Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 175 _ Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence?

Posted by: questionitall Jan 13 2011, 08:46 PM

To whom it may concern

The rational minds of scholars and engineers, organized professional pilots and AME's the world over know full well any and all government proof of “Islamist terrorists” having hijacked “commercial aircraft” amounts to nothing more than hearsay and speculation born of and perpetuated by the official consensus…the sum of their worth is directly proportional to our ever devolving human condition, collective morality and intellectual debasement.

I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now. From my efforts I’ve discovered some damning information you might be interested in knowing - it pertains to falsified government evidence directly associated with the aircraft that purportedly crashed into WTC 2.

I approached Pilots For 9/11 Truth with this information for three reasons…the first of them being no-one to date whom I’ve shared this information with seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts who are hired again and again to lie on behalf of the government when such an occurrence as 9/11 arises. My second reason for posting here is to get people openly debating the amoral actions of these FEMA/ASCE experts, who corrupted the WTC site investigation by falsifying the very evidence that goaded half the free world into two illegal wars of occupation and lastly then, I cannot afford to hire a photo forensics expert to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence I have researched - to buy the “professional credibility status” required of it in order to legitimize a full congressional hearing into this conspiracy. If anyone reading this information is such an expert and wishes to weigh in on the photographic debate by all means give us your educated opinion of the matter at hand.

I know for certain the governments lackeys photographic material and supposed evidentiary proof of such a preposterous hypothesis had been manipulated on the roof of WTC 5, as photographed and later falsified but the question is who did the dirty deed, but no matter then because the entire government premise/case hangs from a flimsy thread of evidence that compelled people to believe highly inexperienced/unqualified foreign terrorists surgically flew commercial aircraft into the WTC Towers. By the time I’m done with exposing these lies no-one will believe this to be the case anymore; that anyone believes this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph somehow constitutes authenticity well this flimsy government proof is about to be disemboweled!

So great is the importance of disproving this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph of aircraft wreckage (supposedly that of N612UA) that it cannot be overemphasized, because this lone photograph was entered into evidence and sworn to under oath by Mr. Corley, Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research on May 1, 2002. Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath but more importantly then people must realize they’ve been lied to. In essence then this information is the Achilles Heel that will topple the Governments case for their Islamist Terrorist hypothesis, that is, if it's acted upon by someone who has the credentials to prove the FEMA/ASCE evidence fraudulent beyond reproach.

The person this falsified photograph consistently points back on is the man who exposed it; Mr. W. Gene Corley. Throughout the nine years since September 11, 2001 he has consistently obfuscated by telling half truths of it and he refuses to answer candidly the specific questions of mine regarding this/his photograph and the BPS team manipulation/fabrication thereof. The truth of it is this photograph had been altered by FEMA/ASCE officials using Photoshop not long after 9/11 and no later than May 1, 2002. Mr. Corley admittedly manipulated the wreckage that lead to this photograph being taken on the roof of WTC 5 in late October, 2001 – an admission of tampering with evidence no less which definitely qualifies him for peer review and public censor in the least.

To this day Mr. Corley reminds everyone of his expertise yet he never quite tells the full story of how and by what means his team conjured into existence this ground zero evidence of United Airlines flight 175 while his evidence tampering served well to mislead the world into believing his authoritative version of the events upon the WTC site immediately thereafter 9/11. For all intents and purposes then he effectively perjured himself in 2002 and he continues to this day to perpetuate that lie. In his words admittedly then he broke every law in the book while investigating said wreckage of UA175 and by continuing to justify his actions his professional ethics and modus operandi is not only reprehensible but subject to criminal investigation in my opinion. Just one case in point that spotlights this arrogated man is a February 3, 2005 interview he gave with James Meigs for a Popular Mechanics article entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Special Report.

In this article it is written…Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows…“It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly...In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky." The key word here in this article is “fragments”, due to the fact corroborating evidence proves not only had there been more than one fragment of fuselage “discovered” by Corley on the rooftop of WTC 5 so to the BPS team most certainly pulled together wreckage from various points on that rooftop in order to arrange these fragments in such a way as to ensure a specific outcome for what had surely already become a corrupted investigation/crime scene.

With that said “by piecing together bits of aircraft fuselage on WTC 5 he was able to determine that after UA175 struck WTC 2 a portion of the fuselage came to rest on the roof of WTC 5, right where the team discovered it”…in the least then how incredibly implausible and presumptuous it was of him to say so then!

The fact is the brazen irregularities in Mr. W. Gene Corley’s testimony and this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph (ever to be made public) denotes anything but one aircraft “fragment” from the right side-aft fuselage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe coming to rest right where he found it. I have researched the evidence to prove this fact and with Mr. Corley’s words in mind I will show why his testimony and this fuselage wreckage is not what it appears to be, for the following reasons:

- First and notably then is the fact the fragments in this photograph were arranged by Mr. Corley to give inquiring minds the impression the image depicts absolute proof the wreckage therein is from the R/H Empennage area of (N612UA) and I know this to be the case because there are NO passenger window cut-outs Aft of the (A) in the registration marking of (N612UA) on the L/H side of the fuselage - Not on that once serviceable United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe and not on any such airframe for that matter.

- With that in mind therein Mr. Corley’s image one can see a darker blue splotch of color, most evident there on the extreme left of this fuselage fragment. Just right of the lower end of the staircase hand rail upright and just below the portion of fuselage that bears the apparent remnants of aircraft registration marking (N6….). If this image is depicting in its true likeness a genuine piece of fuselage from the R/H Aft Empennage area of that United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) then there should be a passenger window cut-out visible directly below that (N6….) that is a remnant of the registration marking however, there is no passenger window cut-out evident there due to this splotch and that is the first dead giveaway this image is fraudulent. By itself the dark blue splotch of color is proof positive someone manipulated this image using Photoshop to have two fragments appear as one assembly but it gets far more damning...these fragments (as they are depicted) do not match the R/H Aft/Empennage area of what was N612UA. The larger of the two fragments in this FEMA/ASCE photograph may well be some fragment of a destroyed Boeing 767-200ER fuselage but it is not from that rear area of fuselage on N612UA. In fact it does not correspond to any Boeing 767-200ER airframe where the Fuselage meets the Empennage.




As well and aside from this blatantly poor Photoshop color rendering one will notice when looking for it an obvious break in the edge line along the left side of the half missing/eviscerated passenger window cut-out. This break in the continuity of that line is further evidence the underlying fragment of fuselage with the partial registration marking on it is a separate piece of wreckage. As well in that area is a noticeable difference in color change, shape and contour of the two fragments of metal.

- If indeed this image authentically depicts the R/H Aft Empennage/Fuselage area of United Airlines Boeing flight 175 (N612UA) then there shouldn’t be a solid piece of fuselage skin directly below the registration marking (N6….) where the splotch is. A fact that is perfectly obvious when looking at any pre 9/11 photograph of the aircraft (N612UA). So it is a very important distinction I've made here because on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment. So before I continue explaining why that is and with his testimony in mind consider the possibility this dark blue Photoshop splotch was part of the intended ruse to mislead any unsuspecting commissioner into believing the image portrays something that never was...

- Another example of tampering in this image appears at the top of the large piece of fuselage in the vicinity of the half missing (second to last) passenger window cut-out. There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam that would normally intersect the (2) and the (U) in (N612UA) therefore this fragment of fuselage is not from the Fuselage/Empennage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe and certainly not UA175, thus the fragment should not have on it the residuals of any registration marking what so ever! Which means this white mark had been added into the photograph using Photoshop and for the sole purpose of “making all the pieces fit the puzzle” in order to convince people it is wreckage from UA175. Consequently then it is my opinion the registration marking (N6....) has also been Photoshop enhanced for reasons I won’t go into here.

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




- One last point to make about this photograph is the overall consistency in tonality of blue and the rounded/fairly pristine curvature of this larger fragment of fuselage. This bluish tone is the same throughout, both on the inside of the passenger window cut-outs (frames) as well as on the entirety of the outer surface of the fuselage skin in this image. But this should not be the case either because the general practice in aviation is (whether it be upon completion of a newly built airframe or well after the fact) to primer coat the airframe/fuselage with Zinc Chromate primer paint while the passenger window panes are removed and later on the airframe/fuselage is finish coated with its chosen color while the passenger window panes are installed although papered over to protect them from paint overspray.

Zinc Chromate Primer paint is often olive green in color. This olive green color will fade over time but it remains an obvious green regardless. In other words something is very wrong with this picture because this general bluish tonality inside the window openings is inconsistent with aircraft painting procedures in general. It stands to reason then at some point in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation not only had this photograph been Photoshop washed in a blue color tone but the shape and curvature of the fragment had also been enhanced using Photoshop to give the aircraft wreckage the feel of uniformity and consistency which intimates the fragments in the image are one piece - they are not!

As a matter of fact the entire photograph has been washed in this blue color tone which gives everything in the photographs field of vision that artificial bluish tint - compared with the lighting and color tone of a second photograph which appears more natural. That second photograph has never been attributed to Mr. Corley and it has never been entered into evidence, for obvious reasons, but due to Mr. Corley’s admission (he was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied) its authenticity and authorship needn’t be questioned then because quite clearly that image denotes the real setting the day both photographs were taken. Last but not least then, not only was the color of paint on the upper portion of the airframe on United Airlines (N612UA) grey these two fragments differ in tones of blue in this image while neither fragment appears grey at all, as with the entire field of exposure in the FEMA/ASCE photograph.

The FEMA/ASCE photograph in question can be found at the FEMA Photo Library as (ID 12390) but this link (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) will take you straight to it.

As for the second image this link (http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=190154) shows both fragments I’ve mentioned. As for anyone who knows what to look for that second image speaks volumes about the Photoshop manipulation to the FEMA/ASCE photograph in question. I will be happy to tell you why I know the smaller fragment in the second image is not from that part of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe, should you ask, but first I encourage you to consult a photographic forensics expert on what I’ve given you of the first image so that we do not get into any disagreement, because I am not here to debate what I already know to be true.

In closing I must say it astounds me no-one else has ever bothered to challenge the authenticity and/or veracity of this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph, the evidence in general and Mr. Corley’s credibility due to these unprecedented facts and his seeming transgression away from any chain of custody he so often admonishes others for not adhering to!

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.

Posted by: SanderO Jan 13 2011, 09:49 PM

If it wasn't the airplane alleged, can this photo be used to identify and different plane? Almost everything about the planes seems to be a deception. This sounds like yet another one.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 14 2011, 01:42 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 13 2011, 08:49 PM) *
If it wasn't the airplane alleged, can this photo be used to identify and different plane? Almost everything about the planes seems to be a deception. This sounds like yet another one.


I am not prepared to speculate on what aircraft these fragments may or may not be from because like Mr. Corley says "I believe in facts". I will say a co-worker (who has many years of experience working very closely as an aircraft structures technician with Boeing on their 767-200ER aiframes) tells me the window frames and (ring frames I believe he called them) are identical in every way to another another Boeing airframe which is not a 767-200...more later when By ring frames I believe he meant the primary/heavy frames that run top to bottom the length of the airfraft and make up the skeleton of the fuselage...I am not a structures technician so I'll have more to say of this when I can varify it. At this point I cannot say for sure what or where these fragments are from but they most definitely do not match the area of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe (as depicted)...the one Mr. W. Gene Corley would have us believe.

Posted by: SanderO Jan 14 2011, 07:02 AM

First rule out that they are not the plane cited and then try to figure out what plane (frame) they are associated with. I think we might be able to find structural engineers or drawings of various planes which these might be matched to. I am assuming that this is not a one off, but is a frame which was manufactured in multiple copies.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 14 2011, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 13 2011, 08:49 PM) *
If it wasn't the airplane alleged, can this photo be used to identify and different plane? Almost everything about the planes seems to be a deception. This sounds like yet another one.

There are numerous aircraft graveyards and junkyards around the country. It's not hard to get old plane parts and when you use parts that don't have serial numbers for your 'evidence', it makes it even easier.

There was one down near the Miami Airport that I use to go to. Great place for finding stainless steel parts and stuff you can use on boats.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 14 2011, 02:23 PM

Yeah, it quite clearly looks like the first photo is a result of photoshopping, the supposed tailnumber is in wrong position and inconsistent with the third picture and Mr. Corley could now be on its way to jail for perjury.
Thanks for the find.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 14 2011, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 14 2011, 02:23 PM) *
Yeah, it quite clearly looks like the first photo is a result of photoshopping, the supposed tailnumber is in wrong position and inconsistent with the third picture and Mr. Corley could now be on its way to jail for perjury.
Thanks for the find.



Again, I am all-in when discussing possibilities and leads but I will not entertain pure speculation.

It is imperative everyone remembers Mr. W. Gene Corley is not the only suspicious party here and because of it I don't like the idea of anyone jumping to conclusions as a result of the issue I've raised here. Anyone bothering to delve deeper into researching this information must keep this in mind, while sticking to the facts and the chain of custody to reach that end. It is absolutely essential anyone investigating 9/11 stays well within the boundaries of hard evidence and incontrovertible facts - hearsay and speculation just won't cut it.

I cannot stress that point enough - it is incumbent upon everyone to work through the vast collection of material with due diligence, which means adhering to the same forensic investigative standards the experts claim to. That means proving them wrong by turning their own "evidence" against them while digging up new irrefutable facts that hopefully one day shames any one of them into a corner and confession.

I do not trust or respect this man because of his arrogant ways and what he's done in the past during various governement investigations into "acts of domestic terrorism" but that does not make him guilty of anything. Not until all the facts are in on him that is. I surely do have my suspicions and opinions for his person, his ethics and loyalties but I have never allowed them to cloud my judgement while I was plowing through the facts therein all the official records of 9/11 and there are many damning details divulged within them. Details the experts are fully unaware of...no cime is perfect and every conspiracy leaves a trail of complicity...they will be found out eventually but not if people are running amok speculating.

The point I'm trying to make is the vast majority of content therein the numerous official reports detailing the events of 9/11 amounts to little more than fluff written by psuedo-intellectuals and its simply eye candy for the fools who don't know any better, but every once in awhile a real gem that betrays them all pops right out and into mind, so my advice is keep reading, studying and questioning all of it and never forget...save everything you come across to an external hard drive for safe keeping because what I've noticed is evidence online is disappearing!

So don't get off track headhunting for someone to blame without knowing all the facts - might I remind everyone it was the FBI that rounded up and spirited away every last piece of aircraft wreckage as well all four aircraft black boxes from Ground Zero, so yes, there are many questions to be answered by complict individuals other than Mr. Corley...for instance those people who's job it was to prepare this photograph as evidence in the World Trade Center Building Performance Study report...a good place to begin looking into this would be the names of those involved, found therein Appendix G of that report.

I am a big proponent of sticking to the facts and quite frankly then one photograph alone (99CHU~18) in the NIST Cumulus database (dated September 19, 2001) shows someone and presumably a SEAoNY volunteer for the rescue and recovery effort at ground zero spray painted "Aircraft Parts" on the North East corner/wall of the WTC 5 Mechanical Penthouse. Not only that but the doorway in that vicinity which leads out onto the roof from the SouthEast stairwell is wide open in the photograph. So whatever these parts consisted of doesn't matter because the point is people were crawling all over that building from the moment the fires within it were extinguished. I have seen video footage whereby the cameraman shooting his footage walked right past firemen and security personnel on Church Street only to enter WTC 5 and make his way up to the top floors by way of the stairwell...according to Chapter 4 of the May 1, 2002 WTC Building Performance Study the SouthWest exit stairwell in WTC 5 leading to and from the Mechanical Penthouse remained virtually intact after the fire so anyone with motive could have gained access to plant evidence on the rooftop.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Corley is a scoundrel in my opinion but he is still innocent until proven guilty so let's find those responsible by rooting out the facts of this aircraft wreckage...If it is proven his fragments of fuselage were not that of United Airlines flight 175 or any Boeing 767-200ER then the onus is squarely on the government and FEMA/ASCE to tell us just what in the hell did crash into WTC 2.

A good reason for why I distrust the likes of Mr. Corley comes by way of two interviews given by him. These interviews say a great deal about the man and his dogmatic disdain for the likes of you and I who doubt his offical word on all things 9/11. The first link is a telephone call/interview with Mr. Corley and the second link is an interview he gave for Skokienews:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/gc_060110.mp3

http://www.skokienet.org/node/3876

Because of it all I would never defend this man's actions however, despite my misgivings for him and Mr. Corley's leading role in having corrupted the WTC 5 aircraft wreckage/crime scene he is not the only one to have had access to these aircraft fragments and photographs thereof - If what he says is true he was not on the WTC site until October 6, 2001 - almost a full month after 9/11. In that time many, many individuals had access to the rooftop of WTC 5 and any number of people could have planted these fragments on the rooftop beforehand. That premise in and of itself is leaping to conclusions because there is no conclusive proof these fragments didn't wing their way for several hundred feet and well across the plaza (albeit against a stiff crosswind) to land side by side in a face-up and uncanny configuration...I too can speculate on this matter with good intentions, reason and intuition being my guide but that sort of thing is why truthers are considered nutters in the first place...because most contrarians react rather than respond!

Posted by: questionitall Jan 14 2011, 08:20 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 14 2011, 08:52 AM) *
There are numerous aircraft graveyards and junkyards around the country. It's not hard to get old plane parts and when you use parts that don't have serial numbers for your 'evidence', it makes it even easier.

There was one down near the Miami Airport that I use to go to. Great place for finding stainless steel parts and stuff you can use on boats.


Your point is a very good one for sure and that's what I'm in the process of trying to achieve. I'm looking to get inside a Boeing 767-200ER fuselage that has been gutted of its cabin interior panels and insulation, so that I can photograph that passenger window area from the inside. The rivet pattern and layout of the underlying structural (frames and stringers) configuration is what I'm looking for because if my hunch proves correct I'll be able to show there isn't a shop edge and double row of rivets next to/left of the area the (N) is located at in the second photograph - I'm told by a knowlegable individual that isn't the case at all on the Boeing 767-200ER airframe but I want tangible proof of that fact in my hands none the less.

By the way thank you to whoever posted the photographs on my intial post here. I don't think I could have done it myself because I'm just shy of being dangerous when it comes to navigating my computer and just the thought of trying to do so puts the fear of God into both of us. lol

As for the second photograph then, I didn't go into detail with it because I want to have my own photographs in hand to either prove or disprove my argument first. But one thing I will say about it is I find it extremely peculiar how the sheet metal right next to the passenger window cut-out below the (N) just happened to tear away as it did. As though it had been sheared in a shop process during manufacture. It appears far too clean a cut and dead straight to. It is such a straight line in fact that it just so happens to run parallel to the double row of rivet holes without once encroaching on them or tearing metal away from them in the typical fashion one can expect to see of wreckage from a catastrophic impact. That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact my knowlegable friend tells me the major frames that run top to bottom between the window cut-outs stand off from the fuselage skin, meaning they are not set against the sheet metal therefore the outer skin of the fuselage is riveted to the horizontal stringers in that area...horizontal stringers means horizontal lines of rivet holes. Not vertical as in the second image.

The whole thing is odd no doubt, especially considering the force required to shred alluminum sheet metal this way is significant and seldom does it ever do so with such uniformity and precision...The odds of that occurring more than once between different fragments of metal from the same area of the same airframe that survived the same catastrophic event well those odds must be astronomical to say the least.

Just have a look again at the second photograph, where the half eviscerated passenger window cut-out is on the larger fragment. Notice there the dead straight edge that cuts right through the window frame and tell me I'm imaging things here...please.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 14 2011, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 14 2011, 08:52 AM) *
There are numerous aircraft graveyards and junkyards around the country. It's not hard to get old plane parts and when you use parts that don't have serial numbers for your 'evidence', it makes it even easier.

There was one down near the Miami Airport that I use to go to. Great place for finding stainless steel parts and stuff you can use on boats.


QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 14 2011, 08:52 AM) *
There are numerous aircraft graveyards and junkyards around the country. It's not hard to get old plane parts and when you use parts that don't have serial numbers for your 'evidence', it makes it even easier.

There was one down near the Miami Airport that I use to go to. Great place for finding stainless steel parts and stuff you can use on boats.


Your point is a very good one for sure and that's what I'm in the process of trying to achieve. I'm looking to get inside a Boeing 767-200ER fuselage that has been gutted of its cabin interior panels and insulation, so that I can photograph that passenger window area from the inside. The rivet pattern and layout of the underlying structural (frames and stringers) configuration is what I'm looking for because if my hunch proves correct I'll be able to show there isn't a shop edge and double row of rivets next to/left of the area the (N) is located at in the second photograph - I'm told by a knowlegable individual that isn't the case at all on the Boeing 767-200ER airframe but I want tangible proof of that fact in my hands none the less.

By the way thank you to whoever posted the photographs on my intial post here. I don't think I could have done it myself because I'm just shy of being dangerous when it comes to navigating my computer and just the thought of trying to do so puts the fear of God into both of us. lol

As for the second photograph then, I didn't go into detail with it because I want to have my own photographs in hand to either prove or disprove my argument first. But one thing I will say about it is I find it extremely peculiar how the sheet metal right next to the passenger window cut-out below the (N) just happened to tear away as it did. As though it had been sheared in a shop process during manufacture. It appears far too clean a cut and dead straight to. It is such a straight line in fact that it just so happens to run parallel to the double row of rivet holes without once encroaching on them or tearing metal away from them in the typical fashion one can expect to see of wreckage from a catastrophic impact. That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact my knowlegable friend tells me the major frames that run top to bottom between the window cut-outs stand off from the fuselage skin, meaning they are not set against the sheet metal therefore the outer skin of the fuselage is riveted to the horizontal stringers in that area...horizontal stringers means horizontal lines of rivet holes. Not vertical as in the second image.

The whole thing is odd no doubt, especially considering the force required to shred alluminum sheet metal this way is significant and seldom does it ever do so with such uniformity and precision...The odds of that occurring more than once between different fragments of metal from the same area of the same airframe that survived the same catastrophic event well those odds must be astronomical to say the least.

Just have a look again at the second photograph, where the half eviscerated passenger window cut-out is on the larger fragment. Notice there the dead straight edge that cuts right through the window frame and tell me I'm imaging things here...please.

Posted by: IslandPilot Jan 16 2011, 08:03 PM

Questionitall - great avitar name - WELCOME! thumbsup.gif
You said (and I edited):

QUOTE
I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now... [and] no-one... seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts... hired... to lie on behalf of the government...

I've been a pilot since 1968, and an A&P Mechanic since 1980. Most of us understand the "Magnitutude" of the problem you refer to very well.

Your "comments" are interesting. For the first time, you've allowed me to "see", what appears to be THREE Aircraft Fuselage parts on top of WTC 5, that "appear" to correspond to aircraft parts "resembling" those of a Boeing 767.

I knew immediately you were trying to discribe this photograph.
I NEVER liked this picture. It always looked "wrong" to me, for a lot of reasons.

It's the "only" (in situ) picture I've seen, of something that looks like a fuselage part, at the WTC. It "looked like" a SMALL airplane part to me, (Piper Malibu, Corporate Jet).
It was never positively identified as having been a "specific part" of N612UA.
It was "small enough" to have been "placed there"... either WELL BEFORE-or-AFTER the "911 event".
NONE of the well established (by FEDERAL LAW) NTSB Aircraft Accident Protocals were followed to "protect the Accident Scene" for a proper INVESTIGATION that would include documenting the placement, and identification of all aircraft parts at the scene, with proper "chain of custody" procedures for all parts removed from the scene for "further investigation".
Everything that may have "appeared" to resemble Airplane Parts were treated like "recycleable scrap".
The "airframe" parts in this photograph are "not likely" to have "identification" marks traceable to a specific aircraft.

