Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 175 _ We All Know Now Corley Never Had A Clue What Became Of United Airlines Flight 175

Posted by: questionitall May 19 2011, 12:04 AM

In the beginning I’d questioned my own sanity and rationale for ever doubting Mr. W. Gene Corley’s World Trade Center findings because after all he is an expert. I even convinced myself it had been an astoundingly fortuitous bit of luck that a lone piece of reasonably intact aircraft wreckage bearing the UA175 registration number managed to exit WTC 2 virtually unscathed. Only to be spared again being torn asunder by the devastatingly powerful force generated by the collapse of both Towers pummeling down onto it, but much to my amazement it had and what’s more then by the stroke of good luck it was discovered there on the rooftop of WTC 5, sunny side up and ready to be solved like a dime store mystery, just like it happens in the movie.

Not long after that I woke up and my United Airlines flight 175 investigation began. That research came about as a result of not being able to accept the many inconsistent facts and contradictory statements made by Mr. W. Gene Corley throughout the past 9 ½ years. As such I looked into the matter myself, thus managing with little difficulty to turn up some rather startling and damning facts therein the official FEMA evidence itself. That evidence shows there had been a real and concerted effort on the part of some WTC investigators to pervert the course of due process. Every indication is they manipulated the aircraft wreckage/evidence in such a manner as to dictate the direction the World Trade Center site investigation. Without having conducted even the most rudimentary aircraft accident/crime scene investigation it was a foregone conclusion on their part United Airlines flight 175 had crashed into World Trade Center 2. In fact their only reasoning and justification for that conclusion is both UA175 and AA11 are missing and unaccounted for to this very day therefore they were destroyed at ground zero, case closed!

Quite frankly then I’ve no doubt any more the man who spearheaded the WTC site team of investigators lied before the 9/11 Commission and with respect to the destruction of UA175 at ground zero in my opinion he still lies to this very day about having recovered wreckage that proved that aircraft was destroyed at ground zero. In fact he proved nothing of the sort and every indication is the true UA175 could not possibly have crashed into World Trade Center 2. Thanks to the recent release of a vast depository of NIST video footage and photographic material into the public domain (via a court awarded FOIA request) out of that goldmine of 9/11 evidence came two exceptionally revealing evidentiary exhibits which prove that to be the case.

By far and undoubtedly then the NIST Cumulus dataset (located at the International Center for 9/11 studies) is the most telling and comprehensive collection of 9/11 photographic and video evidence to have been amassed by the official 9/11 investigation and those two evidentiary exhibits alone are especially damning for Mr. Corley’s WTC investigation and reputation as an expert consultant in any such matter.

In fact both the Tami Michael’s video footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn_IE2fGYg) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbbUFhqmP-k) showing the WTC attacks along with the altogether damning photograph (Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof) that was taken in the immediate aftermath of the attacks shows the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 like no other, thus confirming everything I’ve said to date and in opposition to Mr. Corley’s insistence he confirmed UA175 struck WTC 2 when in fact he did no such thing. In fact I’ve no doubt these two exhibits by themselves prove the man was either altogether complicit in a conspiracy of sorts to keep hidden from view the true identity of the supposedly hijacked UA175 or he’s simply just that incompetent for having failed miserably to conduct a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation that would have positively identified the WTC aircraft.

As such and according to Mr. Corley then the WTC investigators combed through that evidence in its entirety and by it they arrived at their conclusion as to what felled both WTC towers. So too he continually reminds people of the chain of custody marrying his conclusions with that body of NIST evidence. For that reason and due to the great importance placed by him on any evidence drawn from that depository of proof I too came to my own conclusions by referring to the evidence therein. As a result of what truths I’d discovered there my findings are also worthy of serious consideration and people need to seriously question this individuals’ role in 9/11.

Without a doubt then there’s compelling evidence to suggest some of the World Trade Center site tall building inspectors while working under the auspices of Mr. W. Gene Corley did so corrupt the aircraft wreckage/crime scene investigation by tampering with evidence thereon World Trade Center 5. As well it seems they all but lied by alluding to their having first “discovered” that alleged UA175 evidence there, when in fact every indication is that wreckage had been planted there and was known to exist well before they took credit for accessing and assessing that rooftop. By “planted” I mean the wreckage had been carried onto the rooftop by persons as yet unknown and left there - it did not fall there from the sky!

Natasha Sealy’s September 11th, 2001 photograph makes that point abundantly clear, being that her image shows no aircraft wreckage to speak of can be seen at the foot of the stairs on the rooftop of WTC 5 that is. The fact her photograph was taken within minutes of WTC 2 having been impacted by whatever aircraft most definitely belies Mr. Corley’s statements made in such esteemed publications as Popular Mechanics, wherein he attests he knows for sure it was UA175 wreckage found on WTC 5 and for half-baked reasons. Ever more damning then is the fact his WTC site investigators managed to photograph it there 44 days later, on October 25, 2001 while the NIST Cumulus dataset records show their time spent on that rooftop produced a whopping solitary photograph depicting falsified aircraft wreckage in what can only be described as a severely compromised piece of evidentiary proof in and of itself.

For that reason I’ve never been more convinced an unknown number of FBI, NTSB and FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigators conspired to falsify evidentiary proof of United Airlines flight 175 aircraft wreckage at ground zero and they did so deliberately fabricate that evidence for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of the WTC site UA175 investigation. To that end they helped convince the world that “Islamist Terrorists” worked alone to hijack domestic commercial aircraft in order to commit mass murder. My intuition tells me they did not work alone and therefore those who contributed to that heinous criminality were complicit in treason and murder as well, on the worst imaginable scale. Indeed they also knowingly or otherwise aided and abetted the well concealed conspiracy to deceive the 9/11 Commission and the public - Mr. W. Gene Corley’s actions are part and parcel to that fraud, whether or not he is aware of the fact and for that reason there will be no quarter given on my part.

Having said that while at first glance that FEMA photograph does seem to support Mr. Corley’s assertion bits of United Airlines flight 175 had settled on WTC 5 soon after having crashed into WTC 2 the truth is that photograph had been specifically altered to ensure anyone who laid eyes on it couldn’t help but arrive at that conclusion and I know this just like he knows it was UA175…!

The FEMA image of aircraft wreckage supposedly “discovered” and recovered on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390 is the only photograph ever published and made public by the government. No other physical proof pointing to possible UA175 aircraft wreckage has ever been released by the government. Because I thought that seemed quite suspicious I began to focus my attention on the known official evidence relating to it and my research shows that specific piece of aircraft wreckage never came to rest on the rooftop of WTC 5 by having fallen there on its own from on high and WTC 2. As well my findings confirm the aircraft registration number seen on the wreckage in that FEMA photographic evidence was NEVER on the wreckage to begin with.

In fact a videotape http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y&feature=related said to have been recorded by Gary Steficek on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 proves not only had the wreckage itself been arranged in place on WTC 5 and prior to it being photographed but the photograph itself and its subject matter had been altered from the original state by Adobe Photoshop prior to it being entered into the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The changes made to the FEMA photograph strongly suggest the alterations made to it were solely intended to bolster the governments overall WTC attack storyline while at the same time corroborating the WTC site investigator’s findings and conclusions regarding hijacked commercial airliners and UA175 specifically. Not surprisingly then its falsification was an essential part of the overall conspiracy to mask the true identity of the offending WTC 2 attack aircraft.

More to the point then - the photograph had to show a portion of the fuselage that would allow for the positive identification of UA175 and its undeniable then the aircraft wreckage seen in the FEMA image had been Adobe Photoshop manipulated by someone tasked with making that wreckage appear to be from a very specific area of the UA175 airframe. That said its impossible the aircraft registration number was photographed (as it is shown in the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS) by any World Trade Center site investigator including the FBI and NTSB. For the simply reason being because the Gary Steficek video footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y&feature=related shows that area of the wreckage was non-existent in the first place!
What’s more that painted-on detail (partial aircraft registration number) in many ways seriously conflicts with what’s known of any Boeing 767 fuselage superstructure. So if we’re to believe Mr. Corley studied the wreckage and reviewed absolutely every last photo and foot of videotape evidence, as he claims to have done to prove himself, then if nothing else the (release 28, file 42A0310 – G28D15) NIST Cumulus dataset proves hands down he lied about what he knew of its make-up and/or the origin of that wreckage.

In summation then the Gary Steficek video footage conclusively proves the bits of aircraft wreckage seen therein had been cobbled together and pre-arranged on the rooftop of WTC 5 while the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence proves those same bits were also cobbled together in the photo-lab using Adobe Photoshop enhancement - especially by the addition made to it of the partial aircraft registration number. While the Tami Michael’s and Natasha Sealy evidence proves that aircraft wreckage never existed on the rooftop of WTC 5 in the first place it remains to be seen whether the FBI, NTSB or the FEMA/ASCE investigators were responsible for planting that wreckage there in the weeks following 9/11. Regardless of that the NIST Cumulus dataset material evidence is merciless for showing the WTC site investigators had nothing in the way of evidence even remotely associated with UA175 and any such intimation therein the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS goes to show how patently absurd and truly misleading that orchestrated whitewash is.

In fact while that report falls well short of proving any civil registered/commercially operated aircraft crashed into WTC 2 it also ignominiously credits Mr. Gary Steficek for having taken the video footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y&feature=related when in fact not once is Gary Steficek listed anywhere in that report as having been one of Mr. Corley’s hand-picked and much vaunted WTC site team members. The report lists him as a business partner with Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP and once again as a salvage yard volunteer who undoubtedly worked alongside Ramon Gilsanz there on site. Mr. Ramon Gilsanz on the other hand is confirmed there in the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS as having investigated the WTC site as a team member working under the auspices of Mr. Corley. He is also accredited with co-authoring several chapters of that report including chapter 4 which not surprisingly then just so happens to explain in great detail WTC 5 while at the same time all but ignoring the aircraft wreckage he quite likely “discovered” on that building and was tasked with identifying as the wreckage of UA175.

So while the Ramon Gilsanz/Gary Steficek video footage serves well to disprove Mr. W. Gene Corley’s UA175 evidence and his proclamations regarding its chain of custody then Natasha Sealy’s photograph (Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof) utterly devastates all of their combined credibility. There is no question her photograph was taken after WTC 2 was struck by the second aircraft - I’ve confirmed that by comparing her photograph to a segment of videotape (ABC Dub7 07) captured on 9/11 by Tami Michaels’s and her husband Guy Rosbrook. For those of you who are not familiar with their contribution to 9/11 truth they are accredited with taking what undoubtedly amounts to the most tragic and difficult to watch yet vitally important 9/11 Truth videotapes ever to be recorded at ground zero.

At the time the attacks at ground zero were underway they were sequestered in room (number 3502) of the Millenium Hilton Hotel and because the windows of their hotel room were facing due West and so overlooking the WTC plaza and towers, from that unprecedented vantage they unceremoniously recorded not just the second airplane attack but also the grave and ungodly slaughter of a countless score of innocent victims lives being cut short that morning. Their video footage is unparalleled in its honesty, brutality and detail and for that reason it was later used by Federal prosecutors in the penalty phase of the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui who incidentally had been tried and convicted of being a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks.

Of all their known video footage that morning two segments (ABC Dub7 07) and (ABC Dub7 13) therein really sum the entire affair up. There is a moment (ABC Dub7 07) when Tami Michael’s states “…and as we’ve been standing here we watched the second building get hit with another plane!” all the while the smoke billowing from WTC 2 is clearly discernable. Her statement along with the obvious sight of WTC 2 in flames are crucial points to my proving many of the accusations I levy in my research but undoubtedly then the shadow cast on the East face of WTC 1 therein that Tami Michael’s video footage proves my next point and beyond a doubt.

That shadow is the result of the morning sun coming up behind their hotel, which in turn projected the silhouette of their hotel tower across the plaza and onto the East face of WTC 1. Considering the fact that shadow was moving from the viewers left to right as the morning sun rose it confirms Natasha Sealy took her photograph not long after that segment of their video footage was captured. That is a fact that is verified by comparing the shadows on WTC 1 in both evidentiary exhibits. In light of their evidentiary proof then only a fool would argue neither exhibit shows the sun as I explain it or the rooftop of WTC 5 as it truly was immediately following the attacks. Assuming then we’re all in agreement and still on the same page here and nobody objects to that line of reasoning by it I was able to prove from Tami Michael’s and Natasha Sealy’s evidence not only the time and day for when Natasha Sealy took her photograph but more importantly the fact that no wreckage from the airplane that struck WTC 2 came to rest on the rooftop of WTC 5.

I’m sorry to say much of Tami Michael’s and Guy Rosbrook’s video footage has never been seen by the public and it’s a crime the rest of their evidence may never see the light of day. It would tell us so very much more of what actually happened that morning I’m sure, but chances are if my research becomes influential enough to help affect a new 9/11 investigation that original video footage will be taken from them and against their will, to be destroyed in the interest of national security no doubt. But until that day comes yet another reason to encourage its timely release to the International Center for 9/11 Studies is the massive discrepancy between what the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS report states as fact and the reality of how the debris on the rooftop of WTC 5 appeared in the minutes immediately following the second attack and thereafter.

In the Tami Michael’s and Guy Rosbrook’s video footage (ABC Dub7 07) that was recorded not long after WTC 2 had been struck clearly there is a relatively light deposit of building exterior aluminum cladding and building interior bric-a-brac strewn about the rooftop of WTC 5 and 6. That video compares with Natasha Sealy’s photograph so there’s no argument there, but when that video footage is compared with their (ABC Dub7 13) that was recorded not long after the collapse of WTC 2 notice how very intact and relatively uncluttered with debris the rooftops of WTC 5 and 6 still appear to be. Now compare that with the WTC site investigators Analysis of Building Performance statements regarding the rooftops of WTC 5 and 6 there in sub-chapter 4.3, on pages 4-11 and 4-12 of Chapter 4 respectively in the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS report. Therein it’s claimed “Pieces of WTC 1 and WTC 2” landed on the rooftop of both WTC 5 and 6 following the collapse of the first and second tower. That statement “Pieces of WTC 1 and WTC 2” and other erroneous conclusions therein are patently false, seeing as there’s not a single hole in either roof following the collapse of WTC 2. All of which goes to show how very devious and utterly myopic the tall building “expert consultants” proved themselves to be throughout their forensic analysis of the WTC site and wreckage.

The fact is not so much as a single massive structural steel column from the North East corner and two sides of WTC 2 was blown onto the rooftop of WTC 5 or 6 by the enormous, sustained force generated by its collapse. Yet we’re told to believe a speck of light weight aircraft aluminum punched clean through the core of WTC 2 and then made its way clear to the other side of the WTC complex, with a comparatively miniscule fart of force behind it! Nice try but I don’t think so, therefore the tall building expert’s wanton incompetence begs the question what are we to believe of their WTC site investigators findings? Certainly we can’t be expected to believe a speck of light weight aircraft aluminum punched clean through the core of WTC 2!
Needless to say then both Natasha Sealy’s photograph and Tami Michael’s video footage clearly shows aircraft wreckage never came to rest at the foot of the staircase located between the North and South penthouse mechanical rooms on WTC 5. In light of that and the very fact Mr. W. Gene Corley has stated repeatedly in numerous publications he’d reviewed every single bit of that evidence relating to the attack at ground zero then it’s safe to say he’s been lying about having tracked aircraft wreckage to where it fell on WTC 5, only then to have personally discovered, recovered and recorded it there…okay Mr. Corley but where’s your proof?

That being said at first sight absolutely everything about Mr. Corley’s aircraft wreckage seems anything but extraordinary or unusual, however. When comparing the FEMA photograph to the Gary Steficek videotape one cannot help by notice the glaring contradiction therein. The very reason that evidence conflicts when compared to one another is due primarily to how the wreckage had been laid out on the rooftop of WTC 5 in the first place.One would think the aircraft wreckage seen in the FEMA photograph should and would be a carbon-copy of how it appears in any of the other official evidentiary exhibits but it clearly doesn’t match any of them! So how can that be I ask when both exhibits are of the same physical evidence and purportedly represent evidentiary proof of United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) having been destroyed at ground zero? The answer to that of course is one of those exhibits was falsified in its entirety while the other is a more realistic representation of the facts as they stood.

In fact the very manner in which the FEMA photograph was altered indicates the investigators were fully cognizant of which area of the UA175 fuselage the bits of wreckage had to resemble when they were being re-arranged there on WT5. That in my opinion strongly suggests it had been arranged to suit an agenda. It’s quite obvious then as the FEMA photograph depicts one large piece of wreckage with an obvious remnant of aircraft registration number thereon it while the wreckage seen in the Gary Steficek video footage on the other hand shows no sign of that aircraft registration number. In fact the video shows the entire left portion of the wreckage (as seen in the FEMA photograph) was never a part of the larger piece of wreckage at all!

The only other evidence I’m aware of that lends itself to confirming the aforementioned irregularity and proves one or the other exhibit more reliable and accurate is the photograph (Copyofplanepartrf20-full). I have not been able to corroborate the official source of this photograph but it appears to have been generated by FEMA aka the WTC site investigators. Regardless of where it came from the general WTC 5 rooftop setting appears to be genuine and as such I believe it proves one thing…the small piece of wreckage had been carefully arranged to the left of the much larger piece of wreckage, but not unlike its larger FEMA counterpart it too had the aircraft registration number added to it. Putting that aside for a moment the important thing to consider now is the configured wreckage therein proves one thing if nothing else and that is the FEMA photograph had been Adobe Photoshop altered to have the wreckage appear as one piece that originated from a specific area of the UA175 fuselage.

All things considered then I would expect any one of the investigators to explain why the large piece of wreckage (as seen in the Gary Steficek video footage and/or the image Copyofplanepartrf20-full) just so happens to be devoid of any numbering or lettering while Mr. Corley’s FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence clearly depicts the same large piece of aircraft wreckage in roughly the same arrangement with definite numbering and lettering emblazoned thereon it.
By that reasoning I maintain the investigators knew it was crucial those pieces be logically pre-arranged on WTC 5 in a fashion resembling the AFT right hand side of the UA175 fuselage and as close to that livery as possible, so as to more precisely replicate that United Airlines flight 175 livery in the photo-lab in order to convincingly sell it to the 9/11 Commission. The fly in the ointment being of course the likes of the very revealing and “leaked” Photoshop altered image “Copyofplanepartrf20-full” that clearly defies what the Gary Steficek video shows and that being there was no such piece of wreckage attached to the area in the general vicinity of the aircraft registration number, as shown in the FEMA photograph. As such whoever placed that small piece of wreckage bearing the questionable aircraft registration number to the left of the larger piece they surely did so with purpose before taking their photograph (Copyofplanepartrf20-full). The facts they could have arbitrarily photographed the small piece of wreckage to the right of the larger piece (had they not known the proper orientation and configuration of the wreckage) and they didn’t well that’s very telling of the investigators planning and motivation.

The fact is someone had obviously gone out of their way to forge the FEMA photograph by adding the UA175 registration number and the only logical explanation for their having done so is they were mandated with changing the non-descript aircraft wreckage in their possession into something recognizable, because as it stood it was not unlike any other piece of medium wide-body Boeing aircraft fuselage. That is a fact I had confirmed most recently and by a highly experienced Boeing 767 Aircraft Structures Technician who considered and commented on my research material. Hence Gary Steficek’s video footage showing a prime example of the wreckage being unidentifiable and with that evidence bearing no resemblance to UA175 and with no means of identifying it as such the investigators saw fit to change that by concocting evidence.

With that said the FEMA wreckage does not lie and for all the reasons above I know it didn’t just randomly flutter down onto the rooftop of WTC 5, but in order to fully appreciate my reasons why I’m absolutely certain of that it’s essential the readership understands how that area of any Boeing 767 airframe is constructed, so as to fully comprehend why the wreckage shown in the FEMA/ASCE photograph is irreconcilably different from the actual physical characteristics of the AFT right hand side of UA175’s fuselage and livery.

I am certain of that because for one thing the FEMA wreckage is devoid of the tell-tale requisite butt joint seam that runs vertically between the last and second to last passenger cabin window cut-outs on both sides of every Boeing 767 fuselage and perpendicular to its longitudinal axis. In UA175’s case it did so to the right of the (2) in the aircraft registration number marking (N612UA) painted on the right hand side of that fuselage. But not surprisingly then that seam is unaccounted for in every piece of official video and photographic evidence depicting FEMA’s alleged UA175 evidence. Its omission can only mean one thing - the small piece of wreckage with the (falsified) registration number on it shares no rightful place to the left of the large piece of wreckage (as shown in Copyofplanepartrf20-full) and likewise then the identical Photoshop layout and alteration made to the FEMA/ASCE photograph is most definitely inaccurate in every way imaginable.

There is no reconciling why the two pieces of wreckage were staged the way they were, with the small piece of aircraft wreckage showing the partial “N6….” on it having been placed to the left of the larger piece with the small painted mark on it. The only other explanation for this painted mark is that piece of wreckage came from some other area (of whatever fuselage) and if indeed it came from United Airlines flight 175 at all after being destroyed then its livery should tell us exactly where it originated from on that fuselage. In fact and as I stated previously the painted mark itself (or white speck of paint if you prefer) seen there at the upper extremity of the wreckage, just above and slightly to the left of the midline between the damaged/half missing window cut-out and the window cut-out on its immediate right is the determining factor belying the truth of the entire matter of that FEMA photograph.

That mark is in fact a definite 90 degree angle painted on the wreckage and there can be no doubt about it - we are expected to believe that mark is what remains of the lower leg of the (2) in the painted on aircraft registration number (N612UA), however. It’s important to note here, because that painted mark does not sit directly above a passenger cabin window with the tell-tale requisite butt joint seam just to the right of both features the mark cannot possibly be that of the of the (2) in the aircraft registration number on the right hand side of UA175. According to the UA175 livery then it’s highly unlikely this mark is what the pseudo-investigators working for FEMA would have us believe it is.

The second and only other possible location on the right side of the UA175 fuselage that painted mark can readily be matched with happens to be the (A) in the registration number, however. Due to the fact there is not one but two passenger cabin windows to the left of the (A) as seen in any UA175 photograph and yet the FEMA photograph shows only one window cut-out to the left of the painted mark, there’s no way to reconcile the painted mark then as it cannot possibly be from this location either. That leaves two other possible locations, both of which are on the left hand side of the fuselage, according to the UA175 livery that is. In fact the painted mark only partially compares to the (I) in “United” and the (N) in “Airlines” Having said that and although the (2) in the registration number on the left hand side of the UA175 livery does appear similar to the area in the FEMA photograph there’s absolutely no way that location works. Due to the fact there is only one passenger window to the right of it while many window cut-outs are seen to the right of the painted mark in the FEMA photograph.
As for the remaining two locations on the left hand side of the UA175 fuselage the painted mark does not have the requisite butt joint seam running vertically between two windows and to the right of it, therefore the question remains “Is that mark what remains of lettering or numbering from UA175’s livery and if so why does it not resemble any known location on that airframe?”

To that end the Gary Steficek video footage and (Copyofplanepartrf20-full) not only proves there had been a premeditated and concerted effort to falsify UA175 evidence specifically thus exposing the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence as fraudulent but far more importantly then that evidence of fraud clearly demonstrates those government officials lied about what they knew of the events that day and if they lied about that then what else are they not telling us? Therefore and irrespective of what people wish to believe of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 the fact remains Mr. Corley’s WTC site investigation constitutes the falsifying of evidence and the obstruction of justice while his UA175 physical evidence and conclusions amounts to Fraud.

The issue then is not so much a matter of what initiated the collapse of the twin towers but more so then it’s a question of what specific aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center towers and exactly who had control of them at the time? While Mr. Corley has taken credit for discovering and positively identifying bits of wreckage he attributes to UA175 he’s never actually shown proof of that but rather then he merely intimates he has such proof, however. What I do believe of him is he sure as hell knows of the fraudulent nature of the UA175 evidence he’s been peddling these past ten years and since 9/11. In fact while no other authority has ever independently confirmed Mr. Corley’s attestations and conclusions to that affect that fraud he peddles has been confirmed as such by numerous Aircraft Structures Technicians familiar with Boeing 767 design and construction and therefore it is safe to say Mr. Corley’s UA175 investigation failed to prove so much as a single irrefutable piece of evidence directly linking United Airlines flight 175 to 9/11 by way of any chain of custody.

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 replicate by first arranging the aircraft wreckage, then photographing it as such and later altering it through the use of Adobe Photoshop.

Since taking my photographs of the Boeing 767 I’ve studied and compared the fuselage therein with that fraudulent official evidence, to which there can be no doubt the aircraft superstructure I photographed in no way resembles 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.
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 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 insist 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 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 sometime 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 remain 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 the exact 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 Building in 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, through 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 everything I’ve said put aside the fact remains, if you remove and isolate the contentious aircraft registration number from the FEMA photographic evidence 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: ScaffoldRider May 19 2011, 07:06 PM

It's almost ten years and I'm still troubled why the airplane parts I photographed
on the upper roof of the Federal Building have never been released. Before I ever
learned that there was airplane debris on the upper roof, I picked up what I believed
was a small piece of airplane debris on the lower 7th floor setback roof. There was
a metal tag on it with a serial number and part number. I remember the words
"hydraulic piston" and that's what made me believe the part was from an airplane.
I took the part down to the lobby and gave it to one of the postal inspectors. A
little after the postal inspector and an FBI came up to the lower roof and I was
questioned about where I found the part. The crew I was working with was informed
not to move anything that looked like airplane debris or anything spray painted
yellow. I wish I had taken a picture of that "part" with the serial/part numbers.

Questionitall, you post talks about videos that were taken directly after the
Towers fell showing the roof of WTC 5, does that video show the upper roof
of the Federal Building. The landing gear picture below was located against
the South wall almost in the middle. Some of my pictures I took from the roof
tops of 1 Liberty Plaza and the Millenium Hotel I can see the exact spot where
the landing gear was and you see what appears to be the landing gear. I took
the pictures on 1 Liberty Plaza the first day I started working Ground Zero on
September 18, 2001. If you have videos or pictures that show the upper roof
of the Federal Building the same day as the Towers fell. it would be very interesting
to see if the landing gear can be seen in those videos and pictures.

I wish to this day of all the pictures I took at Ground Zero, I regret never taking
a picture of that "hydraulic piston" with it's serial/part numbers, for that matter
closer pictures of all the airplane debris on the upper roof of the Federal Building.








Posted by: questionitall May 20 2011, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (ScaffoldRider @ May 19 2011, 07:06 PM) *
It's almost ten years and I'm still troubled why the airplane parts I photographed
on the upper roof of the Federal Building have never been released. Before I ever
learned that there was airplane debris on the upper roof, I picked up what I believed
was a small piece of airplane debris on the lower 7th floor setback roof. There was
a metal tag on it with a serial number and part number. I remember the words
"hydraulic piston" and that's what made me believe the part was from an airplane.
I took the part down to the lobby and gave it to one of the postal inspectors. A
little after the postal inspector and an FBI came up to the lower roof and I was
questioned about where I found the part. The crew I was working with was informed
not to move anything that looked like airplane debris or anything spray painted
yellow. I wish I had taken a picture of that "part" with the serial/part numbers.

Questionitall, you post talks about videos that were taken directly after the
Towers fell showing the roof of WTC 5, does that video show the upper roof
of the Federal Building. The landing gear picture below was located against
the South wall almost in the middle. Some of my pictures I took from the roof
tops of 1 Liberty Plaza and the Millenium Hotel I can see the exact spot where
the landing gear was and you see what appears to be the landing gear. I took
the pictures on 1 Liberty Plaza the first day I started working Ground Zero on
September 18, 2001. If you have videos or pictures that show the upper roof
of the Federal Building the same day as the Towers fell. it would be very interesting
to see if the landing gear can be seen in those videos and pictures.

I wish to this day of all the pictures I took at Ground Zero, I regret never taking
a picture of that "hydraulic piston" with it's serial/part numbers, for that matter
closer pictures of all the airplane debris on the upper roof of the Federal Building.










Hello and thank you for sharing your 9/11 experience here - I am especially eager to hear from people like you. People who were there at ground zero and participating in the clean-up, to whatever degree does matter because every little detail you think means nothing actually could make all the difference. For instance you stated “The crew I was working with was informed not to move anything that looked like airplane debris or anything spray painted yellow.” I’m curious to know, if you were told that directly to your face by an FBI or NTSB agent do you remember their name(s) and the date they told you that and what reason did they give you? Do you know for sure that "yellow" was an NTSB color code designating aircraft parts while the red seen on everything else was an FBI color code? I see the red spray painted everywhere on the buildings, garbage containers and building debris but never on the aircraft parts.

