[ 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: 31 KB, 720x576, wtc7_Collapse_P[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3696896 [Reply] [Original]

What does /sci/ think about building 7?

>> No.3696905
File: 42 KB, 637x347, 1298601505404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Thermite detonation by aliens

>> No.3696913

>>3696896

I really think it should rank higher than 7. A lot of people don't give that much credit to that poor building.

>> No.3696920

> yfw thermite burning releases less energy than the same mass of paper
> yfw this coating shit is used in constructions all over the place
> yfw when you're a paranoid loser

>> No.3696927

>>3696920
That's great. Except it was nano thermite that was found.

>> No.3696932

My.. my thermite is augmented?

Sage because my post is useless.

>> No.3696938

>>3696927
> yfw they combusted the chips
> and they gave off shit all energy

if you look really hard at the footage of 9/11 you can make out two commercial airliners crashing into the two towers. some hypothesise this caused them to fall down.

>> No.3696943

I'm too tired so I wouldn't build seven, but I might consider building two or three.

>> No.3696953

>>3696938
How is this related to 7 falling into its own footprint at free fall speed?

>> No.3696970

>>3696953
some hypothesise that the debris and fuel raining down on the building may be what caused it to burn out of control for hours. some hypothesise that it was these fires that caused the building to notably buckle outwards and then collapse.

then again, some hypothesise that being bombarded by debris and fire were unrelated to the collapse.

>> No.3696984

"Let's pull it" he said.

>> No.3696985
File: 33 KB, 500x367, 15201[2].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3696970
>mfw I thought I would get a scientific answer from /sci/

>> No.3696986

>>3696953

HOW THE FUCK ELSE DOES A BUILDING COLLAPSE EXCEPT ON TO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT?

should i fall over onto its side? holy shit fuck you and fuck all 'truther' hipster faggots

>> No.3696998

>>3696986
Well I'm prettys sure a steel and concrete reinforced building doesn't turn into dust from a simple fire.

>> No.3697007

>>3696985
> linking to the BBC's 'premature reporting' of its collapse
> not realising that the progression of that information has been well documented
> not realising that a building doesn't have to fall down to be clearly collapsing
> confirmed for paranoid idiot and extreme confirmation bias

>> No.3697015

>>3696998
> i don't see how superheating a steel structure will make it fall down
> confirmed for 12 years old

>> No.3697028

WTC 7 fell because of uncontrolled fires. Burning debris from the trade centers fell on top of it, damaging key structure points. The fire burned for 7 hours uncontrolled. Any building would have collapsed afterwards.

>> No.3697031

>>3696953
>at free fall speed?

Nope

>> No.3697036

>>3696896

I don't want to pretend to know the truth and I have no idea about what really happened but.. I have a question:

If a certain group of conspirators made it fall with explosive.. why they did such a stupid thing?

I mean, why to do such an ambiguous action when it wouldn't change anything in the matter of war-related consequences if it wouldn't collapsed?

>> No.3697038

>>3697028
no. the government was intent on bringing down wtc7 to launch a false flag operation. this is because wtc7 was an emotive landmark recognised worldwide.

none of the hundreds of people involved or requested to be involved ever had second thoughts or considered blowing the whistle. this is because of coincidences.

>> No.3697039

>>3697036
Apparently it was for the insurance money

>> No.3697041

>>3697038
>>>/x/

>> No.3697044

>>3697036
> I have no idea about what really happened but..
> he doesn't know about the planes on 9/11

>> No.3697045

Why would CIA or whoever is supposedly behind this go through the trouble of destroying building 7?

The supposed goal was too shock americans to wage war and get oil, ect... So the shocking effect would have been enough with the WTC. And they'd know it's suspicious for a building to crash on its own so they wouldn't destroy it like that.
If they had stuff to destroy files inside or something they could easily infiltrate it after it got evacuated with the panic, no need no destroy the entire building.

>> No.3697046

>>3697041
>can't recognize obvious sarcasm
>ass burger detected

>> No.3697049

>>3697041
>>> /autism/
> oh wait, that's here. carry on.

>> No.3697050

>>3697036
Hmmm money perhaps? Insurance policies and stolen gold.

