.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
Just this - this one picture shows the curvature of the Earth.....to anyone with an ounce of honesty and integrity.....
Oh wait, there is far more for bflat to ignore.......
-
Here is a screen shot from one flat nut claiming the horizon is straight. Only when you add some contrast......shoot-in-the-foot.com
-
37 minutes ago, amy G said:
I read that and posted the math in the side by side comparison that shows reality.
You have never posted any "math". You and reality are as far apart as is possible.
37 minutes ago, amy G said:The camera is mounted perfectly flat.
Totally irrelevant. The visible plane is the line of the camera.
37 minutes ago, amy G said:(odd how sometimes my links embed and sometimes not)
Yes. But the oddest thing of all is how you can have the audacity to spam your off topic shite on this thread and avoid the OP totally.
You are afraid to debate honestly.
37 minutes ago, amy G said:And there are several links now explaining that horizon and eye level are synonymous.
And mathematics to show that..
a) It is irrelevant horseshit
b) Not true anyway
c) Very little difference between a flat view and a sphere view because the Earth size is almost the same as a flat view. It's big you see. Biggy big big.com
https://flatearth.ws/high-altitude-balloon
Curvature of the Horizon in High-Altitude Balloon Footage
High-altitude balloon footage is often abused by flat-Earthers to show us that the Earth is flat when seen from a high altitude.
We analyzed more than two dozens of footage taken from high-altitude balloons on YouTube, and we can easily conclude the curvature is there and usually easy to spot, including in the cases where flat-Earthers use the video as ‘proof’ of a flat Earth.
The majority of the ‘evidence’ are screenshots taken from these videos. The original videos were usually taken using fisheye lenses. In these videos, there are moments where the horizon appears flat, convex and concave. Their M.O. is to cherry-pick moments where the horizon appears flat and present them as the ‘evidence’ of the flat Earth, ignoring the fact it appears concave and convex in many other moments in the video.
To analyze the videos, we try to find a moment where the horizon crosses the center point of the image. In this case, if the horizon is flat, it should appear flat. And conversely, if the horizon is curved, then should appear curved. This method works even if a fisheye was used to take the video. A straight line will always appear straight when it crosses the center, regardless of the lens being used.
We analyzed over two dozens of high-altitude balloon footages on YouTube, and the curvature is there every single time. These videos are definitely not proof of a flat Earth. On the contrary, they are evidence that the Earth is spherical.
Videos Used in the Illustration
These are links to the videos used in the illustration.
- Space Balloon – hwrmMedia
- Project Stratosphere – Daniel Teubenbacher
- Grand Canyon from the Stratosphere – Bryan Chan
- Toy Robot in Space – troshy
- DogCamSport Flies to the Edge of Space – DogCamSport
- Loki Lego Launcher – Winston Yeung
- Flight to the Edge of Space – J.W. Astronomy
- Hello Kitty in Space – Lauren Rojas
- GoPro Weather Balloon Stratosphere Flight – Camillo Schmid
- Filming in the Stratosphere with a HTC mobile phone – Colin Furze
- Space Balloon – TBFMania
- Nos Jouets dans L’Espace – Maëlle et Nicolas Lamorelle
- iPhone 6 in Space – Urban Armor Gear, LLC
- High Altitude Balloon – Christian Galli
- Near Space Balloon Launced to the Stratosphere reaches 100,000 ft – Kevin Hunt
- Stratospheric Balloon – Saturne Vite
-
Seems bflat has resorted to mega spam in an effort to cover the items on page 1. Notice he hasn't answered any of them.
Refraction is the answer to all the silly flatnut experiments he has posted. Refraction - heat and pressure variances across a large expanse of atmosphere.
Great site for adjusting the horizon with variable refraction:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
-
1 hour ago, amy G said:
The responses to this too from the globurists are few, far between and quite absurd when they even try to explain this away.
If Earth were a globe with a radius of 3,959 miles, the above video would not be possible. The video is right there, therefore, the Earth is not a globe with said radius falsifying r again.
You really are a waste of time dude. Go to 4 mins 8 seconds and see the curvy laser. Plus I don't trust these lying arseholes anyway.
