IPB




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

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

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
We All Know Now Corley Never Had A Clue What Became Of United Airlines Flight 175, A detailed analysis of corrupted UA175 evidence.

amazed!
post Jul 11 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #61





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for the kind words DYEW.

Why is it that everybody thinks I'm trying to tear apart the work here of Q?

I have stated from the beginning that I appreciate what work he and everybody else has done.

I merely had questions, and the sad thing is that all we really have here is the Cool Hand Luke conundrum--a failure to communicate.

I do not pretend to have "my version" of what happened. I have opinions like everybody else here, and I can be persuaded to change that opinion, given persuasive evidence.

I'm still not clear EXACTLY what points Q was trying to make, because the discussion quickly became personal with attacks on me.

It is my opinion that there were no fuselage parts atop WTC5, but somebody could change my mind if they could show that somebody placed pieces up there. That was the essence of the questions I asked--was Q of the opinion that the photos were completely fabricated and faked, or only partially? Were the pictures taken and then the pieces rearranged? It would seem fairly simple to answer those questions, but somehow or other he takes offence because I've asked the question.

The cynical view would be that such a vitriolic reaction was defensive, and might indicate some measure of insecurity about his exact position.

But the bigger issue is that like it or not, things have moved on as far as the history books and such. People that were 5 years old that day are now 15 and being indoctrinated to the OCT, and they will know no difference, except for the random curious individual.

I think it's great, and intellectually stimulating to consider research done by private individuals--that is why I come here. I already know that it was the proverbial "inside job", no matter the tiny details.

I'm not here to win any cyber personality contests because I know I will lose. I ask blunt questions, I am arrogant, and I do not mince words. I do the same in real life, and there I have the added benefit of body language--I can see when somebody is uncomfortable with a question, and that body language reveals the soul to some degree.

I'm sorry everybody's feelings are hurt. Mine are not.

And I know you are a fair person. I hoping for a straight answer from you--exactly how am I defending the indefensible? What exactly is it that I am defending here? I don't see how asking pointed questions is defending anything at all.

FWIW, I have been flight instructing since 1970, so I'm familiar with the human learning process. A good instructor asks questions, and I guess I've just got a bad habit that offends so many here.

Nobody has a monopoly on the truth here, and while many details CAN be proven, many cannot. I admit that I'm speculating, so many in the truth movement come across as being dogmatic and doctrinaire. Sorry DYEW--I'm skeptical of people who pretend to know everything about any given subject, ESPECIALLY this matter of just what happened that day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jul 12 2011, 03:07 PM
Post #62





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



QUOTE
Why is it that everybody thinks I'm trying to tear apart the work here of Q?


Nothing wrong with discussing and criticizing anyone's research. But it's not just this thread or Q, it's anything to do with planes and the WTC.

I would hope that someone who spends so much time on 9/11 and discussion forums, would also bring something constructive to the table once in awhile. You're a pilot (?). We don't have to prove what happened on 9/11, but we do have to preserve the truth and the data, and those of us with knowledge have a duty to document and make this information available, so others can learn the truth for themselves.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 12 2011, 04:33 PM
Post #63





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well thanks for NOT answering the question about just what it is I'm "defending" that you object to.

I am surprised that YOU would not give a straight answer to expand upon your claim of yesterday.

It does seem you're back to your theory that you and I have disagreed with over the years--the presence of Boeings at WTC. As I have told you before DYEW, the existence of manipulated photos or videos does not necessarily mean there were no airplanes at WTC. If someone could demonstrate to me that some sort of advanced holography projection was used there that day, I would jump on your very shaky bandwagon. In the meantime, I'm sorry you take it so personally, but you're a grown woman and there is nothing I can do about that.

All I asked of Q was to provide a fairly concise statement of the conclusion he drew from his research: was it his opinion that the airplane parts were ACTUALLY on the roof at WTC5 and the pictures taken of it manipulated after the fact, OR were the pictures themselves completely fake?

Gawd, you'd think I asked questions about quantum physics!

He analyzed the data, not I. That he was unable to give a simple answer to a simple question makes me wonder.....

I was aware of your dogmatic position previously, but did not realize it was quite so entrenched.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 13 2011, 05:42 PM
Post #64





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



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jul 12 2011, 03:07 PM) *
Nothing wrong with discussing and criticizing anyone's research. But it's not just this thread or Q, it's anything to do with planes and the WTC.

I would hope that someone who spends so much time on 9/11 and discussion forums, would also bring something constructive to the table once in awhile. You're a pilot (?). We don't have to prove what happened on 9/11, but we do have to preserve the truth and the data, and those of us with knowledge have a duty to document and make this information available, so others can learn the truth for themselves.



DYEW, I respect your view and you're absolutely right with saying we have to preserve the truth the evidence itself represents. It's all fine and dandy to have suspicions regarding something or other (like mine for The Great Pretender here) but in the end only the evidence of a crime committed is accepted in a court of law and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Without that evidentiary proof and chain of custody linking it to the scene of the crime and individual all that's left is suspicion which is all The Great Pretender has contributed to the cause of 9/11 Truth.

That's why I continue amassing evidence ad infintum from the NIST Cumulus dataset and detailing what all of it means. As for those of us who know the truth having a duty to document and make this information available, so others can learn the truth for themselves you're preaching to the choir DYEW. While I agree with you 100% on that noble and ethical pursuit you must remember The Great Pretender has proven himself by the statements he's made here in this thread to be borderline anti-social with little to no conscience, hence the statement he made "It's fun to discuss, but I have no skin in the game" summing-up everything he DOESN'T stand for...which is everything outside his own self-interest.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 14 2011, 09:15 AM
Post #65





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes Q, you are fantastic at amassing evidence, but it seems you are unable to provide a concise statement in writing about what particular conclusions you draw from all that amassed evidence.

You are expert at amassing it, but it appears not very good at analyzing it or drawing conclusions. Or at least not too skilled in answering questions about what conclusions you might draw.

That you so quickly impugn my motives, having never met me in person, is more testimony to your juvenile mindset.

Both you and DYEW impugn my motives and loyalty, and neither of you can back up your slanderous statements. So typical of the internet. That you cannot defend your thesis, or even ENUNCIATE your thesis speaks volumes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 14 2011, 11:50 PM
Post #66





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 14 2011, 09:15 AM) *
Yes Q, you are fantastic at amassing evidence, but it seems you are unable to provide a concise statement in writing about what particular conclusions you draw from all that amassed evidence.

You are expert at amassing it, but it appears not very good at analyzing it or drawing conclusions. Or at least not too skilled in answering questions about what conclusions you might draw.

That you so quickly impugn my motives, having never met me in person, is more testimony to your juvenile mindset.

Both you and DYEW impugn my motives and loyalty, and neither of you can back up your slanderous statements. So typical of the internet. That you cannot defend your thesis, or even ENUNCIATE your thesis speaks volumes.


