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 )

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
We All Know Now Corley Never Had A Clue What Became Of United Airlines Flight 175, A detailed analysis of corrupted UA175 evidence.

questionitall
post Jan 29 2013, 07:20 PM
Post #101





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



I’m curious to know; is anyone familiar with Carol Ciemiengo’s article ‘September 11, 2001: A Thermographer’s Experience at Ground Zero’? More specifically then, has anyone paid particular attention to the photograph (carolciemiengo2) of the alleged aircraft part therein and have they thoroughly investigated that part? I ask because even though I’d not seen that particular photograph, prior to reading her article, I had known of photographs there in the NIST Cumulus Datasets showing of that same part. One in particular shows that part with a part number thereon a sub-assembly but unfortunately I don’t have access to Boeing 767-200 manuals. That part number makes it possible to prove (or disprove) that part originated from a Boeing 767-200. That is why this part needs to be investigated!

I have no idea what aircraft system the part came from, although it does appear to be part of a hydraulic ram of sorts. Perhaps it’s from a main gear or nose gear extension/retraction actuator, or even a baggage bay door (or cargo door) extension/retraction actuator. Having said so, some argue the alleged UA175 aircraft engine recovered at the corner of Church Street and Murray Street was not standard for type on ANY United Airlines Boeing 767-200 aircraft. Could the part in question be the remnants of an engine core shaft? I highly doubt it, but then I’m not an engine specialist. That said it certainly appears to be too small and far too primitive to have been from the core of an engine. Assuming it came from a Boeing 767-200 sub-assembly chances are the part number is to be found in a Boeing 767-200 Vendor Component Manual and not the airframe manuals.

I’ve no doubt the object in question is an aircraft part and furthermore it had to have originated from the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2, but where’s my proof of that? Having analyzed the NIST Cumulus Datasets photographs and by comparing various features of the building rooftop, as seen in (99CHU~36_114) and NOAA’s photograph (Ficheiro:Wtc-photo.jpg) I’ve established the building and rooftop on which the part was found embedded. In fact the clearly visible indentation caused by the impact of this part, the white tarpaulin used to cover and protect the evidence/crime scene and everything about the two photographs match. That building was located at the Northwest corner of the intersection at Barclay Street and Church Street. I say was; due to the fact the building no longer exists.
Furthermore, the path of trajectory and distance that part travelled means it had to have been ejected from WTC 2 and with equal/identical force to that of the aircraft engine and main wheel/brake assembly highlighted in FIGURE 1-4 (Areas of aircraft debris impact) thereon page 1-6 of its May 2002, World Trade Center Building Performance Study. I exclude the section of fuselage from that scenario – the evidence proving that fuselage wreckage was planted there on the rooftop of WTC 5. I’ve reproduced that image and posted it to Flickr but not before adding to it, showing where exactly the part (SHAFT) can be located in (Ficheiro:Wtc-photo.jpg)

So then, if this part had in fact originated from the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2, why then was it excluded from the aforementioned FIGURE 1-4? That being the case one need ask ‘why had knowledge of that particular aircraft part been swept under the carpet by the NIST WTC Investigators who NEVER made these photographs public until forced to by court order?’ Why indeed! I suspect it’s because the part in question can be identified! By that I mean I believe the part may prove to be something other than a part from UA175.

Clearly NIST had to have known of its existence! After all, photographs of the part were in NIST’s possession all along and the part number plainly obvious, to me anyways! In fact, on September 19, 2011 Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST stated, ‘All information released under the FOIA request to The International Center for 9/11 Studies had not been altered in any way by NIST prior to its public disclosure. Furthermore, that evidence was copied from the original exactly as it was received. It was logged into a database as it was received and it was accessible only to those working on the investigation. NIST protected the integrity of the originals at all times.’ That being the case, did the NIST investigation looking into WTC 2 (with its 16 million dollar budget) even bother to try and establish the parts Providence from these photographs and all their video footage? If they did they never disclosed their findings, which only lends to the belief the NIST WTC investigators were inept at best!