Curvy lasers? Hmmmm whodathunkit. Maybe bflat needs to understand some very simple physics.
It takes a 0.217 degree downward variance of the "straight" laser for it to be pointed down at the horizon. So not only can lasers easily "exceed" the global defined distances with simple refraction, some yoootub muppet "accidentally" points the laser down at the horizon and it skips off like a stone.
-
18 minutes ago, amy G said:
Examine the video at 8:07
Distance: 27 miles/43.4 km
Camera: 26 feet above tide level
Target - Birling Gap cliff: 223 feet above sea level
Based on a sphere with the radius you assume, an amazing 285 feet should be hidden!
And the horizon again is beyond everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA8VCCi8Qy0
If Earth were a globe with a radius of 3,959 miles, the above video would not be possible. The video is right there, therefore, the Earth is not a globe with said radius.
Hey - you seem to be unable to grasp things no matter how many times you have them told to you. Refraction.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
Observer height 8m / Target distance 43,452m / Target size 68m
Just push the refraction measurement into positive about 0.2 and above, watch the object bend into view.
-
2 hours ago, amy G said:
Your answers mean nothing when based in assumptions that you then argue with yourself over. This, while never realizing you have not represented objective reality along with other fallacious reasoning.
Your responses mean nothing when you have the understanding of a fig leaf. There is nothing fallacious about using mathematics to prove something and a mathematician, which you clearly lied about, would know this.
2 hours ago, amy G said:Let's read #1 again:
1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees
around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur
balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely
flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other
government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake
CGI photos/videos.SPAM! You have posted an identical claim and ignored numerous responses. Eric Doyoubuy is a colossal dipshit - his claims are proven horseshit and people who are incapable of understanding mathematics that junior school children can figure out are just noisy time wasters. Instead of taking the maths and proving it wrong, or offering your own, you just ignore it.
Pathetic.
2 hours ago, amy G said:Everyone who has looked at the world knows this is fact, that this is how our eyes and brain work to make images that we can understand. This was explained to you more than once, but you refuse to even try and understand the implications.
Nothing you have ever typed has offered me an explanation. Nothing you have ever typed was on a subject where I needed an explanation. You are not the spokesperson for "everyone" and you are impossible to reach. You simply have to have some sort of financial interest in this.
2 hours ago, amy G said:Horizon line-is always at eye level. Picture yourself at the seashore and looking out at the ocean you notice that the water meets the sky at your eye level. This never changes. You may be in an airplane 1000 feet up and the level that the ocean meets the sky is still at your eye level! Or you may be lying down on the beach and the ocean level drops with you. Think of it as an invisible plane that cuts through everything, that always exists at eye level.
http://studiochalkboard.evansville.edu/lp-intro.html
You can't even read and understand your own links!
Hint Your horizon line always falls at eye level regardless of where you're looking. For instance, if you are looking down, your eye level remains at the height of your eyes, not down where you are looking.
2 hours ago, amy G said:Now that we have established the actual facts, let's use simple logic. The horizon, always horizontal, at eye level for all 360 degrees means that curvature does not exist.
If we lived on a ball with the imagined radius, a visible 360 degree horizontal horizon would not be possible. A visible 360 degree horizontal horizon is what has been established, therefore the Earth we live on cannot have that radius and r is falsified.
You're done... it's over.
@oddsnsods, see?
2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer
as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see
it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you
ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer /
camera would have to tilt looking down further and further
to see it.This is proven above with the actual math.
Whoa there you very deceitful comedian. We establish facts with proper investigation, not the generalisations from a bloody website about drawing stuff!
Horizon reference : http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
Trigonometry reference: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
You say the Earth is flat. Science and people with brains say it gently curves away. Whichever of the two the horizon will ALWAYS and must ALWAYS be below the level of the eye. This is basic, child's play trigonometry.
Example 1:
b = height of person and where their eyes are - I used 6ft.
h = distance to horizon using the global formula for that height = 3 miles = 15840 ft.
Angle theta is 0.217 degree. THAT is how far down the eye needs to look to see the horizon. Nobody has the capacity to discern a difference between that angle and level.
