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

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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.​

 

[Techniec]

the idea of something happening for the "first time ever" on 9/11 is retarded, dont believe that whatsoever

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

we're talking about tower 7 here

And this just further proves you're an idiot unused to critical thought.

The CT-crowd claim that the speed could ONLY be accomplished through controlled demolition.

Demolition experts and the NIST concluded that wasn't necessary since structural integrity was compromised by falling debris from Tower 1 and uncontrolled fires for several hours.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

The fall-speed was completely in-line with all known laws of Physics, the layout of the building, and evidence gathered on the scene according to the NIST report YOU linked.

You have just destroyed your argument by trying to prove you were somehow more 'intelligent' than those who oppose your view.

There was NO controlled demolition of any of the WTC Buildings.

Thanks for playing.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

the idea of something happening for the "first time ever" on 9/11 is retarded, dont believe that whatsoever

​

In the real world things that can be considered coincidences happen all the time. Sometimes even coincidences that are so unlikely that they are almost incredible. Of course most coincidences are actually much more likely to happen than we usually think.

Just as a random example, suppose that an asteroid makes a close encounter with the Earth, and the same day that this close encounter happens, a big earthquake happens somewhere on Earth. Coincidence? Well, that's actually very likely: Every year there are over a thousand earthquakes of magnitude 5 or higher on Earth. The likelihood that on a very specific day a significant earthquake happens is actually not that surprising. The two incidents may very well not be related at all, but just happened on the same day.

In conspiracy theory land, however, there are no such things as coincidences. Everything always happens for a reason, and everything is always related somehow.

It's not impossible for even extremely unlikely coincidences to sometimes happen, but conspiracy theorists just love to take even the likeliest of coincidences and jump to conclusions. Just to add another piece of "evidence" for their shotgun argumentation.

 

[No1]

Go eat some damn Turkey. nikkas beefing on Thanksgiving

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

i totally agree with the bold. the investigation by the 9/11 commission and their subsequent report raised all kinds of red flags, and really left the door wide open for all these "conspiracy theories."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission
Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote a book about the constraints they faced as commissioners titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.[19]

John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[20] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."[21]




RED FLAGS all over the place... but as per the usual psuedo skeptics walking around with blinders on, totally accepting of the explanations put forth by the criminal organization known as the US government.... oh the irony

lol...Your stupidity is staggering. Could the government be attempting to scuttle parts of investigation that expose bureaucratic negligence in an event in which 3,000 citizens were killed by a foreign enemy?

Nah, that could never happen. Obviously, the entire Bush administration and lower level bureaucrats like the people at NORAD were all part of a conspiracy to orchestrate the attacks.

Btw, why do conspiracy nuts act like government employees are not average citizens like the rest of us who just find jobs in government?

I've talked here before about how I talked to my homegirl on the phone who was a recent HBCU graduate who landed a office job in the Pentagon and was in it when they plane hit the next day.

Goofy ass dudes like Leyet act like the bureaucrats sitting at desks at places like NORAD all sold their soul to Satan at Bohemian Grove or some shyt when they got hired by the government.

If 9/11 was a conspiracy it would have to involve hundreds of not just administration executives, but average rank and file government employees and everybody involved and who caught a whiff of the plot all never said a word before or after.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Go eat some damn Turkey. nikkas beefing on Thanksgiving

Mom ain't done cooking yet. We beefing til then.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

the idea of something happening for the "first time ever" on 9/11 is retarded, dont believe that whatsoever

Not logical bruh. Everything that ever happened in the universe happened for the first time once at some point.

All these youtube physicists can't say definitively what can or cannot happen unless you have a scenario where you can setup a series of controlled experiments in which fire and building damage of various magnitudes is inflicted upon buildings the size and structural makeup of building 7 with the same contents inside.

But anyway, the word of elite scientists and engineers of the National institute of Standards of Technology >>>> the word of paranoid conspiracy theorists illogically claiming something can't happen because it never happened before, even though the entire set of preceding factors has never happened before to provide comparative data.

 

[Type Username Here]

If 9/11 was a conspiracy it would have to involve hundreds of not just administration executives, but average rank and file government employees and everybody involved and who caught a whiff of the plot all never said a word before or after.

I agree with the rest of your post but this isn't true. If they knew there was a high probability of an attack, and they willfully ignored it, that is also a conspiracy and it involves a lot less people.

I don't put it past dikk Cheney and the rest of those criminals to do something like that, especially after you take into consideration they outright lies and intelligence manipulation they conducted in order to invade Iraq.

 

[Type Username Here]

the idea of something happening for the "first time ever" on 9/11 is retarded, dont believe that whatsoever

Can you explain your logic? I don't want to assume erroneously.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

If they knew there was a high probability of an attack, and they willfully ignored it, that is also a conspiracy and it involves a lot less people.

You'd have to prove they 'willfully' ignored it. Also, who exactly is 'they'?​

 

[Type Username Here]

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?

I'll answer your questions with questions:

1) What significance did building 7 coming down hold?

2) If Building 7 didn't come down, would have that stopped all the policies that came forth from the rest of the attacks?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I agree with the rest of your post but this isn't true. If they knew there was a high probability of an attack, and they willfully ignored it, that is also a conspiracy and it involves a lot less people.

I don't put it past dikk Cheney and the rest of those criminals to do something like that, especially after you take into consideration they outright lies and intelligence manipulation they conducted in order to invade Iraq.

Sounds like you're disagreeing just to be disagreeable. I was only critiquing the claim of an organized, orchestrated conspiracy.

 

[Type Username Here]

You'd have to prove they 'willfully' ignored it. Also, who exactly is 'they'?​

I don't think I can prove decisions made in private by individuals. "They" would be the people who receive the intelligence and then make decisions based on that. There was a shytload of credible intelligence both from domestic and international sources. We do have proof that these things were brought to the high levels of the Bush Administration, that's in the government's own reports as well as showing up in a lot of media investigations.

Like I said, that's what I think happened. Considering what lying and intelligence manipulating they did in order to invade Iraq, I wouldn't put it past them. I have no proof of course, and I likely never will. I also don't rule out that it was just complete government fukk up.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...

The towers had most of the steel in this web on its skin to save office space. Like this...

The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
​

A challenge to conspiracy theorists:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors(Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.

Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.

It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.​