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  < 1 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

23investigator
post Feb 20 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #41





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 17 2011, 04:19 AM) *
Dear Questionitall
I have recently placed a video on YouTube dealing with some of the considerations related to the subject of your excellent posting.
As you so rightly point out, FRAUD has no doubt been used in respect to the representation of the modified photograph with the 'blue wash'.
Hoping that what is included in the video on the subject is helpful.
The YouTube address is 23investigator.
Like yourself I have not met with success in my prior efforts to upload image on this forum, but if it is considered useful, the video could be added along with your argument, if somebody should want to.
Or perhaps, some instruction could be given me to do so.

Robert

ps well done Questionitall


Dear Questionitall
I have just placed another video on YouTube which shows why the portion of metal on the roof of World Trade Centre building 5 could not have come from United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA.
The YouTube address is 23investigator.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 20 2011, 08:42 PM
Post #42





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 20 2011, 05:59 PM) *
Dear Questionitall
I have just placed another video on YouTube which shows why the portion of metal on the roof of World Trade Centre building 5 could not have come from United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA.
The YouTube address is 23investigator.

Robert


Hello to you and thx for the compliment and input. I've just downloaded your video and I intend to sit and watch it tonight - looking forward to doing so and I'll be sure to let you know what I think. By the way; I mentioned here about a month ago that I'd taken photographs of the inside of a stripped out Boeing 767-300ER passenger cabin. I intend to post those photographs here very shortly and you might be interested to read about what my photos betray of the already eviserated FEMA/ASCE UA 175 evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 20 2011, 08:43 PM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (lfecher @ Feb 12 2011, 10:59 PM) *
Roger that. BTW, I am not nor have I ever been a "he". Believe it or not, some women, especially me actually have mechanical and critical thinking skills.


My apologies - no disrespect intended.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 21 2011, 12:22 PM
Post #44





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



QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 21 2011, 10:12 AM) *
Hello to you and thx for the compliment and input. I've just downloaded your video and I intend to sit and watch it tonight - looking forward to doing so and I'll be sure to let you know what I think. By the way; I mentioned here about a month ago that I'd taken photographs of the inside of a stripped out Boeing 767-300ER passenger cabin. I intend to post those photographs here very shortly and you might be interested to read about what my photos betray of the already eviserated FEMA/ASCE UA 175 evidence.


Dear Questionitall.

I look forward to your comments.
When you are looking at the most recent video on YouTube --titled-- 23investigator -WTC South Tower --Not United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA, you could give the following considerations also if you would please.
You will notice I have mentioned a few things.
(1) The smuginess around the back of the aircraft.
This is much more general than just the back of the aircraft -- which shows up very much on the images as I have been able to consider them in Photoshop.
(2) The unusual appearance of the fuselage at the back of the aircraft.
(3) The reflection a short distance back from the nose of the aircraft.
(4) The cockpit not really lookng anything like a typical Boeing cockpit and nose profile.
There is more but this is sufficient I think at the moment.

Have you heard of an aircraft called a KC10. (forgive me if you have).
It is modelled on the DC-10-30.
It is a fuel tanker.
It has no windows along the line of the fuselage.
But guess what, it has a series of close windows right where the reflection is evident at the front of the aircraft in the video.
It has quite swept back wings.
Much more like what the aircraft in the video has.
They are actually longer than what shows in the video, reason being it would seem due to smuginess again, adjusting the length of the wing in the video.
The smuginess at the back of the aircraft in the video, fits very well over the third engine on the KC10 mounted on the vertical stabiliser.
This 'little number' is quoted as being able to do 996km/h.
Which is quite fast!! but I have not looked into what altitude and all the rest that it can do that speed at, but it would seem would probably not have diffculty at achieving the speeds that the released data suggests, I would think. "I will leave that to the experts"

But what I can say with a high degree of certainty, is, that the profile of this aircraft fits that of the aircraft in the video, much more so, that a Boeing 767 222.
There are various WEB pages that show the KC10, just Google it, or Special Military Aircraft,.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 22 2011, 12:05 AM
Post #45





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 22 2011, 02:52 AM) *
Dear Questionitall.

