Humint Events Online: The Mystery Fuselage Piece-- Not from AA11 or UA175

Monday, March 22, 2010

The Mystery Fuselage Piece-- Not from AA11 or UA175

(UPDATED below)
I originally posted about this debris a few days back, but just noticed something interesting about it today.



Note, in the top photo, there is clearly a dark shading around the windows. In the second pic, the dark shading is actually blue and is less distinct than in the upper pic-- the color is mottled or scraped or peeled away. This scraped effect is probably in the top photo 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:

(click to enlarge)


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, and this is all on polished silvery aluminum. This piece has no sign of white paint under the windows, and no sign of polished aluminum. I also thought the AA windows were more square than these. 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!

(Cross-posted at DemUnderground here)

UPDATE: One thing I realized I can't rule out is that we are seeing the inner face of the fuselage piece. That might explain the non-AA, non-UA paint scheme-- but on the other hand, isn't the inside of these planes (famously) painted with green primer? And there definitely is not green paint here.

But check out the inside of the fuselage for "UA 93":

Not very smooth at all-- so it seems like a good bet that we are seeing the outer face of the fuselage debris in these pics.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

in the top photo, there is clearly a dark shading around the windows. In the second pic, the dark shading is actually blue and is less distinct than in the upper pic

the debris in the top photo seems to be the same debris in the 2nd photo but check out the POV (point of view) of each - in the 2nd pic the little red truck and the big flat-bed truck should totally intrude into the POV of the 1st pic, but they do not - see what i am saying?

anyway, why is there only 1 small piece of alleged fuselage in these photos? where is the giant tail fin of a 767 that the laws of physics tell us would certainly have not entered either wtc, as was recorded in several official videos?

also, the 3rd pic seems to have nothing to do with the 1st 2 pics.

IMO these photos of supposed 767 debris are laughable at best - certainly they do not prove that a 767 crashed into either wtc.

1:18 AM  
Blogger engineer said...

Random piece of plane?? Not charred, quite intact. They saved this from a crash, but which? Boeing scrap? Or did they build it?

A German website makes a case for "planes" based on remote control. He leaves this (and is indignant towards "no planers", as always)

WWII

Joe Kennedy, Jr. died in this operation. Was this beginning of the killing of Kennedy brothers. Accident? Short circuit.
A commenter leaves this:

NASA Test

Note that in both cases the planes are driven manually but with remote connection (cordless). Thus, the pilot skills are the same are the driving the plane. The driver has a cockpit.

Note damage to plane without a building crash.

It is doubtful that a Boeing 7xx can be controlled for acrobatic maneuvers but anyone expert enough to verify this can not come forward.

There are videos of take off and landings, all automatic, but a pilot is in the cockpit, just in case.

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh now i can see how the 3rd photo relates to the 1st 2.
check out the pedestrians in the 2nd pic - do they seem at all excited because a 767 just crashed into the wtc?
no.
hey maybe that fuselage debris was thrown off the back of that flat-bed truck.

10:43 AM  
Blogger nickname said...

Spooked,

Judging by the four responses at DU,
as of 12:13 PM EST, your analysis
& conclusions are correct. If any of the right-wingers could have proven you wrong, they would have.

Expect more comments/insults similar to those already published. Your
analysis is in no danger of being
shown to have been in error.


Congratulations.

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

also look at the 3rd photo - not a single car has been damaged by any falling debris, which amounts to nothing more than small pieces of stuff strewn about.
look at that pathetic fire and smoke - i'll bet that was photo-shopped into the picture which was probably taken on a day prior to 9/11.
a simple matter to block off the street, scatter some little debris around and take photos of a ridiculous staged event.
they made a mistake by not restricting access to those pedestrians who are not even surprised to see a piece of an airplane and a fire.

1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh new photo of ua93 fuselage.
this piece of aluminum has obviously (to me) been cut with a tool and not torn by the torque of a crash.
little sections of fuselage must be easy for these half-ass perps to work with.

2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the first delivery of the re-designed 767 was not scheduled to be until May 2001. The old 767 had rectangular windows with aluminum struts or stringers between the windows.
The newer 767-300 Extended, and 767-400 were to have oval windows similar to the 777.

3:11 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

Spooked,

I just went to the DU forum to read the latest comments from you post there.

I also read the comments about the Temple inside job. All of which leads to say that I think you are the most skillful member who posts on the 9/11 forum. Hands down, your posts demonstrate a very high level of sophistication in getting your ideas across and an equally
superior and effective way of handling your inferiors there.

Very impressive. I hope that you will continue to respond to as many of the Wurlitzer players and
male Sarah Palins (e.g. ohio joe)
as your time permits.

Pls. let us know the next time you do another cross-posting.

P.S. I know of a Canadian JFK assassination researcher (also a musician, I believe) who is highly regarded for his logical THINKING and ability to make clear, simple, forceful, devastatingly persuasive
presentations and responses. His style and your style are very, very similar.

Do YOU live in Canada?

10:09 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

The first photo is ABSOLUTE PROOF of planted "plane" debris!

How in the HELL did this particular piece of the fuselage survive a 500+ MPH collision with a steel skyscraper, then supposedly GO THROUGH the entire building and come out the other side WITH VISIBLE STRAIGHT LINES intact!!??????

ABSOLUTE. FUCKING. BULLSHIT.

10:43 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Thanks, nickname. But I don't live in Canada.

The DU shills are tireless, but they are mostly dumb. Maybe they've gotten lazy too.


Robert--
not sure what you mean by "visible straight lines". You mean the top of the debris fragment being straight?

8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spooked lives in Indianapolis. A town that's sure to gain some notoriety shortly.

9:50 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

I was referring to the window cutouts.

10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i see what robert is saying about straight lines and what-not - it is the same thing as i said about the ua93 piece having been cut with a tool.

12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger