# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/481 "2017-10-16T05:33:56Z")
Here’s some good examples of it actually happening : [1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg) The bullet is made of lead. It’s much softer than steel. Yet as you can see, when it hits steel, it does some cool stuff, turning into liquid and splashing about as it creates a crater in the steel. An airplane is mostly aluminum. Also softer than structural steel. And like I mentioned about, would have about 1/10 the energy of a bullet per unit of mass, so it wouldn’t quite be this dramatic in turning to liquid. On the other hand, the airplane weighs about 100,000 lbs. It’s going to do enormously more damage. Basically like firing off 10,000 kgs of aluminum ammunition all at once. Like 10,000 field artillery guns fired on the building at the same time. It’s a wonder it didn’t do more damage than it did. This also explains why it was hard to recover much of the aircraft from the wreckage. Also explains the “thermite” residue - molten aluminum is going to react with the iron in the steel girders of the building. ---
**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, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/482 "2017-10-16T05:38:28Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > did you see page 45? > there is a drawing there with the dimensions of the steel, > and its clear that the window area is only 40% of the whole, > if you take the dimensions and calculate the area you will see. > do I have to do everything for you? Except, the vertical columns are mostly _not_ steel. They contain hollow tubes wrapped in concrete, which the paper estimates to be tubes of 9mm thick steel of 356x356 cross section. The lateral pieces may be steel, but the paper says nothing about them other than that they exist. That paper notes that the façade is prefab sections of 3 columns joined to two spandrels (lateral pieces) bolted together in an alternating pattern. The prefab sections were about 9x20’, or so. The paper says that the failure of the façade was primarily where the prefab sections were sheared off their connecting bolts, which makes a lot of sense. So, before you post a link to an article, maybe you ought to actually read the article. ---
**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 16, 2017, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/483 "2017-10-16T06:20:53Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you allege “without any evidence” however > the fact that the airline ( according to the video ) > penetrated the wall with no apparent reduction in speed, > no deformation or structural failure visible or apparent in loss of > aircraft bits falling to street level ( and there would have been TONS ) > the concept that an airliner essentially maintaining its structural integrity > while penetrating a wall such as the WTC tower wall, is too much, the > videos are a fabrication a FAKE, and people can make all the excuses they > want, but **airliners simply do NOT do what is shown in the video**. (Bolding mine) How many times have you seen an airliner crash into a building? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/484 "2017-10-16T07:11:24Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Jay Jay, the reason the planes cut through some of the metal pillars is actually the same reason a waterjet cutter works. > > Bear with me a little. At the instant the planes began to crumple against the tower wall, the plane, which is mainly aluminum, is still solid, right? > > The enormous energy released by crushing an aircraft loaded with fuel against those walls is going to turn parts of the aircraft into molten aluminum. That molten aluminum would still have the velocity it did originally. And aluminum is even heavier than liquid water, and if it’s hot, it has enormous ability to tear through metal. So that molten aluminum is going to act like a plasma jet, burning right through the steel. Far more energy than you’d ever see with a waterjet cutter, all at once. > > And if you notice, the plane impacts didn’t take the whole tower down right away. You had it almost right. The aluminum is going to dissipate into metal vapor after a short distance, which explains why it didn’t just slice right through every single structural beam on the entire floor. > > Basically the aircraft is really just a delivery mechanism for the molten aluminum. View it this way. If you shot at a waterjet cutter at an office building from a mile away, you won’t do shit for damage to it, right? The water would all dissipate. > > But what if you took the same water and loaded it into a cannon shell. Basically a plastic container with the water in it. And you aimed it at a building pillar and launched it at several times the speed of sound. > > The water would etch some of the way through the pillar. > > Now, scale up. Instead of a cannon shell and instead of water, use a jetliner. Jay\_Jay is talking about illusions and how the lack of a document from an eyewitness matters. Jay\_Jay doesn’t understand the difference between momentum or energy. Reason won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/485 "2017-10-16T07:12:59Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Going fast enough, it can still penetrate even while breaking up and deforming. > > [Supersonic ping pong ball going through a paddle.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo) Notice that even as it penetrates, it’s breaking up but still goes all the way through. > > [Mythbusters supersonic ping pong bal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q)l. 1600ft/s-energy of roughly 210 lft-lbs. Much more than almost all .22LRs. Yeah, but do you have the documents from the eyewitnesses? Or just the tel-lie-video? ---
**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, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/486 "2017-10-16T08:03:19Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you allege “without any evidence” however > the fact that the airline ( according to the video ) > penetrated the wall with no apparent reduction in speed, > no deformation or structural failure visible or apparent in loss of > aircraft bits falling to street level ( and there would have been TONS ) > the concept that an airliner essentially maintaining its structural integrity > while penetrating a wall such as the WTC tower wall, is too much, the > videos are a fabrication a FAKE, and people can make all the excuses they > want, but airliners simply do NOT do what is shown in the video. I’m going to have to ask at this point; how old are you? Were you alive, or yet at the age of reason, when 9/11 happened? Because I don’t think you understand the ludicrousness of what you’re saying. This