/sci/ - Science & Math

because it happened

Because of blind patriotism

>>2972100
+ comment

>>2972093

Because we saw two different planes hit two different towers and both of them came down. I watched it live. Good enough evidence for me.

How is it impossible? Explain using evidence.

Also,

>scientically
>>Hurr durr how do i into english

>>2972100
blind patriotism right here folks

>>2972110
>hurr durr correcting grammar on 4chan makes me feel like a man

>>2972093
>scientically IMPOSSIBLE

And how do you figure that? ARe you some great scientist, with a great knowledge, but you have choosen not to share it?

Last I heard, that shit is just basic therodnaymaics and mechanics, and is completely explainable. Do the math dipshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

/thread

>>2972110
can't prove a negative
you should be asking for arguments, not evidence

>>2972127
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

It was a steel skyscraper. Steel quickly looses bearing capacity in high temperatures.

>>2972168
>durr fire makes skyscrapers collapse durr

Can you prove it? oh right you can't.

Enjoy your religionistical incoherent prattle.

>>2972093
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~robbin/angelic/911.pdf

\thread

>>2972183
yes i can prove it, dumb ass

watch loose change

>>2972175
Get big enough fire and it does.

i don't not think the fire burned long enough to weaken the steel if you ask me.

>>2972199
>watches YouTube consipracy theoires instead of actually doing math and physics

>>2972211
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)#The_fire

>>2972191
Fight ignorance with science.

>>2972199
>Is dumb enough to fall for loose change
>shows his face on /sci/

>>2972225
Yes they did. Proof: the buildings collapsed.

>>2972232
Yes, but there wasn't a plane the crashed into it going some 400 mph. It severely compromising the joint structure of the beams.

The fire didn't bring the building down, the plane did. Once all the upper floors collapsed on the lower ones, it fell straight down.

>>2972093
Why not just bomb the building? Why fly a plane into the building, bomb it too and claim it was just the plane?

Occum's Razor, you stupid shithead. There is no reason or merit to your accusations.

>>2972175
The aluminium of the plane in conjunction with the iron components of the towers had a burning effect similar to that of thermite, which caused the structure to weaken and collapse.

>>2972093
/sci/ has the stupiest, yet most successful troll

GOOD JOB GUYS

>>2972250
see
>>2972126

>>2972252
The failure to grasp this point is why all 9/11 conspiracy theorists should be executed or at least sterilized. Their lack of critical thinking scares the shit out of me. I hate that there are people that dangerously stupid in our society.

>>2972287
i live how violent you sheeple think.

>GROWL KILL ALL MUSLIMS GROWL
>GROWL KILL ALL THAT QUESTION THE GOV-MENT GROWL

>>2972280
they said the Titanic couldn't sink and it still did. Everything an engineer says isn't totally infallible

>>2972093
Impossible is such a strong word.

And have you ever personally seen a 767? I think you'd change your mind when you realize it is 2 stories tall and as long as city block and that a great deal of its weight is fuel.

"The government would never do anything to intentionally maim and kill its own people"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Operation Northwoods had to get personally rejected by JFK. If you adjust the equation so that a less intelligent president like G.W.Bush makes the final call, you could so see it being 9/11.

>>2972264
it's summer so sci is filled with newbies who don't recognise such an obvious troll thread

>>2972304
Congratulations, you regurgitate exactly what you've been programmed to regurgitate.

>>2972322
which is why he was assassinated

>>2972252

Long term goals don't agree with a lone bombing method. What sort of message does it give out if terrorists are free to sneak into a high security building and rig it with demolition explosives?

It doesn't help if you want to heighten travel security and paranoia so a plane it is.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

>IT is scientically IMPOSSIBLE for ONE PLANE to bring down the WTC towers the way they fell.
Nope.

Nigger, troll thread, etc.

>>2972126
Hey asshole, remember how the Titanic was supposed to be iceberg proof?

>dat maiden voyage

9 + 11 is 20. 20 divided by 4 (the number of planes hijacked in the attack) is 5. Former President of the United States Grover Cleveland has a Kevin Bacon Number of - get this - 5. Therefore, Grover Cleveland orchestrated the attacks. With the J ews.
Grover Cleveland is dead. If this strikes you as convenient for him, you're right. What better way to avoid suspicion than by being dead? Coincidence? You decide.
The attacks happened in New York City, which, among other less important things, is famous for its bagel shops. Run by J ews. Coincidence? You decide.
There is lots, lots more evidence that Grover Cleveland and the J ews orchestrated the attacks. Seriously, I have a boner from all this evidence right now.


Read more: 9/11 | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/funny-2147-911/#ixzz1L29teuKX

>>2972322
It's additionally more questionable as Operation Northwoods suggested the hijacking of civilian planes with the aims of murder and misleading the public under false-flag operations.

>>2972322
You still have to prove that Bush actually approved a plan like this.

>>2972362

Titanic was made by potato munchers and alcoholics, what the fuck did you expect?

>>2972336
Just shut the fuck up. It's wasn't even the first time terrorists had attacked the WTC.

Sure, bureaucracies want more power, but 9/11 is an excuse at most. It's not a conspiracy.

>>2972370
But I don't have proof that he didn't sign it either.

The government is bought and paid for by Financial institutions. Why would they allow such a plan to go through? Why would they destroy their businesses and jeopardize their precious stock market and kill their ceos?

lol...seems dumb as fuck

>>2972405
If there is no proof one way or the other, and you claim one way instead of the other, it is up to you to provide evidence.

If you do not have proof either way then making claims or implying something is true is lying.

If you make a claim you need to provide evidence of that claim. If you don't have it then shut the fuck up.

>>2972464
Naw, nigger, the burden of proof is upon you.

>>2972370
These fucking assholes want to nail Bush for an elaborate conspiracy with no facts to support them.

What they can get is criminal charges for how incompetently things were handled. Criminal charges for personally shipping friends and family of the Bin Laden family, et. al. out of the country. Criminal charges how they used the paranoid feelings of the american people in the aftermath to push forward two major wars for profit that are still on going. Criminal charges for approving torturing assholes who knew nothing of use towards catching culprits or national security.

The list of shit they we could and SHOULD do goes on and on, but these "truthers" keep hammering away at non-sensical bullshit that gives no results. What we get is righteous paranoid retards on the internet and no justice.

>>2972492
I think you are a faggot. Prove me wrong. Burden of proof is on you.

>>2972498
If that was a random guess, then you sir, are a fucking wizard.

>>2972513
damn it...
replace "faggot" with something that isn't true and would greatly offend you.

>>2972108

I saw this guy in a cape saw a woman in half. I watched it live. Good enough evidence for me.

>>2972523
What? But the burden of proof is on you for making the claim.

>>2972497
It's not a crime to be incompetent.
It's not a crime to be the head of incompetent agencies.
It's not a crime to help innocent foreign national who may be targeted by angry mobs to get out of the country.
It's not a crime to retaliate against an act of war with war.
It's not a crime to legalize aggressive interrogation techniques.
But by all means, keep making the detractors of GWB look like flaming idiots.

>>2972093
please sage
This is a matter where ~3000 innocent civilians died
Its pretty much insulting to see people trolling about it

>>2972547

And there we have it!

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

>Claim: George W. Bush approved of a setup to imitate a terrorist attack.

>>Not a claim: "I don't believe so".

>>>also not a claim: "choke on my dick and die"

>>2972548
>NGO attacks, kills 3000 civillians
>attack three countries and kill 70,000 civillians

DEMOCRACY

>>2972567
But the claim is that G.W.Bush didn't enact 9/11 so the burden of proof is on you.

>>2972093
scienti-FI-cally.
Please, learn your tools of communication or gtfo

>>2972554
So? That many people die every month in car crashes.

>>2972585
Stupidest bullshit I've heard all day.
I'm out.

>>2972554
how dare you forget the 6 muslims that lost their lives as well?

>>2972585
There's been a whole court case with the evidence for exactly who orchestrated and executed 9/11. Proved and reproved.

>>2972585

No it isn't, because I'm not making a claim that he didn't.

In this context, I am making no claim.

Now, prove that he did.

>>2972579
What 3 countries would those be, and what does proportionality of response have to do with democracy?

The flames softened the steel girders, not melted, you only need to raise their temperature to the temperature of those fires for them to lose enough stiffness to collapse onto the floor below, that floor couldn't support all the weight -> run away collapse

>>2972597
>Got no evidence to prove it
>Knows he's wrong and just lost
>"hurr stupidest shit I read all day, I'm out"
Nice try, thanks for playing.

maybe because they dont! who the fuck belives one plane brought down the WTC?

There is an easy way to solve this debate.

Rebuild the two towers exactly. Buy the same two planes, load them up with fuel, crash them into the towers in the same locations.

Pricetag: probably less than a billion dollars.

>>2972625

Can't we just have a supercomputer model it?

>>2972617

Yeah, it was two planes, actually. All those people are indeed retardes as fuck..

ts.. one plane..

>>2972617
Yeah, it was two planes.

>>2972630
It's been done.

Guess what? Conspiracyfags are mentally defective, once again.

>>2972093
HEY TROLL GOT ANY EVIDENCE FOR THAT UNSUPPORTED STATEMENT?

YOUR ARGUMENT FALLS JUST LIKE THE TOWERS DID!

>>2972548
>>2972548
Manslaughter and negligence are both crimes. Space out or be drunk while driving and kill someone and you go to jail. Don't provide proper safety or don't feed your child and it dies, you go to jail.

Being the head of an incompetent agency makes you responsible, as well as a bunch of other incompetent fuckheads below you.

You kill someone by accident or by neglect of your duties and your ass WILL go to jail. Why not them?

>>2972649

When the plane hits one tower, it disintegrates. It is impossible for such plane to hit the second tower, too.

>>2972548
>It's not a crime to retaliate against an act of war with war.

When did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Dylan Avery lives. 3500 people die.

Government orchestrates the murder of >3000 people and neglects some internet fucktard.

Yup definitely an inside job.

>>2972649
So, you call him a troll, and then ask him for evidence?

Are you new to 4chan, do you not know what a troll is, or are you just plain retarded?

Still can't believe nobody posted a link to the Architects and Engineers against 9/11 organization.

It'll die off to idiots like you.

So what about the SEC building (3rd tower)? Flying debris that nobody sees?

Fuck you.

>IT is scientically IMPOSSIBLE for THREE PLANES to bring down the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Building 7.

fixed

>mfw nigger think unstable building collapse into perfect little piles of rubble.

mfw every dumb nigger here is making emotional statements and is incapable of providing evidence against or for the argument.

>>2972664
It's time for science AND math.

TWO planes hit TWO towers.

I know you're 10 years old and weren't alive to see it, but trust us, there were TWO planes. One for each tower.

>>2972612
Progressively Afghanistan, Iraq, and then Pakistan.
>inb4 WMDs
there were known to be none. the UK have said they would have invaded even if there weren't any
>imb4 pakistan not invaded
Aerial drones designed for military purposes in operation in waziristan= invasive

>>2972687
wikipedia

>>2972687

Where I come from we consider this to be evidence.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

>>2972687
I'm a sociopath. Just so you know

There is no valid argument against the collapse of the twin towers being due to the planes that collided with them. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that WTC7 fell due to fire alone, given the significant structural damage it suffered when the towers fell.

>scientically
>9/11 conspiracy theory thread

mhmm

>>2972754
>I'm a sociopath. Just so you know

Ooooooooooooooooo!

>>2972766
If the claims made popular on the internet were all factually accurate then the scientific method would be useful. Therefore, this thread is /sci/worthy.

>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684
>>2972684

GAME OVER

>>2972770
OH YOU

Seriously though, Assuming everyone cares about whoever died is incredibly short sighted.

>>2972779
I show I care with an eagle tattoo and by nodding a lot.

