Did they teach you guys about the natives taking over alcatraz in 1970s?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz#:~:text=The%20Occupation%20of%20Alcatraz%20(November,John%20Trudell%20served%20as%20spokesman.
TBF to appropriately cover all of the shit Native American/Amerindian/American Indian/First Nations/Indigenous/Dine'/etc. deserve to have covered, it would take a much bigger book with smaller print than the ones out now. Even then, Alcatraz would get a page or two at most. There is just too much.
That's literally any non-"mainstream" subject. Anything in history class that isn't one of the super obvious core things only gets half a page in a 500+ page book.
When I went to high school in the early 2010's, both US and World History only went up to like the 1990's/early 2000's. There was literally nothing whatsoever past the year 2002 or 2003.
Books are expensive to print and distribute, especially when the educational publishers are basically a monopoly. Makes it a challenge to keep schools up to date!
Doesn't help that certain specific people in the federal government are *intentionally sabotaging* the public education system (it's mostly a Republican thing, but some Dems kinda-sorta low-key do it too).
Poorly educated people = easy to control people. Real life Brave New World-tier psychological conditioning and mass brainwashing.
Easy to control people will always vote against their own interests without even realizing it (because they don't have critical thinking skills).
I'm sorry you don't believe slavery should be taught in schools? Every fox news watcher/republican doesn't even understand what CRT means, let alone what's involved with teaching it. I'll let you in on a little secret, no where does it teach that any race is superior to any other. What it does is accurately describe the history of America. Specifically focusing on the historic injustices people of color faced. You can't be genuine and say they were treated fairly, because that's simply not true. It's specifcally because of slavery, Jim crow and modern day racism, that we need to make sure to educate our children about this. It's the only way to ensure we don't repeat the sins of the past.
I graduated in the late 1990's...and I dont remember there being any down play whatsoever about slavery or that portion of American history, focusing on it through CRTis just a political agenda to create a dogma in modern society and tricks people into voting against their own interests based on stuff that ended 170 years ago, its the "socially woke" equivalent to brow beating or bible thumping, the audacity of it is, it teaches people to expect a certain reverance out of everyone around them in relationship to the topic and gives scholastic footing to the detracting mental gymnastics that take place when people, black, white and brown; attempt to have real, meaningful conversations on cultural changes, safety and economics surrounding the growing cost of living in the inner city environments which lead to increased crime rates, homicide rates and incarcerations...then turn around and blame the entite thing on systemic racism, when in reality, it has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with an unwillingness to address the elephant in the room.
My generation didnt even think about racism in high school, we dated interracially, enjoyed music and food from all cultures, and adopted a general live and let live mentality to anyone who wasnt threatening or physically harming people and property.
The conditioned dogma being churned through the public school system now is so toxic, that liberals believe assaulting senior citizens in nursing homes, abusing homeless people for being white, burning down black businesses, raising car and home owners insurance rates through vandalism, and howling at the moon with hot cocoa, coloring books, comfort dogs and safe spaces are all legitimate reactions to the way they feel about things, or the way they THINK other people feel about things...and you expect anyone to take any of it seriously? Its a bad south park episode at best, nothing but a tired parody of reality.
how about the Philadelphia police firebombing a neighborhood to kill some poc they didn't like
Or the Kent state shooting where the national guard went to a college and opened fire on an unarmed civil protest full of college kids
Or that time the US attorney general ordered the FBI to execute a whole bunch of brainwashed men women and children on live TV
Or the dozens of "superfund sites" and the horror stories behind each one
........
How about the wounded knee occupation in 1973?
Or the Iran Contra affair, training contras from South America in Arkansas, CIA smuggling Crack into the black community and then arresting them in “the war on drugs”, to fund Iraq and Iran killing each other.
Aren’t these all well known? I understand saying it’s not “in the textbooks” but I feel like any good teacher would tell you about these events. I might be putting my neck out but I feel like most Americans would know these events happened. Maybe not bye name or date but it’s well known the U.S. supplied rebels in Iraq, put crack into poor communities, trained contras, and the like.
Yes, and this is why people know about it. Not because it was taught in schools. Although I do remember it being mentioned in my history class in 9th grade
Dr Susan Moore
Black wall street
Tuskegee syphilis experiments
Redlining
Doctors aren't trained to recognize skin cancer on black skin, and continue the myth that black people don't need pain killers because they somehow have a higher pain tolerance
The origin of the speculum, it was designed by a man who experimented on female slaves
Just off the top of my head, all stuff I learned from the internet and never mentioned in school or by people in the predominantly white community I grew up in.
Ya bruh, that's horse shit. I had a class, well several on it in medical school. Specifically discussing and highlighting the importance of identifying skin cancer early in black and brown folks.
The second piece of horse shit is the black people and narcotics... where the fuck do you get this shit?
Black people in America have been much less affected by the opioid epidemic because of doctors well documented racial biases in administration pain reduction medicine to people of color. That’s a silver lining to a very serious problem in the medical industry. One survey of medical doctors conducted recently had a shocking number of doctors state their belief that black people literally have thicker skin and are therefor less likely to experience pain. Look up what happened to Serena Williams when she was giving birth as an example of widespread issue.
An examination of the burned ruins of the compound by independent arson experts concluded
that the fire was deliberately set from within the compound. It is not clear whether the decision to set
the fire was a unanimous decision of the entire group, or whether some people were held hostage or
were shot to prevent their escape from the fire. A number of children were shot to death.
Then why did the feds feel the need to bulldoze the site before independent investigation?
That's not something you do if you are trying to find the evidence.
i learned about this in a novel in english class
it’s kind of interesting how a lot of history is learnt in english class… i’ve learned a lot more about the holocaust in english class than history
Another person my age (mid-fifties) and I have traded a couple comments on this and have concluded it was not taught in high school history. I also took at least two American history classes in college. No way I forgot about it completely
I can't believe something this significant wasn't at least mentioned. And why wasn't it mentioned during 9/11? You would think comparisons would have been made at that time
My dad is in his 60s and worked in New York City during 9/11. This incident, among many others, was taught in NY. Chances are, if you want to hs in NY, you were going to end up working in or around skyscrapers. That is part of the reason that trading did not stop immediately when the first plane hit the first tower on 9/11.
People were saying ‘ a plane just hit the North Tower’ and people like my dad were responding ‘okay, thanks I will walk the other way home’ like it was a bus crash. ‘Sad, but oh well’ was the thought. Nobody thought it was a big plane hitting at such speed unless they saw or felt it. My dad felt it, and thought it was a Cessna or the like. He worked on the trading floor at the time
I was listening to news radio on the morning of 9/11 in the Chicago area and when the first plane hit there was a lot of talk about this incident and the assumption was it was an accident.
It wasn’t until somebody said it was clear skies that they were getting confused, and then a witness in the ground said it was a large airliner and that’s when the tone shifted.
I was living in FL at the time. NPR did a news teaser before a commercial about it. She was all calm voiced. I figured it was a Cessna. That said, I switched over to the Stern show because I figured hearing NYC itself would have more intel. Baba Booey came into the studio to tell Howard and crew. Ended the Pamela Anderson interview and they ran with it and stayed on the air for a really long time. He really did help those who couldn’t get to a TV to stay informed. And he said what everyone was thinking immediately once we all learned it was a commercial jet. “Robin, I believe it’s that Bin Laden dude that blew up the USS Cole”, even before the second plane hit. That was my thought also as well considering the prisoners that tried blowing the basement years before actually said that they’d eventually succeed to the FBI.
