Your comparism of a ping pong ball going through a paddle is your evidence? Ive seen straw go well into telephone poles, i have seen plywood go thru and into buildings. Yet i see no proof where a plane can cut into steel structure and concrete all the while maintaining its structural shape, then have the nose cone travel completley thru the entire structure completley intact. The nose cone looks more like the front of the bunker buster bomb i posted to you. You have offered no proof of evidence to the contrary.
One thing that NOBODY will ever explain, without insulting others intelect, is the implosion of building 7.Magic?
The man who leased it and the twin towers explained here -
that has been explained to you ad infinitumHere, read it againhttp://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
so have seen all those things yet the only one you won't believe is the plane going into a building?Im not even addressing all those pictures because they have all been de-bunked many times already.
No they have not been debunked. Even if they where, by whom and why are they right? Anyone believing World Trade 7 went down without charges..............wow just wow. Every time you look at it go down its so obviously intentionaly imploded its laughable you would think otherwise.
The difference with those examples is that an aeroplane filled with petrol hit the buildings at high speed which in itself should cause a lot of structural damage.
Yeah, Eric kind of left out that a 395,000lb plane traveling at a few hundreds miles per hour slammed into the WTC.
and yet every time you watch it go down there is no evidence of an explosion either visually or audibly.care to explain that?
Sure it did, lots of damage. Watch the video again. Funny how the building swallows the plane whole with no deviation in structure to the planes shape, this is impossible, not to mention the laws of physics as to how the building collapsed. Not one piece of the aircraft was left stuck to the outside of the frame on the building, interesting.
nope, he thinks it was a missile because a plane couldn't have caused enough damage for the towers to collapse, towers that he then seems to claim were brought down with a controlled demolition???Im really not sure he has a clear understanding of how he thinks it happened himself.
