Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by skyeagle409

The renovated section of the Pentagon at that time was designed for bomb blast and not designed for a large aircraft slamming into that section at high speed, which photos of the damaged area have shown.


9/11 Pentagon Damage High-Resolution Aerial Photos

https://publicintelligence.net/911-p...aerial-photos/


I might add that my Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck.

Are you one of those ETH UFO kooks?

[skyeagle409]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Sorry you misunderstood. Of course they knew the tail number. What I meant to say was "nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces" of fuselage in the FEMA photograph. I would expect them to use the fuselage pieces to say, "Look everybody - the tail number of the plane!" But nobody did that. So much conspiracy speculation could have been avoided if FBI/NTSB ever used serial numbers to match the wreckage to the registration numbers. I reiterate that I do not think any wreckage was planted.

If you wanted to confirm that the aircraft which struck WTC 1 was United 175, all you would have had to do was to examine radar data or contact United Airlines.

Quote:

Text: United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...text091101.htm


Crash of United 175

At 09:01, two minutes before impact as United Airlines Flight 175 continued its descent into Lower Manhattan, the New York Center alerted another nearby Air Traffic Facility responsible for low-flying aircraft, which was able to monitor the aircraft's path over New Jersey, and then over Staten Island and New York Harbor in its final moments. (Flight 175 came in from the southwest, apparently heading for the Empire State Building, but turned right, then left into the South Tower.)

Unlike Flight 11, which turned its transponder off, the aircraft's transponder was visible on New York Center's radar, and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes before air traffic controllers noticed these changes at 08:51 EDT. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Unknown to the hijackers, several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane to family members and provided information about the hijackers and injuries suffered by passengers and crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...nes_Flight_175

[skyeagle409]

Originally Posted by John Jones

Are you one of those ETH UFO kooks?

Definitely not what you would call a UFO kook.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

B 767's do have spoilers. They are used asymmetrically for roll control, symmetrically for emergency decent, altitude control on approach, and are deployed on touchdown to avoid bounce.

They do increase drag and destroy lift, but you still couldn't do a steep dive with them fully deployed and not over speed the aircraft.

http://static.flickr.com/77/229982561_7b02ee032e_o.jpg

They are not dive brakes.

Hans

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

That proves rush to remove, not to recycle.

Remember there was a search and rescue operation. The steel was carried to yards where it was studied by the experts.



It was never a fire investigation: a fire investigation aims at determining the cause of the fire, and in this case it's crystal clear to anyone with eyes that it was initiated by the planes, with jet fuel as an accelerant.

There were engineers interested in the building performance investigation, which is completely unrelated to fire investigation, and even though the laws were against them (NCSTA^WP was passed as a result of this legal hole), they managed to preserve parts of the building for them to be used in a subsequent investigation. See NCSTAR 1-3B.

The WTC 7 steel was never studied by experts from NIST. Some of it was in the FEMA investigation, which raised questions never answered by NIST. Erik Lawyer from Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is under the impression there should have been a fire investigation for WTC 7... like Bill Manning from Fire Engineering Magazine, whom I quoted earlier.

Upon the draft release for the WTC 7 report, Frank Greening criticized the NIST's fire progression details. See "Valid Criticism of NIST WTC 7 Final Report." I don't know if these problems were answered in the final report.

From NCSTAR 1-3B we read, "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure...." There was no reason to excavate the WTC 7 steel so rapidly, since there was no rescue and recovery operation there.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

The WTC 7 steel was never studied by experts from NIST. Some of it was in the FEMA investigation, which raised questions never answered by NIST. Erik Lawyer from Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is under the impression there should have been a fire investigation for WTC 7... like Bill Manning from Fire Engineering Magazine, whom I quoted earlier.

Was there a reason to suspect arson or the cause of fire to be anything other that the collapse of the towers?

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Upon the draft release for the WTC 7 report, Frank Greening criticized the NIST's fire progression details. See "Valid Criticism of NIST WTC 7 Final Report." I don't know if these problems were answered in the final report.

