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  « < 2 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

questionitall
post Mar 24 2011, 02:04 PM
Post #61





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 17 2011, 08:59 PM) *
Dear Questionitall.

Talking aircraft registration numbers, the portion of outer skin photographed on top of WTC Building 5,
which I can only take as being the location, by your account, along with other references on the internet,
does appear to start with the letter 'N'.
The next identification which does seem to be part of a number, does appear to be a '6'.

To the best of what I have been able to achieve over the internet, as of 2011 there appears to have been 41 major crash incidents of --Boeing 767-- of which it is stated there were 11 Hull Loss Accidents.
This would include the two aircraft said to have impacted the WTC towers.
Prior to Sept 2001 there does not appear to have been an American registered Boeing 767 aircraft involved in a hull loss accident which would have resulted in portions of outer skin becoming available.

This I would think adds weight to your argument that the portions photographed on top of WTC Building 5,
were not from a Boeing 767 aircraft.

During my search for photographs of aircraft for use in the videos I have presented, it was of interest, that an aircraft in a photograph in 2008 had a registration number of N612 the airline identification being 'AX'.

I have not researched further to see if various airlines in America can have the same numbering, but nonetheless it was an interesting coincidence, especially to me as the aircraft the number was assigned to, was a DC10.

Regards

Robert


Hi Robert - I appreciate your thinking and tenacity when it comes to researching this particular matter and I'm happy to respond to your reason and logic here. I, too, looked into those leads many, many months ago but for diiferent reasons than yours - there was no registration number on that wreckage in the first place Robert and that is why I've always said that FEMA/ASCE photograph had been falsified and for many reasons - that registration number marking being just one addition made to the wreckage by Adobe Photoshop! What's more the wreckage itself is not from a Boeing 767 at all as I've always intimated. I've recently been inside a Boeing 767 passenger cabin that's undergoing a major overhaul - I now have the photographs to prove Mr. W. Gene Corley's wreckage in no way matches the fuselage area of a Boeing 767 his photographs would have us believe that wreckage represents (of any circa 2001 UA767 livery). What's more then the Boeing 767 specialist/Aircraft Structural Technician who escorted me through that passenger cabin confirmed for me (in a not so flattering way) why that wreckage in no way positively identifies a Boeing 767 airframe. I will be posting those photographs and his comments here soon enough, along with a complete run-down on exactly what I think and know of the WTC site investigators case. I've written that addendum to my original post because I realize I'd not made myself clear enough when explaining my United Airlines flight 175 hypothesis. For that reason I do apologize to you for seemingly critcizing your closely related research, but you have to understand Robert I've taken a great deal of ridicule from my peers for my 9/11 beliefs. As such I'm not in the mood to entertain speculation and postulating on the matter that only serves to undermine my research and credibility and for that reason alone I deal in varifiable facts and not the imaginings of conspiracy theorists, reasonable and plausible as they might seem.
For the most part then I do consider your research to be interesting work but we're on a different wave-length I think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 24 2011, 09:36 PM
Post #62





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (questionitall @ Mar 25 2011, 03:34 AM) *
Hi Robert - I appreciate your thinking and tenacity when it comes to researching this particular matter and I'm happy to respond to your reason and logic here. I, too, looked into those leads many, many months ago but for diiferent reasons than yours - there was no registration number on that wreckage in the first place Robert and that is why I've always said that FEMA/ASCE photograph had been falsified and for many reasons - that registration number marking being just one addition made to the wreckage by Adobe Photoshop! What's more the wreckage itself is not from a Boeing 767 at all as I've always intimated. I've recently been inside a Boeing 767 passenger cabin that's undergoing a major overhaul - I now have the photographs to prove Mr. W. Gene Corley's wreckage in no way matches the fuselage area of a Boeing 767 his photographs would have us believe that wreckage represents (of any circa 2001 UA767 livery). What's more then the Boeing 767 specialist/Aircraft Structural Technician who escorted me through that passenger cabin confirmed for me (in a not so flattering way) why that wreckage in no way positively identifies a Boeing 767 airframe. I will be posting those photographs and his comments here soon enough, along with a complete run-down on exactly what I think and know of the WTC site investigators case. I've written that addendum to my original post because I realize I'd not made myself clear enough when explaining my United Airlines flight 175 hypothesis. For that reason I do apologize to you for seemingly critcizing your closely related research, but you have to understand Robert I've taken a great deal of ridicule from my peers for my 9/11 beliefs. As such I'm not in the mood to entertain speculation and postulating on the matter that only serves to undermine my research and credibility and for that reason alone I deal in varifiable facts and not the imaginings of conspiracy theorists, reasonable and plausible as they might seem.
For the most part then I do consider your research to be interesting work but we're on a different wave-length I think.


Dear Questionitall.

Thankyou for your further thoughts, I really look forward to your addendum, it will be very interesting I am sure.
My friend, I do not take exception to other people's views of me, unless they are telling straight out lies, which most certainly you have not, but having been around this type of activity for some time now, 'I have a thick skin'.

Regards

Robert

ps
In that, we both believe a Boeing 767 did not impact Tower Two, with it still most likely some type of aircraft did, (although, there are those who consider that not to be the case, due to their interpretaton of video taken at the time, which I personally believe they are only taking a 'narrow', impression of), my concentration is to determine, what aircraft actually did.
Of late I have made some interesting discoveries in that direction, which when I have completed what I am doing, could do with some assistance within America, or with people with associates in America.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 29 2011, 02:38 PM
Post #63





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



[quote name='questionitall' date='Jan 13 2011, 08:46 PM' post='10793247']
To whom it may concern

The rational minds of scholars and engineers, organized professional pilots and AME's the world over know full well any and all government proof of “Islamist terrorists” having hijacked “commercial aircraft” amounts to nothing more than hearsay and speculation born of and perpetuated by the official consensus…the sum of their worth is directly proportional to our ever devolving human condition, collective morality and intellectual debasement.

I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now. From my efforts I’ve discovered some damning information you might be interested in knowing - it pertains to falsified government evidence directly associated with the aircraft that purportedly crashed into WTC 2.

I approached Pilots For 9/11 Truth with this information for three reasons…the first of them being no-one to date whom I’ve shared this information with seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts who are hired again and again to lie on behalf of the government when such an occurrence as 9/11 arises. My second reason for posting here is to get people openly debating the amoral actions of these FEMA/ASCE experts, who corrupted the WTC site investigation by falsifying the very evidence that goaded half the free world into two illegal wars of occupation and lastly then, I cannot afford to hire a photo forensics expert to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence I have researched - to buy the “professional credibility status” required of it in order to legitimize a full congressional hearing into this conspiracy. If anyone reading this information is such an expert and wishes to weigh in on the photographic debate by all means give us your educated opinion of the matter at hand.

I know for certain the governments lackeys photographic material and supposed evidentiary proof of such a preposterous hypothesis had been manipulated on the roof of WTC 5, as photographed and later falsified but the question is who did the dirty deed, but no matter then because the entire government premise/case hangs from a flimsy thread of evidence that compelled people to believe highly inexperienced/unqualified foreign terrorists surgically flew commercial aircraft into the WTC Towers. By the time I’m done with exposing these lies no-one will believe this to be the case anymore; that anyone believes this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph somehow constitutes authenticity well this flimsy government proof is about to be disemboweled!

So great is the importance of disproving this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph of aircraft wreckage (supposedly that of N612UA) that it cannot be overemphasized, because this lone photograph was entered into evidence and sworn to under oath by Mr. Corley, Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research on May 1, 2002. Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath but more importantly then people must realize they’ve been lied to. In essence then this information is the Achilles Heel that will topple the Governments case for their Islamist Terrorist hypothesis, that is, if it's acted upon by someone who has the credentials to prove the FEMA/ASCE evidence fraudulent beyond reproach.

The person this falsified photograph consistently points back on is the man who exposed it; Mr. W. Gene Corley. Throughout the nine years since September 11, 2001 he has consistently obfuscated by telling half truths of it and he refuses to answer candidly the specific questions of mine regarding this/his photograph and the BPS team manipulation/fabrication thereof. The truth of it is this photograph had been altered by FEMA/ASCE officials using Photoshop not long after 9/11 and no later than May 1, 2002. Mr. Corley admittedly manipulated the wreckage that lead to this photograph being taken on the roof of WTC 5 in late October, 2001 – an admission of tampering with evidence no less which definitely qualifies him for peer review and public censor in the least.

To this day Mr. Corley reminds everyone of his expertise yet he never quite tells the full story of how and by what means his team conjured into existence this ground zero evidence of United Airlines flight 175 while his evidence tampering served well to mislead the world into believing his authoritative version of the events upon the WTC site immediately thereafter 9/11. For all intents and purposes then he effectively perjured himself in 2002 and he continues to this day to perpetuate that lie. In his words admittedly then he broke every law in the book while investigating said wreckage of UA175 and by continuing to justify his actions his professional ethics and modus operandi is not only reprehensible but subject to criminal investigation in my opinion. Just one case in point that spotlights this arrogated man is a February 3, 2005 interview he gave with James Meigs for a Popular Mechanics article entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Special Report.

In this article it is written…Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows…“It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly...In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky." The key word here in this article is “fragments”, due to the fact corroborating evidence proves not only had there been more than one fragment of fuselage “discovered” by Corley on the rooftop of WTC 5 so to the BPS team most certainly pulled together wreckage from various points on that rooftop in order to arrange these fragments in such a way as to ensure a specific outcome for what had surely already become a corrupted investigation/crime scene.

With that said “by piecing together bits of aircraft fuselage on WTC 5 he was able to determine that after UA175 struck WTC 2 a portion of the fuselage came to rest on the roof of WTC 5, right where the team discovered it”…in the least then how incredibly implausible and presumptuous it was of him to say so then!

