# 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:** 15
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/281 "2017-10-15T17:28:56Z")
**Jay\_Jay** , would you care to present your full model of what _you_ think happened on 9/11/2001, complete with evidence? Right now you’re just taking swipes at the “official” story, but I’d be interested to know what your take is. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/282 "2017-10-15T17:33:13Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > OK, I stand corrected the transmission of the shock, would have happened in \<25 milliseconds. > > now are we on the same page? It’s a start. Now go study Newton’s Laws of Motion a little more carefully, especially the first one. Then take a look back at my reply to you in Post 247. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/283 "2017-10-15T17:34:05Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Just copying this post because interested to see Jay\_Jay’s response. The infamous F4 video this is a sample size of one, so not scientifically relevant also the F4 is a significantly smaller aircraft, and the goal of the experiment was to slam the aircraft into an impenetrable block, thus completely destroying the aircraft without any penetration. in the case of an airliner allegedly being crashed into a skyscraper the total disappearance of said alleged airliner, is a clue to what sort of deception is going on here. The real bit to look at would be ballistics tests of hollow point projectiles because the nose of the airliner was hollow, Why should it not behave as a hollow point projectile ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/284 "2017-10-15T17:40:20Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The infamous F4 video > this is a sample size of one, so not scientifically relevant > also the F4 is a significantly smaller aircraft, > and the goal of the experiment was to slam the aircraft into an impenetrable block, > thus completely destroying the aircraft without any penetration. > > in the case of an airliner allegedly being crashed into a skyscraper > the total disappearance of said alleged airliner, is a clue to what sort of deception is going on here. > > The real bit to look at would be ballistics tests of hollow point projectiles > because the nose of the airliner was hollow, Why should it not behave as a hollow point projectile But what you don’t see is the entire plane being destroyed at the instant of contact that you’ve been claiming. Hollowpoints work by the hydraulic pressure developed when they hit a fluid medium-water/flesh/ballistics gel. They do not expand in the air and when they hit a solid object -such as a steel plate(not glass), they spatter the same as a LRN. The WTC Towers were not a solid plate of steel. And you still haven’t linked to your 60%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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/285 "2017-10-15T17:41:13Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The infamous F4 video > this is a sample size of one, so not scientifically relevant SOmetimes in science and engineering you only get a sample of one, so sorry your handwaving dismissal won’t work. > [@](#): > > also the F4 is a significantly smaller aircraft, So how does that mean that the wings will disintigrate the moment the plan’es nose will touch the building? > [@](#): > > and the goal of the experiment was to slam the aircraft into an impenetrable block, > thus completely destroying the aircraft without any penetration. Yes it was. And? > [@](#): > > in the case of an airliner allegedly being crashed into a skyscraper > the total disappearance of said alleged airliner, is a clue to what sort of deception is going on here. It did not dissappear. > [@](#): > > The real bit to look at would be ballistics tests of hollow point projectiles > because the nose of the airliner was hollow, Why should it not behave as a hollow point projectile Please do google image search of ‘hollow-point’ and tell me why it resembles a 737 nose. ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/286 "2017-10-15T17:45:39Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > this is a sample size of one, so not scientifically relevant > also the F4 is a significantly smaller aircraft, > and the goal of the experiment was to slam the aircraft into an impenetrable block, > thus completely destroying the aircraft without any penetration. None of this is in any way a refutation of the argument made. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/287 "2017-10-15T17:49:26Z")
> [@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. Ok. What about the rant early on in the thread where you seemed to be saying that it was not physically possible for the planes to be going over 500kts at impact? You said that the energy needed to achieve those speeds increases exponentially. That is patently incorrect. Energy increases **geometrically** , not exponentially. You even used exponential math where the math should have been geometric. So there is one thing that was ridiculously incorrect. If your understanding of math and physics is that far wrong, it taints the legitimacy of these other incorrect blortings. ---
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/288 "2017-10-15T17:56:36Z")
> [@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. You first. I’ve asked repeatedly for you to supply something based on actual physical laws or engineering principles and not just gut feeling on how it ought to work. You haven’t done so. When you present something that is actually based on either of those two things, then we can assess just where your understanding is going wrong. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/289 "2017-10-15T17:59:15Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > You first. I’ve asked repeatedly for you to supply something based on actual physical laws or engineering principles and not just gut feeling on how it ought to work. You haven’t done so. When you present something that is actually based on either of those two things, **then we can assess just where your understanding is going wrong.** He’s a 9/11 truther. That’s where it went wrong. At least he hasn’t started blathering about how jet fuel can’t melt steel. Yet. ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/290 "2017-10-15T18:05:12Z")
