The uncomfortable moment when Noam Chomsky gives 9/11 twoofers 7 minutes of ether

[Dusty Bake Activate]

"A lot of people think they know physics because they spent an hour on the internet."

I wonder if the

crowd will call Chomsky an agent of the MSM globalist, Zionist agenda.

 

[ugksam]

i heard that the physics part of the conspiracy theory isnt correct because the WTC Towers were not actually built up to code

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@newworldafro
@Meta Reign
@LeyeT
@thekingsmen

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

Good video. Still doesnt prove that building 7 didn't collapse under mysterious circumstances.

 

[88m3]

@Mephistopheles is that you with dreads before you got ?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Good video. Still doesnt prove that building 7 didn't collapse under mysterious circumstances.

HERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires." Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said. Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings. The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began. After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure. The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics bookDebunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Factsmentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires." The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse." Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. NIST will accept public comment on the final report until Sept. 15, 2008. NIST's press release and other material on the report can be found here. Click here to download the full report in pdf form.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@Mephistopheles is that you with dreads before you got ?

Aren't you the cac whose father has dreads?

 

[newworldafro]

Good video. Still doesnt prove that building 7 didn't collapse under mysterious circumstances.

haven't watched video yet, but if he ignores the question of why the building dropped like Sharkeisha gave it a fade without being touched by an aeroplane....... and ignores a bunch of people a lot smarter than he is in physics, architecture, engineering and aviation http://www.ae911truth.org/ .. then how you going to convince his stubborness from halting lame jokes on lay people trying to get an authentic/unbridled understanding of what happened...

 

[88m3]

Aren't you the cac whose father has dreads?

My pops did have dreads and I'm of proud African stock.

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

haven't watched video yet, but if he ignores the question of why the building dropped like Sharkeisha gave it a fade without being touched by an aeroplane....... and ignores a bunch of people a lot smarter than he is in physics, architecture, engineering and aviation http://www.ae911truth.org/ .. then how you going to convince his stubborness from halting lame jokes on lay people trying to get an authentic/unbridled understanding of what happened...

Idk what happened its just a strange thing or we making it more than it is. In my own common sense thinking it seems the building shouldn't have came down but I'm no expert so I can be so far wrong just like everyone else. But it seems fishy. Always has since it happened. So that counts for something.

 

[DEAD7]

"A lot of people think they know physics because they spent an hour on the internet."

 

[thekingsmen]

There are pros and cons to Noam....he is very smart, detailed and accurate but he is also long-winded and boring. His view on 9/11 isn't in my opinion the best or near accurate but he makes some good points. The thing is that Chomsky is great on is philosophy but he is no architect, engineer and aviator. He's never seen what they seen or done what they have done.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

haven't watched video yet, but if he ignores the question of why the building dropped like Sharkeisha gave it a fade without being touched by an aeroplane....... and ignores a bunch of people a lot smarter than he is in physics, architecture, engineering and aviation http://www.ae911truth.org/ .. then how you going to convince his stubborness from halting lame jokes on lay people trying to get an authentic/unbridled understanding of what happened...

Regarding those smarter people in physics, he addressed that in the vid.

Regarding WTC 7, that's addressed in the NIST report I linked.

But that aside, I'd like to ask you something else. An argument tactic you and other truthers here often use is dismissing non-truthers as being brainwashed by the "MSM" and not believing your viewpoint because it's "alternative."

Well Noam Chomsky is as anti-mainstream as it gets. He's an iconoclastic legend, a proponent of anarcho-syndicalism, he abhors capitalism, and is as fierce an Israel critic as anyone. The "MSM" avoids him like the plague. Corporate-owned news networks won't book him. The only time he can get on TV is C-SPAN. Yet he's saying the same stuff as people like me who post here. Why do you think that is?

 

[OsO]

he said he doesn't have an opinion. which is what a wise person says when they dont have enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.

unlike the HL psuedo-skeptic camp who believes the official government story of 9/11 wholeheartedly. and not only do they accept the official story without questioning it, but they defend the accuracy of the report with every fiber of their being.

thread fail


and all respect due to the gawd chomsky but his bush analysis at the end was terrible.... they are undoubtedly lunatics.