Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.2K

Newton’s 3rd Law states that object B exerts an equal and opposite force on object A when A exerts a force on B.

So it doesn’t matter how fast a “plane” is going when it hits a skyscraper. The result is still a completely obliterated plane outside the building. It is literally the same effect as if you put a Boeing 767 on a giant golf tee and smacked it with a steel and concrete skyscraper going hundreds of mph.

Planes crumple and become disfigured even when in flight.

Skyscrapers like the twin towers, on the other hand, are specifically designed to withstand such trauma. Look at construction pictures and see the concrete-filled trusses and steel columns involved in their construction.

This would be akin to saying that a beer can will go into a tree trunk if you shoot the can fast enough.

I agree that the “how” of 9/11 isn’t nearly as important as the “who” and “why.” But it also gets tiresome seeing assertions that “no planes” is some sort of psy-op when it’s clearly the best explanation for the video we were shown.

I could make the entire case here, or at least show a lot more evidence, but let’s just see what weak-ass opposition arises first.

Newton’s 3rd Law states that object B exerts an equal and opposite force on object A when A exerts a force on B. So it doesn’t matter how fast a “plane” is going when it hits a skyscraper. The result is still a completely obliterated plane outside the building. It is literally the same effect as if you put a Boeing 767 on a giant golf tee and smacked it with a steel and concrete skyscraper going hundreds of mph. Planes crumple and become disfigured even when [hitting birds](https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/l/w/5/r/n/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1420x800.1lw61o.png/1506368053584.jpg) in flight. Skyscrapers like the twin towers, on the other hand, are specifically designed to withstand such trauma. Look at construction pictures and see the concrete-filled trusses and steel columns involved in their construction. This would be akin to saying that a beer can will go into a tree trunk if you shoot the can fast enough. I agree that the “how” of 9/11 isn’t nearly as important as the “who” and “why.” But it also gets tiresome seeing assertions that “no planes” is some sort of psy-op when it’s clearly the best explanation for the video we were shown. I could make the entire case here, or at least show a lot more evidence, but let’s just see what weak-ass opposition arises first.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

you're ignoring momentum, you have m1v1=m2v2 its gonna destroy the structure no matter what. the plane may not be recognizable but its metal parts still have momentum

[–] • 2 pts

Momentum has no relevance. The force exerted by a plane on a tower would be the same as the force exerted by the tower on a plane. A 100 ton airplane has a lot less mass than a 500,000 ton skyscraper.

A water balloon won’t go into a brick wall no matter how much momentum (velocity) it has.

Next!

[–] • 0 pt

the plan becomes a shrapnel bomb, how much does a plane weigh? now how much torque would be applied to the leaver arm of said building when hit at a high point? albeit the tower should go toppling over and not collapse into itself but your premise is still wrong

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

If you calculated the torque, which we could, the question would then be, how much torque does it take to knock over the building?

But that doesn’t change the fact that the plane would not go inside the building. It would crumple and be basically vaporized external to the building. Perhaps some pieces of “shrapnel” could be hurled from the plane and end up inside the building from crashing through the (small) windows. But the plane itself would not effortlessly melt into the building.

When you mention torque you’re just talking about the force required to knock the building over. That makes no difference to the fact that a plane can’t enter inside a skyscraper no matter how fast it’s traveling.

However, you raise a good point that if anyone had been told the buildings fell, without seeing the footage, they would never have envisioned the tower crumbling straight down. Obviously it was engineered and not natural.

[–] • 1 pt

how much does a plane weigh?

400,000 to 800,000 pounds.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

The building isn't a solid brick wall though, it's a skeletal structure of concrete and steel with empty space between each floor and between each vertical column. Ever see those videos of cars crashing into houses? The car disappears into the empty space in the house and all that's left outside is a crumpled up hole in the part of the structure where it entered. The car doesn't disintegrate and leave all its parts outside, it contorts and crumples into whatever is left of the car as it continues into the spaces of least resistance. Nobody said the planes were intact and they severed the steel beams of the building, rather they probably sheared off at the rivets upon impact with the steel beams and the pieces of the planes continued inward.