I doubt anything can be gathered from inspecting a building that collapsed as far as progression. Maybe better video would have been good.

Originally Posted by MattNelson

From NCSTAR 1-3B we read, "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure...." There was no reason to excavate the WTC 7 steel so rapidly, since there was no rescue and recovery operation there.

Actually the buildings owner wanting to rebuild as quickly as possible would be a good reason. These buildings are actually commercial properties after all.

[benthamitemetric]

Originally Posted by DGM

...


Actually the buildings owner wanting to rebuild as quickly as possible would be a good reason. These buildings are actually commercial properties after all.

WTC7 in particular had to be cleared and rebuilt as soon as possible because it was sitting on top of the power station that supplied wall street. In all their years of "investigation," however, truthers never bother to simply search for, read, or understand any of the many readily available articles that readily explain such realities (see, e.g., here or here).

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

I say remote control was involved because the planes hit their targets so precisely.

Wow. Some questions then.

1. What is it that you think pilots do at the end of every flight?
2. How big of a target is a runway? How big of a target were the twin towers? Or the pentagon?
3. Do you know what VFR is?

Think carefully, because I have simulated this in an A330 training simulator, not on PC, but the actual full monty thing that most folks only get to see on TV and I can tell you it is a trivial task for even a basic pilot.

[skyeagle409]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

From NCSTAR 1-3B we read, "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure...." There was no reason to excavate the WTC 7 steel so rapidly, since there was no rescue and recovery operation there.

On the contrary, there was a huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 and WTC 7 began to buckle, not to mention that firefighters knew the building was going to collapse as they continued to hear the sounds of structural weakening within WTC 7. FDNY made the prudent decision to get people out of WTC 7 and that decision is what saved lives.

The hole on the south wall was massive and as a result, structural loads were redistributed among other structural members, which eventually weakened due to fire. In the final seconds of its collapse, WTC 7 tilted toward the south.


Figure D-14 WTC 7 W14 column tree with beams attached to two floors

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...c/fig-D-14.jpg


Figure D-17 Seat connection in fire-damaged W14 column from WTC 7

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...c/fig-D-17.jpg

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by benthamitemetric

WTC7 in particular had to be cleared and rebuilt as soon as possible because it was sitting on top of the power station that supplied wall street. In all their years of "investigation," however, truthers never bother to simply search for, read, or understand any of the many readily available articles that readily explain such realities (see, e.g., ...nytimes.com/2004/05/25/nyregion/a-new-source-of-power-rises-over-ground-zero.html?mcubz=1 or ...trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=transactions. ..

Thank you. I did not take this into account. Expect to see this in an updated version of my book. Also rebuilding in general is a good reason, but to risk damaging the vehicles taking away the hot steel is wasteful and dangerous. ("Three Nights at Ground Zero" video)

[Whip]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

They are not dive brakes.

Hans

of course they aren't. as bugs bunny has shown us, they're air brakes.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

B 767's do have spoilers. They are used asymmetrically for roll control, symmetrically for emergency decent, altitude control on approach, and are deployed on touchdown to avoid bounce.

They do increase drag and destroy lift, but you still couldn't do a steep dive with them fully deployed and not over speed the aircraft.

http://static.flickr.com/77/229982561_7b02ee032e_o.jpg

Matt Nelson: Meet waypastvne! He is not shy to correct debunkers when they err. He knows airplanes, their envelops, their limits, their abilities. He can explain. if you have questions, ask, and you will get a straight, fact-based answer.

And that distinguishes waypastvne, and several others here, from absolutely everyone in the entire Truth Movement: We actually give straight and honest answers to straight and honest questions.

