Mfw some of you faggots really believe 9/11 was an inside job

>mfw some of you faggots really believe 9/11 was an inside job

Other urls found in this thread:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11
youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q
liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542
youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM
m.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA
m.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk
nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm),
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Most of people in europe KNOW it's fake, what's the point in denying it?

>ignores building 7
>muh 9/11 report

Fuck off you stupid cunt. You know it was, stop us Australia look like dumb cunts

Except the fuckinf tower that toppled next to it

Because terrorists don't know anything about explosives

Lol, read your governments report on that before blurting statements.

NIST says themselves that the "toppling tower" next to building 7 did no significant damage at all to the building.

So you are refuting NIST's claims while defending the official story.

Well done.

>NIST says themselves that the "toppling tower" next to building 7 did no significant damage at all to the building.

No they don't.

Except the original report says that there were no explosives in the building, and even then the required amount of explosives to bring down a building of this size so the all parts of the building fall perfectly synchronized... that's just impossible, if you actually belive it wasn't an inside job i have no idea why are you on this board

So for those who don't know, the official story of why gif-related happened, was due to office fires.

Yes that's right, office firest cause that symetrical plunge.

It's also, officially the only skyscraper in the world that has collapsed due to fires (world first).

Also, there's tons of fotage of sjyscrapers being totally engulfed in flames, from top to bottom, burning for days and they didn't even crumble.

oops meant that for you

If there weren't any explosives then how did it collapse?

There were explosives but in such amount that it couldn't be prepared by a bunch of terrorists

Read

Way to go for not posting the full video...

The full video shows the top of the building collapsing in, also footage taken of the building's other wise shows it on fire and damaged severely inside.

Yes fire brought this building down and not explosives.

Just do a proper search and you should find the full video.

Am I saying the Twin Towers didn't have explosives? No there is proof that yes bombs were planted in as after all you do see sparks in the building windows before they come crashing down BUT WTC 7 building was caused by fire not demolition.

Why? Terrorists can work in government too. In fact if they blow up a building then they're by definition terrorists.

Aluminium fuselage + fuel + water creates exothermic reaction

Practically triples the heat of the fires

Educate yourself fucktard

Parroting sites such as infowars is not research

>other wise
other side I meant

WHAT THE FUCK? I swear I saw footage online of WTC 7 on fire and the roof collapsing in.

No idea why this picture has it undamaged

>inb4 the images of the roof collapsing in are all photoshopped

What started the fire?

The towers collapsing and something occurring underground with the wiring? idk

The penthouse is shown to give away first in the gif if you look Scully.

lol, who's the retard.

What fuselage? No plane hit wtc7. So by fuel you are referring to office furniture?

nice bait

anyone who spends any thought at all knows

911 was our generations gulf of tonkin/pearl harbor

Ffs do you have an idea of how much work and precision would that require? They would've to plan it for years, get map of the building etc. It's just not possible to do by a bunch of goatfuckers, no other terrorists have ever done something like this. This is real life not a movie this stuff just doesn't happen

Yes they do.

Cause of collapse is office fires, not structural damage from wtc1 or 2.

Well clearly it did happen. The Muslims are smarter, richer and more organized than you think. Look at any pro-ISIS newspaper or journal. Their articles are more informative and better written than anything you'll ever find in a western newspaper. They have open, honest and educated discussions between their smartest intellectuals about literally every subject in the world. 9/11, holocaust, ww2, Muslim invasion of Europe, the war in the middle east, race realism, communism, everything. Nothing is swept under the rug for them.

Are you telling us that AQ had a stealth ground team that infiltrated wtc7 on 9/11, planted explosives and detonated the building in a controled fashion while the whole event was going on with wtc 1 & 2 ?

>Their articles are more informative and better written than anything you'll ever find in a western newspaper
Maybe that's cause ISIS is an artificial creation? How can a freshly-created country be so organized? It's well known they get weapons from USA, they get vehicles and money. I have no idea why would you be so stubborn about the WTC thing but it's your choice what you believe in man, i'm just surprised you're here on Sup Forums...

I don't know anything about 9/11 but I know a whole lot about Muslims and I know that they have more control over the west than we do and that they can pay western politicians to do whatever they want, so yes they could've very well have had some collaborators who blew that building up (if they even blew it up. Like i said I don't know anything about 9/11).

Well I know a whole lot about 911. I don't wanna sound like a douche but I do.

Crafty muslims you say.

Well crafty muslims doesn't explain wtc7. And they don't even have to be part of the issue.

Nist themselves say that something as dumb as a few hours of office fires, that are so weak that they are even hard to spot, cause a symmetrical collapse.

There are some very smart people at nist and that is obvious cover up. What they are covering up or why, I will make no claims of.

But that in itself is very disturbing.

ISIS is a political movement supported by all Muslims around the world who've actually read the qur'an and are actually involved in Islamic thought. ISIS is what the orthodox church is for us

>Thinks that muslims actually control anything, not the eternal jew

was he redpilled?

>stop us Australia look like dumb cunts

rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11
This link debunks most of the conspiracy theories.

The US Govt does a lot of downright evil, manipulative shit , but 9/11 was far to complex for them to fake.

Lol, it took me 2 seconds to debunk that shitty site you linked.

They contradict nist.

from your link: WTC 7, was badly damaged by falling debris from the tower collapses and was on fire,[5] and collapsed several hours later of its own accord.

From Nist: 8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

You fell for the name didn't you? rationalwiki ... lol

Why this nigga think he spiderman?

LOL!

Yes I agree, very much lol.

What you should have said is n i s t dot g o v attempts to dispel all the myths surrounding 911 because that is the official story from the government.

