When the fuck did this happen?

>although the building's structural integrity was not compromised
make you think

Attached: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg (976x850, 61.9K)

It happened in 1945 you stupid faggot.

you are a fewfag. if you had been lurking for a while, you would have come across it in any 9/11 conspiracy thread. get with the times, shizo

Attached: 1653565486390.jpg (976x1077, 151.36K)

Boomer faggot

I have never heard of this.
However WIKI is not a source of facts, you should know this. Look in actual history literature for a better view, or talk to someone that witnessed it. WIKI is a propaganda outlet now so don't trust a fucking thing put on it.

You aren’t American

>a prop plane crashing into a building at 300 km/h doesn't nearly deal same amount of damage as a massive jet crashing into it at almost supersonic speed
Yeah really makes you think.

If you had been on top of your conspiracies you would have seen any number of videos such as loose change or zeitgeist. Say what you will about the validity of some of their shit but they definitely both mentioned this crash. Duh. Fucking duh.

I see cross-dimensional references to WTC being hit by planes from time to time. But they're still there, the twin towers that is. Were they really destroyed in your guy's timeline?

All of you who don't know about this are probably under 30, so of course all you know is dexter's labratory or whatever.

Obviously flat earth was made Q user

Back to x, bitch

no, you're just ignorant of history.

>80% of threads on Any Forums
>Zoomers seeing shit for the first time
Because of shitty education system and mentally degraded through social media never search for anything other than mainstream "facts" and "nice to know" shit

The collision is always brought up by retarded truthers about
>A PLANE CRASHED INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING BUT IT DIDNT COLLAPSE SO WHY DID THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE?????

>A completely diffrent planes hitting a completely diffrent buildings have diffrent results
No shit, why are 9/11-"truth"ers so low IQ?

>almost supersonic speed
Nice try shitbird. It would have been going less than half mach 1.

Never heard of this and you're full of shit.

Literally brought up on the during the coverage of 9/11 attacks back in 2001.

>historical event you've never heard of before
>W O A H mandollin efect ????
is this the new zoomer creepypasta, like the empty rooms thing

terrorist attack on statue of liberty.

>supersonic speed
based retard

2 planes 3 towers

>zeitgeist
At what time marker is this discussed in Zeitgeist?

>When the fuck did this happen?
1945

Attached: 1625102706308.jpg (582x463, 33.88K)

>Can't even spell newfag
I've been here since 2008, you're a gigantic faggot and your flag looks like fucking liquorice. Kill yourself and take your joke country with you.

B-25 is a tiny plane compared to a 767

It's one of the origins of Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams, you retard.

I have never heard of this even though I researched the shit out of 9/11 conspiracies for years.

(((Someone))) stole all the gold at WTC6.

Attached: WTC6.jpg (864x864, 287.02K)

You're either too young, or just never paid attention.
It's probably both. I mean, why would you pay attention? You're not American, and that's American trivia.

The B-25 is named for Billy Mitchell. Pilots loved him, but the brass hated him. He was court martialed.
What a chad.

Attached: Billy_Mitchell.jpg (2587x3299, 551.69K)

>retarded truthers
You think the WTC demolition happened because of airplanes? How simple you must be.

muh jet fuel

Attached: 1650969910722.jpg (960x540, 29.3K)

You German kiddies really buy the narrative, don't you?

I don’t believe a lot of the official claims for 9/11 but I never got this one, why would jet fuel need to melt steel? Do you think a steel bean goes instantly from 100% strength to molten?

I hate you summerfags!

I caught that, too.

People who subscribe to the narrative don't think this is weird.

>Do you think a steel bean goes instantly from 100% strength to molten?
I don't think the aussie user was endorsing the claim, just relating it.

In any case, some do believe that. They believe it would need to melt to lose structural integrity.

For any curious anons, the planes hit at 494 mph and 586 mph.

>tiny plane
that happens to carry ass loads of explosives. pic related

Attached: niggersaki.jpg (3600x2944, 1.99M)

Debris set on fire and destroyer the central rows of columns that were holding Building 7. You can see it breaking inside before the outer walls fell.

>he thinks a bomber carries his payload when not on any mission

>In any case, some do believe that. They believe it would need to melt to lose structural integrity.
I sure as hell don’t believe the shit with the passports surviving the crashes or the building 7 fuckery but I don’t get how anyone could be this dumb.

So the rivers of molten steel reported by first responders and the fact that the building pile of debris temperature actually sustained thousands of degrees for weeks afterwards.... that was just jet fuel? Nothing to see here.

People aren't ONLY saying that jet fuel can't melt steel. They're reporting actual molten steel - lots of it. So jet fuel either caused it by weakening the structure, or it melted it to liquid. Which is it, kid?

>both planes weight roughly the same
>b52's can fly faster than 747's

wouldn't the bomber do more damage if anything?