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

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

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
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.

amazed!
post Jun 9 2011, 08:24 PM
Post #21





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I never suggested otherwise Q

I feel like I'm on Star Trek or something. whistle.gif

This post has been edited by amazed!: Jun 9 2011, 08:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 10 2011, 10:47 PM
Post #22





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 9 2011, 09:24 PM) *
I never suggested otherwise Q

I feel like I'm on Star Trek or something. whistle.gif


Say what?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 11 2011, 09:07 AM
Post #23





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I never suggested, dude, that you did not know what you were talking about, as you put it. Never once.

I'm sorry if you're offended or threatened by questions and question marks.

I say again Q, you and I are essentially in agreement. Do I need to say that in some other language so that you might comprehend, or are you just looking for somebody to quarrel with?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 11 2011, 07:44 PM
Post #24





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 11 2011, 10:07 AM) *
I never suggested, dude, that you did not know what you were talking about, as you put it. Never once.

I'm sorry if you're offended or threatened by questions and question marks.

I say again Q, you and I are essentially in agreement. Do I need to say that in some other language so that you might comprehend, or are you just looking for somebody to quarrel with?


Not at all...I was simply confused by your previous statement and the use of the term "Q" that's all, but judging by your attitude here I realize I don't really have any desire to further our conversation. Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 11 2011, 10:37 PM
Post #25





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



QUOTE (questionitall @ May 21 2011, 08:53 PM) *
Hello again Louie - I went to http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/US/NY/Gr...tion/index.html to look at your work and I have to say your photographs were taken from the best vantage points I’ve seen to date. It’s probably best you didn’t take photographs of the serialized aircraft parts you helped recover and make them public because I’m certain you would be dead today for having done so. Having said that I've recently been assisted by some very adept sleuths and without their help I'm not sure my United Airlines flight 175 research and findings could be furthered however. As keen as I am for discovering new facts and the truth of what actually happened at ground zero on 9/11 I'm very much concerned for the health and welfare of those helping me. From what you've told me so far I'm very impressed with your personal knowledge and experiences at ground zero but in the same breath I'm also quite concerned for your personal security.

What I'm saying is I have a feeling your photographs would go a long ways to answering some of my questions regarding the aircraft wreckage on the rooftop of WTC 5 and I would be ecstatic if you were to share more of your work with me, however. I do not think it’s advisable to post them online, because from what I’ve seen of your portfolio already I’m concerned for your personal security. As for what you said earlier of Tami Michaels’ and Guy Rosbrooks’ 13 videos posted online of the ground zero attacks I have it on good authority and I am absolutely certain of the fact not all of their video footage is known to the public and I would bet dimes to dollars what hasn’t been seen of their critical video footage would blow the roof off the official WTC site (attack aircraft) investigation.

In light of what you’ve told me so far Louie should you have in your pssession more and higher resolution photographs of the rooftop of WTC 5 (as taken from the rooftop of 1 Liberty Plaza and the Millenium Hilton Hotel) or anything else which you have never shown anyone please keep them to yourself, but should you wish to share them with me I’m sure we can arrange for you to get them to me in a safe and anonymous manner.

Thank you ever so much and take care Louie...please stay in touch.


Hello Louie - If you' re reading this and you wouldn't mind getting touch with me privately please let me know and I'll arrange that to happen. Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 12 2011, 08:31 PM
Post #26





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well it seems you are NOT a Star Trek fan.

Q (from questionitall) was a character on several episodes with awesome powers.

It was intended as a compliment. C'est la vie. I appreciate the research you have done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 16 2011, 12:21 AM
Post #27





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 12 2011, 09:31 PM) *
Well it seems you are NOT a Star Trek fan.

Q (from questionitall) was a character on several episodes with awesome powers.

It was intended as a compliment. C'est la vie. I appreciate the research you have done.



.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 21 2011, 08:49 PM
Post #28





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



JUNE 21, 2011 UPDATE!!!


In light of recent developments that have come to my attention over the last day or two I’ve found myself having to re-visit and re-evaluate my overall understanding of the (alleged) yet official United Airlines flight 175 aircraft wreckage. The same wreckage the World Trade Center Building Performance Study investigator’s presented to the world as being genuinely that. This predicament arose out of an image I downloaded from the NIST Cumulus dataset wherein it shows that wreckage like never before. For anyone who wishes to confirm the chain of custody of the image it is labelled DSC00478 and it is located in File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 of the NIST Cumulus dataset Release_32.

Although this image corroborates what I’ve always maintained, that the aircraft wreckage in question thereon the rooftop of WTC 5 had been tampered with and all related photographic evidence of it falsified, the fact is the wreckage therein DSC00478 does appear to be from a Boeing 767 airframe. That possibility poses to be an obvious conundrum for my UA175 research and findings but as for which series of Boeing 767 airframe I’ve not yet confirmed that, however. Having said that there are characteristics about the wreckage shown in DSC00478 that do not sit well with me and further investigation is necessary. Rest assured once I get to the bottom of those anomalies you’ll be informed of my findings post-haste.

Regardless of these revelations I remain convinced the aircraft that is said to have crashed into WTC 2 the morning of September 11, 2001 did no such thing and my opinion is based on the fact the NTSB has stated that aircraft exceeded its maximum operating envelope by a very wide margin, while many professional pilots agree it was impossible for UA175 to have done so without leading to complete hull failure and catastrophic results, well before the aircraft reached WTC 2 no less!
For that reason and others I maintain what you’re looking at in the FEMA photographic and video evidence happens to be the remains of an airframe that wasn’t commercial by nature and design and I intend to prove that is the case. If I’m wrong in my reasoning and research then I’ll admit to that transgression as well and apologize accordingly, but in the meantime I’ve compiled what I feel is the more compelling and likewise damning photographic and videotaped evidence pertaining to my case against the BPS investigator’s alleged UA175 evidence and I’ve posted all of it at Flickr under the name questionitall.

