I’m curious to know; is anyone familiar with Carol Ciemiengo’s article ‘September 11, 2001: A Thermographer’s Experience at Ground Zero’? More specifically then, has anyone paid particular attention to the photograph (carolciemiengo2) of the alleged aircraft part therein and have they thoroughly investigated that part? I ask because even though I’d not seen that particular photograph, prior to reading her article, I had known of photographs there in the NIST Cumulus Datasets showing of that same part. One in particular shows that part with a part number thereon a sub-assembly but unfortunately I don’t have access to Boeing 767-200 manuals. That part number makes it possible to prove (or disprove) that part originated from a Boeing 767-200. That is why this part needs to be investigated!
I have no idea what aircraft system the part came from, although it does appear to be part of a hydraulic ram of sorts. Perhaps it’s from a main gear or nose gear extension/retraction actuator, or even a baggage bay door (or cargo door) extension/retraction actuator. Having said so, some argue the alleged UA175 aircraft engine recovered at the corner of Church Street and Murray Street was not standard for type on ANY United Airlines Boeing 767-200 aircraft. Could the part in question be the remnants of an engine core shaft? I highly doubt it, but then I’m not an engine specialist. That said it certainly appears to be too small and far too primitive to have been from the core of an engine. Assuming it came from a Boeing 767-200 sub-assembly chances are the part number is to be found in a Boeing 767-200 Vendor Component Manual and not the airframe manuals.
I’ve no doubt the object in question is an aircraft part and furthermore it had to have originated from the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2, but where’s my proof of that? Having analyzed the NIST Cumulus Datasets photographs and by comparing various features of the building rooftop, as seen in (99CHU~36_114) and NOAA’s photograph (Ficheiro:Wtc-photo.jpg) I’ve established the building and rooftop on which the part was found embedded. In fact the clearly visible indentation caused by the impact of this part, the white tarpaulin used to cover and protect the evidence/crime scene and everything about the two photographs match. That building was located at the Northwest corner of the intersection at Barclay Street and Church Street. I say was; due to the fact the building no longer exists.
Furthermore, the path of trajectory and distance that part travelled means it had to have been ejected from WTC 2 and with equal/identical force to that of the aircraft engine and main wheel/brake assembly highlighted in FIGURE 1-4 (Areas of aircraft debris impact) thereon page 1-6 of its May 2002, World Trade Center Building Performance Study. I exclude the section of fuselage from that scenario – the evidence proving that fuselage wreckage was planted there on the rooftop of WTC 5. I’ve reproduced that image and posted it to Flickr but not before adding to it, showing where exactly the part (SHAFT) can be located in (Ficheiro:Wtc-photo.jpg)
So then, if this part had in fact originated from the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2, why then was it excluded from the aforementioned FIGURE 1-4? That being the case one need ask ‘why had knowledge of that particular aircraft part been swept under the carpet by the NIST WTC Investigators who NEVER made these photographs public until forced to by court order?’ Why indeed! I suspect it’s because the part in question can be identified! By that I mean I believe the part may prove to be something other than a part from UA175.
Clearly NIST had to have known of its existence! After all, photographs of the part were in NIST’s possession all along and the part number plainly obvious, to me anyways! In fact, on September 19, 2011 Mr. Michael E. Newman of NIST stated, ‘All information released under the FOIA request to The International Center for 9/11 Studies had not been altered in any way by NIST prior to its public disclosure. Furthermore, that evidence was copied from the original exactly as it was received. It was logged into a database as it was received and it was accessible only to those working on the investigation. NIST protected the integrity of the originals at all times.’ That being the case, did the NIST investigation looking into WTC 2 (with its 16 million dollar budget) even bother to try and establish the parts Providence from these photographs and all their video footage? If they did they never disclosed their findings, which only lends to the belief the NIST WTC investigators were inept at best!
