Sup guys

Sup guys.
I'm currently studying architecture and there's a profesor that said we will be debating the twin towers incident next class. He thinks it was an inside job. I need to bring next class actual facts about the twin towers and stuff.
So yeah, what do you all faggots think about the 911?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hZUBR3mg_OQ
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=fTHT7MXLef8
youtu.be/ft2uIYucsXo?t=187
metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/
youtu.be/hgrunnLcG9Q
nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE
ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101028
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I´ll start posting whatever info i find. Btw it has to be actual facts, like the materials used etc.

bush did it i seen it with my own eyes on nine elevel he walked with a another man then he took a phone out of his pocket and said " blow em up john" and then the rest is history my uncle was there with me and he saw everything too i swear to god bush did it he called some john guy and said blow em up john i was there i seen with my own eyes and my uncle did too bush was with another man walking around when he called someone and said blow em up john and the rest is history i seen with my own eyes i swear and my uncle did too

bush did it i seen it with my own eyes on nine elevel he walked with a another man then he took a phone out of his pocket and said " blow em up john" and then the rest is history my uncle was there with me and he saw everything too i swear to god bush did it he called some john guy and said blow em up john i was there i seen with my own eyes and my uncle did too bush was with another man walking around when he called someone and said blow em up john and the rest is history i seen with my own eyes i swear and my uncle did toobush did it i seen it with my own eyes on nine elevel he walked with a another man then he took a phone out of his pocket and said " blow em up john" and then the rest is history my uncle was there with me and he saw everything too i swear to god bush did it he called some john guy and said blow em up john i was there i seen with my own eyes and my uncle did too bush was with another man walking around when he called someone and said blow em up john and the rest is history i seen with my own eyes i swear and my uncle did toobush did it i seen it with my own eyes on nine elevel he walked with a another man then he took a phone out of his pocket and said " blow em up john" and then the rest is history my uncle was there with me and he saw everything too i swear to god bush did it he called some john guy and said blow em up john i was there i seen with my own eyes and my uncle did too bush was with another man walking around when he called someone and said blow em up john and the rest is history i seen with my own eyes i swear and my uncle did toobush did it i seen it with my own eyes on nine elevel he walked with a another man then he took a phone out of his pocket and said " blow em up john" and then the rest is history my uncle was there with me and he saw everything too i swear to god bush did it he called some john guy and said blow em up john i was there i seen with my own eyes and my uncle did too bush was with another man walking around wh

Well.... lets see.
they where open on the 4th of april of 1973 and as we know they went down on the 11th of september of 2001

Fuck that. Send him an email telling him you won't be attending the next class and that if he wants to waste students' time with retarded political debates, he can try teaching public policy instead of architecture.

Also, 9/11 clearly wasn't an inside job. None of the alternative theories presented make any sense.

Watch "Zeitgeist" on youtube.
theres a section on 9/11 which is pretty hard to ignore

youtube.com/watch?v=hZUBR3mg_OQ

two words: jews did it

Its not only about political shit. He says that the... i cant belive im about to say it but: Jet fuel cant melt stel beams. That and that the structure was suppoused to be able to handle that kind of an impact

You can check out some engineering youtube videos on how it was physically impossible for the buildings to freefall without disintegration of the support beams. You can also read how flawed the NIST report actually was. It leaves out the conspiracy jargon and comes from the viewpoint of structural engineers.

Easy op sandniggers attacked us. Wake the fuck up stupid

skyscrapers don't turn into dust and fall into their own footprint because it got hit by a plane.

Holy fuck, what a moron. Maybe you should go just to humiliate the cunt. If those are the strongest arguments he has, then you clearly don't have much to worry about.

Based on what? How many similar incidents exist?

I think i have a neutral stand on the subject, that's why i want to get as much info as i can to have an actual debate

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=fTHT7MXLef8

A. Did not turn into dust.

B. Did not collapse into their own footprint.

This is a retarded meme that is easily debunked just by looking at photographs taken immediately after the collapse.

>architecture
>twin towers

that's engineering famalam you drawfags don't actually into real structure of materials
>let that be your de-bait

Off by one. Kys.

tell him to stop being a newfag and post more traps

You really don't need to. Just ask what he thinks happened instead and pick apart his theory.

Was it explosives planted in the buildings? That would have required months of work and hundreds of personnel sworn to perpetual secrecy.

Was it cruise missiles? Then what happened to the planes? And the passengers?

Was it a nuclear device? Yes, I have actually heard that fucking theory, even though no nuke with that small of a yield exists.

If he's smart he'll just go with some wishy-washy bullshit like, "I don't know what really happened except that the official story doesn't make much sense." But he probably won't. I've met shitheads like him before. His pride won't allow it.

