Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

But it is clearly the undamaged front end of a plane

 

Certain things beyond human understanding such as:
Wigi board.

please log in to view this image

Palm Reading:

please log in to view this image

Certainly some are fraud.

 

Yes Clearly

They destroyed 2 buildings worth 10's of millions, paid/kill a **** ton of people to keep it quiet, but forgot to make the CGI plane disappear once it hit the building

 

CGI glitch

That's been put out there by a compete bell end crank

 

In that video note three things, 1 the left wing goes behind the building, 2 the right wingtip goes behind the wtc and 3 three is no damage to the plane that strikes more armour than a tank and there is no wreckage or anything until the engines hit and explosions start.

At no point to do you see any damage to the plane

 

Yeah it could also be edited lol but all videos have no damage to the plane at all till the explosions start and it disappears.

 

It hit the building at about 400 mph, it was hardly going to bounce off like a conker hitting a shop window ffs.

 

So whats more likely, that some youtube spastic edited the footage?
Or that the US government edited it with CGI planes?

 

So have I. I was in one in NZ that ws held together with tape. Been in 747's, 777's, a tristar once (the whole roof luggage storage moved when it banked), BAC 111's, 727's, Viscounts, a 707....

None of them were involved in 911 either. If I ever get on a 767, like the ones involved in both towers in NY on 911, I'll be better able to counter that argument. Nevertheless, the constant, twatty, wooly lack of attention to detail in these supposedly 'scientific' arguments is moving from amusing to irritating. But i will still be amused when you claim in two months time that because everyone got fed up correcting and arguing with you that you were 'proved' to be right.

 

Hypnotic, CGI planes, don't you know.

 

This is obviously down to the lizard people, in conjunction with the flat earth and ruled by Obama who is a clone of an egyptian ruler from ancient Egypt

 

Its the chem trails ****ing with our brains, made us all hallucinate and see planes!!

 

The issues I have with the official line are this
WTC 7 did not collapse. It was demolished
and flight 175 passing through the building like butter is physically impossible

These things I know to be facts because they are not possible, anyone who knows the actual make up of WTC7 knows this to be true because it was a steel framed building that was blamed on fire bringing it down, it was not hit.

This is a steel framed building, remember fire is the blame for all 3 buildings collapsing

This building stood because as anyone knows fire does not burn hot enough to melt the steel it is made of just like the WTC buildings

please log in to view this image

Everything else is "theory", but those are facts.

I have nothing else guys, right or wrong that;s it

 

See Maddox's links at the bottom of his debunk article.
Doesnt need to melt steel.

 

And who writes these debunk articles? If the steel melted one side of the building would have collapsed, the roofs fell uniformly and at freefall, and that is impossible. There was no resistance from the floors below, this has been proven and is actually admitted in the official reports,

 

Also "WTF" 7 was left out of the report, most americans never knew WTC 7 fell that day

Why was that so? because it was obvious WTC7 was demolished

WTC7 was not hit by a plane

 

Well as "anyone knows" fires do not generally burn hot enough to melt steel but Firemen know to Never trust a truss as they get hot enough to give way and fail. Firemen I know have told me they trust wooden beams more than metal.

 

How anyone can even this this was a collapse because of small fires is beyond me, an obvious demolition

This was a steel frame building like the one in the madrid fire, one has never collapsed before or since, straight down, completely straight, controlled demo

please log in to view this image

it freefell no resistance, impossible.

This did not collapse, the fire burned itself out.

please log in to view this image

For WTC7 building to collapse in freefall well over a hundred points in the building need to be taken out within seconds of each other

 

The building at the bottom hasn't been hit by tonnes of debris from the falling skyscraper that once stood next to it.

What possible reason would they have had for demolishing the ****ing thing?

It's absolute bunkum