I ask these questions because if you started cleaning up at ground zero on September 18, 2001 and you found the aircraft "hydraulic piston" already spray painted yellow that proves the FBI and NTSB had been on the rooftops no later than the date mentioned. That's an important fact because it shows both the FBI and the NTSB surely would have known of the existense of Mr. Corley's aircraft fuselage wreckage as well then. Assuming it existed there in the first place or at all, that being the case why did they leave it behind on WTC 5 and yet they stripped the WTC site clean of any and all serialized parts they got their hands on and yet not once have they publicized the fact they confiscated serialized parts - serialized parts that ALWAYS irrefutably identify the plane they're married to, because meticulous records by law are kept of each and every primary component installed on an aircraft and for reasons of traceability!

As for your statement you "took the pictures on 1 Liberty Plaza the first day I started working Ground Zero on September 18, 2001" I'm somewhat confused as to which photographs you're referring to - the images posted here or the photographs you mentioned depicting rooftops from atop the other towers. If you have (early) high resolution photographs looking down onto the rooftop of WTC 5 from the rooftop of the Millenium Hilton Hotel or 1 Liberty Plaza I would love to see them - that sort of evidence will go a long ways towards corroborating my hypothesis and your experiences with the FBI and NTSB as well could prove extremely enlightening.

As to your question about whether or not any video footage shows your aircraft parts to be honest everything I've seen would not allow for that, because the resolution is too low. I will keep an eye out for you though.

thx again.

Posted by: ScaffoldRider May 21 2011, 10:25 AM

Hi Questionitall,

The other night a watched those videos you mentioned, they were very interesting, especially
the videos from the woman who was in the Hilton Millenium Hotel on the 35th floor. I watched all
13 parts of video on YouTube but the she never filmed the roof of the Federal Building. I was really
hoping she did, it would have answered a question I have wondered about for many years. Were
the airplane debris I filmed on the upper roof "REALLY" planted? I know the exact spot where the
landing gear and would have been easily seen if that woman filmed the roof. I have pictures like
I told you that I took from the roofs of the Millenium and 1 Liberty Plaza, in one of those pictures
I can make out the landing gear. I'm sorry I'm limited to time right now, but promise as soon as I
will try to answer your questions. I have four videos posted on Architecture of the World, Glass,
Steel, and Stone. They are titled The Destruction, The People, The Clean Up, and the Night at
Ground Zero. Check out the "The Destruction" video especially. Here's the link to the feature
page where they are listed.

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Features.php

Plus I'm sure Sanders put all my airplane debris pictures somewhere in the library right here
on Pilots for Truth. If you can't find them I know Killtown has them all listed on his website.

Here's an email I received from a retired flight crash investigator who looked at my airplane debris
pictures years ago and his opinion of what he believed the parts where, you might find it interesting.
I also another flight investigator, a gentleman named Nelson, retired Air Force guy. I checked but
sorry I don't can't find his responses, but here's the one I still have.

Dear ScaffoldRider,

JFK asked me to take a look at your photos. Here's the best possible identification I can give you of what parts you are looking at and from where they originate within an aircraft. But of course, without the parts in-hand, I can't tell you SPECIFICALLY what engine model or what aircraft type they come from. Of the several military aircraft crash investigations I was involved in years ago, ya really have to 'untangle' and 'lay out' and 'measure ' and 'check partnos, sernos' etc to say SPECIFICALLY where thus and such part came from.

But from the photos, I CAN tell you this much:

Photos 059/060 - A mid to aft compressor rotor disk, missing its inner disk bore's counter-centrifugal balance land - the broach slots at the outer rim of this disk into which the blades are loaded indicates 'compressor mid-aft stage'.

Photo 61 - Zinc chromate painted (light green) part indicates it comes from somewheres within the aircraft's airframe mechanisms.

Photo 63 - Fan rotor/compressor rotor/low pressure turbine rotor shaft.

Photo 64 & 65 - High pressure turbine stator case with turbine clearance management air cooling duct still attached w/ hp turbine blade tip rub shrouds (loaded into case channels circumfrentially from case split lines)

Photo 66 - Appears to be some sort of thermal blanketed air duct.

Photo 68 - Appears to be a section of the lower landing gear strut w/ wheel truck torque link still attached.

Photos 69 thru 72 - Assuming these are all the same as Photo 68 - section of landing gear.

Photo 73 - I simply don't know.

Photos 74 & 75 - either Intermediate Pressure Fan stator casing OR mid to aft compressor stator casing w/vanes.

Photo 546 - Caulking gun w/orange handle. Computer hard card. Rain water drain pipe???

Photos 548 & 559 - nothing specific discernable to my eyes.

Thanks SO MUCH for sharing these photos with all of us. Kinda/sorta NICE to look at "fresh 9-11" stuff - well, at least this is the first time I've laid my eyes on these photos. Got to the point I was good and SICK & TIRED of looking a wreckage photos from here, there and everywhere else! <g>

- tocarm


Will try to respond as soon as I can, Thanks Louie

Posted by: questionitall May 21 2011, 04:18 PM

QUOTE (ScaffoldRider @ May 21 2011, 10:25 AM) *
Hi Questionitall,

The other night a watched those videos you mentioned, they were very interesting, especially
the videos from the woman who was in the Hilton Millenium Hotel on the 35th floor. I watched all
13 parts of video on YouTube but the she never filmed the roof of the Federal Building. I was really
hoping she did, it would have answered a question I have wondered about for many years. Were
the airplane debris I filmed on the upper roof "REALLY" planted? I know the exact spot where the
landing gear and would have been easily seen if that woman filmed the roof. I have pictures like
I told you that I took from the roofs of the Millenium and 1 Liberty Plaza, in one of those pictures
I can make out the landing gear. I'm sorry I'm limited to time right now, but promise as soon as I
will try to answer your questions. I have four videos posted on Architecture of the World, Glass,
Steel, and Stone. They are titled The Destruction, The People, The Clean Up, and the Night at
Ground Zero. Check out the "The Destruction" video especially. Here's the link to the feature
page where they are listed.

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Features.php

Plus I'm sure Sanders put all my airplane debris pictures somewhere in the library right here
on Pilots for Truth. If you can't find them I know Killtown has them all listed on his website.

Here's an email I received from a retired flight crash investigator who looked at my airplane debris
pictures years ago and his opinion of what he believed the parts where, you might find it interesting.
I also another flight investigator, a gentleman named Nelson, retired Air Force guy. I checked but
sorry I don't can't find his responses, but here's the one I still have.

Dear ScaffoldRider,

JFK asked me to take a look at your photos. Here's the best possible identification I can give you of what parts you are looking at and from where they originate within an aircraft. But of course, without the parts in-hand, I can't tell you SPECIFICALLY what engine model or what aircraft type they come from. Of the several military aircraft crash investigations I was involved in years ago, ya really have to 'untangle' and 'lay out' and 'measure ' and 'check partnos, sernos' etc to say SPECIFICALLY where thus and such part came from.

But from the photos, I CAN tell you this much:

Photos 059/060 - A mid to aft compressor rotor disk, missing its inner disk bore's counter-centrifugal balance land - the broach slots at the outer rim of this disk into which the blades are loaded indicates 'compressor mid-aft stage'.

Photo 61 - Zinc chromate painted (light green) part indicates it comes from somewheres within the aircraft's airframe mechanisms.

Photo 63 - Fan rotor/compressor rotor/low pressure turbine rotor shaft.

Photo 64 & 65 - High pressure turbine stator case with turbine clearance management air cooling duct still attached w/ hp turbine blade tip rub shrouds (loaded into case channels circumfrentially from case split lines)

Photo 66 - Appears to be some sort of thermal blanketed air duct.

Photo 68 - Appears to be a section of the lower landing gear strut w/ wheel truck torque link still attached.

Photos 69 thru 72 - Assuming these are all the same as Photo 68 - section of landing gear.

Photo 73 - I simply don't know.

Photos 74 & 75 - either Intermediate Pressure Fan stator casing OR mid to aft compressor stator casing w/vanes.

Photo 546 - Caulking gun w/orange handle. Computer hard card. Rain water drain pipe???

Photos 548 & 559 - nothing specific discernable to my eyes.

Thanks SO MUCH for sharing these photos with all of us. Kinda/sorta NICE to look at "fresh 9-11" stuff - well, at least this is the first time I've laid my eyes on these photos. Got to the point I was good and SICK & TIRED of looking a wreckage photos from here, there and everywhere else! <g>

- tocarm


Will try to respond as soon as I can, Thanks Louie



Hi Louie - thx for writing back again. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I have the distinct impression you feel I believe many more pieces of aircraft wreckage than the large piece of fuselage seen in the FEMA photograph and said to have been "discovered" on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 were planted at ground zero. If that is the case I assure you that is not what I believe - not in the least as a matter of fact.

I have seen most every alleged photograph of United Airlines flight 175 wreckage online and in no way do I contest those pieces of wreckage did not land where they were said to have been located and were ultimately photographed as such.

My research has to do with the wreckage supposedly discovered on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 by Mr. W. Gene Corley's WTC site team members and primarily that large piece seen in Mr. Corley's photograph. The reason being is it that wreckage alone emboldened Mr. Corley to state he knew full well and proved by it that UA175and proved full well UA175

Posted by: questionitall May 21 2011, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 21 2011, 04:18 PM) *


Oooops - finger trouble! Please ignore my last reply Louie as I'll try again to answer you. lol

Posted by: questionitall May 21 2011, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 21 2011, 04:18 PM) *
Hi Louie - thx for writing back again. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I have the distinct impression you feel I believe many more pieces of aircraft wreckage than the large piece of fuselage seen in the FEMA photograph and said to have been "discovered" on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 were planted at ground zero. If that is the case I assure you that is not what I believe - not in the least as a matter of fact.

I have seen most every alleged photograph of United Airlines flight 175 wreckage online and in no way do I contest those pieces of wreckage did not land where they were said to have been located and were ultimately photographed as such.

My research has to do with the wreckage supposedly discovered on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5 by Mr. W. Gene Corley's WTC site team members and primarily that large piece seen in Mr. Corley's photograph. The reason being is it that wreckage alone emboldened Mr. Corley to state he knew full well and proved by it that UA175and proved full well UA175


Oooops - finger trouble there Louie - As I was trying to say Louie I have seen most every alleged photograph of United Airlines flight 175 wreckage online and in no way do I contest those pieces of wreckage did not land where they were said to have been located and were ultimately photographed as such. I only take exception to Mr. W. Gene Corley having stated matter-of-factly his WTC site team members discovered that wreckage on the rooftop of World Trade Center 5. The reason I take great exception to that fraud being is due to the fact that wreckage is known to have been counterfeited and it clearly was never there to begin with, as noted in Tami Michaels’s video footage and Natasha Sealy’s photograph. Yet we’re to believe Mr. Corley knew full well UA175 crashed into WTC 2 - he proved no such thing.
What I find exceptionally repugnant and unacceptable about the entire affair is while it’s well known all the other (serialized) aircraft wreckage was spirited away and destroyed that one photograph by Mr. Corley was deliberately released into the public domain in order to perpetuate the official 9/11 lie and by doing so that false evidence validated an illegal invasion of Iraq which lead to the needless deaths of countless more naive and unsuspecting individuals.
Likewise Louie I’ll respond to your questions and lasr reply in full, once I’ve cooled off a little.
Respectfully
DEN

Posted by: ScaffoldRider May 21 2011, 08:21 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 20 2011, 09:53 PM) *
For instance you stated “The crew I was working with was informed not to move anything that looked like airplane debris or anything spray painted yellow.” I’m curious to know, if you were told that directly to your face by an FBI or NTSB agent do you remember their name(s) and the date they told you that and what reason did they give you?


An FBI agent and the Postal Inspector came on the 7th floor setback roof, sorry don't know their names. The FBI agent ask me for my name and what company I was working for, he wrote it all
down. I don't recall the exact conversation, but it was something to the affect, that I wasn't supposed
to touch anything on the roof. I told him, I saw posters saying if you found any airplane debris to
bring it to the FBI or notify them. He wanted to know exactly where I found the part and I showed
him. The FBI agent told me that they knew where everything on the roof was and that they had
spray painted all the airplane debris with yellow paint and that everything was left there for a reason.
He called all the crew and he told everyone to please don't move anything spray painted yellow or looked like airplane parts. If something was in our way of rigging the roof and had to be moved to
just let them know. The date I'm not positive about, I worked on 1 Liberty Plaza on the 18th and 19th,
the Century 21 Building the 20th and 21st, the Millenium Hotel for I think 3 or 4 days, so I would say
we started the Federal Building on the 24th or 25th of September.
Later on that morning near lunch time one of the elevator guys of the Federal Building told me that
there was airplane debris all over the top roof of the building. I told him I'd love to get up there and
see them, the elevator guy said the FBI didn't want anyone up there. I was so curious I sneaked up
to the top roof and there was no one around so I ran all around the roof looking for the airplane parts.
I was the landing gear right a way and started taking pictures then I found more airplane debris on
the other side of the roof. I took the pictures very quickly because I didn't want to get caught with
the camera. I knew they would have taken my camera and all my rolls of film. I could easily
explain for being on the roof, all I had to say I was checking out a place to run my rigging cables.
I went right back to the lower roof and told some of the guys of all the airplane debris on the upper
roof. I know one or two of the guys sneaked up there and took a few pictures also.



QUOTE (questionitall @ May 20 2011, 09:53 PM) *
Do you know for sure that "yellow" was an NTSB color code designating aircraft parts while the red seen on everything else was an FBI color code? I see the red spray painted everywhere on the buildings, garbage containers and building debris but never on the aircraft parts.


I have no idea if "yellow" was the color code for the NTSA designating aircraft parts. All I remember
is what the FBI agent told me. The thing is that some of the airplane debris is photographed I didn't
see the yellow spray paint but somethings were especially on the lower 7th floor setback roof. Here's
one piece of airplane debris that was embedded in the lower roof spray painted yellow.








QUOTE (questionitall @ May 20 2011, 09:53 PM) *
I ask these questions because if you started cleaning up at ground zero on September 18, 2001 and you found the aircraft "hydraulic piston" already spray painted yellow that proves the FBI and NTSB had been on the rooftops no later than the date mentioned. That's an important fact because it shows both the FBI and the NTSB surely would have known of the existense of Mr. Corley's aircraft fuselage wreckage as well then.


As I mentioned above, I found the "hydraulic piston" on the lower roof on the morning of September
24th or 25th. Plus I don't remember that part being spray painted yellow, it could have been put I don't
recall. Just so you know, there was people on all those roofs while I was there. The hazmat team
came on the Century 21 Building lower setback roof the day the crane boomed my scaffolds up to me.
The hazmat team had 3 dogs and I talked to one of the handlers and asked why 3 dogs. He told
me each dog has a specific job. One of the dogs started sniffing my work bucket, they asked me
what was in the bucket and I told them my tools and a great Italian hero from the Bronx. When I
took the hero out of the bucket they all laughed. Then one of the team found something on one of the parapet walls and asked us to please leave the roof. After about 2 hours they told me it was all
right to go back on the roof. I learned they had found human skin and something else which they
gathered for DNA.

I watched that video from the NTSA and Mr. Corley's. It's clear they cut something from the video.
At 9:05 the video show them filming a control panel or power box then the next second 9:06 the
video goes directly to the aircraft fuselage wreckage. It's just so obvious, did you notice that?
I have seen these pictures of the fuselage years ago. It was my understand that the fuselage
wasn't found where it was filmed. I think a few pieces were found and placed by the staircase
steps and filmed there. There's been many discussions throughout the years dealing with this
parts. I don't know why they used these pictures and never used any of the airplane debris
I photographed. My pictures have never been released by the NTSA, FBI, or the 9/11 Commission.
There's never been a parts/serial numbers released for any of the airplane debris and that's very
criminal in my opinion. Every crash site airplane debris is all filmed and collected, with all parts/
serial numbers registered to confirm the exact identification of the aircraft. I'm surprised no one
has ever filed a FOI request for the release of all the airplane debris found at the Federal Building,
they can't deny the parts don't exist or weren't filmed by the NTSA or FBI. And where is the dumpster
that was on Liberty St that only had airplane debris in it? They put all airplane debris in that small
dumpster, everyday I would walk pass it and look in it, there wasn't much but there was things in there.

Well Den, I hope I was of some help with my answers. If you have anymore just let me know and
I'll try to answer the best I can recall. There has been so many lies by the government concerning
9/11 that I don't know if we'll ever know the complete Truth. All I know is only an independent
new investigation "might' give us some answers, but these criminals will never let the total
truth see the light of day. If they didn't have any fear of killing thousands of innocent people
they wouldn't stop at anything. Thanks Again Louie

Posted by: questionitall May 21 2011, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (ScaffoldRider @ May 21 2011, 08:21 PM) *
An FBI agent and the Postal Inspector came on the 7th floor setback roof, sorry don't know their names. The FBI agent ask me for my name and what company I was working for, he wrote it all
down. I don't recall the exact conversation, but it was something to the affect, that I wasn't supposed
to touch anything on the roof. I told him, I saw posters saying if you found any airplane debris to
bring it to the FBI or notify them. He wanted to know exactly where I found the part and I showed
him. The FBI agent told me that they knew where everything on the roof was and that they had
spray painted all the airplane debris with yellow paint and that everything was left there for a reason.
He called all the crew and he told everyone to please don't move anything spray painted yellow or looked like airplane parts. If something was in our way of rigging the roof and had to be moved to
just let them know. The date I'm not positive about, I worked on 1 Liberty Plaza on the 18th and 19th,
the Century 21 Building the 20th and 21st, the Millenium Hotel for I think 3 or 4 days, so I would say
we started the Federal Building on the 24th or 25th of September.
Later on that morning near lunch time one of the elevator guys of the Federal Building told me that
there was airplane debris all over the top roof of the building. I told him I'd love to get up there and
see them, the elevator guy said the FBI didn't want anyone up there. I was so curious I sneaked up
to the top roof and there was no one around so I ran all around the roof looking for the airplane parts.
I was the landing gear right a way and started taking pictures then I found more airplane debris on
the other side of the roof. I took the pictures very quickly because I didn't want to get caught with
the camera. I knew they would have taken my camera and all my rolls of film. I could easily
explain for being on the roof, all I had to say I was checking out a place to run my rigging cables.
I went right back to the lower roof and told some of the guys of all the airplane debris on the upper
roof. I know one or two of the guys sneaked up there and took a few pictures also.





I have no idea if "yellow" was the color code for the NTSA designating aircraft parts. All I remember
is what the FBI agent told me. The thing is that some of the airplane debris is photographed I didn't
see the yellow spray paint but somethings were especially on the lower 7th floor setback roof. Here's
one piece of airplane debris that was embedded in the lower roof spray painted yellow.










As I mentioned above, I found the "hydraulic piston" on the lower roof on the morning of September
24th or 25th. Plus I don't remember that part being spray painted yellow, it could have been put I don't
recall. Just so you know, there was people on all those roofs while I was there. The hazmat team
came on the Century 21 Building lower setback roof the day the crane boomed my scaffolds up to me.
The hazmat team had 3 dogs and I talked to one of the handlers and asked why 3 dogs. He told
me each dog has a specific job. One of the dogs started sniffing my work bucket, they asked me
what was in the bucket and I told them my tools and a great Italian hero from the Bronx. When I
took the hero out of the bucket they all laughed. Then one of the team found something on one of the parapet walls and asked us to please leave the roof. After about 2 hours they told me it was all
right to go back on the roof. I learned they had found human skin and something else which they
gathered for DNA.

I watched that video from the NTSA and Mr. Corley's. It's clear they cut something from the video.
At 9:05 the video show them filming a control panel or power box then the next second 9:06 the
video goes directly to the aircraft fuselage wreckage. It's just so obvious, did you notice that?
I have seen these pictures of the fuselage years ago. It was my understand that the fuselage
wasn't found where it was filmed. I think a few pieces were found and placed by the staircase
steps and filmed there. There's been many discussions throughout the years dealing with this
parts. I don't know why they used these pictures and never used any of the airplane debris
I photographed. My pictures have never been released by the NTSA, FBI, or the 9/11 Commission.
There's never been a parts/serial numbers released for any of the airplane debris and that's very
criminal in my opinion. Every crash site airplane debris is all filmed and collected, with all parts/
serial numbers registered to confirm the exact identification of the aircraft. I'm surprised no one
has ever filed a FOI request for the release of all the airplane debris found at the Federal Building,
they can't deny the parts don't exist or weren't filmed by the NTSA or FBI. And where is the dumpster
that was on Liberty St that only had airplane debris in it? They put all airplane debris in that small
dumpster, everyday I would walk pass it and look in it, there wasn't much but there was things in there.

Well Den, I hope I was of some help with my answers. If you have anymore just let me know and
I'll try to answer the best I can recall. There has been so many lies by the government concerning
9/11 that I don't know if we'll ever know the complete Truth. All I know is only an independent
new investigation "might' give us some answers, but these criminals will never let the total
truth see the light of day. If they didn't have any fear of killing thousands of innocent people
they wouldn't stop at anything. Thanks Again Louie



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

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

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

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

Posted by: amazed! May 22 2011, 04:34 PM

Question

I'm just lurking, and I think I follow what you're saying.

Regarding the wreckage photographed on top of WTC5, when you say 'planted' do you mean physically planted, or digitally planted, by high tech computer graphics and such?

Posted by: questionitall May 23 2011, 10:31 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 22 2011, 04:34 PM) *
Question

I'm just lurking, and I think I follow what you're saying.

Regarding the wreckage photographed on top of WTC5, when you say 'planted' do you mean physically planted, or digitally planted, by high tech computer graphics and such?


Both!

Posted by: questionitall Jun 1 2011, 05:01 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ May 23 2011, 10:31 AM) *
Both!


Hello again "amazed!"...after teresly responding to you with my answer (Both!) I've given this entire business a great deal of thought and I've since realized I'm done with my 9/11 research. I apologize for my blowing you off like that and it has nothing to do with you - do understand I've been at this a very long time and it's taken a terrific toll on my mental health and general well-being...I have no patience for answering to the criticism of others on this issue any longer and I won't waste another minute of my life explaining why I know with all certainty specific individuals within government agencies sat idly by and with foreknowlegde they allowed 9/11 to go off without a hitch!

I've posted video footage and photographs at Flickr and I will continue to do so as new evidence makes its way to me but as for contributing to this thread and/or responding to questions and defending my beliefs and accomplishments here I'm done with that...take care.

Here is the main ink to those videos and photographs...http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/

Here's the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y) to the very damning segment of Gary Steficek video footage "WTC 5 NIST INSPECTION FOIA PART 3" which I mention there at Flickr. This video footage was part of the NIST Cumulus dataset release #28, file ...at approximately 8:40 the camrea pans to the right and past the word "airplane" spray painted in red on the debris and at the 9:06 mark the camera pans back over the aircraft wreckage itself.



Posted by: amazed! Jun 1 2011, 03:20 PM

Question

Thanks for the latest comments and all your work. I have very thick skin and do not take posts personally, unless it's clearly intended that way. Yours was not. I am never offended by short answers, and actually like them better, sometimes, than lengthy ones.

As for the planted evidence in NYC, that is planted airplane parts and pieces, I am somewhat skeptical.

That is, I think the logistics of actually moving landing gear and fuselage pieces into place on rooftops and elsewhere would have been considerable and would render the attempt almost impossible.

The landing gear and engine pieces down on the street are one thing, but that big piece up on the roof of WTC 5 are quite another. Having worked in aviation all my life, I just cannot imagine how that piece would have been placed on the roof without all sorts of people seeing the operation.

My 2 cents.

Posted by: questionitall Jun 9 2011, 03:40 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 1 2011, 03:20 PM) *
Question

Thanks for the latest comments and all your work. I have very thick skin and do not take posts personally, unless it's clearly intended that way. Yours was not. I am never offended by short answers, and actually like them better, sometimes, than lengthy ones.

As for the planted evidence in NYC, that is planted airplane parts and pieces, I am somewhat skeptical.

That is, I think the logistics of actually moving landing gear and fuselage pieces into place on rooftops and elsewhere would have been considerable and would render the attempt almost impossible.

The landing gear and engine pieces down on the street are one thing, but that big piece up on the roof of WTC 5 are quite another. Having worked in aviation all my life, I just cannot imagine how that piece would have been placed on the roof without all sorts of people seeing the operation.

My 2 cents.



Amazed - with all due respect the fact you remain sceptical of the NIST evidence showing the “big piece” of aircraft fuselage was never there on the rooftop of WTC 5 to begin with well that admission doesn’t surprise me in the least. In fact most people have proven to me they’re incapable of reasoning the facts as I’ve presented them. Although I’m merely the messenger and not a professional crime scene forensics investigator remember my opinion the FEMA/ASCE aircraft wreckage was in fact “planted” is based on the logical analysis of the official evidence therein the NIST Cumulus dataset, therefore you can disagree with me all you want but the fact remains the demise of United Airlines flight 175 on 9/11 was never proven to be the case and therefore much needs to be answered for.

Had I known my choice of the word “planted” would befuddle so many I would have used a word less prone to misinterpretation when describing what the offical UA175 evidence actually reveals but the fact remains the word [planted] is defined as “Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information that has been created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict…also suppressing evidence is considered a similar criminal act…” Based on what the falsified FEMA/ASCE photograph [12390] belies of Mr. W. Gene Corley’s investigator’s inferences made to the offending aircraft throughout the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study and due to the fact all serialized aircraft components of both aircraft at ground zero were sequestered and never subjected to rigorous forensic analysis by a third party investigation I’d say the word “planted” applies quite handily.

Therefore the sum total of everything I’ve explained and backed-up via the evidentiary proof therein the NIST Cumulus dataset and elsewhere amounts to conspiracy fact and not conspiracy theory as you’ve intimated.
Indeed the fact remains the official photographic evidence depicting the alleged United Airlines flight 175 wreckage was in fact falsified. What’s more it cannot possibly represent what it claims to and for the simple reason being the small piece of wreckage with the remnant of aircraft registration number on it does not physically match the area of fuselage of any Boeing 767 airframe let alone (N612UA). So yes, I find it all highly irregular indeed and there’s every reason to suspect subterfuge on the part of complicit investigators who played a hand in covering-up exactly which aircraft crashed into the twin towers. As for your trepidation in believing that to be the case I could go on explaining the reasons why it is but I’ve said it all, so let’s just say I do not believe “you follow what I’m saying.”

What's more then and in response to your intimated accusation I’ve NEVER suggested multiple pieces of landing gear, engine and fuselage were moved into place on the streets and/or the rooftops at ground zero. What I’ve said throughout my writings is there’s every indication the “big piece” as you've described it had been spirited onto the rooftop of WTC 5 by way of one of the clear stairwells described in the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS! That being the same corridor the multitude of search and rescue volunteers, FBI agents, NTSB and FEMA/ASCE investigators reached the rooftop by. Similarly then I’ve NEVER once suggested aircraft did not crash into the twin towers on 9/11 as others have suggested and likewise then I’ve NEVER stated wreckage from those aircraft did not land on the rooftops as a result of one of them impacting WTC 2! In fact I’ve always insisted pieces of wreckage both big and small were rounded up from other areas on the rooftop of WTC 5 and systematically arranged together to give the impression of one large piece of aircraft wreckage from a specific area of that airframe. Hence that montage of physical “bits” of aircraft wreckage (as shown in the image Copyofplanepartrf20-full) that was photographed and later altered in the photo lab in such a way as to conjure into existence explicit proof of UA175 having crashed into WTC 2. As the Photoshop falsified aircraft registration number seen on the aircraft wreckage in the FEMA/ASCE photograph (12390) attests. How else do you explain how the wreckage appears in the video footage WTC5 NIST INSPECTION FOIA PART 3 attributed to Gary Steficek and located online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y as compared to the FEMA photograph?

So let it be known I do not subscribe to the absurd point of view every last piece of wreckage was planted at ground zero, if for no other reason there wasn’t any need for the investigators to go to all that effort to stage the massively complex and overtly risky hoax you alone suggest here! What I maintain is United Airlines flight 175 and American Airlines flight 11 were never actually proven to have been the offending aircraft destroyed the morning of September 11, 2001 and that’s because all of the known serialized aircraft components recovered at ground zero were spirited away and summarily destroyed. That is the point to my research and I insist they were destroyed for obvious reason – meanwhile the FEMA/ASCE investigators and their leaders arrived at the conclusion UA175 and AA11 as well everyone aboard them met their demise at ground zero on 9/11 and how did they reach that momentous conclusion you ask…they did so merely from reviewing video footage and photographs, well after the fact no less! I say BULLSHIT to that!

Besides, with every last serialized aircraft component sequestered by the FBI and NTSB in the immediate aftermath of the attacks and the lay public not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground to begin with, any piece of wreckage resembling an aircraft then would suffice to sway the 9/11 Commissioner’s and thereby crystallize public opinion on the matter of what aircraft crashed into the twin towers. Knowing that I say the WTC site investigators simply imported the “big piece” of aircraft wreckage from elsewhere, thereby planting it on the rooftop of WTC 5 and subsequently photographing it, so too they later falsified those images with the help of Adobe Photoshop. As the image (12390) in the FEMA Photo Library http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5784430415/in/photostream makes abundantly clear! Plain and simple that piece of wreckage certainly didn’t fall from the sky and spontaneously settle where it was photographed by the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigators! The Natasha Sealy-Fraser’s image located at http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5784432101/in/photostream makes that abundantly clear.

