# 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:** 52
**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, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1021 "2017-10-17T14:13:33Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > rather than telling me that I’m “torturing” science > please explain what I got wrong about this… For one thing, science doesn’t have fingernails you can pull out. I suggest red-hot pokers or electric shock. ---
**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, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1022 "2017-10-17T14:14:32Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The big bamboozle is in full effect here and people refuse to even consider alternatives to the official lie on the subject. oops! It’s clear that someone has bought and paid for a huge pack of lies. Evidence suggests that someone is you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1023 "2017-10-17T14:15:35Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > what you have written constitutes speculation about what may have been the motivation for the attack, and about the destruction of the towers… I posted it in response to your speculation about how unknown persons, numbering, apparently in the thousands, faked the attack so as to control the masses. In the one case, we have Osama bin Laden saying that he did it and why. In the other case, we have you saying that someone else did, and why. I have evidence for my case; you have none for yours. > [@](#): > > if the whole airliners story is fake, it makes a non-issue out of where the explosives have to be placed. I am not following your logic. If the airliners story is faked, that would seem to make where and how the explosives were placed a key issue. The buildings did, in fact, collapse (I assume you recognize this). If it wasn’t the airliners crashing into it, how was it brought about? > [@](#): > > " A plane weighing a quarter million pounds going at 500mph isn’t going to bounce off the side of a building." Nor should it be expected to simply glide right in totally disappearing inside the building, the alleged crash as shown in the video is wrong. So it didn’t bounce off, and it didn’t penetrate. What did it do? It didn’t fall straight down, as I think we have established. It didn’t go straight up. Where did it go - dimension X? > [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > Just ONE POINT here > totally straight up legit physics, WTC7 spent 2.25 sec falling at the acceleration of gravity and kept its shape while falling straight down during that time. > how was that done without controlled demolition? What about the time during which it was falling not at the acceleration of gravity? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that without controlled demolition, buildings never collapse at any point at the acceleration of gravity. What is the basis for this assertion? I don’t see how “totally straight up legit physics” establishes this. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1024 "2017-10-17T14:15:47Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The big bamboozle is in full effect here and people refuse to even consider alternatives to the official lie on the subject. oops! Give up some concrete evidence of this alleged conspiracy. Like I said, one way to prove a video is fake is by pointing out anomalies. I even suggested useful examples. ---
**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, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1025 "2017-10-17T14:16:22Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “lack of understanding of physics” OK > please then enlighten me as to how WTC7 fell at FREE FALL acceleration > for 2.25 sec while keeping its shape and falling straight down. Well, I’ve explained it like 4 times now. I provided you with 2 videos that actually model the NIST report and a cite as well. You’ve ignored them all. Since you are not going to be convinced, not going to bother even trying to understand or even look at the stuff I’ve provided (let alone what other posters have) I’m not going to go through it with you again. This post is simply to direct future posters who might be looking at this thread and wanting to know something about this that the information is up there (you are probably unaware of the scroll up features of boards like this) so they can know that your repeated reference to this has been answered repeatedly by multiple posters, and really everyone posting in this thread and following along knows it at this point. I suspect you do too, but since you have no answer you keep coming back to saying the same things, over and over, because all you have is the bullet points from the whack-a-do Truthers you are getting all of this horseshit from. ---
**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, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1026 "2017-10-17T14:24:30Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > \does nothing to negate the obvious fake images that were promoted as the alleged crash of “FLT175” And only you and your fellow CTer’s see that these are fake. As has been pointed out again and again, nothing looks fake about them. And in fact what happened is just what would be expected. And guess what. It did. Ok, how many experts can you come up with that have analyzed these videos and proved that they are CGI. 2001 CGI I might add. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1027 "2017-10-17T14:30:01Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You’ve proven nothing but a fundamental lack of understanding of events while perpetuating CT lunacy. And let’s not forget, a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic physics, the kind you should learn in 8th grade science. It’s been a few pages since this was mentioned, but Jay\_Jay was adamant in saying that an airliner going twice as fast needs 1000 times as much power to do so. And when it was carefully explained why this is wrong, with references and examples illustrating it, he just doubled down and re-asserted that he was right. Jay\_Jay, can you at least acknowledge that your understanding of this bit of physics was wrong? ---
**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 17, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1028 "2017-10-17T14:37:55Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > “lack of understanding of physics” OK > please then enlighten me as to how WTC7 fell at FREE FALL acceleration > for 2.25 sec while keeping its shape and falling straight down. NIST did and entire report on WTC7. I advise you read it, not just mindlessly repeat what truther nutcases tell you. Another take on the failure of WTC7 would be strutcure magazine’s paper on the possibility that one column failed resulting int he collapse. You can get to the article from [here](http://www.structuremag.org/?p=5842) This is what real engineers do, find the issues. Not whine incessantly about trivial irrelevancies like the rate of collapse for just a hair over 2 seconds. Now before you go running to the gutless (and often nonexistant) cowards that make up AE911T you’ll need to ask yourself: “If they have any relevant proof, why haven’t they published anything?”. Sure they’ve put up some posters and the equivlelant of blog posts where they won’t get the scrutiny that most real engineers will see. All Gagte does is travel around doing tiny lectures to fleece the rubes out of more cash while doing absolutely nothing relevant. ---
**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, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1029 "2017-10-17T14:41:10Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > you invite speculation without actually examining the events and the media reporting on said events. I doubt the credibility of anyone that discounts media reporting of the second pane crash because I saw the second plane crash. Thousands of people including hundreds of people I personally know saw the second plane crash, anyone that could get eyes on the burning building (after the firs plane crash) was doing so, if only out of morbid curiosity. There is no doubt in my mind that the second plane crashed into the building and I would eat my shoe if it turned out that the first plane crash was some sort of CGI that didn’t really happen. > [@](#): > > the problem I have with the whole thing is not just in the individual events such as an alleged airliner crash, There is nothing allege about it. We have multiple videos from multiple sources and several eye witness accounts from thousands of sources. This is as close to fact as we can get. > [@](#): > > 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? Once again, what is it about the sequence of events that defies physics? AFAICT you seem mostly skeptical of how the towers collapsed in just synchronicity. I can provide a ton of evidence regarding the bits and pieces of plane debris that were fond sometimes over a decade after the crash, I can point you to large pieces of plane with attendant human remains but I don’t know if anything will convince you that the planes were real. I don’t know why the collapse of the towers were so symettrical instead of falling over like a tree but I suspect its probably because the building is mostly hollow and is more like a house of cards than a jenga tower. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1030 "2017-10-17T14:46:52Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The big bamboozle is in full effect here and people refuse to even consider alternatives to the official lie on the subject. oops! If planes didn’t take down the towers, what did? More importantly, which group has enough power to control the media, parts of the government and Presidents who seem to hate each other? ---
**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, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1031 "2017-10-17T14:47:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know why the collapse of the towers were so symettrical instead of falling over like a tree but I suspect its probably because the building is mostly hollow and is more like a house of cards than a jenga tower. Basically, once the block of floors above the impact point started to fall, gravity would pull straight down. There was no force pushing the block sideways. The block might tilt due to the initial uneven failure of support structures but once a fall is initiated, gravity is the only force at work. It could only fall like a tree if failure was initiated at the bottom. However, due to the way the Towers were built, there would be nothing to keep it together. It’s not a single monolithic mass rather a collection of separate parts whose connections would fail. ---
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1032 "2017-10-17T14:48:07Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, I’ve explained it like 4 times now. I provided you with 2 videos that actually model the NIST report and a cite as well. You’ve ignored them all. Since you are not going to be convinced, not going to bother even trying to understand or even look at the stuff I’ve provided (let alone what other posters have) I’m not going to go through it with you again. This post is simply to direct future posters who might be looking at this thread and wanting to know something about this that the information is up there (you are probably unaware of the scroll up features of boards like this) so they can know that your repeated reference to this has been answered repeatedly by multiple posters, and really everyone posting in this thread and following along knows it at this point. I suspect you do too, but since you have no answer you keep coming back to saying the same things, over and over, because all you have is the bullet points from the whack-a-do Truthers you are getting all of this horseshit from. QFT and this goes also for what I noted in the pyramids made with geysers thread, the right way to do this is to make physically based computer models to demonstrate even a hint of how the cartoon physics would work. The geyser pyramid guy was not even capable of doing basic doodles. As it was shown in that pyramid thread, out of left field theories such as the idea that the great pyramids were made with internal ramps (not proposed by the geyser guy, but by a serious architect) get traction and validity when other engineers, physicists and archeologists can notice new evidence that fits the new theory, and that was done in great part thanks to the engineer’s basic computer models that the architect with no previous Egyptology experience used to show to archeologists. Point being that, as Chomsky noted, there is really nothing to stop guys like **Jay\_Jay** from going to architecture schools to discuss his ideas or to publishing his ideas or make models to be reviewed by others. **Not holding my breath for that one** , like the Pyramid guy the truthers will avoid peer review like if it was the plague and be happy to just peddle doodles of their ideas as if they were great works or art. ---