This post is merely to draw your attention to that fact and venue and the new evidence posted there, which I will be updating round the clock in
the coming days so stay tuned for further developments.

Here are the links as they’re posted...one last point I must make here is the fact that due to a snafu in my downloads there at Flickr my presentation is loaded backwards...to follow along with my deductive reasoning as I intended it to be read one must follow the (numbers) posted to each successive image and/or video posted there if you’re to follow along successfully.

Here are the links to my initial posts, in the order I intended them to be read and analyzed:

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857328812/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857433106/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5856956637/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5856982537/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857216391/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858109740/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857712013/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857883609/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857947449/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858583862/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858583862/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858187559/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858231481/in/photostream



There is more to come but when I have time to post it...Peace and Respect
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 22 2011, 04:21 PM
Post #29





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well Q, you are as verbose as ever, and just as wandering in exactly what you're trying to say.

Maybe I'm just slow in the comprehension department, but are you saying that there was indeed some sort of fuselage section on the roof of WTC 5, and that images of it have been manipulated?

Simple and concise answers would work great for my obtuse mind.

Transgression? You might commit a transgression?

Hull failure, or structural failure?

I guess I'm waiting with bated breath.... blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 22 2011, 05:32 PM
Post #30





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



JUNE 22, 2011 UPDATE...MORE LINKS TO FLICKR!!!



www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5860703031/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5861384420/in/photostream

www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5860958985/in/photostream


Peace and Respect
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 23 2011, 01:28 PM
Post #31





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Peace & respect, but no answers..... whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jun 25 2011, 09:29 PM
Post #32





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



I'm changing this up a little and by doing so hopefully then people will better understand where I'm coming from on the issue of United Airlines flight 175 and the official evidence pertaining to that total hull loss. For each photograph and/or video I will update this post with the description for that evidence and and a link to that visual evidence. I'm trying to write the descriptions for each image and video in such a way that you can wade into my research anywhere here, so hopefully I'm doing it right and enjoy.

Peace and Respect.

DSC00478
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
Having recently discovered this image in the NIST Cumulus dataset, Release _32, File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 I have to say specific details about his piece of wreckage do not sit well with me. The reason being is this image differs considerably from the photograph Copyofplanepartsrf20-full and the FEMA photograph 112390 - the only image of this alleged UA175 wreckage to ever have been published in all of the official WTC BPS record. For example, a case in point is the fact the much smaller piece of aircraft wreckage on the left is propping up the larger piece of wreckage on the right, much like it appears in the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY - another exhibit with an impeccable chain of custody.

All of which proves my point of course that the wreckage had been manipulated into place and arranged before it was photographed for the official record. Therefore not only does this image suggest the wreckage in all likelihood had been drawn together from all four corners of the WTC site and arranged there on the rooftop of WTC 5 in order for the FEMA photograph to be composed but more so then it proves the FEMA image 12390 had in fact been concocted out of scraps of wreckage and most assuredly the image was later falsified by someone using Adobe Photoshop! In other words the WTC BPS aircraft wreckage evidence is fraudulent!

Further compounding that subterfuge is the fact the time/date stamp on the file and image suggests it was taken by Gary Steficek at 4:13 p.m. on October 18, 2001 and not surprisingly then the only other sub-folder in this NIST release (Steficek-2001-10-25) contains no other images of aircraft fuselage wreckage therein. What's more I've not been able to verify Gary Steficek was present at the time this photograph or any of the WTC 5 videotaped recordings were taken, if ever he even participated in the WTC site investigation. However, his business partner and fellow WTC BPS team member Ramon Gilsanz is seen throughout the photographic and videotaped evidence pertaining to the WTC site investigation and not surprisingly then he stars in the making of the video HQ_WTC5_GARY.

The problem I have with the aforementioned time/date stamp then is according to Mr. W. Gene Corley his entire team of BPS investigator's were only allowed on the WTC site between Oct 7 thru 12, 2001. In fact Mr. Corley's exact words presented Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 2002 reads as follows..."On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6 day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less than 8 blocks from the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis...During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey."

So there you have it and right from the horse’s mouth but no matter how you slice and dice it both of those time/date stamps contradict his testimony, so either Mr. Corley got his dates wrong, he returned to the scene of the crime at a later date to secure the photographic evidence that morphed into the FEMA photograph 12390 or he's flat out lied all along! In fact from what I can make of it all Mr. Corley was nowhere near the rooftop of WTC 5 between October 7th and 12th, 2001 so how he managed to get that photograph is anyone’s guess but more importantly then why does that October 25, 2001 FEMA image (accredited to him) appear as though the two pieces of wreckage are one piece when clearly they do not appear that way in every other exhibit recorded by the WTC BPS investigators.
Not only does Mr. Corley need to explain those discrepancies but also how it was that certain members of the WTC BPS were coming and going from the World Trade Center scene of the crime over a much greater period of time than he's aware of or cares to admit to and for what reasons were they doing so? I say “scene of the crime” because it’s a Federal offense to tamper with evidence, obstruct justice and lie under oath.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

When compared to the FEMA photograph 12390 this video footage is self-explanatory then and very revealing in my opinion, therefore how anyone can seriously believe these two pieces of fuselage fell from the sky together, only then to miraculously land side by side as they are shown here in this video is beyond me and the fact some people do so brings to mind what George Carlin said in regards to “some people are stupid.”
I'm convinced these "pieces" of aircraft wreckage in all likelihood were drawn together from all four corners of the WTC site and the WTC 5 rooftop by the investigators whereby they were arranged in various compositions that would allow for the FEMA 12390 to be falsified as it most assuredly had been. So judging by what is shown in this video is it any wonder the FEMA photograph was the only (alleged) evidentiary proof of UA175 wreckage to be published in any WTC BPS official document...and not surprisingly then that image was falsified beforehand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12390

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

This of course is the FEMA photograph (12390) and exactly as it appears at the FEMA Photo Library (http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390). The WTC BPS investigators claim it proves UA175 wreckage had been recovered on WTC 5 but when the wreckage herein is compared to the image DSC00478 and the Gary Steficek (FEMA/NIST) video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY one can only question the veracity of that claim because there's no doubting the fact this photograph had been falsified!

