# 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:** 31
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/601 "2017-10-16T16:27:24Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > I already did several pages ago. He is assuming no other flammables. Which is ludicrous. how much additional fuel would you estimate was in the towers? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/602 "2017-10-16T16:27:56Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and unfortunately the AMERICAN public is not as yet on-board with the program. > oops… planet earth, we have a problem here… We sure do and the problem lies with [Richard Gage](https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/), [Steven Jones](https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/jones), [Dave von Kleist](https://web.archive.org/web/20080702080840/http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html), and anyone else who has been caught using manipulated images to bolster their arguments. ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/603 "2017-10-16T16:29:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > how much additional fuel would you estimate was in the towers? Well, there were large bunkers for power backup diesel generators, but I think they are referring to all the other flammables in a building. Office supplies, furniture, cleaning supplies, etc etc…all the stuff that burns in regular office fires. You do realize that buildings catch on fire sometimes, even those not hit by planes, yes? ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/604 "2017-10-16T16:29:51Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > There were hundreds of videos taken that day. They’re _all_ doctored? what “hundreds” of videos actually show the south wall of the south tower being allegedly penetrated by an airliner? How many of them can you count? ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/605 "2017-10-16T16:30:27Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > 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. > [@running\_coach](#): > > It takes time to break up. Metal is elastic under those forces, it’s not going to shatter like glass. > And there were effects at the impact, [a flash of light.](http://911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html) > [Just like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXyr4Y0aP0) Read the first link. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/606 "2017-10-16T16:32:27Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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. and in addition to the assumption that there was sufficient fuel to do the job there is also the assumption that the damage would be symmetrical, because if it were NOT symmetrical, how does anyone account for the complete and total destruction of the tower? ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/607 "2017-10-16T16:32:34Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > how much additional fuel would you estimate was in the towers? Paper, furniture, paneling, flooring, plastic and ghod knows what else…probably not even a tenth of the possible fuel sources available in a typical office building. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/608 "2017-10-16T16:32:57Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > how much additional fuel would you estimate was in the towers? Too much for me, or perhaps anyone to calculate: The amount of paper in a 2001 office was _incredible_, you also have mutiple plastic objects like computers, printers & CRT monitors to burn. Plus carpeting & furniture (any fireproofing of them would be overwhelmed as they were meant to resist being ignited by cigarettes, not gallons of burning kerosene), etc. etc. etc. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/609 "2017-10-16T16:33:40Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and in addition to the assumption that there was sufficient fuel to do the job > there is also the assumption that the damage would be symmetrical, because if it were NOT symmetrical, how does anyone account for the complete and total destruction of the tower? Gravity. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/610 "2017-10-16T16:34:02Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > what “hundreds” of videos actually show the south wall of the south tower being allegedly penetrated by an airliner? > > How many of them can you count? [1 video of 18 views.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ) Do a search on Youtube, there’s as many as you want to deny. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/611 "2017-10-16T16:35:15Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > From [RationalWiki.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#The_Empire_State_Building_was_hit_by_an_airplane_and_survived.3B_why_not_the_WTC.3F) > [@](#): > > The B-25 is estimated at 9,750 kg flying 320 kph, versus a Boeing 767-223ER (AA 11) or 767-222 (UA 175) with a mass of at least 90,000 kg flying at 750 kph (or 950 kph) respectively. This would have given the B-25 40 megajoules of kinetic energy on impact, while the AA 11 and UA 175 would have delivered 2 gigajoules and 3 gigajoules respectively, resulting in least 50 times the kinetic energy on impact. I used **Magiver** ’s figures, which compared a B-25 weighing 35,000 lbs (15,875 kg) traveling at 272 mph (438 km/hr), to that of a Boeing 767 weighing 142,882 lbs (64,810 kg) and traveling at 559 mph (900 km/hr). If you use **RationalWiki** ’s figures, you indeed get 50.7 times and 81 times the kinetic energy, respectively. The difference is that **Magiver** ’s figures used max takeoff weight and max speed for the B-25. **RationalWiki** is apparently using a figure slightly more than the [empty weight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell) of a B-25, and a speed a bit slower than cruise speed. Since the B-25 was trying to land in the fog when the accident happened, I’d say that **RationalWiki** ’s figures are likely more representative of the actual Empire State Building collision. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/612 "2017-10-16T16:37:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and in addition to the assumption that there was sufficient fuel to do the job > there is also the assumption that the damage would be symmetrical, because if it were NOT symmetrical, how does anyone account for the complete and total destruction of the tower? No, the damage would not have been symmetrical. So what? Have you ever played Jenga? Basically, once enough of the structural elements were compromised the structure would have started to collapse…kind of like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9HaT23b-xchttp://). In fact, the collapse wasn’t symmetrical…it started, unsurprisingly from where the impact was and the building fell to that side first (for a couple of microseconds). But with that much mass in motion, the rest failed and the structure came down…gravity is like that. You can actually see the collapse starting from where the impact was, and I’ve seen engineering videos in slow speeds that clearly shows this. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/613 "2017-10-16T16:37:47Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > what “hundreds” of videos actually show the south wall of the south tower being allegedly penetrated by an airliner? > > How many of them can you count? [http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm](http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm) here is a bit of research material … ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/614 "2017-10-16T16:38:48Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and in addition to the assumption that there was sufficient fuel to do the job > there is also the assumption that the damage would be symmetrical, because if it were NOT symmetrical, how does anyone account for the complete and total destruction of the tower? If damage was symmetrical, how do you account for [the cores not collapsing with the rest of the buildings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47Nv74mTwI) and a significant portion of Two’s core being ejected south and crushing the Greek Orthodox church across the street? ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/615 "2017-10-16T16:39:26Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm](http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm) > > here is a bit of research material … Taking compressed videos and playing with the color levels until your see what you want is not research. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/616 "2017-10-16T16:39:34Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [1 video of 18 views.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ) > Do a search on Youtube, there’s as many as you want to deny. the important ones are the ones that actually show the south wall of the south tower, all of the others are of a very easily faked live nature. ---
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/617 "2017-10-16T16:40:51Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm](http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm) > > here is a bit of research material … Which of these videos shows the aircraft bouncing off? And how do you know that these videos aren’t staged? 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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/618 "2017-10-16T16:41:22Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > We sure do and the problem lies with [Richard Gage](https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/), [Steven Jones](https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/jones), [Dave von Kleist](https://web.archive.org/web/20080702080840/http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html), and anyone else who has been caught using manipulated images to bolster their arguments. "caught using manipulated images " cite source please… ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/619 "2017-10-16T16:42:35Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the important ones are the ones that actually show the south wall of the south tower, all of the others are of a very easily faked live nature. Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that could convince you? Is the idea you present falsifiable at all? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/620 "2017-10-16T16:43:36Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > "caught using manipulated images " > > cite source please… Click on the links. [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=30) [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=32)