I look forward to your comments.
When you are looking at the most recent video on YouTube --titled-- 23investigator -WTC South Tower --Not United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA, you could give the following considerations also if you would please.
You will notice I have mentioned a few things.
(1) The smuginess around the back of the aircraft.
This is much more general than just the back of the aircraft -- which shows up very much on the images as I have been able to consider them in Photoshop.
(2) The unusual appearance of the fuselage at the back of the aircraft.
(3) The reflection a short distance back from the nose of the aircraft.
(4) The cockpit not really lookng anything like a typical Boeing cockpit and nose profile.
There is more but this is sufficient I think at the moment.

Have you heard of an aircraft called a KC10. (forgive me if you have).
It is modelled on the DC-10-30.
It is a fuel tanker.
It has no windows along the line of the fuselage.
But guess what, it has a series of close windows right where the reflection is evident at the front of the aircraft in the video.
It has quite swept back wings.
Much more like what the aircraft in the video has.
They are actually longer than what shows in the video, reason being it would seem due to smuginess again, adjusting the length of the wing in the video.
The smuginess at the back of the aircraft in the video, fits very well over the third engine on the KC10 mounted on the vertical stabiliser.
This 'little number' is quoted as being able to do 996km/h.
Which is quite fast!! but I have not looked into what altitude and all the rest that it can do that speed at, but it would seem would probably not have diffculty at achieving the speeds that the released data suggests, I would think. "I will leave that to the experts"

But what I can say with a high degree of certainty, is, that the profile of this aircraft fits that of the aircraft in the video, much more so, that a Boeing 767 222.
There are various WEB pages that show the KC10, just Google it, or Special Military Aircraft,.

Robert


Dear Questionitall.

I have added another video to Youtube, 23investigator --What hit WTC Building 2, which shows the KC10.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 24 2011, 11:23 AM
Post #46





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 22 2011, 02:35 PM) *
Dear Questionitall.

I have added another video to Youtube, 23investigator --What hit WTC Building 2, which shows the KC10.

Robert


Dear Questionitall.

I have added another video to Youtube, 23investigator Proof a KC -10 Extender fuel tanker was used to impact WTC2.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 26 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #47





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 25 2011, 12:53 AM) *
Dear Questionitall.

I have added another video to Youtube, 23investigator Proof a KC -10 Extender fuel tanker was used to impact WTC2.

Robert


Dear Questionitall

I have added another video to YouTube, 23investigator Not a Boeing 767 -222.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Feb 26 2011, 07:06 PM
Post #48





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



Very well done videos, Robert.

You raise a lot of relevant questions. Thanks for your efforts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 28 2011, 10:45 AM
Post #49





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



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Feb 27 2011, 08:36 AM) *
Very well done videos, Robert.

You raise a lot of relevant questions. Thanks for your efforts.


Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on YouTube, 23investigator Nose and proportions of impact aircraft WTC Building Two.
Thank you for your comments and your invitation to Facebook.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Feb 28 2011, 09:44 PM
Post #50





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



Hey, you caused me to go check my facebook page on account of somebody hacked it a while back.

I haven't invited you as a friend BTW as I have no idea how to look after them.

Still like your videos though, and I do see what you are saying...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 4 2011, 08:01 AM
Post #51





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



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Mar 1 2011, 12:14 PM) *
Hey, you caused me to go check my facebook page on account of somebody hacked it a while back.

I haven't invited you as a friend BTW as I have no idea how to look after them.

Still like your videos though, and I do see what you are saying...


Dear Barry.

Sorry to have caused you any distress about 'facebook', as that was my mistake, the invite was from 'Youtube', which I took up.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator Fraud WTC Tower Two.

