# 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:** 5
**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 15, 2017, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/81 "2017-10-15T06:01:24Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > … Do you really believe that the upper 15% of a skyscraper could cause the complete and total destruction of said skyscraper by collapsing down on the remaining 85%? Yes. All the experts agree. Only internet loons dont. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/82 "2017-10-15T06:03:08Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > What _the fuck_ do you think “squared” means??? do you really believe that X^2 = X times 4 ? This is a straight up legit question. . ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/83 "2017-10-15T06:05:34Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > do you really believe that X^2 = X times 4 ? If x=2, then x[sup]2[/sup]=4. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/84 "2017-10-15T06:06:22Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > do you really believe that X^2 = X times 4 ? > This is a straight up legit question. > . Nobody is saying that. He’s saying if x^2=y, the 2x^2=4y ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/85 "2017-10-15T06:06:36Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Yes. All the experts agree. Only internet loons dont. “All the experts agree” This boils down to a game of MY experts are better than your experts … ridiculous there are EXPERTS who have signed up at AE911TRUTH who will argue that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition and there are then other experts who will claim otherwise however, what I am saying is that its not ROCKET SCIENCE anybody who can pass High School science class can figure this out. WHAT DO YOU THINK? ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/86 "2017-10-15T06:08:14Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “All the experts agree” This boils down to a game of > MY experts are better than your experts … ridiculous > there are EXPERTS who have signed up at AE911TRUTH who will argue that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition and there are then other experts who will claim otherwise however, what I am saying is that its not ROCKET SCIENCE > anybody who can pass High School science class can figure this out. > WHAT DO YOU THINK? Where in the building were the charges placed? And how? ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/87 "2017-10-15T06:09:12Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Nobody is saying that. > > He’s saying if x^2=y, the 2x^2=4y WHY even express anything of the sort? bottom line here is that the power required to move an object through air increases exponentially as the speed increases linearly. what is so difficult here? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/88 "2017-10-15T06:09:27Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > and you actually believe that an airliner penetrating a skyscraper wall > “like a hot knife through butter” is an accurate depiction of what should happen > if an airliner rammed a skyscraper? Only way to know would be to do a test. Oh wait! Two such tests were conducted in NYC on September 11. Reality trump your 9th grade physics. Normally I don’t get sucked into these sort of threads but what’s your explanation for all the video and eye witnesses? Of course I don’t expect an answer. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/89 "2017-10-15T06:10:09Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Where in the building were the charges placed? And how? And when? How did they go unnoticed by the 50,000 visitors and workers to the WTC every day? ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/90 "2017-10-15T06:12:01Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Where in the building were the charges placed? And how? as i have stated before, any given illusion can be observed and known to be an illusion without the requirement of knowing HOW it was done, suffice to know that it was a trick a FRAUD if you will. It doesn’t matter if the means had been thermite or black powder, the result is one of such a character as to be unmistakably controlled demolition. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/91 "2017-10-15T06:12:59Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > \ > > Normally I don’t get sucked into these sort of threads Neither do I, but I’m bored and there’s nothing on TV. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/92 "2017-10-15T06:13:39Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > And when? How did they go unnoticed by the 50,000 visitors and workers to the WTC every day? again this goes off into the tangent of how the trick was pulled off rather than recognizing the facts about the observation that proves beyond any doubt that it was indeed a trick, or FRAUD in this case. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/93 "2017-10-15T06:14:01Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “All the experts agree” This boils down to a game of > MY experts are better than your experts … ridiculous > there are EXPERTS who have signed up at AE911TRUTH who will argue that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition and there are then other experts who will claim otherwise however, what I am saying is that its not ROCKET SCIENCE > anybody who can pass High School science class can figure this out. > WHAT DO YOU THINK? I know I passed high school science as well as many structural engineering college classes. And I think I’ve enough humility to realize I’m still not an expert in the field, but the official story fits with what I know better than whatever nebulous thing you are preposing. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/94 "2017-10-15T06:14:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > as i have stated before, any given illusion can be observed and known to be an illusion without the requirement of knowing HOW it was done, suffice to know that it was a trick a FRAUD if you will. > > It doesn’t matter if the means had been thermite or black powder, the result is one of such a character as to be unmistakably controlled demolition. No, how it was done is VERY relevant. You’re the one claiming 9/11 was a fraud. You bring the proof. Otherwise, your opinion is laughable bullshit, as **running coach** put it. I really think this thread needs to be moved to the Pit. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/95 "2017-10-15T06:15:13Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > And when? How did they go unnoticed by the 50,000 visitors and workers to the WTC every day? There’s a crackpot theory that the buildings were empty for months while they were prepped. And all those plummeting bodies were crisis actors. Or crisis stunt people. Like I said in the other thread, NYC has been populated for decades with nothing but crisis actors to prepare for that one day. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/96 "2017-10-15T06:16:37Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > as i have stated before, any given illusion can be observed and known to be an illusion without the requirement of knowing HOW it was done, suffice to know that it was a trick a FRAUD if you will. > > It doesn’t matter if the means had been thermite or black powder, the result is one of such a character as to be unmistakably controlled demolition. Why didn’t it collapse from the bottom like a typical controlled demolition? ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/97 "2017-10-15T06:18:18Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > indeed, the alleged airliner impacts did not cause the immediate fall of the towers, the controlled demolition had to wait until the proper moment for maximum dramatic effect. Nonsence. Making the buildings fall with all the people inside would had increased the casualties and the drama. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/98 "2017-10-15T06:18:29Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > I know I passed high school science as well as many structural engineering college classes. And I think I’ve enough humility to realize I’m still not an expert in the field, but the official story fits with what I know better than whatever nebulous thing you are preposing. " nebulous thing " really? is it “nebulous” in that I state that the alleged airliner would encounter resistance from the moment that the nose touched the wall and also said resistance would cause the airliner to decelerate at such a rate as to be destructive to the airliner. is this not clear? ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/99 "2017-10-15T06:19:00Z")
By the way, when do the laws of physics come into play? ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/100 "2017-10-15T06:20:09Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > " nebulous thing " really? is it “nebulous” in that I state that the alleged airliner would encounter resistance from the moment that the nose touched the wall and also said resistance would cause the airliner to decelerate at such a rate as to be **destructive to the airliner**. is this not clear? And it was. Are you talking about the non-existent airliner or the real one? [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=4) [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=6)