/sci/ - Science & Math

Here's something I don't hear enough. I don't fucking care if it was a inside job, the gov was fucked sense it started.

Sometimes when a plane crashes it causes an explosion. This is because sometimes planes are filled with kerosene.

From what I know

Somehow after the planes with the other two towers building 7 "caught on fire" (from what I recall them saying in news broadcasts) then they did a "controlled demolition" of the building to prevent it from damaging buildings around it.

I could be dead wrong but that's what I remember them saying. Seems incredibly odd to be able to get a team inside to plant explosives in a burning building, so I must be mistaken.

but yeah, building somehow caught on fire at the same time...

>>1759766
This. Ever play GTA SA? Those planes have like 5 explosions when they crash

100 million people died in the WTC, most of them from unexplained spontaneous combustion in the moments before the first plane struck.

>>1759770
Yes, you are mistaken. The building was severely damaged from the collapse of the North tower, and on fire. The instability of the building made it too dangerous for the firefighters, so they pulled them. After about 5 hours of it burning it structurally failed and collapsed. You can find the details if you wiki WTC 7.

>>1759791
Please do some actual research. Go read the 200+ page report the government released about the 9/11 craptastrophe.

If you can't find that. Eat shit.

>>1759815
Are you talking about the 9/11 Commission report? As I recall, that didn't contain much info on building 7, but there have been various studies later on building 7 by NIST, and a couple engineering firms. I suggest you do research yourself.

>>1759791

The building wasn't damaged externally at all save for some glass being blown OUTWARD from the bottom floor where the lobby was, as evidenced in several videos.

As has been noted, if WTC 7 went down primarily because of the two small fires also noted in several videos - if that was the ONLY REASON it went down - it became only the third building in history with a steel infrastructure to collapse in on itself. The third in history...

The other two? WTC North and WTC South, hours prior on the same day.

Coincidence? I don't fucking think so.

>>1759835
Pay no attention to the whole South-west corner being destroyed...

>>1759835
OMG, you are so fucking full of shit. The collapse of the North tower destroyed the entire SW corner of building 7, and critically damaged the structural columns of the south face of the building 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

>/sci/ - Science & Math
>>1759756
>ITT: A thread about 9/11 except with science, religion and politics not allowed
>science, religion and politics not allowed
>science not allowed

>>1759857
So wouldn't the building topple over instead of collapsing in on itself into a perfect footprint.

yay conspirator thread

not saging because i'm on /sci/ herpyderp

lul lah lah lah

shoobedoowaaaap

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[4] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[35] At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely.[1]

Jet fuel, on its own, should not burn hot enough to melt steel.

However, burning jet fuel, at that height, with winds whipping through it like a forge, can easily produce the temperature required to compromise the integrity of steel.

Are 9/11 truthers dumber than creationists? It's a close one.

>>1759875
No, it is nearly impossible for a skyscraper of that construction to "topple over". It fails because of failure to resist compression under gravity. Despite what is advertised by CT's, no building on 9/11 collapsed "into its footprint". They all collapsed out, severely damaging everything surrounding them.

>>1759835
WTC North and South were also the only two steel structures to ever be hit by commercial airliners.

WTC 7 as well as WTC North and South achieved near-free fall speeds (and in some moments of the process, actual free fall speed of 9.8 m/s²) during their respective collapses, something that is irrefutably impossible given our knowledge of physics in this day and age UNLESS something completely knocked out entire floors of said structures beforehand.

Sorry, but physics and basic math says it's impossible for buildings to just fuckin' fall in on themselves without something - meaning the guts themselves - getting in the way to slow the process down. That's not what happened.

>HERP STEEL WASN'T MELTED IT WAS WEAKENED BY THE FIRE

>>1759909
Evidence that 9/11 truthers are dumber than creationists:
>>1759896
Creationists don't claim that the laws of physics necessitate creationism (I don't think). Therefore truthers are more delusional.

WTC 1 & 2 fell at exactly the rate dictated by physics if they structurally failed in the areas damaged by the plane strikes and then collapsed under the weight of the portion of the building above the damage. Which is an odd coincidence because that's exactly what happened.

>>1759909
Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Zhou, Yong (January 2002). "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis". Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128 (1): 2–6

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00 WTC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

Derp.

>>1759927
That's something in on a machine floor burning and melting metal. That's not what happened to the structural beams, some of which were destroyed by initial impact, and the rest of which failed under compression, aided by weakening due to the heat of the fires.

>>1759909
>speed in m/s²

wtfamireading.jpg

still not going to sage, i laik trolls like i laik mudkepz

>>1759909
DEBUNKED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

>>1759929

>Oh fuck he's right.
>I know, I'll call him a creationist!

Building 7's collapse (which was announced by the BBC 20 minutes before it happened) is the most obvious controlled demolition in fucking history. Obvious demolition is obvious.

That, and even a brief glance at history and politics shows that ragheads in a cave could never have done this.

Also, something that most folks never bother to consider:

Look at how the WTC North and South towers were struck, specifically. The North tower, struck first, was hit by a plane coming from the north striking it in a southern direction (impact on the north face of WTC North), and the pane that hit WTC South was a northern directional flight striking the tower on the southern face of WTC South).

If they'd come in from weird directions the towers could have toppled all over the place, if that was the intention, but it wasn't - the intent was hit the towers so they'd collapse inward, towards each other, in a nice small pile that almost didn't cover anything outside the boundaries of where they stood on their foundations.

WTC 7? No way in hell it went down simply because of a little bit of collateral damage and a few fires, it's just not possible.

Besides, what's with the 2000F+ temps that remained for weeks in the under tunnels and foundations of both the towers, eh?

"I love the smell of molten steel in the morning..."

And just so everyone knows, there were fucking rivers of liquid steel under the rubble. Ground Zero was actually hottest several days after the demolition.

>>1759951
how deep does the rabbit troll go?

lulscakes

u mad?

>>1759940
"However, it remains to be checked
whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to
agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but,
despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on
which these allegations rest."

OH SNAP

>1759875
Why do people persist in using strongly exaggerated terms like this?
When someone write that 'it fell straight down,' you do not have any reason to restate that as 'exactly' or 'perfectly' straight down. It is almost always a general description, not a mathematically accurate one.

-- Still laughing at the guy who thought debris falls at the same rate as the structure.

>>1759955
ohlordyihaswatermellons.jpg

>>1759951
>the most obvious controlled demolition in fucking history
LMAO. You are literally delusional.
>which was announced by the BBC 20 minutes before it happened
OGM!!!!!1111 THE BBC BLEW UP BUILDING 7!!!!!111

>>1759951
>Building 7's collapse (which was announced by the BBC 20 minutes before it happened) is the most obvious controlled demolition in fucking history. Obvious demolition is obvious.

Obviously the BBC was in on it. Also source, unless the government destroyed it.

Sorry the science is against the controlled demolition.

Also, another good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

Even the logic is against truthers, not that they know what the fuck that is.

>>1759955
Why do they let mental patients access the internet? Seriously, have you no critical thinking?

>>1759909
>actual free fall speed of 9.8 m/s²

>hahaha_oh_wow.jpg

Creationists vs moon hoaxers vs 9/11 truthers.

Who is the dumbest?

>mfw a thread with ideas that differ from the government's story about anything in history inevitably turns into a chorus of "lol crazy conspiracy theorists!"

Life is that much better when a light and sound box gives you all your world views.

Also, something people never consider:

If this really was perpetrated by the US government, why was it not done is a more-foolproof manner? Why not state the terrorists had smuggled explosives on board, or that they had timed explosives to detonate on the ground in tandem with the plane strikes? Why would it not be done in a more-efficient manner, leaving less room for doubt?

Responding with a statement of the government's inadequacy at executing such a plan is not a valid counter-argument.

>>1760012

Corporations control the media and government. Deal with it.

>>1760058
Well ain't that funny.

>>1760037
Of the three, 9/11 truthers make me want to rip my hair out the most from their completely insane cognitive dissonance. The others make me want to as well, but not to nearly the same degree. I don't know why exactly.

>>1760052

Because this is so easy to believe. Your more complex version has even more obvious holes.

Also, it was not done by the "US Government." It was a combination of elements of the CIA, DoD, NSA and various international agencies and corporate interests. This group collectively controls the media (Even without looking at conspiracy theories, mainstream media ownership is in the hands of around a dozen people). Thus, they control talking points. So far, the population has done a good job parroting the "crazy conspiracy theorist label."

>>1760075
>Because this is so easy to believe. Your more complex version has even more obvious holes.

Care to point them out? Because it's not like explosives haven't been detonated at the WTC before.

>Also, it was not done by the "US Government." It was a combination of elements of the CIA, DoD, NSA and various international agencies and corporate interests

I would also like for you to expound this accusation.

>>1760058
see
>>1759882
The firefighters abandoned WTC 7 to collapse at 3:30 pm. It didn't collapse until 5:21 pm. For almost 2 hours, everyone knew it was going to collapse.

>>1760094
And they knew this because fire had never caused such a building to collapse before in history? Swell story, pal.

>>1760094
>attempting to reason with fanatics

good luck

but this thread is funny because they're all so serious

>>1760105
For fuck sake, you moron, read the fucking link. They saw and heard it structurally failing. That's why they pulled the firefighters. Fuck -- I'm done with you.

