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

©2026 Poal.co

862

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).
[–] • 0 pt

>We are talking about the impossibility of a fragile hollow object going inside a relatively massive and dense object. It would be like getting a beer can into a tree trunk. No matter the speed, it is impossible. This is why you can’t provide a real life example of anything analogous to this.

Kamikaze planes into armored warships. Hollow arrows going through a moose. Rednecks fooling around with can launchers and destroying stuff with actual aluminum cans. There's even a mythbusters episode where they put a full plastic soda cup through a car window at 60mph. Hell, you can even go stand on a pop can right now and see how strong it is when full vs when empty. It's a big world out there.

But I see this is pointless, because you'll just counter with "an egg can't pierce a frying pan" or any other retarded analogy you can dream up. There's videos from tons of angles, hundreds of witnesses, etc. Prove that that is fake beyond "it's impossible because I think it is" and maybe someone will believe you.

[–] • 0 pt

A moose is literally mostly water. The false analogies you’re conjuring are ridiculous.

[–] • 0 pt

And the twin towers, by volume, is mostly air.

[–] • 0 pt

You could say that about anything on a molecular level…. But a plane is even more air, not to mention fragile aluminum that disfigures when striking a bird.