The fact is the brazen irregularities in Mr. W. Gene Corley’s testimony and this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph (ever to be made public) denotes anything but one aircraft “fragment” from the right side-aft fuselage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe coming to rest right where he found it. I have researched the evidence to prove this fact and with Mr. Corley’s words in mind I will show why his testimony and this fuselage wreckage is not what it appears to be, for the following reasons:

- First and notably then is the fact the fragments in this photograph were arranged by Mr. Corley to give inquiring minds the impression the image depicts absolute proof the wreckage therein is from the R/H Empennage area of (N612UA) and I know this to be the case because there are NO passenger window cut-outs Aft of the (A) in the registration marking of (N612UA) on the L/H side of the fuselage - Not on that once serviceable United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe and not on any such airframe for that matter.

- With that in mind therein Mr. Corley’s image one can see a darker blue splotch of color, most evident there on the extreme left of this fuselage fragment. Just right of the lower end of the staircase hand rail upright and just below the portion of fuselage that bears the apparent remnants of aircraft registration marking (N6….). If this image is depicting in its true likeness a genuine piece of fuselage from the R/H Aft Empennage area of that United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) then there should be a passenger window cut-out visible directly below that (N6….) that is a remnant of the registration marking however, there is no passenger window cut-out evident there due to this splotch and that is the first dead giveaway this image is fraudulent. By itself the dark blue splotch of color is proof positive someone manipulated this image using Photoshop to have two fragments appear as one assembly but it gets far more damning...these fragments (as they are depicted) do not match the R/H Aft/Empennage area of what was N612UA. The larger of the two fragments in this FEMA/ASCE photograph may well be some fragment of a destroyed Boeing 767-200ER fuselage but it is not from that rear area of fuselage on N612UA. In fact it does not correspond to any Boeing 767-200ER airframe where the Fuselage meets the Empennage.




As well and aside from this blatantly poor Photoshop color rendering one will notice when looking for it an obvious break in the edge line along the left side of the half missing/eviscerated passenger window cut-out. This break in the continuity of that line is further evidence the underlying fragment of fuselage with the partial registration marking on it is a separate piece of wreckage. As well in that area is a noticeable difference in color change, shape and contour of the two fragments of metal.

- If indeed this image authentically depicts the R/H Aft Empennage/Fuselage area of United Airlines Boeing flight 175 (N612UA) then there shouldn’t be a solid piece of fuselage skin directly below the registration marking (N6….) where the splotch is. A fact that is perfectly obvious when looking at any pre 9/11 photograph of the aircraft (N612UA). So it is a very important distinction I've made here because on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment. So before I continue explaining why that is and with his testimony in mind consider the possibility this dark blue Photoshop splotch was part of the intended ruse to mislead any unsuspecting commissioner into believing the image portrays something that never was...

- Another example of tampering in this image appears at the top of the large piece of fuselage in the vicinity of the half missing (second to last) passenger window cut-out. There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam that would normally intersect the (2) and the (U) in (N612UA) therefore this fragment of fuselage is not from the Fuselage/Empennage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe and certainly not UA175, thus the fragment should not have on it the residuals of any registration marking what so ever! Which means this white mark had been added into the photograph using Photoshop and for the sole purpose of “making all the pieces fit the puzzle” in order to convince people it is wreckage from UA175. Consequently then it is my opinion the registration marking (N6....) has also been Photoshop enhanced for reasons I won’t go into here.

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




- One last point to make about this photograph is the overall consistency in tonality of blue and the rounded/fairly pristine curvature of this larger fragment of fuselage. This bluish tone is the same throughout, both on the inside of the passenger window cut-outs (frames) as well as on the entirety of the outer surface of the fuselage skin in this image. But this should not be the case either because the general practice in aviation is (whether it be upon completion of a newly built airframe or well after the fact) to primer coat the airframe/fuselage with Zinc Chromate primer paint while the passenger window panes are removed and later on the airframe/fuselage is finish coated with its chosen color while the passenger window panes are installed although papered over to protect them from paint overspray.

Zinc Chromate Primer paint is often olive green in color. This olive green color will fade over time but it remains an obvious green regardless. In other words something is very wrong with this picture because this general bluish tonality inside the window openings is inconsistent with aircraft painting procedures in general. It stands to reason then at some point in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation not only had this photograph been Photoshop washed in a blue color tone but the shape and curvature of the fragment had also been enhanced using Photoshop to give the aircraft wreckage the feel of uniformity and consistency which intimates the fragments in the image are one piece - they are not!

As a matter of fact the entire photograph has been washed in this blue color tone which gives everything in the photographs field of vision that artificial bluish tint - compared with the lighting and color tone of a second photograph which appears more natural. That second photograph has never been attributed to Mr. Corley and it has never been entered into evidence, for obvious reasons, but due to Mr. Corley’s admission (he was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied) its authenticity and authorship needn’t be questioned then because quite clearly that image denotes the real setting the day both photographs were taken. Last but not least then, not only was the color of paint on the upper portion of the airframe on United Airlines (N612UA) grey these two fragments differ in tones of blue in this image while neither fragment appears grey at all, as with the entire field of exposure in the FEMA/ASCE photograph.

The FEMA/ASCE photograph in question can be found at the FEMA Photo Library as (ID 12390) but this link (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) will take you straight to it.

As for the second image this link (http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=190154) shows both fragments I’ve mentioned. As for anyone who knows what to look for that second image speaks volumes about the Photoshop manipulation to the FEMA/ASCE photograph in question. I will be happy to tell you why I know the smaller fragment in the second image is not from that part of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe, should you ask, but first I encourage you to consult a photographic forensics expert on what I’ve given you of the first image so that we do not get into any disagreement, because I am not here to debate what I already know to be true.

In closing I must say it astounds me no-one else has ever bothered to challenge the authenticity and/or veracity of this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph, the evidence in general and Mr. Corley’s credibility due to these unprecedented facts and his seeming transgression away from any chain of custody he so often admonishes others for not adhering to!

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.


March 29, 2011: ADDENDUM

For whatever reason a few people still have it in their minds I’m trying to prove United Airlines flight 175 did crash into WTC 2 on September 11, 2001 and similarly they seem to think I am in full agreement with Mr. W. Gene Corley’s WTC findings, that his WTC team investigators confirmed the aircraft wreckage discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 was that of the ill fated UA175. I assure you I am in complete disagreement with Mr. Corley and especially in regards to his claim he witnessed United Airlines flight 175 crashed into WTC, just as my understanding of the events of 9/11 are diametrically opposed to his UA175 investigative findings.

So that we’re clear on this let me say I’m certain the aircraft wreckage he and his team of investigators supposedly discovered and photographed on the rooftop of WTC 5 was not that of UA175. In fact I’m convinced the wreckage was arranged in a very definite manner by the investigators and once their photographic record was made of it those photographs were purposefully altered (by Adobe Photoshop CS Windows) to ensure the wreckage appeared to be from a specific zone and area of UA175. The investigators did this as part of the greater conspiracy to deceive the 9/11 Commission and the public, by leading them to believe commercial aircraft were “hijacked” and crashed at ground zero that morning. If this sounds too fantastic to believe then keep reading and too fantastic to believe then keep reading.

Mr. Corley’s WTC 5 wreckage (published in the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study) was never proven to be that of UA175 and what’s more then it’s recently been confirmed that wreckage therein his photograph shares absolutely no identifiable similarities with the right-hand aft fuselage area of any circa 2001 United Airlines 767 livery. That distinction is the crux of my UA175 research - I’ve attempted to explain why the tell-tale characteristics of that wreckage as compared to the partial aircraft registration number thereon means the investigators conspired to fabricate UA175 evidence. Meanwhile that photographic evidentiary proof serves well to expose why I know for a fact it was physically impossible for Mr. Corley to have proven this “chunk” of wreckage is that of a UA175 specifically. In essence then I consider him to be a liar.

With that said just two months ago I was granted full access to photograph the stripped passenger cabin of an Air Canada Boeing 767-300ER undergoing a major overhaul in Richmond, B.C. Canada and needless to say I took full advantage and many very telling snapshots of its exposed right-hand sidewall. Obviously then I’d focused my attention on photographing (for the record) “that specific area of fuselage” I’ve insisted all along the WTC site investigators attempted to simulate in their photographic evidence.

Since then I’ve studied the inherent differences between the fuselage therein my photographs while comparing them to that fraudulent official evidence. Clearly there are significant differences between the aircraft superstructure I photographed and the expert’s supposed UA175 wreckage. As such my photographs compliment the recent FOIA (NIST cumulus database) release of Tami Michael’s video footage (taken at ground zero on 9/11 and throughout the ordeal) and together our evidence disproves the World Trade Center Building Performance Study team findings hands down, as I have shown throughout my research. Remember, the NIST cumulus database is the entire body of evidence Mr. Corley researched in order to arrive at his conclusions and May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and therefore to dispute my evidence is to disprove his for that reason.

So let me assure you the fuselage of UA175 and the Boeing 767-300ER I’d photographed are identical in every way, shape and form except for the length while the wreckage in Mr. Corley’s photographic evidence doesn’t appear to be that either airframe. The 767-300ER has the longer fuselage of course but other than that the fabrication of either fuselage utilizes the exact same sheet metal components and assembly methods during their manufacture. So for all intent and purposes they are one and the same fuselage then, as confirmed by the Boeing 767 specialist who answered my questions while I was taking these photographs. My photographs can be found online at Flickr under the user name BlutundBoden.

While I was taking these photographs we’d spoken at length about my hypothesis and the more I explained myself he grew noticeably perturbed by my UA175 research and conclusions. Although his response was not uncommon, as I often receive admonishment from my peers within the aviation community for my research, I was not impressed he thought he knew better of it all and me. I say that because he didn’t bother to hear me out in full before deeming my research wholly irresponsible and presumptuous. In fact it was his opinion I’d simply misinterpreted the FEMA/ASCE photograph and cherry picked whatever statements made by Mr. W. Gene Corley best suited my hypothesis.

