/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3707122]

Do any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have any scientific merit?

[Anonymous No.3707128]

I heard that the wreckage of the downed plane was scattered for miles, suggesting that it was shot down.

[Anonymous No.3707130]

Yep. All of them. A plane can't bring down a building. There were explosives.

[Anonymous No.3707142]

No.
/thread

[Anonymous No.3707145]

>>3707128
>>I heard that

Dats sum serious science right dere.

[Anonymous No.3707147]

>Melting point of seel: 1,370 °C
>Open air burning temperature of jet fuel: 260-315 °C

[Anonymous No.3707153]

>>3707147
what has that got to do with the building collapsing?

[Anonymous No.3707157]

>>3707147
>>melting point

Irrelevant.

2/10

[Anonymous No.3707158]

>>3707147

steel loses its tensile strength RAPIDLY when heated, it does not have to melt to fail

[Anonymous No.3707159]

>>3707153
It suggests that the damage caused by the aircraft would not have been enough to bring down the building

[Anonymous No.3707162]

>>3707122
Some of them bring up interesting points.
None of them have more explanatory merit than the accepted theory.
>>3707147
>implying it melted

[Anonymous No.3707164]

>>3707145
>implying you verify personally everything you read or hear

[Anonymous No.3707165]

>>3707147
at what temp does steel because to expand? putting pressure on the rivets and joints?

[Anonymous No.3707167]

>>3707147
Naplam does wonders to most-every material that is not as heat resistant as, say, stone.

[Anonymous No.3707169]

>>3707153
He's trying to pretend steel has to literally turn entirely from a solid into a liquid before it loses even .0001% of its strength.

Basically, he's a retard.

[Anonymous No.3707170]

Well, explosions were heard from tons of people downtown before the towers fell. I don't want to coax the fire, but it DID look like a controlled demolition, didn't it? And then there's the whole WTC7 thing. So...

[Anonymous No.3707174]

no

[Anonymous No.3707177]

>>3707165
* begin
> because = mind fuck!

[Anonymous No.3707178]

>>3707170
> the whole WTC7 thing. So...
Wait, what?

[Anonymous No.3707179]

>>3707147

You don't fucking need to melt steel you just need to weaken it by 30%. and it will bend like jello

[Anonymous No.3707182]

>>3707170
>I make myself look like I'm an outside biased source to try and garner support for conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.3707186]

>>3707164
>>/sci/ is where gossip is truth

Okay then.

[Anonymous No.3707189]

>>3707147

what about the confined burning temperature - with added combustables - over an extended period.

[Anonymous No.3707192]

>>3707170
yeah but people also can hear the voice of the devil if you play Ozzy backwards... once their told it is the voice of the devil that is.

[Anonymous No.3707193]

>>3707158
even if this wasnt true steel columns expand when heated, the bolts fixing the metal together would be sheared with a relatively small raise in temperature.

Tall buildings have really complicated fireproofing and sprinkler systems built in to prevent fire causing building collapse like this. Unfortunately both those systems being compromised due to a plane crashing into the building wasnt fully considered.

[Anonymous No.3707195]

>>3707178
WTC7 collapsed without being hit by a plane. We're supposed to believe that fire alone brought it down, even though no other steel building in history has collapsed due to fire, even after 8+ hours (longer than WTC7 burned for)

[Anonymous No.3707201]

The theories as a whole argument do not; they are incredibly stupid, based more on bad movie plots than anything that happened that day.

The silly disbelief that something as large as a plane, filled with fuel, and a massive fire would bring down a building;
it takes much less in every other circumstance to bring down a building,
but the conspiracy fools keep minimizing the damage ('just cause a plane hit it', etc.)
The disbelief that such an event could be accomplished is similarly silly; destruction is easy. In fact, that part is often overshadowed by press comments of how much it would take for a group to pull that off
(it's not really that much cleverness or work).

The conspiracy guys are comic: they should be laughed at.
They claim things like 'buildings don't fall straight down.'
Of course buildings fall straight down -- if they are tall and their tops collapse.
They would topple (fall to the side) only if their bases were the damaged part.
Their suggestions argue against their own invented claims!

