Craig Lamson Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 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. Is "real" discussion about this issue possible? We have one side who is guided by worldview and another guided by evidence. These two will never meet. 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. Is "real" discussion about this issue possible? We have one side who is guided by worldview and another guided by evidence. These two will never meet. I believe it is. However, on this forum, in the last few years that I've been here I have yet to see it. More time is spent on "who started what", near constant insults, or petty things like worrying about other people's avatars. Again, I believe both sides are responsible. Edited July 26, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 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. Is "real" discussion about this issue possible? We have one side who is guided by worldview and another guided by evidence. These two will never meet. I believe it is. However, on this forum, in the last few years that I've been here I have yet to see it. Again, I believe both sides are responsible. I'll accept my part. I've followed both the MH and 9/11 "discussions" for quite some time. Advocates for HB and 9/11 government CT are, by and large incapable of reasoned debate on both issues. They are far too invested in their worldview to be objective. Sure, there are exceptions. That said given the vast majority of ct actors and thier deeply held beliefs, you are simply not going to get reasoned discussion. This thread is a perfect example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) I still think it should be possible. Especially on a self-proclaimed "Education" forum. Just the fact that we have to talk about whether or not we can have a reasoned discussion is bad enough. Why can't we just HAVE IT? eta: I hate typing and spelling errors (my own). I'm sure there are probably more that I have missed. Edited July 26, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studiedthe 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Minimal examination reveals that nothing is missing from the wheel in the top photo indeed there is part seen in it not clearly visible in the other. As in the bottom photo the “cooling fins” (blue line) in the top one are separated from the “flower shaped” part (yellow line) by a disk (orange line). The metal ring with tongues (black oval) which partially covers the “cooling fins” in the top photo is not seen in the bottom one. The most likely explanation is that it fell off or was removed from what ever reason between the time the 2 photos were taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) 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 Tents of course are designed to be moved. It is quite possible that they decided to move the tent for reasons unknown and thaught it was easier to leave it erected or semi-erected rather than disassemble and then reassemble it. "What needed decontaminating?" This would have been a reasonable precautionary measure they had no way of knowing at that point if the terrorists had brought some sort of toxin aboard or if the plane was carrying hazardous cargo Boeing used depleted uranium as blast in the 747 though not in the 757* but this might not have been known at the time * http://www.wise-uranium.org/dviss.html Nowadays, I find by googling, all such tents are INFLATABLES. You unroll it where you wanta 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 Jack provide evidence for your claim "all such tents are INFLATABLES" in any case the reality might have been different 7 years ago. Also as above if the decided to move the tent it might have been easier to do inflated rather than deflate and re-inflate it. Another possibility is they had a limited number of pumps or compressors and thus had to inflate tents in central locations and move them in to place EDIT - Link added, typos fixed Edited July 26, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studiedthe 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Minimal examination reveals that nothing is missing from the wheel in the top photo indeed there is part seen in it not clearly visible in the other. As in the bottom photo the “cooling fins” (blue line) in the top one are separated from the “flower shaped” part (yellow line) by a disk (orange line). The metal ring with tongues (black oval) which partially covers the “cooling fins” in the top photo is not seen in the bottom one. The most likely explanation is that it fell off or was removed from what ever reason between the time the 2 photos were taken. HaHaHaHaHaHa. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 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 Tents of course are designed to be moved. It is quite possible that they decided to move the tent for reasons unknown and thaught it was easier to leave it erected or semi-erected rather than disassemble and then reassemble it. "What needed decontaminating?" This would have been a reasonable precautionary measure they had no way of knowing at that point if the terrorists had brought some sort of toxin aboard or if the plane was carrying hazardous cargo Boeing used depleted uranium as blast in the 747 though not in the 757* but this might not have been known at the time * http://www.wise-uranium.org/dviss.html Nowadays, I find by googling, all such tents are INFLATABLES. You unroll it where you wanta 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 Jack provide evidence for your claim "all such tents are INFLATABLES" in any case the reality might have been different 7 years ago. Also as above if the decided to move the tent it might have been easier to do inflated rather than deflate and re-inflate it. Another possibility is they had a limited number of pumps or compressors and thus had to inflate tents in central locations and move them in to place EDIT - Link added, typos fixed Provide evidence for YOUR claims. I think a compressor comes with each tent. Even inflatable Santas come with a compressor. Just plug it in. The compressor comes on again if the pressure gets low. There are many manufacturers. Each may work slightly different. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Provide evidence for YOUR claims. I think a compressor comes with each tent. Eveninflatable Santas come with a compressor. Just plug it in. The compressor comes on again if the pressure gets low. There are many manufacturers. Each may work slightly different. Jack Strange. I thought we were looking at whether some photos were concordant with the official 9/11 version or not. Apparently, the burning issue now is the specific design of modern emergency tents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 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 Tents of course are designed to be moved. It is quite possible that they decided to move the tent for reasons unknown and thaught it was easier to leave it erected or semi-erected rather than disassemble and then reassemble it. "What needed decontaminating?" This would have been a reasonable precautionary measure they had no way of knowing at that point if the terrorists had brought some sort of toxin aboard or if the plane was carrying hazardous cargo Boeing used depleted uranium as blast in the 747 though not in the 757* but this might not have been known at the time * http://www.wise-uranium.org/dviss.html Nowadays, I find by googling, all such tents are INFLATABLES. You unroll it where you wanta 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 Jack provide evidence for your claim "all such tents are INFLATABLES" in any case the reality might have been different 7 years ago. Also as above if the decided to move the tent it might have been easier to do inflated rather than deflate and re-inflate it. Another possibility is they had a limited number of pumps or compressors and thus had to inflate tents in central locations and move them in to place EDIT - Link added, typos fixed Provide evidence for YOUR claims. I think a compressor comes with each tent. Even inflatable Santas come with a compressor. Just plug it in. The compressor comes on again if the pressure gets low. There are many manufacturers. Each may work slightly different. Jack Which of my "claims" do you want evidence for my post was mainly speculative. You have provided zero evidence that most such tent currently are inflatable let alone were so 7 years ago. Even if the tent was inflatable and had it's own compressor it still might have been easier to move it a short distance erected than deflate and re-inflate it. I have moved erected (snap cord pole) tents for that reason on more than one occasion. You are the one claiming the blue thing which looks very much like tents photographed around the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't and couldn't be a tent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I showed these two photos to an aeronautical engineer (has not studiedthe 911 events). He identifies the parts in the red circles and guesses at a reason for the differences. Jack Minimal examination reveals that nothing is missing from the wheel in the top photo indeed there is part seen in it not clearly visible in the other. As in the bottom photo the “cooling fins” (blue line) in the top one are separated from the “flower shaped” part (yellow line) by a disk (orange line). The metal ring with tongues (black oval) which partially covers the “cooling fins” in the top photo is not seen in the bottom one. The most likely explanation is that it fell off or was removed from what ever reason between the time the 2 photos were taken. HaHaHaHaHaHa. Jack If my study were laughably wrong you should easily be able to show it is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) [...]There are numerous inconsistencies with his [Jennings'] 2007 story [...] Jennings: “The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling "do not do that, it won't hold you".” His imagination went into overdrive here. Funny he didn’t mention this in his earlier accounts. I doubt the FDNY has any equipment that extends that high 7 WTC 570 feet and 47 stories tall or more than 12 feet per floor he would have been over 84 off the ground. Why would they have used such a truck if they had one on the north side of WTC 7 when there was little if any fire there? I’ve seen no photos of any such trucks operating north of WTC 7 that day. But even so how close would the hose itself had gotten to the window where he was? Jennings was (and is) a portly middle aged bureaucrat even IF a FDNY hose had gotten remotely near him the idea he would have considered trying to jump to it is absurd Looks like the FDNY did have equipment that would reach the height of the 8th floor of WTC on or at least shortly after 9/11. The photo below is from a November 19, 2002 fire. The building is 7 stories tall. By clicking ‘next’ button twice a photo showing the platforms higher than the roofline can be seen. This however does not fit with Jennings story because there is no poorly supported hose that would not support his weight but rather a nozzle a fixed to a small platform. If it had gotten close enough to Jennings for him to jump on to it he could have been safely rescued. I have a challenge for the “truthers” who believe his story produce a photo of a fire engine used by any US fire department that can elevate a hose to over 80 feet off the ground but without a platform which Jennings could safely have jumped to or (more likely) which firefighters could have rescued him from. Also if the firefighters knew which window he was by why did it take them so long to find him and Hess? Immediately after his rescue he and the civilian who helped rescue him said it took as long as it did because the firemen couldn't him and Hess. http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/units/ph...123_031bc.shtml Other photos from the FDNY show similar fire engines. Since I can only post 5 images I only included 1 photo per fire in all but 1 case there are a few photos showing such fire engines per incident. I didn’t see photos of any that would fit Jennings’ story. http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/images/units/.../120606a/02.jpg http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/images/units/...6/050206_01.jpg http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/gif/photo_uni...er_overhead.jpg http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/gif/wtc_other...ro/best_004.jpg Even more fire photos can be found on Steve Spak’s site and several images of fire engines with nozzles attached to platforms can be found but I didn’t see any with platformless hoisted hoses http://stevespak.com/fires/brooklyn/77-55-272.html So if the FDNY had a fire engine compatible with Jennings’ story why don’t any photos of it seem to exist? There are dozens of photos just on 2 sites of engines with platform mounted nozzles. If as seems to be the case the story of wanting to jump on to a hose was a figment of his imagination or intentional fabrication how can the rest of his 2007-8 account be taken at face value? Edited July 26, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Just a quick note: decontamination is always considered a possibility a major aircraft crash sites. Even simple things like fuel can cause problems, and require rescuers / investigators to wash down. There can be many hazards lurking in an aircraft which people simply do not think about on a day-to-day basis. For instance, beryllium in electronic systems; radioactive materials (Americum, IIRC) in smoke detectors, etc. OHS requires considering this. Look what happened to some of the poor people who tackled the WTC without proper protection from dust and / or airborne contaminants. http://www.fire.org.uk/risk/risk4-3.htm Cached Google page from HAZMAT Magazine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Real time Computer Generated Image insert in action. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 How could the large object exit the south tower when there was NO HOLE for it to go through? Jack 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