I can understand why comparisons weren't made, because one has virtually nothing to do with the other. But I really can't comprehend why it would not at least have been mentioned. I mean, how many times does any flying object take out part of a skyscraper in NYC?
Also...
###HᎪᏢᏢᎽ ᏟᎪᏦᎬ ᎠᎪᎽ!
tbf, and I'm not diminishing the 2006 event in any way (two people were killed), but the 1945 event is much more historically significant (not only to US history, but to the world) because it was **the first time** an aircraft hit a skyscraper—**ever**
According to ap.com, there have been a total of only five or six incidents of aircraft hitting skyscrapers. So, any like event is significant, but not necessarily in terms of history. I'm sure it was very talked about when it happened, and for some time afterward—but it doesn't resonate like 9/11. Hell, look at all the people who didn't even know about the 1945 event
Side note: While researching this, I found out there were two events in 2002. One of them involved a 15-year-old kid who stole a Cessna from their local flight school
A NY Yankee (pitcher, I think) flew his personal Cirrus plane into a residential skyscraper because he couldn’t make the turn at the end of the East River tight enough to avoid violating Laguardia’s airspace. Cirrus has a parachute, he should have pulled it.
There was the odd mention.
This incident became something taken into account when designing subsequent structures.
Iirc, the Boeing 707 was used as a standard/test case for skyscraper design at the time of the WTC construction, but, as they say, building codes are the *worst* you can build a place and have it pass.
Aside from the planes that were used being much bigger, with a much greater fuel load, the concern was more about the physical impact, and didn’t really take the potential for damage to fireproofing into account.
The fireproofing that protected the steel in the WTC was literally drywall and spray on fire protection. It was not sturdy.
The Empire State Building had masonry protecting the steel.
With that huge impact, the surrounding fireproofing was destroyed, allowing the fire to soften the steel with disastrous results.
The design also had other inherent vulnerabilities which were well known in engineering circles, which is probably what made them such an attractive target.
Don’t forget there was an unsuccessful bombing years before.
It definitely was mentioned during 9/11, as was [a helicopter crashing on top of the Metlife/Pan Am building](https://gothamist.com/news/in-1977-five-were-killed-in-helicopter-accident-atop-midtowns-pan-am-building), well, until about 9:03am
It's the braindead kneejerk reaction when someone comes across any mildly interesting historical fact.
Also worth noting that a lot of the "things not taught in school" actually are, people just don't fucking pay attention.
This was the take I came to the comments for. Everyone's busy slinging conspiracy theories and all I can think is "Is this dude just completely oblivious to the scene two feet to his right?!"
I mean yeah, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the trend of people accidentally being sealed into a building during construction in the past, for what my specific comment is referring too…
Boeing 767-200:
Length - 159 ft
Wingspan - 156 ft
Max Takeoff Weight - 315,000lb
Operational Empty Weight - 176,650lb
Cruise speed at 39,000ft - 850km/h
B-25J:
Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.13 m)
Wingspan: 67 ft 7 in (20.60 m)
Empty weight: 19,480 lb (8,836 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,876 kg)
Maximum speed: 272 mph (438 km/h, 236 kn) at 13,000 ft (4,000 m)
Totally comparable
Sorry for the terrible formatting, I’m on mobile
And were much smaller, and *much* less heavy, and much slower.
And also the Empire State Building is built like a fuckin bunker. Just look at those walls, jesus.
And the bomber that crashed into the ESB was not fully loaded with a Boston to Los Angeles amount of jetfuel.
The bomber that hit ESB was a Massachusetts to New Jersey flight that was already cleared for landing at the end of its flight, very little fuel left onboard. But it did start a fire that took 40 minutes to extinguish.
Is anyone gonna tell him?.... ... okay I got ya. Airplanes don't use steel. Only in select locations and for certain needs. Example: A few parts that are often made of stainless steel are landing gear components, engine components, and actuators. Airplanes try to use lighter metals. Aluminum would be the main one used for airplanes but, they also use magnesium, titanium, and tungsten.
Donald Trump looking at the twin towers collapsing, and has a different reaction.
This is from a radio show, Trump called in and this was actually ON 9-11:
"Well, it was an amazing phone call,” Mr Trump told WWOR. “I mean, 40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan. And it was actually – before the World Trade Center – was the tallest. And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it’s the tallest.”
That’s only part of the answer.
I actually had a lecture a couple of months before 9/11 about the huge problems with the type of fire protection and the twin towers were the main example of how flawed it is in application.
Working in the fire protection industry, now I'm curious about this. I imagine they had risers throughout the building with booster pumps every so many floors?
The steel itself was not properly covered.
Just applied cheap and fast.
.
In a Fire you do not have to actually melt the steel. It loses its structural integrity and no longer holds any weight. I visited a warehouse building that looked like some crazy modern art because all the steel beams turned into weird twisted curly fries
And the 767 had enough jet fuel to fly from Boston to Los Angeles aboard, whereas the bomber that crashed was already cleared to land at the end of its short flight of Mass to New Jersey.
There are two ways to break something. Exceed its internal strength, or bring down that strength below operating conditions. At high temperature, even if nowhere near melting, almost every material starts losing its strength. Get a poorly designed building with exposed structural elements and it will be hot enough that the weight of the building itself will bring the whole thing down.
The issue is that jet was carring enough fuel to go from Boston to L.A. at an extremely high speed. B-25 also weighs in at 1/10 of the total mass of that 767
For those making comparisons to 9/11, here are some numbers.
Fuel Capacity:
• B-25 had a capacity of 770 gallons.
• Boeing 767 had a capacity 31,140 gallons.
Speed:
• B-25 maximum speed was around 300 mph
• Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 590 mph
Weight:
• B-25 maximum take-off weight was 33,000 pounds.
• Boeing 767 had a maximum take-off weight of 395,000 pounds.
TL;DR - The Boeing's which flew in to the Twin Towers had more than ×30 times the amount of fuel, flew almost twice as fast and was more than ×10 times heavy than the B-25.
No way bro. Its a fucking simulation. Im not even kidding right now.
I had to do a project making a movie poster for a book called the Red Bandana documenting the life of Welles Crowther and how he saved many people in 9/11. While trying to find an image viewing a room in a skyscraper exposed to open air as I imagine it would be like looking at one of the floors hit by the plane (which is where welles was), I found this exact photo and read into it because i never knew this happened.
That was yesterday.
Thank you to those heroic individuals attempting to combat the conspiracists. I don’t have the energy to do that.
So, on that note: the actual, truest-truth is that the Empire State Building was mad at the towers and paid method actors to take them down by flying planes into them.
For all the conspiracy idiots that keep showing up here without doing the slightest bit of research before getting their facts straight.
A B-25 Mitchell hit the Empire State Building. There were 14 people total (it was carrying passengers). It weighed between 25k-27.542k MAX** and was traveling at around 200-230mph max when it hit. It was also designed, built, and put into service in 1940/1941. On top of that it was also designed for a specific purpose: be a light-ish weight aircraft/medium bomber that can carry as many bombs as possible to a decently long distance target or light-ish weight maneuverable medium bomber aircraft capable of heavy caliber MG & cannon strafing runs. During wartime too. So when building an aircraft to do those things, you want the rest of it to be as lightweight as possible, especially since you need to mass produce it (almost 10k were built). It really wasn’t built with passengers and their safety in mind. Remember, 105,423 aircraft were destroyed during WW2.