The dead giveaway of course is evident on the wreckage itself in both the aforementioned exhibits, whereby there's a very obvious piece of window frame sticking up from the half missing window frame on the left of the larger piece of wreckage. Not surprisingly then that tell-tale feature does not appear where it should in this image and for obvious reason, because the two pieces of wreckage in question had been fused together using Adobe Photoshop.
For those who don't see what I'm talking about the area in question is a noticeably darker area of blue thereon the extreme left of the aircraft wreckage, nearest the vertical section of hand railing in the vicinity of the lower staircase step. That Adobe Photoshop rendering of the original photograph shows very well and to what extent the officials exceeded their authority in order to crystallize public opinion on the matter of which aircraft slammed into WTC 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

WTC 2 was crashed into at 08:46 on the morning of 9/11 and this photograph was taken shortly thereafter and quite obviously then there's no large aircraft wreckage to be seen here on the rooftop of WTC 5 and as a result of the second aircraft impacting WTC 2. There's certainly none of the second planes large pieces of wreckage resting on top of building cladding, as suggested by the FEMA photograph 12390 at <a href="http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390" rel="nofollow">www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390</a>. As a matter of fact there’s very little WTC 2 bric-a-brac and even less building cladding present for it to have come to settle on.

In fact even after the collapse of WTC 2 there wasn't anywhere near the amount of debris on the rooftop of WTC 5 as to what the collapse of WTC 1 deposited there and when this image is compared to the Tami Michael's ABC Dub7 13 video clip, the HQ_WTC5_GARY video footage, the image DSCOO478 and this photograph its very clear there's something very wrong with that FEMA picture! Contrary to popular belief the vast majority of damage done to this rooftop and the resulting heavy accumulation of debris (as seen in the image 12390) came as a result of WTC 1 having collapsed!

So again I ask, how did the (alleged UA175) aircraft wreckage seen in all the official photographs and videos come to rest atop all that WTC 1 debris? Especially when considering the fact WTC 1 stood for another 29 minutes after WTC 2 fell and a full hour and 44 minutes after the second tower had been crashed into.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Dub7 07

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

I've posted this video for very good reason - right from the opening frame this video clip proves the Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph was taken just after World Trade Center 2 was struck by the second aircraft the morning of 9/11. Indeed the combination of the shadow cast against WTC 1 and the smoke billowing from WTC 2 while Tami Michael's makes the statement “…and as we’ve been standing here we watched the second building get hit with another plane" proves that point quite nicely.

That shadow is the result of the morning sun coming up behind their hotel, which in turn projected the silhouette of their hotel tower across the plaza and onto the East face of WTC 1. So while taking into consideration the fact that shadow was moving from the viewers left to right as the morning sun rose by comparing the shadows on WTC 1 in both evidentiary exhibits this video confirms Natasha Sealy took her photograph not long after this segment of video footage was captured. That is a critical distinction to make because her image and this video shows no evidence whatsoever of the aircraft wreckage at the foot of the rooftop staircase...wreckage that was later photographed there by the FEMA WTC site BPS investigators and published in the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS.
That confirmation is critical to proving my claim, that the bulk of the aircraft wreckage shown in the FEMA photograph (12390) did not fall from the sky and come to rest there on top of the WTC 1 building cladding, as suggested BY Mr. W. Gene Corley. In fact I’m resolute in my opinion it was placed there later on and should that be the case the actions of the FEMA WTC investigator’s amounts to tampering with and falsifying evidence critical to a criminal investigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyofplanepartrf20-full

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

Most assuredly then and because of its very nature this photograph was also taken by the FEMA/ASCE World Trade Center site investigator's and although I’ve not been able to prove how it came to be by establishing its chain of custody therein the NIST Cumulus dataset its BPS origin however is virtually guaranteed. With that said when this image is compared with the image DSC00478 it too serves well to resolve the issue of whether or not the letter and number was added to the wreckage using Adobe Photoshop and (not unlike how the FEMA photograph 12390 was altered) all in order to persuade people into having them believe this wreckage did originate from United Airlines flight 175.

Although I adamantly believed up until recently the partial registration number had been falsified using Adobe Photoshop I've since changed my opinion (on that point) and I've done so because of what the image DSC00478 shows. Similarly then I'm more convinced than ever the pieces of wreckage seen here were never part and parcel to aircraft UA175 (N612UA) then and cn 21873/41 specifically and due to the many inconsistencies in construction it bears in relation to the Boeing 767.

Yes, I know my reasoning and rationale is vague and my the details cryptic but quite frankly then in light of what the image DSC00478 reveals of the wreckage and without having access to a stripped Boeing 767 interior to photograph for months to come I'm hesitant to fill your head with anything more than that. As you know I abhor speculation on the matter and I resent those who spread falsehoods but more so I despise those who claim to know what they're talking about and yet never offer a single shred of proof while they stir the pot as any Agent Provocateur does...Amazed!

