1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

First, it's much older than the 70s, the foundational science that we "know" today hasn't changed in any foundational way in closer to a century.

While we are taught that if the observations do not match the theories, that the theory should be discarded. Instead, like with general relativity, as observations defy the theory, then new theories are added on to patch the foundational theory back together in order to explain the discrepancy.

Now we have 3 models of physics; astrophysics, newtonian, and quantum each of which are incompatible with the others.

1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is reddit clone and 10 being voat, where would that fit in, in your opinion?

I miss the old voat, but if that was where most actually migrated too, it would be worth the signing up to an extra site.

by pkvi
1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is unfortunate because closely watching the video, the real plane also does not show any deformation either.

by pkvi
1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

I see your point, but the wings of a plane are so weak that they can't support much more than their own weight, I mean passenger planes not fighter jets that might hit mach 5-10.

The only parts of the plane that should have even punctured the building was the fuselage, gas tanks and engines. None of the rest of it has enough density where even if we assume the claimed speed that should have been able to break the structure.

by pkvi
1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

No deformation on the plane... having a hard body into soft body is NOT physically accurate.