Who is Behind 9/11 and Why? (Chomsky)

[Clayton Moore]

I said I am quoting from the NYT, I am not doing the speaking.

And what in the world are you arguing? That the 9/11 attacks were "faked"? So you think they faked the intel too? For what possible reason? to make themselves look bad?
And if neocons were "engineering 9/11" as I see your footnote claims, then why the hell didn't they make it look like the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were behind it?Nothing you claim makes sense. As far as the buildings, there were clear signs of a fire induced collapse so why would it be a mystery why they collapsed? Does that make any sense at all given all the tell tale signs of fire induced weakening? Maybe you don't understand what "potential energy" is? You link to Richard Gage BS but he has been exposed as a fraud, see videos:
"Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!"
"See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"?"
"See How Richard Gage Dupes People: 9/11 Truth FRAUD"
This is a good one too:
"On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)"

And if neocons were "engineering 9/11" as I see your footnote claims, then why the hell didn't they make it look like the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were behind it?
Enemies don't make good dupes.

 

[LSSBB]

Fire is erratic and damages unevenly.

OT. In any case, fire causes heat, which is sustained over an area even though flames flicker.

 

[beachnut]

Fire is erratic and damages unevenly.

Fire. Fire good, Chomsky say Tarzan like fire.

 

[RepresentativePress]

Fire is erratic and damages unevenly.

we can see the very point of failure in the towers, we can see exterior load bearing columns becoming progressively worse as the inward bowing reaches the point that it snaps, this is seen in photos and video. As far as WTC7, FIremen were expecting it to collapse due to the fires. The very reason Silverstein was contacted was because they weren't sure they could contain the fires. See my videos: "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)" and "Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!"

 

[Clayton Moore]

we can see the very point of failure in the towers, we can see exterior load bearing columns becoming progressively worse as the inward bowing reaches the point that it snaps, this is seen in photos and video. As far as WTC7, FIremen were expecting it to collapse due to the fires. The very reason Silverstein was contacted was because they weren't sure they could contain the fires. See my videos: "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)" and "Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!"

Fine and dandy once. Twice? No chance in hell. Three times equals infinity to one.

That's why Chomsky passes at the mention of 9/11.

we can see exterior load bearing columns becoming progressively worse as the inward bowing reaches the point that it snaps, this is seen in photos and video.
That doesn't mean DUE TO FIRE.

 

[Clayton Moore]

OT. In any case, fire causes heat, which is sustained over an area even though flames flicker.

There can be only one initial point of failure with fire. Set a Jenga tower on fire at the upper 20% and see what happens.

 

[LSSBB]

There can be only one initial point of failure with fire.

Why do you say that? Is that some physical law no one else but you knows about?

Set a Jenga tower on fire at the upper 20% and see what happens.

But that would not be an accurate model, would it?

 

[LSSBB]

Fine and dandy once. Twice? No chance in hell. Three times equals infinity to one.

That's why Chomsky passes at the mention of 9/11.

we can see exterior load bearing columns becoming progressively worse as the inward bowing reaches the point that it snaps, this is seen in photos and video.
That doesn't mean DUE TO FIRE.

Fire is the only cause that matches the evidence. There is nothing else to be seen causing them to bow.

 

[beachnut]

... That doesn't mean DUE TO FIRE.

Steel fails in fire; big time. The failure of 911 truth to do physics, fire science, and more, leads to lies like you embrace in error due to woo.

Steel fails before wood, it is called science, reality, and experience. Fire did it, 911 truth has no clue.

Here is 3 feet sagging floors in an office fire that was fought; fires on 911 were not fought due to impacts destroying fire systems, and later WTC 7, no water...

Fire, reality - not used by 911 truth.

Chomsky understands 911 and can't endorse lies, fantasy, and delusional nonsense of 911 truth. Even Chomsky, an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, historian, political critic, and activist can understand fire; 911 truth can't. EOS

 

[Clayton Moore]

Steel fails in fire; big time.

But NOT three times.

 

[Justin39640]

There can be only one initial point of failure with fire. Set a Jenga tower on fire at the upper 20% and see what happens.

Has to be Poe.

 

[Dog Town]

Has to be Poe.

If only!

 

[RepresentativePress]

Fine and dandy once. Twice? No chance in hell.

• You do know that WTC1 and WTC2 were known as the twin towers right?
• Are you aware that the planes that crashed into each tower were both Boeing 767s?

So why do you think it is so far-fetched that the same result happened for both towers?

Look, fires burned and we can see the exterior load bearing columns bowing inward and getting progressively worse over time. The "9/11 truth" gurus are simply wrong when they claim there were no signs of bowing or sagging before the collapses.

 

[LSSBB]

But NOT three times.

If it happens once, why not twice? Why not three times? Each time is fire, heat and steel. If it happens one time, it can happen again, and again.

 

[NoahFence]

But NOT three times.

Correct. There were more than 3.

 

[BadBoy]

• You do know that WTC1 and WTC2 were known as the twin towers right?
• Are you aware that the planes that crashed into each tower were both Boeing 767s?

So why do you think it is so far-fetched that the same result happened for both towers?

Look, fires burned and we can see the exterior load bearing columns bowing inward and getting progressively worse over time. The "9/11 truth" gurus are simply wrong when they claim there were no signs of bowing or sagging before the collapses.

Not only that, but if the collapse didnt sustain itself then there would have had to be explosives/thermite or whatever they propose all over the building. And:

1. The collapse started where the fires were and where the planes crashed.
2. The evidence of bowing columns you were talking about is not shown any other place in the structure, only where the planes damaged the buildings and fires. The flooers below were fine until the collapse was initiated.
3. Why crash planes at all if you were going to blow them up. Why hide the demolition at all. Why not just blow em up? And let everyone see them blow up. And then point the finger.
4. Or why not just crash the planes into the towers? That would have been enough right? Why go through all the complicated CD scenario and then have the problem of covering it up afterwards.

The 911 CD stuff is so bizzar and deluded I sometimes cant believe people are actually discussing it. I'd hate to be that type of person who can so obviously lie and delude themselves so easily. I think I would just go nuts.

Calyton Moore, why dont you just start studying something worthwhile? CTer's are like the people who get mixed up with "get rich quick" schemes. They will do anything to try and make money as long as it doesnt involve actually doing something that requires hard work, risk and hard thinking.

edit: and of course this has been stated time and time and time again. What actually happened is so obvious a child could figure it out. But still it goes on....

 

[beachnut]

Steel fails in fire; big time.

But NOT three times.

You got some special steel that is not subject to reality? Can you explain how it works? lol
You missed that one. The correct answer is all the time.

Clayton, it is called science. Why do 911 truth cult members avoid science? It is the easy path to fantasy.


Clayton, in WTC 6 and 5, steel failed in fire. oops, add 2 more.

Clayton, on this page, or previous post by me, I showed two examples of steel failing in fire. oops, add 2 more. Do you read the thread, or study 911?

BTW, the steel bending 3 feet in One Meridian Plaza in a fire fought, is steel that failed; building was rendered unusable. I can give you thousands of examples, and you will go on to the next gish gallop point of woo you have in your bag of failed 911 claims.

 

[mike3]

I'm curious: what do the NON-truthers on this thread think of the points by Chomsky in the videos mentioned in the ORIGINAL post? Seems it's gone WAY off the rails with truther intrusion.

 

[beachnut]

I'm curious: what do the NON-truthers on this thread think of the points by Chomsky in the videos mentioned in the ORIGINAL post? Seems it's gone WAY off the rails with truther intrusion.

Which points?

 

[cmckay]

I was behind 9/11.

I did it to raise my post count so I can post links.