Try that with David Cole: He occasionally gives a straight answer if you insist three times. More often´, he ignores inconvenient questions.
Try Kevin Ryan: He turns to personal insults and vitriolic poisoning of the well when straight questions are directed at him.
Try Steven Jones: Same thing.
Try Craig McKee: He'll allow the strangest of quacks on his blog, like James Fetzer, or a guy who insists that time travel was an importent technique used for 9/11 - but he hard-handedly censors all those who ask straight questions or even dare to give straight and true answers.
Try Tony Szamboti, the famous AE911truth engineer: Never ever, as a general rule, allows straight questions, would not give honest answers to save his mother's life.
Try "Ziggi Zugam", the guy who defends Mark Basile for sitting on thousands of US$ in donations for a new investigation of Steven Jones's "red-gray chips" and the nano-thermite hoax: Has avoided answering any questions for years and years and years. A simple question like "where is the money?" or "why does Mark not send you the update report he promised over three years ago" - honest, relevant, fair questions, that only earn uns ugly insults and smearing lies.

[MattNelson]

Me:

Quote:

From NCSTAR 1-3B we read, "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure...." There was no reason to excavate the WTC 7 steel so rapidly, since there was no rescue and recovery operation there.

Originally Posted by skyeagle409

On the contrary, there was a huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 and WTC 7 began to buckle, not to mention that firefighters knew the building was going to collapse as they continued to hear the sounds of structural weakening within WTC 7. FDNY made the prudent decision to get people out of WTC 7 and that decision is what saved lives.

The hole on the south wall was massive and as a result, structural loads were redistributed among other structural members, which eventually weakened due to fire. In the final seconds of its collapse, WTC 7 tilted toward the south.


Figure D-14 WTC 7 W14 column tree with beams attached to two floors

...911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-D-14. jpg

Figure D-17 Seat connection in fire-damaged W14 column from WTC 7

...911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-D-17. jpg

True, and true. Yet I don't follow your "on the contrary." Although others have pointed out that the rush to excavate could have been rebuilding the electrical substation. And the NIST could have used FEMA's photographs, which you linked. I'll scan the report again to see if they did. Thanks for that. I must expand my WTC 7 chapter further.

In Achimspok's "NORTH TOWER part2 - Ch22b" he points out the downward suction on video as evidence of the south side collapsing first.

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

I looked at the photos and don't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop. You just need to look at it at the right perspective.

In the images on the left, The N6 piece of debris is in very close to the same position but photographed from different view points. The appearance of being one piece in the FEMA photo is just a coincidence.

I have placed some comparison arrows in the three photos. Compare what one red arrow is pointing at, to what the other red arrow is pointing at. ect.

Hopefully this puts it in perspective for you.


https://i.imgur.com/NE0UdU0.jpg

Thank you sir! I admire your work, esp. the "911 Miracle Passport" video. I linked it in my book.

Regarding my Photoshop claim, I don't think there was that much manipulation done. It wasn't Photoshopping in the general connotation of the word with copy/paste of elements. But, I'll eat my boots if the original photo is ever released (with 2001 exif data not 2005) and matches the one in the 2002 report, later claimed by Gene Corley but shot by William Baker.

[benthamitemetric]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Thank you. I did not take this into account. Expect to see this in an updated version of my book. Also rebuilding in general is a good reason, but to risk damaging the vehicles taking away the hot steel is wasteful and dangerous. ("Three Nights at Ground Zero" video)

WTC7 was cleaned up over period of months. I'm sure very little, if any of it, was moved into a vehicle while hot enough to damage that vehicle. To the extent portions of it were moved early on, it would have been because it did not collapse into its footprint and was in fact blocking roads to the north and south, which they would have wanted to clear as part of search and rescue in the week that followed the collapse.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Thank you sir! I admire your work, esp. the "911 Miracle Passport" video. I linked it in my book.

Regarding my Photoshop claim, I don't think there was that much manipulation done. It wasn't Photoshopping in the general connotation of the word with copy/paste of elements. But, I'll eat my boots if the original photo is ever released (with 2001 exif data not 2005) and matches the one in the 2002 report, later claimed by Gene Corley but shot by William Baker.

