Mystery WTC Fuselage Piece

[spooked911]

Note, in the top photo, there is clearly a dark shading/paint around the windows. In the second pic, the dark shading is actually blue paint and is less distinct than in the upper pic-- the paint is mottled or scraped or peeled away. This scraped effect is apparently in the top photo-- if you look carefully-- but is less clear due to the lack of color.

This photo shows the same area-- the debris is apparently to the right of this truck-- and this is all to the south of the south tower:


This debris, officially, could have come from AA11 -- pieces shooting out the south side of the north tower, or this could have come from UA175-- plane debris blowing back out of the entry hole after the crash.

So, an important question is: WHAT PLANE *DID* THIS PIECE COME FROM, OFFICIALLY?

Note, the part has window holes-- so this narrows down the part of the plane considerably where it could have been torn from.

So let's look at the window sections of an American Airlines 767-- and yes, there is blue paint around the windows. But the American Airlines livery also has a white stripe under the blue, a red stripe under the white, and this is all on polished silvery aluminum. This piece has no sign of white paint under the windows, and no sign of red paint or polished aluminum. I also think the AA windows are more square-- less oblong-- than these ones on the debris. So this piece apparently isn't from AA11.


What about UA175? A United Airlines 767 has simply gray paint around the windows, with seemingly smaller, more rectangular windows. The more rectangular windows fit this piece, as does the gray color of the debris. But what about this blue paint, with the very distinct sharp lower edge to the paint seen in the B&W pic? Blue paint is nowhere near windows for the UA 767, so this piece can't be from UA175!


So this piece is neither from AA11 or UA175. Where the hell did it come from?

More importantly-- this is extremely clear proof of either planted plane debris-- or that a plane other than AA11 or UA175 crashed into the WTC!

[greyl]

1. Why do you believe that's part of an aircraft? nt

[spooked911]

16. Because it looks like part of a fuselage.

what else would it be? why do you ask?

[greyl]

82. It looks like part of a UA 767 that crashed into the WTC.

There is no reason to believe it is from anything else.
All the evidence points to it being a piece from AA11.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Well...

I suppose if you only look at a pic that is far away and blurry it does not look much like AA 767 windows. However, if one were to spend a few minutes on google and find closer shots of the windows:





Well... my my, looks exactly like them.

Let me ask you this... Just how many people did they have running around dropping off fake parts? How did they do it with out one single person noticing that they were?

[spooked911]

15. the argument was mainly based on the paint colors

and your second doesn't really show the windows that clearly, since we are looking at a skewed perspective. The first pic doesn't show the windows any more clearly than my pics.

[Ohio Joe]

25. No, you also based it on shape

The shape matches as well as the colors. You don't see any red because the piece is not big enough, check the window size compared to the stripes. Sorry but your wrong, the part matches perfectly.

[spooked911]

29. you're saying it is from AA11?

where is the white paint? Where is the polished aluminum?

Note-- I said MAINLY based on the colors. The colors are decisive, the shape is not.

[Ohio Joe]

31. And the colors are right where they should be

Blue right over whats left of the windows, white right below that and just a little bit of silver right above the blue. Do they look as bright and shiney as they did before it... you know... went through an explosion and a few buildings collapsing around it? uhhh, no, why should they?

[spooked911]

35. what on earth are you talking about?

where do you see white and silver????

[Ohio Joe]

42. As I said

The white is right below the blue and some silver can be seen right above the blue. Why do you expect them to still be bright and pristine?

[spooked911]

44. the piece is mostly gray with some blue

I see no white at all, nor is there a hint of polished silvery metal.

I don't expect the piece to be pristine-- I never said that. But I would expect clear white paint remnants, at minimum.

[Ohio Joe]

46. Why?

Seriously, take a white piece of paper, smear some ash on it, does it still look white? No, it won't. Do you not remember the fiery explosion this part went through? The clouds of dust after each collapse that came down on it? In my opinion your expectation is unrealistic.

[spooked911]

63. the problem with your argument is that

there is no hint of white-- it is pretty smoothly gray.

[Ohio Joe]

69. For the fourth time I'll ask you... Why?

To begin with, it is not smoothly gray, it very obviously varies from extremely light (almost white) to very dark. So... I'll ask you for the forth time, after being blown up in a fiery explosion and having going through all of the dust from two towers collapsing, why would you expect it to still be pure white?

[spooked911]

71. I don't expect it to be pure white.

As I said, the problem is that I see no remnants of white, at all, in contrast to plenty of blue remaining. And the gray seems fairly uniform to me.

[travis80]

3. what's with WTC airplane debris almost always being near scaffolding? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

4. Why would that matter, dude?

I don't know if you'll ever see this clearly, but it's the way you think about things (or, more accurately, don't think about things) that keeps you mired in conspiracy theoryland, dude.

Keep digging, Travis...you're almost there.

[zappaman]

6. Travis is on to something

We are all in agreement that plane parts were planted at ground zero. The question is how the evil and insidious BUSHCO managed to do this without being seen? The scaffolding is the key to answering this mystery.
We all know monkeys are super smart, right? They can be trained to do almost anything when not throwing their feces. They can even fly a spaceship!
So, what if BUSHCO used trained monkeys to leave these parts? Naturally, they would use scaffolding to swing down from! It's the perfect plan!
Trained monkeys swung around scaffolding and quietly dropped these plane parts while everyone was focused on other things. Besides, who would believe someone if they said they saw monkeys dropping plane parts?
Thank you Travis for solving one of the mysteries of 9/11! But there are still so many unanswered questions, so keep digging, you are almost there!

[SDuderstadt]

8. Okay, so why has no monkey come forward and confessed...

dude? Hmmm?

[zappaman]

9. C'mon dude

Use your head.
I am quite sure that a government that was able to "green screen" planes hitting the WTC is more than capable of keeping a few monkeys quiet.
They have probably been thrown into zoos, launched into space, or being used for "scientific research".
Is there anything the evil BUSHCO can't do?

[SDuderstadt]

10. Why are you defending "Bushco"?

I assume the sarcasm tag is unnecessary...

[Theobald]

5. You can't be serious?

You are using a black and white photo and a not very distinct color picture of aircraft debris to prove that it couldn't have come from either of the planes? Even if your argument was sane the two photos you proffered do not contain enough evidence to substantiate your case.

[SDuderstadt]

7. "Even if your argument was sane"

That preamble sums up the central weakness in all "no-planes" "arguments". The problem is "true believers" like Spooked and Travis will never, ever see that fatal weakness.

[spooked911]

17. please be specific

why isn't my argument here "sane"?

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Dude...

"no planes". I rest my case.

[spooked911]

28. Dude...

this argument has NOTHING to do with no planes.

So, what is not sane about my argument?

Please be specific.

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

32. More of your blatant dishonesty, Spooked...

You're trying to establish that the debris came from neither of the two flights that slammed into the Towers, thus it had to be planted. You have also tried (rather spectacularly unsuccessfully I might add) to claim that the direct eyewitnesses were fooled into believing that they saw planes that didn't exist.

Now you are trying to establish something based upon color using a black and white photo and you're getting pounded mercilessly for it by just about everyone. There comes a time when one has to acknowledge the mountain of contradictory evidence and gently let go of one's delusional and faith-based beliefs. I'd argut that time arrived for you on or about the time of your infamous and falling-down hysterical "bunny cage experiment", dude.

Again, this is why you are such an object of derision here, including by nearly everyone from the truth movement. Why you continue to make a spectacle of yourself indicates either some pathological need for attention or an inability to face facts in some sort of inscrutable effort to save face. Again, I ask: is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it, dude? I earnestly implore you to quit embarrassing liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU with your goofy bullshit. I'd implore you to quit embarrassing yourself, but it's far too late for that and, more importantly, you bizarrely don't seem to care.

[spooked911]

36. Um, wow-- how wrong can you be?

Actually, I am merely showing that this doesn't look like AA or UA 767 debris. If I am right, this would invalidate a serious part of the official story. The debris does not have to be planted, and could be from a different type of plane that hit the tower.