isn’t just something we were told happened by “the media” and shown some videos of later. This is a thing that millions of people watched live as it happened - both people in NYC who saw it in person, and millions around the world who saw it live on TV as it was filmed from cameras situated at dozens of different angles all around the city on the ground and on helicopters, by all the major news networks. To assert that a plane didn’t hit the building is simply unjustifiable, as there’s no conceivable way to explain so many different people and so many video recordings documenting the exact same thing happening in the same way at the same instant in time. The greatest CGI available _today_, let alone 16 years ago, couldn’t render a photorealistic-from-all-angles airliner in 3D moving at high speed _in real time_, and there’s no such thing as a technology that can project a rapidly-moving 3D hologram into the sky. Moreover, it remains a fact that this flight took off that morning, that neither the plane nor anyone onboard it have been seen alive or intact since, and that countless artifacts have been recovered that have been positively identified as parts of the plane and as the bodies and physical effects of its passengers and crew. Moreover, you have to address the fact that the damage _exists_ and was caused by something, and there simply isn’t any explanation for the damage done that better fits the existing evidence than an airplane impact. Lastly, you have to answer the question - if 9/11 wasn’t what it appears to have been and was committed by some nefarious group of evildoers for some convoluted purpose, why do it in such a clumsy way that anyone could figure it out by applying “the laws of physics”? If they wanted people to believe terrorists flew planes into the building, why not _actually fly planes into the building_, which they certainly had the ability to do if they had the ability to wire the entire building with explosives? And if they could wire the entire building with explosives, why bother with faking a plane crash? And if this cabal is so amoral and willing to go to such lengths to murder thousands of American citizens in cold blood, _why haven’t they tried to silence you or the other “truthers” who’ve been threatening to expose them for 16 years now?_ You strike me as a young person who’s just read about Smedley Butler or the Gulf of Tonkin for the first time and thinks you’ve cracked the case on what’s REALLY going on, and everyone would realize it if only they applied the common sense that you’re so sure is common and sensical. I recommend [this Popular Mechanics article](http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/) (from 2005, which shows you how long we’ve been hearing truthers relitigate this stuff for) for a primer on why and how we know what happened. Oh - and please do work on your sentence structure and punctuation. It’s hard to take you seriously when you type like you’re participating in a poetry slam. ---
**Author:** ![Bones\_Daley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@Bones\_Daley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bones_Daley)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/487 "2017-10-16T08:35:43Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > This isn’t just something we were told happened by “the media” and shown some videos of later. \*\*This is a thing that millions of people watched live as it happened \*\*- both people in NYC who saw it in person, and millions around the world who saw it live on TV Really? Millions watched it **as it happened**? ---
**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, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/488 "2017-10-16T08:44:36Z")
> [@Bones\_Daley](#): > > Really? Millions watched it **as it happened**? I don’t have the Nielsen ratings on hand, but yes. Millions watched as it happened. The second impact was broadcast live on all the major broadcast and cable news networks in the US, and in most of the rest of the world as well. Anyone who was alive and watching TV that morning can attest to this. ---
**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 16, 2017, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/489 "2017-10-16T08:45:57Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I don’t have the Nielsen ratings on hand, but yes. Millions watched as it happened. The second impact was broadcast live on all the major broadcast and cable news networks in the US, and in most of the rest of the world as well. Anyone who was alive and watching TV that morning can attest to this. I remember my initial thought was, “Shit, normally spongebob is on right now, what’s this crap on the news and why’s everyone so scared?” ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/490 "2017-10-16T09:19:36Z")
> [@Bones\_Daley](#): > > Really? Millions watched it **as it happened**? Well, NYC has about 8,5 million people in it. The Twin Towers were very visible and tall parts of the skyline. After the first impact, it seems quite likely that a significant fraction of the population was watching the burning towers. So it does not seem unlikely that millions may have watched the second impact directly. ---
**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, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/491 "2017-10-16T09:52:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “(mostly glass)” No the wall was 60% steel by area Even though facts will bounce off of you like an airplane doesn’t bounce off a building, here [are photos of WTC windows](https://www.google.com/search?q=world+trade+center+windows&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO0tz17vTWAhUN4mMKHUdUB8wQ_AUICigB&biw=1056&bih=518). ---
**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 16, 2017, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/492 "2017-10-16T09:58:07Z")
> [@Bones\_Daley](#): > > Really? Millions watched it **as it happened**? Easily. About 4m were watching it on TV in the UK, including me, and that’s just one country: "Within 10 minutes of the first crash, around 4m people were in front of a TV watching the tragedy unfold. At 2.15pm, seven minutes after the second hijacked jet had crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York live on TV, 3.6m viewers were tuned into BBC1 and ITV." > **[TV ratings: September 11](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/sep/12/overnights.september112001)** > > TV overnights: TV ratings have reflected the alarm that spread across the nation yesterday as news started to filter through of the terrorist attack on the US, writes Jason Deans. ---