So yes, I couldn’t disagree with you more - not on the matter of the considerable coordinated effort and/or stealth it would have taken to get anything of that size onto the rooftop but rather then because that “big piece” (as seen in HQ_WTC5_GARY) is not shown on the rooftop of WTC 5 in any other NIST Cumulus dataset body of evidence!

With all said and done quite honestly then I fail to make the connection between your stating you’ve “worked in aviation all your life” and “I just can’t imagine how that piece would have been placed on the roof without all sorts of people seeing the operation.” By that statement I’ll assume you’re an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer or an Aircraft Structures Technician and that being the case you are also aware that “big piece” of aluminum aircraft fuselage wreckage would have weighed approximately 50-60 pounds I’d say but no more than 75 pounds maximum. That being the case two people with incentive and determination could have readily manhandled it onto the rooftop by themselves via one of the aforementioned staircases leading to the rooftop and in the course of an evening.
So while I’m curious to know how you arrived at the conclusion the piece of wreckage could not have been planted and with respect to your choice to ignore what I’ve written of the FEMA/ASCE ground zero aircraft evidence well that is your prerogative, but...to deny the obvious here while like-minded individuals managed to make their way into the heartland of Pakistan fully detected and yet successfully assassinated Bin Laden anyways well surely they could have planted a little justification/evidence for that along the way.

The entire point to my research then is to show complicit individuals in authority did just that and all in order to suppress the true origins and identity of the “Military” aircraft that were crashed into the twin towers. Yes, I believe those aircraft had been Military in character but regardless - although I’ve not yet been able to prove beyond all doubt the bulk of the large piece of aircraft wreckage seen in the FEMA/ASCE photograph [12390] had in fact been spirited onto the rooftop of WTC 5 from elsewhere but no matter then I say. The fact is in the course of my research not once have my accusations towards the investigators been proven unfounded and just the known examples of their having tampered with evidence affords that opinion and my hypothesis considerable legitimacy. What’s more then no other photograph [and not one with a credible chain of custody leading to either aforementioned aircraft] has ever surfaced that disproves my accusations.

So there’s no doubt then [amazed] what I’m firmly convinced of is two medium, Wide-body Boeing 767 aircraft crashed into the twin towers on 9/11 and their wreckage was strewn far and wide, however. Due to the unimpeachable evidence I've presented throughout my research and in light of the similar opinions of a good many professional pilots and engineers who are far and away more knowledgeable than myself I've no doubt then and have no problem stating for the record there’s no way in hell the aircraft destroyed at ground zero that day were commercial aircraft. What’s more I maintain the FEMA/ASCE investigators who stand by that opinion are either liars or fools for saying as much and more to the point, there’s no way in hell the authorities could have orchestrated such a venture let alone actually carried out the planting of engines and landing gear along with wheels, brakes and all manner of large and indestructible components all over Lower Manhattan that day, in broad daylight to boot!!!

So I say if the government has genuine/uncensored/unaltered photographs and video footage of the same aircraft wreckage to prove me wrong then I dare the bastards to release that information into the public domain and let the consensus of public opinion be my judge and jury.










Posted by: questionitall Jun 9 2011, 03:46 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jun 9 2011, 03:40 AM) *
Amazed - with all due respect the fact you remain sceptical of the NIST evidence showing the “big piece” of aircraft fuselage was never there on the rooftop of WTC 5 to begin with well that admission doesn’t surprise me in the least. In fact most people have proven to me they’re incapable of reasoning the facts as I’ve presented them. Although I’m merely the messenger and not a professional crime scene forensics investigator remember my opinion the FEMA/ASCE aircraft wreckage was in fact “planted” is based on the logical analysis of the official evidence therein the NIST Cumulus dataset, therefore you can disagree with me all you want but the fact remains the demise of United Airlines flight 175 on 9/11 was never proven to be the case and therefore much needs to be answered for.

Had I known my choice of the word “planted” would befuddle so many I would have used a word less prone to misinterpretation when describing what the offical UA175 evidence actually reveals but the fact remains the word [planted] is defined as “Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information that has been created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict…also suppressing evidence is considered a similar criminal act…” Based on what the falsified FEMA/ASCE photograph [12390] belies of Mr. W. Gene Corley’s investigator’s inferences made to the offending aircraft throughout the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study and due to the fact all serialized aircraft components of both aircraft at ground zero were sequestered and never subjected to rigorous forensic analysis by a third party investigation I’d say the word “planted” applies quite handily.

Therefore the sum total of everything I’ve explained and backed-up via the evidentiary proof therein the NIST Cumulus dataset and elsewhere amounts to conspiracy fact and not conspiracy theory as you’ve intimated.
Indeed the fact remains the official photographic evidence depicting the alleged United Airlines flight 175 wreckage was in fact falsified. What’s more it cannot possibly represent what it claims to and for the simple reason being the small piece of wreckage with the remnant of aircraft registration number on it does not physically match the area of fuselage of any Boeing 767 airframe let alone (N612UA). So yes, I find it all highly irregular indeed and there’s every reason to suspect subterfuge on the part of complicit investigators who played a hand in covering-up exactly which aircraft crashed into the twin towers. As for your trepidation in believing that to be the case I could go on explaining the reasons why it is but I’ve said it all, so let’s just say I do not believe “you follow what I’m saying.”

What's more then and in response to your intimated accusation I’ve NEVER suggested multiple pieces of landing gear, engine and fuselage were moved into place on the streets and/or the rooftops at ground zero. What I’ve said throughout my writings is there’s every indication the “big piece” as you've described it had been spirited onto the rooftop of WTC 5 by way of one of the clear stairwells described in the May 1, 2002 WTC BPS! That being the same corridor the multitude of search and rescue volunteers, FBI agents, NTSB and FEMA/ASCE investigators reached the rooftop by. Similarly then I’ve NEVER once suggested aircraft did not crash into the twin towers on 9/11 as others have suggested and likewise then I’ve NEVER stated wreckage from those aircraft did not land on the rooftops as a result of one of them impacting WTC 2! In fact I’ve always insisted pieces of wreckage both big and small were rounded up from other areas on the rooftop of WTC 5 and systematically arranged together to give the impression of one large piece of aircraft wreckage from a specific area of that airframe. Hence that montage of physical “bits” of aircraft wreckage (as shown in the image Copyofplanepartrf20-full) that was photographed and later altered in the photo lab in such a way as to conjure into existence explicit proof of UA175 having crashed into WTC 2. As the Photoshop falsified aircraft registration number seen on the aircraft wreckage in the FEMA/ASCE photograph (12390) attests. How else do you explain how the wreckage appears in the video footage WTC5 NIST INSPECTION FOIA PART 3 attributed to Gary Steficek and located online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz70AbD5W5Y as compared to the FEMA photograph?

So let it be known I do not subscribe to the absurd point of view every last piece of wreckage was planted at ground zero, if for no other reason there wasn’t any need for the investigators to go to all that effort to stage the massively complex and overtly risky hoax you alone suggest here! What I maintain is United Airlines flight 175 and American Airlines flight 11 were never actually proven to have been the offending aircraft destroyed the morning of September 11, 2001 and that’s because all of the known serialized aircraft components recovered at ground zero were spirited away and summarily destroyed. That is the point to my research and I insist they were destroyed for obvious reason – meanwhile the FEMA/ASCE investigators and their leaders arrived at the conclusion UA175 and AA11 as well everyone aboard them met their demise at ground zero on 9/11 and how did they reach that momentous conclusion you ask…they did so merely from reviewing video footage and photographs, well after the fact no less! I say BULLSHIT to that!

Besides, with every last serialized aircraft component sequestered by the FBI and NTSB in the immediate aftermath of the attacks and the lay public not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground to begin with, any piece of wreckage resembling an aircraft then would suffice to sway the 9/11 Commissioner’s and thereby crystallize public opinion on the matter of what aircraft crashed into the twin towers. Knowing that I say the WTC site investigators simply imported the “big piece” of aircraft wreckage from elsewhere, thereby planting it on the rooftop of WTC 5 and subsequently photographing it, so too they later falsified those images with the help of Adobe Photoshop. As the image (12390) in the FEMA Photo Library http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5784430415/in/photostream makes abundantly clear! Plain and simple that piece of wreckage certainly didn’t fall from the sky and spontaneously settle where it was photographed by the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigators! The Natasha Sealy-Fraser’s image located at http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5784432101/in/photostream makes that abundantly clear.

So yes, I couldn’t disagree with you more - not on the matter of the considerable coordinated effort and/or stealth it would have taken to get anything of that size onto the rooftop but rather then because that “big piece” (as seen in HQ_WTC5_GARY) is not shown on the rooftop of WTC 5 in any other NIST Cumulus dataset body of evidence!

With all said and done quite honestly then I fail to make the connection between your stating you’ve “worked in aviation all your life” and “I just can’t imagine how that piece would have been placed on the roof without all sorts of people seeing the operation.” By that statement I’ll assume you’re an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer or an Aircraft Structures Technician and that being the case you are also aware that “big piece” of aluminum aircraft fuselage wreckage would have weighed approximately 50-60 pounds I’d say but no more than 75 pounds maximum. That being the case two people with incentive and determination could have readily manhandled it onto the rooftop by themselves via one of the aforementioned staircases leading to the rooftop and in the course of an evening.
So while I’m curious to know how you arrived at the conclusion the piece of wreckage could not have been planted and with respect to your choice to ignore what I’ve written of the FEMA/ASCE ground zero aircraft evidence well that is your prerogative, but...to deny the obvious here while like-minded individuals managed to make their way into the heartland of Pakistan fully detected and yet successfully assassinated Bin Laden anyways well surely they could have planted a little justification/evidence for that along the way.

The entire point to my research then is to show complicit individuals in authority did just that and all in order to suppress the true origins and identity of the “Military” aircraft that were crashed into the twin towers. Yes, I believe those aircraft had been Military in character but regardless - although I’ve not yet been able to prove beyond all doubt the bulk of the large piece of aircraft wreckage seen in the FEMA/ASCE photograph [12390] had in fact been spirited onto the rooftop of WTC 5 from elsewhere but no matter then I say. The fact is in the course of my research not once have my accusations towards the investigators been proven unfounded and just the known examples of their having tampered with evidence affords that opinion and my hypothesis considerable legitimacy. What’s more then no other photograph [and not one with a credible chain of custody leading to either aforementioned aircraft] has ever surfaced that disproves my accusations.

So there’s no doubt then [amazed] what I’m firmly convinced of is two medium, Wide-body Boeing 767 aircraft crashed into the twin towers on 9/11 and their wreckage was strewn far and wide, however. Due to the unimpeachable evidence I've presented throughout my research and in light of the similar opinions of a good many professional pilots and engineers who are far and away more knowledgeable than myself I've no doubt then and have no problem stating for the record there’s no way in hell the aircraft destroyed at ground zero that day were commercial aircraft. What’s more I maintain the FEMA/ASCE investigators who stand by that opinion are either liars or fools for saying as much and more to the point, there’s no way in hell the authorities could have orchestrated such a venture let alone actually carried out the planting of engines and landing gear along with wheels, brakes and all manner of large and indestructible components all over Lower Manhattan that day, in broad daylight to boot!!!

So I say if the government has genuine/uncensored/unaltered photographs and video footage of the same aircraft wreckage to prove me wrong then I dare the bastards to release that information into the public domain and let the consensus of public opinion be my judge and jury.



This site is acting up and my latest post appears fractured and unreadable as a result but you get the point I'm sure.

Posted by: questionitall Jun 9 2011, 03:48 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jun 9 2011, 03:46 AM) *
This site is acting up and my latest post appears fractured and unreadable as a result but you get the point I'm sure.



Everthing you need to know is at Flickr...simply search 911truthforall and you will find it I'm sure.

Posted by: questionitall Jun 9 2011, 03:54 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jun 9 2011, 03:48 AM) *
Everthing you need to know is at Flickr...simply search 911truthforall and you will find it I'm sure.


Pardon me, my bad...I meant to say Questionitall at Flickr.

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 9 2011, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jun 9 2011, 05:24 PM) *
Pardon me, my bad...I meant to say Questionitall at Flickr.


Dear questionitall

I am so pleased 'you didn't spit the dummy' altogether. lol

I must say to you that I do feel you are very much on the mark with what you have been saying.

There is one part though, where, whilst you have been pretty scathing of me, you may stand to learn some things which will make your case even stronger.

Continued work on the images contained in the videos, and still photographs, of the aircraft said to have impacted tower two, has brought further consideration to light.

Be assured the image of the aircraft contained in the videos and the photographs is not the actual aircraft that hit the tower, a very pleasing conclusion I have definitely come too, is that it was not a DC10 or KC10 Extender, which was a very distressing consideration, particularly with the KC10 still an active service aircraft, but either by clumsiness or intent those who were involved in reshaping the image of the true aircraft involved used a combination of image, with Boeing 767 300, part of that.

You asked me previously what I considered the aircraft to be, I did not answer you under the circumstances, as much as anything else because I wanted to progress the research further before saying anything further.

Very soon I will be placing a video on Youtube to demonstrate the further consideration, it will be there for you, and any body else who may be interested to consider it, it is all that can be done, and asked.

Robert

Posted by: amazed! Jun 9 2011, 03:16 PM

Question

As I mentioned previously, I do not take any post personally, unless it is clearly intended otherwise.

I expect reciprocity from others.

I did not ACCUSE you of anything sir, I ended most of my statements with question marks (?) indicating I was asking questions about your rather lengthy posts.

As best I can tell, you and I are substantially in agreement--we both understand that the official story is bullshit. Which is to say that the various government "investigators" were not really investigating, but just going through the motions. Their "reports" were merely paperwork reflecting what they had been told to say.

As for the pictures of fuselage on the rooftop, I had long suspected the photo was fake. We agree on that.

Chill dude, I appreciate your input and have no reason to attack you or accuse you of anything.

Posted by: questionitall Jun 9 2011, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 9 2011, 03:16 PM) *
Question

As I mentioned previously, I do not take any post personally, unless it is clearly intended otherwise.

I expect reciprocity from others.

I did not ACCUSE you of anything sir, I ended most of my statements with question marks (?) indicating I was asking questions about your rather lengthy posts.

As best I can tell, you and I are substantially in agreement--we both understand that the official story is bullshit. Which is to say that the various government "investigators" were not really investigating, but just going through the motions. Their "reports" were merely paperwork reflecting what they had been told to say.

As for the pictures of fuselage on the rooftop, I had long suspected the photo was fake. We agree on that.

Chill dude, I appreciate your input and have no reason to attack you or accuse you of anything.


Amazed - with all due respect you understand I've been at this research a very long time and I know what I'm talking about. When people come along out of the blue and challenge what I know is fact I get testy to say the least, as 21Investigator found out at my previous UA175last month.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 9 2011, 09:24 PM

I never suggested otherwise Q

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

Posted by: questionitall Jun 10 2011, 11:47 PM

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

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


Say what?

Posted by: amazed! Jun 11 2011, 10:07 AM

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

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

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

Posted by: questionitall Jun 11 2011, 08:44 PM

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

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

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


Not at all...I was simply confused by your previous statement and the use of the term "Q" that's all, but judging by your attitude here I realize I don't really have any desire to further our conversation. Take care.

Posted by: questionitall Jun 11 2011, 11:37 PM

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

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

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

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


Hello Louie - If you' re reading this and you wouldn't mind getting touch with me privately please let me know and I'll arrange that to happen. Take care.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 12 2011, 09:31 PM

Well it seems you are NOT a Star Trek fan.

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

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

Posted by: questionitall Jun 16 2011, 01:21 AM

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

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

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



.

Posted by: questionitall Jun 21 2011, 09:49 PM


JUNE 21, 2011 UPDATE!!!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



There is more to come but when I have time to post it...Peace and Respect



Posted by: amazed! Jun 22 2011, 05:21 PM

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

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

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

Transgression? You might commit a transgression?

Hull failure, or structural failure?

I guess I'm waiting with bated breath.... blink.gif

Posted by: questionitall Jun 22 2011, 06:32 PM

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



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

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

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


Peace and Respect

Posted by: amazed! Jun 23 2011, 02:28 PM

Peace & respect, but no answers..... whistle.gif

Posted by: questionitall Jun 25 2011, 10:29 PM

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

Peace and Respect.

DSC00478
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857328812/in/photostream
Having recently discovered this image in the NIST Cumulus dataset, Release _32, File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 I have to say specific details about his piece of wreckage do not sit well with me. The reason being is this image differs considerably from the photograph Copyofplanepartsrf20-full and the FEMA photograph 112390 - the only image of this alleged UA175 wreckage to ever have been published in all of the official WTC BPS record. For example, a case in point is the fact the much smaller piece of aircraft wreckage on the left is propping up the larger piece of wreckage on the right, much like it appears in the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY - another exhibit with an impeccable chain of custody.

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

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

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

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

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

Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5.

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

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

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

12390

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

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

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

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

Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyofplanepartrf20-full

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABC Dub7 13

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

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

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

LGI_47

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

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

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

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

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

LGI_37 (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

99CHU~18

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

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

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

IMG-3226

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858154979/in/photostream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMG_3235

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

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

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

IMG_3191

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

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

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

IMG_3194

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

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

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

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

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

IMG_3227

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5866355430/in/photostream

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

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

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

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

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

DSC00478 (Hi-Lok)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5865803327/in/photostream

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

According to the Aircraft Structures Technicians whom I get my Boeing 767 technical advice from solid rivets are typically used in this location, on both the left and the right side upper and lower horizontal stringers of the Boeing 767 airframe, yet clearly the fasteners used on this assembly are not solid rivets. There's no doubt the fasteners shown here are Hi-Lok's and not solid rivets and yet the fasteners used in the same location as this on the horizontal stringers shown in the photographs I'd taken of the Boeing 767 and especially the image IMG_3227 makes that point very clear.


Posted by: questionitall Jul 4 2011, 02:29 PM

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posted by: amazed! Jul 4 2011, 03:27 PM

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

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


Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 5 2011, 08:22 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



questionitall, please learn something here:

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

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

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

sure sign of 'weakness'.

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

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

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

you have done a sterling job proving this fact. smile.gif








Posted by: amazed! Jul 5 2011, 04:28 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: 23investigator Jul 6 2011, 06:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dear amazed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert



Posted by: amazed! Jul 6 2011, 09:07 AM

Thanks Robert.

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

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

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

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

Early on in my awakening, I did believe that parts of the fuselage ended up atop WTC5, but as my understanding evolved, I no longer believe that to be possible. I think they are faked photos all the way.

Posted by: questionitall Jul 6 2011, 01:35 PM

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

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



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

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

Consider the following:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5856982537/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857712013/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857947449/in/photostream

Posted by: amazed! Jul 6 2011, 03:12 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jul 6 2011, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 6 2011, 02:12 PM) *
As I tried to tell you before Q, I substantially agree with what you say.

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

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

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

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

It would have been easy to deliver crates of parts before 9/11 that could be salted throughout the buildings. All of these buildings had easily accessible freight elevators, that you could drive into. Nobody would even notice a truck unloading boxes, because there are always trucks unloading stuff all over Manhattan.


Since nothing with a serial number has ever been discovered, there is no evidence that Boeing jets hit these buildings.

Posted by: questionitall Jul 6 2011, 11:45 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Jul 5 2011, 08:22 AM) *
questionitall, please learn something here:

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

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

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

sure sign of 'weakness'.

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

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

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

you have done a sterling job proving this fact. smile.gif



With all due respect I believe you give Amazed far too much credit and where none is due might I add - this individual has made nothing but demands on others here all tyhe while never having made the slightest effort to educate themselves...this individuals latest reply says it all...a typical American by your definition.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 7 2011, 01:35 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 3 2011, 07:28 PM) *
Thanks for the kind words TM. Perhaps you know me better than I know myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



".... Perhaps you know me better than I know myself."

I should certainly hope not! smile.gif


If you carefully study the two photo's DSC00478 and 12390, then besides the obvious discrepancies, you'll also find that the fuselage

on photo DSC00478 is placed behind the railing, and in photo 12390 the fuselage is placed in front of railing.

It is the fuselage in photo 12390 that so blatantly, ridiculously and amateurishly have been manipulated and photo-shopped to indicate

it's a part of UA175, by the insertion of the badly painted half letter and number N6 (signifying N612UA), on the badly blue painted part.

Pure circus for "children", performed by the mentally immature, and nothing else!





Posted by: amazed! Jul 7 2011, 09:23 AM

Thanks very much for the specifics TM.

So then you are saying that indeed the photos were manipulated, and that in your opinion there were no fuselage pieces on the roof of WTC5?

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 7 2011, 11:40 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 5 2011, 12:23 PM) *
Thanks very much for the specifics TM.

So then you are saying that indeed the photos were manipulated, and that in your opinion there were no fuselage pieces on the roof of WTC5?



No, amazed!!! I said that it was the fuselage part in photo 12390 which had been manipulated and photo-shopped.

If, as you seems to hypothesize, the fuselage part(s) were added to an existing photo, then please explain to me

why you think they would go to the rather idiotic trouble of adding two markedly different fuselage parts to two

different photos, in order to falsely 'prove' the existence of only one plane, namely N612UA?

So far, i can see no sense whatsoever in such a scenario!


As i see it, they took a photo of a planted fuselage part as shown in photo DSC00478. Afterwards somebody got

the 'bright' idea of taking another photo of the same fuselage part, whereupon they could add some identification

markings onto it.

The fuselage part was subsequently dragged forward and placed a bit more to the right past the railing, and the

second photo was taken, and now shown as photo 12390; whereon the half 'N' and the half '6' together with the

badly painted parts thereafter were added, by some kind of inapt photoshop technique by an inapt sort of person!

Cheers


Posted by: amazed! Jul 7 2011, 04:24 PM

My opinion is that there were no fuselage parts on the roof of WTC5, but I could be persuaded otherwise. It's not a hard and fast opinion.

Thus IMO any pictures taken of fuselage parts on that roof were heavily manipulated.

So, you're saying that there were indeed fuselage parts up there, but they were arranged thus and so, and then rearranged, with pictures taken of each arrangement?

Posted by: questionitall Jul 7 2011, 08:14 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 6 2011, 03:12 PM) *
As I tried to tell you before Q, I substantially agree with what you say.

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

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

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

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



To answer your first question, by virtue of the simple fact a minimum of 3 NIST Cumulus dataset exhibits show no sign of the large piece of fuselage there on the rooftop of WTC 5 and soon after the attack against WTC 2 it goes without saying the wreckage in question didn’t fall from the sky in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Therefore it must have been “planted” sometime after the fact. Agreed, or do I need to explain the definition of planted evidence to you yet again?

Why I bother to explain this to you is beyond me because you made it quite clear in your second question/statement you now propose the large piece of fuselage wreckage never existed, period, let alone had it been photographed thereon the rooftop of WTC 5. In fact, despite all the analysis I’ve put forward you’ve now intimated the fuselage wreckage in FEMA’s image I.D 12390 could just as easily have been a total Adobe Photoshop fabrication pure and simple. As Tambourine man explained to you here most recently that is not the case at all and why you fail to comprehend the evidence is beyond me. Most insulting then is the fact you made it incumbent upon me to otherwise convince you that piece of FEMA fuselage had existed.

Rather then I suggest you go back and reconsider all my research and specifically then what the other 3 exhibits show and having done so feel free to get back to me with your revelations, because the evidence speaks for itself and I’m done explaining myself to you on this point! What's more it is NOT incumbent upon me to defend my opinion on why the FEMA photograph I.D. 12390 was falsified! However, It is the responsibility of those directly involved inthe counterfeiting of that United Airlines flight 175 evidence to defend their actions and reasons for doing so!!!

Don’t take this personally pup but I think your motive here is to complicate matters and not to actually solve any of the mystery at hand, yet answer your questions I did but only to make my point very clear...that I don’t like that sort of individual one bit! Contrary to what Tambourine Man thinks of you I don’t believe for a second you’re merely an avowed cynic with a heart of gold who’s riddled with guilt for their government’s crimes against humanity. Call me paranoid but I suspect you have your own agenda here and are fully aware of the potentially damning evidence I continue to disclose here at P4T. Is that not why you ask such absurd questions of me and all the while misrepresenting and distorting the facts I’ve presented throughout my research? As such I will not be so kind when responding to any such questions and mind-numbing rhetorical debate you instigate in the future. I’m not saying don’t ask questions of me...what I am saying is come down from your high-horse, show yourself and some manners when you correspond with me the next time because I don’t tolerate insolence very well as you can see.

What’s more I insist you keep all unsolicited advice to yourself from now on as I don’t put much stock in the advice given to me by strangers I do not trust or respect. Truthfully then for having said “don't hold your breath waiting for the Federal government to investigate anything related to the events of the day, or to prosecute ANYBODY for any crimes committed.” well I find that apologist attitude repugnant and what’s more it simply begs the question “why in the hell are you even here if you’re not fighting tooth and nail for justice to one day be served on those who murdered your countrymen on the morning of September 11, 2001?” Dare explain that one for my obtuse mind if you will and while you’re at it Amazed please explain how it is you can say you agree with my UA175 findings yet simultaneously you downplay and exhort the fact the WTC investigator’s might not have salted the WTC site crime scene with any physical evidence but rather then you say they may have simply outright falsified their photographic evidence of it...Treason by any other name is still Treason and very much a crime that warrants a new criminal investigation to look deeper into 9/11. But who’s paying attention to semantics?

Lastly then, at this juncture in my life I’m not seeking accolades from anyone and especially not from you “the great pretender” so please cease and desist kissing my ass by occasionally reminding me you essentially agree with my UA175 findings...it’s shameful. Quite frankly then I don’t consider your toadying to be flattering or complimentary and I couldn't give a rats-ass whether you agree with me or not on the 9/11 research I've done, because the evidence speaks for itself and I feel it will make a difference one day.

As for me providing you with the approximate dimensions of the planted objects “we're talking about” how about you take the initiative for once and do some research of your own instead of free-loading here. In other words stop wasting my time and figure it out for yourself pup then convince me it's not your intention to dissuade people from looking deeper into that highly suspicious yet official UA175 evidence!

Better yet might I suggest you watch all of Tami Michael’s videos therein ABC NIST Dub #7 and find it within yourself to care even just a little bit for the lives of others you see needlessly devastated therein that horrific footage. My point is you should learn to give a shit, dude, otherwise you might find yourself being slaughtered in kind by your government one day and all because you were too busy being apathetic and complacent!
So now that the air has been cleared Amazed it’s up to you to explain yourself and convince me you’re worth getting along with.




Posted by: questionitall Jul 7 2011, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Jul 7 2011, 11:40 AM) *
No, amazed!!! I said that it was the fuselage part in photo 12390 which had been manipulated and photo-shopped.

If, as you seems to hypothesize, the fuselage part(s) were added to an existing photo, then please explain to me

why you think they would go to the rather idiotic trouble of adding two markedly different fuselage parts to two

different photos, in order to falsely 'prove' the existence of only one plane, namely N612UA?

So far, i can see no sense whatsoever in such a scenario!


As i see it, they took a photo of a planted fuselage part as shown in photo DSC00478. Afterwards somebody got

the 'bright' idea of taking another photo of the same fuselage part, whereupon they could add some identification

markings onto it.

The fuselage part was subsequently dragged forward and placed a bit more to the right past the railing, and the

second photo was taken, and now shown as photo 12390; whereon the half 'N' and the half '6' together with the

badly painted parts thereafter were added, by some kind of inapt photoshop technique by an inapt sort of person!

Cheers


Thank you Tambourine man, for partially restoring my faith at least! I can't tell you how gratifying it was to read your explanation of the evidence to Amazed and just the way I've been explaining it to that individual. Clearly you are a reasoning individual who thinks for them self and actually comprehends what the evidence reveals, just as I'd written about it. As for Amazed I believe you're wasting your time there because I've tried repeatedly to explain the facts as you understand them to that individual but clearly they are incapable of reasoning the evidence. Just as they're oblivious to why I take great exception to their person, not because I disagree with their opinion necessarily but more so then because his/her abrasive online demeanour rubbed me the wrong way right from the get-go.

I assumed that individual had read and understood my research thoroughly but shame on me for assuming they’re clever and self-motivated. Quite frankly their constant niggling and obstinate take on the evidence as I've presented it is why I won’t entertain their self-imposed ignorance any longer - I’m simply the messenger bearing information that comes my way from elsewhere.

With that said I can't fathom his/her having asked “If 3 exhibits prove that the pieces were not there, what makes you suspect they were subsequently placed there?” Surely no-one (who’s presumably followed my research and professes to be savvy) can be that ignorant of the facts and the logical argument I’ve put forward! As for their second question “how can you tell the difference between something that was actually (placed) there and a photo that has been manipulated to make it appear that something was in the picture when it really was not?” let me just say that is not a moot point for which I’m prepared to answer yet again. Based on the evidence my research speaks for itself.

