At what age did you realize that the WTC collapsed due to a combination of structural damage from plane impact...

At what age did you realize that the WTC collapsed due to a combination of structural damage from plane impact, heat from burning jet fuel weakening steel and many thousands of tons of weight on top of the damaged sections putting pressure on already severely damaged / weakened part of the building?

At what age did you realize that when approximately 100 000 tons drops a floor's height due to a failed floor in the WTC, the inertia will lead to a domino effect of all the lower floors failing?

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?i=71e_1485032184
youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0?t=3m23s
youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg
youtu.be/Wc-zmb3jAgo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

The day I watched it fall on TV.
Glad I skipped class that day.

>mfw born january '99
>mfw legally an adult
>mfw have no memory of 9/11

Give it 10 months and the Gen Z's will start pouring in.

Around age 12 I think....then I did some research and found that this "theory"is made up bullshit

One failed floor caused all the lower ones to go? So, the cause of collapse was, in each case, some mass falling onto the lower floor. The energy gained from the fall of the first floor by gravity was transferred into the next floor to break/weaken its supports. This continued over and over until all the floors came down.

Okay.

Then where did the energy come from to pulverize all of that concrete and turn it into dust? The energy gained by successive falls through a distance of one story each couldn't account for the pulverized concrete, which, (pay attention here) is clearly caused at the moment of impact. That is, it's not that there was enough energy transferred via gravity after some distance. Like, after falling, say, 25 stories, then the mass is moving fast enough to start pulverizing concrete because it's gained enough energy. I could possibly believe that if it weren't the case that the video evidence shows that the concrete was pulverized at each floor immediately upon the crash from the floor above it. EVEN the very first floor.

So how do you account for that extra energy needed to turn all that concrete into dust at the moment the floors begin to collapse?

And what about building 7? How did that come down at freefall speed in its own footprint?

Interesting that you were able to glean all of that information just by watching it since it took a team of "scientists" years of investigation to come to a consensus about it.

The trade towers are irrelevant.

WTC 7 fell 1) without any structural damage 2) without any jet fuel 3) without any tons of weight and 4) fell in free-fall into its own footprint.

1 of the planes, the passengers fought back. 1 of the targets, was not hit.

It's clear that from the moment of collapse, material is being VIOLENTLY ejected and at the end, there is hardly any concrete left which hasn't been turned to dust. So, that came from successive falling floors?

When the first falling floor hits the one below it, it had gained enough kinetic energy to turn all the concrete in that floor and the one it hit into dust?

>where did the energy come from to pulverize all of that concrete and turn it into dust?


Maybe pick up a physics book and look up how gravity and potential energy work.

Also consider that the weight falling steadily increaed

Also consider kys yourself

Here is a video of a bulding collapsing from a regular fire.

liveleak.com/view?i=71e_1485032184

when i heard about building 7

We all know that Israel attacked the USA on 9/11 now the proof: youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0?t=3m23s

I get that the mass increased with each floor. I get that gravitational potential energy is transferred into kinetic energy...which is then transferred into pulverizing concrete. I'm saying that the pulverization shouldn't have occurred until much later in the collapse. The first floor to fall couldn't have gained enough kinetic energy from a one story fall to pulverize all of the concrete, glass, chairs, etc. and send it flying.

Also, explain the pic SetOffEarly.jpg here

Actually, there is a common misconception that the tower fell straight into its footprint.

What really happened was that while some of the building collapsed, the exterior was the strongest part of the building. Here is a picture of the tower already collapsed, but part of the external "exoskeleton" still standing.

So your image is meaningless. The outside may look fine, but the building could still be collapsing internally first.

And I teach physics, you fuck stain

THE PLANES WERE CGI

>Sand people hit just the perfect spot in the tower to resemble a controlled demolition
>Didn't just crash into the base of the tower for maximized effect according to all given evidence and theories

Yeah, OP.

Lol they got pics of the "israeli art students" in a room full of the blasters they were installing. If you know anything about demolition of buildings you know it's hard and people put in a ton of work to get a pancake stack demolition right. It doesn't just happen by accident, ever.

you had a binding of vertical structural supports that were wider than a grizzly bear,

how much force does it take to pulverize a pencil if its vertically balanced and you are pushing from the top?

The answer of course is it won't get pulverized into dust, it will simply snap at its weak point, in this case, the center of the pencil. Did we see this phenomena happen during 9-11? No, we saw a vertical collapse. I didn't see giant support beams left dangling in the air, did you?

So what do you think would happen first? The rivets pulling from the central frame? or the central columns collapsing at freefall?

Conspiracy theories like these are red-herrings. They're meant to divert you from asking questions of real worth.

If you fall for it, you're a rube.

Nice zoomed in 480p image. Why not make it a gif too? That will add some more artifacts to circle.

>Actually, there is a common misconception that the tower fell straight into its footprint.
Irrelevant. I never said it did.