Because “The Great Pretender” requested I enunciate a concise statement here explaining where I stand on my research I’ve done so, but in all honesty I’ve responded here more so because people are instinctively drawn to muck-raking and I wish to nip all this nonsense in the bud. Maybe then we can get back to basics. Not to say I’m acquiescing to The Great Pretender but I do think the head-butting has gone on far too long now and with that said I’ve made my point here. With his permission and co-operation I would be more than happy to agree to disagree and refocus on the core argument and premise I made in my earlier posts.

By now I’m sure many people have lost sight of that research and the reason we’re all here to begin with. I admit I’ve played no small part in the devolution of this thread and I suspect the readership by now is either fed-up and/or more interested in the profoundly distracting difference of opinion I have with “Amazed” vis-a-vis our opposing reasons for believing what we do of specific 9/11 aircraft evidence. I do sincerely wish to get back to detailing what my research shows and not continue this ridiculous one-upmanship.

I really don’t care whether The Great Pretender should ever find it in himself to change his mind and opinion about the government evidence I’ve researched. Indeed, I realize his enlightenment will never come about because he’s shown throughout his writings how utterly selfish and cunningly duplicitous he truly is. All the while he feigns support for 9/11 Truth and my research by claiming we are “essentially in agreement” when clearly we are diametrically opposed in every way possible and think nothing alike. In my opinion then he is part of the problem and why a fresh investigation delving deep into the attacks on 9/11 gets nowhere fast.

I merely wish to warn you all of what I believe is this individual’s modus operandi here and because ignorance is infectious God knows the number of individuals “Amazed” has swayed wrong, outright confused and utterly frustrated throughout the years at P4T. Quite frankly then I’m appalled to watch this individual play to and prey on the trust, illiteracy and gullibility of those here (with his appeals to pity and authority, etc) while contributing nothing to their “enlightenment”...based on what he’s written here so far it’s my opinion he’s a phony and hypocrite deserving of little respect and his opinion on this issue warrants even less consideration...how that is slanderous is anyone’s guess.

Admittedly then this individual has undertaken no 9/11 research himself and simply parrots what others say here while deriding them for saying so and all because he’s more interested in provoking them, which is of course a classic PsyOp tactic. In fact his statements and arguments are chock-full of illogic intended to daze and confuse you...such methods are laid out in the Trivium and Quadrivium should you bother to look...learn the tools they use on you and turn the table I say.

Although my suspicion of the man is just that, an opinion based on gut feeling, according to him not only is that opinion slanderous my United Airlines flight 175 findings hold no weight, because I’ve not satisfied his definition of meeting the burden of proof. Ironically then and you may have noticed NOT ONCE has he put forth a shred of evidence to the readership thereby backing anything he’s argued. Don’t just take my word for it...I encourage everyone to immerse themselves in the evidence I’ve put forward and having come to understand it well ask yourself then “ why is it people have tired of Amazed and his bullshit confrontations?” I suspect it’s because of his demands on everyone else, but it’s he who should be held to task here!

A perfect example of this masterful manipulator doing his part to downplay the importance of the evidence I’ve brought forward here comes in the statement he made on June 1, 2011...”Having worked in aviation all my life, I just cannot imagine how that piece would have been placed on the roof without all sorts of people seeing the operation.” which is of course a logical fallacy and namely then a “Red Herring.” Does anyone here know this individual personally, as the flight instructor he claims to be, or otherwise? Of course not and of course he’s offered no proof of that claim...a ploy better known as Argumentum ad nauseam and/or Argumentum ad populum and to a much lesser degree Argumentum ad verecundiam. My point here people is Amazed is deliberately fucking with your mind! In response to that accusation I suspect Amazed would make the same argument, that I’ve not proven my background in aviation, to which I would ask him to explain how in the hell I managed to get detailed photographs of the inside of a Boeing 767 aircraft undergoing a major overhaul...by joining a public tour of the facility perhaps?

If that weren’t enough on July 6, 2011 he further states “I accepted a year ago or more that the various pictures were manipulated...I don’t KNOW that in my heart or mind but I accept it because so many folks seem utterly convinced it’s true.”...again it’s Argumentum ad populum. Well then, say no more Sherlock...surely the lack of conviction by “Amazed” is most convincing and we shouldn’t bother to look any further into 9/11. Let’s all just suppose and suspect like he does...as good Sheeple and citizens are expected to behave.

The fact is (and if you think about it) both those statements were deliberately made to completely distract from what I’ve shown is the case, that someone in government (or with its blessing at least) photographed and later Photoshop falsified a minimum of one image of that aircraft wreckage (allegedly) belonging to United Airlines flight 175 and the FEMA image I.D. 12390 makes that point quite clear. As a loyal American and one who’s fully aware of the fact his government has waged two Wars that are still raging on and a million people are now dead because of the outrageous LIE the FEMA image I.D. 12390 represents I would ask The Great Pretender how he reconciles that fact with his statement “...I have no skin in the game.”

That aside and in particular then this individual has repeatedly dismissed the premise I put forward months ago, that the government “planted” that specific aircraft wreckage on the World Trade Center site, all within the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and for which I’ve presented proof in evidence of that. He won’t accept that premise, NOT because he’s proven that evidence to the contrary or any of the evidence I put forward for that matter. Rather then he cajoles me simply because he claims (Plurium interrogationum) I haven’t answered his questions satisfactorily and to his liking! The real irony in all of this of course happens to be (this all knowing flight instructor) who is seemingly incapable of comprehending the facts as I’ve presented them so far is far and alone at the back of his class of flight instructors and professional pilots here who’ve read my thesis and readily understand it, including Rob Balsamo.
Regardless of that fact might this individual consider the fact it’s not my burden to disprove the government’s case but rather then it’s the government that needs to answer for the flagrant example of evidence tampering therein its own 9/11 Commission evidence. Neither is it incumbent upon me to educate or explain the definition of onus to him!

From that evidence I’d come to the conclusion a [Boeing 767-200 series] aircraft DID NOT crash into WTC 2 on 9/11 and it’s my opinion (FWIW) whatever aircraft had crashed into WTC 2 that morning any large piece of wreckage to survive the impact and its shredding by that building most certainly did not find itself extricated from the maelstrom, only to fall from the sky and onto WTC 5. In fact several damning official videos and photographic exhibits (therein the NIST Cumulus dataset) show that large piece of aircraft wreckage was nowhere to be found on the rooftop of WTC 5 at the time - not in the immediate aftermath of WTC 2 having been eviscerated by the doomed aircraft and certainly not in the minutes immediately following the collapse of WTC 2.

