But why did it collapse to ground level bros?

It totally had nothing to do with the fact that the FBI had an office there. And in that office was stored most ofnthe evidence for the Enron scandal investigation. Enron was only the largest financial scandal in history. And Bush was connected to it.

*yawn*
Let's talk about this some other time, I'm getting sleepy.

Attached: 1524893456221.jpg (408x632, 32K)

I'm no expert, nor am I as batshit crazy as half of the posters here. I went to ground zero a while after the towers fell. Street level is not ground level in NYC. There is almost a city below the city. All that shit crashing down below ground, there's no telling what kind of of damage it caused below ground.

even if the foundation were taken out, it would not be enough to completely destroy the structure. Something similar to pic related would happen.

Attached: 3-7156863ff4.gif (400x225, 2.4M)

Manhattan is extremely hard bedrock and ive never heard of underground new york.
Give more info or youre a shitposter

This building collapsing makes no sense.

Attached: 1492872141474.jpg (2616x2626, 3.88M)

Ofc

Attached: 9988DCD7-9639-44FD-A5C8-EA3D2E0B15CA.jpg (750x742, 186K)

Here and There, Now and Then

Oy Vey I’m getting sleepy it’s been a long day goym
-inbefore sleepy posting

Attached: 7F2009AF-AC33-44CC-A51E-595E8D56D1FE.png (144x151, 11K)

Plane didn't hit.
Nose of the plane hit.
Its the fucking nose always.

Short version - big chunks of the North Tower fell on it, lighting it on fire and tearing deep gashes through the support structure, then it burned uncontrolled for like seven hours and the expansion and weakening of the steel supports exacerbated the structural damage from the debris impacts and it collapsed.

The NIST published a 100-something page report summing up half a decade worth of research into explaining every aspect of the collapse, from the premature failure of the penthouse floors to the southward lean of the tower as it fell. They even tested alternative scenarios - blast-assisted collapses, multiple failure points, etc. In the end they only found one scenario that matched all the evidence.

Attached: nist wtc7.webm (1280x719, 846K)

Steel is shit when it comes to fire damage. It loses a third of its yield strength at less than half its melting temperature and at office fire temperatures a standard steel girder with thermally expand by several centimeters. This results in supports sagging, distorting, bending, buckling, etc which weakens them even further.

Eventually the steel doesn't have enough strength to support whatever weight it's holding up and it gives way, which weakens the surrounding structure and can lead to a progressive collapse. Same shit that happened with the exterior steel frame shell of the Windsor Tower in Spain and the Plasco Building collapse in Iran.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGr4D1-zDI

Basically every architect phased out of using exclusively steel support structure designs in high rises after the late 70s/early 80s in favor of reinforced concrete, which is significantly more resistant to fire damage.

Attached: windsor partial collapse.jpg (2048x1536, 859K)

This.
I can't believe how lucky lucky Larry is

The idea that a single girder falling could bring down a building like a house of guards is so absurd a child could see it. You could take out half the columns in such a building and it would still be standing. Pic related is a testament to this.

Anyways, NIST has been thoroughly debunked by Dr. Hulsey's team at University of Alaska Fairbanks. They modeled the building with modern software and their results do not even resemble NIST's.

youtube.com/watch?v=fRkgIV8U9f0
key points:
- (39:33, 41:50, 43:43) NIST omitted critical structural members in their modelling.
- (58:30) Girder supporting floor 13 could not move far enough to fall off support.
- (48:27) Even if girder fell off support, causing floor 13 to collapse, it only had 34% of the impact force required to collapse floor 12.
- (1:15:40) WTC7 collapse achieved freefall speeds, what conditions are required for this to happen?

Attached: wtc3_HRN7efk.jpg (600x400, 28K)

Sure goyim

Attached: FB_IMG_1531304634443.jpg (613x720, 64K)

why are you trying to convince these faggots using evidence and science, they're just gonna scream it's all faked and the government/jews/aliens/deep state/etc were behind it anyway while ignoring everything telling them they're brainlets

Fucking bullshit it wasn't, it's clearly visible in the videos of it collapsing. As the structure breaks apart and the windows shatter, smoke comes streaming out of a half dozen of them at a time. The whole thing was an inferno by the time it collapsed.