This whole thing runs so much deeper than you think.

>>2973030
lol i forgot about him

>>2972684
>IT is scientically IMPOSSIBLE for TWO PLANES to bring down the World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2 and Building 7.

fixed

Using science you can prove that jet plane fuel can not burn hot enough to melt the structural supports the WTC was built with.

Using math you can calculate the impact force the plane had on the structural supports and then from there, calculate if the force exerted combined with the heat from the fuel on the structural supports to see if thats why they collapsed.

>>2973143
Do you have to boil water for it to evaporate?
GRADIENTS, my friend. Steel doesn't switch from entirely solid to entirely fluid, it gets progressively less rigid.

>>2973143
>Using science you can prove
>science can prove
>science...prove

"but that's wrong, you fucken moron" ®

1/10, the 1 is for scientically
Made me laugh

>>2973225

But they did say it melted.

>>2973317
It only melted DURING the collapse, when unimaginable energy was collapsed. The heat weakened it. It didn't come close to melting it.

>>2973143
>Using math you can calculate the impact force the plane had on the structural supports and then from there, calculate if the force exerted combined with the heat from the fuel on the structural supports to see if thats why they collapsed.

That's been done to death. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails, but physics worked exactly they way it should have.

>>2973329
How did the steel get sheared through at integral break points?

>>2972710
>Progressively Afghanistan, Iraq, and then Pakistan.
We're at war with Pakistan?
>there were known to be none.
political idiot drone.

I'm not saying I buy the conspiracy theory as it is, I'm just saying the official story is full of holes. Plausible deniability is a bitch.

>>2972668
We didn't invade iraq because of 9/11

sage

Didn't cry like a baby when 9-11 happened? You're un-american sub-human slime. Even joking about trolling 9-11 is insulting to the MILLIONS (yes, millions) of people affected by it. I once knew a guy who didn't shed a tear for the families lost at 9-11, even his own uncle. I kicked him in the testicles and MADE him shed the tears. The point is, you are all monsters

>>2973338
No steel was cut, except by the clean-up crews after the collapse. The only "sheered" steel was by the airplane collisions which mangled external and internal beams. They have diagrams of exactly which beams were damaged or severed from being in the path of the plane, if you're interested.

The Jews planned 9/11 45 years ago while they were filming the phony moon landing in a Hollywood studio and printing Obama's fake birth certificate. It was the only way they could outdo themselves after faking the Holocaust.

Firefighters at the scene said it looked like a controlled demolition. The footage suggests this also. Traces of a rare explosive were discovered etc etc.

I'm surprise this big of a shit storm amassed without anyone pointing out that washington had almost strategically called all possible interception jets away from the targets for training exercises. It very well could have been muslim extremists with boxcutters who took down two skyscrapers with commercial airliners, but it was allowed to happen. We have the most advanced military in the world and we couldn't take out a few passenger planes? This attack was explained in detail in a report left on CLINTONS desk. This is how you solicit blind patriotism, and in turn, strip the liberties of the citizen while telling them its for their own good.

>>2973359
I never shed a tear and never gave a fuck, you mad?

What always striked me as strange is that conspiracies around 9/11 always concentrated around OP's point.. Isn't it simpler to say "yeah it was the planes but the government was behind them"?
It almost seems like they made up a conspiracy as convoluted and stupid-sounding as possible to make the public believe the alternative even more. Before any other, more realistic, conspiracy theories gained any attention or came up.

>IT is scientically IMPOSSIBLE for ONE PLANE to bring down the WTC towers the way they fell.

>Plane crashes into building
>Building falls down
>SCIENCE

>>2973440
My god...

You dumbasses, the 9/11 conspiracy is a conspiracy thought up by the government to make us think that the government is competent enough to pull off a conspiracy. DERP

>>2973475
>MFW you took that episode of South Park seriously
That's what they wanted, you fag. You also forget that Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, is in on it.

>>2973484
Damn, this conspiracy of a conspiracy runs deep.

>>2972093

IMMA SOLVE THIS WITH MATHS

Take off weight of 767 = 140,000 kg
Crusing speed of 767 = 900km/h (950 is max but lets say they didnt hit max)
140,000 kg x 250 meters/second (900,000 meters divided by an hour in seconds) = 4,375,000,000 joules
or 4,375 megajoules

1 megajoule is = to a 1000kg vehicle at a steady speed of 100mph

BMW M6 curb weight (random example) = 1700kg

ergo a 767 hitting the tower has the same force as 2574 BMW M6s at 100 miles per hour

coupled with that force is the energy of the explosion of the fuel in the 767 fuel tanks.

767 fuel type = Jet-A fuel = energy density of 43 megajoules per kilogram

Jet A fuel density = 0.775kg/litre - 0.84kg/litre, avarage density is therefore 0.8075kg/litre

767 fuel capacity = 90,000 litre (let us assume fuel tanks are half empty at point of impact)


45,000 x 0.8075 = 36,338 kg of fuel

36,338 x 43 = 1,562,513 megajoules of potential energy

jet-a fuel auto-ignition temperature = 210C

We can assume that the engines exploding at impact reached that temperature of 210C, seen by the explosion in the videos, igniting the broken fuel tanks and releasing this energy

total energy of 1 767 airliner hitting a building = 1,565,086 megajoules or 1,565.086 gigajoules

1 tonne of tnt is = to 4 gigajoules

1565/4 = 391

the force of the 767 boeing airliner hitting the tower was equal to a detonation of 391,000 kilograms of TNT

An objective view of the maths, take it as you will.

>>2973492
>thinks math can actually simulate real world events

>>2973501

not guy with the maths but this is typical conspiracy fag behaviour "DURR MATHS CANT EXPLAIN REPTILIAN RAY GUNS AND THERMITE BOMBS IN 9/11"

you got owned.
problem fag ?

>>2973492
This doesn't affect the outcome, but in the interest of being accurate, there's no way the planes hit the building at cruising speed. Maybe 500-600mph at most.

