# 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:** 14
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/261 "2017-10-15T16:57:28Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “glass with little supporting structures” REALLY PEOPLE > how many times do I need to clarify this, the wall was 60% steel by area That leaves 40% as just glass (assuing you are using correct figures). And again, so what? Steel is not invincible. ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/262 "2017-10-15T16:58:18Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > 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). The whole event the airliner going completely inside the building ( allegedly ) was said to have taken between 210 milliseconds and 250 milliseconds there would have been a minimum of 50 milliseconds between the first contact of the nose and the point where the wings had any chance of touching the wall, there would have been plenty of time for physical objects to react to the forces applied. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/263 "2017-10-15T16:59:14Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > 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. Wrong. The wings don’t immediately explode when the nose touches the side of the building. They continue moving, largely intact, until they make contact with the side of the building themselves. [This is footage of a jet crashing into a reinforced concrete wall filmed with a high speed camera.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk). Note that the wings remain intact until they come into contact with the wall theselves. They don’t fly into pieces as soon as the nose touches the wall. ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/264 "2017-10-15T17:00:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “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. I’m thinking this thread title is inaccurate. It should be “Who cares to debate 9/11/2001 based on my poor understanding of the laws of physics, airplane engineering and structural engineering?” ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/265 "2017-10-15T17:00:42Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The whole event the airliner going completely inside the building ( allegedly ) > was said to have taken between 210 milliseconds and 250 milliseconds > there would have been a minimum of 50 milliseconds between the first contact of the nose and the point where the wings had any chance of touching the wall, there would have been plenty of time for physical objects to react to the forces applied. You expect the wings to completely dissolve when the nose touches the WTC walls? Why? ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/266 "2017-10-15T17:01:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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? so YOU personally have heard it all, seen it all and you are not impressed so WHY are you on this forum at all, just to sit here and complain? there are people who, at whatever level they are engaging in discussion and some things are being brought to light, such as the fact that the tower wall was not all glass, and for some people that is new information, so let the people who will engage, do so and if YOU are tired of all of this, by all means exit this thread. ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/267 "2017-10-15T17:01:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “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. You’ve mentioned you got the 60% steel idea from the blueprints. Link to the specific page. I’m not wading through a 123 Mb download. In post 158, I linked to a photo of the Towers with the sun behind. You can clearly see how much glass covers the buildings’ exterior and how small the core is. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/268 "2017-10-15T17:03:25Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > I’m thinking this thread title is inaccurate. It should be “Who cares to debate 9/11/2001 based on my poor understanding of the laws of physics, airplane engineering and structural engineering?” Please be specific, what part of what I have said is inaccurate or incomplete don’t just wave it all off, tell me details as to what you believe is wrong with what I present. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/269 "2017-10-15T17:04:48Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > there are people who, at whatever level they are engaging in discussion > and some things are being brought to light, such as the fact that the tower wall > was not all glass, and for some people that is new information, so let the people who will engage, do so and if YOU are tired of all of this, by all means exit this thread. Who made this claim that the tower wall was all glass? Why do you continue to “disprove” claims that are never made? You are not bringing “new information”, only strawmen. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/270 "2017-10-15T17:08:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Who made this claim that the tower wall was all glass? Why do you continue to “disprove” claims that are never made? You are not bringing “new information”, only strawmen. I did. The outer “walls” are almost all glass. [Look at this.](http://algoxy.com/conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg) Nowhere near enough steel to make a wall that can stop an airliner. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/271 "2017-10-15T17:08:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Wrong. The wings don’t immediately explode when the nose touches the side of the building. They continue moving, largely intact, until they make contact with the side of the building themselves. [This is footage of a jet crashing into a reinforced concrete wall filmed with a high speed camera.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk). Note that the wings remain intact until they come into contact with the wall theselves. They don’t fly into pieces as soon as the nose touches the wall. Just copying this post because interested to see Jay\_Jay’s response. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/272 "2017-10-15T17:10:42Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Please be specific, what part of what I have said is inaccurate or incomplete > don’t just wave it all off, tell me details as to what you believe is wrong with what I present. Well, for starters, there is no such thing as instantaneous signal transmission, at least in this universe. ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/273 "2017-10-15T17:16:09Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > 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). The allegation is that the wall of the WTC towers presented “negligible” resistance to penetration because if the wall had presented significant resistance the airliner would have to slow down in the process of punching that hole and in slowing down the airliner would be stressed and that stress would cause the aircraft to break up and therefore not disappear inside the building but have tons of wreckage fall down the side of the tower to land in the street. however, in the case of the allegedly hijacked airliners used as weapons, the airliners were all made to disappear, that is a good trick FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 all punched holes in walls, and totally disappeared inside the building ( what are the odds? ) ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/274 "2017-10-15T17:20:40Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > 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. Note that to get a \>150 ft long airliner into a building such as the WTC tower, the airliner would have had to have been compressed into a 3.6 meter space and the body of the airliner was 5 meters, so this would be a good trick if it could be done, the act of cramming the airliner into that space would require energy and the ONLY source of energy would be the KE of the airliner ( that would be FINITE ) and so the question is was there sufficient energy to cause the airliner to completely penetrate? some estimates from some experts, will say no, and some will say yes, now… what do YOU think? ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/275 "2017-10-15T17:22:57Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Well, for starters, there is no such thing as instantaneous signal transmission, at least in this universe. OK, I stand corrected the transmission of the shock, would have happened in \<25 milliseconds. now are we on the same page? ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/276 "2017-10-15T17:24:01Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Are you really asking why a plane made a plane-shaped hole? [Because ours is a cartoon physics universe?](http://www.toonopedia.com/coyote.jpg) ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/277 "2017-10-15T17:24:30Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The allegation is that the wall of the WTC towers presented “negligible” resistance to penetration because if the wall had presented significant resistance the airliner would have to slow down in the process of punching that hole and in slowing down the airliner would be stressed and that stress would cause the aircraft to break up and therefore not disappear inside the building but have tons of wreckage fall down the side of the tower to land in the street. however, in the case of the allegedly hijacked airliners used as weapons, the airliners were all made to disappear, that is a good trick FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 all punched holes in walls, and totally disappeared inside the building ( what are the odds? ) [9/11 debris found in New York identified as plane wing](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22344949) > [@](#): > > The 5ft (1.52m) piece was initially identified as a landing gear segment. > > It was found by surveyors on Wednesday wedged in a narrow, rubbish-filled space 18in (0.45m) wide. > > The plane part, known as a trailing edge flap actuation support structure, came from the underside of the wing, New York police said in a statement. > > Authorities have not determined which of the two planes the metal piece came from. [11 Years Later, Debris From Plane Is Found Near Ground Zero](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/nyregion/airplane-debris-found-near-world-trade-center-site.html) > [@](#): > > On Wednesday, around 11 a.m., the surveyors called 911 to say they had found a piece of damaged machinery. What the police discovered was a component about 5 feet high, 3 feet wide and about 17 inches in depth. It was lodged in the narrow gap between 50 Murray Street, a residential building, and 51 Park Place, which is empty. There, it had been “out of sight and out of mind for over a decade,” the Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said on Friday. > > It was wedged in a narrow, inaccessible space between two buildings, about three blocks from the World Trade Center site. And there it remained, hidden from view, for more than 11 years. Ground zero slowly gave way to a new tower. Protesters gathered nearby, angry over a planned Islamic center. > > On Wednesday, around 11 a.m., the surveyors called 911 to say they had found a piece of damaged machinery. What the police discovered was a component about 5 feet high, 3 feet wide and about 17 inches in depth. It was lodged in the narrow gap between 50 Murray Street, a residential building, and 51 Park Place, which is empty. There, it had been “out of sight and out of mind for over a decade,” the Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said on Friday. > > That area is inaccessible from the street, Mr. Browne said, adding that a tiny door opens into the corridor from a neighboring building. [Why Wasn’t One Single Black Box Recovered From Any Of The Crashes On 9/11?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/13/why-wasnt-one-single-black-box-recovered-from-any-of-the-crashes-on-911/#5bde6a791be3) > [@](#): > > Why wasn’t one single black box recovered from any of the crashes on 9/11? Because… you aren’t paying attention. > > Both recorders were recovered from Flight 77, right at the point it hit the outer wall of the Pentagon and disintegrated. All data was recovered from the flight data recorder’s solid state drive, but the magnetic tape in the cockpit voice recorder was, well, this: [Photo of twisted, melted blob](https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ca35bcb4e1bd2be8bd5932cd9bdf8fe8-c) > > Despite a few unsubstantiated claims—some by known attention seekers (liars) no credible sources reported the recovery of any recorders from the World Trade Center site. This isn’t that surprising. Most of the identifiable aircraft wreckage was in the form of dense, strong parts from the landing gear and engine cores, and lighter pieces that were thrown clear of the site entirely. This is part of flight 11 found several blocks away on Cedar Street: ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/278 "2017-10-15T17:27:02Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > OK, I stand corrected the transmission of the shock, would have happened in **\<25 milliseconds.** > > now are we on the same page? Cite? There’s two videos posted upthread of a Phantom jet going into a concrete wall with no instant dissolution that you claim. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/279 "2017-10-15T17:28:02Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Note that to get a \>150 ft long airliner into a building such as the WTC tower, > the airliner would have had to have been compressed into a 3.6 meter space > and the body of the airliner was 5 meters, so this would be a good trick if it could be done, the act of cramming the airliner into that space would require energy and the ONLY source of energy would be the KE of the airliner ( that would be FINITE ) and so the question is was there sufficient energy to cause the airliner to completely penetrate? Yes. > [@](#): > > some estimates from some experts, will say no, and some will say yes, > now… what do YOU think? I’d like to know which ‘experts’ say there was not sufficient Kinetic Energy,where they show their work, and what their credentials are. I’d also like them to explain where the plane went if it didn’t penetrate the building and why plane parts where found in multiple locations around the WTC. The implication of your post implies that somehow there is an even split between experts who think there was enough Kinetic Energy and those that think otherwise. This is far from the truth. The vast, vast majority think there was enough KE and even a large number of ‘truthers’ don;t displute it. Any ‘expert’ who thinks that there was not enough KE is putting on some serious clownshoes. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/280 "2017-10-15T17:28:39Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Note that to get a \>150 ft long airliner into a building such as the WTC tower, > **the airliner would have had to have been compressed into a 3.6 meter space > and the body of the airliner was 5 meters**, so this would be a good trick if it could be done, the act of cramming the airliner into that space would require energy and the ONLY source of energy would be the KE of the airliner ( that would be FINITE ) and so the question is was there sufficient energy to cause the airliner to completely penetrate? > > some estimates from some experts, will say no, and some will say yes, > now… what do YOU think? It’s called destroying the floor(s) it encounters going in. [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=13) [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=15)