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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
I Could Really Use The Help Of Any Ame “m” Or “s” Licensed Technician, Boeing 767-200ER structural config and construction

questionitall
post Jan 15 2011, 09:38 PM
Post #1





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



Right now I could really use the help of any AME “M” or “S” licensed technician who is experienced on and has access to a Boeing 767-200ER aircraft in overhaul. I have been researching United Airlines flight 175 for some time now but I’ve hit a snag so to speak, because I cannot seem to find the information online I so desperately need to move forward with what I have discovered. Any local 767 operator I’ve asked for assistance from on this issue has recoiled from having anything to do with my research needs, so I‘m effectively grounded until further notice. LOL

What I desperately need is high quality, very detailed photographs and/or video footage of the inside surround/structure of a Boeing 767-200ER fuselage, specifically that area above, below and for and aft of the last three passenger window cut-outs on the right hand side of the airframe. Especially that zone and area which details the aft portion of the last window frame and skin surround. But I can use any information you might be able to provide me with, including a detailed description of how the ring frames and stringers carry the outer skin of the fuselage.

I am told the 767 uses the identical window frame assemblies and skin assembly build-up procedures as the Boeing 747-400 airframe but I’m not sure of this - I have photographs of said interior but they few in number and of inferior quality.

It all has to do with my research described herein “Who knew then what I know now of corrupted 9/11 WTC site evidence” at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. Have a read there if you like and if you wish to be of help it would be immensely appreciated – your name and personal affairs will not be divulged to anyone in any way should you decide to provide me with such assistance.

Thx so much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 29 2011, 02:45 PM
Post #2





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



[quote name='questionitall' date='Jan 15 2011, 09:38 PM' post='10793350']
Right now I could really use the help of any AME “M” or “S” licensed technician who is experienced on and has access to a Boeing 767-200ER aircraft in overhaul. I have been researching United Airlines flight 175 for some time now but I’ve hit a snag so to speak, because I cannot seem to find the information online I so desperately need to move forward with what I have discovered. Any local 767 operator I’ve asked for assistance from on this issue has recoiled from having anything to do with my research needs, so I‘m effectively grounded until further notice. LOL

What I desperately need is high quality, very detailed photographs and/or video footage of the inside surround/structure of a Boeing 767-200ER fuselage, specifically that area above, below and for and aft of the last three passenger window cut-outs on the right hand side of the airframe. Especially that zone and area which details the aft portion of the last window frame and skin surround. But I can use any information you might be able to provide me with, including a detailed description of how the ring frames and stringers carry the outer skin of the fuselage.

I am told the 767 uses the identical window frame assemblies and skin assembly build-up procedures as the Boeing 747-400 airframe but I’m not sure of this - I have photographs of said interior but they few in number and of inferior quality.

It all has to do with my research described herein “Who knew then what I know now of corrupted 9/11 WTC site evidence” at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. Have a read there if you like and if you wish to be of help it would be immensely appreciated – your name and personal affairs will not be divulged to anyone in any way should you decide to provide me with such assistance.

Thx so much.


March 29, 2011: ADDENDUM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I’m wrong about my suspicions of Photoshop manipulation and the Boeing specialist is right then one must conclude it had to have been an astoundingly fortuitous bit of luck this lone chunk of fuselage exited WTC 2 virtually unscathed, intact and further spared being torn asunder by the devastatingly powerful force generated by the collapse of both Towers pummeling down onto it. What are the odds of that I wonder.
All things considered if the dark blue splotch and/or the contentious registration number is removed from the photograph what you’re left with is Mr. Corley’s expert opinion and a piece (or pieces) of unrecognizable aircraft sheet metal that proves nothing of UA175 ever having been flown into WTC 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Mar 29 2011, 08:47 PM
Post #3





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



I have looked at your new very excellent photos of the interior structural details of a Boeing 767 aircraft. They are very impressive for several reasons.

