[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 71 KB, 360x360, dollar-soda..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3437722 No.3437722 [Reply] [Original]

My sister.
So /sci/, my sister truly believes 9/11 was an inside job, and that we never landed on the moon and just about every other popular conspiracy theory you can think of and also she believes that it is impossible to see beauty in something if you look into the functions and complexity of it (the typical artist v scientist argument). I've tried the typical arguments from scientist to artist against her and I've tried showing her evidence and teaching her why the things she believes have to be wrong and yet she still refuses to acknowledge the fact she's wrong. Is she a lost cause /sci/? If she was any other random bint I would not come here and I would allow her to remain ignorant but it is my sister.

>> No.3437725

pictures of your sister. please.

>> No.3437728

>>3437725

delivering

>> No.3437734

give her pen and tellers bullshit

>> No.3437736
File: 214 KB, 955x639, 1300503657647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3437736

But 9/11 WAS an inside job. Anyone with a minimal engineering background who has poured over the documentation of the event understands this. It's just not something you say in polite company because it offends people's sense of societal stability (as it should)

>> No.3437776

waiting on OP

>> No.3437783
File: 45 KB, 460x604, 12333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3437783

>>3437776
On the left.

>> No.3437788

to make something pretty you must have knowledge of a medium, like oils, and know how to apply them in ways that will result in a pleasing arrangement.
you can't know dick about art w/out comparing and contrasting the famous compositions of the past.
that's all deconstruction and trial and error, or something close to the scientific method.

>>3437736
the part i don't get is this.
so terrorists hijacked the planes but bush blew up the buildings? why? why bother to blow up the buildings after they have already been terrorized? what does that accomplish?
wouldn't plating the explosives widen the scope of the conspiracy several times more that using a handful of people to hijack planes? wouldn't that be taking unnecessary risks? what if the janitor finds the explosives?
even granting the premise of the conspiracy theory it makes less sense that other hypothesis. occams razor, man

>> No.3437790

>>3437783

FAPIN'

>> No.3437803

>>3437783
>>3437783
>yfw EK on the right

>> No.3437804
File: 95 KB, 381x619, touhou_sway.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3437804

She's a lost cause. Irradiate her ovaries to prevent her from 'contributing' to the future of the species.

>> No.3437812

>>3437722
>allow her to remain ignorant
You have convictions, she has different convictions => she's necessarily the ignorant one.
You're the lost cause. Now deliver.

>> No.3437815

>>3437783
op how does it feel to know i have printed out the picture of your sister and am now jacking off over the thought of getting a blow job from your sisters nice lips

want me to post a picture of your sisters face with my cum over it after im done masturbating?

>> No.3437817

>>3437722
The human brain doesn't just drop these conspiratorial ideas and inclinations at once. You're going to have to have many of these calm exchanges to sway her. Point out her fallacies politely, offer compelling evidence for your arguments, and enlighten her to the benefit of rational evidence based thinking. Keep giving her nuggets of truth to think over.

Only after many of these conversations will new neural connections strengthen enough to encourage independent and successful rational thought. Just be careful you're not encouraging more bullshit though.

>> No.3437818

>>3437815
feel free i'll show it to her

>> No.3437825

>>3437822
you are also a fucktard.

>> No.3437823

>>3437722

I regret to inform you, Anon, that your sister is.. in the Technical language.... a Fucktard. Best to just avoid her except at Thanksgiving, etc.

>> No.3437822

To be honest, the WTC 7 videos are pretty sketchy.

>> No.3437832
File: 92 KB, 740x574, conspiracy_theories.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3437832

>> No.3437835 [DELETED] 

>>3437803
>mfw my sister's best friend is EK and EK is really named charlotte

>> No.3437838

>>3437812
>>children should go to school
>You have convictions, they has different convictions => they are necessarily the ignorant ones.
>You're the lost cause. Now deliver.