Now in your second example:
b = height of 1000 ft.
h = distance to horizon using the global formula for that height = 38.7 miles = 204336 ft.
Angle theta is 0.28 degrees. Again THAT is how far down the eye needs to look to see the horizon. Nobody has the capacity to discern a difference between that angle and level.
Let's go really high:
b = height of 100,000 ft.
h = distance to horizon using the global formula for that height = 387.9 miles = 2048112 ft.
Angle theta is 2.8 degrees. THAT is how far down the eye needs to look to see the horizon. Is it possible for somebody to know they are looking down at just under 3 degrees of arc? Doubtful but totally irrelevant anyway.
The claim thus proved as bollocks!
You are owned. Totally. You have one option - ignore this and make loads of noise....because this is simple, school kid stuff and you can't even understand it.
2 hours ago, amy G said:You ignored that this was covered in the other thread and went on anyways in your pretend world. Your claim is a meaningless and provably inaccurate piece of garbage.....
What points within that myopic crap negate the mathematics I just explained to you? The bloke using it is zooming in on a graphic and distorting it on a split screen! I am using mathematics to say exactly what it SHOULD be.
2 hours ago, amy G said:The above video is open sourced, has been out there since 2017 and there is no debunk. There is the real math. The horizon stays at high level the entire time in real life as shown while the drop is dramatic and obvious if we were on a spinning ball with your imagined radius.
It is using a camera - quite how you can establish an "eye line" when the camera is actually the object determining the plane of sight, is rather dumb.
Of course there is a debunk. I showed you the figures for each of the altitudes in my small spreadsheet. These were calculated using something you don't understand, trigonometry.
2 hours ago, amy G said:I refuse to appeal to the authority of known liars and you know this too.
Then stop quoting Eric Doyoubuy. NASA are not "known liars" and propping up your bullshit with more bullshit is not cool.
2 hours ago, amy G said:The above is useless as it does not represent observable reality. Keep pulling whatever numbers you like from wherever you like and keep arguing with yourself. It is a fascinating comedy routine.
It exactly represents reality. It starts with an elevation, the distance to the horizon on a globe, takes a 45 degree segment of the horizon, uses the calculated distance to the horizon and the subsequent distance across given that 45 degree angle. Finally the variance in elevation is worked out against the globe model. I then double it to give a reasonable 90 degree field of view.
It's mathematics so I can see why you would be confused. The curvature is small right up to 60 miles high where on an average camera is about 10 degrees of variance across the image.
The claim thus proved as bollocks!
2 hours ago, amy G said:And probably just a coincidence, but every nasa shill script has something about "the Earth is very, very big." How very, very scientific.
The phrase is used for the hard of understanding. I am not a shill, I don't work from a script and your audacity in saying something is not scientific is colossal when your whole belief ignores science and entertains buttrinse.
2 hours ago, amy G said:No, you did nothing of the sort. You just claim that as always and hope that nobody cares enough to check you.
Go check - prove me wrong. Or carry on cowardly avoiding it whilst making noise. I actually did number 2 in the post you just quoted....and I just did it again above.
2 hours ago, amy G said:Accusing your enemy of what you are guilty of is a common technique used to stifle discussion and run from truth.
Eric Doyoubuy is not my enemy. He is an internet nobody guilty of the dumbest brand of dipshittery known to man. I am not the one continually ignoring posts then claiming I answered them but failing to show where.
Hey, you aren't him are you?
-
1 hour ago, alexa said:
Show me some that are not CGI or using fish eyed lenses.
Google is your friend.
In quotes "Apollo 11 earth images"
Matches video showing the Earth very far away being zoomed in. Cloud patterns match with hurricane patterns from weather satellites.
Fyi: satellites are things that are launched into space and orbit the planet. People with radio receiving dishes can often connect and track them. People who receive Sky TV use dishes pointed upwards and all at the same satellite cluster....in geosynchronous orbit.
-
36 minutes ago, alexa said:
They can;t even take a true picture of earth let alone these other so called planets, I suppose your the type who believes in A-lie-ns too.