>>1760058
The firefighters had given it up at that time, they knew it was done for. BBC just miss reported in all the chaos that was going on.

>>1760116
rofl u mad?

i am beyond amused.

Notice how all the official 9/11 story believers get so emotional and resort to name calling? Sure is in fierce denial here.

>>1760089
>Care to point them out? Because it's not like explosives haven't been detonated at the WTC before.

They would have had to explain where they got military-grade explosives (or even just a lot of demolition charges) and how 19 guys knew exactly where to put them without anyone noticing. This way, they just bought box cutters at home depot and more fear is put into the population because, according to the government, anyone can buy a sharp blade and kill 3,000 people.

>I would also like for you to expound this accusation.

People often assume that the entire US Government was involved and wanted this. It's not like People at the Dept of Agriculture had been getting memos about this. I also hear a lot of your previously mentioned incompetence argument.

Fact is, there were several drills and war games going on at the exact same time that outlined the exact same scenario. It would have been fairly easy for a few key commanders to turn the "drill" into an attack.

Truthers seem to be incapable of being skeptical about their position. Skepticism doesn't work when your skepticism is selective.

>>1760150

>Calls for skepticism
>Believes official story that is riddled with holes and impossibilities.
>mfw

I'm not like some other people that claim to know exactly what happened. That's just being ignorant about such a complex event. However, the Government's version of events simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst."
- J Edgar Hoover

>>1760150
I think that is it exactly. Creationists and moon-landing deniers don't require the same extreme selective lack of criticism to maintain their beliefs. They just aren't the brightest people. But truthers seriously belong in a mental institution.

>>1760138
Provide so decent evidence for your claim and refute all the science against you or shut the fuck up. Your just another annoying cunt. Also lol, you aren't even serious and I am feeding a troll.

>>1760116

Guess what else firefighters heard? Explosions! In the Twin Towers! There's even video evidence of bomb debris in the lobbies shortly after the impacts.

>>1760138
>>1760180
Point made.

>except with science, religion and politics not allowed.
Why isn't science allowed?

>>1760180

>Demands all the evidence about 9/11 in a 4chan post.


Learn to use a search engine, you dumb cunt.

How to troll /sci/
1. post about 11/9
2. take stance of conspirators
3. samefag till fingers turn to jelly
4.????
5. profit

why do you even bother seriously replying to these threads, you're all tarted

>>1760164
I go where the science and logic points to. You have preconceived ideas that you must fulfill. I, in my dumber days, when I lacked any skepticism, actually thought 9/11 was an inside job.

>>1760195

And you're making baseless claims about supposed preconceptions because...?

>>1760195
Maybe you should read a history book and understand that governments will go to great lengths to get the things they want.

guys whos dumber: the terrorist believers or a downs sufferer

Explosives, pyrotechnics, and demolitions expert here...
lol thermite. That's not used EVER in demolitions, it's not effective except for vertical cutting, and even nano-thermites aren't brisant enough to act as a blasting explosive.
Jesus /sci/, are you even trying?

>>1760208
Lacking proof, you are left to make sweeping allegations based on NOTHING but pointing out that something barely similar was done before.

>>1760195

I don't think you know what skepticism means.

physics+chemistry need more then the number 9 and 11 in order to work....this thread should be closed.

>>1760237
>provides context
>Is accused of making baseless accusations

The irony of this thread is heavier than all the WTC rubble.

>>1760206
Debunked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do

>>1760265

When in doubt, a youtube link will always save the day.

>>1760276

no, wikipedia + youtube is science, not just one. dont you know anything?

>>1760116
People around the WT7 reported to hearing bombs explode within the building.

>>1760295
The sound of the planes crashing into the towers sounded a lot like bombs, but it wasn't you dumb fuck. As if some bystanders have ever heard bombs go off before.

>>1760303

No, it didn't have sounds like multiple bombs. Firefighters generally have some experience with demolitions.

And explain the people in the basement of the twin towers who had their skin melted off by explosions 30 seconds before impacct.

>>1760295
herp a durp

>>1760141
>They would have had to explain where they got military-grade explosives (or even just a lot of demolition charges) and how 19 guys knew exactly where to put them without anyone noticing.

Not really. The government doesn't instinctively KNOW how terrorists do things, and the people knwo this too. They could have simply said that they did not know how they came into possession of those, and were looking into them. Or just that they were homebrewed (you can make some nasty stuff in a basement), smuggled in, whatever. Terrorists planting bombs would mean that no one would be forming a "controlled demolition" theory - "Of COURSE there were bombs, the terrorists planted them!"

>This way, they just bought box cutters at home depot and more fear is put into the population because, according to the government, anyone can buy a sharp blade and kill 3,000 people.

Except this point has not been expanded upon at all. I have not heard ONE thing about how sharp blades can lead to horrible acts of terror in the nine years since the WTC attack.
Every increase in security measures that has happened would have happened whether or not the terrorists used box cutters or bombs.

cont.

>People often assume that the entire US Government was involved and wanted this.

Well - not the entire government, but obviously certain branches.

>I also hear a lot of your previously mentioned incompetence argument.

I don't understand why you mentioned this.

>Fact is, there were several drills and war games going on at the exact same time that outlined the exact same scenario. It would have been fairly easy for a few key commanders to turn the "drill" into an attack.

Could you please cite this? Preferably from a government or mainstream media source.

I also think it would be an immense tactical blunder to conduct exercises concerning the "exact same scenario" at the "exact same time" as the WTC. There is no way any reasonable individual (and, from the way the rest of the events played out, the people who organized this are VERY meticulous, intelligent, and ruthless) would have allowed for such an oversight.

>>1760393

>Or just that they were homebrewed (you can make some nasty stuff in a basement),

Homebrewing high enough grade explosives to melt steel? In such large quantities? No.

>smuggled in

"I don't mind me, I'm a shady looking middle eastern guy with huge vats of homebrew explosives. Would you mind if my friends had private access to every key structural point for a few weeks?"

Much easier to commission a few reports about how a plane did it and let the media parrot the rest. It's how they handle everything else.

>Except this point has not been expanded upon at all. I have not heard ONE thing about how sharp blades can lead to horrible acts of terror in the nine years since the WTC attack.
Every increase in security measures that has happened would have happened whether or not the terrorists used box cutters or bombs.

You're taking it a bit literally. The point is that the average person could be a secret boogie man terrorist. Method really doesn't matter.

Everything was planned, everything was executed, and it came off brilliantly. The near-infinite chances that a big chunk of our military and even some private sector agencies would happen to be running exercises to prepare for and analyze attacks by terrorists using hijacked airplanes occurring on the exact same day that such attacks actually happ-- errr... actually were executed with surgical precision by other agencies pulling it off?

Infinity just isn't that big, bub.

People have believed lies for so long that they simply cannot comprehend the truth when it's slapping them across the fucking face. Oswald shot JFK all by his lonesome, right? Front entry throat shot, rear entry shoulder shot, front entry temporal shot, all after the car had passed Oswald's supposed position in the book depository and should have all been hits from the rear only if they were actually made by him. Really? You people actually believe that shit? 3 shots? All 3 shots hit?

And they find one bullet in near-pristine shape on a gurney in the hospital? Did it magically just jump up from the ground at some point and plant itself there, in basically unfired condition? WTF people...

Plane into the Pentagon: no discernible wreckage of any kind? 100 tons of steel and titanium and aluminum vaporized on impact? Same situation in Shanksville, PA, with Flight 93? How many fucking plane crashes have happened in history where not only the plane itself and everything it's constructed from vaporizes and takes the supposed passengers with it leaving just a hole?

Never before, eh? Didn't think so...

>>1760400

Mainstream (corporate) media is the mouthpiece of those who were behind all this to begin with. Reporters simply get told by higher ups that these drills were irrelevant.

However, these drills are the perfect way to put the right resources in place and confuse those who can stop the plan because they'll think it's just a drill until it's too late. We see the same thing happening at other events, including the London 7/7 bombings.

>except with science, religion and politics not allowed.

There should be a semicolon after science.
I guess grammar isn't allowed in this thread either.

The events of 9/11 should go in the Guinness Book of World Records:

- first time in history that steel infrastructure buildings collapse in on themselves, not one, not two, but three of them, because of fire-related damage and temperatures that simply could never have reached even 2/3 of the necessary temp to cause the melted mess of metal found in the foundations that continued burning for weeks after said event

- first time in history that not one but two full body passenger airliners crashed into the ground or a physical structure and left effectively zero physical evidence of their existence and again, the temps caused by the jet fuel could not have possibly reached temps that would necessary to completely and totally vaporize not only the ~100 tons of steel, aluminum, and titanium (and other materials) but also the bodies too - and if that occurred, how come the fire(s) didn't vaporize entire sections of the Pentagon or WTC towers North and South, let alone the crater in PA which was basically sitting next to the dirt that had been excavated from it in the first place

And a variety of other firsts... what a statistically (and completely bogus) set of circumstances and events...

>>1760430
The problem is that you're getting all your facts from conspiracy theorists, who in turn make up these facts however they please. None of the facts you are basing your thinking on are in fact true.

I'm not going to do your work for you of finding actual facts, but I'll give you one example: Many television crews filmed parts of the plane that hit the pentagon that were left around the point of impact. It did not all vaporize.

>>1760453

>except with science, religion and politics not allowed.

