Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

The 'no plane' argument is floored by that picture as it's the exact size and shape of a ****ing plane. The same plane that everyone watched on live TV smashing into the WTC.

But of course it was a hologram a hologram with a ****ing shadow. How can you honestly believe this bullshit? Seriously?

 

It's simple even for you surely, I am asking how the nose cone made it through and left the other side without leaving a hole, you then post a picture of the other side of the building which has nothing to do with my question, ergo false argument.

Can you not answer the questions, how did an eggshell cone penetrate all that steel and concrete and why was there no exit hole. Footage clearly shows the cone made it through

Those are two very simple questions but you seem to not understand them becuse you posted an image of the entry hole, I am clearly talking about the exit hole and survival of the cone

 

Answer my previous post and yes sohpistry, false arguments, you just made one, it's true. Who said hologram?

 

Can any of you not trawl through the internet for even the vaguest explanation as to why the cone made it through and left no exit hole?

I couldn't find one explanation, like the internet it seems you wish to refuse these valid points any discussion

I am sticking to these because they need answers and cannot be made vague and unprovable.
Ye just try insult mock and create false arguments so as to avoid these questions.

Not even one remote possibility offered.

 

Would it be wrong of me to ask for evidence of this?

 

I dont understand this no hole thing.
We know there was a hole where the plane went in, so what hole are you talking about Sisu?
You are saying there should have been a hole on the otherside of the building or?
I am confused.

 

Haven't bothered reading this, just skimmed a few replies

Everyone: Give your sources Sisu.

Sisu: You dont understand psychology.

lol

 

Those ****ing holograms are lethal.

 

The misfits are worse!!
Their songs are better too.

 

To ask that question puts you one needle closer to joining our knitting circle, you understand?

 

I think it is pretty clear, you've seen this already, this image has been broadcast around the world

Note the bottom left image.
This is in the official released videos and DVDs What hole you say, exactly there is no hole

please log in to view this image

There should be a hole.

 

Makes statement, doesn't back it up, again no sources. Nothing. Just astro blowing hot air, as usual.
Don't you say things like scientists are "having meltdowns" because you don't agree with their opinions even though you don't know what they are talking about?

You've posted nothing but unsupported fail since yesterday. You are talking about science and provide no sources for your ignorant assertions. So yes science and sources are important in a scientific debate. But you cant understand that which is

 

It's a trap.

If there was a big hole Sisu would say how can there be a hole even a bird can destroy an ariplane.

If there is no big hole Sisu would say how can a plane travelling so fast not make a hole.

 

Ok, so two things:

1) The bottom left image is taken just as the plane has hit, hence no hole yet, and the second image looks like it was taken much later, probably after several more internal explosions

2) Whats more believable, that your grainy picture from the "dvd" has been edited by some ****tard or that CNN, MSNBC, Fox news CGI'd a plane.
And again, I will ask, why add planes?! Just say it was a ****ing bomb. No planes required, not to mention that that several passengers were aboard those flights that died. Are you saying the CIA hijacked the real plane, landed it in the desert, took all the passengers out, shot them, put them in a hole on the ground and told their loved ones they died in the crash?

 

Listen to yourself, first of all you come up with something that makes no sense, explostions repairing the building because a large chunk of facade should have been removed and the floor which is visible and still there, the plane was wider than a floor

Secondly you are getting into a grey area talking about CGI and stuff, I am only asking two questions that there has never been an answer to.
Where is the massive hole from the aircraft passing through and 2 how can a nose of a plane make it through?

You have answered neither. Your explosions magically repairing the building is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard on this subject Bo

 

Your first paragraph makes no ****ing sense at all, "repairing the building" the ****?!?!?! The first picture is taken as the plane is hitting, so whatever damage it will cause hasn't fully happened yet.

Secondly, you've asked two questions, plenty of people have answered and debunked them up the ass, but you just keep asking them again and again, and posting the same grainy picture which shows nothing. How did the nose make it through? Who said it did, maybe it got crushed between the building and the 10 ****ing tonnes of jet plane it was attached to travelling at 300mph? Maybe.

 

The plane was larger than one floor. It clearly came through in tact, and left no hole on the other side. It didn't get crushed because it is in the still from video, clearly not crused to the width of a floor, and you ****ng blond mate

Why don;t you scale it, I guarantee you the width is the same as the width that entered the other side.

So it was crused to the size of a gap in the facade and hten expanded as it passed through? Cos it is clearly not crushed in the shot.
You are making no ****ing sense mate, none at all.

That nose is clearly not destroyed, it should be, physically impossibly.

 

And anyway, lets suppose there was something untoward that happened.
Say we agree, about the nose hole, what are you saying happened then?
You are scoffing at suggestions of CGI and holograms, yet supposing your theory is correct, you have offered no alternatives as to what happened.
I know for a fact that two planes hit the tower, because a million people saw it.....with their eyes....the whole of New ****ing York was stood there watching it as it happened. Everyone in the world had their eyes on the towers after the first plane hit, so if no second plane hit, do you not think a gajillion people would have come forward by now and said "Hang on, there was no second plane, I was there". Or did the CIA kill/pay off all of them too?

 

Hang on - quick question: did the second plane not fly into the south tower? Would that not make the north face the opposite side from the south side entry? Whywould the plane HAVE to have travelled clean through the building?

You know, all this talk of holograms and nobody actually seeing a real plane hit the building (even though thousands said the did, both inside and outside the building itself) is confusing my non-Jungian worthy brain. I accept i simply don't understand this argument, or at least not in the way that it's framed.

Btw, wasn't it 757's and 767's involved in 9/11? Again, I could easily be confused as I'm merely an aero enthusiast (plane-spotter... guilty ) , but how did 737's get involved?

 

What is, all I can see is a tower, an explosion, and a bit of a wing sticking out in 140p resolution.