15 Years Later: New Scientific Paper in Reputable Physics Journal Argues 9/11 Was An Inside Job - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51048845]How can you claim something is [I]impossible [/I]but then simply refrain from backing your claims up because you don't think we'd accept your sources. It's [I]impossible[/I] to have a discussion like this, because you simply aren't playing by the rules of good debate. I can't just go "fuck it, I'll take his word for it" - you kinda have to have [B]very[/B] compelling evidence when you're claiming the US government killed 3000 of its own citizens to start a war in the middle east that cost tens of thousands of lives.[/QUOTE] We're at step 4: [QUOTE=Zyler;51048586][QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51048543]hey man, quick question, what do you think to yourself when you choose to deny several valid points against you in favor of cherry picking responses, before leaving a generic 9/11 documentary here and bouncing? like don't you [I]feel[/I] like you're incorrect when you can't reasonably respond to anyone's points i'm so curious to your thought process right now[/QUOTE] We seem to be going through this never-ending loop: 1.He poses a question in a really condescending tone without any sources or evidence: [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048003]Why would he buy a colossal asbestos liability with dwindling tenancy? Why would he take out a massive insurance policy on the towers for terrorist attacks just before 9/11 and go on to gain billions of dollars. Why did he not show up to his business meeting at windows of the world on the morning of 9/11? A Doctor appointment? ok. Lucky Larry.[/QUOTE] 2.Evidence gets presented and then his questions get disproven: [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048033]Thank God we have internet geniuses like you to unravel literally the biggest fucking criminal action in recorded history, unveil the world's currently most succesful mass murderer and lift the veil from our eyes when every intelligence organization on Earth couldn't pin it on him. You did it. Now if only the FBI could use Google and discover the real truth! He'd be behind bars! Oh wait, the Illuminati would stop it, right? Silverstein earned 4.6 billion, he lost 7 billion in reconstruction. At the end of the day between building the new tower and all the other costs, he lost 10+ billion dollars. What a genius move by 'Lucky Larry', which only netted him several billion dollars in losses and the harassment from untold masses of insane truthers who can't be bothered to do the modicum of research or gather the least bit of common sense to dispel their conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if this is flaming but 9/11 brings out the loonies in my family and I've spent the last week doing nothing but debating every other person I see.[/QUOTE] 3.He completely ignores that the prior evidence was disproven and then moves the goalposts with a new set of condescending questions and remarks without acknowledging the previous ones, and we go back to step 1 [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048061]I'm the layman, despite the fact I actually just sourced numbers to you and you have done absolutely nothing besides throw out videos and conspiracy theories that have been debunked a thousand times. Sure, it raised questions when I first saw it. "How did that building fall?" I asked, so I looked it up! "It fell because a fucking sky scraper fell on it and then it lit on fire," I read. That's sensible! But wait, there's more? "IT FELL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ILLUMINATI JEWISH LIZARDMEN PUT DEMOLITION THERMITE CHARGES IN THERE AND BLEW IT UP AT THE SAME TIME THEY FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS AND DETONATED EXPLSOIVES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME TO COLLECT INSURANCE MONEY!!!" I read. "That's fucking stupid!" I said, and after doing enough research to confirm my thought, here we are.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048079]a skyscraper did not fall on it, you know that, it was hit by a small amount of debris and a few floors caught fire. Watch the video. The fucking building goes into a perfectly symmetrical freefall. I guess controlled demolition companies went out of business after 9/11 because, apparently, all you have to do is start some random fires in a steel frame highrise and it will go into a freefall straight into its own footprint. I guess that the building code for highrises must have been seriously amended right? ...right? [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Also I'm not saying I know who did it, that's not my point. Nor is it the point of the OP.[/QUOTE] Step 4.After repeating this loop a few times and running out of things to post, wait a while and then he starts attacking the character of the person who's debating him instead of presenting evidence [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048240]Hey science man, i've got another question, why was there liquid metal and molten concrete in the rubble for months after the "collapse". Just curious. oh and thanks for clearing up that very sparky wire for all of us, we were very alarmed at first there.[/QUOTE] BloodyNine explains it more succintly here:[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048254]So we managed to debunk your insurance nonsense so now you're just going to try and run circles on Buidling 7 and whenever anyone hits you with a counter point, you're just going to jump to the next conspiracy theory until everyone gets tired of responding to your drivel. At which point you're going to proclaim victory to yourself and continue to spread your craziness to other people.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] In this current version of the loop it's 1.Claim: Planes cannot travel at 500mph at 100ft 2.Rebuttal:Do you have sources to back up that claim? 3.Moving the Goal Posts: Look it up yourself And when this doesn't work 4.Character Attack: Nobody will listen to any sources I post, everyone in this thread is biased against me It will go in a loop like 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3 until we reach a point where he either runs out of claims or gets pinned down, in which case he goes to 4, waits a while and then back to 1 with a fresh claim to repeat the cycle.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048851]see, there it is, that bias you guys have, you already think i follow alex jones as if his bullshit has anything to do with 9/11 hes the broken clock that's right twice a day im way too tired though, going to bed. Good night.[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs[/media] this is literally you right now.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51048853]I mean he isn't entirely wrong air resistance is higher at lower altitudes, which means it's more difficult to achieve higher speeds but 500 mph is nowhere near impossible. You can reach 500 mph on land.[/QUOTE] Yeah i know but its just what he's saying is so stupid it would make a special needs class do the hand thing ironically.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048701]I don't think that's a very bad analogy.[/QUOTE] I can't decide whether or not to try explaining basic physics and comparisons to you or just remark at how stubborn, ignorant, and hypocritical you are. In a way, I hope this post does both for you. Here's an experiment you can do at home: get a door/window netting, take a pencil and shove it through. Did that pencil collapse and explode on the inside of the [I]nanometer-thin webbing[/I]? No? Then it's a[I][U][highlight]FUCKING GARBAGE ANALOGY.[/highlight][/U][/I] I've sat here for 20 minutes, rewriting this post a solid 15 times, just trying not to let out this massive buildup of hatred and annoyance (that even now I'm still fucking toning down) that's being bred by your total disregard of common sense, logic, and general consistency, but I can't. I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall with "no you're wrong I'm right even if I'm contradicting my earlier statement" written on it. I'm tired, I've got an exam tomorrow, and I don't feel like losing posting privileges for a day from crossing the thin line between being snarky and flaming. I'm done, have fun living in your fantasy world where you unironically believe Bush did 9/11, because nobody's going to be able to wake you from it regardless of how compelling the evidence may be.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048851]see, there it is, that bias you guys have, you already think i follow alex jones as if his bullshit has anything to do with 9/11 hes the broken clock that's right twice a day im way too tired though, going to bed. Good night.[/QUOTE] Step 4. You've lost the argument. Every claim you have made in this thread has been completely and totally disproven. G'night.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048851]see, there it is, that bias you guys have, you already think i follow alex jones as if his bullshit has anything to do with 9/11 hes the broken clock that's right twice a day im way too tired though, going to bed. Good night.[/QUOTE] Ignoring evidence and claims without any counter-evidence wasn't helping you win this debate, calling everyone biased isn't going to either. By the way people being biased is something you have to prove, for instance providing evidence that the sources, experts, evidence, and facts we believe are wrong. The thing people have being doing to you. Please become self-aware.

