# 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:** 48
**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, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/941 "2017-10-17T01:48:59Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > What part of “Jumbo Jet flying at 500 mph” do you not grasp? The “Jet”. ---
**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, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/942 "2017-10-17T01:51:07Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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.\ Excuse me but no Trinopus. That while the nose at impact as it was crushed penetrating the building encountered perhaps 100’s of g’s the wings certainly did not. Greater G’s would occur in the nose as it crumpled and PARTS of the airplane stopped while the rest of the plane continued. Think of crumple zones in cars. If the entire plane had encountered 100 g’s all at once, when the nose touched the building, it would have pretty much shattered. Like an icicle falling from a great height. And no, not enough fuel air mixture would occur to be ignited by either a short or wire or an engine to be seen before it entered the building a few milliseconds later. ---
**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 17, 2017, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/943 "2017-10-17T01:52:11Z")
> [@robby](#): > > 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? > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the fact that in stage 2, the building falls at FREE FALL, and without > some sort of engineered demolition going on … what? OK, so some of the floors of WTC 7 fell in an essentially free fall situation for a few seconds after the supporting structure beneath them collapsed. So what? The physical reason this happened was due to gravity, and because of the “exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above” after seven hours of building fires that were set by the collapse of WTC 1. There are no so-called “laws of physics” that state this could only be due to “some sort of engineered demolition.” ---
**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 17, 2017, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/944 "2017-10-17T02:02:40Z")
> [@robby](#): > > OK, so some of the floors of WTC 7 fell in an essentially free fall situation for a few seconds after the supporting structure beneath them collapsed. So what? > > The physical reason this happened was due to gravity, and because of the “exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above” after seven hours of building fires that were set by the collapse of WTC 1. > > There are no so-called “laws of physics” that state this could only be due to “some sort of engineered demolition.” Plus, what was basically in ‘free fall’ was part of the outer façade after the rest of the building collapsed and knocked the bottom part of the façade out. This idea that the two towers fell in free fall has been debunked many times, so the last gasp of this is WTC 7, and only if we look at one video from one view point…and don’t understand what was actually happening. It’s all in the NIST report you cited, but the OP would actually have to read it, as opposed to some talking points some CTer regurgitated to him or her. ---
**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, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/945 "2017-10-17T02:07:20Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Plus, what was basically in ‘free fall’ was part of the outer façade after the rest of the building collapsed and knocked the bottom part of the façade out. This idea that the two towers fell in free fall has been debunked many times, so the last gasp of this is WTC 7, and only if we look at one video from one view point…and don’t understand what was actually happening. It’s all in the NIST report you cited, but the OP would actually have to read it, **as opposed to some talking points some CTer regurgitated to him or her.** I just flashed on how mother birds feed their chicks. ---
**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 17, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/946 "2017-10-17T02:15:44Z")
So, thought I’d link to this for the OP since he or she seems to be having issues understanding what happens when a plane hits a building. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLWh8Rbp7o) is from the 1945 B-25 accident with the Empire State Building. Here is a plane that weighed 20,000 lbs (as opposed to over 200k) and flew at around 200 MPH (instead of 500 MPH) and flew into a building that was of much heavier construction, yet it went through the façade (and exploded inside), and through 7 additional walls. I doubt the OP will watch this video either, but for anyone else interested it’s got actual footage of the inside (it’s actually a period war time documentary and kind of cool someone put this up on YouTube). I know this will be lost on the OP, but here we have a plane literally an order of magnitude more massive flying at double the speed into a building with a much lighter façade and just lighter construction. The only mystery is why the OP can’t grasp this despite multiple people trying to explain this in multiple ways. ---
**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 17, 2017, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/947 "2017-10-17T02:16:46Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I just flashed on how mother birds feed their chicks. I shudder to think how Alex Jones (who is probably where the OP is getting some of this crap) does this… :eek: ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/948 "2017-10-17T02:48:26Z")
okee dokey. I guess I was too late. Have fun, y’all. ---
**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, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/949 "2017-10-17T02:49:32Z")
> [@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. Initial Jolt? So what? A plane is not a crystal, or solid object. Yes, I very much doubt that the wings experienced more than 3 - 4 g’s transmitted through the airframe as the nose disintegrated and punched through the building. The wings experience whatever 100’s of g’s when the wings hit the building. Spilled fuel that was then mixed with air under tremendous pressure and ignited And effectively stopped in 50-200 feet (some pieces of plane penetrated all the way through). The wings where still going ~ 500 mph when they hit the building. I also doubt that a fuel tank would rupture and explode in the few milliseconds before the wings hit the building. Not enough time to mix with air. And as all evidence clearly shows, they did not. ---
