someone explain this for me

I'm not one of those people think no Air plane hit the world trade centre

but this raises a interesting question, can someone explain why there isn't any hole

because it didnt go through the edge of the building. it through more of the inside of it. and at that angel you cant exactly see the full hole for what it is. i may be entirely wrong, but, thats what i think.

Excellent question. I don't see a min. 12.5 foot hole there, do you?

Nothing is pushed out (steel perimeter columns). Nothing is displaced to
support the fuselage of a 757/767.

Cover up indeed.

Maybe we can ask Mr. Reheat for his expert opinion?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by dino1989
can someone explain why there isn't any hole

Because there is nothing coming out of the building except smoke.

Probably because the metal posts were made of high grade steel,and an airplane would fold up like a hot hershey bar when hitting it,perhaps some of whatever hit it went thru the glass,but no match to the steel

Prob. because there were no planes..

Yeah I said it

...or a few birds flew by and pushed the perimeter columns back into place?

Sure, why not...birds can stop FDR's according to some THEORIES!

The structure appears to be almost entirely intact. The collapses, as we were "told" they happened, make no sense at all. They haven't since the beginning...

The picture is of the East face of the South Tower

United 175 struck the south face near the east corner - debris and
a fire ball of burning jet fuel blasted out that side of the building.

The impact hole is at the south face

Found this.

Originally posted by ATH911
Found this.

That image has been manipulated from the originals. The nose-in/nose-out do not match in size or shape:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c29f00c94c6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f1744371cf2d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You know _BoneZ_ drawing a few lines over a picture over and insisting something is the way you say it is does not make it so. In fact I think it harms your argument more than it helps.

As for that lack of a hole....

Remember that at the pentagon that Alleged plane went through HOW MANY re-enforced walls? 7 I think... But here in the WTC it could not make it through the building?


HMMMMMM..

Don't be blind yall. Explosives and CGI tricks .. NOT HOLOGRAMS! Just lies and mass manipulation. I mean you think just because you seen it on TV its real?

Aren't their any new yorkers here to speak on like the Ohklahoma City folk talk about the OKC bombing? I mean the gov lies to you.. WILDLY. Some of us know it and some just dont get it... too busy infighting over trival details to demand government accountablity I suppose..

But I digress. No hole because their was no plane. No mater how many lines are drawn on pictures

Originally posted by titorite
You know _BoneZ_ drawing a few lines over a picture over and insisting something is the way you say it is does not make it so.

Then I'll ask you directly, do the nose-in and nose-out match in size and shape?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c29f00c94c6.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by titorite
Don't be blind yall. Explosives and CGI tricks

Yeah, until you or any other no-planer can explain how independent journalists and private citizens got a magical CGI plane on their videos when pointing their cameras at the WTC, and explain how massive chunks of building got pushed inward by a large and heavy object, then your words are meaningless.

Originally posted by titorite
No hole because their was no plane.

Exactly. No hole on that side of the tower because no plane actually came through. The hole was on the opposite side of the tower where the plane did go through.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Then I'll ask you directly, do the nose-in and nose-out match in size and shape?

I'm confused by your argument.

Do you expect the nose shape to be the same after it has just punched through the building?

The nose is made from relatively soft carbon fiber. A hollow chamber that holds the radar disc.

Something is really wrong with the WTC planes, what I don't know.

So what do you think that is coming out the building, it's something right? It can't be blamed on vid quality.

This one hit a bird...

This is why i think its a military plane hit the building, since they are harder to break... i think

are they harder to brake ?

[edit on 30-5-2009 by dino1989]

Originally posted by Wally Hope
I'm confused by your argument.
Do you expect the nose shape to be the same after it has just punched through the building?

I'm confused by your statement when the OP and I have shown there is no hole that the real nose could've have punched through to change shape in the first place:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]

Since there is no hole, there is no punch-through, period.