The steel could have lost 2/3 of its strength, but the collapse could never reach freefall acceleration, because even extremely weakened steel offers resistance to collapse.

WTC7 reached freefall acceleration, and maintained it for ~2.5 seconds. Therefore we know that the structure was somehow rendered 100% non-functional.

youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

Attached: WTC-7-Collaps---Previously-Unreleased-Footage-of-WTC-7.gif (320x240, 2.45M)

such inferno

Attached: 1516327170499.jpg (960x720, 162K)

he posted evidence that the NIST animation is bullshit you fucking tard, David Chandler proved they were wrong using high school level physics, do some fucking research

Attached: goyim-i...--768x1167.jpg (768x1167, 120K)

I was present in lower Manhattan on 9/11. I was in an office on Chambers street when the north tower collapsed.

My office that I worked in at the time was on the 24th floor of our building, and had a pretty good vantage point of the WTC site, so even with the dust clouds and smoke my coworkers and I were able to observe with good detail what had happened after the dust settled down later that night.

Basically, 7 WTC had two things happen to it. It was on fire, with the lower floors burning the worst. But the most notable thing we saw and believed caused the collapse was the first and second floors. They looked to be completely gutted, as if a tsunami had swept through them if you can imagine. We saw office furniture and piping and other debris laying out on the streets on the north side of 7, which was opposite of where the towers were. I surmised at the time that the shock pressure of the north tower collapse had blown out the windows in 7, and pushed everything out. I could see the steel beams exposed on the lower floors, and even just a few hours in there were visible signs of the structure starting to buckle; the building was listing very much to the south which is were it fell later.

So, I don't believe it was some sort of controlled demolition. The damage was just too extreme to the lower structure of 7, and it was going to come down on its own eventually.

Fun fact about that goddamn day: pieces of airplane debris were found in Trinity churchyard several blocks away. Some old tombstones dating from the early 1700s were damaged by what appeared to be fuselage panels.

Manhattan's bedrock is a good distance beneath the soil base. You have to dig deep to reach it, but yes it is extremely hard. New York has tunnels underground at varying depths literally all over the place. That could be called "underground new york."

Glow in the Dark: the post

Looks like your picture completely disproves the theory that fire alone made WTC7 collapse in its own foot print so completely and at the speed of free-fall.

>the fucking federally funded national institute of standards and technology are totally wrong, this one stupid faggot who's a fucking chemist totally proved all these engineers wrong

Attached: 1524890821444.png (1440x1557, 738K)

Here we go again..
You know what, sometimes there's no conspiracy, sometimes what they tell you is what there is. The building collapsed cause the fire catched it that's all.
I was a radical Islamic terror attack against the west and no more

Don't know what you mean exactly, but "glow in the dark" is sort of what happened to the people I saw down in the street running away. I was safe in that the windows couldn't be opened, but those guys were fucked. They breathed that dust in, and it turned out later on that the planes that hit had DU weights in their tails. Poor fuckers have been dying of cancer and leukemia and at least a few of them can thank Boeing for using DU.

Buildings don't collapse from office fires on upper floors, Shlomo. That's not how it works.

guys just trust them

By his own admission his research into the subject is far from complete and this is only a presentation of preliminary results. I'll be more than happy to read through his research and consider it with objectivity the same way I read through the Harrit-Jones thermite paper and it's rebuttal, and Wyndham's paper on alternatives to aircraft impacts for the Pentagon attack.

I may not agree with the conclusions of some of these researchers, but I am more than willing to give them their fair due if they put forward a competently written research paper. In the meantime, I think it's more than a little disingenuous to completely dismiss the work of hundreds of other scientists as false because you found one engineer who disagrees with their results. The entire WTC 7 report is available, online, freely and it's actually a pretty comprehensive, but readable report. Have you ever sat down and given it a read? It's only ~100 pages. You might disagree with every word of it, or you might discover some things you hadn't considered before.

