911conspiracyTV Weblog

New 9/11 conspiracy research

FEMA’s Fuselage Fib

leave a comment »

While this will inevitably lead many readers toward doubting the plane parts’ authenticity, I must preface by saying the hereby proven tampering with evidence is just that: staging, photographing, and digitally altering an “official” image of presumably authentic aircraft fuselage fallen from the plane with tail number N612UA.

FEMA_PM_Baker-photo-caption-fuselage
Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

This is the only place where Gene Corley is not credited with the photo. Maybe Gene didn’t want to be associated with the photo, for obvious reasons. Or PM made a mistake. Or it was Baker’s photo… until Gene used Photoshop and took responsibility for it.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. “It’s … from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2,” Corley states flatly.

The PBS-NOVA documentary “Building on Ground Zero” (2006), shows Gene using a Nikon camera at a scrapyard. Thanks MrKoenig1985 for pointing that out!

fema 12390 exif data fotoforensics

Following these clues reveals that lead investigator Gene Corley didn’t take the photo after all. A recent comment on my “FEMA’s Fuselage Fib” video comes from MrKoenig1985:

Look on Exif data of photos in the six “Baker” subfolders as released by NIST in the main folder “WTCI-63-FEMA”, CD1 (James Gourley’s NIST FOIA #09-42 -> Release 37 -> 42A0525 – G38D4. Also findable in David Cole’s NIST FOIA #2012-057, both available on 911datasets). Spot tests show that the these photos were shot by a Canon PowerShot S300 camera. But the FEMAous image isn’t there…

Baker was a FEMA team member and partner at a major architecture firm – Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP., per the FEMA Building Performance Study, cover and contents, May 2002.

The official FEMA photo in the above Popular Mechanics article is one of 5 photo/video sources showing the same fuselage, all shot on top of WTC 5. No museum has exhibited this piece — because it is really 2 pieces that were carefully staged to appear as one.

Note the caption in the 2010 Popular Mechanics article above: “a piece….” The other source for the image is of course the 2002 FEMA report (FEMA 403, p. 32 here): “a portion of the fuselage….” Like it says in the EXIF data of the original photo on fema.gov, and in that caption as well.

FEMA_photo_12390_website-screenshot-a-portion-text

Again in their graphic showing airplane debris locations, “fuselage section” singular (page 6 of Chapter 1).

But we have 4 other image sources that show two pieces. From these, we can estimate an outline of them (updated version of waypastvne’s attempt here):

N612UA-crop outline final-crop2

Actual Flight 175, original photo source airliners.net

1. Uploaded to the studyof911.com gallery in 2006 by anonymous (no metadata, low res).

Copyofplanepartrf20-full

2. A newly-released 2012 NTSB FOIA Appeal PowerPoint document authored by George Black Oct. 25, 2001.

fuselage George Black ppt screenshot

I was able to extract the original photo from the ppt file seen above (Does not look like NTSB record–N612U_9_11.ppt), producing the metadata: NIKON E900 camera, f/4.3, 1/203 sec. No flash. 1280×960 pixels. Note the tail number was N612UA. Sorry there are no notes on this image from the NTSB, or why it didn’t look right. One other current web source for this image has pointed out why. It’s because he/she mistakenly thought some white debris behind the edge of the larger piece was a B or P. (Found here, thanks to “Cataloging the crimes of 9/11” and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum.

3. Gary Steficek, engineer and volunteer investigator for the Building Performance Assessment Team of FEMA, although he wasn’t listed as a Team member in the FEMA report cover. He was thanked in the acknowledgements, however, under “Structural Engineers Association of New York – Salvage Yard Volunteers.” Which is why we find his images in NIST FOIA 09-42, 911datasets.org release 32, 42A0367 – G33D1, Steficek-2001-10-18.

DSC00478

We can see the left-most portion of the American flag, found where it should be:

plane part steficek wtc5 flag compare lines

Few people saw this image prior to 2011 when it was released by NIST on FOIA. It hasn’t been published to my knowledge. Since this image is dated Oct. 18, we can assume Steficek’s video was also shot that day.

4. Gary Steficek’s video shows the parts for all of 10 seconds.

plane parts WTC5 video fuselage zoomed out1

plane parts WTC5 video fuselage before zoom out

plane parts WTC5 video fuselage zoomed out

Source file comes from NIST FOIA 09-42 911datasets.org release 28, 42A0310 – G28D15.

The smaller piece of fuselage stands on its right side, back side visible as it leans against the larger piece. The arrow in red spray paint was likely put there by search and rescue teams using that color… weeks ago. As the camera pans across the arrow in the video we see painted, “AIR CRAFT” in the same colors painted on the wall nearby:

1090455639_28b5765151_o

Image taken Sept. 24. Source: flickr.com, dukeofcrydee. Look closely to see the large fuselage piece where others photographed it later.

One image exists taken after the plane hit and before the collapses. Original resolution is low, so we can’t zoom in clearly.

Natasha Sealy WTC5 roof

Image by Natasha Sealy-Fraser, from NIST FOIA 09-42 release 11.

Something is there, but this is the best view we have. Also there are hidden areas to consider. It’s logical the two pieces landed separately, at a greater distance than photographed, considering the glossier paint of the smaller. It may have had shelter from the toxic WTC dust beneath some other debris… or perhaps it wasn’t burned as badly.

I can’t prove the parts weren’t planted, but if they were that means 80+ passengers from the two flights were identified by the New York Medical Examiner falsely. See my previous article listing the known passengers identified by DNA or other means. See video, also. I don’t know how the no plane theorists think They planted the engine seen smoking on the street, after flying rather conspicuously from the corner of WTC 2’s floor 81.

If we can forget these malformed theories about planted parts, we can come to an easy resolution on the meaning of the evidence here. It’s simple proof that Gene Corley and the 9/11 FEMA investigation staged a photo to represent one piece — probably for fun or out of some egotistical pride or megalomania in controlling such historic evidence — and then lied about the physical evidence.

Was Photoshop used to alter the famous FEMA photo?

plane fuselage ual175 fema 12390 - hires-crop

I’d say the answer is yes. We have the EXIF data to prove it was saved using Adobe Photoshop. Then, where there should be natural shadow gradient showing the more polished smaller piece lying at a different angle, we have a solid blue with wavy lines of lighter blue, not gray. In fact, the whole image is tinted blue. I can almost pick out light blue paint tool marks where the broken window edge of the larger piece ends and the smaller piece begins.

plane fuselage fema steficek anon composite updated2

I played with the images in Photoshop myself, cutting out the parts and moving them around. We can see where the two pieces meet, a sheet metal obstacle prevents realization of the truth. Just above that edge we see some blending where a line should be clearly outlining the left-most knob of the larger piece. I asked a digital artist friend of mine about this, and he concurred.

This is why these plane parts have never been in a museum. This is why the Moussaoui trial exhibits full of gigabytes’ worth of 9/11 evidence DID NOT include the FEMA photo, even though it shows the partial registration/tail number of Flight 175. It’s an obvious fake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Written by Matt

June 24, 2017 at 9:53 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: