Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

simonshack wrote:As you can clearly see, the rightmost tire in this picture has no rim.

Simon, I am not sure I can see the difference between the rightmost and the leftmost tire. Or why a tire couldn´t possibly come off its rim as the result of a crash.

Flabbergasted wrote: Simon, I am not sure I can see the difference between the rightmost and the leftmost tire. Or why a tire couldn´t possibly come off its rim as the result of a crash.

Thanks Flabbergasted - in fact, at closer look it would seem that the leftmost tire is rimless as well. As for why a rim won't possibly come off (in circumstances such as the purported crash dynamics of TWA 800 - or 9/11 ) it is, admittedly, just my best uneducated / intuitive guess - not being a professional crash investigator / engineer - so let us out submit this question to such experts, do you know any? Until then, I will maintain that such an occurrence is extremely implausible / if not physically impossible: how could an explosive blast exert the sort of forces / counter-forces needed to separate a rim from a tire (and leave the tire intact) ?

simonshack wrote:let us out submit this question to such experts, do you know any?

As with many other technical topics we discuss, crash dynamics and airplane design is not something I have personal experience with. Airplane wheels are probably built very differently from car wheels. If the tires of this plane came off "naturally", I gather it would have been from the impact or from being mangled against gear and fuselage, not from the explosion as such.
But I am not arguing anything. You are saying it is extremely implausible or even physically impossible for airplane tires to come off as the result of a crash. It may well be so, but I think the rationale needs a little beefing up, especially if you are going to invoke good old Occam.

http://love2fly.iberia.com/2014/04/aircraft-wheels/

Likewise I'm no crash expert, but it is clear that aeroplane tyres have a unique design to meet their needs. The main landing gear tyres on a 747-100 (the supposed plane in the TWA800 "crash") are fitted to split rims. The rims come in two parts, and bolts are used to clamp those two rim halves together, around the tyre. To retain the tyre under extreme conditions, the rim has deep flanges; much more than found on a motor vehicle wheel.

The force exerted on the tyre on landing - because of the speed and weight of the plane - must be vast, which demands that special design. The landing gear is not powered; and to avoid being separated from the rim, the tyres have to "spin up" from 0mph to 180mph almost instantly. I can't find any proof of a tyre actually separating from the rim during landing. Plenty of pictures of blow-outs, yes, but, even then, the burst tyre stays on the rim, even with serious damage to it. Difficult to know how to "prove" it, but that would suggest that the tyres would not slip off the rim in a real crash. You do set yourself some hard challenges though Simon!

Evil Edna wrote: You do set yourself some hard challenges though Simon!

Thanks for your pictures of burst tires (upon landing), EE. I would humbly say that they tend to corroborate my point which is: it takes a massive amount of torque / force to dislodge an airplane tire from its rim - and even so, tires which burst upon landing will never completely 'pop out' of their rims (while remaining basically intact). They will remain attached to the rim, even after bursting and rolling at high speed (and heat).

In contrast, what we have here (in this TWA 800 image from the hangar which supposedly housed its wreckage fished out from the sea) is an apparently intact Jumbo tire - minus its rim. Now, of course, TWA 800 did NOT make a crash landing: it reportedly exploded in mid-air. So whatever made that rim dislodge from its tire can only possibly have happened (if we REALLY stretch our imagination) due to the mid-air explosion. Correct? Or did the rim dislodge from the tire as it impacted the ocean surface?...

This rimless tire (at right) appears to be pretty much intact. The question is: HOW did the rim escape from its tire?


Well, I don't know what you mean by "setting myself hard challenges", EE ... I would rather say that the silly hoaxsters staging these events don't work hard enough to make their hoaxes long-lastingly convincing - or resilient / and immune to proper, empirical & logical scrutiny.

I rest my case - and am confident that I haven't offended Mr. William of Ockham in any way.

"William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) is remembered as an influential medieval philosopher and nominalist, though his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim attributed to him and known as Ockham's razor. The term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by "shaving away" unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

So Sir Ockham was apparently a "nominalist". Reminds me of NASA's obsession with the "nominal" word.

"NOMINAL" (definition): existing as something in name only : not actual or real
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominal

"Nominalism refers to either of two philosophical positions regarding what exists. Nominalism may refer to a position that denies the existence of universal entities or objects, but accepts that particular objects or entities exist. It may refer to denial of the existence of abstract objects or entities, while accepting the existence of concrete objects or entities. Each position is contrasted with nihilism, which denies the existence of everything. So nominalism is either the assertion that everything that exists is a particular thing, or that everything that exists is concrete." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalist

Wow. Fascinating stuff, isn't it ? Hmm... so when NASA commentators plug the "nominal" word, they are juxtaposing it to nihilism - "which denies the existence of everything?". You've gotta love it! Those folks have a sharp - if wicked - sense of humor.

To be sure, I have been called a "nihilist" by a handful of persons / entities over the years. See, I deny the existence of everything.

ps: Seriously now, and for those who don't get my sarcasm, I am NOT a nihilist. If you really wanna slap a tag on me (because that's what you've been socially conditioned to do), just call me a "realist". As such, I reject the utterly unrealistic hypothesis that a rim could possibly dislodge from its tire - as we are asked to believe happened with the TWA 800 Jumbo (and with "Flight 175", on 9/11).

