# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/401 "2017-10-16T00:27:19Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > first of all, how does your scenario account for the uniformity of the “collapse” What “uniformity of the ‘collapse’” are you claiming? Every collapse video I have seen shows the buildings tottering slightly at an angle as the collapse begins. However, once the failure is established, everything above the point of failure starts down. I suspect that you do not realize that each floor of both towers was about an acre in area. What do you think is going to cause acres of material to shift to an angle while it is collapsing? What is providing the force to move acres (one acre times each floor) to shift sideways when gravity is pulling it down? This is like your nonsense claim about the strength of the walls. Regardless how strong any pillar might be, each pillar was multiple feet away from any neighboring pillar (the buildings were celebrated for their open design that lacked interior pillars while providing large, airy windows). The planes needed only take out the individual pillars in front of them, something that pieces of aluminum over 100 feet long (fuselage) and 20+ feet of reinforced aluminum holding a couple of really heavy engine pods is quite capable of doing. The WTC walls were not built with the pillars side by side like a palisade, they were spaced out to allow lots of light to come through. You appear to think that they were built like fortress walls. Now, you are correct that the pillars were strong. That is why even as the planes tore through them, they also shredded the planes. (The following video demonstrates that action.) However, they were not impervious to other forces and your attempt to dismiss the planes force just because they were aluminum is silly. (Not that I think that presenting facts will be of much use as you have already proved to be impervious to facts.) ---
**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 16, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/402 "2017-10-16T00:28:01Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > first of all, how does your scenario account for the uniformity of the “collapse” Here is one of the three zillion videos of [the fall of tower one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU). Please explain what you mean by “uniformity of the collapse”. Because, what I see is much shit flying away from the tower in every direction. Much shit. This video is not consistent with a controlled demolition with charges. A controlled demolition begins from the lower floors. There is no sign, at all, of anything happening below the pancake line as it traverses down the building. What do you see? Is this video faked or doctored? If you think so, please point us toward what you think indicates manipulation. ---
**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 16, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/403 "2017-10-16T00:28:56Z")
> [@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” . I’m pretty sure the planes slamming into the towers didn’t “just happen” either. > [@](#): > > 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? They do not match controlled demolition. And if they did: what magic hushaboom were they using that didn’t deafen most of Manhattan? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/404 "2017-10-16T00:29:14Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > first of all, how does your scenario account for the uniformity of the “collapse” because it wasn’t the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The WTC buildings were built square and tall with uniform construction all the way down. Once the upper floors collapsed the buildings were jack hammered down one floor at a time. The weight of the floor crushed added to the increased speed as it decended. I’ve already asked you 4 times what made the plane shaped holes in the buildings at the precise location where the planes struck the buildings. A rational person would say “the airplanes”. ---
**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 16, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/405 "2017-10-16T00:31:43Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > There were pieces of the planes recovered. Remember, the wreckage was mixed into the wreckage of the Towers. You ignored the links to news stories of debris recovery. > > A long time ago, I was hit on my bicycle by a full size pick up truck, roughly 5,000 lbs(give or take) towing a stock trailer. I weigh 175. Just dealing with the truck, that means I weighed 3.5% of the truck. The driver said he never felt the impact, just heard it. > So you ranting about 2% as being a significant obstacle is pretty much ridiculous. and was this done at 540 mph ? ---
**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 16, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/406 "2017-10-16T00:35:57Z")
I just realized-- It is _Jayjay_ thinking the WTC was taken down with… _ **dynamite** _! Daym, daym daym! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/407 "2017-10-16T00:37:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > 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” This, while attacking the argument, cuts a little too close to attacking the poster. [/Moderating] ---
**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 16, 2017, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/408 "2017-10-16T00:42:55Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and was this done at 540 mph ? Obviously not but the principle remains the same. If anything, the higher speed will provide more momentum to move the smaller weight. In fact, at a high enough speed, even lightweight materials willl cut through heavier ones. Like aluminum through steel. Something else to consider. When the leading edge of the wings struck the Tower, the force is concentrated along a very narrow point of contact, increasing the ability to cut through. Think of a giant knife or sword. Ditto for the nose of the plane. Another way to visualize is a high diver hitting the water. If s/he hits with hands together in a point, there’s a smoother entry than if the palms are presented to the water surface. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/409 "2017-10-16T00:44:33Z")
This feels like one of those moments where Silent Bob should suddenly impart wisdom to his hetero-life partner, jay. > [@Silent Bob](#): > > At that moment, I felt small, like… like I’d lacked experience ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/410 "2017-10-16T00:58:19Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > We’re making sport of you. _You_ are not a serious issue. The preferred way to attack claims you think are absurd is to demonstrate why you think they are absurd, not mock the person making the claim. * * * Everyone - try to avoid personalizing arguments. [/moderating] ---
