<<< I also noticed that the tire groove pattern does not match the one from the 757 photo. 6 groves on the 757(wider gap in center 3 on each side), vs 4 on the debris recovered. The hub does seem consistent with the 757 photo. But how many other jets use similar hubs if any?>>>
From what I've been able to tell, the hub is consistent with being that of a passenger jet. I'm assuming an analogy between the tires and wheels on a Honda vs. those on a semi, would apply. Since that's an assumption on my part, and I haven't actually researched airplane tire and wheel requirements, I may be in error. However, in the absence of documentation of that sort, I'll continue to hold the assumption to be correct due to physical weight requirements if nothing else. Along the same lines, and once again in the absence of documentation, I'd also assume, like ground vehicles, different tread patterns would not justify an assumption of different planes. OEMs frequently make changes for any number of reasons, and there's nothing to say that even if they didn't, that worn tires would automatically be replaced with OEM equipment.
My main objection is I don't believe there's been anything to justify, "Ah ha! The tires aren't identical, so the planes can't be identical.".
<<<I also find it hard to believe that the hijackers (with minimal flight training and no experience)would be so masterful in approaching the building with the wings parallel to the ground, and leave the lawn intact.>>>
That's another one I have trouble with. I don't believe there's anything in the public domain to support the argument that the wings were parallel to the ground. By all accounts the plane made a sharp turn and a steep dive. Since all the arguments I've seen along those lines make a big deal out of the damage not being consistent with a level approach, I don't follow the logic of continuing to assume a level approach was involved. What if the plane came in canted like those that hit the towers? Could one engine have made a hole toward the lower floors, with most of the damage to the roof, which would be out of line of sight in photos taken from the ground? I honestly don't know if that could have been the case or not, but it bothers me the possibility is completely ignored.
I agree 100% that a real investigation and the results thereof should have been made public a very long time ago, like within the first week. I have a hard time viewing the fact it wasn't as anything other than positive proof of a cover up. At the same time, knowing there was a cover up doesn't support any given theory of what was covered up.
IMO, the Pentagon hit is the one event on 9/11 that was so perfectly covered up that it is impossible to form any credible theory as to what actually happened. The only thing for sure is if the official story were legitimate, there would be no reason for a cover up. |
