IPB




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
A3 Skywarrior Hit the WTC?, split from Latest News

23investigator
post Jul 13 2011, 10:06 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 20 2010, 10:04 AM) *
Rational minds at work...

smile.gif



Dear Mr Balsamo.

Do you think, that a Douglas B66 Destroyer or Douglas A3 Skywarrior, could come closer to the speeds that have been put forward for the two aircraft that hit the two World Trade Centre Towers?

The reason I ask this, is because of consideration given to the videos said to have been captured showing aircraft which hit the two towers.

In the case of the North Tower a single video, which gives no clear distinction of the aircraft involved, more an edited smudge moving across the screen, but in no way are the proportions of that smudge, those of a Boeing 767.

In the case of the South Tower there are numerous videos.
Some of them, very clumsily edited, showing ridiculous representation of what is supposed to be a Boeing 767.
Two of the videos though, show content which suggests that within the editing, there is actual image which can be considered to be of a smaller aircraft than a Boeing 767.

In the case of the North Tower there is debris recorded in video and still photographs at ground level.
One instance of this, is a wall panel from the southern face of the Tower which has the remains of a wheel embedded between two of the columns of the panel.

The tire diameter, to the chafe mark from the rim on the tire which is evident, is of the same ratio, as the tire and rim diameters of the wheel used on the Douglas B66 Destroyer.

The tire is standing vertical between two columns of the wall panel, facing into what would have been the inside of the Tower.

This is an interesting consideration, with the wheels in a Boeing 767 when stored away, being on the horizontal across the bottom of the airframe, which would have required some how for one wheel out of four comprising one side of the undercarriage, to have been rotated through ninety degrees, to have become wedged in the wall panel, as the wheel appears in the photograph of the debris from the North Tower.

The Douglas B66 Destroyer has a single wheel stored vertically, in each side of the fuselage.

Further consideration of the remains of the wheel, show a part inside of it which contains nine slots.
It is difficult to determine whether it is an external part of the wheel which was dragged into the confine of the tire, or whether it was an internal part of the wheel assembly originally, which had nine slots.

Photographs of the Douglas B66 Destroyer, show that the wheel fitted contained nine slots, internal components appearing to have nine slots too.

There are portions of fuselage panel evident in the same photographs as the North Tower panel and the wheel, which are not clear, but do not appear to be like shiny panels that would be part of an American Airlines Boeing 767, more likely a military appearance.

In the case of the South Tower there is video of a wheel which landed in a street some considerable distance away from the Tower.
Again the ratios of the tire diameter to rim diameter are the same as those of a Douglas B66 Destroyer.

It is interesting that the wheel originally videoed was later exchanged with another wheel, damage to the tire very obviously different, the components of the disk brake assembly obviously different too.

The axle assembly is evident in both instance, with the disposition of the end of the axle showing different orientation.

More significantly the end of the axle shows that it was broken off at an angle of approximately forty five degrees.
With careful consideration of the forty five degree portion it appears that it may have been a welded junction to some other part.
The axle to the vertical member of the Douglas B66 Destroyer was by a weld which appears to be at a very similar angle to that showing on the axle of the first wheel assembly that was videoed and photographed immediately after the event of 9/11, the video, most likely during that night.

There are some other aircraft component debris related to the South Tower.
Some outer fuselage skin panels, which most certainly are not convincing to have come from a Boeing 767, videoed and photographed on the top of a building.
Photographs subsequently presented in respect to the fuselage skin panels, show every suggestion of having been arranged differently, in one instance appearing to have been 'Photo Shopped' to give a false impression of having been part of United Airlines Boeing 767 N612UA.

There are two other sizeable pieces of debris on another roof.
Both pieces are of 'cast' construction, appearing they could have been part of undercarriage mechanism.
On one of the parts is some painted identification with the first letters A3.

