Proof of "other" external explosions

Going through the 9/11 Newspaper images in a Archive Book made by The Poynter Institute, one image of 2x Towers stands out in particular. Surprisingly as a number of front-page headlines printed this image yet its been overseen.

Here is the image in question as found on the net.
weblogs.vpro.nl...

Take note of the Building with the Green roof to the lower Right, notice how the WTC has had its external structure already blown out (after the first impact has occured.)
Structural Engineers say the fireball raced down the lift shafts and externally blew out some of the structure, yet if this was the case that whole section of the building should be ripped out. And considering heat rises, its also a physical improbability, as looking at the 2nd plane impacting the other tower shows the vapourised A1 Jet Fuel is going upwards.

Originally posted by ROBL240
Going through the 9/11 Newspaper images in a Archive Book made by The Poynter Institute, one image of 2x Towers stands out in particular. Surprisingly as a number of front-page headlines printed this image yet its been overseen.

Here is the image in question as found on the net.
weblogs.vpro.nl...

Take note of the Building with the Green roof to the lower Right, notice how the WTC has had its external structure already blown out (after the first impact has occured.)
Structural Engineers say the fireball raced down the lift shafts and externally blew out some of the structure, yet if this was the case that whole section of the building should be ripped out. And considering heat rises, its also a physical improbability, as looking at the 2nd plane impacting the other tower shows the vapourised A1 Jet Fuel is going upwards.

Nothing supports your claim. The elevator shafts were in the core and many of the elevators DID not stop on every floor (like the express elevators). Many elevators only started and stopped on different floors.

There would be nothing that would cause the fireball that traveled down the shafts to "blast" out any section of the towers.

Please acquaint yourself with the buildings plans.

Did you read the OP? thats exactly the point in question.

Originally posted by ROBL240
Did you read the OP? thats exactly the point in question.

I read the OP. Can you clarify. Were you expecting to see a large holes in areas below the impact points.

Im not following what you are trying to claim.

Its going to be a long night...

Do you see the Green Building to the BOTTOM RIGHT of the image in the OP? Theres a nice small-sized hole there isnt there?
Now if the Jet A1 vapourised fuel didnt explode down the lift shafts as you and I agree on, then what made that hole there?

I dont see a hole, unless your refering to what actually may turn out to be falling debris or rooftop antennaes.....

Believe me its a hole. The problem with Windows is IE8 resizes the window to 75% in order to fit back to the screen resolution size.

To see what IM actually seeing in this image without having to buy the September 11 book, press F11 which will close the bars around the window and give you a bigger picture size (press F11 to escape later.)

After doing this, in the bottom right on the taskbar you'll see a magnifying glass saying 100%, click to the resolution you want..say 125%, and you can zoom in on the picture better. This will enable you to see that the WTC hole ISNT antennaes, Debris, or whatever, but a actual hole, 1/4 way up the building near to the base.

Originally posted by ROBL240
Its going to be a long night...

Do you see the Green Building to the BOTTOM RIGHT of the image in the OP? Theres a nice small-sized hole there isnt there?

Could you point out the hole? I see nothing on the building that shows a hole.

Now if the Jet A1 vapourised fuel didnt explode down the lift shafts as you and I agree on, then what made that hole there?

You have to show what hole you are referring to. Please work from the original size of that photo. Not a scaled down, highly compressed version

Originally posted by ROBL240
Believe me its a hole. The problem with Windows is IE8 resizes the window to 75% in order to fit back to the screen resolution size.

weblogs.vpro.nl...

This photo is only 300x393. That is not the original size of that photo.

I know how to find out how big the picture is, however YOU did not link to the to actual phot. YOU linked to what looks to be a thumbnail.

Take the original photo, save it. Take it into a graphics program, highlight the hole you see and upload it to imageshack and post it here. That's the best way to illustrate what you are trying to see.





[edit on 4-12-2009 by RipCurl]

Photographed from the book..the old fashioned way.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/acab8ac0d441.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/57b4afe6a943.jpg[/atsimg]

Richmond Times-Dispatch also shows a Alternative to this independent image, showing the fireball at a lesser extent, but the external damage to the tower still as the same as it is. So its not Debris from the Secondary Aircraft impact to rule out that Theory. Just to throw that in.

sorry, but im still not seeing a hole . Please highlight where it is.

Your obviously a troll.

Anybody with anything constructive to say about this?

reply to post by ROBL240

Anybody with anything constructive to say about this?

After following the discussion so far...and not being an expert in video still shots...I look where you said to look in your OP, just above the green roof, and what you seem to think is a "hole" in the WTC Tower appears, to me, to be the debris from the other one. Seeming as how it had just been hit by UAL 175, and you can certainly see evidences of other pieces of debris that has been ejected, and is falling...all captured in that split second moment on film.


And...I seriously doubt that an ATS member who's been here longer than I have (since 2006) should be insulted by being called a "troll". Honestly.

It is NOT debris as there are 2 images ive found from the same location but at different times of the second impact. At BOTH times the external damage to WTC1 is there.

Why arent people seeing this or simply dismissing it?
The WTC1 steel beams are clearly evident..I have the damn SEPTEMBER 11 2001-BOOK infront of me with A4x pictures of this damage. Someone on ATS must also have this Publication also.

The Collection of Newspaper Front Pages selected by the Poynter Institute, hopefully someone does and will see EXACTLY what I can.

Thats as best resolution as my camera can get. Just *about* shows the Steel supports intact WITHIN WTC1, but the external damage to the outside of the Building from whatever's blown from within it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/934a873fb9c4.jpg[/atsimg]

I can't find that damage in videos of that side of the WTC. Although it appears to be damage to the north tower, I'm just not seeing it in video. Maybe you can find it? Here's most available videos of the second impact:

www.youtube.com...

Although that last image you posted does look like the north tower has damage down there.




[edit on 4-12-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And...I seriously doubt that an ATS member who's been here longer than I have (since 2006) should be insulted by being called a "troll". Honestly.

So just because someone has been here for a few years, that automatically makes them immune from being called a troll, even though they may be trolling? Puhlease. Look at some of RipCurl's posts. He's got several troll posts.

Originally posted by ROBL240
Your obviously a troll.

Anybody with anything constructive to say about this?

Im a "troll" because IM asking you to higlight EXACTLY where the "hole" is?

Sorry but the images you have provided are
1) too msall to see what you are talking abour
2) too blurry to see what you are talking about.


Please find an online version that is not been re sized or re compressed highly and SHOW exactly what hole you are talking about.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And...I seriously doubt that an ATS member who's been here longer than I have (since 2006) should be insulted by being called a "troll". Honestly.

So just because someone has been here for a few years, that automatically makes them immune from being called a troll, even though they may be trolling? Puhlease. Look at some of RipCurl's posts. He's got several troll posts.

asking forum memebers to back up their claims with evidence isn't being a troll. You have an odd definition of what a troll is.