Why Was Plane Wreckage Found Near / Under Scaffolding

[CB_Brooklyn]

Why Was Wreckage Found UNDER Scaffolding???












The aluminum airplane completely disappeared inside the steel building yet these rubber tires survived?


The Magic Plane Strikes Again!!!

[alwun]

So little scaffolding - so many aircraft wheels. Imagine trying to offload your freight surreptitiously when you're inside a fresh pyroclastic flow of toasted concrete.
Again, I'm reminded of the physicist's reaction to incongruities appearing in a particular piece of 911 imagery, whereby an undeniable sensation of 'intuitive surprise' was experienced.
That is what I feel when looking at the images above.
I'm thinking a rushed and careless salt job.

cheers Al..

[Mark Gobell]

I've never understood those first two pictures.

They are obviously at two different locations and of two different wheels.

Yet both have a fallen lampost right in front of them.

[telecasterisation]

This is a strange view, to ask why something that has considerable impetus is 'under' something like scaffolding.

Both objects would still have momentum - the tyre especially having the propensity to bounce/continue and my understanding is that the engine made a considerable dent in the pavement which is not where it eventually ended up resting.

Neither were simply dropped vertically, so why would they drop into their own footprint and stay there?

[thought criminal]

Them tyres look like they are in tip top condition considering they survived a fireball. How come there is no footage of those falling?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Bushwacker]

[telecasterisation]

Aircraft tyres are designed to withstand huge forces and a fraction of a second in a fireball would do virtually nothing. To say they are in tip top condition is a trifle understated as the image below shows.

I agree that there is considerable debris ejected following the impact and this will account for the tyres and engine being found in the street - to suggest there is no evidence of either falling from the WTC is simply the view of someone who has never watched any of the clips of the second impact.

[Mark Gobell]

Do you think there's anything suspicious about the events of 9/11 Bushwacker ?

[thought criminal]

[Fallious]

Actually... It's the same location and presumably the same tire, but it has moved a few feet to the left. The first shot is before a towers collapse, the second shot is after one or both of the towers have fallen, as indicated by the dust!

I wouldn't like to guess why or how the tire has been moved, but it doesn't seem outrageous that it should be, given the events that transpired in the time between the two photos were taken.

I've marked out points of reference on both photos to make it clear that this is indeed the same location and to show just how far the tire has moved.




Can you spot the oil mark in the dust of the second photo, where the tire was originally resting?

[thought criminal]

[telecasterisation]

[Bushwacker]

It must be the same wheel, the axle is broken in exactly the same way. In the second shot, a great deal more is exposed of what is presumably the brake. It may be that moving the whell more on to the pavement pulled it out of the wheel hub more.

[Bushwacker]

[thought criminal]

[Fallious]

[alwun]

tut.. tut Fallious,


you forgot to 'mark out a point of reference' which will help us to see where the lower level window, which stretches all the way behind - and between - the people in the first of your referenced images, has moved to in your second helpfully 'referenced' image.

Except it isn't there.

Or maybe I'm just not seeing things as I ought to.

Whatever...We await your final reference.

cheers Al..

[Bushwacker]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

the tire has rolled to the final postion exposing the tire damage and may also explain tele's point. we are seeing two differant side of the same wheel in both pictures although the scaffolding appears to be in the way but must be how it happend.

[Samantha J Fox]

Perhaps their is a reasonably obvious explanation but to me the two wheels look very different. Given that the collapse of the tower/s seems to have rebuilt the spindle somehow, they just dont look alike. Even if you take in to hand that it has been moved a couple of feet neither spindle looks alike.

The image (pre collapse) seems to show a much less space between the bottom of the spindle compared to the second picture at any part. I dont see the tyre damage as being particularly important, but their is definately something odd about that whole scene.

Maybe it was flickering between the 747 wheel hologram and the 767 one.

[Fallious]

[telecasterisation]

There comes a point where logic has to dictate;

We do not know what happened during the WTC collapse and how this impacted the tyre, or if it was manually moved by people.

Looking at the picture below, the white arrow marked '1' points to the area under the tyre which we cannot see into due to the camera's perspective. Note the red and blue dots I have added.

The collapse then takes place and the tyre is rolled in the direction of the upper arrow.

The tyre has been moved and we now have a fresh perspective, the interior, namely the brake assembly, is now visible. The red/blue dots are reversed as we now see the ends of the broken and twisted plate under the tyre from the opposite ends.

The white arrow in the bottom picture now pointing to exactly what the white arrow marked '1' in the top one was - only now, the gap under the tyre and its contents can be seen.

It is safe to conclude this is the same tyre/same location, taken at different times and the tyre's position and orientation have changed due to whatever forces moved it.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

There is a lot of talk about before and after ---before what and after what?

Also why does one photo show loads of dust and another that is dust free?

[aerosol]

[telecasterisation]

[Fallious]

Classic.

[alwun]

Fallious,

It pains me but I owe you an apology.

I was momentarily overcome by triumphalism. Shouldn't happen again.

cheers Al..

[Fallious]