>>2973505

even if you half the speeds its still in the 300,000kg tnt of energy range

>>2973490
8 out of 10 members of Viacom's Board of Directors, as well as their CEO, happen to be members of a certain ethnic group/religion. This demographic represents 2.2% of the total U.S. population, and yet they have almost total control of one of the world's largest media companies. 8 out of 10 directors, in addition to the CEO, just so happened to come from the same 2.2% of the population.

If you sat down at a slot machine that had a confirmed 2.2% chance of winning, and you played it 11 times, how many times do you think you'd win?

If you are a conspiracy theorist (about anything), you've gone full retard. I sit around and listen to my friends talk about how the US Government uses HAARP to cause earthquakes and storms, and if I wasn't their friends I would call them complete fucking morons.

>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

>>2973514

If I won 11 times, it doesn't affect the percentile.

Goddammit guys...

>>2973531

You know, quickly dismissing a theory only because there's an easier explanation or because it sounds absurd is as retarded as blindly accepting any theory that tickles your fancy.
As if doing something with malice and making it look like stupidity wasn't possible..

>>2973540
>Implying I said it would
I'll put it in a better perspective for you, since you seem to not understand.

You're in a casino and about to play the slots when a man comes up and tells you not to use that machine. He explains that it only has a 2.2% chance of winning, and that you should move to the next machine because it has a 12.5% chance of winning. He also adds that the next machine over is even better, since it has a 60-70% chance of winning.

You take the 60-70% chance machine, and you and the man each play the slots 11 times. He wins 9 times on the 2.2% machine, you win twice. Would you suspect foul play?

>>2973531
>Own a huge company
>Get the latest financial statements
>Income is billions of dollars short of the projections
>Investigate
>Trail leads back to one person
>His explanation is "OH, uh...I guess I just screwed up during the year. Sorry bro."
Would you accept that, or would you suspect him of embezzling?

Protip: If you suspect him of embezzling, even for a moment, you're full retard.
>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

>>2973592
Yeah, that's different. If you have a paper trail back to him, then there's good evidence he embezzled the money. There is no solid evidence for 99.99% of retarded conspiracy theories.

>>2972322
You could, yes. But in this case there's no reason to suspect that such a thing did happen. line up the dots and you have nothing like what conspiracy theorists are trying to sell you.

>>2973606
>If you have a paper trail back to him
I never said anything about a paper trail. If the word "trail" complicates things too much for you, just ignore it. Let's say you suspect him for doing causing these problems. He says it was just a serious of mistakes, accidents, and coincidences, and deflects all allegations of embezzlement or corruption. Do you believe him? Would you want to investigate further?

Also:
>There is no solid evidence for 99.99% of retarded conspiracy theories.
What would you classify as being solid evidence?

>>2973531
You probably should still tell them how stupid their suspicions are. What's scariest is that 1/3 of the US population thinks that the government is involved in all of these conspiracy plots. That's scary because the only logical step after believing something like that is to kill everyone in the government and go on a revolutionary rampage. It's a good thing conspiracy theorists lack balls and are too fucking dumb to do shit about anything, because if they did it would be gruesome.

>>2973640
>Government lies over the motives for the invasion of Iraq
>Claims there are WMDs there
>Retracts claim, saying there are in fact no WMDs
>Recently reasserts that yes, there were WMDs, they offer proof
>Dick Cheney's company Halliburton profits like crazy off of the Iraq War
>Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld were co-authors of a report that found "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" there wouldn't be revolutionary changes instituted in the U.S.
>Implying all the TSA, police checkpoints, removal of passengers' rights on airplanes, etc. aren't revolutionary changes
>Implying violating the writ of habeas corpus isn't revolutionary change
>Implying so many implications that I can't even name them all
Hopefully, you've paid attention to the world enough to see what changes I'm referring to.

wow these sheeple wont question their government at all. I mean come on, if bush didn't do it, then who did?
people are so retarded

>>2973642

Lets try a some peer-reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals which attributes the destruction to nano thermite etc, rather than the traditionally observed explanation involving 900,000 lb aeroplanes.

Seeing patterns within things is a human trait, unfortunately it can also represent a very human failing.

>>2973672
trololololololol

>>2973653
>Democrats and Republicans regurgitate each others' talking points and claim them to be opposing views
>No government transparency
>Gradual stripping away of civil liberties
>States have tried to ban all guns before
>There are "free speech zones" in existence
>Sawed-off shotguns are classified as WMDs
>Mass voter fraud proven
>Presidential elections are decided by political party cronies sent to the electoral college, not popular vote
>The Federal Reserve isn't even part of government, and yet it alone has the authority to print money
>Nearly every member of Congress is on the payroll of lobbyists
Nope, no conspiracy here, no reason to distrust government. They love us, why would they ever think to harm us?

>>2973667
~brofist~

>>2972738
You seem to also lack the ability to actually comprehend the jargon and bullshit spoken in the article. They claim thousands of experts "tested" simulations. Do they cite ANYTHING or ANYONE?

No. Thus it is not written for a scientist to examine. It is written with intended complex jargon so that tools like you cannot comprehend it.

>>2973667
You are truly an idiot. Enjoy your Michael Moore movies and revisionist history, sheep.

>>2973676
>Lets try a some peer-reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals
So the only thing that will convince you is if some circle-jerking scientists want to agree with it? Because scientific communities have never, ever rejected ideas that were later proven to be true, right? Although I personally value the ideas of skepticism and peer review, it seems like the scientific community has closed its mind to anything it doesn't like. If the towers really did fall because of the planes, that's not the end of my world.

>rather than the traditionally observed explanation involving 900,000 lb aeroplanes.
>Two airplanes hit two separate buildings
>A third, non-connected building collapses
How can traditional observation explain that?
>LOL RETARD SHRAPNEL FROM THE OTHER BUILDINGS/PLANES
The site of that so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" was hit with debris, and yet it didn't collapse. Why.