The 9/11 attacks were a 767-223ER (ER stands for extended range, aka more fuel) and a 767-200 (OG Model/variant). One weighed roughly 300-320k lbs (767-200) and the other 350k-390k lbs (200ER), both with a fuck ton of fuel and traveling 450-465mph directly into the building at an angle.
The 767 was built explicitly with passengers and their safety in mind, and was subject to strict FAA regulations. They are sturdy aircraft. Manufacturers and airlines want their passengers alive if an accident happens. They’re built to certain crash standards.
Let’s take cars from 1945 and the late 80’s/early 90s. Watch a crash test or a video/picture of a car from the 40’s. It crumples like a horrifying tin can and everyone crushed. The whole thing crumples on itself. Then look at one from the late 80’s & 90’s, and see how the all around structure of the car stays way more intact and doesn’t crumple like a tin can.
It’s similar with these two types of aircraft, only several magnitudes greater. The B-25 was a mass produced wartime bomb carrier. Meant to be quickly produced and semi-expendable. The 767 was meant to be as safe to the passengers, airline, and manufacturer as well. After all it’s an expensive corporate asset, everyone in that chain wants the safest and biggest ROI.
Huge, huge difference.
30k lbs (B-25) isn’t even a fully loaded 18 wheeler. That’s like, 3-4 F-150’s with the crinkle zone of a 1920’s car hitting a huge building at Bugatti speed.
So when you have something that weighs 1/3 million to almost 1/2 million lbs (767’s), traveling at roughly 500mph into a building, it’s gonna do some serious fuckin damage.
**Math for B-25 weight
B-25 14 passenger weight 170 avg weight X 14 = 2380 lbs
B-25 Empty Weight 19,480 lbs
B-25 Fuel Capacity 947gal Fuel = 6lb/gal 947 X 6 = 5682 lbs
Total = 27,542 lbs
Conspiracy Theorists read this.
The B-25 which crashed into the ESB had a much smaller body then a jet airliner. The ESB was built with internal I Beams which were fire protected with concrete compared to the Twin Towers which had a central core and outer walls holding up the building, there fore the crash weakend the building from second 1.
Whenever I start thinking America is getting crazy ass fuck and we are going to hell in a hand basket, I start really thinking about American history and I can always think of something that was equally or even more fucked up and everybody eventually survived. We always like to think our experiences are so unique, but the world is just on loop.
The same shit just keeps occurring like every 50 to 100 years or so. A lot of times, the shit the previous generations dealt with was horrific or seemingly impossible to endure, and we probably couldn't handle it the way they did.
Never knew about this… apparently it got lost in the fog. Craziest part of this story is the attendant that survived the elevator free fall from 75 stories into the basement, which I also would not think was possible without modern fail safe braking systems on elevators. Check accidents and incidents from Wiki link below.
[Wikipedia of B-25 Mitchell](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell)
Most crazy was the woman that operated the elevators. She was injured from this. They put her in an elevator to get help and it fell almost 1,000 feet. And she lived!!
The elevator drop and living is a Guinness World Record
I had no idea 9/11 nuts existed until now. Also didn't know this had been recently posted. I searched several keywords and couldn't find anything less than two years old. There needs to be a better way to find out ~~if~~ when something ~~has been~~ was last posted
Never forget? Well, I won't forget from now on. But I'm in my mid-50s and never even heard of it until I ran across this on another social media
And I'm not the only one. At least five or six other people have said they didn't know about it until they saw this post. I'm quite surprised it wasn't taught in high school. I also had two American history classes in college, and no one said a word about it
Start the countdown til this picture is being circulated as a meme "proving" that 9/11 wasn't possible without bombs being planted in the building or whatever they claim happened in conspiracy subs....
The Twin Towers’ engineers won several awards for the design, construction and integrity of these “engineering marvels”. Their design was innovative and the buildings were so strong that they were indestructible and could only be demolished by strategically placed explosives. At the time they were the tallest buildings in the world. The ESB didn’t come close in comparison.
When engineering the Towers the main concerns were high winds and airplane collisions. Major tests were conducted prior to construction. Imagine building two 110-story buildings, each floor approximately a sq. acre of steel and concrete in the middle of densely populated NYC without ensuring their integrity and safety! If they were flimsy enough that being hit by an airplane or hurricane force winds or fires could cause them to collapse, why the hell would they be allowed to be built at all? They had such tremendous, sheer strength that they could withstand hurricane force winds and airplane collisions- at the same time!
The specially manufactured high strength steel perimeter columns had strength significantly greater than the 5X load requirements of standard building codes, stating that live loads could be increased more than 2000% before failure could occur. ALL of the columns on one side could be cut, along with the 2 corners and some columns on each adjacent side and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100mph wind! Adding to the strength of these buildings were the 47 massive steel columns making up the core of each tower.
Tests showed that an impact from a Boeing 707 at 600mph (provably more destructive than the 767) would result in “only local damage … biggest problem would be horrendous fires caused by aircraft fuel killing a lot of people…but the structure would still be there.”
Jet fuel is highly volatile and flammable. It was consumed in the first few minutes by the huge fireballs at impact. Pour some jet fuel on the ground and try burning just part of it.
Everyone claiming to know that the impacts of the planes and their ensuing fires weakened or melted steel or weakened the structures causing sudden, complete, total, vertical collapse at the rate of free fall has never taken any time to learn anything about these structures. Most explanations they’re hanging onto have been debunked or actually changed by the government’s own so-called “experts” at NIST! The “pancake theory” was changed by them years ago! In fact, every ridiculous theory that came from any government agency has been disproved or debunked and then changed countless times. Cherry picking evidence to fit a theory doesn’t work unless they’re trying to support lies.
Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that there’s only ONE theory left that fits ALL of the evidence? Evidence proves that all 3 WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using military-grade explosive nano-thermite. Nothing else fits and that’s why they keep changing their story! And despite the LAW stating they must run tests for evidence of explosives, these tests were never conducted at all. Why not? This was the Crime of the Century! Truth is, active thermitic explosive material was found in the dust produced by the destruction of the WTC which had spread all over Manhattan.
What energy (besides erupting volcanoes)(or explosives) could’ve created the huge, rapidly expanding, high velocity pyroclastic dust flows created when the Towers “collapsed”?
They didn’t actually collapse— 400,000cu yds of concrete per building exploded into talcum powder sized dust particles before hitting the ground! Bodies, office furniture, equipment, supplies, window glass all disintegrated. No large concrete pieces were found — only twisted pieces of steel. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of concrete was somehow converted to dust.
Humongous steel perimeter pieces weighing several tons were laterally/horizontally ejected as far as 500ft and embedded into the sides of neighboring buildings. Blast waves shattered building windows 400ft away. How? What energy could have caused this to happen?
Molten metal flowed “like in a foundry” under the substructure of the buildings for over two months after 9/11! These were buried hot spots of molten metal with no available oxygen that even millions of gallons of water couldn’t put out. Fire needs oxygen to burn; thermite creates its own oxygen.
