Here is a gif sequence made from the CNN/Hezarkhani "GhostPlane" video, version from CNN America Remembers DVD. The first 7 frames are from the approach, the last frame was taken from the same video, and shifted into position. The last frame had to be enlarged slightly, so was originally of a slightly worse resolution.

Clearly, we can see the large gaping hole. Although smoke covers up some of the right side of the hole, we can see where the left wing supposedly broke the columns. The frame before shows the left wing entirely inside the building, except for a tiny tip. Why on earth can we not see the big gaping hole that eventually occurred? Why do all videos cut off after the explosion, only to begin again after the hole has appeared? What is the official explanation these days?

got a better quality vid?

The CNN America Remembers copy of ghostplane is the best quality of which I am aware. Please sign this petition requesting broadcast quality copies from the networks:

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

However, the entire point of the particular edit that I did was to demonstrate that there is overwhelmingly enough resolution to see a gaping hole, if one were present at the time the airplane image appeared to pass into the wall.

The "gaping hole" frame is taken from the same video sequence, and was enlarged slightly more than the other frames, indicating that it has slightly worse resolution than the rest.

Please address the point I have raised. Thank you.

Faarge...

I think the aluminium cladding could be masking much of the impact hole in the steel behind it. It seems to me that if there wasn't cladding you would see a much bigger hole.

If you had a thin shed wall which had a wax paper covering and you smashed an axe through the paper into the wall. The paper would mask some of the hole, but if you pulled off the paper you would see a big hole.

This aluminium cladding will have virually no effect in resisiting the impact compared to the hardened steel behind it, so I expect the steel takes the impact and some of the aluminium hangs down and masks the hole a little, like the wax paper in my analogy.

This is also why I don't think there is an even hole showing the exact shape of a plane, because some of the cladding springs back up.

No definitions were found for faarge.

I'm looking for a serious scientific explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Plane wings are inside the building, no damage is seen to the columns (or to the plane for that matter). The final frame proves conclusively that such damage would be easily visible.

Does anyone on Loose Change have an answer for this?

Dylan?

Einsteen?

Mirage Memories?

Faarge?

So the aluminum cladding is magically healing, but not the steel box columns?

You're imagining that the wing pushes the aluminum back out of the way, cuts through the steel, and the aluminum then snaps back into place, unbroken, in 1/30 of a second?

I just want to make sure I have you right. Aluminum cladding is not nearly as flexible as wax paper.

It's very difficult to imagine what the logical visual expectation would be for those aircraft collisions.

Given the large mass of the fully fueled Boeing 767, and in the case of your WTC2 (South Tower) example, 500+ mph speed, there was a huge amount of momentum and kinetic energy involved.

Instinctively, I feel what we observe is not what would be expected, BUT I've seen photographs of how much damage can be inflicted when objects move at very high speeds and they defy expectation as well.

The NIST simulations, as far as initial perimeter wall penetrations are concerned, appear to validate the videos. NIST had a lot of accurate information regarding the aircraft parameters and those of the WTC perimeter to base their simulation on. It's NIST's many assumptions about what occurs inside the towers that I have my greatest problems with.

Since I can't see any credibility in the no-plane argument, I'm forced to accept the video evidence as to how the perimeter walls reacted to the impact of those Boeing 767's.

I would really like to see a real life simulation using a Boeing 767 or a comparable aircraft that's being taken out of service. It would be a costly test but the knowledge gained would be invaluable.

MM

MM, we don't have to "imagine". We have the final frame that I edited into the sequence. If the video depicts a real event, then we have a picture of "what the logical visual expectation would be for those aircraft collisions". Our expectation would be that the hole observed in the final frame was present in the next-to-final frame.

So far we have one attempt to explain the phenomenon, and that is "magically healing aluminum".

I think your statement "magically healing aluminium" is unhelpful.

The aluminium was hooked or screwed on at the end of each length, it wasn't bonded or glued to the steel columns, clearly some were knocked out of the way but others flexed back to something like their original position from that angle.

It makes perfect sense to me that the presence of this cladding made the impact hole look far less dramatic.

Rather than troll for responses you don't care to hear Ace Baker, why don't you give us your explanation?

We'll continue from there.

MM

Here is my explanation.

We don't see the full cut to the beams, because they have not been cut yet. A good portion of the wing is still outside the building. That side of the building appears to be barely in the shade. In other words ... part of the wing that has not penetrated the building is shaded, and it blends in with the building, while the very tip of the wing in still in the sun. If you find the full video, the next frame will bare this out. Hope this helps.

The video is of such low quality that I could be wrong on my assertions, but it seems like a logical conclusion given so few alternatives.

http://investigate911.se/large/rare-175.html

go to 22 seconds in and see all that debris falling from the entry hole and onto the street.
the wings may have cut or broke the connections on some of the perimeter beams. what follows and what has been edited out of the edited animated gif from the OP are the frames showing the fireball exploding inside the building and expanding back out through the entry hole causing a lot of debris to fall to the street, some of which was probably still hanging to (or about to fall from) the entry point to the tower before the fuel ignited.

there are 2 destructive events seperated by a fraction of a second - (1) the collision and (2) the fuel ignition. the OP is only showing (1) the collision.

"Why on earth can we not see the big gaping hole that eventually occurred?"
The plane was travelling at perhaps 500mph - you are showing a computer compressed video slowed down, each frame is what? 0.04 of a second in real time? not enough time has passed in your animated gif for any debris to fall from the collision point. Also the dark area in the final frame is not all "a hole", some of the dark area looks like a hole but it is just where the aluminum cladding has fallen off the beams.

Yes, Ace, tell us what you think brought down the towers...

An invisible plane?

Or was is hot fission?

Cold fusion?

Scalar EMP?

Enjoy the 7 day vacation Ace.