According to him I’d made a mountain out of a molehill and as such my hypothesis is groundless and my research without merit, primarily because I hadn’t analyzed the physical wreckage whereas the investigators had. Not to mention their credentials and reputations are well beyond reproach he insisted, whereas I’m just an aircraft mechanic with no Boeing 767 experience. What’s more then he argued, not once in all the years since 9/11 had a single investigator or expert witness ever raised the specter of that United Airlines flight 175 evidence being of a questionable nature and that’s why interpreting aircraft accident evidence should be left to the experts he said. With that said he argued “…the fragment of aircraft wreckage in your friend Mr. Corley’s photograph is unidentifiable I’m afraid. You say it’s from UA175 but I’ve no cause to believe you…I say that because there isn’t a single feature about the wreckage that distinguishes it from any other piece of fuselage of any medium wide-body airframe. In fact there’s no saying where it’s from because of its non-descript and featureless appearance...” It was then I reminded him I’ve never believed or argued in favor of that wreckage being from UA175 while Mr. Corley has always insisted it was.

With that misunderstanding clarified I then let this individual in on my true belief all along by stating “If that’s your professional opinion you’re aware then you’ve just established expert technical analysis that confirms the reason why I’ve always said that piece of wreckage could very well be salvage from a Boeing military aircraft that was made to look like a commercial aircraft and not be that of United Airlines flight 175 debris at all!” and with that said he’d suddenly clued in as to the logic of my case and where I’d been leading him with our conversation all along. As such he promptly back-peddled to defend his analysis of the wreckage by arguing it had to be from UA175, if for no other reason then simply because the aircraft is unaccounted for to this very day!

Knowing very well there is no way anyone can reconcile the contradictory partial registration number therein Mr. Corley’s photographic evidence I drew his attention to it and asked him to opine how it is Mr. W. Gene Corley overlooked that most important, clearly discernable and invaluable UA175 clue to identifying UA175. Realizing even Mr. Corley hadn’t been so stupid as to hazard answering me on that one he simply argued the smudge of white I claim is a partial registration number therein the photograph doesn’t appear to be anything of the sort. It was indiscernible and therefore inconclusive as far as he was concerned and that’s where he ended our conversation, by brushing me off and dismissing himself.

So the point to make with my mentioning that exchange is even a Boeing 767 Structural Technician believes the WTC BPS team UA175 evidence is highly irregular and contestable evidence and in light of his expert determination for that wreckage I encourage everyone who reads this addendum to email Mr. Corley (at GCorley@CTLGroup.cm) to ask him why he has never made mention of the existence of that registration number thereon the physical aircraft wreckage he must have seen with his own two eyes some time between October 7-12, 2001. I believe Mr. Corley never acknowledges the registration number in his photograph because he’s fully cognizant of the fact it never existed on the chunk of wreckage in the first place and what’s more then he’s not stupid enough to incriminate himself or others by now insisting it did exist just as the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence shows. He doesn’t respond to my emails on the matter because he knows well enough to remian silent on the matter, as that affords him a plausible deniability defense should we ever see his pathetic hide in court to answer for this lie.

I had my doubts the aircraft registration number existed on the physical wreckage the first time I read through the apologist Mr. James Meig’s article Debunking The 9/11 Myths: Special Report, wherein he wrote “Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had windows. “It’s…from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2…Corley states flatly…” The article goes on to say “In reviewing crash footage…Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied…as they tore through the South Tower…” What the article doesn’t say is Mr. Corley set about confirming his theory and the chain of custody to that wreckage by actually investigating its origin and not simply relying on everyone’s ignorant assumptions.
Needless to say then since reading that statement I’ve questioned how anyone could possibly believe Mr. Corley’s vehement insistence the chunks of debris he tracked via videotape, that fell directly onto the rooftop of WTC 5 from WTC 2 according to him, constitute proof of UA175 while he’s never made mention of that partial aircraft registration number thereon that same wreckage. Especially if one considers the impeccable chain of custody that one invaluable clue would have represented for his entire UA175 case. It doesn’t make sense - what other explanation is there for Mr. Corley neglecting to mention such a Godsend of a clue that would surely have put an end to this debate years ago.

Aside from that fact Mr. Corley’s previously mentioned testimony is quite telling in and of itself, not only because the definition of “debris” and “including” describes more than one of something but due to the fact he felt it necessary to soundly declare “It’s…from the United Airlines plane…” on the heels of “including a chunk with windows in it” as though people needed to be told and convinced of it. So when it’s proven the wreckage in his photograph is comprised of more than one “chunk” and none with registration number markings on them I’ll be sure to bring it to the attention of Mr. Corley and the aforementioned Boeing specialist who said of my photo analysis “…a qualified photographic forensics analyst has never reviewed the evidence or substantiated your claim and for that reason alone I don’t share your opinion there’s more than one piece of fuselage sheet metal visible in the photograph…”

By his opinion then it’s not just me who’s unqualified to investigate aircraft accidents - Mr. Corley is a tall building expert, of which not a single FBI or NSTB aircraft accident investigator in the past nine years has gone on the record to corroborate the existence or authenticity of Mr. Corley’s WTC site findings and supposed UA175 evidence vis-à-vis any chain of custody leading back to the moment of demise for the aircraft that struck WTC 2 on 9/11. In fact not a one of them has ever made mention of this photograph since 9/11 and despite the fact it’s the only official and continually reproduced piece of evidentiary proof of said UA175 wreckage to ever to have been published and/or made public by the authorities. Yet this Boeing 767 specialist remains convinced as they’ve all attested…”I know what I saw crash into the towers that morning and they were large commercial aircraft…it had to have been United Airlines flight 175 I tell you…only the conspiracy nuts believe it wasn’t passenger planes that hit the buildings. That’s what the experts would have us believe while each photograph of mine says a thousand words to the contrary as you will see.

The fact is Mr. Corley did not discover that wreckage first and neither did he identify it as belonging to UA175 by having compared it to a serviceable Boeing 767 fuselage. What he did was to watch some video footage and proclaim his opinion to be fact as Mr. Meig’s article makes that quite clear! Indeed Mr. Corley had proven nothing of United Airlines flight 175 having plowed into WTC 2 because it wasn’t his mandate to do so! Mr. Corley’s function as that of FEMA/ASCE team leader for the WTC site investigation had been “public relations mercenary”. Which meant as the UA175 cover-story took root and grew into the crystallized public opinion it is today it was his job to help snuff the truth, as to which (aircraft) murder weapons were used at ground zero, by helping to bury that evidence six feet under and smooth over the ground swell of WTC eyewitness reports and public disenfranchisement with the overall ground zero investigation. It was never his intention to get at the truth of which aircraft crashed into WTC 2 nor did he intend to prove what mechanism brought the towers down just as it wasn’t his job in 1995 to uncover evidentiary proof that would have informed the public of the truth, as to how and why the Murrah Federal Buildingin Oklahoma had also been blown up from the inside out. To both ends this FEMA poster child of disinformation did his job(s) well and one doesn’t have to look too far and deep to find similarities between 1995 and 2001 in all of Mr. Corley’s FEMA “terrorism” investigative dealings. That too will come to light one day but regardless of whether it was the FBI, NTSB or FEMA/ASCE investigators who falsified that registration number there are many other telling yet unexplained irregularities visible in and around the wreckage itself that speak of the lies Mr. Corley has told.

For instance the spray painted acronym “NTSB” on the wreckage…by the way it’s that acronym which convinced me the second image posted online as (Copyofplanepartrf20-full) is genuinely the product of Mr. Corley’s making because it appears unchanged in both images. Therefore the second image is useful in showing the wreckage in a different light and as it existed on the rooftop of WTC5 at some point prior to it being rendered infamous by Adobe Photoshop.
Although the second image had been altered by Photoshop it is invaluable because it discredits the make-up of the officially released photograph. While comparing both images the “NTSB” acronym appears identical and yet one can clearly see the rust red colored piece of sheet metal/cladding (underneath the smaller fragment of fuselage with the registration number on it) appears to be two different lengths. Notice in the official photograph it’s quite long and take note of the fluted pipe that’s sticking up and out from under that rust red sheet metal/cladding there. That length of fluted pipe is propping-up the cladding itself which in turn is propping-up the smaller fragment of fuselage by at least a foot off the roof in the official photograph. Now look at second image whereby the length of the rust red sheet metal/cladding is mostly edited out of the photograph and the smaller fragment of fuselage appears to be suspended in mid air, while the fluted pipe is nowhere to be seen…suspicious?

The most disconcerting anomaly therein the official evidence isn’t even possible according to the Empirical laws of physics - that happens to be the dead straight edge of the aircraft outer skin next to the “N” and left of the first window (from the left) on the smaller section of sheet metal therein the second image. The odds of that skin tearing in a straight line as it is shown is without precedent and virtually impossible for several reasons. The first reason being the thin aluminum sheet metal of any aircraft outer skin never tears in a perfectly straight line when it’s subjected to extreme tensile or compressive loading, especially when that tear runs perpendicular to and over the intact substructure (stringer) it’s bonded to. That tear in the metal might have been possible had the outer skin been sheared parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stringer (seen above the window) or along the heavy chemically bonded doubler-plate and much like a sheet of paper is torn using the edge of a ruler to cut it. Take note of the accompanying tell-tale rows of rivet holes that run perfectly parallel to this tear. Even if it were only one row of rivet holes together these two clues amount to being a production edge or butt joint seam and not a tear per se.

Not a problem, except for the fact there’s no such production edge, joint or seam in that area of the circa 2001 United Airlines 767 livery. In fact no two fuselage skins are vertically conjoined anywhere near that area on any Boeing 767 and the fact three perfectly straight edges appear to have been torn into the wreckage is mathematically impossible and extremely suspicious because.Aside from those facts alone there are also valid reasons to doubt the cover-up story told by Mr. W. Gene Corley and the other investigators over the years. For instance it’s a well known fact he takes credit for himself and his WTC site team members having discovered that wreckage on October 25, 2001 and yet by his account he and the others were only on the WTC site between the dates of October 7-12, 2001. It’s also a well known fact the FBI and the NTSB were on site looking for aircraft parts the morning of 9/11 while the countless SEAoNY search and rescue volunteers and later the NYFD firefighter recovery teams were on site at ground zero immediately following the attacks as well. Together they swept the WTC site clean looking for aircraft parts and survivors and later for bodies then in the days and weeks following the attacks of 9/11.