Also, I am in fact using a color photo for my analysis. Are you color blind?

In terms of you once again berating my findings and my views, you can go to hell.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Dude...

do you understand what "debate" is???

[spooked911]

45. Yes

do you?

Hint, it involves listening to the other person and then responding directly to the substance of their point.

A few posts back you said my argument was not sane and that I was arguing no planes. I have refuted the latter, and asked for an explanation why my argument was not sane. You still have not explained the basis for your not sane assertion.

You also said I was basing my argument on a black and photo. This is plainly false.

You then put out a long series of ad hominems.

Where exactly did you debate me here?

[SDuderstadt]

47. Spooked...

read what I wrote again. Do you see anywhere that I said you were trying to prove something on the basis of color using ONLY a black and white photo??

The 1st photo is, by your own admission, black and white and is, by far, the clearest of the photos. The second photo, which IS in color, is far less clear and it's not even clear what angle it shows, but I'd argue we see the interior of the debris. I don't even see the debris in the third photo.

In the meantime, you haven't even dispositively identified the debris as having been from any aircraft. Beyond that, how you can maintain that you're not making a "no-planes" argument here is truly laughable. You have one way to save face here (sort of, however, you'd have to abandon your trademark "theory" in the process) and that would entail admitting that aircraft actually hit WTC 1&2. Are you now becoming a "planer"? Or, are you merely arguing in circles again?

[spooked911]

57. you said, quote--

"Now you are trying to establish something based upon color using a black and white photo...".

If you weren't saying "only", you were certainly implying it, and trying to make me look bad.

The second photo shows the colors, which are the key point here, and they can be seen well enough to make my argument. It's not the interior, as that would not be so smooth. The angles of the shots aren't that hard to decipher.

Now, are you saying this ISN'T airplane debris? Really?

And honestly, I am not making a no planes argument. I am making the argument that the debris doesn't match the official planes, that is all. Baby steps-- for you guys.

[spooked911]

38. "pounded mercilessly"

from the usual suspects, who haven't yet made an argument of substance.

The closest to any argument of substance is from OhioJoe-- unfortunately, he is simply imagining extra colors on the debris.

Yeah, I'm getting pounded-- by spitballs from 8 year olds.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

11. Spooked, it's time to fess up

This is all a long running psychological test you are performing to see how rational people respond to chronic postings of utter nonsense.

That's the only reasonable explanation at this point.

[zappaman]

12. google "spooked 911"

the second hit is hysterical!

[LARED]

19. Have you ever seen the bunny cage experiment?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[zappaman]

21. Bunny cage experiment

That can not be real!
Hilarious!

[apocalypsehow]

23. Oh Lord help me....I had yet to see that...tears streaming down my face....

BOOKMARKING!

[SDuderstadt]

24. The really scary part is that....

Spooked is actually serious about this goofy bullshit.

[hack89]

43. That thread is a pizza lovers delight. nt

[zappaman]

72. Kick

For the link to the "bunny cage experiment".
Endless entertainment!

[spooked911]

13. That's all you got?

The debris FUCKING DOESN'T MATCH the official planes.

But PLEASE, just ignore this and mock it instead!

[LARED]

20. My theory is WAY more plausible nt

[spooked911]

30. in any case, just for giggles

what plane do you think this part belongs to?

[LARED]

33. Would say with great certainty that

without question it is from one of planes that impacted the WTC's

[zappaman]

34. Spooked may be right

We all know how evil BUSHCO is, right? We also know they tend to fuck things up, right?
So, they planned this attack using green-screened non-existent planes, used mind control on the eyewitnesses, managed to find thousands of people who would help, but they forgot to get the right window! Everything worked perfectly, except for that damn piece they planted. They obviously didn't count on intrepid sleuths like Spooked to closely examine the evidence!
Dummies!
Keep digging, Spooked. You're almost there...