Actually, a comma after religion would have made it accurate. Don't be a dick, Dick. I got the gist of the statement, I'm sure many others did as well. When you attack such things as spelling and grammar, you're basically showing you're a chickenshit, so cut it out.

Bitch.

>>1760457
Please try not to be such a pinhead. Do some actual research into what happened from reliable sources -- don't repeat bullshit from conspiracy videos made by 20-year-olds with no clue what they are talking about who didn't bother to do real research either. None of what you are saying is reflective of reality. Even a cursory review of the available evidence disproves most the stuff you're saying.

>>1760467
>>1760482


>Disregard evidence
>Name call or imagine an irrelevant bias
>???
>Profit! Everything is life is perfect again.

>>1760467

I've seen hundreds of videos, many of them direct raw news footage from the Flight 93 crash (as close to raw as they could get it considering how censored that shit was) as well as footage from the Pentagon in much the same instance. What I noted was very thin light aluminum off a fuselage that didn't even match the insignia or the painted color of the actual Flight 175 aircraft.

The Pentagon flight hit the building in precisely the spot where the only work/renovation ever done on the Pentagon to ensure such an attack - a hijacked plane - would be minimized?

Two days before the supposed attack there were white chalk lines laid out that followed the supposed flight path into the structure perfectly?

The most secure military building in the world and the best they can offer up for video surveillance is 5 frames of extraordinarily bad quality video footage taken from a security camera on a parking booth?

How can anyone with any modicum of intelligence not look at this stuff from even a passing interest and wonder "Who the fuck would ever believe any of this?"

There are over a 1,200 engineers who have come forward with statements that 9-11 did not happen the way it's believed 9-11 happened.

And that just goes to show what a bunch of fags engineers are.

>>1760513
No... anyone with a modicum of intelligence would look at the post you just wrote and think, "how could anyone believe that bullshit".

I don't believe you've looked at raw footage or data, because you wouldn't be saying what you're saying if you had. You've just watched conspiracy videos so you parrot nonsense written by and consumed by people who are not familiar with the reality concerning the events.

>>1760529
You're just lashing out at him for supposedly parroting videos other people made. Meanwhile, you just parrot the government and the corporate media. Everyone loses!

to the conspirators:
Why would they destroy WTC7 at all?
why not just stay with the two buildings actually hit by a plane?
and why not blow up the whole city of new york?
they could have easily done it with a "weapon of mass destruction"
why just these three buildings?

>>1760545
LOL, I'm not parroting anything from the government. This is another CT technique. They call opposition to their fantasy versions of what happened, "the official version", to imply that any realistic analysis that has been done somehow comes from the government and so is suspect.

>>1760422
>Homebrewing high enough grade explosives to melt steel? In such large quantities? No.

You don't need to melt steel to bring down a building.

>"I don't mind me, I'm a shady looking middle eastern guy with huge vats of homebrew explosives. Would you mind if my friends had private access to every key structural point for a few weeks?"

People smuggle in massive amounts of drugs - why not the ingredients for explosives?
If they're separate, it's even innocuous.

>Much easier to commission a few reports about how a plane did it and let the media parrot the rest. It's how they handle everything else.

The poor handling of the whole plane aspect makes no sense when compared to the expert handling of the rest of the "operation."

>You're taking it a bit literally. The point is that the average person could be a secret boogie man terrorist. Method really doesn't matter.

You just defeated your argument against why the government didn't make terrorist bombs part of the plot.

>>1760553
Still parroting and you don't even know it. If your ideas are so obviously right you'd include at least some bit of evidence instead of resorting to name calling like you've been conditioned to whenever someone says something different.

does anybody realize the amount of heat generated by the friction of the falling, twisting steel?

>>1760446
>Mainstream (corporate) media is the mouthpiece of those who were behind all this to begin with. Reporters simply get told by higher ups that these drills were irrelevant.

So if there WERE drills reported in the "corporate" media, then we have a problem (see my previous statement concerning drills).

>However, these drills are the perfect way to put the right resources in place and confuse those who can stop the plan because they'll think it's just a drill until it's too late. We see the same thing happening at other events, including the London 7/7 bombings.

Again, I am asking you to please cite these. You have failed to do so once already.

>>1760513
>The Pentagon flight hit the building in precisely the spot where the only work/renovation ever done on the Pentagon to ensure such an attack - a hijacked plane - would be minimized?
>Two days before the supposed attack there were white chalk lines laid out that followed the supposed flight path into the structure perfectly?

[citations needed]

>>1760557
>You don't need to melt steel to bring down a building.

Yet there were rivers of liquid steel under the rubble.

>People smuggle in massive amounts of drugs - why not the ingredients for explosives?
If they're separate, it's even innocuous.

No, I meant smuggling tons of explosives into a crowded office building and placing them all over the framework with no one noticing. Quite different than sicking a bag up your ass and walking over the border.

>The poor handling of the whole plane aspect makes no sense when compared to the expert handling of the rest of the "operation."

What do you mean exactly? Everything went well with the planes. The media took care of the rest by not looking at the flight plan for the plane that hit the pentagon (not saying a cruise missile hit it, only that a poorly trained pilot couldn't have done that) or the strange lack of debris (again, could have been anything. Not gonna say that there were no planes, only that something suspicious was up with them).

>You just defeated your argument against why the government didn't make terrorist bombs part of the plot.

Uh, what?

I'm off to dinner. Use google if you care. Everything I said was fact. Otherwise, declare victory.

>>1760562
LOL I'm not parroting anything. And I've provided plenty of real evidence in this thread. I'm not saying conspiracy theorists are idiots because someone else said it. I'm saying it because they actually are idiots.

ITT: [citation needed]

>>1760584
>Yet there were rivers of liquid steel under the rubble.
>rivers
LMAO. There were a few pools of molten steel. None of that steel was melted with thermite. Nor was it molten before the building collapsed.

>>1760584
>Yet there were rivers of liquid steel under the rubble.

What? This has no relevance to my statement at all.

>No, I meant smuggling tons of explosives into a crowded office building and placing them all over the framework with no one noticing.

1. Fill up a few vans
2. Drive to pre-selected blast points
3. ???
4. Profit

>Quite different than sicking a bag up your ass and walking over the border.

I was thinking more along the lines of smuggling them in through cargo shipping or private watercraft, or obtaining them domestically.

>What do you mean exactly? Everything went well with the planes.

The large amount of "holes" that conspiracy theorists are able to point out should tell one that, if the government did indeed plan the planes, their plan was poorly-executed.

The media took care of the rest by not looking at the flight plan for the plane that hit the pentagon (not saying a cruise missile hit it, only that a poorly trained pilot couldn't have done that) or the strange lack of debris (again, could have been anything. Not gonna say that there were no planes, only that something suspicious was up with them).

>Uh, what?

You first said, in stating why the government did not plant bombs and blame it on the terrorists:
>This way, they just bought box cutters at home depot and more fear is put into the population because, according to the government, anyone can buy a sharp blade and kill 3,000 people.
You then later said:
>Every increase in security measures that has happened would have happened whether or not the terrorists used box cutters or bombs.You're taking it a bit literally. The point is that the average person could be a secret boogie man terrorist. Method really doesn't matter.
If method is irrelevant, then this statement contradicts the former.

>I'm off to dinner. Use google if you care. Everything I said was fact. Otherwise, declare victory.

You did a splendid job providing citations and evidence supporting your alleged facts.

...and why are you telling me to declare victory?

>>1760572

AMEC Construction had just finished the renovations that very day, seriously, 9/11/2001 and were there onsite just to finish up some minor painting, etc. Coincidence that they happened to also be the ones put immediately in charge of the cleanup AND they also handled the cleanup of WTC 7.

What a miraculous coincidence, eh? And consider that, in light of this being so well covered, so well orchestrated so quickly, and the media pouncing on "terrorists did it" and nothing else (as a good coup and black op must do), nobody really bothered to care that they basically removed all the materials from WTC 7 over the following days and weeks, sold it off to foreign "investors" and didn't allow one damned bit of metallurgical analysis or any analysis of any kind.

"It was terrorists, and it fell because the twin towers fell, that's all you need to know."

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

As for the 'white chalk trail' the attached image was taken by SpaceImaging.com on 9/7/2001 - it's pretty obvious where the flight path hit the building and it's pretty obvious seeing a trajectory right there in the image.

>>1760584
well if jet fuel can create an explosion big enough to bring down the buildings then there must be other domestic material that could do it

or is it only jet fuel that destroys buildings im not sure

pic related: master terrorist that 'planned' 9-11

Who bombed the WTC in 93? Was that the government too, or was it really muslim terrorists that time?

They destroyed WTC because it contained evidence agains global warming. Don't believe me? I'm a regular chemtrail pilot, plus I've seen the alien bodies at several of the government institutions across the US.

>>1760659
So in your mind they drew a giant chalk trail to the pentagon for the pilot to follow? You are certifiable. I have no idea where in that picture you are imagining a chalk line.

>>1760713
> They destroyed WTC because it contained evidence agains global warming.
I'm keeping this one.

They paid this guy 300k to do it. This photo was taken shortly after the towers fell.

>>1760720

Here, lemme make it easy for you, bub.

>>1760659
AMEC is a british publicly owned corporation that has hundreds of contracts with the US government and local governments in the US. What makes you find it "miraculous" that they were used both at the pentagon and in New York?

>>1760729

Fuck me you're insane.