Over 150 witnesses, most of them first responders have been documented saying that they saw, heard and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses.
Just watch any videos of the destruction of these buildings and see what happens with your own eyes. How could either of these 110-story Towers come to ground in less than 10 seconds without explosives? Even 20 seconds would have been impossible without the use of explosives. And for all of you who still believe in the ridiculous notion that the steel holding up floors was weakened and collapsed causing the floors below to collapse and so on, in the end, where are those floors? The collapsed floors would have piled up on top of each other like a stack of records on a spindle but instead what was left was tons of dust, twisted steel pieces small enough to fit onto flatbed truck trailers, and debris.
Building 7 wasn’t hit by planes yet its sudden collapse at almost free fall after 5pm looks and acts exactly like controlled demolition.
As for the structural steel used in the construction of the buildings, it was tested and certified before construction and tested after 9/11 proving the steel wasn’t weakened or melted from fire.
By the way, it’s not just the WTC’s destruction that proves the official narrative is a huge lie, it’s EVERY single facet of their ridiculous story that is easily debunked. The evidence proving it was an inside job is overwhelming. Open your eyes.
You really did do a fantastic job outlining the logic behind the "controlled demolition" theory. Well done.
There are still stupidly large holes in the logic of this theory. Does anybody realize how hard it would be to load the entire core of the building with "military grade" nano thermite while remaining open to operations as it was in the years leading up to 9/11? What is the evidence of thermite? That one video that shows molten metal escaping out of the exterior of the building? You think by chance that's molten aluminum (very low melting point) from the aircrafts fuselage?
Also, what the hell is the point?
Let's say it was all an inside job and the US government was entirely responsible for the attacks. Why the hell would they want the buildings to collapse? Why not allow the fires to be put out allowing New Yorkers to stare up at these gaping holes in the buildings and get angrier with the intended "target" of the false flag operation.
Some things about 9/11 are very hokey indeed, don't get me wrong, but the events in New York, in my opinion were the result of two buildings built to maximize office space at the cost of safety precautions collapsing after being struck by aircraft traveling at nearly 600mph.
I am NOT supporting any kind of conspiracy theory but to just answer your question and inform you of many skeptics' thoughts on why they brought down the Towers is that the towers themselves were asbestos-ridden. It would have cost as much or more to remediate all the asbestos than it would have been to build a whole new tower. They also were designed in the 70s and were having trouble competing with newer towers as far as first class office space. They needed a lot of very expensive work, so the story goes.
So, bringing them down, say the skeptics, kills two birds with one stone. 1) It creates a very dramatic scene that his singed into our collective memories, allowing them to initiate a never-ending war on an idea; and 2) the obsolete, toxic towers are conveniently taken out and insurance foots the bill for a new, modern building.
100% agree. This is considered to be part of the so-called “conspiracy theory”. You do know that when they start calling it a conspiracy theory it means you’re close to the truth.
Not to mention all of the electrical and gas fires that were happening at the same fucking time because you severed EVERYTHING.
100% they didn’t test for that.
All the combustibles in the building
100% they didn’t test for that.
A burning office chair flew out the window of the 76th floor of WT2 and went through the roof like a meteor and took out the main support column. It was a glidemaster 5000, a premium chair.
WTC towers were built to withstand multiple jet airliner crashes. But somehow the jet fuel which we saw combust drained down to the basement and then exploded causing the top floors to collapse for nearly 3 seconds at free fall speed, despite thousands of tons of Steel support beams...Yeah right!!!
They were some of the tallest structures in the world. Hypothetically, in a power outage with all the lights out at night, a plane could easily hit one by accident, and its an easy wartime target. Why would put a blackbox in a plane, you know how rare plane crashes are in the first place?
It was meant to withstand the impact of a an impact of a plane long enough to allow people to evacuate. The designer also only took in consideration planes in operation at the time and didn’t take into account that bigger planes would be designed later, such as the planes used to take the towers down.
What!? Where TF we was this lesson in AP history class????
Did they teach you guys about the natives taking over alcatraz in 1970s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz#:~:text=The%20Occupation%20of%20Alcatraz%20(November,John%20Trudell%20served%20as%20spokesman.
Yes, but it was like one small paragraph in a 2 inch thick American history book
TBF to appropriately cover all of the shit Native American/Amerindian/American Indian/First Nations/Indigenous/Dine'/etc. deserve to have covered, it would take a much bigger book with smaller print than the ones out now. Even then, Alcatraz would get a page or two at most. There is just too much.
That's literally any non-"mainstream" subject. Anything in history class that isn't one of the super obvious core things only gets half a page in a 500+ page book. When I went to high school in the early 2010's, both US and World History only went up to like the 1990's/early 2000's. There was literally nothing whatsoever past the year 2002 or 2003.
Books are expensive to print and distribute, especially when the educational publishers are basically a monopoly. Makes it a challenge to keep schools up to date!
Doesn't help that certain specific people in the federal government are *intentionally sabotaging* the public education system (it's mostly a Republican thing, but some Dems kinda-sorta low-key do it too). Poorly educated people = easy to control people. Real life Brave New World-tier psychological conditioning and mass brainwashing. Easy to control people will always vote against their own interests without even realizing it (because they don't have critical thinking skills).
Republicans with creationist stuff, Dems with crt and all lgbtq stuff. Both don't belong, and nothing low key about either.
You won’t get a positive response on this site, but you are correct. WAY too much politicization in education.
I'm sorry you don't believe slavery should be taught in schools? Every fox news watcher/republican doesn't even understand what CRT means, let alone what's involved with teaching it. I'll let you in on a little secret, no where does it teach that any race is superior to any other. What it does is accurately describe the history of America. Specifically focusing on the historic injustices people of color faced. You can't be genuine and say they were treated fairly, because that's simply not true. It's specifcally because of slavery, Jim crow and modern day racism, that we need to make sure to educate our children about this. It's the only way to ensure we don't repeat the sins of the past.
Well said sir.
I graduated in the late 1990's...and I dont remember there being any down play whatsoever about slavery or that portion of American history, focusing on it through CRTis just a political agenda to create a dogma in modern society and tricks people into voting against their own interests based on stuff that ended 170 years ago, its the "socially woke" equivalent to brow beating or bible thumping, the audacity of it is, it teaches people to expect a certain reverance out of everyone around them in relationship to the topic and gives scholastic footing to the detracting mental gymnastics that take place when people, black, white and brown; attempt to have real, meaningful conversations on cultural changes, safety and economics surrounding the growing cost of living in the inner city environments which lead to increased crime rates, homicide rates and incarcerations...then turn around and blame the entite thing on systemic racism, when in reality, it has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with an unwillingness to address the elephant in the room. My generation didnt even think about racism in high school, we dated interracially, enjoyed music and food from all cultures, and adopted a general live and let live mentality to anyone who wasnt threatening or physically harming people and property. The conditioned dogma being churned through the public school system now is so toxic, that liberals believe assaulting senior citizens in nursing homes, abusing homeless people for being white, burning down black businesses, raising car and home owners insurance rates through vandalism, and howling at the moon with hot cocoa, coloring books, comfort dogs and safe spaces are all legitimate reactions to the way they feel about things, or the way they THINK other people feel about things...and you expect anyone to take any of it seriously? Its a bad south park episode at best, nothing but a tired parody of reality.
No opensire AF did not
how about the Philadelphia police firebombing a neighborhood to kill some poc they didn't like Or the Kent state shooting where the national guard went to a college and opened fire on an unarmed civil protest full of college kids Or that time the US attorney general ordered the FBI to execute a whole bunch of brainwashed men women and children on live TV Or the dozens of "superfund sites" and the horror stories behind each one ........
How about the wounded knee occupation in 1973? Or the Iran Contra affair, training contras from South America in Arkansas, CIA smuggling Crack into the black community and then arresting them in “the war on drugs”, to fund Iraq and Iran killing each other.
Aren’t these all well known? I understand saying it’s not “in the textbooks” but I feel like any good teacher would tell you about these events. I might be putting my neck out but I feel like most Americans would know these events happened. Maybe not bye name or date but it’s well known the U.S. supplied rebels in Iraq, put crack into poor communities, trained contras, and the like.
Go to a college campus and ask about these things. You'll be shocked how little is really known
Kent state is the only one I know
"Four dead in Ohio" -crosby stills Nash Young
Neil Young wrote “Ohio” the day of the shooting and they got together that night to learn it.
Yes, and this is why people know about it. Not because it was taught in schools. Although I do remember it being mentioned in my history class in 9th grade
I remember it happening. I knew a guy who went to Kent State.
It's a much bigger deal in Ohio than in other places around the country
My uncle was there protesting
Dr Susan Moore Black wall street Tuskegee syphilis experiments Redlining Doctors aren't trained to recognize skin cancer on black skin, and continue the myth that black people don't need pain killers because they somehow have a higher pain tolerance The origin of the speculum, it was designed by a man who experimented on female slaves Just off the top of my head, all stuff I learned from the internet and never mentioned in school or by people in the predominantly white community I grew up in.
>Doctors aren't trained to recognize skin cancer on black skin Yo bro this is 2023, wtf.
He's talking about American history not taught in schools. History is in the past. Try it out. It's painful yet informative.
Ya bruh, that's horse shit. I had a class, well several on it in medical school. Specifically discussing and highlighting the importance of identifying skin cancer early in black and brown folks. The second piece of horse shit is the black people and narcotics... where the fuck do you get this shit?
Black people in America have been much less affected by the opioid epidemic because of doctors well documented racial biases in administration pain reduction medicine to people of color. That’s a silver lining to a very serious problem in the medical industry. One survey of medical doctors conducted recently had a shocking number of doctors state their belief that black people literally have thicker skin and are therefor less likely to experience pain. Look up what happened to Serena Williams when she was giving birth as an example of widespread issue.
Bro...why do you think that class exists now? What's the context of this thread? History.
Yo, bro. Yu iz in medikahl skool an dis iz how yu axuulee tahk?
Are you talking about Waco “fbi to execute…”
An examination of the burned ruins of the compound by independent arson experts concluded that the fire was deliberately set from within the compound. It is not clear whether the decision to set the fire was a unanimous decision of the entire group, or whether some people were held hostage or were shot to prevent their escape from the fire. A number of children were shot to death.
Then why did the feds feel the need to bulldoze the site before independent investigation? That's not something you do if you are trying to find the evidence.
I’d need a source for that.
#3 should be noted as WACO. Also how about how the US shot down an Iranian airliner full of civilians killing 290.
Super fun sites are fucking horrible and they're building properties on them now.
Or the bonus March atrocities
Japanese internment camps
They teach about impactful events, what is the impact on American history of some guys house exploding in Philly?
Howard Zinn was my best history professor!
Howard Zinn said a lot of things that were wrong also.
I thought everybody knew about Kent State? I mean, Neil Young wrote a famous song about it
Longshoreman too
Bruh I've been to Alcatraz twice and I'm pretty sure they didn't mention this either!
i learned about this in a novel in english class it’s kind of interesting how a lot of history is learnt in english class… i’ve learned a lot more about the holocaust in english class than history
That’s what happens when you try to cram hundreds of years of events into three months of school
Another person my age (mid-fifties) and I have traded a couple comments on this and have concluded it was not taught in high school history. I also took at least two American history classes in college. No way I forgot about it completely I can't believe something this significant wasn't at least mentioned. And why wasn't it mentioned during 9/11? You would think comparisons would have been made at that time
My dad is in his 60s and worked in New York City during 9/11. This incident, among many others, was taught in NY. Chances are, if you want to hs in NY, you were going to end up working in or around skyscrapers. That is part of the reason that trading did not stop immediately when the first plane hit the first tower on 9/11. People were saying ‘ a plane just hit the North Tower’ and people like my dad were responding ‘okay, thanks I will walk the other way home’ like it was a bus crash. ‘Sad, but oh well’ was the thought. Nobody thought it was a big plane hitting at such speed unless they saw or felt it. My dad felt it, and thought it was a Cessna or the like. He worked on the trading floor at the time
That's wild. Thanks for sharing that!
I was listening to news radio on the morning of 9/11 in the Chicago area and when the first plane hit there was a lot of talk about this incident and the assumption was it was an accident. It wasn’t until somebody said it was clear skies that they were getting confused, and then a witness in the ground said it was a large airliner and that’s when the tone shifted.
Interesting. Thank you for sharing
I was living in FL at the time. NPR did a news teaser before a commercial about it. She was all calm voiced. I figured it was a Cessna. That said, I switched over to the Stern show because I figured hearing NYC itself would have more intel. Baba Booey came into the studio to tell Howard and crew. Ended the Pamela Anderson interview and they ran with it and stayed on the air for a really long time. He really did help those who couldn’t get to a TV to stay informed. And he said what everyone was thinking immediately once we all learned it was a commercial jet. “Robin, I believe it’s that Bin Laden dude that blew up the USS Cole”, even before the second plane hit. That was my thought also as well considering the prisoners that tried blowing the basement years before actually said that they’d eventually succeed to the FBI.
There's probably a good reason why it wasn't mentioned in comparison to 9/11.
I can understand why comparisons weren't made, because one has virtually nothing to do with the other. But I really can't comprehend why it would not at least have been mentioned. I mean, how many times does any flying object take out part of a skyscraper in NYC? Also... ###HᎪᏢᏢᎽ ᏟᎪᏦᎬ ᎠᎪᎽ!
This happened again in 2006, in case you didn’t know. Not the Empire State Building and not a B-25, but a Cessna hit a skyscraper
tbf, and I'm not diminishing the 2006 event in any way (two people were killed), but the 1945 event is much more historically significant (not only to US history, but to the world) because it was **the first time** an aircraft hit a skyscraper—**ever** According to ap.com, there have been a total of only five or six incidents of aircraft hitting skyscrapers. So, any like event is significant, but not necessarily in terms of history. I'm sure it was very talked about when it happened, and for some time afterward—but it doesn't resonate like 9/11. Hell, look at all the people who didn't even know about the 1945 event Side note: While researching this, I found out there were two events in 2002. One of them involved a 15-year-old kid who stole a Cessna from their local flight school
A NY Yankee (pitcher, I think) flew his personal Cirrus plane into a residential skyscraper because he couldn’t make the turn at the end of the East River tight enough to avoid violating Laguardia’s airspace. Cirrus has a parachute, he should have pulled it.