Exactly. It isn't logical to suggest that the rim would somehow dislodge from a tire in an explosion. It reminds me of the court cases that I research in which people are wrongfully convicted of crimes. In many cases the State and therefore the jury members will try to come up with all of these reasons to explain how the accused "could have" committed the crime even though there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise. They twist things and come up with a bunch of unfounded, unverified scenarios and it's ridiculous. We must not throw away logic to make the "official" story work and by suggesting that the rim "could have" come dislodged with tire intact is complete nonsense. It is what it is and clearly these are staged photos.

Thanks for your 'moral-&-mental support' on this matter, Sunshine...

I will now submit to all and sundry this down-to-earth question:

Is it not MORE LIKELY that the rimless tire we see in the purported TWA 800 wreckage imagery "occurred" in the following way?

A team of operatives were dispatched to collect old plane parts in an aviation scrapyard. This, in order to fill a hangar with 'props' that would resemble the retrieved wreckage of a Boeing 747. However, since wheel rims are more-often-than-not reusable items (unlike old tires), an aviation scrapyard would contain precious few wheel rims - as opposed to countless used tires (removed from their rims). Therefore, the afore-mentioned operatives (perhaps due to time-constrictions) decided to just grab some rimless tires, instead of wasting time looking for rare tires still attached to their rims.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Aye.

simonshack wrote:A team of operatives were dispatched to collect old plane parts in an aviation scrapyard. This, in order to fill a hangar with 'props' that would resemble the retrieved wreckage of a Boeing 747. However, since wheel rims are more-often-than-not reusable items (unlike old tires), an aviation scrapyard would contain precious few wheel rims - as opposed to countless used tires (removed from their rims). Therefore, the afore-mentioned operatives (perhaps due to time-constrictions) decided to just grab some rimless tires, instead of wasting time looking for rare tires still attached to their rims.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes, it is a reasonable hypothesis, supported by previously observed instances of scrap use in psyops.
(another example: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 0#p2386334)

I see it as an invitation to look much deeper into the TWA 800 story.

Simon wrote.
As you can clearly see, the rightmost tire in this picture has no rim. Now, I trust that no one will hazard to believe that the tire of an airplane's landing gear might possibly lose its rim - not even in the most explosive of accidents (with the tire remaining pretty much intact).

Here's how it's done Simon. With considerable amounts of artistic licence.


Image source: http://trakt.tv/show/air-crash-disaster ... /episode/3

1 edit for spelling correction.

Perhaps the rimless tyre was a spare.

What's Wrong with You Guys?


What's wrong with you guys; don't you know nuttin'?

simonshack wrote:
The TWA 800 was the story about a 747 Boeing which allegedly fell out of the sky on July 17, 1996.
It was believed to have been shot down by a surface-to-air missile - (according to 250 witness accounts).

And exactly 18 years later... on July 17, 2014:

"Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) was a scheduled international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that crashed on 17 July 2014; it is believed to have been shot down with a surface-to-air missile."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_A ... _Flight_17


What are the odds?...

When I was a boy I listened to the radio... Cue the wobbly fade...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus_Flight_712

I have long suspected the land known as "Ireland" to be a testbed for their schemes.

Neither pilot nor co-pilot show up on Irish records - I am, of course, not precluding the possibility that such records are incomplete.

Bernard O'Beirne indeed. Are they pulling our legs?

edit/ Well now, whatreallydidnthappen.con has an "article" on it. Imagine my shack! A freudian typo that will live for ever.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CR ... ingus.html

*

A LITTLE TRIVIA - regarding three (in)famous / alleged plane tragedies


TWA flight 800 (July 17, 1996)
Alleged victim: Rodolphe Mérieux, heir of the French pharmaceutical company Merieux Laboratories - a world leader in AIDS vaccines research. The early TWA 800 media reports also ran worrisome stories about "the risk of AIDS contamination for the rescue workers", since two boxes of AIDS/HIV-infected blood were believed to have been carried on the plane... http://www.fondation-merieux.org/histoire


...then, 777 days later:

SWISSAIR flight 111 (September 2, 1998)
Two alleged victims of Swissair 111: Jonathan Mann, former head of the WHO's AIDS program, and his wife, AIDS researcher Mary Lou Clements-Mann. "Mann was a key figure in the early fight against HIV/AIDS. During Mann's tenure, the AIDS program became the largest single program in the history of the WHO. He was a key figure in highlighting the need for a global response to the crisis".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111


...then, 6574 days later:

MALAYSIA flight MH17 (July 17, 2014)
"Among the passengers was former president of the International AIDS Society Joep Lange, a well-known HIV researcher from the Netherlands. Chris Beyrer, president-elect of the International AIDS Society, said if reports of Lange’s death were true, “then the HIV/AIDS movement has truly lost a giant.”
http://www.abc15.com/news/national/worl ... -flight-17


I really have no idea what all this means. Just posting it for the record...