Indeed, on December 15, 2008 Charles Thornton confirmed what I’ve always believed - In regards to Mr. W. Gene Corley’s WTC investigation he stated, “The FEMA report was done by ASCE and it was a whitewash...” Recall if you will that Mr. W. Gene Corley was the lead investigator of the FEMA WTC investigation. As such there’s no doubt in my mind he sanitized its evidence and outcome, just like he did in Oklahoma City and Waco, Texas. Make no mistake; the NIST investigators were just as negligent. In their own words, from the likes of Mr. Michael E. Newman, NIST relied heavily on the ‘expert advice’ of others when arriving at their WTC investigative conclusions. ‘Experts’ such as Mr. W. Gene Corley, who has little in the way of experience and/or qualifications, in fields of expertise he’s so often called upon to give in such shady cases.

Let’s face it; the official NIST investigation never established what aircraft slammed into WTC 2 on 9/11 and certainly NOT by way of a forensic investigation looking into this part and others like it, such as the flight data recorder(s) discovered in the WTC debris field. If you doubt the latter then please do explain the statement “Investigators have identified the signal from one of the black boxes in the WTC debris”, as made by Edward F. Jacoby, Jr., therein his World Trade Center Plane Crash - Executive Summary, dated September 18, 2001. In my opinion then, why NO effort was made to forensically investigate the recovered wreckage of the alleged UA175 is testament to the ‘Powers that Be’ knowing very well UA175 did not slam into WTC 2 on 9/11!

What other explanation can there be for why the authorities did NOT thoroughly investigate this matter and in doing so quash all doubt for the official 9/11 narrative, not to mention all talk of Conspiracy. The fact that every surviving traceable/part-numbered/serialized aircraft part recovered from all the aircraft destroyed on 9/11 had been scooped-up by the FBI, spirited away and immediately destroyed by the powers that be, that smacks of a cover-up!
Having said all that, what’s unique about this alleged (WTC aircraft) part is the nearly complete and legible part number there on the gland nut (as seen in the photograph EPSN0083). Someone with the knowhow and access to Manufacturer (Vendor) Manuals can readily and positively trace the gland nut back to its manufacturer (Vendor) and ultimately then to each and every model/type of aircraft it was ever part and parcel to. Unlike the (alleged UA175) section of aircraft fuselage, part of an engine and a wheel/brake assembly that were never positively identified as such and yet the mindless masses still believe them to be UA175 wreckage...How utterly blind and ignorant most people truly are!

Indeed, a not so blind and self-motivated individual might discover the gland nut was never a part of any component/assembly known to be standard for type on the Boeing 767-200. That fact alone would prove the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2 was NOT United Airlines flight 175 and knowing the aircraft parts Providence - its “Chain of Custody,” Mr. Gene ‘The Cleaner’ Corley would have some serious explaining to do.

Here are the online links to the pertinent photographs:

Note: The first (four) of the following photographs are located in the NIST Cumulus Dataset, Release_16: 42A0049, George Bell (Moodys) and their companion (99CHU~36_114) is located in Release_36, 42A0514 - G37D1, Bill Garcia (Moodys).

EPSN0081 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/8398976425/in/photostream
EPSN0082 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/8425315246/in/photostream
EPSN0083 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/8398907407/in/photostream)
99CHU~36_114 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/8398976425/in/photostream)
Ficheiro:Wtc-photo.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc-photo.jpg)
FIGURE 1-4 (Areas of aircraft debris impact) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/)
carolciemiengo2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/8427252795/in/photostream)

NOTE: I have rotated photograph EPSN0083 90 degrees clockwise for the sole purpose of demonstrating my points made.
Obviously then [moral conviction] on the part of the authorities has waned (from little to none) over the years and they’re highly unlikely to investigate this matter too. As such I’m not expecting anything will come of this insight and evidence. However, I’m putting it out there online as well, on the off chance someone with the resources to investigate this matter can and will do just that, to settle the matter once and for all.