It’s a well known fact the NTSB identified the fuselage wreckage on the rooftop of WTC 5 in those early days because they marked it with the acronym “NTSB” in yellow spray paint and no later than (9/19/01). I say that because the exterior walls of the WTC 5 penthouse maintenance room were spray painted in red with the words “AIRCRAFT PARTS” no later than September 19, 2001 and according to one photograph therein the NIST cumulus database. So why didn’t they retrieve this identifiable wreckage with the “N6….” on it then like every other bit of wreckage they sequestered? Why had the FBI and NTSB elected to leave it there on the rooftop of WTC 5 for the better part of a month and a half while they located, identified and destroyed every last scrap of aircraft wreckage in Lower Manhattan that was identifiable as being from UA175? I believe they left it there because it was unidentifiable (as in non-serialized and no registration number thereon) and useful to the cover story. By that I mean the FBI and NTSB knew within days they would be asked to bow out of the WTC site aircraft accident investigation and leave it to FEMA so they salted the WTC site with evidence to their liking.

That’s why the FBI and NTSB left the wreckage for Mr. Corley to find, but don’t just take my word for it when Carol Carmody (Vice-Chair of National Transportation Safety Board) is quoted as saying on February 27, 2002 in her presentation at the Leadership in Times of Crisis Seminar “On the morning of September 11, 2001…the FBI Director Mueller…called and said could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts. We dispatched teams immediately to…New York…Our investigators stayed in New York for several months working both at Ground Zero and at the Freshkill site where large amounts of debris were taken to be sorted.”

What’s more then, it’s a well known fact the FBI and the NTSB always work hand in hand in such matters, just as they did from the onset of the 9/11 attacks to secure the WTC site. Carol Carmody made that point quite clear earlier in that same February 27, 2002 presentation when she said “The NTSB was created by Congress to investigate accidents…We have this authority across all modes of transportation, although aviation gets the most attention. We are the lead agency in aviation accidents unless there is credible evidence of criminal activity. In that case, the Attorney General and the Chairman must confer and the FBI would take the lead.”

Carol Carmody’s February 27, 2002 testimony preceded that of her bosses, Marion C. Blakey (Chairman National Transportation Safety Board) who testified (for the record) before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate on June 25, 2002…”As you know, the NTSB investigates every accident involving civil aircraft, accidents involving military and civil aircraft and aircraft accidents involving public aircraft other than aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or by the United States intelligence agencies…In the aftermath of September 11, 2001…for many weeks the Board assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York…and in Washington D.C., assisting with aircraft parts identification…”

Lastly then Mr. Corley testified on March 6, 2002…The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI/ASCE) began assembling two teams of experts on the afternoon of September 11, 2001 and by October 1, 2001 the WTC study became a joint effort between ASCE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So there you have it - confirmation the NTSB stepped aside to make way for the authority of the FBI to lead the WTC site investigation immediately following the attacks of 9/11 and ultimately they both stepped aside for FEMA.

That being the case the previous paragraphs explain why this wreckage (discovered on or before 9/19/01) has the acronym “NTSB” emblazoned on it. All of which is further evidence that only the FBI and NTSB could have identified that wreckage first and they know of its original state but aren’t telling. So to recap; the FBI and the NTSB employees identified this aircraft fuselage wreckage on the rooftop of WTC 5 in mere days following the attacks but no later than 9/19/01 and yet they never mentioned it was there nor did they remove it. Instead they elected to leave it there on the rooftop for Mr. Corley to rediscover and identify more than a month later, in order for him to take credit for finding it and even though the “NTSB” acronym proves otherwise?

“Why would they have done that?” is the question people should be asking and demanding answers to, especially when it’s common knowledge certain FBI officials had all of Lower Manhattan stripped bare of everything resembling an identifiable bit of aircraft, only then to send that wreckage to the Fresh Kills Landfill site on Staten Island where in the following weeks it had been “recycled” without giving any consideration to normal investigative standards and procedure. Let’s call it for what it is…They destroyed all the crucial evidence and what they left behind was no better than garbage – it was totally useless as evidence and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of any self-respecting investigator. They did it because they were forced to, that’s why!

Ask yourself who carried out that specific operation and who might have complained loud enough about it thus compelling even Mr. Corley to admit “…there has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling.”? Probably some pissed off, patriotic FBI and NTSB officials or enlightened civil servants I’d say and when you know their names you know at least one potential whistleblower that can hang their asses out to dry.

When the Boeing specialist asked me why the FEMA/ASCE investigators would falsify their evidence I reminded him of M. Corley’s statement in the previous paragraph “…because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling.” which really means “the WTC site was knowingly stripped clean of every single identifiable aircraft component that would have proved something other than commercial aircraft slammed into WTC 1 and WTC 2” and it was the job of the FEMA/ASCE investigators to convince the public to go along with the commercial aircraft cover-up story by any means necessary. In other words they made a molehill out of a mountain of incriminating evidence…oh the irony.

Ask yourself why Mr. Corley had been placed in charge of the entire WTC site investigation when the FBI and the NTSB clearly had jurisdiction for the UA175 investigation on the WTC site and why had demonstrably unqualified tall building experts been parachuted in by FEMA to head an aircraft accident/crime scene investigation in the first place? Consider the fact it was Mr. W. Gene Corley (the tall building expert) who praised himself and his team members for having “evaluated, discovered and identified” that aircraft wreckage while the FBI and the NTSB have never acknowledged his contribution in the least. In spite of that self-praise consider the fact all Mr. Corley managed to come up with (after millions of dollars spent and many thousands of man-hours squandered investigating a lie) was a single photograph showing unidentifiable fragments of fuselage wreckage of a questionable origin and a highly suspect chain of custody…that’s quite the accomplishment alright. Yes, something is very wrong with the big picture and the entire WTC investigation is utterly absurd!

With all that said and done there’s no denying people remain divided on whether the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence depicts actual UA175 wreckage. Either you believe the dark blue splotch of color, the apparent registration number and all the other anomalies therein are insignificant trivialities or you accept every one of those aberrations were very deliberate attempts to convince people the wreckage is genuinely that of UA175. I believe it was all done because the investigators needed to prove their United Airlines flight 175 cover story and so they created wreckage on which to place the aircraft registration number N612UA.
If you agree with me the “white smudge” therein the evidence represents a number then we can agree the “N” appears atop the row of windows and to the extreme left of them. Because there are no windows to the left of the ”N” and there are more than three windows to the right of it that means the investigators intended this wreckage to simulate the right side of the circa 2001 UA175 livery. It cannot be that of the left hand side registration number of the circa 2001 UA175 livery because there are (only) three windows below the “N” and to the right of it. Any online photograph of UA175 makes that point perfectly obvious and as such I strongly recommend people refer to my photographs at Flickr, in order to fully comprehend the truth of the matter. Only after one suspends their reasoning and ignores all the irregularities therein the official photograph, as well the admissions and testimony I’ve noted so far, is it resonable to consider a fragment of fuselage might have ended up in this way by chance.

If I’m wrong about my suspicions of Photoshop manipulation and the Boeing specialist is right then one must conclude it had to have been an astoundingly fortuitous bit of luck this lone chunk of fuselage exited WTC 2 virtually unscathed, intact and further spared being torn asunder by the devastatingly powerful force generated by the collapse of both Towers pummeling down onto it. What are the odds of that I wonder.
All things considered if the dark blue splotch and/or the contentious registration number is removed from the photograph what you’re left with is Mr. Corley’s expert opinion and a piece (or pieces) of unrecognizable aircraft sheet metal that proves nothing of UA175 ever having been flown into WTC 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 5 2011, 07:33 AM
Post #64





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 18 2011, 03:46 AM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator - South Tower -How the image was altered to disguise the aircraft.

Regards

Robert


Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23INVESTIGATOR- fraudulent video --CNN Exclusive-- south tower aircrafrt.

The video demonstrates that change made to a frame of the video to hide the aircraft that was in the original video footage, has caused the substituted aircraft to have some very strange features.
(1) The left wing was made longer than that of a KC10 Extender which was already longer than that of a Boeing 767 200.
(2) The sweep of the left wing was left the same as that of a KC10 Extender, the right wing was changed in a ridiculous manner, to avoid revealing the sweep and profile of the right wing.
(3) The changes made at the rear of the aircraft to hide the third engine of the KC10 Extender resulted in a vertical stabiliser, which is not vertical, (ie) leaning to the left.
(4) The changes to the fuselage resulted in the 'effect' that the aircraft does not align with the aircraft in the frame of video where the impact with the building shows, with it also giving the appearance --along with the other out of context changes-- that the aircraft is turning to the left.

Whoever it was who arranged for the changes to be made to the frame of video, should go and ask for "their money back", but of course this whole situation is much much more serious than that.

Regards
Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 5 2011, 08:15 AM
Post #65





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 5 2011, 09:03 PM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23INVESTIGATOR- fraudulent video --CNN Exclusive-- south tower aircrafrt.

The video demonstrates that change made to a frame of the video to hide the aircraft that was in the original video footage, has caused the substituted aircraft to have some very strange features.
(1) The left wing was made longer than that of a KC10 Extender which was already longer than that of a Boeing 767 200.
(2) The sweep of the left wing was left the same as that of a KC10 Extender, the right wing was changed in a ridiculous manner, to avoid revealing the sweep and profile of the right wing.
(3) The changes made at the rear of the aircraft to hide the third engine of the KC10 Extender resulted in a vertical stabiliser, which is not vertical, (ie) leaning to the left.
(4) The changes to the fuselage resulted in the 'effect' that the aircraft does not align with the aircraft in the frame of video where the impact with the building shows, with it also giving the appearance --along with the other out of context changes-- that the aircraft is turning to the left.

Whoever it was who arranged for the changes to be made to the frame of video, should go and ask for "their money back", but of course this whole situation is much much more serious than that.

