Buildings don't fall in free fall collapse from fire. Free fall collapse doesn't happen unless the core of the bldg is blown up. Watch "Experts Speak Out". Brave Americans who are experts in engineering, architecture, etc. spell it out in simple and plain language. NIST and FEMA, along with Popular Science and for that matter, Nat'l Geographic TV are doing the Big Boys work to try to keep the sheeple asleep. Sweet dreams.
@tomsatriano Huh? You don't know that. What we DO know is that REAL demolitions don't fall at freefall - even David Chandler found that out when he measured some. Of course he made excuses, but it rips a fatal hole in the illogical and unscientific claims that you're making.
In fact Femr2 measured the fall of the facade at FASTER than freefall for about 1 second!!! Do you have any idea how that could happen? I bet you don't - it has nothing to do with explosives, obviously - they can't do that.
@tomsatriano Your confirmation bias prevents you from understanding the contradiction in your claims.
If you theorize that freefall = CD, as some kind of 100% 'proof', then since the towers fell at about 64% of freefall (ie NOT freefall) then that wasn't CD, but fire.
But truthers can't face this dilemma, so they invented another rule which says the towers fell 'too fast'... hmm.
Chomsky's denials that are now on record are rendering him insignificant. He can join with his mirrored image on the right- George Will- and co-write a book about how silly the growing millions are who now clearly see (oftentimes because we read) that JFK was murdered by the CIA. Also, thank goodness we don't have to rewrite the laws on both physics and gravity, because the 9/11 Commission is complete BS.
@tomsatriano Actually it is YOUR denials that are rendered insignificant. You believe in fairy tales, that's your problem.
FYI the 9/11 Commission was NOT an engineering report or analysis. Your comment is complete BS because it was in fact the NIST and FEMA reports which dealt with physics and gravity (and chemistry) competently, and have not been challenged by even A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED ENGINEERING PAPER IN AN ENGINEERING JOURNAL. NOT ONE. Another FAIL for 9/11 'Truth'.
@tomsatriano Remember again, you incorrectly blaim the 9/11 Commission for something IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO DO, showing your ignorance of the scientific process.
Further, you seem blissfully unaware that, EVEN AFTER 10 LONG YEARS, not a single Truther has published a SINGLE engineering paper in a peer-reviewed engineering journal to challenge the mainstream consensus.
Now THAT'S a big failure on your part. Try harder.
People like Chomsky want to keep the Coke vs. Pepsi wars going because he profits from the chatter. The truth about the coup in 11/63 and subsequent False Flag Terror events is out there- but Noam and his rivals on the right don't want to be irrelevant, so they pretend JFK and 9/11 are not significant. Wrong, Mr. Chomsky.
@studio3061 Also, the building didn't actually fall 'straight down' or 'into its footprint'.
1) It leaned back to the South, where damage was greatest
watch?v=cm7aGzubz9A
2) It fell across two streets and did over $1 billion in damage to Verizon and Fiterman CUNY. Unless you argue those buildings were IN ITS FOOTPRINT, your claim is falsified by the evidence.
Even if you did claim that the buildings were in WTC 7's footprint you'd still be wrong. Sometimes you're just plain wrong!
@studio3061 There are explanations for the 'faster than g' data - partly it is due to errors in the videos (lack of resolution leads to error), but it is physically possible for one part that is attached to something else which is already falling to accelerate faster than g.
You can show this with a lever. There are simple physics experiments that demonstrate the phenomenon. Believe it or not, it's perfectly true!
@studio3061 Actually the truth is not as simple as you think. The whole building did not collapse at freefall, and the portion that did, only very briefly, mainly slower than freefall.
Overall collapse time was not at speed of freefall, so ctcole77 is also correct in that sense.
But there were brief periods with instantaneous acceleration pretty close to g. Actual data points show speeds above and below g!! Wrap your head around that. FASTER than freefall according to datapoints. hmmm
Chomsky talks about "wasting time" and uses phrases often in rebutting 911 Truthers like ".an Administration that would be Certifiable Insane..." Does he think War or Forcible Occupations of Foreign Nations sane? How does he feel about killin.? in fact how does he FEEL? Intellectuals are often cut off from their feelings and I'm sensing this from Chomsky about a lot of things....getting to the truth of issues like 911, JFK, RFK, MLK has deep HEALING effects for the Split of the US psyche = NOAM?
Wasting your time on a phantom conspiracy IS stupid and unproductive. This is why 9/11 "truthers" want all to examine the actual evidence in order to lead a real investigation to the culpable parties. This is hardly an unreasonable demand, considering the terror plot ended up in the biggest crime on American soil, and has never been truly investigated (e.g., the free-fall of 47-story WTC Building 7 late in the afternoon, weapons-grade thermite permeating all dust samples, etc.).
Buildings don't fall in free fall collapse from fire. Free fall collapse doesn't happen unless the core of the bldg is blown up. Watch "Experts Speak Out". Brave Americans who are experts in engineering, architecture, etc. spell it out in simple and plain language. NIST and FEMA, along with Popular Science and for that matter, Nat'l Geographic TV are doing the Big Boys work to try to keep the sheeple asleep. Sweet dreams.
tomsatriano 3 months ago
@tomsatriano Huh? You don't know that. What we DO know is that REAL demolitions don't fall at freefall - even David Chandler found that out when he measured some. Of course he made excuses, but it rips a fatal hole in the illogical and unscientific claims that you're making.
