questionitall
DSC00478
Having recently discovered this image in the NIST Cumulus dataset, Release _32, File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 I have to say there are glaring anomalies thereabout this wreckage that just don't sit well with me. For starters what are the odds of these two pieces of wreckage landing side by side as they are shown on the rooftop of WTC5. In perfect orientation to one another no less and just as they would connect together were they still part of that serviceable airframe they're said to have originated from? After having torn straight through the core of the South Tower only then to exit its North face at the 81st floor. I find the odds of it highly improbable and the likelihood this wreckage did any such thing implausible and the laws of physics certainly played no part.
What's more this image differs considerably from the photograph Copyofplanepartsrf20-full and the FEMA photograph #12390. The FEMA Photo Library image #12390 being of course the only example of alleged UA175 wreckage to have been falsified using Adobe Photoshop and then published in the official WTC BPS final report and eventually made public.
What's more the much smaller piece of wreckage seen herein on the left is propping up the larger piece of wreckage on the right, much like it appears in the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY. All of which proves my point, that the wreckage had been manipulated into place and arranged before it was photographed for the official record. Therefore not only does this image suggest the wreckage in all likelihood had been drawn together from all four corners of the WTC site and arranged there on the rooftop of WTC 5 in order for the FEMA photograph to be composed but more so then it proves the FEMA image 12390 had in fact been concocted out of scraps of wreckage and most assuredly the image was later falsified by someone using Adobe Photoshop! In other words the WTC BPS aircraft wreckage evidence is fraudulent!
Further compounding that subterfuge is the fact the time/date stamp on the file and image suggests it was taken by Gary Steficek at 4:13 p.m. on October 18, 2001 and not surprisingly then the only other sub-folder in this NIST release (Steficek-2001-10-25) contains no other images of aircraft fuselage wreckage therein. What's more I've not been able to verify Gary Steficek was present at the time this photograph or any of the WTC 5 videotaped recordings were taken, if ever he even participated in the WTC site investigation. However, his business partner and fellow WTC BPS team member Ramon Gilsanz is seen throughout the photographic and videotaped evidence pertaining to the WTC site investigation and not surprisingly then he stars in the making of the video HQ_WTC5_GARY.
The problem I have with the aforementioned time/date stamp then is according to Mr. W. Gene Corley his entire team of BPS investigator's were only allowed on the WTC site between Oct 7 thru 12, 2001. In fact Mr. Corley's exact words presented Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 2002 reads as follows..."On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6 day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less than 8 blocks from the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis...During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey."
So there you have it and right from the horse’s mouth but no matter how you slice and dice it both of those time/date stamps contradict his testimony, so either Mr. Corley got his dates wrong, he returned to the scene of the crime at a later date to secure the photographic evidence that morphed into the FEMA photograph 12390 or he's flat out lied all along! In fact from what I can make of it all Mr. Corley was nowhere near the rooftop of WTC 5 between October 7th and 12th, 2001 so how he managed to get that photograph is anyone’s guess but more importantly then why does that October 25, 2001 FEMA image (accredited to him) appear as though the two pieces of wreckage are one piece when clearly they do not appear that way in every other exhibit recorded by the WTC BPS investigators.
Not only does Mr. Corley need to explain those discrepancies but also how it was that certain members of the WTC BPS were coming and going from the World Trade Center scene of the crime over a much greater period of time than he's aware of or cares to admit to and for what reasons were they doing so? I say “scene of the crime” because it’s a Federal offense to tamper with evidence, obstruct justice and lie under oath.
DSC00478
Having recently discovered this image in the NIST Cumulus dataset, Release _32, File folder 42A0367 – G33D1, sub-folder Steficek-2001-10-18 I have to say there are glaring anomalies thereabout this wreckage that just don't sit well with me. For starters what are the odds of these two pieces of wreckage landing side by side as they are shown on the rooftop of WTC5. In perfect orientation to one another no less and just as they would connect together were they still part of that serviceable airframe they're said to have originated from? After having torn straight through the core of the South Tower only then to exit its North face at the 81st floor. I find the odds of it highly improbable and the likelihood this wreckage did any such thing implausible and the laws of physics certainly played no part.
What's more this image differs considerably from the photograph Copyofplanepartsrf20-full and the FEMA photograph #12390. The FEMA Photo Library image #12390 being of course the only example of alleged UA175 wreckage to have been falsified using Adobe Photoshop and then published in the official WTC BPS final report and eventually made public.
What's more the much smaller piece of wreckage seen herein on the left is propping up the larger piece of wreckage on the right, much like it appears in the video footage HQ_WTC5_GARY. All of which proves my point, that the wreckage had been manipulated into place and arranged before it was photographed for the official record. Therefore not only does this image suggest the wreckage in all likelihood had been drawn together from all four corners of the WTC site and arranged there on the rooftop of WTC 5 in order for the FEMA photograph to be composed but more so then it proves the FEMA image 12390 had in fact been concocted out of scraps of wreckage and most assuredly the image was later falsified by someone using Adobe Photoshop! In other words the WTC BPS aircraft wreckage evidence is fraudulent!
Further compounding that subterfuge is the fact the time/date stamp on the file and image suggests it was taken by Gary Steficek at 4:13 p.m. on October 18, 2001 and not surprisingly then the only other sub-folder in this NIST release (Steficek-2001-10-25) contains no other images of aircraft fuselage wreckage therein. What's more I've not been able to verify Gary Steficek was present at the time this photograph or any of the WTC 5 videotaped recordings were taken, if ever he even participated in the WTC site investigation. However, his business partner and fellow WTC BPS team member Ramon Gilsanz is seen throughout the photographic and videotaped evidence pertaining to the WTC site investigation and not surprisingly then he stars in the making of the video HQ_WTC5_GARY.
The problem I have with the aforementioned time/date stamp then is according to Mr. W. Gene Corley his entire team of BPS investigator's were only allowed on the WTC site between Oct 7 thru 12, 2001. In fact Mr. Corley's exact words presented Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 2002 reads as follows..."On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6 day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less than 8 blocks from the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis...During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey."
So there you have it and right from the horse’s mouth but no matter how you slice and dice it both of those time/date stamps contradict his testimony, so either Mr. Corley got his dates wrong, he returned to the scene of the crime at a later date to secure the photographic evidence that morphed into the FEMA photograph 12390 or he's flat out lied all along! In fact from what I can make of it all Mr. Corley was nowhere near the rooftop of WTC 5 between October 7th and 12th, 2001 so how he managed to get that photograph is anyone’s guess but more importantly then why does that October 25, 2001 FEMA image (accredited to him) appear as though the two pieces of wreckage are one piece when clearly they do not appear that way in every other exhibit recorded by the WTC BPS investigators.
Not only does Mr. Corley need to explain those discrepancies but also how it was that certain members of the WTC BPS were coming and going from the World Trade Center scene of the crime over a much greater period of time than he's aware of or cares to admit to and for what reasons were they doing so? I say “scene of the crime” because it’s a Federal offense to tamper with evidence, obstruct justice and lie under oath.