FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

Here is a good one. The UNTRUTHERS will scramble trying to excuse this one.

There are numerous photos of an "airplane tire" on a sidewalk near some

scaffolding. Here are two. Though similar, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Though

the wheels look similar THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! I cannot explain this as

being a true depiction of this alleged scene. But I'm sure the UNTRUTHERS can.

Jack

Are these taken on the day of the attacks? and if so, how long after the impacts. Thanks.

Times of photos unknown but can be inferred:

1. the photo with all the dust is likely from 9-11 afternoon, comparing with other photos.

2. the tidy one without the dust is either....

.....before the first tower collapse, or...

.....the next day after the city started hosing down the streets and sidewalks (take your pick)

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack, wasn't there another 'knocked-down' lampost near the 'engine' by the garbage can?! I guess its two for two bullseyes! - almost as good as Oswald's shooting.

I'll let Jack or others conjecture on when exactly. I'd say it had to be the day of. They didn't leave any of the bits and pieces of 'evidence' around [other than the collapsed building piles - of course] for subsequent days, I believe...but could be mistaken on that. Certainly to my eye, the relaxed nature of the people watching it would put it late in the day and not just after the collapses and chaos. The wheel has obviously been moved a little and turned in the two photos - the objects and dirt/debris around it/them is also different and thus likely taken at two different times. It seems similar to the engine part near the garbage can [in some shots] that was moved slightly and repostitioned for [i believe] photographing. Where are these pieces now? Also seen in photos were some sizable fusilage with windows sections of a plane in the rubble of the towers. Did they ever try to reconstruct the plane and if not why not [i guess because they felt they knew the reason for the 'crash']? Or is there some other reason?.... I find it strange to sinister that they are still refusing to 'declassify' or release the serial numbers of numbered parts from the planes and the serial numbers of numbered parts found at the various crash sites...... Not all, but many of the more durable parts have numbers on them, so service persons can keep track of when these parts need to be/were replaced, from, etc.

No...the engine on the corner of Murray and Church sits on the sidewalk about a foot away

from the base of a lightpost.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is a good one. The UNTRUTHERS will scramble trying to excuse this one.

There are numerous photos of an "airplane tire" on a sidewalk near some

scaffolding. Here are two. Though similar, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Though

the wheels look similar THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! I cannot explain this as

being a true depiction of this alleged scene. But I'm sure the UNTRUTHERS can.

Jack

I find it unusual that nobody will address the images in the red circles.

I thought sure the UNTRUTHERS would jump all over it, saying that I know

nothing about jet landing gears.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

Edited July 25, 2008 by Jack White

[Peter McKenna]

Here is a good one. The UNTRUTHERS will scramble trying to excuse this one.

There are numerous photos of an "airplane tire" on a sidewalk near some

scaffolding. Here are two. Though similar, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Though

the wheels look similar THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! I cannot explain this as

being a true depiction of this alleged scene. But I'm sure the UNTRUTHERS can.

Jack

I am not familiar with the landing gear design (and these appear to be wheels from a landing gear), but the items within the red circles looks to me like brake assemblies (IMO). In one picture it apears that the brake element is withdrawn from the drum and in the other picture the end of the brake assembly (the drum) is visible (IMO). The strange looking metal tangs may be heat exchangers to allow air cooling over the brake drum end when the brakes are applied.

It appears like two different wheels, maybe two halves of a wheel set. At least it appears that way, although there may some explanantion for the differences I am not aware of.

Again I am no expert on airplane landing gear so this is only an opinion. Someone with more expertise should be able to offer a better explanation.

[Peter McKenna]

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid?

Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel?

If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

[Jack White]

The last one appears to be some sort of tent or temporary structure. There are other pictures that appear to show the same thing here

http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

The truth is...NOBODY KNOWS what is under the blue tarp. It is not

convincing that it is a tent. Tents are erected, not picked up and

carried around. The site referenced has no convincing evidence of

anything, although I agree with them that it looks lightweight.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid?

Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel?

If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

I did not claim it is molten metal. In fact I do not think it is. Why are you misquoting me?

Some people, including NIST, said it was molten metal....not me.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid?

Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel?

If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

I did not claim it is molten metal. In fact I do not think it is. Why are you misquoting me?

Some people, including NIST, said it was molten metal....not me.