BBBBb-bb-b-_B_BBbut jet steel cant beam fuuuuuuuelllllllllll UDddddddddid BIAS heshaaaae REPTILLIANS

hey, do you guys think he's mixing up 1000ft with like 1000m or 1000km or even 1000 miles?

[QUOTE=Pops;51048899]hey, do you guys think he's mixing up 1000ft with like 1000m or 1000km or even 1000 miles?[/QUOTE] he's still in the thread, despite going to bed, so hopefully he'll tell us that himself.

In some respect, I feel that someone like Barbarian needs to get into online debates in order to feel better. Like a few people have stated in this thread, the main reason people seem to subscribe to conspiracy theories is that it gives them something to blame and helps to dilute the fear and uncertainty that comes from living in a fickle and dangerous world by taking responsibility away from themselves and giving it to some higher power (the government) while at the same time giving them a sense of agency. [QUOTE=27X;51048398]Blame. It's like living in a world without god. After being religious for your entire life. No safety net, no guaranteed get out of utter death card. The American way of life can't be altered forever by 40 muslims who've discovered an utterly unchecked and simple way to cause horrific amounts of death, it has to be an insidious pervasive milieu of ultimate power brokers determined to keep the world under their thumb. America can't be humbled by farmers and high school dropouts, it has to be evil supervillain engineers paid in raw gold bullion, because a world where 40 angry people can bring a nation to a standstill is a world where anybody can die at any time by simply being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also you get to be in the secret club of crusading good guys, whom save the world by sitting on your ass spouting echo chamber opinions, which much like outraged tumblry people is a pretty sweet gig that you don't actually have to put any time or effort into. The really sad thing is there are plenty of real conspiracies where people collude and screw shit up for everybody all the time, but since most of them are political or monetary in nature, apparently they aren't worth anyone's time. I mean we just had the DNC selection committee openly and blatantly collude to fuck over everyone in the race except Hilary, and nary a peep from truthers. That's actually how you know they're full of shit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zyler;51048444] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=1[/url] [QUOTE]While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness. Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair — often involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the preservation of the Second Amendment.[/QUOTE] [url]https://conspiracypsychology.com/2016/06/06/the-great-columbia-conspiracy-why-trump-and-others-seem-to-contradict-themselves-on-obamas-past/#more-1298/[/url] [QUOTE]You’ll notice that these theories – bad student Obama, foreign student Obama, indoctrinated student Obama, non-student Obama – are not all compatible with one another. Maybe he was a foreign student with bad grades, but it’s not possible that Obama got bad grades at a university he was never a student at, or that he wasn’t admitted, but was also admitted as a foreign student, or never attended lectures at Columbia, but was radicalized by the left-wing lectures. But, somehow, every so often you see the contradictory theories being pushed by the same people. Trump’s friend and supporter, Wayne Allyn Root, seems to have provided the raw material for a lot of these theories: he thinks that Obama might have been registered at Columbia, but certainly never attended classes, but was also brainwashed by those classes. Trump suggests that Obama never went to Columbia – he “came out of nowhere” and none of his classmates remember him – but also finds it likely that his records from Columbia would show a foreign birthplace, if they haven’t been deleted. In a baffling tweet (even by Trump standards) he urged the hackers of the world, as long as they’re going around hacking stuff, to find out more. This fits into an established psychological pattern. In a study published in 2012, my colleagues and I showed that there tend to be positive correlations between beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. The more someone believes that Osama Bin Laden was dead long before 2011, the more they believe that he was still alive after the media pronounced him dead that year. The more someone believes that Princess Diana was killed by business enemies of Dodi Fayed’s family, the more they believe she was killed by the British secret service. And, probably, the more someone believes that Obama was never admitted to Columbia, the more they believe that he was admitted there as a foreign student. Why is this? Is it because people who buy into conspiracy theories are dumb and crazy? No, almost certainly not. It’s because the conspiracy theories are usually pretty vague and are based more on general suspicion than on specific evidence. If you’re suspicious that something is going on and that the truth is being covered up, then many different (and perhaps contradictory) alternatives will seem more likely. You can see this pattern arise in computational models of belief consistency.