As I tried to "follow" your explanations, I "noticed" a few things, so here are my comments:
All airplane crash pictures (even Hi-Resolution) tend to "all look the same to me"... with just a bunch of mostly unidentifiable junk in some kind of pile. This one is "typical" of that.

The "blueish" coloration has something to do with "ultraviolet" lighting, "camera filters", and position of the Sun for "outdoor" photos. The poor "colorization" in these photos, diminishes our ability to see pertinant details, without further "enhancements".

Before getting into your "details", let's look at your claim for "manipulation" of the previous well published photograph, by looking at the "second" photo:

In this photo, it is very easy to see the "fuselage part" appearing to be "one piece" in Photo 1, is actually TWO PIECES in the second photograph.
In ADDITION, it looks like these parts have been MOVED from being IN FRONT OF the stairway railing, in photo 1; to BEHIND the stairway railing in photo 2.
Also, a "dark blotched part" between the two parts, in Photo 1; may have removed before Photo 2 was taken.
I agree with your claim of "manipulation".

Then you try to make a "case" for the location of these parts (or NOT) on a B-767 aircraft, using "evidence" of a partial "N" number marking and "lack" of a "vertical aircraft frame seam" between two adjacent windows in the wreckage. You said:
QUOTE
on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment.

On photo 1, I do not see any "vertical butt joint seam" either, and I cannot understand "what" you are trying to "get at" by describing "dark blotches" and "N" number locations.
For clarification; you show us a photo of a "real" N612UA, before 911, I am assuming. Good Job! thumbsup.gif
I'll call this Photo 3. By comparing this photo with Photo number 1, there does not appear to be a "vertical butt seam" between any of "those" windows. OK, So what! It only means this fuselage section came from some other part of the aircraft. I still didn't understand how you "came up with that particular location for those windows... and I didn't see evidence of an "N" number in photo 1.

Photo 3 is a little "weird" because it is "low resolution"... and still it's quite easy to "see" a different coloration between individual aluminum "sheets" used for the outer fuselage "skin". Although this difference in colorization, may have been "enhanced" somehow... it does represent accurately how easy it is to "see" where these aircraft skin panels come together. You can "observe" this naturally, with the human eye, as well as with a camera. (I can't explain it. The panels and paint are all the same stuff, sometimes fitted together precisely enough to make the seams disappear, if viewed close up. But, from a distance, it can present a different appearance).

So, I went back to photo 2, looking for that vertical butt seam... and it "might" be there between the first and second window, of the "larger" fragment, to the right of the stair railing. (or between the second and third windows, if you are looking at "all" of the window locations). I do not think there would be a 1/4 inch "gap" between fuselage skin panels at a "vertical butt seam" as you say. Them guys at Boeing do awesome sheet metal work, if there were a gap, it would covered with "filler" to reduce "aerodynamic drag". But, I can't say conclusively I "see" a vertical butt seam where you don't "see" one.

I finally realized those "bluish and white" stripes in photo 2 were part of the "N" and "6" in the aircraft "N number marking", you were referring to... and the "light bulb" came on!

An hour later I was able to "see" and understand:

QUOTE
There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam

I agree!
But, Photo 2 doesn't show that "white TAB portion" of the Number "2", in that location AT ALL! (is it possible the "toxic environment" at ground zero "eradicated" such a marking between the photographs?)

The "straight shop edge" having a "non-horizontal" alignment looks "fishy" to me also. It "shouldn't be there." I think YOU ARE ON to something there! Keep Going with that.

I have YET ANOTHER PROBLEM with Photo 2. At the LEFT edge of the small window fragment, the one having the "N" and "6" fragments; behind the stairway railing, you'll see another vertical "shop edge" with a few rivet holes along it. This sure looks like a "vertical butt joint to me". And according to Picture 3, we wouldn't find something like this on N612UA.

Near the top of that far left "shop edge", we see two TRIANGULAR SHAPES where it appears that something was riveted onto the outside of the aircraft skin... and we see a "horizontal fragment" protruding from "inside" the aircraft skin panel, which appears to be a horizontal stringer.

At first I thought the triangular shapes might be where a "door hinge" or something else, was attached to the outside of the fuselage.

It is more likely these triangular shapes represent "remnants" of "diamond shaped" reinforcing plates attached to the exterior of the aircraft. Diamond shaped plates are commonly riveted onto the exterior of the aircraft skin to strengthen certain areas when necessary.

This may have been done during the aircraft manufacturing process, to reinforce a "joint" between horizontal stringers or frames, on the other side of the aircraft skin.

Diamond shaped plates are also used to make structural repairs for "cracked", "weak", or "damaged", areas; or to "cover up" holes resulting from the removal of something, (like an antenna, for instance). They are commonly called "scab patches", when used for repairs.

Bottom LINE:
The left edge of the small fragment, containing the "N" sure looks like a "vertical butt seam" to me, which only serves to "reinforce" what I already knew. Those pictures don't "prove" the existance of N612UA at the scene of 911, to me.

Also in Photo 2, the "bluish and white" coloration of the twisted fragment, below the long diagonal pieces, below the "gap" in the middle,.. above the bigger "fuselage" piece, sure looks like "another" fragment having part of the "N" number marking on it. What do you think?

Posted by: amazed! Jan 17 2011, 11:52 AM

QuestionItAll

Welcome to the forum!

I have long been suspicious of that photo. Thanks for you input.

What is your take on the landing gear pieces and engine scattered around on the streets?

What about on the various videos of the impact, with some showing heavier debris from the plane continuing on?

Posted by: questionitall Jan 17 2011, 11:08 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 17 2011, 10:52 AM) *
QuestionItAll

Welcome to the forum!

I have long been suspicious of that photo. Thanks for you input.

What is your take on the landing gear pieces and engine scattered around on the streets?

What about on the various videos of the impact, with some showing heavier debris from the plane continuing on?


Thx for the compliment

As for the landing gear and engine wreckage let's just say I have absolutely no doubt in my mind what so ever that medium wide-body airplanes struck the WTC towers on 9/11 but I am equally convinced these aircraft were NOT the commercial aircraft we were led to believe they were, so the question remains "who's aircraft did we see slam into the buildings that day?" I do not speculate on this matter but I can tell you this - having listened to and spoken with many fine/experienced professional pilots on the subject I know full well, from their judgment and my aviation experience, those aiplanes were not "maneuvered" or "piloted" by humans at their control.

Remote control technology has been around for many, many decades. Consider these three facts and decide for yourself what transpired st round zero on 9/11:

- Nikola Tesla was a magnificently gifted brilliant genius who invented virtually every single technology we use in our lives to this very day. At the Electrical Exhibition of 1898, Tesla demostrated something beyond the limits of technology. His remote control, patent No. 613,809 (November 8, 1898) was shown there. This invention was made in the US. Tesla was living in New York at the time (ironically). The patent is described as "Method Of Aparatus For Controlling Mechanism Of Moving Vessels Or Vehicles". In other words "remote control". http://keelynet.com/tesla/00613809.pdf

- The earliest unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916. A number of remote-controlled airplane advances followed, including the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, the first test flights of an autopilot-equipped aircraft was in September, 1917, and took place with a human pilot onboard to fly the takeoff. By November, the system successfully flew the aircraft to its intended target at a 30-mile (48 km) range, where the distance-measuring gear would drop a bag of sand. Accuracy was within two miles (3 km) of target.

- Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a series of false-flag operation proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. The document listed methods, and outlined plans, that the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These were to be staged attacks purported to be of Cuban origin. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. The document details plans of a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces. One such incident went like this:

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 18 2011, 04:49 AM

QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Jan 16 2011, 07:03 PM) *
Questionitall - great avitar name - WELCOME! thumbsup.gif
You said (and I edited):

I've been a pilot since 1968, and an A&P Mechanic since 1980. Most of us understand the "Magnitutude" of the problem you refer to very well.

Your "comments" are interesting. For the first time, you've allowed me to "see", what appears to be THREE Aircraft Fuselage parts on top of WTC 5, that "appear" to correspond to aircraft parts "resembling" those of a Boeing 767.

I knew immediately you were trying to discribe this photograph.
I NEVER liked this picture. It always looked "wrong" to me, for a lot of reasons.

It's the "only" (in situ) picture I've seen, of something that looks like a fuselage part, at the WTC. It "looked like" a SMALL airplane part to me, (Piper Malibu, Corporate Jet).
It was never positively identified as having been a "specific part" of N612UA.
It was "small enough" to have been "placed there"... either WELL BEFORE-or-AFTER the "911 event".
NONE of the well established (by FEDERAL LAW) NTSB Aircraft Accident Protocals were followed to "protect the Accident Scene" for a proper INVESTIGATION that would include documenting the placement, and identification of all aircraft parts at the scene, with proper "chain of custody" procedures for all parts removed from the scene for "further investigation".
Everything that may have "appeared" to resemble Airplane Parts were treated like "recycleable scrap".
The "airframe" parts in this photograph are "not likely" to have "identification" marks traceable to a specific aircraft.

As I tried to "follow" your explanations, I "noticed" a few things, so here are my comments:
All airplane crash pictures (even Hi-Resolution) tend to "all look the same to me"... with just a bunch of mostly unidentifiable junk in some kind of pile. This one is "typical" of that.

The "blueish" coloration has something to do with "ultraviolet" lighting, "camera filters", and position of the Sun for "outdoor" photos. The poor "colorization" in these photos, diminishes our ability to see pertinant details, without further "enhancements".

Before getting into your "details", let's look at your claim for "manipulation" of the previous well published photograph, by looking at the "second" photo:

In this photo, it is very easy to see the "fuselage part" appearing to be "one piece" in Photo 1, is actually TWO PIECES in the second photograph.
In ADDITION, it looks like these parts have been MOVED from being IN FRONT OF the stairway railing, in photo 1; to BEHIND the stairway railing in photo 2.
Also, a "dark blotched part" between the two parts, in Photo 1; may have removed before Photo 2 was taken.
I agree with your claim of "manipulation".

Then you try to make a "case" for the location of these parts (or NOT) on a B-767 aircraft, using "evidence" of a partial "N" number marking and "lack" of a "vertical aircraft frame seam" between two adjacent windows in the wreckage. You said:

On photo 1, I do not see any "vertical butt joint seam" either, and I cannot understand "what" you are trying to "get at" by describing "dark blotches" and "N" number locations.
For clarification; you show us a photo of a "real" N612UA, before 911, I am assuming. Good Job! thumbsup.gif
I'll call this Photo 3. By comparing this photo with Photo number 1, there does not appear to be a "vertical butt seam" between any of "those" windows. OK, So what! It only means this fuselage section came from some other part of the aircraft. I still didn't understand how you "came up with that particular location for those windows... and I didn't see evidence of an "N" number in photo 1.

Photo 3 is a little "weird" because it is "low resolution"... and still it's quite easy to "see" a different coloration between individual aluminum "sheets" used for the outer fuselage "skin". Although this difference in colorization, may have been "enhanced" somehow... it does represent accurately how easy it is to "see" where these aircraft skin panels come together. You can "observe" this naturally, with the human eye, as well as with a camera. (I can't explain it. The panels and paint are all the same stuff, sometimes fitted together precisely enough to make the seams disappear, if viewed close up. But, from a distance, it can present a different appearance).

So, I went back to photo 2, looking for that vertical butt seam... and it "might" be there between the first and second window, of the "larger" fragment, to the right of the stair railing. (or between the second and third windows, if you are looking at "all" of the window locations). I do not think there would be a 1/4 inch "gap" between fuselage skin panels at a "vertical butt seam" as you say. Them guys at Boeing do awesome sheet metal work, if there were a gap, it would covered with "filler" to reduce "aerodynamic drag". But, I can't say conclusively I "see" a vertical butt seam where you don't "see" one.

I finally realized those "bluish and white" stripes in photo 2 were part of the "N" and "6" in the aircraft "N number marking", you were referring to... and the "light bulb" came on!

An hour later I was able to "see" and understand:


I agree!
But, Photo 2 doesn't show that "white TAB portion" of the Number "2", in that location AT ALL! (is it possible the "toxic environment" at ground zero "eradicated" such a marking between the photographs?)

The "straight shop edge" having a "non-horizontal" alignment looks "fishy" to me also. It "shouldn't be there." I think YOU ARE ON to something there! Keep Going with that.

I have YET ANOTHER PROBLEM with Photo 2. At the LEFT edge of the small window fragment, the one having the "N" and "6" fragments; behind the stairway railing, you'll see another vertical "shop edge" with a few rivet holes along it. This sure looks like a "vertical butt joint to me". And according to Picture 3, we wouldn't find something like this on N612UA.

Near the top of that far left "shop edge", we see two TRIANGULAR SHAPES where it appears that something was riveted onto the outside of the aircraft skin... and we see a "horizontal fragment" protruding from "inside" the aircraft skin panel, which appears to be a horizontal stringer.

At first I thought the triangular shapes might be where a "door hinge" or something else, was attached to the outside of the fuselage.

It is more likely these triangular shapes represent "remnants" of "diamond shaped" reinforcing plates attached to the exterior of the aircraft. Diamond shaped plates are commonly riveted onto the exterior of the aircraft skin to strengthen certain areas when necessary.

This may have been done during the aircraft manufacturing process, to reinforce a "joint" between horizontal stringers or frames, on the other side of the aircraft skin.

Diamond shaped plates are also used to make structural repairs for "cracked", "weak", or "damaged", areas; or to "cover up" holes resulting from the removal of something, (like an antenna, for instance). They are commonly called "scab patches", when used for repairs.

Bottom LINE:
The left edge of the small fragment, containing the "N" sure looks like a "vertical butt seam" to me, which only serves to "reinforce" what I already knew. Those pictures don't "prove" the existance of N612UA at the scene of 911, to me.

Also in Photo 2, the "bluish and white" coloration of the twisted fragment, below the long diagonal pieces, below the "gap" in the middle,.. above the bigger "fuselage" piece, sure looks like "another" fragment having part of the "N" number marking on it. What do you think?



Hello

Because you’ve had great difficulty figuring this information out on your own I’ve realized maybe I did not elucidate the points I made earlier, so hopefully this explanation will clarify things for everyone, but do consider the fact I won’t be responding to any more speculation on this matter. As for you believing there are three parts depicted in either photograph I disagree with you there.

So first of all I wish to remind people I did not post any of those photographs on my initial post - someone else did that for me and I appreciated it at the time because the images do help to some degree by showing generalities if nothing else, but the fact is I’m now having to clarify things because of the ambiguity one of those photographs has raised here and I’m not very pleased about that. So I ask that people not post anymore images here. I’ll do so my self when I figure out how to navigate my computer better but I’ll continue giving you ideas of where to go to find them in the meantime.

Those photographs are grainy and for that very reason I’ve recommended people go to the websites I mention here from time to time to download any material mentioned, because they are easier to study when you can expand their size or stop and start video at will.

As Mr. Corley said it is essential that the best of evidence be collected and referred to…

Before proceeding I want to make one point abundantly clear to everyone reading my research - Anyone can speculate all day long (about this and that) but only factual evidence tells the truth of the matter. Hearsay and conjecture is unacceptable in my opinion therefore it is incumbent upon everyone researching 9/11 to do their own investigating and not to just simply believe the word of others - that goes for my findings as well.

I say this due to the fact that while I was writing this reply and cross checking my facts I discovered in a FEMA/ASCE document yet another prime example of the colossal ineptitude and shear disinformation coming from the expert consultants’ who investigated the WTC site. It can be seen there in Chapter 4 of the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study report - Emblazoned there on the second photograph in figure 4-12 on page 4-11. That caption reads “Pieces of WTC 1 and WTC 2” but that too is an outright lie because the NIST Cumulus database video (ABC Dub7 12) found in the ABC NIST Dub #7 file of Release 14 clearly shows there was no damage caused to that area of the WTC 5 Maintenance Penthouse by falling debris from the collapsing WTC 2 and neither was there any large pieces of building debris evident there after the dust had settled. That hole was caused by debris from WTC 1 collapsing so how in the hell did heavy steel pieces of WTC 2 end up on the roof of WTC 5 well after the first tower had collapsed? When it wasn’t there before!

Anyone who believes this very heavy WTC 2 steel debris was picked up off the plaza level courtyard and thrown upwards nine stories on to the rooftop of WTC 5 by the air pressure wave generated by the collapsing WTC 1 must also believe its equally plausible then this relatively light aluminum sheet metal fuselage wreckage could have been picked up on the roof of WTC 5 and tossed about there quite easily by the same air pressure wave.

Good Lord I say, if I did such a shoddy job of maintaining aircraft as these expert consultants do with investigating crime scenes planes would be falling out of the sky all over the place and quite possibly three of them on the same day no less, but I digress.
My point being then, if you are to believe anything of 9/11 then you must question everything and reason it all for yourself.

So I asked myself “how did wreckage from WTC 2 find its way onto the rooftop of WTC 5 thereafter WTC 1 collapsing if it wasn’t there previously?” Maybe it was carried up there on the high velocity winds (pressure wave) created by WTC 1 collapsing…perhaps. That being the case then it is not a stretch of the imagination to say any aircraft fuselage wreckage on the rooftop of WTC 5 could also have been displaced by Mr. Bakers’ very same “pressure wave” proclamation. Mr. William F. Baker was a team member working for Mr. W. Gene Corley at ground zero by the way and that’s the point people! They are jackals who work together to bring down the kill but they’re also prone to rivalry when the main course is finished and the pickings get slim and that’s why patriots like Benjamin Franklin stated you should “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see”.

Like it not - Agree with me or not no matter -Its that philosophical perspective that I approach everything in life from and this 9/11 research is no different – I look at the World Trade Center aircraft issue from the perspective of the expert consultants, the official record and their findings for all of it is suspect, because everybody lies to get ahead in life – some more than others, but eventually the lies grow out of control and someone has to be the first to give themselves away or they just confess. The ground zero investigation is just that sort of lie I’m talking about.

So everyone reading this truly needs to understand - before you’re able to make sense of the lies therein that official evidence and final report you first need to know how the liar thinks, reasons and justifies their actions. Until then you won’t be able to comprehend even the simplest message therein this FEMA/ASCE photograph. That photograph is telling you to believe the fuselage debris therein is from a United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) because that is what the government would have you believe and by decree it became proof positive United Airlines crashed into WTC 2, but I’m telling you it is not proof of anything other than a conspiracy to mislead…

Because I’ve been accused of vagaries in the past I’ll be blunt with you – although I do not believe for one second these fragments are from the United Airlines flight 175 airframe I’m not going to speculate on what type of aircraft they could be from – I do not know that answer. What I do know for a fact is the FEMA/ASCE investigation never conclusively proved its case that known commercial aircraft of any sort were used as murder weapons at ground zero on 9/11 and they never proved United Airlines flight 175 was one of those aircraft! The FEMA/ASCE investigators photograph of aircraft wreckage on the roof of WTC 5 proves nothing because the fragments shown in it do not correspond to the AFT zonal area of a Boeing 767-200ER, despite what they would have you believe.

FEMA/ASCE simply told us all what they wished us to think of as real while the truth is most people took that bait hook, line and sinker/sucker. The fact of the matter is not a single fragment from any of the four 9/11 aircraft destroyed on 9/11 was ever positively identified by way of scientific forensic analysis in accordance with the standards and procedures set out by the International Civil Aviation Organization for aviation disaster/crime scene investigation. As it is well known in the aviation community “the ICAO defines the protocols for air accident investigation followed by transport safety authorities in countries signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention.” The NTSB must have used invisible ink in their pen when they signed that document because it sure didn’t live up to its obligations following 9/11.

It’s no accident this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph that I’ve concentrated my attention and research on is the ONLY image you’ve ever seen depicting (supposed) United Airlines flight 175 wreckage on WTC 5. That certainty is due to the fact this photograph is the only proof the government had ever released to the 9/11 Commissioners and the public. Not another one has been volunteered by them in the past nine years and as I’ve said before the sole function of the FEMA/ASCE ground zero investigation was to lead people to believe two “known commercial aircraft” slammed into the towers from one photograph…it sure wasn’t meant to enlighten us…end of story!

As for these parts having been planted on the rooftop of WTC 5 I’m still trying to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and my research is leaning in that direction for many good reasons. Just one of them being I’ve seen far too many videos and photographs of the rooftop of WTC 5 from September 11, 2001 onward to know these parts are nowhere to be seen in plain site and certainly not where Mr. Corley’s photograph shows them to be as of October 25, 2001. Two great sources for referencing visual material showing this to be the case are the NIST Cumulus database and the FEMA Photo Library itself.

From these sources I have many images and videos taken by the investigators and one video in particular from the rooftop of WTC 5 following the attacks - Would you believe those experts made their way onto the rooftop by way of unscathed stairwells leading up to it if I told you so? They did and I know this because Chapter 4 of the May 1, 2002 WTC Building Performance Study report makes that very clear. Written there on page 4-4 it states “Four stairways connected the Plaza level to the 8th floor, and three of those stairways continued up to the ninth floor”. On page 4-10 it states “As illustrated in figure 4-16, the interior of the exit stair tower at the South West corner was practically untouched by the fire. There were no burn marks or fire damage in the exit tower…” and on page 4-16 it says “The condition of the stairways in WTC 5 indicates that, for the duration of this fire, the fire doors and the fire protective covering on the walls performed well”.

All of that might seem irrelevant but I’ve written it here because my point being then is yes, it is quite plausible someone might have made their way to the rooftop beforehand and by the same route in order to plant these parts there, except Mr. William F. Baker succinctly stated in the first paragraph on page 1-8 of the Introduction to the May 1, 2002 WTC Building Performance Study report “The sudden collapse of each tower sent out air pressure waves that spread dust clouds of building materials in all directions for many blocks. The density and pressure of the dust clouds were strong enough to carry light debris and lift or move small vehicles and break windows in adjacent buildings for several blocks around the World Trade Center site.”

So I disagree with you on the “before the event” hypothesis but only because you’re presuming the premise these pieces were planted exactly where they are shown in the FEMA/ASCE photograph beforehand. I’m saying the pressure wave caused by WTC 1 collapsing would have displaced these fuselage fragments from that location, had they been there on the roof beforehand. Whether they had settled there in roughly that locale on their own after the collapse of WTC 2 and even if they had been planted there before the “event” as you put it neither scenario makes for sound reasoning.
Go back and read my posts again because I’ve suggested several resources you can read and listen to that challenge your hypothesis.

So you see, by Mr. Bakers’ account destroys your theory, making it seem highly unlikely these fuselage parts were planted on the rooftop prior to the “event”, not to mention it is highly unlikely they were “discovered” in the exact spot they were photographed (post WTC 1 collapse) thereafter. I have photographs to show that was the case and if I could figure out how to post them I would. But the best video I’ve seen to date making this case/point is one taken by Guy Rosbrook (the husband of Tami Michaels’ fame) from their room ( # 3502) in the Millenium Hilton Hotel which directly across Church Street from where WTC 5 stood. They filmed the destruction at ground zero from that vantage point on 9/11 and in one of their videos the birds-eye view onto the rooftop of WTC 5 is unmatched by any other material that I’ve seen to date. It shows the rooftop of WTC 5 appears surprisingly free and clear of debris after WTC 2 collapsed and there certainly was not a gaping hole caused by falling debris at that time!