>> No.3697054

>>3697046
freaky brofist. :/

>> No.3697065

>>3697045
The government know they fucked up with 7, so what do they do? They just pretend it never existed. I'm not kidding listen to Donald Rumsfeld on wtc 7, he just casually brushes it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKbSMD0ZGY4

There's a reason why 95% of Americans never heard about 7, it's because it's fucking obvious it was a controlled demo.

>> No.3697072

Building 7 housed the following institutions

Internal Revenue Service Regional Council
U.S. Secret Service
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
First State Management Group, Inc
Federal Home Loan Bank
NAIC Securities
Securities & Exchange Commission
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt

Secret Service? Securities & Exchange Commission? The same outfit that was investigating corrupt trading practices and suddenly lost untold thousands of research documents? Uh hunh.

Whoops.

>> No.3697079

>>3697065
that, or it was an open atrium building that sustained massive damage to its front from falling debris, tremendous energy released from the falling twin towers, and then a massive fire, and subsequent destruction

or your whole donald rumsfeld thing.

>> No.3697081

>>3697065
>controlled demo

I don't understand why people keep saying this. If you watch the videos in slow motion, NONE of the buildings that collapsed look anything like controlled demolitions.

>> No.3697092

>>3697081
They say it because they're parroting. Any collapse that goes into its footprint looks like a controlled demolition to them. Don't pay any attention to what's happening inside the building, I'm sure that's not important.

>> No.3697097

>>3697081
Are you fucking crazy. This is a textbook example of a demoltion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

>> No.3697100

You know I've seen controlled demolitions up close and in videos and it's really quite funny when truthers claim that the destruction of the buildings was some perfect controlled demolition.

People miles away from ground zero suffocated from clouds of ash. Ground Zero itself was about five times the size of the footprints of each destroyed building combined, because they didn't fall 'STRAIGHT DOWN' as truthers say. This wasn't a controlled demolition, it was a messy tragedy.

The US doesn't need a false flag policy to declare war. America has been a nation of warmongers for a century. They go to war like fashions go out of style.

Wake up sheeple.

>> No.3697103

>>3697079
>massive fire

Once again a fire has NEVER caused a steel structure to fall in such a way before 9/11.

>> No.3697105

7 doesn't look even remotely like a controlled demolition. It takes weeks and weeks to set up a controlled demolition, and you need to completely have the run of the building-you need to tear out interior walls to get at support columns. It'd be easier to believe that it collapsed due to damage from the earlier collapses.

>> No.3697106
File: 92 KB, 740x574, conspiracy_theories.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>itt

>> No.3697109

>>3697097
>text book example
>support beams destroyed by fire
>collapsed floors inside
>outside skeleton is the last to go

Yea. Text book.

>> No.3697112

>>3697065
> implying it was just a coincidence that this demolition coincided with the two adjacent buildings being destroyed by terrorists
> or implying they decided to run into the building with truckloads of explosives when they saw it happen
> ISHYGDDT

>> No.3697118

>>3697103
There's never been a steel building hit by a fully loaded 757 moving at 500 miles an hour, cutting structural columns in the process, either.

>> No.3697120

>>3697103
A steel structure was never allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours after having debris from a collapsed building fall on it before.

>> No.3697123

>>3697103

That's because buildings don't fall very often. 99% of large buildings being destroyed are results of controlled demolitions. The fact that something similar hasn't happened before isn't an argument in your favor but rather a startling example of how fucking stupid your reasoning is.

It's like saying that "STELLAR ACCRETION HAS NEVER CAUSED GALAXIES TO FORM IN ANY OTHER UNIVERSE, SO CLEARLY IT COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IN OURS".

>> No.3697124

>>3696896
Other than those buildings at WTC, no steel highrise has ever collapsed due to a fire in the history of building buildings. Never ever. The Empire State Building has a B-25 bomber crash into it the 80th floor in 1945 and it caused a small fire that was put out PDQ.

So sure, an airplane caused the Twin Towers to fall because architects don't know about these things.

Right.

>> No.3697129

>>3697124
Because the Empire State Building was built the same way as WTC7, right? Also: >>3697118

Time for you to stop typing.

>> No.3697133

>>3697103
how fucking retarded are you to think this is logical? same goes for all the other retarded conspirators who say this ad nauseam.

the same logic would prove that the tacoma narrows bridge was the government too, moron.

how many other buildings in history burned for seven hours and had chunks of concrete fall on them? name one.