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] There is research to suggest that people disagreeing with us actually causes us to hold our beliefs MORE self-righteously than before, since we rationalize disagreements with our ideologies as personal attacks and feel we must defend ourselves: [url]https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/[/url] [QUOTE]The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. Wired, The New York Times, Backyard Poultry Magazine – they all do it. Sometimes, they screw up and get the facts wrong. In ink or in electrons, a reputable news source takes the time to say “my bad.” If you are in the news business and want to maintain your reputation for accuracy, you publish corrections. For most topics this works just fine, but what most news organizations don’t realize is a correction can further push readers away from the facts if the issue at hand is close to the heart. In fact, those pithy blurbs hidden on a deep page in every newspaper point to one of the most powerful forces shaping the way you think, feel and decide – a behavior keeping you from accepting the truth. In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. For instance, one article suggested the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next said the U.S. never found them, which was the truth. Those opposed to the war or who had strong liberal leanings tended to disagree with the original article and accept the second. Those who supported the war and leaned more toward the conservative camp tended to agree with the first article and strongly disagree with the second. These reactions shouldn’t surprise you. What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct. They repeated the experiment with other wedge issues like stem cell research and tax reform, and once again, they found corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants’ misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies. People on opposing sides of the political spectrum read the same articles and then the same corrections, and when new evidence was interpreted as threatening to their beliefs, they doubled down. The corrections backfired.[/QUOTE] Combining this idea that conspiracy theorists hold their views from an irational perspective of fear and uncertainty, it makes sense that they need to maintain these illusions and somehow stop their brain from inevitably doubting their own beliefs. This is why they argue on the internet but refuse to listen to anyone, it allows them to switch their brain off and simply repeat rhetoric over and over again like a morning prayer without having to actually think about it (which causes feelings of anxiety and tension). It's the same reason we mindlessly watch television or scroll a never-ending facebook feed or read internet memes to distract us from the soul-crushing reality of life. To them, you aren't another human being with an opinion or even a ideological opponent, you are a scratching post and they are too far into their own little world of fear and hyperbole to ever emphasize with your feelings or beliefs. As such, If you aren't supporting their beliefs then you're against them and are biased and bad, either a part of the grand conspiracy that only they can see or a simple mindless pawn. Since Barbarian is still reading this thread after he said he was going to bed twice, he might respond to this post saying "I knew it, this is why you're biased against me" because he might not be able to read what I'm actually getting at with this post.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;51048794]It's pretty obvious that Barbarian cannot accept the facts and is becoming defensive because a core belief of his is being threatened. Let's ask a hypothetical: What would it mean to you, Barbarian, if 9/11 was a true terrorist attack, and was not an inside job? How would that affect your world view? How would that make you feel? The idea that random people can group up and decide to murder thousands of innocents is a terrifying thought. It makes people feel less secure because it undermines the law, order, and predictability we rely on in our daily lives. The idea that our government cannot protect us from these random acts of violence gives us less confidence in our own safety. We feel threatened because we are not in control of our environment, and we are faced with the notion that the world is chaotic and unpredictable which frightens us because as humans we need to have control of our environment and our lives. The idea that our government is so powerful that they could plan an inside job (so involved that defies reality) in a way is comforting, because it makes us feel that our government is in complete control. They planned it all out, they knew it was going to happen, they weren't caught with their pants down. If some foreign/domestic terrorist group attacks us our government will be able to protect us because there's no precedence for them failing to protect us if we believe 9/11 was an inside job. If you understand 9/11 to be an act of terror then it means our government couldn't protect us, and it implies that they might fail to protect us again. The truth is that the world is chaotic. Any day now conflicts could escalate with Russia and we could have mutually assured destruction, and there's nothing we citizens could do about it. A meteroite could slam into Earth before we could even predict its trajectory and billions would die. A random person could buy a black market pistol and start a killing spree in a mall without going through any of the red tape that is normally required. And another terrorist attack like 9/11 could happen again. But we protect ourselves from thinking of these terrible possibilities. We trust our government to shoot down nukes, negotiate peace, avert impending disasters, and catch criminals/terrorists before they act. But our government is not omnipotent and omniscient. So the way some people stay comfortable is to use defense mechanisms. Conspiracies, ignoring facts, avoiding troubling information, sticking to a rigid dogma, trusting others' information as true without researching it. Facing the dark, terrible truth of how little control we have in our lives in the face of disasters is extremely difficult, so avoiding it is how people cope.[/QUOTE] Truly, insecurity is the root cause of most absurd conspiracy theories.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;51048794]It's pretty obvious that Barbarian cannot accept the facts and is becoming defensive because a core belief of his is being threatened. Let's ask a hypothetical: What would it mean to you, Barbarian, if 9/11 was a true terrorist attack, and was not an inside job? How would that affect your world view? How would that make you feel? The idea that random people can group up and decide to murder thousands of innocents is a terrifying thought. It makes people feel less secure because it undermines the law, order, and predictability we rely on in our daily lives. The idea that our government cannot protect us from these random acts of violence gives us less confidence in our own safety. We feel threatened because we are not in control of our environment, and we are faced with the notion that the world is chaotic and unpredictable which frightens us because as humans we need to have control of our environment and our lives. The idea that our government is so powerful that they could plan an inside job (so involved that defies reality) in a way is comforting, because it makes us feel that our government is in complete control. They planned it all out, they knew it was going to happen, they weren't caught with their pants down. If some foreign/domestic terrorist group attacks us our government will be able to protect us because there's no precedence for them failing to protect us if we believe 9/11 was an inside job. If you understand 9/11 to be an act of terror then it means our government couldn't protect us, and it implies that they might fail to protect us again. The truth is that the world is chaotic. Any day now conflicts could escalate with Russia and we could have mutually assured destruction, and there's nothing we citizens could do about it. A meteroite could slam into Earth before we could even predict its trajectory and billions would die. A random person could buy a black market pistol and start a killing spree in a mall without going through any of the red tape that is normally required. And another terrorist attack like 9/11 could happen again. But we protect ourselves from thinking of these terrible possibilities. We trust our government to shoot down nukes, negotiate peace, avert impending disasters, and catch criminals/terrorists before they act. But our government is not omnipotent and omniscient. So the way some people stay comfortable is to use defense mechanisms. Conspiracies, ignoring facts, avoiding troubling information, sticking to a rigid dogma, trusting others' information as true without researching it. Facing the dark, terrible truth of how little control we have in our lives in the face of disasters is extremely difficult, so avoiding it is how people cope.[/QUOTE] This is probably the best post I've seen describing this phenomenon, bravo.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51048904]In some respect, I feel that someone like Barbarian needs to get into online debates in order to feel better. Like a few people have stated in this thread, the main reason people seem to subscribe to conspiracy theories is that it gives them something to blame and helps to dilute the fear and uncertainty that comes from living in a fickle and dangerous world by taking responsibility away from themselves and giving it to some higher power (the government) while at the same time giving them a sense of agency. There is research to suggest that people disagreeing with us actually causes us to hold our beliefs MORE self-righteously than before, since we rationalize disagreements with our ideologies as personal attacks and feel we must defend ourselves: [url]https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/[/url] Combining this idea that conspiracy theorists hold their views from an irational perspective of fear and uncertainty, it makes sense that they need to maintain these illusions and somehow stop their brain from inevitably doubting their own beliefs. This is why they argue on the internet but refuse to listen to anyone, it allows them to switch their brain off and simply repeat rhetoric over and over again like a morning prayer without having to actually think about it (which causes feelings of anxiety and tension). It's the same reason we mindlessly watch television or scroll a never-ending facebook feed or read internet memes to distract us from the soul-crushing reality of life. To them, you aren't another human being with an opinion or even a ideological opponent, you are a scratching post and they are too far into their own little world of fear and hyperbole to ever emphasize with your feelings or beliefs. As such, If you aren't supporting their beliefs then you're against them and are biased and bad, either a part of the grand conspiracy that only they can see or a simple mindless pawn. Since Barbarian is still reading this thread after he said he was going to bed twice, he might respond to this post saying "I knew it, this is why you're biased against me" because he might not be able to read what I'm actually getting at with this post.[/QUOTE] So conspiracy theories are like going to the movies. Lads, break out the popcorn.