One reason is that everyone can see how many "identifying part numbers"; "date codes"; and "station numbers" exist throughout every "normal" aircraft structure, to easily identify what "kind" of airplane, and their "location" within that airplane, that they were originally installed in. This makes the obvious "lack" of any "photos" or any other aircraft part identification data, just that much more "unblieveable"; when you consider that:


according to: Carol Carmody (Vice-Chair of National Transportation Safety Board)
QUOTE
“On the morning of September 11, 2001…the FBI Director Mueller…called and said could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts. We dispatched teams immediately to…New York…Our investigators stayed in New York for several months working both at Ground Zero and at the Freshkill site where large amounts of debris were taken to be sorted.”
and also that:
QUOTE
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001…for many weeks the Board assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York…and in Washington D.C., assisting with aircraft parts identification…”

WTF? Where is the "list" and any "evidence" of "aircraft parts" found and "identified" by 60 NTSB "aircraft parts identification specialists"; working "around the clock" for "several months". For that matter, where is there ANY EVIDENCE THAT ONE SINGLE AIRCRAFT PART has EVER BEEN IDENTIFIED as a result of more than 50,000 Man Hours of "identification" work?

Do you mean to tell me that 60 people collected "overtime paychecks", for more than 3 months, without having to "identify" a single airplane part? Wow! How kool is that for a "Government Job"? Where do I go to apply for such a "job"?

Other than that ?itall, I tend to "agree" with your conclusions reguarding "aircraft" part having the "N" above the window. The probability of it having been part of the rear RH (Co-pilot) side of a Boeing 767 are very slim; although it does appear to have "properties" similar to the construction shown in your excellent photos.

However: Now, that I have seen how far the first "doubler" piece*, bonded to the outer skin around the window opening, extends beyond the "stringers" immediately above, and below the window openings.... the "other" "aircraft" piece nearby, with the "NTSB" sprayed onto it... seems to be even more "questionable" to me. Please notice the "creases" in that part along the edges of the horizontal stringers near the windows... without ANY EVIDENCE of the "scalloped doubler" that should be bonded to the back of the outer skin.... which can be plainly seen, in the part containing the "N" marking. That "big" part seems to be from an entirely different kind of aircraft to me. The window "cut-outs" also don't seem to Match each other perfectly, either. What do you think??

*Easily seen in the first pictures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 29 2011, 10:25 PM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Mar 29 2011, 08:47 PM) *
I have looked at your new very excellent photos of the interior structural details of a Boeing 767 aircraft. They are very impressive for several reasons.

One reason is that everyone can see how many "identifying part numbers"; "date codes"; and "station numbers" exist throughout every "normal" aircraft structure, to easily identify what "kind" of airplane, and their "location" within that airplane, that they were originally installed in. This makes the obvious "lack" of any "photos" or any other aircraft part identification data, just that much more "unblieveable"; when you consider that:


according to: Carol Carmody (Vice-Chair of National Transportation Safety Board)
and also that:
WTF? Where is the "list" and any "evidence" of "aircraft parts" found and "identified" by 60 NTSB "aircraft parts identification specialists"; working "around the clock" for "several months". For that matter, where is there ANY EVIDENCE THAT ONE SINGLE AIRCRAFT PART has EVER BEEN IDENTIFIED as a result of more than 50,000 Man Hours of "identification" work?

Do you mean to tell me that 60 people collected "overtime paychecks", for more than 3 months, without having to "identify" a single airplane part? Wow! How kool is that for a "Government Job"? Where do I go to apply for such a "job"?

Other than that ?itall, I tend to "agree" with your conclusions reguarding "aircraft" part having the "N" above the window. The probability of it having been part of the rear RH (Co-pilot) side of a Boeing 767 are very slim; although it does appear to have "properties" similar to the construction shown in your excellent photos.

However: Now, that I have seen how far the first "doubler" piece*, bonded to the outer skin around the window opening, extends beyond the "stringers" immediately above, and below the window openings.... the "other" "aircraft" piece nearby, with the "NTSB" sprayed onto it... seems to be even more "questionable" to me. Please notice the "creases" in that part along the edges of the horizontal stringers near the windows... without ANY EVIDENCE of the "scalloped doubler" that should be bonded to the back of the outer skin.... which can be plainly seen, in the part containing the "N" marking. That "big" part seems to be from an entirely different kind of aircraft to me. The window "cut-outs" also don't seem to Match each other perfectly, either. What do you think??