>>2973687
>The Federal Reserve isn't even part of government, and yet it alone has the authority to print money
The Federal Reserve is a quasi-government entity. That's how it was designed. It does not have the authority print money, (although it can create it in other ways. Only the Treasury Department prints money.)

>>2973391
>Firefighters at the scene said it looked like a controlled demolition.
You're not smart enough to use a computer, let alone be on /sci/.

>>2973699
>Gives a few specific things that suggest there is a conspiracy
>"WELP, you're an idiot."
Really? That's your response? Not even going to bother with what was said, huh. You're just going to call the poster an idiot and walk away.

This is the bullshit conspiracy theorists live off of. Instead of even attempting to prove them wrong, most doubters simply call them stupid/crazy/etc. and call it a day. Insulting them and closing your mind to other explanations isn't going to do anything but spur them on. The truth fears no inquisition. If these theories really are wrong, why not prove it?

Or are you just resorting to ad hominem attacks because they make you doubt the government's explanation, and the implications of the government lying to the people scare you?

>>2973704
>So the only thing that will convince you is if some circle-jerking scientists want to agree with it?
It would be a good start.

>Because scientific communities have never, ever rejected ideas that were later proven to be true, right?
No, but it's one of the most accurate means of ascertaining truth that we have.

Please leave /sci/ anti-science asshat.

OK here is where you are wrong OP. Physics does not work that way. You do not look a real world happening and say impossible due to calculation. You make the calculation run your experiment and see how close your calculation was to what really happened.

All nuclear tests have functioned on this principle. the calculations are not always spot on.

>>2973693

Nice ad hominem.

The references you seek are actually on another page the the article. Plenty of citations there, I can assure you, take a deep breath and have a look.

Just on the offchance that you can't divine all that you need from the publications you must already have read - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/ has an inexhaustive list of the reports that were commisioned as a part of the post-9/11 enquiry.

I'm sorry that you feel that my understanding of the "jargon" is limited. Should I assume that you formulate your opinions of people in much the same limited way way as your appreciation of the evidence pertaining to the 9/11 scenario?

I wont assume that's the case.

>>2973734
>Explicitly state "I personally value the ideas of skepticism and peer review"
>LOL ASSHAT UR ANTI-SCIENCE
No I'm not, I'm anti-insider bullshit. To clarify, scientific explanations for these things are preferred, but I doubt the capacity of the mainstream scientific community to give them any serious consideration. Just as in the days of geocentrism and creation, people are going into this with a chip on their shoulder and biases blinding them to other ideas. Not accepting the common explanation isn't a personal attack on every single person who does buy into it, and yet people like to pretend it is. Why.

>>2973756
Whatever. Not getting into this.
/x/ is that way.

>>2973704
>The site of that so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" was hit with debris, and yet it didn't collapse. Why.
It's two blocks away in the wrong fucking direction, fucking retard. WTC 7 is in the direction that WTC 1 fell towards, destroying WTC 6, which stood between them, in the process. Pic fucking related. Left-to-right are the remains of wtc 1, 6, 7.

>>2973760
>ANTI-SCIENCE ASSHAT
>Actually I'm not, I just lack faith in the ability of people to put aside their own personal biases an--
>SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME
Really, /sci/?

>>2973769
Yes. Really.

When you referred to the process of peer review as:
>So the only thing that will convince you is if some circle-jerking scientists want to agree with it?
You lost all credibility. Please leave.

>>2973763
Can you please explain this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Like really, I'm asking. Explain it. I don't want to believe it, but it scares me. Can you rationalize it away for me?

How conspiracy theories work:
>Do you see this cherry picked piece of evidence I have?
>Do you see this other piece of cherry picked evidence I have?
>You do know the government is out to kill us, right?
>No, I didn't take my pills this morning.
>9 + 11 = 20. The radiation in the water around Fukushima is TWENTY thousand times normal levels. COINCIDENCE?
>DO YOU SEE THIS OFFICIAL UN DOCUMENT STATING THAT FEMA IS TRYING TO START A NEW WORLD ORDER? What do you mean, "what's my source?", I got it from Alex Jones' website, of course.
>SHEEPLE SHEEPLE SHEEPLE SHEEPLE I AM MORE ENLIGHTENED THAT ALL THE DUMB SHEEPLE

The planes that crashed into the twin towers were carrying very little fuel apparently.

Investigators are fairly certain that the main cause of the inferno was the fire brigade throwing water on all the burning fat.

>>2973793
>all the burning fat.
What fat? What?

>>2973781
>BAAAWWW PEER REVIEW IS FLAWLESS
?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1l56241734kq743/
>Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research.

>>2973733
>You're just going to call the poster an idiot and walk away.
Yep. It's just Michael Moore bullshit, that anyone can learn is bullshit if they spend 2 seconds looking into it. Anyone who is determined to believe that shit is just refusing to be educated.

>If these theories really are wrong, why not prove it?
There is no reason to believe any of this crap, except that they are ideological conveniences of belief. They exist in order to justify an ideological position. Reason and facts can't dissuade that kind of belief. It's necessarily as permanent as the ideology it supports.

>Or are you just resorting to ad hominem attacks because they make you doubt
Ad hominem is to attack a point by attacking a person. I'm just insulting a person for being stupid enough to believe in some really bad political rhetoric.
>the government's explanation,
LOL, the government doesn't comment on Michael Moore crap.
>and the implications of the government lying to the people scare you?
LOL. You've revealed yourself as a conspiracy wack job, because only conspiracy wack jobs are so detached from reality that they don't realize that no one expects the government to be truthful.

Are we seriously arguing whether or not the government blew up WTC?

>Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9-11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever.