[Anonymous No.3707205]

>>3707192
Mistaking random gibberish for the sound of the devil when listening to a backwards record and hearing explosions are two very very different things. Nobody told them to listen specifically for explosions, they all reported it to the media independently. Your argument is moot.

[Anonymous No.3707208]

If any of you bring up the building 7 bullshit, look at this first.

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

[Anonymous No.3707214]

>>3707147
structural support doesn't have to melt, dimwit
Just soften enough to fail to be supportive.

[Anonymous No.3707215]

>>3707189
i bet the truthers only respond to this post rather than the legitimate points about the building failing due to fire

[Anonymous No.3707219]

>9/11 twoofers unable to provide the slightest proof of anything, only little pieces of anecdotal crud that generally don't even turn out to be true themselves

>believe these little minor nitpicks destroy the entire reality of 9/11

Humans are stupid.

[Anonymous No.3707221]

steel structures don't fail because of fire.

[Anonymous No.3707225]

>>3707208
>WTC7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires burning for 7hours

Right. Even though no other steel structure in history has collapsed due to uncontrolled fires, even though there have been a number that have burned for way longer than 7 hours.

[Anonymous No.3707227]

>>3707122

Molten metal was clearly seen coming out of the corner of the tower, just do a YouTube search for the video. Why is this significant? Carbon steel melts at about 1200 Celsius. Jet fuel doesn't burn near that hot.

[Anonymous No.3707230]

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

[Anonymous No.3707238]

>>3707195
>fire alone brought it down

Lol you fucking retard. Look at the pics of the rear of the building, half of which was GONE.

[Anonymous No.3707240]

>>3707227
Why do you assume carbon steel was the only metal present in the tower?

[Anonymous No.3707241]

>>3707158
annealing temperature of steel (temp at which microstructure change occurs, causing loss of tensile properties.) : over 700 C, increasing depending on carbon content by weight. burning jet fuel is not sufficient to weaken the steel.
the thermal expansion coefficient of steel is quite low, so expansion is not much of an issue.

[Anonymous No.3707243]

>>3707227
prove it was steel.
It could be molten polythene or another one of the thousands of materials that would of been in a occupied office block.

[Anonymous No.3707244]

I'd suggest all truthers read this, even if it is a comedy site. Because fuck you truthers. Make sure to read the second page especially.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

[Anonymous No.3707251]

What if they(terrorist) had some anti-mater in a jar, and just before the plane hit the building they opened the jar and boom!

[Anonymous No.3707252]

>>3707225
>>3707221
no steel structured building has burnt that long without a fire control system and without fireproofing on the structural components

[Anonymous No.3707253]

>>3707208

That does not explain the simultaneous failure of the all the beams resulting in an implosion of the structure. Newtons 3rd law is enough to smash all the official stories. Every see the standing beam at the back of the tower that simply sunk downwards?

[Anonymous No.3707259]

The only related conspiracy not too retarded to even consider for a moment is the idea that someone had advance knowledge of the attack which they recognized and then deliberately ignored.

Even then, you generally shouldn't ascribe to malice that which can be accounted for by incompetence.

[Anonymous No.3707262]

Has there ever been one of these threads where a twoofer has come away not looking like like they have Downs Syndrome?

[Anonymous No.3707263]

Why don't truthers latch onto "CIA trained the agents to crash the plane?"
Why does it have to be the most far-fetched explanation. EVERY FUCKING TIME

[Anonymous No.3707265]

>>3707195
"No other building in history has collapsed due to fire."
I'll bet you heard that 'fact' from the conspiracy guys.
Go look it up -- look up any multi-story factory that has burned, you'll find most of them were taken down by fire.
Heck, I'd guess most warehouses have been destroyed by fire -- and their steel only has to support the roof!
Broad 'factual' claims like that are supposed to be considered, and criticized, before you repeat them as facts to others.

[Anonymous No.3707271]

>>3707253
Wow. Every single one of your sentences is a lie. Congrats.