*Easily seen in the first pictures.



I could not agree with you more and that is why I put these photographs and articles out there, to encourage rational debate on this issue, because it's a bloody outrage and travesty to say the least that over three thousand innocent lives were snuffed out on 9/11 during the making of the "New Pearl Harbor" by a few jackals in power in Washington. I will comment on your insights in good time but for now I need a break from this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 30 2011, 02:41 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



Dear Questionitall

Hello my friend.
There was a time when I used to let the sort of response you got from the 'Boeing man' upset me.
It does you no good at all, so I went through another 'learning curve', not to let them, just realising that there are lots of reasons that people 'prostitute' their principles, not always because they really want to, but nonetheless not able to deal with their difficulty in another way.
It took me a while to realise and accept this fact, and now understand that a lot of the anamosity they exhibited was around this 'difficulty'.
As you have previously expressed, you are very sensitive to these sort of things, lets hope experience teaches you the remedies too.

As before, I very much enjoyed reading your account, it is very good you share it so openly.

As has been expressed, they are excellent photographs.

Did you happen to take one, square on to the windows?

Or even better, any where near the angle, of the 'infamous' photographs?

It can feel very lonely carrying out such work as you have presented, but you are not alone in your endeavour, there are always more people supporting us than we could ever suspect.

Enjoy your coffee break, then back into it.

Regards

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Mar 30 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #6





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



thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Mar 30 2011, 02:05 PM
Post #7





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



QUOTE (23investigator @ Mar 30 2011, 02:41 AM) *
Dear Questionitall

Hello my friend.
There was a time when I used to let the sort of response you got from the 'Boeing man' upset me.
It does you no good at all, so I went through another 'learning curve', not to let them, just realising that there are lots of reasons that people 'prostitute' their principles, not always because they really want to, but nonetheless not able to deal with their difficulty in another way.
It took me a while to realise and accept this fact, and now understand that a lot of the anamosity they exhibited was around this 'difficulty'.
As you have previously expressed, you are very sensitive to these sort of things, lets hope experience teaches you the remedies too.

As before, I very much enjoyed reading your account, it is very good you share it so openly.

As has been expressed, they are excellent photographs.

Did you happen to take one, square on to the windows?

Or even better, any where near the angle, of the 'infamous' photographs?

It can feel very lonely carrying out such work as you have presented, but you are not alone in your endeavour, there are always more people supporting us than we could ever suspect.

Enjoy your coffee break, then back into it.

Regards

Robert



Hello Robert - I did not take a photograph of the Air Canada Boeing 767 straight on and that's because that hangar was very dimmly lit and any straight on shots did not show a thing, as far as detail goes that is. Just this morning I posted photographs of a CargoJet Boeing 767-200 at Flickr and they are pretty good. I find when you zoom in on them you can get an idea of fuselage design and construction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Apr 5 2011, 11:49 AM
Post #8





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



QUOTE (questionitall @ Mar 30 2011, 02:05 PM) *
Hello Robert - I did not take a photograph of the Air Canada Boeing 767 straight on and that's because that hangar was very dimmly lit and any straight on shots did not show a thing, as far as detail goes that is. Just this morning I posted photographs of a CargoJet Boeing 767-200 at Flickr and they are pretty good. I find when you zoom in on them you can get an idea of fuselage design and construction.


The web address where I will posting my United Airlines flight 175 research from now on is (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61150228@N04/) and as such I won't be publishing anything publicly here anymore. Take care all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 19 2011, 10:30 PM
Post #9





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully

Master List of Flickr Photographs and Video Footage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIST Cumulus dataset - Master List of Relevant Files:

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

Release_34:

Release_35:

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








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st October 2014 - 04:11 AM