The truth is I’d love for someone to prove my overall UA175 “Conspiracy Theory” ridiculous and utterly wrong. In all honesty and most sincerely then I am haunted still by the memory of that day. Mostly for having seen over and over again, in the course of my UA175 research, far too many innocent lives needlessly snuffed-out in such brutal fashion. Indeed, the poignant words that resonate most with me to this day are Tami Michael’s having asserted with such palpable anguish “There’s people falling out - That was a person!” Those people were loved dearly by someone and they deserve justice, no less now than the day they were murdered.

So yes, I’d be immensely relieved to be proven wrong, knowing and believing the government and various agencies played no nefarious role in the 9/11 attacks and instead were simply asleep on the job at the time and not complicit in the crime against humanity that was 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Sep 11 2019, 08:34 PM
Post #102





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



BREAKING NEWS: MATT NELSON AND FRIENDS SOLVE PHOTOSHOP MYSTERY - NOT!
With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence and set the record straight on why Matt Nelson and his friend waypastvne are sadly mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage not having been surreptitiously modified [Photoshopped].
According to waypastvne (the supposed expert in digital art) Baker's image has not been altered in the manner I've described, simply because he/she "looked at the photos and didn't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop." Rather, "You just need to look at it at the right perspective." With that being said they marked key features like the leftmost protuberance on the larger chunk of fuselage with red arrows to make their point. But the problem is that supposed obstruction is clearly resting hard against the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....]. Indeed, is it's well outside the window opening. And in light of the fact that the smaller chunk of fuselage had been propped up against that all too obvious rust coloured piece of metal, and inline with the larger chunk of fuselage, further proving my point that someone paint brushed out [Photoshopped] the aforementioned window opening is the fact that a ley line drawn along the bottom edge of the leftmost (first and second) window openings on the larger chunk of fuselage clearly runs along the top of that protuberance, thereby intersecting said window opening at roughly its midpoint.
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's supposition that Baker "crouched to the level of the handrail" at the time of exposing the photograph in question, that too is grossly misleading because had Baker done so then his camera lens would have been below the staircase landing and roughly level with the hip of the person in the foreground; not his head and shoulder. But the Horizon Line in Baker's image is clearly higher than the lower horizontal joint on the adjoining pieces of exterior wall cladding to the left, not to mention the staircase landing that feature intersects with. And because of it Baker's perspective on the fuselage wreckage in question here was undoubtedly looking down at the piece of metal cladding on the lower staircase tread and both chunks of fuselage.
Which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.
So too, Nelson's claim that Baker's "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage atop WTC 5 "is in fact authentic aircraft fuselage fallen from the plane with tail number N612UA" reeks of bullshit! Because as Nelson pointed out, the FBI's response to Aidan Monaghan's FOIA civil complaint seeking records pertaining to the recovery and identification of wreckage generated by the four aircraft destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, proves that based on the premise that “The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,....” the FBI and NTSB World Trade Center site investigators dispensed with forensically analyzing the aircraft wreckage they recovered and absconded with in the days and weeks following those attacks.
All of which means that despite Nelson's argument that the DNA argument the authenticity and provenance of the fuselage wreckage in question is not a scientifically established fact!
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's claim that officialdom hasn't exploited Baker's image, that too is bullshit because the Exif Metadata for Baker's image proves someone accessed that image for whatever reason on January 12, 2005. And that date was a mere three weeks before it and W. Gene Corley's claim that he "was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied" and "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2" debuted in Popular Mechanics magazines February 5, 2005, hit-piece entitled 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report'. Wherein every subsequent version of that partisan rags take on their 9/11 experts recollections the authors routinely tout Corley's unsubstantiated claim as proof that the passenger aircraft once registered as N612UA slammed into World Trade Center 2.
And knowing what I do of Baker's image after reading Corley's bullshit claims I attempted to contact him a number of times with questions concerning his apparent falsification of that supposed evidence. And because he failed to respond to my line of questioning I emailed Corley for the last time with the following challenge to his much touted expertise on January 25, 2011:
"Hello Mr. Corley, I wrote you on November 26, 2010 with a few questions regarding the aircraft wreckage you discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 but I never received a reply from you, so I went ahead and posted my findings at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum without your input or rebuttal. Should you like to respond to my original questions or any of the damning evidence therein the United 175 thread Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence? you are more than welcome to do so at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. I encourage you to do so, seeing as your name and reputation are all over that travesty you swore to under oath."
Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide. Likewise then, after all these years of knowing about the anomalous threaded fasteners [HiLoks] joining the sheet metal skin to the upper stringer [longeron] immediately AFT of the window opening on the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....] Nelson and his friends have yet to investigate the matter by getting off their sorry asses and actually proving that a run-of-the-mill [unmodified] Boeing 767 passenger airliner slammed into WTC 2. Opposed to simply regurgitating half-truths and factoids with the chat room fools who follow their lead.
Last but not least, NIST's World Trade Center investigators best guess estimation [WTC 2 Base Case Global Impact Analysis] states that the primary impact path of the aircraft nose cone was the 81st floor slab, which sliced the the fuselage in half along its longitudinal axis and severely damaged the fuselage structures as they penetrated the exterior columns and plowed through the floor slab, all the way from the Southern exterior wall to the buildings core. And according to those investigators the right-hand [starboard] engine did not impact, nor take out, any of those core columns. Consequently, the mass/force consisting of much of the aircraft fuselage combined with office furnishings is said to have "bulldozed" its way through the Southeast corner of the buildings core, all the way through to the far side [North face) of the building, severing an estimated 5 core columns and heavily damaging 4 others in the process.
In other words we're expected to believe two relatively light-weight chunks of aluminum originating from the exact same location at the rear of the aircraft fuselage survived the maelstrom in their path and after slamming all the way through that buidlings core they were magically ejected from the North face window openings by the force of the exploding jet fuel alone and hurled hundreds of feet clear onto the rooftop of WTC 5 in a dead straight trajectory.
Needless to say that scenario smacks of the Kennedy assassination investigation and its magic bullet trajectory/theory, and anyone who still believes Corley wasn't a liar and perjurer truly needs to get a brain and reevaluate their way of thinking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 3 2019, 09:39 AM
Post #103





