9-11 Hole Science
By: Dr.
Stefan Grossmann
5-8-5
No, not
about holograms – about holes –especially
such holes that are not there.
The hole science of the propaganda production of “attacking
planes on 9-11” is truly eye-opening, and lets subtle minds boggle.
1. We are
told that a Boeing 767-200, tail number 644AA, flight AA11 flew into the north
wall of north tower (WTC1) in
Do the
photos support this allegation?
No!
Here is a
photo of the north tower impact hole:
(
Here is an
in-scale model (from www.3dcadbrowser.com)
of a Boeing 767-200 (pure 2d view, thus no perspective distortion of nose
versus wings):
(
I took this
model, rotated it by 24, 26 and 28 degrees left and laid it over the hole, in
scale:
(
(rotated 24 degrees
left)
(
(rotated 26 degrees
left)
(
(rotated 28 degrees
left)
For people
who are subtle it seems as if the plane never quite fits: The wing holes are
considerably longer than for a Boeing 767-200. The huge heavy jet engines did
not punch their holes at the right place. The wing angle does not exactly match
the hole; even though the difference is slight it is real. If you want to move
the plane model more down to the left you get locked into a 24 degrees
rotation, and the wing imprint towards the top right (not fully shown) becomes
much too long; the fit thus becomes even worse. Also, by moving the plane model
down to the left you would have to assume that the fuselage flew through the angled inward-bent columns
that are seen here immediately to the left of the fuselage. You would further
have to assume that the fuselage hit a very asymmetrical hole. Such assumptions
make no sense for a powerful plane crash.
(Note on the
wing angle: I obtained information through sources from experienced pilots:
Airplane wings do not have a hinge at the fuselage where they are rooted.
Airplane wings can flex but not that extremely; and if they flex they flex by
curving in themselves, not by “hinging” at their root at the fuselage. Each of
the two attacking aircrafts on 9-11-1 in
The reason
for this discrepancy is that no Boeing 767-200 hit north tower. Details see www.gallerize.com.
2. In
addition, we are told that a Boeing 767-200, tail number 612UA, flight UA175
flew into the south wall of south tower (WTC2) in
Do the
photos support this allegation?
No!
Here is a photo
of the south tower impact hole:
(
Here is an
in-scale model (from www.3dcadbrowser.com)
of a Boeing 767-200 (pure 2d view, thus no perspective distortion of nose
versus wings):
(
I took this
model, rotated it by 30.5 degrees left and laid it over the hole, in scale:
(
(opaque model)
(
(transparent model)
(
(details of
For people who
are subtle, again it seems as if the plane never quite fits: (1) columns are
bent sideways towards the fuselage, not pushed in. Explosion experts claim this
is done by local charges. (2) A large hole, columns partly bent inward, is
visible where no jet engine struck and no large amount of kerosene spilled (the
wing tank is more towards the fuselage). (3) The huge heavy jet engine did not
punch a full hole – why would its upper two thirds punch a clean hole and its
lower third not even leave an imprint? (4) With columns partly bent inward,
there is an inexplicably large gap beneath where the fuselage would have
struck. (5) The large tail rudder did not even leave an imprint. (6) The
right-hand huge heavy engine punched no hole through those columns that are
still visible. This is the same engine that allegedly jettisoned through the
building and landed north of the WTC in an arcade.
Details of
the entry mode as shown on TV are: The visible aircraft glides into the tower
like a ghost – no deceleration – no particles flip or break off – the aircraft
starts shining like a lamp upon entering the 13 degree shadow wedge in front of
south wall at 9:03 a.m. on 9-11-1 – there are no visible signs of any reaction
of the flying craft with the steel-column wall except, late in the entry,
pimples of light gray dust like from explosions. Kerosene would have burned
with very dark sooty smoke. Further, the huge explosion fireball is delayed for
nearly a second and comes deep from the inside of the tower, not from the wall.
Normally such an explosion should have happened externally on the wall of the
tower when the wing fuel tanks ruptured, as the government in its information
concedes. But then there would have been no pretext to blame “raging fires” for
the subsequent collapse of the twin towers, and the true cause of the collapse:
pre-planted bombs, would have stood manifest.
The
measurements make it more than clear: This was no Boeing 767 attack. There is
no way how a Boeing 767 can be made to fit the holes.
The reason
for this discrepancy is that no Boeing 767-200 hit north tower. Details, also
about the false Pentagon hole, see www.gallerize.com.
.
.