Hi guys and gals,

I was looking through my files and came across this photo. I did post it originally at LetsRoll some time ago.

I found it on a White House website belonging to Congress woman Berkley. The photo was taken during her visit to the Pentagon on 12 September 2001. The photo was removed not long after it was posted at LetsRoll.

I'm not sure if you have discussed the picture here so I thought I'd table it for opinion as to where perhaps it might fit into an airframe ... is it 757 parts?



A larger image showing the surrounds is available here.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/st...Mysterypart.jpg

Stann

No Clue, sorry...


I would think Rob would know the answer to this...I don't know who any of the other pilots are, but he is one

Hi Stann and thanks for the photo- those seem to be disappearing lately.

Is it... maybe, the primer and materials do appear consistent with some type of aircraft salvaged parts. How many tons of that would you like? If the price is right, you can find literally tons of that at "The Boneyard" just down the road from this place:

http://www.pimaair.org/

BTW- the museum is a pretty interesting place to look around too, if you're ever down nearly-Mexico way.

Now as for that airfield that "doesn't exist" north of there a ways...

EDIT: I doubt whether "The Boneyard" or that "other" place have public websites, however.

EDIT2: They filmed the action flick "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man" at "The Boneyard" BTW.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102005/

Damn... I looked at that pic and thought of the A-team and what they could accomplish in a place like that.

Or MacGyver JFK.

I posted the picture at the F16 forums and one of the responses was that it was possibly part of the space shuttle Columbia which disintegrated on re-entry. (I didn't indicate the location of the photo.)

I guess my point is, that the part or parts "should be" from a 757, if we are to consume the official fairy tale.

If the parts are from a 757 .. why would they remove the photo ? To me that action in itself indicates that the aircraft from which this piece originated cannot have been a 757 otherwise it would have been left posted.

Stann B)

Some around here will really like the index page of the Pima Museum:

http://www.pimaair.org/aircraft.php

Here's my personal favorite:

http://www.pimaair.org/collection-detail.php?cid=160

One more thing Stann,

If I take a look at the EXIF data, it looks awfully "sterile," except for "File written by Adobe Photoshop¨ 4.0". That was for file "Mysterypart.jpg"

Sorry for the diversion, Stann.

dMole, I lived in Tucson as a kid from '57-'63. We would hear the unmistakable baritone drone of a huge B-36 flying into D-M and run outside to watch it's last minutes of life, on it's way to the Boneyard. We went out there once.

My dad was a pipefitter/welder and worked on the Titan bases. One time, when a base was finished but not yet turned over to the Air Force, the workers were allowed to bring their families to an open house. We toured the underground base.

Last time I was in Tucson I visited the Titan Missile Museum. I'm quite sure it was the same one we toured forty years earlier. On this tour we did not go into the crew quarters, like we did when I was a kid. The tour guide was an actual guy who had manned that base when it was active. Part of the tour is a mock launch, which demonstrates that it takes two people to turn the keys to actually launch. Interesting place if you're ever in the area.

Interesting that the piece shows separation above the rivet lines (like cut) rather than along the rivet lines....also, the insulated tubing is too perfect..........the tubing would have separated from the major piece with either massive g forces from impact or explosion....hmmm, no burn marks anywhere or obvious indication of combustion.....Too perfect?

Interesting to note that it appears not one blade of grass has been disturbed. Hard to imagine an airplane part with this amount of destruction coming to rest without disturbing the area in which it came to rest. Looks like someone placed it in this spot. Comare this picture to real airplane crash sites and you will see what I am talking about.

Hi Bruce,
When I first found the photo, which is accompanied with Congresswoman Berkeley's photo shoot around the Pentagon on September 12 2001. Includes all sorts of other photo opportunities.

I did save the full web page at the time, and still have it, though the large (click on thumbnail) images I didn't save other than this particular one.

To me it almost looks like a pile of parts, rather than a single piece of debris "as found in situ .. "

The picture of this part/s and it's association with a White House website seem somewhat dodgy when it's removal was initiated soon after it's posting on a "conspiracy oriented website".

My point is ... that this debris MUST be 757 debris if their story is correct and it sure isn't part of a massive impact scenario .. but has been represented as such.


Stann

How come they did not run a double row of yellow tape around this other alleged Flight 77 piece at the Pentagon which sat out in front of the helipad for a long long time? That piece looks like it was never ever riveted to an aircraft frame. It even made its way into the official Defense Dept Pentagon 9/11 book. It managed to attain an official yellow tag ribbon for its official photo. Meanwhile another piece with the red 'C' somehow mysteriously appeared next to the helipad hanger and for some strange reason failed to make it into the official DoD book, except for one long range photo.

Images taken from official Defense Dept Pentagon 9/11 book

Official Defense Dept photo


This never riveted piece also did not leave any damage to the lawn nor did the alleged 5 light poles struck by a 100 ton 535 mph aircraft.

(Click me)


Official Defense Dept photo (Click me)


Another lawn photo showing the 'C' piece missing from alongside the hanger

Click me for a larger image


Where is that FBI agent carrying that piece of apparent aircraft fuselage with red lettering from? The van parked next to the hanger?