Finally, if you're going to pull off the greatest stunt in the history of the world on camera with witnesses, why not just use an actual freaking plane. Why is everyone so fixated on this plane issue. The truth is the buildings were demolished after the planes hit thus the entire thing was planned well in advance by people who had access.

[–] • 0 pt

Again, anyone can watch the Hezarkhani slow motion footage or really any of the angles that show the face of the building at “impact” and see that what is shown on video is a plane melting almost cleanly into a building with no deceleration. There was no wreckage which can be seen falling down the buildings.

A house is made of wood, brick, and drywall. That’s a far cry from reinforced steel and concrete. False analogy.

[–] • 1 pt

the engines, probably, the rest just crumbles

WCT-7 is the real question, solve that one and you also have the rest

[–] • 0 pt

its not a matter of components its a matter of weight and mass. why do you think a bullet is powerfull? cuz it shoots super hard? i mean cummon. when you have a plane doing +300km/hr every aspect of it becomes a bullet. who cares what the bullet is made of the mass and hardness is still there

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

No, it’s essentially a hollow aluminum object. Not like a bullet at all, which is solid and lead.

[–] • 0 pt

You are comparing a solid lead slug with a thin aluminum tube, lol

[–] • 0 pt

The basic idea is true, but, you assessment lacks of reality in numbers

Meaning: You do not get the expected effect from that substance (alluminum structure) + that speed (it is NOT, at all, anywhere near a bullet)

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Ultimatly Who cares about planes or not planes.

All other evidence points to mossad and nothing is being done about it. We should focus on the implicating evidence fingering mossad.

What I'm getting at is... read all these comments. They aren't talking about mossad role. It's all banter about details that wont lead to finger who did it.

We know WHAT happened We dont know exactly HOW it happened. we know WHERE it happened We know WHEN it happened We know WHO did it, but we dont talk about that enough. There is a lot of evidence to talk about, that implicates mossad.

Dominic suter, urban moving systems The isralie art students Silverstein What about all the wallstreet trading?

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Let me put your mind at ease.

It was blown up on purpose, using explosives planted by some creative foriegn exchange art students.

Impossible to bring down both buildings, they were designed to take a direct hit from a 707, which is slightly smaller than a 747.

Now, let's talk about building 7 shall we?

[–] • 1 pt

I think most people agree about WTC7 but are still hung up on the necessity of actual planes just because of shitty video that has been thoroughly exposed as fake by September Clues, but of course it was fake because it’s physically impossible.

[–] • 2 pts

It's completely possible for an object to smash the windows in and be pushed through like a garlic press you nigger.

[–] • 0 pt

That’s not what happened on tv is it? The “planes” clearly were shown melting all the way inside the buildings. Anyone can go watch the Hezarkhani footage in slow motion and see this.

No plane parts fell down the building.

An engine was placed as part of the hoax on street level but it hadn’t even damaged the concrete beneath it. Also according to my research it wasn’t even the correct engine for the correct plane.

Show evidence of the garlic press theory you have.

[–] • 0 pt

No idea, I just watched it live, and I don't trust anything after that point.

There was plenty of planted evidence, so I'm not even disputing that it's possible there weren't planes, but, yeh the physics of being able to mush an object through another obect when the only thing inbetween is glass and offices is not obscene. "you don't understand basic physics" is a bullshit statement when your own conclusions are questionable.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

The only thing between was not glass and offices. As I’ve described it was essentially a concrete and steel object.

:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/architecture-twin-tower-trident-detail-521026760-crop-5b724ee146e0fb002cee951a.jpg) The windows were designed to be tiny like that because of heating and A/C efficiency.

