a ley line drawn along the bottom edge of the leftmost (first and second) window openings on the larger chunk of fuselage clearly runs along the top of that protuberance, thereby intersecting said window opening at roughly its midpoint.
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's supposition that Baker "crouched to the level of the handrail" at the time of exposing the photograph in question, that too is grossly misleading because had Baker done so then his camera lens would have been below the staircase landing and roughly level with the hip of the person in the foreground; not his head and shoulder. But the Horizon Line in Baker's image is clearly higher than the lower horizontal joint on the adjoining pieces of exterior wall cladding to the left, not to mention the staircase landing that feature intersects with. And because of it Baker's perspective on the fuselage wreckage in question here was undoubtedly looking down at the piece of metal cladding on the lower staircase tread and both chunks of fuselage.
Which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.
So too, Nelson's claim that Baker's "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage atop WTC 5 "is in fact authentic aircraft fuselage fallen from the plane with tail number N612UA" reeks of bullshit! Because as Nelson pointed out, the FBI's response to Aidan Monaghan's FOIA civil complaint seeking records pertaining to the recovery and identification of wreckage generated by the four aircraft destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, proves that based on the premise that “The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,....” the FBI and NTSB World Trade Center site investigators dispensed with forensically analyzing the aircraft wreckage they recovered and absconded with in the days and weeks following those attacks.
All of which means that despite Nelson's argument that the DNA argument the authenticity and provenance of the fuselage wreckage in question is not a scientifically established fact!
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's claim that officialdom hasn't exploited Baker's image, that too is bullshit because the Exif Metadata for Baker's image proves someone accessed that image for whatever reason on January 12, 2005. And that date was a mere three weeks before it and W. Gene Corley's claim that he "was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied" and "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2" debuted in Popular Mechanics magazines February 5, 2005, hit-piece entitled 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report'. Wherein every subsequent version of that partisan rags take on their 9/11 experts recollections the authors routinely tout Corley's unsubstantiated claim as proof that the passenger aircraft once registered as N612UA slammed into World Trade Center 2.
And knowing what I do of Baker's image after reading Corley's bullshit claims I attempted to contact him a number of times with questions concerning his apparent falsification of that supposed evidence. And because he failed to respond to my line of questioning I emailed Corley for the last time with the following challenge to his much touted expertise on January 25, 2011:
"Hello Mr. Corley, I wrote you on November 26, 2010 with a few questions regarding the aircraft wreckage you discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 but I never received a reply from you, so I went ahead and posted my findings at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum without your input or rebuttal. Should you like to respond to my original questions or any of the damning evidence therein the United 175 thread Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence? you are more than welcome to do so at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. I encourage you to do so, seeing as your name and reputation are all over that travesty you swore to under oath."
Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide. Likewise then, after all these years of knowing about the anomalous threaded fasteners [HiLoks] joining the sheet metal skin to the upper stringer [longeron] immediately AFT of the window opening on the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....] Nelson and his friends have yet to investigate the matter by getting off their sorry asses and actually proving that a run-of-the-mill [unmodified] Boeing 767 passenger airliner slammed into WTC 2. Opposed to simply regurgitating half-truths and factoids with the chat room fools who follow their lead.
Last but not least, NIST's World Trade Center investigators best guess estimation [WTC 2 Base Case Global Impact Analysis] states that the primary impact path of the aircraft nose cone was the 81st floor slab, which sliced the the fuselage in half along its longitudinal axis and severely damaged the fuselage structures as they penetrated the exterior columns and plowed through the floor slab, all the way from the Southern exterior wall to the buildings core. And according to those investigators the right-hand [starboard] engine did not impact, nor take out, any of those core columns. Consequently, the mass/force consisting of much of the aircraft fuselage combined with office furnishings is said to have "bulldozed" its way through the Southeast corner of the buildings core, all the way through to the far side [North face) of the building, severing an estimated 5 core columns and heavily damaging 4 others in the process.
In other words we're expected to believe two relatively light-weight chunks of aluminum originating from the exact same location at the rear of the aircraft fuselage survived the maelstrom in their path and after slamming all the way through that buidlings core they were magically ejected from the North face window openings by the force of the exploding jet fuel alone and hurled hundreds of feet clear onto the rooftop of WTC 5 in a dead straight trajectory.
Needless to say that scenario smacks of the Kennedy assassination investigation and its magic bullet trajectory/theory, and anyone who still believes Corley wasn't a liar and perjurer truly needs to get a brain and reevaluate their way of thinking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th December 2019 - 09:08 AM