Military planes in 911

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They use *A* Goodrich or Dunlop tire. A lots of planes use Goodrich or Dunlop tires. But that doesn't make them the same tire.

PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING:

www.janes.com...

Each main unit carries a four-wheel bogie, fitted with Dunlop or Goodrich wheels

www.militaryperiscope.com...

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

LOL Ultima, you crack me up

Maybe you should follow your own advice?

PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING:

The Janes data you posted clearly states that the 757 uses 42in tyres. However the the 737 uses 40in tyres (it tells you this in the entry for the 737 in the same publication - why no link to this?). Therefore the wheels cannot be the same. Go on, look it up. I did.

Its about more than the size though, the *design* is different too and this can be seen in the pictures zaphod linked you to, go on, have a look!

It took me 2 seconds to learn that the 757 and 737 use either the Dunlop or Goodrich wheel.

You do know that both Goodrich and Dunlop make more than one type, yes?

Maybe you could post a link where up periscope prove conclusively that they are of the same type on both planes?




And you've been researching this stuff for a year?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by waynos]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by waynos]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING:

www.janes.com...

Each main unit carries a four-wheel bogie, fitted with Dunlop or Goodrich wheels

www.militaryperiscope.com...

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Did you actually READ the Janes page? The ONLY time it mentions the 737 is when it says that the 757 has the 707/727/737 fuselage cross section. Your quote is talking about the main landing gear of the 757. Each MLG unit on the 757 carries.... It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with if the 757 and 737 have the same sized wheels.

Originally posted by waynos
Anok, maybe the parts were destroyed?

My problem with this is, if the plane managed to break through the reinforced pentagoon wall then it really should not have been completely destroyed into nothing. Again simple physics tell you this. If the whole plane was able to go through the wall into the building, what caused it to become nothing but confetti, the furniture? Also why would it enter the building, sucking in the wings and engines, as some people claim, and then blow up? Doesn't make sense to me, except that's the way missiles work.
The impact would be what should have caused it explode, so how did it manage to both explode and go through, how many walls was it, 9 or something? If it exploded on impact then most of the plane should have remained outside, cause it wouldn't have the energy to make that nice 18' hole and blow out the facade. But a DU missile would.

I have a hard time believing all the wheels, rotor hubs etc. would all disappear but one. And I have a hard time believing if there were pics of them that they wouldn't have been released. Why release just a pic of one if the gov wants us to believe it really was a 757? They know the we are questioning this, right?

A handful of parts stinks of planted parts to me. I might be wrong but that's just my gut feelings on it. Logic tells me that the damage is more consistent with a missile than a Boeing 757.

My problem with this is, if the plane managed to break through the reinforced pentagoon wall then it really should not have been completely destroyed into nothing.

But it wasn't, it was smashed to smithereens with only a small number of recognizeable parts surviving, this is entirely consistent with such a crash. There was lots of debris all over the place.

Coming to a 'no-757' theory from a standpoint of evidence and understanding the mechanics of these events is one thing but with those questions you seem to be showing the opposite.

I'm all too aware how drawn out these discussions can become so instead, have a look at this webpage (I could have chosen several but this one will do for now)

Pentagon 757

pick out maybe one or more specific points that you can show to be wrong, tell me why and show me why and if I have an answer to that point I will be happy to oblige.

Because so far every single 'reason' I have seen put forward as to why it was not a 757 is based on a false premise or selective evidence assessment. Quick example;

Logic tells me that the damage is more consistent with a missile than a Boeing 757.

Except that I have never seen a missile that will penetrate 8 walls before detonating and then does not level the surrounding area, but leaves a neat almost circular hole that then collapses a while later. However an airliner fuselage would do exactly that after its aluminium and carbon fibre structure has burned away in an intense heat which also weakened the now breached building, so what kind of logic are you working on?

Maybe the you should also be aware that the USAF is working on a new free fall penetration bomb, similar to the British WW2 earthquake bomb, and that during the Gulf war an emergency 'penetration bomb' was created out of old gun barrels by the same USAF, preciseley because no missiles with such powers of penetration exist or are currently possible. Delivering a free fall bomb is much riskier than launching a missile after all. Given the physical evidence of the damage that completely rules out the missile theory. Even without the scores of witnesses to the 757 zooming low overhead.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]

Waynos are you saying that the 757 fuselage got smashed into smitherins but still had enough force to penetrate 8 walls? thats saying 2 opposite things. Or do you mean the Engine was able to penetrate that far into the complex? I frankly dont understand the damage. some people say it was a small hole others say it was gaping.

The initial hole was barely wider than the 757 fuselage. After the fires burned for awhile there was the collapse and the bigger hole. There are some pictures in Catherder's thread that have some good pics of the initial hole.

Originally posted by waynos
The Janes data you posted clearly states that the 757 uses 42in tyres. However the the 737 uses 40in tyres (it tells you this in the entry for the 737 in the same publication - why no link to this?). Therefore the wheels cannot be the same. Go on, look it up. I did.

So please show me the report that shows the size of the tire at the Pentagon. If you do not know the size of the tire then you do not know what wheel it is.

If you just LOOK at the pictures on aerospaceweb's analysis you can see that the only wheel that matches up to the one at the Pentagon is a 757. The 737 has cutouts where there aren't any on the wheel from the Pentagon. It's a PERFECT match between the 757 and that wheel.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with if the 757 and 737 have the same sized wheels.

I never said the had the same size wheels, i stated it has the same type of wheel. Please show me the report that shows the size of the tire ot the Pentagon because of you do not know the size of the tire then you do notknow what size the wheel is.

And if you compare wheels from 5 different types of planes and it only matches to one that doesn't prove anything right? The ONLY thing that proves anything is tire size. Right.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And if you compare wheels from 5 different types of planes and it only matches to one that doesn't prove anything right? The ONLY thing that proves anything is tire size. Right.

PLease show me where a actual side by side comparison was done, and the reports stating what was matched.

Oh right, I'm sorry. I forgot that only things that matter are the reports from the government that you don't trust and claim pulled off 9/11. Hmm, anyone else see the absurdity in that?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh right, I'm sorry. I forgot that only things that matter are the reports from the government that you don't trust and claim pulled off 9/11. Hmm, anyone else see the absurdity in that?

Well for 1 i never said the government pulled off 911, i stated thier is enough evidence that they may have let it happen.

I am looking for the truth of what happened that day. I am looking for actual evidence and reports that should have been done.

Another commercial jet modified for military recon.

737-700 AEWC
www.boeing.com...

Waynos are you saying that the 757 fuselage got smashed into smitherins but still had enough force to penetrate 8 walls? thats saying 2 opposite things.

Bear in mind Canada that an airliner fuselage is not a 'one piece' item. It is a structural frame with a skin attached. Its actually much more complex than that but you get my drift. It is entirely consistent that the structural 'spine' retains enough strength to bludgeon its way through while the outer skin and all other attachements are smashed to pieces. In the resultant 'oven' that is created by the fire in the enclosed space this structure then burns away, leaving only the shattered pieces, which is what we have.

So please show me the report that shows the size of the tire at the Pentagon. If you do not know the size of the tire then you do not know what wheel it is.

Ultima1, if the wheel hubs of the 737 and 757 were identical in design you would have a point. You would glean nothing from a single phot of a tyreless hub. However, not only is it not identical, but we have repeatedly shown you that it is not identical, the pictures have been linked to (Aerospaceweb, if you have forgotten).

You don't need the tyre size from the Pentagon to see that the hub is the wrong design for the 737.

YOU were the one claiming the 737 and 757 used the same wheel, I gave you the tyre sizes to show you were wrong.

I never said the had the same size wheels, i stated it has the same type of wheel.

Yes you did, you explicitly stated they were the same wheel. Remember? It was when you were making out, quite wrongly, that you could not specifically identify a 757 wheel. If they are different sizes then they are different wheels, obviously.

PLease show me where a actual side by side comparison was done, and the reports stating what was matched

The comparison photo's on Aerospaceweb are what we linked you to AGES ago, why are you sticking your head in the sand? When you compare the wheel hub with all the other aircraft suggested for this incident it does not match, when you compare it with a 757 hub it is a perfect match, what is so hard to understand there? You don't need each one side by side to see the differences. If the design is different, the size doesn't come into it. You can still clearly see it is different.

am looking for the truth of what happened that day. I am looking for actual evidence and reports that should have been done.

No, you are just arguing and back pedalling because the assertions you have been making have been clearly shown to be wrong, but rather than reassess your position, as any half decent data analyst might do, you are just back pedalling furiously in an attempt to ressurrect your previous position.

Another commercial jet modified for military recon.

737-700 AEWC

No, its not for recon, its for Airborne Early Warning and Control. Thats what AEW&C stands for. And it STILL isn't a 757 or a 767.

My previous statement on this matter thus stands intact.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]

Double post

[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by waynos
Yes you did, you explicitly stated they were the same wheel. Remember? It was when you were making out, quite wrongly, that you could not specifically identify a 757 wheel. If they are different sizes then they are different wheels, obviously.

For the last time, i stated that the 757 and 737 use the same type of wheel not the same size. Please read my post more carefully insted of just wanting to jump on something. The 757 does not use a special wheel its a commom wheel, as pointed out by Zaphod58, Dunlop and Goodrich make a lot of wheels.

Originally posted by waynos
No, its not for recon, its for Airborne Early Warning and Control. Thats what AEW&C stands for. And it STILL isn't a 757 or a 767.

My previous statement on this matter thus stands intact.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]

AEW&C can also do recon. Remember as stated earlier they can be set up for recon.

I am still trying to get some unclassified information on the 757. Thier are military recon versions of the 767, the E-767 and the E10 even though its not produced i still count it.





[edit on 30-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You're right. Other planes use round wheels. You obviously have made up your mind and there's no way to prove to you that the 757 wheel is NOT the same as on other planes. You won't even LOOK at pictures we gave you that clearly match up to the one at the Pentagon, and you have yet to prove that another type of plane uses the same wheel.