So for the time being it's all I can do to convince you I'm right and if I'm steering you wrong neither one of us will know that until a few months time when I gain access to a gutted Boeing 767 once again in order to secure photographic proof of what I'm talking about. Simply put then I'm still very much convinced the wreckage could not possibly be what remains of United Airlines flight 175...but it might well be from some other similar airframe and namely a military aerial refuelling tanker then as I've always suspected. Although I will never have proof of the latter what I can prove in a few months time is this wreckage is not from a Boeing 767-200 and that confirmation will remove any possibility of UA175 having been the aircraft that crashed into World Trade Center 2!!!

I've said so before of that aircraft and the wreckage but it was more from intuition and an educated hunch, but now the image DSC00478 raises all kinds of questions for which the images IMG_3226 and IMG_3235 serve well to explain why and all together they prove better than ever the investigator's had foreknowledge of the design and construction characteristics as well the location of these pieces of fuselage thereon UA175 and according to the N612UA's livery.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC Dub7 13

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

I encourage everyone to download this video and having done so pause the play at the 10 second mark or there about and take a very close look in the lower right hand corner of the frame, to see if you can make out the piece of wreckage as it appears in the FEMA photograph 12390...I bet dimes to dollars you won't find it where it should be and that's because it was never there to begin with. Just like all that building cladding shown in the official record later on does not exist at this time in this video - just as that area of the rooftop of WTC 5 appears in the image Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LGI_47

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

There are at least three individuals in the vicinity of the rooftop staircase in this very early image located in Release_29 of the NIST Cumulus dataset but you'll need to download the image and view it on a high resolution screen to see what I'm speaking of. I know that to be the case because you can see the long shadow cast on the rooftop debris by their statures.

I suspect their business there was not so much search and recovery of bodies but more so search, recovery and sequestering of incriminating serialized aircraft parts. Why else would these individuals be there when the search and recovery operation had not yet begun, as proven by the fact not a soul can be seen throughout the rest of the WTC site and no red spray painted markings have yet to be emblazoned on the penthouse maintenance room exterior walls or the scattered building cladding and bric-a-brac strewn about there.

The mate to this image (LGI-37) shows everything I've said in much clearer terms but unfortunately that image is too large in format to be successfully downloaded here so I've had to post it in a slightly degraded format LGI-37(1). Both these image can be downloaded from the NIST Cumulus dataset Release_29 File Folder 42A0320 - G29D6, Sub Folder WTCI-407-SB LGI 2 of 2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LGI_37 (1)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

In terms of resolution I feel this is a slightly inferior version of the original image (LGI-37) but it’s still an extremely telling, very early perspective showing what remains of the North East corner of the World Trade Center complex and clearly its an early morning exposure taken in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The important thing to point out here is the image offers a unique perspective on how the rooftop of WTC 5 and the surrounding site appeared prior to the search and rescue efforts getting under way...but notice there on the rooftop of WTC 5 and to the right of the staircase what appears to be long shadows cast in the morning sun by people standing there. It is my opinion those are the FBI and NTSB agents who scoured the rooftop bear of all trace of serialized aircraft parts.
What's more the rooftop access door is ajar (as it is with image LGI_47) and there's no trace of the words "Aircraft Parts" having been spray painted in bold red letters on the penthouse mechanical room exterior walls by the search and rescue volunteers as of yet. As well there's certainly no sign of that alleged United Airlines flight 175 aircraft wreckage seen atop all that building debris by the rooftop staircase.

Just as revealing but maybe not as exciting then, notice there between WTC 4 and WTC 5 there's no heavy equipment or cranes on the concourse, which in and itself has not yet been torn up and neither has the sculpture been removed or the tree planters for that matter. All of which indicates this photograph was taken not long after the attacks and soon after the subsequent fire in WTC 5 had been extinguished...well before the rooftop of WTC 5 was over-run with unqualified aircraft accident/ crime scene investigator's.

The original image (LGI-37) is located in the NIST Cumulus dataset, release 29, file 42A0320 - G29D6, file folder WTCI-407-STB LGI 2 of 2. There are many more just like it in that NIST release but these two images do just fine to make my point here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99CHU~18

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

According to the photographer this image was taken on September 19, 2001 and one week after 9/11. It doesn't prove anything other than the SEAoNY search and rescue volunteers had spray painted "Aircraft Parts" by then on several locations of the East and North facing walls of the penthouse mechanical room in this image. That fact helps to show how soon after the fires were out in this building the FBI and NSTB investigators were scouring the rooftop clean of all "traceable" serialized aircraft debris that would have landed there...had they cared to conceal the fact they were there they would have closed the door behind them on the way out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMG-3226

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

I'm coming to the most important point of my UA175 research and regrettably then it gets quite complicated and confusing for some, seeing as my gift for explanation matters does not always translate well, as 'Amazed' has so kindly pointed out. So if you have any questions by all means ask me, but not like he's done because the answer you'll get back from me is none at all...I don't reward bad behaviour here and certainly not with my time!
I've posted this image so people following along with my line of reasoning have something to refer to. Hopefully you're able to see in the image the features I'll be pointing out along the way as I'm trying to explain what the substructure of the Boeing 767 passenger cabin looks like and why...particularly the area around the last window on the right hand side of the fuselage.

Remember to refer back to the smaller piece of wreckage seen therein the image (Copyofplanepartrf20-full) and the NIST video HQ_WTC5_GARY image anytime you deem it necessary to do so but for now please consider here the upper and lower horizontal stringers that run along the entire length of the passenger cabin - above and below the cabin window frames including the last one on either side of the airframe. As you can see those window frames sandwich those horizontal stringers between themselves and the outer skin by way of a single row of Hi-Lok fasteners while the rest of the horizontal stringer sandwiches everything else (as well the outer skin of the aircraft) and in this instance by the use of noticeably large solid rivet fasteners. However, notice in the image DSC00478 (Hi-Lok) I've highlighted (in red) on the right a row of Hi-Lok fasteners there on the lower horizontal stringer.