A very similar aircraft to the Douglas B66 Destroyer, was the Douglas A3 Skywarrior, which was designed for the Navy for use on aircraft carriers.
Allowing very short take off ability.
There were various changes in the design for the Airforce version --B66 Destroyer-- one of the differences being the outer components and wheels of the main undercarriage, the B66 Destroyer being the welded construction, as it was considerably heavier than the A3 Skywarrior.
It is quite likely though, that the inner undercarriage mechanism of the two aircraft would have used the same components.
Both versions of the aircraft had the ability of --rocket assisted take off, also, requiring very little takeoff runway.

Both the Navy and Airforce version had different "varied" nose assemblies fitted to different models.
This feature could allow the installation of a much stronger "heavier" nose assembly than normal.
Some aircraft were fitted with windows along the sides, very similar in proportion to those on the Boeing 767.
The wings of the Navy version folded for stowage in the aircraft carriers.
The wings in both aircraft --shoulder mounted-- (ie) at the top of the fuselage.
A much simpler configuration for modification of wings.

In fact a special version for testing 'laminar flow' was built, two aircraft in all, in this instance the engines were fitted either side of the fuselage at the rear, not under the wings as those aircraft in service for the Airforce and the Navy.
The design allowed flexibility of engines to be installed, in the case of the Navy only one type was used in service, the Airforce had two different engines in service, but as said, the design allowed flexibility for engine type especially with the wing being 'shoulder mounted'.

Whilst a nineteen sixties aircraft, there were still numerous in service in 2001, with many in storeage.

The compactness of the design even though still a relatively large aircraft of about seventy feet length and wingspan, made it a very strong aircraft, witnessed by a photograph of a mechanical digger trying to destroy one.
Very strong in deed, much more so, than a Boeing 767.
The fuselage much narrower than the wide bodied 767, inherently strong, much more likely to have been able to pass through the column spacing of the inner core of the towers.

One use put to the aircraft, was as a fuel tanker, all the fuel for the aircraft carried within the fuselage, in specially designed fuel tanks.
The Navy version was originally designed to carry --Nuclear-- bombs, later used by private contractors, for the development and testing of rockets, sophisticated missiles and electronic systems.

There has been report that private contractors were involved in the retro fitting of remote control and weapon systems to two --A3 aircraft-- in the immediate period before 9/11 at a commercial airfield in a great degree of "secret-ness", with threat put over people not to talk about it.
If in deed this occurred, and was part of the preparation for use of the aircraft against the World Trade Centre Towers, the stronger under carriage components that were used on the B66 Destroyer could have been fitted to --A3 aircraft--, especially if they were going to carry a very heavy payload.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jul 13 2011, 09:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 12 2011, 10:09 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



[quote name='23investigator' date='Jul 13 2011, 11:36 PM' post='10799955']
Dear Mr Balsamo.

In the case of the North Tower there is debris recorded in video and still photographs at ground level.
One instance of this, is a wall panel from the southern face of the Tower which has the remains of a wheel embedded between two of the columns of the panel.

The tire diameter, to the chafe mark from the rim on the tire which is evident, is of the same ratio, as the tire and rim diameters of the wheel used on the Douglas B66 Destroyer.

The tire is standing vertical between two columns of the wall panel, facing into what would have been the inside of the Tower.

Dear Mr Balsamo

Would there be any one who could advise, whether there is any difference in the tire size, of the main landing wheels, between a Boeing 767 --200 and a Boeing 767 --300.

The tire dimensions would be very handy.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 13 2011, 11:17 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jul 13 2011, 11:36 PM) *
Dear Mr Balsamo.

In the case of the North Tower there is debris recorded in video and still photographs at ground level.
One instance of this, is a wall panel from the southern face of the Tower which has the remains of a wheel embedded between two of the columns of the panel.

The tire diameter, to the chafe mark from the rim on the tire which is evident, is of the same ratio, as the tire and rim diameters of the wheel used on the Douglas B66 Destroyer.

The tire is standing vertical between two columns of the wall panel, facing into what would have been the inside of the Tower.

Dear Mr Balsamo

Would there be any one who could advise, whether there is any difference in the tire size, of the main landing wheels, between a Boeing 767 --200 and a Boeing 767 --300.

The tire dimensions would be very handy.

Robert


Dear Mr Balsamo.

Have located Boeing 767 tire specifications.

