Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence?, Evidence of FEMA/ASCE (UA175) evidence tampering Options

[questionitall]

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.

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/n612ua_wreck3.jpg)


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)
(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/n612ua_wreck6a.jpg)


(No seam visible)
(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/Copyofplanepartrf20-full.jpg)



- 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.

[BarryWilliamsmb]

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

Thanks Robert.

[23investigator]

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

[BarryWilliamsmb]

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?

[questionitall]

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