What's more his/her argument amounts to pure semantics plain and simple as it matters not whether the fuselage wreckage was real or falsified - either way he/she tries to slice and dice the official evidence the fact remains that UA175 evidence came to exist by nefarious means. Why they cannot figure that out is beyond me...the evidence doesn’t lie and with respect to aviation related crime scene investigations EVIDENCE TAMPERING OF ANY KIND IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE!!!


Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 8 2011, 07:34 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 5 2011, 07:24 PM) *
So, you're saying that there were indeed fuselage parts up there, but they were arranged thus and so, and then rearranged, with pictures taken of each arrangement?


No, amazed!!! Again, that is not what i'm saying exactly. I'm of course saying exactly what i'm saying in my post.

Why do you think that i mean something different to what i'm actually writing in the post?

Have you ever heard about the advantages of quoting people verbatim?

Were you a bit stoned when you wrote the above - or perhaps 'slightly' inebriated?

Have you actually looked carefully at the two photo's in question?

Are you desperately trying to disprove that you "got a heart of gold"? blink.gif
(And which, if you had one, naturally would indicate that you would be a man of honour, honesty, integrity, fairness
and, of course, noble ethics!)

Cheers







Posted by: amazed! Jul 8 2011, 01:52 PM

Cheers to you too TM. I loved my brief time in Sydney back in 1971, and have always a high opinion of Australia and its people.

I apologize for asking so many questions, and I apologize more for not quite getting what you're trying to say.

Because the truth is, I come to this forum for the exchange of ideas and to learn things, and more of the truth is that I moved past this trivia about 2 years ago.

Which is to say that while the subject still intrigues me, I understand that it is in the same category as the JFK assassination--an inside job whose perpetrators will never be brought to justice. I reached that conclusion a few years back. Frankly I do not care who doctored photos or not, who planted evidence or not, whether there were Boeings at WTC or not. It's fun to discuss, but I have no skin in the game.

As for Q, he comes across as a petulant juvenile who thinks he has found the Holy Grotto, or Holy Something Else. I'm glad he's done his work and I'm glad he speaks out, however childish that speaking might be. I wonder if he will still be analyzing photos 10 years from now.

Now that it's 10 years after, I'm much more interested in provoking and attacking those in the media who participate in the coverup. That I have provoked Q is amusing, nothing more.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 9 2011, 02:48 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 6 2011, 04:52 PM) *
Frankly I do not care who doctored photos or not, who planted evidence or not, whether there were Boeings at WTC or not. It's fun to discuss, but I have no skin in the game.



Had you stated this a week ago, you would have saved me wasting precious time, spend for no good reason it seems! thumbdown.gif

(To other posters - beware!)

Feel i should take a sneaky and cunning revenge on you, when you least expect it .....(eye for an eye, and all that) .....


QUOTE
Now that it's 10 years after, I'm much more interested in provoking and attacking those in the media who participate in the coverup. That I have provoked Q is amusing, nothing more.



Perhaps Q and i should give it a diabolic try, provoking you to your utmost?

As we would be much better at it, than you were, we would undoubtedly derive far

greater mirth and amusement from this little exercise than you could ever dream of!


Fact of life: 'Criminals' of all sorts will sooner or later, inevitably become 'victims' themselves. whistle.gif


Cheers

Posted by: amazed! Jul 9 2011, 01:16 PM

TM

Judging from his posts, Q seems to think I was trying to provoke him. I was not. Perhaps you think the same. I am not.

I asked questions of him and you NOT to provoke, but to clarify what it was exactly he was trying to say. He took offense where none was intended. We could go on for days as to why he took offense, but it doesn't really matter. He has thin skin, and/or he is somehow unsure of exactly what conclusion may be drawn from his research.

If he, and you, are so sensitive about questions being asked, well....

And TM--I stated probably more than a year ago that the game Trivial Pursuit is fun to play, but it is, after all, just a game. I stated a long time ago, on several threads here, that there will be no more formal investigations of the events of the day, no matter what esoteric evidence might be revealed. Arguing about precisely how various pieces of physical evidence were arranged or photographed is tantamount to arguing about what color underpants Oswald or Jack Ruby were wearing that fateful day.

The perps of the attacks at WTC succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, is my guess.

The world has moved beyond that historic event. The game now is the continued coverup, and that's where my personal efforts are made, attempting to expose the coverup on a case by case basis.

By all means TM, if it is revenge that drives you, feel free to have yours any way you like it.

Posted by: questionitall Jul 9 2011, 09:22 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Jul 9 2011, 02:48 AM) *
Had you stated this a week ago, you would have saved me wasting precious time, spend for no good reason it seems! thumbdown.gif

(To other posters - beware!)

Feel i should take a sneaky and cunning revenge on you, when you least expect it .....(eye for an eye, and all that) .....





Perhaps Q and i should give it a diabolic try, provoking you to your utmost?

As we would be much better at it, than you were, we would undoubtedly derive far

greater mirth and amusement from this little exercise than you could ever dream of!


Fact of life: 'Criminals' of all sorts will sooner or later, inevitably become 'victims' themselves. whistle.gif


Cheers



Too late - I've been doing just that all along and "The great Pretender" showed his hand! I wouldn't piss on this individual if he was on fire and I certainly won't entertain them for a second more here Tambourine man!

Posted by: questionitall Jul 9 2011, 10:14 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 9 2011, 01:16 PM) *
TM

Judging from his posts, Q seems to think I was trying to provoke him. I was not. Perhaps you think the same. I am not.

I asked questions of him and you NOT to provoke, but to clarify what it was exactly he was trying to say. He took offense where none was intended. We could go on for days as to why he took offense, but it doesn't really matter. He has thin skin, and/or he is somehow unsure of exactly what conclusion may be drawn from his research.

If he, and you, are so sensitive about questions being asked, well....

And TM--I stated probably more than a year ago that the game Trivial Pursuit is fun to play, but it is, after all, just a game. I stated a long time ago, on several threads here, that there will be no more formal investigations of the events of the day, no matter what esoteric evidence might be revealed. Arguing about precisely how various pieces of physical evidence were arranged or photographed is tantamount to arguing about what color underpants Oswald or Jack Ruby were wearing that fateful day.

The perps of the attacks at WTC succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, is my guess.

The world has moved beyond that historic event. The game now is the continued coverup, and that's where my personal efforts are made, attempting to expose the coverup on a case by case basis.

By all means TM, if it is revenge that drives you, feel free to have yours any way you like it.



Amazed, in your arrogance what you failed to realize from the beginning is why I've needled you all along here. I never took offense to you asking questions but I did resent your obvious manipulation of the conversation - I picked up on your condescending attitude and con from the onset and like any typical borderline anti-social you played right into the that, because you can’t resist playing the one-upmanship "game" can you. Weak and puny cowards don’t like to lose do they punk and you would know!

Like I said, you’re “the great pretender” punk and clearly without conscience to, so thank you very much for proving me right and yourself to be the Agent Provocateur I’d suspected you were all along, you sorry excuse for a human being! As for what you think and say about anything related to 9/11 here at P4T it doesn't matter anymore now does it, because you've all but admitted you don't give a shit about the victims of 9/11 and you’ve blown your cover here.

It's all about you isn't it and your Trivial pursuit “game” of proving you’re smarter than everyone else. You say the game now is the continued cover-up and that’s where you’re concentrating your personal efforts, attempting to expose the cover-up on a case by case basis – not according to you here and your previous posts!
Let me give you a little unsolicited sage advice now punk...when you put the cart ahead of the horse all you get by it is to be made to look like the ass you clearly are! In other words without any understanding of the trivium and quadrivium you’re simply just another fool who opens his mouth all too often but nothing of any great importance spews from it!

I’d bet dimes to dollars you’ve not done a minutes research delving into 9/11 and that’s because you’re not really looking for the truth now are you? Like I said punk, you’re motive here is to complicate matters and not to actually solve any of the mystery at hand. In fact you are a predator posing as a house pet here, or in others words a bought and paid for government Fraud yourself and as such my time spent on you has run its course. Say wahtever you will from here on out but your admission here says it all.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 10 2011, 04:59 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 7 2011, 04:16 PM) *
TM

Judging from his posts, Q seems to think I was trying to provoke him. I was not. Perhaps you think the same. I am not.


Yes i think the same, and of course you tried to. Why otherwise would you find it 'amusing' that it was perceived this way!

QUOTE
I asked questions of him and you NOT to provoke, but to clarify what it was exactly he was trying to say. He took offense where none was intended.

If he, and you, are so sensitive about questions being asked, well....


None took any offense. It was more utter astonishment that you possessed the fooking audacity to keep asking questions
you already very clearly and succintly had been given answers to.

QUOTE
And TM--I stated probably more than a year ago that the game Trivial Pursuit is fun to play, but it is, after all, just a game.


So over a year ago you stated the bleeding obvious, and since you're now repeating it here, it must be because you think
it will make a deep impression on all of us!! amazed - people will rather think you have completely lost the plot, and of course
.....they're right .....you have.

QUOTE
I stated a long time ago, on several threads here, that there will be no more formal investigations of the events of the day, no matter what esoteric evidence might be revealed. Arguing about precisely how various pieces of physical evidence were arranged or photographed is tantamount to arguing about what color underpants Oswald or Jack Ruby were wearing that fateful day.


You can keep stating this until you're blue in the face. The fact is that this forum attracts new visitors and visitors from other
forums daily. It is for their benefit that all new evidence be scrutinized, analyzed and presented. One day the scales of justice
will balance, as is their want.

QUOTE
The perps of the attacks at WTC succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, is my guess.


The 'perps' will never 'succeed' in anything. Your "guess" sucks!

QUOTE
The world has moved beyond that historic event.


No it hasn't. The world is standing still, and wont move forward until 9/11, 7/7 and other nasty 'things' have been sorted!

QUOTE
The game now is the continued coverup, and that's where my personal efforts are made, attempting to expose the coverup on a case by case basis.


You're not fooling anybody amazed. You have never "attempted" to do anything regarding 9/11, and never will.
Your contradictions, your duplicity and your lack of honesty tells a different story!

QUOTE
By all means TM, if it is revenge that drives you, feel free to have yours any way you like it.


To be absolutely clear: I neither believe in 'revenge' or in 'an eye for an eye', of course. Nor do i believe that you got 'a heart of gold'.
This was all said with the tongue planted firmly in cheek (à la Benny Hill), to invite an intelligent response from you.

Concerning 'the heart of gold' thing: An intelligent good person will take this kind of insidous "flattery" as it is, and respond accordingly.
An arrogant person with an inflated ego, unable to think for him/her self, will lap up such 'sycophantic praise', as it will further boost their
already very high self-conceit.
Your reaction as it was, amazed, clearly point to the latter as a more apt description of your 'good' self - sad as this is to witness.

I do not know whether you're an 'agent' or not, amazed! However, i find it very odd indeed, that you let yourself become vulnerable to
exactly this kind of suspicion. Am sitting on the fence at the moment leaning, but not 'yet' leaning in your favour; and the way it looks,
probably never will. Sorry!

Posted by: amazed! Jul 10 2011, 10:25 AM

TM

I'm not here trying to win friends and influence people. I make no claims to being any sort of researcher, other than reading as many accounts as I can, for my own enlightenment, if I may use that word. I went 4 years more or less believing (with questions) the OCT. It seems not quite fashionable here to ask questions, at least certain questions. Unless, of course, one uses the handle "Questionitall". That's OK for himself, but not others, or so it appears.

It became amusing, mate, AFTER the initial questions on my part. It became amusing when Q's thin skin became so obvious. Sometimes on the internet, with a discussion with total strangers through the cyber filter, I become faced with the option of laughing or crying over the responses some make. I try to laugh more often than cry, but it's close.

No sir, I'm not trying to make a deep impression on you or anybody else. I am trying only to have an honest discussion, and in the process I ask questions.

That you insist that the perps did not succeed makes you appear to be in some sort of denial about the last 10 years. I think the evidence is clear that the operation was an astounding success. The only failure I can see is that Rudi did not get the gold and silver bullion into his hot little hands.

The world is standing still? Jeez, at the risk of drawing fire, may I ask how you might explain that?

Let's be honest TM, if we may--you don't know me and I don't know you, right? So your statement that I have never attempted to do anything is based completely on ignorance of me and my life in the real world, or even in the cyber world.

Should I take a statement based upon ignorance seriously? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer to that. Such a statement from a guy who (apparently) ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the US government is going to suddenly, after 10 years of lies and coverup, become honest and diligent regarding the prosecutions of the guilty. Puhleeze mate, get a grip. "Scales of Justice" LOL

I think I asked, and have not yet seen it answered (how unusual here): have you served in the military in Australia? In the US. Again, not holding my breath.

Somehow between you and Q, I'm reminded of Huck Finn's observation about faith: "Faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." It seems to me you have 'faith' in the american system, from all the way Down Under. Luv ya, mate.

laughing1.gif


Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 11 2011, 01:44 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 8 2011, 01:25 PM) *
TM

I'm not here trying to win friends and influence people. I make no claims to being any sort of researcher, other than reading as many accounts as I can, for my own enlightenment, if I may use that word. I went 4 years more or less believing (with questions) the OCT. It seems not quite fashionable here to ask questions, at least certain questions. Unless, of course, one uses the handle "Questionitall". That's OK for himself, but not others, or so it appears.


I'm sure you can ask as many questions as you like! Where/why you so miserably fall down, is by your determination to ignore the answers given to you,
and your refusal to address these answers in an honest way.

QUOTE
I am trying only to have an honest discussion, and in the process I ask questions.


See above!

QUOTE
That you insist that the perps did not succeed makes you appear to be in some sort of denial about the last 10 years. I think the evidence is clear that the operation was an astounding success.


Apparently you and i must have a completely different and opposite understanding about the meaning of the word "success".
It appears from the quote above, that you would equally describe the murder of millions by the likes of hitler, stalin, mao, pot pol etc., as an "astounding success".

Success: Favourable outcome; - A thing or person that turns out well.

It never turns out "well" for murderers. If the courts don't get them, we can always rely on Batman, Chuck Norris or Mr. Bond, and others, to finish the job.
If some should be 'lucky' enough to slip through the net, there's always the hidden law of Karma, to take care of the rest!

QUOTE
The world is standing still? Jeez, at the risk of drawing fire, may I ask how you might explain that?


Repeat: "The world is standing still, and wont move forward until 9/11, 7/7 and other nasty 'things' have been sorted!"

QUOTE
Let's be honest TM, if we may--you don't know me and I don't know you, right? So your statement that I have never attempted to do anything is based completely on ignorance of me and my life in the real world, or even in the cyber world.


If you were an honest man, you would have quoted me correctly.
This is what you're referring to, and what i wrote:
"You're not fooling anybody amazed. You have never "attempted" to do anything regarding 9/11, and never will.
Your contradictions, your duplicity and your lack of honesty tells a different story!"

QUOTE
Such a statement from a guy who (apparently) ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the US government is going to suddenly, after 10 years of lies and coverup, become honest and diligent regarding the prosecutions of the guilty. Puhleeze mate, get a grip. "Scales of Justice" LOL


Never said anything of the sort.

Again you're broadcasting your dishonesty in bright neon light for all to see.

QUOTE
I think I asked, and have not yet seen it answered (how unusual here): have you served in the military in Australia? In the US. Again, not holding my breath.


No. You have never asked me that question. think again, but harder this time!

I did my military service in my homecountry, like everybody else had to do in those days.

QUOTE
Somehow between you and Q, I'm reminded of Huck Finn's observation about faith: "Faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." It seems to me you have 'faith' in the american system, from all the way Down Under. Luv ya, mate.
laughing1.gif


It seems to me that you're alone talking to, and addressing yourself above, and nobody else.

Take care






Posted by: amazed! Jul 11 2011, 09:13 AM

TM

I assume you follow sports to one degree or another. If so, you understand that one team loses and the other team wins. Unless there is a tie.

Point being sir, success depends upon one's perspective. Point being, for those who planned and executed the events of the day, and for those who benefited from them, it was an astounding success. Consider: 2 wars, now going on 10 years, 1 new cabinet level bureau (DHS), legislation (the Unpatriot Act) that nullifies the Fourth Amendment, etc etc. I could go on, but a foreigner might not understand all the implications, especially one who viewing from the outside looking in believes that the Scales Of Justice are somehow enshrined and operative here in Amerika.

And good luck, waiting for Batman, mate. whistle.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 11 2011, 12:11 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 9 2011, 12:13 PM) *
TM

I assume you follow sports to one degree or another. If so, you understand that one team loses and the other team wins. Unless there is a tie.

Point being sir, success depends upon one's perspective. Point being, for those who planned and executed the events of the day, and for those who benefited from them, it was an astounding success. Consider: 2 wars, now going on 10 years, 1 new cabinet level bureau (DHS), legislation (the Unpatriot Act) that nullifies the Fourth Amendment, etc etc. I could go on, but a foreigner might not understand all the implications, especially one who viewing from the outside looking in believes that the Scales Of Justice are somehow enshrined and operative here in Amerika.

And good luck, waiting for Batman, mate. whistle.gif



The 'scales of justice' do not only work for your benefit my dear fellow, but for the whole world.

True to form, you "forgot" to mention our dear friends, Chuck and Bond - which is so typical of you!

Have a good day



Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jul 11 2011, 03:36 PM

Amazed,

I'm not sure what your purpose is here? But you rarely bring anything new or positive to the forum. Instead of trying to expose the truth about 9/11 based on your own reliably sourced research, it seems you'd rather tear apart everyone else's work instead. That's why folks are getting fed up with you. No matter how many different ways something is explained to you, you will ignore everything that doesn't fit in your version of the truth. You've been doing this for too many years and it's getting old.

Despite the above, I still think you're a decent person, and I know how painful and difficult it is for most people to accept what our own government did to us on 9/11, and that's probably why you continue to try to defend the indefensible.


Posted by: amazed! Jul 11 2011, 04:48 PM

Thanks for the kind words DYEW.

Why is it that everybody thinks I'm trying to tear apart the work here of Q?

I have stated from the beginning that I appreciate what work he and everybody else has done.

I merely had questions, and the sad thing is that all we really have here is the Cool Hand Luke conundrum--a failure to communicate.

I do not pretend to have "my version" of what happened. I have opinions like everybody else here, and I can be persuaded to change that opinion, given persuasive evidence.

I'm still not clear EXACTLY what points Q was trying to make, because the discussion quickly became personal with attacks on me.

It is my opinion that there were no fuselage parts atop WTC5, but somebody could change my mind if they could show that somebody placed pieces up there. That was the essence of the questions I asked--was Q of the opinion that the photos were completely fabricated and faked, or only partially? Were the pictures taken and then the pieces rearranged? It would seem fairly simple to answer those questions, but somehow or other he takes offence because I've asked the question.

The cynical view would be that such a vitriolic reaction was defensive, and might indicate some measure of insecurity about his exact position.

But the bigger issue is that like it or not, things have moved on as far as the history books and such. People that were 5 years old that day are now 15 and being indoctrinated to the OCT, and they will know no difference, except for the random curious individual.

I think it's great, and intellectually stimulating to consider research done by private individuals--that is why I come here. I already know that it was the proverbial "inside job", no matter the tiny details.

I'm not here to win any cyber personality contests because I know I will lose. I ask blunt questions, I am arrogant, and I do not mince words. I do the same in real life, and there I have the added benefit of body language--I can see when somebody is uncomfortable with a question, and that body language reveals the soul to some degree.

I'm sorry everybody's feelings are hurt. Mine are not.

And I know you are a fair person. I hoping for a straight answer from you--exactly how am I defending the indefensible? What exactly is it that I am defending here? I don't see how asking pointed questions is defending anything at all.

FWIW, I have been flight instructing since 1970, so I'm familiar with the human learning process. A good instructor asks questions, and I guess I've just got a bad habit that offends so many here.

Nobody has a monopoly on the truth here, and while many details CAN be proven, many cannot. I admit that I'm speculating, so many in the truth movement come across as being dogmatic and doctrinaire. Sorry DYEW--I'm skeptical of people who pretend to know everything about any given subject, ESPECIALLY this matter of just what happened that day.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jul 12 2011, 03:07 PM

QUOTE
Why is it that everybody thinks I'm trying to tear apart the work here of Q?


Nothing wrong with discussing and criticizing anyone's research. But it's not just this thread or Q, it's anything to do with planes and the WTC.

I would hope that someone who spends so much time on 9/11 and discussion forums, would also bring something constructive to the table once in awhile. You're a pilot (?). We don't have to prove what happened on 9/11, but we do have to preserve the truth and the data, and those of us with knowledge have a duty to document and make this information available, so others can learn the truth for themselves.


Posted by: amazed! Jul 12 2011, 04:33 PM

Well thanks for NOT answering the question about just what it is I'm "defending" that you object to.

I am surprised that YOU would not give a straight answer to expand upon your claim of yesterday.

It does seem you're back to your theory that you and I have disagreed with over the years--the presence of Boeings at WTC. As I have told you before DYEW, the existence of manipulated photos or videos does not necessarily mean there were no airplanes at WTC. If someone could demonstrate to me that some sort of advanced holography projection was used there that day, I would jump on your very shaky bandwagon. In the meantime, I'm sorry you take it so personally, but you're a grown woman and there is nothing I can do about that.

All I asked of Q was to provide a fairly concise statement of the conclusion he drew from his research: was it his opinion that the airplane parts were ACTUALLY on the roof at WTC5 and the pictures taken of it manipulated after the fact, OR were the pictures themselves completely fake?

Gawd, you'd think I asked questions about quantum physics!

He analyzed the data, not I. That he was unable to give a simple answer to a simple question makes me wonder.....

I was aware of your dogmatic position previously, but did not realize it was quite so entrenched.

Posted by: questionitall Jul 13 2011, 05:42 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jul 12 2011, 03:07 PM) *
Nothing wrong with discussing and criticizing anyone's research. But it's not just this thread or Q, it's anything to do with planes and the WTC.

I would hope that someone who spends so much time on 9/11 and discussion forums, would also bring something constructive to the table once in awhile. You're a pilot (?). We don't have to prove what happened on 9/11, but we do have to preserve the truth and the data, and those of us with knowledge have a duty to document and make this information available, so others can learn the truth for themselves.



DYEW, I respect your view and you're absolutely right with saying we have to preserve the truth the evidence itself represents. It's all fine and dandy to have suspicions regarding something or other (like mine for The Great Pretender here) but in the end only the evidence of a crime committed is accepted in a court of law and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Without that evidentiary proof and chain of custody linking it to the scene of the crime and individual all that's left is suspicion which is all The Great Pretender has contributed to the cause of 9/11 Truth.

That's why I continue amassing evidence ad infintum from the NIST Cumulus dataset and detailing what all of it means. As for those of us who know the truth having a duty to document and make this information available, so others can learn the truth for themselves you're preaching to the choir DYEW. While I agree with you 100% on that noble and ethical pursuit you must remember The Great Pretender has proven himself by the statements he's made here in this thread to be borderline anti-social with little to no conscience, hence the statement he made "It's fun to discuss, but I have no skin in the game" summing-up everything he DOESN'T stand for...which is everything outside his own self-interest.


Posted by: amazed! Jul 14 2011, 09:15 AM

Yes Q, you are fantastic at amassing evidence, but it seems you are unable to provide a concise statement in writing about what particular conclusions you draw from all that amassed evidence.

You are expert at amassing it, but it appears not very good at analyzing it or drawing conclusions. Or at least not too skilled in answering questions about what conclusions you might draw.

That you so quickly impugn my motives, having never met me in person, is more testimony to your juvenile mindset.

Both you and DYEW impugn my motives and loyalty, and neither of you can back up your slanderous statements. So typical of the internet. That you cannot defend your thesis, or even ENUNCIATE your thesis speaks volumes.

Posted by: questionitall Jul 14 2011, 11:50 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 14 2011, 09:15 AM) *
Yes Q, you are fantastic at amassing evidence, but it seems you are unable to provide a concise statement in writing about what particular conclusions you draw from all that amassed evidence.

You are expert at amassing it, but it appears not very good at analyzing it or drawing conclusions. Or at least not too skilled in answering questions about what conclusions you might draw.

That you so quickly impugn my motives, having never met me in person, is more testimony to your juvenile mindset.

Both you and DYEW impugn my motives and loyalty, and neither of you can back up your slanderous statements. So typical of the internet. That you cannot defend your thesis, or even ENUNCIATE your thesis speaks volumes.


Because “The Great Pretender” requested I enunciate a concise statement here explaining where I stand on my research I’ve done so, but in all honesty I’ve responded here more so because people are instinctively drawn to muck-raking and I wish to nip all this nonsense in the bud. Maybe then we can get back to basics. Not to say I’m acquiescing to The Great Pretender but I do think the head-butting has gone on far too long now and with that said I’ve made my point here. With his permission and co-operation I would be more than happy to agree to disagree and refocus on the core argument and premise I made in my earlier posts.

By now I’m sure many people have lost sight of that research and the reason we’re all here to begin with. I admit I’ve played no small part in the devolution of this thread and I suspect the readership by now is either fed-up and/or more interested in the profoundly distracting difference of opinion I have with “Amazed” vis-a-vis our opposing reasons for believing what we do of specific 9/11 aircraft evidence. I do sincerely wish to get back to detailing what my research shows and not continue this ridiculous one-upmanship.

I really don’t care whether The Great Pretender should ever find it in himself to change his mind and opinion about the government evidence I’ve researched. Indeed, I realize his enlightenment will never come about because he’s shown throughout his writings how utterly selfish and cunningly duplicitous he truly is. All the while he feigns support for 9/11 Truth and my research by claiming we are “essentially in agreement” when clearly we are diametrically opposed in every way possible and think nothing alike. In my opinion then he is part of the problem and why a fresh investigation delving deep into the attacks on 9/11 gets nowhere fast.

I merely wish to warn you all of what I believe is this individual’s modus operandi here and because ignorance is infectious God knows the number of individuals “Amazed” has swayed wrong, outright confused and utterly frustrated throughout the years at P4T. Quite frankly then I’m appalled to watch this individual play to and prey on the trust, illiteracy and gullibility of those here (with his appeals to pity and authority, etc) while contributing nothing to their “enlightenment”...based on what he’s written here so far it’s my opinion he’s a phony and hypocrite deserving of little respect and his opinion on this issue warrants even less consideration...how that is slanderous is anyone’s guess.

Admittedly then this individual has undertaken no 9/11 research himself and simply parrots what others say here while deriding them for saying so and all because he’s more interested in provoking them, which is of course a classic PsyOp tactic. In fact his statements and arguments are chock-full of illogic intended to daze and confuse you...such methods are laid out in the Trivium and Quadrivium should you bother to look...learn the tools they use on you and turn the table I say.

Although my suspicion of the man is just that, an opinion based on gut feeling, according to him not only is that opinion slanderous my United Airlines flight 175 findings hold no weight, because I’ve not satisfied his definition of meeting the burden of proof. Ironically then and you may have noticed NOT ONCE has he put forth a shred of evidence to the readership thereby backing anything he’s argued. Don’t just take my word for it...I encourage everyone to immerse themselves in the evidence I’ve put forward and having come to understand it well ask yourself then “ why is it people have tired of Amazed and his bullshit confrontations?” I suspect it’s because of his demands on everyone else, but it’s he who should be held to task here!

A perfect example of this masterful manipulator doing his part to downplay the importance of the evidence I’ve brought forward here comes in the statement he made on June 1, 2011...”Having worked in aviation all my life, I just cannot imagine how that piece would have been placed on the roof without all sorts of people seeing the operation.” which is of course a logical fallacy and namely then a “Red Herring.” Does anyone here know this individual personally, as the flight instructor he claims to be, or otherwise? Of course not and of course he’s offered no proof of that claim...a ploy better known as Argumentum ad nauseam and/or Argumentum ad populum and to a much lesser degree Argumentum ad verecundiam. My point here people is Amazed is deliberately fucking with your mind! In response to that accusation I suspect Amazed would make the same argument, that I’ve not proven my background in aviation, to which I would ask him to explain how in the hell I managed to get detailed photographs of the inside of a Boeing 767 aircraft undergoing a major overhaul...by joining a public tour of the facility perhaps?

If that weren’t enough on July 6, 2011 he further states “I accepted a year ago or more that the various pictures were manipulated...I don’t KNOW that in my heart or mind but I accept it because so many folks seem utterly convinced it’s true.”...again it’s Argumentum ad populum. Well then, say no more Sherlock...surely the lack of conviction by “Amazed” is most convincing and we shouldn’t bother to look any further into 9/11. Let’s all just suppose and suspect like he does...as good Sheeple and citizens are expected to behave.

