# 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:** 43
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/841 "2017-10-16T22:28:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY](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. Exactly when was it discredited? I’ve seen nothing that shows that whatsoever. Lemme guess, Gage or some other crank demanded the data Schlafley style in their obscure conspiracy blog and nobody heard them so they cried “victory”. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/842 "2017-10-16T22:30:38Z")
Come on people. Our friend cannot be bothered to learn what the real official story is because it could diminish his outrage against what he imagines the official story to be. ---
**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, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/843 "2017-10-16T22:52:20Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > **Who cares to debate the events of 9/11/2001 based upon the laws of physics?** > > That is various bits from the alleged airliner crashes to the fall of skyscrapers, > constitute violations of the laws of physics if the official explanation is to be accepted. > > who whats to discuss this matter? I’m still waiting for any actual physics from the OP. What “laws of physics” do you think have been violated by the “official explanation”? Be specific. > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Just two examples out of MANY > \> an alleged airliner penetrates a skyscraper wall “like a hot knife through butter” > \> a 47 story skyscraper drops for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2 and keeps its shape as it drops. > … all the speculation about how difficult it may have been to execute > or … whatever, in no way negates the fundamental physical laws that would have had to be violated to make the official story true. Of the two examples you gave here, what “laws of physics” do you think have been violated? Again, be specific. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/844 "2017-10-16T23:02:02Z")
> [@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” I would like to go on the record as registering my strenuous opposition to this. It is a very bad idea that no reasonable person should support. I adamantly assert that this sort of thing ought not be allowed. ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/845 "2017-10-16T23:07:59Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > I would like to go on the record as registering my strenuous opposition to this. It is a very bad idea that no reasonable person should support. I adamantly assert that this sort of thing ought not be allowed. please be clear, “this sort of thing” what are you referring to? ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/846 "2017-10-16T23:09:08Z")
_snerk_ ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/847 "2017-10-16T23:10:06Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I’m still waiting for any actual physics from the OP. > > What “laws of physics” do you think have been violated by the “official explanation”? Be specific. > > Of the two examples you gave here, what “laws of physics” do you think have been violated? Again, be specific. Chaotic input does NOT= coherent output the fact is that to achieve the observed result, that is having WTC7 drop at free fall acceleration, ALL of the support out from under the falling mass would have had to have been removed and all at the same time, this is ONLY accomplished by controlled demolition ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/848 "2017-10-16T23:11:37Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Chaotic input does NOT= coherent output > the fact is that to achieve the observed result, that is having WTC7 > drop at free fall acceleration, ALL of the support out from under the falling mass would have had to have been removed and all at the same time, this is ONLY accomplished by controlled demolition Do you have a recording of the sound of the explosives? Sounds like[this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8) ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/849 "2017-10-16T23:14:44Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Chaotic input does NOT= coherent output > the fact is that to achieve the observed result, that is having WTC7 > drop at free fall acceleration, ALL of the support out from under the falling mass would have had to have been removed and all at the same time, this is ONLY accomplished by controlled demolition What would be your conclusion if it had NOT fallen at free fall speed? ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/850 "2017-10-16T23:22:14Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Chaotic input does NOT= coherent output So true. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/851 "2017-10-16T23:23:13Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > What would be your conclusion if it had NOT fallen at free fall speed? It would take longer. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/852 "2017-10-16T23:28:57Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Absolutely untrue.](https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation) > > [2.25 seconds is only 81 feet.](http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316) “Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)” what do you call this? FREE FALL is FREE FALL there is no way to negate what was observed and what it means is that the falling mass could not possibly have been crushing or pushing anything it was in FREE FALL, how is that arranged without some sort of engineered demolition? ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/853 "2017-10-16T23:32:51Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)” > > what do you call this? FREE FALL is FREE FALL > there is no way to negate what was observed and what it means is that > the falling mass could not possibly have been crushing or pushing anything > it was in FREE FALL, how is that arranged without some sort of engineered > demolition? You deliberately left out the other portions to create a false impression. What’s the obsession with free-fall? What are you trying to prove? Where’s that recording of the explosives that you claim brought down WTC7? ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/854 "2017-10-16T23:32:56Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)” > > what do you call this? FREE FALL is FREE FALL > there is no way to negate what was observed and what it means is that > the falling mass could not possibly have been crushing or pushing anything > it was in FREE FALL, how is that arranged without some sort of engineered > demolition? Did hit your head and black out after reading stage 1? And then just not read stage 3? ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/855 "2017-10-16T23:33:12Z")
the allegation that the WTC tower wall would prove to be “flimsy” when faced with overwhelming energy from an airliner colliding with it however, the strength of the wall has bearing on this discussion in that the amount of energy required to breach the wall would be in proportion to the strength of said wall. and the airliner would have to slow down in direct proportion to the energy required to breach the wall. and slowing down means deceleration force, so the forces acting upon the airliner would be a direct result of the strength of the wall. ---
**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, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/856 "2017-10-16T23:35:05Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Did hit your head and black out after reading stage 1? And then just not read stage 3? is stage 3 supposed to negate the fact that in stage 2 the building fell at FREE FALL rate? what is going on here. … most Illogical captain … ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/857 "2017-10-16T23:35:24Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > key bit here > you believe that there was plenty of wreckage from it > how is that DOCUMENTED? in other aircraft crashes, there have > been the total inventory of aircraft bits so as to account for the plane, > in the case of 9/11/2001, NO inventory was ever done, I smell something rotten here! If you think the pictures of the wreckage were faked, then you’d think an inventory of the pieces would be faked also. So I’m not going to bother to even look. Often all that work is done to find out the cause of the crash. That was pretty obvious in this case. You didn’t answer my question about what happened to the guy killed in the crash. Or the cellphone calls. Today I came upon a video by a religious flat-earther “proving” that the eclipse this year showed that the normal model of the earth moon system was a hoax, His argument makes more sense than yours. ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/858 "2017-10-16T23:39:04Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > is stage 3 supposed to negate the fact that in stage 2 the building fell at FREE FALL rate? > > what is going on here. … most Illogical captain … You deliberately implied that the freefalll portion was all there was by making no mention of the entire sequence. And by deliberately not linking to your sources so it couldn’t be checked. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/859 "2017-10-16T23:46:28Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > is stage 3 supposed to negate the fact that in stage 2 the building fell at FREE FALL rate? > > what is going on here. … most Illogical captain … What’s illogical is you seeing the evidence refuting your claims and you are trying to shoehorn it to fit your claims and it is failing miserably. ---
**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, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/860 "2017-10-16T23:48:35Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > You deliberately implied that the freefalll portion was all there was by making no mention of the entire sequence. And by deliberately not linking to your sources so it couldn’t be checked. so do you deny that the free fall portion is significant? how is it to be explained that the building fell as it did? Somebody PLEASE explain how free fall was achieved without there having been a controlled demolition ? [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=42) [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=44)