>> No.3697138

>>3697133
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

>> No.3697140

There is no evidence at all for a controlled demolition.

>> No.3697143

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

>> No.3697146

>>3697138
Are any of those fires the result of boeing 767s carrying dozens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel crashing into the steel structure?

>> No.3697148

>>3697124
>>3697124

Do you realize how much bigger a 747 is than a B-25 bomber? Do you have any fucking idea?

We're talking a plane that is about ~16 meters from tail to nose and comparing that to a plane which is ~70 meters long.

That's like saying I survived a 9mm bullet to the chest so why did he die from a point blank shotgun slug.

Keep your arguments coming, maybe we'll be able to talk some sense into you, probably not though. We've encountered truthers before.

>> No.3697165

>>3697133
Actually several, but it's obvious that you want to believe that a group of beer swilling, girl chasing nightclubbing Arabs from Saudi Arabia left their passports on the sidewalk and flew fully laden aircraft in Blue Angels formation over Manhattan into a target 100 feet wide at 500 miles an hour, then miraculously turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia two weeks later.

Sure, swell, whatever.

>> No.3697178

>>3697165
You mean Arabs that had gone through flight school and knew exactly what they were doing? Yea, I do.

>> No.3697181

So to summarise this thread so far we have:

>WHY DID IT FALL IN IT'S FOOTPRINT?
Well, there were fires burning and buildings collapsing around it for a good long time.
>WELL THAT HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE
Lots of things haven't happened before, does that mean nothing can't happen that hasn't happened before? So why has anything happened ever?
>WELL A PLANE FLEW INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING AND IT'S STILL STANDING
And that was a small plane moving at slower speeds compared to a larger plane moving at higher speeds.

Anything else we can help you with?

>> No.3697185

>>3697165
>blue angels formation
what?

The buildings were actually 208 feet wide, and surprisingly, flying an airplane into such a target isn't as hard as you think it is

>> No.3697187

>>3697103
that's because there were no steel buildings prior to 9/11

>> No.3697188

>>3697124
Because

a 15 metric tonne aeroplane with mostly empty tanks flying at landing-speed hitting a building

IS THE SAME AS

a 126 metric tonne aeroplane with almost full tanks going over 700km/h hitting a building.

>> No.3697196

Guys the government would never lie about something to start a war. Remember when they found those WMDs in Iraq? Oh wait....

>> No.3697198

>>3697165

>turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia two weeks later

[citation needed]

And make it a decent source, not

HTTP://WWW.WAKEUPSHEEPLETRUTH.FUCKBUSH.ORG

>> No.3697216

>>3697165
yeah. and planes landing on runways 100 feet across. how the fuck does that work?

(the answer is secret alien technology, it's impossible for humans).

>> No.3697221

>>3697196
>the government would never lie to start a war

Nobody here is arguing they wouldn't

>> No.3697222

>>3697185
To add on, 208 feet is about almost as wide as the average runway in large airports. But pilots manage to land exactly in the center every single time, thousands of times a day. These terrorists had flight training as well, it's not hard to at least hit the runway.


Also, anyone can train themselves to easily be able to land a plane just by using Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's not as hard as the lay man thinks

>> No.3697226

>>3697196
the government sometimes lies
hence the government lied
good attempt at logic bro

>> No.3697227

personally, I find the events of Sept 11, 2001 to be a curious and highly implausible chain of concurrent events that defies common sense or even convoluted logic.
Bush sreading My pet Goat while new York is being invaded, scrambled jets being sent to Long Island, NORAD out to lunch. FAA clueless, fifteen different military exercises going on all over the Eastern Seaboard simultaneously, not but 4 fighter jets left on the whole Atlantic coast, passports left in plain sight, videotapes of explosions prior to the aircraft striking, eyewitnesses not called to testify, no NAAB investigation, removal of all debris (in violation of federal law, btw), and on and on.

It's just too fucked up to blame it on a bunch of Arabs who the CIA and the FBI already knew to be Al Queada associates and were tracking.

Occam's Razor says balls to the lot of you.

>> No.3697234

>>3697227
Occam's Razor would actually argue for the second option. Are you sure you know what Occam's razor is?

>> No.3697236

>>3697165
>beer swilling, girl chasing

Nope.