The fact is (and if you think about it) both those statements were deliberately made to completely distract from what I’ve shown is the case, that someone in government (or with its blessing at least) photographed and later Photoshop falsified a minimum of one image of that aircraft wreckage (allegedly) belonging to United Airlines flight 175 and the FEMA image I.D. 12390 makes that point quite clear. As a loyal American and one who’s fully aware of the fact his government has waged two Wars that are still raging on and a million people are now dead because of the outrageous LIE the FEMA image I.D. 12390 represents I would ask The Great Pretender how he reconciles that fact with his statement “...I have no skin in the game.”

That aside and in particular then this individual has repeatedly dismissed the premise I put forward months ago, that the government “planted” that specific aircraft wreckage on the World Trade Center site, all within the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and for which I’ve presented proof in evidence of that. He won’t accept that premise, NOT because he’s proven that evidence to the contrary or any of the evidence I put forward for that matter. Rather then he cajoles me simply because he claims (Plurium interrogationum) I haven’t answered his questions satisfactorily and to his liking! The real irony in all of this of course happens to be (this all knowing flight instructor) who is seemingly incapable of comprehending the facts as I’ve presented them so far is far and alone at the back of his class of flight instructors and professional pilots here who’ve read my thesis and readily understand it, including Rob Balsamo.
Regardless of that fact might this individual consider the fact it’s not my burden to disprove the government’s case but rather then it’s the government that needs to answer for the flagrant example of evidence tampering therein its own 9/11 Commission evidence. Neither is it incumbent upon me to educate or explain the definition of onus to him!

From that evidence I’d come to the conclusion a [Boeing 767-200 series] aircraft DID NOT crash into WTC 2 on 9/11 and it’s my opinion (FWIW) whatever aircraft had crashed into WTC 2 that morning any large piece of wreckage to survive the impact and its shredding by that building most certainly did not find itself extricated from the maelstrom, only to fall from the sky and onto WTC 5. In fact several damning official videos and photographic exhibits (therein the NIST Cumulus dataset) show that large piece of aircraft wreckage was nowhere to be found on the rooftop of WTC 5 at the time - not in the immediate aftermath of WTC 2 having been eviscerated by the doomed aircraft and certainly not in the minutes immediately following the collapse of WTC 2.

Logic and sound deductive reasoning would tell you if the wreckage did not land there at the foot of the stairs (on the rooftop of WTC 5) immediately following the attack on WTC 2 and it still hadn’t been cast aside there (by the pressure wave generated) from that tower toppling the only other logical explanation for it having been discovered there (45 days later) is the wreckage had been “planted.” In other words “Amazed” the large piece of wreckage was placed there by hand, then arranged and rearranged prior to the FEMA image I.D. 12390 being taken by the WTC investigators. Should you care to look at all several unimpeachable government evidentiary exhibits depicting that same wreckage (of which I’ve cited here) prove that point.

Therefore it stands to reason it’s quite feasible the large piece of aircraft wreckage photographed by the investigators DID NOT land there, or even originate from “whatever aircraft” crashed into that tower on 9/11 for that matter. I keep emphasizing “whatever aircraft” because certain peculiar physical attributes (I’m told are not common to the Boeing 767-200 airframe) exist thereon the wreckage. Due to the fact I’ve only recently discovered those irregularities therein the official (alleged) UA175 evidence I’m now attempting to amass the obligatory physical proof so required of me (by The Great Pretender) to confirm not only is the government’s physical (UA175) evidence wrong for type but it must have been “planted” and subsequently Adobe Photoshop falsified. Prior to being attested to and entered into evidence by Mr. W. Gene Corley no less.

On closing “The Great Pretender” claims to have taught flight school since 1970; as such he is “...familiar with the human learning process” or so he states. However, by my calculations that means he must be no less than 60 years of age then. That being the case I question what professional gentleman of that age and stature makes extensive use of the dumbass emoticons he has attached (to every other correspondence) while at the same time emoting “Chill dude...Gawd and Puhleez!” Seniors actually speak like that down south in Fort Pierce, Florida do they? Just how old are you - are you still in diapers or have you recently gone back to using them I wonder?

What’s more the fact you claim I ‘took offense to your person early on simply because you asked questions of me, therefore I must be insecure on my position regarding my research and the conclusions I arrived at’ that statement couldn’t be further from the truth and regardless of your accusations my research speaks for itself. Make no mistake, my low opinion of you has nothing to do with your inability to take simple information in and process it as much as it’s your conceited and arrogated fermenting of dissent and disinformation here...that’s why I know you’re a self-serving asshole, period!






Posted by: amazed! Jul 15 2011, 09:18 AM

Blah, blah, blah, blah cleanup.gif

Posted by: questionitall Jul 16 2011, 02:48 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 15 2011, 09:18 AM) *
Blah, blah, blah, blah cleanup.gif


Blah, blah, blah, blah, but no answers. whistle.gif

Posted by: 727fan Jul 17 2011, 07:14 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Jul 16 2011, 02:48 PM) *
Blah, blah, blah, blah, but no answers. whistle.gif



Thankful for no answers, and hope for nothing further from them. You have already demonstrated they probably cannot come up with any more of an answer, hence their behavior.

Every disinfo agent and related provacatuers that gets ripped up to shreds as they fully deserve, and as happened rightfully here in your post of a few days prior, is good riddance.


Posted by: amazed! Jul 17 2011, 10:08 AM

No answers?

You mean I should answer whether or not I wear diapers?

Somehow I'm not surprised at the gutter level to which the conversation has descended under the capable leadership of Q.

Posted by: questionitall Jul 17 2011, 06:30 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 17 2011, 10:08 AM) *
No answers?

You mean I should answer whether or not I wear diapers?

Somehow I'm not surprised at the gutter level to which the conversation has descended under the capable leadership of Q.



It was a rhetorical statement jerk...I didn’t expect an honest answer from you and as for what was said you can dish it out but you sure can’t take your own medicine now can you.

Amazed, it’s painfully obvious you’ve employed every trick there is (having appealed to pity, ridicule, popularity, flattery, authority, etc.) to incite me to speculate on (all) the aircraft wreckage photographed on World Trade Center 5 and I won’t do that – not ever! Not like you.

Speculating proves nothing and knowing your style I’m sure you’ll put your usual spin on these words as well, but oh well. It doesn’t really matter then because people have come to realize your intention and contribution here is disingenuous. What’s more then try as you might to intimidate me with your dogmatic slurs that tactic doesn’t work either, because all my life I’ve worked with far too many mechanics and blue collar types to be fazed by a bullying neophyte like yourself.
In regards to your last bitchy slur “You are an expert at amassing it, but it appears not very good at analyzing it or drawing conclusions. Or at least not too skilled in answering questions about what conclusions you might draw.” you have every right to say so. In fact I would be a hypocrite to argue that statement as I’ve stated here in the past the reasoning for my UA175 conclusions can be difficult to follow along with. More importantly then ask yourself why I was not in the least bit surprised you came back on me with that same old feeble argument. After all, it’s not the first time your selective memory ignored the fact I’d explicitly told you I’m no forensics expert and neither am I a professional writer or analyst.

In fact, had you read anything of my research you’d know I started a thread here on January 15, 2011 in which I made a direct appeal to forensics experts to volunteer their input, feedback and opinion on the evidence I’ve worked to shed light on.

For all the aforementioned reasons then and many more besides I couldn’t be bothered to explain to you what conclusion I’ve come to, because you take everything I say out of context and distort my meaning to suit your need anyways, just as you did with Tambourine man here. By the way, that alone convinced me you’re just an asshole Agent Provocateur who interferes with people getting THEIR point across and/or learning the 9/11 truth.
All said and done your feeble logic and speculative opinions here tell me you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, especially when you question my findings and opinions. What’s more nothing meaningful has come about from the time I began exchanging words with you here, but it sure has been enjoyable provoking you and getting the drivel I anticipated back in return.

Best of all though you’re perpetuating the nonsense here has compelled people to read the UA175 research I’d posted at my other thread and other threads as well are being visited more, but don’t believe me. I’ve watched the count go up on them in a big way the more you disrupt this thread with your doublespeak mind games and woe is me bitching and you can to, but enough is enough!

The fact you believe “...2 Boeings struck the towers that day” but you don’t believe any parts of the fuselage ended up atop WTC 5 as you “think they are faked photos all the way” well that’s all fine and dandy but where’s your evidence? Now then had you proven (all) the pieces of the fuselage shown in the various official evidentiary exhibits had been added to the images or “forged” per se using Adobe Photoshop I could accept your opinion but without that proof your premise is a “red herring” and such conjecture only reaffirms why we are not “essentially in agreement.” In fact I think nothing of the kind and I couldn’t disagree with you more on that point. If for no other reason because I do not believe any of that aircraft wreckage (including the bits of fuselage) came from a Boeing 767-200 airframe. In fact I believe the contrary then, as I’ve grown increasingly convinced whatever aircraft had slammed into WTC 2 it couldn’t have been United Airlines flight 175.

The reason being (as I’d stated in my second to last response to you for which you also chose to dismiss) is the existence of Hi-Lok fasteners in an area thereon that larger piece of wreckage that I’m told is not standard for type. I’m presently trying to get to the bottom of that anomaly and whether that advice was true or false. Had you read and understood my June 21st update you would know that and had you gone to the photographs and videos I’d posted at Flick (as I directed you to) we wouldn’t be having this exchange now would we. But you only see and hear what you wish to don’t you, just as it’s not your intention to learn from others here or get along with me now is it, Amazed.

It’s for that reason alone I insist the FBI and NTSB investigators made their way onto the rooftop of WTC 5 immediately following the attack on 9/11. They knew full well why they had to remove all trace of the serialized evidence from that rooftop, because it would prove whatever aircraft crashed into WTC 2 it wasn’t that of a Boeing 767-200 and UA175 specifically. The reason they never bothered to remove the rest of the wreckage from the crime scene, which is standard procedure, is due to the fact there was never any intention to perform a standard investigation of the attack and/or treat the site as an aircraft accident crime scene.

It was assumed no-one would question the attack or the official explanation of it and certainly not the wreckage. But it soon became necessary to plant wreckage “resembling” a commercial airliner and after people began questioning the entire commercial airliner scenario. As such my opinion is the larger piece of wreckage with window cut-outs (DSC00478) had been physically “planted” there. What other explanation is there for it not existing where it should be (according to Mr. W. Gene Corley that is) in the Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph taken the morning of 9/11? Explain that one to me if you would, Amazed.

On July 7 Tambourine Man explained to you as he understood it “...they took a photo of a planted fuselage part as shown in photo DSC00478. Afterwards somebody got the ‘bright’ idea of taking another photo of the same fuselage part, whereupon they could add some identification markings onto it...” That was NOT exactly my conclusion but his observation was very astute and yet you kept trying to turn that opinion around on him in subsequent replies.

What’s more, even though the NIST Cumulus dataset image (Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof) is a low resolution copy of the original Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph one can clearly see the much smaller debris in the vicinity of the staircase in no way resembles the larger section of fuselage - not in size, shape or colour. I most certainly DO NOT believe the bric-a-brac shown on the far side of the WTC 5 rooftop staircase the Natasha Sealy-Fraser image is that larger piece of fuselage with window cut-outs, as seen in the FEMA photograph I.D. 12390. All said and done it’s my opinion that larger piece of wreckage seen in the FEMA photograph I.D. 12390 was not from any Boeing 767 aircraft and I hope to prove that fact soon enough.

Better yet, would some LOYAL American please do us all a favour and apply for a FOIA disclosure to have the (original and untouched) Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph released to an independent photo forensics analyst and Rob Balsamo. If the (identical) and larger piece of fuselage wreckage (as shown in the FEMA image) is proven to be sitting where it should be (as shown in the FEMA image) in that example of her image I’ll admit my entire theory is wrong on National television. What’s more then I’ll even eat the soiled underwear of Amazed in front of the audience! How’s that for being unsure of my findings, you jerk!
Is it possible the larger piece of fuselage wreckage could have originated from United Airlines flight 175 and emanated from WTC 2 after crashing? Yes, it’s possible. The odds of that happening are astronomical of course but it’s possible.

Do I believe the larger piece of wreckage emanated from WTC 2 and landed there on WTC 5 just as it is shown (arranged) and in generally good condition? Not bloody likely and for the obvious reason being it’s highly implausible it would have survived being extruded through the buildings core, only to be ejected from the far side of WTC 2 as such! Do I have proof of that? Yes I do and again it’s in the form of the Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph and the video footage of the attacks taken by Guy Rosbrook and Tami Michael’s!

Do I believe it was possible to “plant” (all) the smaller bits of fuselage wreckage seen in the various official exhibits of aircraft wreckage shown thereon WTC 5 along with the larger piece of fuselage? Yes, of course, but that undertaking would not have been necessary. Due to the fact all manner of debris (including small pieces of fuselage) from whatever aircraft crashed into WTC 2 quite likely came to rest there atop the surrounding buildings, hence Tambourine Man’s photographs and testimony here.

Do I believe most of the smaller pieces of fuselage wreckage from the attack aircraft had come to rest atop WTC 5 after what was left of whatever aircraft had been ejected from WTC 2? Yes I do.

Do I believe your opinion (Amazed) all the fuselage wreckage was faked using Adobe Photoshop? Not at all and you never proved that was the case now did you! In fact it cannot be proven (from the evidence) because as it stands (all but) the larger piece of fuselage wreckage is too small to be seen in any of the later photos taken from the buildings adjacent to WTC 5, let alone from afar and on high. What’s more they’re simply too small and cannot be spotted and/or conclusively identified in any of the earlier high resolution aerial photographs taken and neither can the larger piece of fuselage in question for that matter.
All we have is the Gary Steficek material showing that larger piece of fuselage there on WTC 5, as seen in videotapes and photographs taken by the WTC investigators (45 days) later on October 25, 2001. Just as I’ve explained to you ad nauseam, as well how and why that FEMA photograph I.D. 12390 had been falsified using Adobe Photoshop.

Do I believe any of that wreckage came to rest there on WTC 5 just as it is shown (arranged) in the evidentiary exhibits I’ve cited – absolutely NOT! I don’t believe that was the case at all and for obvious reasons!

In the end if that piece of wreckage proves not to originate from a Boeing 767-200 series airframe then it doesn’t matter what you say Amazed because the greater issue becomes a matter of who’s to be arrested for Treason and held accountable for mass murder and all because they “planted” the wrong type of physical evidence and subsequently Adobe Photoshop falsified it to appear as that of United Airlines flight 175.

So is there any part of what I believe not clear to you now? Actually, don’t answer that because I don’t want to hear from you again! I’m sick of your mindless game.





Posted by: questionitall Jul 17 2011, 06:30 PM

QUOTE (727fan @ Jul 17 2011, 07:14 AM) *
Thankful for no answers, and hope for nothing further from them. You have already demonstrated they probably cannot come up with any more of an answer, hence their behavior.

Every disinfo agent and related provacatuers that gets ripped up to shreds as they fully deserve, and as happened rightfully here in your post of a few days prior, is good riddance.



Agreed mate! thx.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 18 2011, 10:01 AM

Oh, it was a rhetorical question! So simple!

Yes, rather like your verbose rhetorical answers, eh?

The UNrhetorical answer is that all the events of the day were staged by men in government, and we are coming up on the 10th aniversary, in which all mainstream media dutifully remind their viewers and readers that still today, The Emperor's New Clothes are simply beautiful.

Posted by: questionitall Aug 5 2011, 09:08 PM

Just a reminder for those who might be wondering, I've every intention of posting more WTC 2 aircraft info here the moment I find what I'm looking for. As mentioned (in my second to last response here) I do not believe any of that aircraft wreckage "discovered" on WTC 5 (including the bits of fuselage) came from a Boeing 767-200 airframe and I'm actively working on proving that was the case. As you know I've taken that view for several reasons and especially because of the existence of Hi-Lok fasteners in an area thereon that larger piece of wreckage (of which I'm told is not standard for type). I’m presently trying to get to the bottom of that anomaly and whether or not that advice was true or false but aircraft scheduling dictates when and where I can gain access to a stripped cabin for the purpose of getting photographs. However, I should have an answer explaining that evidence sometime in early September.




Posted by: questionitall Sep 15 2011, 12:11 AM

Due to all the 9/11 bullshit being floated by the mainstream media pundits as of late I fear I might have swallowed a little of the multiple liars words there on the tube so I need to purge and I mean really rant here to clear my sense and sensibilities of that shit they were spewing just the other day.
Seriously though, all I can say about what I’ve witnessed of the September 11th commemorations this year is Thank bloody God that sideshow cremation of care rite has come and gone and all the architects who wrought that diabolic Project for a New American Century upon us have since slithered back into their cesspool of unconscionable moral rot. Gone for another year and good riddance to them I say. Quite frankly the sheer audacity of those murdering hypocrites astounds me and how they dare show their faces around the family members of the victims is beyond my comprehension then. Needless to say it was all quite unbearable for me and I couldn’t watch.

Fortunately for me the only place I’m exposed to both television and/or newspapers is the lunchroom where I work. Thankfully then and not unexpectedly or long into the televised 9/11 commemoration my co-workers abandoned that cause celeb for something considerably less telling of their apathy and ignorance. By that I mean many of those I work with are mental midgets and they soon began channel surfing for anything else less taxing on their attention spans and fortuitously then the television reception at work sucks and they gave up. The set was turned off soon after and much to my relief.

I suspect it wasn’t long after that the politicians, pundits and pawns there in New York that morning tired of the sordid affair as well and voila, just like rats they scurried from that sinking ship I’m sure, back to their wanton forget like someone turning off a light switch. All said and done how maddening it’s been for me throughout the past few weeks then. For having tried in vain to avoid all 9/11 coverage of those assholes, only to be caught-up on occasion having to endure sound-bites and the occasional visual snippet here and there of the MSM bullshit 9/11 coverage.

As mentioned I didn’t watch any of that schlock, just like I don’t watch television 99.99% of the time I’m awake. Neither do I encourage or commend the profound ignorance and stupidity in people of which television programming invokes. In fact I refuse to have television in my home, period. As such I still think for myself and really don’t give a damn about sports stars or fan favourites and bimbo teen idols those buffoons banter about on the idiot box. Just as long as they all stick to what they know best and I’m not involuntarily subjected to listen to another bloody word from them about a topic they truly know very little to nothing about. When it comes to the facts of 9/11 clearly they haven’t a clue and to make it all worse I had to dig very deep to find the fortitude to weather the bold print LIES of newspaper headlines as well.

Yes, I despise the mainstream media that much and consider everything it represents a despicable lot.

What bothered me most throughout these past few weeks was trying to remain silent by keeping my opinions to myself while I watched many a moron glue their attention to the idiot box or a newspaper in that typically misguided way someone does when they’re trying to make sense of it all, alas where none is to be found in either form, ever. How pathetic I find it all then, that people actually sought out television screens to inflict themselves with that sob-fest soma bullshit ceremony at ground zero, not unlike moths drawn to a flame which invariably incinerates them whole; body, mind and soul.

From it all I’ve realized and accepted not a thing about our human condition has changed in the ten years since the 9/11 Holocaust inaugurated this century and certainly not throughout ancient human historical record of human sacrifice. So how very ironic it seems to me then that we’ve tossed aside the most profound wisdom of our brightest forbearers. At a most crucial moment in time no less as history begins to remind us of its worst possible lessons that go ignored by most, yet again. The bottom line is we’re about to have our collective ignorant asses kicked back into the dark ages and with a vengeance too I suspect, but does anyone care about the coming tyranny? No, not at all, so long as they have their television to occupy their misery by.

How utterly disenfranchising it is then to know the vast majority of people still don’t know of even the basic cover-up that took place at ground zero on 9/11 and probably won’t ever get engaged, because they really couldn’t care less if they’re ever awakened to the truth of 9/11 or any truth at all for that matter. Rather then they choose to dutifully believe authority and the government’s storyline, even though the forensic research of people like me and that of highly esteemed and accredited industry experts proved long ago agents acting on behalf of the U.S. government lied in spades about the evidence and facts of 9/11. For that reason alone those people who believe the government FEMA agents storyline then are terribly misguided fools for doing so and how sad it is for me then to finally accept the vast majority of people couldn’t distinguish “tangible evidence from “opinion” even if their own lives depended on doing so.

From it all I finally and fully comprehend and accept as true the insight of a Muslim friend of mine, who said and meant every word of it on the morning of 9/11 as he sadly uttered “The people in the West are getting exactly what is coming to them as they well deserve...for their centuries old complicit ignorant indifference in World affairs and arrogant statist prayers” for which he is absolutely right to believe because “the man who would choose security over Liberty deserves neither.” Knowledge is free and what’s more it’s a powerful weapon when put to good use therefore anyone who doesn’t learn to take advantage of it deserves the lot in life they draw.

For that reason alone I’ve become completely disheartened by it all and will be discontinuing my 9/11 research soon enough, once I’ve definitively proven no Boeing 767-200 aircraft crashed into WTC2 on 9/11 that is. I am close to confirming just that and anyone interested will be the first to know the outcome here.
In the meantime then the U.S. government maintains to this very day the FEMA agents and experts they hired to investigate the WTC site aircraft crime scene are right and proper to insist they’d conclusively proven commercial aircraft most definitely cashed into WTC 2 and namely then United Airlines flight 175. They’d proven that they say from having reviewed video footage and photographs they’d taken of aircraft wreckage they adamantly insist fell from the second tower. Believe it or not that’s the gist of the U.S. government agent’s argument on the matter of UA175 and the backbone of its overall WTC site case. All of which amounts to YOU’LL BELIEVE IT BECAUSE WE’RE TELLING YOU SO, THAT’S WHY!

The truth is no such scenario has ever been proven. In fact no tangible evidence has ever been made public by the government to prove most of what it claims is “The Real Truth of 9/11” and especially with respect to the offending aircraft in all four crash scenarios. The sum total of all aircraft evidence the government presented to the public amounts to a few measly pieces of untraceable sheet metal and bits of landing gear now in a museum somewhere no-one aside from New Yorkers cares to visit.

Ironically then, as it stands the U.S. government still touts that absurd “smoking gun evidence” argument all the while insisting no valid reason exists to question its 9/11 findings and furthermore, any suspicion or talk of a possible cover-up on its part is unwarranted, despite the fact its own tangible evidence indicates as my related research proves quite the opposite is the case. Regardless of that we’re expected to simply take their word as gospel then and ignore all confirmed instances of evidence having been conjured into existence by the very experts who were taken into FEMA’s employ. What’s more then as far as those expert’s and the U.S. government is concerned the theories being spread in the alternative media amounts to pure conjecture, so they say. It’s all the work of “conspiracy theorists” no less and the attacks of 9/11 never happened the way those contrarians claim it did, right?

I could rest easy if the latter were the case but even though we’re ten years removed from 9/11 the fact is we’re still dredging-up incredible examples of tainted evidence proving otherwise. So regardless of what the U.S. government says is true the fact is even the little known falsified evidence that I’ve uncovered destroys the government’s case and conclusion United Airlines flight 175 crashed into WTC2.

Yes; I realize I drone on about that fact and it’s deliberate I tell you because it’s absolutely imperative people understand that crucial point. Hopefully then the more people to understand it and talk about it chances are someone with the power to investigate it and lay charges might do so in my lifetime. The logic is this - because I’ve proven every bit of aircraft evidence (the government claims to be proof of UA175) was in fact falsified by the government agents that means the government has yet to prove its case, from credible/tangible evidence.

In light of the fact no-one to this very day, including the 9/11 Commission, knows for sure what aircraft evidence is genuine and the question then is what became of UA175 if indeed it was not destroyed at ground zero on the morning of September 11, 2001? As important then is finding out what aircraft did crash into WTC2 because again the governments own evidence shows it couldn’t possibly have been a commercial aircraft. Needless to say knowing the truth and answer to either of those questions has the potential to blow the entire official 9/11 narrative right out of the water and sink those who knew of the collusion yet chose to lie and cover-up those facts! That being the case everyone should be demanding to see ALL the physical wreckage of the alleged UA175 aircraft the government is sitting on and if they cannot definitively prove to us UA175 was destroyed on 9/11 then a new 9/11 investigation must be convened immediately.

It all sounds too outrageous and fantastical I know and believe me I question my own findings often but anyone who believes I’m a sanctimonious and disrespectful asshole for continuing to haunt the government on this issue they need to look themselves in the mirror and ask what they’ve done lately in memory of and respectfully for the many innocent victims murdered on 9/11. I don’t owe anyone an apology and I sure as hell don’t make excuses for my politics and that goes for my immutable opinion on the matter of 9/11. Just as there’s no forgiving any of them, especially the WTC investigators who compiled that evidence, therefore it’s not me who owes an apology to the victim’s families and the survivors but they who’ve lied and will answer for it one day. As sure as Hell takes those the Devil knows by name it’s my opinion then the real truth and terrorists of 9/11 include those average American and Canadian citizens who haven’t and probably won’t ever get off their sorry asses to do a single bloody thing about their governments treason, including bother to educate themselves on the issue of 9/11.

That said a recent article written by Amy Chung and published in POSTMEDIA NEWS quotes John Wright, senior vice-president of public affairs for Ipsos Reid. According to him the majority of Canadian’s polled on the subject agree the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were the defining socio-political event in their lifetime. John Wright goes on to say “What this poll tells us is this (9/11) scar is deep...There’s no doubt 9/11 has penetrated the soul of those people who were there at that time; who witnessed it in such great detail...we feel vulnerable...it’s a human security threat.” Indeed, what that article tells us then is despite the fact the individual knows better than to turn a blind eye still the vast majority of people simply go along to get along in life and by doing so over time they become a part of the problem society faces now, therefore they must shoulder some of the blame for 9/11 because.

Not surprisingly then Amy Chung told us nothing in her article of which the astute few didn’t already know, what John Wright the “expert” failed to inform her of, or she failed to explain to her readership then, is the fact the point to any such survey is to elicit a specific response by asking very pointed questions. That’s precisely how social engineers continually manipulate our circumstance, through pollsters at one end of the social spectrum and those at the other end who disrupt our lives in the first place, just as the murdering scum of 9/11 had done. That’s precisely why voluntary public surveys are a crucial part of the public’s regularly scheduled programming. In fact voluntary public surveys are an age old litmus test used by those at the top to effectively measure how their social conditioning is working on those of us at the bottom. Agree with me or not I don’t care and like it or not it doesn’t matter then because that’s just how it is. The point is her article serves us no purpose other than to remind us we’re all just aging useless eaters being kept in this glue factory for humans.

Likewise then the role of social media today is not to enlighten us but rather then to aid and abet the sterilization of our self-psyche by soliciting from us a "conditioned reflex” any old time they choose it simply by projecting any given sensory input they’ve trained us to respond to and fear being our most powerful motivator. In the old days they just took what they needed from us by force and torture in a dank sanatoriums laboratory not a unlike that of Ivan Pavlov’s day but these days they offer us cheap trinkets in exchange for us allowing them to dredge our minds with pointed questions that we volunteer the answers to. It’s brilliant on their part really but detestable none the less for what they do with that information.

Hence the scientific study of social engineering and propaganda by the founding father; the Public Relations granddaddy himself Edward Bernays. A fan and practitioner of Ivan Pavlov’s research and the man who believed and I quote “The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.”

Not surprisingly then it doesn’t take either of their genius and certainly not an Ipsos Reid poll to enlighten “the informed” of the fact the majority of Canadian’s had responded exactly as expected...by turning inward and cowering from the manufactured hollow threat of bogie-man terrorist’s. Just as their American counterparts had reacted, by cowering their entire lives from all socio-political responsibilities their Constitution expects and demands of them as citizen patriots and exactly as the social engineers and traitors in office predicted with the answers they gleaned from their many decades of surveying the fools.
My point being their type of “expert” knew full well what they could get away with just as they knew what our long-term reaction to the attack would be. Like I said they anticipate our psychological response to everything they do, just as they harvest our emotions from the seeds they’ve sewn there in our minds throughout our entire lives. All of which brings to mind yet another shamefully inadequate and shabby little piece of journalism entitled “The Real Truth of 9/11” most recently shat out of the infamous government apologist James Meigs ass I suspect.

With twisted logic and his non-existent corroborating evidence still a mystery to me then, if nothing else what he managed to prove to me with that article then is he only intends to cause division each year and come September 11th by salting to preserve in the minds of as many ignoramuses as possible a deep seeded ignorance of the attack by instilling in them his politically biased version of “The Real Truth of 9/11” in which he chose to invoke emotion and his appeal to authority rather than the Truth. I’m not surprised one bit by that fact and his career wouldn’t amount to spit if not for the fact the majority of people in this amazing “age of information” still flock to and covet the much filtered gospel of 9/11 according to these false prophets come pundits for the MSM.

