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

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

You say “US government orchestrated the events of 9/11”
where did you get that?

You intimated it when you said three administration (Bush, Obama & Trump) conspired a cover-up.

[Skywatcher]

@Jay_Jay

the media LIED to everybody about the events of 9/11

@Skywatcher

We only have your word that [they did] and you are obviously acting on an agenda.

…

[XT]

@GIGObuster

Well, thank you for showing all that you do not bother to read even a quoted cite.

Yup. I think we can call this one in the books. The OP at this point is just spouting off random nonsense and not really bothering to even address most of the things being tossed back at them, so I figure either the OP will wander off, basically continue the circular ‘logic’ or a mod will eventually tire of this and close it down. This thread, however, is yet another piece of evidence for when the next Truther comes along…there is a ton of good cites in here, as usual for these threads.

[enipla]

@Jay_Jay

and for the skeptics, WHO will actually check it out
maybe do your own homework on the subject,
this one is obvious to people who understand what is going on.
and for the masses who have been watching the Tee Vee,
well … it is what it is … sorry about that …

Bolding mine. Ok…Then you tell us what you think is going on. What do you understand?

[snfaulkner]

@Jay_Jay

the actual reason is because of the psychological warfare going on.
nobody wants to be labeled a conspiracy freak.
however, no matter what, there are those of us who love our country so much
that it doesn’t matter if you have to say “conspiracy freak” the message is very clear, the media LIED to everybody about the events of 9/11

The media lied? Or was it the government? Or was it whoever “taught” you “physics” lied to you?

[running_coach]

@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.

Nope. Running full into an impenetrable wall gets you 700g.

However, the force launched the block back 1.82 m. Nevertheless, behind the impact remained an incredibly high-energy impact. As the engine exploded into tiny fragments, it experienced an acceleration force of over 700 g.

And yet, the plane did not bounce off, did not shatter nor did the wings come off at first contact.
No time for that. A Phantom is 63 feet long, only .08 sec. from instant of contact to the tail hitting the wall.
Get a stopwatch. Try to start and stop it that fast.

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

the actual reason is because of the psychological warfare going on.
nobody wants to be labeled a conspiracy freak.
however, no matter what, there are those of us who love our country so much
that it doesn’t matter if you have to say “conspiracy freak” the message is very clear, the media LIED to everybody about the events of 9/11

Who is perpetuating this “psychological warfare”?
Against whom?
For what reason?
Why did the media lie?
How have they managed to maintain the lie for so long when there is so much $$ in a tell all book that they would be tripping over each other for the Pulitzer?

[Jay_Jay]

@QuickSilver

We’ve explained it to you for 18 pages now. But we can’t understand it for you.

…sorry about that…

so you allege that something dropping at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
does NOT exert 36% of its own weight on whatever is under it?

what?

[GIGObuster]

@Jay_Jay

the actual reason is because of the psychological warfare going on.
nobody wants to be labeled a conspiracy freak.

But the ideas you posted are from conspiracy freaks. They are not original even.

@Jay_Jay

however, no matter what, there are those of us who love our country so much
that it doesn’t matter if you have to say “conspiracy freak” the message is very clear, the media LIED to everybody about the events of 9/11

Nope, some items the media got wrong, but overall when disasters happen the media does an adequate job.

BTW you are talking to a guy that has investigated and does know that the media does drop the ball and sometimes is complicit on manufacturing consent. I’m not Chomsky, but I do agree with one of the most intellectual critics of the American system on this issue:

https://www.alternet.org/culture/noam-chomsky-slaps-down-911-truther-people-spend-hour-internet-and-think-they-know-physics

“You’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers,” Chomsky replied. “They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.”

“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something.”

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments,” he continued.

Chomsky dismissed the claim that scientists and engineers hadn’t followed typical procedures because they felt intimidated by the government. He said publishing an article in an academic journal was virtually risk-free compared to other forms of political activism.

“There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved,” Chomsky added. “Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.”

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Jay_Jay

so you allege that something dropping at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
does NOT exert 36% of its own weight on whatever is under it?

what?

Still does not make a lick of sense.

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

so you allege that something dropping at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
does NOT exert 36% of its own weight on whatever is under it?

what?

If it’s accelerating at 64% of gravity, it’s not in free fall.

[Jay_Jay]

@running_coach

Nope. Running full into an impenetrable wall gets you 700g.

And yet, the plane did not bounce off, did not shatter nor did the wings come off at first contact.
No time for that. A Phantom is 63 feet long, only .08 sec. from instant of contact to the tail hitting the wall.
Get a stopwatch. Try to start and stop it that fast.

I never said the WTC tower wall was “impenetrable”
I said that the wall would offer up significant resistance to penetration.
on a continuum from having the aircraft penetrate a paper target and having it collide with a target designed to not be penetrated, there are all sorts of in-between states.
so the video shows very clearly a case of the wall allegedly presenting very small resistance, however that is not realistic at all given the fact that the alleged airliner would have had to displace mass to make the hole, it would have to break bolts, it would have to bend/break sections of box column and it would have to compress a 5 meter dia airliner body into a space that was at best 3.6 meters, however additionally imposed upon by the floor truss structure.

[XT]

@Jay_Jay

so you allege that something dropping at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
does NOT exert 36% of its own weight on whatever is under it?

what?

You do understand that you aren’t saying anything, and that most of the posters in this thread know you aren’t saying anything, right? Well, maybe you don’t. The let’s muddy the waters and try and distract everyone ploy really doesn’t work well here, and it’s pretty transparent to all.

What?

[Jay_Jay]

@QuickSilver

If it’s accelerating at 64% of gravity, it’s not in free fall.

I never said that 64% = free fall

Note that we have been shifting between WTC7 and the towers for the discussion
the 64% relates to the towers descent rate and for WTC7 there was 2.25 sec of FREE FALL.

[eschereal]

FDNYBQHQ
Hey, this is LMCC, we have a bit of a problem
Dude, no shit. I have two stations staffed with skeleton crews. Everybody’s down there.
See, WTC 7 is in seriously bad shape. We feel right now would be the time to drop it, while the whole area is clear.
Well, I have a guy here with a couple rolls of nitro bubble tape
That series shape-charge stuff?
Right. You could put it on the main columns and cut right through them. No one will hear a thing.
Perfect. Send him over.

If that had actually happened, I would have a huge problem …

Oh, wait no I would not. I might even have praise for them. If the 4 guys that knew lied about it, WGAF? If you fail to do what you have to when you ought to, you would be a fool.

IOW, WTC 7 is a non-starter. You can go nuts over it, but absolutely no one outside the WTCT community gives half a shit about it.

[XT]

@Jay_Jay

I never said that 64% = free fall

Note that we have been shifting between WTC7 and the towers for the discussion
the 64% relates to the towers descent rate and for WTC7 there was 2.25 sec of FREE FALL.

Didn’t watch any of the videos or read any of the cites, right? Let me ask you something here. Let’s say I have a wall that’s 50 feet high. Then I suddenly knock out the bottom 30 feet. What happens to the top 20 feet…and is it a big mystery that we need to be dwelling on? Explain your answer to the best of your obviously limited knowledge of physics.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Jay_Jay

I never said the WTC tower wall was “impenetrable”
I said that the wall would offer up significant resistance to penetration.
on a continuum from having the aircraft penetrate a paper target and having it collide with a target designed to not be penetrated, there are all sorts of in-between states.
so the video shows very clearly a case of the wall allegedly presenting very small resistance, however that is not realistic at all given the fact that the alleged airliner would have had to displace mass to make the hole, it would have to break bolts, it would have to bend/break sections of box column and it would have to compress a 5 meter dia airliner body into a space that was at best 3.6 meters, however additionally imposed upon by the floor truss structure.

What part of “Jumbo Jet flying at 500 mph” do you not grasp?

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

I never said the WTC tower wall was “impenetrable”
I said that the wall would offer up significant resistance to penetration.
on a continuum from having the aircraft penetrate a paper target and having it collide with a target designed to not be penetrated, there are all sorts of in-between states.
so the video shows very clearly a case of the wall allegedly presenting very small resistance, however that is not realistic at all given the fact that the alleged airliner would have had to displace mass to make the hole, it would have to break bolts, it would have to bend/break sections of box column and it would have to compress a 5 meter dia airliner body into a space that was at best 3.6 meters, however additionally imposed upon by the floor truss structure.

If you expect the plane to bounce off, then you’re saying the wall is impenetrable. Of course it displaces mass, why do you think it’s not possible?

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

I never said that 64% = free fall

Note that we have been shifting between WTC7 and the towers for the discussion
the 64% relates to the towers descent rate and for WTC7 there was 2.25 sec of FREE FALL.

Look, physics, math and engineering are not your forte. It’s painful to continue to watch you butcher science. Stick to what you’re really good at and what you’re really here to do - explain what you mean when you say the events of 9/11 were an elaborate hoax, who perpetrated it, and why, and how so many people have managed to get away with the cover-up for this long?

[GIGObuster]

@Jay_Jay

I never said the WTC tower wall was “impenetrable”
I said that the wall would offer up significant resistance to penetration.

Again with that, the reality is that big planes do penetrate buildings even at smaller speeds and they do disintegrate too.

El Al Flight 1862