/sci/ - Science & Math

no. conspiracy bullshit.

/thread

/sci/ did it actually

>Was 9/11 an inside job?
yup. never seen zeitgeist have you? that should confirm things for you.

>>4271435
It was all me, none of you faggots helped.

>>4271451

I actually have seen the movie. My problem is people argue that the fires from the crash couldn't melt steel, other say it could. COULD IT?

the north tower was an inside job. the other one was brought down by terrorists in an unrelated plot

>>4271422
You cannot learn what is true yourself:
all your data-gatherers are flawed, and few can express their data in a useful enough and honest way.

For instance, we hear a lot about how the residue from fires matches the residue from thermite.
(Thermite is provocative, so that's all most people recall from the 'evidence.')
It doesn't also explain that the data gathered was isolated, ambiguous,
how well-isolated the samples and results were,
or how vague the known residue of thermite is from samples at a large event.
From the 'evidence' people throw around like this, you'd think the entire event was full of pieces labeled 'building parts and office supplies' and a few bottled samples of thermite residue that just needed to be recognized.

It was a conspiracy executed by the same organization responsible for trying to destroy them in 1993.

Al-Qaeda

If you think that's bad, try reading something about what's good to eat and what isn't. Fuck, you can get a PhD in dietary science or whatever the fuck it is those people study, and it won't help you, because there are *already* tons of people with PhDs in dietary science and they all disagree with each other.

>>4271451
Zeitgeist was bashed as flawed by nearly every informed person, not least the makers of Zeitgeist!

They admitted, bluntly, that they set out to make a disturbing, conspiracy-riddled, alarmist and unfair piece and didn't mind inventing or failing to corroborate what people told them.

>>4271456
I don't know if it melted the steel, but it certainly weakened it, because the building did collapse.

Oh, wait, I forgot about the thermate bombs planted in the building by megajewish reptoid time travelers.

also, 9/11 was prolly inside job, given how the government treats its citizens these days, it makes more sense that it was deliberately allowed attack.

>>4271456
it's a skyscraper; you are being misled to think melting has to be necessary at all.
they've confuddled the entire issue by making it about an unlikely event (melting the steel) when all that has to happen is weakening it enough to bend (vastly easier).

>>4271474
Did you just argue for two disparate causes at the same time?
Can't pick one, for reasons?

Okay, so the steel doesn't necessarily need to melt to collapse the building. Makes sense.

How about the way it fell? Imagine I don't hold a view on whether it was a controlled or natural fall. Can we discuss the opposing views on that?

>>4271483
no
when the cia arranges an attack on a foreign govt, the actions are done not by cia covert ops, but by some domestic org funded and supported by the cia
it's much more likely that an inside job would be perpetrated by actual terrorists who were assisted and *allowed* to succeed.
that's how the cia does things
it's not like jason bourne doing a bunch of shit on his own you know

>>4271465
confirmed for american government employee

-1 internet

Even if there were bombs in the buildings (which there probably weren't) it is a massive jump to conclude that that means it was an inside job. If terrorists could hijack planes and crash them into the buildings, then they can plant bombs in buildings to (most likely to increase the theatrics of the attacks).

>>4271510
buildings too*

>>4271510
Nonsense. They would ram the jets in other buildings then, ones they didn't already bomb.

>>4271510
They actually tried the bomb thing in the WTC in the '90s. If they can get away with bombs they use bombs. Better ROI.

>>4271497
Look at the way it is argued about:
people arguing over how they fell talk about two concepts -- tipping over (like a tree) and collapsing downward.

They express surprise that a tall, seemingly solid object didn't fall over, as we see tall solid objects fall so often.
(Ignoring they fall over because of a vastly different cause.)

They express immense surprise that this tall, seemingly solid object (each) could fall downward into itself, as though it had little underneath it.

The fact is, a skyscraper is an almost-empty shell that is barely holding itself up.
That's why it takes real expertise and engineering to design and build them; it really isn't easy.

So, imagine a large stack of delicately balanced masses having a bunch of weights dropped on them from above
-- if it is enough weight to collapse the balancing, the parts all fall, and they fall downward.
Straight downward. There isn't much in the way!

Now, if they are REALLY trying to push this issue, they throw in phrases like 'exactly into it's own footprint.'
Obviously, the 'footprint' is the space below the structure, so that clearly has to be included.
But they pretend (or ignore, or just parrot) that the structure didn't make a mess for a large area around that.

They all did, of course.

How about the Building 7 argument?
We know the towers did not fall because of the plane impacts, but from the fire and damage to the structure nearby.

So 'parrots' wonder why another building nearby, not hit by a plane, also fell?
Well, since the plane argument isn't really the cause, why should it have been?
There were fires. Fires damage buildings.
There was debris and many large heavy objects fell; Building 7 was hit by them.
Really, anything nearby could have been destroyed, and much was.
San Francisco and Chicago didn't have to be hit by planes for their major fires, either. But hundreds of buildings were lost.

>Was 9/11 an inside job?
The guy in the middle oversaw operation 911, being the American Pope, highest ranking priest in the Catholic church in America when it went down, also a high ranking Freemason. It was a Knights of Malta, Sovereign Military Order of Malta job, and a mess of other Catholic cults controlled by the Jesuit Order, there are 100's and they are what JFK obliquely referred to in his secret society speech. He would know, he was a Knight of Columbus, one of the most reserved titles.

As far as the science goes I would be surprised if they used suitcase nukes on towers 1 and 2, 7 was a classic demo obviously, buildings 3-6 who fucking knows but all the gold was gone from the basement when the dust cleared. lol, people will believe anything they see and are told on a TV these days., I think they learned that from the moon landing shows, they knew it would work.

No. At best the government is guilty of willful ignorance.

The entirety of the conspiracy theorists' argument is based on three things:
1. Conjecture
2. Misinterpretation/misunderstanding of evidence
3. Other conspiracy theories

>>4271599
is it any coincidence that osama was a civil engineer?

>>4271626
>Catholic
>Free Mason

>>4271626
0/10

>>4271632
Not in the sense that the plan appeals more to someone who understands it;
remember, bin Laden didn't originate the plan, even by their own admission.

But also, understand there are few degrees of study that would be respected by an extremist Muslim.
That means the range of possible degree choices isn't very large, even if it doesn't suggest his involvement level.

evidence against the official story is not evidence of any particular conspiracy theory.
spend some time learning what a fallacy is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies