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.
Master List of Flickr Photographs and Video Footage:
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
ABC Dub7 13http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
ABC Dub7 07http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
Segment of HQ_WTC5_GARY showing aircraft wreckage on WTC 5http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/.../in/photostream
NIST Cumulus dataset - Master List of Relevant Files:
42A0010, Lyle Owerko, Fuji 35mm B-1, B-2
Natasha Sealy-Fraser, Group 1, MVC-005F (WTC 5 rooftop immediately after second aircraft struck)
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)
42A0049, Bob Allen
42A0049, George Bell (Moodys)
42A0052 – G15, InfraspectionInstfromCD, WTC CD 1, WTC CD 2 (aka Rooftop of WTC 5)
42A0075 – G20 D3of6, (clear pre-September 23, 2001 aerial views looking onto the rooftop of WTC 5)
42A0080 – G21 D2of5, Scott Myers (shortened clip of second impact)
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
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
42A0349 – G30D3, VIDEO_TS, VTS_01_1 (different view of second plane on approach to WTC 2)
42A0355 – G31D1, HINYselects, Group B, 2103_large
42A0355 – G31D1, HINYselects, SET1, HNY_6236
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)
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