CAPTCHA: something ineedAir

lol

[Anonymous No.3707272]

>>3707253
You don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

[Anonymous No.3707275]

>>3707265
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

[Anonymous No.3707276]

>>3707263
THE PLANES WERE HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS

[Anonymous No.3707282]

>>3707265
But there was this one steel building that totally burned and didn't come down! That means 9/11 is a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.3707283]

>>3707252
It's cute that you believe that, but how about doing your own research instead of just parroting what others are telling you?

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

[Anonymous No.3707286]

What about the fact that cell phones do not work at the altitude the plane was supposedly at? What about the official story saying the black boxes were never recovered, this would be the first time in history they were never recovered, that coupled with the volunteers reporting that they found the black boxes and that they were taken away on ATV's?

[Anonymous No.3707287]

>>3707283
>>3707275
conspiratardmind

>implying any of the buildings in question did NOT have structural damage as well

[Anonymous No.3707289]

>>3707287
They sure as hell had structural damage, but they didn't collapse. That's the point, retard.

[Anonymous No.3707290]

>>3707263

HOLOGRAMS PROJECTED FROM SPACE THEY USED AN ANTI MATTER REACTOR SO THEY TOWERS ARE CONSEALED BUT YOU CANNOT INTERACT WITH THEM! THE REPTILIAN AGENDA REQUIRED THEM TO USE ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING TO TEST THE BETA RETICULI VIRUS!

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[Anonymous No.3707291]

The towers were constructed with inferior steel, that contain microscopic faults and cracks.
The impact led to steel fatigue which resulted in total collapse.
This explains why the insures were so quick to sell on the steel for scrap to avoid law suits for poor quality construction.

[Anonymous No.3707292]

>>3707286
Every single statement in your post is retarded, as they are are based on false absolutes.

[Anonymous No.3707295]

>>3707286
>>What about the fact that cell phones do not work at the altitude the plane was supposedly at?

Completely false.

Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.3707296]

>>3707275
>links a tinfoil headware advocate website

[Anonymous No.3707298]

>>3707286
Verizon came out and said that because the plane was flying low due to hijacking, it was entirely possible that cell phones could work at the altitude they were flying.

[Anonymous No.3707301]

>>3707296
Just try and disprove it. You can't. But keep pretending calling them names is an argument.

[Anonymous No.3707302]

>>3707289
You seriously don't understand what I said? All of the 9/11 buildings in question had fires AND significant structural damage. Not just fires.

Besides, assuming these buildings are equivalents is unsupported.

[Anonymous No.3707304]

>>3707301
>Just try and disprove it. You can't.
0/10

[Anonymous No.3707308]

>>3707286
how do you think the on board phone in first clase in die hard worked?

[Anonymous No.3707309]

>>3707304
Keep pretending "0/10" is an argument. Thank you for verifying that you can't discredit a single one of those claims.

>>3707302

Oh really? I wasn't aware that WTC7 was struck by a plane. I guess you were watching a different telecast than me.

[Anonymous No.3707315]

So where did the black box go guys?
Have fun explaining that without some sort of foul play involved

[Anonymous No.3707317]

>>3707309
Keep on trollin'. WTC7 had structural damage from falling debris.

[Anonymous No.3707321]

>>3707317
>Falling debris vs huge building
Cool argument bro

[Anonymous No.3707326]

Considering WTC7 collapsed after the two largest building in New York just fell to the ground only spitting distances away, and the fact a large chunk of WTC7 was missing... mean it must of been a explosion.

>no such thing as common sense in the USA.

[Anonymous No.3707328]

>>3707317
Structural damage to key structure points from falling debris? Enough to bring down a building? Got a source to back that up, big boy?

[Anonymous No.3707335]

no merit

One thing i find very convincing is the fact that after the Pearl Harbor attacks a large percentage of the american population thought that the attacks were staged by their government as a pretext for war.

It just shows, it's a rather natural response that some people have to this kind of massive event.