Where is he carrying the piece to, without any visible tag on it?

How is it that the engines and seats and baggage and wings and tail were allegedly totally disintegrated, but 3 pieces of fuselage showing red 'American' lettering survived?

It would seem that the photo is back on her website ..??

http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r..._2001_0913.html

Hi-resolution image, right click and save people.

I've uploaded the hi-res image here.. but if you save it and view in an image viewer you will see the full resolution. My browsers don't show th full resolution.??

Click Here

Stann

Thanks again Stann,

It is strange the effect that mirrored copies of information and the power of community have on our ThoughtBureau.

I cropped that hires image from the Rep.'s webpage, and also did a photo negative filter and a 256-shade grayscale of same (which still showed "Photoshop 4.0" on the original BTW). Sometimes you can see things in the negative or gray that weren't obvious in the color original.

Cropped


Cropped with photo negative applied


Cropped, 256 gray


These might work better in your browser too.

Do we have any B757 qualified maintenance guys here that can analyze this piece of wreckage?

I'm not an aircraft construction / designer / maintenance etc or whatever.

To me ... the piece looks like it has locking mechanisms on it's left side. Doesn't look like this was torn apart from the rest of the aircraft. Looks like a hatch, cowling, wheel door, engine housing ?? .. something with locking mechanisms.

the hose or pipe ... is this engine dept ?? ...

Stann

I could not see yours d

photo_negative

gray_scale

I'm now getting a dead connection to the entire server at http://www.imageshack.us/ Hmmm...

Try these cropped ones (re-upped just now):

Cropped color
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3293830795.html

Cropped, color negative filter applied
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3293833119.html

Cropped, 256 shade gray
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3293831760.html

Thanks again SP.

This thread is waste. You will never know where it came without actually inspecting it.

It has curvature, and a possible leading edge on the right pictured side.

Other then that, it could have come from any of a few hundred places.

I disagree that it is a waste.. with all respects. It is a photograph which alleges to show wreckage from the aircraft or whatever it was that supposedly impacted the Pentagon on 9/11.

It should be 757 wreckage if the "official account" is correct .. it may well be a genuine photo from 9/11 or in this case 13 September, since that was the day that Congress woman Shelley Berkley visited the Pentagon crime scene.

Is there any way to determine if the photograph (image file) is taken with the same camera, or in any other way processed the same way as the other photos on Berkleys website for the Pentagon visit.

The photo could be a plant, or genuine photo of wreckage from the "attack vehicle".

The kind folk at F16 forums determined it was not from an F16 as I had suggested to them, though I was underhanded in getting a response from them, they then banned me and removed the thread. I kept a copy somewhere of their responses.

It had been suggested that the aircraft could have been a drone F16 during the early days of speculative research. The Skywarrior was also a suspect and this part could perhaps be from one, I have yet to find any conclusive evidence of this though. The hose or pipe perhaps being part of the mid air refueling bizzo.

What is clear though is that the photo presented on the website is intended to indicate it was wreckage from AA77.

It would be foolish to not investigate the claim and unless we are afraid of what may be found I suggest we investigate this thoroughly. May I suggest that an approach be made to Boeing's 757 department and ask them to identify which part of the 757 it is. Their response should be interesting.

If they can piece together a 747 after it exploded in midair I'm sure they can identify where this part comes from and I have no doubt the piece still exists.

Stann

What do we know about this mystery object?

1. Congresswoman Shelley Berkley photographed the object at the Pentagon on display and blocked off with yellow tape on 9-13-2001 and placed it on her website
2. It was apparently ripped off at both ends and not broken off at the rivets
3. The sides seem to have a formed fit with what appears to be an undamaged hose or electrical conduit inside the object
4. There is no sign of an official crime scene evidence tag or aircraft accident seal on the object after two days
5. That is the only known photograph of the object
6. There is no sign of burning on the object
7. There is no apparent dirt or grass on the edges of the object from violent contact with the ground
8. The alleged Flight 77 object was kept on display out in the open at least two days after 9-11
9. The object was not included in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book
10. There is no sign of the lawn damaged in any way near the object - it seems the object was gently placed on the lawn
12. There has been no official attempt to identify the object
13. Another alleged aircraft object (the 'C' fuselage piece) was placed next to the helipad hanger and apparently not tagged as crime scene evidence
14. A 3rd alleged aircraft object (the infamous never riveted 'N' piece) was left out in the open in front of the helipad for days, never surrounded with crime scene yellow tape, and never tagged as crime scene evidence
15. This 3rd object also apparently did not damage the lawn nor did it have burn marks nor apparent dirt of grass from violent impact with the lawn - it too was apparently gently placed on the lawn
16. These last two pieces were included in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book while the supposedly much more identifiable object pictured was excluded
17. We do not yet know where the object pictured below was located and placed on display in reference to the alleged impact point - it was out among the tents

(Click me for blown up photo of mystery object)

Thanks stannrod and SPreston, the last two posts by you were better then the whole first page.

Let's add a couple to your list SP.