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



[quote name='questionitall' date='Sep 11 2019, 08:34 PM' post='10814562']
BREAKING NEWS: MATT NELSON AND FRIENDS SOLVE PHOTOSHOP MYSTERY - NOT!
With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence and set the record straight on why Matt Nelson and his friend waypastvne are sadly mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage not having been surreptitiously modified [Photoshopped].
According to waypastvne (the supposed expert in digital art) Baker's image has not been altered in the manner I've described, simply because he/she "looked at the photos and didn't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop." Rather, "You just need to look at it at the right perspective." With that being said they marked key features like the leftmost protuberance on the larger chunk of fuselage with red arrows to make their point. But the problem is that supposed obstruction is clearly resting hard against the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....]. Indeed, is it's well outside the window opening. And in light of the fact that the smaller chunk of fuselage had been propped up against that all too obvious rust coloured piece of metal, and inline with the larger chunk of fuselage, further proving my point that someone paint brushed out [Photoshopped] the aforementioned window opening is the fact that a ley line drawn along the bottom edge of the leftmost (first and second) window openings on the larger chunk of fuselage clearly runs along the top of that protuberance, thereby intersecting said window opening at roughly its midpoint.
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's supposition that Baker "crouched to the level of the handrail" at the time of exposing the photograph in question, that too is grossly misleading because had Baker done so then his camera lens would have been below the staircase landing and roughly level with the hip of the person in the foreground; not his head and shoulder. But the Horizon Line in Baker's image is clearly higher than the lower horizontal joint on the adjoining pieces of exterior wall cladding to the left, not to mention the staircase landing that feature intersects with. And because of it Baker's perspective on the fuselage wreckage in question here was undoubtedly looking down at the piece of metal cladding on the lower staircase tread and both chunks of fuselage.
Which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.
So too, Nelson's claim that Baker's "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage atop WTC 5 "is in fact authentic aircraft fuselage fallen from the plane with tail number N612UA" reeks of bullshit! Because as Nelson pointed out, the FBI's response to Aidan Monaghan's FOIA civil complaint seeking records pertaining to the recovery and identification of wreckage generated by the four aircraft destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, proves that based on the premise that “The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,....” the FBI and NTSB World Trade Center site investigators dispensed with forensically analyzing the aircraft wreckage they recovered and absconded with in the days and weeks following those attacks.
All of which means that despite Nelson's argument that the DNA argument the authenticity and provenance of the fuselage wreckage in question is not a scientifically established fact!
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's claim that officialdom hasn't exploited Baker's image, that too is bullshit because the Exif Metadata for Baker's image proves someone accessed that image for whatever reason on January 12, 2005. And that date was a mere three weeks before it and W. Gene Corley's claim that he "was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied" and "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2" debuted in Popular Mechanics magazines February 5, 2005, hit-piece entitled 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report'. Wherein every subsequent version of that partisan rags take on their 9/11 experts recollections the authors routinely tout Corley's unsubstantiated claim as proof that the passenger aircraft once registered as N612UA slammed into World Trade Center 2.
And knowing what I do of Baker's image after reading Corley's bullshit claims I attempted to contact him a number of times with questions concerning his apparent falsification of that supposed evidence. And because he failed to respond to my line of questioning I emailed Corley for the last time with the following challenge to his much touted expertise on January 25, 2011:
