# 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:** 40
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/781 "2017-10-16T21:08:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A model that was based on physics was made by researchers at Purdue University. > > [http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html](http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html) > > I don’t think\*\* Jay\_Jay\*\* will bother to learn anything from that. somebody produce the source data for this cartoon because without that data, any bit of computer animation is only a cartoon. … Note that as the airliner crams a 5 meter dia body into 3.6 meters ( further constricted by having floor truss structure ) there would have to be energy expended in the form of slowing down the aircraft, as it slows down, there would be progressively less KE to work with and the required force to cram the airliner into the building would not diminish so at some point, maybe with the tail of the aircraft still sticking out of the hole, the action would stop and all of the energy would have been expended. WHY should people expect that in 3 separate airliner crashes, the Towers & the Pentagon, that in all three, the airliner in question would penetrate completely and disappear inside the building? ( what are the odds? ) ---
**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, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/782 "2017-10-16T21:09:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why would the media commit this “fraud”? > Why would Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump(ESPECIALLY Obama and Trump) agree to this fraud? If you post something as silly as this, then you’ve destroyed any hint of credibility when you attempt to discuss science you are obviously ill-equipped to go near. again demands for speculation what part of we already have all the info we need do you not get? ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/783 "2017-10-16T21:10:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so … do you support the idea that 19 radical Arabs > hijacked airliners and managed to fly 3 out of 4 to their targets, > and that two 110 story skyscrapers “collapsed” because of the airplane crashes > > - a third building fell because of “office fires” Gaslighting now? Mods… if I may suggest… perhaps it’s time you seriously consider moving this to the pit where it can get the kind of attention it richly deserves. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/784 "2017-10-16T21:10:40Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Did they ever weed out all of the fake names with fake credentials? Or the real names with the real credentials…in very unrelated fields of study? ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/785 "2017-10-16T21:10:57Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Also, how much energy was contained in the fuel tanks of a fully loaded 767? and more importantly how was all that energy focused and directed to achieve the observed result? ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/786 "2017-10-16T21:11:42Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > This is NOT rocket science and people can get the subject matter > no matter what level of “degree” ( or not ) anybody has, So then why are you demonstrating such a \*horrendous \*conception of physics and kinetic energy? > [@](#): > > most of it is common sense and if you are one who is impressed by “credentials” Let me put it this way: If the people whose FUCKING JOB is to examine architectural systems failures tell me I’ve got it wrong I’d really, really deeply consider my own position might be incorrect. > [@](#): > > why then not respect the [Patriotsquestion911.com](http://Patriotsquestion911.com) Because the last time I bothered to look at that website is was a mishmash of out-of-context quotes along with outright fabrications that should have been an total embarassment to the any conpsiracy movement except that CTers are incapable of feeling shame or embarassment. > [@](#): > > or AE911truth A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the actual percentage of relevant engineers. None of the AE911T members have published an alternative scenario for the collapse, and have their ranks inflated by filling it with irrelevant degrees such as Computer Engineers and Electrical Engineers, both of whom are important for industry, but are not the people who understand structural issues. Oh, and Ricahrd Gage, their leader, is a con-artist. > [@](#): > > what about these guys with “credentials” Besides what I said above there was also my earlier post (which you ibviously studiously avoided) where I linked to an examination of just how thin AE911Truth’s membership is among relevant engineering degrees. Furthermore - have any of the AE911T argued that the plane would not smash through the building? Does Richard Gage outright agree with you that the planes should have bounced off the towers? I’m pretty sure he argues for demolitions but never claiming anything like what you are proposing. So I think even the 911 con-artists aren’t on your side. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/787 "2017-10-16T21:12:39Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > again demands for speculation > what part of we already have all the info we need > do you not get? _You_ have all the info you need. _We_ need more. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/788 "2017-10-16T21:13:25Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > again demands for speculation > what part of we already have all the info we need > do you not get? So, either you’ve got nothing…or what you’ve got is so silly that it would only pass muster on a Truther board. Based on what little you’ve given us when pressed, I’m betting on the latter. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/789 "2017-10-16T21:14:20Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > somebody produce the source data for this cartoon > because without that data, any bit of computer animation is only a cartoon. > … It’s in the link…there is a link to the paper. Unlike what you are using, they cited their data AND assumptions. Plus, math and stuff. Did you click on the link to the paper that was on the page cited by Gigo? :dubious: > [@](#): > > WHY should people expect that in 3 separate airliner crashes, the Towers & the Pentagon, that in all three, the airliner in question would penetrate completely and disappear inside the building? ( what are the odds? ) What are the odds that a plane hitting the building wouldn’t bounce off and instead continue into the building? I’d say pretty close to 100%…though I suppose with quantum probability the airplane COULD have spontaneously turned into either a flower or a whale. You do understand that the planes didn’t ‘disappear inside the building’ though, right? I mean, parts of the planes were found (at least one of the engines went into the building and came out the other side)…right? But if we take ‘disappeared’ to mean 'disintegrated into the building, then, yeah…pretty close to 100%. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/790 "2017-10-16T21:15:08Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Note that as the airliner crams a 5 meter dia body into 3.6 meters ( further constricted by having floor truss structure ) No it didn’t - did you even look at it? Here it is: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q) Go to the 1:00 point. The fuselage is entering across two floors, with one of the floor slabs hitting about 2/3 the way up the plane’s diameter. ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/791 "2017-10-16T21:15:59Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Furthermore - have any of the AE911T argued that the plane would not smash through the building? Does Richard Gage outright agree with you that the planes should have bounced off the towers? I’m pretty sure he argues for demolitions but never claiming anything like what you are proposing. Remember, his is the group that suckered Danny Jowenko into agreeing with them regarding Seven by stripping all audio from the footage he was shown and not telling him it was Seven until after he agreed. And couldn’t get him to agree at all regarding One and Two. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/792 "2017-10-16T21:16:47Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > in other words you don’t have a rebuttal to what I’ve written > and you choose to complain instead… I don’t need to as others have already comprehensively responded to your claims. Again, how have your views been altered by those responses? What sort of response might cause you to alter your views? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/793 "2017-10-16T21:17:27Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > The idea was originally they would hit the tower slightly in the middle on the side and then the building would collapse. However the second plane, when approaching saw the tower still standing they went for the backup plan which was to hit high and center which would knock the tower over like a domino. Did you get that backwards? The first plane hit high and in the center, then the second one hit lower and off-center. ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/794 "2017-10-16T21:17:39Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Pretty much - yes. (the ‘office fires’ bit there at the end is where you lose it - it was much more than ‘just’ office fires.) > > You got anything better? So far, you don’t. according to the NIST final word on the subject WTC 7 fell because of office fires … their words not mine. the problem here is that people have been totally bamboozled in that the fall of WTC7 includes 2.25 sec of 9.8 ms^2 acceleration, and in that time the building drops straight down and keeps its shape. (now this will draw no end of fire … but … ) the fact is that the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration is total proof beyond any question that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition. there has been a lot of arguing back & forth about how it could have happened however to achieve the observed result, no amount of single point of failure or “progressive collapse” can explain away the obvious here, the building was blown up! ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/795 "2017-10-16T21:20:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > …the building was blown up! By whom and why? ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/796 "2017-10-16T21:20:34Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Remember, his is the group that suckered Danny Jowenko into agreeing with them regarding Seven by stripping all audio from the footage he was shown and not telling him it was Seven until after he agreed. And couldn’t get him to agree at all regarding One and Two. I think that might have actually been the ‘Loose Change’ crowd. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/797 "2017-10-16T21:21:55Z")
> [@PigArcher](#): > > I don’t need to as others have already comprehensively responded to your claims. Again, how have your views been altered by those responses? What sort of response might cause you to alter your views? the ONLY way that I would not hold the truth that I presently do would be for there to have been on the afternoon of 9/11/2001 news reports that included photos of believable aircraft wreckage at the various crash sites, and also the incomplete demolition of WTC 1 & 2 and WTC7 damaged but still standing. Just look at the PENTAGON, where is the airliner? what it all burned up in the inferno that was ignited by the crash? this whole scene is the BIG BAMBOOZLE and its really sickening to see AMERICA get screwed in this way. ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/798 "2017-10-16T21:22:54Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the problem here is that people have been totally bamboozled in that > the fall of WTC7 includes 2.25 sec of 9.8 ms^2 acceleration, and in that > time the building drops straight down and keeps its shape. Too bad that the debris pattern says the building initially fell to the northwest, causing irreparable damage to the roof and upper floors of the CUNY building across the street at 30 West Broadway, with the southwest corner later separating and sliding into the Verizon building next door. ---
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/799 "2017-10-16T21:23:27Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > this whole scene is the BIG BAMBOOZLE and its really sickening to see AMERICA get screwed in this way. By whom and for what reason? ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/800 "2017-10-16T21:24:17Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > I think that might have actually been the ‘Loose Change’ crowd. If it was, they used Gage’s 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=39) [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=41)