Jack White Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 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? 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..... Peter...this is one of those fights not worth fighting. Chances are about even for it being a tent or something else. Tents are NOT PICKED UP like this and moved about. Tents are erected on the site they are wanted, unless the Pentagon has a stealth movable tent. I agree about the decontamination tent. What needed decontaminating? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Nowadays, I find by googling, all such tents are INFLATABLES. You unroll it where you want a tent, start the air compressor, and you get INSTANT TENT. To move it, you let the air out, it collapses, and you plug it in and reinflate in a new location. Colors usually indicate purpose. For instance, EMS BLUE is universally a medical tent (several sites mentioned this). Other colors mean other purposes. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Peter...this is one of those fights not worth fighting. Chances are about even for it beinga tent or something else. Tents are NOT PICKED UP like this and moved about. Tentsare erected on the site they are wanted, unless the Pentagon has a stealth movable tent. I agree about the decontamination tent. What needed decontaminating? Jack This isn't a fight. Peter posted a photo which he claims doesn't fit with the official version that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon: I'm asking him to explain why. So much is posted about 911 that I think it's important to filter out the "noise". Once that's done, only the really important stuff will be left. IMO the photo of a decontamination tent being moved into position on the Pentagon lawn is noise. Just like your claim that Hurricane Erin wasn't mentioned prior to 911 is noise. Get rid of the gravel, and you might just discover a nugget or two. Keep pouring the gravel on, and claiming it to be priceless, and the nuggets will forever be obscured under a mountain of dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Peter...this is one of those fights not worth fighting. Chances are about even for it beinga tent or something else. Tents are NOT PICKED UP like this and moved about. Tentsare erected on the site they are wanted, unless the Pentagon has a stealth movable tent. I agree about the decontamination tent. What needed decontaminating? Jack This isn't a fight. Peter posted a photo which he claims doesn't fit with the official version that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon: I'm asking him to explain why. So much is posted about 911 that I think it's important to filter out the "noise". Once that's done, only the really important stuff will be left. IMO the photo of a decontamination tent being moved into position on the Pentagon lawn is noise. Just like your claim that Hurricane Erin wasn't mentioned prior to 911 is noise. Get rid of the gravel, and you might just discover a nugget or two. Keep pouring the gravel on, and claiming it to be priceless, and the nuggets will forever be obscured under a mountain of dirt. Speaking of noise... Macbeth V,V Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 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 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studied the 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McKenna Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.Jack Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McKenna Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.Jack Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete Maybe I am not considered to be from of the ranks of "untruthers". I assure you that I do not subscribe to most of the 9/11 "truth" movement theories (although I do have reservations aboout the official positions as well). Does this qualify me as an "untruther"? Edited July 26, 2008 by Peter McKenna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 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 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studied the 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Clearly you are making a very BIG assumption, unless you have the EXIF data ( or other solid evidence ) from the photos that shows the times and date they were taken. Your assumption is that the dusty photo came first and then the clean photo came second. It could easily be the other way around. When you have the data to support your claim, get back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 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 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studied the 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Clearly you are making a very BIG assumption, unless you have the EXIF data ( or other solid evidence ) from the photos that shows the times and date they were taken. Your assumption is that the dusty photo came first and then the clean photo came second. It could easily be the other way around. When you have the data to support your claim, get back to us. Hmmmmmmmmmm. One photo shows the BRAKE mechanism present. One photo shows the BRAKE mechanism absent. Now let's make a very LITTLE assumption...which came first? The photo showing the the brake PRESENT, or the one showing it absent? If the one showing the brake ABSENT came first, how did a later photo show it PRESENT? I guess some spectator came along and said, "that wheel does not have a brake; I guess I will add one!" A case can be made for "disappearing a brake". NO case can be made for "adding a brake". No time stamp needed. Get back to us when you get some added mental capacity. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.Jack Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete I believe I responded to your posting. I did not know you consider yourself an UNTRUTHER. I always thought you were just a contrarian. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 A little magnification sometimes helps see details better. Please examine and point out the things that are the same and the things that are different. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McKenna Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.Jack Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete I believe I responded to your posting. I did not know you consider yourself an UNTRUTHER. I always thought you were just a contrarian. Jack No response was made to my posting so I was feeling a bit left out. (especially considering The Areonautical guy also identified them as brake assemblies. What's the difference betwen contrariain and untruther? I'm not particular. and do not take a contrarian position just to create dichotomy. if not an inconveneince can you explain to me the diffeerence? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 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 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studied the 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Clearly you are making a very BIG assumption, unless you have the EXIF data ( or other solid evidence ) from the photos that shows the times and date they were taken. Your assumption is that the dusty photo came first and then the clean photo came second. It could easily be the other way around. When you have the data to support your claim, get back to us. Hmmmmmmmmmm. One photo shows the BRAKE mechanism present. One photo shows the BRAKE mechanism absent. Now let's make a very LITTLE assumption...which came first? The photo showing the the brake PRESENT, or the one showing it absent? If the one showing the brake ABSENT came first, how did a later photo show it PRESENT? I guess some spectator came along and said, "that wheel does not have a brake; I guess I will add one!" A case can be made for "disappearing a brake". NO case can be made for "adding a brake". No time stamp needed. Get back to us when you get some added mental capacity. Jack Again you are making a BIG assumption, that is the brake is absent in the first place. How could the brake not show in the "clean" photo and then show in the "dirty" photo? Oh yes, the wheel was MOVED! Since you CAN'T see what is on the other side of the wheel in the "clean" photo, your claim is once again based on an unfounded assumption. Get back to us after you have purchased a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) I'm not sure anything IS missing from one photo to the next. It appears that the wheel may be rotated about 180 degrees thus accounting for why it looks different. Not sure why it matters though. This seems like such a minor issue as to just be "noise". I had been hesitating to say anything though as it usually seems like any opposing comments are met with hostility (no matter how well thought out). One sometimes wonders if this board can exist without the near constant hostility (from both parties). Just my opinion of what I see. I could be wrong. It seems detrimental to any real discussion though. Edited July 26, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now