Just think how much time, and energy, you waste on this bullshit.

>>1760738

Dude you just said it yourself, they're contracted by the goverment. BY THE GOVERNMENT. Of course they're in on it.

>>1760738

It's called "keep it in the family..." more or less. What a coincidence, the same guys that just fixed/renovated this building to withstand explosions and hijacked planes crashing into it right where that plane happened to hit us also happens to be expert at demolition cleanup too. We're very lucky to have them..."

Right.

Tell me, people, you can be arrested, tried, convicted, sentence, and even executed for a crime you absolutely had nothing to do with on less circumstantial and coincidental evidence than exists in voluminous form over this 9/11 fiasco...

I already know the answer, but when will enough be enough to make the majority actually do something about it? Never? Damn... what a bunch of fucking sheeple you all are, geez...

>>1760729
Okay, seriously, does that look like a chalk line to you? That's a fucking wear pattern in the grass. And do you seriously think the pilot would need a chalk line to find the fucking pentagon? Do you realize how insane this makes you sound? Can you not also see that that is clearly NOT the trajectory taken by the plane, but that it hit straight on, as the damage trail goes straight in?

>>1760753

You know what man. I'm gonna call you on this. If you believe so vehemently that this has happened.

What are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

>>1760755

The plane did not hit directly face-on from a perpendicular angle, anybody knows this these days. Go find ANY video of a recreation done by anybody, FEMA, NASA, TV stations, professors, engineers, the military, etc and they'll all show you a plane coming into that particular side of the Pentagon at an angle.

At least that's the one thing they DO actually know for a fact, it wasn't a direct perpendicular impact, not even close.

>>1760753
OH MY GOD. You are dumb as a post. The US government has many corporations that they contract work to on a regular basis. They all do multiple jobs. MANY of them did multiple jobs relating to the 9/11 aftermath. It's not a "coincidence" it's just normal, everyday, FUCKING REALITY.

>>1760771
It doesn't even matter what the angle of approach was. The idea that either a) they would make a giant-ass chalk line outside the pentagon for the pilot to follow to crash into it, or b) that wear pattern on the grass is a chalk line, then YOU ARE CERTIFIABLE.

>>1760659
That is just the grass.

If you examine the photo you can find similarly-colored grass elsewhere. It's what happens when grass dies.

>>1760771
What, so you believe the NTSB over pilotsfor911truth? lol

How hot does jet fuel burn again?
(notice chart on left)

>>1760793
>>1760827
>>1760812

Ah, yes, those indefatigable sheep that won't budge. Our government never did anything wrong, ever, they're perfect (NTSB is a government agency, you realize) and they never make mistakes of any kind.

Why is it every person that came into contact with the supposed pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon say the same thing: the guy was a dumbass, couldn't park a car in between two lines much less perform the kind of aerial maneuvers or even the actual impact so precisely, eh? Why is that?

Why is it that of the so-called 19 hijackers 12 of 'em were still alive days later, several of 'em in places that didn't even have TV or radio reception and knew absolutely nothing of the world's events of 9/11/2001... and some are still alive today?

It's fuckin' gubbamint magic and tax dollars at work, that's how!!!

>>1760827

You sure got that perpendicular thing going there, brother... NOT

>>1759927
thats where the plane crashed, is it molten aluminum?

>>1760882
>>1760854
Me again, just got home from civil engineering classes so it's taking me a second to catch http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
"Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

>>1760861
>Ah, yes, those indefatigable sheep that won't budge. Our government never did anything wrong, ever, they're perfect (NTSB is a government agency, you realize) and they never make mistakes of any kind.
I don't give a fuck about if the NTSB was right or wrong. I just think it's funny that you believe the NTSB is right your fellow truthers are wrong. The problem is that if you don't believe that the plane followed the path shown by at least the latter part of the NTSB path, then you have to believe that some CIA guys went outside in early rush hour traffic and cut down light posts with a chainsaw, hoping no one would notice, which again makes you certifiable.

>Why is it every person that came into contact with the supposed pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon say the same thing: the guy was a dumbass, couldn't park a car in between two lines much less perform the kind of aerial maneuvers or even the actual impact so precisely, eh? Why is that?
Who are these people? Where are they? Please link the interviews. If he couldn't fly a plane well enough to hit the side of an enormous building, how did he fly it there in the first place, and why would they pick him to fly if they had such low confidence in him?

>Why is it that of the so-called 19 hijackers 12 of 'em were still alive days later, several of 'em in places that didn't even have TV or radio reception and knew absolutely nothing of the world's events of 9/11/2001... and some are still alive today?
All 19 hijackers died on the fucking planes they hijacked, fucktard.

>>1759929
Stop embarrassing atheists.

>>1760898
So is no one going to reply to me? :(

>>1760931
Yes, I'm familiar with that analysis and I think it's correct.

>>1760903

>All 19 hijackers died on the fucking planes they hijacked, fucktard.

Might wanna call the BBC and tell 'em this report from 9/23/2001 was absolute incorrect and demand a retraction then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

and there's a few other new agencies with the same stories, more or less.

Stop being ignorant and learn something for a change. Don't accept what isn't true just because you "heard about it from some guy who saw something on some video that had footage from some TV news show that was showing footage of ignorant fools debunking 9/11..." because they're wrong almost every time.

Can't debunk truth, folks.

>>1760973
I thought the story was that the BBC was part of the government cabal that destroyed the buildings and covered it up. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

On all 4 planes, everyone onboard died when they crashed. There being doubt about the identities of some of the hijackers doesn't mean that the hijackers didn't die.

>>1760992

The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that the planes were ever hijacked in the first place, as we understand "hijacking" in colloquial terms.

If a bunch of dudes with box cutters or whatever non-firearm weapons they may have used to actually overpower not only the entire flight crew, potentially a portion of the passengers, and the pilots themselves took the plane, then sure, that would be considered a hijacking by the tradition meaning of the term as we understand it.

However, if there were no passengers on the plane (well, there weren't any fuckin' bodies on the ground or in the wreckage so, that's a definite possibility right there), or if those passengers were silenced in some manner (gassed, tased, injected with something, clubbed over the head, given something in the food/beverages, etc) and the plane was taken according to a plan for a specific purpose like a coup, I wouldn't call that a hijacking myself.

But anyway... someone tell me the last time - since it seems to be a pretty frequent occurrence, surely </sarcasm> - terrorists as we understand them and know them to operate used planes of any kind to actually pull off "a terrorist attack" - can someone please tell me the last time a terrorist attack used a plane to get their rather highly personal agenda across?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Nobody? Is nobody going to answer because, I dunno, it's never ever happened before in the history of "terrorism" but in one day on four different instances with four different planes suddenly a military-precision (more or less) set of circumstances fell into perfect clockwork place and everything just fucking worked?

Eh? EH?

>>1760973
Initially, it was assumed that the hijackers were who their passports said they were, which is also the names their tickets were issued under. In some cases that turned out to be not the case, such as the hijacker who used Abdelaziz Al Omari's passport. We still don't know the real name of that hijacker, and Omari claims that he had lost his passport when he was in Denver.

>>1761025
You're again showing your lack of familiarity with the facts. The reason we even know the terrorists' identities is because flight attendants on air phones identified them by their seat number.

For example, the first plane to be hijacked was American Airlines Flight 11. Flight attendants Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong both made calls from airphones to the airlines, describing what was going on. The recordings of these calls are public now, and not hard to find. On all the flights, there were many calls, on the order of 100 or so, mostly from air phones, and a few from cell phones. As a result, we know in very good detail what happened.

The hijackers, seated in 1st class, got up, immediately moved to the flight attendants who were in 1st class, and immediately slashed their throats using box cutters or utility knives, warning the other passengers to remain still. In some, maybe all cases, they used some kind of pepper spray or mace. The entered the cockpit, which were not routinely locked back then, and locked themselves in, killing the pilot and copilot, presumably by slashing their throats as well.

>>1761083

Most of the verbal information presented/provided by those phone calls was found to be seriously in error when the actual seating charts were released, sometimes off by entire sections.

As for the so-called cellular and Airphone calls made by the passengers... the ones I've heard reports about - provided by the people that took the calls, including several mothers - were very odd. One "son" called his mother and kept identifying himself by his full name - when was the last time you or anyone you know called their mom and said "Hi Mom, it's me, <first name, last name>..." I wonder.

And repeated it several times in the same manner, as well as asking the woman frequently "You believe me, don't you, Mom?"

In the heat of the moment those people taking the calls didn't question the situation and reported they felt good just to have communication with someone, even when after the fact, sometimes days and months if not years later, they look back on the situations and started having their own doubts and questions, most of which will never be answered.

This whole fiasco was not the work of a handful of people, it's simply impossible. Too many things went right that day for the number of things that went wrong to have been possible.

Even God doesn't have such a sick sense of humor, sad fuck that he is (if you believe in such beings, of course).

>>1761025
>But anyway... someone tell me the last time - since it seems to be a pretty frequent occurrence, surely </sarcasm> - terrorists as we understand them and know them to operate used planes of any kind to actually pull off "a terrorist attack" - can someone please tell me the last time a terrorist attack used a plane to get their rather highly personal agenda across?

I don't remember the chronology, but there was the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the group in london planning the liquid explosive bombs. Those are the most recent 3 I can remember -- but WTF is your point?

