IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

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

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence?, Evidence of FEMA/ASCE (UA175) evidence tampering

questionitall
post Jan 13 2011, 08:46 PM
Post #1





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



To whom it may concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 13 2011, 09:49 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



If it wasn't the airplane alleged, can this photo be used to identify and different plane? Almost everything about the planes seems to be a deception. This sounds like yet another one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 14 2011, 01:42 AM
Post #3





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



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


I am not prepared to speculate on what aircraft these fragments may or may not be from because like Mr. Corley says "I believe in facts". I will say a co-worker (who has many years of experience working very closely as an aircraft structures technician with Boeing on their 767-200ER aiframes) tells me the window frames and (ring frames I believe he called them) are identical in every way to another another Boeing airframe which is not a 767-200...more later when By ring frames I believe he meant the primary/heavy frames that run top to bottom the length of the airfraft and make up the skeleton of the fuselage...I am not a structures technician so I'll have more to say of this when I can varify it. At this point I cannot say for sure what or where these fragments are from but they most definitely do not match the area of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe (as depicted)...the one Mr. W. Gene Corley would have us believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 14 2011, 07:02 AM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



First rule out that they are not the plane cited and then try to figure out what plane (frame) they are associated with. I think we might be able to find structural engineers or drawings of various planes which these might be matched to. I am assuming that this is not a one off, but is a frame which was manufactured in multiple copies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 14 2011, 08:52 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



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

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

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

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jan 14 2011, 08:53 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 14 2011, 02:23 PM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Yeah, it quite clearly looks like the first photo is a result of photoshopping, the supposed tailnumber is in wrong position and inconsistent with the third picture and Mr. Corley could now be on its way to jail for perjury.
Thanks for the find.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 14 2011, 06:40 PM
Post #7





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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because of it all I would never defend this man's actions however, despite my misgivings for him and Mr. Corley's leading role in having corrupted the WTC 5 aircraft wreckage/crime scene he is not the only one to have had access to these aircraft fragments and photographs thereof - If what he says is true he was not on the WTC site until October 6, 2001 - almost a full month after 9/11. In that time many, many individuals had access to the rooftop of WTC 5 and any number of people could have planted these fragments on the rooftop beforehand. That premise in and of itself is leaping to conclusions because there is no conclusive proof these fragments didn't wing their way for several hundred feet and well across the plaza (albeit against a stiff crosswind) to land side by side in a face-up and uncanny configuration...I too can speculate on this matter with good intentions, reason and intuition being my guide but that sort of thing is why truthers are considered nutters in the first place...because most contrarians react rather than respond!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 14 2011, 08:20 PM
Post #8





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



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

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


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

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

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

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

Just have a look again at the second photograph, where the half eviscerated passenger window cut-out is on the larger fragment. Notice there the dead straight edge that cuts right through the window frame and tell me I'm imaging things here...please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 14 2011, 08:24 PM
Post #9





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



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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Just have a look again at the second photograph, where the half eviscerated passenger window cut-out is on the larger fragment. Notice there the dead straight edge that cuts right through the window frame and tell me I'm imaging things here...please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Jan 16 2011, 08:03 PM
Post #10





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in Photo 2, the "bluish and white" coloration of the twisted fragment, below the long diagonal pieces, below the "gap" in the middle,.. above the bigger "fuselage" piece, sure looks like "another" fragment having part of the "N" number marking on it. What do you think?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 17 2011, 11:52 AM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QuestionItAll

Welcome to the forum!

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

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

What about on the various videos of the impact, with some showing heavier debris from the plane continuing on?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 17 2011, 11:08 PM
Post #12





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



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

Welcome to the forum!

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

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

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


Thx for the compliment

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

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

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

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

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

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 18 2011, 04:49 AM
Post #13





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 18 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Question

Yes, we are in agreement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jan 18 2011, 11:01 AM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



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

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

Appologies if it is not possible to get reasonable ratios for a valid comparison.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Jan 18 2011, 11:01 AM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



Hi Questionall,

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Skeptik: Jan 18 2011, 11:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 18 2011, 12:13 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,684
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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

Welcome to the forum questionitall. Good work!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 18 2011, 02:15 PM
Post #18





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



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

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

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

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

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



Hello to you

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

Thx for understanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 18 2011, 03:01 PM
Post #19





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



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

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

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


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

Thx for you thought on this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Jan 18 2011, 03:06 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



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

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

Thx for understanding.


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

This post has been edited by Skeptik: Jan 18 2011, 03:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st September 2014 - 09:43 AM