Windsor tower was a unique hybrid design - a tough, reinforced concrete core with technical support floors to add extra strength, and an outer shell composed entirely of steel trusses and supports. When the building caught fire (without even having any pre-existing structural damage) the steel shell failed within a matter of hours and all the steel support structure above the uppermost technical floor collapsed. WTC7 was all steel supports, same with Plasco.

Steel + Fire = Bad
Reinforced Concrete + Fire = Still bad, but generally not "building collapses on you" bad.

Attached: madridcollapse.jpg (280x279, 19K)

damage to WTC7 was minimal compared to other WTC complex buildings which remained partially standing.
Even if is was significant, localized damage and fires can not cause global collapse, and certainly not at freefall acceleration.

Attached: 1520215151080.png (1194x1704, 3.01M)

Upper floors weren't on fire. Lower floors were the ones cooking.

They do if we want them to

>damage to WTC7 was minimal
firehouse.com/home/article/10568001/captain-chris-boyle

>A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
>Captain Chris Boyle, FDNY describing the scene at WTC7

Attached: wtc7-fires.jpg (1301x1953, 464K)

>I think it's more than a little disingenuous to completely dismiss the work of hundreds of other scientists as false because you found one engineer who disagrees with their results
I can dismiss hundreds, thousands, or millions of scientists when they push a premise that violates basic laws of physics.
Objects cannot fall at freefall acceleration if there are other objects in the way.
youtube.com/watch?v=xSVHWiZu8NM

Attached: wtc7.webm (1280x720, 856K)

Please take a closer look at the picture you just posted. See the lower left of the building? What does it look like to you? Looks kinda like a hole, doesn't it? Good. Now look at the lower right side of the building. See anything? You shouldn't, because it is obscured by smoke. This picture was taken from over the WTC site, not from the east or north. My POV was from the northeast, and we could see the side of the building behind the smoke. THERE WAS NOTHING THERE. Let me repeat this again...the entire southeast corner of the building was fucking missing with it's inner support structure exposed and on fire, as if some machine had gone and taken a bite out of it. Show me a building that can withstand that kind of damage and keep up straight...

Attached: 1525568749138.jpg (1024x724, 115K)

minimal compared to

Attached: wtc5-6_L3V4GME.jpg (583x411, 58K)

TO TIRED TO FIGURE IT OUT

NIGHT BROS

dat face when normies understand the jew is their true enemy

Literally the same POV that I had that day. People just can't imagine the kind of catastrophic damage that the tower collapses inflicted, so they search for alternative solutions.

>it's nothing goyim, move along, case is closed

WTC7 withstood that kind of damage and "kept straight".
That is until demolition charges cut the columns simultaneously, and the building fell nearly straight down into it's footprint.

Refer to images I have posted previously. Many buildings suffered much greater damage than WTC7 and remained standing at the end of the day. That's because localized damage and fires cannot cause global collapse, and certainly not at freefall acceleration.

Attached: building7nc7.gif (400x300, 749K)

Dude desks and staplers can burn upwards of 5000 degrees read popular mechanics conspiracyfag and stop blaming it all on da j0000000zzzzz

Yeah but scientists always lie about everything, and the ones that comply with what needs to be communicated are venerated

uh this building was made of steel. The outsides burn off before even remotely being able to collapse the steel.

So why won't Trump release the docs explaining this?

There's tons of video footage showing it on fire, retard.

Wtc 7 collapse vs controlled demolition. You be the judge.

Attached: wtc7 vs controlled demolition.gif (300x148, 990K)

>Objects cannot fall at freefall acceleration if there are other objects in the way.
The NIST simulation is - to date - the only model of the collapse that's accurately reproduced the Penthouse collapse. AE911 has had access to most of the NIST's original models and code (everything apart from the input parameters an the break element code) for the better part of a decade now and they've produced nothing that comes close.