It goes without saying then the chief editors post at Popular Mechanics comes with certain privileges and liberties, apparently, whereby ones’ key role in that position is to exercise ones’ prerogative and voice ones’ own baseless opinions as well those of their puppet master employer. It’s that one hundred and nine year old tradition of the status quo proselytizing the ignorant by way of puppets like Mr. Meigs who libels with impunity those who question the oligarchy’s authority and oppose their myopic view. That very same privilege that allows James Meigs to get away with the 9/11 commentary he passes off as Truth! Therefore, anyone who considers factual anything Popular Mechanics publishes about 9/11 and supports that magazines bottom line at the checkout counter because of it, well they deserve the world and future they get.

Honestly then; both his articles amount to a covert condemnation of and assault on every ideal guaranteed the individual under the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as infringed upon by James Meigs, the man who makes it his business to attack anyone harbouring a 9/11 opinion all their own...God forbid any independent thinker should contest his and/or the governments numerous and erroneous 9/11 findings.

Let’s be clear before I continue. In my opinion James Meigs is a charlatan freelance journalist who relies heavily on being handed the research his “experts” assure him is factual but it appears he never actually confirms the veracity of his narrative by substantiating those details first. Indeed, it appears he simply regurgitates to parrot whatever fallacy the powers that be tell him to say and that fact is reflected in the quality and accuracy of his writing. So the very fact his amateurish assessment of everything 9/11 holds sway with as many people as it does well that doesn’t bode well for transparency, truth and valour in journalism today. A point I was reminded of as I read through his latest article while trying to find merit in any of his usual vagaries written there.

That narrative was published in the rag Popular Mechanics shortly before September 11, 2011 and to those in the know it’s no surprise then his article is a classic example of a lazy, two-bit hack not carrying out even a basic background check of the facts he reports on. In what amounts to part two of his 2005 hit-piece “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report” James Meigs further alludes to the lies the “experts” he consulted told him back then. However, what he fails to mention in his latest article is the fact the experts hypothesis such as “pancaking floors” and “melted steel” have since been completely debunked themselves, admittedly so and most recently then by the very mad scientists at NIST who first concocted those absurd concepts. Needless to say then that recurring theme of twisted logic, plausible deniability and outright obfuscation is found throughout the many 9/11 narratives of James Meigs.

Consider just one of those experts, the vaunted Mr. W. Gene Corley. The tall building expert who spearheaded the WTC site investigation and for that reason alone James Meigs consulted him for the aforementioned February 3, 2005 hit-piece he wrote for Popular Mechanics. Mr. Corley, the man who had no business serving in that capacity to begin with, if for no other reason simply because he hasn’t a clue about conducting a proper aviation crash investigation and he has no credentials and/or experience identifying high explosives let alone making and/or using them with proficiency.

As WTC site team leader Mr. Corley is the same individual who failed to secure that crime scene from incursion and looting by the FBI and NTSB yet he still insists he knows for a fact United Airlines flight 175 crashed into World Trade Center 2. Despite the fact Mr. Corley has never laid hands on a shred of credible evidence proving that to be the case and neither has a single piece of aircraft wreckage proven to be that of the alleged United Airlines flight 175 ever been made public by him, or anyone. That is the calibre of expert Mr. Meigs refers to, the man who refuses to respond to my questions about that falsified evidence he stakes his entire, now sullied reputation on.

If that is the calibre of professional “expert” Mr. James Meigs takes counsel with then surely he would take seriously the expertise of the rank and file membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and those at the organization Pilots For 9/11 Truth. They too investigate 9/11 falsehoods but on a continual basis and from an opposing vantage. Their thousands of fulltime experts also in the field of aviation, engineering and military actually know what they’re doing, what they’re looking for and what they’re looking at. What’s more is their facts don’t lie, so go figure why all those experts at A&E and P4T are considered to be wrong by Mr. Meigs while he considers himself always right? Is it because his sources are somehow more reliable? God knows his professional “experts” never fuck-up or fudge the facts now do they! But according to Mr. Meigs that’s all the A&E and P4T experts have done from the beginning.

In fact while he makes a host of generalizations and tenuous unfounded accusations against the entire 9/11 Truth movement in “The Real Truth of 9/11” not once did he make mention of or explain a shred of evidence to prove why exactly anyone who questions the 9/11 Commission and its overall official findings is a de facto “conspiracy theorist” and “9/11-Truther.” If indeed James Meigs is right in his claims he could easily make short work of the opposing argument of the most stalwart and educated, informed and well researched 9/11 contrarian by doing just that. So why I ask doesn’t he ever offer tangible proof of his claim and likewise then if he’s so sure of himself why does he refuse to debate the issue face to face with an expert panel of 9/11 contrarians?

Everyone, ask yourself why has James Meigs or his consulted “experts” never presented in plain view that credibly tangible evidence they claim disproves the theories and assertions made by those in the truth movement. Why have James Meigs and the experts never faced their accusers in person to answer for their evidence? Evidence we “conspiracy theorists” have persistently brought to their attention in the alternative media, again and again over the past ten years and successfully argued why it’s fake. For instance the kind of credible evidence that forms the basis of my United Airlines flight 175 research and findings of which its chain of custody cannot be denied and is clearly fake! So with lying con artist like James Meigs at the helm I’m at a loss to understand why intelligent people equate both him and the reputation of Popular Mechanics fame with magnanimously contributing to “leading science and technology” in any meaningful way, shape or form, especially if neither can be trusted to tell the truth.

Here’s a lesson in evidence for James Meigs then. According to the Oxford Dictionary the definition of Evidence being “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid” but more specifically the concept of tangible by definition reads ”capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch...”

So I’ve taken the liberty of defining Credibly Tangible Evidence as being “The available body of facts or information capable of being precisely perceived and identified by the mind, especially by the sense of touch, as well capable of being appraised at and actual or approximate value.” In other words then evidence is something we can see, hold in our hands and examine with the naked eye. So if Mr. Meigs should ever truly “...tackle this highly charged topic” by issuing forth credibly tangible evidence only then will he truly know what it feels like to be right and respected as a man of journalistic integrity. However, until that time comes to pass I believe it’s safe to say he’s got no credibility with the common man in the street and certainly no respect among his true peers, the public.

All things considered the title of both James Meigs articles says everything about his arrogated self and the biased political viewpoint he was hired to extrapolate on there at Popular Mechanics. So how obvious and absurd of him it was to state in his hapless prey in his latest article “...his sources all agreed with his view.” while simultaneously belittling by labelling that individual in his latest article a paranoid “conspiracy theorist” and all because he happens to believe 9/11 facts that are not in lockstep with James Meigs. The irony of that statement didn’t escape me and his saying so is quite rich and comical, because by definition James Meigs own modus operandi and character mirrors that of the individuals he labels a paranoid “conspiracy theorists.” just as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts so astutely pointed out when he wrote “But of course the government’s own theory is a conspiracy theory.”

That said I encourage everyone to read James Meigs February 3, 2005 article in its entirety and while doing so make note of the recurring names of those “experts” he cites therein and drew his conclusions from for that narrative. All of which can be cross-referenced in the “Sources” section of that article and matching them with the names of those people accredited with putting the FEMA final report together. Those experts he’d mentioned by name in most cases then are tall building experts and not demolition experts nor aviation crash investigators. More important to remember of them is the fact the most critical points they made regarding their WTC findings have been discredited along with similar suppositions arrived at in the NIST final report.

It’s clear then James Meigs is well versed in Edward Bernays propaganda tactics as well debating others one on one in-camera that is, but he wisely elects not to openly debate those who know their 9/11 facts and are prepared for him. That’s because he knows full well he hasn’t a leg to stand on and that’s why he prefers the far more damaging divide and concur tactic of separating any weak-minded fool from the herd. Like his simpleton prey he bragged about shaming in his latest articleand not because the individual’s facts were wrong but merely because that individual hadn’t read James Meigs book no less, as if to say only James Meigs is right about the 9/11 facts.

When he isolates someone who hasn’t got their facts straight then he writes about that individual and the entire truth movement in a similar light that which automatically brings disgrace upon everyone concerned. Therefore anyone foolish enough to debate James Meigs in-camera on the subject of 9/11 while arguing from the vantage of facts, evidence and reason will soon find them self at the disadvantage and for that very reason alone.

So while James Meigs latest treatise serves to prove he is the opportunistic predator I’d always suspected he was, it also serves to prove the vast majority of people these days are incapable of differentiating between debate and argument, which explains why those in the truth movement will never succeed at discrediting the government on the 9/11 issue. They will not do so as long as they’re taking the entire government on at once instead of divide and concur. Edward Bernays believed "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway” and that ideological "enlightened despotism" he preached and practiced goes both ways but few in the 9/11 truth movement have considered it. Those in the truth movement need to turn separate James Meigs from his followers by first singling him out and then discrediting hi opinions hence his credibility and once people realize he’s nothing but a petty little tin-pot dictator himself he will then fall from his perch at Popular Mechanics and the rest of his ilk will follow.

All things considered “The Real Truth and Terrorists of 9/11” as I like to say is the majority of people around the world don’t give a damn about the truth of 9/11 any more than the politicians and pundits do and the fact is the majority of people couldn’t have cared less if the U.S. government was right or not about “Islamist Terrorists” having crashed hijacked domestic airliners into the WTC towers, just as long as they got their lives back to “normal” and were made to feel safe and secure again.

It’s time to change that by turning things around on the criminals.



Posted by: questionitall Oct 19 2011, 10:31 PM

A few months ago I stated I’d be posting more photographs in early September. Needless to say the acquisition of that countervailing photographic and video material took somewhat longer than I’d anticipated, but no matter. I’ve recently posted that new material at Flickr alongside the rest of the photographic and video evidence I’d archived there. That repository of reference material is something I recommend people look into if they’re interested in knowing more of what I have to say...just follow the links to it. But I suggest you read what the Boeing Aircraft Structures Technician had to say recently about FEMA’s alleged UA175 wreckage.
That said I apologize for the amateurish nature and visual quality of the video footage. In spite of its choppy nature and the fact it’s no better or worse than the Gary Steficek video footage I can say it definitely helps get my point across. In fact without this photographic and video material it would be near impossible to convincingly summarize my 9/11 research and findings at this time.

The reason I’d bothered at all then to get that material comes from the realization it makes better sense to show people what I’m trying to convey to them regarding FEMA’s fraud, rather than blather on writing dry facts about aircraft construction et al few people care to understand anyways. I’ll reserve those long dry rants for my forthcoming political commentaries then.

Getting to my point; people are more prone to listen and learn when they’re amused and entertained. For that reason there’s no better way to get something to stick in someone’s mind than the visual medium. What’s more I’ve decided then in the interest of moving forward with my research it’s best I focus more on fortifying the existing 9/11 evidence I’m continually posting there at Flickr by adding to it as I discover gems of insight. In essence then this commentary represents the last of my findings wholly dedicated to analyzing the alleged UA175 wreckage.

With that in mind while I was photographing the interior of that Boeing 767 currently undergoing its overhaul I focused on two specific points thereon that fuselage I think people will appreciate and come to question. I’m hoping once people comprehend those profound differences and what it all means for “the real truth of 9/11” they’ll be more inclined to read the rest of what I’ve had to say about UA175 and 9/11 in general therein my other P4T commentaries.

From a purely technical standpoint then I’ve long since believed the U.S. governments UA175 narrative and evidence was quite absurd and mostly fraudulent. In fact by analyzing the aforementioned evidence and having reviewed the other material I’ve posted at Flickr I’m wholeheartedly convinced certain FEMA WTC investigators are guilty of complicity in high crimes and misdemeanours. I sincerely believe that because I know full well the storyline they’ve stuck to since the dust had settled on ground zero is based entirely on hearsay, unidentifiable aircraft evidence and a whole lot of embellishment. In fact the measly aircraft evidence those FEMA investigators amassed throughout the entire course of their WTC site investigation is shameful. The fact they only managed to publish and make public a single falsified photograph would be laughable if it didn’t involve such a serious a matter. That being of course the matter of computer generated and modified evidence portraying hand-placed unidentifiable fuselage wreckage that was reconstructed on-site at ground zero. Indeed, of those who are reading this treatise I remind them of the fact that alleged UA175 wreckage had in fact been corrupted very early into the World Trade Center site investigation. What’s more I’ve long since established and proven all the aforementioned, my UA175 research says it all and I’m not here to debate what the facts have already proven is the case.

For those reasons alone the U.S. government can no longer hide behind its jingoism. That concerted conspiracy of disinformation and feigned ignorance it perpetuates. Not when the World is awakening to the fact certain FEMA investigators brazenly broke the law when they irresponsibly submitted falsified United Airlines flight 175 evidence before Congress and the 9/11 Commission. In fact those FEMA “experts” are enabling the overall 9/11 cover-up with their ongoing complicity and that’s wholly inexcusable in my opinion.

While I hope to further establish why establish why that specific area of fuselage differs significantly from that of alleged UA175 wreckage it remains to be seen how effectively I manage to do so because unfortunately then virtually all the visible substructure therein my own photographic and video evidence had clearly been torn away from the alleged UA175 wreckage. The substructure I’m referring to then is the latticework of large vertical frames and heavy horizontal structures seen therein, all of which accounts for the bulk of the aircraft skeleton, minus the exterior skin of the fuselage of course.

Needless to say when it comes to comparing specific differences between the two aircraft fuselage structures the absence of the substructure thereon the alleged UA175 wreckage leaves very little to go by. At the risk of stating the obvious were the substructure still intact thereon the alleged UA175 wreckage its presence would greatly assist in establishing similarities between the two bodies of evidence. In other words its existence would better assist in determining whether or not the alleged UA175 wreckage is in fact that of a Boeing 767. For that reason I’ve analyzed the alleged UA175 wreckage looking for significant differences between them rather than similarities and I’ve discovered plenty. So the missing substructure doesn’t matter in the least bit then because two significant differences in particular, or glaring anomalies if you will, thereabout FEMA’s alleged UA175 wreckage confirms nothing of United Airlines flight 175 having crashed into World Trade Center 2. By that I mean those glaring anomalies are not standard for type on any known commercial Boeing 767, therefore the alleged UA175 wreckage does not appear to be as advertised.

Before I break those anomalies down I wish to clarify something else at this time. For the sake of argument and because we’ve no other choice but to accept FEMA’s alleged UA175 wreckage as evidence for that reason I need to make the distinction between proof and evidence. It sounds silly I know but it’s extremely important everyone comprehends the nuance therein. That’s because everything society stands for and believes in is based on our collective understanding and acceptance of the stipulations of common and criminal law. What makes law work and binds society is Evidence, Proof and truth. “Evidence” is defined as “Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood” whereas “Proof” is defined as “Any evidence that establishes or helps establish the truth” and “Truth” itself is defined as “The quality of being true’ genuine, actual or factual.” By definition then evidence establishes proof which in turn establishes the truth of any matter, but if the evidence itself was falsified obviously then proof flies out the window faster than a cat off a hot tin roof along with all truth hot on its heels.

My point being just because the likes of James Meigs and Mr. W. Gene Corley tell you their “evidence” is “proof” of “the real truth of 9/11” do not take their word for it at face value because I assure you their word isn’t worth spit, whereas confirmation vis-a-vis a chain of custody and established fact is. Therefore, establishing the chain of custody for the alleged UA175 wreckage includes but is not limited to establishing well beyond a shadow of a doubt its provenance. In fact it’s of paramount importance we do so, because the laws of governance and social order itself stands at risk of being permanently undermined by those who rationalize and/or defend the criminal act of tampering with evidence.

Whether they do so before, during or after the fact makes no difference and those who state “Let me be clear...If there is evidence of a cover-up, it could be the government covering up its incompetence and not its complicity in the event... Even if there were definite proof of government complicity...” well they only serve to blur the line between lawfulness and tyranny. With all due respect to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who made that statement I remind him of the fact 9/11 research like mine constitutes “definite proof of government complicity” or smoking gun evidence if you will. What’s more then not only is it my opinion two wrongs never make for a right, by my reckoning then there’s no excusing such criminality. Not before or during and certainly never after the fact. So regardless of whether or not the World Trade Center investigators acted out of embarrassment, patriotic duty or some maniacally twisted calling no matter. Regardless of whether it was complicit subversion or gross negligence and incompetence that lead to the murder of nearly three thousand people on 9/11 alone, the fact remains, those who’ve covered-up anything to do with 9/11-Truth, then as now they’re still criminals for it!

It’s true though; there is the remote possibility I’ve mistakenly assumed the FEMA Photo Library image #12390 is fake when in fact it may actually portray wreckage from the right hand side, rear fuselage area of United Airlines flight 175. Therefore it’s also possible I’ve researched and photographed the Boeing 767 issue and evidence for all the wrong reasons. That and it’s possible I’ve misinterpreted the seeming premeditated criminality of the WTC investigators who simply may have been attempting all these years to cover-up their gross dereliction of duty while in office, by having failed miserably to avert the attacks of 9/11 no less. All of which leads me to ask again of the alleged UA175 wreckage “Why had the authorities found it necessary to manufacture that proof using Adobe Photoshop?” Especially when the streets and surrounding rooftops of ground zero were at one time littered with serialized and traceable, readily identifiable aircraft parts they could have easily fallen back on as proof of their claim UA175 crashed into World Trade Center 2.

Ironically then FEMA’s action in the aftermath of 9/11 constitute the very definition of “Conspiracy” therefore I believe Conspiracy Theorists like me harbouring ”The belief that the government or covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or explained, especially when any such involvement is denied” are completely justified in doing so after all. Much to the chagrin of James Meigs the consummate government apologist I would think.

All kidding aside from all of it I think it’s safe to say the U.S government and covert organizations within its sphere of influence systematically falsified far more than a single 9/11 photograph and for whatever reason they invoke. Indeed both government apologists James Meigs of Popular Mechanics fame and Mr. W. Gene Corley know full well what I’m talking about. They must or they’re playing possum because I’ve emailed each of them and several times now to inform them of my findings and to ask questions of them on the matter. Yet neither of them will acknowledge nor respond to my emails and not surprisingly then. After all, to do so would mean having to clarify via debate why the 9/11 facts I’ve presented them conflict with their jingoism. For that reason going on record is not an option for them and for obvious reason but no matter then because the court of public opinion is where such matters as evidence, proof and truth are decided.

In the end what the U.S. governments United Airlines flight 175 evidence boils down to then is a stand-alone, previously unexamined, unchallenged photograph that came to life out of conspiratorial deception and utterly contrived science. Indeed FEMA’s WTC BPS final report amounts to a decree that claims UA175 crashed into the South Tower on 9/11 - no credible evidence supports that conclusion and none has ever been given. Ironically then one simply cannot find a better example of the U.S government’s subterfuge than the FEMA Photo Library image #12390, located therein file #1391 but originally published in figure 2-29 on page 2-32 therein the May 1, 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study final report. As for their “experts” supporting mad science it permeates that overall 9/11 narrative. Needless to say the instant I laid eyes on that image I immediately grew suspicious of UA175 having met its demise at ground zero and especially so with having considered that official narrative supporting it.

I’ll use that as my transition into explaining what my latest photographs and video footage prove of the alleged UA175 wreckage - that section of fuselage is said to have survived the impact of WTC2 and settled on WTC5. The problem with the official narrative surrounding the alleged UA175 wreckage as we know it then is that section of fuselage was intentionally falsified to portray a section of the right hand side, rear fuselage area of the United Airlines flight 175 [N612UA]. That fact was confirmed in observations made by the Boeing Aircraft Structures Technician who accompanied this time round as I was busy snapping the photographs and video footage I’ve posted there at Flickr.

In fact he pointed out a number of glaring differences shown thereon FEMA’s alleged UA175 wreckage, only to explain why they varied considerably from the design and construction methods of the known commercial Boeing 767. For example, according to him and based on experience the Boeing 767 series of fuselage only differs in a few major ways. Instances of that are the design of the over-wing emergency exits as well the number of them and their locations. As well the overall fuselage length, with the Boeing 767-200 series airframe being approximately 20 feet shorter than a 300 series airframe. But as for the fasteners used and their general placement during the construction of a 767 fuselage their type, locations of and quantity never varies throughout the manufacturing process.
Furthermore, while analyzing the alleged UA175 wreckage therein FEMA’s image #12390, as well the image Copyofplanepartrf20-full and the Gary Steficek video [HQ_WTC5_GARY] and finally the Gary Steficek image [DSC00478] he had this to say. By comparison then the disputed sections of fuselage are in fact quite unique from one another he said but he also qualified his opinion by stating that doesn’t necessarily mean its representative of different aircraft types. From the known evidence he merely concluded the alleged UA175 wreckage does not correspond to any commercial Boeing 767 he knows of and with that he drew my attention to the first anomaly he’d noticed. That being the Huck rivets attaching the horizontal stringer to the outer fuselage skin, above and to the rear of the last window cut-out.

For those who don’t know what stringers are typically then they’re strips of aluminum angle that run from front to rear along the entire length or longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuselage and they make-up the bulk of the skeleton to which the outer sheet metal skin of the aircraft is fastened to. In this case the noteworthy stringers are those running immediately above and below the passenger window frames. It’s important to mention here how those horizontal stringers are pinched in between the outer fuselage skin and the window frames and take note of the fasteners used to affix them. If indeed, and so he claimed, that small piece of fuselage therein was the upper portion of the last passenger window frame on the right hand side of whatever aircraft slammed into WTC2 then it quite likely wasn’t a Boeing 767. His reason given then is solid rivets are always used in that area to affix the horizontal stringer to the outer fuselage on every commercial Boeing 767. At no time then in the course of a Boeing 767’s assembly at the Boeing manufacturing plant are Huck bolts or Hi-Lok fasteners used in place of solid rivets in that area and by design.

He went on to explain during the construction of a Boeing 767 airframe a combination of solid rivets, Huck rivets and Hi-Lok rivets are utilized throughout the airframes assembly there at the Boeing manufacturing facility. However, during the repair process of an in service Boeing 767 fuselage Hi-Lok fasteners quite often replace the factory “Huck” fasteners and/or solid rivets. In that instance the Hi-Lok fastener is Boeing’s standard method of repair he exclaimed, due mostly to the Hi-Lok’s design, ease of installation and reliability. All of which makes for a significantly improved, stronger repair.

That being said the Hi-Lok fasteners are clearly visible in both the Gary Steficek image [DSC00478] and the Gary Steficek video [HQ_WTC5_GARY] and yet that shouldn’t be the case the Boeing Aircraft Structures Technician stated. Unless that anomaly was the result of an engineering order [E.O.] repair of some sort that was specific to N612UA.Therefore it can be assumed, because the alleged UA175 wreckage clearly shows Hi-Lok fasteners in the place of solid rivets, either an E.O. repair had been carried out on that part of UA175’s fuselage or that wreckage isn’t from a Boeing 767 at all.

To find out if that was the case he reminded me of the fact according to Federal law all aircraft records must be kept on file in archives after an airframe is removed from service. Even those destroyed in accidents and the reason being is parts traceability. Sometimes serviceable parts from condemned aircraft are sold and reused on serviceable aircraft and for that reason the FAA and NTSB historically speaking kept a close eye on such matters. Following 9/11 I’ve lost all respect for both entities and suspect they do anything but. That aside he stated, if anyone truly wanted to put this issue to bed United Airlines could easily do so by pulling up their records of N612UA and making them public in order to dispute my evidence. However, I guarantee you their records department will do no such thing and for obvious reason. In fact I’d be surprised if those documents weren’t squirreled away by now, alongside the flight 93 evidence therein Iron Mountain it’s said.

The second anomaly pointed out by the Boeing Aircraft Structures Technician I spoke with is the heavy angular bracket with its large Hi-Lok fasteners, clearly visible through the window cut-out therein the Gary Steifcek image [DSC00478]. That anomaly is situated in the approximate vicinity of the 5th and 6th passenger window cut-outs and not far below. Nowhere is that heavy angular bracket to be found anywhere on the fuselage shown in my photographs and video footage. Even with the substructure in place it’s clear that anomaly is not typical of the Boeing 767 design. All of which is yet another clue the wreckage shown in FEMA’s aforementioned arsenal of evidence may in fact not be what the FEMA Photo Library image #12390 portends to portray. Therefore, in light of the incontrovertible and irreconcilable differences that exist between the two examples of fuselage one might reasonably conclude the FEMA evidence shows something entirely different than wreckage from a Boeing 767, destroyed on impact in WTC2 or otherwise.

As you can see should one care to look both the aforementioned anomalies are altogether absent from the Boeing 767 fuselage shown in my videos MVI_3342 and MVI_3348 posted there at Flickr.

Even more conspicuously complicit of the FEMA investigators then is their refusal to release into the public domain any bona fide physical evidence of aircraft wreckage its investigators sequestered, photographed and/or videotaped in the aftermath of 9/11. Not surprisingly then FEMA continues to re-release only that photograph while the fact remains its WTC site investigators elected not to conduct a thorough investigation of the crime scene in accordance with Protocol. So all said and done ask yourself why had the U.S. government lied about certain 9/11 evidence and why does it continue to block the release of evidence into the public domain, if indeed it has nothing to hide.

In closing then you will find below an individual listing of all pertinent evidence supporting my findings and as my research progresses and so too will these lists be improved upon and expanded.

Respectfully

Master List of Flickr Photographs and Video Footage:

IMG_3357
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238718178/in/photostream

IMG_3354
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238190759/in/photostream

IMG_3337
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238709978/in/photostream

IMG_3304
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238183081/in/photostream

IMG_3335 (Solid Rivets)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238699434/in/photostream

IMG_3318 (Windows 5&6)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238169237/in/photostream

IMG_3308 (Windows 6&7)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238689816/in/photostream

IMG_3305 (Skin joint over cargo door)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238687166/in/photostream

IMG_3219 (Solid Rivets)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238162741/in/photostream

DSC00478 (Hi-Lok)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238682488/in/photostream

MVI_3348
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238626758/in/photostream

MVI_3351
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6238207000/in/photostream

MVI_3342
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6236264293/in/photostream

IMG_3227
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5866355430/in/photostream

IMG_3194
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5860703031/in/photostream

IMG_3191
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858231481/in/photostream

IMG_3235
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858187559/in/photostream

IMG_3226
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858154979/in/photostream

99CHU~18
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858583862/in/photostream

LGI-37 (1)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857947449/in/photostream

LGI-47
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857883609/in/photostream

ABC Dub7 13
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857712013/in/photostream

Copyofplanepartrf20-full
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5858109740/in/photostream

ABC Dub7 07
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857216391/in/photostream

Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5856982537/in/photostream

12390
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5856956637/in/photostream

Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857433106/in/photostream

DSC00478
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/5857328812/in/photostream

NIST Cumulus dataset - Master List of Relevant Files:

Release_11:
42A0010, Lyle Owerko, Fuji 35mm B-1, B-2
Natasha Sealy-Fraser, Group 1, MVC-005F (WTC 5 rooftop immediately after second aircraft struck)
Release_14:
ABC NIST Dubs, ABC NIST Dub 37, ABC Dub7 13 ((aka Tami Michael’s video...WTC 5 rooftop view just after WTC 2 toppled)
CBS-NET NIST Dub #6, CBS-NET Dub6 48 (view from the North of WTC 7 Toppling)
Cindy Weil, Cindy Weil 06 (HD close-up view from the North, of WTC 2 on fire)
CNN NIST Dub #18 – Keiderling, CNN Dub18 10 (HD very good close-up video of WTC 2 N.E. corner burning)
Mark Molesworth, Molesworth Clip 12 (HD very good close-up video of WTC N.E. corner burning)
Richard Peskin, Peskin 03 (very good video showing second aircraft impact on WTC 2)
Scott Myers (fantastic video of second crash - self explanatory)
Special – Important, ABC Dub5 02 (WTC 7 survivor testimony of Barry Jennings...now deceased)
Vince Dementri CBS WTC7 (camera man’s damning admission WTC 7 expected to collapse)
WABC NIST Dub #1 (various video clips of engine on Murray St.)
WCBS NIST Dub #1 (various HD close-up video clips showing WTC North face of WTC 2 burning)
WCBS NIST Dub #3, WCBC Dub3_11 (EXCELLENT video footage looking South on WTC 2 as second aircraft approachs)
WTC – Clips (another view of second aircraft on approach to WTC 2)
Release_16:
42A0049, Bob Allen
42A0049, George Bell (Moodys)
Release_17:
42A0050, JohnG_NFPA5
Release_18:
42A0052 – G15, InfraspectionInstfromCD, WTC CD 1, WTC CD 2 (aka Rooftop of WTC 5)
Release_21:
42A0075 – G20 D3of6, (clear pre-September 23, 2001 aerial views looking onto the rooftop of WTC 5)
Release_22:
42A0080 – G21 D2of5, Scott Myers (shortened clip of second impact)
Release_28:
42A0299 – G28D4, DiscoveryCanada, fromCD, WTC_CA_1, WTC_CA_2 (report about NIST)
42A0308 – G28D13, RamonGilsanz, fromCD, WTC 7 Collapse Study – Power Point
42A0309 – G28D14, fromCD_WTCI-1391, WTC7COLLAPSE (missing detonation point)
42A0310 – G28D15, Steficek, Gary-videos
42A0314 – G28D19, fromCD_WTCI-138I, WTC7-Jan11-12 Pres-Gilsanz, Video-NBC, WTC 7 assessment
42A0314 – G28D19, fromCD_WTCI-138I, WTC7-Jan11-12 Pres-Gilsanz, Video-NBC, WTC 5 Presentation compressed
Release_29:
42A0320 – G29D6, WTCI-407-STB-LGI 2 of 2, LGI-35, LGI-37, LGI-47
42A0322 – G29D8, WTCI-409-STB David Hammond, AirPhoto, Air9-18, Site012, West027
42A0326 – G29D12, WTCI-413-STB-LGI 1of2, LGI-14
42A0327 – G29D13, WTCI-414-STB WTC Photos Roll 3 (photos of miniscule pressure wave as WTC 2 falls)
42A0328 – G29D14, roll 1, B6019~10
Release_30:
42A0349 – G30D3, VIDEO_TS, VTS_01_1 (different view of second plane on approach to WTC 2)
Release_31:
42A0355 – G31D1, HINYselects, Group B, 2103_large
42A0355 – G31D1, HINYselects, SET1, HNY_6236
Release_32:
42A0321 – G29D7, WTCI-408-STB NYPD, WTC Days 5 & 9 from NYPD Aviation 2, gjs-wtc215, gjs-wtc250 & gjs-wtc251
42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478
42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-25, 100MSDF,
42A0371 – G33D5, WTC-97-I Multiple, Baker-Jan11-12-Vidoes-WTC1&2, wtc_impact2
42A0371 – G33D5, WTC-97-I Multiple, Gilsanz Pres-Jan11-12-WTC7, Video-NBC, wtc5.mpeg (WTC5 interior and rooftop)
Release_33:

Release_34:

Release_35:

Release _36:
42A0515 – G37D2, Unknown Photographer, 2334_6
42A0518 – G37D15, WL35ch-R1-E003_2609, WL35ch-R1-E004 (enhanced and cropped)_2437, WL35ch-R1-E004_2610, WL35ch-R1-E005 (Lyle Owerko) with copyright and time_2449









Posted by: 23investigator Oct 20 2011, 07:00 AM

[quote name='questionitall' date='Oct 20 2011, 12:01 PM' post='10802086']
A few months ago I stated I’d be posting more photographs in early September.