This particular video I believe, should be considered by every body.

During the many many hours of going through Google to try and locate a photograph of an aircraft --Boeing 767 300 in the same flight attitude as the aircraft shown in the captured frame of video just before it impacted the WTC Second Tower, I came upon a photograph which 'literally made me catch my breath'.

There can be no doubt at all that this photograph was used in altering the video.

Of all the many thousands of photographs on Google there are very few of an aircraft let alone a Boeing 767 300 in the flight attitude of the aircraft in this photograph.
When it is considered how changes had been made to this photograph, that fit in with the procedure of changes made to the image in the video, there can be no doubt, that it was used.

This means that somebody out there --most likely in America-- made these changes, a TV network used the changed video, which gives plenty of scope for tracing down who did it and under whose instruction.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 6 2011, 04:44 AM
Post #52





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 4 2011, 09:31 PM) *
Dear Barry.

Sorry to have caused you any distress about 'facebook', as that was my mistake, the invite was from 'Youtube', which I took up.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator Fraud WTC Tower Two.

This particular video I believe, should be considered by every body.

During the many many hours of going through Google to try and locate a photograph of an aircraft --Boeing 767 300 in the same flight attitude as the aircraft shown in the captured frame of video just before it impacted the WTC Second Tower, I came upon a photograph which 'literally made me catch my breath'.

There can be no doubt at all that this photograph was used in altering the video.

Of all the many thousands of photographs on Google there are very few of an aircraft let alone a Boeing 767 300 in the flight attitude of the aircraft in this photograph.
When it is considered how changes had been made to this photograph, that fit in with the procedure of changes made to the image in the video, there can be no doubt, that it was used.

This means that somebody out there --most likely in America-- made these changes, a TV network used the changed video, which gives plenty of scope for tracing down who did it and under whose instruction.

Robert



Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator Green Garfish Aircraft.

This presentation contains a consideration which I believe 'any self respecting pilot' could identify to.'
It does not rely on 'imaging', just straight out dimension ratios, that I would think a pilot is trained to do, or would become automatic I should think, when identifying other aircraft.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 9 2011, 11:46 AM
Post #53





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 6 2011, 06:14 PM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator Green Garfish Aircraft.

This presentation contains a consideration which I believe 'any self respecting pilot' could identify to.'
It does not rely on 'imaging', just straight out dimension ratios, that I would think a pilot is trained to do, or would become automatic I should think, when identifying other aircraft.

Robert


Dear Barry

I have just placed another two videos on Youtube.
23investigator FRAUD requiring International Commission of Inquiry into 9/11.
23investigator FRAUD --For those with doubts.

Robert
ps hope you are going along well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Mar 10 2011, 02:44 AM
Post #54





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 7 2011, 01:46 PM) *
Dear Barry

I have just placed another two videos on Youtube.
23investigator FRAUD requiring International Commission of Inquiry into 9/11.
23investigator FRAUD --For those with doubts.

Robert
ps hope you are going along well.


Howdy Robert,

Yes, I have been watching your videos and you are definitely onto something.

I do not have the eye for detail you do and I find your concepts intriguing.

Thanks for the time you invest in these, Robert.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 12 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #55





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



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Mar 10 2011, 05:14 PM) *
Howdy Robert,

Yes, I have been watching your videos and you are definitely onto something.

I do not have the eye for detail you do and I find your concepts intriguing.

Thanks for the time you invest in these, Robert.


Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator Absolute proof of fraud -aircraft south tower.

This shows very definitely that the image was changed in this video, in a number of ways.
An interesting thing to, it shows that although the aircraft was banked to the left--quite a bit-- it still flew straight at the building.

There can only be one consideration for the changes that were made.
It was not wanted to show that there was a third engine on the aircraft at the rear --ie ala DC10--30 or similar.

When it is finally accepted that this is the case, it is going to be quite interesting isn't it.
All the books will have to be rewritten.
Radar considerations and all that will take on completely new complexion, or further mystery more likely.