[QUOTE=Pops;51048943]So conspiracy theories are like going to the movies.[/QUOTE] In that it's a form of escapism, yes, sort of. The main difference is that movies are temporary escapes from reality, that's why I compared it with television and facebook feeds instead. It would be more akin to if you never left the movie theater and just watched the same few films over and over again with no pauses in-between so you had no time to think about stuff and never watched anything new. In other words, it's like watching the same shitty movie over and over again because it's scary outside. I think barbarian's gone now, so for future reference if you ever want to get rid of a conspiracy theorist, just start talking about existentialism.

Is this thread actually happening What the fuck, FP

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048120]so you think the penthouse collapsed and then caused every supporting column in the building, east to west, north to south, top to bottom, to suddenly let loose all at the same time from a small isolated collapse of a penthouse? And I have no idea what you're getting at with the first part of your post[/QUOTE] If part of a building collapses it's going to compromise the rest of the building's integrity very rapidly. Also keep in mind that when you're watching that video you're looking at the top of a skyscraper which was almost 750 feet tall from ground level. You can fairly clearly see in the video that the penthouse collapsed down into the center of the building. Shortly after the building itself collapses. It's difficult to see at that scale but it's pretty clear that the collapse starts in the center and rapidly moves out towards the edges. Just as you'd probably expect from the center being compromised. From the information I can find that building had a more standard skyscraper structure too where the main supports for the building were in the center, rather than the outer skin like the main WTC buildings. The penthouse collapsing down onto that could very well compromise its integrity and thus that of the entire building. So if the center of the building collapsed (which wouldn't be visible from a ground level video) the rest of the structure would very rapidly go with it. (Might be late since there were seven pages I hadn't noticed when I wrote this.)

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048049]Doesn't it at least raise a few questions even to a layman such as yourself?[/QUOTE] I've read the NIST paper on [URL="http://spin1-www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610&_ga=1.231347039.1957275218.1473843574"]WTC7[/URL] [URL="https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation"]Here's a quick FAQ page if you cba to do research yourself.[/URL]. Edit HHHHOLY SHIT this thread has so many pages i thought 5 hours ago meant there would only be a few posts sry