The Boeing 767, 200ER, 300, are one inch larger in tire outer diameter and width than 767 200.
The rim diameter is the same for all of three series.

Boeing 767 200
(Dimensions inches)

Tire diameter x width - rim diameter, ply rating.

H 45 x 17 - 20 26PR

If somebody could help with the tire specification for the Douglas A3 Skywarrior and
Douglas B66 Destroyer.

That would be most helpful.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 14 2011, 01:49 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



So basically, the planes that hit the towers,
were not the planes, we were told, that hit the towers...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Aug 14 2011, 02:54 PM
Post #5


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Robert/23investigator,

There was no a3 skywarrior or anything else and the information about subcontractors modifying an a3 sky warrior is actually disinformation. It was created by Karl shwarz and is 100% false and without any merit. Please stop spreading this rumor/lie around.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 16 2011, 07:58 AM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Aug 14 2011, 12:47 PM) *
Dear Mr Balsamo.

Have located Boeing 767 tire specifications.

The Boeing 767, 200ER, 300, are one inch larger in tire outer diameter and width than 767 200.
The rim diameter is the same for all of three series.

Boeing 767 200
(Dimensions inches)

Tire diameter x width - rim diameter, ply rating.

H 45 x 17 - 20 26PR

If somebody could help with the tire specification for the Douglas A3 Skywarrior and
Douglas B66 Destroyer.

That would be most helpful.

Robert


Dear Mr Balsamo.

Have located Douglas A3 Skywarrior and Douglas B66 Destroyer tire specifications.

This confirms that the tire in the wall panel from the North Tower at the Greek Church could not have been from a Boeing 767 200 or 767 200ER.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS.

This categorical statement is based on "accurate (drafted perspective) consideration of proportions in two photographs showing the tire that was lodged in the wall panel".
The wall panel was badly damaged and deformed.
Severely 'bowed' spandel plates, reducing the gap between the columns.
Particularly where the remains of a wheel hub assembly and the "tire" are located.

The specification for the Douglas A3 Skywarrior is
Wheel diameter 44 inches Wheel width 13 inches Rim diameter 20 inches
Width between wheel flanges 11 inches.

The specification for the Douglas B66 Destroyer is
Wheel diameter 49 inches Wheel width 17 inches Rim diameter 20 inches
Width between wheel flanges 13.25 inches.

The diameter of the tire in the photographs is 44 inches.
The width of the tire in the photograph appears very close to 13 inches.
The width of the tire in the photograph is less than the 16 inch gap between the inner edges of the deformed wall panel columns.

The tire in the wall panel fits the dimensions for the tire specified for the Douglas A3 Skywarrior.

This does not necessarily mean the aircraft the tire was part of, was not a Douglas B66 Destroyer, as the wheel hub and brake assemblies may have been interchangeable from a A3 Skywarrior.
This still needs to be verified.

The Boeing 767 200 series tire is 45 inches diameter, one inch bigger than the tire in the wall panel, and 17 inches wide 4 inches wider than the tire in the wall panel, as is the B66 Destroyer, which would be impossible to fit in the 16 inch gap between the inner edges of the wall panel columns.
The Boeing 767 200ER tire is 46 inches diameter and 18 inches wide, making it even more different than the tire in the wall panel and absolutely impossible for it to have fitted between the inner edges of the columns.

The width of the Boeing 767 series and the Douglas B66 Destroyer tires to wide to fit in between the wall panel columns, aside from the tire diameter difference with the tire in the photographs.

The dimensions of the tire in the photographs only fit the Douglas A3 Skywarrior tyre specification.

Therefore the consideration of a Boeing 767 200 series aircraft hitting the North Tower is false.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Aug 16 2011, 12:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 18 2011, 04:23 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 15 2011, 04:24 AM) *
Robert/23investigator,

There was no a3 skywarrior or anything else and the information about subcontractors modifying an a3 sky warrior is actually disinformation. It was created by Karl shwarz and is 100% false and without any merit. Please stop spreading this rumor/lie around.


Dear Aldo

I have no idea how you can be so 'adamant' as to say "there was no a3 skywarrior or anything".