If the simulation is even in the ball park of reproducing what happened, then it suggests there wasn't really that much actual support left in the way by the time the exterior finally collapsed

Attached: penthouse.gif (488x300, 2.87M)

The fire would have gutted the building before fire related collapses would start.

Attached: 1520303447085.jpg (806x536, 148K)

The back side was chewed out when one of the Towers fell into it.

I've always thought that 9/11 was some of the most controversial material to discuss on the internet. If I were some high ranking cia officer whose job was to enforce national security, then I would actively seek out these posters who were discussing subject matter that could potentially topple the government. Going after these dissidents would be far more important than hunting prospective would be terrorists from joining ranks I helped foster.

where can i find the wtc building 7 original pic on the bottom right?

From left to right:
>Reinforced concrete core.
>Reinforced concrete supports
>Crews responded immediately to fire, no structural damage preceding fire, intact fireproofing.
>All steel, debris impacts exposed supports to fire, burned for seven hours with basically no mitigation efforts.

The FBI Didn't start investigating Enron until Dec. of 2001, 3 months after 9/11, with the SEC. There was no reason or evidence that any files relating to Enron were in the WT7 building. Also, the Houston FBI office handled the bulk of the Enron investigation, and the only missing documents were the ones the accounting firm Arthur Anderson destroyed. Considering how many people were convicted from the scandal also indicates that even if they had files in the WT7 building, they were not needed to convict those guilty. For your lame conspiracy theory to be true, the Enron criminals would have gotten away with it, which they clearly didn't.

You've never heard of subways, retard?

There are massive complexes of transit tunnels, water, power, steam, sewage, all kinds of shit under NYC. Read a fucking book once in a while. The trains and subways alone criss-cross the entire fucking island.

>Yeah, the burning desks and staplers were kindling and burn much hotter...

>The women in the building had more fat on them too, they were also used as kindling for a much hotter fire as well.

>Nothing to see here goyim...

Attached: 7FB1684A-84FA-4B8C-B304-2133C596F507.jpg (797x420, 88K)

oh, it's the "internal structure collapsed first, empty shell collapsed later theory", which fails to address these key points:

how does the internal structure fall without dragging down the shell?

what caused the shell to collapse if the internal structure did indeed collapse without dragging it down?

how did the shell achieve freefall acceleration while falling into the path of most resistance?

There used to be crazy people who used to stand on street corners and scream the most insane shit at people, and shove crudely written screeds copied at Kinkos at people - Berkeley had a guy for years who maintained that Steven King, the author, killed John Lennon, for example.

Those guys now post on Jow Forums. Their screens are covered in saliva because they're screaming in rage at the screen when someone laughs at their insanity.

The plane that was supposed to hit it to cover up the demolition crashed in Pennsylvania.

Except that it was pointed at Washington, DC. Those facts, they are pesky.

>All steel, debris impacts exposed supports to fire,
Are you claiming that the falling debris scraped the fireproofing off the columns?

Attached: WTC_7_Plan.jpg (649x320, 26K)

lowest bidder construction

That's absolutely what happened, they didn't even admit it had freefall until after David Chandler proved them wrong using high school physics. You may think you're being snarky and that the government never lied about anything, but kid, you have no fucking idea just how morally bankrupt the US government is, and unless you accept the facts you will live the rest of your life ignorant and gullible.

Attached: 1523245907887.gif (335x500, 2.61M)

Hard to make such a claim definitively when every shot of the south face of tower seven is completely engulfed in smoke and flame. All the testimony from first responders suggests there was massive structural damage to the south side.

>how does the internal structure fall without dragging down the shell?
It does drag part of it - the entire penthouse structure collapses in a good 8-10 seconds before the rest of the exterior

>what caused the shell to collapse if the internal structure did indeed collapse without dragging it down?
Simple - it just eventually reached a point where whatever was left standing didn't have enough supplemental support to hold itself up.

>path of most resistance
That's not a thing in mechanics. Bodies will travel in whichever direction the forces acting on them dictate. If the forces are sufficient to overcome the impulse imparted by whatever's in it's way - it keeps going. If I drop a bowling ball over a wood board, it's gonna drop straight fucking down into the board and will either stop or break through depending on how much impulse the board can impart before it fails. The ball falls straight down because that's the direction the net force is acting, it does not suddenly fly a meter to the side to travel down some 'path of least resistance'.