Logic and sound deductive reasoning would tell you if the wreckage did not land there at the foot of the stairs (on the rooftop of WTC 5) immediately following the attack on WTC 2 and it still hadn’t been cast aside there (by the pressure wave generated) from that tower toppling the only other logical explanation for it having been discovered there (45 days later) is the wreckage had been “planted.” In other words “Amazed” the large piece of wreckage was placed there by hand, then arranged and rearranged prior to the FEMA image I.D. 12390 being taken by the WTC investigators. Should you care to look at all several unimpeachable government evidentiary exhibits depicting that same wreckage (of which I’ve cited here) prove that point.

Therefore it stands to reason it’s quite feasible the large piece of aircraft wreckage photographed by the investigators DID NOT land there, or even originate from “whatever aircraft” crashed into that tower on 9/11 for that matter. I keep emphasizing “whatever aircraft” because certain peculiar physical attributes (I’m told are not common to the Boeing 767-200 airframe) exist thereon the wreckage. Due to the fact I’ve only recently discovered those irregularities therein the official (alleged) UA175 evidence I’m now attempting to amass the obligatory physical proof so required of me (by The Great Pretender) to confirm not only is the government’s physical (UA175) evidence wrong for type but it must have been “planted” and subsequently Adobe Photoshop falsified. Prior to being attested to and entered into evidence by Mr. W. Gene Corley no less.

On closing “The Great Pretender” claims to have taught flight school since 1970; as such he is “...familiar with the human learning process” or so he states. However, by my calculations that means he must be no less than 60 years of age then. That being the case I question what professional gentleman of that age and stature makes extensive use of the dumbass emoticons he has attached (to every other correspondence) while at the same time emoting “Chill dude...Gawd and Puhleez!” Seniors actually speak like that down south in Fort Pierce, Florida do they? Just how old are you - are you still in diapers or have you recently gone back to using them I wonder?

What’s more the fact you claim I ‘took offense to your person early on simply because you asked questions of me, therefore I must be insecure on my position regarding my research and the conclusions I arrived at’ that statement couldn’t be further from the truth and regardless of your accusations my research speaks for itself. Make no mistake, my low opinion of you has nothing to do with your inability to take simple information in and process it as much as it’s your conceited and arrogated fermenting of dissent and disinformation here...that’s why I know you’re a self-serving asshole, period!





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 15 2011, 09:18 AM
Post #67





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Blah, blah, blah, blah cleanup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 16 2011, 02:48 PM
Post #68





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 15 2011, 09:18 AM) *
Blah, blah, blah, blah cleanup.gif


Blah, blah, blah, blah, but no answers. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
727fan
post Jul 17 2011, 07:14 AM
Post #69





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 5-July 11
Member No.: 6,033



QUOTE (questionitall @ Jul 16 2011, 02:48 PM) *
Blah, blah, blah, blah, but no answers. whistle.gif



Thankful for no answers, and hope for nothing further from them. You have already demonstrated they probably cannot come up with any more of an answer, hence their behavior.

Every disinfo agent and related provacatuers that gets ripped up to shreds as they fully deserve, and as happened rightfully here in your post of a few days prior, is good riddance.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 17 2011, 10:08 AM
Post #70





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



No answers?

You mean I should answer whether or not I wear diapers?

Somehow I'm not surprised at the gutter level to which the conversation has descended under the capable leadership of Q.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 17 2011, 06:30 PM
Post #71





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 17 2011, 10:08 AM) *
No answers?

You mean I should answer whether or not I wear diapers?

Somehow I'm not surprised at the gutter level to which the conversation has descended under the capable leadership of Q.



It was a rhetorical statement jerk...I didn’t expect an honest answer from you and as for what was said you can dish it out but you sure can’t take your own medicine now can you.

Amazed, it’s painfully obvious you’ve employed every trick there is (having appealed to pity, ridicule, popularity, flattery, authority, etc.) to incite me to speculate on (all) the aircraft wreckage photographed on World Trade Center 5 and I won’t do that – not ever! Not like you.

Speculating proves nothing and knowing your style I’m sure you’ll put your usual spin on these words as well, but oh well. It doesn’t really matter then because people have come to realize your intention and contribution here is disingenuous. What’s more then try as you might to intimidate me with your dogmatic slurs that tactic doesn’t work either, because all my life I’ve worked with far too many mechanics and blue collar types to be fazed by a bullying neophyte like yourself.
In regards to your last bitchy slur “You are an expert at amassing it, but it appears not very good at analyzing it or drawing conclusions. Or at least not too skilled in answering questions about what conclusions you might draw.” you have every right to say so. In fact I would be a hypocrite to argue that statement as I’ve stated here in the past the reasoning for my UA175 conclusions can be difficult to follow along with. More importantly then ask yourself why I was not in the least bit surprised you came back on me with that same old feeble argument. After all, it’s not the first time your selective memory ignored the fact I’d explicitly told you I’m no forensics expert and neither am I a professional writer or analyst.

In fact, had you read anything of my research you’d know I started a thread here on January 15, 2011 in which I made a direct appeal to forensics experts to volunteer their input, feedback and opinion on the evidence I’ve worked to shed light on.

For all the aforementioned reasons then and many more besides I couldn’t be bothered to explain to you what conclusion I’ve come to, because you take everything I say out of context and distort my meaning to suit your need anyways, just as you did with Tambourine man here. By the way, that alone convinced me you’re just an asshole Agent Provocateur who interferes with people getting THEIR point across and/or learning the 9/11 truth.
All said and done your feeble logic and speculative opinions here tell me you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, especially when you question my findings and opinions. What’s more nothing meaningful has come about from the time I began exchanging words with you here, but it sure has been enjoyable provoking you and getting the drivel I anticipated back in return.

Best of all though you’re perpetuating the nonsense here has compelled people to read the UA175 research I’d posted at my other thread and other threads as well are being visited more, but don’t believe me. I’ve watched the count go up on them in a big way the more you disrupt this thread with your doublespeak mind games and woe is me bitching and you can to, but enough is enough!

The fact you believe “...2 Boeings struck the towers that day” but you don’t believe any parts of the fuselage ended up atop WTC 5 as you “think they are faked photos all the way” well that’s all fine and dandy but where’s your evidence? Now then had you proven (all) the pieces of the fuselage shown in the various official evidentiary exhibits had been added to the images or “forged” per se using Adobe Photoshop I could accept your opinion but without that proof your premise is a “red herring” and such conjecture only reaffirms why we are not “essentially in agreement.” In fact I think nothing of the kind and I couldn’t disagree with you more on that point. If for no other reason because I do not believe any of that aircraft wreckage (including the bits of fuselage) came from a Boeing 767-200 airframe. In fact I believe the contrary then, as I’ve grown increasingly convinced whatever aircraft had slammed into WTC 2 it couldn’t have been United Airlines flight 175.

The reason being (as I’d stated in my second to last response to you for which you also chose to dismiss) is the existence of Hi-Lok fasteners in an area thereon that larger piece of wreckage that I’m told is not standard for type. I’m presently trying to get to the bottom of that anomaly and whether that advice was true or false. Had you read and understood my June 21st update you would know that and had you gone to the photographs and videos I’d posted at Flick (as I directed you to) we wouldn’t be having this exchange now would we. But you only see and hear what you wish to don’t you, just as it’s not your intention to learn from others here or get along with me now is it, Amazed.