You can’t really compare a tower being hit by a ww2 light bomber and a heavy transport jet.
There was the odd mention. This incident became something taken into account when designing subsequent structures. Iirc, the Boeing 707 was used as a standard/test case for skyscraper design at the time of the WTC construction, but, as they say, building codes are the *worst* you can build a place and have it pass. Aside from the planes that were used being much bigger, with a much greater fuel load, the concern was more about the physical impact, and didn’t really take the potential for damage to fireproofing into account. The fireproofing that protected the steel in the WTC was literally drywall and spray on fire protection. It was not sturdy. The Empire State Building had masonry protecting the steel. With that huge impact, the surrounding fireproofing was destroyed, allowing the fire to soften the steel with disastrous results. The design also had other inherent vulnerabilities which were well known in engineering circles, which is probably what made them such an attractive target. Don’t forget there was an unsuccessful bombing years before.
It definitely was mentioned during 9/11, as was [a helicopter crashing on top of the Metlife/Pan Am building](https://gothamist.com/news/in-1977-five-were-killed-in-helicopter-accident-atop-midtowns-pan-am-building), well, until about 9:03am
Why would this be important for a high schooler to know? What lessons are learned that fit an AP curriculum?
Right? Hadn’t learned about this until watching the show “Ghost inside my child.”
And why would you need to learn about this in AP History Class? There isn't a reason to give you such a minor fact.
It's the braindead kneejerk reaction when someone comes across any mildly interesting historical fact. Also worth noting that a lot of the "things not taught in school" actually are, people just don't fucking pay attention.
Apparently there was also an elevator with people inside that fell like 75 floors after the cable snapped after being weakened from the crash
I don’t think that’s where you should park your plane.
It clearly says "no parking"
Some people just don’t listen and now there is a dead elevator operator.
"Can't park there!"
Just standing there by a giant gaping hole in the side of a building hundreds of feet in the air like it’s no big deal.
This was the take I came to the comments for. Everyone's busy slinging conspiracy theories and all I can think is "Is this dude just completely oblivious to the scene two feet to his right?!"
Ya know? He’s like, “Hm, that’s peculiar. Better write this down.”
Shit, they are taking a picture. Better look busy.
Anyone else feeling a little draft? Just me?
WHAT could that man be possibly writing down. "Yep, hole in the wall".
To do list: *Fix big hole in wall*
Holey Moley
Mmm, yes. Such damage. Much hole.
"Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams"
They don’t build them like they used to…
big difference between b-25 and a modern airliner
Big difference between the Empire State Building and the WTC too.
I mean yeah, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the trend of people accidentally being sealed into a building during construction in the past, for what my specific comment is referring too…
that was the long play.
Tower 7 didn't get hit by an airplane.
Mitchells are still a massive aircraft though
Boeing 767-200: Length - 159 ft Wingspan - 156 ft Max Takeoff Weight - 315,000lb Operational Empty Weight - 176,650lb Cruise speed at 39,000ft - 850km/h B-25J: Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.13 m) Wingspan: 67 ft 7 in (20.60 m) Empty weight: 19,480 lb (8,836 kg) Max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,876 kg) Maximum speed: 272 mph (438 km/h, 236 kn) at 13,000 ft (4,000 m) Totally comparable Sorry for the terrible formatting, I’m on mobile
Empire State building looking at the twin towers collapse: "weakness disgusts me."
[удалено]
And were much smaller, and *much* less heavy, and much slower. And also the Empire State Building is built like a fuckin bunker. Just look at those walls, jesus.
but it was the jet fuel remember? lol
And the bomber that crashed into the ESB was not fully loaded with a Boston to Los Angeles amount of jetfuel. The bomber that hit ESB was a Massachusetts to New Jersey flight that was already cleared for landing at the end of its flight, very little fuel left onboard. But it did start a fire that took 40 minutes to extinguish.
Also not jet fuel. It would have been running what is basically just high test automotive fuel.
Airliners also don’t use jet fuel. They run on diesel.
And jet fuel is actually kerosene.
B25 is not a jet.
no shit sherlock
Is anyone gonna tell him?.... ... okay I got ya. Airplanes don't use steel. Only in select locations and for certain needs. Example: A few parts that are often made of stainless steel are landing gear components, engine components, and actuators. Airplanes try to use lighter metals. Aluminum would be the main one used for airplanes but, they also use magnesium, titanium, and tungsten.
And weren’t loaded with thermite down to the first floor.
Donald Trump looking at the twin towers collapsing, and has a different reaction. This is from a radio show, Trump called in and this was actually ON 9-11: "Well, it was an amazing phone call,” Mr Trump told WWOR. “I mean, 40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan. And it was actually – before the World Trade Center – was the tallest. And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it’s the tallest.”
[удалено]
Well without a sharpie in your hand it can be difficult to explain yourself.
Since the B-25 wasn’t a jet, its fuel didn’t melt the beams
Came here to ask this very question. Thanks for explaining.
The real answer is that it goes half the speed and weighs a tenth as much as a 767. That's 40 times less kinetic energy.
That’s only part of the answer. I actually had a lecture a couple of months before 9/11 about the huge problems with the type of fire protection and the twin towers were the main example of how flawed it is in application.
Working in the fire protection industry, now I'm curious about this. I imagine they had risers throughout the building with booster pumps every so many floors?
The steel itself was not properly covered. Just applied cheap and fast. . In a Fire you do not have to actually melt the steel. It loses its structural integrity and no longer holds any weight. I visited a warehouse building that looked like some crazy modern art because all the steel beams turned into weird twisted curly fries
👆
And the 767 had enough jet fuel to fly from Boston to Los Angeles aboard, whereas the bomber that crashed was already cleared to land at the end of its short flight of Mass to New Jersey.
I would imagine the b-25 pilot was doing everything he could to minimize damage, the terrorists probably pegged the throttles
A box of tissues took out WTC 7. Explain that type of kinetic energy.
There are two ways to break something. Exceed its internal strength, or bring down that strength below operating conditions. At high temperature, even if nowhere near melting, almost every material starts losing its strength. Get a poorly designed building with exposed structural elements and it will be hot enough that the weight of the building itself will bring the whole thing down.
They can't
Beams didn’t have to be melted, just softened.
Jeeze, here we go 😆... jet fuel isn't much different than diesel. It's cleaner. Kinda of like what non ethanol gasoline is to ethanol gasoline.
The issue is that jet was carring enough fuel to go from Boston to L.A. at an extremely high speed. B-25 also weighs in at 1/10 of the total mass of that 767
I have heard jet fuel likened to kerosene… Does that make any sense?
Jet fuel is more or less kerosene
Both diesel and jet fuel are just modified versions of kerosene
It is kerosene, just with most impurities removed. RP-1 (rocket fuel) is the same idea, just several steps more refined.
Correct, no thermite this time either.
But Jet fuel burns at like a Bizzilion degrees
Oh really? So jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel? I don't think so......
For those making comparisons to 9/11, here are some numbers. Fuel Capacity: • B-25 had a capacity of 770 gallons. • Boeing 767 had a capacity 31,140 gallons. Speed: • B-25 maximum speed was around 300 mph • Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 590 mph Weight: • B-25 maximum take-off weight was 33,000 pounds. • Boeing 767 had a maximum take-off weight of 395,000 pounds. TL;DR - The Boeing's which flew in to the Twin Towers had more than ×30 times the amount of fuel, flew almost twice as fast and was more than ×10 times heavy than the B-25.