But somebody is going to crack somewhere along the line in the near future, after all these videos were presented by the media, somebody had to haaaaaave made changes to the content, one way or another it is just not FRAUD --but a conspiracy-- and just not --two-- but I would think one heck of a lot more.

Believe me there is still plenty available to show what I am saying is FACT, to the point I have located one video, where the engine on the back of the aircraft can definitely be identified.
But we don't want it disappearing off the internet, so we will just present it when it is of best value.

Who knows somebody might even come forward before then.

Well my friend I am off to bed, keep well.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 15 2011, 08:44 AM
Post #56





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 13 2011, 12:46 AM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23investigator Absolute proof of fraud -aircraft south tower.

This shows very definitely that the image was changed in this video, in a number of ways.
An interesting thing to, it shows that although the aircraft was banked to the left--quite a bit-- it still flew straight at the building.

There can only be one consideration for the changes that were made.
It was not wanted to show that there was a third engine on the aircraft at the rear --ie ala DC10--30 or similar.

When it is finally accepted that this is the case, it is going to be quite interesting isn't it.
All the books will have to be rewritten.
Radar considerations and all that will take on completely new complexion, or further mystery more likely.

But somebody is going to crack somewhere along the line in the near future, after all these videos were presented by the media, somebody had to haaaaaave made changes to the content, one way or another it is just not FRAUD --but a conspiracy-- and just not --two-- but I would think one heck of a lot more.

Believe me there is still plenty available to show what I am saying is FACT, to the point I have located one video, where the engine on the back of the aircraft can definitely be identified.
But we don't want it disappearing off the internet, so we will just present it when it is of best value.

Who knows somebody might even come forward before then.

Well my friend I am off to bed, keep well.

Robert


Dear Barry

I am writing to you as I assume you still have an interest in the Video's I have been placing on Youtube.

During the process of researching the various video's and still photograph, of the aircraft that came in impact with the South Tower, as I have expressed previously, there is one consistent factor, that being a deliberate attempt to disguise the rear of the aircraft.

I could go on with many more instance of this, but have come to the consideration that there should be enough proof of this already.
It is of course a very great concern that the videos and photograph were fraudulently altered to hide 'true evidence', and that they were used so broadly by the 'visual media', but assuming they did not know of the changes that had been made, (which I think would have to be very generous, but nonetheless they would be the only people who would know), it would seem to me to be in their best interest to address the situation.

BUT the key thing is, that the evidence points to an aircraft, other than that considered by all the forms of 'media', to have been involved.
Regardless of what aircraft it was, although the evidence very strongly points to a DC10- 30 or derivative aircraft, all the considerations in respect to aircraft involved on 11-9-2001 come under question.
With of course, the very definite likeli-hood that the aircraft were not piloted, (after hijack), by those who the authorities have held responsible, if piloted, that is --in the cockpit-- by any body at all.

A DC10- 30 is an entirely different looking aircraft to a Boeing 767, whether it be a 200 or 300 series, with a distinctive engine mounted at the tail of the aircraft.
So, if a Boeing 767 222 N612 United Airlines, did take aboard passengers, and (hijackers), where have they all gone?

Which then raises an even bigger question, what about the other aircraft with crew and passengers, that were said to have had (hijackers} aboard?

The previous video, 23investigator Fraud WTC Tower Two, clearly displayed the FACT that an image of a Boeing 767 300 was superimposed on the aircraft in the video.
In that video it was also demonstrated how a DC10- 30 fitted within the proportions of the superimposed Boeing 767 300 aircraft in the original video frame.

Thursday is Saint Patrick's day.
Legend has the man credited with removing all the "snakes" out of Ireland.
My ancestors, and many of the population of America's ancestors, whilst using the good man as an excuse for a 'wee drop here and there', have nothing against the 'creature'.
Just unfortunately, what it has been brought about to represent.