Jack

I took your statement implicitly. Apologies

[Jack White]

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid?

Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel?

If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

I did not claim it is molten metal. In fact I do not think it is. Why are you misquoting me?

Some people, including NIST, said it was molten metal....not me.

Jack

I took your statement implicitly. Apologies

OK...I thought it odd that it is "flowing" from the ceiling of a room, not a floor,

and that in one photo it is the 3rd row of windows and the other the 4th. That

was the purpose of the study...NOT the identity of the "flowing material".

Inconsistencies exist within the photos as well as when compared. I am

discussing the photos, not the flaming material. I have no idea what it is,

but I doubt that it is "molten metal".

I suspect that one or both photos were PhotoShopped, not a real event.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

The last one appears to be some sort of tent or temporary structure. There are other pictures that appear to show the same thing here

http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

The truth is...NOBODY KNOWS what is under the blue tarp. It is not

convincing that it is a tent. Tents are erected, not picked up and

carried around. The site referenced has no convincing evidence of

anything, although I agree with them that it looks lightweight.

Jack

If they needed it to be moved after it was erected wouldn't they just pick it up and move it? It looks like the tent/temporary shelters seen on that page to me. The light weight would seem to support the empty tent/shelter theory.

[Jack White]

Photos I found just recently of the Murray Street jet engine.

Very interesting is the one AT NIGHT, with no guards apparent and

new debris added. You'd think that they would not just leave evidence

lying around.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Here is a good one. The UNTRUTHERS will scramble trying to excuse this one.

There are numerous photos of an "airplane tire" on a sidewalk near some

scaffolding. Here are two. Though similar, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Though

the wheels look similar THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! I cannot explain this as

being a true depiction of this alleged scene. But I'm sure the UNTRUTHERS can.

Jack

I find it unusual that nobody will address the images in the red circles.

I thought sure the UNTRUTHERS would jump all over it, saying that I know

nothing about jet landing gears.

Jack

No mystery I can see Jack. The wheel has obviously been moved (by persons or forces unknown). I suspect the wheel (was) rolled slightly to one side, as shown by the difference in the cracks in the rubber. Which also means that a different part of the metal undercarriage is visible.

There is another explanation. The wheel may have been placed by the CIA or other sinister US agency. After the buildings had collapsed, they decided they wanted to place a different wheel, so they came along, removed the first one, added the second one.

I think the former explanation is more likely.

[Dave Greer]

There really are too many photos that are weird [i.e. don't fit the offical story by any stretch of the imagination.....

Peter

You claim that this image "doesn't fit the official story by any stretch of the imagaination".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...-1216928821.gif

What do you say about the rather mundane explanation that it is a tent, given the photographic evidence available?

[Dave Greer]

My first response [more to follow - have to run] is that it is too small to be those housings for humans - much too small. Second, decontamination for what - depleted U?...on a missle 'bunker-buster warhead'?.....Why despite the repeated questions on 911 Truth sites not even any attempt at official explanation?! Why the eyes of the persons carrying it covered? I believe, and will check. that most felt it was moved toward the Pentagon and not away [as to emplace a whatever]...but more to remove something lying on the grass - the ALL TOO pristine grass.....

Then we'll have to disagree on that.

Perhaps it's a matter of perception. You say the tent is much too small to house humans. I look at the photo see straight away that it's capable of housing humans. It also looks similar, if not identical in every respect that matters, to the tents we see in other photos that clearly are big enough for people.

You say the eyes being covered is suspicious, but that is only in the image you posted, not in the image I found.

http://www.rense.com/general70/tent-1.jpg

You say it is being moved toward the Pentagon. I agree. I just can't for the life of me figure out why moving a tent toward the Pentagon is somehow suspicious.

Getting back to your original contention, which was that this image "does not fit the official story by any stretch of the imagination", can you detail exactly how the image doesn't fit with the official story? I'm not really interested at this stage in speculation about what might have hit the Pentagon other than a passenger jet, I'd like to know specifically what it is about the image that makes you think it doesn't fit with a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.

(What I'm getting at is, to speculate that a decontamination facility may be due to a "bunker buster", which doesn't fit with the official story, therefore the image is suspect, is just circular reasoning. I'm more interested in what it is in the image that is totally inconsistent with the official claim about a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon).

Thanks.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Dave Greer