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 4 > »   
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 18 2011, 03:13 PM
Post #21





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



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

Welcome to the forum questionitall. Good work!


Hello Rob

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

Unfortunately my other post where I've requested expert assistance with this has not been so successful or answered on, quite regrettably so, because in that final piece of the (airframe) puzzle is the Holy Grail of Proof and confirmation for me that all my thousands of hours of researching this will not have been in vain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 18 2011, 04:18 PM
Post #22





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



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


There was offense taken on my part and your apology is humbly accepted - Cheers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 18 2011, 05:10 PM
Post #23





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



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


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

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

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

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

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

So in my humble opinion it doesn't really matter at this point what aircraft these fragments were from, if it can be proven they were not to have been that of United Airlines flight 175.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 18 2011, 05:18 PM
Post #24





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



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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jan 18 2011, 05:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 25 2011, 04:36 PM
Post #25





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



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

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


Hello - I apologize for not getting back to you sooner in response to your question. As for my intentions, no I do not intend to challenge this issue in court. I am not an American citizen for one thing and therefore I have no right to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 27 2011, 04:29 PM
Post #26





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




[img]IMG_3191[img]

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

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

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

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

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you everyone for taking the time to consider these facts and please spread the 9/11 word.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 27 2011, 04:54 PM
Post #27





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



I was attempting to post some photographs of a Boeing 767-200ER airframe here but to no avail, unfortunately - no matter then as I will try to do so in a secondary post - cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 27 2011, 06:37 PM
Post #28





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,082
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



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

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

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

So, is the photo - according to you - sworn by Mr. Corley into FEMA archive photoshopped or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 28 2011, 04:58 PM
Post #29





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



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

and

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


YES!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jan 31 2011, 03:22 PM
Post #30





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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



AN IMPORTANT UPDATE (January 31, 2011)

Just this morning I had the opportunity to take many photographs of the inside of a stripped-down Boeing 767 that is in for overhaul. I now have clear and irrefutable photographic proof showing that area of fuselage the expert consultants at FEMA/ASCE claim to have discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 in 2001 - The same area of fuselage they would have us believe they photographed however, I know very well that was never the case because the photographs I've just taken prove once and for all what I've been saying all along - that someone involved in the FEMA/ASCE WTC site investigation staged their United Airlines flight 175 evidence and submitted falsified photographs of that same corrupted evidence.
I'll be posting these new images and the last of my written research material here shortly, as soon as I am able to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 2 2011, 07:01 PM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Photo analysis, yes, that's very good.

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

i have discovered a few myself, swirling and planted in other topics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 2 2011, 08:26 PM
Post #32





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



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

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

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


This is one of my favorite obvious photoshopped images.



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


Iconic WTC image a fake?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lfecher
post Feb 12 2011, 03:41 AM
Post #33





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 7-July 08
Member No.: 3,680



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've seen all the videos of UA 175 on 9/11 and I haven't found one yet showing UA 175 actually CRASHING into WTC 2. Had UA 175 been a real airliner, loaded with fuel for a cross country trip, wouldn't there have been an IMPACT and EXPLOSION on the OUTSIDE of WTC 2? Instead all the videos show UA 175 flying THROUGH WTC 2 unimpeded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 12 2011, 04:29 AM
Post #34


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,011
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



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

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826

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


salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 12 2011, 05:26 PM
Post #35





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



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


I won't comment on your theory because I'm not qualified to do so...I am not a scientist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Feb 12 2011, 05:37 PM
Post #36





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



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

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826

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


salute.gif


You can get a grain of dust to penetrate the hull of the space shuttle in orbit to with their combined/opposed velocity working against each other, so I'm not sure what your point is here and how it relates to falsified FEMA/ASCE United Airlines flight 175 evidence. No disrespect intended but I don't think I'm asking too much of people to stick to the subject matter at hand...If you wish to have people persue your theory I encourage you to begin a new post here.
thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 12 2011, 09:19 PM
Post #37


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,011
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



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


questionitall - i was responding to this from fecher:

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

-and not trying to steer your topic off course, hence i recommended he (fecher) address his concerns in the thread i linked. as far as the shuttle in the vaccum of outerspace and the incredible speeds they are travelling at up there, im not qualified to say wether or not thats analogous to the wtc tower impact/penetration. but feel free to add it to that pumpkin thread for further discussion, so we dont disrupt your thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lfecher
post Feb 12 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #38





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 7-July 08
Member No.: 3,680



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


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

Roger that. BTW, I am not nor have I ever been a "he". Believe it or not, some women, especially me actually have mechanical and critical thinking skills.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Feb 14 2011, 11:31 PM
Post #39





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



Paranoia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That does not mean that I do not believe that the penetration is not possible. What I am indicating is that the reason given to discard it is not relevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 16 2011, 01:49 PM
Post #40





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 363
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

(Butt-join seam visible)



(No seam visible)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Robert

ps well done Questionitall
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 07:33 PM