# 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:** 23
**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, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/441 "2017-10-16T04:13:17Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so in YOUR interpretation, there is absolutely nothing even suspicious about the whole official story of the events of 9/11/2001? is that it? By George, I think he’s got it! ---
**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, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/442 "2017-10-16T04:13:26Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so in YOUR interpretation, there is absolutely nothing even suspicious about the whole official story of the events of 9/11/2001? is that it? I thought you wanted to discuss the science. Here’s someone discussing the science, as you requested. ---
**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, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/443 "2017-10-16T04:13:56Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I expected you to reject anything I found. You didn’t disappoint me. you don’t have any eye witness statement that claims to have seen the airliner penetrate the skyscraper wall, because there isn’t any. You have proven my point all we have is the video, and the video is FAKE! ---
**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, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/444 "2017-10-16T04:19:22Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you don’t have any eye witness statement that claims to have seen the airliner penetrate the skyscraper wall, because there isn’t any. > > You have proven my point all we have is the video, and the video is FAKE! [Witness: What I Saw On 9-11](http://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/witness_what_i_saw_on_911.php) > [@](#): > > Nicholas Spangler is on reporting duty in Baghdad. Seven years ago today, on September 11, 2001, he was a journalism student covering a primary election in downtown New York, when he witnessed the incident that would lead to that war. He heard a loud noise, looked up, and saw a jet fly into the side of one of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. He ran toward it and began taking notes furiously. This is the article that resulted, which ran in our November 2001 issue. ---
**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, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/445 "2017-10-16T04:20:39Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > No. It’s inside out of view. > The force applied by the aircraft was absorbed by the building. Because the mass is so much greater than the airplane, there’s no visible movement of the building. and therein is a HUGE problem have you ever been in a car that had to make a “panic stop” from highway speed? anything loose in the car will move, and this is in the case of \<3 g deceleration now think about this, a decrease of 1 mph / millisecond = \>45 g deceleration force, in that for every 100lbs of anything ( luggage … etc … ) on board, there would be \>2 tons of force applied to the bulkhead in front of it, in short the whole aircraft would be subjected to HUGE forces from within and that 45 g is more than sufficient to destroy the aircraft. and this effect should have been apparent in the part still outside the wall, the plane would be raining luggage & other bits down onto the street below. and by that I mean TONS of stuff! ---
**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, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/446 "2017-10-16T04:30:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and therein is a HUGE problem > have you ever been in a car that had to make a “panic stop” from highway speed? > anything loose in the car will move, and this is in the case of \<3 g deceleration > now think about this, a decrease of 1 mph / millisecond = \>45 g deceleration force, > in that for every 100lbs of anything ( luggage … etc … ) on board, there would be \>2 tons of force applied to the bulkhead in front of it, in short the whole aircraft would be subjected to HUGE forces from within and that 45 g is more than sufficient to destroy the aircraft. and this effect should have been apparent in the part still outside the wall, the plane would be raining luggage & other bits down onto the street below. > and by that I mean TONS of stuff! No, the luggage and other debris would continue forward. Why do you continue to insist the plane could never enter the building? ---
**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, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/447 "2017-10-16T04:31:30Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and exactly what special magic stabilized the wings so as to remain with the wing cord perpendicular to the wall, because if it deviated, the wing would break without penetrating. Why do you make this outlandish claim? The wings have structure and weight. (More weight per volume than the fuselage, actually). What would make them remain outside the wall when they struck it? They very likely did snap off at the wing root, but their momentum carried them into the buildings anyway. If you have a serious reason to make your claim, (rather than a guess based on how you would wish it happened), please show us the references citing the weight and strength of the wings and the strength of the building pillars. Then cite the numbers demonstrating that wings that were that strong and heavy would have failed to snap the pillars. (And please do not try to avoid the question by pretending that I have claimed that the wings remained intact. I make no such claim and have already noted that the plane would have been shredded by the pillars. I simply note that the shredding planes also broke the buildings as they passed.) ---
**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 16, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/448 "2017-10-16T04:35:31Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > I dunno, this thread has made my day. Nice! 😉 You know, Bridge over that Goddamn Kwai Thing was on today, too. I turned it on just in time to hear the immortal words,\* “Madness! MADNESS!”\* Thought of this thread… ---
**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, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/449 "2017-10-16T04:36:47Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > … the plane would be raining luggage & other bits down onto the street below. > and by that I mean TONS of stuff! More cartoon physics. Every fucking part of the plane, including its contents, arrived at the building at over 500kts forward speed. When the nose (which may be hollow but still contains a bunch of stuff) makes contact with the penetrable (mostly glass) wall, the plane does not abruptly stop. The pilot is _not_ Wile E. Coyote. Everything has the same E[sub]k[/sub] that it did at the moment of contact. Everything in and of the plane continues forward on its established vector until that E[sub]k[/sub] has been delivered into the building. There is no real-world physics that would result in parts and luggage falling to the street. If you do not believe that, try going back to school to learn how reality actually works. ---
**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, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/450 "2017-10-16T04:37:51Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Witness: What I Saw On 9-11](http://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/witness_what_i_saw_on_911.php) OK, I stand corrected, there is one witness who said they saw something hit the north tower. so far so good, however the