Why is so hard for scientists to prove 9/11 wasn't faked?

Why is so hard for scientists to prove 9/11 wasn't faked?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=z6kloTsio60
youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w&list=PLthPsWmE3cefpc2sBzI9gamfS9eJRdgEK&index=4
youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs
nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because monkeys can't read.

This is a legit question. But where were about to head in this country, i would rather just mind my business and not even think about that anymore, just my opinion. Can't trust the government the way we used to.

wanna bananna

Because conspiracy theories like 9/11 trutherism are, almost by definition, non-falsifiable. So there is no evidence you can point to that would confirm that something didn't happen.

Why is so hard for scientists to prove the earth isn't flat?

...

Can they at least prove why WTC7 collaped?

They did prove it, a bunch of retards just refused to accept it

How many planes crashed into those other buildings?

Extensive structural damage and fire weakening

Some people just want to believe in a conspiracy regardless of the evidence in front of them.

>some people want to believe the official narrative regardless of the evidence in front of them
See what I did there?

>being this obsessed with an unfalsifiable hypothesis

No, user, you're right, George bush was paid by the Zionist Illuminati space Jews to destroy some skyscrapers. Did I mention that those same space Jews also put fluoride in your water and do chemtrails, which is an initiative sponsored by both George Soros, the Bilderburgs, AND the Rothschilds????????????? The same people who talked to Shillary Rotten Clinton in her private emails?????????????? The same woman who personally walked down to Benghazi and MURDERED those navy SEALs? Wow really makes u ponder doesn't it

:^)

What's wrong with you?

Probably the gaping hole conspiratards always conveniently leave out.

Why do conspiracy theories create opposing arguments not actually used by the opposition? The towers fell not just because of a fire but because a plane flew into it.

Proving that something is a 100% true can be really difficult, especially it there are more than one theoretical solution.
For example the last Saturday problem is impossible to prove both wrong or right. The problem says that everything including memories was created spontaneously last Saturday.

If someone tells you that everything was created last Saturday you would probably call them crazy but still it is impossible to prove them wrong.

The same goes for the 9/11 attacks of course it is possible that there was a conspiracy but it is more likely that the obvious answer is the right one.

911 truther theories are comforting to people who need to believe america is invincible

that's the main reason they persist, people would rather believe that it was intentional than believe it was possible

youtube.com/watch?v=z6kloTsio60
read the comments

>that's the main reason they persist, people would rather believe that it was intentional than believe it was possible
I don't believe buildings implode except in controlled demolition circumstances. Even if we grant that burning jet fuel will magically weaken a support structure designed to implode perfectly this doesn't explain WTC7.

This is perfectly reasonable skepticism and anyone who doesn't think so has problems. The agencies charged with investigation of the collapses didn't investigate the collapses; they were asked to explain the collapses, given the official narrative. Thus they can be disregarded without prejudice for the same reason that creationism is rejected without prejudice.

I don't know why someone would fake this attack, or even that the attack was fake at all, but I don't have to know in order to determine that the official narrative is false. You may think "truther" hypotheses are ridiculous, and I would agree with you, but you don't need a counter-hypothesis to doubt the proposed narrative.

building 7 user.

It has been proven. On September 10 the buildings were there, on September 12 they were gone. QED

because one of the axioms that 9/11 conspiracy theorists operate under is "if it runs contrary to what I believe to be true, it's part of the cover up".

It's literally impossible to prove that there isn't a conspiracy to someone thinking like that.

It literally isn't.
Nobody wants to read up on the analysis of what actually fucking happened.

youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w&list=PLthPsWmE3cefpc2sBzI9gamfS9eJRdgEK&index=4

>Nobody wants to read up on the analysis of what actually fucking happened.
Three buildings collapsed as if deliberately brought down by controlled explosives, even though the attack profile of all three buildings was completely different. There is a simple explanation for this which doesn't require engineering marvel the likes of which would BTFO every math and physics major on Veeky Forums and make engineers non-gay forever more.

All else equal, we should prefer the simple explanation. Don't you think?

youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

Public knowledge building 7 was controlled demolition, and very well done too. They minimized damage to surrounding buildings and there were no casualties in WTC7. Hats off to those guys. My only question is, when did they have time to plan out and set up the charges for such a well executed demolition?

No, it's public knowledge *now* specifically because people doubted the official narrative and would not give up.

You guys have all seen two fucking planes crashing into two skyscrapers and need explosives to explain the collapse of surrounding buildings. You guys seem to think that explosions in real life work like in movies. Whatever happened on 9/11 involved INSANE energies. It's absolutely not "unlikely" for surrounding buildings to collapse as well from damage taken by falling debris.

>but I don't have to know in order to determine that the official narrative is false.
so how did you determine it?

>I don't believe buildings implode except in controlled demolition circumstances.
no one cares about your beliefs though.
are you qualified? do you have much or any experience with demolition?
i know someone who actually works in demolition who doesn't share your certainty, and even their opinion is pretty useless in this context.

>Even if we grant that burning jet fuel will magically weaken a support structure designed to implode perfectly this doesn't explain WTC7
no one said it did

and really, what do you think this 'narrative' consists of?

>no one cares about your beliefs though.
I care.

>are you qualified? do you have much or any experience with demolition?
This is not relevant, as you note in your next breath:
>i know someone who actually works in demolition who doesn't share your certainty, and even their opinion is pretty useless in this context.
But thanks for the double standard, it makes your lack of a point even more telling.

gj getting offended and avoiding the questions

Why would I answer your questions if "no one cares"? Do you have to try to be this retarded or does it just come naturally?

>thanks for the double standard
I think what he meant was, that his acquaintance is an expert, but doesn't have all the data to give a definite result
But he is still much more capable of assessing it than a layman such as, presumably, you

A chemist might not know everything about e.g. reactions of metals with complex molecules
but he still knows FAR more than the writer in the next building over

>we should prefer the simple explanation
You mean the official one?

>WC 7 was controlled demolition!!!
Expect there where no sounds of explosion

>But muh termite
Stop watching movies. Termite might burn hot and fast, It can't burn through metal plates. Unless you have a literal truckload of the stuff, and it's never explained how and when they placed those explosives in the first place.

>But they used super secret special magical nano termite which required an engineering marvel to make
See your own point of preferring a simpler explanation.


What actually fucking happened:
>All attention went to the twin towers and sprinkler system was broken, leaving the building to burn for hours.
>Fire induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding column 79 led to a collapse of floor 13
>This triggered a cascade of failures all the way down to the much stronger 5th floor
>This left column 79 unsupported, and collapsed, this can clearly be seen in many videos (You see the east penthouse collapsing before everything else does)
>The Weight of the building was then redistributed onto adjacent columns, which also had to deal with debris falling on them and being weakened from the fires.
>This led to column 80 and 81 collapse as well. which led to all the floors on the east side collapsing as well.
>Failure of the columns proceeded then to the west
>As the exterior columns were still standing all the debris fell downwards.
>With the core of the building collapsing all whats left now is an hollow building which collapsed after. This is the reason everything came down so nicely.

TL;DR A single point of failure causing a cascade effect, eventually bringing down the whole building.

For more info, actually read the official report here.
nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Anyone know how that happened?

I didn't bring up thermite. You did.