# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/361 "2017-10-15T21:20:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …Documented witness statements? This is somehow _superior_ evidence to the [countless videos of the planes hitting the towers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=814rcm4KC5w)? I’m sorry, I’m having serious trouble wrapping my head around this. He’s already said he considers all video and photographic evidence forgeries. Thus I doubt he’d REALLY take witness statements seriously; he’s just using the perceived lack of them as proof he’s right. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/362 "2017-10-15T21:21:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Clearly you have absolutely, and I mean absolutely no knowledge of aircraft or how they’re flown. > > They’re were no problems reaching the speeds discussed. I’m truly not sure why you’re talking about G forces while pulling up because it was a one-shot suicide mission designed to maximize damage. As to what altitude to start at there is no magic number for suicide missions. Altitude is controlled by throttle and air speed is controlled by attitude. Adjust both as needed. suicide mission or no, there is an altitude to start a dive in order to achieve results, starting at 5,000 ft to dive to \<1000 ft to attain speed may not result in sufficient speed to be useful where as starting the dive at 20,000 ft may be too much and the airliner would have to pull out at a much higher altitude. G forces are a significant factor because whenever an aircraft tuns or maneuvers at all there is the imposition of force, and if the maneuver is too abrupt , there is the risk of excessive g force causing the pilot to loose consciousness or worse breaking the aircraft … ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/363 "2017-10-15T21:23:41Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > , so then how is it that marginally trained “puddle-jumper” pilots could be expected to know how to handle a large airliner and not cause catastrophic failure by screwing up a maneuver? marginally trained pilots can look at the airspeed gauges and altimeter and adjust airspeed and altitude like every other plane on the planet. They weren’t trying to grease in a landing they were TRYING to destroy the plane. They eliminated 90% of the job skills needed to fly. What it comes down to is you’re saying the planes didn’t make the slanted, multi floor holes in the buildings. Holes in the shape of a plane. ---
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/364 "2017-10-15T21:25:00Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > what would YOU think if the “news” on TV said that the government has information > about how the Republic of Elbonia is planning a first strike against AMERICAN military assets overseas and we MUST respond by bombing the shit out of the tiny republic… > what? > … The TELL-LIE-VISION is an instrument of propaganda! As others have said, if you feel this way, you need to directly address the problems with the government itself. This hill you have apparently chosen to die on is an open graveyard that smells bad and yields no survivors. You make no friends with this obsession and lose more than you make. Find your way down off the 9/11 hill or join the corpses of reason rotting there. See the futility of this dead-end cause, that you might be able to get a grasp on real causes that matter, make a difference and do not alienate everyone from the get-go. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/365 "2017-10-15T21:25:40Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > If you really are a pilot, please give this a bit of thought > an airliner put into a dive to attain high speed, and once having attained that speed, the pilot must then pull out of this dive, and in doing so would create g force, and if the pull-out is done wrong the g force would break the aircraft, so then how is it that marginally trained “puddle-jumper” pilots could be expected to know how to handle a large airliner and not cause catastrophic failure by screwing up a maneuver? You um… trying to be polite here… really, really don’t know what you’re talking about. Ever flown a plane? No, I don’t imagine you get out of your parents’ basement too often. You make this sound as if it takes test pilot skills to fly a plane fast and aim it at a large structure. It doesn’t. They didn’t have to level out at a very precise altitude or hit a specific airspeed. And one can pull out of a powered dive without blacking yourself out and still carry considerable airspeed. Perhaps you know that airplanes have certain structural design limits. Exceeding them won’t necessarily “break” the plane instantly. It produces stress that is unwanted if you intend to use the plane again. If you are a terrorist intending to crash into a building it wouldn’t matter so much. And you have to go a pretty long way to black out in a plane from G loads. I’ve done it, and believe me it takes more than you’d think. I have no reason to think even a poorly trained non-pilot couldn’t do what the 9/11 guys did. And, off topic, what is it about THESE kinds of guys who think BOLDING certain words gives them emphasis? I frequently see THIS from people making silly arguments, enough that it appears to be a TRAIT of people whose opinion isn’t worth very much. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/366 "2017-10-15T21:28:28Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > suicide mission or no, there is an altitude to start a dive > in order to achieve results, starting at 5,000 ft to dive to \<1000 ft to attain speed may not result in sufficient speed to be useful where as starting the dive at 20,000 ft may be too much and the airliner would have to pull out at a much higher altitude. > G forces are a significant factor because whenever an aircraft tuns or maneuvers at all there is the imposition of force, and if the maneuver is too abrupt , there is the risk of excessive g force causing the pilot to loose consciousness or worse breaking the aircraft … No, there isn’t a specific altitude to start a decent. You adjust based on speed, weight, and distance. You can muddle through it until you get close which is what they did. yet again, you’re saying the planes didn’t make the slanted, multi floor holes in the buildings. Holes in the shape of a plane. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/367 "2017-10-15T21:30:42Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > suicide mission or no, there is an altitude to start a dive > in order to achieve results, starting at 5,000 ft to dive to \<1000 ft to attain speed may not result in sufficient speed to be useful where as starting the dive at 20,000 ft may be too much and the airliner would have to pull out at a much higher altitude. > G forces are a significant factor because whenever an aircraft tuns or maneuvers at all there is the imposition of force, and if the maneuver is too abrupt , there is the risk of excessive g force causing the pilot to loose consciousness or worse breaking the aircraft … Do you know why they hit the building at the speed that they did? They hit it at that speed because that was the speed that they were going when they hit it. You seem to think that they had a target speed at which to hit the building, and they showed off superhuman piloting skills in hitting that exact speed. That’s not how it played out, not at all. They flew towards the buildings, then dove down to hit them. That they happened to be going at one particular speed rather than another is irrelevant. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/368 "2017-10-15T21:30:43Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > because aluminum aircraft do not act as hardened steel punches to make holed in structural steel. The ONLY way that this could have happened the way that it was alleged … .would be for the WTC tower wall to have been made of paper. And yet a ping pong ball can not only punch through a paddle but it can snap the paddle off the handle. And water can cut through steel. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/369 "2017-10-15T21:31:49Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > There is a HUGE difference between a wall composed of structural steel box columns and un-reinforced masonry … Also note that the car ( and the vast majority of cars in this position … ) stopped before disappearing inside the building. Yes, and there is a huge difference between a wall made of masonry and a wall made of paper. There is also a huge difference between the speed of a car and a jet plane. There is an even bigger difference between a plane and a bullet. Your problem is that you have no evidence for your claim. Nothing you have said checks out. Why on earth would anyone disbelieve what they saw with their own eyes based on the speculations of some random bozo on the internet? If you want to be taken seriously, find some evidence. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/370 "2017-10-15T21:37:08Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “Doubling the speed does not mean you square the power, it means that you multiply the power by 4.” SOURCE PLEASE, BTW: there is a wiki article that explains the fact that power required goes up exponentially as the speed increases linearly. [Here’s a spot you can learn a bit about air resistance.](http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/air_resistance_formula/85/) Do you dispute that the formula for air resistance is F=kv[sup]2[/sup], if so, what formula do you think is correct? I gave you the source, I gave you the equations to work out air resistance, and then showed you examples, showing that doubling the speed increases the needed power by 4. Please link your wiki page that claims that the required power to overcome air resistance goes up exponentially rather than quadratically. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/371 "2017-10-15T21:38:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Point, an airliner colliding with a skyscraper wall > would have to suffer the consequences of equal and opposite reaction > and therefore if there was sufficient energy to punch a hole in the wall > that includes having to displace \>3 tons of mass, there would be sufficient energy to destroy the airliner and that is break it up into a lot of aircraft wreckage before it had any opportunity to make that wing shaped gash. > > do you see this at all? Fun fact : an airliner at 500 knots is about 1/3 the speed of a rifle bullet. Bullets can punch through walls. What if, instead of a tiny lead slug, you hit a wall with something weighing around 100,000 pounds? With 1/3 the velocity, it would have 1/9 the energy - which would be an enormous number. That’s gonna leave a mark, even in steel columns. In addition, that isn’t even what brought the towers down. What brought them down was the way they were supporting the roof of each floor. Each floor was just supported by thin, cheap trusses, the same kind you see on the ceiling of a warehouse. The fire stressed and weakened it, and the trusses began to bend. The bending is what stresses the real weak point - tiny bolts holding each truss to the outer pillars of the building. Bolts snapped, and the concrete floor fell on the floor below. Note that the trusses never needed to melt. You know how if you heat up metal, it can bend? Same idea. The bending ripped the bolts out. This happened several times over, and now you have a concrete floor with the weight of several floors on it. Those bolts are gonna snap. Now that floor, with 5+ floors of weight on it, begins to fall. It impacts the floor below, but is now going so fast, it doesn’t even get slowed down. And so on and so forth, pancaking to the basement. So now the core of the building is in the basement. The outer, load bearing shell would still be intact (the WTC was held up by a ring of steel beams around the outside), but for lateral stresses, so it all came down. I read this in a book written by the construction company who actually built the twin towers. So the actual collapse was caused by a weak point, by basically shoddy construction. These towers were not built as strong as they could be, nor were they as well put together as other similar structures in NYC. As a side note, technically if you had wanted to rig the building to collapse with the least amount of effort, those bolts are what you would rig to blow. Put cutting charges on the bolts on each floor. Wouldn’t have taken more than a few hundred pounds of explosive. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/372 "2017-10-15T22:12:31Z")