**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 16, 2017, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/411 "2017-10-16T02:53:10Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I believe it’ll turn out that your understanding of Constitutional law is worse than your understanding of physics! ☹ > > CMC fnord! so how about you enlighten me what do you believe that I got wrong here? ---
**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 16, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/412 "2017-10-16T02:55:28Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so how about you enlighten me > what do you believe that I got wrong here? So far? Everything. ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/413 "2017-10-16T03:02:11Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > So far? > Everything. “everything” is NOT a useful answer if you do not have specifics you don’t have anything. … events of 9/11/2001 \>\>\> from agents of the establishment \>\>\> Move along, noting to see, its all perfectly normal, no anomalies here. etc … ad infinitum … ad nausium … ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/414 "2017-10-16T03:08:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The preferred way to attack claims you think are absurd is to demonstrate why you think they are absurd, not mock the person making the claim. > > * * * > > Everyone - try to avoid personalizing arguments. > > [/moderating] Understood. ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/415 "2017-10-16T03:10:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “everything” is NOT a useful answer > **if you do not have specifics > you don’t have anything.** > > … > > events of 9/11/2001 > \>\>\> from agents of the establishment > \>\>\> Move along, noting to see, its all perfectly normal, no anomalies here. > > etc … ad infinitum > … ad nausium … Quoted for emphasis. So far, you’ve provided nothing. We, on the other hand, have provided video, material evidence, news reports, research papers that hold up and use real-world science. Your only rebuttal boils down to :“That was all planted by the conspiracy!” You offer not a shred of evidence of this conspiracy yet you believe it exists. What convinced you? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/416 "2017-10-16T03:10:41Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > So far? > Everything. On a level that frankly boggles the mind. You’ve argued with multiple pilots about aircraft, and ignored multiple math equations. You’ve ignored the obvious visual examples people have linked showing the damaged building with supports severed… You’ve ignored the video showing the building collapsing from the location of the damage. ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/417 "2017-10-16T03:19:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “everything” is NOT a useful answer > if you do not have specifics > you don’t have anything. For starters, you have a poor grasp of mathematics. Then, you seem to think that a big, strong building, designed to handle vertical loads, must also be good at handling lateral loads – partially based on a number that is not applicable to where you are applying it. Your general understanding of physics is lamentable (this from a person who took one year of HS physics decades ago and can see your errors). You seem to posit demolition charges where there is zero-to-negative evidence for that. And you are unaware of actual facts that others have pointed out, meaning that your research is incomplete or not competently carried out. “_you don’t have anything_” is the apex of ironic statements. ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/418 "2017-10-16T03:20:17Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Quoted for emphasis. > So far, you’ve provided nothing. > > We, on the other hand, have provided video, material evidence, news reports, research papers that hold up and use real-world science. Your only rebuttal boils down to :“That was all planted by the conspiracy!” You offer not a shred of evidence of this conspiracy yet you believe it exists. > What convinced you? Very simple, in the video of the alleged “FLT175” the airliner allegedly cuts through the wall and penetrates with no visible deceleration, no loss of parts, as in the initial jolt breaking off the jet engines and said engines ending up in the street below. airliner penetrates completely disappearing inside the building. Note that given the fact that resistance to not only penetration but continuous resistance to further entry would be the case and this would deplete the KE of the airliner so that there would be progressively less and less energy available to propel the airliner into the building. All of the anomalies of 9/11/2001 add up to something that just screams fraud, however people are resistant, most people are going to say that there isn’t anything at all the tiniest bit suspicious about the events of 9/11/2001. … ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/419 "2017-10-16T03:27:47Z")
So to be clear, what you’re saying is that the plane should have shattered against the side of the building, causing massive damage, but leaving the tower mostly intact? ---
**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 16, 2017, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/420 "2017-10-16T03:29:00Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Very simple, in the video of the alleged “FLT175” > the airliner allegedly cuts through the wall and penetrates with > no visible deceleration, no loss of parts, as in the initial jolt breaking off the jet engines and said engines ending up in the street below. airliner penetrates completely disappearing inside the building. Note that given the fact that resistance to not only penetration but continuous resistance to further entry would be the case and this would deplete the KE of the airliner so that there would be progressively less and less energy available to propel the airliner into the building. > All of the anomalies of 9/11/2001 add up to something that just screams fraud, however people are resistant, most people are going to say that there isn’t anything at all the tiniest bit suspicious about the events of 9/11/2001. > … You’re claiming that someone faked the whole thing and nobody in the city says different. Do you believe the entire population of NYC is in on it? Are you saying the thousands of witnesses are _all_ lying? Can you describe how the videos were faked and yet not one person has come forward to refute it? All the debris and recovered plane parts were planted without being seen? [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=20) [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=22)