# 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:** 35
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/681 "2017-10-16T18:50:43Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > as a demonstration of inertia, somebody posted previously > that one could tie a string to a weigh and lift the weight slowly > and there would be no problem, however if the string were jerked suddenly > the string would break, demonstrating inertia. > now think about this … an airplane at 800 ft/sec encounters a stationary mass that it must move in order to make that hole in the tower for the aircraft to enter the building. > > now do you see? The plane hitting the Tower is the same as jerking the string. It’s not moving the mass of the building, only the mass of the facade _where contact is made_. Even the facade one floor above or below is not involved. The core is not involved in the initial contact. When you go home tonight, drive as fast as you can into your garage door. Do you destroy the door or push the house off the foundation? ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/682 "2017-10-16T18:51:51Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you do understand of course > that the term “conspiracy theorist” was invented by the Government > in the wake of the controversy over the JFK assassination … Oh, please start another thread on the topic. Please! But not until we’ve fully flushed out the 9/11 subject. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/683 "2017-10-16T18:52:43Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > When you go home tonight, drive as fast as you can into your garage door. Do you destroy the door or push the house off the foundation? Real car or holographic car? ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/684 "2017-10-16T18:54:24Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > nice broad brush … > not all activists are alike > . > Think about it … I have. Frankly I have yet to encounter a CTer online or in person who wasn’t the epitome of Dunnigan-Kruger in action. I haven’t encountered a single one who was actually doing something about what they saw as an injustice beyond whining on message boards or holding up signs at ground zero or some useless crap. None of them actually were doing any real activism. And if they were they were just embarassing others: Often their limited effortswere detrimental. I’ve seen 9/11 truthers told to leave peace & protest marches because they made the marchers look bad as well as idiotic. But you all think you are the heroes! you all thought you are/were going to be part of the “COMING REVOLUSHION!!!” and would be the founding fathers of the new order that saw through it all before the rest of you sheeple. Once they got started talking you realized all CTers wanted to do was be little future _zampfpolit_ selectively executing the people who dared counter their silly claims in online forums. Let us recall that the _leaders_ of the truther movement, not some rando hothead truther, were calling for the death of the more prominent 9/11 debunkers. The movement is and was poison. I’ve seen the truther movement get dumber and dumber over time. As time went on the obvious standouts who ‘started’ the movement were well established so to make a name for yourself in the movement you had to make even crazier claims than the last guy. This lead to silliness like Space Beams, VicSims, Holographic planes, and even worse. This syndrome effects almost all conspriacy circles from the Moon Landing Hoaxers to Sandy Hook ‘truthers’ to Birthers. The CTers spout this BS almost hourly without any concners for the victims that they are hurting with their BS. Conspriacy theores are a cancer. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/685 "2017-10-16T18:56:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Real car or holographic car? Real car. Absolutely. Though he’ll need a holographic Doctor after. ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/686 "2017-10-16T18:57:40Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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. a stack of Jenga blocks is nothing like a skyscraper in addition to the fact that you can not guarantee total destruction of any given stack by messing with the top 15% also, the fact is that the material from the upper mass could not have maintained itself as a coherent mass, but became a mass of disconnected rubble further down in the event, therefore the rubble had the freedom to exit out the side of the building and therefore deprive the “piledriver” of mass and stop the action. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/687 "2017-10-16T19:00:38Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > a stack of Jenga blocks is nothing like a skyscraper No, it’s not except as a visual demonstration that if you remove structural support it will fall over. > [@](#): > > in addition to the fact that you can not guarantee total destruction of any given stack by messing with the top 15% No, you pulled that number out of your ass. If you take away enough structural support from a building or any other structure it’s going to collapse. Just get a bit of it moving downward and the whole things is going to come down because of the amount of mass being balanced by those supports. > [@](#): > > also, the fact is that the material from the upper mass could not have maintained itself as a coherent mass, but became a mass of disconnected rubble further down in the event, therefore the rubble had the freedom to exit out the side of the building and therefore deprive the “piledriver” of mass and stop the action. No. Did you watch the video? ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/688 "2017-10-16T19:02:12Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > a stack of Jenga blocks is nothing like a skyscraper > in addition to the fact that **you can not guarantee total destruction of any given stack by messing with the top 15%** > also, the fact is that the material from the upper mass could not have maintained itself as a coherent mass, but became a mass of disconnected rubble further down in the event, therefore the rubble had the freedom to exit out the side of the building and therefore deprive the “piledriver” of mass and stop the action. So much for your controlled demolition crap. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/689 "2017-10-16T19:02:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > also, the fact is that the material from the upper mass could not have maintained itself as a coherent mass, but became a mass of disconnected rubble further down in the event, therefore the rubble had the freedom to exit out the side of the building and therefore deprive the “piledriver” of mass and stop the action. Things that are falling downward don’t move sideways unless they are acted on by some force other than gravity, even if there is a path available. Think about it - if I crash my car head-on into something, I don’t fly out the side window even if it is open. The material from above the point of impact doesn’t have to maintain itself as a coherent mass - it falls downward, breaks the floor below, the rubble from the floor below falls downward and smashes the floors below, and so on. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/690 "2017-10-16T19:06:30Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > So much for your controlled demolition crap. Or uncontrolled demolition, for that matter. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/691 "2017-10-16T19:11:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Things that are falling downward don’t move sideways unless they are acted on by some force other than gravity, even if there is a path available. > > Think about it - if I crash my car head-on into something, I don’t fly out the side window even if it is open. > > The material from above the point of impact doesn’t have to maintain itself as a coherent mass - it falls downward, breaks the floor below, the rubble from the floor below falls downward and smashes the floors below, and so on. > > Regards, > Shodan not accounting for the resistance that would be in the floor below upon encountering resistance, stuff takes a different path that is the path of least resistance. fact is that a mass of rubble falling on the remaining floors of the skyscraper would most likely form a cone shaped mound on top of the lower floors and thereby having the falling stuff roll off and down the sides. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/692 "2017-10-16T19:17:07Z")
We’re still trying to teach Jay\_Jay physics, math, engineering and logic. He’s resisted every single attempt for 15 pages now and it doesn’t seem like he’s interested in accepting anything that doesn’t fit his original opinions on the subject of 9/11. I’d much rather learn the real drivers behind his belief system. Who is ultimately responsible for these events, their motives and what he thinks ought to be done about it? ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/693 "2017-10-16T19:17:21Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > not accounting for the resistance that would be in the floor below > upon encountering resistance, stuff takes a different path > that is the path of least resistance. fact is that a mass of rubble > falling on the remaining floors of the skyscraper would most likely > form a cone shaped mound on top of the lower floors and thereby > having the falling stuff roll off and down the sides. 4500 tons per floor x 15 floors=67,500 tons on the move. Each succeeding floor adds it’s mass. Remember, the supports are for static loads, not a dynamic spike. In case you didn’t notice, some debris was ejected though the major mass stayed centered. This is obvious from the fact that the Towers fell mostly in their own footprint. What bullshit theory do you have that accounts for the fall? ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/694 "2017-10-16T19:18:13Z")
> [@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. Whoa whoa whoa. Earlier in the thread, you were asking why there weren’t any eyewitnesses. Now you’re saying that the eyewitnesses are lying? So video evidence isn’t good enough, eyewitness testimony isn’t good enough… What _would_ convince you? > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and unfortunately the AMERICAN public is not as yet on-board with the program. > oops… planet earth, we have a problem here… Shouldn’t you be threatening a pizza parlor with a gun or something? > [@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. Also a bit of a stretch: millions of eyewitnesses lying and dozens of camera feeds being faked _in real time_ in 2001. You know, you keep arguing based on physics, but you haven’t actually done much physics. How about this. You think that physics are the knock-down, drag-out argument that _proves_ that no plane hit WTC2? Model it. Put in the work to reconstruct WTC2 (or at least the relevant couple of floors of it) in a physics engine. There are plenty of physics engines publicly available; FreeCAD with DesignSPHysics might be a good place to start. Take a 3D model of a 767 (that’s easy to get), roughly map out the physics and hardness of the relative materials, and simulate throwing the plane at the building. _Do your homework_. Right now, all you’ve offered is, “No way would the plane interact like this”. But how many planes crashing into buildings have you actually seen? You seem to think the answer is “zero”, so really, you have _no_ frame of reference. You’re trying to intuit how these two objects would interact, _not_ actually work it out. And, as everyone else keeps pointing out, that’s nonsense. Your intuitions will not work here because you have _no frame of reference_. And if all you have to go on are your intuitions… Well, we have a lot of evidence that your intuitions are wrong - videos, eyewitnesses, the black box from the plane, and more. So either do the homework and _prove_ the point you’re trying to make, or just admit that you have nothing to work with. ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/695 "2017-10-16T19:18:43Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > We’re still trying to teach Jay\_Jay physics, math, engineering and logic. > > He’s resisted every single attempt for 15 pages now and it doesn’t seem like he’s interested in accepting anything that doesn’t fit his original opinions on the subject of 9/11. > > I’d much rather learn the real drivers behind his belief system. Who is ultimately responsible for these events, their motives and what he thinks ought to be done about it? He doesn’t know anything, he was told what to believe. He was given orders to go out and proselytize. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/696 "2017-10-16T19:19:33Z")
**Jay\_Jay** , the problem with your arguments is that you have not articulated clearly what your position is. Your arguments are all in the form of “this detail of the official story seems a bit off.” They add up to nothing. You need to present a clear alternate hypothesis. And _then_ explain why these little details fit your hypothesis better than the official story. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/697 "2017-10-16T19:19:40Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > not accounting for the resistance that would be in the floor below > upon encountering resistance, stuff takes a different path > that is the path of least resistance. fact is that a mass of rubble > falling on the remaining floors of the skyscraper would most likely > form a cone shaped mound on top of the lower floors and thereby > having the falling stuff roll off and down the sides. I prefer this prose: _“A little learning is a dangerous thing Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Fired at first sight with what the muse imparts, In fearless youth we tempt the heights of arts While from the bounded level of our mind Short views we take nor see the lengths behind But more advanced behold with strange surprise, New distant scenes of endless science rise!”_ -Alexander Pope ---
**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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/698 "2017-10-16T19:21:08Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > not accounting for the resistance that would be in the floor below > upon encountering resistance, stuff takes a different path > that is the path of least resistance. fact is that a mass of rubble > falling on the remaining floors of the skyscraper would most likely > form a cone shaped mound on top of the lower floors and thereby > having the falling stuff roll off and down the sides. Not if the floors collapse under the weight of the debris, which is what happened. And especially not if they are sprayed with jet fuel and set on fire, weakening the steel supports, which then collapse. Downward, not sideways. The debris didn’t have a chance to pile up and spill over the sides - the floors collapsed under the weight. 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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/699 "2017-10-16T19:21:45Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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? we were discussing the towers and it was WTC7 that had the fuel and aux generators. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/700 "2017-10-16T19:22:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > … the fact is that the material from the upper mass could not have maintained itself as a coherent mass, but became a mass of disconnected rubble further down in the event, therefore the rubble had the freedom to exit out the side of the building and therefore deprive the “piledriver” of mass and stop the action. It actually did exit the sides, even from the beginning. I linked to a video of the tower one collapse that shows a lot of shit going everywhere. But a lot of it stayed with the tower. If you drop a ten story building on top of a 90 story building, the 90 story building will fail on the top floor. This is because buildings very rarely fall on top of other buildings, so they are generally not specced to handle those kind of loads. Even, if you drop a quarter of a ten story building onto a 90 story building, it will still fail, because buildings are not designed to handle non-static vertical loads (big stuff dropped on them). Study architecture, engineering and principles of elegance/economy-of-substance. Pass the course with a C or better. Then come back and offer substantive debate. [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=34) [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=36)