9/11, latest, video, videos
Comments 44

WATCH: The physics of 9/11

The physics of 9/11 generates a lot of debate BTL. A lot of the same claims are made and countered many times over. In hopes of breaking the deadlock or at any rate providing some sources to link to, here are a few Youtube channels that we think offer some basic perspectives on various aspects of the physics that are easily accessible to non-scientists.

Physics & Reason

Since it was launched in 2009, this channel has focused on the hard evidence in the case, conducting a series of real world experiments in order to evaluate (and ultimately debunk) the official narrative. Whether you end up being convinced or not, the content is well put together and always worth watching. Here’s a couple of the videos we recommend:

David Chandler 911

Chandler is a stalwart of evidence-based 911 truth. His channel is replete with information accessible to non-scientists. You don’t have to agree with all his conclusions to appreciate the lucidity and rationality of his approach.

Alien Scientist

An eclectic channel featuring subjects as diverse as aliens, Sims 4 & cold fusion, there are some pithy and interesting vids about aspects of 9/11 physics. Here are a couple of good ones:


44 Comments

  1. 3Hares says

    This scene from Rick Mayall’s final film before his death, sums it up beautifully and simply using Jenga as an very handy tool..

  2. Thomas Turk says

    My favorite vid is of this flimsy aluminum tube, with an L pilot at the controls, moving at full speed, striking a massive steel box structured building at an acute angle. Instead of bouncing off like a mozzie off a net, it simply slices through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g.

    • BroSJ says

      Do bullets bounce off their targets? No they penetrate. Do insects bounce off your windshield? No, they splat.

      Bouncing off isn’t a required behavior on impact. A plane traveling at 500mph impacting a steel frame and glass high rise building is closer to a bullet entering its target than a baseball being struck by a bat.

      14
      5
      • Indeed, and would probably cause a tiny bit more damage than a small bullet. Still, I suppose they thought that someone would fly a boeing 767 travelling at 500 mph into the structure and would obviously have allowed for that eventuality. (doh). Yes that’s sarcasm.

        I can’t figure out whether “BrosDJ” is for or against the official narrative.

        Personally, my attitude is this. In 2001 fake news had not been invented and newspapers often still reported facts.

        No amount of amateur sleuthing and silly experiments is going to convince me that what happened in this case was anything different from what was reported “officially” at the time.

        Still, I know this will go on … and on … and on …

        1
        23
        • Admin says

          Is it reasonable to describe the research of professional physicists, mechanical engineers, chemists and engineers as ‘silly experiments’? Are you perhaps unconsciously loading the argument to trivialise one side?

          Are you perhaps unaware, as many are, of the major questions that NIST has not answered, including how the fires produced melted steel/iron, how the progressive collapse produced enough energy to pulverise concrete and eject steel beams tens of feet outside the footprint while continuing to fall at close to free fall, and how WTC7 fell symmetrically at free fall acceleration due to asymmetrical damage.

          22
          • rilme says

            Didn’t you understand what john2o2o said?
            “No[thing] is going to convince me”.

            I think we have to respect this epitomy of stupidity: he cannot learn.

            12
        • BroSJ says

          “BroSJ” (might as well get it right!) is for truth, wherever it leads.

          I think real planes hit the towers. Whether they were actually the planes hijacked is possibly open to debate. But there are numerous lines of data for planes hitting the towers.To me that debate is over.

          “They”, that is to say the designer of the WTC towers, DID think someone might fly a “Boeing travelling at 500 mph into the structure” and HAD “allowed for that eventuality” when constructing them.

          Specifically they allowed for a Boeing 707 to impact the building. The specs for a 707 and a 767 are pretty much the same in terms of impact.

          But the government does not claim the planes brought down the towers so that’s a red herring anyhow.

          8
          8
          • MICHAEL LEIGH says

            Actually BROSJL, the US Government’s enquiry, for what it is worth, suggested that the planes that collided into the towers 1 and 2 were the actual cause of the fires, and from which fires subsumed and in doing so caused the inferno of heat, and which heat from the fires that melted the steel structures and brought about their extraordinary collapse ?

            12
            • BroSJ says

              We’re talking semantics now really. Neither the plane impact nor the jet fuel is officially claimed to have directly caused the collapse. In the official version, the impact dislodged ALL the fire proofing, the jet fuel ignited office furniture and the subsequent fire “weakened” aspects of the structure, somehow leading to the explosive destruction we can all witness, but which NIST declines to explain.

              And of course, as we can never say often enough, Building7 was not hit by a plane but also managed to collapse, symmetrically and at terminal velocity, due to office fires.

              11
              8
              • Seagullsandwich says

                Somebody correct me if i’m mistaken, but the free fall collapse of solid steel frame tower blocks, caused by internal fire is extremely rare, if it has ever occured.

                So given that 3 buildings collapsed due to internal fires during the 9/11 incident is pretty much impossible…

                And how come Building 7 was on fire in the first place?