>Arabs own Hollywood

-(((Alex Jones)))

They do control the west more than we do. Remember, we're not Jews.

Yep, pretty much this

youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

what's the definitive report/documentary about 9/11 anyway

Like where do you start

They don't control anything, neither do we. We're just a toy in the hands of the jews.

Well do you want to governments story or do you want... Not the governments story?

Either case I'd advice you to look at WTC7 and use your own brain.

There's massive shilling regarding the subject so you can always controle if something match up with the official narrative or not (for comparison) by checking out n i s t DOT g o v

it was definitely an inside job. i dont usually like conspiracy theories as people will make a conspiracy theory about the queen taking a shit, but after 9/11 all planes were cancelled apart from bin ladens family, they were also good mates with bush, also what about that man who took an insurance policy out on the towers not long before they went down? bush needed a reason to invade iraq anyway

It was done by israel

only arabs believe that mohamed

Here's a level 1 normie meme that might peak your interest. But it's just some meme vid raising some points in 5 minutes unless you have 40 hours to spare straight of the bat.

youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

The Jews only do things that draws them profits. If you want to call that control then fine. But what exactly are they controlling? They have no common goal, no realistic end-plan. But the Muslims do.

liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542

White genocide ya idiat

>what about that man who took an insurance policy out on the towers not long before they went down?

To be fair, he took the policy out not long before they went down because he'd bought the lease on them from the Port Authority not long before they went down too. Not including the cost of rebuilding, which he was 100% responsible for in the lease, he stood to lose about 8 billion dollars in payments for the lease vs the payout on the insurance. This also doesn't include the massive amount they had JUST paid for the lease.

Now this is a bruning skyscraper

youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM

>it HAD to be an inside job everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace guys

50 to 60 % inside job

30 to 40 % propaganda to justify the jihad

Israel/Saudi arabian/America/Turks and isis profiting from it. Think about it.

>>no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone

>mfw there are people who genuinely believe this

>They totally didn't spend almost a decade trying to find a way to take the building down after the 1,400 lb bomb failed in 1993.

>Steel girders
>literally standing one second and turning to dust the next

Show me some desks, computer monitors, toilets, file cabinets and chairs. A few hundred of them.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

What about this building?
Skip to around 50 seconds.

More meat for the grinder: From nist themselves (from their official page)

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

They have cut the collapse up in three stages.

In above statement they admit that the building is actually free falling for 2.25 seconds.

If you know basic, basic physics, you should scratch your head at this point. If this means nothing to you, then you shouldn't concern yourself with these things.

What they had meant was, why would google that you racist?

Bears little to no resemblance to wtc7.

Partial collapse.

No free fall.

That's literally chunks of the building coming off. Compared to wtc7 who pancakes into it's own footprint while free falling for 2.25 seconds (as if there is nothing under it at all).

Compare them side by side if you like.

Port Arthur was inside job to take guns away from Australian citizens.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk

Here's 3 buildings collapsed due to fire.

Look at 2:40

Still think it's worlds first. Anyway, it's small and very much irrelevant point.

The buildings you linked either don't show the collapse or just show a small partial collapse (which is what should happen under these circumstances),

No total collapse into footprint.

No free fall speed.

Most of them were completely engulfed in flames while the most brutal fire you can spot on wtc7 is from the liveleak vid when there is like 1 or two floors on fire.

Do you know what the core structure is? When wtc7 collapses, why is it pulverized? Why doesn't it offer any resistance to the collapsing building?

2.25 seconds of free fall.

Yes, as you can see, that fireball of a building encounters it's own structure underneath when it goes full gravity.


Nice tripps though.

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

It's like you thought no one would look it up, cocksucker.

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

What does stage 2 tell you?

Hey look, Mohammed! The analysis, I already posted and that you already read!

see

Yea I read it Tyrone, I never claimed the building went in free fall speed the entire collapse.

I claimed it reached free fall speed during stage 2 (2.25 seconds)

Meaning, during that part of the collapse, there was absolutely nothing under to support it.

As you can clearly see from the liveleak video, the lwoer part of the structure suffered, what it looks like, 0 damage from the firest.

So where did the core structure supporting the building go Einstein?

As far as I know, Nist still hasn't released their computer model (which is a fucking joke anyway because it's just a computer model).

You mean the point mentioned in the analysis you just said you had read? The point when the buckling exterior columns broke, and ceased to support the upper portion?

I love how you shitheads switch back and forth between phony scientific surety and like, statements with 0 support.

>absolutely nothing under to support it.
false and meaningless bullshit

>like, 0 damage from the firest.
false, valley girl sounding bullshit

This is the shittiest conspiracy theory on Earth, and you're one of it's shittiest supporters. If you worked the JFK case, every motherfucker on Earth would believe Oswald did it.

Yea ok Tyrone, people like will be people like.

Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11, 12, 13 was really damaged by the fire.

Symetrical collapse into it's own footprint.

You're in denial. And arguing with you will result in you throwing ad-hom's and cirkeljerking.

Oswald? don't be a tard.

>Fires started on, at least ten floors.
>Only counts six.

Shit cuck. If we can pick and choose which evidence we like, can I just only use that which tends to prove you are a fucking idiot and move on?

It was in relation to the lower part of the building.

If you want to get the final word in you may. Good day.

""""""rational""""""wiki is a marxist feminist pile of shit fyi, even the simplest of articles are unscientific.

anyone doubt that jihadists took over planes and crashed them into WTC1 and WTC2?

or does everyone agree that actually happened, whether or not various Saudi, Israeli and US agents knew it was going to happen in advance?

...