/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4243392

No it is not, fire and damage was enough.

/thread

>>4243396
prove it

>>4243397
fire and large shock waves are known to knock things down, not the other way around.

You prove it, faggot.

>>4243407

this

>>4243407
youre the one making the claim, not me.

you have to prove your theory

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

The documentary that the clips came from is 2hrs I think. The whole thing was truthers saying stuff, then engineers going NOPE.jpg with tests and simulations

now gtfo

>>4243392

Debris from the world trade center smashed into it too. That did significant damage to the side of it and the fire further weakened it.

>implying terrorists can't add some TNT in the plane to destroy the tower
saged
reported

>scientifically impossiple
>impossiple

>>4243421
thats dumb, they were only armed with box cutters

>>4243420
no proof of damage

>>4243430

There is certainly no proof of whatever your alternate hypothesis is either, so we're going to have to go with the null.

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

>>4243435
my proof is no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire

>>4243434
Wow, the guy had a great reflex. He obviously knew about it from the beggining and did it on purpose.

>>4243440
That's not a proof, boy, that's a claim

>>4243448
a good one

>>4243430
really?

you're starting to sound like some homeopath, hollow earther or creationist just denying the existance of evidence like that

>>4243451

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=player_embedded

You and I have different definitions of "good" evidence. Blatant Lies don't fall under mine.

It's just this thing I don't like.

>>4243452
all i see are shattered windows

>>4243440
see last few seconds of
>>4243417

also >>4243430
two massive thousand foot structures collapsed next fucking door. and all buildings in the area had some type of damage. i live in ny and everybody i know who works/lives in the financial district near the wtc had shattered windows and debris. it just happened to cause a fire which couldnt be put out due to a broken water man in wtc7

hurr

The more interesting question is should the terrorists be held responsible for the collapse of WTC7 since they didn't intended something so unprecedented (building collapse do to fire) to happen?

>>4243463
"I didn't mean to" isn't the best line of defense... especially in cases with as much emotions as 9/11.

>>4243463
>building collapse do to fire
>do to fire
>do
>mfw

>>4243463

Assuming they were reassembled from constituent elements in time for trial, they would still be charged because their actions, intended or not, led to the collapse.

In the same way you can be charged with manslaughter if you much a guy in the face and he falls and snaps his neck. You may not have intended to kill him, but you did intend to do hard and thereby caused his death.

Plus everybody knows they'd be shipped to Texas and executed without a trial anyways. What do you think all those new Acts that crushed your liberties were for anyhow?

>>4243472

Punch, harm, goddamn keyboard.

>>4243456
Yeah, and then a whole lot of nothing where more windows should be.
Hundreds of tons of steel raining down from hundreds of feet can do things like just rip whole floors out of a building

>>4243463
actually one building which collapsed due to fire caused another fire which caused another building's collapse.

It's more like a triple unprecedented event. Who knows how much longer a chain reaction like this will be in the future. Truly a sign of the times.

>>4243392
>claims it was impossible for it to happen
>yet it did happen

LMFAO. So you prove yourself retarded? Is that the point of this thread?

>>4243469
you're easily entertained aren't you :)

>>4243487

you use emoticons dont you

>>4243457

Hah, google an oversight of the world trade center buildings. Seven buildings and building 7, the one that was questionable at best was 500 METERS away. Unless the explosion from the planes hitting WTC 3 and 4 somehow created guided missiles that could travel such distance with enough precision to collapse the building in a way that made it look like all the pillars were blown by space age technology, most of us will stick with the pull theory.

Funny thing is, what these "crazy conspiracy theorists" did was visit world-renowned demolition expert and they showed them the footage. They all confirmed this was way too precise, there is no way to collapse a building without damaging the surrounding buildings UNLESS you do a controlled demolition. Which takes a long time to prepare. Hence the shocked faces when they told them it was WTC 7, the least known WTC building.

Now, the owner of the building: Larry Whatshisnose. Some jew guy. He rented the whole building for 15 million dollars for the next 99 years as well as the rights to rebuild it if something happened to it. Then he specifically insured the building for "collapse due to terrorist attacks". He received over one BILLION in insurance money after 9/11. I have to admit, people have unsuccessfully tried to blow up a WTC building before so I can understand it partially but it's all so extremely convenient isn't it?

Now, I am not claiming this is definitive proof of anything at all but you have to admit this guy is mighty suspicious especially since this somehow led to taking over Iraq to gain control of the oil there.

>>4243489
Isn't :) an emoticon?

>>4243440
>>4243482
>mfw when people dont understand that fire will shear metal joints in a steel frame building due to expansion of beams
Has no one here done even basic physics? Why do you think skyscrapers have multiple redunant fire suppression systems?

If it was demolition, why didn't the fire ignite the charges much sooner?

>>4243505
They probably used some top-secret military explosive no one here as ever heard of.

>>4243440
>my proof is no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire
see, that's bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)
all the steel floors collapsed only the concrete ones kept standing.

>>4243500
thermal expansion of metal is not basic physics
one could assume you are talking out of your ass based on this assertion alone.

(also metal acts as a good heat sink espeically when there's lots of it)

>>4243509
or they just use some basic insulation around it because it's not like the fires were that hot in the first place :P

>>4243500

Yeah, like the special layer put on steel beams in order to let them withstand much higher temperatures which makes it pretty much impossible to smelt them unless you have somekind of plasma cannon?

>>4243515
Got blasted of by the jet explosion

>>4243512
>heat sink from inert matter

>>4243521
>shitpost

>>4243520
>blasted off

Watch this and you will see that the official 911 story is false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

see, what I don't understand about you troofers:

If the planes were a deception for the real reason the towers collapsed (explosives)
and
The government wants us to believe terrorists supposedly had the organization and luck/skill to pull off a plane attack
then
Why wouldn't the government just say the terrorists had the organization and luck/skill to pull off a demolition attack?

Are you one of those "BUT THE VIDEO SAID JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL!" guys?

Let me explain it for you then.

No, it did not melt. But I'm sure you can agree that it got very hot in there. When metal gets hot, it expands and it also gets softer (temporarily). Metal holding up half a building moving and getting more malleable is not a good thing, structurally.

>>4243535
Because of the security implications. One implicates we were compromised due to procedural negligence the other implicates we were compromised because we have too much civil liberty.

>>4243717
>But I'm sure you can agree that it got very hot in there
You're trying to argue for the arbitrary here.
>When metal gets hot, it expands and it also gets softer (temporarily).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel#Fire_resistance
>The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1
>Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C

>>4243434
i saw this thread, and hoped that someone had posted this. thank you.

>>4243434
The load, presumably wooden planks of 1 in. thickness, carried by the fork-lift took out the very bottom foundation of the metal shelving. It's like if you had your arms around the shoulders of someone and someone else came by and kicked you (hard enough) somewhere on the lower half of your calf muscle and you fell taking the person who's shoulders you had your arms around down with you.

The key is, like in virtually all (credible) martial arts, is to take out the base of go below the center of gravity if you want to take someone down.

I hope that makes sense. Maybe this knowledge might save your life at some point, who knows!

Have any of the conspiracy theorists and truthers ever done any actual computer simulations?

Because unless you're going to crash two more identical planes into two more identical buildings, you're never going to prove anything any other way. Any math you can do on paper is going to be full of outrageous simplifying assumptions. High school physics isn't going to cut it.

Do you really think ONE proton torpedo from ONE X-Wing could have brought down the Death Star?

It was obviously an inside job.

>>4243535
As an excuse to go to war and strip away your liberties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
It is impossible to overstate just how weak the pro-conspiracy arguments are.

You people are fucking retarded. Of course it was an inside job. Once you see the evidence, it's plainly obvious. Just like with human evolution.

See here>>4243528 for all the evidence you need and stop shit-posting about steel melting, you're making yourself look like an idiot.

Why would they even build such a tall building that would collapse that easy from a little fire?

The Foliehats - 6

Skeptics - 0

>>4244059
This is a point I make time and time again...

If the US, with the most powerful and advanced military on Earth, was planning an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11, they would have flattened the country in a week's time.

>scientifically impossible
You mean statistically impossible. Get your terms right and you will get better proofs.

>>4244393
yes but they cant just "go to war" they need a reason.
otherwise yurop and other countries would step in.

>>4244430

They couldn't just plant a a couple of bombs in schools, right?

Or you think that if you had ~500 kids aged 5 to 12 dead in a day, the rest of the UN would dare to step in your way?

>>4244439
bombings are kind of hard to be televised aren't they? It's easier to be manipulated by video, and let's be honest, that was a hell of a display.

>>4244449

Everything is as hard as you want it to be. A camera could just happen to be pointing at a school.

There is a reason the grand majority of the scientific community around the world believes the official story.
It's not because they have conducted the tests themselves, but rather because it's more probable than the alternative theories.


Most "civilian" (and I apologize for the use of term, but the alternative would be "non-educated people"), simply do not understand numbers. Which is also the reason why most people suck at maths, but that's a totally different point.

>>4244408
now that's the stuff a real anon is made of!

There's no way a warring government is any good at bombing a building. They're pretty good at whole countries.

>>4243392
>this building collapsing due to fire and minor side damage is scientifically impossiple.
Nope. Full retard.

>this ... impossiple.
Lack of proper capitalization and spelling. Confirmed for full retard.

>>4244491
wat

>>4244578
real anon is sophisticated and smart
real anon takes no sides
real anon leads us into glorious socialist revolution!

Does anyone in here own a goddamn dictionary? If so, USE IT!

>>4244589
...right.

>>4243392
>morons with little technical knowledge claim lolconspiracy
>everyone believes them

>educated individuals write scientific papers proving them wrong
>morons and moronic followers still think they're right

Amazing how this happens. There's so much contrary evidence but they never read or accept because they "know" they're right. Just like Christians.

Why so many troll threads today?

>>4244644

I've heard this described as the arrogance of ignorance. The less they know, the more convinced they are that you don't know what they are talking about.

Either that, or OP is trolling again.

>>4244732
oh boy another Israeli

>>4244430
The point being that with how woefully the War on Terror has gone, the US clearly wasn't planning the invasion in advance.

>>4244797
but they were certainly planning on passing the Patriot Act in advanced!

rimshot plz

It was probably a false flag attack to take the nation into war. A government killing it's own people, no it can't be true, even though it's happened all throughout history. The military industrial complex is pretty powerful. Eisenhower warned you guys when he left office. You guys pretty much let the corporations take control of the military. Oh well whoever dies with the most stuff wins.

because occams razor