Some photographers, and people with digital cameras use photo editing software to adjust factors like contrast, color balance, etc, thus there are changes. If we use jpeg files and change them, there are anomalies which can be introduced because of the limited 8 bit color world of the jpeg. I think you were in search of the original, but you might not have access to the original file out of the camera.

It is not intellectual honest to make up BS about photos if you don't have the original. A good example of BS about photos is Apollo mission moon deniers who use jpeg files to make up BS about moon photos. The original moon photos are available from NASA.

In this case the photo will not refute 9/11 was the act of 19 terrorists, not your inside job false flag remote control based on BS.

NOTES On flying planes, and why idiot terrorist who goal was to kill American were able to fly jets for the first time and "crash"... lol, crash, the easiest maneuver in flying

I have flown C-150 single engine planes, small jets (t-37, t-38), four engine Boeing KC-135A/Q/T, and to get an ATP I flew a light twin engine. The hardest check ride was in the light twin prop plane, and the next hardest check ride a C-172 in the weather. The easiest plane to fly was the KC-135, a four engine jet. Okay, yes, the systems on the KC-135 were much more complex than all the small planes, but the basic flying was easy. The big problem with the KC was a dutch roll mode. If they flew a KC-135, they may have lost control if they excited the dutch roll mode. I am not sure how they did it, but the 767/757 don't seem to suffer from any bad flying qualities, they are easy to fly, even Russ W. can fly them with no problem.

Your precision is BS. The remote control false flag fantasy would have been exposed FASTER than WATERGATE.

Why do you have a website which helps terrorists rationalize killing Americans? Your web site would help McVeigh feel better about his acts. BTW, your web site is stored in the history, thus you will be unable to undo the lies and BS, and your grandkids and great grandkids will see the lies and BS based on ignorance of science, flying and other topics. A legacy of woo, and too late to take it back, or is it? WWJD

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

The WTC 7 steel was never studied by experts from NIST. Some of it was in the FEMA investigation, which raised questions never answered by NIST.

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

The WTC1 and WTC2 steel was thoroughly investigated, though.

The questions raised by FEMA couldn't, and can't, be answered by any investigation. There's no way to determine the location of these samples or the extent of time during which they acquired these characteristics. The ony thing that is clear is that it's the result of eutectic corrosion suffered for a prolonged time. The best guess is that it happened in the rubble pile, due to the presence of sulfur from batteries or other sources, and water from the extinguishing efforts. There's currently no competing hypothesis; Steven Jones proposed thermate based on misguiding pictures and claims, but he later claimed it was nanothermite and abandoned the thermate hypothesis.

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Erik Lawyer from Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is under the impression there should have been a fire investigation for WTC 7... like Bill Manning from Fire Engineering Magazine, whom I quoted earlier.

Actual arson investigators think Erik Lawyer is full of crap.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post11285275

Originally Posted by MattNelson

From NCSTAR 1-3B we read, "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure...." There was no reason to excavate the WTC 7 steel so rapidly, since there was no rescue and recovery operation there.

Access was still necessary.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Thank you sir! I admire your work, esp. the "911 Miracle Passport" video. I linked it in my book.



Regarding my Photoshop claim, I don't think there was that much manipulation done. It wasn't Photoshopping in the general connotation of the word with copy/paste of elements. But, I'll eat my boots if the original photo is ever released (with 2001 exif data not 2005) and matches the one in the 2002 report, later claimed by Gene Corley but shot by William Baker.

You are expecting a photograph from 2001 to have EXIF data?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by carlitos

You are expecting a photograph from 2001 to have EXIF data?

Most images have EXIF data information, unless removed from the images

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif

In practice every time an image undergoes alteration, this information is updated, but again this data can be altered/removed. I remember a fellow name hunchbacked (Ytube) that argued the Apollo images from LRO where photo shopped because all of the images had either Adobe or Duck in this data. It simply means the data was handled by that program when send to archives.

It may be indeed that the original may never found if it has undergone any reprocessing whether malicious or not.