I'm saying that the ejection of mass in the form of dust and smoke (?) that we witness requires a transfer of energy which can not be accounted for until later into the collapse. The fact that we see dust and mass being ejected as soon as the tower (both, actually) is suspicious.

>NO PLANES HIT THE WTC

IT WAS ALL CGI MADE UP BY MSM (((CNN))) EMPLOYEES REPORTED FIRST THAT PLANES CRASHED INTO THE BUILDINGS

>NO PLANES EVER HIT THE WTC
IT WAS ALL CGI

>YOU FELL FOR EARLY 2000s CGI EFFECTS

If 9/11 was an inside job, why should we ban muslims?

About 2 years ago.
Not unlike the path taken with me and religion, came from a religious household, went full fedora because I was an edgy dumb faggot then came to the realization that religion played an essential role in our society.

When I was literally 10 years old and it happened.

did he die?

>towers fall
>"Let's go to war, America!"
>"Eh...nah."
>"We found weapons of mass destruction!"
>"So?"
>goes to war, anyways
>no weapons of mass destruction
>nobody cares

The only thing I know is that, if it was an inside job, it didn't accomplish shit.

...

THE PLANES WERE CGI

ITT WAS MOSSAD WHO RIGGED THE BUILDING WITH EXPLOSIVES

THERE WAS NO PLANES

i hate this argument. the plane is made up of lightweight alluminum based alloys.

with that speed its like dropping a 10,000 lb weight on a coke can. Of course its going to look like it disappears instantaenously.

>planes were cgi

literally watched it impact myself dumbfuck

Zo.ai believes that it was a conspiracy. If Zo says so, then it must be so.
>pic related

I still wonder why no one thought to use helicopters to evacuate survivors from the roof.

REMINDER A 767 CAN'T REACH THAT SPEED AT SEALEVEL

REMINDER THAT PLANES WERE CGI

>YOU FELL FOR EARLY 2000s CGI

nah it was a fake picture

Doesn't mean they didn't think they NEEDED for it to happen. Which, they certainly DID think that. They even published a paper about it

That's what you think.

its fake

A jew bought the two buildings and put terrorism insurance on them worth 6 gorillion dollars only a few months before this happened. He was paid 6 gorillion, but sued the insurance since they paid once for two buildings and he won another 6 gorillion to cover both. All a coincidence, especially before terrorism was a buzzword.

>PLASTIC CONE PENETRATES STEEL ACCORDING TO MSM

holy shit how did we fell for this?

I was 11 and remember we stopped class that day. They brought us all into the big music room and put the TV on, and then they explained that a shitton of Americans died horribly. All I could think about was how I had put my asscheeks on the tuba mouthpiece that Matthew would be using later that day. His face, his mouth, would be on something that had touched my asshole.

What a faggot.

this is actually interesting

Well I'm sold.

I can't wait for people born post 2001 will be getting in it

dont forget that at that height, the wind turns the explosion into a furnace leading to much higher temperatures. not easily recreated at ground level just trying to burn a steel beam with jet fuel.

has to be a muslim

the jew is obviously in on it but let's be real this building was a known target and they already tried to blow it up once in 1993.

HHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA\

>ITT:THINGS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN

is this you shills response to german-user's 9-11 truth about the planes thread? (hint: they were CGI)

HAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHA

1/10

Why, what happened?

All I know is that something hit those two tower and at the end of the day, three towers fell. Something hit the pentagon and we will never know the truth. They have fueled so much doubt that the truth will always be shadowed. There has been years of secretive planning for this, so that all I know, people died in a set of unfortunate coincidences. It's truly a tragic story and will always been known for a day that many die.
Until the next attack.

>The debris isn't just projecting inwards despite the source of energy traveling hundreds of mph
>The debris projected outward isn't just from the
energy dispelled over a large area + gravity

You people are fucking idiots.

You are Gen Z homo

>Born in '99
>Legally an adult

What the fuck.

LOOK AT THIS!!!!!


>THIS IS A SHILL THREAD TO SHILL OFFCIAL WRONG VERSION OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

>SHILLS ARE ITT!!!!

>PLANES WERE CGI ! ! !

...

>1970's
>Federal Reserve credit expansion.
>Economic bubble with rising asset prices.
>Construct building entirely with debt.
>Shitty construction = Lower costs.
>"All weight borne by central column, no external bracing!"
>Plane hits
>Shitty designed building with shitty bubble construction collapses
>TERRORISM DID IT
>Conspirators think explosives did it.

>when your gf isnt in the mood but you go in dry anyway

>not insuring your multiple multi-billion dollar Manhattan skyscrapers

ISHYGDDT

At age 10, when I was stupid and impressionable.

Baiting faggot.

Now I'm an adult and realize it was the biggest false flag in American history.

9/11 was great news for any skyscraper building companies.

Turns out the only demolition plan you need is to start a fire at the 90th floor and watch the whole thing come tumbling down.

This is something no-one seems to agree on. I'm in your camp. Tears a massive hole in the steel outer frame, massive shock wave blows out windows all over the place. I was up in those towers twice. Wind blows so hard you can feel the fucking building sway. But everyone claims:
>Dark/black smoke!
>Fire was oxygen-starved!
>Fire was burning relatively cool!

AND IT WAS CGI

SPREAD THE TRUTH

THIS. WHY THE FUCK DOES NO ONE TALK ABOUT BUILDING 7.

Looks like you discovered some consipracy websites and continued being impressionable.

Anyway, this thread is strictly speaking about the fact that when a building gets hit by a passenger plane, then collapse is not an unrealistic possibility.

Whatever the backdrop motives of the planning of the terrorist attacks were, is not really what the original post stipulates.

>be me(on the left)
> + 215 IQ
>watch 9/11 on TV
>figure out the theory of everything
>ascend to godhood

...

...

...

>

whats the get?

>Anyway, this thread is strictly speaking about the fact that when a building gets hit by a passenger plane, then collapse is not an unrealistic possibility.
>What is building 7

Really making me think you subversive kike.

If it was CGI they would have had footage of both towers getting hit.

There is literally no motivation to fake only one angle.

why planes then? Seriously, wouldn't it be embarrassing if the planes wiffed?

what age did you realize it was thermite bombs planted by mossad agents?

warping steel doesn't cause demolition style free-fall

are you retarded?
THEY FAKED ALL THE FOOTAGE

EVERY FOOTAGE WAS MADE BY SOMEONE WORKING FOR MSM

(((CNN))) WAS ALSO BEHIND IT


>PLANES WERE CGI

...

That's part of the core

The 'mask edge' is the result of how colour information is transmitted on composite video, essentially, it's not possible to separate colours and brightnesses cleanly between each pixel so certain combinations produce artefacts.

The funniest 'CGI evidence' video I saw was when they used Twixtor to slow down the video and claimed it showed the plane passing in front of a building. It's pretty obvious the people making these claims skimmed the opening paragraph of one or two wikipedia articles.

...

The WTC collapse was anything but a demolition style free fall, since debris fell everywhere in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner.

What do you imagine a non-demolition collapse looks like (aside from a building just falling over)?

...

IT WAS CGI YOU BLIND RETARD!!!!

>CGI MADE UP BY MSM

Spielberg did it. Look up the Bilderberg meeting attendees of 1999.

This """evidence"" is completely retarded. The Al-queso clip clearly begins after the level off and froma different angle, and the other shot has foreshortening making int seem like a much steeper descent.

Loose Change more like Loose Marbles RIMSHOT

>I never said it did.
>How did that come down at freefall speed in its own footprint?

>fuel weakening steel
ayyy rotflmao

I have no fucking idea. I don't have some "theory" of all of this shit. I just know that the successive collapse of floors is NOT going to result in the ejection of a majority of the building's mass...as dust and debris no less. I'm saying that what we observe does not fit with a theory of successive collapse.

I have no idea about the rest of it.

Well user,
You see, the problem with this theory is that it fell at free fall speeds.Not near free fall speeds, but actual free fall speeds. That would imply there was 0 resistance beneath the damaged structure. What's even more curious is that they feel within their footprint. Not perfectly, but still. It didn't slide off, but fell directly downwards.
Then there's building 7, which was an obvious controlled demolition, down to the internal crimp in the middle of the building. I don't know how that didn't spark outrage. Either way, too late to do anything now.
>t.engineer

Notice it looks nothing like a controlled demolition unlike building 7

Looks like a gray windowless plane.

Ever see what a lead bullet hitting a steel plate looks like?

youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Collision physics is complicated, especially with hollow bodies made of lightweight materials, like this video of a ping-pong ball.

youtu.be/Wc-zmb3jAgo

Note how it collapses in on itself near-instantly. That's at 30000 FPS.

Why didn't the 9/11 commission report even attempt to explain why bldg 7 collapsed?

>layer limit
Have you ever done any VFX work at all?

It's hardly surprising that, out of a multi ton plane travelling at hundreds of knots, some material made it through. The towers were practically a hollow metal cage.

ARE YOU RETARDED ?

SAME TIME IN VIDEOS
SAME EXPLOSION IN VIDEOS
DIFFERENT POSITION OF THE PLANE IN BOTH VIDEOS BUT AT SAME TIME
VIDEOS ARE BOTH FAKE!!!


PLANES WERE CGI!

My point was THEY DIDNT MAKE ALL THE FOOTAGE THEY SHOULD HAVE.

WHY FAKE HALF OF IT WHEN YOU CAN FAKE ALL OF IT.

JESUS YOU'RE STUPID. NO ONE HAS A SHOT OF THE FIRST IMPACT, DESPITE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES

Oh, you meant 7. My bad, esse. Thought we were talking about 1 & 2.

1999+18=2017

A 767 CAN'T REACH THAT SPEED AT SEALEVEL WITHOUT FALLING APART

When I realized truthers were literally doing shit like dousing chicken wire paper-mache mockups in lighter fluid and setting them off then shouting how it proves it was on purpose.

...