>NIST claimed WTC7 never had freefall collapse, their computer models don't even show the collapse at all , there is no complete model of the collapse because they couldn't make it fit their bullshit math
>hurr you think the GUBMENT was WRONG? hurr u must be RTarD?!

Attached: 1517246893813.jpg (530x732, 141K)

Structural integrity was compromised due to fire

I'm saying that without photographic evidence from the interior or street level closer to the building, it's impossible to determine the full extent of impact damage from the debris - WTC7 and the surrounding buildings were getting pelted with 1000 ton chunks of burning skyscraper.

All we have to go on is the testimony of first responders, and that testimony suggests there was massive structural damage to the south face.

that's physically impossible in this universe, it would never appear as the demolition event we saw that morning. you have no clue how science works do you

Didn't they admit it was a controlled demolition because it supposedly had structural damage?

WTC 3-6 were WAY worse damaged by the demolition of WTC 1/2, and they stood strong. WTC7 was the safest building and it fell in 10 seconds. You're fucking deranged man

Attached: tumblr_nwhr6w9Zlr1rjssvvo9_500.gif (500x400, 999K)

demolition takes months to setup, and yes that's 100% what happened too

Except thats what happened. Uncontrolled fire weakened the steel. youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

Structurally that building wasn't as compromised.

>that's physically impossible in this universe
pic related

>WTC 3-6 were WAY worse damaged by the demolition of WTC 1/2
Half the building was on fire for seven hours - there's no way to definitely claim that 3-6 were "WAY worse" when there's no photos of the full extent of damage to 7 and all the firefighter testimonies say it was completely fucked.

Attached: SteelTemp-vs-Yield.gif (631x547, 13K)

WTC7 had a very small oxygen starved fire, theres no way it would have collapsed even with a raging building-wide inferno, that's impossible. It's never happened before or since because it's impossible, learn some physics and engineering m8

>Don't know what you mean exactly, but "glow in the dark"
yes, you do

WTC7 did not collapse due to "office fires" as NIST claims, it was demolished and fell in 10 seconds exactly as if it was a professional demolition job, which it was

Stop denying solid evidence. There was testimony about it being fucked.
Proof aside from your doubt of the solid case of it being fire damage?

>a very small fire

So who the fuck went in there and placed all the charges, then?
Retarded theory after you spend 1 minute thinking about how to actually pull it off.

Attached: controlled-demolition-cdi-375-x-281.jpg (375x281, 26K)

that chart does not disprove what I said at all, fires do not collapse 47 story skyscrapers, you have shown zero arguments that refute this.

the buildings fires were limited to 1 or 2 floors, most of the building was undamaged and again, the entire thing collapsed in 10 seconds in free fall accelleration, that's impossible from office fires, and it's a textbook demolition job. you're basically shilling at this point, there are mountains of evidence showing the lies that NIST gave. Free fall accelleration is all the proof you need, and there is free fall in all 3 demolitions

What, buildings that aren't demoed fall in slow motion? You think like a child does.

Demolition engineer here

All 3 of those were controlled demolitions that my company couldn't pull off in their wildest dreams. They were using some crazy tech

they had elevator rennovations months before, it's all been documented, you can find the evidence on fucking yt lmfao

It was microwave beamed from a skunk-works satellite from space
like that scene in Akira
no need to be on premise and get down and dirty

Attached: 176db07562cecdbab515710c38426672--sexy-heels-high-heels.jpg (736x1104, 152K)

Its a cascading effect. If the entire integrity of the structure is weakened a couple floors collapsing can cause the entire thing to fall like dominos

you call me a child but you don't even understand how a steel structure works, you're literally retarded, whereas architects and engineers agree with me

Jow Forums, the home of NEETs and Incels and neckbeards who are smarter than actual scientists and engineers.

How much spit is all over your monitor, NEET?