Do you have some information, you have not shared with the rest of us?

There is certainly some evidence though, to suggest very strongly, which at the least shows the story of the aircraft that hit the North Tower being a Boeing 767 200 series, is false.
Boeing 767 200 series do not have tires of only 13 inches width.

Douglas A3Skywarrior do.

If you refer to the further post on this subject the various tyre dimensions are quoted direct from
formal company documents for the aircraft and the tire details.

I cannot speak for the gentleman, who has been attributed, with having information that Douglas A3 Skywarriors were put through a 'retro fit' process, some time not long before 9-11-2001, but it would seem there could be the possibilty his information was correct.
Or else some how the "accused hijackers" managed to transfer from the American Airlines flight 11, to an A3 Skywarrior in flight according to the --radar-- read outs that have been provided and the verbal transcripts associated with the radar.

In the near future a presentation will be placed on Youtube, showing the 'perspective drafting' consideration, of the two photographs of the tire and hub assembly in the North Tower wall panel, which is on the ground near the Greek Church.

Robert

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Aug 18 2011, 05:37 AM
Post #8


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Well I know the article about an a3 sky warrior being retrofitted was based on con man/disinfo op Karl shwarz. I know it was based on pentagon attack "research".

Then the profit making geniuses over at loose change latched onto it, and still sell movies that promote the theory. Which helps create the fantasy in your head.

You want proof?

Out of all the aircraft you could have picked to import into your conspiracy theory fantasy, you pick an a3.

It's old hat and its not what hit the towers.

Focus on what you can prove definitively. Focus on getting an investigation into the data. Focus on getting those part brought into a hangar and publicly matched to mx logs.

Your enthusiasm is appreciated but it is all for naught because this type of picture staring and working backwards from old debunked disinformation inspired articles on fantasy aircraft like the a3 sky warrior.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 18 2011, 07:30 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 18 2011, 07:07 PM) *
Well I know the article about an a3 sky warrior being retrofitted was based on con man/disinfo op Karl shwarz. I know it was based on pentagon attack "research".

Then the profit making geniuses over at loose change latched onto it, and still sell movies that promote the theory. Which helps create the fantasy in your head.

You want proof?

Out of all the aircraft you could have picked to import into your conspiracy theory fantasy, you pick an a3.

It's old hat and its not what hit the towers.

Focus on what you can prove definitively. Focus on getting an investigation into the data. Focus on getting those part brought into a hangar and publicly matched to mx logs.

Your enthusiasm is appreciated but it is all for naught because this type of picture staring and working backwards from old debunked disinformation inspired articles on fantasy aircraft like the a3 sky warrior.


Dear Aldo

I am not here to have a perpetual argument with you, or anybody else for that matter.

Nor am I here to be told by you, what I am to do, or not do.

I would like to make one suggestion to you though in closing.

The photographs, that I think you include as being 'old hat', were taken in the immediate period of the aircraft having hit the North Tower, before the buildings "fell down", before anybody, could get to and alter the evidence.

The evidence shows a tire width of only 13 inches, which in no way, can be associated with the aircraft it has been said hit the building.
There is no --fantasy-- in that.

Have your own way, about whether it was originally part of a Douglas A3 Skywarrior, or not.
But, it is in no way, part of a Boeing 767 200 series aircraft.

I would hardly call my involvement, 'enthusiasm'.
Dedication, yes.

Your clumsy use of words on many occasion, along with a fixed inflexible mind, is something I guess we have to tolerate, but I will not be continuing dialogue with you.

If you can bring yourself to it, I would suggest you have a look at the 'perspective drafting' of the photographs, "which in this particular case", appear not to have been modified by 'editing', and rethink your current opinion.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Aug 18 2011, 07:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 20 2011, 03:24 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Aug 18 2011, 09:00 PM) *
Dear Aldo

If you can bring yourself to it, I would suggest you have a look at the 'perspective drafting' of the photographs, "which in this particular case", appear not to have been modified by 'editing', and rethink your current opinion.

