Could the flimsy sign stop the momentum of the flying engine?

How could the sign and engine fall inside and underneath the scaffolding?

Jack

Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.

I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed).

Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene?

If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please.

The sign was about 16 feet in the air. You tell us how it got there. Facts please.

Jack

No, sorry Jack, but you are the one who is claiming there is something wrong.

It is up to you to demonstrate why it is wrong. You have to show where it is stated that the sign was hit by the engine, why it could not of been hit by debris, etc.

You have the burden of proof.

And you stated it was knocked there by persons fleeing the scene. From 16 feet in the air?

Jack

Incorrect yet again, Jack. I asked why - working under the premise you are wrong - why it could not have been possible for that to happen. I did not state it as fact. I simply asked you why that could not be an explanation.



Please do not put words into my mouth.

Can you prove that it was knocked there by the engine? If not, can you positively discount that it was not knocked there by people fleeing the scene?

Where is the charring? Where is the dust?

Jack

Before the first WTC building collapsed, spreading dust everywhere, the FBI had
already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it. Minutes
later, the area was covered in dust, and the wheel is in a different place. With
chaos in the entire areas, it is remarkable that the FBI had photo teams all over
the area shooting photos of "evidence" within the first hour.

Jack

What do the arrows show? Did the FBI in fact paint them? They appear to be construction related to me.

jack,

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

If you have other evidence to support your hypothesis, could you present it?

The FBI was out taking photos of "wreckage" before dust covered the scenes. Therefore
the time is before the first tower fell.

Jack

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

A photo of the tire with an emergency vehicle at the curb.

Jack

Equally clean 'wreckage' was at the Pentagon. The most amazing thing is the Johnny-on-the-spot appearance and action of the FBI on the debris; but then FEMA had been moved-in the afternoon before......and set up a staging area [for an 'exercise' to be Sept. 12] on the same Pier that Guiliani used for his Command Center - he even used the supplies they had brought for the exercise.

Seems lots of Agencies and people 'knew' to be ready for something big, but not the American People.

Even more amazing to me than the neatly tucked-under the scaffolding engine is that I'm not aware of any civilian reports of either the engine crashing on the street nor it being investigated by or moved or not moved by the FBI. There must be people who witnesses all or parts of this. Since there was no interest to do a real investigation - only to put out a pre-planned 'scenario' IMO they didn't put out a call for witnesses and many of those who stepped forward on their own initiative have been suppressed or ignored - even many first responders who saw or heard things that didn't fit the official scenario. Where is the crack in the sidewalk or hole in the road pavement from a one ton+ engine moving at high speed into it?! The momentum would be huge! Again, why are we not allowed to know the serial numbers on these parts - or have independant people examine the evidence? Dallas all over again. Those who don't see the parallels are doomed to let [false] history endlessly repeat and be used to manipulate. Trust us, we're the government - we don't ever do anything wrong, nor hide the truth....yeah, right! If they have nothing to hide - then why hide the evidence/serial numbers/destroy the evidence [steel of WTC], etc.?

CORRECTING A MINOR TYPO.

Still waiting - did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

Still waiting - Can you prove that it was knocked there by the engine? If not, can you positively discount that it was not knocked there by people fleeing the scene?

Do we know for sure the sign wasn't knocked down by some unrelated event? Could it have been down before September 11? Perhaps related to the construction? Why should we assume the sign was knocked down by the engine? Why is engine in quotes? Are you now questioning whether it is an engine at all?

I should remind the moderator that bullying is not allowed on the forum.
Repeated taunts and insistence on answering questions is bullying.

Jack

Why would expect the parts to be charred? Metal doesn’t burn let alone char in hydrocarbon fires.

Do you know when and where the photo was taken how do you know it wasn’t after the part had been move to the landfill?

How do you know those photos were taken by the FBI, just because the were at Charles and Murray doesn’t mean they were anywhere else.

As for the wheel moving that wouldn’t really constitute tampering with evidence because a slight shift its position wouldn’t effect anything, it could have been move by a spectator, the force of the collapse or for reasons unknown.

Peter wrote:



Why odd? The NYC FBI office was only a few minutes away. The elapsed time between the 1st crash and the 1st collapse was 73 minutes.



Citation?

I actually agree with Jack that the sign PROBABLLY was knocked down by the engine core but fail to see why this would be odd. The core was ejected from the South Tower about 1500 feet (450 meters) away at the time it was 1000 – 1100 feet (300 – 340 meters) above street level. Gravity caused to fall. If it hit the sign and Jack’s height estimate was accurate it had gotten down to 16 feet (4.9 meters). In any case what stopped it was the ground.

The core and either fell under the scaffolding because that was the end point of the formers arc or they bounced or were moved there.

Question for Jack and Peter why would they go to the extra effort to knock the sign down? How could they have done so and planted the part without being noticed? If it were as heavy as you image it would require several men to lift it.



Actually as already mentioned it was mentioned in the ASCE/FEMA report, try and pay attention. And if the stills Jack uploaded to the other thread weren’t fakes was covered on TV. Other images look like regular photos suggesting the story got coverage in the print media but on the scale of events that morning it was a minor footnote.



We’re still waiting for your or Jack’s calculations as to the mass, speed and angle of the core upon impact and the strength of the sidewalk and street. If you can show that the should have more damage you have a point till then you’re just hand waving.



Already explained several times. Do you know of anyone who requested the s/n via a FOIA request and was denied? Do you know of any NTSB crash reports that cite the s/n of any parts other than "black boxes" not blamed for the crash?

And I'll remind you of a Forum rule:



I asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, reference your comments: did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

How did this tire get stuck in a window it should have gone thru? Where is the mate to
the tire (they are arranged in sets of two)? All landing gears were retracted at the time.
The rest of the plane went thru the window...why didn't this tire?

Jack

A main landing gear; the previous photo was a nose gear.

Jack

Quick question Jack - is it your belief that B767s did NOT hit WTC 1 and WTC 2?

I'd like to be clear what you are arguing for / against.

I am arguing FOR planted evidence. I am arguing against the "official commercial
jets" hitting the towers. IMO, special planes filled with incendiary devices were used
to create huge fireballs and lots of smoke. These planes may or may not have been
Boeing 767s. Several witnesses said the planes striking the WTC towers HAD NO WINDOWS.
Clearly "plane parts" were salted at the Pentagon and Shanksville; why not NYC also?

Jack

Evan is one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum and one of its biggest bullies. How often does he cite references - not all that often - I'd like to point to his 'Bollocks' and similar taunts at me, as examples. Shameless bullying - not different than those sustained by those of us who worked on the JFK Assassination or the Civil Rights Movement, the Peace Movement or Anti-this or that War Movements - those who feel they represent the 'official' or 'conservative' views feel they can taunt; they can bash; and they even feel fighteous about it. How wonderful a moderator+provacateur and bully.
When one of those who support Evans views posts they don't get harrassed. You Evan are un-unfair, non-evenhanded bully! Jack has made carefull, thoughtful and reasonable conclusions about the general time the photos were taken. If you don't like it prove otherwise yourself and stop being a provacateur. They are obviously taken before the buildings fell [and all the dust - due to the controlled demolition - pulvarized them to dust].

Blah, blah, blah - yes Peter.

Evan I think it’s clear the photos Jack so IDed were indeed precollapse due to the lack of dust. But I fail to see why it would be odd that the FBI would have responded to the locations in the 73 minutes between the 1st crash and 1st collapse since they are about 1 – 5 minutes by car from the NYC office.

Nor is there any evidence that for Jack’s claim the FBI was at any location other than Murray and Charles pre-collapse, he hasn’t produced any evidence any of the other precollapse photos were taken by or show FBI agents.

Nor has Jack presented any evidence the FBI shifted the wheel’s position or explained why that would be a problem.

Nor has Jack explained why he thinks metal plane parts should have been charred by being exposed to flame for couple of seconds.



Acording to this site http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911 Jack’s photo above was taken at the Fresh Kills landfill

Parts from the plane were taken there


http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=5474

As for the wheel “lodged” in the perimeter column panel , Jack it’s time for you to do some homework

1) What is the width of a 767-200 wheel?
2) What was the space between the perimeter columns?
3) It looks to me like some of the axle is still attached to the wheel don’t you think it might have stopped the wheel?
4) How do we know the photo wasn’t miscaptioned? The wheel could have fallen into the space between the columns
5) What is the basis for your assumption the rest of the plane exited the WTC?

A professional photographer who lived and worked near the WTC heard the initial
noise of the first impact. He grabbed a video camera and went to his window and
started shooting, first the towers, then street scenes. One quick pan of a street below
showed an overturned car on a sidewalk. How could an impact of a plane high in the
air overturn a car on the street and put it on its side against a building? Many witnesses
described a GROUND LEVEL EXPLOSION simultaneous with the plane impact.

Jack

Jack

I never heard of this vídeo. I did a couple of Google searches and could find no reference to it*. I think if a video such as you describe existed it would be better known. By contrast “What We Saw”, an amateur video shoot from several blocks away only released in 2006, is quite well known.

Please provide a link to said video or reliable reference to its existence. The image does look like it was taken in lower Manhattan on 9/11 sometime after 8:46 but it is important to know the exact time and location. It’s too low resolution to even rule out it was post-collapse.

My best guess is that the car was flipped over by ejected debris which would have been traveling at over 200 mph at that point. Presumably the side facing up was the one facing the WTC and it appears to be undamaged. It’s hard to believe a blast that could have been strong enough to flip the car over would not have broken or even visibly cracked the windows. The side view mirror seems to be folded flat against the door but people commonly due the when they park in NYC.

Two firemen reported seeing a car partially crushed by debris, it is not unreasonable to imagine that under the “right” circumstances another could have been flipped on its side.

“We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine. We started going up West Street.”

FDNY firefighter Michael Hazel

There was a car that we drove by that the driver's door and the passenger door were open, and there was a plane motor on the back half of the car. Two inches more, and both these guys would have been dead too. That was their ticket. It was amazing. The car was actually cut right in half with this motor, right there back of the front seat. I sat there in amazement.

FDNY firefighter Richard Saulle

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

The linked page has numerous references from eye witnesses to large amounts of airplane debris being scattered immediately after os seen shortly after the crashes.

As for the wheel in the window:

“Since architect Yamasaki was afraid of heights, he decided that in order to make everyone feel secure, the windows should be set just 18 inches across. “ the widows in the towers were only 18 inches wide”


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa53...11/ai_n21480592

Someone else in ther same article said they “were only about 22 inches wide." but the narrower distance is confirmed by other sources:

“windows are only 18 inches wide, set between 18-. inch-wide columns and sheathed in aluminum. alloy that project 12 inches from the surface of. the glass”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ll38154352141165/

ALSO www.newsweek.com/id/76083

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm

* Video seaches:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=v...amp;btnG=Search

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22p...amp;sitesearch=