Who cares to debate the events of 9/11/2001 based upon the laws of physics?

[DrFidelius]

@Jay_Jay

so it is not sufficient to understand what didn’t happen
now you want speculation about what did happen even
if that ventures out into an area of insufficient data(?)

Please enlighten me as to WHY it is necessary to speculate about what did happen?

Shouldn’t figuring out what did happen be the goal of any investigation?

[Jay_Jay]

@DrFidelius

Arabs are able to learn to fly planes almost as well as regular people. It’s not like anyone is claiming that trained squirrels carried out the attack.

however the physics of all 4 airliner crashes is highly questionable at best.
and downright fraudulent when you really start examining the available information.

[Czarcasm]

@Jay_Jay

so … do you support the idea that 19 radical Arabs
hijacked airliners and managed to fly 3 out of 4 to their targets,
and that two 110 story skyscrapers “collapsed” because of the airplane crashes

• a third building fell because of “office fires”

Sure…unless you’ve got an alternate theory.
Do you?

[scr4]

@Jay_Jay

so it is not sufficient to understand what didn’t happen
now you want speculation about what did happen even
if that ventures out into an area of insufficient data(?)

Please enlighten me as to WHY it is necessary to speculate about what did happen?

Because we already have a hypothesis (airliner crash) that seems to fit all the observed facts pretty well. The only way anyone can be convinced otherwise is to present a different hypothesis that fits the facts even better.

[DrFidelius]

@Jay_Jay

however the physics of all 4 airliner crashes is highly questionable at best.
and downright fraudulent when you really start examining the available information.

You have not demonstrated enough understanding of physics to make that statement.

Please show your work, which means math.

[Saint_Cad]

@Jay_Jay

however the physics of all 4 airliner crashes is highly questionable at best.
and downright fraudulent when you really start examining the available information.

Let’s start with some basics.
What was the kinetic energy of the planes when they hit the WTC?

[Jay_Jay]

@Mr.Miskatonic

OK, Ace. Give me your engineering or science credentials then.

This is NOT rocket science and people can get the subject matter
no matter what level of “degree” ( or not ) anybody has,
most of it is common sense and if you are one who is impressed by “credentials”
why then not respect the Patriotsquestion911.com or AE911truth
what about these guys with “credentials”

[Skywatcher]

@Jay_Jay

two 110 story skyscrapers “collapsed” because of the airplane crashes

And the subsequent fires.

a third building fell because of “office fires”

After being hit on its weakest side by large chunks ejected from one of those 110 story skyscrapers.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Jay_Jay

however the physics of all 4 airliner crashes is highly questionable at best.

It certainly is not.

and downright fraudulent when you really start examining the available information.

Wrong again.

[Leaper]

@Jay_Jay

however the physics of all 4 airliner crashes is highly questionable at best.
and downright fraudulent when you really start examining the available information.

Yet you seem to have ignored all the posts explaining the (actual) science without a word about why you’re right and they’re wrong, and asking why the global scientific community isn’t with you 100%.

@Jay_Jay

most of it is common sense

Like I said in a previous post, MY common sense is that an airliner hitting a building would easily penetrate that building. So there we have it.

[GIGObuster]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Yes, it’s lacking. There is no content. Where are the physical calculations showing us a model of what would happen when a 767 collides with a building? What you’ve offered is not even close to a full model of the events.

A model that was based on physics was made by researchers at Purdue University.

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

The scientific simulation, the completion of which was announced last September, required several test runs before the researchers were satisfied; the final test run required more than 80 hours of high-performance computing. The simulation depicts how a plane tore through several stories of the World Trade Center north tower within a half-second and found that the weight of the fuel acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid, knocking out essential structural columns within the building and removing fireproofing insulation from other support structures. The simulation used lines and dots to show the aircraft and building during the event.

“The crashes and computer models you often see on television are not scientifically accurate,” he says. “This provides an alternative that is useful to the nonexpert but is also scientifically accurate, so it provides a more realistic picture of the event.”

The visualization begins with a Google Earth map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows the damage caused by the aircraft as it hit the north tower, follows the disintegrating plane through the interior, and then shows the airplane metal, ignited fuel, dust and smoke exiting the building on the opposite side.

The simulation found that the airplane’s metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

As with an earlier simulation developed by this team that examined the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center simulation showed that it was the weight of the 10,000 gallons of fuel more than anything else that caused the damage.