                • Admin says

                  No steel frame high rise building had ever collapsed due to fire until September 11 2001, when three allegedly did on one day. None have since, though there was a building in Iran that may have done a year or two ago, there being some suggestion it too may have been brought down by explosives.

            • Thomas Peterson says

              It is not claimed the steel melted. It doesnt need to melt to be significantly weakened, just heated up.

              1
              7
              • Admin says

                But the steel WAS melted and remained molten for some days. Not only is molten metal seen pouring from one of the towers just prior to collapse, but there are literally dozens of eye-witness statements to the presence of molten metal in the debris. Some of the structural steel also displayed unquestionable signs of having been melted and corroded in strange ways suggestive of a thermitic reaction.

                No government report has ever explained the presence of molten steel or the evidence for a thermitic reaction.

                13
        • Makropulos says

          “In 2001 fake news had not been invented ….”

          Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY?

          11
        • BroSJ says

          No-planers tend to exaggerate the flimsiness of airplane construction. Aluminum isn’t paper! And the plane isn’t just a hollow tube! It has two massive engine blocks, hefty landing gear, luggage, passengers, seats,kitchen paraphernalia, hydraulic control systems etc etc, plus the power of Newton’s 3rd Law behind it!

          Recall that the bulk of WTC 1 and 2’s strength was in the core. The outer skin was – relatively (I stress relatively) – light and pierced by many windows.

          Recall also that the resolution of the plane impact video is very low and full of compression artefacts. There is not sufficient detail present to determine exactly how the impact progresses. We know some of the plane fell off on impact and ended in the street below. We know some, especially the engines, entered the building and that an exploding cloud of debris exited the other side.

          There is nothing in any of this that seems to defy the expected behaviors dictated by Newtonian physics

          10
          17
          • No-planers tend to exaggerate the flimsiness of airplane construction. Aluminum isn’t paper! And the plane isn’t just a hollow tube! It has two massive engine blocks, hefty landing gear, luggage, passengers, seats,kitchen paraphernalia, hydraulic control systems etc etc, plus the power of Newton’s 3rd Law behind it!

            I am not a “no-planer” BroSJ, except to argue that “no plane” hit WTC 7.

            Muting the idiota now 🙂

    • I don’t believe those “antisemitism” narratives, but I do believe the official report on 911.

      Oops, does that debunk your theory!!! Sorry.

      1
      27
      • Which ‘official report’ is that john, The 9/11 Commission Report or the report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry ?
        There isn’t even ‘an official narrative’ since 2016 – there are two.

      • vexarb says

        Yes. No need to apologise, it is good to pop a big balloon of theory with a small pin of fact.

    • That RT article is just pathetic. RT and apparently you too assert credibility to Trump over these women by the familiar Soros smear. I mean that right wing talking point is just so tired at this point. The last person on this Earth that anyone should point to as having any interest about truth on ANY matter is Trump, unless of course some objective truth just happens to align with his own personal interest.

      1
      7
      • Admin says

        This thread isn’t about Trump or Soros or RT guys – try to keep on topic

  3. rilme says

    These vids are the nass. The official story of the destruction of WTC1, 2, and 7 is a crock.

    Now whodunnit: 17 Arabs who couldn’t fly, or much larger numbers of “israelis”, Jews, zionists, and duel citizens? Who benefited?

    32
    5
    • Antonyl says

      Always the “Zionists” as the baddies, boring, simplistic apart from xxxxxxxxx. why did the US attack Afghanistan first after 9/11: Israel’s directions?

      Can’t Christian Americans like many in the FBI or CIA have no own responsibility? They didn’t prevent 9/11 and so should have been abolished in favor of a totally new agency.

      Islamists are harmless guys? Only if you don’t study History.

  4. Fair dinkum says

    If these folks spent as much time and energy debunking Capital$chi$m and the fraud of democracy, we might actually begin to move along the path towards justice for all.

    35
    2
    • alskdfj says

      Fair dinkum As if debunking the official story is anything other than debunking capitalism and fraud of “democracy” and moving along a path toward justice for all.

      Mass slaughter, torture, mass surveillance, further entrenchment of MIC and burgeoning of a Security Industrial Complex all require the official account of 9/11 as justification.

      Investigating the unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 and being a truther in regard to such is the epitome of moving along that path toward justice.

      Typically people like yourself who at the very least (as you do) insinuate a character flaw in truthers, lump all truthers together with those “truthers” who promote ridiculous theories like DEW, Nuke, and no-plane CGI.

      Ironically, most who follow the serious evidence based work of pilots, architects, engineers, physics professors relative to scientific examination of evidence, do not promote any specific “conspiracy theory”, but rather for instance a conclusion that “well someone put those explosives in the building, we need an investigation as to whom”.

      It is the orthodoxy of the official 9/11 narrative that comprises the bulk of the “conspiracy theorists”. Even the chairs of that commission have debunked their own report.

      Aint that something.

      10
      1
    • Fair dinkum I just realized I may have misunderstood who you were regarding as “these folks”. If you meant “these folks” as those who adhere to the official 9/11 narrative, then I agree. Pardon my error.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole