Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (939)	7/11/2003 2:39:11 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

Hi Raymond Duray; There is no problem. The artifacts of the people on the plane were found in the wreckage. As they flew into the Pentagon the people on board were talking to their relatives on cell phones. The Administration is a collection of morons, as the quagmire in Iraq proves, and they're nowhere near bright enough to pull off a stunt as complex as faking an airplane crash. But you want my opinion, so here goes: Re: "Note how completely charred the rest of the debris was." The landing gear is made of very thick steel. That means that it takes longer to heat up, and consequently chars less. Re: "When you look at this image, not that the axles of the landing gear are offset from the central shaft of the gear. Note further that the while the assembly in photo #7 appears to be a simple affair with wheel attachment as a simple knuckle off of a central cylindrical shaft, that in photo #10, there is no such knuckle assembly, and that the support structure up to the wing is not a simple cylindrical assembly, but rather an entirely more complicated and articulated assembly of complexly sculpted parts." The guy who wrote the website can't tell the difference between forward landing gear and main landing gear. Naturally they don't look at all like each other. Photo #7 is for the forward landing gear on a 757 while photo #10 is for the main landing gear. Look at these links to learn the difference: boeing.com Also see: boeing.com Re: "Please count the punchouts in the wheel. There are eight of them. Note that they are oval in shape. Then compare that to image #10, the photo of the 757 landing gear. Please count the punchouts in the wheel. There are 10 of them! Now, note the shape of the punchout. It is bullet shaped, not oval. The wheel in the debris at the Pentagon is no match for the 757 wheel!" Even if you do find photographs of the forward landing gear, rather than the main gear, of a 757, you still cannot assume that two such landing gears will have the same wheels. Two Ford Mustang wheels are not necessarily identical either, even if they were made in the same year. Like any equipment maker, Boeing constantly improves their product and makes changes from year to year. The landing gear is included. For example, see: ... As a derivative, the 757-300 complements the 757-200; it is not a replacement. Both models are in production. The 757-300 retains the simplicity and reliability of the 757-200. Both models have the same flight deck and operating systems, but some features have been changed. Besides a lengthened fuselage, changes on the 757-300 include new tires, wheels and brakes; a tail skid; and strengthened wings and landing gear. ... boeing.com -- Carl

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (939)	7/11/2003 12:48:24 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

Ray, I hadn't seen that particular site before, but I have seen some of the speculation that it was a different (smaller?) plane than the one hijacked that hit the Pentagon. IMO, a good theory has to explain the facts without creating inconsistencies that don't make sense. The biggest problem with the different plane theory is the missing 757. With every flight controller in the world watching flight paths, a 757 strikes me rather big to hide. Did it get blown up over the water? I'd think a whole lot of folks would have noticed the blip on their screens suddenly missing. Did it land in another country? I think the same reasoning applies, plus hiding the jet in someone's two car garage might raise a few eyebrows. I also can't think of any advantage to making a substitution, so it probably makes the most sense that the plane that was hijacked was the same one that hit the building. Of more interest is how it hit the building. I recall seeing some photos of the crash that looked like the plane was exploding before it actually hit. Even so, the film the photos were taken from were doctored by the CIA before being released to the public, which makes it hard to tell what really happened. I think the two most likely explanations are that the plane that hit the Pentagon, and the one that crashed in before getting to Washington, were either shot down or were rigged with explosives before the hijacker set eyes on them. At the rate the 9/11 Commission is going we'll probably never know for sure.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (939)	7/11/2003 1:04:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Are you still trying to sell this BS? Idjit. You never did answer these posts: Message 18390391 Message 18391397 siliconinvestor.com Message 18558656 Message 18561842 Message 18562775 Message 18565344 This google search gave some good results. There are at least 22 pages of hits; I've gone through the first 11 already. google.com The keywords used for that search were "September 11 attack on Pentagon photographs" Boeing 757 specs: boeing.com ALCM: boeing.com Tomahawk Cruise missile: news.bbc.co.uk Collapse of the World Trade Center: civil.usyd.edu.au Still selling the same old snake oil, eh?