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

[No1]

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

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

[quote="Type Usernam[quote="Type Username Here, post:]

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?[/quote]

Lol...what's funny is through all this talk about whether or not fire can weaken steel enough to cause collapse or not and all, the PCTSs are not addressing the question of what on gods green Earth was deliberately blowing up building 7 supposed to accomplish???

Did the government not have enough political capital for their motives with the twin tower and Pentagon attacks alone?

If they really blew up building 7, what would it do for their nefarious motives other than potentially raise suspicions and incriminate themselves?

 

[Type Username Here]

Lol...what's funny is through all this talk about whether or not fire can weaken steel enough to cause collapse or not and all, the PCTSs are not addressing the question of what on gods green Earth was deliberately blowing up building 7 supposed to accomplish???

Did the government not have enough political capital for their motives with the twin tower and Pentagon attacks alone?

If they really blew up building 7, what would it do for their nefarious motives other than potentially raise suspicions and incriminate themselves?

Yup, they can never answer this. It makes NO sense at all.

 

[Techniec]

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.

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

dont get me wrong, im not a scientist or engineer, i dont know what happened on 9/11

I just have to automatically, on principle, give a to the idea of something magically happening for the first time in history and it happens to be associated with 9/11

thats all

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

dont get me wrong, im not a scientist or engineer, i dont know what happened on 9/11

I just have to automatically, on principle, give a to the idea of something magically happening for the first time in history and it happens to be associated with 9/11

thats all

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include:

In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses.
In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767.
In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.
For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash.
For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse
In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
​

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

No steel was melted......



Here is a .pdf explaining it in detail.....

http://jpkc.fudan.edu.cn/picture/ar...92d0/d6f27325-5a22-4523-876f-9caa6348023f.pdf

Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. 60% of that is 1500 degrees which is within parameters of the temperatures @ Ground Zero.

Start at page 157 and read through it.

Try again.

​

Even with the steel starting to deform, building 7 shouldn't have fell at free fall speed, collapsing down into it's own pocket.

There should have been some kind of resistance.Instead, it fell like a textbook demolition.


If the steel was melting as they say, building 7 should've swayed, and come down sideways.

That shyt came down like all the steel used to construct the building had been obliterated simultaneously.

You'd figure to witness SOME warping of the steel columns, but nah, that shyt dropped straight down like a bowling ball

 

[MenacingMonk]

Sometimes the proof is right in front of your eyes.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Even with the steel starting to deform, building 7 shouldn't have fell at free fall speed, collapsing down into it's own pocket.

There should have been some kind of resistance.Instead, it fell like a textbook demolition.

It fell due to gravity. It started slow, then sped up. Nothing about it was unusual and it followed all laws of Physics.

You're also overlooking the fact that WTC7 wasn't built like a 'standard' skyscraper so wouldn't fall like a typical one would under the same conditions.

It didn't fall 'into its own footprint' (NONE of the buildings did) as the following photo shows:

Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is the pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building:

Falling 'like a controlled demolition' doesn't mean it was one. Controlled demolitions use gravity to have the structures collapse along with several hundred pounds of explosives. Not all controlled demolitions go according to plan and will fall over......




​

 

[Ikwa]

Believe that a plane can destroy the highest tower in the world brehs

 

[WaveGang]

people dont believe 9/11 was set up? looool

so the "war on terror" is actually a "war on terror and nothing to do with globilisation... wow

 

[WaveGang]

 

[TLOL is back]

To be honest, I'm not sure why truthers are given the time of day. They should just be labeled by the rest of society as intellectually inferior and disregarded.

 

[thekingsmen]

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.

What makes you think alot of people weren't involved? Look how many people comply voting for the same parties. Look how many comply with allowing government corruption to continue everyday. Sad thing is while people are fighting over towers falling or not falling based off certain science is the fact that people would believe that some 19 men got on planes with boxcutters made NORAD stand down. Not only this is but the very fact is that the men who so called did were pinned pointed out in the matter of 24 hours without proof but them yelling "Allah Akbar".

 

[The Real]

 

[OsO]

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.

once again your reading comprehension has failed.

my stance in the post you quoted was that the suspicious behavior of the US government in regards to the 9/11 investigation left the door open for all these so-called conspiracies. i didn't even name the conspiracies nor did i take a position in regards to such conspiracies. you're making false assumptions as per the usual.

read carefully:
my position is this... i think the govt knew about the attacks beforehand (already established as fact) and allowed it to happen in order to capitalize on the aftermath (my speculation)... and capitalize they did.

im unsure about the whole controlled demolition aspect, although from the evidence presented this theory seems much more applicable to building 7 than the twin towers.

but i do think it's suspicious that all three buildings fell in a way that mimic controlled demolitions. i would be interested to research prior cases in history where buildings fell naturally, for whatever reason, in a way that closely resembles controlled demolitions. i would bet there aren't many, but yet three such cases happened on 9/11.

im also taking into account this is the BUSH ADMINISTRATION we're talking about here...probably the biggest government criminal organization the US has ever seen. they are known liars, deceivers, murderers, and exploiters... so there's plenty of motive and plenty of opportunity in that regard.

other than that, im in a state of suspended judgement until i have more concrete information. i havent read the 9/11 commission report, or the follow up book by the committee, or analyzed all the evidence, etc., and frankly neither have yall. the difference is the psuedo skeptic crew has taken a firm stance on all these issues, and it just so happens you all believe everything the government is telling you in regards to 9/11.

so if you're going to address me, address these specific points, and leave your assumptions out of it.

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?

1) again, i havent done a thorough investigation of all the evidence but if i had to guess, i would say almost inevitably it would boil down to MONEY.

was there any excessive profit made in any direct way by the collapse of building 7? that's the first question i'd ask.

was there any excessive profit made in any INDIRECT ways by the collapse of building 7? thats the second question i'd ask.

and i would continue on from there.

2) absolutely not. the bush administration had all the justification they needed with the twin towers alone.