As for your statement about the FEMA/ASCE photograph having been filtered, according to WIKIMEDIA COMMONS then:
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_12390_-_Photograph_by_Gene_Corley_taken_on_10-25-2001_in_New_York.jpg)

It was generated/digitized (17:03, 25 October 2001) with no exposure bias or flash used and later modified (14:51, 12 January 2005) but there’s no mention of filtering so I’ll assume (for the sake of argument) everything you see in it was added after the fact. It is not unlike the image housed in the FEMA Photo Library.

As for your believing the parts were shifted about between exposures you are correct - you’ll notice in the FEMA/ASCE “well published” photograph the smaller part (as seen in the second image) with the partial registration marking (N6….) on it has been propped-up (manipulated) onto a reddish/rusty looking chunk of debris underneath it. The investigators presumably did that in order to better marry the two pieces together for the photo-op, which in and itself constitutes evidence tampering by the way. Notice that same reddish/rusty looking chunk of debris is nowhere to be seen in the second image and that is also a fact! So yes the fragments were moved about, all over the bloody place, in order to document the subject exactly the way they intended, but not the way they “discovered” them I’ll bet.

In regards to your statement the “dark blotched part” may have been removed before the second image was taken I could not disagree with you more on that point because you’ve implied there had been more than two pieces of fuselage wreckage – there was not, as either photograph shows. You’ve completely misinterpreted what the photographs are showing you and at no time did I say anything about a dark blotch part (third piece) being added on top of the existing two pieces in the FEMA/ASCE photograph. What I said was a “dark blue splotch of color” had been added to the photograph using Photoshop. There is a fundamental difference in the two statements, because yours implies the manual manipulation (arrangement) thereof three physical pieces of sheet metal to have them look like one unit. Whereas my hypothesis has always been “there are two physical fragments of fuselage sheet metal in the FEMA/ASCE image that have been made to look like one by way of the Photoshop addition of a “dark blue splotch of color”!

You’ve said “there does not appear to be a "vertical butt seam" between any of “those” windows. OK, So what! It only means this fuselage section came from some other part of the aircraft. I still didn't understand how you came up with that particular location for those windows...and I didn't see evidence of an "N" number in photo 1”…This statement of yours truly confounds me and I wonder if there’s any point to explaining myself further but I will because it’s that important to me that people understand these facts.
But in the interest of clarification let me say no-one should be referring to the “Photo 3” as you put it, because I’ve repeatedly said I did not post it and it is a terrible rendition of that zone of United Airlines (N612UA). I’ve seen this image online but I would never have used it for that reason, other than to point out where and how the aircraft registration marking appeared on the right side of the fuselage of that once serviceable airframe. I assure you there is a very noticeable butt joint seam bisecting the second to last and third to last cabin passenger windows on a Boeing 767-200ER airframe. It does run top to bottom on the fuselage to intersect the (2) and the (U) in the registration number/marking of that particular livery and it is as I’ve described it. It’s not evident in “Photo 3” because the resolution is poor and that image was most likely taken from many hundreds of feet away from the aircraft, if not more!

In regards to your wondering how I came up with that location for the windows I did so by way of reasoning and simple logic. Allow me to explain. First of all consider the fact the investigators placed these pieces together with purpose because they were determined to photograph anything they could sell to the public as being wreckage from “United Airlines flight 175” and also consider there are a minimum of 4 window frames visible on the larger of the two pieces of fuselage in their FEMA/ASCE photograph. If the investigators would have us believe this image is depicting the right side of the aircraft that would make sense because there are 45 passenger cabin windows (by my calculation) on either side of a Boeing 767-200ER fuselage, so there should be at least these 4 windows to the right of the (N) on the right side of the fuselage…agreed?

Now if you go online and find an image of the AFT left side of this aircraft fuselage you will notice there are only two cabin passengers windows to the right of the one directly below the (N) while there are 42 cabin passenger windows to the left of it…agreed? How many windows do you see to the left of this (N6….) in the FEMA/ASCE photograph? If you can’t spot the remnants of the registration number in the investigators image then I’m wasting my time explaining this because that partial registration number is also a dead giveaway this photograph had been falsified.

Might I suggest you download the original FEMA/ASCE photograph from (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) and take a closer look at the image by blowing it up in size because the (N6….) is quite visible right above the “dark blue splotch of color” someone quite clearly added in by the use of Photoshop.

If we were to agree the investigators married together actual pieces of that AFT fuselage zone on the right side of N612UA then the larger fuselage fragment should have that tell-tale butt joint seem bisecting at least two of these 4 window frames, but where is that seam in the photograph? I certainly don’t see it. So like you said, the larger piece of fuselage here might well be from somewhere else on the fuselage. That being the case the investigators were incredibly stupid to have married the larger piece of fuselage to the one with the registration number on it thinking no trained Aircraft Maintenance Engineer would notice!
As for your observation “The left edge of the small fragment, containing the (N) sure looks like a vertical butt seam…” I could not agree more but I’m holding off on that one until I have verified proof of the design and construction of this airframe…because hard facts are what I deal with, not conjecture. If you know anyone working on Boeing 767-200ER aircraft I encourage you to get them involved on this particular line of investigation as well.

Thx very much by the way for showing such an interest and I hope I wasn't too short with you but I find explaining this stuff to people frustrating sometimes so I have to remind myself that I know this material inside out, for the most part, whereas others don't.

Take care.

Posted by: amazed! Jan 18 2011, 10:51 AM

Question

Yes, we are in agreement.

Posted by: talayo Jan 18 2011, 11:01 AM

is it not possible, from the photograph, to see if the ratios between the space from window cut out to window cut out versus the width and also de hight of the cutouts corresponds to the fuselage of the given type of aircraft?

This is not sufficient to prove it is what is claimed to be, but it certainly is necessary.

Appologies if it is not possible to get reasonable ratios for a valid comparison.

Posted by: Skeptik Jan 18 2011, 11:01 AM

Hi Questionall,

Well done for the forensic work you have done so far. Just one query. You say that the piece of fuselage with "N on it is part of the same piece as that with the four window opening showing.(forgive me if I've misunderstood you.)

If that's what you mean, how do you account for the difference in heights of the window openings in photo2?
The one one the left of the photo is much lower than the rest.

It looks like two separate parts of the fuselage to me.to me.

However if you compare Photos1 and 2, the part which you say has been photoshopped in 1,(i.e the part directly next to the stair rail) is missing in Photo 2. It certainly looks like a poor photoshop job to yours truly.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 18 2011, 12:13 PM

To clear up any confusion, i inserted the photos in the OP, from the sources in the original post.

Welcome to the forum questionitall. Good work!

Posted by: questionitall Jan 18 2011, 02:15 PM

QUOTE (Skeptik @ Jan 18 2011, 11:01 AM) *
Hi Questionall,

Well done for the forensic work you have done so far. Just one query. You say that the piece of fuselage with "N on it is part of the same piece as that with the four window opening showing.(forgive me if I've misunderstood you.)

If that's what you mean, how do you account for the difference in heights of the window openings in photo2?
The one one the left of the photo is much lower than the rest.

It looks like two separate parts of the fuselage to me.to me.

However if you compare Photos1 and 2, the part which you say has been photoshopped in 1,(i.e the part directly next to the stair rail) is missing in Photo 2. It certainly looks like a poor photoshop job to yours truly.



Hello to you

No offense intended but you've really misunderstood me here - I've been saying the complete opposite to "the piece of fuselage with "N" on it is part of the same piece as that with the four window opening showing". In fact just recently I responded in-kind to (IslandPilot....) here because he/she was having difficulty following my line of reasoning and logic for why I believe what I do. So I encourage you to read that post, because I think it better eplains the matter as compared with my initial/original post. Having said that I do apologize to you and anyone else here if I offend you when I write back - I find when I'm having to repeat myself to people I tend to get a litttle short with them but its never intentional and I fault no-one else for my shortcoming believe me.
I remind everyone I'm not a trained journalist or investigator - I'm just an average guy hoping and trying to make a positive difference in this World.

Thx for understanding.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 18 2011, 03:01 PM

QUOTE (talayo @ Jan 18 2011, 10:01 AM) *
is it not possible, from the photograph, to see if the ratios between the space from window cut out to window cut out versus the width and also de hight of the cutouts corresponds to the fuselage of the given type of aircraft?

This is not sufficient to prove it is what is claimed to be, but it certainly is necessary.

Appologies if it is not possible to get reasonable ratios for a valid comparison.


I disagree with you in small measure - although knowing anything of the dimensions or ratios of the window frame cut-outs on the larger fragment would be advantageous (because knowledge is power when it is used effectively) in the end knowing that information changes nothing, because either way you slice it the fact remains the wreckage in the FEMA/ASCE photograph had been corrupted/staged and later falsified/discredited by persons who knowingly employed some means of Photoshop to make modifications to it. In and of itself those two actions alone constitutes evidence tampering which is the heart and soul of my research and argument that persons who knowingly did this need to be held accountable for their having aided and abetted the perpetration of the Crime of the Century.

Thx for you thought on this

Posted by: Skeptik Jan 18 2011, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 18 2011, 06:15 PM) *
Hello to you

No offense intended but you've really misunderstood me here - I've been saying the complete opposite to "the piece of fuselage with "N" on it is part of the same piece as that with the four window opening showing". In fact just recently I responded in-kind to (IslandPilot....) here because he/she was having difficulty following my line of reasoning and logic for why I believe what I do. So I encourage you to read that post, because I think it better eplains the matter as compared with my initial/original post. Having said that I do apologize to you and anyone else here if I offend you when I write back - I find when I'm having to repeat myself to people I tend to get a litttle short with them but its never intentional and I fault no-one else for my shortcoming believe me.
I remind everyone I'm not a trained journalist or investigator - I'm just an average guy hoping and trying to make a positive difference in this World.

Thx for understanding.


Apologies, friend. my bad. I obviously misunderstood your comments. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 18 2011, 03:13 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 18 2011, 11:13 AM) *
To clear up any confusion, i inserted the photos in the OP, from the sources in the original post.

Welcome to the forum questionitall. Good work!


Hello Rob

Thank you very much for understanding and appreciating my research and thank you for the welcome. I must say this is all new to me and I'm having a little difficulty adapting to the website and public life. Although I've been researching this material for a little while now in the beginning I never had any intention of going public with it, not on this scale at least and only recently did I realize and decide this information really had to get out into the public domain. I'm now beginning to get a lot of attention for it and I'm not very comfortable with that because I'm a very private person for the most part.

Unfortunately my other post where I've requested expert assistance with this has not been so successful or answered on, quite regrettably so, because in that final piece of the (airframe) puzzle is the Holy Grail of Proof and confirmation for me that all my thousands of hours of researching this will not have been in vain.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 18 2011, 04:18 PM

QUOTE (Skeptik @ Jan 18 2011, 02:06 PM) *
Apologies, friend. my bad. I obviously misunderstood your comments. Keep up the good work.


There was offense taken on my part and your apology is humbly accepted - Cheers!

Posted by: questionitall Jan 18 2011, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 14 2011, 06:02 AM) *
First rule out that they are not the plane cited and then try to figure out what plane (frame) they are associated with. I think we might be able to find structural engineers or drawings of various planes which these might be matched to. I am assuming that this is not a one off, but is a frame which was manufactured in multiple copies.


Quite frankly I appreciate your ernest for knowing which aircraft these parts might be from but I believe we will never know the answer to that question, but it matters not. I am curious to know the answer to it myself but its inconsequential because what matters most is proving this FEMA/ASCE photograph was staged and later falsified by those of the mindset that it's okay to kill in the name of peace.

- When we've established that fact then we've discredited the entire official investigation that looked into Ground Zero even more so and that is what matters, not my idle curiosity -

It is important to remember one thing here if nothing else and that is the fact our sanctimonious government leaders took us into not one but three (and counting) Ideological Wars due to the mass murder of thousands of innocent American lives on 9/11 - As a consequence of their dubious decision millions more innocent lives have been slaughtered in kind in the name of securing a safer world for every one of us. If that were only the case...

The FEME/ASCE photograph along with numerous other official documents reminds all of constantly of their self-righteous reasons for sustaining these murderous wars and yet not one 9/11 expert has ever been held to task to prove their case in any just process . Rather then the majority of people simply accept this reality as the way it must be.

Well I disagree and if I can do anything to help bring even one of these arrogated individuals before a congressional hearing to answer for their actions then I've done something good of my life, for all the innocent lives destroyed in the name of our sins and for all those children coming up behind us who will undoubtedly have to answer for our apathy, should we do nothing.

So in my humble opinion it doesn't really matter at this point what aircraft these fragments were from, if it can be proven they were not to have been that of United Airlines flight 175.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 18 2011, 05:18 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 18 2011, 04:10 PM) *
Quite frankly I appreciate your ernest for knowing which aircraft these parts might be from but I believe we will never know the answer to that question, but it matters not. I am curious to know the answer to it myself but its inconsequential because what matters most is proving this FEMA/ASCE photograph was staged and later falsified by those of the mindset that it's okay to kill in the name of peace.

- When we've established that fact then we've discredited the entire official investigation that looked into Ground Zero even more so and that is what matters, not my idle curiosity -

You're right. I doesn't matter where these airplane parts (that were submitted as evidence in a US Court) actually came from, what matter is if they are not from the specific airplanes that the US Government claims hit the WTC on 9/11. So, please don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

However, it seems to me that what you're presenting here needs to be challenged in court and that requires legal counsel. Do you have any idea yet, what direction you want to go with this?

Posted by: questionitall Jan 25 2011, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 18 2011, 05:18 PM) *
You're right. I doesn't matter where these airplane parts (that were submitted as evidence in a US Court) actually came from, what matter is if they are not from the specific airplanes that the US Government claims hit the WTC on 9/11. So, please don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

However, it seems to me that what you're presenting here needs to be challenged in court and that requires legal counsel. Do you have any idea yet, what direction you want to go with this?


Hello - I apologize for not getting back to you sooner in response to your question. As for my intentions, no I do not intend to challenge this issue in court. I am not an American citizen for one thing and therefore I have no right to do so.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 27 2011, 04:29 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 13 2011, 08:46 PM) *
To whom it may concern

The rational minds of scholars and engineers, organized professional pilots and AME's the world over know full well any and all government proof of “Islamist terrorists” having hijacked “commercial aircraft” amounts to nothing more than hearsay and speculation born of and perpetuated by the official consensus…the sum of their worth is directly proportional to our ever devolving human condition, collective morality and intellectual debasement.

I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now. From my efforts I’ve discovered some damning information you might be interested in knowing - it pertains to falsified government evidence directly associated with the aircraft that purportedly crashed into WTC 2.

I approached Pilots For 9/11 Truth with this information for three reasons…the first of them being no-one to date whom I’ve shared this information with seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts who are hired again and again to lie on behalf of the government when such an occurrence as 9/11 arises. My second reason for posting here is to get people openly debating the amoral actions of these FEMA/ASCE experts, who corrupted the WTC site investigation by falsifying the very evidence that goaded half the free world into two illegal wars of occupation and lastly then, I cannot afford to hire a photo forensics expert to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence I have researched - to buy the “professional credibility status” required of it in order to legitimize a full congressional hearing into this conspiracy. If anyone reading this information is such an expert and wishes to weigh in on the photographic debate by all means give us your educated opinion of the matter at hand.

I know for certain the governments lackeys photographic material and supposed evidentiary proof of such a preposterous hypothesis had been manipulated on the roof of WTC 5, as photographed and later falsified but the question is who did the dirty deed, but no matter then because the entire government premise/case hangs from a flimsy thread of evidence that compelled people to believe highly inexperienced/unqualified foreign terrorists surgically flew commercial aircraft into the WTC Towers. By the time I’m done with exposing these lies no-one will believe this to be the case anymore; that anyone believes this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph somehow constitutes authenticity well this flimsy government proof is about to be disemboweled!

So great is the importance of disproving this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph of aircraft wreckage (supposedly that of N612UA) that it cannot be overemphasized, because this lone photograph was entered into evidence and sworn to under oath by Mr. Corley, Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research on May 1, 2002. Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath but more importantly then people must realize they’ve been lied to. In essence then this information is the Achilles Heel that will topple the Governments case for their Islamist Terrorist hypothesis, that is, if it's acted upon by someone who has the credentials to prove the FEMA/ASCE evidence fraudulent beyond reproach.

The person this falsified photograph consistently points back on is the man who exposed it; Mr. W. Gene Corley. Throughout the nine years since September 11, 2001 he has consistently obfuscated by telling half truths of it and he refuses to answer candidly the specific questions of mine regarding this/his photograph and the BPS team manipulation/fabrication thereof. The truth of it is this photograph had been altered by FEMA/ASCE officials using Photoshop not long after 9/11 and no later than May 1, 2002. Mr. Corley admittedly manipulated the wreckage that lead to this photograph being taken on the roof of WTC 5 in late October, 2001 – an admission of tampering with evidence no less which definitely qualifies him for peer review and public censor in the least.

To this day Mr. Corley reminds everyone of his expertise yet he never quite tells the full story of how and by what means his team conjured into existence this ground zero evidence of United Airlines flight 175 while his evidence tampering served well to mislead the world into believing his authoritative version of the events upon the WTC site immediately thereafter 9/11. For all intents and purposes then he effectively perjured himself in 2002 and he continues to this day to perpetuate that lie. In his words admittedly then he broke every law in the book while investigating said wreckage of UA175 and by continuing to justify his actions his professional ethics and modus operandi is not only reprehensible but subject to criminal investigation in my opinion. Just one case in point that spotlights this arrogated man is a February 3, 2005 interview he gave with James Meigs for a Popular Mechanics article entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Special Report.

In this article it is written…Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows…“It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly...In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky." The key word here in this article is “fragments”, due to the fact corroborating evidence proves not only had there been more than one fragment of fuselage “discovered” by Corley on the rooftop of WTC 5 so to the BPS team most certainly pulled together wreckage from various points on that rooftop in order to arrange these fragments in such a way as to ensure a specific outcome for what had surely already become a corrupted investigation/crime scene.

With that said “by piecing together bits of aircraft fuselage on WTC 5 he was able to determine that after UA175 struck WTC 2 a portion of the fuselage came to rest on the roof of WTC 5, right where the team discovered it”…in the least then how incredibly implausible and presumptuous it was of him to say so then!

The fact is the brazen irregularities in Mr. W. Gene Corley’s testimony and this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph (ever to be made public) denotes anything but one aircraft “fragment” from the right side-aft fuselage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe coming to rest right where he found it. I have researched the evidence to prove this fact and with Mr. Corley’s words in mind I will show why his testimony and this fuselage wreckage is not what it appears to be, for the following reasons:

- First and notably then is the fact the fragments in this photograph were arranged by Mr. Corley to give inquiring minds the impression the image depicts absolute proof the wreckage therein is from the R/H Empennage area of (N612UA) and I know this to be the case because there are NO passenger window cut-outs Aft of the (A) in the registration marking of (N612UA) on the L/H side of the fuselage - Not on that once serviceable United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe and not on any such airframe for that matter.

- With that in mind therein Mr. Corley’s image one can see a darker blue splotch of color, most evident there on the extreme left of this fuselage fragment. Just right of the lower end of the staircase hand rail upright and just below the portion of fuselage that bears the apparent remnants of aircraft registration marking (N6….). If this image is depicting in its true likeness a genuine piece of fuselage from the R/H Aft Empennage area of that United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) then there should be a passenger window cut-out visible directly below that (N6….) that is a remnant of the registration marking however, there is no passenger window cut-out evident there due to this splotch and that is the first dead giveaway this image is fraudulent. By itself the dark blue splotch of color is proof positive someone manipulated this image using Photoshop to have two fragments appear as one assembly but it gets far more damning...these fragments (as they are depicted) do not match the R/H Aft/Empennage area of what was N612UA. The larger of the two fragments in this FEMA/ASCE photograph may well be some fragment of a destroyed Boeing 767-200ER fuselage but it is not from that rear area of fuselage on N612UA. In fact it does not correspond to any Boeing 767-200ER airframe where the Fuselage meets the Empennage.




[img]IMG_3191[img]

As well and aside from this blatantly poor Photoshop color rendering one will notice when looking for it an obvious break in the edge line along the left side of the half missing/eviscerated passenger window cut-out. This break in the continuity of that line is further evidence the underlying fragment of fuselage with the partial registration marking on it is a separate piece of wreckage. As well in that area is a noticeable difference in color change, shape and contour of the two fragments of metal.

- If indeed this image authentically depicts the R/H Aft Empennage/Fuselage area of United Airlines Boeing flight 175 (N612UA) then there shouldn’t be a solid piece of fuselage skin directly below the registration marking (N6….) where the splotch is. A fact that is perfectly obvious when looking at any pre 9/11 photograph of the aircraft (N612UA). So it is a very important distinction I've made here because on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment. So before I continue explaining why that is and with his testimony in mind consider the possibility this dark blue Photoshop splotch was part of the intended ruse to mislead any unsuspecting commissioner into believing the image portrays something that never was...

- Another example of tampering in this image appears at the top of the large piece of fuselage in the vicinity of the half missing (second to last) passenger window cut-out. There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam that would normally intersect the (2) and the (U) in (N612UA) therefore this fragment of fuselage is not from the Fuselage/Empennage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe and certainly not UA175, thus the fragment should not have on it the residuals of any registration marking what so ever! Which means this white mark had been added into the photograph using Photoshop and for the sole purpose of “making all the pieces fit the puzzle” in order to convince people it is wreckage from UA175. Consequently then it is my opinion the registration marking (N6....) has also been Photoshop enhanced for reasons I won’t go into here.

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




- One last point to make about this photograph is the overall consistency in tonality of blue and the rounded/fairly pristine curvature of this larger fragment of fuselage. This bluish tone is the same throughout, both on the inside of the passenger window cut-outs (frames) as well as on the entirety of the outer surface of the fuselage skin in this image. But this should not be the case either because the general practice in aviation is (whether it be upon completion of a newly built airframe or well after the fact) to primer coat the airframe/fuselage with Zinc Chromate primer paint while the passenger window panes are removed and later on the airframe/fuselage is finish coated with its chosen color while the passenger window panes are installed although papered over to protect them from paint overspray.

Zinc Chromate Primer paint is often olive green in color. This olive green color will fade over time but it remains an obvious green regardless. In other words something is very wrong with this picture because this general bluish tonality inside the window openings is inconsistent with aircraft painting procedures in general. It stands to reason then at some point in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation not only had this photograph been Photoshop washed in a blue color tone but the shape and curvature of the fragment had also been enhanced using Photoshop to give the aircraft wreckage the feel of uniformity and consistency which intimates the fragments in the image are one piece - they are not!

As a matter of fact the entire photograph has been washed in this blue color tone which gives everything in the photographs field of vision that artificial bluish tint - compared with the lighting and color tone of a second photograph which appears more natural. That second photograph has never been attributed to Mr. Corley and it has never been entered into evidence, for obvious reasons, but due to Mr. Corley’s admission (he was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied) its authenticity and authorship needn’t be questioned then because quite clearly that image denotes the real setting the day both photographs were taken. Last but not least then, not only was the color of paint on the upper portion of the airframe on United Airlines (N612UA) grey these two fragments differ in tones of blue in this image while neither fragment appears grey at all, as with the entire field of exposure in the FEMA/ASCE photograph.

The FEMA/ASCE photograph in question can be found at the FEMA Photo Library as (ID 12390) but this link (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) will take you straight to it.

As for the second image this link (http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=190154) shows both fragments I’ve mentioned. As for anyone who knows what to look for that second image speaks volumes about the Photoshop manipulation to the FEMA/ASCE photograph in question. I will be happy to tell you why I know the smaller fragment in the second image is not from that part of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe, should you ask, but first I encourage you to consult a photographic forensics expert on what I’ve given you of the first image so that we do not get into any disagreement, because I am not here to debate what I already know to be true.

In closing I must say it astounds me no-one else has ever bothered to challenge the authenticity and/or veracity of this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph, the evidence in general and Mr. Corley’s credibility due to these unprecedented facts and his seeming transgression away from any chain of custody he so often admonishes others for not adhering to!

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 27 2011, 04:54 PM

I was attempting to post some photographs of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe here but to no avail, unfortunately - no matter then as I will try to do so in a secondary post - cheers.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jan 27 2011, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 14 2011, 10:40 AM) *
Again, I am all-in when discussing possibilities and leads but I will not entertain pure speculation.
It is imperative everyone remembers Mr. W. Gene Corley is not the only suspicious party here and because of it I don't like the idea of anyone jumping to conclusions as a result of the issue I've raised here.

Now I'm bit confused, and I'm bit getting lost in your long posts, but wasn't it you who wrote:
QUOTE
Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath

and
QUOTE
Because of it all I would never defend this man's actions however, despite my misgivings for him and Mr. Corley's leading role in having corrupted the WTC 5 aircraft wreckage/crime scene he is not the only one to have had access to these aircraft fragments and photographs thereof - If what he says is true he was not on the WTC site until October 6, 2001 - almost a full month after 9/11. In that time many, many individuals had access to the rooftop of WTC 5 and any number of people could have planted these fragments on the rooftop beforehand.

So, is the photo - according to you - sworn by Mr. Corley into FEMA archive photoshopped or not?

Posted by: questionitall Jan 28 2011, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 27 2011, 06:37 PM) *
Now I'm bit confused, and I'm bit getting lost in your long posts, but wasn't it you who wrote:

and

So, is the photo - according to you - sworn by Mr. Corley into FEMA archive photoshopped or not?


YES!

Posted by: questionitall Jan 31 2011, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 13 2011, 08:46 PM) *
To whom it may concern

The rational minds of scholars and engineers, organized professional pilots and AME's the world over know full well any and all government proof of “Islamist terrorists” having hijacked “commercial aircraft” amounts to nothing more than hearsay and speculation born of and perpetuated by the official consensus…the sum of their worth is directly proportional to our ever devolving human condition, collective morality and intellectual debasement.

I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now. From my efforts I’ve discovered some damning information you might be interested in knowing - it pertains to falsified government evidence directly associated with the aircraft that purportedly crashed into WTC 2.

I approached Pilots For 9/11 Truth with this information for three reasons…the first of them being no-one to date whom I’ve shared this information with seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts who are hired again and again to lie on behalf of the government when such an occurrence as 9/11 arises. My second reason for posting here is to get people openly debating the amoral actions of these FEMA/ASCE experts, who corrupted the WTC site investigation by falsifying the very evidence that goaded half the free world into two illegal wars of occupation and lastly then, I cannot afford to hire a photo forensics expert to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence I have researched - to buy the “professional credibility status” required of it in order to legitimize a full congressional hearing into this conspiracy. If anyone reading this information is such an expert and wishes to weigh in on the photographic debate by all means give us your educated opinion of the matter at hand.

I know for certain the governments lackeys photographic material and supposed evidentiary proof of such a preposterous hypothesis had been manipulated on the roof of WTC 5, as photographed and later falsified but the question is who did the dirty deed, but no matter then because the entire government premise/case hangs from a flimsy thread of evidence that compelled people to believe highly inexperienced/unqualified foreign terrorists surgically flew commercial aircraft into the WTC Towers. By the time I’m done with exposing these lies no-one will believe this to be the case anymore; that anyone believes this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph somehow constitutes authenticity well this flimsy government proof is about to be disemboweled!

So great is the importance of disproving this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph of aircraft wreckage (supposedly that of N612UA) that it cannot be overemphasized, because this lone photograph was entered into evidence and sworn to under oath by Mr. Corley, Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research on May 1, 2002. Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath but more importantly then people must realize they’ve been lied to. In essence then this information is the Achilles Heel that will topple the Governments case for their Islamist Terrorist hypothesis, that is, if it's acted upon by someone who has the credentials to prove the FEMA/ASCE evidence fraudulent beyond reproach.

The person this falsified photograph consistently points back on is the man who exposed it; Mr. W. Gene Corley. Throughout the nine years since September 11, 2001 he has consistently obfuscated by telling half truths of it and he refuses to answer candidly the specific questions of mine regarding this/his photograph and the BPS team manipulation/fabrication thereof. The truth of it is this photograph had been altered by FEMA/ASCE officials using Photoshop not long after 9/11 and no later than May 1, 2002. Mr. Corley admittedly manipulated the wreckage that lead to this photograph being taken on the roof of WTC 5 in late October, 2001 – an admission of tampering with evidence no less which definitely qualifies him for peer review and public censor in the least.

To this day Mr. Corley reminds everyone of his expertise yet he never quite tells the full story of how and by what means his team conjured into existence this ground zero evidence of United Airlines flight 175 while his evidence tampering served well to mislead the world into believing his authoritative version of the events upon the WTC site immediately thereafter 9/11. For all intents and purposes then he effectively perjured himself in 2002 and he continues to this day to perpetuate that lie. In his words admittedly then he broke every law in the book while investigating said wreckage of UA175 and by continuing to justify his actions his professional ethics and modus operandi is not only reprehensible but subject to criminal investigation in my opinion. Just one case in point that spotlights this arrogated man is a February 3, 2005 interview he gave with James Meigs for a Popular Mechanics article entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Special Report.

In this article it is written…Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows…“It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly...In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky." The key word here in this article is “fragments”, due to the fact corroborating evidence proves not only had there been more than one fragment of fuselage “discovered” by Corley on the rooftop of WTC 5 so to the BPS team most certainly pulled together wreckage from various points on that rooftop in order to arrange these fragments in such a way as to ensure a specific outcome for what had surely already become a corrupted investigation/crime scene.

With that said “by piecing together bits of aircraft fuselage on WTC 5 he was able to determine that after UA175 struck WTC 2 a portion of the fuselage came to rest on the roof of WTC 5, right where the team discovered it”…in the least then how incredibly implausible and presumptuous it was of him to say so then!

The fact is the brazen irregularities in Mr. W. Gene Corley’s testimony and this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph (ever to be made public) denotes anything but one aircraft “fragment” from the right side-aft fuselage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe coming to rest right where he found it. I have researched the evidence to prove this fact and with Mr. Corley’s words in mind I will show why his testimony and this fuselage wreckage is not what it appears to be, for the following reasons:

- First and notably then is the fact the fragments in this photograph were arranged by Mr. Corley to give inquiring minds the impression the image depicts absolute proof the wreckage therein is from the R/H Empennage area of (N612UA) and I know this to be the case because there are NO passenger window cut-outs Aft of the (A) in the registration marking of (N612UA) on the L/H side of the fuselage - Not on that once serviceable United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe and not on any such airframe for that matter.

- With that in mind therein Mr. Corley’s image one can see a darker blue splotch of color, most evident there on the extreme left of this fuselage fragment. Just right of the lower end of the staircase hand rail upright and just below the portion of fuselage that bears the apparent remnants of aircraft registration marking (N6….). If this image is depicting in its true likeness a genuine piece of fuselage from the R/H Aft Empennage area of that United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) then there should be a passenger window cut-out visible directly below that (N6….) that is a remnant of the registration marking however, there is no passenger window cut-out evident there due to this splotch and that is the first dead giveaway this image is fraudulent. By itself the dark blue splotch of color is proof positive someone manipulated this image using Photoshop to have two fragments appear as one assembly but it gets far more damning...these fragments (as they are depicted) do not match the R/H Aft/Empennage area of what was N612UA. The larger of the two fragments in this FEMA/ASCE photograph may well be some fragment of a destroyed Boeing 767-200ER fuselage but it is not from that rear area of fuselage on N612UA. In fact it does not correspond to any Boeing 767-200ER airframe where the Fuselage meets the Empennage.




As well and aside from this blatantly poor Photoshop color rendering one will notice when looking for it an obvious break in the edge line along the left side of the half missing/eviscerated passenger window cut-out. This break in the continuity of that line is further evidence the underlying fragment of fuselage with the partial registration marking on it is a separate piece of wreckage. As well in that area is a noticeable difference in color change, shape and contour of the two fragments of metal.

- If indeed this image authentically depicts the R/H Aft Empennage/Fuselage area of United Airlines Boeing flight 175 (N612UA) then there shouldn’t be a solid piece of fuselage skin directly below the registration marking (N6….) where the splotch is. A fact that is perfectly obvious when looking at any pre 9/11 photograph of the aircraft (N612UA). So it is a very important distinction I've made here because on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment. So before I continue explaining why that is and with his testimony in mind consider the possibility this dark blue Photoshop splotch was part of the intended ruse to mislead any unsuspecting commissioner into believing the image portrays something that never was...

- Another example of tampering in this image appears at the top of the large piece of fuselage in the vicinity of the half missing (second to last) passenger window cut-out. There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam that would normally intersect the (2) and the (U) in (N612UA) therefore this fragment of fuselage is not from the Fuselage/Empennage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe and certainly not UA175, thus the fragment should not have on it the residuals of any registration marking what so ever! Which means this white mark had been added into the photograph using Photoshop and for the sole purpose of “making all the pieces fit the puzzle” in order to convince people it is wreckage from UA175. Consequently then it is my opinion the registration marking (N6....) has also been Photoshop enhanced for reasons I won’t go into here.

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




- One last point to make about this photograph is the overall consistency in tonality of blue and the rounded/fairly pristine curvature of this larger fragment of fuselage. This bluish tone is the same throughout, both on the inside of the passenger window cut-outs (frames) as well as on the entirety of the outer surface of the fuselage skin in this image. But this should not be the case either because the general practice in aviation is (whether it be upon completion of a newly built airframe or well after the fact) to primer coat the airframe/fuselage with Zinc Chromate primer paint while the passenger window panes are removed and later on the airframe/fuselage is finish coated with its chosen color while the passenger window panes are installed although papered over to protect them from paint overspray.

Zinc Chromate Primer paint is often olive green in color. This olive green color will fade over time but it remains an obvious green regardless. In other words something is very wrong with this picture because this general bluish tonality inside the window openings is inconsistent with aircraft painting procedures in general. It stands to reason then at some point in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation not only had this photograph been Photoshop washed in a blue color tone but the shape and curvature of the fragment had also been enhanced using Photoshop to give the aircraft wreckage the feel of uniformity and consistency which intimates the fragments in the image are one piece - they are not!

As a matter of fact the entire photograph has been washed in this blue color tone which gives everything in the photographs field of vision that artificial bluish tint - compared with the lighting and color tone of a second photograph which appears more natural. That second photograph has never been attributed to Mr. Corley and it has never been entered into evidence, for obvious reasons, but due to Mr. Corley’s admission (he was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied) its authenticity and authorship needn’t be questioned then because quite clearly that image denotes the real setting the day both photographs were taken. Last but not least then, not only was the color of paint on the upper portion of the airframe on United Airlines (N612UA) grey these two fragments differ in tones of blue in this image while neither fragment appears grey at all, as with the entire field of exposure in the FEMA/ASCE photograph.

The FEMA/ASCE photograph in question can be found at the FEMA Photo Library as (ID 12390) but this link (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) will take you straight to it.

As for the second image this link (http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=190154) shows both fragments I’ve mentioned. As for anyone who knows what to look for that second image speaks volumes about the Photoshop manipulation to the FEMA/ASCE photograph in question. I will be happy to tell you why I know the smaller fragment in the second image is not from that part of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe, should you ask, but first I encourage you to consult a photographic forensics expert on what I’ve given you of the first image so that we do not get into any disagreement, because I am not here to debate what I already know to be true.

In closing I must say it astounds me no-one else has ever bothered to challenge the authenticity and/or veracity of this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph, the evidence in general and Mr. Corley’s credibility due to these unprecedented facts and his seeming transgression away from any chain of custody he so often admonishes others for not adhering to!

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.



AN IMPORTANT UPDATE (January 31, 2011)

Just this morning I had the opportunity to take many photographs of the inside of a stripped-down Boeing 767 that is in for overhaul. I now have clear and irrefutable photographic proof showing that area of fuselage the expert consultants at FEMA/ASCE claim to have discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 in 2001 - The same area of fuselage they would have us believe they photographed however, I know very well that was never the case because the photographs I've just taken prove once and for all what I've been saying all along - that someone involved in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation staged their United Airlines flight 175 evidence and submitted falsified photographs of that same corrupted evidence.
I'll be posting these new images and the last of my written research material here shortly, as soon as I am able to.

Posted by: lunk Feb 2 2011, 07:01 PM

Photo analysis, yes, that's very good.

There is an interesting picture somewhere of building 7, missing a huge chunk out of its' corner.
that was proven to be photoshpped.

i have discovered a few myself, swirling and planted in other topics.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Feb 2 2011, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 2 2011, 06:01 PM) *
Photo analysis, yes, that's very good.

There is an interesting picture somewhere of building 7, missing a huge chunk out of its' corner.
that was proven to be photoshpped.

i have discovered a few myself, swirling and planted in other topics.


This is one of my favorite obvious photoshopped images.



Look closely at the 3 firemen in the foreground. It's either the same model in different poses, or this guy was triplets.


http://<a%20href="http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=481"%20target="_blank">http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/viewto...?f=28&t=481</a>

Posted by: lfecher Feb 12 2011, 03:41 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 17 2011, 10:08 PM) *
Thx for the compliment

As for the landing gear and engine wreckage let's just say I have absolutely no doubt in my mind what so ever that medium wide-body airplanes struck the WTC towers on 9/11 but I am equally convinced these aircraft were NOT the commercial aircraft we were led to believe they were, so the question remains "who's aircraft did we see slam into the buildings that day?" I do not speculate on this matter but I can tell you this - having listened to and spoken with many fine/experienced professional pilots on the subject I know full well, from their judgment and my aviation experience, those aiplanes were not "maneuvered" or "piloted" by humans at their control.

Remote control technology has been around for many, many decades. Consider these three facts and decide for yourself what transpired st round zero on 9/11:

- Nikola Tesla was a magnificently gifted brilliant genius who invented virtually every single technology we use in our lives to this very day. At the Electrical Exhibition of 1898, Tesla demostrated something beyond the limits of technology. His remote control, patent No. 613,809 (November 8, 1898) was shown there. This invention was made in the US. Tesla was living in New York at the time (ironically). The patent is described as "Method Of Aparatus For Controlling Mechanism Of Moving Vessels Or Vehicles". In other words "remote control". http://keelynet.com/tesla/00613809.pdf

- The earliest unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916. A number of remote-controlled airplane advances followed, including the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, the first test flights of an autopilot-equipped aircraft was in September, 1917, and took place with a human pilot onboard to fly the takeoff. By November, the system successfully flew the aircraft to its intended target at a 30-mile (48 km) range, where the distance-measuring gear would drop a bag of sand. Accuracy was within two miles (3 km) of target.

- Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a series of false-flag operation proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. The document listed methods, and outlined plans, that the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These were to be staged attacks purported to be of Cuban origin. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. The document details plans of a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces. One such incident went like this:

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

I've seen all the videos of UA 175 on 9/11 and I haven't found one yet showing UA 175 actually CRASHING into WTC 2. Had UA 175 been a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, wouldn't there have been an IMPACT and EXPLOSION on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2? Instead all the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH WTC 2 unimpeded.

Posted by: paranoia Feb 12 2011, 04:29 AM

hey fecher and welcome to the forum. im no "expert" - though im very mechanically inclined and do a fair amount of handyman work and fixing of all sorts of things (cars, home heating/ac, plumbing, light carpentry etc.), but i believe that prior to the plane's actual penetration of the building's facade, on the inside of the tower a sort of mini pre-demolition took place, where several floor's worth of columns and floor pans were dropped out of the way so the plane could go through the facade with the ease that it does. ive attempted to explain it in depth in various posts in this thread:

Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774440&#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774495&#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774522&#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774528&#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774529&#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=100&p=10774826&#entry10774826

-but so far no one seems to have given my idea much merit, so it hasnt gained any traction so to speak. perhaps given your mechanical background you may have some things to add - so have a peek at that thread, and once again - welcome to the forum.


salute.gif

Posted by: questionitall Feb 12 2011, 05:26 PM

QUOTE (lfecher @ Feb 12 2011, 03:41 AM) *
I've seen all the videos of UA 175 on 9/11 and I haven't found one yet showing UA 175 actually CRASHING into WTC 2. Had UA 175 been a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, wouldn't there have been an IMPACT and EXPLOSION on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2? Instead all the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH WTC 2 unimpeded.


I won't comment on your theory because I'm not qualified to do so...I am not a scientist.

Posted by: questionitall Feb 12 2011, 05:37 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Feb 12 2011, 04:29 AM) *
hey fecher and welcome to the forum. im no "expert" - though im very mechanically inclined and do a fair amount of handyman work and fixing of all sorts of things (cars, home heating/ac, plumbing, light carpentry etc.), but i believe that prior to the plane's actual penetration of the building's facade, on the inside of the tower a sort of mini pre-demolition took place, where several floor's worth of columns and floor pans were dropped out of the way so the plane could go through the facade with the ease that it does. ive attempted to explain it in depth in various posts in this thread:

Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774440&#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774495&#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774522&#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774528&#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774529&#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=100&p=10774826&#entry10774826

-but so far no one seems to have given my idea much merit, so it hasnt gained any traction so to speak. perhaps given your mechanical background you may have some things to add - so have a peek at that thread, and once again - welcome to the forum.


salute.gif


You can get a grain of dust to penetrate the hull of the space shuttle in orbit to with their combined/opposed velocity working against each other, so I'm not sure what your point is here and how it relates to falsified FEMA/ASCE United Airlines flight 175 evidence. No disrespect intended but I don't think I'm asking too much of people to stick to the subject matter at hand...If you wish to have people persue your theory I encourage you to begin a new post here.
thx

Posted by: paranoia Feb 12 2011, 09:19 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 12 2011, 04:37 PM) *
You can get a grain of dust to penetrate the hull of the space shuttle in orbit to with their combined/opposed velocity working against each other, so I'm not sure what your point is here and how it relates to falsified FEMA/ASCE United Airlines flight 175 evidence. No disrespect intended but I don't think I'm asking too much of people to stick to the subject matter at hand...If you wish to have people persue your theory I encourage you to begin a new post here.
thx


questionitall - i was responding to this from fecher:

QUOTE
I've seen all the videos of UA 175 on 9/11 and I haven't found one yet showing UA 175 actually CRASHING into WTC 2. Had UA 175 been a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, wouldn't there have been an IMPACT and EXPLOSION on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2? Instead all the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH WTC 2 unimpeded.

-and not trying to steer your topic off course, hence i recommended he (fecher) address his concerns in the thread i linked. as far as the shuttle in the vaccum of outerspace and the incredible speeds they are travelling at up there, im not qualified to say wether or not thats analogous to the wtc tower impact/penetration. but feel free to add it to that pumpkin thread for further discussion, so we dont disrupt your thread.

Posted by: lfecher Feb 12 2011, 10:59 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Feb 12 2011, 08:19 PM) *
questionitall - i was responding to this from fecher:


-and not trying to steer your topic off course, hence i recommended he (fecher) address his concerns in the thread i linked. as far as the shuttle in the vaccum of outerspace and the incredible speeds they are travelling at up there, im not qualified to say wether or not thats analogous to the wtc tower impact/penetration. but feel free to add it to that pumpkin thread for further discussion, so we dont disrupt your thread.

Roger that. BTW, I am not nor have I ever been a "he". Believe it or not, some women, especially me actually have mechanical and critical thinking skills.

Posted by: talayo Feb 14 2011, 11:31 PM

Paranoia:

I realize that you are indicating that a discussion about the penetration by the planes in the WTC should be done in a new post. However, since you make a comment that I think is misleading in this post I would like to register my objection also here. You are referring to: ”… a grain of dust to penetrate the hull of the space shuttle …” I think that you are talking about is a micro particle. This is not a semantical difference. Dust could be a minuscule fragment of a bird feather. That, I can assure you will not penetrate the hull of the shuttle or any thing of any substance.

There have been several studies about the effects of small particles (less than a millimeter) on shuttles and satellites when they collide at hypervelocity (35,000 kilometers or faster).

Specks of paint can cause dents and cracks in windows, they do not penetrate. Particles of 1/4 gram or more do penetrate. They tend to create wholes that are about 3 times the size of the particle. So you may say, “if a 1/4 gram particle can penetrate metal so what is the point!

The point is that this is the proverbial pears and oranges for several reasons. I will only elaborate on one since this is not the proper post:

When you square the velocity of a hyper collision (35,000 x 35,000) you are dealing with a factor of 1.225.000.000. Over a billion! Compare that to squaring 900 kilometers an hour then the factor is 810.000. These are two different universes.

There are several other significant reasons to make the comparison totally invalid.

That does not mean that I do not believe that the penetration is not possible. What I am indicating is that the reason given to discard it is not relevant.

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 16 2011, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jan 14 2011, 11:16 AM) *
To whom it may concern

The rational minds of scholars and engineers, organized professional pilots and AME's the world over know full well any and all government proof of “Islamist terrorists” having hijacked “commercial aircraft” amounts to nothing more than hearsay and speculation born of and perpetuated by the official consensus…the sum of their worth is directly proportional to our ever devolving human condition, collective morality and intellectual debasement.

I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now. From my efforts I’ve discovered some damning information you might be interested in knowing - it pertains to falsified government evidence directly associated with the aircraft that purportedly crashed into WTC 2.

I approached Pilots For 9/11 Truth with this information for three reasons…the first of them being no-one to date whom I’ve shared this information with seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts who are hired again and again to lie on behalf of the government when such an occurrence as 9/11 arises. My second reason for posting here is to get people openly debating the amoral actions of these FEMA/ASCE experts, who corrupted the WTC site investigation by falsifying the very evidence that goaded half the free world into two illegal wars of occupation and lastly then, I cannot afford to hire a photo forensics expert to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence I have researched - to buy the “professional credibility status” required of it in order to legitimize a full congressional hearing into this conspiracy. If anyone reading this information is such an expert and wishes to weigh in on the photographic debate by all means give us your educated opinion of the matter at hand.

I know for certain the governments lackeys photographic material and supposed evidentiary proof of such a preposterous hypothesis had been manipulated on the roof of WTC 5, as photographed and later falsified but the question is who did the dirty deed, but no matter then because the entire government premise/case hangs from a flimsy thread of evidence that compelled people to believe highly inexperienced/unqualified foreign terrorists surgically flew commercial aircraft into the WTC Towers. By the time I’m done with exposing these lies no-one will believe this to be the case anymore; that anyone believes this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph somehow constitutes authenticity well this flimsy government proof is about to be disemboweled!

So great is the importance of disproving this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph of aircraft wreckage (supposedly that of N612UA) that it cannot be overemphasized, because this lone photograph was entered into evidence and sworn to under oath by Mr. Corley, Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research on May 1, 2002. Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath but more importantly then people must realize they’ve been lied to. In essence then this information is the Achilles Heel that will topple the Governments case for their Islamist Terrorist hypothesis, that is, if it's acted upon by someone who has the credentials to prove the FEMA/ASCE evidence fraudulent beyond reproach.

The person this falsified photograph consistently points back on is the man who exposed it; Mr. W. Gene Corley. Throughout the nine years since September 11, 2001 he has consistently obfuscated by telling half truths of it and he refuses to answer candidly the specific questions of mine regarding this/his photograph and the BPS team manipulation/fabrication thereof. The truth of it is this photograph had been altered by FEMA/ASCE officials using Photoshop not long after 9/11 and no later than May 1, 2002. Mr. Corley admittedly manipulated the wreckage that lead to this photograph being taken on the roof of WTC 5 in late October, 2001 – an admission of tampering with evidence no less which definitely qualifies him for peer review and public censor in the least.

To this day Mr. Corley reminds everyone of his expertise yet he never quite tells the full story of how and by what means his team conjured into existence this ground zero evidence of United Airlines flight 175 while his evidence tampering served well to mislead the world into believing his authoritative version of the events upon the WTC site immediately thereafter 9/11. For all intents and purposes then he effectively perjured himself in 2002 and he continues to this day to perpetuate that lie. In his words admittedly then he broke every law in the book while investigating said wreckage of UA175 and by continuing to justify his actions his professional ethics and modus operandi is not only reprehensible but subject to criminal investigation in my opinion. Just one case in point that spotlights this arrogated man is a February 3, 2005 interview he gave with James Meigs for a Popular Mechanics article entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Special Report.

In this article it is written…Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows…“It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly...In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky." The key word here in this article is “fragments”, due to the fact corroborating evidence proves not only had there been more than one fragment of fuselage “discovered” by Corley on the rooftop of WTC 5 so to the BPS team most certainly pulled together wreckage from various points on that rooftop in order to arrange these fragments in such a way as to ensure a specific outcome for what had surely already become a corrupted investigation/crime scene.

With that said “by piecing together bits of aircraft fuselage on WTC 5 he was able to determine that after UA175 struck WTC 2 a portion of the fuselage came to rest on the roof of WTC 5, right where the team discovered it”…in the least then how incredibly implausible and presumptuous it was of him to say so then!

The fact is the brazen irregularities in Mr. W. Gene Corley’s testimony and this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph (ever to be made public) denotes anything but one aircraft “fragment” from the right side-aft fuselage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe coming to rest right where he found it. I have researched the evidence to prove this fact and with Mr. Corley’s words in mind I will show why his testimony and this fuselage wreckage is not what it appears to be, for the following reasons:

- First and notably then is the fact the fragments in this photograph were arranged by Mr. Corley to give inquiring minds the impression the image depicts absolute proof the wreckage therein is from the R/H Empennage area of (N612UA) and I know this to be the case because there are NO passenger window cut-outs Aft of the (A) in the registration marking of (N612UA) on the L/H side of the fuselage - Not on that once serviceable United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe and not on any such airframe for that matter.

- With that in mind therein Mr. Corley’s image one can see a darker blue splotch of color, most evident there on the extreme left of this fuselage fragment. Just right of the lower end of the staircase hand rail upright and just below the portion of fuselage that bears the apparent remnants of aircraft registration marking (N6….). If this image is depicting in its true likeness a genuine piece of fuselage from the R/H Aft Empennage area of that United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) then there should be a passenger window cut-out visible directly below that (N6….) that is a remnant of the registration marking however, there is no passenger window cut-out evident there due to this splotch and that is the first dead giveaway this image is fraudulent. By itself the dark blue splotch of color is proof positive someone manipulated this image using Photoshop to have two fragments appear as one assembly but it gets far more damning...these fragments (as they are depicted) do not match the R/H Aft/Empennage area of what was N612UA. The larger of the two fragments in this FEMA/ASCE photograph may well be some fragment of a destroyed Boeing 767-200ER fuselage but it is not from that rear area of fuselage on N612UA. In fact it does not correspond to any Boeing 767-200ER airframe where the Fuselage meets the Empennage.




As well and aside from this blatantly poor Photoshop color rendering one will notice when looking for it an obvious break in the edge line along the left side of the half missing/eviscerated passenger window cut-out. This break in the continuity of that line is further evidence the underlying fragment of fuselage with the partial registration marking on it is a separate piece of wreckage. As well in that area is a noticeable difference in color change, shape and contour of the two fragments of metal.

- If indeed this image authentically depicts the R/H Aft Empennage/Fuselage area of United Airlines Boeing flight 175 (N612UA) then there shouldn’t be a solid piece of fuselage skin directly below the registration marking (N6….) where the splotch is. A fact that is perfectly obvious when looking at any pre 9/11 photograph of the aircraft (N612UA). So it is a very important distinction I've made here because on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment. So before I continue explaining why that is and with his testimony in mind consider the possibility this dark blue Photoshop splotch was part of the intended ruse to mislead any unsuspecting commissioner into believing the image portrays something that never was...

- Another example of tampering in this image appears at the top of the large piece of fuselage in the vicinity of the half missing (second to last) passenger window cut-out. There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam that would normally intersect the (2) and the (U) in (N612UA) therefore this fragment of fuselage is not from the Fuselage/Empennage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe and certainly not UA175, thus the fragment should not have on it the residuals of any registration marking what so ever! Which means this white mark had been added into the photograph using Photoshop and for the sole purpose of “making all the pieces fit the puzzle” in order to convince people it is wreckage from UA175. Consequently then it is my opinion the registration marking (N6....) has also been Photoshop enhanced for reasons I won’t go into here.

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




- One last point to make about this photograph is the overall consistency in tonality of blue and the rounded/fairly pristine curvature of this larger fragment of fuselage. This bluish tone is the same throughout, both on the inside of the passenger window cut-outs (frames) as well as on the entirety of the outer surface of the fuselage skin in this image. But this should not be the case either because the general practice in aviation is (whether it be upon completion of a newly built airframe or well after the fact) to primer coat the airframe/fuselage with Zinc Chromate primer paint while the passenger window panes are removed and later on the airframe/fuselage is finish coated with its chosen color while the passenger window panes are installed although papered over to protect them from paint overspray.

Zinc Chromate Primer paint is often olive green in color. This olive green color will fade over time but it remains an obvious green regardless. In other words something is very wrong with this picture because this general bluish tonality inside the window openings is inconsistent with aircraft painting procedures in general. It stands to reason then at some point in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation not only had this photograph been Photoshop washed in a blue color tone but the shape and curvature of the fragment had also been enhanced using Photoshop to give the aircraft wreckage the feel of uniformity and consistency which intimates the fragments in the image are one piece - they are not!

As a matter of fact the entire photograph has been washed in this blue color tone which gives everything in the photographs field of vision that artificial bluish tint - compared with the lighting and color tone of a second photograph which appears more natural. That second photograph has never been attributed to Mr. Corley and it has never been entered into evidence, for obvious reasons, but due to Mr. Corley’s admission (he was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied) its authenticity and authorship needn’t be questioned then because quite clearly that image denotes the real setting the day both photographs were taken. Last but not least then, not only was the color of paint on the upper portion of the airframe on United Airlines (N612UA) grey these two fragments differ in tones of blue in this image while neither fragment appears grey at all, as with the entire field of exposure in the FEMA/ASCE photograph.

The FEMA/ASCE photograph in question can be found at the FEMA Photo Library as (ID 12390) but this link (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) will take you straight to it.

As for the second image this link (http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=190154) shows both fragments I’ve mentioned. As for anyone who knows what to look for that second image speaks volumes about the Photoshop manipulation to the FEMA/ASCE photograph in question. I will be happy to tell you why I know the smaller fragment in the second image is not from that part of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe, should you ask, but first I encourage you to consult a photographic forensics expert on what I’ve given you of the first image so that we do not get into any disagreement, because I am not here to debate what I already know to be true.

In closing I must say it astounds me no-one else has ever bothered to challenge the authenticity and/or veracity of this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph, the evidence in general and Mr. Corley’s credibility due to these unprecedented facts and his seeming transgression away from any chain of custody he so often admonishes others for not adhering to!

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.


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

Robert

ps well done Questionitall

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 20 2011, 05:59 PM

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

Robert

ps well done Questionitall


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

Robert

Posted by: questionitall Feb 20 2011, 08:42 PM

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

Robert


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

Posted by: questionitall Feb 20 2011, 08:43 PM

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


My apologies - no disrespect intended.

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 21 2011, 12:22 PM

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


Dear Questionitall.

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

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

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

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 22 2011, 12:05 AM

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

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

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

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

Robert


Dear Questionitall.

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

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 24 2011, 11:23 AM

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

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

Robert


Dear Questionitall.

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

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 26 2011, 11:40 AM

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

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

Robert


Dear Questionitall

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

Robert

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Feb 26 2011, 07:06 PM

Very well done videos, Robert.

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

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 28 2011, 10:45 AM

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

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


Dear Barry.

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

Robert

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Feb 28 2011, 09:44 PM

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

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

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

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 4 2011, 08:01 AM

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

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

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


Dear Barry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 6 2011, 04:44 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert



Dear Barry.

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

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

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 9 2011, 11:46 AM

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

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

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

Robert


Dear Barry

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

Robert
ps hope you are going along well.

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Mar 10 2011, 02:44 AM

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

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

Robert
ps hope you are going along well.


Howdy Robert,

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

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

Thanks for the time you invest in these, Robert.

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 12 2011, 11:16 AM

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

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

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

Thanks for the time you invest in these, Robert.


Dear Barry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows somebody might even come forward before then.

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

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 15 2011, 08:44 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows somebody might even come forward before then.

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

Robert


Dear Barry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously this is an open letter through this forum.

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

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

Robert Sheehan

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 17 2011, 02:16 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously this is an open letter through this forum.

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

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

Robert Sheehan


Dear Barry.

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

Regards

Robert

Posted by: JackD Mar 17 2011, 02:25 PM

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

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


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

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

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

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

Posted by: questionitall Mar 17 2011, 04:43 PM

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 17 2011, 08:59 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dear Questionitall.

Talking aircraft registration numbers, the portion of outer skin photographed on top of WTC Building 5,
which I can only take as being the location, by your account, along with other references on the internet,
does appear to start with the letter 'N'.
The next identification which does seem to be part of a number, does appear to be a '6'.

To the best of what I have been able to achieve over the internet, as of 2011 there appears to have been 41 major crash incidents of --Boeing 767-- of which it is stated there were 11 Hull Loss Accidents.
This would include the two aircraft said to have impacted the WTC towers.
Prior to Sept 2001 there does not appear to have been an American registered Boeing 767 aircraft involved in a hull loss accident which would have resulted in portions of outer skin becoming available.

This I would think adds weight to your argument that the portions photographed on top of WTC Building 5,
were not from a Boeing 767 aircraft.

During my search for photographs of aircraft for use in the videos I have presented, it was of interest, that an aircraft in a photograph in 2008 had a registration number of N612 the airline identification being 'AX'.

I have not researched further to see if various airlines in America can have the same numbering, but nonetheless it was an interesting coincidence, especially to me as the aircraft the number was assigned to, was a DC10.

Regards

Robert

Posted by: questionitall Mar 24 2011, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 17 2011, 08:59 PM) *
Dear Questionitall.

Talking aircraft registration numbers, the portion of outer skin photographed on top of WTC Building 5,
which I can only take as being the location, by your account, along with other references on the internet,
does appear to start with the letter 'N'.
The next identification which does seem to be part of a number, does appear to be a '6'.

To the best of what I have been able to achieve over the internet, as of 2011 there appears to have been 41 major crash incidents of --Boeing 767-- of which it is stated there were 11 Hull Loss Accidents.
This would include the two aircraft said to have impacted the WTC towers.
Prior to Sept 2001 there does not appear to have been an American registered Boeing 767 aircraft involved in a hull loss accident which would have resulted in portions of outer skin becoming available.

This I would think adds weight to your argument that the portions photographed on top of WTC Building 5,
were not from a Boeing 767 aircraft.

During my search for photographs of aircraft for use in the videos I have presented, it was of interest, that an aircraft in a photograph in 2008 had a registration number of N612 the airline identification being 'AX'.

I have not researched further to see if various airlines in America can have the same numbering, but nonetheless it was an interesting coincidence, especially to me as the aircraft the number was assigned to, was a DC10.

Regards

Robert


Hi Robert - I appreciate your thinking and tenacity when it comes to researching this particular matter and I'm happy to respond to your reason and logic here. I, too, looked into those leads many, many months ago but for diiferent reasons than yours - there was no registration number on that wreckage in the first place Robert and that is why I've always said that FEMA/ASCE photograph had been falsified and for many reasons - that registration number marking being just one addition made to the wreckage by Adobe Photoshop! What's more the wreckage itself is not from a Boeing 767 at all as I've always intimated. I've recently been inside a Boeing 767 passenger cabin that's undergoing a major overhaul - I now have the photographs to prove Mr. W. Gene Corley's wreckage in no way matches the fuselage area of a Boeing 767 his photographs would have us believe that wreckage represents (of any circa 2001 UA767 livery). What's more then the Boeing 767 specialist/Aircraft Structural Technician who escorted me through that passenger cabin confirmed for me (in a not so flattering way) why that wreckage in no way positively identifies a Boeing 767 airframe. I will be posting those photographs and his comments here soon enough, along with a complete run-down on exactly what I think and know of the WTC site investigators case. I've written that addendum to my original post because I realize I'd not made myself clear enough when explaining my United Airlines flight 175 hypothesis. For that reason I do apologize to you for seemingly critcizing your closely related research, but you have to understand Robert I've taken a great deal of ridicule from my peers for my 9/11 beliefs. As such I'm not in the mood to entertain speculation and postulating on the matter that only serves to undermine my research and credibility and for that reason alone I deal in varifiable facts and not the imaginings of conspiracy theorists, reasonable and plausible as they might seem.
For the most part then I do consider your research to be interesting work but we're on a different wave-length I think.

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 24 2011, 09:36 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Mar 25 2011, 03:34 AM) *
Hi Robert - I appreciate your thinking and tenacity when it comes to researching this particular matter and I'm happy to respond to your reason and logic here. I, too, looked into those leads many, many months ago but for diiferent reasons than yours - there was no registration number on that wreckage in the first place Robert and that is why I've always said that FEMA/ASCE photograph had been falsified and for many reasons - that registration number marking being just one addition made to the wreckage by Adobe Photoshop! What's more the wreckage itself is not from a Boeing 767 at all as I've always intimated. I've recently been inside a Boeing 767 passenger cabin that's undergoing a major overhaul - I now have the photographs to prove Mr. W. Gene Corley's wreckage in no way matches the fuselage area of a Boeing 767 his photographs would have us believe that wreckage represents (of any circa 2001 UA767 livery). What's more then the Boeing 767 specialist/Aircraft Structural Technician who escorted me through that passenger cabin confirmed for me (in a not so flattering way) why that wreckage in no way positively identifies a Boeing 767 airframe. I will be posting those photographs and his comments here soon enough, along with a complete run-down on exactly what I think and know of the WTC site investigators case. I've written that addendum to my original post because I realize I'd not made myself clear enough when explaining my United Airlines flight 175 hypothesis. For that reason I do apologize to you for seemingly critcizing your closely related research, but you have to understand Robert I've taken a great deal of ridicule from my peers for my 9/11 beliefs. As such I'm not in the mood to entertain speculation and postulating on the matter that only serves to undermine my research and credibility and for that reason alone I deal in varifiable facts and not the imaginings of conspiracy theorists, reasonable and plausible as they might seem.
For the most part then I do consider your research to be interesting work but we're on a different wave-length I think.


Dear Questionitall.

Thankyou for your further thoughts, I really look forward to your addendum, it will be very interesting I am sure.
My friend, I do not take exception to other people's views of me, unless they are telling straight out lies, which most certainly you have not, but having been around this type of activity for some time now, 'I have a thick skin'.

Regards

Robert

ps
In that, we both believe a Boeing 767 did not impact Tower Two, with it still most likely some type of aircraft did, (although, there are those who consider that not to be the case, due to their interpretaton of video taken at the time, which I personally believe they are only taking a 'narrow', impression of), my concentration is to determine, what aircraft actually did.
Of late I have made some interesting discoveries in that direction, which when I have completed what I am doing, could do with some assistance within America, or with people with associates in America.

Posted by: questionitall Mar 29 2011, 02:38 PM

[quote name='questionitall' date='Jan 13 2011, 08:46 PM' post='10793247']
To whom it may concern

The rational minds of scholars and engineers, organized professional pilots and AME's the world over know full well any and all government proof of “Islamist terrorists” having hijacked “commercial aircraft” amounts to nothing more than hearsay and speculation born of and perpetuated by the official consensus…the sum of their worth is directly proportional to our ever devolving human condition, collective morality and intellectual debasement.

I am a 52 year old Aircraft Maintenance Technician with twenty three years of experience and I have researched United Airlines flight 175 for awhile now. From my efforts I’ve discovered some damning information you might be interested in knowing - it pertains to falsified government evidence directly associated with the aircraft that purportedly crashed into WTC 2.

I approached Pilots For 9/11 Truth with this information for three reasons…the first of them being no-one to date whom I’ve shared this information with seems to comprehend the sheer magnitude of political betrayal and/or perpetual deceit set upon the unsuspecting public, by the same few FEMA/ASCE experts who are hired again and again to lie on behalf of the government when such an occurrence as 9/11 arises. My second reason for posting here is to get people openly debating the amoral actions of these FEMA/ASCE experts, who corrupted the WTC site investigation by falsifying the very evidence that goaded half the free world into two illegal wars of occupation and lastly then, I cannot afford to hire a photo forensics expert to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence I have researched - to buy the “professional credibility status” required of it in order to legitimize a full congressional hearing into this conspiracy. If anyone reading this information is such an expert and wishes to weigh in on the photographic debate by all means give us your educated opinion of the matter at hand.

I know for certain the governments lackeys photographic material and supposed evidentiary proof of such a preposterous hypothesis had been manipulated on the roof of WTC 5, as photographed and later falsified but the question is who did the dirty deed, but no matter then because the entire government premise/case hangs from a flimsy thread of evidence that compelled people to believe highly inexperienced/unqualified foreign terrorists surgically flew commercial aircraft into the WTC Towers. By the time I’m done with exposing these lies no-one will believe this to be the case anymore; that anyone believes this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph somehow constitutes authenticity well this flimsy government proof is about to be disemboweled!

So great is the importance of disproving this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph of aircraft wreckage (supposedly that of N612UA) that it cannot be overemphasized, because this lone photograph was entered into evidence and sworn to under oath by Mr. Corley, Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research on May 1, 2002. Due to that fact alone he must be held accountable for giving false testimony under oath but more importantly then people must realize they’ve been lied to. In essence then this information is the Achilles Heel that will topple the Governments case for their Islamist Terrorist hypothesis, that is, if it's acted upon by someone who has the credentials to prove the FEMA/ASCE evidence fraudulent beyond reproach.

The person this falsified photograph consistently points back on is the man who exposed it; Mr. W. Gene Corley. Throughout the nine years since September 11, 2001 he has consistently obfuscated by telling half truths of it and he refuses to answer candidly the specific questions of mine regarding this/his photograph and the BPS team manipulation/fabrication thereof. The truth of it is this photograph had been altered by FEMA/ASCE officials using Photoshop not long after 9/11 and no later than May 1, 2002. Mr. Corley admittedly manipulated the wreckage that lead to this photograph being taken on the roof of WTC 5 in late October, 2001 – an admission of tampering with evidence no less which definitely qualifies him for peer review and public censor in the least.

To this day Mr. Corley reminds everyone of his expertise yet he never quite tells the full story of how and by what means his team conjured into existence this ground zero evidence of United Airlines flight 175 while his evidence tampering served well to mislead the world into believing his authoritative version of the events upon the WTC site immediately thereafter 9/11. For all intents and purposes then he effectively perjured himself in 2002 and he continues to this day to perpetuate that lie. In his words admittedly then he broke every law in the book while investigating said wreckage of UA175 and by continuing to justify his actions his professional ethics and modus operandi is not only reprehensible but subject to criminal investigation in my opinion. Just one case in point that spotlights this arrogated man is a February 3, 2005 interview he gave with James Meigs for a Popular Mechanics article entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Special Report.

In this article it is written…Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows…“It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly...In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky." The key word here in this article is “fragments”, due to the fact corroborating evidence proves not only had there been more than one fragment of fuselage “discovered” by Corley on the rooftop of WTC 5 so to the BPS team most certainly pulled together wreckage from various points on that rooftop in order to arrange these fragments in such a way as to ensure a specific outcome for what had surely already become a corrupted investigation/crime scene.

With that said “by piecing together bits of aircraft fuselage on WTC 5 he was able to determine that after UA175 struck WTC 2 a portion of the fuselage came to rest on the roof of WTC 5, right where the team discovered it”…in the least then how incredibly implausible and presumptuous it was of him to say so then!

The fact is the brazen irregularities in Mr. W. Gene Corley’s testimony and this one and only FEMA/ASCE photograph (ever to be made public) denotes anything but one aircraft “fragment” from the right side-aft fuselage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe coming to rest right where he found it. I have researched the evidence to prove this fact and with Mr. Corley’s words in mind I will show why his testimony and this fuselage wreckage is not what it appears to be, for the following reasons:

- First and notably then is the fact the fragments in this photograph were arranged by Mr. Corley to give inquiring minds the impression the image depicts absolute proof the wreckage therein is from the R/H Empennage area of (N612UA) and I know this to be the case because there are NO passenger window cut-outs Aft of the (A) in the registration marking of (N612UA) on the L/H side of the fuselage - Not on that once serviceable United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe and not on any such airframe for that matter.

- With that in mind therein Mr. Corley’s image one can see a darker blue splotch of color, most evident there on the extreme left of this fuselage fragment. Just right of the lower end of the staircase hand rail upright and just below the portion of fuselage that bears the apparent remnants of aircraft registration marking (N6….). If this image is depicting in its true likeness a genuine piece of fuselage from the R/H Aft Empennage area of that United Airlines Boeing 767-200ER airframe (N612UA) then there should be a passenger window cut-out visible directly below that (N6….) that is a remnant of the registration marking however, there is no passenger window cut-out evident there due to this splotch and that is the first dead giveaway this image is fraudulent. By itself the dark blue splotch of color is proof positive someone manipulated this image using Photoshop to have two fragments appear as one assembly but it gets far more damning...these fragments (as they are depicted) do not match the R/H Aft/Empennage area of what was N612UA. The larger of the two fragments in this FEMA/ASCE photograph may well be some fragment of a destroyed Boeing 767-200ER fuselage but it is not from that rear area of fuselage on N612UA. In fact it does not correspond to any Boeing 767-200ER airframe where the Fuselage meets the Empennage.




As well and aside from this blatantly poor Photoshop color rendering one will notice when looking for it an obvious break in the edge line along the left side of the half missing/eviscerated passenger window cut-out. This break in the continuity of that line is further evidence the underlying fragment of fuselage with the partial registration marking on it is a separate piece of wreckage. As well in that area is a noticeable difference in color change, shape and contour of the two fragments of metal.

- If indeed this image authentically depicts the R/H Aft Empennage/Fuselage area of United Airlines Boeing flight 175 (N612UA) then there shouldn’t be a solid piece of fuselage skin directly below the registration marking (N6….) where the splotch is. A fact that is perfectly obvious when looking at any pre 9/11 photograph of the aircraft (N612UA). So it is a very important distinction I've made here because on every Boeing 767-200ER airframe there is a very obvious butt joint seam running top to bottom between the second to last and the third to last passenger window cut-outs on both sides of the fuselage. That seam is typical of every Boeing 767-200ER airframe and there is no other vertical butt joint seam for approximately 12 feet to the rear of it. For those who do not know it a butt joint seam is a very obvious conjoining of two pieces of aluminum sheet metal (skin) on many types of aircraft fuselage surfaces, where two pieces are abutted together edge to edge and riveted in place to the underlying frames and stringers that way.

Typically then the edge separation of the two skins that make up a vertical butt joint seam is approximately one quarter of an inch, allowing for expansion/contraction and flexing of the two surface structures. So to the skin on either side of such a vertical butt joint seam has at least a double row of heavier rivets running its entire length, for added strength and security. That being the case the fuselage “skin” butt joint seam should be quite visible on this fragment running top to bottom to bisect the two aforementioned passenger window cut-outs in Mr. Corley's photograph. But there is no such joint visible anywhere on this fragment. So before I continue explaining why that is and with his testimony in mind consider the possibility this dark blue Photoshop splotch was part of the intended ruse to mislead any unsuspecting commissioner into believing the image portrays something that never was...

- Another example of tampering in this image appears at the top of the large piece of fuselage in the vicinity of the half missing (second to last) passenger window cut-out. There you can see a small portion of white in this image. This photograph would have you believe this remnant of white is what’s left of the lower leg/tail of the (2) in the aircraft registration marking (N612UA). As I’ve argued previously then this large piece of fuselage does not show the tell-tale butt joint seam that would normally intersect the (2) and the (U) in (N612UA) therefore this fragment of fuselage is not from the Fuselage/Empennage area of any Boeing 767-200ER airframe and certainly not UA175, thus the fragment should not have on it the residuals of any registration marking what so ever! Which means this white mark had been added into the photograph using Photoshop and for the sole purpose of “making all the pieces fit the puzzle” in order to convince people it is wreckage from UA175. Consequently then it is my opinion the registration marking (N6....) has also been Photoshop enhanced for reasons I won’t go into here.

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




- One last point to make about this photograph is the overall consistency in tonality of blue and the rounded/fairly pristine curvature of this larger fragment of fuselage. This bluish tone is the same throughout, both on the inside of the passenger window cut-outs (frames) as well as on the entirety of the outer surface of the fuselage skin in this image. But this should not be the case either because the general practice in aviation is (whether it be upon completion of a newly built airframe or well after the fact) to primer coat the airframe/fuselage with Zinc Chromate primer paint while the passenger window panes are removed and later on the airframe/fuselage is finish coated with its chosen color while the passenger window panes are installed although papered over to protect them from paint overspray.

Zinc Chromate Primer paint is often olive green in color. This olive green color will fade over time but it remains an obvious green regardless. In other words something is very wrong with this picture because this general bluish tonality inside the window openings is inconsistent with aircraft painting procedures in general. It stands to reason then at some point in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation not only had this photograph been Photoshop washed in a blue color tone but the shape and curvature of the fragment had also been enhanced using Photoshop to give the aircraft wreckage the feel of uniformity and consistency which intimates the fragments in the image are one piece - they are not!

As a matter of fact the entire photograph has been washed in this blue color tone which gives everything in the photographs field of vision that artificial bluish tint - compared with the lighting and color tone of a second photograph which appears more natural. That second photograph has never been attributed to Mr. Corley and it has never been entered into evidence, for obvious reasons, but due to Mr. Corley’s admission (he was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied) its authenticity and authorship needn’t be questioned then because quite clearly that image denotes the real setting the day both photographs were taken. Last but not least then, not only was the color of paint on the upper portion of the airframe on United Airlines (N612UA) grey these two fragments differ in tones of blue in this image while neither fragment appears grey at all, as with the entire field of exposure in the FEMA/ASCE photograph.

The FEMA/ASCE photograph in question can be found at the FEMA Photo Library as (ID 12390) but this link (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390) will take you straight to it.

As for the second image this link (http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=190154) shows both fragments I’ve mentioned. As for anyone who knows what to look for that second image speaks volumes about the Photoshop manipulation to the FEMA/ASCE photograph in question. I will be happy to tell you why I know the smaller fragment in the second image is not from that part of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe, should you ask, but first I encourage you to consult a photographic forensics expert on what I’ve given you of the first image so that we do not get into any disagreement, because I am not here to debate what I already know to be true.

In closing I must say it astounds me no-one else has ever bothered to challenge the authenticity and/or veracity of this lone FEMA/ASCE photograph, the evidence in general and Mr. Corley’s credibility due to these unprecedented facts and his seeming transgression away from any chain of custody he so often admonishes others for not adhering to!

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.


March 29, 2011: ADDENDUM

For whatever reason a few people still have it in their minds I’m trying to prove United Airlines flight 175 did crash into WTC 2 on September 11, 2001 and similarly they seem to think I am in full agreement with Mr. W. Gene Corley’s WTC findings, that his WTC team investigators confirmed the aircraft wreckage discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 was that of the ill fated UA175. I assure you I am in complete disagreement with Mr. Corley and especially in regards to his claim he witnessed United Airlines flight 175 crashed into WTC, just as my understanding of the events of 9/11 are diametrically opposed to his UA175 investigative findings.

So that we’re clear on this let me say I’m certain the aircraft wreckage he and his team of investigators supposedly discovered and photographed on the rooftop of WTC 5 was not that of UA175. In fact I’m convinced the wreckage was arranged in a very definite manner by the investigators and once their photographic record was made of it those photographs were purposefully altered (by Adobe Photoshop CS Windows) to ensure the wreckage appeared to be from a specific zone and area of UA175. The investigators did this as part of the greater conspiracy to deceive the 9/11 Commission and the public, by leading them to believe commercial aircraft were “hijacked” and crashed at ground zero that morning. If this sounds too fantastic to believe then keep reading and too fantastic to believe then keep reading.

Mr. Corley’s WTC 5 wreckage (published in the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study) was never proven to be that of UA175 and what’s more then it’s recently been confirmed that wreckage therein his photograph shares absolutely no identifiable similarities with the right-hand aft fuselage area of any circa 2001 United Airlines 767 livery. That distinction is the crux of my UA175 research - I’ve attempted to explain why the tell-tale characteristics of that wreckage as compared to the partial aircraft registration number thereon means the investigators conspired to fabricate UA175 evidence. Meanwhile that photographic evidentiary proof serves well to expose why I know for a fact it was physically impossible for Mr. Corley to have proven this “chunk” of wreckage is that of a UA175 specifically. In essence then I consider him to be a liar.

With that said just two months ago I was granted full access to photograph the stripped passenger cabin of an Air Canada Boeing 767-300ER undergoing a major overhaul in Richmond, B.C. Canada and needless to say I took full advantage and many very telling snapshots of its exposed right-hand sidewall. Obviously then I’d focused my attention on photographing (for the record) “that specific area of fuselage” I’ve insisted all along the WTC site investigators attempted to simulate in their photographic evidence.

Since then I’ve studied the inherent differences between the fuselage therein my photographs while comparing them to that fraudulent official evidence. Clearly there are significant differences between the aircraft superstructure I photographed and the expert’s supposed UA175 wreckage. As such my photographs compliment the recent FOIA (NIST cumulus database) release of Tami Michael’s video footage (taken at ground zero on 9/11 and throughout the ordeal) and together our evidence disproves the World Trade Center Building Performance Study team findings hands down, as I have shown throughout my research. Remember, the NIST cumulus database is the entire body of evidence Mr. Corley researched in order to arrive at his conclusions and May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and therefore to dispute my evidence is to disprove his for that reason.

So let me assure you the fuselage of UA175 and the Boeing 767-300ER I’d photographed are identical in every way, shape and form except for the length while the wreckage in Mr. Corley’s photographic evidence doesn’t appear to be that either airframe. The 767-300ER has the longer fuselage of course but other than that the fabrication of either fuselage utilizes the exact same sheet metal components and assembly methods during their manufacture. So for all intent and purposes they are one and the same fuselage then, as confirmed by the Boeing 767 specialist who answered my questions while I was taking these photographs. My photographs can be found online at Flickr under the user name BlutundBoden.

While I was taking these photographs we’d spoken at length about my hypothesis and the more I explained myself he grew noticeably perturbed by my UA175 research and conclusions. Although his response was not uncommon, as I often receive admonishment from my peers within the aviation community for my research, I was not impressed he thought he knew better of it all and me. I say that because he didn’t bother to hear me out in full before deeming my research wholly irresponsible and presumptuous. In fact it was his opinion I’d simply misinterpreted the FEMA/ASCE photograph and cherry picked whatever statements made by Mr. W. Gene Corley best suited my hypothesis.

According to him I’d made a mountain out of a molehill and as such my hypothesis is groundless and my research without merit, primarily because I hadn’t analyzed the physical wreckage whereas the investigators had. Not to mention their credentials and reputations are well beyond reproach he insisted, whereas I’m just an aircraft mechanic with no Boeing 767 experience. What’s more then he argued, not once in all the years since 9/11 had a single investigator or expert witness ever raised the specter of that United Airlines flight 175 evidence being of a questionable nature and that’s why interpreting aircraft accident evidence should be left to the experts he said. With that said he argued “…the fragment of aircraft wreckage in your friend Mr. Corley’s photograph is unidentifiable I’m afraid. You say it’s from UA175 but I’ve no cause to believe you…I say that because there isn’t a single feature about the wreckage that distinguishes it from any other piece of fuselage of any medium wide-body airframe. In fact there’s no saying where it’s from because of its non-descript and featureless appearance...” It was then I reminded him I’ve never believed or argued in favor of that wreckage being from UA175 while Mr. Corley has always insisted it was.

With that misunderstanding clarified I then let this individual in on my true belief all along by stating “If that’s your professional opinion you’re aware then you’ve just established expert technical analysis that confirms the reason why I’ve always said that piece of wreckage could very well be salvage from a Boeing military aircraft that was made to look like a commercial aircraft and not be that of United Airlines flight 175 debris at all!” and with that said he’d suddenly clued in as to the logic of my case and where I’d been leading him with our conversation all along. As such he promptly back-peddled to defend his analysis of the wreckage by arguing it had to be from UA175, if for no other reason then simply because the aircraft is unaccounted for to this very day!

Knowing very well there is no way anyone can reconcile the contradictory partial registration number therein Mr. Corley’s photographic evidence I drew his attention to it and asked him to opine how it is Mr. W. Gene Corley overlooked that most important, clearly discernable and invaluable UA175 clue to identifying UA175. Realizing even Mr. Corley hadn’t been so stupid as to hazard answering me on that one he simply argued the smudge of white I claim is a partial registration number therein the photograph doesn’t appear to be anything of the sort. It was indiscernible and therefore inconclusive as far as he was concerned and that’s where he ended our conversation, by brushing me off and dismissing himself.

So the point to make with my mentioning that exchange is even a Boeing 767 Structural Technician believes the WTC BPS team UA175 evidence is highly irregular and contestable evidence and in light of his expert determination for that wreckage I encourage everyone who reads this addendum to email Mr. Corley (at GCorley@CTLGroup.cm) to ask him why he has never made mention of the existence of that registration number thereon the physical aircraft wreckage he must have seen with his own two eyes some time between October 7-12, 2001. I believe Mr. Corley never acknowledges the registration number in his photograph because he’s fully cognizant of the fact it never existed on the chunk of wreckage in the first place and what’s more then he’s not stupid enough to incriminate himself or others by now insisting it did exist just as the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence shows. He doesn’t respond to my emails on the matter because he knows well enough to remian silent on the matter, as that affords him a plausible deniability defense should we ever see his pathetic hide in court to answer for this lie.

I had my doubts the aircraft registration number existed on the physical wreckage the first time I read through the apologist Mr. James Meig’s article Debunking The 9/11 Myths: Special Report, wherein he wrote “Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had windows. “It’s…from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2…Corley states flatly…” The article goes on to say “In reviewing crash footage…Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied…as they tore through the South Tower…” What the article doesn’t say is Mr. Corley set about confirming his theory and the chain of custody to that wreckage by actually investigating its origin and not simply relying on everyone’s ignorant assumptions.
Needless to say then since reading that statement I’ve questioned how anyone could possibly believe Mr. Corley’s vehement insistence the chunks of debris he tracked via videotape, that fell directly onto the rooftop of WTC 5 from WTC 2 according to him, constitute proof of UA175 while he’s never made mention of that partial aircraft registration number thereon that same wreckage. Especially if one considers the impeccable chain of custody that one invaluable clue would have represented for his entire UA175 case. It doesn’t make sense - what other explanation is there for Mr. Corley neglecting to mention such a Godsend of a clue that would surely have put an end to this debate years ago.

Aside from that fact Mr. Corley’s previously mentioned testimony is quite telling in and of itself, not only because the definition of “debris” and “including” describes more than one of something but due to the fact he felt it necessary to soundly declare “It’s…from the United Airlines plane…” on the heels of “including a chunk with windows in it” as though people needed to be told and convinced of it. So when it’s proven the wreckage in his photograph is comprised of more than one “chunk” and none with registration number markings on them I’ll be sure to bring it to the attention of Mr. Corley and the aforementioned Boeing specialist who said of my photo analysis “…a qualified photographic forensics analyst has never reviewed the evidence or substantiated your claim and for that reason alone I don’t share your opinion there’s more than one piece of fuselage sheet metal visible in the photograph…”

By his opinion then it’s not just me who’s unqualified to investigate aircraft accidents - Mr. Corley is a tall building expert, of which not a single FBI or NSTB aircraft accident investigator in the past nine years has gone on the record to corroborate the existence or authenticity of Mr. Corley’s WTC site findings and supposed UA175 evidence vis-à-vis any chain of custody leading back to the moment of demise for the aircraft that struck WTC 2 on 9/11. In fact not a one of them has ever made mention of this photograph since 9/11 and despite the fact it’s the only official and continually reproduced piece of evidentiary proof of said UA175 wreckage to ever to have been published and/or made public by the authorities. Yet this Boeing 767 specialist remains convinced as they’ve all attested…”I know what I saw crash into the towers that morning and they were large commercial aircraft…it had to have been United Airlines flight 175 I tell you…only the conspiracy nuts believe it wasn’t passenger planes that hit the buildings. That’s what the experts would have us believe while each photograph of mine says a thousand words to the contrary as you will see.

The fact is Mr. Corley did not discover that wreckage first and neither did he identify it as belonging to UA175 by having compared it to a serviceable Boeing 767 fuselage. What he did was to watch some video footage and proclaim his opinion to be fact as Mr. Meig’s article makes that quite clear! Indeed Mr. Corley had proven nothing of United Airlines flight 175 having plowed into WTC 2 because it wasn’t his mandate to do so! Mr. Corley’s function as that of FEMA/ASCE team leader for the WTC site investigation had been “public relations mercenary”. Which meant as the UA175 cover-story took root and grew into the crystallized public opinion it is today it was his job to help snuff the truth, as to which (aircraft) murder weapons were used at ground zero, by helping to bury that evidence six feet under and smooth over the ground swell of WTC eyewitness reports and public disenfranchisement with the overall ground zero investigation. It was never his intention to get at the truth of which aircraft crashed into WTC 2 nor did he intend to prove what mechanism brought the towers down just as it wasn’t his job in 1995 to uncover evidentiary proof that would have informed the public of the truth, as to how and why the Murrah Federal Buildingin Oklahoma had also been blown up from the inside out. To both ends this FEMA poster child of disinformation did his job(s) well and one doesn’t have to look too far and deep to find similarities between 1995 and 2001 in all of Mr. Corley’s FEMA “terrorism” investigative dealings. That too will come to light one day but regardless of whether it was the FBI, NTSB or FEMA/ASCE investigators who falsified that registration number there are many other telling yet unexplained irregularities visible in and around the wreckage itself that speak of the lies Mr. Corley has told.

For instance the spray painted acronym “NTSB” on the wreckage…by the way it’s that acronym which convinced me the second image posted online as (Copyofplanepartrf20-full) is genuinely the product of Mr. Corley’s making because it appears unchanged in both images. Therefore the second image is useful in showing the wreckage in a different light and as it existed on the rooftop of WTC5 at some point prior to it being rendered infamous by Adobe Photoshop.
Although the second image had been altered by Photoshop it is invaluable because it discredits the make-up of the officially released photograph. While comparing both images the “NTSB” acronym appears identical and yet one can clearly see the rust red colored piece of sheet metal/cladding (underneath the smaller fragment of fuselage with the registration number on it) appears to be two different lengths. Notice in the official photograph it’s quite long and take note of the fluted pipe that’s sticking up and out from under that rust red sheet metal/cladding there. That length of fluted pipe is propping-up the cladding itself which in turn is propping-up the smaller fragment of fuselage by at least a foot off the roof in the official photograph. Now look at second image whereby the length of the rust red sheet metal/cladding is mostly edited out of the photograph and the smaller fragment of fuselage appears to be suspended in mid air, while the fluted pipe is nowhere to be seen…suspicious?

The most disconcerting anomaly therein the official evidence isn’t even possible according to the Empirical laws of physics - that happens to be the dead straight edge of the aircraft outer skin next to the “N” and left of the first window (from the left) on the smaller section of sheet metal therein the second image. The odds of that skin tearing in a straight line as it is shown is without precedent and virtually impossible for several reasons. The first reason being the thin aluminum sheet metal of any aircraft outer skin never tears in a perfectly straight line when it’s subjected to extreme tensile or compressive loading, especially when that tear runs perpendicular to and over the intact substructure (stringer) it’s bonded to. That tear in the metal might have been possible had the outer skin been sheared parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stringer (seen above the window) or along the heavy chemically bonded doubler-plate and much like a sheet of paper is torn using the edge of a ruler to cut it. Take note of the accompanying tell-tale rows of rivet holes that run perfectly parallel to this tear. Even if it were only one row of rivet holes together these two clues amount to being a production edge or butt joint seam and not a tear per se.

Not a problem, except for the fact there’s no such production edge, joint or seam in that area of the circa 2001 United Airlines 767 livery. In fact no two fuselage skins are vertically conjoined anywhere near that area on any Boeing 767 and the fact three perfectly straight edges appear to have been torn into the wreckage is mathematically impossible and extremely suspicious because.Aside from those facts alone there are also valid reasons to doubt the cover-up story told by Mr. W. Gene Corley and the other investigators over the years. For instance it’s a well known fact he takes credit for himself and his WTC site team members having discovered that wreckage on October 25, 2001 and yet by his account he and the others were only on the WTC site between the dates of October 7-12, 2001. It’s also a well known fact the FBI and the NTSB were on site looking for aircraft parts the morning of 9/11 while the countless SEAoNY search and rescue volunteers and later the NYFD firefighter recovery teams were on site at ground zero immediately following the attacks as well. Together they swept the WTC site clean looking for aircraft parts and survivors and later for bodies then in the days and weeks following the attacks of 9/11.

It’s a well known fact the NTSB identified the fuselage wreckage on the rooftop of WTC 5 in those early days because they marked it with the acronym “NTSB” in yellow spray paint and no later than (9/19/01). I say that because the exterior walls of the WTC 5 penthouse maintenance room were spray painted in red with the words “AIRCRAFT PARTS” no later than September 19, 2001 and according to one photograph therein the NIST cumulus database. So why didn’t they retrieve this identifiable wreckage with the “N6….” on it then like every other bit of wreckage they sequestered? Why had the FBI and NTSB elected to leave it there on the rooftop of WTC 5 for the better part of a month and a half while they located, identified and destroyed every last scrap of aircraft wreckage in Lower Manhattan that was identifiable as being from UA175? I believe they left it there because it was unidentifiable (as in non-serialized and no registration number thereon) and useful to the cover story. By that I mean the FBI and NTSB knew within days they would be asked to bow out of the WTC site aircraft accident investigation and leave it to FEMA so they salted the WTC site with evidence to their liking.

That’s why the FBI and NTSB left the wreckage for Mr. Corley to find, but don’t just take my word for it when Carol Carmody (Vice-Chair of National Transportation Safety Board) is quoted as saying on February 27, 2002 in her presentation at the Leadership in Times of Crisis Seminar “On the morning of September 11, 2001…the FBI Director Mueller…called and said could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts. We dispatched teams immediately to…New York…Our investigators stayed in New York for several months working both at Ground Zero and at the Freshkill site where large amounts of debris were taken to be sorted.”

What’s more then, it’s a well known fact the FBI and the NTSB always work hand in hand in such matters, just as they did from the onset of the 9/11 attacks to secure the WTC site. Carol Carmody made that point quite clear earlier in that same February 27, 2002 presentation when she said “The NTSB was created by Congress to investigate accidents…We have this authority across all modes of transportation, although aviation gets the most attention. We are the lead agency in aviation accidents unless there is credible evidence of criminal activity. In that case, the Attorney General and the Chairman must confer and the FBI would take the lead.”

Carol Carmody’s February 27, 2002 testimony preceded that of her bosses, Marion C. Blakey (Chairman National Transportation Safety Board) who testified (for the record) before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate on June 25, 2002…”As you know, the NTSB investigates every accident involving civil aircraft, accidents involving military and civil aircraft and aircraft accidents involving public aircraft other than aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or by the United States intelligence agencies…In the aftermath of September 11, 2001…for many weeks the Board assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York…and in Washington D.C., assisting with aircraft parts identification…”

Lastly then Mr. Corley testified on March 6, 2002…The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI/ASCE) began assembling two teams of experts on the afternoon of September 11, 2001 and by October 1, 2001 the WTC study became a joint effort between ASCE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So there you have it - confirmation the NTSB stepped aside to make way for the authority of the FBI to lead the WTC site investigation immediately following the attacks of 9/11 and ultimately they both stepped aside for FEMA.

That being the case the previous paragraphs explain why this wreckage (discovered on or before 9/19/01) has the acronym “NTSB” emblazoned on it. All of which is further evidence that only the FBI and NTSB could have identified that wreckage first and they know of its original state but aren’t telling. So to recap; the FBI and the NTSB employees identified this aircraft fuselage wreckage on the rooftop of WTC 5 in mere days following the attacks but no later than 9/19/01 and yet they never mentioned it was there nor did they remove it. Instead they elected to leave it there on the rooftop for Mr. Corley to rediscover and identify more than a month later, in order for him to take credit for finding it and even though the “NTSB” acronym proves otherwise?

“Why would they have done that?” is the question people should be asking and demanding answers to, especially when it’s common knowledge certain FBI officials had all of Lower Manhattan stripped bare of everything resembling an identifiable bit of aircraft, only then to send that wreckage to the Fresh Kills Landfill site on Staten Island where in the following weeks it had been “recycled” without giving any consideration to normal investigative standards and procedure. Let’s call it for what it is…They destroyed all the crucial evidence and what they left behind was no better than garbage – it was totally useless as evidence and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of any self-respecting investigator. They did it because they were forced to, that’s why!

Ask yourself who carried out that specific operation and who might have complained loud enough about it thus compelling even Mr. Corley to admit “…there has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling.”? Probably some pissed off, patriotic FBI and NTSB officials or enlightened civil servants I’d say and when you know their names you know at least one potential whistleblower that can hang their asses out to dry.

When the Boeing specialist asked me why the FEMA/ASCE investigators would falsify their evidence I reminded him of M. Corley’s statement in the previous paragraph “…because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling.” which really means “the WTC site was knowingly stripped clean of every single identifiable aircraft component that would have proved something other than commercial aircraft slammed into WTC 1 and WTC 2” and it was the job of the FEMA/ASCE investigators to convince the public to go along with the commercial aircraft cover-up story by any means necessary. In other words they made a molehill out of a mountain of incriminating evidence…oh the irony.

Ask yourself why Mr. Corley had been placed in charge of the entire WTC site investigation when the FBI and the NTSB clearly had jurisdiction for the UA175 investigation on the WTC site and why had demonstrably unqualified tall building experts been parachuted in by FEMA to head an aircraft accident/crime scene investigation in the first place? Consider the fact it was Mr. W. Gene Corley (the tall building expert) who praised himself and his team members for having “evaluated, discovered and identified” that aircraft wreckage while the FBI and the NTSB have never acknowledged his contribution in the least. In spite of that self-praise consider the fact all Mr. Corley managed to come up with (after millions of dollars spent and many thousands of man-hours squandered investigating a lie) was a single photograph showing unidentifiable fragments of fuselage wreckage of a questionable origin and a highly suspect chain of custody…that’s quite the accomplishment alright. Yes, something is very wrong with the big picture and the entire WTC investigation is utterly absurd!

With all that said and done there’s no denying people remain divided on whether the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence depicts actual UA175 wreckage. Either you believe the dark blue splotch of color, the apparent registration number and all the other anomalies therein are insignificant trivialities or you accept every one of those aberrations were very deliberate attempts to convince people the wreckage is genuinely that of UA175. I believe it was all done because the investigators needed to prove their United Airlines flight 175 cover story and so they created wreckage on which to place the aircraft registration number N612UA.
If you agree with me the “white smudge” therein the evidence represents a number then we can agree the “N” appears atop the row of windows and to the extreme left of them. Because there are no windows to the left of the ”N” and there are more than three windows to the right of it that means the investigators intended this wreckage to simulate the right side of the circa 2001 UA175 livery. It cannot be that of the left hand side registration number of the circa 2001 UA175 livery because there are (only) three windows below the “N” and to the right of it. Any online photograph of UA175 makes that point perfectly obvious and as such I strongly recommend people refer to my photographs at Flickr, in order to fully comprehend the truth of the matter. Only after one suspends their reasoning and ignores all the irregularities therein the official photograph, as well the admissions and testimony I’ve noted so far, is it resonable to consider a fragment of fuselage might have ended up in this way by chance.

If I’m wrong about my suspicions of Photoshop manipulation and the Boeing specialist is right then one must conclude it had to have been an astoundingly fortuitous bit of luck this lone chunk of fuselage exited WTC 2 virtually unscathed, intact and further spared being torn asunder by the devastatingly powerful force generated by the collapse of both Towers pummeling down onto it. What are the odds of that I wonder.
All things considered if the dark blue splotch and/or the contentious registration number is removed from the photograph what you’re left with is Mr. Corley’s expert opinion and a piece (or pieces) of unrecognizable aircraft sheet metal that proves nothing of UA175 ever having been flown into WTC 2.

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 5 2011, 07:33 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 18 2011, 03:46 AM) *
Dear Barry.

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

Regards

Robert


Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23INVESTIGATOR- fraudulent video --CNN Exclusive-- south tower aircrafrt.

The video demonstrates that change made to a frame of the video to hide the aircraft that was in the original video footage, has caused the substituted aircraft to have some very strange features.
(1) The left wing was made longer than that of a KC10 Extender which was already longer than that of a Boeing 767 200.
(2) The sweep of the left wing was left the same as that of a KC10 Extender, the right wing was changed in a ridiculous manner, to avoid revealing the sweep and profile of the right wing.
(3) The changes made at the rear of the aircraft to hide the third engine of the KC10 Extender resulted in a vertical stabiliser, which is not vertical, (ie) leaning to the left.
(4) The changes to the fuselage resulted in the 'effect' that the aircraft does not align with the aircraft in the frame of video where the impact with the building shows, with it also giving the appearance --along with the other out of context changes-- that the aircraft is turning to the left.

Whoever it was who arranged for the changes to be made to the frame of video, should go and ask for "their money back", but of course this whole situation is much much more serious than that.

Regards
Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 5 2011, 08:15 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 5 2011, 09:03 PM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23INVESTIGATOR- fraudulent video --CNN Exclusive-- south tower aircrafrt.

The video demonstrates that change made to a frame of the video to hide the aircraft that was in the original video footage, has caused the substituted aircraft to have some very strange features.
(1) The left wing was made longer than that of a KC10 Extender which was already longer than that of a Boeing 767 200.
(2) The sweep of the left wing was left the same as that of a KC10 Extender, the right wing was changed in a ridiculous manner, to avoid revealing the sweep and profile of the right wing.
(3) The changes made at the rear of the aircraft to hide the third engine of the KC10 Extender resulted in a vertical stabiliser, which is not vertical, (ie) leaning to the left.
(4) The changes to the fuselage resulted in the 'effect' that the aircraft does not align with the aircraft in the frame of video where the impact with the building shows, with it also giving the appearance --along with the other out of context changes-- that the aircraft is turning to the left.

Whoever it was who arranged for the changes to be made to the frame of video, should go and ask for "their money back", but of course this whole situation is much much more serious than that.

Regards
Robert



ps --The video that shows the CNN footage is on Youtube, 2nd Plane WTC --Smileycoyote.
There have been 2,200,122 people view this video on Youtube.
Who knows you may be person 2,200,123, there could be worse things happen to you, my friend.
If you are looking at it, at about 0:06 pause, and you will see something interesting on the right side of the fuselage, below the rear edge of the wing.
If you take your time about it, you can see the progression of some sort of activity at this point, which ultimately becomes quite a large balloon of white --something-- just before the aircraft hits the building.
The --something-- I am talking about is at the side of the aircraft, not what goes on at the face of the building.
The first bit of --something-- is quite small, appearing to come out of the rear of a tube attached to the fuselage of the aircraft.

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 5 2011, 08:18 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 5 2011, 09:03 PM) *
Dear Barry.

I have just placed another video on Youtube, 23INVESTIGATOR- fraudulent video --CNN Exclusive-- south tower aircraft.

The video demonstrates that change made to a frame of the video to hide the aircraft that was in the original video footage, has caused the substituted aircraft to have some very strange features.
(1) The left wing was made longer than that of a KC10 Extender which was already longer than that of a Boeing 767 200.
(2) The sweep of the left wing was left the same as that of a KC10 Extender, the right wing was changed in a ridiculous manner, to avoid revealing the sweep and profile of the right wing.
(3) The changes made at the rear of the aircraft to hide the third engine of the KC10 Extender resulted in a vertical stabiliser, which is not vertical, (ie) leaning to the left.
(4) The changes to the fuselage resulted in the 'effect' that the aircraft does not align with the aircraft in the frame of video where the impact with the building shows, with it also giving the appearance --along with the other out of context changes-- that the aircraft is turning to the left.

Whoever it was who arranged for the changes to be made to the frame of video, should go and ask for "their money back", but of course this whole situation is much much more serious than that.

Regards
Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 5 2011, 08:25 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 5 2011, 09:45 PM) *
ps --The video that shows the CNN footage is on Youtube, 2nd Plane WTC --Smileycoyote.
There have been 2,200,122 people view this video on Youtube.
Who knows you may be person 2,200,123, there could be worse things happen to you, my friend.
If you are looking at it, at about 0:06 pause, and you will see something interesting on the right side of the fuselage, below the rear edge of the wing.
If you take your time about it, you can see the progression of some sort of activity at this point, which ultimately becomes quite a large balloon of white --something-- just before the aircraft hits the building.
The --something-- I am talking about is at the side of the aircraft, not what goes on at the face of the building.
The first bit of --something-- is quite small, appearing to come out of the rear of a tube attached to the fuselage of the aircraft.

Robert


fixed a typo --sorry gang-- not trying to 'hog' the space.--lol

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 5 2011, 03:28 PM

I'm certainly no expert in aircraft configuration but you raise some very interesting questions in your videos.

Thanks Robert.

Posted by: questionitall Apr 6 2011, 07:00 PM

Robert - the four talking points you've raised with Barry are flat out wrong, due to the simple explanation being camera optics pure and simple. Review the CNN footage again Robert and this time pay attention the entire image, not just what you wish to see. Notice how the sides of the building (in relation to the roof-line) seems to shift and warp in relation to each other - in other words Robert notice how the 90 degree angle (between the roof-line and the vertical lines of the buildings walls changes). As for the aircraft not approaching WTC 2 in a direct line Robert you failed to consider the steep sink rate and severe turn and bank angle of attack (in the dying seconds of the attack) as seen in many other video clips. I really wish you would cease and desist with comparing apples to oranges here Robert and if you're not going to stick to the topic then would please at least get the physics and facts right before posting here because I'm growing impatient with your rampant speculation.

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 10 2011, 11:31 AM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 6 2011, 04:58 AM) *
I'm certainly no expert in aircraft configuration but you raise some very interesting questions in your videos.

Thanks Robert.


Dear Barry.

I note you have looked at the latest video I have placed on Youtube, 23investigator -Alleged Fraud -Scott Myers -video frames.
Thank you for your kind comment.
With the effect I appear to be generating by -Questionitall-, it would seem, that it would be more favourable to this --site-- Pilots For Truth-- that I refrain from putting any more comment or advice on here of the future videos in the 'pipeline'.
Such outbursts are not healthy, or helpful, to anyone.

The Part2 -- of the above mentioned video will be placed on Youtube, soon, with the intention of demonstrating features fitted to the aircraft which flew into the Second Tower.
Such features designed to enable it to penetrate the outer structure of the building.

Regards
Robert

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 12 2011, 02:35 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 8 2011, 02:31 PM) *
With the effect I appear to be generating by -Questionitall-, it would seem, that it would be more favourable to this --site-- Pilots For Truth-- that I refrain from putting any more comment or advice on here of the future videos in the 'pipeline'.


For sure we were straying off topic. How about starting your own thread for these findings?

Posted by: questionitall Apr 12 2011, 10:41 PM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 12 2011, 02:35 AM) *
For sure we were straying off topic. How about starting your own thread for these findings?


Hello Barry - I like your suggestion and strongly encourage Robert to start his own thread. That way the viewers are free to choose their poison and they won't have to tolerate me being so nasty to him. I'm posting this reply to his last response and in a way it pertains to you as well because you've taken an interest in his work. I strongly encourage you to read my reply because you will get a better understanding of why I take such exception to his research.

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

Dear Robert, rather than complain to Barry about my opinion of your 9/11 acumen and how “Such outbursts are not healthy or helpful to anyone” how about you park the pity me remarks and tell us all in words rather than video form what it is you believe transpired at ground zero that morning. I for one am curious to know exactly what you believe because your videos make no sense what so ever and to my knowledge you’ve never put those thoughts in writing.

We should all seriously consider what you think on the matter because your December 18, 2010 video shows you believe a Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle smashed into WTC 1 while as of late you’ve resorted to subliminal suggestion (by way of superimposing a DC10-30 over existing evidence) to convince people a KC 10 aerial refuel tanker transport aircraft smashed into WTC 2 and yet you’ve never presented or produced a lick of unaltered evidence to prove any of your scenarios. While I believe you are correct for believing commercial aircraft never smashed into either tower I have never suggested to people they believe false evidence I conjured into existence in order to base my conclusion on as you have done.

You know perfectly well, because I’ve made it quite clear to the readership, I expect people to back-up their theories with facts and hard evidence but you’ve done neither. In fact each time I requested of you evidence that could substantiate your claims you ostensibly ignored me by carrying on with disseminating your outrageous notions in one reincarnated form after another and by way of more meandering and nonsensical videos. Your video evidence is the epitome of exaggeration pure and simple and that’s the problem I have with you posting here Robert and despite what I’ve explained of your mistaken conclusions you haven’t shown the good sense to bow out gracefully.

So allow me to state for the record if you will and in no uncertain terms Robert why I consider the videos you’ve been filling people’s heads with and the “advice” you are giving them to be nothing more than speculative drivel at best and therefore it’s nothing more than terribly misleading disinformation which you afford them. For that reason and throughout my posts I’ve made it abundantly clear to the readership what I think of speculative predators who pose as prophets and preach their dogma to the unwitting.

In my opinion your videos are no different than the work of a propagandist and as for your ego getting bruised by my questioning your entire theory and methodology Robert it’s inconsequential to me how you feel or what you think of my tactics so long as the truth prevails. What’s more Robert the issue itself is not about either one of us - have you forgotten we are seeking the answer as to who had a hand in murdering more than three thousand lives that day - remember?
The truth is Robert I take immense exception to your platitudes and feigned piety for honest reporting while your many deceptive 9/11 videos betrays common sense and the memory of all those who died on 9/11. Quite frankly it’s obvious to anyone who has their wits about them the bulk of what you’ve stated therein your videos is patently false and that is why I’m openly criticizing your 9/11 hypothesis – plain and simple, so man up to your word and commitment to your work Robert or exit the forum and debate altogether.

Besides, if your theories are sound and credible as you proclaim them to be and if indeed people prefer to believe your word over mine then it’s all good and you shouldn’t feel threatened by my challenge at all now should you Robert. I say “theories” because in retrospect I’ve come to realize you’ve had more than one opinion on the matter of what happened at ground zero that morning and I’m interested to hear what you truly have to write about it. It’s my professional opinion you’ve concocted your case in its entirety from having relied exclusively on whatever altered video footage and grainy photographs happen to compliment your myopic perspective de jour, so with that said allow me to remind you and the readership of the numerous errors in reasoning and the patently false assertions you continue to put forward in your videos.

I’ve had considerable misgivings about your work all along and I never paid much mind to your storied “UAV” and “Ghost” airplane ramblings, until you openly complained to Barry about my criticism of your methodology. That complaint puts me in a poor light so I have no choice but to defend my opinions now. For that reason I've reviewed each of your videos, in chronological order and having considered in great detail what you've been telling people all along I'm truly apalled. realize now you’ve gone from extolling the “no plane” theory in December of last year to telling people now that an aircraft did crash into at least one of the towers however your rational for it is completely absurd. ln fact it appears to me you haven't a clue or clear understanding as to what in the hell you believe Robert - In fact it seems to me you simply make shit up as you go along while leaping from one conclusion to another, which tells me you are either a complete and utter “Nutter” or an agent provocateur troll deliberately spreading lies.

Let me explain to you Robert why superimposing images over top of other images does not constitute proof of anything and for no other reason than the fact you’ve consistently shrunk and expanded the size of whatever aircraft you’ve overlaid upon the true evidence in order for it to suit your argument de jour.

I say that because on December 18, 2010 you posted on YouTube a primitively produced video clip that shows a single frame (of a previously enlarged segment of the Naudet video footage) and you proceeded to inform people here of your lame hypothesis, that a Global Hawk UAV struck WTC 1. You claim the mess of smudgy marks therein your video that was “supposed to be a Boeing 767” was not and yet I ask you Robert. Had it never occurred to you that blowing-up the frame of already grainy video footage (and so large as to render it obscure) would in fact cause the blurry, smudgy mess you’ve pointed out in the first place? The truth of the matter is that evidence of yours amounts to a very poor quality still photograph and Adobe Photoshop manipulation had nothing to do with it. Despite that fact on December 21, 2010 you chose to release a second YouTube video entitled “Showing What A Boeing 767 Would Look Like” and I must say that effort raises the question of why anyone considers what you have to say as being relevant in the first place Robert.

In that second video you matter-of-factly argue “someone” falsified the Naudet video footage as “the smudging was applied to hide the Global Hawk” and the superimposed smudge you say only resembles a Boeing 767 aircraft as such, in spite of the fact the consensus remains an American Airlines Boeing 757 struck WTC 1 and not a 767! With that supposition you dare proclaim “This Is A Global Hawk...This Is What Hit The North Tower!” without having produced a single shred of evidence to prove your claim, but what are facts if they can’t be skewed eh Robert?

If your previously published absurdities weren’t enough on February 19, 2011 you released the truly insulting “9/11 South Tower – More – damning – Fraudulent - actions” wherein you cannibalized my research and undermined my conclusions by misquoting every point I’ve made of the official United Airlines flight 175 evidence. I’ve never once stated my conclusions had in fact been confirmed. In no way what so ever do I agree with what you claim in that video and I sure as hell don’t subscribe to your point of view put across in your next video “What hit WTC Building” which you released two days later, on February 21, 2011 and wherein you suggest a military KC-10 Extender Air-to-Air Tanker was flown and crashed into WTC 2.

Although I do believe it’s quite likely a project Northwood type scenario and incident took place at ground zero on 9/11 I have never suggested I know for certain what did crash into WTC 2 and I’ve certainly never said the likeness of a Boeing 767-200 was superimposed over top of any such aircraft in any of the video evidence. Any suggestion of such a thing having occurred is ludicrous to say the least and I find your conclusions preposterous Robert. In your fourth video you’ve made a minimum of three gross errors in judgment and the most blatant of them has been to repeatedly and selectively align certain features of the two images by shifting the image of the KC-10 forwards and backwards on top of the underlying aircraft in order for the results to correspond to your argument.

With that in mind at the 54 second mark of that video you’ve stated “Note disguise of third engine” thus arguing the third engine is hidden in the shadow however (while taking into account the fact you made the KC-10 image whatever size you needed to fit suit your hypothesis) you neglected to align the leading edge of the engine intake in this particular segment of your video. Had you done so the engine on the top of your KC-10 fuselage would not be hidden in the shadow at all and furthermore Robert you’ve stated “Note position of windows at reflection in video” but the problem with that statement is that glint is not from windows, because there aren’t any windows in that area of the fuselage of any KC-10. In fact there aren’t any fuselage windows in a KC-10. Like you quoted the man Robert “As the very honest man said...it had no windows” so your conclusion the aircraft that struck WTC 2 was a KC-10 is flat out wrong and the truth of it is your methodology is laughable.

On March 4, 2011 you released your video “Fraud WTC Tower Two” in which you admit matter-of-factly to having incorporated a photograph which is known to have been altered by Adobe Photoshop (according to you that is) and you superimposed it over top of what you accuse of being a Photoshop altered image of a Boeing 767 and you don’t see a problem with your own logic and evidentiary proof Robert? Let me say it again - in this video you state “...the image has clearly been subjected to Photoshop...” and “Photoshop work has destroyed features of the bottom of the aircraft” and still you knowingly utilized that seriously compromised photograph in order to discredit what you claim is a seriously compromised photograph? With that in mind you say the images are aligned and at the 3:29 mark of the video you state the protrusions under the wing do not belong and I adamantly disagree with you on that point especially Robert. What you say are anomalies happen to be flap track fairings or “canoes” and they definitely belong. As for the wings not aligning did it not occur to you Robert that the wings of the aircraft that flew into WTC 2 were severely deflected upwards due to the flight conditions in the moments before impact? Really Robert, with evidence like that you expect us to believe any of your incredibly inept forensic photo-analysis and as for your next two videos I won’t even get into discussing them because the subject you broached therein is far too bizarre for me to give any serious consideration to.

On March 17, 2011 you released “South Tower – How the image was altered to disguise the aircraft” wherein you suggest (at the 26 second mark) somebody had interfered with the integrity of the original frame of video, which you chose to utilize in this video anyway. Has it never occurred to you Robert that you’ve incorporated nothing but sketchy forensic evidence throughout your research, or even the fact the (frame) of video you claim was tampered with had been enlarged to such a degree as to render it featureless and therefore useless for the purpose you undertook in the making of this video? Probably not and none the less you forged ahead anyways by again superimposing the KC10 over top of the very grainy Boeing 767 image and all in order to justify why it had to be a KC 10 underneath some imagined Photoshop alteration made to the original image. Good God man, nothing about either image is worthy of mention let alone their usefulness for having been superimposed over top one another! To comment further on this video would be a colossal waste of my time.

On April 5, 2011 you released the video “CNN Exclusive – South Tower Aircraft” to which I commented on and you astutely recognized it would be for the betterment of all that you don’t put any more comments or advice on here Robert, but it’s an open forum and you have every right to contribute. I’m simply saying I believe you haven’t the slightest ability to reason this issue and having said that allow me to explain at length what I didn’t say to you when I commented on this video last week. Of all your videos this one in particular offends my sensibilities the most because it shows your complete lack of understanding, even for the most rudimentary of physics, because you’ve completely ignored the phenomenon or optical illusion known as parallax that is associated with camera optics, which is why everything in the video you put on YouTube appears distorted.

Due to that ignorance at the 1:26 mark of the video you made it quite apparent your entire hypothesis and all of your videos are complete nonsense, when you stated “The aircraft in the video appears to be turning left...” and by your reasoning then the orientation of the fuselage of that “masking aircraft” means it would not have struck WTC 2 where the building was gored. To emphasize that point at the 1:36 mark of this video you drew a dotted line that ends at the left side of the building, thus concluding the Adobe Photoshop aircraft you say “somebody” falsified over top of a KC-10 would have flown beyond WTC 2 and parallel with the buildings West face while the “real aircraft” you argue would have struck WTC 2 exactly where it had been crashed into. Everything else you argued in the video beyond this point isn’t worth mentioning as I’m sure you get my point.

Lastly then you stated in your April 8, 2011 video “The image is far from normal and seeming to be a composite” but again you have failed to take into account the distortion caused by the location of the camera lens versus elevation and camera angle to the subject matter. WTC 2 was many city blocks away from Scott Myers location on the morning of 9/11 and the camera was many hundreds of feet below and well ahead of the lateral axis of the aircraft you say he never captured in his video. Where was the camera in relation to the aircraft you’ve superimposed over top of the Boeing 767 in this video Robert? Judging by the curvature of tell-tale signs on the engine cowls of your DC10-30, which you introduced into your video at the 1:56 mark, I’d have to say the camera was positioned a few hundred feet in front of the nose of the aircraft and approximately 400 hundred feet to the right of it. But then I’d be guessing just like you had throughout this video, so it’s no wonder the aircraft appears distorted in the image Robert and is it any wonder why I believe your entire line of reasoning and your 9/11 findings are as well?

Respectfully

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 13 2011, 05:11 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Apr 13 2011, 12:11 PM) *
Hello Barry - I like your suggestion and strongly encourage Robert to start his own thread. That way the viewers are free to choose their poison and they won't have to tolerate me being so nasty to him. I'm posting this reply to his last response and in a way it pertains to you as well because you've taken an interest in his work. I strongly encourage you to read my reply because you will get a better understanding of why I take such exception to his research.

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

Dear Robert, rather than complain to Barry about my opinion of your 9/11 acumen and how “Such outbursts are not healthy or helpful to anyone” how about you park the pity me remarks and tell us all in words rather than video form what it is you believe transpired at ground zero that morning. I for one am curious to know exactly what you believe because your videos make no sense what so ever and to my knowledge you’ve never put those thoughts in writing.

We should all seriously consider what you think on the matter because your December 18, 2010 video shows you believe a Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle smashed into WTC 1 while as of late you’ve resorted to subliminal suggestion (by way of superimposing a DC10-30 over existing evidence) to convince people a KC 10 aerial refuel tanker transport aircraft smashed into WTC 2 and yet you’ve never presented or produced a lick of unaltered evidence to prove any of your scenarios. While I believe you are correct for believing commercial aircraft never smashed into either tower I have never suggested to people they believe false evidence I conjured into existence in order to base my conclusion on as you have done.

You know perfectly well, because I’ve made it quite clear to the readership, I expect people to back-up their theories with facts and hard evidence but you’ve done neither. In fact each time I requested of you evidence that could substantiate your claims you ostensibly ignored me by carrying on with disseminating your outrageous notions in one reincarnated form after another and by way of more meandering and nonsensical videos. Your video evidence is the epitome of exaggeration pure and simple and that’s the problem I have with you posting here Robert and despite what I’ve explained of your mistaken conclusions you haven’t shown the good sense to bow out gracefully.

