# 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:** 42
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/821 "2017-10-16T21:47:05Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > does it mean anything to you to be able to prove beyond any doubt > what DIDN’T happen? Not cartoon physics, that is for sure. 🙂 ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/822 "2017-10-16T21:47:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That “someone” (funny that also climate change deniers do resort to the sorry attempt at discrediting experts with asinine putdowns, when anyone can check who that “someone” was.) is this: > > [https://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/cmh](https://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/cmh) > > Not what the physically based model shows. > > They did not disappear. So until we get a clue of what experience you have with materials we should dismiss your sorry points. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) what would you call this? also the Purdue bit has already been discredited in that they refuse to release the data that this was made from. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/823 "2017-10-16T21:48:00Z")
A year or so back I posited the stages of a poorly conceived thread: > [@](#): > > The Bad Thread Starter Pack > > 1. Create an OP full of straw man arguments, unsupported suppositions or any poorly reasoned set of statements with no evidence. > 2. When asked to back up your assertions, do more of the same. > 3. Continue missing the point, but claim to be interested in hearing counter-arguments. > 4. Get snippy, defensive and later on claim that all the people pointing out your assertions are BS really haven’t presented any good factual, counter claims to your silly OP. It’s obviously either personal and / or the inherent bias of the board. > 5. Very helpful to have a recent join date and be still in high school, or at least argue as if you were. > 6. Leave the board in a huff, claiming victory all along. Looks like we’re just waiting on the last one. ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/824 "2017-10-16T21:48:23Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > [Here you go](http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html). A list of eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon. > > I also know someone who died on Flight 93, so that’s 2 people on the thread so far who can attest for Flight 93. > > This leaves us with the two flights in NY that hit the WTC. Based on the preponderance of evidence, it is very clear what happened; 2 hijacked airplanes hit the towers. **jay-jay** you are going out of your way to believe the unlikely instead of the likely. Why? Because he want’s to be special. ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/825 "2017-10-16T21:49:03Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > There’s lots of video of planes hitting the Towers, lots of live news coverage, plenty of witnesses and they all match. Case closed. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) and you actually accept this as a representation of an airliner striking a building? ---
**Author:** ![Dingbang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@Dingbang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dingbang)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/826 "2017-10-16T21:49:21Z")
> [@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” Yes. I’m pretty sure your reply will be one of exasperation and disbelief that I would buy the official story hook, line, and sinker. But you know what? Sometimes the official story is true. Not always, certainly. But sometimes yes, and the confidence level can be quite high when we’re talking about an event that was personally witnessed by so many and documented more than possibly any other event in history. And especially when we’re not talking about nebulous ideas like motivation, but about concrete events such as a plane making impact with a building. The problem seems to be that you’re starting from the premise that the official story is bunk. That it just is, because… well, obviously, right? You wouldn’t want to be one of those naive, uninformed people who just take the story from the media and the government, would you? Then you’re trying to work your way backwards to “evidence” that proves it. What happens when a plane hits a building at high speed seems to be not exactly what you would have imagined, so you’re seizing on that. Questions are good. But you have to be open to having them answered. I don’t understand the physics of all this one bit, because that’s not my educational background or talent. So when I think about events like this, I have questions about things I would have expected to happen one way but didn’t. How does an aluminum airplane fly right into a building that seems to offer little resistance, even though it’s strong enough to support itself? Hmm, an interesting point to ponder. But it happened. I know it happened because I saw it on live television and it was documented so many ways. So if I thought it would happen X way, but the video shows it happening Y way, my question would not be, “How are they lying to me and faking all this evidence?” No, it would be, “Why did it happen Y way and not how I might have expected?” And when that question is answered – thoroughly, patiently, with plenty of citations – I come away feeling like I learned something, and quite often I marvel at how the world works. I can’t just keep insisting that I expected X and therefore everyone who witnessed Y is lying. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/827 "2017-10-16T21:49:28Z")
This is so much fun. 17 pages in a couple of days? I think there is a lot of pent-up conspiracy-nut debunking energy that simply doesn’t get so much of an outlet these days. Good to stretch those muscles eh? Have we gone full-circle yet? And is anyone playing[conspiracy-theory bingo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Conspiracy_theorist_Bingo)? ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/828 "2017-10-16T21:51:32Z")
Before it’s brought up: there is no clear footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon because its cameras have always been more concerned with pedestrian and slow-speed surface traffic so were set up to keep tabs on them rather than anything dropping out of the sky at over 500MPH. The fact there there’s any footage at all is because the plane happened to cross two parking gate cameras’ field of view. Not much for them to record at 3½ frames per second. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/829 "2017-10-16T21:51:53Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Because he want’s to be special. all you know for certain is that your friend who took FLT93 is no longer around however you have only the word of other individuals ( who may be acting on an agenda ) to tell you that he perished in the crash. can you at least try to separate emotion from analysis ? ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/830 "2017-10-16T21:54:51Z")