>left their passports on the sidewalk

Nope.

>Blue Angels formation

Nope.

>turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia two weeks later

Nope.

But your version does sound suspicious!

>> No.3697237

In order to set up the explosives for a controlled demolition in the two towers, it would have taken hundreds of workers MONTHS to do so. Do you really think such a job got done privately without anyone knowing prior to the attacks?

Just ask any demolitions expert or someone who helps to set up controlled demolitions.


Also, watch the documentaries on the discovery channel and National geographics that have been made basically debunking the feasibility of the conspiracy arguments, using real tests, etc..

>> No.3697240
File: 19 KB, 300x300, trollercicebike.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3697222
>manage to land exactly in the center every single time, thousands of times a day
It's so obvious...

PLANES LANDING SAFELY IS A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY DESIGNED TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH ABOUT 911 !!!!

>> No.3697241

>>3697226
>the government lied and started an illegal war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis
>WHO CARES THEY WOULD NEVER KILL MURIKANS

Must be nice in your fairytale world.

>> No.3697244

>>3697222
The aircraft didn't land, they made a *perfect* sweeping turn into the buildings ; the Pentagon aircraft made a descending corkscrew turn onto the deck to about 6 inches above the grass.

Microsoft for the win.

>> No.3697248

>>3697237
To add on, a controlled demolition leaves a shit ton of evidence after the building has collapsed. There is no such evidence.

>inb4 SUPER NANO ALIEN TECHNOLOGY INVISIBLE THERMITE THAT CAN BE SET UP IN 5 HOURS

>> No.3697254

>>3697241
glad you've refined your logic bro

>> No.3697258

I always lol when ppl are like:
NORAD, planestoppers etc.
cuz it's like, were they going to blow up a plane full of ppl? even to save a building full of more ppl (which they didn't know would be struck until it happened). Imagine how fucked up all you nutjobs would be on that!
Some people can't be pleased.
The history of plane jackings is flying to cuba with coke.

>> No.3697260

>>3697244
I was giving an example of the extreme precision of landing an aircraft.

Not to mention the extra precision needed to touch down at the correct distance along the runway.


What is needed to crash into a building? Just point your nose at it.

The turns to go into the building were last-second adjustments to make sure they hit it, they were not precise sweeping turns from a distance.

Yours is an argument from incredulity.

>> No.3697261

>>3697244

Anyone who's played with MS Flight Simulator knows it's much easier (and more fun) to crash into something than to land safely on it. I challenge you to find any pilot saying that it would be hard to crash into a fucking skyscraper.

>> No.3697267

>>3697248
Actually a professor from the University of Copenhagen published a paper detailing the discovery of nano thermite in the dust.

>> No.3697271

>>3697260
Yours is an argument from being a faggot

>> No.3697278

Anyone saying they fell at free fall is lying you can clearly see debris and other objects falling faster then the towers themselves considerably faster.

>> No.3697279

>>3697271
Ladies and gentlemen, the classiest guy in the world

>> No.3697286

>>3697279
he's got a point

>> No.3697295

>>3697278
The debris was obviously accelerated by the detonation of the wireless invisible nanothermite.

>> No.3697305

These threads are way more fun on /x/. They think ghosts did it.

>> No.3697327

>>3697236
Actually, all those points are true, and are easily verified. But don't bother to check them out; just believe whatever you want.

The government never lies and it always tells the truth.

>> No.3697337

If you guys think this thread is bad, wait 5 days and see how bad it really gets on various boards.

>> No.3697348

9/11 was like 10 years ago

GET THE FUCK OVER IT

>> No.3697355

>>3697165
lots of people complete tasks and spend time drinking beer and chasing girls otherwise.
Your extreme bias is shown by classifying this haphazard 'flight' (redirecting an already-flying aircraft into a very large building!) as 'Blue Angels' like -- there is no similarity.
The guys didn't have to do much to the aircraft, they certainly didn't need advanced skills.

>> No.3697369

>>3697327
No, but the evidence, or lack thereof doesn't lie.

Wheres the evidence of a controlled demolition? Where's the evidence that close to a hundred men spent at least three MONTHS setting up the demolition prior to 9/11 without anyone noticing?

>> No.3697370

>>3697327
>Actually, all those points are true, and are easily verified.