Dear 'questionitall'.

Thankyou.
Did your 'airframe structures technician', happen to venture an opinion, what the piece of aircraft skin 'found' at the WTC scene, that you are giving consideration, may have come from.
It would be very useful I would think, to support your argument, if somebody could come forward and give a 'qualified opinion', what they consider.
As you would no doubt be aware, there are other pieces of fuselage being exhibited at a number of places.
A comparison of those portions to the piece you appear to be concentrating on, may offer some further considerations.
If nothing else it may reveal how some fuselage is on demonstration, and other not.
If some can be demonstrated 'surely' it all should be able to be released for consideration.

There should be some identification available to define which pieces relate to which tower.
Both aircraft involved are claimed to be Boeing 767 series.

It's a very big task you have dedicated your efforts to.
You have made significant findings.
It would be very helpful to you I would think, if other people who understand aircraft fuselage construction, would come forward to assist you.
Especially if they have looked at the photograph, and have some feelings towards what it could be, or even better heard along the 'grapevine' what it definitely is.

Keep safe and well

Robert S

Posted by: questionitall Oct 20 2011, 09:16 PM

Hello again Robert

As to your question did the Airframe Structures Technician venture an opinion no he did not. Quite unfortunately then because I'm at a loss to figure out what the alleged UA175 wreckage could be from. I have my suspicions but as you know I do not speculate. Not even to hazard a guess because that proves nothing while encouraging the lunatic fringe to weigh in with their opinions and useless comments. I'm not here for that reason Robert. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what I consider to be the greatest lie ever sold and that's why I've been looking for significant differences between the alleged UA175 wreckage and the Boeing 767 fuselage rather than similarities. I figure if I can definitively prove from that alleged UA175 wreckage that it couldn't possibly have been a Boeing 767 that crashed into World Trade Center 2 at least that puts the onus on the U.S. government to explain what did by coughing up serialized physical evidence of United Airlines N612UA to an independent third party for analysis. As well it should explain to the World why its hired help was able to lie and get away with doing so about pretty much everything they've said to date about the WTC aircraft.

Thx

Posted by: amazed! Oct 21 2011, 10:37 AM

Oh yeah, the onus is on the US government.

Kinda like the onus is on the government to explain the inconsistencies in the JFK or MLK assassinations.

They already HAVE explained it, printed a report about it, and guess what!---cases closed. The public bought it, revered it, repeats it like christians repeat the Nicene Creed, and life goes on.

Posted by: questionitall Oct 24 2011, 08:05 PM

The preceding insipid opinion is a case in point as to why I refuse to discuss this issue here with anyone of like mind. Regardless of what opinion that agent provocateur writes, whether it’s for the purpose of undermining this forum or not, the fact remains he is wrong to say so and an ass for doing just that. Indeed, while people have grown wise to the truth of the matter so too they’ve grown savvy of that individual’s same old disparaging remarks and defeatism. Now if someone has something intelligent and constructive to offer here by all means then I’m open to discussing the matter.

In contrast to that individual’s narcissistic cynicism the fact remains United Airlines flight 175 was never proven by FEMA to have crashed into World Trade Center 2 on September 11, 2001. That is a well documented fact, based purely on the U.S. governments established UA175 evidence, as well the appraisal of two highly experienced Boeing Aircraft Structures Technicians who’ve agreed with my analysis of that evidence. Indeed my supporting photographs and video footage corroborates whatever aircraft wreckage the WTC investigators tried to pass off as that of UA175 it surely wasn’t that of a Boeing 767. The truth of the matter is not the slightest semblance of an aircraft crash investigation was undertaken by FEMA’s WTC investigators, as evidenced by the nonexistent WTC aircraft case files!

Regardless then what the aforementioned naysayer thinks and says here the real truth of 9/11 is the U.S. governments NIST Cumulus dataset evidence proves the FEMA WTC BPS final report is a product of systemic, flagrant criminality, there within FEMA especially. All said and done and if I’m not mistaken then tampering with evidence so pertaining to an aviation related crash investigation as well lying to Congress while under oath still constitutes Federal offenses in the good old U.S. of A, does it not? If the States has any chance of saving itself from such overt tyranny its citizenry seriously needs to address the matter of its moral decay and that of indifference which is best exemplified by the aforementioned individual.


Posted by: amazed! Oct 26 2011, 10:49 AM

Yeah, Q, maybe you could make a citizen's arrest on this.

Before attempting, however, you should consult with those folks in Surrey, Canada who just attempted the same on Dubya for his admitted criminal offences.

Or, perhaps you should consult with the VFP guys, God bless 'em, who attempted citizen's arrest on Rumsfeld a few months back.

Best of luck on that dude.

Posted by: questionitall Oct 27 2011, 09:16 PM

I’m known for far worse things I’ve stood for in the past, therefore, imply what you will of my “vichysto-résistant” political stance and exceptionally strong-minded will to serve a higher purpose. In contrast then to those who’ve done absolutely nothing to better their fellow lot, certainly without consideration given those sacrificed on the altar of 9/11. They will reap exactly what they’ve sewn in life and all because they'd failed to realize until too late that is our reason for being is to live with compassion, communally and constructively. That goes for being demonstrably proactive in the welfare and affairs of those who cannot fend for themselves. Therefore the coming social awakening and renaissance, or revolution if you will, won’t be kind at all to those who’ve spent their lives conspiring to do no good of others. Indeed, with history as my witness those deserving will get precisely what’s coming to them, when the épuration sauvage befalls America that is, sooner rather than later I suspect. God’s law, as with the rule of man, will fall by the wayside when those who ever con sidered making a citizen’s arrest of tyrants and instead turn to revenge, as Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi recently found out the hard way.

Not unlike the French Resistance then or francs-tireurs who dispatched any such tyrant and complicit collaborator in their midst, throughout the occupation of France and especially in the immediate last days of World War II. That’s when a wave of executions, public humiliations, assaults and detentions of suspected collaborators swept over the country. To paraphrase Gerald Celente “past events form future trends“, meaning then, when history repeats itself you’ll wish to hell you were serving the right side, but if wishes were horses even beggars would ride. So too he’s forewarned everyone “When people have lost everything and they’ve nothing left to lose well then they lose it” and the financiers of the occupying “Vichy Regime” now ensconced therein Washington are to blame for that. It’s they after all who serve and do the bidding of the International Bankers occupying the Federal Treasury. That seat of all power over the land.

Interestingly enough it’s been estimated a mere 500,000 activists or about 2% of the adult male and female French population served on French soil as francs-tireurs in one capacity or another. Approximately 200,000 of those had substantial involvement, meaning those propagandists, spies, and saboteurs harassed the occupiers to no end and to the point where retreat was the occupying aggressor’s only option. Think about it...2% of the population made all the difference there! So how many completely disenfranchised and underemployed activists who are now aware of the root of the problem in America and around the World would you say there are? How many of those who’ve been politicized by the years of looting the public purse are close to you, know of your allegiance to those tyrants and will recall the betrayal you now serve on your countrymen? Think about that the next time you act or open your mouth - consider yourself warned.

In the end Mr. Celente and I make-up what amounts to a handful of “Conspiracy Theorists” making a difference. I wish there were more like him in the resistance movement currently sweeping the globe but no matter. The rank and file are growing in number and when all is said and done both our politics, opinions as well our reputations will have been vindicated. For having made an effort at least to shed light on those responsible for the overall criminality leading up to the events of 9/11 as well those complicit in aiding and abetting the murder of their fellow countrymen and women and all for prophet...Oops my bad; I meant to say profit of course. Chalk that up to a Freudian slip.

Rest assured, history foretells, those who advocate such tyrannical measures as that of Nazi Germanys rule will get exactly what they deserve in due time. For having backstopped any such unconscionable “Vichy Regime” via their self-inflicted ignorance and by that I mean their blind obedience and patriotism to that cause that will be their downfall.

Not unlike those who met their fate at the hands of the 'franc-tireur’ so too the 9/11 traitors will inevitably be made familiar of their executioner, of whom and in the words of G. K. Chesterton therein the September 13, 1919 issue of Illustrated London News then “A 'franc-tireur' is a free man, who fights to defend his own farm or family against foreign aggressors, but who does not happen to possess certain badges and articles of clothing...In other words, a 'franc-tireur' is you or I or any other healthy man who found himself, when attacked, in accidental possession of a gun or pistol, and not in accidental possession of a particular cap or a particular pair of trousers. The distinction is not a moral distinction at all..."





Posted by: questionitall Nov 9 2011, 12:06 AM

I find it all rather coincidental then. That eight days ago now, there on November 1, 2011, ‘the Demon’ posted a video at [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] and elicited broadly speculative assumptions about what he/she claims it proves.

By doing so that individual aided and abetted what amounts to a concerted conspiracy by fools and the mainstream media to disseminate false information about 9/11 and WTC7 specifically. One could argue it was done this time around in a desperate attempt to undermine and discredit the findings and expert testimony of the likes of Kevin Ryan and others. They recently spoke on the matter of 9/11 and at length in Toronto, Canada. Videos of that conference are available online at [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17217220] or simply Google search 9/11 – The Toronto Hearings and then select video. I highly recommend listening to the very telling testimony of those expert witnesses to better understand my point here.

My point being then I’m concerned people just now coming to know about the World Trade Center 7 controversy may be wrongly influenced by such nonsense as what some consider to be factual reporting. For that reason I’m compelled to pipe up here and set the record straight on the written comments ‘the Demon’ made online quite recently. Not only had that individual disingenuously deduced the “rare raw 9/11 footage” shows World Trade Center 7 was “partially consumed by fire, melting the beams which then resulted in its collapse” on 9/11. Unbelievably then he/she also concluded “a direct ground shot of a large portion of the building missing at the bottom - look closely and your 9/11 conspiracy theories should take a back seat - the building was severely damaged by collapse of the Twin Towers.” All of which is pure bullshit and I’ll certainly not take a back seat to anyone who’s disseminating any such claptrap!

I’ll assume the latter statement made by ‘the Demon’ is in reference to the heavily damaged World Trade Center 5, seen to the left in that video footage, and not WTC7 because clearly the only WTC site office towers shown therein are two distinctly separate structures and quite clearly WTC7 on the right is in no way, shape or form damaged at ground level. Not on its West or the North facing wall there at street level. Therefore, how ‘the Demon’ managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone’s guess. But regardless then of whether or not they were implying the building on the left was part of WTC7 the fact remains they’d demonstrably proven they’re nothing shy of being an amateur menace to 9/11-Truth research, if not an agent provocateur, for having made all those patently false statements!

Aside from that, as well the fact the video footage in question has been public knowledge since 9/11, what raised my hackles even more is Meghan Keneally, an alleged freelance journalist now living in New York. Quite fortuitously then she’d happened upon that “Unseen 9/11 Footage” the same day it was posted online and promptly decided to write an article about it then. So entitled ‘Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire’ that utterly maleficent antithesis is a flagrant miscarriage of the truth that was picked-up and published by the ignoble rag ‘the UK Daily Mail’ newspaper on November 2, 2011. As posted online at [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html].

By it all I can’t help but wonder how one could be so very stupid and brazen to write such nonsense and think for a second expert witnesses dedicated to researching 9/11-Truth wouldn’t catch her out on that lie! In light of that fact it’s obvious to me she was put-up to the task, by the editorial board at ‘the Daily Mail’ whom for that reason never bothered to vet the claims she made therein that hit-piece. Nor did it establish the veracity of the source material underpinning her story. Those two facts alone say everything about the lack of ethics of the editorial board at the UK Daily Mail. Not to mention the mindset and modus operandi of those at its helm who steer the official 9/11 narrative and public knowledge of the matter in the direction they’ve done so from the onset of September 11, 2001. Had one of them a conscience and bothered to establish her background or vet the evidence so too they would have discovered the following qualities of Meghan Keneally.

First of all with respect to the overall WTC 7 issue she hasn’t a clue what she’s talking about and certainly not when it comes to the official record of intergovernmental agencies who investigated that crime scene. But more importantly then she’d either plagiarized, verbatim, at least some if not all of what she’d written therein her article. That or she’d planted the video to begin with then capitalized on doing so after the fact.

Quite frankly then I suspect the latter, due to the fact the entire first paragraph therein her article reads word for word the same as that of the commentary posted by ‘Kruz200’ on November 2, 2011 at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-AfXkEvgs]. That suspicious “newly released video” footage mentioned therein having been sourced from ‘the Demon’ at [www.LiveLeak.com]. A fact confirmed by the “posted on LiveLeak” hallmark in the upper left corner in every online version of that particular video, including the one linked to ‘the Mail’ article in question.

It’s my opinion then either she or the editors at the Daily Mail planted the ‘Kruz200’ video. One or the other most certainly did, in a failed attempt to lend false credence to the official narrative “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as the conspiracy theorists claim.” I believe it was Meghan Keneally’s job to put a freelance spin on that video and by doing so she’d curry scraps of favour from the powers that be down the road, hopefully. For all the aforementioned reasons then Meghan Keneally’s reporting is anything but that of a freelance journalist writing with an impartial view from an unbiased vantage point. If I’m proven right her reputation will be irreparably damaged as diminished for having been exposed as nothing better than a mainstream media “presstitute” akin to the likes of James Meigs, the consummate stooge, government apologist and editor of Popular Mechanics fame.

She’s welcome to rebut my accusations and even sue me in court over them but in the end you’re my judge and jury deciding who’s telling the truth here and that’s why I tell it like it is.

Her credibility and trustworthiness as a freelance journalist is shot all to hell then in my opinion! Therefore Mr. Watson was right and justified write and chastise her bizarre leap of logic, so too her opportunistic accusations levied against 9/11-Truth researchers in general therein his rebuttal ‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Actually Validates Them.’ If you haven’t already read either article I suggest you begin with Paul Joseph Watson’s piece, posted there on Alex Jones ’Infowars’ at [http://www.infowars.com/footage-that-kills-911-conspiracy-theories-actually-validates-them/] followed by Ms. Keneally’s dubious extrapolation of the events and evidence shown therein the video footage.

It goes without saying I side with Paul Joseph Watson’s take on the matter. If for no other reason because that 2 minute video collage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] shows quite matter-of-factly then a maximum of four floors of the 47 storied Building 7 either aflame or having been damaged by fire. As a result only sections of the exterior aluminum panels nearest the open flames had melted away from the exoskeleton of that structure. That’s a far cry different from “beams” shown to be “melting” and massive structural support columns at the heart of the building giving way as a consequence of fire/heat induced failure.

In fact the design of WTC7 had no such structural beams designed into its exterior walls and even the NIST investigators only went as far as to claim in their final report the fires “weakened” the interior core columns of the building, not the “exterior metal beams” so imagined by ‘the Demon’ and Ms. Keneally. Obviously then what both individuals would have people believe is structural steel melted was away by the rather low intensity fires burning therein. Rather than the reality of the situation, which is ceiling tile support latticework and minor secondary structures above it have come adrift of their anchors. As evidenced when the camera zooms into the buildings shattered window openings for a birds-eye view.

All said and done I’m inordinately disgusted by both of their inept, incredibly unqualified and absurd conclusions. In fact their deeply incredulous opinions are impossible to ignore, especially when such stupidity emboldens others of like mind and ulterior motive to follow suit by weighing in and publicly with equally moronic conclusions.

For those not yet convinced I’m right to say there’s an ongoing, concerted campaign involving such fools and the mainstream media to plant stories and corrupt facts by fabricating evidence intended to veil the truth of 9/11 I suggest you Google the ‘Kruz200’ video at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-AfXkEvgs] then open up the “read more” tab and compare the two descriptions of the same video.

Oh hell then I’ll save you the steps – what follows then is the commentary from the ‘Kruz200’ video footage headlined Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building consumed by fire:

“Footage that kills the conspiracy theories. Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Footage below to LiveLeak site.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.”

...and here’s the Headline, as well the full first paragraph of Meghan Keneally’s article:

“Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building consumed by fire
Its dramatic collapse hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims. But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.”

Now compare the original raw Vince Dementri video footage to the online version and finally the aired edited CBS2 video footage that was shown around the world on 9/11. The unedited Vince Dementri video footage is located in Release_14 of the NIST Cumulus dataset in file CBS-NET NIST Dub #7 and WCBS NIST Dub #2 ADDED CLIPS. An example of the complete, edited and aired Vince Dementri/CBS2 video is here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4] or alternatively then it. Alternatively then it can be downloaded at Youtube by searching “Vince Dementri - WTC7 Expected To Collapse CBS2 News – YouTube”.

Lastly then very telling photographs of WTC7 being constructed in 1985 are located in Release 32 and 36 of the NIST Cumulus datasets. For that reason their authenticity vis-a-vis their chain of custody is well beyond reproach. Revealing images in Release_32, files 42A0372 - G33D6 and 42A0373 – G33D7 (sub-files Mitchell, Paul-2 and Mitchell, Paul-3 respectively) as well as Release_36, 42A0516 – G37D3 (Paul MitchellTIF) show the the columns and beams that made up the perimeter, or exoskeleton, of Building 7 were exceedingly robust. Therefore it’s extremely unlikely they overheated, buckled and failed do to being what Meghan Keneally described as “the intense heat from glowing flames on the sixth floor” of WTC7. I will link those photographs when I’m able to successfully download them – they’re too large a format for Flickr, apparently.

Please stay tuned because there’s more to come here on this matter.

Posted by: questionitall Nov 15 2011, 11:13 PM

I'm looking for video footage showing a clear, unobstructed view of the North face of World Trade Center 7 at street level and just as it begins to collapse. Has anyone seen such a video online or there in the NIST Cumulus datasets?

Posted by: 727fan Nov 21 2011, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Nov 15 2011, 11:13 PM) *
I'm looking for video footage showing a clear, unobstructed view of the North face of World Trade Center 7 at street level and just as it begins to collapse. Has anyone seen such a video online or there in the NIST Cumulus datasets?


QIA, you are 100% correct. Nothing other than a controlled demolition brought down WTC 7, there is video proof on Utube where the detonation explosions in the top corner of the building are seen exploding in a downward pattern literally one second before the collapse begins. The video is described as showing the north side of WTC 7, I do not know if that is accurate.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0vq-r0NM4g&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLFC2C98C8C8AEA63C (You may want to turn the sound off, it's music if you can call it that).

And there are other similar videos. It is well known that the BBC and other news media reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually happened.

My personal opinion is that WTC 7 is one of the best starting points to begin a discussion with someone who has difficulty considering scenarios other than the lies and garbage of the official story.

Posted by: questionitall Nov 24 2011, 12:47 AM

QUOTE (727fan @ Nov 21 2011, 10:53 AM) *
QIA, you are 100% correct. Nothing other than a controlled demolition brought down WTC 7, there is video proof on Utube where the detonation explosions in the top corner of the building are seen exploding in a downward pattern literally one second before the collapse begins. The video is described as showing the north side of WTC 7, I do not know if that is accurate.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0vq-r0NM4g&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLFC2C98C8C8AEA63C (You may want to turn the sound off, it's music if you can call it that).

And there are other similar videos. It is well known that the BBC and other news media reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually happened.

My personal opinion is that WTC 7 is one of the best starting points to begin a discussion with someone who has difficulty considering scenarios other than the lies and garbage of the official story.



Thanks for the feedback 727fan. For what it’s worth I agree with you, in principle that is. Although it seems to me you’re focussed on the upper reaches of WTC 7 where the alleged explosive charges are said to be quite noticeable to the naked eye as they detonate. I’ve seen the videos and it certainly could be explosive detonations and just as you say, but to be honest I don’t see it that way. At the risk of coming across as a know it all the event you mentioned doesn’t seem that convincing to me. In fact it looks to me like nothing more than shimmering light. However, having said that I’m 99% convinced WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and that’s purely mechanics intuition, but the world demands smoking gun proof of the inside job, and so do I for that matter and especially if I’m going to sate my suspicions.

What’s more I’m unable to accept the argument the flashes of light a split second before WTC 7 crumples is proof positive of explosive detonations. Not because it isn’t plausible but more so then because the official explanation for it hasn’t been ruled out. The fact is those flashes of light had been explained away and rather convincingly by the “experts” as being window panes that became detached from the building as it buckled, and that glass simply reflected the light as it fell away from the building. I find that answer far too abbreviated of course and it’s because of curt answers like that I’m on the other side of the controlled demolition debate to begin with. However, all said and done the onus is on the “truthers” to prove to their peers the “experts” wrong and not the other way around. That’s how it works and how one counters a wrong with a right without considerably more compelling proof than what they’ve afforded us is a question of stratagem.
By that I mean I have a problem with being told by clueless authoritarians what to think and do and believe and because of it I don’t expect it of others to take me at face value. I’m sure most people are that way and that’s why I try to educate rather than dictate. It’s imperative we “truthers” win the trust of those we’re trying to reach by explaining to them exactly why it is the NIST findings are flawed. All the while giving examples of it, by pointing out those flaws therein the “experts” own documents. Contrary to the mainstream media presstitutes then who routinely forsake honest journalism by plagiarizing and embellishing on known fallacies and not unlike NIST might I add. They do so to cover-up pretty much every inconvenient truth there is of 9/11. Not to mention the criminality of those who compromised the WTC site and investigation to begin with. It’s for that reason I take great pleasure rubbing the expert’s noses in the evidence, by pointing out word for word and every damning detail belying their lies and contradictions. It’s all I’ve got to my name, because I’ve been robbed of everything else in life by the system, therefore it gives me great pleasure exposing them.

As an aircraft mechanic I work with engineered solid facts that require computer logic to work and together the two generally work quite well. When they fail to do so the problem usually can be easily solved using applied logic and mechanical principle. Even when a catastrophic failure occurs the fault is most often found to have been preventable and many decades of technological advancement have all but taken mechanical failure out of the equation. That should be especially true for structural steel frame tall building design which have been around a lot longer than tin-pot aircraft but in the case of WTC 7’s design and construction it wasn’t, according to NIST that is. Nowadays when something goes terribly wrong with an aircraft more often than not it was human error. So was the collapse of WTC 7 also a result of human factors or was it poor engineering? You be the judge.

Truthfully then I’m far more interested in what’s happening at the base of that tower in the lead-up to its collapse, because as I see it then if WTC 7 had been rigged to blow it makes more sense to have initiated the brunt of that explosive force at ground level and especially the 5th through 7th floors. That’s because the building was designed much larger than originally anticipated for the existing Con Edison site and for such a small existing caisson foundation design. Therefore the existing caissons installed were used, along with new ones, to accommodate WTC7 and its 5th floor area was designed to function as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons via a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders located there. What’s more the 5th through 7th floor also housed large mechanical equipment of all description that was essential to the normal function of the office tower and above the 7th floor the building structure was a typical tube-frame design.

What’s more a shipping and receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the Eastern quarter of the WTC 7 footprint. The building was open below the third floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp. In other words WTC 7 was unique in the sense that the design of its lower few floors was extremely critical to the structural integrity of the floors above them.

The layout of the 5th and 6th floor of WTC 7 is located on page 27 of the November 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/docs/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

That’s why I asked the question I did. As for online WTC 7 collapse footage I’ve analyzed every known WTC 7 collapse video there is but unfortunately then not a single video shows the explosive sequence I’m looking for in its entirety. The vantage point in the video footage [WTC7COLLAPSE] is of particular interest to me because it shows the North face of WTC 7 at street level. Unfortunately the FBI and FEMA butchered it as well before handing it over to NIST but it shows enough. You can find the video I’m talking about here at http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/6392849827/in/photostream

Believe it or not this was an abbreviated reply and if you’re interested in more of what I have to say about this subject stay tuned. I’m working on a piece that sheds light on the contradictions therein the November 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 final report. Despite the fact the investigators told us explosives were not the cause of WTC 7’s destruction I beg to differ and I’m looking at that report from the perspective of Mr. Barry Jennings testimony. As for Mr. Michael Hess clearly he hasn’t any balls or backbone enough to stand-up for himself and shame on him for it.


Posted by: 727fan Nov 24 2011, 10:04 AM

[quote name='questionitall' date='Nov 24 2011, 12:47 AM' post='10802607']
Thanks for the feedback 727fan. ... I’m 99% convinced WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and that’s purely mechanics intuition, but the world demands smoking gun proof of the inside job, and so do I for that matter and especially if I’m going to sate my suspicions.

What’s more I’m unable to accept the argument the flashes of light a split second before WTC 7 crumples is proof positive of explosive detonations. Not because it isn’t plausible but more so then because the official explanation for it hasn’t been ruled out. The fact is those flashes of light had been explained away and rather convincingly by the “experts” as being window panes that became detached from the building as it buckled, and that glass simply reflected the light as it fell away from the building. I find that answer far too abbreviated of course and it’s because of curt answers like that I’m on the other side of the controlled demolition debate to begin with. However, all said and done the onus is on the “truthers” to prove to their peers the “experts” wrong and not the other way around. That’s how it works and how one counters a wrong with a right without considerably more compelling proof than what they’ve afforded us is a question of stratagem....


QIA, Thank you too.

Describing "flashes of light" is qualitatively different than "explosions". In the vidoes, "explosions" are seen (at least by me and many others), as each is seen as a cloud of smoke bursting forth.

If you think I focus primarily on the smoke explosions in the videos, it may be because they are additional clear evidence of the controlled demolition that numerous first responders have stated they heard on the radio channel the countdown commands being issued leading up to the controlled demolition.

At the same time, I do not have the education and knowledge of mechanical repair of aircraft that you do, nor do I have the education and knowledge of building structures that you do.

Even so, I have never claimed to have that advanced knowledge. Clearly you know very, very intricate details of the exact construction of WTC 7 that I had not heard before. While I said that it appears that the explosions progress downward in the videos, that does not in any way rule out that there also were other detonation charges exploded at exactly the same time or in the immediate 1-3 seconds before or after at the most strategic points of the 3rd through 7th floors that you mentioned. That would actually almost certainly have to be the case for accomplishing a controlled demolition in the most efficient manner possible, and you know the perps would want to do that as much as they could. It is unknown if that can be seen in any video.

What you are trying to do is very commendable and fits well with Rob's and this site's policies. There is a big difficulty, and that of course is: data supplied by what many view as by far the most likely suspect.

It is to Rob's credit and those that assisted in the efforts, to have pages and links on this web site to a number of different analysis that proved that the government had supplied fake data in response to the FOIA requests. Fake data, fake staged videos, a lot of fake in the official story, a lot of fake involving airplanes.

Also, it has been noted that some of the data supplied is internally contradictory, supposed official data from one agency contradicts supposed official data from a different agency. A similar example is the finding of woodybox that the FAA and United were following two different aircraft that each was calling "Flight 93".

