Debunked: German Aeronautics Engineer "I Installed Chemtrail Devices" Whistleblower

[MikeC]

For reference it appears at 5:04 - timestamps are everyone's friend

 

[skephu]

Fairchild-Dornier did not exist in 2008 - having declared itself insolvent in 2002

So what? We have photos of D-BJET from 2003, and it still has the Fairchild-Dornier paintwork. DLR used it, and didn't find it necessary to change the paintwork. By your logic D-BJET couldn't have had that paintwork in 2003 because Fairchild-Dornier did not exist.

 

[skephu]

But do you actually think that it's at all likely that the plane in the OP was misidentified? That there might have been another identical plane in 2008, with the exact same livery (now out of date) and icing test equipment as D-BJET had in 2003?

Read back the thread. I myself pointed out the piece of tape on the tail that makes it certain it is actually D-BJET. But in the OP, this question was just glossed over. The OP did not provide actual evidence that the plane must be D-BJET and cannot be anything else. So this is a missing link in the OP's logic.

 

[Bruno D.]

So what? We have photos of D-BJET from 2003, and it still has the Fairchild-Dornier paintwork. DLR used it, and didn't find it necessary to change the paintwork. By your logic D-BJET couldn't have had that paintwork in 2003 because Fairchild-Dornier did not exist.

Being insolvent is not the same thing as ceasing to exist.

After running out of cash after March's [2002] wages had been paid, Fairchild Dornier has been compelled under German law to put itself into the hands of the administrators. Its immediate future rests with HypoVereinsbank AG ...

https://www.aviationstrategy.aero/newsletter/articles/1206/show


Only in 2003 the company's asset were really sold.

In 2003, the assets of Fairchild were purchased by M7 Aerospace and the new company was relocated to San Antonio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Aircraft

 

[Mick West]

Read back the thread. I myself pointed out the piece of tape on the tail that makes it certain it is actually D-BJET. But in the OP, this question was just glossed over. The OP did not provide actual evidence that the plane must be D-BJET and cannot be anything else. So this is a missing link in the OP's logic.

Thanks, I've added this to the OP.

 

[Bruno D.]

Read back the thread. I myself pointed out the piece of tape on the tail that makes it certain it is actually D-BJET. But in the OP, this question was just glossed over. The OP did not provide actual evidence that the plane must be D-BJET and cannot be anything else. So this is a missing link in the OP's logic.

But skephu, this is exactly what's great about this forum: if something is missing and someone points it out, Mick can go to the OP and add the missing piece of information. If someone points out that something is completely wrong, then the new facts are going also to be researched and pointed.

This is a debate and an exchange of ideas, and your input about the piece of tape was important to the debunking.

PS: Mick did exactly what I thought he would do. ;-) Case and point.