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

©2026 Poal.co

1.1K

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).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

The only thing between was not glass and offices. As I’ve described it was essentially a concrete and steel object.

:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/architecture-twin-tower-trident-detail-521026760-crop-5b724ee146e0fb002cee951a.jpg) The windows were designed to be tiny like that because of heating and A/C efficiency.

Also I’ve said before there was a corrugated steel truss on every floor filled with poured concrete. These extended all the way to the edges of the building. Since the “plane” was banked, it would have collided with , seven or eight, and had to go through seven or eight of these giant concrete and steel slabs.

We’re not talking about a giant fragile glass building. Of course it would be different if we were. But it’s a relatively dense, solid, concrete and steel structure.

[–] • 0 pt

Fair points, i'll have to have a rummage about at some point and see if the footage I saw 20 years ago has weird shit in it like obfuscated camera angles of impact points.

Still might be possible to mush through it but that is a lot denser than I thought so now it's not so obvious what the answer is.

[–] • 1 pt

Not trying to be bellicose with the “you don’t understand physics” thing. Just understand that anyone who brings up no planes is usually called a retard, shill, etc so that was my way of turning the tables while making a catchy title.

If you haven’t already, check out September Clues. I can’t really endorse all of their conclusions but they leave no doubt that what we saw was a coordinated media stunt instead of a real terror attack with real planes.

[–] • 0 pt

I sort of just seen too much bullshit too fast and wrote it off instantly.

After that I never cared why it happened, just that there was so many inconsitancies that it was either fake as fuck, or real and a false flag.

I think I actually went "what the fuck" out loud when a news anchor reported the second tower being hit before it actually happened.