# 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:** 30
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/581 "2017-10-16T16:14:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There were other effects seen - it blasted a hole into the building and caused the whole structure to collapse. Because it was massive enough, and moving fast enough, to blast a hole in the side of the building. So most of the wreckage ended up inside the building. > > When someone is in a head-on car crash, and isn’t wearing a seat belt, where do they hit first - the floor of the car, or the dashboard? > > Regards, > Shodan “There were other effects seen - it blasted a hole into the building and caused the whole structure to collapse.” That is what you actually believe? this is really a bit of a stretch to say the least. “When someone is in a head-on car crash, and isn’t wearing a seat belt, where do they hit first - the floor of the car, or the dashboard?” and does the body penetrate said dashboard? ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/582 "2017-10-16T16:14:38Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you don’t know what is really going on here, and really because the conspiracy at least believes that the psychological warfare is so effective as to preclude the need for any action at this level, however, there is an effort to prove them wrong. But you’re here to tell us, right? Bust the whole conspiracy wide open! Now, who do we need to contact to join the resistance? ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/583 "2017-10-16T16:14:47Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > there is a LOT more to this than personal incredulity > have you ever been in an automobile having to stop very quickly from highway speed? > note that anything loose in the vehicle will move, and this is under \<3 g deceleration force … now consider this, the airliner striking a wall, would have to encounter \>45 g deceleration force and at that, the 4 ton jet engines would stress their mounts by \>180 tons … can you get your head around that? You keep repeating this like it means anything. It is irrelevant to the impact of the planes on the towers. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/584 "2017-10-16T16:15:27Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > indeed in the act of the building hitting the airliner WHY was all the energy focused on the bit where the aircraft met the wall, why no other effects seen? why didn’t the airliner bust up in to a mass of wreckage outside of the building? Because the building skin wasn’t able to resist the force being applied to it. Why does a bullet not bounce off of you instead of penetrating inside? This is the same thing. Again, the plane weighed over 300k lbs and was going over 500 miles per hour. Something with that much mass and going that fast isn’t going to be resisted by the outside facade of a building unless the building was a solid block of reinforced concrete, which it wasn’t. On impact the plane isn’t going to just stop, it’s going to transfer its energy into the structure, breaking apart but continuing to move forward even as it disintegrates. Like I said earlier, it’s going to be a lot like the physics of a shaped charge rocket-propelled grenade. A small piece of copper can penetrate inches of armored steel even though copper is a lot softer than the hardened steel. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/585 "2017-10-16T16:15:52Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “There were other effects seen - it blasted a hole into the building and caused the whole structure to collapse.” > > That is what you actually believe? > this is really a bit of a stretch to say the least. Why is it a stretch? ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/586 "2017-10-16T16:15:59Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > there is a LOT more to this than personal incredulity > have you ever been in an automobile having to stop very quickly from highway speed? > note that anything loose in the vehicle will move, and this is under \<3 g deceleration force … now consider this, the airliner striking a wall, would have to encounter \>45 g deceleration force and at that, the 4 ton jet engines would stress their mounts by \>180 tons … can you get your head around that? Only if the wall is invulnerable. You’ll notice that the mass that came from the airplane kept moving forwards. I think you are severely overestimating the resistance exerted by the wall when hit by hundreds of tons of mass traveling at 500 mph. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/587 "2017-10-16T16:16:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is there a name for this fallacy? If there isn’t, I’m going to nominate that we name it ‘jay\_jay’. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/588 "2017-10-16T16:17:37Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > **“lying eye witnesses” ONLY the ones who state that they saw the airliner ( or rather the alleged airliner ) penetrate the skyscraper wall**, all of the others may be mistaken or whatever, but the individual witnesses are the least of our problem here. Bolding mine. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh man, that’s funny. Thanks for the laugh, except sadly I know you’re serious. So we can basically call it quits then right? You’re saying that any evidence contrary to what you believe is automatically wrong by fiat. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/589 "2017-10-16T16:17:49Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > there is a LOT more to this than personal incredulity > have you ever been in an automobile having to stop very quickly from highway speed? > note that anything loose in the vehicle will move, and this is under \<3 g deceleration force … Exactly. Now, which way does it move - forward, or straight down? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/590 "2017-10-16T16:18:05Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > You mispelled ‘sheeple’. Proving once again that the psychological warfare is working ever so well. if you really have no respect at all for the concepts presented here, why are you posting? ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/591 "2017-10-16T16:19:57Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “There were other effects seen - it blasted a hole into the building and caused the whole structure to collapse.” > > That is what you actually believe? > this is really a bit of a stretch to say the least. > > “When someone is in a head-on car crash, and isn’t wearing a seat belt, where do they hit first - the floor of the car, or the dashboard?” > and does the body penetrate said dashboard? Not going fast enough. There’s a huge difference between 50 mph and 540mph. Also, a human body in a seated position is too spread out to focus force on any one spot. ETA: they hit the dashboard. Which disproves your theory. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/592 "2017-10-16T16:20:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Proving once again that the psychological warfare is working ever so well. > if you really have no respect at all for the concepts presented here, > why are you posting? Ignore them, Jay\_Jay. I think they’re all part of the cover-up. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/593 "2017-10-16T16:20:23Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Nitpick: The momentum of a fluid is calculated somewhat differently … the aluminum part of the airplane did some damage but it was the av-gas that brought the towers down … can anyone critique this video? I'm not a chem major, but I know enough to have examined his work at my level of understanding and I trust his figures. .... anybody have any other input? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/594 "2017-10-16T16:22:16Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > indeed in the act of the building hitting the airliner WHY was all the energy focused on the bit where the aircraft met the wall, why no other effects seen? Because that’s the bit where the aircraft met the wall. > [@](#): > > … why didn’t the airliner bust up in to a mass of wreckage outside of the building? Because 100 ton \* 540 mph is a huge amount of momentum. Try calculating how much force it takes to decelerate all that. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/595 "2017-10-16T16:22:24Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > can anyone critique this video? I'm not a chem major, but I know enough to have examined his work at my level of understanding and I trust his figures. .... anybody have any other input? What sciences DID you major in? ---
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/596 "2017-10-16T16:24:00Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > can anyone critique this video? I'm not a chem major, \*\*but I know enough to have examined his work at my level of understanding and I trust his figures\*\*. .... anybody have any other input? That’s enough to discredit the video. Also, the clown on the video is an idiot. The steel didn’t melt, it softened. How strong do you think putty is? ---
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/597 "2017-10-16T16:24:19Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Proving once again that the psychological warfare is working ever so well. > if you really have no respect at all for the concepts presented here, > why are you posting? Because conspiracy theores are a cancer spread by deluded and self-rightous fanatics. They not only spread gross misunderstandings of how the physical world works but they also openly discourage realistic social and political activism by providing a shapeless bogeyman that the conspiracy theories can waste their time ‘fighting’ and patting themselves on the back for being part of a ‘revolution’ that does nothing and goes nowhere. ---
**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, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/598 "2017-10-16T16:25:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > can anyone critique this video? I'm not a chem major, but I know enough to have examined his work at my level of understanding and I trust his figures. .... anybody have any other input? I already did several pages ago. He is assuming no other flammables. Which is ludicrous. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/599 "2017-10-16T16:26:21Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > How do you know? Remember the ping pong ball? > How about the Phantom jet that didn’t disintegrate on impact but progressively? the ping pong ball experiment is not a valid excuse for saying that a suitcase would penetrate a wall made of steel box columns. Also on the subject of that often brought up phantom jet experiment, please note that upon contact with the obstacle, the nose of the jet as much as exploded, as if there had been a bomb therein. HOWEVER, in the case of the alleged “FLT175” the transition was really very smooth and without any scattering of bits, ONLY after the time-delayed hollyweird special effects style fire ball, ( that BTW: was a feature of 3 of the famous crashes ) was there bits scattered. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/600 "2017-10-16T16:26:36Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > can anyone critique this video? I'm not a chem major, but I know enough to have examined his work at my level of understanding and I trust his figures. .... anybody have any other input? The first 2 seconds are a strawman. I don’t have to watch more than that. No one is saying that ‘the jet fuel melted the steel’. That’s a strawman argument that whoever this was who did the video then used to attack the strawman, ignoring the actual assertion, which is that steel softens at higher temperatures, and at the temperatures estimated by thermal views of the building it would have lost up to 50% of its structural integrity, maybe more since a lot of the fire retardants on the main building frames would have been missing or blown off by the crash. Couple that with the frames lost directly to the plane (which you don’t seem to get) and it’s not that much of a mystery as to why it fell. Oh, also, buildings have lots of stuff in them that burn. That’s why we have building fires. Why is this important? Because jet fuel wasn’t the only accelerant for the fire. Another strawman from your video. [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=29) [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=31)