Regards
Robert



ps --The video that shows the CNN footage is on Youtube, 2nd Plane WTC --Smileycoyote.
There have been 2,200,122 people view this video on Youtube.
Who knows you may be person 2,200,123, there could be worse things happen to you, my friend.
If you are looking at it, at about 0:06 pause, and you will see something interesting on the right side of the fuselage, below the rear edge of the wing.
If you take your time about it, you can see the progression of some sort of activity at this point, which ultimately becomes quite a large balloon of white --something-- just before the aircraft hits the building.
The --something-- I am talking about is at the side of the aircraft, not what goes on at the face of the building.
The first bit of --something-- is quite small, appearing to come out of the rear of a tube attached to the fuselage of the aircraft.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 5 2011, 08:18 AM
Post #66





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 5 2011, 09:03 PM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23INVESTIGATOR- fraudulent video --CNN Exclusive-- south tower aircraft.

The video demonstrates that change made to a frame of the video to hide the aircraft that was in the original video footage, has caused the substituted aircraft to have some very strange features.
(1) The left wing was made longer than that of a KC10 Extender which was already longer than that of a Boeing 767 200.
(2) The sweep of the left wing was left the same as that of a KC10 Extender, the right wing was changed in a ridiculous manner, to avoid revealing the sweep and profile of the right wing.
(3) The changes made at the rear of the aircraft to hide the third engine of the KC10 Extender resulted in a vertical stabiliser, which is not vertical, (ie) leaning to the left.
(4) The changes to the fuselage resulted in the 'effect' that the aircraft does not align with the aircraft in the frame of video where the impact with the building shows, with it also giving the appearance --along with the other out of context changes-- that the aircraft is turning to the left.

Whoever it was who arranged for the changes to be made to the frame of video, should go and ask for "their money back", but of course this whole situation is much much more serious than that.

Regards
Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 5 2011, 08:25 AM
Post #67





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 5 2011, 09:45 PM) *
ps --The video that shows the CNN footage is on Youtube, 2nd Plane WTC --Smileycoyote.
There have been 2,200,122 people view this video on Youtube.
Who knows you may be person 2,200,123, there could be worse things happen to you, my friend.
If you are looking at it, at about 0:06 pause, and you will see something interesting on the right side of the fuselage, below the rear edge of the wing.
If you take your time about it, you can see the progression of some sort of activity at this point, which ultimately becomes quite a large balloon of white --something-- just before the aircraft hits the building.
The --something-- I am talking about is at the side of the aircraft, not what goes on at the face of the building.
The first bit of --something-- is quite small, appearing to come out of the rear of a tube attached to the fuselage of the aircraft.

Robert


fixed a typo --sorry gang-- not trying to 'hog' the space.--lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Apr 5 2011, 03:28 PM
Post #68





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



I'm certainly no expert in aircraft configuration but you raise some very interesting questions in your videos.

Thanks Robert.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Apr 6 2011, 07:00 PM
Post #69





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



Robert - the four talking points you've raised with Barry are flat out wrong, due to the simple explanation being camera optics pure and simple. Review the CNN footage again Robert and this time pay attention the entire image, not just what you wish to see. Notice how the sides of the building (in relation to the roof-line) seems to shift and warp in relation to each other - in other words Robert notice how the 90 degree angle (between the roof-line and the vertical lines of the buildings walls changes). As for the aircraft not approaching WTC 2 in a direct line Robert you failed to consider the steep sink rate and severe turn and bank angle of attack (in the dying seconds of the attack) as seen in many other video clips. I really wish you would cease and desist with comparing apples to oranges here Robert and if you're not going to stick to the topic then would please at least get the physics and facts right before posting here because I'm growing impatient with your rampant speculation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 10 2011, 11:31 AM
Post #70





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 6 2011, 04:58 AM) *
I'm certainly no expert in aircraft configuration but you raise some very interesting questions in your videos.

Thanks Robert.


Dear Barry.

I note you have looked at the latest video I have placed on Youtube, 23investigator -Alleged Fraud -Scott Myers -video frames.
Thank you for your kind comment.
With the effect I appear to be generating by -Questionitall-, it would seem, that it would be more favourable to this --site-- Pilots For Truth-- that I refrain from putting any more comment or advice on here of the future videos in the 'pipeline'.
Such outbursts are not healthy, or helpful, to anyone.

The Part2 -- of the above mentioned video will be placed on Youtube, soon, with the intention of demonstrating features fitted to the aircraft which flew into the Second Tower.
Such features designed to enable it to penetrate the outer structure of the building.

Regards
Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Apr 12 2011, 02:35 AM
Post #71





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 8 2011, 02:31 PM) *
With the effect I appear to be generating by -Questionitall-, it would seem, that it would be more favourable to this --site-- Pilots For Truth-- that I refrain from putting any more comment or advice on here of the future videos in the 'pipeline'.


For sure we were straying off topic. How about starting your own thread for these findings?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Apr 12 2011, 10:41 PM
Post #72





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



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 12 2011, 02:35 AM) *
For sure we were straying off topic. How about starting your own thread for these findings?


Hello Barry - I like your suggestion and strongly encourage Robert to start his own thread. That way the viewers are free to choose their poison and they won't have to tolerate me being so nasty to him. I'm posting this reply to his last response and in a way it pertains to you as well because you've taken an interest in his work. I strongly encourage you to read my reply because you will get a better understanding of why I take such exception to his research.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Robert, rather than complain to Barry about my opinion of your 9/11 acumen and how “Such outbursts are not healthy or helpful to anyone” how about you park the pity me remarks and tell us all in words rather than video form what it is you believe transpired at ground zero that morning. I for one am curious to know exactly what you believe because your videos make no sense what so ever and to my knowledge you’ve never put those thoughts in writing.

We should all seriously consider what you think on the matter because your December 18, 2010 video shows you believe a Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle smashed into WTC 1 while as of late you’ve resorted to subliminal suggestion (by way of superimposing a DC10-30 over existing evidence) to convince people a KC 10 aerial refuel tanker transport aircraft smashed into WTC 2 and yet you’ve never presented or produced a lick of unaltered evidence to prove any of your scenarios. While I believe you are correct for believing commercial aircraft never smashed into either tower I have never suggested to people they believe false evidence I conjured into existence in order to base my conclusion on as you have done.

You know perfectly well, because I’ve made it quite clear to the readership, I expect people to back-up their theories with facts and hard evidence but you’ve done neither. In fact each time I requested of you evidence that could substantiate your claims you ostensibly ignored me by carrying on with disseminating your outrageous notions in one reincarnated form after another and by way of more meandering and nonsensical videos. Your video evidence is the epitome of exaggeration pure and simple and that’s the problem I have with you posting here Robert and despite what I’ve explained of your mistaken conclusions you haven’t shown the good sense to bow out gracefully.

So allow me to state for the record if you will and in no uncertain terms Robert why I consider the videos you’ve been filling people’s heads with and the “advice” you are giving them to be nothing more than speculative drivel at best and therefore it’s nothing more than terribly misleading disinformation which you afford them. For that reason and throughout my posts I’ve made it abundantly clear to the readership what I think of speculative predators who pose as prophets and preach their dogma to the unwitting.

In my opinion your videos are no different than the work of a propagandist and as for your ego getting bruised by my questioning your entire theory and methodology Robert it’s inconsequential to me how you feel or what you think of my tactics so long as the truth prevails. What’s more Robert the issue itself is not about either one of us - have you forgotten we are seeking the answer as to who had a hand in murdering more than three thousand lives that day - remember?
The truth is Robert I take immense exception to your platitudes and feigned piety for honest reporting while your many deceptive 9/11 videos betrays common sense and the memory of all those who died on 9/11. Quite frankly it’s obvious to anyone who has their wits about them the bulk of what you’ve stated therein your videos is patently false and that is why I’m openly criticizing your 9/11 hypothesis – plain and simple, so man up to your word and commitment to your work Robert or exit the forum and debate altogether.

Besides, if your theories are sound and credible as you proclaim them to be and if indeed people prefer to believe your word over mine then it’s all good and you shouldn’t feel threatened by my challenge at all now should you Robert. I say “theories” because in retrospect I’ve come to realize you’ve had more than one opinion on the matter of what happened at ground zero that morning and I’m interested to hear what you truly have to write about it. It’s my professional opinion you’ve concocted your case in its entirety from having relied exclusively on whatever altered video footage and grainy photographs happen to compliment your myopic perspective de jour, so with that said allow me to remind you and the readership of the numerous errors in reasoning and the patently false assertions you continue to put forward in your videos.

I’ve had considerable misgivings about your work all along and I never paid much mind to your storied “UAV” and “Ghost” airplane ramblings, until you openly complained to Barry about my criticism of your methodology. That complaint puts me in a poor light so I have no choice but to defend my opinions now. For that reason I've reviewed each of your videos, in chronological order and having considered in great detail what you've been telling people all along I'm truly apalled. realize now you’ve gone from extolling the “no plane” theory in December of last year to telling people now that an aircraft did crash into at least one of the towers however your rational for it is completely absurd. ln fact it appears to me you haven't a clue or clear understanding as to what in the hell you believe Robert - In fact it seems to me you simply make shit up as you go along while leaping from one conclusion to another, which tells me you are either a complete and utter “Nutter” or an agent provocateur troll deliberately spreading lies.

Let me explain to you Robert why superimposing images over top of other images does not constitute proof of anything and for no other reason than the fact you’ve consistently shrunk and expanded the size of whatever aircraft you’ve overlaid upon the true evidence in order for it to suit your argument de jour.

I say that because on December 18, 2010 you posted on YouTube a primitively produced video clip that shows a single frame (of a previously enlarged segment of the Naudet video footage) and you proceeded to inform people here of your lame hypothesis, that a Global Hawk UAV struck WTC 1. You claim the mess of smudgy marks therein your video that was “supposed to be a Boeing 767” was not and yet I ask you Robert. Had it never occurred to you that blowing-up the frame of already grainy video footage (and so large as to render it obscure) would in fact cause the blurry, smudgy mess you’ve pointed out in the first place? The truth of the matter is that evidence of yours amounts to a very poor quality still photograph and Adobe Photoshop manipulation had nothing to do with it. Despite that fact on December 21, 2010 you chose to release a second YouTube video entitled “Showing What A Boeing 767 Would Look Like” and I must say that effort raises the question of why anyone considers what you have to say as being relevant in the first place Robert.