This sounds suspiciously like the moon landing denier argument that goes, "we haven't gone to the moon since Apollo, therefore we don't have the technology to do so, therefore we couldn't have done it in the 60's." Oh, fuck, you're a moon landing denier too aren't you?

>>1761117

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I don't believe for a second that 19 "hijackers" pulled off the events of 9/11 - not for a second. There's too much evidence to the contrary, too many things went too right as I just said - too much fell into place for the events of the day to have turned out so well for those who put this whole plan into motion in the first place for it to have been just 19 people, even if they had a few more people helping out in other ways.

Did we land on the moon? Sure, that's plausible, that's believable, that's something real.

Did 19 "hijackers" cause such a catastrophe as the official story line is posed? Fuck no.

Why is it so easy for sheeple to believe one thing and never question anything else? It's as bad as telling people God doesn't exist - they're too scared to think for themselves so you get slammed for the statement and labeled a blasphemer and a liar even though nobody can prove God does exist while it's a relatively simple thing to prove he doesn't and never did (uhmmm... where do dinosaurs fit into the religious perspectives of the world? Answer: they don't, and are just one piece of evidence against all religions claiming anything about divine creation).

But whatever... you folks continue being sheeple while those of us that know better continue to do the right thing.

I love the people that are just SOOOOOOOOO close to figuring out how the world really works but get stuck on some batshit insane tangent and never make it all the way. It's a shame really, probably sadder than people who never try.

lol@conspiracy_theorists.wma

HAI GUISE IOM FRUM /b/ NEVAR FORGET YOU UNPATRIOTIC BITCHES
the terrurists HATE MY FREEDUM AND WE MUST AXPLODE THAM

>>1760729
Christ you people are just grasping at straws now

"HURR LETS FLY A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON IN THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY EVER BUT HOWS THE PLANE GONNA FIND THE PENTAGON WITHOUT MARKING IT OUT IN GIANT FUCKING CHALK(btw its clearly not chalk dipshit) WHERE EVERYONE CAN FUCKING SEE.DURP. OH AND LETS MAKE SURE WE DONT DOCTOR OUR SATALITE PHOTES OF THE CHALK LINE HURR"

Fucking. Retarded.

If it really was an inside job, it would be a fucking god damn miracle that they pulled it off from the sheer amount of "errors" that "truthers" have found.


seriously. A FUCKING GOD DAMN MIRACLE.

>>1761025
Two seconds of googling you fucking retard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29
They use planes all the fucking time.

>>1761149

Sorry, but blowing up a plane in flight is not the same as using the plane as the device of destruction itself, dumbass. No "known terrorists" have ever hijacked a plane - before 9/11 that is - and used it as a weapon of mass destruction.

Sure we get nutjobs that fly small commuter aircraft into shit (the idiot that hit the White House years ago, the guy that flew into the buildings in Texas in 2009, etc) but they aren't working in big huge terrorist networks with ties to the organizations we keep seeing on CNN and other media 24/7 these days.

>>1761145

Much easier than painting a big white X on the side of the building, wouldn't you say? Regardless, even watching those 5 damned shit quality frames of video they were so gracious to let us see plainly shows an explosion with a primarily upwards directed flume of fire and smoke - if it was a plane hitting that building at 500+ MPH the fucking building would have collapsed in on itself in that entire section.

Hell, I could drive a semi with an empty trailer into the side of the building dead center of that "hole" aiming for the support beams at 65 MPH and I guarantee you I'd do far more damage and that shit would come down immediately and not at some predetermined time later (so people could make it out before someone gave the order to "pull it").

You folks... the truth slaps you and you don't even flinch...

>>1761172
>>No "known terrorists" have ever hijacked a plane - before 9/11 that is - and used it as a weapon of mass destruction.
Which was why it was so effective. But as we've seen it's a one-shot deal. After that the only thing you -can- do is blow the plane up since no one's gonna take shit any more.

>>even watching those 5 damned shit quality frames of video they were so gracious to let us see
Because security cameras at gas stations are awesome for high rez, high speed video capture (amirite?)

>>if it was a plane hitting that building at 500+ MPH the fucking building would have collapsed in on itself in that entire section.
Apparently reinforcing against bomb blasts means nothing to you.

>>Hell, I could drive a semi with an empty trailer into the side of the building dead center of that "hole" aiming for the support beams at 65 MPH and I guarantee you I'd do far more damage and that shit would come down immediately
You think so? You really do?

I think you need to go back to school, or at least start.

>>You folks... the truth slaps you and you don't even flinch...
You haven't exposed the truth, you're simply trying to make reality warp to your conspiratorial world view.

>>1761110
People say strange things when under extreme stress, yes, and they don't get all the details right. But to think that the 100 or so people who called loved ones were faked by the government is so beyond stupid. So the government secretly killed these people and made fake calls to their loved ones and their loved ones couldn't tell the difference? WTF? Most the information came from flight attendants, who didn't call loved ones, but called the airlines. We also of course have the voices of two of the hijackers on ATC radio, as on two separate occasions they broadcast to the ATC when they were apparently trying to make announcements to the cabin.

In the heat of the moment those people taking the calls didn't question the situation and reported they felt good just to have communication with someone, even when after the fact, sometimes days and months if not years later, they look back on the situations and started having their own doubts and questions, most of which will never be answered.

>This whole fiasco was not the work of a handful of people, it's simply impossible. Too many things went right that day for the number of things that went wrong to have been possible.

This is probably the basis of your psychological need to believe in a government conspiracy rather than reality, no matter how much your beliefs have to contradict evidence or truth. You feel too vulnerable if you believe that so few people could produce so much devastation, and your government could do nothing to protect you. You would rather believe that your own government did that. At least then you'd have the security of living in a world where someone was in complete control. This is what's probably going on in your mind.

Conspiracy theorists imply plan was "too perfect" to have been completed by ragheads. Assume government is only entity capable of pulling it off.

I found the flaw in your argument-the government sucks at everything it does.

You also imply they must have had a motive. I'm assuming everything went "according to plan" afterwards as well-ergo Afghanistan/Iraq. AND THOSE ARE WORKING OUT JUST GREAT AMIRITE?

So you imply flawless execution of part A, miserable failure of part B, and decide these two parts fit together perfectly-solid, nice logic.

and I loled at chalk lines to pentagon-HEY GUYS, WHICH BUILDING IS IT? IS IT THE SQUARE ONE? THE CIRCULAR ONE? IDK GUSY, LETS HIRE SOME RANDOM DUDES TO GO OUT THERE WITH CHALK AND DRAW A GIANT LINE TO IT SO WE CAN SEE WHICH ONE MMMKAY?

>>1761182

>Because security cameras at gas stations are awesome for high rez, high speed video capture (amirite?)

One would think THE FUCKING PENTAGON - the most important military operations center on the planet's surface - would be able to offer more in the way of video footage. The gas station and the hotel footage and the other cameras surrounding the area didn't capture shit, nothing of any consequence.

The 5 frames were taken from a security shed video camera - actual Pentagon hardware - and still show nothing of consequence.

All the actual incontrovertible evidence that people have never seen - the evidence that would make even ME do a complete 180 and say "Ok, I believe the official story" will never be seen by anyone. Why?

Because it doesn't exist. No such evidence - absolute undeniable 110% Grade Fuckin' A Proof - simply doesn't exist, it's all a fallacy tossed out by those that continue to perpetrate the "official story."

Wonder why that is... why wouldn't the US government actually release video footage that proves beyond any shadow of any doubt that yes, a damned 757 slammed into the Pentagon? What possible reason would they have to not release such footage?

Because it doesn't exist. Simple.

>>1761172
Wow... wut? No one crashed a plane into a building on purpose since 9/11, so it must not have happened on 9/11? I guess since no one assassinated a president since JFK, JFK must still be alive?

You're really off the reservation dude. You are so desperate to believe that 19 men couldn't execute a plan that hurt your country so much without your government being able to protect you.

Plenty went wrong that day. There's some reason to believe 5 planes were planned. There's strong reason to believe they also planned an assassination of the president that morning.

And obviously, the hijackers on flight 93 failed. For whatever reason -- maybe fear -- they delayed their attack, and that delay is why the passengers were able to learn about the other attacks, and why they stormed the cockpit and prevented the plane from reaching its target, which was the Capital Building.

>>1761172
>Much easier than painting a big white X on the side of the building, wouldn't you say?
Way to totally miss my point, Let me dumb it down for you.
With all our techology GPS and shit, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A VISUAL MARKER and they would of been RETARDED to use one.

>if it was a plane hitting that building at 500+ MPH the fucking building would have collapsed in on itself in that entire section.

Way to contradict yourself, you JUST said in the same post

>No "known terrorists" have ever hijacked a plane - before 9/11 that is - and used it as a weapon of mass destruction.

So the fuck are you an expert on what should of happened.
>Hell, I could drive a semi with an empty trailer into the side of the building dead center of that "hole" aiming for the support beams at 65 MPH and I guarantee you I'd do far more damage and that shit would come down immediately and not at some predetermined time later

Bullshit. Your delusion.

seriously.

>so people could make it out before someone gave the order to "pull it"
and a god damn retard to even SUGGEST pull has ANYTHING to do with demolitions. I bet you have heard this before, but ignored because your retarded and cant process information very well, but in fireman talk "pull it" Means to abandon the building since it cant be saved.