> [@Dingbang](#): > > Yes. > > I’m pretty sure your reply will be one of exasperation and disbelief that I would buy the official story hook, line, and sinker. But you know what? Sometimes the official story is true. Not always, certainly. But sometimes yes, and the confidence level can be quite high when we’re talking about an event that was personally witnessed by so many and documented more than possibly any other event in history. And especially when we’re not talking about nebulous ideas like motivation, but about concrete events such as a plane making impact with a building. > > The problem seems to be that you’re starting from the premise that the official story is bunk. That it just is, because… well, obviously, right? You wouldn’t want to be one of those naive, uninformed people who just take the story from the media and the government, would you? Then you’re trying to work your way backwards to “evidence” that proves it. What happens when a plane hits a building at high speed seems to be not exactly what you would have imagined, so you’re seizing on that. > > Questions are good. But you have to be open to having them answered. I don’t understand the physics of all this one bit, because that’s not my educational background or talent. So when I think about events like this, I have questions about things I would have expected to happen one way but didn’t. How does an aluminum airplane fly right into a building that seems to offer little resistance, even though it’s strong enough to support itself? Hmm, an interesting point to ponder. But it happened. I know it happened because I saw it on live television and it was documented so many ways. So if I thought it would happen X way, but the video shows it happening Y way, my question would not be, “How are they lying to me and faking all this evidence?” No, it would be, “Why did it happen Y way and not how I might have expected?” > > And when that question is answered – thoroughly, patiently, with plenty of citations – I come away feeling like I learned something, and quite often I marvel at how the world works. I can’t just keep insisting that I expected X and therefore everyone who witnessed Y is lying. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) is this a real representation of an airliner striking a building? are you certain … ? ---
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/831 "2017-10-16T21:56:01Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > all you know for certain is that your friend who took FLT93 > is no longer around however you have only the word of other individuals > ( who may be acting on an agenda ) to tell you that he perished in the crash. We only have your word that it didn’t and you are obviously acting on an agenda. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/832 "2017-10-16T21:56:37Z")
When you hear hoof beats in London you look for horses, not zebras. You are trying to see unicorns. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/833 "2017-10-16T21:57:51Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > **all you know for certain is that your friend who took FLT93** > is no longer around however you have only the word of other individuals > ( who may be acting on an agenda ) to tell you that he perished in the crash. > > can you at least try to separate emotion from analysis ? That wasn’t me. If you’re going to shit on someone’s pain, get the right person. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/834 "2017-10-16T21:58:20Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) > > is this a real representation of an airliner striking a building? > are you certain … ? Perfectly jibes with [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUO3rLo2Bgo) from the opposite angle. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/835 "2017-10-16T21:58:56Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) > > is this a real representation of an airliner striking a building? > are you certain … ? Yep, it sure as hell is. Hit a damn sight harder than a hologram. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/836 "2017-10-16T21:59:26Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > When you hear hoof beats in London you look for horses, not zebras. > > You are trying to see unicorns. Only there are no hoof beats here. Just a large pile of manure. ---
**Author:** ![Dingbang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@Dingbang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dingbang)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/837 "2017-10-16T22:00:10Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) > > is this a real representation of an airliner striking a building? > are you certain … ? Yes. ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/838 "2017-10-16T22:07:55Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > do you deny that it has been documented and agreed to > by both the “truther” factions and the NIST that WTC7 > descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration? Yes, I deny this has been documented…it didn’t descend ‘at free fall acceleration’ and NIST doesn’t say it did. If you think they did, then cite? Nor do the films used show it did. This is perpetuating ignorance. Since you like videos, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw) is a YouTube video that discusses it. Feel free to watch and listen. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/839 "2017-10-16T22:13:27Z")
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s) is another video modeling what the first video I just posted was talking about. ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/840 "2017-10-16T22:24:06Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > do you deny that it has been documented and agreed to > by both the “truther” factions and the **NIST that WTC7 > descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration?** [Absolutely untrue.](https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation) > [@](#): > > NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. > > The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: > > ``` > Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). > Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) > Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity > > ``` [2.25 seconds is only 81 feet.](http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316) [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=41) [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=43)