Hi-Lok fasteners are always used to attach the window frames to the outer skin of the aircraft while they are sometimes used to attach the outer skin to the horizontal stringers, again depending on the circumstance. Clearly the bulk of the sheet metal here is sandwiched to the horizontal stringers by way of solid rivets then and there's no production breaks in that horizontal stringer in this area. Likewise then there's no production break in the layer(s) of sheet metal that are sandwiched together by it and solid rivets forming what's referred to as the "window belt"...commonly understood as the fuselage. As you can see the bulk of the area painted green here makes up the outer skin of the aircraft and very little else makes up the skeleton. So in other words then each of the multiple layers of sheet metal that make up the fuselage are sandwiched together between the horizontal stringers by using solid rivets primarily (and in this instance) but that is not always the case, as quite often other types of fasteners are used in their place, depending on many circumstances.

Having said that notice on the flange of the frame support bracket shown in the lower red box there are eight solid rivets in a single row while there are six Hi-Lok's attaching the flange shown in the red box above it and lastly there are six solid rivets on the flange in the upper red box. What this image doesn't show you the image IMG_3235 does...that being the middle support bracket actually has two flanges, one facing forward and the other aft or backwards and each flange has a single row of six Hi-Lok fasteners apiece going through the outer skin of the fuselage, while the lower frame support bracket has a single flange facing AFT with eight solid rivets going through the outer skin of the fuselage. Each of the six Hi-Lok's on both flanges of the middle support bracket flanges are evenly spaced from the others in each row and are directly opposite their partner on the adjacent flange. In other words they are not staggered and most importantly then clearly the lowest Hi-Lok in each row is at least two inches above the row of solid rivets in the horizontal stringer.

I've mentioned those features here because they differ greatly from what I've explained of the wreckage throughout my research and what is shown in the image Copyofplanepartrf20-full! For instance there most certainly shouldn’t be a double row of fastener holes that encroach into that area from above or below but that appears to be the case when looking at the image. It's hard to tell really because it's not the best resolution.

Most assuredly then and under no circumstance should there be more than one layer of sheet attached to that lower support bracket flange but that's exactly what the image DSC00478 and the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY shows - at least two layers of sheet metal have been torn away torn away! To prove that point take a look at the lower support bracket flange highlighted (in red) therein the image IMG_3227 and notice how far the multi-layered area of sheet metal is from encroaching on the lowest of the eight solid rivets in that flange. Now compare that with the number of fasteners remaining in the same flange that's been torn away in the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY - there are six. Meaning that tear runs straight thru the sixth rivet and the single layer of sheet metal underneath it!!!
How can that discrepancy exist I ask if the wreckage shown in the other images and video here is that of United Airlines flight 175...a Boeing 767 airframe?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMG_3235

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

This image shows the forward flange on the middle support bracket that ties the frame at STA 1439 to the outer skin of the aircraft, as mentioned and highlighyted (in red) therein the description for IMG_3226. Notice the space between the lower Hi-Lok fastener of that forward flange on the middle support bracket and the single horizontal row of solid rivets that attach the horizontal stringer to the outer skin...the Hi-Lok is at least two inches above the row of rivets in the stringer. As well take note of the fact there's no continuation of that double row of vertical rivets below the stringer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMG_3191

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

This image is meant to show the area of the fusleage from which the wreckage came from and that's it. The smaller piece of wreckage seen in all the exhibits supposedly came from the area on the left while the much larger piece of course came from that area on the right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMG_3194

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

I've posted this image in order to dispel any notion of there not being a significant vertical seam running between the second to last and third last window on the Boeing 767 airframe - some people have it in their heads that seam does not exist.

The fact that seam does exist on this 767-200 fuselage and not so much (or noticeably) thereon the wreckage shown in every official exhibit of aircraft wreckage relating to the (alleged) UA175 bodes well for my research findings. In fact the Boeing 767-300 fuselage must be designed and constructed exactly the same as the Boeing 767-200 airframe, with the exception of its fuselage length of course and I say that because the identical seam is located in the identical position on the fuselage of the Boeing 767-300 series airframe. Between the second to last and third last passenger cabin window on both sides of the fuselage that is.

For that reason the images I've posted showing the stripped down passenger cabin of a Boeing 767-300 are a true likeness and representation of United Airlines flight 175's fuselage. Until I'm proven wrong on that point we have to consider they are a match and that's what I'm told by Aircraft Structures Technicians working on the overhaul of the Boeing 767. It's imperative I make the point due to all the contradictions therein the official and alleged UA175 exhibits of evidence versus the images I've presented and explained as to how they show otherwise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMG_3227

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

The WTC investigators have merely insinuated the alleged UA175 wreckage and particularly the smaller piece bearing the partial registration number “N” originated from the right hand side, aft fuselage area of that aircraft. So for the sake of argument and making my point here I’ll go along with that conclusion. As such I’ve deliberately highlighted (in red) just a portion of that area of the Boeing 767 fuselage they claim the wreckage is from. As you can see the structure in that area is made up of solid rivets (with the exception of the window frames mostly) and for good reason I’ve highlighted (in teal) the solid rivet installed in the upper horizontal stringer and sixth from the window frame specifically.

Assuming the WTC investigators are right and this wreckage did come from that area of the fuselage of UA175, a Boeing 767 -200 series airframe then why then does the image DSC00478 and the video HQ_WTC5_GARY show the fastener installed in that very same location is a Hi-Lok fastener and not a solid rivet? The much shorter video clip I made showing the wreckage captured in the Gary Steficek video HQ_WTC5_GARY proves that is the case and very clearly - I’ve posted the abbreviated version ("Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5") of that video for quick reference.