>>1761196
Lack of evidence doesn't automatically imply false-hood. You clearly don't understand logic. I'm still waiting to see irrefutable evidence to DISPROVE the official story, until then-keep those tin-foil hats handy!

>>1761196
>>the most important military operations center on the planet's surface - would be able to offer more in the way of video footage.
They're designed to catch people driving around, not objects flying at 500+ mph. Even at the Pentagon.

>>Because it doesn't exist. No such evidence - absolute undeniable 110% Grade Fuckin' A Proof - simply doesn't exist, it's all a fallacy tossed out by those that continue to perpetrate the "official story."
Err, you realize that to support the conspiracy people have had to argue, constantly for NINE YEARS and have no evidence to show in their favor?

Instead they selectively reject things that counter their perception of reality.

>>why wouldn't the US government actually release video footage that proves beyond any shadow of any doubt that yes, a damned 757 slammed into the Pentagon?
They did, that huge fucking hole in the side of the building. Remember that they reinforced it with blast proofing in the wake of Oklahoma City, and the plane still blew a huge fucking hole in the side.

Keep believing in the delusion man, it makes for amusing reading. I just wish you'd take it to >>>/x/ instead of here.

sage

>>1761196
LOL there were a hundred cameras on the WTC, and you don't believe most of the basic reality demonstrated by any of that footage. You expect the pentagon to be surrounded by cameras? Of course, conspiracy theorists leap into any gap in data and make little nests there. It's what you do. I get it. 50 or so people witnessed a plane flying into the pentagon. You disbelieve them... why exactly? Forget it, I don't care why. You're not worth the time.

>>1761202

Where's Flight 93, then? I mean, the plane, the bodies, the blood, the evidence? All that existed in a corn field in Shanksville was a big crater (and beside it the dirt that filled that crater the day before) and nothing else.

The coroner of the county showed up 20 minutes after the so-called "crash" and spent a half hour walking around - and this guy had experience with real plane crashes in his past - and consistently stated (even to this day) that:

"After 30 minutes, I stopped being a coroner because there were no bodies. There were no bodies, no body parts, no blood. Not one drop, anywhere. There was nothing to indicate a plane had crashed where they told me a plane crashed, nothing at all, just a big hole in the ground. Considering the size of the plane that supposedly crashed, I would have expected to see wreckage for several hundred yards in all directions, and the entire impact point - if it even was one - was less than 70 feet wide and maybe 150 feet long. In my opinion, a plane didn't crash in that field. It looked to me like someone dug a hole then dumped a few dump trucks full of garbage on one side of it, it wasn't a plane crash."

Non-government personnel always seem to offer up the real info, don't you think?

So, where's Flight 93? News footage, NTSB footage, amateur footage, all of it showing the same small tiny crater and nothing else to speak of... the ground didn't even really show signs of being scorched so there goes the "vaporized" theory again.

In all of human history dealing with flight and plane crashes, planes have never simply vaporized like Flight 77 into the Pentagon and Flight 93 into a corn field seem to have done.

Another day of firsts for Guinness, I suppose.

>>1761196
Why won't it ever be seen by you? Because why the fuck does the government care what a few conspiracy theorist think?
They do it one time, they have to do it for everything otherwise you'll hear "oh you released shit last time wen asked, you must be hiding something thisimsij time!!!"

>>1761241

So much for the Government working for us, the citizens. Go figure.

>>1761229
That is a false quote. It cobbles together different things that the coroner said, to make it look like he was saying things he wasn't, and it also looks like things he didn't say at all were added too. Here's what he said:

"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." (Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County, Pennsylvania)

When his quote was misused in Loose Change (so it could be parroted by the like of you), he added "What I meant is that after 20 minutes I stopped being a coroner and started being a funeral director. The coroners job is to determine the cause and manor of death. Well we knew what the cause of death was."

Many human remains were covered, but no bodies. The plane crashed at an extreme high speed, which is why it looks different than low speed crashes. The black box was recovered, however.

"[T]he 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. ... Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks [after 9/11] were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total." (Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground," Washington Post, 5/12/2002)

By December 19, 2001, "the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers" had all been identified. (Steve Levin, "Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/30/2001)

>>1761196
>herp derp the evidence doesn't exist besides a bunch of people saying they witnessed the plane.

>derp government says there is no other evidence
>herp derp gov't is right and wrong at same time for same reason

This "conspiracy theory" is interesting for the following reason: In most cases, the conspiracy theorists are overwhelmingly more likely to resort to diversionary tactics like
- avoiding the actual discussion
- failing to produce evidence
- ignoring opposing evidence
- using meaningless buzzwords like "sheeple"

In this debate, it has been exactly the opposite -- not just in this thread, but in the numerous places where I've seen it debated. There actually is a significant amount of evidence being presented, the arguments are generally coherent, and it's more often the anti-conspiracy crowd that falls back on games like calling their opposition "truthers" or "nutjobs."

Whichever side you're on, think about the debates you've seen on this topic versus, say, the "moon landing was faked" crowd, or "chemtrails," or Waco, for example.

I find this alone enough to make this conspiracy theory worth not dismissing on face value.

>>1761297
lol. Thinly disguised truther is thinly disguised.

BTW, "truther" is what you call YOURSELVES, moron.

>>1761297
except all 'evidence' posted here by conspiracy theorists is easily proven false, Statement-chopping, misread documents, fake new reports, etc.

>>1761297
>- avoiding the actual discussion
check
>- failing to produce evidence
check -- unless you include falsified evidence
>- ignoring opposing evidence
check
>- using meaningless buzzwords like "sheeple"
check

what thread are you reading, pal?

>>1761312
> BTW, "truther" is what you call YOURSELVES, moron
No, it's what you just called me (in the plural, implying there's a group of me) twice in the same post.
Thank you for confirming my post so quickly.

>>1761319
Yes, we call you "truthers" because it's what you call yourself. Is there something you'd prefer to be called?

>>1761317
No, it isn't, or the debate would have ended long ago. How do you "easily disprove" that WTC7 fell 20 minutes after the BBC said it had already fallen? They said it multiple times, they said WTC7 specifically, multiple times. Of the 20+ buildings surrounding WTC 1 and 2, they accidentally announced that specific one had fallen, then it did. Anyone on /sci/ should be aware that the odds of that being an accident are very low.

Now, you can come up with scenarios that might improve those odds, but you can't "disprove" any of that, because it is documented fact. It's evidence, not absolute proof, and that's all that I said the conspiracy theorists have presented.

>>1761318
Yes, both sides are guilty of those things. Reread my post if you need to.

>>1761322
As I implied in the longer post, perhaps it would be best if "your side" didn't feel the need to apply a buzzword label to its opposition. I am open to hearing evidence from both sides and I don't need an official "party line" to make decisions for me, so I don't really need a label.

>>1761335
WTC7 didn't collapse all at once. It fell in three or four stages, with the largest section falling about 30 minutes to an hour before the rest of the building. The BBC announced that WTC7 collapsed, and most of it had.

>>1761352
Got a source for that?
The only video I've seen of WTC7 collapsing was pretty much an "all at once" deal.

>>1761354
Source of your video? Oh wait, there is none.

>>1761355
The source of WTC7 still standing while the reporter announced it had fallen? Wow, you are really new to this debate.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc7+bbc

>>1761361
*cough* not the entire building had collapsed *cough*

>>1761335
>No, it isn't, or the debate would have ended long ago. How do you "easily disprove" that WTC7 fell 20 minutes after the BBC said it had already fallen? They said it multiple times, they said WTC7 specifically, multiple times.

You're right, this fact isn't false to the best of my knowledge. However, it is not evidence for anything you're claiming it is evidence for. It is a fact that is completely plausible given the actual events that happened -- that the fire fighters and media for two hours were waiting for it to collapse. Interpreting the early report of its collapse as involvement of the BBC in intentional destruction of the building is delusional. I'm not calling you a name. That is literally and technically delusional.

>Of the 20+ buildings surrounding WTC 1 and 2, they accidentally announced that specific one had fallen, then it did. Anyone on /sci/ should be aware that the odds of that being an accident are very low.

Of the 7 WTC buildings, all 7 of them were destroyed. But WTC 7 was the one they were trying to save, and then abandoned to collapse, so it was the one that was in the news around 5 pm, at the time you're talking about.

>>1761367
You're going out of your way to provide support for everything I said here: >>1761297
You asked for source, I gave it to you, you provided none. You made a meaningless comment that I guess is supposed to be sarcastic, but I don't even know what point you're making, so I can't argue it.

>>1761371
> WTC 7 was the one they were trying to save, and then abandoned to collapse, so it was the one that was in the news around 5 pm
I'll ask you what I asked the guy who made this same, unsupported claim right before you: do you have any source for this?

>>1761385
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[4] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[35] At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely.[1]

>>1761371
> Interpreting the early report of its collapse as involvement of the BBC in intentional destruction of the building is delusional.
The problem is that no one but you made that conclusion. I just described a piece of evidence that supports the conspiracy theorists' side. There are a lot of conclusions you could draw that don't require the BBC to have participated in destroying the building. It isn't worthwhile to debate them, because they're all speculative. Your conclusion is probably the most speculative of all of them.

>>1761403
No, that's just the point. The early reporting of the collapse, if it happened, does NOT support the conspiracy theorists' theories.

>>1761396
So, this evidence contradicts this entirely: >>1761352
And it states that the building "started to collapse" one minute before it fully collapsed.
It states that the fire chief decided to halt rescue operations around 2 hours before the building collapsed, and states nothing particular that happened around 20 minutes before the collapse.

Nothing there suggests that WTC7 was any different than the dozen other buildings that were burning and damaged and at risk of collapse.

>>1761423
The structure was observed failing 2 hours before collapse as stated in the article. Nothing in the article contradicts the person who said some part of it fell off 30 minutes before the collapse. The article in no way contradicts him as you claim.

You claim that many other buildings in the area were similarly in a state of impending collapse, and that WTC 7 was not unique in this. This is false, and the onus is on you to provide evidence for your ridiculous claim.

>>1761451
> The article in no way contradicts him
It describes a "bulge" and "creaking" sounds. If you consider that equivalent to "the building falling in 3 or 4 stages," then it doesn't contradict him.

> and the onus is on you to provide evidence for your ridiculous claim.
Since you call the claim "ridiculous,' I doubt you'll accept common sense as evidence, but how is it even possible that WTC7 was severely damaged to the point of collapse, but not the other, closer, surrounding buildings?

>>1761472
In lieu of common sense, how about these images of the damage to WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html

>>1761472
There was no closer building that was not more severely damaged. Some of the closer buildings were not tall enough to crumble under their own weight after sustaining the damage, and others did not collapse because they did not use surface supporting features like all the WTC buildings used, and they received mostly surface features. But the fact remains that no closer building sustained less damage. There was nothing odd or unusual about the amount of damage WTC 7 sustained, or any other building for that matter.

>>1761472
This is the aftermath of an Earthquake. Some buildings in the picture are rubble, some are still standing. Therefore I have proved beyond all reasonable doubt commando teams used thermite to destroy the buildings which are now rubble.

Its the NWO. Wake Up Sheeple!!

>>1761492
Ok... wait... what? So we're in agreement here? Or is this a different poster?

>>1761492
*received mostly surface damage

I'm thinking for example of the bankers trust building, which was a similar distance from the south tower as wtc 7 was from the north tower, and sustained a comparable amount of damage (a bit less), but never caught on fire and didn't collapse. Even if it had caught on fire, I suspect it wouldn't have collapsed, because of its different architecture, which wasn't as compromised by surface damage.

>>1761498
More support for >>1761297

>>1761499
Different from who? I am clearly disagreeing to the poster to whom I responded.

>>1761512
The problem with your victimhood theory is that you thoroughly deserved to be mocked.

>>1761514
This line of debate is clearly reaching the point of diminishing returns, but...

You replied to this:
> how is it even possible that WTC7 was severely damaged to the point of collapse, but not the other, closer, surrounding buildings?

which was a reply to this:
> You claim that many other buildings in the area were similarly in a state of impending collapse, and that WTC 7 was not unique in this. ... false ... ridiculous

And your response was this:
> There was nothing odd or unusual about the amount of damage WTC 7 sustained
and that agrees with the poster to which you responded:
>>1761472
and >>1761479

Is anyone participating in this thread willing to say that WTC 7 fell strictly because it had a few fires? I mean, it's a primarily steel, concrete, and glass building, and it's obvious from the well documented imagery of at least 3 faces of the building (north, south, and east) that it remained structurally sound after the collapse of both the North and South WTC towers themselves so, is there anyone that will state that WTC 7 came down basically because "it caught on fire"?

I wonder... 'cause all it takes is watching it come down, from several of the available angles/videos that it's a controlled demolition. I'm not going to point out the tell-tale signs of such an event as they are well known and if you don't know 'em there's tons of videos of real-world building demolition jobs to compare it with.

A little fire taking down that whole building? Preposterous, on every level (no pun intended).

>>1761529
That's a debate that's been had too many times already about all the WTC buildings that collapsed, and it doesn't add credibility to either side.

>>1761528
No, it does not. There was no other building as structurally compromised to the point of impending collapse as of 4 or 5pm on 9/11, compared to wtc 7. Wtc 7 was unique in this, as it was the only building whose collapse was being expected at that time.

Wtc 7 did NOT suffer any more or less damage that what one might expect given its proximity to the north tower, contrary to your claims.

This isn't fucking rocket surgery.

>>1761518
If mockery is what gets you through the discussion without having to actually participate in it, then it's welcome. Your attempt at contribution would probably not improve anything.

Oh my god, guys! I only touched two of them! How did they ALL fall down?

>>1761529
No that's FALSE, and you're getting that from a fucking conspiracy website or video. The south face of the WTC 7 was critically damaged. The lower part of the SW corner of WTC 7 was GONE. It collapsed because of structural damage + fires. The fires were not fucking "little". If it looks like it's a "controled demolition" to you, it's because that's how buildings fucking collapse. WTF do you expect it to do?

>>1761535
I'm honestly not trying to go around in circles, but my original claim was that there was nothing unusual about the damage to WTC7. That's why the reporting of specifically that building's collapse WAS unusual.

You're agreeing that there was nothing unusual about the damage, but also claiming that of all the buildings that sustained the same (or greater) amount of damage, only WTC7 was in danger of collapse. I don't understand this reasoning.

>>1761532

Well, it didn't have:

- a plane fly into it comprising the structural integrity from a core perspective
- a building fall directly on top or even to some major percentage of it as several of the other WTC properties did (and they remained structurally sound enough to NOT collapse)
- jet fuel from said plane impact that could have potentially caused some structural integrity issues IF it achieved significant enough temps (which jet fuel really won't do in such a situation and didn't in the WTC North and South situations)
- any significant damage at all that would compromise said core structural integrity
- enough fires in enough places to justify an outright complete structural failure sufficient enough to create the well known free-fall portion of the collapse
- various other specifics I won't bother with because they've been covered before

So, given there doesn't seem to be an engineering reason for the collapse, what seems to be left over is someone wanted that building down, and considering what it contained in terms of records, offices, data, agencies, the Federal ties, the potential that most of the 9/11 event in NYC itself could have been orchestrated from that very building itself...

Why did WTC 7 come down at all?

>>1761532
It removes credibility from the side that says it looks like a controlled demolition. WTC 7 took nearly a minute to fall, starting with the east mechanical penthouse, and spreading to the rest of the building. That looks nothing like a controlled demolition. WTC 1 and 2 both fell by failures midway up where the plane struck, having the top sections independently fall, and crushing the bottom halves. Again, it looks nothing like a controlled demolition, and parts of the buildings went in all directions causing widespread damage.

I know people aren't used to seeing buildings fall because of structural failures, but this is what it looks like folks.

>>1761538
The claim being challenged here would be more similar to saying "I only touched two of them, and three of them fell, but left one standing in between."

>>1761542
FOR FUCK SAKE, there WAS something unusual about WTC 7. It was about to collapse and everyone fucking knew it. This is why people call you delusional. You flat out ignore evidence and reality and stick to your own story. You're like a creationist. I've had enough of your shit.

>>1761540

It's amazing that people try to offer that "conspiracy website" bullshit as a rebuttal: those websites get their imagery and videos and information from the same fucking places you do or would so, why is it any less meaningful if someone finds an image or a video on whatreallyhappened.com (just used as an example) as compared to the same footage shown or archived on CNN.com or MSNBC.com or FOXNEWS.com or even some governmental agency website?

A video shows something, that's that - doesn't matter where someone watches the fucking video, or the pictures, or actually hears the interviews or reads the reports, everybody is basically doing all the damned research and as soon as it gets posted in one spot it's all over the place minutes later, if not sooner.

Explain that and then you'll have some ground to stand on.

>>1761542
>You're agreeing that there was nothing unusual about the damage, but also claiming that of all the buildings that sustained the same (or greater) amount of damage, only WTC7 was in danger of collapse. I don't understand this reasoning.

read my lips...
THE CLOSER BUILDINGS HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY DESTROYED.

>>1761554
No it's the fucking LIES that originate from the conspiracy websites, not the photos. Like the lie that the south face of the WTC 7 was undamaged. That is a FUCKING LIE.

>>1761553
Wow, you went from reasonable to unreasonable very quickly. Or you may have been unreasonable all along and just hiding it well.

Well, I wouldn't say I've "had enough" of this discussion, but I'm not really getting anything useful out of it any more, so I'll move on as well. I'm sure there will be plenty of future opportunities to follow up.

>>1761556
It's odd, then, that they don't look "COMPLETELY DESTROYED" in those pictures. >>1761479
They look surprisingly like heavily-damaged buildings that could easily collapse. Weird.

>>1761554
Implying that videos from conspiracy websites aren't edited to support asinine claims. Every "truther" uses a video of WTC7 collapsing which has had the first two minutes removed so that they can say: Look at that, it fell really fast.

>>1761553

Of course they knew it was coming down, you dumbass, that's why they put the info out there. What's the best way to keep people out of a building where someone snooping around might be able to find something that someone else doesn't want them fucking finding, like EVIDENCE OF SOME RATHER NASTY CONSPIRACY, perhaps?

Right, you tell 'em "Hey man, this place is gonna blow, run!" and watch what happens.

Reminds me of "The Hunt for Red October" and Ryan's famous discourse with himself...

"How do you get a crew to want to get off a submarine... how do you get a crew to want to get off a nuclear subma---..."

