# 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:** 44
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/861 "2017-10-16T23:49:27Z")
> [@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? The [NIST report](https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation) on WTC 7 addresses this: > [@NIST](#): > > 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 > > ``` > > This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. So yes, for a few seconds, the building floors in WTC 7 collapsed in a free fall situation, because they were no longer supported by the structure below **following seven hours of building fires** that were set by the collapse of WTC 1, and \*\*not \*\* because of any mythical engineered demolition (of which there is no evidence). Again, what laws of physics have been violated here? ---
**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, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/862 "2017-10-16T23:54:02Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > 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 ? Will you then PLEASE explain why/how this is all a hoax? Something besides “I don’t understand physics therefore conspiracy” ---
**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, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/863 "2017-10-16T23:57:41Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > 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 ? The people who jumped off the WTC 1 & 2 achieved freefall. You claim WTC7 was brought down by implosion. i’ve watched several videos of the collapse and there’s no sound of explosions just before the collapse. Have you got one that has audible explosions? ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/864 "2017-10-16T23:59:36Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) > > what would you call this? Just about what the simulation reported. > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > also the Purdue bit has already been discredited in that they refuse to release the data that this was made from. Yep, also a boiler plate climate change denier silly point coming from you here. The reality is that using physics and the most likely materials used it would be hard to make physically simulations that show the plane do your cartoon physics. Trouble is that once you do so everyone will be able to see where you fail. And that is why, like the water and geysers pyramid guy that claimed to have everything figured out it is really you the one that will be at a lost to get a proper simulation going that supports even a portion of the points you are making. Also the "discredit"you are talking about was based on a truther that claimed that the fires “never reached the weakening point of steel”. Just that was enough to dismiss the ones trying to discredit the Purdue researchers. ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/865 "2017-10-17T00:07:11Z")
> [@robby](#): > > The [NIST report](https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation) on WTC 7 addresses this: > > So yes, for a few seconds, the building floors in WTC 7 collapsed in a free fall situation, because they were no longer supported by the structure below **following seven hours of building fires** that were set by the collapse of WTC 1, and \*\*not \*\* because of any mythical engineered demolition (of which there is no evidence). > > Again, what laws of physics have been violated here? the fact that in stage 2, the building falls at FREE FALL, and without some sort of engineered demolition going on … what? ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/866 "2017-10-17T00:11:26Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the fact that in stage 2, the building falls at FREE FALL, and without > some sort of engineered demolition going on … what? So provide the proof of an engineered demolition. Complete with the sounds of the required explosions. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/867 "2017-10-17T00:11:55Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgO-zikUXiY) > > and you actually accept this as a representation of an airliner striking a building? That is exactly what I would expect to see. I WOULD NOT expect the airplane to do a bit of damage, bounce off the building and fall to the ground. Common sense and all that. Jay\_Jay, you are refusing physics, math, engineering (of many stripes), materials science, physical evidence, logic and common sense. Not to leave out eye witnesses, tons of video tape and a whole freaking world that saw what they saw, and find it perfectly plausible. But YOU know that all this is somehow a great conspiracy. One that would be absolutely impossible to implement, let alone keep a secret. Do you not believe the buildings existed in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/868 "2017-10-17T00:15:21Z")
**jay\_jay** May I ask - are there any other events that you consider similarly suspect; that is, events that are obviously a hoax or fraudulent? If so, what are they? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/869 "2017-10-17T00:15:36Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you tell me, how is it that an airliner penetrates a skyscraper wall > “like a hot knife through butter” > > and how is it that a skyscraper could be seen dropping at the acceleration of gravity > for 2.25 sec and keep its shape as it descends. > > additionally a skyscraper that falls at 64% of the acceleration of gravity > resulting in the complete and total destruction of said skyscraper. > > who can explain these things? > > I reference the early days of the space program where > scientists and engineers were eager to explain to the public at large > how satellites are launched into orbit and why orbits work and all things space. > however NOW we have lots of experts who will give the conclusion that airliners were hijacked and used as weapons, however when pressed for details as to WHY things happened in the order that was observed ( etc… ) there is some sort of deep dark secret magic that only the people with advanced degrees can comprehend and I for one smell something VERY rotten here. Where is the explanation for the events that would otherwise constitute violations of the laws of physics? I am still trying to identify the violation of the laws of physics you are referring to. Can you please lay that out? Some significant portion of the city was watching the twin towers as the first tower burned. We saw the second plane hit the building. If it had only been the first plane and we only had the one video then, sure, you can alter one source. But there are a lot of videos of the second plane. Why do you have so much trouble believing that planes hit the towers? What extra purpose is served by having the towers collapse rather than just burn and then have the fires put out? ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/870 "2017-10-17T00:17:33Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > So provide the proof of an engineered demolition. Complete with the sounds of the required explosions. sounds or not, the fact of free fall seals the deal it could be none other than 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 17, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/871 "2017-10-17T00:18:45Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > sounds or not, the fact of free fall seals the deal > it could be none other than controlled demolition You keep saying that. Provide proof. ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/872 "2017-10-17T00:22:50Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > sounds or not, the fact of free fall seals the deal > it could be none other than controlled demolition Why? What do you do for a living and/or what did you study in school that leads you to this conclusion? ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/873 "2017-10-17T00:26:10Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > sounds or not, the fact of free fall seals the deal > it could be none other than controlled demolition No, because the WTC did not fall like a controlled demolition. [https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/](https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/) > [@](#): > > WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition. ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/874 "2017-10-17T00:27:08Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > sounds or not, the fact of free fall seals the deal > it could be none other than controlled demolition Please explain why, using equations as needed to illustrate your model. ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/875 "2017-10-17T00:28:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am still trying to identify the violation of the laws of physics you are referring to. Can you please lay that out? > > Some significant portion of the city was watching the twin towers as the first tower burned. We saw the second plane hit the building. If it had only been the first plane and we only had the one video then, sure, you can alter one source. But there are a lot of videos of the second plane. > > Why do you have so much trouble believing that planes hit the towers? What extra purpose is served by having the towers collapse rather than just burn and then have the fires put out? you invite speculation without actually examining the events and the media reporting on said events. the problem I have with the whole thing is not just in the individual events such as an alleged airliner crash, but also in the uniformity of the events, two towers completely destroyed, total of 4 alleged airliner crashes where all of the aircraft were not just destroyed they were broken up into incredibly small bits, in typical airliner crashes leave some large sections of the airliner to be found. the fact that for 3 of the alleged airliners the crash includes the plane punching a hole in a wall and the whole aircraft allegedly enters the building and then only after the aircraft is inside the building, a huge hollyweird special effects type pyrotechnic display goes off … Its too contrived, to scripted … and the “Harley guy” on camera being the great explainer to tell the official story … really guyz? ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/876 "2017-10-17T00:32:03Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you invite speculation without actually examining the events and the media reporting on said events. the problem I have with the whole thing is not just in the individual events such as an alleged airliner crash, but also in the uniformity of the events, two towers completely destroyed, total of 4 alleged airliner crashes where all of the aircraft were not just destroyed they were broken up into incredibly small bits, in typical airliner crashes leave some large sections of the airliner to be found. > the fact that for 3 of the alleged airliners the crash includes the plane punching a hole in a wall and the whole aircraft allegedly enters the building and then only after the aircraft is inside the building, a huge hollyweird special effects type pyrotechnic display goes off … Its too contrived, to scripted … and the “Harley guy” on camera being the great explainer to tell the official story … really guyz? Yes, really. Link to the “Harley guy”? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/877 "2017-10-17T00:32:10Z")
I still don’t understand why a controlled demolition would look any different from an airliner crash. I don’t think **Jay\_Jay** is disputing that the structural failure occurred right at the point where the airliner allegedly crashed, right? So if the building structure failed there because of explosives planted there - causing the floors above it to crash down, and crashing through all the floors below - why would the collapse be different from if an airliner crashed there? ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/878 "2017-10-17T00:32:55Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Please explain why, using equations as needed to illustrate your model. This does NOT require “equations” in order to be a real explanation, fact is that the building descended at FREE FALL acceleration for 2.25 sec and kept its shape for that time while dropping straight down. The psychological warfare is very intense around this bit people need to get the fact that free fall acceleration is a critical factor here and the NIST report doesn’t negate the physical laws. ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/879 "2017-10-17T00:33:57Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you invite speculation without actually examining the events and the media reporting on said events. the problem I have with the whole thing is not just in the individual events such as an alleged airliner crash, but also in the uniformity of the events, two towers completely destroyed, total of 4 alleged airliner crashes where all of the aircraft were not just destroyed they were broken up into incredibly small bits, in typical airliner crashes leave some large sections of the airliner to be found. Typical airline crashes aren’t into buildings. > [@](#): > > the fact that for 3 of the alleged airliners the crash includes the plane punching a hole in a wall and the whole aircraft allegedly enters the building and then only after the aircraft is inside the building, a huge hollyweird special effects type pyrotechnic display goes off You know what “hollyweird” uses for pyrotechnics displays? gasoline. Which is very similar to kerosene as a pyrotechnic, of which the planes has thousands of pounds. ---
**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 17, 2017, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/880 "2017-10-17T00:37:15Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I still don’t understand why a controlled demolition would look any different from an airliner crash. > > I don’t think **Jay\_Jay** is disputing that the structural failure occurred right at the point where the airliner allegedly crashed, right? So if the building structure failed there because of explosives planted there - causing the floors above it to crash down, and crashing through all the floors below - why would the collapse be different from if an airliner crashed there? the telling bit is the fact of complete and total destruction of both towers. This is the least likely scenario of all possible outcomes. and it is only a function of the psychological warfare that more people do not consider this VERY suspicious. BTW: I’m not going to second guess the actual demolition, the process could have started off with charges detonating in multiple locations. [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=43) [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=45)