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)