Also I’ve said before there was a corrugated steel truss on every floor filled with poured concrete. These extended all the way to the edges of the building. Since the “plane” was banked, it would have collided with , seven or eight, and had to go through seven or eight of these giant concrete and steel slabs.

We’re not talking about a giant fragile glass building. Of course it would be different if we were. But it’s a relatively dense, solid, concrete and steel structure.

[–] • 2 pts

I watched a video of these guys that ran a fight simulation see how difficult it would be to hit the towers. Professional pilots couldn't do it. Wish I could find that but it was so long ago.

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah that’s a whole other facet of the argument, they would have been traveling at an airspeed too fast for that altitude. The “planes” in the videos don’t have any airline logos or strobe lights because they’re just shitty sprites from video editing software.

[–] • 1 pt

You absolutely can crash a plane INTO a tall steel skyscraper.

It just doesn’t do much when it’s a Cessna…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1744923.stm

Also there was this…

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-10-12-0610120076-story.html

[–] • 1 pt

Planes don’t go into skyscrapers, thank you for again demonstrating my point.

[–] • 0 pt

The most I could picture in my head going into the building are metal shrapnels through windows, and pieces of building that the inertia has transferred to/through. Now throw in some scalar tech to beam some kind of energy blast or down burst of sorts with some planted explosives and a steel building vibrating like a tuning fork after being hit by a jet you could collapse the building into it's underground parking facility. Wtc 7 never got hit but it's all the same foundation and underground parking making it also susceptible to going down with the aid of planted explosives and a scalar tech down burst to push it beneath the foundation into the parking complex. I've seen videos where the blast space rockets into cheesy cinder block walls and you should know not much goes "Through" the wall as much as the wall itself turns into shrapnel an the rocket just kind crumbles on impact

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah, the example I always go to is this:

Picture a steel support column anchored firmly in a wide open desert. It’s solid steel.

Now fly a plane straight into it at 500 mph.

We all know what would happen. The plane would be sheared in half like a cooked carrot and explode. The column would be left standing.

Then you realize that the towers were built around such steel support columns, one at every corner and a massive one in the middle. Each floor had a steel truss filled with concrete.

Never could have happened like on tv.

[–] • 1 pt

The man who designed the building said "should have been like a mosquito flying into a window screen"

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Ok now light a fire underneath the steel beam that's 70% as hot as the melting temp of steel, then put 40 stories on top of it

[–] • 1 pt

That has nothing to do with what happens to the plane.

[–] • 0 pt

Reeetard ! Your statement if false "Then you realize that the towers were built around such steel support columns, one at every corner and a massive one in the middle. Each floor had a steel truss filled with concrete. " https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html#cross_bracing

[–] • 1 pt

Ok… so there are even more steel support columns than I described. Thank you for linking to images which demonstrate my point that a hollow aluminum plane can’t penetrate a steel and concrete structure.

[–] • 0 pt

A laser will never cut metal because light particles are lighter than metal. It doesn't matter how fast they're going, it will just bounce off.

Do you see how stupid you sound?

[–] • 0 pt

You sound really stupid for using a false equivalency without addressing any of the points I’ve brought up. We’re obviously not talking about a laser. But speaking of a laser, guess what a laser wouldn’t cut through?

That’s right, a twin tower.

[–] • 0 pt

No, you're saying a lighter/less dense object can't damage a heavier/more dense object. Which is obviously untrue.

Even then, there's glass in between the columns, which is an easy path for the plane parts to travel into the building. The momentum of a large object traveling 100+ mph is not to be discounted.

[–] • 0 pt

No, I did not say that at all. Read the title of the post again.

Also the windows of the towers were designed to be tiny to save heating and air conditioning costs. If you look at the picture I posted elsewhere in this thread of a close-up face of the tower you’ll see that it’s mostly a solid structure, and this is not even to mention the horizontal steel trusses on every floor which were filled with concrete.