# Who cares to debate the events of 9/11/2001 based upon the laws of physics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2017, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861 "2017-10-14T21:40:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/241 "2017-10-15T16:14:06Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Ping Pong balls do not have wings … > > I rest my case … What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/242 "2017-10-15T16:14:54Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The water cutting of metal as an industrial process requires a water jet nozzle to be placed very close to the metal to be cut and the whole thing requires a special set-up that does in no way resemble the conditions encountered in an airliner crash The reason a water cutter needs to be placed close to the steel is that the water will very quickly lose velocity once it exits the nozzle. A plane, with its jet engines imparting velocity has no such limitation. You are missing the point: with suifficient velocity almost anything can penetrate an object that is otherwise solid. ---
**Author:** ![Jay\_Jay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Jay\_Jay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jay_Jay)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/243 "2017-10-15T16:15:53Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > My thoughts exactly. > Was the plane supposed to bounce off? Splat on the glass like a giant tomato? > > The plane that hit the empire state building weighed 5% as much and still went through “like a knife through butter”. Boy the conspiracy goes back far! NO the B-25 did NOT penetrate “like a hot knife through butter” it STOPPED before the entire aircraft entered the building. there is a HUGE difference between coming to a full stop and having the airliner continue on to completely disappear inside. the airliner was 178 ft long and even if one claims the shorter version was used it was at least 150 ft long. So then WHY should the B-25 incident be a valid example of how “FLT175” penetrated completely? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/244 "2017-10-15T16:16:10Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so in other words, you really do NOT want to actually address issues here > you are only on this forum to increase the noise level … .right? Your reply was useless, and failed to address the issue. You triumphed with a ‘I rest my case’ when you had made no case whatsoever. My reply was quite appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/245 "2017-10-15T16:17:12Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > The reason a water cutter needs to be placed close to the steel is that the water will very quickly lose velocity once it exits the nozzle. A plane, with its jet engines imparting velocity has no such limitation. > > You are missing the point: with suifficient velocity almost anything can penetrate an object that is otherwise solid. He’s not missing the point. He’s frantically avoiding the point. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/246 "2017-10-15T16:17:20Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so in other words, you really do NOT want to actually address issues here > you are only on this forum to increase the noise level … .right? I would love to discuss the issues. However, you are simply stating a belief, e.g. that a plane cannot make a plane-sized hole, how about some proof that this cannot happen? You started this thread about physical laws. These are generally expressed mathematically, so how about some math? Show us that mathematically a plane could not have made the hole and maybe you’ll gain some traction. If you just want to blah blah blah about how it cannot have happened, well, I’m disappointed, I was really expecting something with respect to the laws of physics from a thread with that in the title. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/247 "2017-10-15T16:17:36Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Ping Pong balls do not have wings … > > I rest my case … Ping pong balls are also hollow. Regardless of the exact configurations of matter in the planes that hit the towers, they each had a far higher density of mass per unit of volume than a ping pong ball. You’ve already quoted the formula for kinetic energy (KE = 0.5 x m x velocity squared). You should try applying it in context. Thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in a wing-like shape (due to being stored in wing fuel tanks) and traveling at several hundred miles per hour when they collided with the WTC. As a consequence, there were two wing-shaped holes left as an indicator of the destruction this mass of fuel wreaked upon thin glass/steel walls. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/248 "2017-10-15T16:18:17Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The damning evidence is in the video of the alleged FLT175 penetrating the south wall of the south tower, given that the airliner would have to undergo very serious deceleration upon impact with the wall ( \>45 g ) the airliner could not possibly be expected to keep its shape as it progressed, and therefore is bogus, a broken up aircraft doesn’t leave a wing shaped gash as was alleged to have been made by airliners in the sides of WTC 1 & 2 . Again, what would you have _expected_ to see? And what evidence is that based on? How many jetliners have you seen flying into skyscrapers recently? ---
**Author:** ![Jay\_Jay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Jay\_Jay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jay_Jay)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/249 "2017-10-15T16:20:54Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > The reason a water cutter needs to be placed close to the steel is that the water will very quickly lose velocity once it exits the nozzle. A plane, with its jet engines imparting velocity has no such limitation. > > You are missing the point: with suifficient velocity almost anything can penetrate an object that is otherwise solid. Critical bit here is “almost anything” the fact is that for a physical object \>150 ft long and having wings, the structure of the airliner is in question for this example, if the object to be used as a projectile is a single unified bit such as a ping pong ball, OK, however the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up, it may make a hole in the wall, but in the process destroy the airliner such that the wings could not possibly make that wing shaped gash. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/250 "2017-10-15T16:22:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Critical bit here is “almost anything” the fact is that for a physical object \>150 ft long and having wings, the structure of the airliner is in question for this example, if the object to be used as a projectile is a single unified bit such as a ping pong ball, OK, however the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up, it may make a hole in the wall, but in the process destroy the airliner such that the wings could not possibly make that wing shaped gash. And you have the math to back this up right? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/251 "2017-10-15T16:23:28Z")
\*\*Jay\_Jay \*\*, if they put a model plane in that gun instead of a ping-pong ball, would you volunteer to stand in front of it for $1000? ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/252 "2017-10-15T16:24:21Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > … the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up… No. This is not how the universe works. No signal can exceed the speed of light. Nothing is truly instantaneous (and of course, there is also no absolute frame of reference). The dissolution of the airplanes happened extremely quickly to the human eye, but at a rather slow speed, cosmically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/253 "2017-10-15T16:25:10Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Critical bit here is “almost anything” the fact is that for a physical object \>150 ft long and having wings, the structure of the airliner is in question for this example, if the object to be used as a projectile is a single unified bit such as a ping pong ball, OK, however the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up, it may make a hole in the wall, **but in the process destroy the airliner such that the wings could not possibly make that wing shaped gash**. Bolding mine. Why? Why wouldn’t the wings make their own mark? The sides of the WTC towers were not excessively strong (compared to say the walls of the Pentagon.) So what calculations have you made that demonstrate the the wings would not make a hole? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/254 "2017-10-15T16:25:43Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > NO the B-25 did NOT penetrate “like a hot knife through butter” > it STOPPED before the entire aircraft entered the building. > there is a HUGE difference between coming to a full stop > and having the airliner continue on to completely disappear inside. > the airliner was 178 ft long and even if one claims the shorter version was used > it was at least 150 ft long. So then WHY should the B-25 incident be a valid example of how “FLT175” penetrated completely? The B-25 weighs 17.5 tons with a max speed of 272 mph. Half the speed and only 8.8% of the weight. Far, far less kinetic energy. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/255 "2017-10-15T16:33:28Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Critical bit here is “almost anything” the fact is that for a physical object \>150 ft long and having wings, the structure of the airliner is in question for this example, if the object to be used as a projectile is a single unified bit such as a ping pong ball, OK, however the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, **the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up** , it may make a hole in the wall, but in the process destroy the airliner such that the wings could not possibly make that wing shaped gash. It would crumple if it hit a [sufficiently solid wall.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk)However, it hit glass with little supporting structures at the exterior of the building. The core, in the middle, was the main support for the Towers. Notice the Towers _did not_ feature a concrete wall [12 feet thick.](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html) Notice also, the plane is destroyed progressively, not instantaneously. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/256 "2017-10-15T16:36:17Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Critical bit here is “almost anything” the fact is that for a physical object \>150 ft long and having wings, the structure of the airliner is in question for this example, if the object to be used as a projectile is a single unified bit such as a ping pong ball, OK, however the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up, it may make a hole in the wall, but in the process destroy the airliner such that the wings could not possibly make that wing shaped gash. Were the wings moving at the same rate of speed as the nose of the airplane? Did the wings have mass and momentum? Were the wings roughly 75 feet from building when the nose first made contact? What laws of physics are you describing in your analysis that lead you to your counterfactual conclusions? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/257 "2017-10-15T16:41:19Z")
> [@Jay Jay](#): > > Please think about this, if there was sufficient time to breach the wall, there was sufficient time to do serious damage to the airliner. Wait…do you think that the official story is that there was no damage to the plane? Maybe that’s the disconnect: do you think that we all believe that the plane flew straight through the building? The plane was destroyed by the crash. The destruction just didn’t happen instantaneously as soon as the nose touched the tower. There was enough time for the entire airplane to crash into the building (something to do with physics, I believe). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/258 "2017-10-15T16:44:01Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so in other words, you really do NOT want to actually address issues here > you are only on this forum to increase the noise level … .right? All this shit you bring up has been brought up, discussed and torn apart by people who have the scientific background to actually know what they are talking about hundreds(if not thousands) of times, here at this board and many other places. Your questions are not new, and neither are your sites. For what reason should we start all over again as if the previous 16 years of discussion never happened? Are the already-answered questions you rehash any different just because you are the one asking them? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/259 "2017-10-15T16:44:28Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > But the Empire State building is still standing. Explain that. The ESB had a density per cubic foot about 4 times the WTC. Had the WTC owners sacrificed a little office space for further support, perhaps the Twin Towers would not have collapsed. ---
**Author:** ![Jay\_Jay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Jay\_Jay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jay_Jay)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/260 "2017-10-15T16:53:42Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > It would crumple if it hit a [sufficiently solid wall.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk)However, it hit glass with little supporting structures at the exterior of the building. The core, in the middle, was the main support for the Towers. > Notice the Towers _did not_ feature a concrete wall [12 feet thick.](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html) > Notice also, the plane is destroyed progressively, not instantaneously. “glass with little supporting structures” REALLY PEOPLE how many times do I need to clarify this, the wall was 60% steel by area had decks spaced at 3.6 meters behind the wall and there were welded steel spandrel plates holding the box columns together. this was no “wall of glass” this was structure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861.md?page=14)