complete penetration and the speed of penetration is still problematic and the video of the second hit is still totally fraudulent! ---
**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, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/451 "2017-10-16T04:41:49Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > More cartoon physics. Every fucking part of the plane, including its contents, arrived at the building at over 500kts forward speed. When the nose (which may be hollow but still contains a bunch of stuff) makes contact with the penetrable (mostly glass) wall, the plane does not abruptly stop. The pilot is _not_ Wile E. Coyote. Everything has the same E[sub]k[/sub] that it did at the moment of contact. Everything in and of the plane continues forward on its established vector until that E[sub]k[/sub] has been delivered into the building. There is no real-world physics that would result in parts and luggage falling to the street. If you do not believe that, try going back to school to learn how reality actually works. “(mostly glass)” No the wall was 60% steel by area and I have provided the document and the page number to reference for that information. I’m not insisting that the plane should abruptly stop, however it should slow down significantly in that there would be resistance to penetration and also on-going resistance as the alleged airliner attempted to enter the building. Not only that, but there would be huge stress to the airliner and that would cause catastrophic failure of the entire airliner not just the part that was in contact with the wall. ---
**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, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/452 "2017-10-16T04:43:10Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the video of the second hit is still totally fraudulent! Which video is a fraud? There are [dozens](https://youtu.be/814rcm4KC5w). ---
**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, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/453 "2017-10-16T04:44:09Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “(mostly glass)” No the wall was 60% steel by area and I have provided the document and the page number to reference for that information. I’m not insisting that the plane should abruptly stop, however it should slow down significantly in that there would be resistance to penetration and also on-going resistance as the alleged airliner attempted to enter the building. Not only that, but there would be huge stress to the airliner and that would cause catastrophic failure of the entire airliner not just the part that was in contact with the wall. And I quoted the part that said the core took 60% of the load. There was nothing about material content. ---
**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, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/454 "2017-10-16T04:44:58Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and this effect should have been apparent in the part still outside the wall, the plane would be raining luggage & other bits down onto the street below. > and by that I mean TONS of stuff! No. The “stuff” went into (sometimes through) the buildings because your imaginary, impermeable walls did not stop them the way that you want them to. ---
**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, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/455 "2017-10-16T04:46:47Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > No, the luggage and other debris would continue forward. Why do you continue to insist the plane could never enter the building? so you claim that a suitcase traveling at 540 mph is guaranteed to penetrate a steel box column wall by its inertia alone and never-mind its lack of structural integrity … somebody once posted to one of these sorts of discussions that a custard thrown at a skyscraper wall at 540 mph would penetrate … WHO BELIEVES THIS SORT OF CRAP? ---
**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, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/456 "2017-10-16T04:48:03Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so you claim that a suitcase traveling at 540 mph is guaranteed to penetrate a steel box column wall by its inertia alone and never-mind its lack of structural integrity … > > somebody once posted to one of these sorts of discussions that a custard > thrown at a skyscraper wall at 540 mph would penetrate … > > WHO BELIEVES THIS SORT OF CRAP? Ping pong ball through a ping pong paddle. Very lightweight object through a piece of wood and snapped the paddle off the handle. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/457 "2017-10-16T04:49:07Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “(mostly glass)” No the wall was 60% steel by area and I have provided the document and the page number to reference for that information. I’m not insisting that the plane should abruptly stop, however it should slow down significantly in that there would be resistance to penetration and also on-going resistance as the alleged airliner attempted to enter the building. Not only that, but there would be huge stress to the airliner and that would cause catastrophic failure of the entire airliner not just the part that was in contact with the wall. It DID slow down significanrly due to the resistance of the building. And there WAS catastrophic damage to the airliner. The very fact the plane disintegrated before coming out the other side is proof of both of those things. ---
**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, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/458 "2017-10-16T04:52:41Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > You have proven my point all we have is the video, and the video is FAKE! You have evidence that the dozens of videos, by random persons throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn Heights, and New Jersey ALL were faked and no one has happened to step up and mention that their film was not real in over 16 years? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/459 "2017-10-16T04:54:08Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > "Are you saying the thousands of witnesses are all lying? " > > witness statements please (?) This post comprises my statement that I witnessed a plane strike the south tower. ---
**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, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/460 "2017-10-16T04:54:25Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Which video is a fraud? There are [dozens](https://youtu.be/814rcm4KC5w). Very simple, the ones that allege to show the south wall of the south tower as its being penetrated ( allegedly ) by an airliner. there are a lot of the various videos, most of them show the result of the alleged impact however the south wall is not visible, because its blocked by another skyscraper or the view is of the north side of the south tower. the ones to be very concerned about show the south wall of the south tower, however show a fake image of an airliner and this is where people go off, you see its possible to KNOW that something is an illusion without needing to explain HOW said illusion was done. The bottom line here is that commercial airliners simply do NOT penetrate walls in the manner shown in the video. look at the multitude of pix available on the web of airliners that have struck birds in flight, dents in the wings & nose of these aircraft caused by aprox 1 kg of bird… and people think that the aircraft would easily breach a wall made of structural steel box columns? [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=22) [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=24)