All of which further begs the question why do all the fasteners differ from one another and from exhibit to exhibit...when all the exhibits appear to show the same small piece of wreckage no less? The only logical answer to that question of course is the alleged UA175 wreckage is not that of a Boeing 767. Either that or it did not originate from the right hand side, aft fuselage area of United Airlines flight 175 to begin with and that is the entire point to my UA175 research! Without the existence of the partial aircraft registration number thereon the smaller piece of wreckage the WTC Investigators had nothing to prove UA175 by and due to all the inconsistencies about the aircraft wreckage versus the Boeing 767 construction one has to question exactly what aircraft did this wreckage come from?

The second and more questionable anomaly regarding what the wreckage therein the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY reveals is the tearing away of "layers" of sheet metal in the vicinity of the lower edge of the smaller piece of wreckage seen there. Clearly that should not be the case because there's only one layer of sheet metal in that area. Indeed when that video is viewed on a high resolution monitor and paused at the approx the 1:09 minute mark it becomes quite apparent not only are there are six remaining Hi-Loks on the upper horizontal stringer but also the aluminum sheet metal outer skin of the fuselage and just below those Hi-Lok's appears multi-layered where it was torn away. That’s impossible because as you can see in this image the “doubler” or extra layer of aluminum sheet metal does not fall within the area Highlighted in red.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DSC00478 (Hi-Lok)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream

There's no doubt the smaller piece of wreckage seen here along with the partial "N" as it appears thereon is identical to the wreckage shown in Copyofplanepartrf20-full and the video clip "Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5" therefore the Hi-Lok fasteners (I've shown in red here) as installed on the horizontal stringers at the time of assembly cause me to question whether the wreckage is from a Boeing 767-200 airframe.

According to the Aircraft Structures Technicians whom I get my Boeing 767 technical advice from solid rivets are typically used in this location, on both the left and the right side upper and lower horizontal stringers of the Boeing 767 airframe, yet clearly the fasteners used on this assembly are not solid rivets. There's no doubt the fasteners shown here are Hi-Lok's and not solid rivets and yet the fasteners used in the same location as this on the horizontal stringers shown in the photographs I'd taken of the Boeing 767 and especially the image IMG_3227 makes that point very clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 4 2011, 01:29 PM
Post #33





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 23 2011, 02:28 PM) *
Peace & respect, but no answers..... whistle.gif



AMAZED...I’ve offered no answers you say...what have I not answered to your satisfaction throughout my UA175 presentations and how best can I cater to your all important liking then? How do I better explain this extremely complex issue along with the mountains of evidence that supports my findings and opinion?

Is your “obtuse” mind really the problem here or is your problem with my research a matter of you feeling I’ve not produced ample evidence to show
official/government subterfuge in the course of its own United Airlines flight 175 investigation? I suspect it’s neither and what the real problem amounts to (in my opinion) is your dissatisfaction with my writing is simply a matter of you being too fucking lazy or thick to read my research in its entirety...that or you're decidely belligerent for reasons all your own! Actually thast may be giving you too much credit...what's more likely the case then is you're yet another one of the many bought and paid for cocksure pricks who gets their kicks from criticising others here and all the while never contributing anything constructive to a meaningful discovery of the truth behind the 9/11 attacks?

What good have you contributed to 9/11 Truth...Amazed???

The fact you find my research and writing so abhorrent is too bloody bad...I’ve never claimed to be a forensics expert or a professional writer for that matter and as for my last post and the point I was attempting to make at the time I’d simply just discovered the image DSC00478 therein File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 of the NIST Cumulus dataset Release_32. I was taken aback by that image plain and simple because at first glance it seemed to me that image might confirm the official storyline that a Boeing 767 and specifically UA175 had struck WTC 2...I was blown away by that revelation so I expressed my astonishment openly and accordingly. Perhaps you are of the school of thought that much prefers to sit on any such revelation that does not support one’s own point of view?

Have you even bothered to read my research Amazed because as I’ve said throughout my UA175 writings I do not encourage deceit and I do not promote speculation on the issue of the WTC aircraft and so I wrote “That possibility poses to be an obvious conundrum for my UA175 research and findings but as for which series of Boeing 767 airframe I’ve not yet confirmed that. However, having said that there are characteristics about the wreckage shown in DSC00478 that do not sit well with me and further investigation is necessary. Rest assured once I get to the bottom of those anomalies you’ll be informed of my findings post-haste.” What I meant by that “Amazed” is honesty itself is everything in my opinion and I will be the first one to admit publicly to being wrong about anything I’ve said to date about the government’s foreknowledge and/or complicity in 9/11.

With that said I also wrote “Regardless of these revelations I remain convinced the aircraft that is said to have crashed into WTC 2 the morning of September 11, 2001 did no such thing and my opinion is based on the fact the NTSB has stated that aircraft exceeded its maximum operating envelope by a very wide margin, while many professional pilots agree it was impossible for UA175 to have done so without leading to complete hull failure and catastrophic results...! So what part of that statement do you not understand “dazed and amazed” because it’s the opinion of a great many aviation professionals and pilots the United Airlines flight 175 Boeing 767 that allegedly struck WTC 2 could not possibly have done so, according to the NTSB data that is! To which I commented “For that reason and others I maintain what you’re looking at in the FEMA photographic and video evidence happens to be the remains of an airframe that WASN’T COMMERCIAL BY NATURE AND DESIGN and I intend to prove that is the case. If I’m wrong in my reasoning and research then I’ll admit to that transgression as well and apologize accordingly...!”

I AM DEFINITELY AWAITING YOUR REPLY WITH BATED BREATH...AMAZED indeed!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 4 2011, 02:27 PM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Gawd, you're so sensitive. whistle.gif , but thanks for the feedback.

Without going back and looking, my single question is "do you think the fuselage parts shown in pictures on the roof of WTC5 actually existed on the roof?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jul 5 2011, 07:22 AM
Post #35





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (questionitall @ Jul 2 2011, 05:29 PM) *
AMAZED...I’ve offered no answers you say...what have I not answered to your satisfaction throughout my UA175 presentations and how best can I cater to your all important liking then? How do I better explain this extremely complex issue along with the mountains of evidence that supports my findings and opinion?

Is your “obtuse” mind really the problem here or is your problem with my research a matter of you feeling I’ve not produced ample evidence to show
official/government subterfuge in the course of its own United Airlines flight 175 investigation? I suspect it’s neither and what the real problem amounts to (in my opinion) is your dissatisfaction with my writing is simply a matter of you being too fucking lazy or thick to read my research in its entirety...that or you're decidely belligerent for reasons all your own! Actually thast may be giving you too much credit...what's more likely the case then is you're yet another one of the many bought and paid for cocksure pricks who gets their kicks from criticising others here and all the while never contributing anything constructive to a meaningful discovery of the truth behind the 9/11 attacks?

What good have you contributed to 9/11 Truth...Amazed???

The fact you find my research and writing so abhorrent is too bloody bad...I’ve never claimed to be a forensics expert or a professional writer for that matter and as for my last post and the point I was attempting to make at the time I’d simply just discovered the image DSC00478 therein File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 of the NIST Cumulus dataset Release_32. I was taken aback by that image plain and simple because at first glance it seemed to me that image might confirm the official storyline that a Boeing 767 and specifically UA175 had struck WTC 2...I was blown away by that revelation so I expressed my astonishment openly and accordingly. Perhaps you are of the school of thought that much prefers to sit on any such revelation that does not support one’s own point of view?

Have you even bothered to read my research Amazed because as I’ve said throughout my UA175 writings I do not encourage deceit and I do not promote speculation on the issue of the WTC aircraft and so I wrote “That possibility poses to be an obvious conundrum for my UA175 research and findings but as for which series of Boeing 767 airframe I’ve not yet confirmed that. However, having said that there are characteristics about the wreckage shown in DSC00478 that do not sit well with me and further investigation is necessary. Rest assured once I get to the bottom of those anomalies you’ll be informed of my findings post-haste.” What I meant by that “Amazed” is honesty itself is everything in my opinion and I will be the first one to admit publicly to being wrong about anything I’ve said to date about the government’s foreknowledge and/or complicity in 9/11.

With that said I also wrote “Regardless of these revelations I remain convinced the aircraft that is said to have crashed into WTC 2 the morning of September 11, 2001 did no such thing and my opinion is based on the fact the NTSB has stated that aircraft exceeded its maximum operating envelope by a very wide margin, while many professional pilots agree it was impossible for UA175 to have done so without leading to complete hull failure and catastrophic results...! So what part of that statement do you not understand “dazed and amazed” because it’s the opinion of a great many aviation professionals and pilots the United Airlines flight 175 Boeing 767 that allegedly struck WTC 2 could not possibly have done so, according to the NTSB data that is! To which I commented “For that reason and others I maintain what you’re looking at in the FEMA photographic and video evidence happens to be the remains of an airframe that WASN’T COMMERCIAL BY NATURE AND DESIGN and I intend to prove that is the case. If I’m wrong in my reasoning and research then I’ll admit to that transgression as well and apologize accordingly...!”

I AM DEFINITELY AWAITING YOUR REPLY WITH BATED BREATH...AMAZED indeed!!!



questionitall, please learn something here:

Amazed is an avowed cynic and dedicated provocateur, but deep down got a heart of gold.

Being an american, he's a little bit ashamed of this fact (having that kind of heart), as he

has been told over and over again throughout his upbringing, that this would appear as a

sure sign of 'weakness'.

We who know better, we who knows that having a heart of gold is the sign of true strength,

are simply taking his musings with the little bit of humour they sometimes deserve! wink.gif

So cheer up, questionitall, and know that i too think the fuselage was planted, and think

you have done a sterling job proving this fact. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 5 2011, 03:28 PM
Post #36





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for the kind words TM. Perhaps you know me better than I know myself.

I tried to make it clear that I appreciated the work that Questionitall has done, but somehow could not quite communicate that to him. Don't know why.

I appreciate the work that ALL researchers have done regarding the events of the day, and have stated that many times.

Maybe that's the grounds for my 'heart of gold' appellation. cheers.gif

Seriously though, Q's posts were a bit on the verbose side, and where I failed to communicate my appreciation to him, he failed to communicate his exact point to me, at least regarding this matter of the fuselage atop WTC5.

Personally, I am very skeptical that any fuselage was up there, for several reasons. First, assuming that real airplanes struck the towers as depicted, the fuselage was shredded and there would not have been any piece that large left to be resting on the rooftop. Or so it seems to me.

Secondly, while I can see where it would be possible for the bad guys to place some landing gear and engine parts around on Manhattan sidewalks, I find it most difficult to place a fuselage section up on the roof without SOMEBODY have seen that operation going on. It seems to me that either a very large crane or a helicopter would have been required to accomplish that, and either one would have been the talk of the town as it was going on.

So, as it stands right now, it seems to me that the picture we're discussing was faked somehow or the other.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 6 2011, 05:27 AM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 6 2011, 05:58 AM) *
Thanks for the kind words TM. Perhaps you know me better than I know myself.

I tried to make it clear that I appreciated the work that Questionitall has done, but somehow could not quite communicate that to him. Don't know why.