**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, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/493 "2017-10-16T10:19:58Z")
> [@Bones\_Daley](#): > > Really? Millions watched it **as it happened**? I was at work when it happened so not able to watch TV, but even when there was only a single known plane, even when it was still thought that it was a small plane, and that maybe it hit accidentally, it was already a _Very Big Deal_. I _was_ able to listen to the radio, and even in those first few minutes, half the FM radio stations\* in my area had stopped their regular program and were playing live feeds from one of the major news networks, all of which were doing live “we interrupt this broadcast” feeds. So I heard the coverage of second crash live. I don’t doubt at all that millions were actually watching it as it happened. \*by the middle of the day, every FM channel had switched to an “all news, all the time” format, except for a single channel that didn’t change their schedule at all. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/494 "2017-10-16T11:20:20Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Hot knives generally don’t disentigrate half way thru a stick of butter, so stop quoting that as fact. Mine do. (Note to self: stop buying gallium cutlery.) > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > TV = TELL-LIE-VISION You are aware that simply repeating “TELL-LIE-VISION” is not any form of argument, right? > [@Bones\_Daley](#): > > Really? Millions watched it **as it happened**? Not the first impact, but certainly by the time of the second tower impact millions were watching live (including me). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/495 "2017-10-16T12:50:59Z")
Late to this party, but - > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you allege “without any evidence” however > the fact that the airline ( according to the video ) > penetrated the wall with no apparent reduction in speed… There _was_ a reduction in speed - the aircraft stopped inside the building. > [@](#): > > no deformation or structural failure visible or apparent in loss of > aircraft bits falling to street level ( and there would have been TONS ) I don’t understand - there was structural failure of the airplane - it broke up into teensy pieces. > [@](#): > > the concept that an airliner essentially maintaining its structural integrity > while penetrating a wall such as the WTC tower wall, is too much… It didn’t maintain its structural integrity. You’ve mentioned demolition a couple of times in this thread - I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you think the WTC towers were brought down deliberately. As it happens, the company I was working for at the time had an office in one of the towers, and a dozen or more of my co-workers were in that office. None of them mentioned anyone planting charges in their office in the months before 9/11 - I think they would have noticed. Also, if it was planned demolition, can you explain how the hijackers were able to crash the airliners into exactly the correct floors in the WTC towers where the demolition charges were planted? That seems like hecka good flying, and the hijackers weren’t that experienced. And the notion that all the videos were faked is hard to believe - there are hundreds, and they would all have to be faked way ahead of time, distributed to all the bystanders and news media, and all of them convinced to go along with the fake. What inducements did they offer to the tell-lie-vision folks to get them to collude with the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens? Regards, Shodan ---
**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 16, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/496 "2017-10-16T13:46:46Z")
We’re asking the wrong questions. Jay-Jay has demonstrated time and again that he doesn’t understand physics, or math, or engineering, or anything remotely related to projectiles and static object mechanics. We need to give up all hope of ever explaining any of it to him. The question we should be asking Jay\_Jay is why he’s so fully vested in believing counterfactual conspiracy theories. Is it that you want to feel like you’ve got the inside track on some special knowledge that everyone else is oblivious to? Is this really about the events of 9/11? Why you “MAD AS HELL”, bro’? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/497 "2017-10-16T14:19:55Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Not the first impact, but certainly by the time of the second tower impact millions were watching live (including me). Ah, but you were watching on television, which \*\* Jay Jay\*\* appears to think is part of the hoax. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/498 "2017-10-16T14:20:30Z")
OK, since an explanation might actually be useful, here: > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m not sure that last follows. We are not talking about acceleration, but maintaining speed. That means that overcoming air resistance is the only relevant figure. The force of air resistance is exactly the amount of energy that the engines need to put out to maintain speed. The force of air resistance can’t be exactly the amount of energy needed, because a force isn’t an energy. That’s like saying that your height is exactly how much weight is being put on the scale you’re standing on. Energy is not force; it’s a force times the distance the force is acting along. Power, meanwhile, is energy per time, or force times distance per time, or force times speed. So if the force needed to fly at constant speed is proportional to the square of the speed (which, for subsonic gaseous drag, it is), then the power needed is proportional to the cube of the speed. ---
**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 16, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/499 "2017-10-16T14:30:54Z")
All these thousands of people conspiring to kill thousands of people…and yet they can’t manage to stop our OP and so many like him from posting “THE TRUTH”. Is this a vast conspiracy of idiot-savants?? ---
**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, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/500 "2017-10-16T14:53:41Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Even though facts will bounce off of you like an airplane doesn’t bounce off a building, here [are photos of WTC windows](https://www.google.com/search?q=world+trade+center+windows&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO0tz17vTWAhUN4mMKHUdUB8wQ_AUICigB&biw=1056&bih=518). The pix you linked to are of the Restaurant at the top of one of the towers, the office windows where only 40% of the total area and the office floors is where the crash allegedly happened. [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=24) [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=26)