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: Don Earl who wrote (6638)	5/26/2004 3:47:13 PM
From: nz_q	Respond to of 20039

))))<<< 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(((( Yes in full agreement. As I stated the hub seems consistent with that of a 757, but I don't know how many other jets use similar hubs if any. I looked at number of pics B-757's different airlines.. the grove patterns seem the same between them but they don't much the one shown at the Pentagon site. True it could have been a different tire groove pattern on that particular aircraft on 9/11. I looked at pics from eg F-16's but could not find as much details as in the commercial jets, so comparison with F-16 wheel parts is not easy ))))<<<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(((( The plane hit the lower level (ground level looking at the pics, entry hole etc) Anything else than parallel to the ground approach would have caused at least one side (wing/engine to hit the ground before it hit the wall).757 wing span 124' with 2 engines hanging under, even a small tilt on either side would have caused ground damage at least lodging or crashing one engine there. (The lawn was undamaged, the reels were intact) Take look at the reels standing and the intact lawn Actual pics right after the hit: thewebfairy.com I also remember reading the following analysis along with that flight path shown last post: perso.club-internet.fr Analysis Of Flight 77 Flight Path by a Former Air Force Pilot As a pilot and former Air Force navigator, I was interested in the flight paths of the various aircraft on their way to their targets. It was fairly simple to find the WTC routes, but I have yet to see a map showing the route flown by the aircraft that was said to have hit the Pentagon. So I read some of the reports and put together the attached maps.... ...The description also said the airplane appeared to line up on the White House before making a right 270 degree turn to collide with the Pentagon. The map I drew ( see Attack Path ) is one which meets all the conditions in the description, and is consistent with what I know about how large airplanes behave at low altitude (I used to do airdrop in a C-141, flying at 300' AGL up to 280 knots).... ...But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point. When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon. Of course, this is all speculation, not facts. I started this analysis because I was curious about why at 9:40 a.m. on a clear day in the Nation's Capital and major tourist destination, there is not ONE photo or video of the airplane at any point in this route. None of the excuses (no cameras, not near any landmarks, etc.) make any sense — hell, there were both photos and video of the Concorde on fire, and that wasn't anywhere near a tourist spot. Moreover, I'm surprised that I haven't seen this map — or ANY map — of the Pentagon airplane's approach. Given all the information that we were deluged with in the weeks after the attacks, it surprises me that this graphic was omitted. Anyway, that's my contribution to the effort to try to make sense of an insane event. I don't know if it adds clarity or static, but it seems a part of the puzzle that has been missing. Analysis by Steve Koeppel Palm Springs, CA thepowerhour.com hmm link appears "scrubbed" or archived. I had a copy on the HD >>>>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.<<<< I couldn't agree more!