Indeed, on December 15, 2008 Charles Thornton confirmed what I’ve always believed - In regards to Mr. W. Gene Corley’s WTC investigation he stated, “The FEMA report was done by ASCE and it was a whitewash...” Recall if you will that Mr. W. Gene Corley was the lead investigator of the FEMA WTC investigation. As such there’s no doubt in my mind he sanitized its evidence and outcome, just like he did in Oklahoma City and Waco, Texas. Make no mistake; the NIST investigators were just as negligent. In their own words, from the likes of Mr. Michael E. Newman, NIST relied heavily on the ‘expert advice’ of others when arriving at their WTC investigative conclusions. ‘Experts’ such as Mr. W. Gene Corley, who has little in the way of experience and/or qualifications, in fields of expertise he’s so often called upon to give in such shady cases.
Let’s face it; the official NIST investigation never established what aircraft slammed into WTC 2 on 9/11 and certainly NOT by way of a forensic investigation looking into this part and others like it, such as the flight data recorder(s) discovered in the WTC debris field. If you doubt the latter then please do explain the statement “Investigators have identified the signal from one of the black boxes in the WTC debris”, as made by Edward F. Jacoby, Jr., therein his World Trade Center Plane Crash - Executive Summary, dated September 18, 2001. In my opinion then, why NO effort was made to forensically investigate the recovered wreckage of the alleged UA175 is testament to the ‘Powers that Be’ knowing very well UA175 did not slam into WTC 2 on 9/11!
What other explanation can there be for why the authorities did NOT thoroughly investigate this matter and in doing so quash all doubt for the official 9/11 narrative, not to mention all talk of Conspiracy. The fact that every surviving traceable/part-numbered/serialized aircraft part recovered from all the aircraft destroyed on 9/11 had been scooped-up by the FBI, spirited away and immediately destroyed by the powers that be, that smacks of a cover-up!
Having said all that, what’s unique about this alleged (WTC aircraft) part is the nearly complete and legible part number there on the gland nut (as seen in the photograph EPSN0083). Someone with the knowhow and access to Manufacturer (Vendor) Manuals can readily and positively trace the gland nut back to its manufacturer (Vendor) and ultimately then to each and every model/type of aircraft it was ever part and parcel to. Unlike the (alleged UA175) section of aircraft fuselage, part of an engine and a wheel/brake assembly that were never positively identified as such and yet the mindless masses still believe them to be UA175 wreckage...How utterly blind and ignorant most people truly are!
Indeed, a not so blind and self-motivated individual might discover the gland nut was never a part of any component/assembly known to be standard for type on the Boeing 767-200. That fact alone would prove the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2 was NOT United Airlines flight 175 and knowing the aircraft parts Providence - its “Chain of Custody,” Mr. Gene ‘The Cleaner’ Corley would have some serious explaining to do.
Here are the online links to the pertinent photographs:
Note: The first (four) of the following photographs are located in the NIST Cumulus Dataset, Release_16: 42A0049, George Bell (Moodys) and their companion (99CHU~36_114) is located in Release_36, 42A0514 - G37D1, Bill Garcia (Moodys).
FIGURE 1-4 (Areas of aircraft debris impact) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56322884@N02/)
NOTE: I have rotated photograph EPSN0083 90 degrees clockwise for the sole purpose of demonstrating my points made.
Obviously then [moral conviction] on the part of the authorities has waned (from little to none) over the years and they’re highly unlikely to investigate this matter too. As such I’m not expecting anything will come of this insight and evidence. However, I’m putting it out there online as well, on the off chance someone with the resources to investigate this matter can and will do just that, to settle the matter once and for all.
The truth is I’d love for someone to prove my overall UA175 “Conspiracy Theory” ridiculous and utterly wrong. In all honesty and most sincerely then I am haunted still by the memory of that day. Mostly for having seen over and over again, in the course of my UA175 research, far too many innocent lives needlessly snuffed-out in such brutal fashion. Indeed, the poignant words that resonate most with me to this day are Tami Michael’s having asserted with such palpable anguish “There’s people falling out - That was a person!” Those people were loved dearly by someone and they deserve justice, no less now than the day they were murdered.
So yes, I’d be immensely relieved to be proven wrong, knowing and believing the government and various agencies played no nefarious role in the 9/11 attacks and instead were simply asleep on the job at the time and not complicit in the crime against humanity that was 9/11.