In that second video you matter-of-factly argue “someone” falsified the Naudet video footage as “the smudging was applied to hide the Global Hawk” and the superimposed smudge you say only resembles a Boeing 767 aircraft as such, in spite of the fact the consensus remains an American Airlines Boeing 757 struck WTC 1 and not a 767! With that supposition you dare proclaim “This Is A Global Hawk...This Is What Hit The North Tower!” without having produced a single shred of evidence to prove your claim, but what are facts if they can’t be skewed eh Robert?

If your previously published absurdities weren’t enough on February 19, 2011 you released the truly insulting “9/11 South Tower – More – damning – Fraudulent - actions” wherein you cannibalized my research and undermined my conclusions by misquoting every point I’ve made of the official United Airlines flight 175 evidence. I’ve never once stated my conclusions had in fact been confirmed. In no way what so ever do I agree with what you claim in that video and I sure as hell don’t subscribe to your point of view put across in your next video “What hit WTC Building” which you released two days later, on February 21, 2011 and wherein you suggest a military KC-10 Extender Air-to-Air Tanker was flown and crashed into WTC 2.

Although I do believe it’s quite likely a project Northwood type scenario and incident took place at ground zero on 9/11 I have never suggested I know for certain what did crash into WTC 2 and I’ve certainly never said the likeness of a Boeing 767-200 was superimposed over top of any such aircraft in any of the video evidence. Any suggestion of such a thing having occurred is ludicrous to say the least and I find your conclusions preposterous Robert. In your fourth video you’ve made a minimum of three gross errors in judgment and the most blatant of them has been to repeatedly and selectively align certain features of the two images by shifting the image of the KC-10 forwards and backwards on top of the underlying aircraft in order for the results to correspond to your argument.

With that in mind at the 54 second mark of that video you’ve stated “Note disguise of third engine” thus arguing the third engine is hidden in the shadow however (while taking into account the fact you made the KC-10 image whatever size you needed to fit suit your hypothesis) you neglected to align the leading edge of the engine intake in this particular segment of your video. Had you done so the engine on the top of your KC-10 fuselage would not be hidden in the shadow at all and furthermore Robert you’ve stated “Note position of windows at reflection in video” but the problem with that statement is that glint is not from windows, because there aren’t any windows in that area of the fuselage of any KC-10. In fact there aren’t any fuselage windows in a KC-10. Like you quoted the man Robert “As the very honest man said...it had no windows” so your conclusion the aircraft that struck WTC 2 was a KC-10 is flat out wrong and the truth of it is your methodology is laughable.

On March 4, 2011 you released your video “Fraud WTC Tower Two” in which you admit matter-of-factly to having incorporated a photograph which is known to have been altered by Adobe Photoshop (according to you that is) and you superimposed it over top of what you accuse of being a Photoshop altered image of a Boeing 767 and you don’t see a problem with your own logic and evidentiary proof Robert? Let me say it again - in this video you state “...the image has clearly been subjected to Photoshop...” and “Photoshop work has destroyed features of the bottom of the aircraft” and still you knowingly utilized that seriously compromised photograph in order to discredit what you claim is a seriously compromised photograph? With that in mind you say the images are aligned and at the 3:29 mark of the video you state the protrusions under the wing do not belong and I adamantly disagree with you on that point especially Robert. What you say are anomalies happen to be flap track fairings or “canoes” and they definitely belong. As for the wings not aligning did it not occur to you Robert that the wings of the aircraft that flew into WTC 2 were severely deflected upwards due to the flight conditions in the moments before impact? Really Robert, with evidence like that you expect us to believe any of your incredibly inept forensic photo-analysis and as for your next two videos I won’t even get into discussing them because the subject you broached therein is far too bizarre for me to give any serious consideration to.

On March 17, 2011 you released “South Tower – How the image was altered to disguise the aircraft” wherein you suggest (at the 26 second mark) somebody had interfered with the integrity of the original frame of video, which you chose to utilize in this video anyway. Has it never occurred to you Robert that you’ve incorporated nothing but sketchy forensic evidence throughout your research, or even the fact the (frame) of video you claim was tampered with had been enlarged to such a degree as to render it featureless and therefore useless for the purpose you undertook in the making of this video? Probably not and none the less you forged ahead anyways by again superimposing the KC10 over top of the very grainy Boeing 767 image and all in order to justify why it had to be a KC 10 underneath some imagined Photoshop alteration made to the original image. Good God man, nothing about either image is worthy of mention let alone their usefulness for having been superimposed over top one another! To comment further on this video would be a colossal waste of my time.

On April 5, 2011 you released the video “CNN Exclusive – South Tower Aircraft” to which I commented on and you astutely recognized it would be for the betterment of all that you don’t put any more comments or advice on here Robert, but it’s an open forum and you have every right to contribute. I’m simply saying I believe you haven’t the slightest ability to reason this issue and having said that allow me to explain at length what I didn’t say to you when I commented on this video last week. Of all your videos this one in particular offends my sensibilities the most because it shows your complete lack of understanding, even for the most rudimentary of physics, because you’ve completely ignored the phenomenon or optical illusion known as parallax that is associated with camera optics, which is why everything in the video you put on YouTube appears distorted.

Due to that ignorance at the 1:26 mark of the video you made it quite apparent your entire hypothesis and all of your videos are complete nonsense, when you stated “The aircraft in the video appears to be turning left...” and by your reasoning then the orientation of the fuselage of that “masking aircraft” means it would not have struck WTC 2 where the building was gored. To emphasize that point at the 1:36 mark of this video you drew a dotted line that ends at the left side of the building, thus concluding the Adobe Photoshop aircraft you say “somebody” falsified over top of a KC-10 would have flown beyond WTC 2 and parallel with the buildings West face while the “real aircraft” you argue would have struck WTC 2 exactly where it had been crashed into. Everything else you argued in the video beyond this point isn’t worth mentioning as I’m sure you get my point.

Lastly then you stated in your April 8, 2011 video “The image is far from normal and seeming to be a composite” but again you have failed to take into account the distortion caused by the location of the camera lens versus elevation and camera angle to the subject matter. WTC 2 was many city blocks away from Scott Myers location on the morning of 9/11 and the camera was many hundreds of feet below and well ahead of the lateral axis of the aircraft you say he never captured in his video. Where was the camera in relation to the aircraft you’ve superimposed over top of the Boeing 767 in this video Robert? Judging by the curvature of tell-tale signs on the engine cowls of your DC10-30, which you introduced into your video at the 1:56 mark, I’d have to say the camera was positioned a few hundred feet in front of the nose of the aircraft and approximately 400 hundred feet to the right of it. But then I’d be guessing just like you had throughout this video, so it’s no wonder the aircraft appears distorted in the image Robert and is it any wonder why I believe your entire line of reasoning and your 9/11 findings are as well?

Respectfully
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 13 2011, 05:11 AM
Post #73





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (questionitall @ Apr 13 2011, 12:11 PM) *
Hello Barry - I like your suggestion and strongly encourage Robert to start his own thread. That way the viewers are free to choose their poison and they won't have to tolerate me being so nasty to him. I'm posting this reply to his last response and in a way it pertains to you as well because you've taken an interest in his work. I strongly encourage you to read my reply because you will get a better understanding of why I take such exception to his research.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Robert, rather than complain to Barry about my opinion of your 9/11 acumen and how “Such outbursts are not healthy or helpful to anyone” how about you park the pity me remarks and tell us all in words rather than video form what it is you believe transpired at ground zero that morning. I for one am curious to know exactly what you believe because your videos make no sense what so ever and to my knowledge you’ve never put those thoughts in writing.

We should all seriously consider what you think on the matter because your December 18, 2010 video shows you believe a Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle smashed into WTC 1 while as of late you’ve resorted to subliminal suggestion (by way of superimposing a DC10-30 over existing evidence) to convince people a KC 10 aerial refuel tanker transport aircraft smashed into WTC 2 and yet you’ve never presented or produced a lick of unaltered evidence to prove any of your scenarios. While I believe you are correct for believing commercial aircraft never smashed into either tower I have never suggested to people they believe false evidence I conjured into existence in order to base my conclusion on as you have done.

You know perfectly well, because I’ve made it quite clear to the readership, I expect people to back-up their theories with facts and hard evidence but you’ve done neither. In fact each time I requested of you evidence that could substantiate your claims you ostensibly ignored me by carrying on with disseminating your outrageous notions in one reincarnated form after another and by way of more meandering and nonsensical videos. Your video evidence is the epitome of exaggeration pure and simple and that’s the problem I have with you posting here Robert and despite what I’ve explained of your mistaken conclusions you haven’t shown the good sense to bow out gracefully.

So allow me to state for the record if you will and in no uncertain terms Robert why I consider the videos you’ve been filling people’s heads with and the “advice” you are giving them to be nothing more than speculative drivel at best and therefore it’s nothing more than terribly misleading disinformation which you afford them. For that reason and throughout my posts I’ve made it abundantly clear to the readership what I think of speculative predators who pose as prophets and preach their dogma to the unwitting.

In my opinion your videos are no different than the work of a propagandist and as for your ego getting bruised by my questioning your entire theory and methodology Robert it’s inconsequential to me how you feel or what you think of my tactics so long as the truth prevails. What’s more Robert the issue itself is not about either one of us - have you forgotten we are seeking the answer as to who had a hand in murdering more than three thousand lives that day - remember?
The truth is Robert I take immense exception to your platitudes and feigned piety for honest reporting while your many deceptive 9/11 videos betrays common sense and the memory of all those who died on 9/11. Quite frankly it’s obvious to anyone who has their wits about them the bulk of what you’ve stated therein your videos is patently false and that is why I’m openly criticizing your 9/11 hypothesis – plain and simple, so man up to your word and commitment to your work Robert or exit the forum and debate altogether.