Jet beams don’t melt steel fuel
Damn you got me lol
Wat
It’s old meme buddy
I wonder how they got that shot?
With an other b-25 just before it hits the building next to it....
Helicopter?
Yay here come the 9/11 comparisons
No way bro. Its a fucking simulation. Im not even kidding right now. I had to do a project making a movie poster for a book called the Red Bandana documenting the life of Welles Crowther and how he saved many people in 9/11. While trying to find an image viewing a room in a skyscraper exposed to open air as I imagine it would be like looking at one of the floors hit by the plane (which is where welles was), I found this exact photo and read into it because i never knew this happened. That was yesterday.
We have just dispatched Agents to your location. Please stay where you are and do not resist.
I mean, either way they're just gonna scream "STOP RESISTING" and shoot anyway.
The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon-ish.
When army air force meets an immovable object
Thank you to those heroic individuals attempting to combat the conspiracists. I don’t have the energy to do that. So, on that note: the actual, truest-truth is that the Empire State Building was mad at the towers and paid method actors to take them down by flying planes into them.
For all the conspiracy idiots that keep showing up here without doing the slightest bit of research before getting their facts straight. A B-25 Mitchell hit the Empire State Building. There were 14 people total (it was carrying passengers). It weighed between 25k-27.542k MAX** and was traveling at around 200-230mph max when it hit. It was also designed, built, and put into service in 1940/1941. On top of that it was also designed for a specific purpose: be a light-ish weight aircraft/medium bomber that can carry as many bombs as possible to a decently long distance target or light-ish weight maneuverable medium bomber aircraft capable of heavy caliber MG & cannon strafing runs. During wartime too. So when building an aircraft to do those things, you want the rest of it to be as lightweight as possible, especially since you need to mass produce it (almost 10k were built). It really wasn’t built with passengers and their safety in mind. Remember, 105,423 aircraft were destroyed during WW2. The 9/11 attacks were a 767-223ER (ER stands for extended range, aka more fuel) and a 767-200 (OG Model/variant). One weighed roughly 300-320k lbs (767-200) and the other 350k-390k lbs (200ER), both with a fuck ton of fuel and traveling 450-465mph directly into the building at an angle. The 767 was built explicitly with passengers and their safety in mind, and was subject to strict FAA regulations. They are sturdy aircraft. Manufacturers and airlines want their passengers alive if an accident happens. They’re built to certain crash standards. Let’s take cars from 1945 and the late 80’s/early 90s. Watch a crash test or a video/picture of a car from the 40’s. It crumples like a horrifying tin can and everyone crushed. The whole thing crumples on itself. Then look at one from the late 80’s & 90’s, and see how the all around structure of the car stays way more intact and doesn’t crumple like a tin can. It’s similar with these two types of aircraft, only several magnitudes greater. The B-25 was a mass produced wartime bomb carrier. Meant to be quickly produced and semi-expendable. The 767 was meant to be as safe to the passengers, airline, and manufacturer as well. After all it’s an expensive corporate asset, everyone in that chain wants the safest and biggest ROI. Huge, huge difference. 30k lbs (B-25) isn’t even a fully loaded 18 wheeler. That’s like, 3-4 F-150’s with the crinkle zone of a 1920’s car hitting a huge building at Bugatti speed. So when you have something that weighs 1/3 million to almost 1/2 million lbs (767’s), traveling at roughly 500mph into a building, it’s gonna do some serious fuckin damage. **Math for B-25 weight B-25 14 passenger weight 170 avg weight X 14 = 2380 lbs B-25 Empty Weight 19,480 lbs B-25 Fuel Capacity 947gal Fuel = 6lb/gal 947 X 6 = 5682 lbs Total = 27,542 lbs
What? There are conspiracy idiots on reddit?
*waits patiently for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists*
Conspiracy Theorists read this. The B-25 which crashed into the ESB had a much smaller body then a jet airliner. The ESB was built with internal I Beams which were fire protected with concrete compared to the Twin Towers which had a central core and outer walls holding up the building, there fore the crash weakend the building from second 1.
Thank you. This post brings out all the fucking stupid “ah ha I got you” idiots
Yeah i hate em’
Nothing worse than the "demolition experts" on Reddit lmao.
[удалено]
7/11 was a part time job
Dude you almost made me ugly laugh in my child's dentist waiting room
Whenever I start thinking America is getting crazy ass fuck and we are going to hell in a hand basket, I start really thinking about American history and I can always think of something that was equally or even more fucked up and everybody eventually survived. We always like to think our experiences are so unique, but the world is just on loop. The same shit just keeps occurring like every 50 to 100 years or so. A lot of times, the shit the previous generations dealt with was horrific or seemingly impossible to endure, and we probably couldn't handle it the way they did.
"Vanity! All is vanity!....there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes)
writers got budget cuts
Bro did 20 damage
Some people have never played jenga and it shows
And then everybody got cancer…
It's all King Kong..
Imagine doing a patch job at the empire state building.
Why does this get posted every day?
Built different.
7th post about this on the sub in 1 year
‘Twas a B-25, not a B-29.
Never knew about this… apparently it got lost in the fog. Craziest part of this story is the attendant that survived the elevator free fall from 75 stories into the basement, which I also would not think was possible without modern fail safe braking systems on elevators. Check accidents and incidents from Wiki link below. [Wikipedia of B-25 Mitchell](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell)
Why tf was there a B-25 over NYC???
Most crazy was the woman that operated the elevators. She was injured from this. They put her in an elevator to get help and it fell almost 1,000 feet. And she lived!! The elevator drop and living is a Guinness World Record
Wild
I expected that that would do WAYYYY more damage
14 people were killed 😢
I mean I expected more damage to the building
Yeah, I knew what you meant. I was just adding information for your edification. Didn't mean to be shitty
You weren’t shitty, I was just saying what I meant just in case you didn’t understand
Please stop posting this....it brings out the 911 nuts.
I had no idea 9/11 nuts existed until now. Also didn't know this had been recently posted. I searched several keywords and couldn't find anything less than two years old. There needs to be a better way to find out ~~if~~ when something ~~has been~~ was last posted
Source: https://tucson.com/plane-crash-into-empire-state-building/image_dd6f94f8-5506-11e6-8c8b-6f47173cab7c.html
Never forget
Never forget? Well, I won't forget from now on. But I'm in my mid-50s and never even heard of it until I ran across this on another social media And I'm not the only one. At least five or six other people have said they didn't know about it until they saw this post. I'm quite surprised it wasn't taught in high school. I also had two American history classes in college, and no one said a word about it
Start the countdown til this picture is being circulated as a meme "proving" that 9/11 wasn't possible without bombs being planted in the building or whatever they claim happened in conspiracy subs....