[Anonymous No.3707336]

>>3707275
how about a real source:
http://www.haifire.com/Resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf
1 new york plaza is an interesting one, from 1970. It was steel structured and the 2 top floors collapsed due to fire - Shearing of bolts in the support structure. Thankfully the rest of the building didnt collapse under the shockloading

[Anonymous No.3707342]

>>3707328
Really? Stop assuming your conclusion and just look at the data.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

[Anonymous No.3707343]

>>3707328
>Enough to bring down a building?

[Anonymous No.3707344]

>>3707328
Yes.
pic related.
now please leave /sci.

[Anonymous No.3707348]

>>3707342
Also, of course,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

[Anonymous No.3707349]

>>3707308
in-flight phones do not use cell tower system, and never have.
They are not cell phones.

[Anonymous No.3707352]

ITT: everyone asks everyone else to back up claims with sources, then talks shit about the sources while a few "trolls" call EVERY argument invalid

[Anonymous No.3707354]

>>3707315
Oh Snap!

[Anonymous No.3707356]

>>3707343
You either don't know what a strawman is or you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3707357]

>>3707328
Structural damage WTC7.

[Anonymous No.3707361]

>>3707342
>>3707335
inb4 repetitions of "durr there was no structural damage, no plane hit those buildings lol sheeple"

[Anonymous No.3707370]

>>3707349
you are a idiot for replying to that question

[Anonymous No.3707371]

>>3707356
Not even that guy, but he's right, suggesting that the structural damage alone had to be enough to bring the building down is a strawman argument - refuting a position that is not the argument. It wasn't the structural damage alone that brought down WTC7. It was that AND the uncontrolled fires.

[Anonymous No.3707384]

>>3707335
actually it was, in a sense. America knew about the oncoming air plane attack but did nothing about it, a kin to the tonkin incident. Both initiated and validated attacks on foreign forces.

so you know

[Anonymous No.3707389]

>Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s²) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots (310 mph) and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 cm. Additionally, there are requirements for penetration resistance, static crush, high and low temperature fires, deep sea pressure, sea water immersion, and fluid immersion.
Even the collapse of the building and fire wouldnt have destroyed the Flight data recorder. Yet it was never recovered. Why?

[Anonymous No.3707401]

>>3707321
It really is: you seem to think that the larger the building is, the more solid and sound.
It's the reverse, actually; it is _more_ susceptible to damages if it is bigger.

[Anonymous No.3707404]

>>3707122
Chaotic non-conformist reports from news stations. Attempts of the government to distinguish self-made failures and not take the responsibility for them.

And that's pretty much the only hidden truth behind 911.

[Anonymous No.3707414]

>>3707389
>ven the collapse of the building and fire wouldnt have destroyed the Flight data recorder.
That does NOT follow. You basically just said
>it has designed tolerances
>lol that means it's invulnerable

[Anonymous No.3707417]

>>3707389
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[163] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[

[Anonymous No.3707430]

>>3707370
On this site?
If we don't correct the stupidest of assumptions, we'll have a site that is always a failure, never worth visiting.
You want to use sarcasm, invent a commonly-recognized sarcasm emote or something.

[Anonymous No.3707435]

I am still amazed at the amount of energy wasted on trying to prove this conspiracy. These people sit around and whine on the internet and if they were to prove government involvement existed they wouldn't do a goddamn thing but cry some more.

[Anonymous No.3707448]

>>3707430
inb4 you get called an aspie for not recognizing sarcastic "I was only pretending to be stupid" trolling

[Anonymous No.3707452]

no one has actually proved the any of the conspiracies, instead everyone has done a very good job of showing what a crock a shit they all are.

conspirators. 0
common sense. 1

[Anonymous No.3707456]

>>3707389
Why do you say the recorder was never recovered?

[Anonymous No.3707469]

>>3707456
They appropriately recovered the recorders with no incriminating evidence, however the recorders with information they were worried about the CIA damaged beyond the point of usefulness.

[Anonymous No.3707470]

>>3707384

"knew about the attack" by that you mean, a couple of radar operators mistook the first wave of Japanese for a training flight

A couple of radar operators is not "government knowledge" beforehand

[Anonymous No.3707472]

>>3707456
I think the ones from the towers weren't recovered. Not sure.

[Anonymous No.3707486]

>>3707469
> the recorders with information they were worried about the CIA damaged beyond the point of usefulness.
Keep fantasizing and calling it data.

[Anonymous No.3707514]

>>3707469
Conceivable -- which seems to be enough for a 'truther.'
But the idea that CIA operatives (why CIA? because they don't operate in US and are mysterious, and conspiracy loves that)
would do that depends entirely on (all!) the rest of the story being entirely true.

[Anonymous No.3707527]

>>3707469
>>3707469

[Anonymous No.3707534]

>>3707384
I guess he's extrapolating the idea that
[people in the US government had discussed a possibility of Japanese attack]
is the same as
[government, military, or citizenry of US all knew of attack before it happened]

It's insane, but some people think everyone responds to every idea that is put up, and should have prepared for it.
Sounds like a mother.

[Anonymous No.3707550]

sheeple. Thats not a plane crashing into the tower. The government shook up a 15Megaton can of coke for 5 years and opened it inside the towers so they could convince the public to raise cheeseburger taxes

[Anonymous No.3707559]

>>3707550
THE GUBBERMINT CAN TAX MY CHEESEBURGERS AFTER THEY PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS

ALSO MY GUNS

[Anonymous No.3707560]

What really gets me about the truther is that the US government has a history of secrets rising to the surface, I mean look at watergate which only included a hand full of people. Yet that still somehow made its way into public forum. Then consider Clinton and Lewinski, which only considered 2 people in the privacy of the Oval office and that still got out. When you consider the huge scale of the truthers claims. The sheer amount of people that would need to be involved, I mean that several hundred, and still no one came out and said anything? Unlikely at best.

[Anonymous No.3707583]

>>3707195
It wasn't just a fire. WTC7 was also struck by giant flaming pieces of debris from the collapse of the other two towers.

Fuck you

[Anonymous No.3707588]

>>3707560
Perfectly reasonable.

However, truthers will tell you that the "small" conspiracies were planned and leaked in order to make you think they're stupid (lol what).

Also, no amount of refutation will make these people adjust their beliefs. Look at birthers. Nothing whatsoever can convince them that Obama was born in Hawaii. They said they wanted the long form, but they were lying. Not even the long form is enough.

[Anonymous No.3707605]

>>3707560
and what get me even more annoyed about the truthers is that they are blind to the fact that when ever the american government wants to go to war they kill a bunch of there own citizens.
look a pearl harbour!

[Anonymous No.3707612]

>>3707588
>>implying Obama isn't Irish
>>O'bama

[Anonymous No.3707617]

>>3707588

I see no variation in truther logic and creationist logic. Both claim that fact favours them, and both show poor reasoning and logical deficits. I again find it unlikely that in a debate they would reach the same conclusions, so how is it that when it comes to 9/11 they refuse reason and logic but in another situation they require it? As I type this I am believe it may just be that they are the "sheeple" who can only regurgitate the arguments of others that they perceive have the highest social value.

[Anonymous No.3707621]

>>3707612

[Anonymous No.3707635]

the entire thing was masterminded by Boeing, so the air-force would by the Osprey.
Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.3707660]

>>3707617
Their reasoning isn't about finding truth. It's about establishing a belief system that serves an emotional function. They want to feel important, to feel in control, various things, but their conspiracies have functions in common:
1) Things that go wrong are under human control - this means that the universe is ultimately controlled, and is less scary than no one being in control
2) I know who is to blame for bad things, and I have no responsibility for them
3) My life isn't how I want because another group of people are evil, not because I have personal failings
3) This special knowledge makes me superior to others, who I will constantly insult as inferior to me
and more.

They don't want truth. They want to feel special, to feel superior, to feel in control, etc. It's kinda sad.

[Anonymous No.3707673]

>>3707635
>Prove me wrong.
Doesn't work that way. Show your position is the most reasonable, given the data.

[Anonymous No.3707730]

Why was there no debris in front of the impact zone at the pentagon, and why was the hole so much smaller than the aircraft that supposedly hit the building?
Protip: It was a missile

[Anonymous No.3707748]

>>3707730
Neither of your implications should be expected for an airplane impact into the side of a building.

[Anonymous No.3707756]

>>3707748
Not to mention all the identifiable airplane debris. I guess the smuggled an airplane into the Pentagon and THEN hit it with a missile, amirite?

[Anonymous No.3707763]

>>3707308

Magnets. And that post I made was a damn joke.

[Anonymous No.3707767]

>>3707748
>>3707756
Why do conspiratards pick the stupidest possible arguments? Using a plane to hit the pentagon doesn't directly negate the idea of a conspiracy, so why go fullretard and claim it was a missile?

I guess missiles sound more obviously evil.

[Anonymous No.3707768]

Why didnt they scramble fighter jets when they realised the hijacked airplanes were heading for NY?

[Anonymous No.3707789]

>>3707768
They did. See 8:46 and 10:39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

[Anonymous No.3707799]

>>3707768
Once again, counterfactual assumptions.

You'd think "skeptics" would get to be ashamed of not doing their own fact-checking.

[Anonymous No.3707801]

>>3707730
>>throw aluminum can at reinforced concrete at 550 mph
>>expect cartoon physics to produce plane-shaped cutout as a result

You = imbecile

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3707805]

>>3707673
the development of the Osprey started in the 1980's it was untill 2005, a full 25 years afterwards the pentagon formally approved full-rate production.

Why because Boeing masterminded 9/11 sending America into war.
A war where they need troop carrying aircraft to believe troops into and out of the combat zone, and to avoid IEDs by not travelling on the road.

With out the war on terror no Osprey would be needed.

Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.3707807]

>>3707789
Also, search that page for "F-15"

[Anonymous No.3707816]

>>3707805
> to avoid IEDs by not travelling on the road.
Yeah, 'cause we totally don't have humvee patrols that get hit by IEDs now. Thanks Osprey and Boeing, you helped us dodge that bullet!

As for your justification? You might as well say god did it because he thinks it's funny. Just as much evidence and plausibility.

[Anonymous No.3707823]

>>3707768

Why don't we have soldiers underground in case terrorists drill through the Earth to get at us.

What I'm saying is, this was before international terrorism was considered a serious danger to the USA, the perceived threats were attacks from other nations i.e. Russian invasion which would was not expected to be an attack from the air on civilian targets, therefore when cuts were made the amount of available planes to intercept a threat of this nature were decreased. There simply was no protocol for an event like this where multiple civilian airliners would be used as a threat to civilian targets. Jets were scrambled, but you have to appreciate that it's easy to look back on this event and say why didn't XYZ happen, but at the time this was not expected to happen.

There is the arguement that the information was out there, but again it's down to how the threats are perceived, and these were not considered high risk by an ignorant government. The lack of communication between governmental parties is the reason 9/11 happened.

[Anonymous No.3707830]

>>3707805
> it was untill 2005, a full 25 years afterwards the pentagon formally approved full-rate production.
But they Osprey was already in service before 9/11.

Besides, even if you establish motive (more money in government contracts), Boeing is so very, very fucking far from having opportunity. That's really the problem here.

[Anonymous No.3707838]

>>3707816
my comments was meant to be ironic.
you summed up every conspiracy on here when you said;
>You might as well say god did it because he thinks it's funny. Just as much evidence and plausibility.
Well don't, you win the right to call yourself intelligent.

[Anonymous No.3707853]

>>3707830
> Boeing is so very, very fucking far from having opportunity.
they own FUCKING planes don't they?!

[Anonymous No.3707877]

All the planes used in the attack were...
wait for it.
MADE BY BOEING!

[Anonymous No.3707893]

>>3707853
Yeah, Boeing being an airplane manufacturer has everything to do with muslims hijacking airplanes.

[Anonymous No.3707909]

>>3707893
Boeing had unreinforced cockpit doors without idiot-proof biometric pilot-only locks ON PURPOSE!

[Anonymous No.3707919]

>>3707909
all Boeings fault.