[MicahJava]

Holy crap, I blocked that firehouse.com thread out of my memory. Those people in that thread were just awful. Literally just a barrage of insults. I hope they're better away from the internet.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

If it seems disjointed in parts, it's because I've been adding to it over the past 5 years................

That's not the reason it's disjointed................

It's that way because it's not bound by any unifying theory.

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Me:

True, and true. Yet I don't follow your "on the contrary." Although others have pointed out that the rush to excavate could have been rebuilding the electrical substation. And the NIST could have used FEMA's photographs, which you linked. I'll scan the report again to see if they did. Thanks for that. I must expand my WTC 7 chapter further.

You could fill out your book with the rather obvious fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been a reasonable doubt as to the proximate cause of the 7 WTC's collapse. That it was going to fall and why was known even before it went. No secret. Only years later, when conspiracy theorists had utterly failed to convince the public with fanciful tails of controlled demolition in the Twin Towers, missiles at the Pentagon and shoot-downs over Shanksville did they fall back on alleged nefarious doings in Building 7.

Because there was never any mystery as to what ultimately caused 7's collapse, it was not a target on 9/11 and no one was killed or even injured in it, 7 got put on the back-burner while more pressing matters were dealt with first. There is nothing conspiracy loves more than a vacuum it can fill with its own narrative and 7 was perfect. Few people had ever even heard of 7 - it was that unimportant. Remember AE911T's catch-phrase from a few years back that went something like "did you know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11?" Conspiracy theorists could make up whatever silly bull feces they wanted and dump it on credulous potential donors who never bother to fact check anything. The acknowledgement of ignorance is inherent, in your face even in the ad campaign.

The loss of 7 WTC is incidental. Study it all you want. In the end you will be no closer to figuring out who did 9/11, how and why than if you had studied the loss of St. Nicholas Church.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Me:



True, and true. Yet I don't follow your "on the contrary." Although others have pointed out that the rush to excavate could have been rebuilding the electrical substation. And the NIST could have used FEMA's photographs, which you linked. I'll scan the report again to see if they did. Thanks for that. I must expand my WTC 7 chapter further.

In Achimspok's "NORTH TOWER part2 - Ch22b" he points out the downward suction on video as evidence of the south side collapsing first.

I wondered about that response too.
I think what happened was that skyeagle409 simply misread your post.
Skyeagle409, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you read 'rush to evacuate WTC7 steel' as 'rush to evacuate WTC7'.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by bknight

Most images have EXIF data information, unless removed from the images

Most digital images, after the early 2000's, yes. In September of 2001, was the photographer of that image using a digital camera at all?

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Most digital images, after the early 2000's, yes. In September of 2001, was the photographer of that image using a digital camera at all?

Yes. Although Gene changed the exif data to put his name and add a description, the model Canon PowerShot S300 was left. Going by the documentary "Building on Ground Zero" we see Gene using a Nikon.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...89045458553167

William Baker was named as the photographer when Popular Mechanics used the photo in their article http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ ... which says the photo represents "a piece" of fuselage, like the FEMA photo says "a portion" of fuselage.

The NIST FOIA 09-42 from 911datasets.org release 37 folder 42A0525 - G38D4 has folders named "Baker.." from 10/8/2001 and 10/10 (none from 10/25) which are Canon PowerShot S300 and the same size as "Corley's" photo as seen on the FEMA website:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/44076
... which was last saved in 2005 using Adobe Photoshop... although the image appears the same in the 2002 FEMA 403 report:
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf (p. 32)

In the end this is not a big deal, just a fib (2 fibs: Photo by Gene Corley; *a* portion/piece) and slight trickery with object placement. And likely some touch-up in Photoshop just for fun... Gene's ego trip I guess. Everybody who sees that FEMA photo thinks it's one piece. Now we know it's not.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

...In the end this is not a big deal, just a fib (2 fibs: Photo by Gene Corley; *a* portion/piece) and slight trickery with object placement. And likely some touch-up in Photoshop just for fun... Gene's ego trip I guess. Everybody who sees that FEMA photo thinks it's one piece. Now we know it's not.