The big difficulty being the enormous doubts as to the authenticity of official data, including not manipulated or altered data. One thing I need to add to my basic http://4real911Truth.blogspot.com site is the part about how ATC at TRACON Ronkonkoma destroyed recordings of voice transmissions on 9/11/01.

And therefore, what likely was some of the most damning evidence of all to the official story from that morning was purposely destroyed almost immediately before the end of that very day.

Please understand, I hope you find the video and/or other stronger proofs you are looking for about WTC 7 and any others. For me and hopefully many others, maybe it's OK to reject the official story on the basis of our level of knowledge at the present time, without having to resort to further, deeper proofs.

And it may even be possible that the same would be true in a court of law, if it would be heard before a jury who would hopefully grasp the general ideas, a few very strategic proofs of the forming of the plot and preparing for it beforehand and carrying it out may be enough, if ever those bahstids are even brought before court.

And I say that not as any legal expert, but in response to observing the percentage of people who still accept the official story or have no opinion/don't care, combined with the percentage of the population completely preoccupied with games, sports, and what kim kardashian ate for breakfast.


Posted by: questionitall Nov 25 2011, 12:41 AM

If I insulted you 727fan I apolgize, as it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. I was merely emphasizing the point that only hard evidence and facts will convince those in office, who still have a conscience, to re-investigate WTC 7. I'm stepping out on a limb here and breaking my own rule by saying what I think opposed to what I know by saying as far as I'm concerned those flashes of light are most definitely indicative of explosive detonations. However, the trick is to prove that with hard evidence. Unfortunately that is proving quite difficult, seeing as the FBI and FEMA edited the more damning WTC 7 video evidence prior to handing it over to NIST. Cheers.

Posted by: questionitall Nov 25 2011, 01:07 AM

As a quick follow-up to my November 8, 2011 post ‘making a case against Meghan Keneally’s utter stupidity’ I just want to say I’ve looked into the suppositions she made therein, of which I didn’t rebut at the earlier, but now that I’ve done a little digging I’m fully apprised of how totally misleading they were.

For instance, she couldn’t have made a more asinine statement in her November 2, 2011 hit-piece than “it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation”. That statement suggests that video footage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] confirms the floors of WTC 7 were overheated then buckled and eventually collapsed bringing the entire structure down as a result. In addition to that clap-trap she opined therein her hit-piece “Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell” which not surprisingly glosses over the entire event, as if to suggest the collapse of WTC 7 was an insignificant occurrence sometime later that day. Having blundered through all that that she then erroneously concludes “It is unclear when exactly during the day the video is shot, but considering the fact that the building is still standing it must be well before its collapse...”

Might I inform Meghan Keneally the “fact” not only was the collapse of WTC 7 the smoking gun event of 9/11 in actuality then the 9/11 Commission didn’t even investigate WTC 7. Indeed, there’s no mention of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commissions final report. What’s more the CBS2 reporter and his camera operator who captured the video footage did so at approximately 16:34 on the 24H clock, or in other words 4:34 in the afternoon, just as the time code recording shown in the opening still shot of the video [http://youtu.be/cNFBUQEzCNY] indicates. By my estimation that puts him at the foot of WTC 7 on Barclay St. a little more than one hour prior to that buildings collapse and not well before the collapse of WTC 7 as she suggests. The fact she never bothered to get her “facts” straight to begin with nor did she even bother to get the CBS2 reporter’s name which is Vince Dementri by the way, and that says everything about her credibility and acumen as a journalist.

By the way, it’s interesting to note he too believed the collapse of WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fygnOrKaI_Q]. So in light of just those few reasons alone she’s proven herself a fraud but more to the point then.

WTC 2 collapsed more than seven hours before WTC 7 collapsed and WTC 1 a little under seven hours prior to that event. That is to say almost seven hours had elapsed between WTC 1’s collapse and that of WTC 7. That timeline is old news to everyone who knows better than to believe the likes of Meghan Keneally and Mike Rudin but I’ve mentioned it to stress a critical point here, of which I’m investigating and expanding on therein a new article I’m currently writing about the potential for explosives in WTC 7.

That article marries the irritable, credible testimony of Mr. Barry Jennings with language therein the November 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report. Mr. Barry Jennings as many know had experienced firsthand at least one explosion in the East stairwell at the time he and Mr. Michael Hess were attempting to extricate themselves from WTC 7 on 9/11, to which both men testified to having felt under their feet. Mr. Jennings testimony to that affect, both on 9/11 and since then had never changed, right up to his death, and contrary to what Mike Rudin implied in his atrocious hit-piece documentary ‘9/11-The Third Tower’. Mr. Hess however inexplicably recanted his earlier testimony in the weeks following the death of Mr. Jennings. The only point Mr. Jennings ever waivered on in the seven years he remained alive after 9/11 was the issue of dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7. That being the case the video [Barry Jennings Uncut I Am Dylan Avery on blip.tv] makes it quite clear Mr. Jennings was being pressured (later in his life) to recant his story and original testimony, which he did not. Never in all that time did he change his testimony regarding having experienced an explosion in the East stairwell on the 6th floor landing and prior to WTC 1 or 2 collapsing.

The main point I’m making here, besides discrediting Meghan Keneally’s hit-piece on 9/11-Truthers, is the fact NIST claims seven hours was not time enough for whomever to have planted even the most rudimentary of explosive devices therein WTC 7 and especially on the day of 9/11. However, as I will show, the NIST investigation looking into the possibility of explosives in WTC 7 never took into account the likelihood those explosives had been planted on the lower levels WTC 7 and below floors 7 through 14. That is where WTC 7 was most vulnerable to structural failure and a Global Collapse caused by any such explosions.

According to NIST however that scenario never occurred, even though the investigators hadn’t considered that scenario in its investigation, according to its final report that is, and neither did it consider the use of exotic materials such as Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials. Rather the NIST investigators concluded then in Section 3.3 entitled “Hypothetical Blast Scenarios” thereon page 26:

“Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7. As a minimum, the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle. Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure (including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7h to 8h time frame.

SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations...was used to predict window breakage. Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor.

Attention focussed on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 Ib.) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection. Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 Ib.) to evaluate threshold explosive requirements for window fragility. Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around more than one column.”

In light of the aforementioned I had no choice but to extensively quote from Chapter 3 of the NIST final report because, again, my point being the NIST investigation looking into the possibility of explosives in WTC 7 never took into account the likelihood those explosives had been planted on the lower levels to that of floor 7 and particularly floors 5 and 6, where WTC 7 was most vulnerable to structural failure and a Global Collapse caused by such explosions. That being the case, when that section of the NIST final report is read through a number of times and seriously considered in that context one begins to realize the “Hypothetical Blast Scenarios” NIST undertook were intentionally limited in scope and for obvious reason. To summarise then, according to the November 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report only one type of a commonly used explosive (RDX) was hypothetically planted on floor levels limited to the 7th to 14TH floor “Collapse Zone” NIST claims was the root cause and “Leading Hypothesis” for the “Global Collapse” of WTC 7. No consideration was given to the possibility Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials might have been used in a far more discreet and efficient manner than high explosives, just as 1500 Architects and Engineers insist.

...Truth in mainstream media news my ass!






Posted by: Heiwa Nov 25 2011, 04:36 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Nov 25 2011, 01:07 AM) *
... she couldn’t have made a more asinine statement in her November 2, 2011 hit-piece than “it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation”. That statement suggests that video footage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] confirms the floors of WTC 7 were overheated then buckled and eventually collapsed bringing the entire structure down as a result. In addition to that clap-trap she opined therein her hit-piece “Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell” which not surprisingly glosses over the entire event, as if to suggest the collapse of WTC 7 was an insignificant occurrence sometime later that day. Having blundered through all that that she then erroneously concludes “It is unclear when exactly during the day the video is shot, but considering the fact that the building is still standing it must be well before its collapse...”


Evidently the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, issuing a report that the failure of one column (due thermal expansion) of WTC7 brought the whole structure down, is clap-trap and supports terrorism. The terrorists are encouraged to start fires and whole buildings will suddenly collapse. No need to hijack planes!
A fire anywhere inside a steel structure, bottom, middle or top, will never produce total collapse of the structure. Basic: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

Posted by: questionitall Jan 3 2012, 09:37 PM

This snippet of info based entirely on fact is but a brief heads-up rebuttal to Mark Robert’s fallacious hit-piece ‘WTC not a Demolition’ which just goes to show its true, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” In fact human history is replete with accounts of entire societies becoming stupefied under the spell of madmen akin to Joseph Goebbels and a despicable liar he was too fulfilling his dutiful obligations as that of Gauleiter - his gift for propaganda served the cause well and masterfully so, much to the dismay of countless millions butchered for his ideology. Indeed his lunacy culminated in the litany of Noble Lies told the German people by the NAZI leader Adolf Hitler. Who in the name of their best interests and that of German society’s ordered hunted down and liquidated all manner of those dissenting of the States abuse of power and criminality. For most people now his story is nothing more than a footnote in history - a tale of an elitist demigod left to run amok and circumstance which couldn’t possibly occur today so we’re told. What most alarms me then about Mr. Robert’s demeanour and modus operandi is very few people recognize his seething fanatical fervour for precisely what it is – the same existential threat of obedience demanded of us which lent itself to NAZI Germany’s rise and ultimate abuse of authority.

Just as it happened in 1930’s Germany so too now it’s the 9/11-Truthers that are branded undesirable (dissenting) enemies (conspirators) against the state for simply asking questions and similarly then I suspect the fate of millions before us will be ours in the not too distant future, should the likes of Mr. Robert’s get their way and see to the criminalization 9/11 Truth. It came as no surprise to me then having recently viewed that outrageous fabrication ‘WTC not a Demolition’ he produced Mr. Robert’s is very much a propagandist. Therefore I had no choice but to point out why exactly he’s little more than a likeminded Conman similar to Goebbels, using sleight of hand trickery and the same deceptive means to relieve people of their senses. As I’ll show in quick order then with all the compelling evidence available to him in the public domain that weasel uses it to fabricate evidence and arguments he then lies through his teeth about. He does so to your face while confronting those who rationally contest his brand of 9/11 truth. Hell then he even makes-up his own words where needed, such as the word “conspiracist.”

Have no doubt he rails against 9/11-Truth all because he reviles Truths ability to cut straight through his bullshit to where it inevitably illuminates the minds of those looking for honest answers. The truth in this case being Mr. Roberts insinuates all “conspiracists” claim three World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by explosives and namely then by some material similar to RDX - That was his first lie told in the video ‘WTC not a Demolition’.

The fact is the peer reviewed paper entitled ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’ so published therein The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen concludes “The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite...After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 degrees Celsius we found numerous iron-rich spheres and shperiods in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred...This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite...This would be expected for super-thermite formulations...the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction...Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

That point alone makes it pretty damned clear those experts NEVER claimed and DO NOT insist all three WTC Towers were rigged to blow with RDX and toppled by it, but rather some material similar to Super-Thermite was discovered in their pulverized wake, which merely begs the question how did it get there. What’s more those experts have stuck to their findings and opinion from the beginning. Contrary then to the NIST WTC 7 investigators having bobbed and weaved on what the computer simulated “hypothetical blast events” NIST promoted throughout its 2008 NCSTAR 1A final report actually proved. Wherein its authors presumed only RDX could have brought about the collapse of WTC 7 in such fashion - an argument Mr. Robert’s has parroted ever since that reports release in 2008. Needless to say then the fact Mr. Robert’s feels threatened by and continues to rail against the professional opinion of Steven E. Jones and Richard Gage, as well the other aforementioned contrarians he’d declared guilty by association and names at the beginning of his hit-piece that says a great deal about his character and credibility. Not to mention his confidence as the all knowing authority on 9/11. In addition to that because Mr. Roberts merely assumes Mr. W. Gene Corley established United Airlines flight 175 crashed into WTC 2 when clearly I’ve proven that official claim is yet another false construct on his part, for that reason as well then neither individual is to be trusted and taken seriously.

Make no mistake that’s precisely why Mr. Roberts made a point of including numerous video clips showing misleading examples of completely different scenarios wherein buildings are demolished using high explosives - Notice he didn’t include the countervailing NIST video footage showing Super-Thermite causing “melted” or “eroded” steel if you prefer to pour from WTC 2. Just as David Ray Griffin and Mr. Daniel Jowenko made it clear loud explosions as Super-Thermite incendiaries were detonated likely wouldn’t have registered with anyone, due to the inherent characteristics of the explosive and everything else going on that day. Adding to their hypothesis are the videotaped experiments of Jonathan H. Cole P.E. [9 11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate]. In that video footage he gives demonstrably proof of their point and the feasibility of how exactly all three WTC Towers 7 could easily have been rigged for demolition. Those illuminating videos are posted online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucZag9-Cgyk
In fact Prof. Sisson doesn’t find it very mysterious at all the piece of WTC 7 steel Prof. Jonathan Barnett recovered in a salvage yard appears to have “melted” rather than burned.

Accordingly to both men they claim it was attacked by liquid slag rich in iron, sulphur and oxygen and not by open flames. In fact they’re adamant that piece of steel did not melt but rather it was eroded over the course of weeks by the liquid slag it lay in, and any steel found in that sort of extremely high temperature atmosphere rich in oxygen and sulphur would erode in much the same manner he claimed. Yet there’s not a single government apologist to be found who is willing to go on record and explain the source of the fuel that fed the fire for weeks, thereby sustaining the extremely high temperature in the (WTC 7) debris. However, confirming those temperatures were quite likely sustained by something other than diesel fuel resides in the statement made by Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST who emphatically stated on September 19, 2011 “metal compounds indicative of Thermite/Thermate were present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.” As well then there’s the matter of confirmation of their hypothesis that came about in the weeks after 9/11 and not just days as suggested.

In fact according to the article ‘NOAA remote sensing expertise aids World Trade Center recovery efforts’ that was posted on September 28th, 2001 at www.geocomm.com a NOAA aircraft flew over the WTC 7 site to record conditions on the ground. Indeed NOAA's Citation jet (N52RF) flew two (4) hour missions over the World Trade Center complex, on Sept 23 and Sept 26, 2001 consecutively, for a total airtime of 8 hours, at an altitude of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. In the course of doing so NOAA recorded ground temperatures in the WTC 7 debris far in excess of (727 degrees Celsius) even though massive amounts of water had been poured on the fire all that time.

On that note allow me then to make the distinction between Thermite and Thermate and further clarify what conclusions were made in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 on page 29. Whereby its said trace amounts of iron oxide particles discovered in the WTC dust qualifies the material to be characterized as (Nanothermite) or (Super-Thermite).

Standard Iron-Thermite is a basic combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide. The reactants are stable at room temperature but when heated to ignition temperature they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction and a tremendous amount of heat is given off. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) with iron (III) oxide) although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Standard Iron-Thermite isn’t just difficult to ignite but its flame burns in a small radius of action and for that reason it’s rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. Standard Iron-Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water and when used for welding underwater this can produce hydrogen which will in turn burn also. Although enough water will remove heat and may stop the reaction. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction.

MICs or Super-Thermites on the other hand are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s. Thermates (Super-Thermite) is normally described as “one enriched with a salt-based oxidizer (usually nitrates, e.g. barium nitrate, or peroxides) whereby it’s often employed with other ingredients added such as sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, produces a larger flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature while enhancing its incendiary effects, thereby improving penetration of target by the burning composition, as the evolved gas is projecting the molten slag and providing mechanical agitation.

Thermates burn with evolution of flame and gases hence this mechanism makes Thermate (Super-Thermite) far more suitable than Standard Iron-Thermite for incendiary purposes, as its effect is more localized. Incidentally Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of Standard Iron-Thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to Standard Iron-Thermite for incendiary purposes. Not surprisingly then the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 by the armed forces is an incendiary anti-materiel weapon. Its composition by weight is generally about 68.7% Thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur, and 0.3% of a binder (such as PBAN). Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives. Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy.

In principle, all of these examples use aluminum as the reactive metal. Any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum but that is rarely done. This is rarely done of course because the properties of aluminum are nearly ideal for this reaction. Besides, it is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for Thermite reactions. It’s relatively low melting point (660 °C (1,220 °F)) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2,519 °C (4,566 °F)) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point. Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g., iron and copper boil at 2,887 °C (5,229 °F) and 2,582 °C (4,680 °F) respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1,090 °C (1,990 °F) and 883 °C (1,621 °F) respectively).

Gee, after all is said and done do you think it was copious quantities of undetonated Super-Thermite feeding the fires in the soaked and wet wreckage? We know diesel fuel in the WTC 7 debris wasn’t the fuel source, because months after the fire were quashed a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel while NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totalled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons.

It stands to reason then Mr. Roberts motive for imposing thunderous cracks of sound or loud “BOOMS” synonymous with the detonation of high explosives (RDX) was intended to impress upon the unsuspecting mind the belief the controlled demolition of any WTC Tower at ground zero wouldn’t have gone undetected. More importantly then it was essential he distract people from the aforementioned empirical laws of physics and for good reason, obviously. Not unlike Pavlov then he attempts to condition the unconscious mind to respond favourably to his assertion the “conspiracists” are “wrong for many reasons” when in fact he’d compared apples to oranges in that charade of a video, and that my friend is ‘propaganda’ or ‘crystallizing public opinion’ equal to Joseph Goebbels very best effort.

Piggybacking on that fallacy then Mr. Roberts opined the plumes of ejected debris seen after the collapses began couldn’t possibly have been caused by “EXPLOSIONS” per se but rather pressure waves caused by the collapsing floors above ‘pancaking’ down. In fact his entire argument therein was based on the premise “there were no such ejections BEFORE the collapses began...within 18 minutes of flight 175’s impact.” Therefore there wasn’t any controlled demolition of WTC 7. On a side note then but never the less important to my insistence Mr. Roberts id a fraud in his own right is the fact my analyses of the NIST repository of United Airlines flight 175 evidence, otherwise known as the NIST Cumulus datasets, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the authorities planted that evidence. Those who’ve read my research on that issue are the wiser for it and likewise then the authorities and namely Mr. W. Gene Corley and FEMA have yet to explain NIST what Mr. Roberts has failed to prove.

What’s more, in reference to evidence of any explosions possibly associated with the “initiating event” of WTC 2 to which Mr. Roberts commented “Note the absence of detonations that would have ejected smoke and debris... Sounds like detonations! There’s just one problem: The detonation sounds are fake. They were added for a TV show, and accepted as real by conspiracists.” one needs to consider the source, literally so.

Having attempted to discredit the entire 9/11-Truth movement with his fleeting mention of one measly propped-up visual aid to that effect how I ask can anyone seriously consider his argument no explosive material whatsoever was detonated in WTC 2, especially when he neglected to back that statement up with supporting evidence via an impeccable chain of custody. Rather he merely suggests you visit his website at unauthorized link.com/yulwb6 where more of the same claptrap awaits. Keep in mind then as you watch and listen to his theorizing, and regardless of what high explosive demolition charges look and sound like according to this paradoxical 9/11 expert, the truth is the real life trained experts at “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice” and those at “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” are not disputing the sights and sounds of explosive detonations; only all mention of them to begin with. Indeed the issue those experts argue is exactly what Professor Sisson explained for them and on their behalf, unintentionally so that is when he described steel in all three Towers hadn’t been compromised by explosions so much as it was “melted” or rather “eroded” away in very short order, in a corrosive environment much the same as that of the WTC 7 debris pile in the days and weeks following its collapse.

As for the remainder of Mr. Roberts video ‘WTC not a Demolition’ in which he argues Dylan Avery tried “to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to an explosive demolition” but neglected “to show that the massive East mechanical penthouse, and everything below it, has already plummeted through the building...” Please explain for us Mr. Roberts, if you can, what possible example of NIST WTC 7 video footage could Mr. Avery have used and should have in order to meet with your approval? Answer me that you titmouse of 9/11 researchers, especially when Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST had admitted on September 19, 2011 “The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 East penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.” In other words then Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST effectively admits all the NIST Cumulus datasets video footage wherein the sequence of “the massive East mechanical penthouse, and everything below it, has already plummeted through the building” appears that way for a reason – because it was tampered with and edited to appear as it does by the authorities.

As for Mr. Roberts inexcusable ploy of putting words in the mouths of bed ridden key witnesses by stating “He’s using a figure of speech” that’s unspeakably poor judgement and forensic investigative work on his part, not to mention eerily reminiscent of the Barry Jennings witch-hunt for which I’ll have no part of commenting further on.

You be the judge of who’s telling the truth, but whatever you decide, make your mind up from evidence and not his brand of speculation.
Despite Mr. W. Gene Corley having attested “We looked at everything. Controlled demolition was ruled out because there was no evidence of controlled demolition...we looked for it yes and we found no evidence of controlled demolition” the fact remains he and NIST ignored reports of Thermite and simply limited their scope of the WTC 7 investigation to exploring RDX (only) and never did NIST conduct computer simulated tests for Super-Thermite. By all accounts then not the NIST investigators or their hired hands like Corley and certainly not the ever present cling-on Mr. Roberts have been honest in their reporting throughout. By narrowing the goal posts considerably, only then could NIST truthfully conclude “blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event” whereas in Mark Roberts own words then “His dishonesty is revealed by what he chose to admit”.

This expose is just a taste of what's to come in the far more in-depth and detailed summary of WTC 7 and Barry Jennings testimony I’d promised is yet to come, and it is shortly.


Posted by: questionitall Feb 17 2012, 11:22 PM

Just a quick word so people don't think I've abandoned this site altogether or washed my hands of the World Trade Center 7 issue. The reason I haven't weighed-in with my opinion so far as to the matter of whether or not WTC 7 was a controlled implosion has to do with how very complicated the evidence is proving to be. By that I mean there's a good deal of video evidence pointing to the fact the "initiating event" which lead to the "global collapse" of WTC 7 began on floors below 7 thru 14.

WTC 7
while I've been pouring over evidence for and against the argument WTC 7 was a controlled implosion

Posted by: questionitall Feb 17 2012, 11:52 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 17 2012, 11:22 PM) *
Just a quick word so people don't think I've abandoned this site altogether or washed my hands of the World Trade Center 7 issue. The reason I haven't weighed-in with my opinion so far as to the matter of whether or not WTC 7 was a controlled implosion has to do with how very complicated the evidence is proving to be. By that I mean there's a good deal of video evidence pointing to the fact the "initiating event" which lead to the "global collapse" of WTC 7 began on floors below 7 thru 14.

WTC 7
while I've been pouring over evidence for and against the argument WTC 7 was a controlled implosion



My aplogies - finger trouble! What I was trying to write is there's strong video and written evidence showing the initiating event which lead to the global collapse of WTC 7 DIDN'T start on floors 7 thru 14 but rather on floors 5 and 6 and I've been pouring over evidence to prove that point, including the NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report, the NIST Cumulus datasets and Mr. Barry Jennings testimony. Cheers for now.

Posted by: amazed! Feb 19 2012, 11:33 AM

WTF does that have to do with United 175? whistle.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 19 2012, 12:24 PM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 16 2012, 02:52 AM) *
My aplogies - finger trouble! What I was trying to write is there's strong video and written evidence showing the initiating event which lead to the global collapse of WTC 7 DIDN'T start on floors 7 thru 14 but rather on floors 5 and 6 and I've been pouring over evidence to prove that point, including the NIST NCSTAR 1-9 final report, the NIST Cumulus datasets and Mr. Barry Jennings testimony. Cheers for now.



Will look forward to see what you're coming up with next, q.i.t.!

Cheers

Posted by: questionitall Feb 19 2012, 06:28 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 19 2012, 12:24 PM) *
Will look forward to see what you're coming up with next, q.i.t.!

Cheers


Thank you for the words of encouragement but I have to be honest with you. The World Trade Center 7 issue is far more involved for me than the issue of United Airlines flight 175 ever was. While I understand aircraft all too well and what their destructive wake upon impact looks like figuring out the controlled demolition of a tall building is a whole new bag of worms. Especially when the authorities have made thorough work of covering their tracks while censoring the evidence supporting the fact the initiating event which led to the global collapse of WTC 7 did not begin on floors 7 thru 14. As mentioned from what I've learned of the evidence I believe that buildings collapse began on floors 5 thru 7. I hope to demonstrate why I believe such a thing but not before I have the proof in hand.

By the way, once I feel I've amassed sufficient evidence to show the NIST WTC 7 investigators fabricated their own WTC 7 evidence while falsifying crucial countevailing evidence which came into their possession from various sources I'll be posting that information in the appropriate forums here at P4T. When the time comes to do so I'll let people know about each and every article I post right here.

Salute!

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 20 2012, 01:00 AM

QUOTE (questionitall @ Feb 17 2012, 09:28 PM) *
Thank you for the words of encouragement but I have to be honest with you. The World Trade Center 7 issue is far more involved for me than the issue of United Airlines flight 175 ever was. While I understand aircraft all too well and what their destructive wake upon impact looks like figuring out the controlled demolition of a tall building is a whole new bag of worms. Especially when the authorities have made thorough work of covering their tracks while censoring the evidence supporting the fact the initiating event which led to the global collapse of WTC 7 did not begin on floors 7 thru 14. As mentioned from what I've learned of the evidence I believe that buildings collapse began on floors 5 thru 7. I hope to demonstrate why I believe such a thing but not before I have the proof in hand.

By the way, once I feel I've amassed sufficient evidence to show the NIST WTC 7 investigators fabricated their own WTC 7 evidence while falsifying crucial countevailing evidence which came into their possession from various sources I'll be posting that information in the appropriate forums here at P4T. When the time comes to do so I'll let people know about each and every article I post right here.

Salute!



You're welcome!
I think it pretty much established that you have proved beyond doubt, the fuselage on the roof of WTC5 has been planted there,
and that not much else at this point in time can be added to this very fact!

Agree of course that WTC7 was obviously control-demolished, but how they did it, is a question that probably still baffles all of us.
It's going to be interesting to see what you can unravel of good-bits, and how much 'juicy meat' there will be on it!

Much 'Good Luck' with your endeavour -

cheers

Posted by: questionitall Mar 24 2012, 10:15 PM

Alex Jones has a contest going; now until April 30, 2012 at 2 PM Central in which he's offereing $5,000.00 and possibly a position reporting fulltime at Infowars. The rules for the contest can be found at http://www.infowars.com/become-an-infowars-com-reporter-contest/ and I believe this issue provides such a segue. I am not a writer nor am I even remotely competent at putting together a ten minute video in accordance with such a contest and guidelines, but I encourage those who are to take whatever research material of mine you need and do your best with it. The more people who learn of this issue, the irrefutable hard evidence I've presented here and the diabolical domestic act of terrorism and cover-up 9/11 was all the better. The money and accolades are both yours for the taking should you win - I want none of it.

All the best to anyone who takes me up on this offer.

Posted by: tit2 Mar 26 2012, 09:00 AM

Quote: “I think it pretty much established that you have proved beyond doubt, the fuselage on the roof of WTC5 has been planted there, and that not much else at this point in time can be added to this very fact!”

This is an important fact. Another important fact is the work of pilotsfor911truth.org about the ACARS which confirms that Flight 175 was not in New York at the time of its alleged crash. The fuselage with windows on the roof of WTC5 was supposed to prove the error of some witnesses who said the plane that hit the south tower was not a commercial aircraft. Today, it appears that visual impressions of these witnesses were not a mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k

Posted by: questionitall Mar 26 2012, 03:47 PM

QUOTE (tit2 @ Mar 26 2012, 09:00 AM) *
Quote: “I think it pretty much established that you have proved beyond doubt, the fuselage on the roof of WTC5 has been planted there, and that not much else at this point in time can be added to this very fact!”

This is an important fact. Another important fact is the work of pilotsfor911truth.org about the ACARS which confirms that Flight 175 was not in New York at the time of its alleged crash. The fuselage with windows on the roof of WTC5 was supposed to prove the error of some witnesses who said the plane that hit the south tower was not a commercial aircraft. Today, it appears that visual impressions of these witnesses were not a mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k


I agree 100%...so how best can we tell the world and convince the sheeple this irrefutable evidence? Using my research I challenge some bright minded young techno-wizkid to make a film in accordance with Alex Jone's challenge I've mentioned and submit their work accordingly. I'll even walk that individual through it and better explain it point by point should that be necessary.

Posted by: questionitall Jan 29 2013, 07:20 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the online links to the pertinent photographs:

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

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

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

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

So yes, I’d be immensely relieved to be proven wrong, knowing and believing the government and various agencies played no nefarious role in the 9/11 attacks and instead were simply asleep on the job at the time and not complicit in the crime against humanity that was 9/11.

Posted by: questionitall Sep 11 2019, 08:34 PM

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.

Posted by: questionitall Oct 3 2019, 09:39 AM

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


Posted by: questionitall Oct 3 2019, 11:13 AM

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

Posted by: questionitall Oct 12 2019, 10:01 AM

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

Posted by: questionitall Nov 4 2019, 06:53 PM

ScaffoldRider, If you're reading this I would very much like to speak with you about the photographs you took of the aircraft parts on the Federal Building.

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