Conviction doesn't mean "stupid delusion"

>> No.3437855

>>3437822
sketchy how?
as in shooped? ambiguity pisses me off.

>> No.3437877

>>3437838
Any conviction can be seen as stupid delusion. The only thing that is objectively stupid is to not respect your differences, especially with your sister.

>> No.3437925

>>3437788
>so terrorists hijacked the planes but bush blew up the buildings?

Correction. Bush didn't blow up the buildings. The federal government, CIA and military intel did. The operation had been planned for a while. This was really supposed to happen in the 1990's, assuming that the 1994 basement bombings had been successful. For some reason those didn't work and so they pinned it on the al queda fall guy anyway.

>why? why bother to blow up the buildings after they have already been terrorized? what does that accomplish?

the impact (no pun interned). If planes hit the buildings and there was a fine for the top floors, only a few people died, and the buildign still stands, the public outcry would have been there but would not have been traumatizing enough to send the general public into 4 to 8 years of angry stupendous blood lust, ready to do anything in the name of the event. Buildings collapse = maximum trauma

>wouldn't plating the explosives widen the scope of the conspiracy several times more that using a handful of people to hijack planes?

Yes of course, but the planes wouldn't have taken down the building on their own, which was the goal.

>wouldn't that be taking unnecessary risks?
yes of course

>what if the janitor finds the explosives?

whack him. This is the NY port authority owning the building we're talking about here, after all.

>even granting the premise of the conspiracy theory it makes less sense that other hypothesis. occams razor, man

>> No.3437929

cont.

also,
then how do you explain 1. building 7 and the early report of it's demise, 2. the thermite and thermine signitures found in the WTC dust, 3. the large portions of basement wreckedge that were off limits to rescuers, journalists, and even some government keepers and guarded by suits, 4. the symmetrical collapse, 5. the blasting caps seen going off several floors below the collapse line in the videos,

I'll give you some hints: 1. Building 7 was brought down in controlled demo to protect the secrets in the governmental offices (including guliani's involvment). Further more, the reports of entire event was fed to the media in a scrip like fashion, not necessarily before hand but the media is going to fact check everyman and 3rd party accounts against "offical accounts" and the offical accounts were all scripted and manipulated.

2. Becasue there was thermine. Duh. how do you weaken a building to ensure it's proper collapse? You carefully remove certain key support strucutes before you demo. Since they couldn't do that in this case, they let thermite bombs do it for them.

3. What do yu think? those were the areas where bomb evidnce was still plainly clear or where portions of other evidence were still intact. So they blocked them off. In the confusion of the event, many people wern't willing to challenge anyone who looked even remotly official for acces to certain parts of the destruiction.

4. Classic Controlled demo. Anyone who's seen or been a part of controlled demo knows that the way those buidlings collapsed is exactly how they should have given controlled demo

5. blasting caps are, again, needed for proper demo.

>> No.3437934

cont.

Yes there may have been some "pancakeing" of the concrete floors, but most of the floor scructures were atomized by the concussive forces on the way down before they could have added to the weight of the top protion of the building.

tl:dr: the offical NIST account of the collaps bascially says that a hot pressure wave caused by the weakened top floors squashed the towers like a trash compactor WITHOUT the help of controlled demolition. This is bullshit, because it is much more likely that the top part of the building would have just fallen off the top sideways.

Futher more there are reports for the people on the white house 9/11 commision who have come out and said that they were suppressed, there is a conspiracy

look it all up.

>> No.3437960

>yfw as soon as a 9/11 truther starts to mention the real evidence, the thread shuts down and the haters shut up

>> No.3437961
File: 19 KB, 294x294, 130175717395.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3437961

>>3437934
>look it all up.

>> No.3437970

>>3437817
This so much. The mind doesn't works in terms of truth and falsehood, it works on what you believe and what you don't believe. Ideally, you should believe in truth and not believe in falsehood, but the mind is very capable of fucking up. To a birther, for example, it is completely congruent to think Obama is Kenyan and the birth papers are fake, because in his mind, "Obama is Kenyan" is as true and obvious as "the sky is blue", and his mind handles his birther beliefs like they were absolute, inerrant truth.