"Hello Mr. Corley, I wrote you on November 26, 2010 with a few questions regarding the aircraft wreckage you discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 but I never received a reply from you, so I went ahead and posted my findings at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum without your input or rebuttal. Should you like to respond to my original questions or any of the damning evidence therein the United 175 thread Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence? you are more than welcome to do so at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. I encourage you to do so, seeing as your name and reputation are all over that travesty you swore to under oath."
Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide. Likewise then, after all these years of knowing about the anomalous threaded fasteners [HiLoks] joining the sheet metal skin to the upper stringer [longeron] immediately AFT of the window opening on the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....] Nelson and his friends have yet to investigate the matter by getting off their sorry asses and actually proving that a run-of-the-mill [unmodified] Boeing 767 passenger airliner slammed into WTC 2. Opposed to simply regurgitating half-truths and factoids with the chat room fools who follow their lead.
Last but not least, NIST's World Trade Center investigators best guess estimation [WTC 2 Base Case Global Impact Analysis] states that the primary impact path of the aircraft nose cone was the 81st floor slab, which sliced the the fuselage in half along its longitudinal axis and severely damaged the fuselage structures as they penetrated the exterior columns and plowed through the floor slab, all the way from the Southern exterior wall to the buildings core. And according to those investigators the right-hand [starboard] engine did not impact, nor take out, any of those core columns. Consequently, the mass/force consisting of much of the aircraft fuselage combined with office furnishings is said to have "bulldozed" its way through the Southeast corner of the buildings core, all the way through to the far side [North face) of the building, severing an estimated 5 core columns and heavily damaging 4 others in the process.
In other words we're expected to believe two relatively light-weight chunks of aluminum originating from the exact same location at the rear of the aircraft fuselage survived the maelstrom in their path and after slamming all the way through that buidlings core they were magically ejected from the North face window openings by the force of the exploding jet fuel alone and hurled hundreds of feet clear onto the rooftop of WTC 5 in a dead straight trajectory.
Needless to say that scenario smacks of the Kennedy assassination investigation and its magic bullet trajectory/theory, and anyone who still believes Corley wasn't a liar and perjurer truly needs to get a brain and reevaluate their way of thinking!
ADDENDUM:
I recently demonstrated why Matt Nelson and his friend 'waypastvne' are sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been surreptitiously modified [Photoshopped]. And in response to that post on Mr. Nelson's thread '9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero' at International Skeptics Forum he, waypastvne, and a host of their cyber-thug supporters immediately retaliated in typical fashion by hurling personal insults my way. But to no-one's surprise not one of them so much as mentioned, let alone challenged, my findings and conclusion. All of which goes to show you can lead a donkey to knowledge but you can't make the dumb ass animal think.
What prompted me to come forward and correct Nelson and his friend(s) on their wrongful analysis of Baker's now infamous photograph is the statement made by their aide-de-camp (Dave Rogers) that my claim of photoshopping seems to be no more than a failure to visualise spatial relationships in 3-D. As Roger's put it "In other words, exactly what waypastvne said on page 1. Seems utterly obvious once you look at stills from the video." And by that he meant the collage of supposed UA Flight 175 wreckage photographs in post #31 and #86 of Nelson's thread '9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero'.
There's a saying, "when you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you." Meaning, if you point a finger at someone in judgement and accuse them of wrongdoing you had best be able to elucidate your allegation(s) and defend your position.
Yes, I failed to make out the butt joint seam on the wreckage in Baker's photograph, and yes, I overlooked the butt joint plates between window 2 and 3 in the photographs I posted online. However, the point I was making about that feature was a relatively insignificant part of the overall argument I was making years ago. That the crux of my research and concern was (and remains) the existence of threaded fasteners on the smaller piece of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****) are not standard for type. What's more, I have never claimed to have cut and dried, indisputable answers to the questions I ask - only suspicions and "official" evidence thereof. And if that were the case then I'd have chosen the online moniker Answeritall. Not Questionitall!