We have hundreds of images of full Earth from Apollo missions 1969-72. We have thousands from the ISS. We have millions of partials from weather satellites.
You don't really know anything do you?
Aliens yes. Anywhere within hundreds of light years no. An alien is defined in this instance as from another world.
-
9 hours ago, singhz312 said:
Hahaah I have seen that picture of that same engine posted all over the internet, easily planted off a dump truck.
Uhuh. So.....
- A team to prepare all the plane parts for distribution around New York.
- A team to go around invisibly dumping parts - hoping nobody sees people unloading a bloody plane engine AFTER two just hit the big buildings nearby.
- No paper trail for this minor operation - but how many people to be in the loop and kept permanently quiet?
9 hours ago, singhz312 said:Where are the pieces falling from impact in the videos? The hezerkhani footage is one of the clearest and you can see nothing
Why would you, the objects compared to that shot are less than a pixel. It's grainy, unknown generations of it.
9 hours ago, singhz312 said:Don't call me a newbie, you don't know me - in fact I can guarantee I have been researching 9/11 for longer than you
You've made 13 posts dude. You're a newbie.You can't guarantee jack. You've been "researching" 911 but didn't know that September clues already did a silly no-plane movie, or that plane parts were found all over the place. You threw your toys out of the pram when I mentioned them and now you arm wave them away with invisible plane part fairies.
-
6 hours ago, singhz312 said:
Guys please support my video on bitchute and like and share if you have an account.. I think it has hit a few nerves of some shills and agents as I don't think anyone has seen much like this before.... Let's get this video out there!!
Your video is shite and you haven't responded to a post I made showing the problems with video recording and transfer. September clues did this nearly 15 years ago and that was shite as well. Debunked to death.
6 hours ago, singhz312 said:I am 95% sure @Comedy Time is a shill/agent
You don't know much do you. In the space of 2hrs you went from 99% to 95% - keep going and you may even reach the truth.
Planes. Big fast planes.
-
6 hours ago, amy G said:
Your words, we can goo one by one.
1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees
around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur
balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely
flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other
government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake
CGI photos/videos.Many in the flat earth community agree on several things, but certainly not everything. It is why it is all the more comical watching comedy routine claim the fe people say this or that, while never quoting a specific poster. Nobody is perfect, he definitely makes errors, but Eric crushes. He has read everything there is and his explanations are wonderful as he uses facts and logic to shatter heliocentrism.
Comedy does his little routine to argue with his own imaginary arguments and this was pointed out to him on the other thread. How many times for how many of his points did I previously point out that he was arguing with himself? Watch comedy's responses to the globe shattering points and decide for yourself what makes more sense.
Answered already and ignored by you. There has to be something wrong with somebody who ignores the entire first page and then spams a load of Eric Doyoubuy shite. The claim is a meaningless and provably inaccurate piece of garbage.....
"The ISS shows curvature as do all the images taken during the Apollo missions. If you are just going to cry faaaaake, what's the point?
This is a curvature plot by altitude I did:
The Earth is very, very big. At aircraft cruising altitude you will only see 3.2 degrees of variance and that if you can see a full 90 degrees of span."
I also did number 2 as well....
"This is just bullshit spouted by flat earthers as if they know what they are talking about. Since the distance to horizon is almost identical to a flat earth vanishing point due to the Earth being very very big, the horizon would always be below the observer eye line for both and IS. But by how much on this video?
Altitude 20 miles using kilometres is 32 km. Distance to horizon at that altitude is 641.2 km.
Angle from eye line to horizon is.........2.82 degrees! You would need to look down 3 degrees from level to see the horizon. Oooooooh - you see when you put in the ACTUAL figures, all this flat earth hyperbole suddenly becomes meaningless piffle."
There is always an angle from eye level DOWN to the horizon. At sea level it would be a downward angle of 0.217 degrees - 6ft and 15840 (3 miles). It gets bigger the higher you go, but not much as seen from the example in italics.
First and second "proofs" from Eric Doyoubuy - both bollocks. The man is an imbecile.
-
23 minutes ago, amy G said:
I guess from your refusal to give reasonable explanations for the 10 stand alone proofs that we are not on a spinning ball.
