We All Know Now Corley Never Had A Clue What Became Of United Airlines Flight 175, A detailed analysis of corrupted UA175 evidence. Options

[questionitall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that said just two months ago I was granted full access to photograph the stripped passenger cabin of an Air Canada Boeing 767-300ER undergoing a major overhaul in Richmond, B.C. Canada and needless to say I took full advantage and many very telling snapshots of its exposed right-hand sidewall. Obviously then I’d focused my attention on photographing (for the record) that specific area of fuselage I’ve insisted all along the WTC site investigators attempted to replicate by first arranging the aircraft wreckage, then photographing it as such and later altering it through the use of Adobe Photoshop.

Since taking my photographs of the Boeing 767 I’ve studied and compared the fuselage therein with that fraudulent official evidence, to which there can be no doubt the aircraft superstructure I photographed in no way resembles the expert’s supposed UA175 wreckage. As such my photographs compliment the recent FOIA (NIST cumulus database) release of Tami Michael’s video footage (taken at ground zero on 9/11 and throughout the ordeal) and together our evidence disproves the World Trade Center Building Performance Study team findings hands down, as I have shown throughout my research. Remember, the NIST cumulus database is the entire body of evidence Mr. Corley researched in order to arrive at his conclusions and May 1, 2002 WTC BPS final report and therefore to dispute my evidence is to disprove his for that reason.

So let me assure you the fuselage of UA175 and the Boeing 767-300ER I’d photographed are identical in every way, shape and form except for the length while the wreckage in Mr. Corley’s photographic evidence doesn’t appear to be that either airframe. The 767-300ER has the longer fuselage of course but other than that the fabrication of either fuselage utilizes the exact same sheet metal components and assembly methods during their manufacture. So for all intent and purposes they are one and the same fuselage then, as confirmed by the Boeing 767 specialist who answered my questions while I was taking these photographs.
While I was taking these photographs we’d spoken at length about my hypothesis and the more I explained myself he grew noticeably perturbed by my UA175 research and conclusions. Although his response was not uncommon, as I often receive admonishment from my peers within the aviation community for my research, I was not impressed he thought he knew better of it all and me. I say that because he didn’t bother to hear me out in full before deeming my research wholly irresponsible and presumptuous. In fact it was his opinion I’d simply misinterpreted the FEMA/ASCE photograph and cherry picked whatever statements made by Mr. W. Gene Corley best suited my hypothesis.

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

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

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

So the point to make with my mentioning that exchange is even a Boeing 767 Structural Technician believes the WTC BPS team UA175 evidence is highly irregular and contestable evidence and in light of his expert determination for that wreckage I encourage everyone who reads this to email Mr. Corley (at GCorley@CTLGroup.cm) to ask him why he has never made mention of the existence of that registration number thereon the physical aircraft wreckage he must have seen with his own two eyes sometime between October 7-12, 2001. I believe Mr. Corley never acknowledges the registration number in his photograph because he’s fully cognizant of the fact it never existed on the chunk of wreckage in the first place and what’s more then he’s not stupid enough to incriminate himself or others by now insisting it did exist just as the FEMA/ASCE photographic evidence shows. He doesn’t respond to my emails on the matter because he knows well enough to remain silent on the matter, as that affords him a plausible deniability defense should we ever see his pathetic hide in court to answer for this lie.
I had my doubts the aircraft registration number existed on the physical wreckage the first time I read through the apologist Mr. James Meig’s article Debunking The 9/11 Myths: Special Report, wherein he wrote “Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had windows. “It’s…from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2…Corley states flatly…” The article goes on to say “In reviewing crash footage…Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied…as they tore through the South Tower…” What the article doesn’t say is Mr. Corley set about confirming his theory and the chain of custody to that wreckage by actually investigating its origin and not simply relying on everyone’s ignorant assumptions.
Needless to say then since reading that statement I’ve questioned how anyone could possibly believe Mr. Corley’s vehement insistence the chunks of debris he tracked via videotape, that fell directly onto the rooftop of WTC 5 from WTC 2 according to him, constitute proof of UA175 while he’s never made mention of that partial aircraft registration number thereon the exact same wreckage. Especially if one considers the impeccable chain of custody that one invaluable clue would have represented for his entire UA175 case. It doesn’t make sense - what other explanation is there for Mr. Corley neglecting to mention such a Godsend of a clue that would surely have put an end to this debate years ago.

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

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

The fact is Mr. Corley did not discover that wreckage first and neither did he identify it as belonging to UA175 by having compared it to a serviceable Boeing 767 fuselage. What he did was to watch some video footage and proclaim his opinion to be fact as Mr. Meig’s article makes that quite clear! Indeed Mr. Corley had proven nothing of United Airlines flight 175 having plowed into WTC 2 because it wasn’t his mandate to do so! Mr. Corley’s function as that of FEMA/ASCE team leader for the WTC site investigation had been “public relations mercenary”. Which meant as the UA175 cover-story took root and grew into the crystallized public opinion it is today it was his job to help snuff the truth, as to which (aircraft) murder weapons were used at ground zero, by helping to bury that evidence six feet under and smooth over the ground swell of WTC eyewitness reports and public disenfranchisement with the overall ground zero investigation.

It was never his intention to get at the truth of which aircraft crashed into WTC 2 nor did he intend to prove what mechanism brought the towers down just as it wasn’t his job in 1995 to uncover evidentiary proof that would have informed the public of the truth, as to how and why the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma had also been blown up from the inside out. To both ends this FEMA poster child of disinformation did his job(s) well and one doesn’t have to look too far and deep to find similarities between 1995 and 2001 in all of Mr. Corley’s FEMA “terrorism” investigative dealings. That too will come to light one day but regardless of whether it was the FBI, NTSB or FEMA/ASCE investigators who falsified that registration number there are many other telling yet unexplained irregularities visible in and around the wreckage itself that speak of the lies Mr. Corley has told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask yourself why Mr. Corley had been placed in charge of the entire WTC site investigation when the FBI and the NTSB clearly had jurisdiction for the UA175 investigation on the WTC site and why had demonstrably unqualified tall building experts been parachuted in by FEMA to head an aircraft accident/crime scene investigation in the first place? Consider the fact it was Mr. W. Gene Corley (the tall building expert) who praised himself and his team members for having “evaluated, discovered and identified” that aircraft wreckage while the FBI and the NTSB have never acknowledged his contribution in the least. In spite of that self-praise consider the fact all Mr. Corley managed to come up with (after millions of dollars spent and many thousands of man-hours squandered investigating a lie) was a single photograph showing unidentifiable fragments of fuselage wreckage of a questionable origin and a highly suspect chain of custody…that’s quite the accomplishment alright. Yes, something is very wrong with the big picture and the entire WTC investigation is utterly absurd!
With everything I’ve said put aside the fact remains, if you remove and isolate the contentious aircraft registration number from the FEMA photographic evidence what you’re left with is Mr. Corley’s expert opinion and a piece (or pieces) of unrecognizable aircraft sheet metal that proves nothing of UA175 ever having been flown into WTC 2.

[questionitall]

JUNE 21, 2011 UPDATE!!!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[questionitall]

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



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

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

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


Peace and Respect

[questionitall]

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

Peace and Respect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5.

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

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

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

12390

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

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

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

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

Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyofplanepartrf20-full

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABC Dub7 13

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

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

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

LGI_47

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

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

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

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

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

LGI_37 (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

99CHU~18

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

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

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

IMG-3226

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMG_3235

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

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

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

IMG_3191

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

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

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

IMG_3194

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

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

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

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

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

IMG_3227

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSC00478 (Hi-Lok)

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

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

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