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

©2026 Poal.co

389

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (55).
[–] • 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.