So allow me to state for the record if you will and in no uncertain terms Robert why I consider the videos you’ve been filling people’s heads with and the “advice” you are giving them to be nothing more than speculative drivel at best and therefore it’s nothing more than terribly misleading disinformation which you afford them. For that reason and throughout my posts I’ve made it abundantly clear to the readership what I think of speculative predators who pose as prophets and preach their dogma to the unwitting.

In my opinion your videos are no different than the work of a propagandist and as for your ego getting bruised by my questioning your entire theory and methodology Robert it’s inconsequential to me how you feel or what you think of my tactics so long as the truth prevails. What’s more Robert the issue itself is not about either one of us - have you forgotten we are seeking the answer as to who had a hand in murdering more than three thousand lives that day - remember?
The truth is Robert I take immense exception to your platitudes and feigned piety for honest reporting while your many deceptive 9/11 videos betrays common sense and the memory of all those who died on 9/11. Quite frankly it’s obvious to anyone who has their wits about them the bulk of what you’ve stated therein your videos is patently false and that is why I’m openly criticizing your 9/11 hypothesis – plain and simple, so man up to your word and commitment to your work Robert or exit the forum and debate altogether.

Besides, if your theories are sound and credible as you proclaim them to be and if indeed people prefer to believe your word over mine then it’s all good and you shouldn’t feel threatened by my challenge at all now should you Robert. I say “theories” because in retrospect I’ve come to realize you’ve had more than one opinion on the matter of what happened at ground zero that morning and I’m interested to hear what you truly have to write about it. It’s my professional opinion you’ve concocted your case in its entirety from having relied exclusively on whatever altered video footage and grainy photographs happen to compliment your myopic perspective de jour, so with that said allow me to remind you and the readership of the numerous errors in reasoning and the patently false assertions you continue to put forward in your videos.

I’ve had considerable misgivings about your work all along and I never paid much mind to your storied “UAV” and “Ghost” airplane ramblings, until you openly complained to Barry about my criticism of your methodology. That complaint puts me in a poor light so I have no choice but to defend my opinions now. For that reason I've reviewed each of your videos, in chronological order and having considered in great detail what you've been telling people all along I'm truly apalled. realize now you’ve gone from extolling the “no plane” theory in December of last year to telling people now that an aircraft did crash into at least one of the towers however your rational for it is completely absurd. ln fact it appears to me you haven't a clue or clear understanding as to what in the hell you believe Robert - In fact it seems to me you simply make shit up as you go along while leaping from one conclusion to another, which tells me you are either a complete and utter “Nutter” or an agent provocateur troll deliberately spreading lies.

Let me explain to you Robert why superimposing images over top of other images does not constitute proof of anything and for no other reason than the fact you’ve consistently shrunk and expanded the size of whatever aircraft you’ve overlaid upon the true evidence in order for it to suit your argument de jour.

I say that because on December 18, 2010 you posted on YouTube a primitively produced video clip that shows a single frame (of a previously enlarged segment of the Naudet video footage) and you proceeded to inform people here of your lame hypothesis, that a Global Hawk UAV struck WTC 1. You claim the mess of smudgy marks therein your video that was “supposed to be a Boeing 767” was not and yet I ask you Robert. Had it never occurred to you that blowing-up the frame of already grainy video footage (and so large as to render it obscure) would in fact cause the blurry, smudgy mess you’ve pointed out in the first place? The truth of the matter is that evidence of yours amounts to a very poor quality still photograph and Adobe Photoshop manipulation had nothing to do with it. Despite that fact on December 21, 2010 you chose to release a second YouTube video entitled “Showing What A Boeing 767 Would Look Like” and I must say that effort raises the question of why anyone considers what you have to say as being relevant in the first place Robert.

In that second video you matter-of-factly argue “someone” falsified the Naudet video footage as “the smudging was applied to hide the Global Hawk” and the superimposed smudge you say only resembles a Boeing 767 aircraft as such, in spite of the fact the consensus remains an American Airlines Boeing 757 struck WTC 1 and not a 767! With that supposition you dare proclaim “This Is A Global Hawk...This Is What Hit The North Tower!” without having produced a single shred of evidence to prove your claim, but what are facts if they can’t be skewed eh Robert?

If your previously published absurdities weren’t enough on February 19, 2011 you released the truly insulting “9/11 South Tower – More – damning – Fraudulent - actions” wherein you cannibalized my research and undermined my conclusions by misquoting every point I’ve made of the official United Airlines flight 175 evidence. I’ve never once stated my conclusions had in fact been confirmed. In no way what so ever do I agree with what you claim in that video and I sure as hell don’t subscribe to your point of view put across in your next video “What hit WTC Building” which you released two days later, on February 21, 2011 and wherein you suggest a military KC-10 Extender Air-to-Air Tanker was flown and crashed into WTC 2.

Although I do believe it’s quite likely a project Northwood type scenario and incident took place at ground zero on 9/11 I have never suggested I know for certain what did crash into WTC 2 and I’ve certainly never said the likeness of a Boeing 767-200 was superimposed over top of any such aircraft in any of the video evidence. Any suggestion of such a thing having occurred is ludicrous to say the least and I find your conclusions preposterous Robert. In your fourth video you’ve made a minimum of three gross errors in judgment and the most blatant of them has been to repeatedly and selectively align certain features of the two images by shifting the image of the KC-10 forwards and backwards on top of the underlying aircraft in order for the results to correspond to your argument.

With that in mind at the 54 second mark of that video you’ve stated “Note disguise of third engine” thus arguing the third engine is hidden in the shadow however (while taking into account the fact you made the KC-10 image whatever size you needed to fit suit your hypothesis) you neglected to align the leading edge of the engine intake in this particular segment of your video. Had you done so the engine on the top of your KC-10 fuselage would not be hidden in the shadow at all and furthermore Robert you’ve stated “Note position of windows at reflection in video” but the problem with that statement is that glint is not from windows, because there aren’t any windows in that area of the fuselage of any KC-10. In fact there aren’t any fuselage windows in a KC-10. Like you quoted the man Robert “As the very honest man said...it had no windows” so your conclusion the aircraft that struck WTC 2 was a KC-10 is flat out wrong and the truth of it is your methodology is laughable.

On March 4, 2011 you released your video “Fraud WTC Tower Two” in which you admit matter-of-factly to having incorporated a photograph which is known to have been altered by Adobe Photoshop (according to you that is) and you superimposed it over top of what you accuse of being a Photoshop altered image of a Boeing 767 and you don’t see a problem with your own logic and evidentiary proof Robert? Let me say it again - in this video you state “...the image has clearly been subjected to Photoshop...” and “Photoshop work has destroyed features of the bottom of the aircraft” and still you knowingly utilized that seriously compromised photograph in order to discredit what you claim is a seriously compromised photograph? With that in mind you say the images are aligned and at the 3:29 mark of the video you state the protrusions under the wing do not belong and I adamantly disagree with you on that point especially Robert. What you say are anomalies happen to be flap track fairings or “canoes” and they definitely belong. As for the wings not aligning did it not occur to you Robert that the wings of the aircraft that flew into WTC 2 were severely deflected upwards due to the flight conditions in the moments before impact? Really Robert, with evidence like that you expect us to believe any of your incredibly inept forensic photo-analysis and as for your next two videos I won’t even get into discussing them because the subject you broached therein is far too bizarre for me to give any serious consideration to.

On March 17, 2011 you released “South Tower – How the image was altered to disguise the aircraft” wherein you suggest (at the 26 second mark) somebody had interfered with the integrity of the original frame of video, which you chose to utilize in this video anyway. Has it never occurred to you Robert that you’ve incorporated nothing but sketchy forensic evidence throughout your research, or even the fact the (frame) of video you claim was tampered with had been enlarged to such a degree as to render it featureless and therefore useless for the purpose you undertook in the making of this video? Probably not and none the less you forged ahead anyways by again superimposing the KC10 over top of the very grainy Boeing 767 image and all in order to justify why it had to be a KC 10 underneath some imagined Photoshop alteration made to the original image. Good God man, nothing about either image is worthy of mention let alone their usefulness for having been superimposed over top one another! To comment further on this video would be a colossal waste of my time.

On April 5, 2011 you released the video “CNN Exclusive – South Tower Aircraft” to which I commented on and you astutely recognized it would be for the betterment of all that you don’t put any more comments or advice on here Robert, but it’s an open forum and you have every right to contribute. I’m simply saying I believe you haven’t the slightest ability to reason this issue and having said that allow me to explain at length what I didn’t say to you when I commented on this video last week. Of all your videos this one in particular offends my sensibilities the most because it shows your complete lack of understanding, even for the most rudimentary of physics, because you’ve completely ignored the phenomenon or optical illusion known as parallax that is associated with camera optics, which is why everything in the video you put on YouTube appears distorted.

Due to that ignorance at the 1:26 mark of the video you made it quite apparent your entire hypothesis and all of your videos are complete nonsense, when you stated “The aircraft in the video appears to be turning left...” and by your reasoning then the orientation of the fuselage of that “masking aircraft” means it would not have struck WTC 2 where the building was gored. To emphasize that point at the 1:36 mark of this video you drew a dotted line that ends at the left side of the building, thus concluding the Adobe Photoshop aircraft you say “somebody” falsified over top of a KC-10 would have flown beyond WTC 2 and parallel with the buildings West face while the “real aircraft” you argue would have struck WTC 2 exactly where it had been crashed into. Everything else you argued in the video beyond this point isn’t worth mentioning as I’m sure you get my point.

Lastly then you stated in your April 8, 2011 video “The image is far from normal and seeming to be a composite” but again you have failed to take into account the distortion caused by the location of the camera lens versus elevation and camera angle to the subject matter. WTC 2 was many city blocks away from Scott Myers location on the morning of 9/11 and the camera was many hundreds of feet below and well ahead of the lateral axis of the aircraft you say he never captured in his video. Where was the camera in relation to the aircraft you’ve superimposed over top of the Boeing 767 in this video Robert? Judging by the curvature of tell-tale signs on the engine cowls of your DC10-30, which you introduced into your video at the 1:56 mark, I’d have to say the camera was positioned a few hundred feet in front of the nose of the aircraft and approximately 400 hundred feet to the right of it. But then I’d be guessing just like you had throughout this video, so it’s no wonder the aircraft appears distorted in the image Robert and is it any wonder why I believe your entire line of reasoning and your 9/11 findings are as well?

Respectfully


Dear Questionitall

Actually I find very little respect in your "rant" against me, even though I could not hear your voice the 'tenor' of your language illustrates enough.
Your unfounded opinion of whether or not I may have understanding of the 'physical', 'optical', considerations, in the difficulties of addressing the very 'limited' evidence to work with is only --insulting to you--.
To suggest I have ulterior motive, than to other than, produce the best possible considerations under such situation, again only --reflects against you--.
To enter into a dialogue to discuss these things with you, to my judgement, would only be fraught with impossible difficulties.

Of course you are entitled to your views, I hold with that, as I hold with the entitlement for my self to have my views.

Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.

Robert

Posted by: questionitall Apr 13 2011, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Apr 13 2011, 05:11 AM) *
Dear Questionitall

Actually I find very little respect in your "rant" against me, even though I could not hear your voice the 'tenor' of your language illustrates enough.
Your unfounded opinion of whether or not I may have understanding of the 'physical', 'optical', considerations, in the difficulties of addressing the very 'limited' evidence to work with is only --insulting to you--.
To suggest I have ulterior motive, than to other than, produce the best possible considerations under such situation, again only --reflects against you--.
To enter into a dialogue to discuss these things with you, to my judgement, would only be fraught with impossible difficulties.

Of course you are entitled to your views, I hold with that, as I hold with the entitlement for my self to have my views.

Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.

Robert


Like I said Robert - you are entitled to your opinion of me and I completely understand your resentment but you have not answered my questions, which leads me to believe you are incapable of reconciling the significant number of errors in judgment on your part with the fact you have all but said outloud you have no technical knowledge of or proof at all to back your theories. So the questions remains Robert, have you any intention of stating for the record what it is you believe struck each of the towers or do you plan to continue disseminating your imaginary falsehoods and disinformation here by virtue of your grossly inaccurate video content? By the way Robert, this last response of yours explains perfectly just why it is I'm being terse with you in the first place - due to the fact you have refused every request of mine that you explain yourself and contribute to this thread in a meaningful way. I'm not settling for your self-ingratiating platitudes anymore...I came here looking for professional assistance with the hopes of finding some answers to the questions I've raised and I certainly do not encourage your input, for all the aforementioned reasons. Good day Sir.

Posted by: questionitall Apr 25 2011, 04:57 PM

To whom it may concern

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y) represents real evidence that comes with an irrefutable chain of custody and there is no substitute for such evidentiary proof when making ones’ own 9/11 case and argument. I tried to impress that fact upon Robert here two weeks ago and for the better part of two months but he wasn’t listening. As one can see from his last post here two weeks ago our differences came to a head and much to my regret I was left with no choice but to explain in detail to the readership exactly why Robert’s research is devoid of any serious merit and thus his opinion and research must be taken with a grain of salt. I told him so and out of spite and in haste he stated here on April 13, 2011 “Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.”

The truth is I feel no need and certainly no urgency to re-evaluate a single thing I’ve said to him or done, because I’ve been forthright from the beginning and quite frankly then it’s not I who needs to reconsider what constitutes appropriate behaviour or good social graces. Might I remind everyone of the fact I'm not here to make friends by massaging everyones' ego and placting silly notions - I'm here in hopes of getting to the bottom of the matter and the truth of what transpired at ground zero on the morning of September 11, 2001.

In light of this recent NIST Cumulus dataset release I believe it’s incumbent upon everyone to reconsider every single thing I’ve said of the official investigation into United Airlines flight 175 and as such I encourage everyone to read through my research again, then judge for yourself the truth of the matter. Keep in mind while doing so the reasons why I was deliberately and excessively rude with Robert in the first place, because I told him from the beginning I do not tolerate speculative conspiracy theories that are devoid of any evidentiary proof!

In fact this one video clip alone (from the 9 minute mark on) confirms everything I’ve said in my research about the lies therein the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and Mr. W. Gene Corley’s persistent claim he first discovered this alleged wreckage of UA175 on the rooftop of WTC 5. Quite obviously then the wreckage in this video clip does not corroborate his March 6, 2002 testimony (for all the reasons I’ve given) nor does it resemble in any way shape and form the livery of UA175 and/or the Adobe Photoshop altered image in the March 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report in which Mr. Corley played a major role in writing.

That is why I insist one needs to be cautious when considering the word of Mr. Corley and the other 9/11investigators and/or Robert’s unorthodox methodology and evidence which is made up entirely of images that are transposed over top of existing photographs and video footage that tells the real story. Therefore their case amounts to nothing more than falsified evidence which is fraud and that is a criminal offense for some and a moral crime by others, in my opinion that is.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 25 2011, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Apr 23 2011, 07:57 PM) *
To whom it may concern

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y) represents real evidence that comes with an irrefutable chain of custody and there is no substitute for such evidentiary proof when making ones’ own 9/11 case and argument. I tried to impress that fact upon Robert here two weeks ago and for the better part of two months but he wasn’t listening. As one can see from his last post here two weeks ago our differences came to a head and much to my regret I was left with no choice but to explain in detail to the readership exactly why Robert’s research is devoid of any serious merit and thus his opinion and research must be taken with a grain of salt. I told him so and out of spite and in haste he stated here on April 13, 2011 “Let time be the decider if your views hold up, which during, you may care to go back and consider some of the things you have said along the way.”

The truth is I feel no need and certainly no urgency to re-evaluate a single thing I’ve said to him or done, because I’ve been forthright from the beginning and quite frankly then it’s not I who needs to reconsider what constitutes appropriate behaviour or good social graces. Might I remind everyone of the fact I'm not here to make friends by massaging everyones' ego and placting silly notions - I'm here in hopes of getting to the bottom of the matter and the truth of what transpired at ground zero on the morning of September 11, 2001.

In light of this recent NIST Cumulus dataset release I believe it’s incumbent upon everyone to reconsider every single thing I’ve said of the official investigation into United Airlines flight 175 and as such I encourage everyone to read through my research again, then judge for yourself the truth of the matter. Keep in mind while doing so the reasons why I was deliberately and excessively rude with Robert in the first place, because I told him from the beginning I do not tolerate speculative conspiracy theories that are devoid of any evidentiary proof!

In fact this one video clip alone (from the 9 minute mark on) confirms everything I’ve said in my research about the lies therein the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and Mr. W. Gene Corley’s persistent claim he first discovered this alleged wreckage of UA175 on the rooftop of WTC 5. Quite obviously then the wreckage in this video clip does not corroborate his March 6, 2002 testimony (for all the reasons I’ve given) nor does it resemble in any way shape and form the livery of UA175 and/or the Adobe Photoshop altered image in the March 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report in which Mr. Corley played a major role in writing.

That is why I insist one needs to be cautious when considering the word of Mr. Corley and the other 9/11investigators and/or Robert’s unorthodox methodology and evidence which is made up entirely of images that are transposed over top of existing photographs and video footage that tells the real story. Therefore their case amounts to nothing more than falsified evidence which is fraud and that is a criminal offense for some and a moral crime by others, in my opinion that is.




Interestingly enough that it would be at the 09:11 mark into the video,

where it becomes apparent the badly painted fuselage piece with the letter and

number on it, is missing from the remaining 'window' part.


Questionitall, i'm pretty shure that more than 99% of P4T readers are with you

on this one, and that all of us agree with you, that it's far from being a mere

coincidence that the only two most 'significant' and 'famous' pieces of fuselage

photographed (WTC 5 and pentagon), just happens to be parts with 'writings'

on them! ....Obviously planted.

I for one is very grateful to you for setting out to prove this fact beyond the

slightest shadow of doubt, and of which you so admirably have now succeeded

in doing. cheers.gif

Posted by: questionitall Apr 26 2011, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 25 2011, 11:37 PM) *
Interestingly enough that it would be at the 09:11 mark into the video,

where it becomes apparent the badly painted fuselage piece with the letter and

number on it, is missing from the remaining 'window' part.


Questionitall, i'm pretty shure that more than 99% of P4T readers are with you

on this one, and that all of us agree with you, that it's far from being a mere

coincidence that the only two most 'significant' and 'famous' pieces of fuselage

photographed (WTC 5 and pentagon), just happens to be parts with 'writings'

on them! ....Obviously planted.

I for one is very grateful to you for setting out to prove this fact beyond the

slightest shadow of doubt, and of which you so admirably have now succeeded

in doing. cheers.gif



Thank You very much for your kind words of support - I will be starting a new thread here shortly, for a fresh start and all because of Roberts' having disrupted the flow of sound information and credible debate here on the issue of UA175. The video I recently gave reference to here is part of the court awarded NIST Cumulus dataset FOIA application - brought to us courtesy of the International Center For 9/11 Studies and it's from release 28 in particular. I encourage everyone to bombard FEMA and NIST with freedom of information requests of their own - for additional United Airlines flight 175 evidence I know for a fact those agencies are sitting on. That information holds the key to unlocking how and when this aircraft wreckage came to rest on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 28 2011, 08:42 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Apr 24 2011, 07:38 PM) *
Thank You very much for your kind words of support - I will be starting a new thread here shortly, for a fresh start and all because of Roberts' having disrupted the flow of sound information and credible debate here on the issue of UA175. The video I recently gave reference to here is part of the court awarded NIST Cumulus dataset FOIA application - brought to us courtesy of the International Center For 9/11 Studies and it's from release 28 in particular. I encourage everyone to bombard FEMA and NIST with freedom of information requests of their own - for additional United Airlines flight 175 evidence I know for a fact those agencies are sitting on. That information holds the key to unlocking how and when this aircraft wreckage came to rest on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5.




You're very welcome!

Shall look forward to your new thread and any further development

with much interest -

cheers

Posted by: questionitall May 4 2011, 07:23 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 28 2011, 08:42 AM) *
You're very welcome!

Shall look forward to your new thread and any further development

with much interest -

cheers


Just a reminder to stay tuned for the revised material I'm preparing to post here under a new thread. A certain gentleman whom I'm not at liberty to name put me on to a fantastic NIST video which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt if Mr. W. Gene Corley did not lie about his involvement in and/or knowledge of the falsified FEMA/ASCE photograph (12390) then he sure as hell is behaving awfully damned guilty of something, because he refuses to answer my questions regarding United Airlines flight 175 and that evidence his name is all over!

My new thread will be posted very shortly!

Posted by: questionitall May 15 2011, 03:48 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 4 2011, 07:23 PM) *
Just a reminder to stay tuned for the revised material I'm preparing to post here under a new thread. A certain gentleman whom I'm not at liberty to name put me on to a fantastic NIST video which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt if Mr. W. Gene Corley did not lie about his involvement in and/or knowledge of the falsified FEMA/ASCE photograph (12390) then he sure as hell is behaving awfully damned guilty of something, because he refuses to answer my questions regarding United Airlines flight 175 and that evidence his name is all over!

My new thread will be posted very shortly!



Thanks to the NIST cumulus dataset (and some terrific help with finding all the damning information I need therein) I've been able to conclusively show the United Airlines flight 175 wreckage had been planted on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 and the FEMA evidence of it had definitely been Adobe Photoshop falsified! As such I've just posted a rather amateurish but well intended YouTube video to that effect which I hope will draw more attention to this issue. You can find that video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1FrcqxyL8

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder May 15 2011, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 15 2011, 02:48 PM) *
Thanks to the NIST cumulus dataset (and some terrific help with finding all the damning information I need therein) I've been able to conclusively show the United Airlines flight 175 wreckage had been planted on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 and the FEMA evidence of it had definitely been Adobe Photoshop falsified! As such I've just posted a rather amateurish but well intended YouTube video to that effect which I hope will draw more attention to this issue. You can find that video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1FrcqxyL8

Can you slow down your slides?

I'm not getting any audio and the slides are flying by too fast to read (and I'm a fast reader).

Thanks

Edit: Scratch the comment about no audio - there is a sound track on some parts.

Posted by: questionitall May 16 2011, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ May 15 2011, 06:02 PM) *
Can you slow down your slides?

I'm not getting any audio and the slides are flying by too fast to read (and I'm a fast reader).

Thanks

Edit: Scratch the comment about no audio - there is a sound track on some parts.



Hello - this video was a test piece for me. I've never done anything like it before and I'm not all that savvy with this computer technology. Not only that but the material I was given was not of the highest resolution. I'm currnetly downloading the original material from the NIST Cumulus dataset and once I have it I'll be posting it. In the meantime here are the links to the two photographs in that video.

http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y&feature=related

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5712188436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711626411/

Posted by: questionitall May 16 2011, 03:48 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 16 2011, 02:28 PM) *
Hello - this video was a test piece for me. I've never done anything like it before and I'm not all that savvy with this computer technology. Not only that but the material I was given was not of the highest resolution. I'm currnetly downloading the original material from the NIST Cumulus dataset and once I have it I'll be posting it. In the meantime here are the links to the two photographs in that video.

http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y&feature=related

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5712188436/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711626411/


Here is a link to the Natsaha Sealy image found in the NIST Cumulus dataset # 29...http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/

Posted by: questionitall May 16 2011, 10:19 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 16 2011, 03:48 PM) *
Here is a link to the Natsaha Sealy image found in the NIST Cumulus dataset # 29...http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5711500671/


Due to security issues I had to delete the site where I'd posted the Natasha Sealy photograph and Tami Michaels video footage...sorry!

Posted by: questionitall Sep 11 2019, 09:02 AM

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.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)