Let us sum up. Thus far, Jay\_Jay has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding in: - physics - mathematics - air craft construction - building construction - materials science - piloting an aircraft - logical argument - reading comprehension - irony On the plus side, he’s mastered: - hysteria - credulity - conspiracy theory - counterfactual “evidence” - purity of argument from abject ignorance - slicing through facts & science “like a hot knife through butter” ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/373 "2017-10-15T22:23:13Z")
Pages ago, somebody asked rhetorically if the OP expected the plane to splat against the building like a tomato. Checking in now a few hours later, I see that’s exactly his theory. Oh, and as a guy who managed about 30 hours of flight time but never got his license, I can attest to the fact that flying a plane is easy. It’s takeoffs, landings, and the intricacies of navigation that are tricky. I’m not impressed with the skills needed to fly an airplane into a building, even if they require the person to pick up speed and reduce altitude first (dropping the nose is the easiest way to increase speed and reduce altitude; merely aiming at their target accomplished the miracles of flight being described). ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/374 "2017-10-15T22:26:05Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Pages ago, somebody asked rhetorically if the OP expected the plane to splat against the building like a tomato. Checking in now a few hours later, I see that’s exactly his theory. > > Oh, and as a guy who managed about 30 hours of flight time but never got his license, I can attest to the fact that flying a plane is easy. It’s takeoffs, landings, and the intricacies of navigation that are tricky. I’m not impressed with the skills needed to fly an airplane into a building, even if they require the person to pick up speed and reduce altitude first (dropping the nose is the easiest way to increase speed and reduce altitude; merely aiming at their target accomplished the miracles of flight being described). And the hijackers didn’t even need to take off. All they had to do was overpower the flight crews once they were airborne. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/375 "2017-10-15T23:04:50Z")
Or land it. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/376 "2017-10-15T23:09:44Z")
Is this where the argument about the moon landings being fake starts to come in? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/377 "2017-10-15T23:15:46Z")
Sorry, I couldn’t read all of the thread, did you guys at least make **Jay\_Jay** understand that “exponential” doesn’t mean what he thought it meant? And that power required to maintain airspeed goes up as **cube** of speed, not square? (Air resistance goes up as square of speed, but energy = force \* distance, so power = force \* speed.) ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/378 "2017-10-15T23:20:31Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > And yet a ping pong ball can not only punch through a paddle but it can snap the paddle off the handle. > And water can cut through steel. water cutting through steel is ONLY accomplished by having the proper set-up with the machine that is dispensing the water very close to the work, and this constitutes special conditions that do NOT “just happen” . Like with controlled demolition there are LOTS of videos with controlled demolition jobs gone wrong and it results in incomplete demolition. however, because WTC1, 2 & 7 were totally destroyed, one can then conclude that the conditions exactly matching those of a controlled demolition … just happened … what, by chance? ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/379 "2017-10-15T23:24:27Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > water cutting through steel is ONLY accomplished > by having the proper set-up with the machine that is dispensing the water > very close to the work, and this constitutes special conditions that do NOT > “just happen” . > > Like with controlled demolition > there are LOTS of videos with controlled demolition jobs gone wrong and it results in incomplete demolition. > however, because WTC1, 2 & 7 were totally destroyed, one can then conclude that the conditions exactly matching those of a controlled demolition … just happened … > what, by chance? Upthread, you claimed that 15% can’t take down 85%. Now you’re saying it will. Could you make up your mind/ ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/380 "2017-10-15T23:24:39Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Sorry, I couldn’t read all of the thread, did you guys at least make **Jay\_Jay** understand that “exponential” doesn’t mean what he thought it meant? And that power required to maintain airspeed goes up as **cube** of speed, not square? (Air resistance goes up as square of speed, but energy = force \* distance, so power = force \* speed.) I used the word “exponentially” and if its by the square or cube, the power required to maintain air speed goes up a LOT and therein is the problem because there is no way that the jet engines could even significantly contribute to the power required to keep “FLT175” flying at 540 mph near sea level. so then, ALL facets of the 9/11/2001 scene are at the very least questionable. and for certain, the official reports on the subject constitute cover-up jobs so now, are we not MAD AS HELL . . . yet? [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=18) [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=20)