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

©2026 Poal.co

276

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

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.