Reading it on wakeupsheeple.net or whatever does not count as "verified."

>The government never lies and it always tells the truth.

No, everything the government, or common sense, or your own eyes tell you is a lie. Alex Jones is the one that never lies.

>> No.3697396
File: 534 KB, 360x320, 1315183721461.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>2011
>Still thinking that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
>ISH...

>> No.3697501

The passport of Satam al-Suqami was reportedly recovered "a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood";[28][29] a passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the towers collapsed. The passports of two other hijackers, Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al-Ghamdi, were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and a fourth passport, that of Abdulaziz al-Omari was recovered from luggage that did not make it onto American Airlines Flight 11. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

We could refute the rest of the objections, but this thread is getting tedious. You want to believe the Official version, fine, believe it. But you are definitely not being very scientific if you don't actually read the literature.
And claiming that because something is posted on Rense or Alex Jones is not a defense. Information is where you find it, although it would be good to start with some hints from something like the one here: http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847

>> No.3697520
File: 1.49 MB, 270x224, footprint.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

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.3697552

>>3697501

What is this in reference to? What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to support the "official story" or cast doubt on it?

>> No.3697781

>>3697552
This guy >>3697236 claims that passports were't found, that the hijackers were't beer guzzlers, etc, or that they did'nt turn up mysteriously alive several weeks later, all points which are easily verified with some quick Googling and a little reading comprehension.

It speaks to the level of denial on the part of people who support the official conspiracy story as opposed to any other, of which there are actually several.

Millions of people around the planet doubt the official version and have compiled mountains of evidence to rebut it , but closed minds deny the evidence and won't even look at it, yet nit pick every point in this thread as if every point has not already been gone over and over, with video, chemical analysis, professional jet pilot protestations that Microsoft trainers aren't any kind of answer. and on and on. They state supposed events of 911 that aren't true and are easily refuted, especially the partying of the hijackers prior to the event - that's easily checked, but official report supporters are too lazy to fact-check themselves. It's absurd.

Spend an hour some time and read one of any of hundreds of 911 "truther" sites. Start with the timeline. That's a hoot and a half right there.

This thread is stupid.

>> No.3697905

>>3697781
>This guy >>3697236 claims that passports were't found,

No, he said they didn't "leave them on the sidewalk."

>that the hijackers were't beer guzzlers,

That would be irrelevant if it was true.

>or that they did'nt turn up mysteriously alive several weeks later

Which they didn't. In the immediate aftermath there were a couple of mistaken identities of hijackers with common names. That's not a "whole in the story."

>all points which are easily verified with some quick Googling and a little reading comprehension.

I'm sure it would be easy to find someone who believes those things. That's not the same thing as verifying it, unless you believe everything you read on conspiracy blogs.

>> No.3697963

>>3697781

1) Replace 9/11 truthers with creationists in this post.
2) lol

>> No.3697964

>>3697905
>eveything you read in conspiracy blogs

The government line is a _conspiracy_ story, for Christs sake. Learn the meanings of words. Two or more people - we don't care who or what people, two or more people planning a bad act is a conspiracy.

That's how brainwashed you are. You don't even know the meaning of the name of a common criminal activity. Cosa Nostra= conspiracy. Silverado and the Savings & Loan defaults= conspiracy. Lockerbie plane explosion= conspiracy. Et cetera et cetera.

>> No.3697992

>>3697964
>The government line is a _conspiracy_ story,

Who said it wasn't? Nice nonsequitor.

>> No.3699512

Did you see the video filmed inside wtc7 and just outside the building after the towers had fallen?

It's was like a nuclear explosion had occurd, all cars on the streets were obliterated to dust

I believed it was an 'inside job' for few years, till I finally steped out of that paranoid conspiracy world

>> No.3699534

/sci/ is full of liberal shills and government ass kissers. they dont have the intelligence or awareness to know, after analyzing all the evidence, that it was a total inside job

>> No.3699545
File: 13 KB, 300x300, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3697044

>> No.3699597

I think they should have done buildings 5 and 6 too

>> No.3699618
File: 30 KB, 115x115, 1314790770978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3696896
Mfw people actually care about this

>> No.3699625

Before 9/11 nobody in the world had any idea that the WTC had more than 2 buildings. So bringing down WTC 7 cos it was a landmark.... No way.