Besides, if your theories are sound and credible as you proclaim them to be and if indeed people prefer to believe your word over mine then it’s all good and you shouldn’t feel threatened by my challenge at all now should you Robert. I say “theories” because in retrospect I’ve come to realize you’ve had more than one opinion on the matter of what happened at ground zero that morning and I’m interested to hear what you truly have to write about it. It’s my professional opinion you’ve concocted your case in its entirety from having relied exclusively on whatever altered video footage and grainy photographs happen to compliment your myopic perspective de jour, so with that said allow me to remind you and the readership of the numerous errors in reasoning and the patently false assertions you continue to put forward in your videos.

I’ve had considerable misgivings about your work all along and I never paid much mind to your storied “UAV” and “Ghost” airplane ramblings, until you openly complained to Barry about my criticism of your methodology. That complaint puts me in a poor light so I have no choice but to defend my opinions now. For that reason I've reviewed each of your videos, in chronological order and having considered in great detail what you've been telling people all along I'm truly apalled. realize now you’ve gone from extolling the “no plane” theory in December of last year to telling people now that an aircraft did crash into at least one of the towers however your rational for it is completely absurd. ln fact it appears to me you haven't a clue or clear understanding as to what in the hell you believe Robert - In fact it seems to me you simply make shit up as you go along while leaping from one conclusion to another, which tells me you are either a complete and utter “Nutter” or an agent provocateur troll deliberately spreading lies.

Let me explain to you Robert why superimposing images over top of other images does not constitute proof of anything and for no other reason than the fact you’ve consistently shrunk and expanded the size of whatever aircraft you’ve overlaid upon the true evidence in order for it to suit your argument de jour.

I say that because on December 18, 2010 you posted on YouTube a primitively produced video clip that shows a single frame (of a previously enlarged segment of the Naudet video footage) and you proceeded to inform people here of your lame hypothesis, that a Global Hawk UAV struck WTC 1. You claim the mess of smudgy marks therein your video that was “supposed to be a Boeing 767” was not and yet I ask you Robert. Had it never occurred to you that blowing-up the frame of already grainy video footage (and so large as to render it obscure) would in fact cause the blurry, smudgy mess you’ve pointed out in the first place? The truth of the matter is that evidence of yours amounts to a very poor quality still photograph and Adobe Photoshop manipulation had nothing to do with it. Despite that fact on December 21, 2010 you chose to release a second YouTube video entitled “Showing What A Boeing 767 Would Look Like” and I must say that effort raises the question of why anyone considers what you have to say as being relevant in the first place Robert.

In that second video you matter-of-factly argue “someone” falsified the Naudet video footage as “the smudging was applied to hide the Global Hawk” and the superimposed smudge you say only resembles a Boeing 767 aircraft as such, in spite of the fact the consensus remains an American Airlines Boeing 757 struck WTC 1 and not a 767! With that supposition you dare proclaim “This Is A Global Hawk...This Is What Hit The North Tower!” without having produced a single shred of evidence to prove your claim, but what are facts if they can’t be skewed eh Robert?

If your previously published absurdities weren’t enough on February 19, 2011 you released the truly insulting “9/11 South Tower – More – damning – Fraudulent - actions” wherein you cannibalized my research and undermined my conclusions by misquoting every point I’ve made of the official United Airlines flight 175 evidence. I’ve never once stated my conclusions had in fact been confirmed. In no way what so ever do I agree with what you claim in that video and I sure as hell don’t subscribe to your point of view put across in your next video “What hit WTC Building” which you released two days later, on February 21, 2011 and wherein you suggest a military KC-10 Extender Air-to-Air Tanker was flown and crashed into WTC 2.

Although I do believe it’s quite likely a project Northwood type scenario and incident took place at ground zero on 9/11 I have never suggested I know for certain what did crash into WTC 2 and I’ve certainly never said the likeness of a Boeing 767-200 was superimposed over top of any such aircraft in any of the video evidence. Any suggestion of such a thing having occurred is ludicrous to say the least and I find your conclusions preposterous Robert. In your fourth video you’ve made a minimum of three gross errors in judgment and the most blatant of them has been to repeatedly and selectively align certain features of the two images by shifting the image of the KC-10 forwards and backwards on top of the underlying aircraft in order for the results to correspond to your argument.

With that in mind at the 54 second mark of that video you’ve stated “Note disguise of third engine” thus arguing the third engine is hidden in the shadow however (while taking into account the fact you made the KC-10 image whatever size you needed to fit suit your hypothesis) you neglected to align the leading edge of the engine intake in this particular segment of your video. Had you done so the engine on the top of your KC-10 fuselage would not be hidden in the shadow at all and furthermore Robert you’ve stated “Note position of windows at reflection in video” but the problem with that statement is that glint is not from windows, because there aren’t any windows in that area of the fuselage of any KC-10. In fact there aren’t any fuselage windows in a KC-10. Like you quoted the man Robert “As the very honest man said...it had no windows” so your conclusion the aircraft that struck WTC 2 was a KC-10 is flat out wrong and the truth of it is your methodology is laughable.

On March 4, 2011 you released your video “Fraud WTC Tower Two” in which you admit matter-of-factly to having incorporated a photograph which is known to have been altered by Adobe Photoshop (according to you that is) and you superimposed it over top of what you accuse of being a Photoshop altered image of a Boeing 767 and you don’t see a problem with your own logic and evidentiary proof Robert? Let me say it again - in this video you state “...the image has clearly been subjected to Photoshop...” and “Photoshop work has destroyed features of the bottom of the aircraft” and still you knowingly utilized that seriously compromised photograph in order to discredit what you claim is a seriously compromised photograph? With that in mind you say the images are aligned and at the 3:29 mark of the video you state the protrusions under the wing do not belong and I adamantly disagree with you on that point especially Robert. What you say are anomalies happen to be flap track fairings or “canoes” and they definitely belong. As for the wings not aligning did it not occur to you Robert that the wings of the aircraft that flew into WTC 2 were severely deflected upwards due to the flight conditions in the moments before impact? Really Robert, with evidence like that you expect us to believe any of your incredibly inept forensic photo-analysis and as for your next two videos I won’t even get into discussing them because the subject you broached therein is far too bizarre for me to give any serious consideration to.

On March 17, 2011 you released “South Tower – How the image was altered to disguise the aircraft” wherein you suggest (at the 26 second mark) somebody had interfered with the integrity of the original frame of video, which you chose to utilize in this video anyway. Has it never occurred to you Robert that you’ve incorporated nothing but sketchy forensic evidence throughout your research, or even the fact the (frame) of video you claim was tampered with had been enlarged to such a degree as to render it featureless and therefore useless for the purpose you undertook in the making of this video? Probably not and none the less you forged ahead anyways by again superimposing the KC10 over top of the very grainy Boeing 767 image and all in order to justify why it had to be a KC 10 underneath some imagined Photoshop alteration made to the original image. Good God man, nothing about either image is worthy of mention let alone their usefulness for having been superimposed over top one another! To comment further on this video would be a colossal waste of my time.

On April 5, 2011 you released the video “CNN Exclusive – South Tower Aircraft” to which I commented on and you astutely recognized it would be for the betterment of all that you don’t put any more comments or advice on here Robert, but it’s an open forum and you have every right to contribute. I’m simply saying I believe you haven’t the slightest ability to reason this issue and having said that allow me to explain at length what I didn’t say to you when I commented on this video last week. Of all your videos this one in particular offends my sensibilities the most because it shows your complete lack of understanding, even for the most rudimentary of physics, because you’ve completely ignored the phenomenon or optical illusion known as parallax that is associated with camera optics, which is why everything in the video you put on YouTube appears distorted.

Due to that ignorance at the 1:26 mark of the video you made it quite apparent your entire hypothesis and all of your videos are complete nonsense, when you stated “The aircraft in the video appears to be turning left...” and by your reasoning then the orientation of the fuselage of that “masking aircraft” means it would not have struck WTC 2 where the building was gored. To emphasize that point at the 1:36 mark of this video you drew a dotted line that ends at the left side of the building, thus concluding the Adobe Photoshop aircraft you say “somebody” falsified over top of a KC-10 would have flown beyond WTC 2 and parallel with the buildings West face while the “real aircraft” you argue would have struck WTC 2 exactly where it had been crashed into. Everything else you argued in the video beyond this point isn’t worth mentioning as I’m sure you get my point.

Lastly then you stated in your April 8, 2011 video “The image is far from normal and seeming to be a composite” but again you have failed to take into account the distortion caused by the location of the camera lens versus elevation and camera angle to the subject matter. WTC 2 was many city blocks away from Scott Myers location on the morning of 9/11 and the camera was many hundreds of feet below and well ahead of the lateral axis of the aircraft you say he never captured in his video. Where was the camera in relation to the aircraft you’ve superimposed over top of the Boeing 767 in this video Robert? Judging by the curvature of tell-tale signs on the engine cowls of your DC10-30, which you introduced into your video at the 1:56 mark, I’d have to say the camera was positioned a few hundred feet in front of the nose of the aircraft and approximately 400 hundred feet to the right of it. But then I’d be guessing just like you had throughout this video, so it’s no wonder the aircraft appears distorted in the image Robert and is it any wonder why I believe your entire line of reasoning and your 9/11 findings are as well?

Respectfully


Dear Questionitall

Actually I find very little respect in your "rant" against me, even though I could not hear your voice the 'tenor' of your language illustrates enough.
Your unfounded opinion of whether or not I may have understanding of the 'physical', 'optical', considerations, in the difficulties of addressing the very 'limited' evidence to work with is only --insulting to you--.
To suggest I have ulterior motive, than to other than, produce the best possible considerations under such situation, again only --reflects against you--.
To enter into a dialogue to discuss these things with you, to my judgement, would only be fraught with impossible difficulties.

Of course you are entitled to your views, I hold with that, as I hold with the entitlement for my self to have my views.

Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Apr 13 2011, 01:45 PM
Post #74





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 13 2011, 05:11 AM) *
Dear Questionitall

Actually I find very little respect in your "rant" against me, even though I could not hear your voice the 'tenor' of your language illustrates enough.
Your unfounded opinion of whether or not I may have understanding of the 'physical', 'optical', considerations, in the difficulties of addressing the very 'limited' evidence to work with is only --insulting to you--.
To suggest I have ulterior motive, than to other than, produce the best possible considerations under such situation, again only --reflects against you--.
To enter into a dialogue to discuss these things with you, to my judgement, would only be fraught with impossible difficulties.

Of course you are entitled to your views, I hold with that, as I hold with the entitlement for my self to have my views.

Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.

Robert


Like I said Robert - you are entitled to your opinion of me and I completely understand your resentment but you have not answered my questions, which leads me to believe you are incapable of reconciling the significant number of errors in judgment on your part with the fact you have all but said outloud you have no technical knowledge of or proof at all to back your theories. So the questions remains Robert, have you any intention of stating for the record what it is you believe struck each of the towers or do you plan to continue disseminating your imaginary falsehoods and disinformation here by virtue of your grossly inaccurate video content? By the way Robert, this last response of yours explains perfectly just why it is I'm being terse with you in the first place - due to the fact you have refused every request of mine that you explain yourself and contribute to this thread in a meaningful way. I'm not settling for your self-ingratiating platitudes anymore...I came here looking for professional assistance with the hopes of finding some answers to the questions I've raised and I certainly do not encourage your input, for all the aforementioned reasons. Good day Sir.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Apr 25 2011, 04:57 PM
Post #75





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



To whom it may concern

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y) represents real evidence that comes with an irrefutable chain of custody and there is no substitute for such evidentiary proof when making ones’ own 9/11 case and argument. I tried to impress that fact upon Robert here two weeks ago and for the better part of two months but he wasn’t listening. As one can see from his last post here two weeks ago our differences came to a head and much to my regret I was left with no choice but to explain in detail to the readership exactly why Robert’s research is devoid of any serious merit and thus his opinion and research must be taken with a grain of salt. I told him so and out of spite and in haste he stated here on April 13, 2011 “Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.”

The truth is I feel no need and certainly no urgency to re-evaluate a single thing I’ve said to him or done, because I’ve been forthright from the beginning and quite frankly then it’s not I who needs to reconsider what constitutes appropriate behaviour or good social graces. Might I remind everyone of the fact I'm not here to make friends by massaging everyones' ego and placting silly notions - I'm here in hopes of getting to the bottom of the matter and the truth of what transpired at ground zero on the morning of September 11, 2001.

In light of this recent NIST Cumulus dataset release I believe it’s incumbent upon everyone to reconsider every single thing I’ve said of the official investigation into United Airlines flight 175 and as such I encourage everyone to read through my research again, then judge for yourself the truth of the matter. Keep in mind while doing so the reasons why I was deliberately and excessively rude with Robert in the first place, because I told him from the beginning I do not tolerate speculative conspiracy theories that are devoid of any evidentiary proof!

In fact this one video clip alone (from the 9 minute mark on) confirms everything I’ve said in my research about the lies therein the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and Mr. W. Gene Corley’s persistent claim he first discovered this alleged wreckage of UA175 on the rooftop of WTC 5. Quite obviously then the wreckage in this video clip does not corroborate his March 6, 2002 testimony (for all the reasons I’ve given) nor does it resemble in any way shape and form the livery of UA175 and/or the Adobe Photoshop altered image in the March 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report in which Mr. Corley played a major role in writing.

That is why I insist one needs to be cautious when considering the word of Mr. Corley and the other 9/11investigators and/or Robert’s unorthodox methodology and evidence which is made up entirely of images that are transposed over top of existing photographs and video footage that tells the real story. Therefore their case amounts to nothing more than falsified evidence which is fraud and that is a criminal offense for some and a moral crime by others, in my opinion that is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 25 2011, 11:37 PM
Post #76





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (questionitall @ Apr 23 2011, 07:57 PM) *
To whom it may concern

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y) represents real evidence that comes with an irrefutable chain of custody and there is no substitute for such evidentiary proof when making ones’ own 9/11 case and argument. I tried to impress that fact upon Robert here two weeks ago and for the better part of two months but he wasn’t listening. As one can see from his last post here two weeks ago our differences came to a head and much to my regret I was left with no choice but to explain in detail to the readership exactly why Robert’s research is devoid of any serious merit and thus his opinion and research must be taken with a grain of salt. I told him so and out of spite and in haste he stated here on April 13, 2011 “Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.”

The truth is I feel no need and certainly no urgency to re-evaluate a single thing I’ve said to him or done, because I’ve been forthright from the beginning and quite frankly then it’s not I who needs to reconsider what constitutes appropriate behaviour or good social graces. Might I remind everyone of the fact I'm not here to make friends by massaging everyones' ego and placting silly notions - I'm here in hopes of getting to the bottom of the matter and the truth of what transpired at ground zero on the morning of September 11, 2001.

In light of this recent NIST Cumulus dataset release I believe it’s incumbent upon everyone to reconsider every single thing I’ve said of the official investigation into United Airlines flight 175 and as such I encourage everyone to read through my research again, then judge for yourself the truth of the matter. Keep in mind while doing so the reasons why I was deliberately and excessively rude with Robert in the first place, because I told him from the beginning I do not tolerate speculative conspiracy theories that are devoid of any evidentiary proof!

In fact this one video clip alone (from the 9 minute mark on) confirms everything I’ve said in my research about the lies therein the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and Mr. W. Gene Corley’s persistent claim he first discovered this alleged wreckage of UA175 on the rooftop of WTC 5. Quite obviously then the wreckage in this video clip does not corroborate his March 6, 2002 testimony (for all the reasons I’ve given) nor does it resemble in any way shape and form the livery of UA175 and/or the Adobe Photoshop altered image in the March 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report in which Mr. Corley played a major role in writing.

That is why I insist one needs to be cautious when considering the word of Mr. Corley and the other 9/11investigators and/or Robert’s unorthodox methodology and evidence which is made up entirely of images that are transposed over top of existing photographs and video footage that tells the real story. Therefore their case amounts to nothing more than falsified evidence which is fraud and that is a criminal offense for some and a moral crime by others, in my opinion that is.




Interestingly enough that it would be at the 09:11 mark into the video,

where it becomes apparent the badly painted fuselage piece with the letter and

number on it, is missing from the remaining 'window' part.


Questionitall, i'm pretty shure that more than 99% of P4T readers are with you

on this one, and that all of us agree with you, that it's far from being a mere

coincidence that the only two most 'significant' and 'famous' pieces of fuselage

photographed (WTC 5 and pentagon), just happens to be parts with 'writings'

on them! ....Obviously planted.

I for one is very grateful to you for setting out to prove this fact beyond the

slightest shadow of doubt, and of which you so admirably have now succeeded

in doing. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Apr 26 2011, 04:38 PM
Post #77





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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 25 2011, 11:37 PM) *
Interestingly enough that it would be at the 09:11 mark into the video,

where it becomes apparent the badly painted fuselage piece with the letter and

number on it, is missing from the remaining 'window' part.


Questionitall, i'm pretty shure that more than 99% of P4T readers are with you

on this one, and that all of us agree with you, that it's far from being a mere

coincidence that the only two most 'significant' and 'famous' pieces of fuselage

photographed (WTC 5 and pentagon), just happens to be parts with 'writings'

on them! ....Obviously planted.

I for one is very grateful to you for setting out to prove this fact beyond the

slightest shadow of doubt, and of which you so admirably have now succeeded

in doing. cheers.gif



Thank You very much for your kind words of support - I will be starting a new thread here shortly, for a fresh start and all because of Roberts' having disrupted the flow of sound information and credible debate here on the issue of UA175. The video I recently gave reference to here is part of the court awarded NIST Cumulus dataset FOIA application - brought to us courtesy of the International Center For 9/11 Studies and it's from release 28 in particular. I encourage everyone to bombard FEMA and NIST with freedom of information requests of their own - for additional United Airlines flight 175 evidence I know for a fact those agencies are sitting on. That information holds the key to unlocking how and when this aircraft wreckage came to rest on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 28 2011, 08:42 AM
Post #78





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (questionitall @ Apr 24 2011, 07:38 PM) *
Thank You very much for your kind words of support - I will be starting a new thread here shortly, for a fresh start and all because of Roberts' having disrupted the flow of sound information and credible debate here on the issue of UA175. The video I recently gave reference to here is part of the court awarded NIST Cumulus dataset FOIA application - brought to us courtesy of the International Center For 9/11 Studies and it's from release 28 in particular. I encourage everyone to bombard FEMA and NIST with freedom of information requests of their own - for additional United Airlines flight 175 evidence I know for a fact those agencies are sitting on. That information holds the key to unlocking how and when this aircraft wreckage came to rest on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5.




You're very welcome!

Shall look forward to your new thread and any further development

with much interest -

cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post May 4 2011, 07:23 PM
Post #79





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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 28 2011, 08:42 AM) *
You're very welcome!

Shall look forward to your new thread and any further development

with much interest -

cheers


Just a reminder to stay tuned for the revised material I'm preparing to post here under a new thread. A certain gentleman whom I'm not at liberty to name put me on to a fantastic NIST video which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt if Mr. W. Gene Corley did not lie about his involvement in and/or knowledge of the falsified FEMA/ASCE photograph (12390) then he sure as hell is behaving awfully damned guilty of something, because he refuses to answer my questions regarding United Airlines flight 175 and that evidence his name is all over!

My new thread will be posted very shortly!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post May 15 2011, 03:48 PM
Post #80





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



QUOTE (questionitall @ May 4 2011, 07:23 PM) *
Just a reminder to stay tuned for the revised material I'm preparing to post here under a new thread. A certain gentleman whom I'm not at liberty to name put me on to a fantastic NIST video which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt if Mr. W. Gene Corley did not lie about his involvement in and/or knowledge of the falsified FEMA/ASCE photograph (12390) then he sure as hell is behaving awfully damned guilty of something, because he refuses to answer my questions regarding United Airlines flight 175 and that evidence his name is all over!

My new thread will be posted very shortly!



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 7th December 2019 - 12:53 PM