# 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:** 46
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/901 "2017-10-17T00:58:30Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and for the skeptics, WHO will actually check it out > maybe do your own homework on the subject, > this one is obvious to people who understand what is going on. So you’re saying hundreds of thousands upon thousands of physicists and architects around the world who disagree are… what? Incompetent? Lying? Paid off? ---
**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 17, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/902 "2017-10-17T01:00:04Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The g force stress on the airliner right from the start, would cause the tanks to rupture before the wings contacted the wall, additionally the PENTAGON crash event had the wings folding up to the body of the airliner in order to make it in the initial entry hole and that would most certainly cause the breach of the fuel tanks before the alleged airliner was fully inside the building … You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. ---
**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, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/903 "2017-10-17T01:00:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. how much of what wreckage was photographed and was that ALL of the wreckage that was found? if the photos are ALL that we have, its damn little, and does NOT in any way prove that there ever was an airliner crashed at the alleged crash site. ---
**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, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/904 "2017-10-17T01:03:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > how much of what wreckage was photographed and was that ALL of the wreckage that was found? if the photos are ALL that we have, its damn little, and does NOT in any way prove that there ever was an airliner crashed at the alleged crash site. Where did that “damn little” come from then, if not an airline crash of which we have dozens of videos and thousands of witnesses? ---
**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 17, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/905 "2017-10-17T01:04:49Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and for the skeptics, WHO will actually check it out > maybe do your own homework on the subject, > this one is obvious to people who understand what is going on. > and for the masses who have been watching the Tee Vee, > well … it is what it is … sorry about that … We’ve explained it to you for 18 pages now. But we can’t understand it for you. …sorry about that… ---
**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, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/906 "2017-10-17T01:06:25Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > what are you referring to > the core of the building did not do what? Well, thank you for showing all that you do not bother to read even a quoted cite. ---
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/907 "2017-10-17T01:07:12Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So you’re saying hundreds of thousands upon thousands of physicists and architects around the world who disagree are… what? Incompetent? Lying? Paid off? first of all, we are talking about a fundamental principle that is any physical object descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is under it. and that is NOT something that any actual physics professor would dispute. also, on the subject of the more general 9/11 was a FALSE FLAG the vast majority of professional if asked would refuse to commit to any sort of answer or would say that the official story is true ( even if deep in their hearts they know otherwise ) The few who have weighed in on one side or the other of this argument are a VERY small minority of the people who are technically qualified to make a statement … (however the vast majority of sentient beings on this planet are technically qualified to get this ) Aside from what any given “expert” may offer, what does the j-random rank&file citizen have to say on the subject? ---
**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 17, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/908 "2017-10-17T01:08:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, thank you for showing all that you do not bother to read even a quoted cite. He’s not debating. He’s witnessing while promoting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/909 "2017-10-17T01:11:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > first of all, we are talking about a fundamental principle that is > any physical object descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity > is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is under it. > and that is NOT something that any actual physics professor would dispute. > also, on the subject of the more general 9/11 was a FALSE FLAG > the vast majority of professional if asked would refuse to commit to any sort of answer > or would say that the official story is true ( even if deep in their hearts they know otherwise ) The few who have weighed in on one side or the other of this argument are a VERY small minority of the people who are technically qualified to make a statement … > (however the vast majority of sentient beings on this planet are technically qualified to get this ) > > Aside from what any given “expert” may offer, what does the j-random > rank&file citizen have to say on the subject? I don’t follow any of this. I say that if basic physics knowledge is all you need to conclude that no planes hit the towers, that this should be universally accepted among scientists because it is what it is. Therefore, I asked why, if basic physics knowledge is all you need to conclude that no planes hit the towers, nobody else except a small core of conspiracy theorists think it’s so. Your response doesn’t seem to address any of what I asked directly, which is odd, considering you came in here with the intent of debating based on science knowledge. We’re not talking about the “official story” here; we’re talking about the basic knowledge of science that you yourself brought into play. ---
**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, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/910 "2017-10-17T01:11:51Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The g force stress on the airliner right from the start, would cause the tanks to rupture before the wings contacted the wall, additionally the PENTAGON crash event had the wings folding up to the body of the airliner in order to make it in the initial entry hole and that would most certainly cause the breach of the fuel tanks before the alleged airliner was fully inside the building … There was not that many G’s on the wings at all until they (the wings) hit the building. And even if they experienced 3-4 g’s, that may do nothing other than damage fuel lines and such. ALSO, fuel needs air to burn, lots of it. And jet fuel isn’t particularly easy to ignite. It’s basically kerosene/diesel. So even if a thousand gallons burst out as the nose hit the building (very, very doubtful.) There would be NO reason for it to ignite. Why would it? ---
**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, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/911 "2017-10-17T01:12:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, thank you for showing all that you do not bother to read even a quoted cite. I know what I wrote, about how something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity… however, what does “the core of the buildings did not do that” what is singling out the core have to do with this? I’m referencing the total “collapse” event… ---
**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 17, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/912 "2017-10-17T01:13:38Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > …also, on the subject of the more general 9/11 was a FALSE FLAG… Jay\_Jay, Why did the US government orchestrate the events of 9/11? Who were the major players involved in the planning and execution of these events? What did they gain by doing so? Why do subsequent administrations continue to cover it up? What evidence exists for the orchestration and the on going cover-up? Where did you first learn of this? Has anyone actively encouraged you to promote these ideas? If so, who or what organization do they represent? Do you worry that the gov’t might retaliate against you in some way for uncovering ‘the truth’, as you understand it? ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/913 "2017-10-17T01:15:44Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > There was not that many G’s on the wings at all until they (the wings) hit the building. And even if they experienced 3-4 g’s, that may do nothing other than damage fuel lines and such. > > ALSO, fuel needs air to burn, lots of it. And jet fuel isn’t particularly easy to ignite. It’s basically kerosene/diesel. So even if a thousand gallons burst out as the nose hit the building (very, very doubtful.) There would be NO reason for it to ignite. Why would it? you say 3 - 4 g’s … do you understand that the nose to wall initial jolt would have to be hundreds of g’s? and the jet engines would be the ignition source and if not the engines, then there would be lots of opportunity for electrical arc as the plane was stressed beyond its capacity to remain whole. ---
**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, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/914 "2017-10-17T01:17:46Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Jay\_Jay, > > Why did the US government orchestrate the events of 9/11? > Who were the major players involved in the planning and execution of these events? > What did they gain by doing so? > Why do subsequent administrations continue to cover it up? > What evidence exists for the orchestration and the on going cover-up? > Where did you first learn of this? > Has anyone actively encouraged you to promote these ideas? > If so, who or what organization do they represent? > Do you worry that the gov’t might retaliate against you in some way for uncovering ‘the truth’, as you understand it? You say “US government orchestrated the events of 9/11” where did you get that? ---
**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, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/915 "2017-10-17T01:20:37Z")
Jay\_Jay, newsflash! The planes didn’t remain whole! That is why there are pieces of plane and not planes after the crashes. ---
**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, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/916 "2017-10-17T01:20:59Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I would not be surprised that he is relying on the “evidence” of truthers about the pentagon that show images of relatively small holes, usually like 2 windows on the second floor. Of course those truthers do delude many by not showing that most of the damage did happen on the first floor. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/YVDdjLQkUV8/hqdefault.jpg "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) ---
**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, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/917 "2017-10-17T01:21:05Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I don’t follow any of this. I say that if basic physics knowledge is all you need to conclude that no planes hit the towers, that this should be universally accepted among scientists because it is what it is. Therefore, I asked why, if basic physics knowledge is all you need to conclude that no planes hit the towers, nobody else except a small core of conspiracy theorists think it’s so. > > Your response doesn’t seem to address any of what I asked directly, which is odd, considering you came in here with the intent of debating based on science knowledge. We’re not talking about the “official story” here; we’re talking about the basic knowledge of science that you yourself brought into play. the actual reason is because of the psychological warfare going on. nobody wants to be labeled a conspiracy freak. however, no matter what, there are those of us who love our country so much that it doesn’t matter if you have to say “conspiracy freak” the message is very clear, the media LIED to everybody about the events of 9/11 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/918 "2017-10-17T01:22:16Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you say 3 - 4 g’s … > do you understand that the nose to wall initial jolt would have to be hundreds of g’s? > and the jet engines would be the ignition source and if not the engines, then there would be lots of opportunity for electrical arc as the plane was stressed beyond its capacity to remain whole. Wow. Someone posted something so ignorant that it fell to you to correct it. I’m mighty impressed. This is the first true thing you’ve posted in this entire thread. (Also, don’t overlook the electrical lines all through the building, powering lights, air conditioning, elevators, pencil-sharpeners, etc. Lots and lots of sources of electrical ignition.) ---
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/919 "2017-10-17T01:23:36Z")
Who exactly do you mean by “the media?” ---
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/920 "2017-10-17T01:23:40Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > I know what I wrote, > about how something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity… > > however, what does “the core of the buildings did not do that” > what is singling out the core have to do with this? > I’m referencing the total “collapse” event… As anyone can see, you are only ignoring inconvenient information, your points do remain a joke. [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=45) [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=47)