It’s for that reason alone I insist the FBI and NTSB investigators made their way onto the rooftop of WTC 5 immediately following the attack on 9/11. They knew full well why they had to remove all trace of the serialized evidence from that rooftop, because it would prove whatever aircraft crashed into WTC 2 it wasn’t that of a Boeing 767-200 and UA175 specifically. The reason they never bothered to remove the rest of the wreckage from the crime scene, which is standard procedure, is due to the fact there was never any intention to perform a standard investigation of the attack and/or treat the site as an aircraft accident crime scene.

It was assumed no-one would question the attack or the official explanation of it and certainly not the wreckage. But it soon became necessary to plant wreckage “resembling” a commercial airliner and after people began questioning the entire commercial airliner scenario. As such my opinion is the larger piece of wreckage with window cut-outs (DSC00478) had been physically “planted” there. What other explanation is there for it not existing where it should be (according to Mr. W. Gene Corley that is) in the Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph taken the morning of 9/11? Explain that one to me if you would, Amazed.

On July 7 Tambourine Man explained to you as he understood it “...they took a photo of a planted fuselage part as shown in photo DSC00478. Afterwards somebody got the ‘bright’ idea of taking another photo of the same fuselage part, whereupon they could add some identification markings onto it...” That was NOT exactly my conclusion but his observation was very astute and yet you kept trying to turn that opinion around on him in subsequent replies.

What’s more, even though the NIST Cumulus dataset image (Natasha Sealy_MVC-005F_WTC5_Roof) is a low resolution copy of the original Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph one can clearly see the much smaller debris in the vicinity of the staircase in no way resembles the larger section of fuselage - not in size, shape or colour. I most certainly DO NOT believe the bric-a-brac shown on the far side of the WTC 5 rooftop staircase the Natasha Sealy-Fraser image is that larger piece of fuselage with window cut-outs, as seen in the FEMA photograph I.D. 12390. All said and done it’s my opinion that larger piece of wreckage seen in the FEMA photograph I.D. 12390 was not from any Boeing 767 aircraft and I hope to prove that fact soon enough.

Better yet, would some LOYAL American please do us all a favour and apply for a FOIA disclosure to have the (original and untouched) Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph released to an independent photo forensics analyst and Rob Balsamo. If the (identical) and larger piece of fuselage wreckage (as shown in the FEMA image) is proven to be sitting where it should be (as shown in the FEMA image) in that example of her image I’ll admit my entire theory is wrong on National television. What’s more then I’ll even eat the soiled underwear of Amazed in front of the audience! How’s that for being unsure of my findings, you jerk!
Is it possible the larger piece of fuselage wreckage could have originated from United Airlines flight 175 and emanated from WTC 2 after crashing? Yes, it’s possible. The odds of that happening are astronomical of course but it’s possible.

Do I believe the larger piece of wreckage emanated from WTC 2 and landed there on WTC 5 just as it is shown (arranged) and in generally good condition? Not bloody likely and for the obvious reason being it’s highly implausible it would have survived being extruded through the buildings core, only to be ejected from the far side of WTC 2 as such! Do I have proof of that? Yes I do and again it’s in the form of the Natasha Sealy-Fraser photograph and the video footage of the attacks taken by Guy Rosbrook and Tami Michael’s!

Do I believe it was possible to “plant” (all) the smaller bits of fuselage wreckage seen in the various official exhibits of aircraft wreckage shown thereon WTC 5 along with the larger piece of fuselage? Yes, of course, but that undertaking would not have been necessary. Due to the fact all manner of debris (including small pieces of fuselage) from whatever aircraft crashed into WTC 2 quite likely came to rest there atop the surrounding buildings, hence Tambourine Man’s photographs and testimony here.

Do I believe most of the smaller pieces of fuselage wreckage from the attack aircraft had come to rest atop WTC 5 after what was left of whatever aircraft had been ejected from WTC 2? Yes I do.

Do I believe your opinion (Amazed) all the fuselage wreckage was faked using Adobe Photoshop? Not at all and you never proved that was the case now did you! In fact it cannot be proven (from the evidence) because as it stands (all but) the larger piece of fuselage wreckage is too small to be seen in any of the later photos taken from the buildings adjacent to WTC 5, let alone from afar and on high. What’s more they’re simply too small and cannot be spotted and/or conclusively identified in any of the earlier high resolution aerial photographs taken and neither can the larger piece of fuselage in question for that matter.
All we have is the Gary Steficek material showing that larger piece of fuselage there on WTC 5, as seen in videotapes and photographs taken by the WTC investigators (45 days) later on October 25, 2001. Just as I’ve explained to you ad nauseam, as well how and why that FEMA photograph I.D. 12390 had been falsified using Adobe Photoshop.

Do I believe any of that wreckage came to rest there on WTC 5 just as it is shown (arranged) in the evidentiary exhibits I’ve cited – absolutely NOT! I don’t believe that was the case at all and for obvious reasons!

In the end if that piece of wreckage proves not to originate from a Boeing 767-200 series airframe then it doesn’t matter what you say Amazed because the greater issue becomes a matter of who’s to be arrested for Treason and held accountable for mass murder and all because they “planted” the wrong type of physical evidence and subsequently Adobe Photoshop falsified it to appear as that of United Airlines flight 175.

So is there any part of what I believe not clear to you now? Actually, don’t answer that because I don’t want to hear from you again! I’m sick of your mindless game.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Jul 17 2011, 06:30 PM
Post #72





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



QUOTE (727fan @ Jul 17 2011, 07:14 AM) *
Thankful for no answers, and hope for nothing further from them. You have already demonstrated they probably cannot come up with any more of an answer, hence their behavior.

Every disinfo agent and related provacatuers that gets ripped up to shreds as they fully deserve, and as happened rightfully here in your post of a few days prior, is good riddance.



Agreed mate! thx.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 18 2011, 10:01 AM
Post #73





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Oh, it was a rhetorical question! So simple!

Yes, rather like your verbose rhetorical answers, eh?

