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

[Jay_Jay]

@CurtC

The 10 g was a guess - it could be as low as 5 g or as much as 20 g, but something in that ballpark. But basically, yes.

Yes, that’s pretty much it.

you do realize that if the g force went into the 20 g range
that would mean guaranteed catastrophic structural failure
for the airliner ( & yeas even the part in the back of the aircraft )

[Czarcasm]

@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.

The only way you would believe that it happened as reported is if something different happened?
:eek::rolleyes:

[Voyager]

@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.

Do you think the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania? If not, please explain the cellphone messages from it. And tell me what happened to the guy from my site who died in the crash. I believe there was plenty of wreckage from that one.

[XT]

@Jay_Jay

according to the NIST final word on the subject
WTC 7 fell because of office fires … their words not mine.

No, more correct is what you quoted from the other poster, ‘it was much more than ‘just’ office fires’. You are straw-manning the NIST report (which I’ve actually read…have you?). Basically, boiled down, it was a structural weakening of WTC 7 coupled with OUT OF CONTROL ‘office fires’ and the fact that the fire suppression system was totally disabled due to structural damage that caused the collapse. THAT is a more fair boil down of a few hundred pages than your ridiculous strawman.

See, that’s the thing. You have to do this sort of thing, and you have to count on your target audience being ignorant to get away with it. Perhaps you are ignorant of it as well, in which case the folks spoon feeding you this horseshit are relying on you being ignorant. Either way, the only way this sort of thing continues is ignorance. You know, you could just go read the NIST report or even the summary and it would clear a lot of this up for you. I am holding my breath here for you to do that…

the problem here is that people have been totally bamboozled in that
the fall of WTC7 includes 2.25 sec of 9.8 ms^2 acceleration, and in that
time the building drops straight down and keeps its shape.

No, the real problem is all the ridiculous disinformation and bullshit that gets waved around as fact. It’s sad.

[Doubticus]

@Jay_Jay

does anyone have ANY sort of documented eye witness statement at all?
where is the documentation?

I have a friend from high school, he was at ground level and witnessed the plane strike the tower. There is no question, it was a plane.

[Jay_Jay]

@Voyager

Do you think the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania? If not, please explain the cellphone messages from it. And tell me what happened to the guy from my site who died in the crash. I believe there was plenty of wreckage from that one.

key bit here
you believe that there was plenty of wreckage from it
how is that DOCUMENTED? in other aircraft crashes, there have
been the total inventory of aircraft bits so as to account for the plane,
in the case of 9/11/2001, NO inventory was ever done, I smell something rotten here!

[Skywatcher]

@Jay_Jay

Just look at the PENTAGON, where is the airliner?

What, you expected to see an airliner remain visible after hitting a building designed to withstand an indirect nuclear strike at speed?

[Jay_Jay]

@XT

No, more correct is what you quoted from the other poster, ‘it was much more than ‘just’ office fires’. You are straw-manning the NIST report (which I’ve actually read…have you?). Basically, boiled down, it was a structural weakening of WTC 7 coupled with OUT OF CONTROL ‘office fires’ and the fact that the fire suppression system was totally disabled due to structural damage that caused the collapse. THAT is a more fair boil down of a few hundred pages than your ridiculous strawman.

See, that’s the thing. You have to do this sort of thing, and you have to count on your target audience being ignorant to get away with it. Perhaps you are ignorant of it as well, in which case the folks spoon feeding you this horseshit are relying on you being ignorant. Either way, the only way this sort of thing continues is ignorance. You know, you could just go read the NIST report or even the summary and it would clear a lot of this up for you. I am holding my breath here for you to do that…

No, the real problem is all the ridiculous disinformation and bullshit that gets waved around as fact. It’s sad.

do you deny that it has been documented and agreed to
by both the “truther” factions and the NIST that WTC7
descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration?

[Jay_Jay]

@Skywatcher

What, you expected to see an airliner remain visible after hitting a building designed to withstand an indirect nuclear strike at speed?

if the PENTAGON wall was truly blast resistant, then WHY
did the airliner manage to penetrate completely?

[running_coach]

@Skywatcher

What, you expected to see an airliner remain visible after hitting a building designed to withstand an indirect nuclear strike at speed?