Zeitgeist has been throughly debunked from beginning to end. The whole thing should be in schools and then you should be taught why its bullshit after. The huge irony is that it trys to create a facts bases arguement for a conspiracy without actual facts.

OP. Point this out to your retarded professor.
There are only 3 basic facts you need to tell your professor
A) people quite rightly refer to similar buildings not collapsing due to fire. However this is a little misguided.
The fire in the Twin Towers was a Jet Fuel fire.
Burning at a little under 1000c.
A standard building fire where the fuel is stuff like say, plaster carpet and tables will top out at 600c

B)
People talk about buildings being able to withstand planes but this is also misleading.
Firstly the assumption is that the plane crash happens at landing not takeoff, without a full tank of fuel, secondly, the crqsh happens at a lower speed. The plane that hit the first tower was going about 500 mph. Pretty much full speed, especially at such low altitude.

C) the is the kicker when you take the above two facts into account.
Steel loses 90% (Ninety!!!!) Of its strength at HALF its melting point.
So at 800c its at 10% strength. The moment it gave a millimeter. There would have been so much momentum that it would have crashed down like a stack of cards. Which it did.

google it

Tell him that the jet fuel didn't melt the steel beams. It was a combination of the burning fuel and the damage from the impact that weakened them enough to cause the collapse. This has been known for over 15 years.

OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE AND REWATCH THE VIDEOS OF THE BUILDING FALLING!! YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE DEBRIS FROM A CONTROLLED EXPLOSION GOING OFF AS THE TOWER COLLAPSES!! JUST SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES

>youtu.be/ft2uIYucsXo?t=187
this is what i'm referring to

Thats a common misconception. In architecture we have to study both esthetical design and structural design

Kek. Seriously though the main support beams for the towers were taken and "disposed" of. Bush didn't mobilize the air force for almost two hours after the first blast, traces of thermite were found at ground zero, yada yada.

You google it. I'm not going to waste my time just because you're to lazy to back up your bullshit.

I can clearly see pancaking. Look at the building below the impact point, it is completely intact as the floors pancake on each other 1 by 1. It is crystal clear, just because some guy on youtube says it looks like CD doesn't mean it's so.

How was it an inside job if the towers got hit outside?

It doesn't need to melt the steel beams all I need to do is get within warping point which jet fuel does

Without a doubt an inside job, not the first time either.

Look up "pancaking" and "the accordion effect" and then slit your wrist.

Literally every conspiracy theory point regarding the collapse of the towers has been debunked for years.

Thanks, those are some actual valid points that Id like to use.

Inside yob.

No worries.
To me, most of what people talk about is completely irrelevant.
Those three points are both factually correct and hard to ignore

>Look up "pancaking" and "the accordion effect" and then slit your wrist.

This didn't take place. If it had, there would have been a PARTIAL collapse and a HUGE FUCKING STACK OF CONCRETE. What was observed was the DISINTEGRATION OF THE STRUCTURES, they were TURNED INTO DUST. They fell at near free fall speeds, no resistance, which is what you would have expected had they "pancaked". So you are dead wrong, shit head.

The first two points are meaningless. The second is outright false.

metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

To believe that a conspiracy of such magnitude necessitating the involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people was pulled off without a single one of them breaking silence is an exercise in the highest level of stupidity. I immediately judge conspiracy theorists as idiots just based upon the level of disconnect needed in their logic to believe what they are spouting.

>This didn't take place. If it had, there would have been a PARTIAL collapse and a HUGE FUCKING STACK OF CONCRETE

Explain to us exactly why pancaking wouldn't lead to a complete collapse.

What about the argument that the plane shouldn't be able to reach that speed at that altitude?

You really think a building of that magnitude wouldn't collapse into dust?

You should look up "the psychology of conspiracy theorists" to get some insight into your broken mind. What you're suggesting isn't just implausible, it's irrational. And it's sad you'll never have the mental capacity to see that.

>I'm currently studying architecture and there's a profesor that said we will be debating the twin towers incident next class. He thinks it was an inside job.

really hope there exits a professor with enough balls to do this

There are idiots with degrees in every field, so I'm sure they do exist.

Yup, mine.
Anyway, here is a lil report on what i have found so far.
The two towers where designed by Minoru Yamasaki on 1960, they had 110 floors each.
The towers had two principal lobbies, wich gave acces to the people to express elevators wich then led em to local elevators, reducing the space needed for elevators hole in a 70-60%

I believe there wasn't even planes hitting the towers but instead the government used high-tech holograms to simulate the planes hitting the buildings after then using explosives on the supposed planes entry points as well to collapse the structure

It was decending.

What do you think is the answer if it wasn't possible???

They knew it was going to happen.

You may be trolling - but there are literally people out there who take this one step further and believe that the towers never existed and were holograms in the first place.