Robert


For those who may be interested.
The video referred to above, has been placed on Youtube as,
23investigator North Tower tire - not from Boeing 767 200 series Aircraft.

When considering what has been presented, it could be further considered, that certain documentation
indicates that Flight 11, was a Boeing 767 200ER, which if the case, would make the tire 46 inch diameter and 18 inch wide.

It is evident in the photographs that a number of motor vehicles are on fire and badly damaged, as well as numerous pieces of sizeable debris, some clearly appearing to be parts of the outer skin of the aircraft involved, which certainly do not look like the shiny outer skin of the American Airlines aircraft.

The columns of the wall panel are very buckled and bent out of position, particularly where the wheel is located, there appearing to be a very sizeable piece of debris imbedded in the panel and wrapped around it.
Most likely part of the main landing gear assembly, that is the part that was permanently fixed in the
aircraft.

One puzzling consideration, is the direction the outer portions of the 'spandrel' connection flanges have been bent.
There will be an explanation for sure, but as yet, it remains a puzzle.

To punch the large wall panel out of the building would have required considerable force, to shear , or fail all the bolt connections, plus the mass of the panel itself.
Something supplied that 'energy' sufficient to then cause a considerable tragectory to 'cedar street', much more mass would have been involved than just that of the tire and hub assembly.

So there should be a lot more parts than just the tire and hub assembly, "stored" somewhere for consideration.
Unless of course, if the "store" happens to be a long deep black hole somewhere.

But lets look at the bright side.
Somebody had the courage to take the photographs, and video, to then place them on the internet,
what other photographs might they have, and their own memories of what they saw, as horrific as it must have been, to even the most hardened.

Robert

ps -- May peace of mind come to every body, even the perpetrators, because it is only through that, people whoever they are, will gain the further courage and committment to resolve these terrible issues.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Aug 20 2011, 03:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Aug 22 2011, 08:12 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Aug 20 2011, 04:54 PM) *
For those who may be interested.
The video referred to above, has been placed on Youtube as,
23investigator North Tower tire - not from Boeing 767 200 series Aircraft.

ps -- May peace of mind come to every body, even the perpetrators, because it is only through that, people whoever they are, will gain the further courage and committment to resolve these terrible issues.

Robert


Dear Mr Balsamo

A further video has been placed on Youtube regarding the consideration of A Douglas A3 Sky warrior being the aircraft that hit the South Tower.

23investigator, South Tower, Infamous video frame, showing hidden A3 Sky warrior.

What is presented in the video, shows much more detail of the aircraft that was hidden by an overlay mask of an aircraft which has been considered by many to be a Boeing 767 200 series.

There can be little doubt, in fact none, that the aircraft which was hidden, is a Douglas A3 Sky Warrior,
or the similar type of aircraft, a Douglas B66 Destroyer.

The presentation shows that what people have considered to be a bulge on the side of the fuselage, is in fact not so, but an effect caused by the way the image was edited.

It is realised that people find it hard to accept that these things can be revealed from images, which is quite understandable, but if any body was to consider just one of the presentations on Youtube, this should be the one.

As we all know, only one domino needs to fall, and the whole 'charade' that has been hoisted on the public at large, will cascade.

The original footage of this particular video should be sought by every way possible.

The result will be as, Niagra Falls, very powerful and loud..

Robert


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 22 2011, 05:21 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Robert

Somehow I missed this thread before. Better late than never, eh? whistle.gif

Regarding the A3, I remember the information that was posted years ago here at PFT about some shop out in Colorado having done work on an A3 making it airworthy and remote controlled. Aldo is certain that the info was DISinfo, and maybe he's right, but from what I've seen, I'm not convinced either way. Aldo is far more informed than I, but he's only human. It seems to me an A3 might be a good candidate for the debris seen inside the Pentagon, as for the various engine and landing gear pieces we see there.

A3 at WTC? It seems highly unlikely to me, for the simple reason that it conflicts with the photographic evidence we see with the airplane strikes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 2 2011, 11:34 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



[quote name='amazed!' date='Aug 23 2011, 06:51 AM' post='10800672']
Robert

Somehow I missed this thread before. Better late than never, eh? whistle.gif

Dear amazed

Hope you catch up with this one.

