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

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

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

The most I could picture in my head going into the building are metal shrapnels through windows, and pieces of building that the inertia has transferred to/through. Now throw in some scalar tech to beam some kind of energy blast or down burst of sorts with some planted explosives and a steel building vibrating like a tuning fork after being hit by a jet you could collapse the building into it's underground parking facility. Wtc 7 never got hit but it's all the same foundation and underground parking making it also susceptible to going down with the aid of planted explosives and a scalar tech down burst to push it beneath the foundation into the parking complex. I've seen videos where the blast space rockets into cheesy cinder block walls and you should know not much goes "Through" the wall as much as the wall itself turns into shrapnel an the rocket just kind crumbles on impact

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah, the example I always go to is this:

Picture a steel support column anchored firmly in a wide open desert. It’s solid steel.

Now fly a plane straight into it at 500 mph.

We all know what would happen. The plane would be sheared in half like a cooked carrot and explode. The column would be left standing.

Then you realize that the towers were built around such steel support columns, one at every corner and a massive one in the middle. Each floor had a steel truss filled with concrete.

Never could have happened like on tv.

[–] • 1 pt

The man who designed the building said "should have been like a mosquito flying into a window screen"

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Ok now light a fire underneath the steel beam that's 70% as hot as the melting temp of steel, then put 40 stories on top of it

[–] • 1 pt

That has nothing to do with what happens to the plane.

[–] • 0 pt

Reeetard ! Your statement if false "Then you realize that the towers were built around such steel support columns, one at every corner and a massive one in the middle. Each floor had a steel truss filled with concrete. " https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html#cross_bracing

[–] • 1 pt

Ok… so there are even more steel support columns than I described. Thank you for linking to images which demonstrate my point that a hollow aluminum plane can’t penetrate a steel and concrete structure.