Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence?, Evidence of FEMA/ASCE (UA175) evidence tampering Options

[questionitall]

To whom it may concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/n612ua_wreck3.jpg)


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)
(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/n612ua_wreck6a.jpg)


(No seam visible)
(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/Copyofplanepartrf20-full.jpg)



- 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.

[JackD]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[questionitall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[23investigator]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Questionitall.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Robert

[questionitall]

Dear Questionitall.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Robert

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