>> No.3437980

>>3437960
Old copypasta that has been thoroughly debunked is not worth replying to. Shit, we have an entire collection for these guys to refer to now:
http://www.debunking911.com/

>> No.3437978

>>3437728
I'm torn between replying I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE and CONSPRICY!!

>> No.3437972

>>3437960

>real evidence
>no evidence

real = none? Brilliant.

>> No.3437996

>>3437929

The early report of the building falling is justifiable by just silliness on the reporters' part. Thermite is just iron oxide and aluminum powder, you'd expect to find powdered rust and aluminum in the wreckage of a giant fucking building. Hell you'd expect it to spontaneously form in some spots. The basement being off limits could have had a bunch of secret government stuff in it that they didn't want anyone to see, because they were creepy.

The perfect demolition-style collapse is the spooky and difficult to explain part.

>> No.3438004

>>3437972
REAL EYES REALISE REAL LIES DONT U SEE

>> No.3438027

>>3437925
Stop smoking weed. Seriously.

>> No.3438037

>>3437929
1. There were 100's of things misreported on 9/11, as happens when things like this are happening. It was told to the press that the firefighters were pulled because of the building's imminent collapse. If you take from that that the BBC was somehow complicit in the destruction of buildings in NYC, rather that they were told WTC was expected to collapse and instead reported that it had collapsed, then you are seriously fucked in the head.

>> No.3438048

>>3437788
The paint contained highly flammable compounds. Compounds that burn hot enough to warp steel.

>> No.3438051

>>3437929
2. There was no thermite. You can't do a demo of a skyscraper with thermite. Thermite isn't an explosive. There was aluminum and steel residue, which you would expect.

3. There is ZERO evidence for bombs.

4. We have the sound from the event. There were no blasting caps or other high explosives that went off. The collapse had ZERO similarity to a controlled demo, which would have minimized surrounding damage. Instead nearly every building in a 2-block radius was destroyed.

5. There were no blasting caps or high explosives anywhere.

>> No.3438053

>>3438037
But my protective environment is unchallenging and I can't do anything myself! How can I feel like my life has any relevance if I don't polarise my beliefs and delude myself into believing I'm informative?

>> No.3438082

OP the fake moon landing is an easy one to disprove. Google "retroflector". you can find videos of people bouncing laser beams off the moon (and reflecting them back to earth), which would be impossible without the special man-made mirror.

>also i'm thoroughly enjoying how everyone is just ignoring the truther

>> No.3438090
File: 51 KB, 352x374, 1310841180079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3438090

i lol heartily when people believe that the government who couldn't hide some WMD in the Iraqi desert was supposedly able to pull off 9/11

>> No.3438096

bitches be crazy

>> No.3438099

>>3438082
Why couldn't the mirrors have been placed and calibrated by rover? we had probes capable of getting to and landing on the moon in 1969

>> No.3438114

>>3438099

would couldn't wizards have teleported them to the moon?

>> No.3438119

>>3438114
>Wizards: Not proven to exist, far fetched
>Probes: Proven to exist, Easily conceivable
Nice one.

>> No.3438124

>>3438090
Your ignorance both astounds and depresses me.

>> No.3438127

>>3438099
wait... so we went all the way to the moon, did some robot shit to place retroflectors, while having armstrong and crew in a studio at hollywood?
makes perfect sense

>> No.3438134

>The perfect demolition-style collapse is the spooky and difficult to explain part.

And thus the is the root of the problem.

Which is harder to believe?
1. The aircraft attack happened in just such a way that by freak circumstance and coincidence, the towers lost precise structural stability in spite of all of their design safeguards, and collapsed as if a demo had happened, but really didn't. Twice. On the same day. From the same kind of structural trauma.