I already answered it, perhaps you were too stuck up your bottom to notice or to click the link!!
You just ignored every post in this thread and splattered spam already answered on the last one. That Eric Dubay is a real arsehole - perhaps you should stop listening to such mind numbing crap and get back to your "applied mathematics"
-
5 minutes ago, amy G said:
They were all debunked and just because you posted them several times after does not change that.
That is what you just did. Why are you afraid of difficult questions? If we are not on a plane or on a globe, what do you think we are on?
You assume everything, just as you did with all your straw man arguments you pretend have not been debunked.
You are a disgraceful liar. None of the items presented are straw man arguments. You pretty much evaded the whole damn lot of them with a notable exception being possibly the most insane explanation for perspective ever presented. The Sun vanishing full size at the vanishing point Comedy time indeed.
You are afraid to answer because we live on a globe. I strongly suspect you know this and probably have some sort of financial scam going on. Hopefuly this thread will stop a lot of punters being sucked in to it.
P.s. The middle paragraph above? We are on a globe....what brainless thought led you to believe I thought otherwise?
-
1 minute ago, amy G said:
You have just done it again in the post I quoted and always do. You were asked about earth and you immediately assumed you were on a ball. Not very scientific I must say.
Now you have 10 stand alone proofs on this thread that you have just cowardly avoided.
Listen very carefully. I assumed NOTHING. I have already listed 10 posts or so that PROVE the Earth is a sphere. You cowardly ignored them all the first time round and subsequently are now cluttering up this thread with diversionary bullshit. You continue to cowardly avoid the posts in this thread. Do so one more and it is more than enough to qualify as trolling.
I don't assume we are on a ball, I know we are. Answer the posts. Answer the Moon inverted one or the Everest one. Come on Maths proponent, what are you afraid of?
-
49 minutes ago, alexa said:
Why was it, isn't there supposed to be approximately 100/200 billion galaxies out there?
And you deny they all exist....ergo the bit I wasn't joking about....
Now galaxies either don't exist and all those space pictures from massive telescopes and long exposures are faaaaaake and a cast of millions are in on it.
Or it is a truly dumb claim.
-
4 hours ago, Comedy Time said:
Do you mean the square bit? Notice the resolution issues with this? Then the issues associated with capturing such a fast object at 25 frames a second, then the problems associated with converting a video tape to a digital computer file, then the number of times it has been uploaded or shared, then the problems associated with formatting and compression.
Are you aware of any of those potential issues? What rectification and checking have you performed on this and what methodology have you applied to the image to discount any of those issues?
If there was no plane, where is the original plane and passengers, who mangled and distributed the burnt bodies and sprinkled dna around the area, who distributed the plane parts around New York, how did the explosion go inwards!! and basically that list of bullet points you ignored.
I eagerly await your full and detailed rebuttal.
Still waiting for an answer.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, singhz312 said:
What do you mean plane parts? Man this guy needs to be banned from for forums for spreading misinfo - can you see any plane parts upon the impact in any of the plane impact videos? Why are you lying about such things? Where are the plane parts that are falling from the impact - there are NONE
I need to be banned for debating with a newbie raking up shit that has been covered already about a thousand times? Dude, if you really aren't aware of all the bloody plane parts you haven't been very observant. Oh wait......
Plenty more......for anyone who has paid even scant atention.
31 minutes ago, singhz312 said:Now as you clearly have not watched my analysis and you are telling me lies and falsities, I don't think there is much point replying to you.
I watched your piddly film dude, it's been done before and way better. You missed the boat by 15 years. Lies you say? Those pictures above say you are full of it!
31 minutes ago, singhz312 said:Exploding something isn't hard with explosives XD, let me make it simple for you, if you put explosives in the shape of a circle you will get a circular hole. However if you place explosive on an object in the shape of a plane's nose and wings, then you can get a plane shaped crater, hope that makes sense for you although
I said how come the building exterior is blown inwards. Your useless answer doesn't address that. Try again....you may not use the words "magic explosives" though
31 minutes ago, singhz312 said:I am not sure as 2+2=5 for you and you are seeing things that others aren't
Either you have seen a different 9/11 or I dunno really - or you know you are making lies intentionally.