**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, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1033 "2017-10-17T14:58:07Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The big bamboozle is in full effect here and people refuse to even consider alternatives to the official lie on the subject. oops! In case you missed it on the last page, **Jay\_Jay** : > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > FWIW, what happened on 9/11 fits my concept of what should be seen if such an event should happen. > > Just a few quick yes-or-no questions. > Do you understand that, for most of us, what we see in those videos fits our concepts of what should be seen if such an event should happen? > Do you understand that you have been utterly unconvincing to anyone here throughout this thread? > Do you understand that “the media faked it” is a premise that requires its own independent evidence, and actually makes your claims _less_ realistic to everyone here? > Do you understand why I keep asking you to do your homework? One more. Is [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIUEZ3AhrVE) not _obviously_ fake? :rolleyes: ---
**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 17, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1034 "2017-10-17T15:01:53Z")
Gotta love how all these videos were faked using 2001 computer technology. Have you \*looked \*at the state of the art in computer graphics in 2001? I am embarassed by the CG scenes Lucas added to the original trilogy when he rereleased it and tha is in a sci-fi setting. yet in 17 years of vastly improving computer technology the only people who can find errors in the videos are the cranks who use overly compressed vidoe files (the same thing that [David Ike lizard spotters use to ‘find’ lizard people](https://youtu.be/flBfxNTUIns)) and play with the levels until they see something that isn’t really there. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1035 "2017-10-17T15:08:33Z")
Did anyone ever ask the top professional illusionists of the day if such an illusion could even have been pulled off then? Is there a chance it could be pulled off today? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1036 "2017-10-17T15:08:37Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > the ONLY way that I would not hold the truth that I presently do > would be for there to have been on the afternoon of 9/11/2001 > news reports that included photos of believable aircraft wreckage at the various crash sites, and also the incomplete demolition of WTC 1 & 2 and WTC7 damaged but still standing. Just look at the PENTAGON, where is the airliner? what it all burned up in the inferno that was ignited by the crash? > > this whole scene is the BIG BAMBOOZLE and its really sickening to see AMERICA get screwed in this way. Id est, despite the title of your thread saying you want to discuss this using physics, you really want to ignore the physics. Otherwise you would Discuss the pancaking floors by looking at why a similar event happened in Kansas City at the Hyatt. Calculate the kinetic energy of the planes at impact and how much was absorbed by the airplane and how much was translated into shear forces at the WTC’s outer wall. Answer any of the other physics-based issues the other posters have raised. I suggest to the mods that this thread get closed since it is clear the OP is not interested in intellectual discourse given his refusal to actually debate any of the points made. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1037 "2017-10-17T15:11:00Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > WTC7 … kept its shape while falling straight down during that time. The debris pattern indicates that it did not. ---
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1038 "2017-10-17T15:11:06Z")
> [@Jay\_Jay](#): > > The big bamboozle is in full effect here and people refuse to even consider alternatives to the official lie on the subject. oops! Who has orchestrated the “big bamboozle” and for what reason? What are the credible “alternatives to the official lie”? Instead of continuing to trot out the CT lunatic fringe handbook, Jay\_Jay, demonstrate for us the courage of your own convictions, FFS. Provide some insight into the motivation behind the orchestration and cover-up of these events. ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1039 "2017-10-17T15:13:35Z")
Now I’m wondering what the collapse of a huge building hit by an airliner should have looked like if the available footage is all inaccurate lies. ---
**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, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-cares-to-debate-the-events-of-9-11-2001-based-upon-the-laws-of-physics/798861/1040 "2017-10-17T15:15:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Did anyone ever ask the top professional illusionists of the day if such an illusion could even have been pulled off then? Is there a chance it could be pulled off today? I think David Copperfield is a person of interest in the ongoing “bamboozle” investigation. [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=51) [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=53)