These are apples to oranges. This isn't a scalable analogy. You're comparing a force of 50k N hitting lumber/drywall to 21mil N hitting glass. That's 429x the force. This is silly, dude.
And all the force you're describing would have had to have been negated by the second impact since the plane gets "swallowed" entirely by the structure.
-
-
And this all happens without shattering the core visibly since the structure remained in-tact for quite some time after.
-
What's your premise? That 2 Boeing 767s DIDN'T fly into the WTCs?
-
I don't need an alternative to explain how the current explanatory model does not fit all the data. That's how science works.
-
Reminder that the buildings were designed to withstand impact of a 707, basically the same size as a 767. It wasn’t like the designers weren’t aware of the danger.
-
I’m not even arguing that airplanes singularly took down the WTCs, I’m just saying these things aren’t comparable; Nor do I know if
@LokiJulianus even believes if airplanes hit the towers in the first pace or not.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.