But a nuclear bomb is smaller than an airplane. How could it do more damage?
CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!
runs around with leg hair on fire

[Jay_Jay]

@Doubticus

I have a friend from high school, he was at ground level and witnessed the plane strike the tower. There is no question, it was a plane.

I have no doubt that your friend believes he saw an airliner
however the video states very clearly that there could not possibly have been an airliner.

[Skywatcher]

@Jay_Jay

if the PENTAGON wall was truly blast resistant, then WHY
did the airliner manage to penetrate completely?

Simple: it hit a joint between Wedge 1 and Wedge 2 during a period when the exterior of Wedge 1 was being upgraded. The subsequent collapse was concentrated in Wedge 2.

[Leaper]

@Jay_Jay

I have no doubt that your friend believes he saw an airliner
however the video states very clearly that there could not possibly have been an airliner.

So in reality, your insistence on eyewitness testimony was irrelevant.

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

I have no doubt that your friend believes he saw an airliner
however the video states very clearly that there could not possibly have been an airliner.

Wow. The video says there was no plane? Then what hit the Tower that was flying through the air and had wings?

[Czarcasm]

@Jay_Jay

I have no doubt that your friend believes he saw an airliner
however the video states very clearly that there could not possibly have been an airliner.

In one post you demand that we provide eyewitnesses, and in another you say that eyewitnesses are wrong if they don’t agree with you.
Can you even comprehend how this makes you look?

[Jay_Jay]

@Czarcasm

The only way you would believe that it happened as reported is if something different happened?
:eek::rolleyes:

how about if what happened and the “news” reports of it
actually matched up and made sense?

[GIGObuster]

@Jay_Jay

somebody produce the source data for this cartoon
because without that data, any bit of computer animation is only a cartoon.

That “someone” (funny that also climate change deniers do resort to the sorry attempt at discrediting experts with asinine putdowns, when anyone can check who that “someone” was.) is this:

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/cmh

Christoph M. Hoffmann
Professor of Computer Science
Codirector, PLM Center of Excellence

Before joining the Purdue faculty, Professor Hoffmann taught at the University of Waterloo, Canada. He has also been a visiting professor at the Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel, West Germany (1980), and at Cornell University (1984-1986). His research focuses on geometric and solid modeling, its applications to manufacturing and science, and the simulation of physical systems. The research includes, in particular, research on geometric constraint solving and the semantics of generative, feature-based design. Professor Hoffmann is the author of Group-Theoretic Algorithms and Graph Isomorphism, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 136, Springer-Verlag and of Geometric and Solid Modeling: An Introduction, published by Morgan Kaufmann, Inc. Professor Hoffmann has received national media attention for his work simulating the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

@Jay_Jay

Note that as the airliner crams a 5 meter dia body into 3.6 meters ( further constricted by having floor truss structure ) there would have to be energy expended in the form of slowing down the aircraft, as it slows down, there would be progressively less KE to work with and the required force to cram the airliner into the building would not diminish so at some point, maybe with the tail of the aircraft still sticking out of the hole, the action would stop and all of the energy would have been expended.

Not what the physically based model shows.

@Jay_Jay

WHY should people expect that in 3 separate airliner crashes, the Towers & the Pentagon, that in all three, the airliner in question would penetrate completely and disappear inside the building? ( what are the odds? )

They did not disappear. So until we get a clue of what experience you have with materials we should dismiss your sorry points.

[Jay_Jay]

@Czarcasm

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

does it mean anything to you to be able to prove beyond any doubt
what DIDN’T happen?

[Sunny_Daze]

Here you go. A list of eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

I also know someone who died on Flight 93, so that’s 2 people on the thread so far who can attest for Flight 93.

This leaves us with the two flights in NY that hit the WTC. Based on the preponderance of evidence, it is very clear what happened; 2 hijacked airplanes hit the towers. jay-jay you are going out of your way to believe the unlikely instead of the likely. Why?

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

how about if what happened and the “news” reports of it
actually matched up and made sense?

There’s lots of video of planes hitting the Towers, lots of live news coverage, plenty of witnesses and they all match. Case closed.