So then, having fully demonstrated why Nelson and his posse of truth seeking poser friends (and particularly Dave Roger's) are wrong about Baker's image NOT having been Photoshopped is redemption enough for the punk-ass waypastvne's petty little quip "It is the same old same old. The truther makes a claim and then provides us with the evidence that proves he is wrong." Ironically (and quite laughably) that's precisely what the dunce did when he/she posted the aforementioned collage of comparison photographs. Back atcha, you idiotic little pip-squeek!
Might I also point out that years before Nelson, 'waypastvne', and their princaple mouthpiece (Dave Rogers) started misleading unwitting people online with their take on what Baker's photograph reveals I was proactively seeking answers to fundamental questions like whether or not that photograph had been tampered with. And unlike those attention seeking, wannabe prestitutes I did so by going directly to the person I'd suspected, and openly accused, of corrupting that image - the now deceased Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E.,. Indeed, my first email to Corley about that subject was sent at 8:35 p.m. on the evening of November 26, 2010. Wherein said email I asked James B. Meig's expert witness on UA Flight 175 for Popular Mechanics magazines Feb 5, 2005, hit-piece article 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report' the following questions.
- What date did you take the photograph of the UA 175 fuselage with window cut-outs in it, because the online controversy is with the date of exposure, as attributed to this photograph by FEMA. They dated the exposure of this image as being the 25th of October, 2001 which apparently does not jive with the time period you are said to have been on the WTC site?
- Did you discover this piece of fuselage yourself while you were investigating the WTC site during October 7 thru the 12, 2001, or were you told of its existence and location on WTC 5?
- Did you return to the site following the 12th of October, 2001, or did you remain on site all along and throughout late October, 2001?
- Did you find this piece of fuselage where it was, in relation to the photographic image you took, or was it propped up in place there in order for you to photograph it, as many people suggest?
- To your knowledge was this piece of fuselage moved from under larger debris before you arrived on the scene, or at that the time you were photographing the immediate area and this wreckage? I ask because many state that your photograph looks suspicious, that the surface of fuselage with the partial registration markings on it appears to be a second and smaller piece, having been placed next to and even under the larger piece which bears the series of whole window cut-outs. Is that the case?
- Did anyone that you are aware of relocate these pieces of fuselage from somewhere else on the roof of WTC 5 prior to you photographing them?
- To your best recollection approximately how many identifiable and individual fuselage skin parts were photographed on the roof of WTC 5 during the 6 day period you were on the WTC site? It has been mentioned that you've said you have many photographs of aircraft parts on the roof of WTC 5.
- Are you at liberty to share any other images you may have taken that day and may have in your possession?
All said and done Corley ignored each of my emails in kind, and in my opinion the fact that he never contested my very public allegation of criminal wrongdoing strongly suggests he was responsible for the Photoshop alteration of Baker's (FEMA) one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage.
Last but not least, not unlike Luther, leader of the Rogues gang in the film 'Warriors', Nelson's response to my shaming them was to goad me into playing along with his stupendously absurd theory that "It flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5." And, he said, If I come back to their International Skeptics jerk-fest he'll explain HOW that was the case to me. Just for once, how about you prove that was the case Mr. Knowitall!
In closing, I suggest that people read Matt Nelson's ebook '
the aforementioned individuals overall theories and online commentary, and then ask yourself this; what have any of them proven? And for that matter what new information have any of them uncovered and/or actually investigated that further advances 9/11 truth? The answer to that is NOTHING!
Sincerely
From a Transport Canada Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with thirty plus years experience repairing the screw-ups made by some overconfident, arrogated pilots who routinely bugger up perfectly serviceable aircraft, all because they don't fully understand them and haven't got a clue how to actually fly them hands-on.
P.S. - There's a saying amongst us AME's about such pilots - "push button, get banana". And with respect to who I am, that's none of your Goddamned business, a-holes!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 3 2019, 11:13 AM
Post #104