The UNrhetorical answer is that all the events of the day were staged by men in government, and we are coming up on the 10th aniversary, in which all mainstream media dutifully remind their viewers and readers that still today, The Emperor's New Clothes are simply beautiful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Aug 5 2011, 09:08 PM
Post #74





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



Just a reminder for those who might be wondering, I've every intention of posting more WTC 2 aircraft info here the moment I find what I'm looking for. As mentioned (in my second to last response here) I do not believe any of that aircraft wreckage "discovered" on WTC 5 (including the bits of fuselage) came from a Boeing 767-200 airframe and I'm actively working on proving that was the case. As you know I've taken that view for several reasons and especially because of the existence of Hi-Lok fasteners in an area thereon that larger piece of wreckage (of which I'm told is not standard for type). I’m presently trying to get to the bottom of that anomaly and whether or not that advice was true or false but aircraft scheduling dictates when and where I can gain access to a stripped cabin for the purpose of getting photographs. However, I should have an answer explaining that evidence sometime in early September.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Sep 15 2011, 12:11 AM
Post #75





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



Due to all the 9/11 bullshit being floated by the mainstream media pundits as of late I fear I might have swallowed a little of the multiple liars words there on the tube so I need to purge and I mean really rant here to clear my sense and sensibilities of that shit they were spewing just the other day.
Seriously though, all I can say about what I’ve witnessed of the September 11th commemorations this year is Thank bloody God that sideshow cremation of care rite has come and gone and all the architects who wrought that diabolic Project for a New American Century upon us have since slithered back into their cesspool of unconscionable moral rot. Gone for another year and good riddance to them I say. Quite frankly the sheer audacity of those murdering hypocrites astounds me and how they dare show their faces around the family members of the victims is beyond my comprehension then. Needless to say it was all quite unbearable for me and I couldn’t watch.

Fortunately for me the only place I’m exposed to both television and/or newspapers is the lunchroom where I work. Thankfully then and not unexpectedly or long into the televised 9/11 commemoration my co-workers abandoned that cause celeb for something considerably less telling of their apathy and ignorance. By that I mean many of those I work with are mental midgets and they soon began channel surfing for anything else less taxing on their attention spans and fortuitously then the television reception at work sucks and they gave up. The set was turned off soon after and much to my relief.

I suspect it wasn’t long after that the politicians, pundits and pawns there in New York that morning tired of the sordid affair as well and voila, just like rats they scurried from that sinking ship I’m sure, back to their wanton forget like someone turning off a light switch. All said and done how maddening it’s been for me throughout the past few weeks then. For having tried in vain to avoid all 9/11 coverage of those assholes, only to be caught-up on occasion having to endure sound-bites and the occasional visual snippet here and there of the MSM bullshit 9/11 coverage.

As mentioned I didn’t watch any of that schlock, just like I don’t watch television 99.99% of the time I’m awake. Neither do I encourage or commend the profound ignorance and stupidity in people of which television programming invokes. In fact I refuse to have television in my home, period. As such I still think for myself and really don’t give a damn about sports stars or fan favourites and bimbo teen idols those buffoons banter about on the idiot box. Just as long as they all stick to what they know best and I’m not involuntarily subjected to listen to another bloody word from them about a topic they truly know very little to nothing about. When it comes to the facts of 9/11 clearly they haven’t a clue and to make it all worse I had to dig very deep to find the fortitude to weather the bold print LIES of newspaper headlines as well.

Yes, I despise the mainstream media that much and consider everything it represents a despicable lot.

What bothered me most throughout these past few weeks was trying to remain silent by keeping my opinions to myself while I watched many a moron glue their attention to the idiot box or a newspaper in that typically misguided way someone does when they’re trying to make sense of it all, alas where none is to be found in either form, ever. How pathetic I find it all then, that people actually sought out television screens to inflict themselves with that sob-fest soma bullshit ceremony at ground zero, not unlike moths drawn to a flame which invariably incinerates them whole; body, mind and soul.

From it all I’ve realized and accepted not a thing about our human condition has changed in the ten years since the 9/11 Holocaust inaugurated this century and certainly not throughout ancient human historical record of human sacrifice. So how very ironic it seems to me then that we’ve tossed aside the most profound wisdom of our brightest forbearers. At a most crucial moment in time no less as history begins to remind us of its worst possible lessons that go ignored by most, yet again. The bottom line is we’re about to have our collective ignorant asses kicked back into the dark ages and with a vengeance too I suspect, but does anyone care about the coming tyranny? No, not at all, so long as they have their television to occupy their misery by.

How utterly disenfranchising it is then to know the vast majority of people still don’t know of even the basic cover-up that took place at ground zero on 9/11 and probably won’t ever get engaged, because they really couldn’t care less if they’re ever awakened to the truth of 9/11 or any truth at all for that matter. Rather then they choose to dutifully believe authority and the government’s storyline, even though the forensic research of people like me and that of highly esteemed and accredited industry experts proved long ago agents acting on behalf of the U.S. government lied in spades about the evidence and facts of 9/11. For that reason alone those people who believe the government FEMA agents storyline then are terribly misguided fools for doing so and how sad it is for me then to finally accept the vast majority of people couldn’t distinguish “tangible evidence from “opinion” even if their own lives depended on doing so.

From it all I finally and fully comprehend and accept as true the insight of a Muslim friend of mine, who said and meant every word of it on the morning of 9/11 as he sadly uttered “The people in the West are getting exactly what is coming to them as they well deserve...for their centuries old complicit ignorant indifference in World affairs and arrogant statist prayers” for which he is absolutely right to believe because “the man who would choose security over Liberty deserves neither.” Knowledge is free and what’s more it’s a powerful weapon when put to good use therefore anyone who doesn’t learn to take advantage of it deserves the lot in life they draw.

For that reason alone I’ve become completely disheartened by it all and will be discontinuing my 9/11 research soon enough, once I’ve definitively proven no Boeing 767-200 aircraft crashed into WTC2 on 9/11 that is. I am close to confirming just that and anyone interested will be the first to know the outcome here.
In the meantime then the U.S. government maintains to this very day the FEMA agents and experts they hired to investigate the WTC site aircraft crime scene are right and proper to insist they’d conclusively proven commercial aircraft most definitely cashed into WTC 2 and namely then United Airlines flight 175. They’d proven that they say from having reviewed video footage and photographs they’d taken of aircraft wreckage they adamantly insist fell from the second tower. Believe it or not that’s the gist of the U.S. government agent’s argument on the matter of UA175 and the backbone of its overall WTC site case. All of which amounts to YOU’LL BELIEVE IT BECAUSE WE’RE TELLING YOU SO, THAT’S WHY!

The truth is no such scenario has ever been proven. In fact no tangible evidence has ever been made public by the government to prove most of what it claims is “The Real Truth of 9/11” and especially with respect to the offending aircraft in all four crash scenarios. The sum total of all aircraft evidence the government presented to the public amounts to a few measly pieces of untraceable sheet metal and bits of landing gear now in a museum somewhere no-one aside from New Yorkers cares to visit.

Ironically then, as it stands the U.S. government still touts that absurd “smoking gun evidence” argument all the while insisting no valid reason exists to question its 9/11 findings and furthermore, any suspicion or talk of a possible cover-up on its part is unwarranted, despite the fact its own tangible evidence indicates as my related research proves quite the opposite is the case. Regardless of that we’re expected to simply take their word as gospel then and ignore all confirmed instances of evidence having been conjured into existence by the very experts who were taken into FEMA’s employ. What’s more then as far as those expert’s and the U.S. government is concerned the theories being spread in the alternative media amounts to pure conjecture, so they say. It’s all the work of “conspiracy theorists” no less and the attacks of 9/11 never happened the way those contrarians claim it did, right?