Whilst it has been tempting to put the next video up before hand, it will not be so, until Thursday, when it will show how the image in the frame of original video was altered and how a DC10- 30, fits within those changes.

Obviously this is an open letter through this forum.

But my friend, and any others where ever you are.

Enjoy Thursday, with what ever beverage, your custom enjoys, or allows.
Then turn our minds to how we can all deal with this terrible situation.

Robert Sheehan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 17 2011, 02:16 PM
Post #57





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 15 2011, 10:14 PM) *
Dear Barry

I am writing to you as I assume you still have an interest in the Video's I have been placing on Youtube.

During the process of researching the various video's and still photograph, of the aircraft that came in impact with the South Tower, as I have expressed previously, there is one consistent factor, that being a deliberate attempt to disguise the rear of the aircraft.

I could go on with many more instance of this, but have come to the consideration that there should be enough proof of this already.
It is of course a very great concern that the videos and photograph were fraudulently altered to hide 'true evidence', and that they were used so broadly by the 'visual media', but assuming they did not know of the changes that had been made, (which I think would have to be very generous, but nonetheless they would be the only people who would know), it would seem to me to be in their best interest to address the situation.

BUT the key thing is, that the evidence points to an aircraft, other than that considered by all the forms of 'media', to have been involved.
Regardless of what aircraft it was, although the evidence very strongly points to a DC10- 30 or derivative aircraft, all the considerations in respect to aircraft involved on 11-9-2001 come under question.
With of course, the very definite likeli-hood that the aircraft were not piloted, (after hijack), by those who the authorities have held responsible, if piloted, that is --in the cockpit-- by any body at all.

A DC10- 30 is an entirely different looking aircraft to a Boeing 767, whether it be a 200 or 300 series, with a distinctive engine mounted at the tail of the aircraft.
So, if a Boeing 767 222 N612 United Airlines, did take aboard passengers, and (hijackers), where have they all gone?

Which then raises an even bigger question, what about the other aircraft with crew and passengers, that were said to have had (hijackers} aboard?

The previous video, 23investigator Fraud WTC Tower Two, clearly displayed the FACT that an image of a Boeing 767 300 was superimposed on the aircraft in the video.
In that video it was also demonstrated how a DC10- 30 fitted within the proportions of the superimposed Boeing 767 300 aircraft in the original video frame.

Thursday is Saint Patrick's day.
Legend has the man credited with removing all the "snakes" out of Ireland.
My ancestors, and many of the population of America's ancestors, whilst using the good man as an excuse for a 'wee drop here and there', have nothing against the 'creature'.
Just unfortunately, what it has been brought about to represent.

Whilst it has been tempting to put the next video up before hand, it will not be so, until Thursday, when it will show how the image in the frame of original video was altered and how a DC10- 30, fits within those changes.

Obviously this is an open letter through this forum.

But my friend, and any others where ever you are.

Enjoy Thursday, with what ever beverage, your custom enjoys, or allows.
Then turn our minds to how we can all deal with this terrible situation.

Robert Sheehan


Dear Barry.

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

Regards

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Mar 17 2011, 02:25 PM
Post #58





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



QUOTE
So, if a Boeing 767 222 N612 United Airlines, did take aboard passengers, and (hijackers), where have they all gone?

Which then raises an even bigger question, what about the other aircraft with crew and passengers, that were said to have had (hijackers} aboard?


Robert does a neat job of Using Disinformation Tactic #14, "Demanding Complete Solutions"

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

I take no issue with Robert, and I'm sure this was sort of unintentional -- but it's worth pointing out that 9/11 research will ALWAYS be based on the fragments of evidence we have to work with (until such time as actual records are released) -- and that no one should be asked to present a "complete solution" in order to advance a useful piece of discussion.

