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

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
The problem I have with these "the government set off explosives and sent missiles" crowd:

1) Wouldn't it be more logistically plausible to know an attack was imminent and then just let it happen?

2) Wouldn't just allowing a planned attack to occur require much less covering up and paying off?

3) Do these people think that if for some reason the planes hit the towers and the towers didn't come down that we wouldn't have gone to war or imposed draconian laws anyway?


Makes no sense to me. I can't stand these fukkers who say that if you don't believe in the controlled demolition theory that you believe 100% the government's account of the attack. I don't believe in either.
 

CouldntBeMeTho

Chairman Meow
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
47,997
Reputation
21,383
Daps
272,541
Reppin
Dog Shooting Squad Of Islamabad
It is perfectly in-line with all physics. That's why you fools believe the buildings fell at free-fall speed.

Learn to f = ma.

PpfzDPW.png

it was very close to free fall speeds. don't talk to me about physics faq. the only time buildings do this is under controlled demolition. THE ONLY time it's EVER happened EVER is under controlled demolition.


 

OsO

Souldier
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,047
Reputation
1,142
Daps
12,103
Reppin
Harlem
just took a gander at the conclusions of the NIST report... smh.

basically their conclusion was, for the first time in history, office furnishings burned long enough and hot enough to melt steel support structures and collapse the building demolition style.














































:snoop:
 

OsO

Souldier
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,047
Reputation
1,142
Daps
12,103
Reppin
Harlem
Makes no sense to me. I can't stand these fukkers who say that if you don't believe in the controlled demolition theory that you believe 100% the government's account of the attack. I don't believe in either.

but that's the problem though, you're in the minority.

the majority of the HL psuedo-skeptics accept the government't story hook, line, and sinker. DESPITE all the red flags.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,063
Reputation
8,154
Daps
122,283
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Ill Clinton said:
it was very close to free fall speeds. don't talk to me about physics faq.

'Very close' only matters in horse-shoes and hand grenades.

I won't talk to you about physics because you don't possess the necessary education to understand them.

I don't have the patience to teach you.

Perhaps you should watch an hour of youtube videos.

f = ma >>>>> Conspiracy Theories.

PpfzDPW.png
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
but that's the problem though, you're in the minority.

the majority of the HL psuedo-skeptics accept the government't story hook, line, and sinker. DESPITE all the red flags.


I think they are just as much conspiracy theorists as the people who believe in controlled demolitions.

Planning a large scale missile, hijacking, controlled demolition and whatever else that goes into the Alex Jones' type of accounts requires a lot logistically, and more importantly than all, involves A LOT OF PEOPLE. That's a lot of people to keep quiet.

Compare that with the President and his inner circle knowing that attacks are about to occur, or have a high chance of occurring, and just ignoring it. That involves a lot less logistics and a few number of people know about it. This is MUCH more plausible, especially considering that the outcome would be the same.

The Hijackers could have hijacked the planes and all of them been shot down by F16s and I still believe that it would have been enough to scare people into supporting the War On Terror and passing draconian laws.
 

CouldntBeMeTho

Chairman Meow
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
47,997
Reputation
21,383
Daps
272,541
Reppin
Dog Shooting Squad Of Islamabad
just took a gander at the conclusions of the NIST report... smh.

basically their conclusion was, for the first time in history, office furnishings burned long enough and hot enough to melt steel support structures and collapse the building demolition style.


:snoop:

that's what I've been saying. Nohm is talking about physics. the physics that brought this building down has supposedly never happened before.

if burning office furnishings could bring down modern sky scrappers this shyt would happen all the time. there's been a ton of sky scrappers catch on fire and burn way worse than this. not to mention we've had them for over 100 years. still... NEVER happened not once. well except for 9/11

2afmvwx.png
 

CouldntBeMeTho

Chairman Meow
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
47,997
Reputation
21,383
Daps
272,541
Reppin
Dog Shooting Squad Of Islamabad
'Very close' only matters in horse-shoes and hand grenades.

I won't talk to you about physics because you don't possess the necessary education to understand them.

I don't have the patience to teach you.

Perhaps you should watch an hour of youtube videos.

f = ma >>>>> Conspiracy Theories.​


you're a condescending a$$hole, if I met you in real life it would take me 2 seconds to smell the bytch on you.
i'm the type of computer nerd that does math equations for fun. f=ma is something for junior high kids gtfoh. please demonstrate to me how these buildings didn't fall at freefall speed.

 

OsO

Souldier
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,047
Reputation
1,142
Daps
12,103
Reppin
Harlem
Compare that with the President and his inner circle knowing that attacks are about to occur, or have a high chance of occurring, and just ignoring it. That involves a lot less logistics and a few number of people know about it. This is MUCH more plausible, especially considering that the outcome would be the same.

The Hijackers could have hijacked the planes and all of them been shot down by F16s and I still believe that it would have been enough to scare people into supporting the War On Terror and passing draconian laws.

i agree with all of that.

but im curious to know your opinion on the collapse of building 7?

collapsed from burning furniture that melted steel support structures, as in the NIST report?
a controlled demolition?
a different explanation?
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,063
Reputation
8,154
Daps
122,283
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Ill Clinton said:

you're a condescending @sshole, if I met you in real life it would take me 2 seconds to smell the bytch on you.

I've killed 3 people. You'd be number 4.

distance = g t

g is the acceleration due to gravity 32 feet per second per second, and t is time in seconds.

The Towers were 417 m tall.

Do the math.​
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,063
Reputation
8,154
Daps
122,283
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
88m3 said:
Is that what's going on here?

:heh:

It's actually more like.......​

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

I have the documents.......
PpfzDPW.png
 
Last edited:

CouldntBeMeTho

Chairman Meow
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
47,997
Reputation
21,383
Daps
272,541
Reppin
Dog Shooting Squad Of Islamabad
I've killed 3 people. You'd be number 4.

distance = g t

g is the acceleration due to gravity 32 feet per second per second, and t is time in seconds.

The Towers were 417 m tall.

Do the math.​
we're talking about tower 7 here. tower 7 was 741 ft.

yes tower 7 did reach within 1% of free fall speed.




taken from the NIST web site:


In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
  • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
  • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
  • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


Even NIST will admit building 7 reached free fall speeds. :stopitslime:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
 

CouldntBeMeTho

Chairman Meow
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
47,997
Reputation
21,383
Daps
272,541
Reppin
Dog Shooting Squad Of Islamabad
more :ducktales: from NIST

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
What are the major differences between "typical" major high rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on September 11, 2001?
There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 51 (2001).
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.
The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.
 
Top