I am seeing what the official account says and only YOU seem to dispute that there were plane parts found all over New York!
31 minutes ago, singhz312 said:Either you have seen a different 9/11 or I dunno really - or you know you are making lies intentionally.
Or you know fuck all about it and just made yourself look quite clueless.
-
1
-
-
Magnesium and lots more than the daily dose.
https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2010-05/effect-oral-magnesium-supplementation-asthma
-
1 hour ago, amy G said:
I see that again you have assumed a spherical earth and then used it as your proof. This is the same logical fallacy you continue to employ and it keeps you from even understanding the questions.
I have assumed nothing whatsoever. I will not be patronized by somebody with your incredibly inept understanding who has about 10 posts alone on this thread that they cowardly avoid......A person who then spams the workings and lies of an imbecile - Eric Doyoubuy.
https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay
If you cannot answer anything posted avove then kindly go back to the other thread where you can carry on evading proof almost every post. Free speech sadly allows people to speak and then place their heads back up their bottoms to avoid responses.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, singhz312 said:
Hahahha as posted here, I am waiting for your reply
Are you able to tell me ....
SPAM. Answered in the other thread.
Are you just going to ignore that list then? I've trimmed it down for you...
- Can you explain PROPERLY how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction?
- An astonishing amount of work had to be done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do.
- On the posted picture by me of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same?
- How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc.
- Do you have evidence for planted wreckage, any dodgy pictures, witness accounts etc.?
- Do the multiple images provided show severe fire damage and lots of the plane now gone after it has landed at low speed and not impacted anything
-
2 minutes ago, singhz312 said:
Hmm it seems like with you 2+2=5, you are trying to tell me that something isn't there when it is... You either aren't that educated in terms of video editing or you are some disinfo perp lol... Good luck trying to tell other people something isn't there when it is... All the best x
Is that a flounce? You going to ignore my little list?
-
3 minutes ago, singhz312 said:
Here, I will make it easier for you
Do you mean the square bit? Notice the resolution issues with this? Then the issues associated with capturing such a fast object at 25 frames a second, then the problems associated with converting a video tape to a digital computer file, then the number of times it has been uploaded or shared, then the problems associated with formatting and compression.
Are you aware of any of those potential issues? What rectification and checking have you performed on this and what methodology have you applied to the image to discount any of those issues?
If there was no plane, where is the original plane and passengers, who mangled and distributed the burnt bodies and sprinkled dna around the area, who distributed the plane parts around New York, how did the explosion go inwards!! and basically that list of bullet points you ignored.
I eagerly await your full and detailed rebuttal.
-
1 minute ago, singhz312 said:
Erm are you sure about that?
Erm yes.
1 minute ago, singhz312 said:Are you able to tell me how you can seen through the wing and see the smoke behind the plane?
Where are you seeing this? That square bit on the wing?
1 minute ago, singhz312 said:Do you know anything about video layering?
Yes.
1 minute ago, singhz312 said:If you think this is possible why don't you go to the secret services and find the camera man who shot this video as well as his camera, and then tell the secret services you suspect this camera has see through vision, or are you now going to say bin laden has see through planes?
I admire your constructive strawman, but if you go back one post and read what I said, it should all be clear to you.
"You aren't seeing through anything. You are getting parts that are capturing the motion and parts that are not, leaving behind remnants. F1 cars aren't doing 500 mph."
I have bolded the bit that confused you.
9/11 EXPOSED IN 10 MINUTES
in 911
Posted
Nope, Try to keep up. I called you a "newbie" because you are a newbie. You said you weren't. I showed you were.
Exit holes. Why "let alone" a massive engine? It hit at over 500mph it has lots of kinetic energy. If nothing directly blocks its path with sufficient energy to stop it, it keeps on going.
Hahahaha..... And you post a picture of the entry point as your idea of where to check for this???
False dichotomy. I am neither deluded as there WERE planes, I am not a shill - there is no need or demand (where do I apply?) and the 3rd alternative the parts went out the exit holes - you know momentum and all that