18. The EXIF data that is often attached to a digital photo is strangely "clean" on the original.
19. The phrase "Photoshop 4.0" is branded into the original "mil_pentagon_relief_plane.jpg" photo found on Rep. Berkley's website.



Rep. Berkley's page
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r..._2001_0913.html

Thumbnail
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r...plane_SMALL.jpg

Full resolution
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r...elief_plane.jpg
---------------
EDIT: Now is a good time to remind everyone of the freeware, open source image program GIMP. The windows installer apparently no longer requires GTK separately and is available at:

http://www.gimp.org/windows/

You can compare this very powerful software to Adobe Illustrator (layers, alpha channel, filters, pixel dimensions and angles, etc.) It isn't the easiest to use however. [Our "friend who sees rabbits" apparently uses GIMP 2.4.6 BTW]. The UNIX/LINUX versions are available at:

http://www.gimp.org/

EDIT2: FINALLY, I've got something free for you Mac users out there, too.
http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/
-----
Here is the GIMP plug-in filter collection:

http://registry.gimp.org/

dMole,
Do the other "pentagon" photos in that collection on Berkleys site have the same format ? I don't know how to scrutinize them.

On another note ... if the mystery part file is significantly different, which it may be, .. the other pics don't all have such hi-resolution partners linked to their respective thumbnails .. perhaps it's a "leaked photo" planted such that it would be found.

A gift maybe ..? I first saved the web page on October 8 2004 after finding the pic. I don't know how long before I accessed the page, it was originally posted, though I would expect it was on line shortly after 9/11.

Perhaps you could save all of them if you haven't already, and do a quick looky see.

@admin ... As for contacting Boeing about the part, you may want to consider how you would do that .. I have thought about it many times, but haven't come up with a rational approach as yet, and would prefer any contact be made thoughtfully and with the benefit of your members input.

Regards
Stann

All the Berkley website photos that I reviewed appear to have the same "Photoshop 4.0" branding and no EXIF data, even the obvious "photo ops." I'd interpret this to mean it was an older or lower-end digital camera, and the photos were transferred out of the camera using Photoshop 4.0 software.

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_release_history

Photoshop 4.0 (codenamed "Big Electric Cat") was released in Nov. 1996 for Mac and Windows, so a September 2001 date is believable here.

We still have no way of determining the authenticity of this "wreckage" or of positively identifying any other flight's alleged "wreckage" by serial number 7 years later though, and the FBI and NTSB have refused to comment on this glaring lack of evidence. I am less suspicious of Berkley's PR crew now (most of those Berkley website photos were consistent with each other as far as the "embedded" data goes). Thank you Stann- there is a photo of the generator trailer in that set that might prove helpful.

Yes isn't it amazing that green leafed tree right next to that huge 'kerosene' fireball was essentially undamaged?
(Click me)


Thank you Congresswoman Berkley. Those magical indestructable polyethelene cable spools allegedly right in the center of that huge 'kerosene' fireball.
Well, they did get lots of foam after the fireball didn't they? Must have been very valuable cable spools. (Click me)


Another view of the green leafy tree which survived the huge 'kerosene' fireball. (Click me)


Blowup of tree

Amazing!. Not a single scratch where they came down. I guess they floated down softly.

We know the events of the day were staged, and this photo lends credence to that.

How could a piece like that "bounce" backwards and outside the building? It cannot.

This and the lack of a full complement of landing gear components, wheels, support the idea that it was all staged.

The entire photo looks like a fake to me. The foreground of the photo with the myterious debris in it looks like a front screen projected image. I see a white line across the photo, and a black line in the negative, just below the far left point of metal sticking out. The upper portion of the photo is clearly the Pentagon on 911, to give authenticity to the mystery debris. IMO

A lay mans exam probably won't mean much, but here's what I see:

Using the above cropped w/negative applied, I seem to see two "interior" walls, or
bulkheads. One at the top and one at the bottom. Since there are attachments that are outside
these "interior" walls or bulkheads, that seems to imply that this is a movable part.
The "rivet race" at the bottom, has an apparent curvature, I imagine that an expert can determine the dimensions of. A photo analysts expert should be able to extract quite a bit
of other dimensional data from the photo besides. But my cursory guesswork seems to suggest to me that it's probably part of a wing assembly, because I get the distinct impression that it's a part of a longer series of sections, than it might be just a stand alone part.

Ah, yes, just took another look and I now see why I favor wing part, the piece seems
to have a taper to it.

From time to time, I come across photo analysis experts working alone, on the net, on 9-11 errata. too bad I never bothered to catalog any of them, but they shouldn't be too hard to find.
But this is the kind of thing they love to work on. They can extract much more data, that might help identify this part.

Good Luck
Obwon

If you look closely, the white line is not straight and is buried in places under the grass. It seems to be a small rope or perhaps electric cord. I cannot imagine what purpose for which the Congresswoman would want to fake this photo of a mystery aircraft piece which is never mentioned anywhere in the official 911 evidence, nor of which any other photo exists.



If this was truly a 757 aircraft part, then why didn't the official story pushers jump on it and present it as conclusive evidence? It surely has a identification tag riveted somewhere on it.

Hi Preston,

good to see you around again, and still kicking!

Cheers