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



[quote name='questionitall' date='Oct 3 2019, 09:39 AM' post='10814565']
[quote name='questionitall' date='Sep 11 2019, 08:34 PM' post='10814562']
BREAKING NEWS: MATT NELSON AND FRIENDS SOLVE PHOTOSHOP MYSTERY - NOT!
With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence and set the record straight on why Matt Nelson and his friend waypastvne are sadly mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage not having been surreptitiously modified [Photoshopped].
According to waypastvne (the supposed expert in digital art) Baker's image has not been altered in the manner I've described, simply because he/she "looked at the photos and didn't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop." Rather, "You just need to look at it at the right perspective." With that being said they marked key features like the leftmost protuberance on the larger chunk of fuselage with red arrows to make their point. But the problem is that supposed obstruction is clearly resting hard against the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....]. Indeed, is it's well outside the window opening. And in light of the fact that the smaller chunk of fuselage had been propped up against that all too obvious rust coloured piece of metal, and inline with the larger chunk of fuselage, further proving my point that someone paint brushed out [Photoshopped] the aforementioned window opening is the fact that a ley line drawn along the bottom edge of the leftmost (first and second) window openings on the larger chunk of fuselage clearly runs along the top of that protuberance, thereby intersecting said window opening at roughly its midpoint.
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's supposition that Baker "crouched to the level of the handrail" at the time of exposing the photograph in question, that too is grossly misleading because had Baker done so then his camera lens would have been below the staircase landing and roughly level with the hip of the person in the foreground; not his head and shoulder. But the Horizon Line in Baker's image is clearly higher than the lower horizontal joint on the adjoining pieces of exterior wall cladding to the left, not to mention the staircase landing that feature intersects with. And because of it Baker's perspective on the fuselage wreckage in question here was undoubtedly looking down at the piece of metal cladding on the lower staircase tread and both chunks of fuselage.
Which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.
So too, Nelson's claim that Baker's "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage atop WTC 5 "is in fact authentic aircraft fuselage fallen from the plane with tail number N612UA" reeks of bullshit! Because as Nelson pointed out, the FBI's response to Aidan Monaghan's FOIA civil complaint seeking records pertaining to the recovery and identification of wreckage generated by the four aircraft destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, proves that based on the premise that “The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,....” the FBI and NTSB World Trade Center site investigators dispensed with forensically analyzing the aircraft wreckage they recovered and absconded with in the days and weeks following those attacks.
All of which means that despite Nelson's argument that the DNA argument the authenticity and provenance of the fuselage wreckage in question is not a scientifically established fact!
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's claim that officialdom hasn't exploited Baker's image, that too is bullshit because the Exif Metadata for Baker's image proves someone accessed that image for whatever reason on January 12, 2005. And that date was a mere three weeks before it and W. Gene Corley's claim that he "was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied" and "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2" debuted in Popular Mechanics magazines February 5, 2005, hit-piece entitled 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report'. Wherein every subsequent version of that partisan rags take on their 9/11 experts recollections the authors routinely tout Corley's unsubstantiated claim as proof that the passenger aircraft once registered as N612UA slammed into World Trade Center 2.
And knowing what I do of Baker's image after reading Corley's bullshit claims I attempted to contact him a number of times with questions concerning his apparent falsification of that supposed evidence. And because he failed to respond to my line of questioning I emailed Corley for the last time with the following challenge to his much touted expertise on January 25, 2011:
"Hello Mr. Corley, I wrote you on November 26, 2010 with a few questions regarding the aircraft wreckage you discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 but I never received a reply from you, so I went ahead and posted my findings at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum without your input or rebuttal. Should you like to respond to my original questions or any of the damning evidence therein the United 175 thread Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence? you are more than welcome to do so at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. I encourage you to do so, seeing as your name and reputation are all over that travesty you swore to under oath."
Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide. Likewise then, after all these years of knowing about the anomalous threaded fasteners [HiLoks] joining the sheet metal skin to the upper stringer [longeron] immediately AFT of the window opening on the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....] Nelson and his friends have yet to investigate the matter by getting off their sorry asses and actually proving that a run-of-the-mill [unmodified] Boeing 767 passenger airliner slammed into WTC 2. Opposed to simply regurgitating half-truths and factoids with the chat room fools who follow their lead.
Last but not least, NIST's World Trade Center investigators best guess estimation [WTC 2 Base Case Global Impact Analysis] states that the primary impact path of the aircraft nose cone was the 81st floor slab, which sliced the the fuselage in half along its longitudinal axis and severely damaged the fuselage structures as they penetrated the exterior columns and plowed through the floor slab, all the way from the Southern exterior wall to the buildings core. And according to those investigators the right-hand [starboard] engine did not impact, nor take out, any of those core columns. Consequently, the mass/force consisting of much of the aircraft fuselage combined with office furnishings is said to have "bulldozed" its way through the Southeast corner of the buildings core, all the way through to the far side [North face) of the building, severing an estimated 5 core columns and heavily damaging 4 others in the process.
In other words we're expected to believe two relatively light-weight chunks of aluminum originating from the exact same location at the rear of the aircraft fuselage survived the maelstrom in their path and after slamming all the way through that buidlings core they were magically ejected from the North face window openings by the force of the exploding jet fuel alone and hurled hundreds of feet clear onto the rooftop of WTC 5 in a dead straight trajectory.
Needless to say that scenario smacks of the Kennedy assassination investigation and its magic bullet trajectory/theory, and anyone who still believes Corley wasn't a liar and perjurer truly needs to get a brain and reevaluate their way of thinking!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 12 2019, 10:01 AM
Post #105