> [@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. I’ll make it even easier for you. What physical law do you think was violated? Be specific. Once we know what law you think is violated we can explain how you’re misunderstanding or misapplying it. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/291 "2017-10-15T18:10:19Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The infamous F4 video > this is a sample size of one, so not scientifically relevant You claimed that an airplane’s wings would not stay intact long enough after the nose cone hits the wall to make their own impact. To disprove that claim, I only need a sample size of one. > [@](#): > > also the F4 is a significantly smaller aircraft, True. Which means that the wings are significantly closer to the nose at the moment of impact than they are in a 747. If your hypothesis were correct, it would be more observable in the smaller plane. But, in fact, it’s not observable at all, because you have a fundamentally flawed conception of how physics works, even on an intuitive level. > [@](#): > > and the goal of the experiment was to slam the aircraft into an impenetrable block, thus completely destroying the aircraft without any penetration. Irrelevant. I wasn’t commenting on the “penetration” argument, I was commenting on the “wings explode before hitting the wall” argument. Are you still going to argue that the wings of a jet would immediately explode the instant the nose hits a solid object? Despite being shown video proof that you’re wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/292 "2017-10-15T18:17:53Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > 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. I believe that I can say with great confidence that if everyone who is in this thread to mock you, to poke you with sticks, and to watch the train wreck were to leave, you would be left with no responders at all. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/293 "2017-10-15T18:59:33Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > That is various bits from the alleged airliner crashes to the fall of skyscrapers, > constitute violations of the laws of physics if the official explanation is to be accepted. > > who whats to discuss this matter? No, Thanks. _Dirty Harry_ is on TV. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/294 "2017-10-15T19:01:54Z")
Here is a bit of food for thought on page 45 of the document herein linked there is a drawing of a wall segment with dimensions that indeed support the assertion that the wall was 60% steel by area now I’m sure there will be people who will pick nits as in it was really 59% instead of 60% and really people can do as they will with the INFORMATION. may I draw the readers attention to page 48, and note the totally disingenuous “fig 25” in that the airliner appears to be fitting between decks, when in fact the airliner body would have to be larger than that 3.6 meters between decks, and the assumption that the nose would land dead center between decks. there is a LOT of assumption in this work, this I realize constitutes me calling a professor WRONG, but here it is and let the chips fall where they may. > **[Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf](https://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf)** > > 5.77 MB in addition to my criticism of the paper, Please do consider the fact that upon striking the wall, the aircraft would receive a jolt, and as a consequence of said jolt, who is to speculate as to exactly what damage would have been the result of this jolt but it is likely to have compromised the structural integrity so as to crack the fuselage. and once compromised, the airliner would crush itself against the wall without further penetration. the KE is finite and as such, would be continuously expended by the process of either breaching the wall or destroying the airliner. to address the argument about HOLLOW POINT projectiles, given that the nose of the airliner was hollow the structural stress upon it given the collision with the skyscraper wall, would be sufficient to deform that is ( mushroom ) said structure, the fact that it doesn’t look exactly like a bullet is not relevant to this, the property of being hollow so as to deform in a specific manner upon impact, and a previous writer even mentions that hollow points upon contact with a hard object such as a rock or steel plate, shatter … fine thus is the performance of projectiles, and an airliner used as a projectile should behave differently? there is a LOT of bias going on here bias toward taking the media’s word for it that is about the alleged hijacked airliners used as weapons. the evidence when you really get down to examining what allegedly happened, the conclusion is clear. there were no airliners… … however, people will continue to allow experts to do their thinking for them, and I can do nothing about that. so be it … AMERICA is in deep do-do, because of the BIG LIE. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/295 "2017-10-15T19:04:33Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > He’s a 9/11 truther. That’s where it went wrong. > > At least he hasn’t started blathering about how jet fuel can’t melt steel. > > Yet. Yes, jet fuel can melt steel, OK however, in order to produce the result as observed, the fire would have to melt or weaken steel in a uniform manner, otherwise we would see something quite different. oh yea, reference for any chem majors out there [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/QbkpOnNzvU8/hqdefault.jpg "911 Jet Fuel Fire Melted WTC Steel?