A new video has been placed on You tube, 23investigator North Tower people trapped on roof.

The video raises the question why it has been said there were no people on the roof of the North Tower.
This opinion given by police officers who flew close to the towers in a helicopter, with video and photographs being taken.
The image in the photographs does not support the opinion that there were no people on the North Tower roof.

Why was no attempt made to rescue these people by the helicopter, and many other helicopters around the place?

The photographs when considered by the use of Adobe Photoshop show some very unusual features, which raises the question, what were changes made to photographs for?

It appears that the Window Wash Machine could have been part of the subject for the reason of the changes.

Previously the consideration of a helicopter arriving at the North Tower about 20 minutes before the aircraft hit it has been raised.
Should that aircraft have been remote controlled, it would have most likely required some form of electronic signal to have been transmitted from the tower for the accuracy of hitting such a small target,
208 feet wide, like landing an aircraft on a conventional runway, where remote controlled aircraft require for the electronic signal from the proximity of the landing strip, after they have been handed off from the main flight electronic control.

There is the possibility that something was installed on the roof of the North Tower for this purpose, or perhaps it arrived aboard a helicopter some 20 minutes earlier.
Should that helicopter have come to grief after the aircraft hit the tower, its debris could have been all over the roof of the North Tower.
If it happened to be perched up on top of the Window Wash Machine, when the aircraft hit the building, there is the possibility something went seriously wrong crashing the helicopter and perhaps damaging the Window Wash Machine.

If people had managed to have got up onto the roof and observed this, it would have been not wanted, for them to be able to report what they saw.

Hence that could be why they were abandoned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 2 2011, 09:44 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



If you're suggesting that the government lied, or that evidence was ignored, I agree completely. Or that evidence was manufactured, I'm on board.

There were so many scams running that day I've lost count. blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 8 2011, 04:05 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 3 2011, 11:14 AM) *
If you're suggesting that the government lied, or that evidence was ignored, I agree completely. Or that evidence was manufactured, I'm on board.

There were so many scams running that day I've lost count. blink.gif


Dear Amazed

Yes there is no doubt about that.

Probably even a lot more since that day, by a very large factor.

A comment has been sent to me, that expressed the person was not able to identify people on the roof in the video placed on Youtube mentioned in the previous post.

The point is taken, as the 'identities' in the image are very small.
When it is considered that the tower face was 208 feet wide with say an average height of the people being 6 feet, (which is being very generous, especially when considered the angle the photograph was taken which would have a foreshortening effect upon anything vertical to the roof), the 'identities' are at a maximum, only going to be equal to
"one thirty fifth" of the face width of the building.

The Youtube video presentation has been created at quite high resolution, so will take quite large magnification, [full screen].
For some unexplained reason, the frames that show the 'identities' have sped up on Youtube, but there is enough time to use the 'pause button' to consider the image for as long as required.

Another comment has been sent, the person not using particularly flattering language, where they expressed that it was no wonder the photographer and air crew did not see people on the roof, as they were not even able to see them in the still photograph image.
It is probably doubtful the person would bother to read this post, as they expressed something about a 'useless investigator', but it is worth considering that the image in the photograph used is much smaller than would have appeared in 'real time', with the vision probably a lot clearer too, considering what "editing' has been done to the photograph images, with only one obvious intent, to mask out details that were not wanted to be seen.

There are other images, to those included in the presentation, in which, two brave men can be seen on a mast on the west of the main towermast.
One at the top, in a white shirt, the other about two thirds up, in a dark blue shirt, both should have been clearly visible to the crew of the helicopter.
Numerous other people are visible on the roof itself, with some it appears amongst various parts at the base of the main mast.

To suggest that these people would not have been visible, does not fit at all, the main reason they are hard to see in the images, undoubtably due to 'editing' of images.

The original source of these images should be sought, if not made available, then demanded.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Sep 8 2011, 11:47 AM
Post #16





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



On second viewing I think I did see a man at 4:30 in your video.