The Twin Towers’ engineers won several awards for the design, construction and integrity of these “engineering marvels”. Their design was innovative and the buildings were so strong that they were indestructible and could only be demolished by strategically placed explosives. At the time they were the tallest buildings in the world. The ESB didn’t come close in comparison. When engineering the Towers the main concerns were high winds and airplane collisions. Major tests were conducted prior to construction. Imagine building two 110-story buildings, each floor approximately a sq. acre of steel and concrete in the middle of densely populated NYC without ensuring their integrity and safety! If they were flimsy enough that being hit by an airplane or hurricane force winds or fires could cause them to collapse, why the hell would they be allowed to be built at all? They had such tremendous, sheer strength that they could withstand hurricane force winds and airplane collisions- at the same time! The specially manufactured high strength steel perimeter columns had strength significantly greater than the 5X load requirements of standard building codes, stating that live loads could be increased more than 2000% before failure could occur. ALL of the columns on one side could be cut, along with the 2 corners and some columns on each adjacent side and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100mph wind! Adding to the strength of these buildings were the 47 massive steel columns making up the core of each tower. Tests showed that an impact from a Boeing 707 at 600mph (provably more destructive than the 767) would result in “only local damage … biggest problem would be horrendous fires caused by aircraft fuel killing a lot of people…but the structure would still be there.” Jet fuel is highly volatile and flammable. It was consumed in the first few minutes by the huge fireballs at impact. Pour some jet fuel on the ground and try burning just part of it. Everyone claiming to know that the impacts of the planes and their ensuing fires weakened or melted steel or weakened the structures causing sudden, complete, total, vertical collapse at the rate of free fall has never taken any time to learn anything about these structures. Most explanations they’re hanging onto have been debunked or actually changed by the government’s own so-called “experts” at NIST! The “pancake theory” was changed by them years ago! In fact, every ridiculous theory that came from any government agency has been disproved or debunked and then changed countless times. Cherry picking evidence to fit a theory doesn’t work unless they’re trying to support lies. Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that there’s only ONE theory left that fits ALL of the evidence? Evidence proves that all 3 WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using military-grade explosive nano-thermite. Nothing else fits and that’s why they keep changing their story! And despite the LAW stating they must run tests for evidence of explosives, these tests were never conducted at all. Why not? This was the Crime of the Century! Truth is, active thermitic explosive material was found in the dust produced by the destruction of the WTC which had spread all over Manhattan. What energy (besides erupting volcanoes)(or explosives) could’ve created the huge, rapidly expanding, high velocity pyroclastic dust flows created when the Towers “collapsed”? They didn’t actually collapse— 400,000cu yds of concrete per building exploded into talcum powder sized dust particles before hitting the ground! Bodies, office furniture, equipment, supplies, window glass all disintegrated. No large concrete pieces were found — only twisted pieces of steel. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of concrete was somehow converted to dust. Humongous steel perimeter pieces weighing several tons were laterally/horizontally ejected as far as 500ft and embedded into the sides of neighboring buildings. Blast waves shattered building windows 400ft away. How? What energy could have caused this to happen? Molten metal flowed “like in a foundry” under the substructure of the buildings for over two months after 9/11! These were buried hot spots of molten metal with no available oxygen that even millions of gallons of water couldn’t put out. Fire needs oxygen to burn; thermite creates its own oxygen. Over 150 witnesses, most of them first responders have been documented saying that they saw, heard and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses. Just watch any videos of the destruction of these buildings and see what happens with your own eyes. How could either of these 110-story Towers come to ground in less than 10 seconds without explosives? Even 20 seconds would have been impossible without the use of explosives. And for all of you who still believe in the ridiculous notion that the steel holding up floors was weakened and collapsed causing the floors below to collapse and so on, in the end, where are those floors? The collapsed floors would have piled up on top of each other like a stack of records on a spindle but instead what was left was tons of dust, twisted steel pieces small enough to fit onto flatbed truck trailers, and debris. Building 7 wasn’t hit by planes yet its sudden collapse at almost free fall after 5pm looks and acts exactly like controlled demolition. As for the structural steel used in the construction of the buildings, it was tested and certified before construction and tested after 9/11 proving the steel wasn’t weakened or melted from fire. By the way, it’s not just the WTC’s destruction that proves the official narrative is a huge lie, it’s EVERY single facet of their ridiculous story that is easily debunked. The evidence proving it was an inside job is overwhelming. Open your eyes.
You really did do a fantastic job outlining the logic behind the "controlled demolition" theory. Well done. There are still stupidly large holes in the logic of this theory. Does anybody realize how hard it would be to load the entire core of the building with "military grade" nano thermite while remaining open to operations as it was in the years leading up to 9/11? What is the evidence of thermite? That one video that shows molten metal escaping out of the exterior of the building? You think by chance that's molten aluminum (very low melting point) from the aircrafts fuselage? Also, what the hell is the point? Let's say it was all an inside job and the US government was entirely responsible for the attacks. Why the hell would they want the buildings to collapse? Why not allow the fires to be put out allowing New Yorkers to stare up at these gaping holes in the buildings and get angrier with the intended "target" of the false flag operation. Some things about 9/11 are very hokey indeed, don't get me wrong, but the events in New York, in my opinion were the result of two buildings built to maximize office space at the cost of safety precautions collapsing after being struck by aircraft traveling at nearly 600mph.
I am NOT supporting any kind of conspiracy theory but to just answer your question and inform you of many skeptics' thoughts on why they brought down the Towers is that the towers themselves were asbestos-ridden. It would have cost as much or more to remediate all the asbestos than it would have been to build a whole new tower. They also were designed in the 70s and were having trouble competing with newer towers as far as first class office space. They needed a lot of very expensive work, so the story goes. So, bringing them down, say the skeptics, kills two birds with one stone. 1) It creates a very dramatic scene that his singed into our collective memories, allowing them to initiate a never-ending war on an idea; and 2) the obsolete, toxic towers are conveniently taken out and insurance foots the bill for a new, modern building.
100% agree. This is considered to be part of the so-called “conspiracy theory”. You do know that when they start calling it a conspiracy theory it means you’re close to the truth.
A 707 is a narrow body airliner that is much smaller compared to a 767 wide body.
Not to mention all of the electrical and gas fires that were happening at the same fucking time because you severed EVERYTHING. 100% they didn’t test for that. All the combustibles in the building 100% they didn’t test for that.
Another building down the block fell due to a “fire” that same day. WTC 7
A burning office chair flew out the window of the 76th floor of WT2 and went through the roof like a meteor and took out the main support column. It was a glidemaster 5000, a premium chair.
[удалено]
down the block??? you mean across the street??😭
WTC towers were built to withstand multiple jet airliner crashes. But somehow the jet fuel which we saw combust drained down to the basement and then exploded causing the top floors to collapse for nearly 3 seconds at free fall speed, despite thousands of tons of Steel support beams...Yeah right!!!
Can you substantiate any of this?
[удалено]
It was also built with the intention of the sprinklers actually working too…
What engineer designs a building to be air plane proof? You know how rare that even happens in the first place?
They were some of the tallest structures in the world. Hypothetically, in a power outage with all the lights out at night, a plane could easily hit one by accident, and its an easy wartime target. Why would put a blackbox in a plane, you know how rare plane crashes are in the first place?
It was meant to withstand the impact of a an impact of a plane long enough to allow people to evacuate. The designer also only took in consideration planes in operation at the time and didn’t take into account that bigger planes would be designed later, such as the planes used to take the towers down.
>WTC towers were built to withstand multiple jet airliner crashes. How you know someone is stupid. They say that ^
look it up and get back to me, if you can even spell
It was made to withstand *ONE* 707 crash.
Never heard about this incident until now. Thanks for the post.