The professor is saying it was supposed to be able to handle the impact. How many times must we go through this? it was meant to withstand the accidental impact of a 707 era jet that might have gotten lost in the fog on the way to la guardia or kennedy. That is not the same thing as a 757 slamming into the building with a huge load of fuel and at 500 mph, and yes a plane can go that fast, get over it.

It's not like it got up to that speed at that altitude, they were at speed then dropped altitude. That's just fucking logic.

just follow the money. just ask yourself how expensive would have been to knock them down because of the asbestos

forget the engineering perspective and look at the insider trading. this should be the #1 point of any skeptic.

99% of structural engineers believe the NIST report fyi

A building next to the twin towers that wasnt even fucking hit collapsed for no fucking reason

Not an inside job

All the higher ups that were supposed to be there that day werent there

Not an inside job

First skyscraper to ever fall from a plane crash

Not an inside job

Mfw

Were the people that died in the towers also holograms?

How would an architect know shit about whether a plane would bring down a building? They barely even take entry level math courses.

Jet beams cant melt steel planes.

Or never existed - one or the other.

Wow. The amount of twisting and contorting required to keep the mem going is amazing i must say.. just wow.

Meme*

Not really, we have some classes where they teach us about structure and the materials, resistance, etc

WTF is 'resistance' exactly?

maybe the grieving families were also holograms

It's what you have to knowledge

Crisis actors. Same ones used for Sandy Hook.

>viewpoint of structural engineers

Yeah it comes from people with facts backed by science rather than a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing faggot basement dwellers

follow the shekels.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Nobody speaks of 'resistance' in mechanics of materials. Important terms are terms such as "elastic modulus or young's modulus", "ultimate strength", "yield strength", "strain", "creep", etc.

"resistance" is meaningless, unless you're talking about electrical engineering.

"I refuse to answer stupid questions."

Silverstein.

Any self-respecting structural engineer would quickly realize that there's no way to make any objective determination on the response of the system without access to any engineering drawings.

Yeah, sorry if i dun goof'd ya, i've studied civil engineering and we didn't talk about resistance but of static, then again i quit that shit because i didn't like it

>A building next to the twin towers that wasnt even fucking hit collapsed for no fucking reason

The building was connected to the WTC towers by a walkway bridge. The initial collapse of the two main towers severed the water mains in a several block area, fires started from materials that dropped from the tower's collapse kindled fires which structurally weakened the steel beams which caused it to collapse.

OP needs to consider that fireproofing of structural members were quite inadequate to modern standards, although they met the fireproofing to the IBC at the time of design and build.

sorry, i may have used the wrong word. What im talking about is the resistance of materials, like how much weight they cant take, and the flexibility of concrete, metal, etc.

Yeah, just make shit up, right? Because some faggot posts a video on youtube, thats all the proof you need right?

Well im trying to get any info, but mostly facts that can be proven. so yeah i need to look both the engineering and then i guess i can look a lil in the theories everyone has

>hundreds of personnel sworn to secrecy
>what is the CIA

the engineering is
>they weren't fucking designed to take a plane hit
>skyscraper fires are crazy shit

t. engineering fag who watched backdraft once

+

You're still not making sense. "How much weight a material can take" is meaningless. You should probably stop discussing topics you know nothing about.

Thats summarized in the engineering report by NIST, any external engineers should be able to come to a rational conclusion by a government national laboratory which has been reviewed and commented on prior to publication.

Building 7
/thread

youtu.be/hgrunnLcG9Q

Try to debunk this.

I'll wait.

...

Will use that point, thanks.

Underrated post

What if like 9/11 never actually happened? It's a psyop. Just like 7/11.

If they collapsed due to fires, how come all the ash, that covered people in the street in seconds, wasn't hot and didn't burn anyone?

nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

Fair enough, jet fuel can weaken steel enough for it to break, but then what made the steel actually melt then?

youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE

Ummm yea they were designed to take a plane hit. Sorry to inform you.

the buildings were definitely made to take the hit. Empire state building was hit by a plane in 1945 didn do shit

Okay, maybe that´s bait but ill bite.
By howw much weigh a material can take i mean the force it can support, its not the same in a house than in a big building. Concrete is way stronger but a house full made of concrete would be too expensive, also a normal house doesnt need that much strenght cuz it will be two stories. thats why we use bricks

I hit your mom with my dick.

Wasn't ash. It was pulverized concrete and drywall, neither of which burns.

alright when the trolls start to believe themselves I'm out

ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101028

The ash came from the fires. Hot fires will occasionally burn things not normally burnable.

Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-5)

Planes get fucked up at the airport in a bad hail storm. Building should cut through plane, not the other way around.

It definitely was fishy, and the official story has obvious falsities.

Next.

It took a hit from a plane going half the speed and that weighed a tenth of the jets that it the towers