**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 17, 2017, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/950 "2017-10-17T02:58:36Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Initial Jolt? So what? A plane is not a crystal, or solid object. > > Yes, I very much doubt that the wings experienced more than 3 - 4 g’s transmitted through the airframe as the nose disintegrated and punched through the building. The wings experience whatever 100’s of g’s when the wings hit the building. Spilled fuel that was then mixed with air under tremendous pressure and ignited And effectively stopped in 50-200 feet (some pieces of plane penetrated all the way through). The wings where still going ~ 500 mph when they hit the building. > > I also doubt that a fuel tank would rupture and explode in the few milliseconds before the wings hit the building. Not enough time to mix with air. And as all evidence clearly shows, they did not. Haven’t you ever seen a movie? Gas tanks ALWAYS explode on impact (in milliseconds of course :p). Also, if you shoot a bullet anywhere near a car it explodes, plus the hero (such as our favorite OP here) always gets the girl (or guy) and is just smarter than everyone else. But, yeah, that’s in the movies. In reality gas tanks don’t explode on impact (again, OP, note the Empire State Building video and note that it exploded inside…a much smaller speed impact with much less mass, and, oh yeah, much less fuel) and even if the gas tanks were shredded when the plane hit the façade the fuel itself was also traveling at 500 miles per hour (that, btw, is over 700 feet per second) and would continue into the building before finally mixing enough to ignite (yeah, gas doesn’t ignite like in the movies either…that pesky stoichiometry stuff). ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/951 "2017-10-17T03:20:01Z")
Note that both the planes that hit the WTC towers were flights from Boston to Los Angeles: their fuel tanks would have been around half to two-thirds full (one of the planes was a 767-200ER with almost twice the range of the other). The plane that hit the ESB was enroute from northeast Massachusetts to Newark, so its tanks would have been very low (gasoline vapor is still quite explosive), as would have been its speed, being about 10 miles from its destination. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/952 "2017-10-17T03:25:14Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > “Bated” breath, not “baited.” You don’t have worms on your tongue. You are holding your breath, so it’s “bated,” or restrained; same root as “abated.” > > Or was that just a typo? My bad. I can’t tpye. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/953 "2017-10-17T03:29:52Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > to get verbose with it, > I say the alleged airliner because there really could not have been a real airliner crashed into the side of the WTC tower > …snip > . > . > are people being deliberately obtuse here? > what? No, but you are. There were hundreds of photos from many different sources showing the airliners hitting the second tower. Are you claiming that every single one of those pictures is fake? ---
**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, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/954 "2017-10-17T03:49:03Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You intimated it when you said three administration (Bush, Obama & Trump) conspired a cover-up. I did not intend to imply total blame when I mentioned the cover-up the ONLY thing that can be certain is that the administration is complicit in a cover-up. to assign blame would be speculation. ---
**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, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/955 "2017-10-17T03:51:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) wow man, another computer generated cartoon … ---
**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, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/956 "2017-10-17T03:54:44Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the actual reason is because of the psychological warfare going on. > nobody wants to be labeled a conspiracy freak. But this doesn’t make any sense; if it were scientifically provable that no planes hit the towers, nobody would be labeling anybody a “conspiracy freak,” because you’d have IRREFUTABLE scientific proof that would immediately be apparent to anyone with the right training across the globe. It’d be like saying that it’s trivially provable that the sun revolves around the earth, but the astronomical community doesn’t say anything for fear of being called crazy. ---
**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, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/957 "2017-10-17T03:54:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As anyone can see, you are only ignoring inconvenient information, your points do remain a joke. so, do you understand that anything descending at 64% if the acceleration of gravity is only exerting 36% of its weight on whatever is below it? or do you consider this to be a “joke” what? ---
**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, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/958 "2017-10-17T03:59:39Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > No, but you are. There were hundreds of photos from many different sources showing the airliners hitting the second tower. Are you claiming that every single one of those pictures is fake? note that photos and video are all too easy to fake, and in the face of the overwhelming evidence in the form of how the alleged airliner behaved in the alleged crash into the south wall of the south tower, its obvious that there is a LOT more going on here, that is psychological warfare to keep the masses in line so as to not rock the boat for the people who at least think they own this planet. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/959 "2017-10-17T04:04:29Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > note that photos and video are all too easy to fake, > and in the face of the overwhelming evidence in the form of > how the alleged airliner behaved in the alleged crash into the > south wall of the south tower, its obvious that there is a LOT > more going on here, that is psychological warfare to keep the > masses in line so as to not rock the boat for the people who > at least think they own this planet. I don’t think you exist. I think these posts are fake. ---
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/960 "2017-10-17T04:08:03Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > so, do you understand that anything descending at 64% if the > acceleration of gravity is only exerting 36% of its weight on > whatever is below it? > > or do you consider this to be a “joke” > > what? Yes, it remains a joke. You look like someone that that wants to use the same hammer when not everything is a nail. [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=47) [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=49)