Could you explain this paragraph further?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Yes. Although Gene changed the exif data to put his name and add a description, the model Canon PowerShot S300 was left. Going by the documentary "Building on Ground Zero" we see Gene using a Nikon.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...89045458553167

William Baker was named as the photographer when Popular Mechanics used the photo in their article http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ ... which says the photo represents "a piece" of fuselage, like the FEMA photo says "a portion" of fuselage.

The NIST FOIA 09-42 from 911datasets.org release 37 folder 42A0525 - G38D4 has folders named "Baker.." from 10/8/2001 and 10/10 (none from 10/25) which are Canon PowerShot S300 and the same size as "Corley's" photo as seen on the FEMA website:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/44076
... which was last saved in 2005 using Adobe Photoshop... although the image appears the same in the 2002 FEMA 403 report:
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf (p. 32)

In the end this is not a big deal, just a fib (2 fibs: Photo by Gene Corley; *a* portion/piece) and slight trickery with object placement. And likely some touch-up in Photoshop just for fun... Gene's ego trip I guess. Everybody who sees that FEMA photo thinks it's one piece. Now we know it's not.

The photo is "a chunk of fuselage", you don't make sense. Are you upset there is more junk in the photo? So you were wrong, the photo is not fake? It is one piece, even if there is another piece below, next to it, etc.

BTW, the native format for the camera used, if it was a canon powershot s300, is jpeg. Thus any editing will result in further anomalies associated with jpeg editing, let alone anomalies due to the native format of jpeg when it was shot.

How is evidence for remote control and the false flag coming? 16 years

Do you know where 9/11 truth stores the "overwhelming evidence" for CD? I do.

Quote:

Yes. Although Gene changed the exif data to put his name and add a description, the model Canon PowerShot S300 was left. Going by the documentary "Building on Ground Zero" we see Gene using a Nikon.

Gene, if that is Gene, is using a film Camera in those photos.

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The photo is "a chunk of fuselage", you don't make sense. Are you upset there is more junk in the photo? So you were wrong, the photo is not fake? It is one piece, even if there is another piece below, next to it, etc.

BTW, the native format for the camera used, if it was a canon powershot s300, is jpeg. Thus any editing will result in further anomalies associated with jpeg editing, let alone anomalies due to the native format of jpeg when it was shot.

How is evidence for remote control and the false flag coming? 16 years

Do you know where 9/11 truth stores the "overwhelming evidence" for CD? I do.


Gene, if that is Gene, is using a film Camera in those photos.

It's not evidence of anything except maybe tampering with evidence. I'm only trying to set the record straight. Gene didn't take the photo; he only edited it. The photo shows 2 pieces, not one.


This comes from the 2012 NTSB FOIA Appeal PowerPoint document authored by George Black Oct. 25, 2001. Taken with a NIKON E900. See the original photo here, extracted from the PowerPoint doc, which can be found here. It's titled "Does not look like NTSB record--N612U_9_11.ppt" because there is garbage on the ground beneath the larger fuselage piece that looks like a letter B or P. George Black apparently didn't see the other photos (and video) of the fuselage.

Video by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42 911datasets.org release 28, 42A0310 – G28D15.

Photo by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42, 911datasets.org release 32, 42A0367 – G33D1, Steficek-2001-10-18..

Waypastvne posted the only other known image of these fuselage pieces earlier in this thread, from an anonymous contributor in the studyof911.com gallery circa 2006:


Getting back to my e-book, this is a small sample of the plane parts covered in more than 30 pages. Did you know an engine from Flight 11 sits in the Washington D.C. Newseum labeled Flight 175 (on loan from the FBI)? Skip to my blog post here:
https://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/...bintsb-failed/
or see a quick 3-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emYWUtNvXvE

[DGM]

So there may be a miss-identification of an engine made by the museum or someone in the FBI?

