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

[QUOTE=LaTrefle;51049113]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] Everything starts from here. From this point its no longer a discussion, its just majority pressing the minority on options.[/QUOTE] This isn't a debate. The nut jobs will literally never change their view no matter what evidence we fill a basin with and force their head into until they stopped kicking. The entire purpose is to dissuade other people from blindly following the belief because nobody is there to say it's insane. There can be no nice 9/11 truth debate because the requirements for believing one side literally requires you to think that all scholarly evidence is a lie.

the CIA benefited tho because it was going to be headline news that day that there was a 2.6 billion deficit in their budget where did the money go

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51049752]the CIA benefited tho because it was going to be headline news that day that there was a 2.6 billion deficit in their budget where did the money go[/QUOTE] do you seriously believe that the US government orchestrated an attack that killed thousands of its own citizens and cost the world untold billions in infrastructural, financial, and economic damage, just to cover up a small budget deficit in one of their departments?

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51049752]the CIA benefited tho because it was going to be headline news that day that there was a 2.6 billion deficit in their budget where did the money go[/QUOTE] Planting the explosives silly. Covert demolition isnt cheap.

It would be far easier and less likely to get back to them if they wired up a 737 on remote and crashed it into the tower.

[QUOTE=LaTrefle;51049113]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] Everything starts from here. From this point its no longer a discussion, its just majority pressing the minority on options.[/QUOTE] Enlighten us, how do you have a debate with someone who will, as shown in this very damn thread, ignore all the evidence they are shown? Hm? Calm discussion? I dare you to stay calm with someone who is sticking their fingers in their ears and yet still demands answers he will refuse to listen to. For example, the dingle-berry in this thread claimed that it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLANE TO FLY AT 500MP/H AROUND 1000FT. When pressed for his fucking source on this utter bullshit claim he spent most of the time ignoring everyone and then ended with basically "lol find it for me". And yet you blame TheBloodyNine for ruining the debate and snuffing out calm discussion. For shame. We'd have been better off discussing this with a bloody wall because at least it wouldn't say retarded shit back.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51049752]the CIA benefited tho because it was going to be headline news that day that there was a 2.6 billion deficit in their budget where did the money go[/QUOTE] the secret moon base project ya doink everyone knows that

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51049752]the CIA benefited tho because it was going to be headline news that day that there was a 2.6 billion deficit in their budget where did the money go[/QUOTE] they used the money to pay off the illuminati overlords who themselves needed to buy platinum as tribute for their lizardmen leaders :downs:

Are people still really debating this? What the fuck do you think happens when someone flies a gigantic commercial airliner into the side of a skyscraper? Do you also think there's more to the story when you drop a glass and it shatters on your floor?

So I'm led to believe a government that couldn't keep a blowjob a secret can somehow instigate what would be one of the most elaborate cover ups of all time? Sure

I haven't been to the WTC area but aren't there still like a bunch of 9/11 truthers all preaching there? I hope I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048182]but mr. science man, whats that ooey gooey orange liquid flowing out of the facade?[/QUOTE] That's clearly an electrical light so fucking sparks obviously.

*Now Formerly Reputable Physics Journal

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51049816]I haven't been to the WTC area but aren't there still like a bunch of 9/11 truthers all preaching there? I hope I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] There weren't any when I was there earlier this year, at least none that were noticeable.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51049816]I haven't been to the WTC area but aren't there still like a bunch of 9/11 truthers all preaching there? I hope I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] I was there for a week or so last year and they were, but I only went to the WTC once and it was only a few

if the govt did it, why did it have to collapse though? why wasnt it just enough to have terrorist crash planes into the building? still a good reason to start a war on terror, even if the towers did not collapse