[Disclaimer: i don't know 'where the planes went' -- all I can conclude is that it appears 4 planes went missing, and many real people, too. Where, when, how, unclear.]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 17 2011, 04:43 PM
Post #59





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



QUOTE (JackD @ Mar 17 2011, 02:25 PM) *
Robert does a neat job of Using Disinformation Tactic #14, "Demanding Complete Solutions"

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

I take no issue with Robert, and I'm sure this was sort of unintentional -- but it's worth pointing out that 9/11 research will ALWAYS be based on the fragments of evidence we have to work with (until such time as actual records are released) -- and that no one should be asked to present a "complete solution" in order to advance a useful piece of discussion.

[Disclaimer: i don't know 'where the planes went' -- all I can conclude is that it appears 4 planes went missing, and many real people, too. Where, when, how, unclear.]


A very good point and I'm glad you brought it up because I refuse to respond to most of Roberts work. Not because he hasn't done some good for introducing people to the issues but due to the fact he speculates and postulates far too much. For instance, in his Youtube video "More Fraud" he stated:

- “…it is claimed in an official report the portion of metal was discovered and photographed…”

- “It is claimed the portion of metal was ascribed an official identification number upon discovery.”

- “It has been officially stated that the portion of metal identified…was from the rear of United Airlines Boeing 767-222 N612UA.”

- “It has been officially stated that painted numbers on the left part of the portion of metal confirm this opinion.”

- “Another photograph was taken of the portion of metal whilst still located on the roof of WTC building 5. The photograph was subsequently attached and described in an official report, discussed at an inquiry.”

The context in which he used the word “claim” in that video is an infinitive meaning to assert as fact however (and to be honest with you) I’ve never read an official document to date wherein any official claimed anything he alluded to, therefore I find those statements misleading. The same goes for his use of the term “officially stated” and as for his reference to “Another photograph…attached and described in an official report, discussed at an inquiry” that’s not the case in the least because not even the FEMA/ASCE photograph has ever been freely and openly discussed in public by anyone that I’m aware of, including Mr. Corley - the man who took it. If he has information to the contrary I encourage him to reference his material as I try to.
As for his videos visual content I will say the effort he's made to draw peoples’ attention to this issue is commendable but I believe his understanding of the overall issue itself is rather naïve, therefore I will not comment further other than to say he might wish to consider having someone verify his facts before he airs his next video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 17 2011, 08:59 PM
Post #60





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



QUOTE (questionitall @ Mar 18 2011, 06:13 AM) *
A very good point and I'm glad you brought it up because I refuse to respond to most of Roberts work. Not because he hasn't done some good for introducing people to the issues but due to the fact he speculates and postulates far too much. For instance, in his Youtube video "More Fraud" he stated:

- “…it is claimed in an official report the portion of metal was discovered and photographed…”

- “It is claimed the portion of metal was ascribed an official identification number upon discovery.”

- “It has been officially stated that the portion of metal identified…was from the rear of United Airlines Boeing 767-222 N612UA.”

- “It has been officially stated that painted numbers on the left part of the portion of metal confirm this opinion.”

- “Another photograph was taken of the portion of metal whilst still located on the roof of WTC building 5. The photograph was subsequently attached and described in an official report, discussed at an inquiry.”

The context in which he used the word “claim” in that video is an infinitive meaning to assert as fact however (and to be honest with you) I’ve never read an official document to date wherein any official claimed anything he alluded to, therefore I find those statements misleading. The same goes for his use of the term “officially stated” and as for his reference to “Another photograph…attached and described in an official report, discussed at an inquiry” that’s not the case in the least because not even the FEMA/ASCE photograph has ever been freely and openly discussed in public by anyone that I’m aware of, including Mr. Corley - the man who took it. If he has information to the contrary I encourage him to reference his material as I try to.
As for his videos visual content I will say the effort he's made to draw peoples’ attention to this issue is commendable but I believe his understanding of the overall issue itself is rather naïve, therefore I will not comment further other than to say he might wish to consider having someone verify his facts before he airs his next video.


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 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: 22nd September 2018 - 09:42 AM