I could rest easy if the latter were the case but even though we’re ten years removed from 9/11 the fact is we’re still dredging-up incredible examples of tainted evidence proving otherwise. So regardless of what the U.S. government says is true the fact is even the little known falsified evidence that I’ve uncovered destroys the government’s case and conclusion United Airlines flight 175 crashed into WTC2.

Yes; I realize I drone on about that fact and it’s deliberate I tell you because it’s absolutely imperative people understand that crucial point. Hopefully then the more people to understand it and talk about it chances are someone with the power to investigate it and lay charges might do so in my lifetime. The logic is this - because I’ve proven every bit of aircraft evidence (the government claims to be proof of UA175) was in fact falsified by the government agents that means the government has yet to prove its case, from credible/tangible evidence.

In light of the fact no-one to this very day, including the 9/11 Commission, knows for sure what aircraft evidence is genuine and the question then is what became of UA175 if indeed it was not destroyed at ground zero on the morning of September 11, 2001? As important then is finding out what aircraft did crash into WTC2 because again the governments own evidence shows it couldn’t possibly have been a commercial aircraft. Needless to say knowing the truth and answer to either of those questions has the potential to blow the entire official 9/11 narrative right out of the water and sink those who knew of the collusion yet chose to lie and cover-up those facts! That being the case everyone should be demanding to see ALL the physical wreckage of the alleged UA175 aircraft the government is sitting on and if they cannot definitively prove to us UA175 was destroyed on 9/11 then a new 9/11 investigation must be convened immediately.

It all sounds too outrageous and fantastical I know and believe me I question my own findings often but anyone who believes I’m a sanctimonious and disrespectful asshole for continuing to haunt the government on this issue they need to look themselves in the mirror and ask what they’ve done lately in memory of and respectfully for the many innocent victims murdered on 9/11. I don’t owe anyone an apology and I sure as hell don’t make excuses for my politics and that goes for my immutable opinion on the matter of 9/11. Just as there’s no forgiving any of them, especially the WTC investigators who compiled that evidence, therefore it’s not me who owes an apology to the victim’s families and the survivors but they who’ve lied and will answer for it one day. As sure as Hell takes those the Devil knows by name it’s my opinion then the real truth and terrorists of 9/11 include those average American and Canadian citizens who haven’t and probably won’t ever get off their sorry asses to do a single bloody thing about their governments treason, including bother to educate themselves on the issue of 9/11.

That said a recent article written by Amy Chung and published in POSTMEDIA NEWS quotes John Wright, senior vice-president of public affairs for Ipsos Reid. According to him the majority of Canadian’s polled on the subject agree the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were the defining socio-political event in their lifetime. John Wright goes on to say “What this poll tells us is this (9/11) scar is deep...There’s no doubt 9/11 has penetrated the soul of those people who were there at that time; who witnessed it in such great detail...we feel vulnerable...it’s a human security threat.” Indeed, what that article tells us then is despite the fact the individual knows better than to turn a blind eye still the vast majority of people simply go along to get along in life and by doing so over time they become a part of the problem society faces now, therefore they must shoulder some of the blame for 9/11 because.

Not surprisingly then Amy Chung told us nothing in her article of which the astute few didn’t already know, what John Wright the “expert” failed to inform her of, or she failed to explain to her readership then, is the fact the point to any such survey is to elicit a specific response by asking very pointed questions. That’s precisely how social engineers continually manipulate our circumstance, through pollsters at one end of the social spectrum and those at the other end who disrupt our lives in the first place, just as the murdering scum of 9/11 had done. That’s precisely why voluntary public surveys are a crucial part of the public’s regularly scheduled programming. In fact voluntary public surveys are an age old litmus test used by those at the top to effectively measure how their social conditioning is working on those of us at the bottom. Agree with me or not I don’t care and like it or not it doesn’t matter then because that’s just how it is. The point is her article serves us no purpose other than to remind us we’re all just aging useless eaters being kept in this glue factory for humans.

Likewise then the role of social media today is not to enlighten us but rather then to aid and abet the sterilization of our self-psyche by soliciting from us a "conditioned reflex” any old time they choose it simply by projecting any given sensory input they’ve trained us to respond to and fear being our most powerful motivator. In the old days they just took what they needed from us by force and torture in a dank sanatoriums laboratory not a unlike that of Ivan Pavlov’s day but these days they offer us cheap trinkets in exchange for us allowing them to dredge our minds with pointed questions that we volunteer the answers to. It’s brilliant on their part really but detestable none the less for what they do with that information.

Hence the scientific study of social engineering and propaganda by the founding father; the Public Relations granddaddy himself Edward Bernays. A fan and practitioner of Ivan Pavlov’s research and the man who believed and I quote “The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.”

Not surprisingly then it doesn’t take either of their genius and certainly not an Ipsos Reid poll to enlighten “the informed” of the fact the majority of Canadian’s had responded exactly as expected...by turning inward and cowering from the manufactured hollow threat of bogie-man terrorist’s. Just as their American counterparts had reacted, by cowering their entire lives from all socio-political responsibilities their Constitution expects and demands of them as citizen patriots and exactly as the social engineers and traitors in office predicted with the answers they gleaned from their many decades of surveying the fools.
My point being their type of “expert” knew full well what they could get away with just as they knew what our long-term reaction to the attack would be. Like I said they anticipate our psychological response to everything they do, just as they harvest our emotions from the seeds they’ve sewn there in our minds throughout our entire lives. All of which brings to mind yet another shamefully inadequate and shabby little piece of journalism entitled “The Real Truth of 9/11” most recently shat out of the infamous government apologist James Meigs ass I suspect.

With twisted logic and his non-existent corroborating evidence still a mystery to me then, if nothing else what he managed to prove to me with that article then is he only intends to cause division each year and come September 11th by salting to preserve in the minds of as many ignoramuses as possible a deep seeded ignorance of the attack by instilling in them his politically biased version of “The Real Truth of 9/11” in which he chose to invoke emotion and his appeal to authority rather than the Truth. I’m not surprised one bit by that fact and his career wouldn’t amount to spit if not for the fact the majority of people in this amazing “age of information” still flock to and covet the much filtered gospel of 9/11 according to these false prophets come pundits for the MSM.

It goes without saying then the chief editors post at Popular Mechanics comes with certain privileges and liberties, apparently, whereby ones’ key role in that position is to exercise ones’ prerogative and voice ones’ own baseless opinions as well those of their puppet master employer. It’s that one hundred and nine year old tradition of the status quo proselytizing the ignorant by way of puppets like Mr. Meigs who libels with impunity those who question the oligarchy’s authority and oppose their myopic view. That very same privilege that allows James Meigs to get away with the 9/11 commentary he passes off as Truth! Therefore, anyone who considers factual anything Popular Mechanics publishes about 9/11 and supports that magazines bottom line at the checkout counter because of it, well they deserve the world and future they get.

Honestly then; both his articles amount to a covert condemnation of and assault on every ideal guaranteed the individual under the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as infringed upon by James Meigs, the man who makes it his business to attack anyone harbouring a 9/11 opinion all their own...God forbid any independent thinker should contest his and/or the governments numerous and erroneous 9/11 findings.

Let’s be clear before I continue. In my opinion James Meigs is a charlatan freelance journalist who relies heavily on being handed the research his “experts” assure him is factual but it appears he never actually confirms the veracity of his narrative by substantiating those details first. Indeed, it appears he simply regurgitates to parrot whatever fallacy the powers that be tell him to say and that fact is reflected in the quality and accuracy of his writing. So the very fact his amateurish assessment of everything 9/11 holds sway with as many people as it does well that doesn’t bode well for transparency, truth and valour in journalism today. A point I was reminded of as I read through his latest article while trying to find merit in any of his usual vagaries written there.

That narrative was published in the rag Popular Mechanics shortly before September 11, 2011 and to those in the know it’s no surprise then his article is a classic example of a lazy, two-bit hack not carrying out even a basic background check of the facts he reports on. In what amounts to part two of his 2005 hit-piece “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report” James Meigs further alludes to the lies the “experts” he consulted told him back then. However, what he fails to mention in his latest article is the fact the experts hypothesis such as “pancaking floors” and “melted steel” have since been completely debunked themselves, admittedly so and most recently then by the very mad scientists at NIST who first concocted those absurd concepts. Needless to say then that recurring theme of twisted logic, plausible deniability and outright obfuscation is found throughout the many 9/11 narratives of James Meigs.

Consider just one of those experts, the vaunted Mr. W. Gene Corley. The tall building expert who spearheaded the WTC site investigation and for that reason alone James Meigs consulted him for the aforementioned February 3, 2005 hit-piece he wrote for Popular Mechanics. Mr. Corley, the man who had no business serving in that capacity to begin with, if for no other reason simply because he hasn’t a clue about conducting a proper aviation crash investigation and he has no credentials and/or experience identifying high explosives let alone making and/or using them with proficiency.

As WTC site team leader Mr. Corley is the same individual who failed to secure that crime scene from incursion and looting by the FBI and NTSB yet he still insists he knows for a fact United Airlines flight 175 crashed into World Trade Center 2. Despite the fact Mr. Corley has never laid hands on a shred of credible evidence proving that to be the case and neither has a single piece of aircraft wreckage proven to be that of the alleged United Airlines flight 175 ever been made public by him, or anyone. That is the calibre of expert Mr. Meigs refers to, the man who refuses to respond to my questions about that falsified evidence he stakes his entire, now sullied reputation on.

If that is the calibre of professional “expert” Mr. James Meigs takes counsel with then surely he would take seriously the expertise of the rank and file membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and those at the organization Pilots For 9/11 Truth. They too investigate 9/11 falsehoods but on a continual basis and from an opposing vantage. Their thousands of fulltime experts also in the field of aviation, engineering and military actually know what they’re doing, what they’re looking for and what they’re looking at. What’s more is their facts don’t lie, so go figure why all those experts at A&E and P4T are considered to be wrong by Mr. Meigs while he considers himself always right? Is it because his sources are somehow more reliable? God knows his professional “experts” never fuck-up or fudge the facts now do they! But according to Mr. Meigs that’s all the A&E and P4T experts have done from the beginning.

In fact while he makes a host of generalizations and tenuous unfounded accusations against the entire 9/11 Truth movement in “The Real Truth of 9/11” not once did he make mention of or explain a shred of evidence to prove why exactly anyone who questions the 9/11 Commission and its overall official findings is a de facto “conspiracy theorist” and “9/11-Truther.” If indeed James Meigs is right in his claims he could easily make short work of the opposing argument of the most stalwart and educated, informed and well researched 9/11 contrarian by doing just that. So why I ask doesn’t he ever offer tangible proof of his claim and likewise then if he’s so sure of himself why does he refuse to debate the issue face to face with an expert panel of 9/11 contrarians?

Everyone, ask yourself why has James Meigs or his consulted “experts” never presented in plain view that credibly tangible evidence they claim disproves the theories and assertions made by those in the truth movement. Why have James Meigs and the experts never faced their accusers in person to answer for their evidence? Evidence we “conspiracy theorists” have persistently brought to their attention in the alternative media, again and again over the past ten years and successfully argued why it’s fake. For instance the kind of credible evidence that forms the basis of my United Airlines flight 175 research and findings of which its chain of custody cannot be denied and is clearly fake! So with lying con artist like James Meigs at the helm I’m at a loss to understand why intelligent people equate both him and the reputation of Popular Mechanics fame with magnanimously contributing to “leading science and technology” in any meaningful way, shape or form, especially if neither can be trusted to tell the truth.

Here’s a lesson in evidence for James Meigs then. According to the Oxford Dictionary the definition of Evidence being “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid” but more specifically the concept of tangible by definition reads ”capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch...”

So I’ve taken the liberty of defining Credibly Tangible Evidence as being “The available body of facts or information capable of being precisely perceived and identified by the mind, especially by the sense of touch, as well capable of being appraised at and actual or approximate value.” In other words then evidence is something we can see, hold in our hands and examine with the naked eye. So if Mr. Meigs should ever truly “...tackle this highly charged topic” by issuing forth credibly tangible evidence only then will he truly know what it feels like to be right and respected as a man of journalistic integrity. However, until that time comes to pass I believe it’s safe to say he’s got no credibility with the common man in the street and certainly no respect among his true peers, the public.

All things considered the title of both James Meigs articles says everything about his arrogated self and the biased political viewpoint he was hired to extrapolate on there at Popular Mechanics. So how obvious and absurd of him it was to state in his hapless prey in his latest article “...his sources all agreed with his view.” while simultaneously belittling by labelling that individual in his latest article a paranoid “conspiracy theorist” and all because he happens to believe 9/11 facts that are not in lockstep with James Meigs. The irony of that statement didn’t escape me and his saying so is quite rich and comical, because by definition James Meigs own modus operandi and character mirrors that of the individuals he labels a paranoid “conspiracy theorists.” just as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts so astutely pointed out when he wrote “But of course the government’s own theory is a conspiracy theory.”

That said I encourage everyone to read James Meigs February 3, 2005 article in its entirety and while doing so make note of the recurring names of those “experts” he cites therein and drew his conclusions from for that narrative. All of which can be cross-referenced in the “Sources” section of that article and matching them with the names of those people accredited with putting the FEMA final report together. Those experts he’d mentioned by name in most cases then are tall building experts and not demolition experts nor aviation crash investigators. More important to remember of them is the fact the most critical points they made regarding their WTC findings have been discredited along with similar suppositions arrived at in the NIST final report.