I appreciate the work that ALL researchers have done regarding the events of the day, and have stated that many times.

Maybe that's the grounds for my 'heart of gold' appellation. cheers.gif

Seriously though, Q's posts were a bit on the verbose side, and where I failed to communicate my appreciation to him, he failed to communicate his exact point to me, at least regarding this matter of the fuselage atop WTC5.

Personally, I am very skeptical that any fuselage was up there, for several reasons. First, assuming that real airplanes struck the towers as depicted, the fuselage was shredded and there would not have been any piece that large left to be resting on the rooftop. Or so it seems to me.

Secondly, while I can see where it would be possible for the bad guys to place some landing gear and engine parts around on Manhattan sidewalks, I find it most difficult to place a fuselage section up on the roof without SOMEBODY have seen that operation going on. It seems to me that either a very large crane or a helicopter would have been required to accomplish that, and either one would have been the talk of the town as it was going on.

So, as it stands right now, it seems to me that the picture we're discussing was faked somehow or the other.


Dear amazed.

Tamborine Man is no doubt a very perceptive man, hehe.

I hope, you do not close your mind off to the possibility of 'debris' finding its way onto the building.

There can be no doubt, some 'fancy work' has been done with image along the way, especially the 'blue variety', but looking at the others whilst some 'study adjustments' appear to have been made, 'questionitall's' points, still standup pretty strong.

The panels, are not the only debris photographed on top of the building --I would think you would be aware-- one piece in particular is very interesting, when carefully considered using --photoshop--.

It would be very interesting to know whether any body on the 'forum', has sighted the large --predominently-- yellow casting near the parrapet wall of the building, before, or could recognise it as part of a particular mechanism on an aircraft, they may have even worked upon whilst in military service.

If they do, and are a bit hesitant in coming forward, all they would need to say is "yes", the other considerations could then be added and considered further, which is part of a further matrix.

There seems little purpose in someone lugging such a part up to the top of the building, or for that matter including it in an image, which after all, is extracted from 'video footage', as are some of the image of the panels.
Mind you there is plenty of evidence of video footage having being edited, it does not appear to be the case, in this consideration.

Lets not let all of 'questionitall's good work stall off here, it could be leading to much more substantive considerations.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 6 2011, 08:07 AM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks Robert.

I am open to anything, as long as a persuasive case can be made. Hell, in my mind it is still possible that there were no planes at WTC, but so far nobody has made a persuasive case.

Not being that familiar with the intricacies of digital photography and manipulation, I accepted a year ago or more that the various pictures were manipulated.

I don't KNOW that in my heart or mind, but I accept it because so many folks seem utterly convinced it's true.

That said, my opinion is that 2 Boeings struck the towers that day, and those Boeing fuselages were shredded by the steel structure with 2 foot wide windows with 40" spacing on the centers, rather like paper going through a shredder. That they "disappeared" into the building seems consistent to me, despite the many dozens of people who say the images were manipulated. I have seen other research showing just how the engine and landing gear parts ultimately made it through the shredder to land on the street where the predictable trajectory shows they would, in accordance with what we see in some of the pictures.

Early on in my awakening, I did believe that parts of the fuselage ended up atop WTC5, but as my understanding evolved, I no longer believe that to be possible. I think they are faked photos all the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 6 2011, 12:35 PM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 4 2011, 03:27 PM) *
Gawd, you're so sensitive. whistle.gif , but thanks for the feedback.

Without going back and looking, my single question is "do you think the fuselage parts shown in pictures on the roof of WTC5 actually existed on the roof?"



No, I do not believe the aircraft wreckage allegedly "discovered" on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 "existed" there in the first place and by that I mean to say it did not make its own way onto that rooftop and/or settle there randomly. It did not fall there from the sky as a result of being ejected from WTC 2 and I remain convinced that larger section of fuselage seen therein the falsified FEMA image I.D. 12390 was "planted" on that rooftop and soon after the attacks of 9/11. My opinion stems from the fact just three exhibits of evidence therein the NIST Cumulus dataset proves the wreckage was not there at the foot of the rooftop staircase on WTC 5 in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks - had you bothered to read my research pertaining to that evidence you would know that! Should you bother now to read what I've posted at Flickr I'm sure even you will agree I've provided ample evidence from the NIST Cumulus dataset to prove that argument. What's more the chain of custody linking that evidence to the actual events on the morning of September 11, 2001 remains irrefutable and therefore the government investigator's UA175 findings appear to be irreconcilable and untrue, so until such time as someone is able to make a "persuasive case to the contrary" and otherwise convince me I'm wrong then my opinion stands.

All else aside and as I've explained ad nauseam the word [planted] is defined as “Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information that has been created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict…also suppressing evidence is considered a similar criminal act…” therefore the FEMA image by itself demands a criminal investigation looking into the events surrounding that evidence be carried out!!! By itself then the FEMA image points toward criminal actions on the part of the WTC investigator's to sway the verdict by way of tainted evidence, therefore the other images and video footage I've presented at Flickr proves they conspired to pervert the course of justice - would you not agree Amazed?

Consider the following:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 6 2011, 02:12 PM
Post #40





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



As I tried to tell you before Q, I substantially agree with what you say.

If 3 exhibits prove that the pieces were not there, what makes you suspect they were subsequently placed there?

That is, how can you tell the difference between something that was actually (placed) there, and a photo that has been manipulated to make it appear that something was in the picture when it really was not?

I'm sorry if I missed this information before, and have not seen the pictures in a few months, but could you provide the approximate dimensions of the planted objects we're talking about?

And a word of unsolicited advice, if I may: don't hold your breath waiting for the federal government to investigate anything related to the events of the day, or to prosecute ANYBODY for any crimes committed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 26th September 2017 - 11:08 AM