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8) ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/296 "2017-10-15T19:04:55Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > …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? ) I’d say roughly three times out of three. > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The infamous F4 video > this is a sample size of one, so not scientifically relevant > also the F4 is a significantly smaller aircraft, > and the goal of the experiment was to slam the aircraft into an impenetrable block, > thus completely destroying the aircraft without any penetration. > > in the case of an airliner allegedly being crashed into a skyscraper > the total disappearance of said alleged airliner, is a clue to what sort of deception is going on here. > > The real bit to look at would be ballistics tests of hollow point projectiles > because the nose of the airliner was hollow, Why should it not behave as a hollow point projectile You think an F-4 is a poor comparison to an airliner because it’s “significantly smaller” than an airliner, but that a hollow-point projectile would be better? A bullet is smaller even than an F-4. Quite a bit smaller, really. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > …and tell me why it resembles a 737 nose. > [@Miller](#): > > …closer to the nose at the moment of impact than they are in a 747. To be strictly accurate, the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were 767s, and the planes that hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania were 757s. ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/297 "2017-10-15T19:08:40Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Here is a bit of food for thought > on page 45 of the document herein linked there is a drawing of a wall segment with dimensions that indeed support the assertion that the wall was 60% steel by area > now I’m sure there will be people who will pick nits as in it was really 59% instead of 60% and really people can do as they will with the INFORMATION. > may I draw the readers attention to page 48, and note the totally disingenuous “fig 25” in that the airliner appears to be fitting between decks, when in fact > the airliner body would have to be larger than that 3.6 meters between decks, and the assumption that the nose would land dead center between decks. > there is a LOT of assumption in this work, this I realize constitutes me calling a professor WRONG, but here it is and let the chips fall where they may. > [http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf) No,it’s 60% of the loading is taken by the core. There’s only two places that reference your 60% figure and both concern gravity load, not content. > [@](#): > > The vertical steel and concrete core that forms the center of the “tube”supports approximately **60% of the total gravity load** of > the building, while the outside shell bears the remaining 40%. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/298 "2017-10-15T19:09:15Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > No, Thanks. _Dirty Harry_ is on TV. I dunno, this thread has made my day. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/299 "2017-10-15T19:11:33Z")
So there’s this conspiracy right? And our august guest has alluded to who is behind it all. Thus far we’ve got vague references to the Military-Industrial complex and of course, Jews. There wasn’t enough war going on back in 2001 so these groups got together to start the biggest false flag operation in history. They violated the laws of physics with the entire world watching, convinced the vast majority of the public that someone and something else entirely were responsible and they made hundreds of people disappear that day. Is that about right? And for some reason the only people in the world who aren’t in on this conspiracy are people who bear a strong resemblance to the mentally unbalanced. They rant and rave and foam at the mouth because we the sheeple just won’t accept the truth. So they have to get progressively ruder and cruder with their arguments because that’s how you win an argument with people who reject the solid logical reasoning they always present. ---
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/300 "2017-10-15T19:13:29Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I believe that I can say with great confidence that if everyone who is in this thread to mock you, to poke you with sticks, and to watch the train wreck were to leave, you would be left with no responders at all. so you personally are content to make sport of a matter that is of not only national interest but really PLANET EARTH / HUMANITY interest. the forces of EVIL have gained control over the greatest propaganda machine ever invented and they are using it to screw the masses, are you aware of the fact that the mainstream media is broadcasting what they do NOT because they want you to be informed, but in an effort to promote an agenda, that is to subjugate the masses. after 9/11/2001, the powers that be, created TSA, and the public was convinced that negating the CONSTITUTION at the airport was a good idea. Do YOU believe that negating the CONSTITUTION in any place or time, is a good idea? 9/11/2001 was used as an excuse for all sorts of bad policy. and the fact that it can be proven beyond any doubt that the media lied, only compounds the madness. If you have nothing better to do than to make sport of a serious issue, then that is YOUR business. [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=14) [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=16)