I've got to be careful on what I think before I admit seeing stuff though pal because I'm so dang suggestible.

I know that if I were trapped on the top floor in that smoke and a fire might be raging beneath me, the roof is where I would be headed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 8 2011, 01:45 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Sep 9 2011, 01:17 AM) *
On second viewing I think I did see a man at 4:30 in your video.

I've got to be careful on what I think before I admit seeing stuff though pal because I'm so dang suggestible.

I know that if I were trapped on the top floor in that smoke and a fire might be raging beneath me, the roof is where I would be headed.


Dear Barry

You and me both, I figure it would be you and I up that mast along with the other two guys.
Somewhere I will find a better image showing that, it is a steady process to find them, but I have no doubt at all there were two men on the mast.

It is very sad working through these things, when I look at the image of the lady, I get the impression she was a 'young lady', she looked so composed by her stance, so hopeful no doubt, of rescue.
I usually keep emotion out of what I am doing, but I must say I feel wretchedly sad, somebodies beautiful daughter, abandoned to a certain death.

Those that know the full circumstances have to live with them, lets hope they gain the conscience to say something, and the strength to deal with it.

Good night my friend, it is 3.12 am.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 12 2011, 10:30 AM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 9 2011, 03:15 AM) *
Dear Barry

Those that know the full circumstances have to live with them, lets hope they gain the conscience to say something, and the strength to deal with it.


Dear Barry

There is another reference on the internet about 'a person on the roof'.

A posting on --Club Conspiracy--
Martin Timothy
5-13-2011 4.18pm
Semiendinger's Return
Video
New 9/11 Helicopter Footage shows WTC Towers up close : Gothamist.

The 'poster' does not hold back on his feelings about somebody being --abandoned-- on the roof.
The footage frame he used is of the north west corner of the North Tower near the window washer machine.
There is no identification made which of the two identities at this point of the roof are being referred to, the comment made though that perhaps it could have been the tourist that had a photo taken on the -South Tower-.

The person on the South Tower had quite a large 'back pack' on his shoulders in the photograph, which is an interesting point, as in the case of the North Tower, the male person at the north west corner appears to possibly have a back pack too.

Any body who reads this post and can direct to any more photographs or video relating to the North Tower, could put the advice on here so it can be followed up.

It appears a lot of photographs were taken by detective Semiendinger, many more than have been presented to the public so far.
In an interview recently detective Semiendinger said he did not know that the photos had been released to the public, saying he felt it should have happened long ago.

Well here is his chance to do the right thing then.
Lets hope he reads this, or somebody makes him aware of the interest in the material.

Robert

ps I hope you are becoming more and more at peace with your 'dad's' circumstances.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 24 2011, 05:52 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 13 2011, 12:00 AM) *
Dear Barry

There is another reference on the internet about 'a person on the roof'.

A posting on --Club Conspiracy--
Martin Timothy
5-13-2011 4.18pm
Semiendinger's Return
Video
New 9/11 Helicopter Footage shows WTC Towers up close : Gothamist.

The 'poster' does not hold back on his feelings about somebody being --abandoned-- on the roof.
The footage frame he used is of the north west corner of the North Tower near the window washer machine.
There is no identification made which of the two identities at this point of the roof are being referred to, the comment made though that perhaps it could have been the tourist that had a photo taken on the -South Tower-.

The person on the South Tower had quite a large 'back pack' on his shoulders in the photograph, which is an interesting point, as in the case of the North Tower, the male person at the north west corner appears to possibly have a back pack too.

Any body who reads this post and can direct to any more photographs or video relating to the North Tower, could put the advice on here so it can be followed up.

It appears a lot of photographs were taken by detective Semiendinger, many more than have been presented to the public so far.
In an interview recently detective Semiendinger said he did not know that the photos had been released to the public, saying he felt it should have happened long ago.

Well here is his chance to do the right thing then.
Lets hope he reads this, or somebody makes him aware of the interest in the material.

Robert

ps I hope you are becoming more and more at peace with your 'dad's' circumstances.