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Considering all the agencies housed in that building - I mean for fuck's sake, the CIA treated it like their second home away from Langley - and all the potential sources of information as well as the biggest issue of all: that it could have been the nerve center itself controlling the collapses of WTC North and South (entirely possible given the level of technological wizardry inside it), is there any real surprise that it came down even in spite of not suffering anywhere near the level of damage other buildings in the immediate vicinity did a real surprise?

If you want to keep people out or get them to leave, it's pretty easy to accomplish with a phone call, an intercom, or a radio.

>>1761561
Then you need new glasses. The buildings are completely destroyed.

>>1761568
CHECKMATE

>>1761563
Yes of course. They destroyed the building to get rid of incriminating files. GENIUS!

>>1761573

Hey, it's far more plausible that they destroyed the building from the inside given what it housed than it is that a few chunks of debris from WTC North fucked it up so much it just collapsed in on itself LIKE a controlled demolition.

Bleh. A complete pooch screw in the big picture but, they got the job done, the evidence vanished, got scattered to the four winds you could say, just like the building itself when distributed to various places overseas without an analysis in sight.

Perfect.

>>1761573
I know, right? Don't you wish more super-villains would destroy their own headquarters as part of their villainous plots?

>>1761587
No, again, it wasn't like a controlled demolition at all. Only if you have nothing else to compare it too.

>>1761587
And talking about "a few chunks of debris" just makes you look stupid. That's wtc 7 in the picture getting shat on.

Man who's watched a few dozen controlled demolitions here. The explosives used always blow out the windows, which I don't see in the WTC7 collapse.

That and how fucking slow and unevenly it collapsed if you don't watch the truther video which edits out the start and only shows one corner.

Surely neither side thinks it was a "controlled" demolition... ? Even if it was intentionally destroyed, why in the fuck would they go to the trouble to actually make it "controlled" so that it would fall smoothly and evenly? You'd just put explosives here and there and make it fall however the fuck it wants to fall, just making sure you used enough to get the job done.

Arguing whether or not it looked like a "controlled" demolition is about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

>>1761612
Well, that's what they claim. I guess they claim it because they can supposedly spot a controlled demolition and distinguish it from an uncontrolled one... which is how they know it is controlled.

>>1759951
Googled, didn't find any evidence of the pre-collapse collapse claim.

Since the thread is obviously tl;dr, can anyone link to proof?

Yes they covered it up just so you could uncover it and tell everyone about it meanwhile they don't eliminate you at all and let you live your life peacefully and jeprodize their elaborate fool proof plan by spouting off evidence and truth.

Makes complete sense.

>>1759951
>(which was announced by the BBC 20 minutes before it happened

Retard alert.

Look guys seriously, the greatest evidence against 9/11 truthers is the 1993 car bombing in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center.

If it's truly a conspiracy by the federal government than they started under Bill Clinton's presidency then waited 8 years to continue their conspiracy and it's all Bill Clinton's fault.

Seriously it WAS a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy by Al Queda, a very well funded militant group from the middle east once given support by the US government that SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY FROM THE USSR!

Now either you pretend the USSR is completely inept and historical evidence suggests otherwise, or you accept the fact that Al Queda received backing and support from the US in the 1980s and because of their military training given to them partly by US government forces were able to make a simple plan to ram 2 fully loaded passenger jet aircraft into huge monolithic structures in the heart of America's biggest city.

my dirt mind see the picture different :P

>HURP DERP THEY SAID THE TOWER HAD COLLAPSED BUT IT HADN'T YET

>Officials said that it was bound to collapse later that day and fire fighters were removed for safety reasons

>>1761546
>Why did WTC 7 come down at all?

Because it did.

>>1761672
I don't know what you could have possibly googled and not found the video... It's everywhere. Shit, it's in three places in this thread.

Try "BBC WTC7."

>>1761697
Well it's irrelevant now because your retarded ass was disproven with simple logic over the WTC7

>>1761697
Time traveller here. Its 3200 CE and Dr. Bluestocking just invented FTL travel.

Oh shit, CNN knew about it over a thousand years before it happened. Its a conspiracy.

>>1761686
Just to nitpick, the CIA didn't directly help bin laden's group or any other foreign fighters in Afghanistan. They only helped local Afghani fighters. Bin Laden didn't need much help, and he certainly didn't need money. But the rest is certainly true. Shortly after the 1st Gulf War, Bin Laden declared war on the US, because he was butthurt that the Saudis would rather have Americans protect them instead of him.

He attacked US troops in Yemin with a hotel bombing in 92, he attacked the WTC in 93, he engineered a plot to kill Clinton in Manilla in 96, he blew up two US embassies in Africa in 98, he blew a hole in the USS Cole in 2000, and he was behind the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

>>1761612
This is the proof that the few intelligent voices on both sides are vastly outnumbered by ignorant, insecure, knee-jerk reactions.

> It looks like a controlled demolition, therefore conspiracy!
> It's clearly not a controlled demolition, therefore no conspiracy!

>>1761697
I found videos saying it "have reports that another building has collapsed or will collapse" going on to say they couldn't see for sure from where they were.

Kept searching, did find the one they're talking about though. That's really interesting. Not sure if this is Hanlon's razor in effect though.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
They are, after all, in England. Just because we live in the information age doesn't mean an intercontinental game of telephone can't botch verb tense.

>>1761712
How about this... there were numerous buildings that were no longer structurally sound, but were still standing, so they did have to intentionally demolish them. If WTC 7 hadn't fallen by itself, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO BRING IT DOWN INTENTIONALLY TOO. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LIED ABOUT IT. THEY WOULD HAVE ADMITTED THEY WERE DEMOLISHING IT LIKE THE SEVERAL OTHER ONES THEY HAD TO DEMOLISH.

I don't even understand what anyone here would do with the truth if they had it.

Probably nothing.

>>1761700
jokes_on_them_i_was_only_pretending.jpg

>>1761716
Apply that same statement to science in general and realize how dumb you sound.

>>1761714
Well obviously. There were mounds of things wrongly reported that day. 20 min before collapse, the fire department had an hour ago abandoned WTC 7 to the fire because of the risk of imminent collapse. If BBC had at that point wrongly announced it had collapsed, it would neither be surprising nor particularly interesting.

>>1761715
Your caps-lock brings it home.
I don't understand why everyone, even on /sci/, becomes 13 years old when this topic comes up. Maybe I do understand it... 9/11 was fucking scary and I guess people get insecure about it. Grow up. Probably the best thing you can take away from this thread is this:
>>1761716

>>1761721

It's a political conspiracy.

Any value the truth has in this case is completely irrelevant to mankind, if you want to prove something at least make it scientific.

>>1761688
OH MY GOD DOUBLE FIST PENETRATION

That poor statue.
This thread is now about anal lubrication.

>>1761723
My caps lock is I'm cruise control for I'm pissed off at how willfully ignorant people can be. I don't know why it angers me but it does.

Oh look, I didn't know that people of this sort are on /sci/

>>1761731
> I don't know why it angers me but it does.
You and the rest of the juveniles here should spend more time figuring out this great mystery of life than you spend worrying about who was behind the collapse of WTC7.

>>1761737
But I'm not a juvenile and I already fucking know who was behind the collapse of WTC7.

>>1761731 People who don't agree with my bullshit are just ignorant.

You are suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect.

>>1761748
Highly unlikely.

>>1761748
No, 9/11 truthers are genuinely incompetent. He is correct in his feeling of superiority.

>>1761755
Same deal with the LHC black hole scare.
One side is scientists and the other is crazed media. One of them clearly has the advantage. Remember when we all died to black hole?

>>1761757
YOU CAN'T REMEMBER 2012 WHEN IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET

>>1761757
Exactly, I tended to get angry at the crazed chimps who wanted to shut down the LHC too. It's just frustrating when you're used to people who operate on logic and you are thrust into a situation where you have to deal with people who simply discard logic.

>>1761752
>>1761755
Sorry, I thought the anon I replied to was a truther.

>>1761765
In fact I ended up in a several month long argument on some guys anti-LHC blog about his contention that it was impossible to see Saturn with the naked eye and no one knew of its existence until modern times. I ended up predictably losing my cool with him and calling him an idiot, so he banned me from his blog. I don't know why I let myself get sucked in to such engagements. Must be the ADD.

>>1761757

I remember getting compressed by a detonated neutron star, yes.

Good times, great for my back.

>>1761776
Wanting to stop the spread of stupidity, it's a curse many of us share.

LOL, I found it...
http://bigsciencenews.blogspot.com/2008/05/nostradamus-and-lhc.html

Tell me if you are so mature that the discussion on that page does make you rage. (I'm "Erik" in that discussion, and the guy who thinks Saturn is invisible to the naked eye (and that Nostradomus predicted the destruction of the world by the LHC) is Alan Gillis.

>>1761783
Thinking that posting on /sci/ could stop the spread of stupidity is... stupidity.

hey guys what's going on in this thread

>>1759896
>implying it's equally hard to grasp the technical details of the collapse and going into a museum to see transitional fossils

I don't think so Tim...

9/11 = 0.8181818181...
H = 8th letter of alphabet
A = 1st letter of alphabet.

9/11 = 0.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

>>1761791
This has given me some laughs. I especially enjoyed
>colloquially known as "nighttime"

>>1763055

HAHAHAHA... ok, that's somewhat funny.

Lrn to newtons third law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YBOdYEivSk&feature=watch_response