[LARED]

41. Well Bushco did

manage to provide only a black and white photo, so at least they were trying to fix their mistakes.

[defendandprotect]

48. You're almost there . . .

Bush, if you noticed, was kept from the area of action on 9/11 --

Cheney was in control --

And I would imagine that this was CIA/Pentagon planning -- with help

from Blackwater and/or KGB for demolition/bombs.

And, yeah, looking at the Pentagon farce . . . obviously they also screwed up

there with things like "debris" and photos being an afterthought --

or given no thought.

Commercial jetliners now fly thru round circles in concrete/steel walls!

Leaving no sign of wings outside of the building!

But -- that's the great thing about right wing cover-ups -- large erasers of fact.

You just keep repeating WMD, Osama Bin Laden, Muslims and whoosh . . . all fact is forgotten.

As for the witnesses, not only were those who saw the myth of 9/11 planted --

but those who saw NO PLANES were ignored!

Except the firemen who made clear that there were bombs in the buildings, going off

in sequence --

Of course, CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre related proudly the truth that "NO PLANE" hit the

Pentagon -- until he was forced to retract and lie for them.

Only way those steel buildings could have been brought down was by demolition.

[LARED]

50. Wow, just wow nt

[zappaman]

51. "but those who saw NO PLANES were ignored!"

I don't see my paper delivered every morning, so I guess that would mean nobody delivers it?

Unreal...

[defendandprotect]

52. Actually, you can see people who saw NO PLANES being ignored on video . ..

try tapping into some of the info sometimes . . . !!

You've never seen your paper delivered? Wow, you miss a lot!!

[zappaman]

53. your logic is flawed, to say the least

so just because "some people" didn't see the planes hit, then you follow the logical path that planes did NOT hit?
you are kidding, right?

[defendandprotect]

54. The point was that people were being IGNORED . . .

Again, you can see that on video -- try it - you might wake yourself up.

As for NO PLANES, one of the NORAD Generals sent a jet up to go over to the

Pentagon and find out what happened. The pilot reported back "NO PLANE" hit

the Pentagon.

Same report as the CNN journalist who was there BEFORE the attack and AFTER the attack

gave us!

PLUS many others -- such as victims inside the buildings. One of the victims was

sitting right behind where the "plane" allegedly went thru. She makes clear there

was 'NO PLANE' ...

Some of us do see our newspaper delivery people -- some don't!


It's impossible to wake up someone pretending to be sleeping!

[spooked911]

37. thank you

but which one?

[LARED]

40. I don't think I could care less

Why would it be even a little important?

[AZCat]

22. This is indeed "extremely clear proof".

It is not, however, proof of what you think it is.

[defendandprotect]

26. I'm for the planting theory . . .obviously, there were no planes . . .

Guess everyone has been caught up in the gun issues, health care stuff and no

one in here -- see you fighting off the nasties alone for the moment!

For me, all I can see is YOU and "ignored" -- !!!

Anything new happening overall on the 9/11 stuff? I haven't had a chance to

be checking around on other websites.

[SDuderstadt]

27. "obviously, there were no planes "

The definition of cluelessness.

[apocalypsehow]

49. "obviously, there were no planes" - Just 200 million pairs of lying eyes, eh?

[defendandprotect]

55. Who did the counting for you . . . Florida GOP?

There were obviously people planted to call in -- many of them media officials.

There were obviously also people planted in the street --


Those who had been watching the building and saw NO PLANE hit the second tower

were ignored. You can also see that on video.

[apocalypsehow]

56. "planted to call in...planted in the street....NO PLANE hit the second tower..."

Maybe the Twin Towers themselves were illusions, projections of light from a recovered Roswell device buried by Agent "Triple XXX" in the vicinity of lower Manhattan...I mean, there were people watching lower Manhattan in the early 1970's and saw NO CONSTRUCTION CRANES actually erect those towers; their testimony to the effect that the Towers themselves never really existed were ignored...

[defendandprotect]

58. They were "illusions" . . . of capitalism . . .

and were supposed to be taken down with scaffolding built -- costing billions!

NO DEMOLITION WAS TO BE ALLOWED!

So -- let's see -- buildings bad business -- asbestos was also going to force them

down -- now what practical use could they be put to in a money making scheme which

might also help the PNAC warmongers?

Of course, there were no "put options" on Wall Street that day, either, which were

also ignored! Traced back to CIA!

And, who was in charge of security at WTC -- and at airports --

hmmmmm......

[apocalypsehow]

59. So, it was all just an elaborate demolition job, to save a few bucks on asbestos removal, eh?

That is, ummm, the most novel conspiracy theory I've ever run across, I reckon.

[LARED]

60. If you think this is novel

google "Judy Wood"

http://www.google.com/search?q=Judy+Wood&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLJ

[apocalypsehow]

61. Hah - done. Just a brief glance and I can already see I'm about enter a whole higher level of crazy.

Thanks for the link. :thumbsup:

[LARED]

62. Unfortunately the good Dr Wood is about as good

as it gets. Enjoy

[zappaman]

65. wow

awesome!

[defendandprotect]

64. To save a few bucks on "scaffolding" . . . you mean billions . . . !!!

You catch on quickly -- not!

[SDuderstadt]

66. D&P has me (and probably half the universe)...

on "ignore". Could someone please ask her how anyone could erect "scaffolding" to "dismantle" a 110 story building?

[zappaman]

67. huh?

how could anyone erect "scaffolding" to "dismantle" a 110 story building?

[defendandprotect]

68. That was the condition for bringing down the WTC towers due to asbestos . . .

Unbuilding a Skyscraper --

It is, Avi Schick said, like watching a video of a building being built, but in reverse.

Sara Krulwich/The New York Times

The Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, its windows replaced with plywood, is being dismantled. More Photos »

Mr. Schick, the chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, was walking through 130 Liberty Street, the building opposite ground zero that was gashed by pieces of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. The building, the New York base of Deutsche Bank at the time, is now being dismantled.

That is different from being demolished. The building is being taken apart almost piece by piece, something demolition experts say has been done before.

What is a first is the complete removal of a building so large and so badly contaminated by hazardous substances. And it is happening under the wary eyes of regulators, neighbors and even the Wall Street types who will someday fill the building that is scheduled to take this one’s place.

So, day after day this summer, workers with acetylene torches are going floor by floor, slicing through the steel beams, the horizontal parts of the building’s skeleton. With help from small tractorlike machines, they are pulling down the beams and the steel columns they are attached to.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/nyregion/17bank.html?_r=2

[spooked911]

75. No, that was only a small part of it

the major part was to incite Americans to war.

[spooked911]

73. TV doesn't count

how many saw it hit directly in real life?

how many were fooled by the fly-by plane and by the fake videos and pre-planted explosives?

[SDuderstadt]

76. Dude...

your questions are so patently stupid, they don't require answers.

[snooper2]

78. what do you do for a living again?

nt

[SDuderstadt]

70. Are you claiming that the first two pictures are...

of the same piece of debris?

ETA: Are you also claiming the third picture is of the same area? If so, why are the vehicles parked parallel in one picture and perpendicular in the other?

I think you're trying to pull a fast one here, dude.

[spooked911]

74. yes and yes

what "fast one"?

any fakery here isn't mine.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Dude...

your goofy "no-planes" bullshit IS fakery.

[spooked911]

79. you seemed to be claiming that I was doing some fakery with the pics

No?

[zappaman]

80. I think there is fakery...

involved in the "bunny cage experiment".
Oh, and have you thrown out my "trained monkeys" hypothesis as to what really happened?
Seems to me it explains your questions regarding these photos.

[SDuderstadt]

81. No...

I already told you what I thought is suspect about the pictures and saying that you might be "trying to pull a fast one" hardly is the same as accusing you of fakery, dude.

[spooked911]

83. pray tell

what "fast one" was I trying to pull?

[SDuderstadt]

84. Dude...

I already raised a specific question...learn to read.

[spooked911]

85. I already answered your specific question

jeez.