2. It looked like a controlled demo because it was a controlled demo. Twice. On the same day. In order to supplement the same kind of structural trauma, so that it would be easy to say "the planes did it" as a cover up.


Assuming number 1 is true, then two other assumptions must be made as a logical conclusion:
1a. The WTC towers were a massive engineering fail. they were designed to withstand 747 impact, and when that exact thing happened they structurally failed in the worst way possible, making it the most IRONIC engineering mishap of all fucking time.

1b. The Al-queda cell, as part of their attack plan, may (or still, may not) have had an understanding of this engineering flaw, and flew their planes into the exact spots necessary to bring about catastrophic failure of the buildings.

Assuming 2 is true, you must make one of two other assumptions as a logical conclusion:
2a. Controlled demolition was an inside job
2b. Al-queda planted the bombs, in order to supplement their aircraft attack.


1a is trivial possibility based only on surface evaluation, and does not add anything to the question.

1b seems highly unlikely

2a has evidence to support it

2b is plausible but the evidence is against it - the hijackers were never seen to enter the WTC buildigns, ever. Unless they had help in the form of others do do it for them, other "hijackers" or cell mebmers to plant the bombs.

>> No.3438137

>>3438124

Please enlighten me.

The government was able to pull off 9/11 but unable to get 5 guys, grab some old mustard gas, fly to Iraq, dig a hole in the desert, dump the containers of mustard gas in, cover it up, then anonymously tip off the military?

ok....

>> No.3438141

>>3438127
It's a lot easier from a technological point of view. NASA had run numerous tests in which crews had died (See Apollo 3), Getting a livable environment into space was sometimes impossible (see Laika) and time was running out for a launch to go ahead. While I'm not saying it was staged, it would certainly have been easier for it to have been.

>> No.3438143

>>3438134

the titanic was designed to be unsinkable.

the only reason it sank was because it was an inside job. someone used controlled demolitions to rip open the hull above the waterline.

>> No.3438146
File: 3 KB, 126x105, 1311213870989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3438146

>>3438134
Can someone please explain to me why so many of the public buy the official story of the collapse of these storage shelves?

The fork lift truck didnt move with enough force to displace all those items on the shelves and the structural damage to a single support would not have been enough to weaken all shelves to the point of collapse.

The way the shelving fell into its own footprint despite the fact we are told and "shown" it was struck from the side is clear evidence of foul play

The neighbouring storage shelves were not even hit by the fork lift truck but they also collapsed. If that does not prove to you this was a field test for optical stealth anti-shelving clean demolition missiles then you are a deluded sheep

>> No.3438149

>>3438127

really. show me remote controlled vehicles in the 1960's capable of fine articulation needed to align the equipment.

>> No.3438173

>>3438137
Iraq didn't happen until 2003, was against Saddam Hussein and his government, and was a conflict required to look for WMDs we now know to not have existed. Afghanistan was initiated shortly after 9/11, was against Al Quaeda as a whole, and was a conflict in which guerilla forces used civilians as shelter. There was no link or association between 9/11 and the Iraq war.

>> No.3438181
File: 1.11 MB, 160x100, th_stapler.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3438181

>>3438146
oops was supposed to be a gif

>> No.3438201

>>3438149
I think you're probably intending to say that to me.

I don't know of any machinery capable of doing so, but given that I could probably assemble something capable of moving in increments of 1/100 of a degree in my shed, I doubt that it would be implausible. A good example of a program capable of landing reflectors on the moon without us is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

>> No.3438211

>>3437722
>Make up story about dumb sister.
>mention 9/11 conspiracies as an indirect subject.
>troll /sci/

>> No.3438217

>>3438211
How the shitting dick nipple would we know what to do?

>> No.3438241

>>3438217
>shitting dick nipple

>>>/b/
>>>/tg/
>>>/n/

>> No.3438249

9/11 was clearly an inside job, but other than that she sounds like a lost cause.