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048728]Hold on now, how can a 767 go 500mph at 1000ft? Pretty sure that's impossible.[/QUOTE] Repeating a point made by someone else; 500+mph can be reached [I]on land[/I]. And we're talking about literally suicidal pilots with 0 regard for safe piloting, [I]diving rapidly[/I]. [video=youtube;T-CiSqyK2H0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CiSqyK2H0[/video] About previous analogies about other objects accelerating into other stronger objects, I think the part you are failing to remember is that in all cases, [I]both objects[/I] are fucked up good. Yes, the planes were able to penetrate the building [B]and also yes,[/B] the steel shredded the plane to bits. This also happens with bullets: look at bullets that have already hit something and you'll see that in the process of causing damage, they also got majorly fucked up themselves. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048691]How is him stating things anymore evidence than me stating things?[/QUOTE] I guess this line shows why this thread ended up the way it did.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048622]But I'm not talking about the cutting power of water jets or the strength of a tree vs the broad side of a car, which btw, in the image looks like a lot of deformation, but i dont see wood slicing metal. and a board blowing out a chunk of concrete is a different animal altogether, first of all concrete is brittle compared to a metal, concrete can be chipped away at. For example go find a concrete slab, drop a hammer onto it from say like 6 ft and you'll probably blow a chunk out of it, try doing that to a steel I-beam, see if you can even put a noticeable scratch in it. My point is, you're not making a good comparison. Here look at this: [video=youtube;Nl8xTqTUGCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8xTqTUGCY[/video] [/QUOTE] I find it interesting you posted that video, because it seems to me that the 2" steel plate was completely deformed by a thin-skinned car. It's almost like a... 200 tonne, thin skinned aircraft and a building. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048672]Yeah, I get that it was an analogy. But just saying "Bullets." does not explain how a thin aluminum fuselage slices through a steel box column. The exterior of that building was an extremely dense mesh of prefabricated steel box columns, the point of them was to shift the load to the perimeter in order to open up floor space. [IMG]https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+construction&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKp8D4lo7PAhUk5oMKHbRaAVUQ_AUICCgB&biw=1440&bih=734#imgrc=ZZYwiWgyEa0tgM%3A[/IMG] [IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4978975127_a685b60e96_o.jpg[/IMG] See the core columns? It's a building within a building. You're telling me that the plane combined with office fires completely destroyed ALL of these columns simultaneously initiating a global and perfectly symmetrical collapse? at FREE FALL? do you know what free fall means? it means a falling object whos only resistance is the air around it. not an object that has an entire skyscraper's worth of vertical support, which by the way has a redundancy factor, probably of 4 resisting its descent. I mean, lets just take the symmetry for starters, how on earth does perfectly symmetrical damage occur from asymmetrical damage? Go build a model of a building, literally any building, be it a wood framed house, a skyscraper, what ever. Cause damage to one side of it, it will fall over to the side if anything. It cannot ever go into a symmetrical free fall into its self without you blowing away all of the supporting structure very precisely with timed explosives or some other means of achieving that effect. Also, remember that massive inferno in Dubai recently? no collapse, not even a partial collapse, it did what every steel framed building has ever done in a fire, it burned like crazy and when it was over the steel skeleton was still standing.[/QUOTE] It's called a cascading failure. As you destroy the supports the load must be carried by the other beams, which causes some of them to fail, which moves more load to the remaining beams which causes them to fail. This happens in only a few seconds. It was a topic we covered in second year engineering. I'm not even a structural engineer and we covered it.

[QUOTE=The Pretender;51049011]Is this thread actually happening What the fuck, FP[/QUOTE]Party like it's 2005! [QUOTE=OvB;51047967]This is going to be a fun thread.[/QUOTE]It's like goddamn Groundhog Day for me; if I compare this thread to the same debates had here nearly a decade ago, it'd be almost identical. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;51048831][QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048828]no what i mean is dont take anything anyone says as gospel, if i post sources i know what will happen you'll say oh those aren't reliable sources so theres no point. this gang that inhabits this thread has made up its mind from the beginning.[/QUOTE]Oh my god. Oh my fucking god. Holy dragon dick circlejerk in a medieval smokehouse. The irony isnt just palpable, its a solid fucking object.[/QUOTE] Yup, Groundhog Day. Even got us a clone of ShukaidoX from the ancient days before he chilled out.

You guys are why debate subforum was closed. Theres no way to have a calm discussion in here. Nobody is open for other options, everybody just stick with what they believe in. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51047961]It also led to billions of dollars of debt and the complete loss of public trust in the government. Holy shit, no he didn't. The tower ultimately cost him billions of dollars, even more for the city. He isn't some insane mogule gathering money from the death of thousands, and no corporation is powerful enough to take town the most important landmark in NYC. Silverstein was losing money up until Freedom Tower was created and is a credit to the New York community.[/QUOTE] Everything starts from here. From this point its no longer a discussion, its just majority pressing the minority on options.

To answer the question about the max speed of a 737, it's max speed is 0.82 Mach. Mach is a dimensionless value but it's equivalent to 279m/s (624 miles/hr) at sea level or 248m/s (556 miles/hr) at 30kfeet. Aircraft generate more thrust at lower altitudes but are more efficient at higher altitudes due to the thinner atmosphere. Some aircraft can only flight at high speeds at high altitude but it generally doesn't matter until you approach 1 Mach.