In "September Clues", they try to say that it was a CGI plane and the plane was "accidentally" moved past the tower. But for that to be the case, the nose-in and nose-out would have to be exactly identical in shape, size and pixels as CGI planes wouldn't change shape when going through a building.

We can conclude that it's not a real nose as there is no punch-out hole and it was not a CGI nose as the pixels don't come close to matching up in shape or size. What are we left with? Smoke resembling the shape of the fuselage, whether coincidentally or not.

Originally posted by dino1989
This is why i think its a military plane hit the building, since they are harder to brake ... i think

are they harder to brake ?

The simple answer is "no" they would not be harder to "break".

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

You know _BoneZ_ drawing a few lines over a picture over and insisting something is the way you say it is does not make it so. In fact I think it harms your argument more than it helps.

As for that lack of a hole....

Remember that at the pentagon that Alleged plane went through HOW MANY re-enforced walls? 7 I think... But here in the WTC it could not make it through the building?



HMMMMMM..

Don't be blind yall. Explosives and CGI tricks .. NOT HOLOGRAMS! Just lies and mass manipulation. I mean you think just because you seen it on TV its real?

Aren't their any new yorkers here to speak on like the Ohklahoma City folk talk about the OKC bombing? I mean the gov lies to you.. WILDLY. Some of us know it and some just dont get it... too busy infighting over trival details to demand government accountablity I suppose..

But I digress. No hole because their was no plane. No mater how many lines are drawn on pictures

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And hundreds of thousands of people on the ground only saw "CGI tricks" fly through the sky.

Nice try, but as it's been pointed out, that photo is of the WRONG side of the building. Next time, try actually posting the side of the building the plane actually HIT, then ask your question.

I agree that there are some far-fetched claims being made, when it comes to 9/11. But how much proof does one need annyway, to see that what happend that day, was more then likely an inside job? Allthough there's plenty more then what I wrote down here, it should be more then enough to doubt the official story and to, at least, demand another investigation.

Evident
* buildings collapsed at, or verry near, freefall speed.
* diagonally cut/molten supportbeams.
* multiple explosions.
* multiple ejects (plumes).
* pools of molten steel.
* firemen saying "there's another bomb in the building".
* firemen reporting repetetive explosions "boom boom boom", as in a demolition .
* loud explosions in footage.
* no 50 ft. stack of floors as a result of "pancaking".
* buildings practically turned to dust,....DUST!
* people standing in gaping hole, when it was supposed to be hot enough to dramaticly weaken steel.
* a stream, of what looks like molten steel/thermite, dripping from building.

Witness
* many who escaped reported multiple explosions
* janitor reported heavy explosions.
* firemen saying that the fire(s) could be contained

Experts
* towers could withstand multiple impacts (overdesigned).
* the colapse looked more like a demolition, then anything else.
* black smoke an indication of lack of oxigen to keep the fire burning with intensity.
* towers fell at, or near, freefall speed.
* discovered high-grade thermite particles.
* wtc 1, 2 and 7 are first steel-framed buildings to collapse as a result of fire.

Strange, Coincidences & Rumors
* jeb bush in charge of security.
* bush/bin-laden connection.
* Larry Silverstein's recent insurance payed out twice.
* some, who worked at WTC, were told not to go to work that day.
* two weeks prior to the "attacks", security (bomb sniffing) dogs were ordered to be removed from the buildings.
* naudet brothers being at the right place, at the right time
* only terrorist passport & bandana survive

I can allready hear some say: "where are your sources, where's your proof?". To them I say: "do your own research (google), don't take my word for it". And while you're at it, don't forget to do the same with the pentagon and shanksville.

Wake-up and smell the thermite! You may not be able to do anything about it, but at least you know the truth.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he/she is thinking the
plane entered that side of the buidling?

The still photo shows what is supposed to be the nose end of the fuselage
of a 757/767 exiting the building.

The diameter of the fuselage is about 12.5 feet.

The damage does not support a 12.5' object exiting a steel tower.