Have you contacted the museum to correct this mistake and if not why?

Besides a naming issue. I still don't see any manipulation in the fuselage image.

[FFTR]

MattNelson.
Did you know for years the Smithsonian had a wildland fire exhibit in the aviation wing on smokejumper in the early 90's. The photo they had ram air chutes labeled as USFS jumpers. At the time only BLM jumpers used ram air. USFS was still using rounds.

So there is a misidentification of an aircraft engine from 9/11. Errors happen.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

It's not evidence of anything except maybe tampering with evidence. I'm only trying to set the record straight. Gene didn't take the photo; he only edited it. The photo shows 2 pieces, not one.

https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...screenshot.png
This comes from the 2012 NTSB FOIA Appeal PowerPoint document authored by George Black Oct. 25, 2001. Taken with a NIKON E900. See the original photo here, extracted from the PowerPoint doc, which can be found here. It's titled "Does not look like NTSB record--N612U_9_11.ppt" because there is garbage on the ground beneath the larger fuselage piece that looks like a letter B or P. George Black apparently didn't see the other photos (and video) of the fuselage.
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...oomed-out1.png
Video by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42 911datasets.org release 28, 42A0310 – G28D15.
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...0478.jpg?w=700
Photo by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42, 911datasets.org release 32, 42A0367 – G33D1, Steficek-2001-10-18..

Waypastvne posted the only other known image of these fuselage pieces earlier in this thread, from an anonymous contributor in the studyof911.com gallery circa 2006:
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...trf20-full.jpg

Getting back to my e-book, this is a small sample of the plane parts covered in more than 30 pages. Did you know an engine from Flight 11 sits in the Washington D.C. Newseum labeled Flight 175 (on loan from the FBI)? Skip to my blog post here:
https://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/...bintsb-failed/
or see a quick 3-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emYWUtNvXvE

What about the film camera? Calling the photo a chunk of an aircraft does not preclude more than one piece of fuselage is in the photo. You wasted your expert investigation BS on BS, as you spread really stupid claims of CD, remote control, and false flag - all without any evidence.

lol, while you BS about a photo, your false flag, remote control, aka big lies dumbed down for nuts who can't think for themselves, are misleading idiots exactly like the Boston bombers. Be all you can be, wrong about 9/11, and misleading those who are idiots.

[skyeagle409]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Did you know an engine from Flight 11 sits in the Washington D.C.

Mistakes are made from time to time, but there is nothing here that supports a conspiracy because there is no question whatsoever that the aircraft that slammed into WTC 2 was UA175.

There was a case where I sent a message to the Federal of American Scientist regarding incorrect information on the top speed of the Air Force's F-15 Eagle at sea level. It took some time but eventually, they corrected their error. And, from time to time, I have had to correct certain people on incorrect information they were posting regarding the Tuskegee Airmen.

[pgimeno]

Conspiracists tend to apply Hanlon's razor^WP the wrong way around.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

It's not evidence of anything except maybe tampering with evidence. I'm only trying to set the record straight. Gene didn't take the photo; he only edited it. The photo shows 2 pieces, not one.

...

What tampering of evidence? You have yet to cite or show that this has occurred, only speculation that it might have happened.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Yes. Although Gene changed the exif data to put his name and add a description, the model Canon PowerShot S300 was left. Going by the documentary "Building on Ground Zero" we see Gene using a Nikon.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...89045458553167

William Baker was named as the photographer when Popular Mechanics used the photo in their article http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ ... which says the photo represents "a piece" of fuselage, like the FEMA photo says "a portion" of fuselage.

The NIST FOIA 09-42 from 911datasets.org release 37 folder 42A0525 - G38D4 has folders named "Baker.." from 10/8/2001 and 10/10 (none from 10/25) which are Canon PowerShot S300 and the same size as "Corley's" photo as seen on the FEMA website:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/44076
... which was last saved in 2005 using Adobe Photoshop... although the image appears the same in the 2002 FEMA 403 report:
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf (p. 32)

In the end this is not a big deal, just a fib (2 fibs: Photo by Gene Corley; *a* portion/piece) and slight trickery with object placement. And likely some touch-up in Photoshop just for fun... Gene's ego trip I guess. Everybody who sees that FEMA photo thinks it's one piece. Now we know it's not.