Dear Barry

I address this post to you, as I know you are one person who looks at the videos placed on Youtube by
23investigator.
Well there is a new one about to be placed on Youtube for you to ponder about.

Of course, it is hoped that more people from Pilots For Truth have viewed the videos also, and that they may choose to check out the one mentioned in this post.

One of the earliest "video" placed on TV on 11-9-2001, was footage said to have been taken from a helicopter by a 'news crew', some distance north of the towers almost square on to the north face of the towers.
The "video" has been described by different names, with one researcher Mr Richard D Hall, presenting a number of video about what was contained in the "video" which appeared to be the "object" which hit the south face of the South Tower.

Mr Hall came to a conclusion which he called his 'ureka moment', upon realising that the 'aircraft' showing in another video said to have been taken by a 'private individual', had been 'layer masked' over the top of the "object", so as to not reveal its true identity, and to give the impression that a Boeing 767 was the aircraft to be considered as having hit the South Tower.
The video footage he referred to, is the same footage, which 23investigator has placed a video on Youtube about, 23investigator, South Tower, Infamous video frame, showing hidden A3 Sky Warrior, showing how the 'layer masked' "aircraft" purporting to be a Boeing 767, is not convincing, with the original aircraft, which appears to be an A3 Skywarrior or B66 Destroyer, fitting in the very poorly performed masking.

Mr Hall concluded that the layer masked "aircraft", and the "object" he was identifying, followed the same flight path trajectory.

The "video" footage Mr Hall used, was one and the same, as footage on a number of video sites.
One being named, NIST FOIA Chopper 4 Clip Relay of WTC2 Plane Impact.

As presented on the TV and in the "video" footage listed above, there appears to be a small "object" approaching the WTC towers from a south west direction, first seen in the "video" as a small smudgy dot,
which progressively appears to lose altitude, to finally disappear behind the top of the North Tower, moments after, a large explosion then erupting out of the north face east corner of the South Tower.

In the "new video" being placed on Youtube by 23investigator.
By use of Adobe Photoshop, the small "object", is shown to be in fact a 'mask', placed over the true object "aircraft', which flew directly at the South Tower, impacting and exploding.
Three frames of the "video" footage have been used.
The first showing what appears to be a 'globe smudge' in the far distance.
By features of Adobe Photoshop, the 'globe smudge' is reduced revealing a darker 'nucleus'.
Whilst very small and not highly detailed, the 'nucleus' can be seen to have a shape consistent with that of an aircraft.

The second and third frames used, the 'globe smudge' is not identical, but is obviously intended to disguise, 'hide', the darker 'nucleus'.

The third frame is when the 'globe smudge' is immediately above the west corner of the top of the North Tower.
From there it disappears, the next evidence, being an explosion from the east corner of the South Tower.

By projecting perspective lines from the extremities of the furtherest away, darker 'nucleus', about the extremities, of the other two darker 'nucleus', the lines have been continued over to the South Tower, east edge.

A line has been placed across the two projected lines, at the same width, that the wings of a A3 Sky Warrior, would span across the face of the South Tower.
As a comparison another line has been projected back to the extremity of the first 'nucleus', from a width equal to the wingspan of a Boeing 767 200 series.

This line demonstrates that ""if"" the first dark Nucleus was to be considered that of a Boeing 767 200 series, the two subsequent dark 'nucleus', that is the second and third 'globe smudge' 'nucleus' do not align with the projected line from the width of a Boeing 767 200 series wing at the face of the South Tower.

Another layer is then included in the presentation, showing the 'explosion'.

The position of the 'explosion' is consistent, within sensible allowance, to the position of the projected lines from the extremities of the three dark 'nucleus'.

The new video on Youtube, will most likely be called, 23investigator, South Tower, what was contained in the "smudge globes".

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Oct 24 2011, 06:14 PM
Post #20





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 22 2011, 08:52 PM) *
The new video on Youtube, will most likely be called, 23investigator, South Tower, what was contained in the "smudge globes".

Robert S


Thanks Buddy.

I am far from an expert on video but will certainly take a look at your work.

I admire your diligence Robert.

Barry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 30th October 2014 - 11:56 AM