“It is the weight, the kinetic energy of the fuel that causes much of the damage in these events,” Hoffmann says. “If it weren’t for the subsequent fire, the structural damage might be almost the same if the planes had been filled with water instead of fuel.”

Mete Sozen, Purdue’s Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering and a principal investigator on the simulation project, says the researchers worked for years and used the best computing resources available to recreate the event.

“To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building,” Sozen says. “We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft.”

Sozen says the actual damage to the building’s facade that was observed was identical to the damage shown by the numerical simulation.

“We calibrated our calculations using data from experiments we had conducted to evaluate the energy imparted from fluid moving at high speed to solid targets,” he says. “We concluded that the damage map we calculated for our numerical model of the building would correspond closely to the actual extent of the damage.”

The simulation represented the plane and its mass as a mesh of hundreds of thousands of “finite elements,” or small squares containing specific physical characteristics. In the visualization, these scientific data points are used to show how airplane components swept through the building and out through the other side as the fuel ignited.

“The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,” Sozen says. “Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact.”

I don’t think** Jay_Jay** will bother to learn anything from that.

[Jay_Jay]

@scr4

Because we already have a hypothesis (airliner crash) that seems to fit all the observed facts pretty well. The only way anyone can be convinced otherwise is to present a different hypothesis that fits the facts even better.

“fit all the observed facts pretty well” only really it doesn’t
in all 4 of the alleged airliner crashes that day ALL have anomalies that
are at the very least highly suspicious and in some bits, total proof of fraud by the media.

[Skywatcher]

@Jay_Jay

This is NOT rocket science and people can get the subject matter
no matter what level of “degree” ( or not ) anybody has,
most of it is common sense and if you are one who is impressed by “credentials”
why then not respect the Patriotsquestion911.com or AE911truth
what about these guys with “credentials”

Did they ever weed out all of the fake names with fake credentials?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Jay_Jay

“(relatively flimsy) skin of the building.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/spandrel.jpg

Steel box columns …

To tons of debris travelling at 400+ mph?, yep…relatively flimsy.

You have no idea and don’t seem intellectually agile or honest enough to think your way through this.

We are old hands at this conspiracy theory lark and I’ll ask you, as I’ve asked others, the one thing that shows whether you are an honest debater or not.

Is it possible that evidence exists that would change your mind? If not…you aren’t even talking on our level. If yes, what would it be?

[Urbanredneck]

On a related note (laws of physics) I read where they tried to figure out the strategies of the terrorists.

The idea was originally they would hit the tower slightly in the middle on the side and then the building would collapse. However the second plane, when approaching saw the tower still standing they went for the backup plan which was to hit high and center which would knock the tower over like a domino.

It says a lot about the original engineering for the buildings that both plans actually failed and it was the fires that took them out and even those almost didn’t do it if the water main to the sprinklers had not been severed.

[simster]

@Jay_Jay

so … do you support the idea that 19 radical Arabs
hijacked airliners and managed to fly 3 out of 4 to their targets,
and that two 110 story skyscrapers “collapsed” because of the airplane crashes

• a third building fell because of “office fires”

Pretty much - yes. (the ‘office fires’ bit there at the end is where you lose it - it was much more than ‘just’ office fires.)

You got anything better? So far, you don’t.

[scr4]

@Jay_Jay

“fit all the observed facts pretty well” only really it doesn’t
in all 4 of the alleged airliner crashes that day ALL have anomalies that
are at the very least highly suspicious and in some bits, total proof of fraud by the media.

You still haven’t shown any physics-based explanation of what those “anomalies” are.

You can start buy answering Saint Cad’s very easy question above.

[simster]

@Jay_Jay

however the physics of all 4 airliner crashes is highly questionable at best.
and downright fraudulent when you really start examining the available information.

again - more bullshit.

[scr4]

Also, how much energy was contained in the fuel tanks of a fully loaded 767?

[Czarcasm]

@Jay_Jay

“fit all the observed facts pretty well” only really it doesn’t
in all 4 of the alleged airliner crashes that day ALL have anomalies that
are at the very least highly suspicious and in some bits, total proof of fraud by the media.

Why would the media commit this “fraud”?
Why would Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump(ESPECIALLY Obama and Trump) agree to this fraud? If you post something as silly as this, then you’ve destroyed any hint of credibility when you attempt to discuss science you are obviously ill-equipped to go near.