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337



CAN ANYONE PROVE FEMA'S AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE WRECKAGE LANDED ON WTC 5?!
Mr. Brian Foster (AKA waypastvne) recently posted the following statement on Matt Nelson's 9/11 Debris thread at International Skeptics Forum. [1]
After recently demonstrating why Mr. Foster is flat-out wrong about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only official photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage not having Photoshopped he dismissed my findings, and he immediately changed the subject by counterclaiming that fuselage wreckage "flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5."
Regardless of Foster's theories and unsubstantiated opinions on this matter, in light of countervailing evidence which brings into question Popular Mechanics magazines equivocal statement that Dr. W. Gene Corley was able to track the trajectory of a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows as it fell from the sky, I don't believe that and/or "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2" in the least bit. And I've provided more than enough reasons and evidence to support my steadfast position on that matter in previous articles and posts.
Having said that, my question is, can anyone other than my unworthy adversary Mr. Foster please prove to me (beyond a shadow of a doubt) how that wreckage managed to do what Foster claims with (only) the NIST Cumulus Dataset videos and photographs as their guide and evidence? Because right or wrong I'd like nothing more than to have this matter and the entire issue settled definitely and laid to rest.
[1] Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forum...ad.php?t=284475
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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: 14th October 2019 - 02:30 AM