That dear, is a Nikon N70 (or F70 outside the US) SLR which is a traditional film camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F70

No Exif for you I am afraid.

You wont be getting any.

Care to review your claims?

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by DGM

So there may be a miss-identification of an engine made by the museum or someone in the FBI?

Have you contacted the museum to correct this mistake and if not why?

Besides a naming issue. I still don't see any manipulation in the fuselage image.

I contacted the museum to ask for their contact at the FBI, but got no response. My reasoning is that the Newseum would want to double-check with the FBI before making any changes. I did not bother trying to explain to the Newseum why their exhibit was wrong, because links to my YouTube videos or my blog 911conspiracy.wordpress.com or my book hosted on 911conspiracy.tv would only get a roll of the eyes and instant dismissal. I'll give it a try, though. I'll send an email today with no such links and let you know if I get a response. (EDIT: Email sent.)

No photo manipulation vote counted. Thanks for your input.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

I contacted the museum to ask for their contact at the FBI, but got no response. My reasoning is that the Newseum would want to double-check with the FBI before making any changes. I did not bother trying to explain to the Newseum why their exhibit was wrong, because links to my YouTube videos or my blog 911conspiracy.wordpress.com or my book hosted on 911conspiracy.tv would only get a roll of the eyes and instant dismissal. I'll give it a try, though. I'll send an email today with no such links and let you know if I get a response.

No photo manipulation vote counted. Thanks for your input.

They may do nothing. I would think the cost to change it would be more than it's worth to correct such a trivial thing. You would need to look at it from their perspective, It's an engine from one of the planes, the visual impact is the same regardless of which one.

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by abaddon

That dear, is a Nikon N70 (or F70 outside the US) SLR which is a traditional film camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F70

No Exif for you I am afraid.

You wont be getting any.

Care to review your claims?

Sorry for all the confusion here everybody. I've left out a critical link.

That Nikon was Gene's camera. That's the reason why I'm saying that he did not take the FEMA fuselage photo. William Baker did, as noted on this Popular Mechanics site:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ -- I should have pointed that out earlier.
Baker was using a digital camera as the exif data says:

I would spotlight the "Adobe Photoshop" line, but since it was saved using that program in 2005, and since the 2002 version in the FEMA report looks identical, it's not a big deal. It only shows that whoever used Photoshop (Gene, the "Artist" most likely, since he put his name on it) had a propensity to use that software... not necessarily in 2001 or -02, although that's what I'm claiming - paint tool usage included.

[DGM]

Could someone point out what part of the image was supposedly altered?

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Sorry for all the confusion here everybody. I've left out a critical link.

That Nikon was Gene's camera. That's the reason why I'm saying that he did not take the FEMA fuselage photo. William Baker did, as noted on this Popular Mechanics site:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ -- I should have pointed that out earlier.
Baker was using a digital camera as the exif data says:
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...oforensics.png
I would spotlight the "Adobe Photoshop" line, but since it was saved using that program in 2005, and since the 2002 version in the FEMA report looks identical, it's not a big deal. It only shows that whoever used Photoshop (Gene, the "Artist" most likely, since he put his name on it) had a propensity to use that software... not necessarily in 2001 or -02, although that's what I'm claiming - paint tool usage included.

It's was common back in the day to add contrast to photos especially if they were to be printed out in pdf format.

Gene is using the Nikon in a doc made in 2006. Gene might have more than one camera or have access to more than one camera. Gene might have been in contact with Bill and told him he used his image with a bit more contrast, etc. Did you ask them? Maybe this whole thing is easily resolved without invoking nefarious rogue agencies?