>>2973785
How pro-evolution fags work:
>Do you see this cherry picked piece of evidence I have?
>Do you see this other piece of cherry picked evidence I have?
>You do know that nature is out to kill us, right?
>No, I didn't take my pills this morning.
>This extinct bird has a beak. This other non-extinct bird also has a beak. COINCIDENCE?
>DO YOU SEE THIS OFFICIAL UN DOCUMENT STATING THAT WE'VE BEEN EVOLVING FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS? What do you mean, "what's my source?", I got it from Richard Dawkins' website, of course.
>CHRISTFAGS CHRISTFAGS CHRISTFAGS CHRISTFAGS I AM MORE ENLIGHTENED THAT ALL THE DUMB CHRISTFAGS
See, ad hominem attacks that don't even address the current discussion can work both ways.

>>2973783
Where's the evidence that that was broadcast before the collapse?

Given that it was, it was probably misreported as collapsed after the city reported that firefighters had abandoned it to collapse, which happened about 2pm, and it finally collapsed around 5pm.

I don't know if this claim that BBC misreported it before it collapsed is true or not. Conspiracy theorists say it's one of the buildings that can be seen behind her, but 1) I cannot verify that, and 2) don't know if that's live or a green screen with skyline footage. But if they did misreport it, it's hardly genuine conspiracy material. There's no scenario where having the BBC report it collapsed before it collapsed would fit into any sane conspiracy.

>>2973815
>Yep. It's just Michael Moore bullshit, that anyone can learn is bullshit if they spend 2 seconds looking into it. Anyone who is determined to believe that shit is just refusing to be educated.
I'm not "determined to believe" that stuff, but some of the arguments sound credible and make me think. How am I "refusing to be educated" by asking questions? Isn't questioning the basis for education?

>>If these theories really are wrong, why not prove it?
>There is no reason to believe any of this crap, except that they are ideological conveniences of belief. They exist in order to justify an ideological position. Reason and facts can't dissuade that kind of belief. It's necessarily as permanent as the ideology it supports.
So because you say there is no reason to believe it, why does that stop you from wanting to prove these theories wrong?

>Ad hominem is to attack a point by attacking a person. I'm just insulting a person for being stupid enough to believe in some really bad political rhetoric.
Thanks for the definition, although you're just proving that you're engaging in it.

>LOL, the government doesn't comment on Michael Moore crap.
1. You're the only one talking about Michael Moore.
2. Nobody said anything about the government commenting on them. This whole conspiracy thing arose when the government putting out an explanation, and THEN people started questioning.

>LOL. You've revealed yourself as a conspiracy wack job, because only conspiracy wack jobs are so detached from reality that they don't realize that no one expects the government to be truthful.
You don't expect the government to be truthful, and yet you blindly believe their explanations for 9/11, earthquakes, Katrina, flooding, JFK, MLK, etc.? Why? Also, nice ad homenim. Again.

>>2973833
>disputes evolution
Really, I don't have time for this. If you really want to know why evolution is true, I can attempt to lay it all out. It could take a while. I suggest Dawkins' book The Greatest Show On Earth for a comprehensive description of what evolution is, and the evidence we have for it.

>>2973884
>Doesn't understand sarcasm
>Comments on an individual post without understand the context of it
>Is a total idiot, like all tripfags, and expects to be taken seriously
>"Doesn't have time" to reply, and yet sticks around to do just that

>>2973896
Sarcasm doesn't carry well in text, and this is /sci/.

>>2973898
>Sarcasm doesn't carry well in text
Yes it does, you're just not reading anything in its entirety. You WANT your opponents to be stupid, and you read that into whatever someone else posts. The more I argued with them, etc.

>>2973882
>1. You're the only one talking about Michael Moore.
All the points listed were straight out of Michael Moore's movie. Everyone who believes them believes them only because they believed the movie, or someone who regurgitated them from the movie.
>2. Nobody said anything about the government commenting on them. This whole conspiracy thing arose when the government putting out an explanation, and THEN people started questioning.
NIST did a report by hiring scientists and engineers to investigate the events, just like they do for all plane crashes in the US. Some independent engineering firms also did their own reports. These are nothing but scientific investigations into the events. They are not "from the government".

The 9/11 commission was also instituted by the government to look into all the events, and they accumulated vast amounts of evidence of the surrounding events. The purpose of the 9/11 commission was largely to recommend changes to the government that could have done a better job stopping the attacks.

Conspiracy theories log pre-existed these things. And the conspiracy theorists claimed the 9/11 commission would vindicate their stupid theories. Then when the 9/11 commission didn't, it became part of the conspiracy.

>>2973833
Except evolution isn't supported like that. Conspiracy theorists, however, are exactly like the post you responded to. They don't follow the scientific method, and when someone tries to debunk their claims scientifically, they like to say shit like "don't believe everything you hear" without taking their own advice.

>>2973882
>Isn't questioning the basis for education?
Having a rational basis to believe what you believe is the basis for education.

There's no rational basis to believe that the the government lied over its motives to invade Iraq. There's no rational basis to believe that GWB and Tony Blair were only PRETENDING to believe that there was a good change that there were stockpiled there. No one was arguing this belief at the time, only when none were found.

There's no rational basis to believe that Cheney personally benefited from the work that his FORMER company's subsidiary got through the war. That's why they make you sell your stocks before you take public office.

No sane non-indoctrinated person believes that habeas corpus has been suspended or violated, as it has not been.

No sane person believes that GWB blew up the WTC so that TSA agents could fondle you. I think the TSA practices are outrageous, and pointlessly so, and that angers me, but involving that in conspiracy theories is just stupid.

Holy shit, this is the amount of stupid and paranoia we have lurking around on /sci/? I hope you know your math better than your conspiracy theories...

>>2973882
>You don't expect the government to be truthful, and yet you blindly believe their explanations for 9/11, earthquakes, Katrina, flooding, JFK, MLK, etc.? Why? Also, nice ad homenim. Again.
Seriously, are you schizophrenic? A pothead? When a person is that far off the deep end, there is nothing left but Ad Hominem. A rational argument would require some basis of rationality in the listener in which it could take root.

>>2973952
>No sane non-indoctrinated person believes that habeas corpus has been suspended or violated, as it has not been.

It has. It's called US citizens in Guantanamo.

>>2973966
Lol, that's all you got? There was one US citizen, Yasser Hamdi, who was briefly held in Guantanamo as they didn't realize he was a US citizen (he renounced is US citizenship and was repatriated to Saudi Arabia).

But habeas corpus rights do not apply to prisoners of war or other enemy combatant detainees, whether they are US citizens or not.

>>2973143

Does noone read anymore?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

>>2973995
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm

Go educate yourself.

how could bush orchestrate this? he was like full retarded. come on guys think, who is smart enough to pull off a conspiracy like this?

Osama bin laden. He masterminded behind 9-11. You could say it's a conspiracy but lets look at the fact:

1) He hates america
2) He's smarter than america, one of few people smart enough to hatch a plan like this
3) He knew he could convince retard muslims to do the dirty work for him by promising virgins
4) he could blame the american government and make america's own people turn against them
5) He has WMD in case america tries to fight him and he is an expert at hiding in the sand

face the facts, bin laden and his goonies did 9-11

>>2974001
Why don't you summarize what point or points you think that the writers of that website disagree with me.

>>2974051
Even during the beginnings of the civil war, they didn't suspend habeus corpus. They tried, but the courts shot it down.

It takes an act of congress to "turn off" habeus corpus rights. Has there been such an act?

Also, your proposition that these people are prisoners of war is bullshit. Most of them were not shooting at US troops when they were picked up. It's bullshit.

It's also bullshit that you seem to think it's not ok to keep people in prison indefinitely without charge when they're US citizens, but it's ok if they're not. You sicken me sir.

You are the one buying the propaganda of this hilarious bullshit exercise that is destroying our fundamental civil liberties.

>>2974001
Lol, none of Lincoln's critics would have even considered claiming habeas corpus for an American overseas fighting against US forces with a foreign enemy. On the contrary, it's treason, and at wartime, that means execution by military tribunal on the spot. No one alive then would disagree.

>>2972093
please prove why using science then

>>2974071
>Lol, none of Lincoln's critics would have even considered claiming habeas corpus for an American overseas fighting against US forces with a foreign enemy. On the contrary, it's treason, and at wartime, that means execution by military tribunal on the spot. No one alive then would disagree.

Everyone, including Lincoln and his allies, would be against the many year long detention without charge foreigners picked up on the hearsay of foreigners. It's insane you're trying to justify this.

>>2974062
>It takes an act of congress to "turn off" habeus corpus rights. Has there been such an act?
Oh wow. Habeus Corpus HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OFF. IT HAS NEVER APPLIED TO PRISONERS OF WAR.

>Most of them were not shooting at US troops when they were picked up. It's bullshit.
Please go read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and come back when you're not an idiot.

>It's also bullshit that you seem to think it's not ok to keep people in prison indefinitely without charge when they're US citizens, but it's ok if they're not. You sicken me sir.
That's because you're an idiot. Go read the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That's how it's done, and how it should be done. The rest is people lying to you to convince you to vote for someone who doesn't even plan to do anything different, because he knows that it's all completely legit.

>You are the one buying the propaganda of this hilarious bullshit exercise that is destroying our fundamental civil liberties.
And you buy it hook line and sinker.

>>2974112
You keep implying that foreign nationals picked up without a gun in hand nor while shooting US troops counts as prisoners of war. This assertion is mistaken.

Oh, and the Military Commissions Act cites evidence that the currently held people were captured on the battlefield and not in the middle of the night from their beds based upon some asshat offering up false testimony to claim a bounty?

Right...

>>2974123

This debate has two sides.

On the one hand, you're absolutely right, some of these innocent people were undoubtedly picked up because some asshat pointed a finger.

On the other hand, with an insurgency type of war, not everyone who is an enemy combatant is shooting at your troops in a well marked uniform that identifies him as a member of an insurgency group. There is no fixed address here. And someone who plants bombs or scouts for insurgents is still an enemy combatant, even if he never picks up a gun.

>>2974123
Let's say we rounded up suspected Jap collaborators in Okinawa during WWII. Are you actually so stupid and indoctrinated that you think they had the right to challenge their captivity in the US courts?

>>2974144

No, but the US Citizen Japanese who were rounded up in internment camps for the duration of the war sure as hell did.

As usual, there are two sides to this story, both with some valid points.

Doesn't matter anymore. This guy probably thinks that the "aggressive interrogation techniques" are ok too. Asshats.

>>2974151
But that's not comparable at all. No one is rounding up american muslims and putting them in camps.

The law of war pertains to what soldiers do with enemy and suspected enemy that they capture when fighting (outside of their country). The MCA was a codification of that law that has always stood. It only had to be codified because of people trying to make political opportunity, and trying to claim that GWB was doing something different, which he wasn't.

WWII internment, OTOH, was unprecedented and unsupported by the law of war.

"Why do conspiracy theorists insist on concentrating their efforts on the shadowy machinations of conspiratorial cabals when the public record of American actions would have seen every American president since WWII hanged had the Nuremberg Principles been actually enforced."

Paraphrased from Chomsky.

Really, you guys have to invent shit up when every single president since Truman has been committing heinous crimes against humanity and peace out in the open for the flimsiest of reasons?

IMMA SOLVE THIS WITH MATHS

Take off weight of 767 = 140,000 kg
Crusing speed of 767 = 900km/h (950 is max but lets say they didnt hit max)
140,000 kg x 250 meters/second (900,000 meters divided by an hour in seconds) = 4,375,000,000 joules
or 4,375 megajoules

1 megajoule is = to a 1000kg vehicle at a steady speed of 100mph

BMW M6 curb weight (random example) = 1700kg

ergo a 767 hitting the tower has the same force as 2574 BMW M6s at 100 miles per hour

coupled with that force is the energy of the explosion of the fuel in the 767 fuel tanks.

767 fuel type = Jet-A fuel = energy density of 43 megajoules per kilogram

Jet A fuel density = 0.775kg/litre - 0.84kg/litre, avarage density is therefore 0.8075kg/litre

767 fuel capacity = 90,000 litre (let us assume fuel tanks are half empty at point of impact)


45,000 x 0.8075 = 36,338 kg of fuel

36,338 x 43 = 1,562,513 megajoules of potential energy

jet-a fuel auto-ignition temperature = 210C

We can assume that the engines exploding at impact reached that temperature of 210C, seen by the explosion in the videos, igniting the broken fuel tanks and releasing this energy

total energy of 1 767 airliner hitting a building = 1,565,086 megajoules or 1,565.086 gigajoules

1 tonne of tnt is = to 4 gigajoules

1565/4 = 391

the force of the 767 boeing airliner hitting the tower was equal to a detonation of 391,000 kilograms of TNT

An objective view of the maths, take it as you will.

Dude a guy with 15 mins on Google just gave every conspiracy fag all the evidence needed to shut the fuck up. Why are we still arguing this ?

Sometimes I get the feeling that the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory is a red herring used to cover up something else...

>>2974220
It's used to discredit people with actual complaints; just smear them all with the conspiracy theory brush, no one will touch them.

>>2974204
Just read the Nuremberg Principles. Chomsky is high as usual.

>>2974215

"140,000 kg x 250 meters/second (900,000 meters divided by an hour in seconds) = 4,375,000,000 joules
or 4,375 megajoules"

Why joules?????

>>2974266
Iraq war was a war of aggression, a crime against peace; war crimes have been committed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

>>2974305

its a very common form of energy and all the other comparative measures I found were in joules + alternatively it could be given as n kg/m/s which is equal to n joules

>>2974310

Oh I see you used 1/2 m v ^2.

Just looked like you were working out momentum from what you wrote

>>2974215
>>2974215
>>2974215
>>2974215
>>2974215


/thread

>>2973785
This man is correct, yet all of the truth would be drowned out by retards.
If you conspiracy fags would like to rally around a man of intelligence, instead of a joke like Alex Jones, you should rally around Noam Chomsky. He actually condemns the government when it makes legitimate offenses, instead of inventing an elaborate "NWO network" that doesn't exist just so he can attach circumstantial evidence to it to sell his books.
Yeah the US government sucks dick but not even they are stupid enough to orchestrate an attack on their own land. Opportunists? Yes, definitely. That's how they got to their positions of power in the first place. Shit, I'll bet Cheney was secretly happy that it happened. But that doesn't mean he did it. And if you think he and others in our gov't did, you'll have to provide proof. All the skepticism over planes being able to knock down a building are bunk. I'm not going to explain why, it should be common fucking sense that when a giant piece of steel moving 500 MPH crashes into a tall building and releases tons of burning jet fuel into the structure that it's going to fucking fall. Take my word for it or call me a fag, I don't give a fuck.

Furthermore, even if you did prove that in no possible way could a plane ever cause a building to fall, we're still at square 1. The inability of a plane to down a skyscraper doesn't leave us with a person to blame, it just tells us that planes don't down buildings. If you're going to say that a controlled demolition occurred, you're going to have to cite evidence to account for the presence of the literally hundreds of tons of TNT that would have to be on site to cause the building to collapse: evidence for which there is none. Even if there were evidence, this says nothing as to who placed the explosives.

>>2974315

yep, only realised that after I posted it the first time, then some dude copypasted it again, so it didnt get corrected XD

>>2974308
It's absurd to claim that the Iraq war was a war of aggression, but even if I gave you that you have 5 or 6 presidents to go, and nothing else is even arguable.

>>2974336
Truman-
Hiroshima: we knew of the Japanese willingness to surrender before August 6th yet proceeded with this anyway.
Nagasaki: even if Hiroshima was justified; the second atomic bombing of a civilian target can never be; both bombings were the first shot of the Cold War and effectively geopolitical dickwaving towards the Russians.
Created the CIA: do I even need to elaborate?
Thousands of German POWs starved to death under his watch

Eisenhower-
Korean War: the slaughter of up to a million refugees and the first uses of napalm and agent orange.
Vietnam: support of the French against the Vietnamese.

Kennedy-
Vietnam: escalation of the Vietnam conflict.

Johnson-
Started the fucking Vietnam War on a lie; the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.

Nixon-
Cambodia/Laos: What the fuck?
Chile: Operation Condor

Ford-
Got me there.

Carter-
Cambodia: supported the fucking Khmer Rouge

Reagan-
Do I even need to elaborate?

Bush-
Iraq: first supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait then fabricated some media stunt to change public opinion in order to please the Saudis; the bombing of fleeing troops and refugees.
Panama: real big threat to our drug running operations.

Clinton-
Yugoslavia
Waco

Bush 2-
Afghanistan: Bombing a civilian population and invading a country in retaliation for an attack perpetrated by a group barely involved in that country and ignoring the actual leads because those nations were our friends. Countless civilian deaths.
Iraq: A plain war of aggression based on a false pretense.

Obama-
Has continued pretty much everything Bush 2 set in place.


All that was off the top of my head.

>>2972175
indeed it does. without the tensile strength of steel supporting the concrete column, it collapses pretty quickly under all that weight.

steel doesn't go from normal strength to total liquid in half a degree, it goes through this long period of losing tensile strength as it heats up, it turns into red hot taffy

>>2974449
>Japanese willingness to surrender before August 6th

that's simply not true.

>>2974495
They would have surrendered had they been able to keep the Emperor; we refused and killed tens of thousands of civilians to prove a point and dickslap the Russkies.

>207 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>2974530
It was the emperor's fault for not surrendering when given the chance, so the blood is in his hands alone. Regardless, the japanese got what they deserved for their war crimes.

>>2974553
>War crimes merit more war crimes!

Woooow...

>>2974449
Let's not forget Gaza.

>>2972175
not at all what he said.

whoever is responsible for adding 200+ replies to this piece of shit thread needs an immediate upgrade to skullfuck permaban

>>2972492
>>2972498
>HURR THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON YOU CUZ IM RITE DURR