Boeing 767 Part "Confirmed" - See comments

May 14th, 2007
by Culhavoc
Deconstructing a False-Flag Operation

In the years since 9/11, several researchers have attempted to locate the origin of a rather obscure Boeing part, "Boeing CSTG 256T1115-2", pictured above in CNN footage. Recently, Dylan Avery put out a call to anyone who could identify the part to confirm whether or not the part came from a Boeing 767. While attempts made by members of Pilotsfor911truth.org were unsuccessful, due to the poor legibility of the serial number, an aircraft mechanic by the name of "Apathoid" located the origin of the part. (view image)

While it is unclear which flight this part came from, CSTG 256T1115-2, which is part of the LE Slat Control System, provides additional confirmation that a Boeing 767 impacted the WTC.

-Culhavoc

Show "Or it just confirms this part comes from a 767" by Killtown

no brains = no planes

sorry to say

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Show "The JREFers insult like you too" by Killtown

I apologized but

the theory of no-planes hitting the wtc just has way too much wrong with it for me.
its actually worse then DEWs imho.

to each his own I guess

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Thanks Culhavoc...

I assume that because the part is a "-2" opposed to a "-1", that it is a later revision.

Not that it really matters anyway, because they would have been fools to have used anything other than a 767 for the attack.

Best wishes

Why is that?

"Not that it really matters anyway, because they would have been fools to have used anything other than a 767 for the attack."

Why is that? Why they should have stuck to 767s?

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

www.shoutwire.com

Because the videos, photos and physical evidence...

It would not be too difficult to compare video and photographic evidence and prove it was not a 767.

Plus when the parts found did not match a 767, you have another problem.

This does not mean it was the original flight 175, or piloted by a human, just that they used a 767.

Best wishes

"This does not mean it was the original flight 175, or piloted

by a human, just that they used a 767."

Yes.

How does it prove a 767 hit the towers?

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

It’s called “cumulative evidence”

The more corroborating evidence you see the less likely something is to be “faked”.

Yes, cumulative evidence

includes the planted debris like the fuselage piece found on top of WTC5, and the engine fragment and wheel found on the far side of the WTC2, and the wheel found on the far side of WTC1. None of the trajectories are plausible, nor is the condition of the fuselage piece.

This part does not prove anything. If you're going to accept that a plane hit, fine, but don't claim that a little aircraft part serves to confirm this. It would be so easy to plant something like this. Taking Columbo's theory, it would be quite easy to plant a part that can be traced back to Flight 11 or Flight 175 and offer that as evidence that these were the planes that hit. Absent a lot more debris with demonstrative authenticity, including plausible location of retrieval, a little part like this does not prove anything.

Corrections made

My original post contained an incorrect serial number and was missing part of Apathoid's graphic, both have been updated and the graphic can be downloaded here.

I mistakenly captured the serial number (CSTG 256T1115-1) from Apathoid's catalogue graphic instead of from the CNN photo (CSTG 256T1115-2). I apologize for the slip up.

-Culhavoc

______________________________
Deconstructing a False-Flag Operation

Skeptical...

First of all, "Apathoid" is a JREF acolyte I've had the displeasure of meeting on Abby Scott's blog before. Secondly, how come the inscription appears perspectively undistorted on what appears to be a curved piece -- and at an angle to the camera? Here's how I parsed the image spatially -- reasonable objections welcome:

Is this verified footage? Appears to be badly photoshopped...
______________

interns < internets

CHECK THE DOC!

bruce1337, my problem is not with the photo, it's with the document/s. There is no skewing of text where it intersects the creases in the document.

They appear to be fakes. That, and consider the source. Opinions?
http://we-dont.gotdns.org/~culhavoc/images/boeingcstg.jpg

Going, Going, ...

Unless someone is willing to counter my assessment of this document, I'm renaming the entry to reflect a disinfo/hoax.

The initial thread on this subect located here

-Culhavoc

Response from Apathoid...

"Culhavoc, JREF has an 800x800 limit on images, so I did some creative cutting/pasting and "merged" 2 scans into a single. I cut the bottom part of the first scan(the "CONTROL INSTL AFT QUADRANT-LE SLAT" part)and pasted it just below the illustration of the part. I did this instead of cropping so you'd see what system the part belongs to instead of taking my word for it. The second scan(item text), I just cropped as there was nothing else noteworthy under the part listing.

Since apparently my "discovery" was significant enough for a 911Blogger post, I'll upload the full scans following an apology from you about your "consider the source" remark...

Can someone please post this at LC. Thanks."

Deconstructing a False-Flag Operation

Well possible

anyway, I maintain that the perfect alignment of the text to the camera is so improbable as to appear impossible on what I see as an obviously curved piece of wreckage. From the video, there's no way of telling whether it's visible in the panning wide shot preceding the dubious still in question -- who could categorically exclude manipulation?

Anyone care to explain this obvious paradox of perspective?
______________

interns < internets