I don't want to waste my time on this, and I'm sorry if this is flaming, but seriously, fuck you if you peddle 9/11 conspiracy theories. Nobody I know was affected but as a human being, the fact that people try to find the 'truth' about this event DESPITE THE EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE CONTRARY in an effort to make money sickens me. The families don't deserve this shit. Things like this make me angry, and I hope that these guys become a complete laughing stack. Anything less would be worse.

[QUOTE=LaTrefle;51049113]Everything starts from here. From this point its no longer a discussion, its just majority pressing the minority on options.[/QUOTE]No new points have been made for over a decade. It's not quite beating a dead horse as it is excavating an ancient horse burial ground and smashing the dusty bones. Quite frankly, I feel that those arguing against 9/11 conspiracy theories have earned the right to be a little sarky when the theories have not evolved an iota for years. Yes, it might not be particularly polite to those who only recently entered the debate (if it can still be called that anymore), but there's oodles of content on Google to get up to speed beforehand.

Because I'm bored: 767-200 thrust: 222kN 767-200 coefficient of drag: 0.0135 767-200 cross-sectional area: 283.3 m^2 Air density at sea level: 1.225 kg/m^3 Solving for velocity using the [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation"]drag equation[/url], we find the theoretical maximum speed to be 308 m/s, or 689 mph. There's clearly more than enough thrust to push the airplane to over 500 mph at sea level.

From PDF in source, I am not structural engineer, but those points are very legit. [QUOTE] Preventing high-rise failures Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons: 1) Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C); 2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state; 3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and 4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steelframed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1]. [/QUOTE] Weird explosions [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3S9buRA.png[/IMG] Eye-witness: [QUOTE] As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, have been documented as saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives appears to have been the initial prevailing view among most first responders. “I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a fire marshal. “Everyone I think at that point still thought these things were blown up” [15]. [/QUOTE] [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51049136]I don't want to waste my time on this, and I'm sorry if this is flaming, but seriously, fuck you if you peddle 9/11 conspiracy theories. Nobody I know was affected but as a human being, the fact that people try to find the 'truth' about this event DESPITE THE EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE CONTRARY in an effort to make money sickens me. The families don't deserve this shit. Things like this make me angry, and I hope that these guys become a complete laughing stack. Anything less would be worse.[/QUOTE] If you are referring to OP source scientists research, I doubt they will make much money with it.

[QUOTE=Fourier;51049516] Weird explosions [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3S9buRA.png[/IMG] [/QUOTE] As the things collapsing in on itself the pressure is increasing in the building, once a window gives the pressure now has a place to go dragging debris with it.

9/11 truthers either focus on how the fires weren't big enough to destroy the structure, or how the plane crash itself couldn't have damaged the structure sufficiently to destroy it. They harp on and on about both points but can't put two and two together to figure out that crashing a plane into the structure causes significant damage, [I]and then[/I] the resulting fires weaken it even further, leading to structural failure.

[QUOTE=Fourier;51049516]From PDF in source, I am not structural engineer, but those points are very legit. [quote]Preventing high-rise failures Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons: 1) Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C); 2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state; 3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and 4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steelframed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].[/quote][/QUOTE] 1) Most building fires aren't fuelled with tens of thousands of litres of Jet 1A 2) Most buildings don't have an aircraft gut the building and trash the fire supression equipment. The equipment was also not designed to put out a very intense jet fuel fuelled fire. 3) The fireproofing is designed with an office fire in mind, not a jet fuel fuelled fire. 4) Yes, and? How many other fires had several floors gutted and burnt out with jet fuel?

[QUOTE=Fourier;51049516]From PDF in source, I am not structural engineer, but those points are very legit.[/QUOTE] No, no they're not.