It’s clear then James Meigs is well versed in Edward Bernays propaganda tactics as well debating others one on one in-camera that is, but he wisely elects not to openly debate those who know their 9/11 facts and are prepared for him. That’s because he knows full well he hasn’t a leg to stand on and that’s why he prefers the far more damaging divide and concur tactic of separating any weak-minded fool from the herd. Like his simpleton prey he bragged about shaming in his latest articleand not because the individual’s facts were wrong but merely because that individual hadn’t read James Meigs book no less, as if to say only James Meigs is right about the 9/11 facts.

When he isolates someone who hasn’t got their facts straight then he writes about that individual and the entire truth movement in a similar light that which automatically brings disgrace upon everyone concerned. Therefore anyone foolish enough to debate James Meigs in-camera on the subject of 9/11 while arguing from the vantage of facts, evidence and reason will soon find them self at the disadvantage and for that very reason alone.

So while James Meigs latest treatise serves to prove he is the opportunistic predator I’d always suspected he was, it also serves to prove the vast majority of people these days are incapable of differentiating between debate and argument, which explains why those in the truth movement will never succeed at discrediting the government on the 9/11 issue. They will not do so as long as they’re taking the entire government on at once instead of divide and concur. Edward Bernays believed "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway” and that ideological "enlightened despotism" he preached and practiced goes both ways but few in the 9/11 truth movement have considered it. Those in the truth movement need to turn separate James Meigs from his followers by first singling him out and then discrediting hi opinions hence his credibility and once people realize he’s nothing but a petty little tin-pot dictator himself he will then fall from his perch at Popular Mechanics and the rest of his ilk will follow.

All things considered “The Real Truth and Terrorists of 9/11” as I like to say is the majority of people around the world don’t give a damn about the truth of 9/11 any more than the politicians and pundits do and the fact is the majority of people couldn’t have cared less if the U.S. government was right or not about “Islamist Terrorists” having crashed hijacked domestic airliners into the WTC towers, just as long as they got their lives back to “normal” and were made to feel safe and secure again.

It’s time to change that by turning things around on the criminals.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 19 2011, 10:31 PM
Post #76





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully

Master List of Flickr Photographs and Video Footage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIST Cumulus dataset - Master List of Relevant Files:

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

Release_34:

Release_35:

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








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 20 2011, 07:00 AM
Post #77





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



[quote name='questionitall' date='Oct 20 2011, 12:01 PM' post='10802086']
A few months ago I stated I’d be posting more photographs in early September.

Dear 'questionitall'.

Thankyou.
Did your 'airframe structures technician', happen to venture an opinion, what the piece of aircraft skin 'found' at the WTC scene, that you are giving consideration, may have come from.
It would be very useful I would think, to support your argument, if somebody could come forward and give a 'qualified opinion', what they consider.
As you would no doubt be aware, there are other pieces of fuselage being exhibited at a number of places.
A comparison of those portions to the piece you appear to be concentrating on, may offer some further considerations.
If nothing else it may reveal how some fuselage is on demonstration, and other not.
If some can be demonstrated 'surely' it all should be able to be released for consideration.

There should be some identification available to define which pieces relate to which tower.
Both aircraft involved are claimed to be Boeing 767 series.

It's a very big task you have dedicated your efforts to.
You have made significant findings.
It would be very helpful to you I would think, if other people who understand aircraft fuselage construction, would come forward to assist you.
Especially if they have looked at the photograph, and have some feelings towards what it could be, or even better heard along the 'grapevine' what it definitely is.

Keep safe and well

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 20 2011, 09:16 PM
Post #78





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



Hello again Robert

As to your question did the Airframe Structures Technician venture an opinion no he did not. Quite unfortunately then because I'm at a loss to figure out what the alleged UA175 wreckage could be from. I have my suspicions but as you know I do not speculate. Not even to hazard a guess because that proves nothing while encouraging the lunatic fringe to weigh in with their opinions and useless comments. I'm not here for that reason Robert. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what I consider to be the greatest lie ever sold and that's why I've been looking for significant differences between the alleged UA175 wreckage and the Boeing 767 fuselage rather than similarities. I figure if I can definitively prove from that alleged UA175 wreckage that it couldn't possibly have been a Boeing 767 that crashed into World Trade Center 2 at least that puts the onus on the U.S. government to explain what did by coughing up serialized physical evidence of United Airlines N612UA to an independent third party for analysis. As well it should explain to the World why its hired help was able to lie and get away with doing so about pretty much everything they've said to date about the WTC aircraft.

Thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 21 2011, 10:37 AM
Post #79





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Oh yeah, the onus is on the US government.

Kinda like the onus is on the government to explain the inconsistencies in the JFK or MLK assassinations.

They already HAVE explained it, printed a report about it, and guess what!---cases closed. The public bought it, revered it, repeats it like christians repeat the Nicene Creed, and life goes on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
questionitall
post Oct 24 2011, 08:05 PM
Post #80





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



The preceding insipid opinion is a case in point as to why I refuse to discuss this issue here with anyone of like mind. Regardless of what opinion that agent provocateur writes, whether it’s for the purpose of undermining this forum or not, the fact remains he is wrong to say so and an ass for doing just that. Indeed, while people have grown wise to the truth of the matter so too they’ve grown savvy of that individual’s same old disparaging remarks and defeatism. Now if someone has something intelligent and constructive to offer here by all means then I’m open to discussing the matter.

In contrast to that individual’s narcissistic cynicism the fact remains United Airlines flight 175 was never proven by FEMA to have crashed into World Trade Center 2 on September 11, 2001. That is a well documented fact, based purely on the U.S. governments established UA175 evidence, as well the appraisal of two highly experienced Boeing Aircraft Structures Technicians who’ve agreed with my analysis of that evidence. Indeed my supporting photographs and video footage corroborates whatever aircraft wreckage the WTC investigators tried to pass off as that of UA175 it surely wasn’t that of a Boeing 767. The truth of the matter is not the slightest semblance of an aircraft crash investigation was undertaken by FEMA’s WTC investigators, as evidenced by the nonexistent WTC aircraft case files!

Regardless then what the aforementioned naysayer thinks and says here the real truth of 9/11 is the U.S. governments NIST Cumulus dataset evidence proves the FEMA WTC BPS final report is a product of systemic, flagrant criminality, there within FEMA especially. All said and done and if I’m not mistaken then tampering with evidence so pertaining to an aviation related crash investigation as well lying to Congress while under oath still constitutes Federal offenses in the good old U.S. of A, does it not? If the States has any chance of saving itself from such overt tyranny its citizenry seriously needs to address the matter of its moral decay and that of indifference which is best exemplified by the aforementioned individual.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2014 - 08:06 AM