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)

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