[QUOTE=TuLiq;51049906]if the govt did it, why did it have to collapse though? why wasnt it just enough to have terrorist crash planes into the building? still a good reason to start a war on terror, even if the towers did not collapse[/QUOTE] They wanted to build the new Freedom Tower and they couldn't get permission from the municipality to tear down the old one. Makes a lot of sense if you've ever had to deal with municipalities.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048733]Answer how aluminum can pierce steel. I need this answered. Without violating neuton's third law, explain how this can happen[/QUOTE] Hey fun fact: do you know that following the second world war a couple countries tests anti-tank guns with aluminum projectiles to, among other things, experiment with hyper-velocity weapons? Guess what: they could still penetrate face hardended steel plates even though in the end they didn't perform as they had hoped. Newton's law states that for every option there is an equal an opposite reaction. If I am standing on the ground, I am exerting about 900N on the ground. The ground in turn is exerting 900N on me. If it didn't the ground would collapse beneath me. At the outset it might seem like that a softer material may not be able to piece a thicker one simply due to the fact that it would collapse. However, its not that simple. While every action has an equal and opposite reaction, every material has a ultimate tensile strength among others. If I climbed onto a thin piece of wood, I still would exert 900N on the ground over the area of my shoes. A variety of factors would affect me falling through, such as the dimensions of the piece of the wood, how it was fastened/secured, the size of my feet (distribution of force). If the combination had me exceeding the ultimate tensile strength of the material, I fall through, full stop. It doesn't matter if I'm standing on a plate made of steel, depleted uranium, or a sheet made from carbon nanotubes: if I exceed the ultimate tensile stress of a material, it breaks. Want an easy example relevant to this situation? Take a sheet of tin foil (which is actually made from aluminum) and place one of either end on a stack of books and place a book on either end, so the tin foil is kept taut, but the middle is unsupported. Now, find something you consider weak. Say, like chalk. Take a piece of chalk and throw it at the center of the sheet. It will pierce it, and chalk is a very weak material compared to aluminum. But like you said, how could it penetrate when aluminum stronger? Every seen F=m*a? The famous formula saying force equals mass times acceleration? Well, it kinda relates here. When you are in a car, and you slam you foot down on the gas, you acceleration fast. Press it lightly, and you'll accelerate slowly. And similarly, press the brake lightly and you'll decelerate slowly. Hit a wall and you'll decelerate almost instantly. Now how does this tie in with F=m*a? Well, in order for a wall to deaccelerate your car, the wall has to apply a force equal and opposite in direction. How much force you ask? Well mass times acceleration. Acceleration being how quickly your car decelerates (which is why cars have crumple zone). Just as before though, if the force applied from your car is too great for the wall, the wall will fail. Yes, this is a massively simplified explanation, but I could go on for several pages if you wanted an entirely detailed one. Now back to your original question, answering how aluminum could penetrate steel, read through what I wrote. And remember, how can a piece of chalk penetrate a piece of aluminum foil?

Why did building 7 fall? :wink:

Technically, the government did do 9/11 With shitty foreign policy that completely fucked the Middle East and created the conditions for groups like Al Queda to even form

And the same way a soft lead and copper bullet can penetrate steel: by going very fast

[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;51050017]Technically, the US did do 9/11 With shitty foreign policy that completely fucked the Middle East and created the conditions for groups like Al Queda to even form[/QUOTE] So technically they didn't?

[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;51050017]Technically, the US did do 9/11 With shitty foreign policy that completely fucked the Middle East and created the conditions for groups like Al Queda to even form[/QUOTE] I'm not sure you know how technicalities work.

[QUOTE=BioWaster;51050001]Why did building 7 fall? :wink:[/QUOTE] multiple uncontrolled fires which made certain important columns collapse, bringing the whole thing down with them.

[QUOTE=Cmx;51049561]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.[/QUOTE] True, that is possibility too. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;51049801]Are people still really debating this? What the fuck do you think happens when someone flies a gigantic commercial airliner into the side of a skyscraper? Do you also think there's more to the story when you drop a glass and it shatters on your floor?[/QUOTE] glass =/= metal. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] Still, you must admit, whole story has holes. Lets say building crashed because of plane and not controlled demolition.. but, what about witnesses? 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] So, how is it possible that they heard explosions during collapses? Though it is unclear - heard explosions prior and/or during collapses. Though now that I think of it, home appliances like butane gas (for cooking) could be explosive.

I think 9/11 was caused by Mr. Bean trying to repair a hole he accidentally put in the wall of one of the offices in one of the towers, and things just got way out of hand.

[QUOTE=Fourier;51050066]True, that is possibility too. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] glass =/= metal. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] Still, you must admit, whole story has holes. Lets say building crashed because of plane and not controlled demolition.. but, what about witnesses? Eye-witness: So, how is it possible that they heard explosions during collapses.[/QUOTE] Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. [url]https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Fourier;51050066]So, how is it possible that they heard explosions during collapses? Though it is unclear - heard explosions prior and/or during collapses. Though now that I think of it, home appliances like butane gas (for cooking) could be explosive.[/QUOTE] I can think of a dozen ways that some explosion could have been heard that does not require the most well timed explosive detonation in history. That's also ignoring the [I]thousands[/I] of people who didn't hear an explosion.

[QUOTE=Fourier;51050066]True, that is possibility too. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] glass =/= metal. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] Still, you must admit, whole story has holes. Lets say building crashed because of plane and not controlled demolition.. but, what about witnesses? Eye-witness: So, how is it possible that they heard explosions during collapses? Though it is unclear - heard explosions prior and/or during collapses. Though now that I think of it, home appliances like butane gas (for cooking) could be explosive.[/QUOTE] Eyewitnesses make up shit all the fucking time, and anything could sound like an explosion when you have hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble collapsing down hundreds of metres.

[QUOTE=Apache249;51050083]Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. [url]https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm[/url][/QUOTE] True, psychological shock and talking to other unreliable eye witnesses could re-align and re-shape actual story. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51049725]No, no they're not.[/QUOTE] Do not say no without actual argument, it just makes you look silly.