In fact Femr2 measured the fall of the facade at FASTER than freefall for about 1 second!!! Do you have any idea how that could happen? I bet you don't - it has nothing to do with explosives, obviously - they can't do that.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@tomsatriano Your confirmation bias prevents you from understanding the contradiction in your claims.
If you theorize that freefall = CD, as some kind of 100% 'proof', then since the towers fell at about 64% of freefall (ie NOT freefall) then that wasn't CD, but fire.
But truthers can't face this dilemma, so they invented another rule which says the towers fell 'too fast'... hmm.
With truthers, EVERYTHING = CD, no matter what.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Chomsky's denials that are now on record are rendering him insignificant. He can join with his mirrored image on the right- George Will- and co-write a book about how silly the growing millions are who now clearly see (oftentimes because we read) that JFK was murdered by the CIA. Also, thank goodness we don't have to rewrite the laws on both physics and gravity, because the 9/11 Commission is complete BS.
tomsatriano 3 months ago
@tomsatriano Actually it is YOUR denials that are rendered insignificant. You believe in fairy tales, that's your problem.
FYI the 9/11 Commission was NOT an engineering report or analysis. Your comment is complete BS because it was in fact the NIST and FEMA reports which dealt with physics and gravity (and chemistry) competently, and have not been challenged by even A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED ENGINEERING PAPER IN AN ENGINEERING JOURNAL. NOT ONE. Another FAIL for 9/11 'Truth'.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@tomsatriano Remember again, you incorrectly blaim the 9/11 Commission for something IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO DO, showing your ignorance of the scientific process.
Further, you seem blissfully unaware that, EVEN AFTER 10 LONG YEARS, not a single Truther has published a SINGLE engineering paper in a peer-reviewed engineering journal to challenge the mainstream consensus.
Now THAT'S a big failure on your part. Try harder.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
People like Chomsky want to keep the Coke vs. Pepsi wars going because he profits from the chatter. The truth about the coup in 11/63 and subsequent False Flag Terror events is out there- but Noam and his rivals on the right don't want to be irrelevant, so they pretend JFK and 9/11 are not significant. Wrong, Mr. Chomsky.
tomsatriano 3 months ago
@tomsatriano LOL, I think Chomsky has it nailed and you're out to lunch.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@studio3061 Also, the building didn't actually fall 'straight down' or 'into its footprint'.
1) It leaned back to the South, where damage was greatest
watch?v=cm7aGzubz9A
2) It fell across two streets and did over $1 billion in damage to Verizon and Fiterman CUNY. Unless you argue those buildings were IN ITS FOOTPRINT, your claim is falsified by the evidence.
Even if you did claim that the buildings were in WTC 7's footprint you'd still be wrong. Sometimes you're just plain wrong!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@studio3061 There are explanations for the 'faster than g' data - partly it is due to errors in the videos (lack of resolution leads to error), but it is physically possible for one part that is attached to something else which is already falling to accelerate faster than g.
You can show this with a lever. There are simple physics experiments that demonstrate the phenomenon. Believe it or not, it's perfectly true!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@studio3061 Actually the truth is not as simple as you think. The whole building did not collapse at freefall, and the portion that did, only very briefly, mainly slower than freefall.
Overall collapse time was not at speed of freefall, so ctcole77 is also correct in that sense.
But there were brief periods with instantaneous acceleration pretty close to g. Actual data points show speeds above and below g!! Wrap your head around that. FASTER than freefall according to datapoints. hmmm
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
Cults WOW! By their definition. Everybody is in a cult.
EdwardSkye1 5 months ago
Chomsky talks about "wasting time" and uses phrases often in rebutting 911 Truthers like ".an Administration that would be Certifiable Insane..." Does he think War or Forcible Occupations of Foreign Nations sane? How does he feel about killin.? in fact how does he FEEL? Intellectuals are often cut off from their feelings and I'm sensing this from Chomsky about a lot of things....getting to the truth of issues like 911, JFK, RFK, MLK has deep HEALING effects for the Split of the US psyche = NOAM?
regenerati 1 year ago
Wasting your time on a phantom conspiracy IS stupid and unproductive. This is why 9/11 "truthers" want all to examine the actual evidence in order to lead a real investigation to the culpable parties. This is hardly an unreasonable demand, considering the terror plot ended up in the biggest crime on American soil, and has never been truly investigated (e.g., the free-fall of 47-story WTC Building 7 late in the afternoon, weapons-grade thermite permeating all dust samples, etc.).
TrueBlueHueMan 1 year ago
@TrueBlueHueMan
WTC 7 DID NOT COLLAPSE AT FREEFALL!
I suppose thousands of tons of concrete and steel falling hundreds of feet on WTC 7 had NOTHING to do with the collapse?
How about the 30 foot hole in WTC 7's facade?
How about the southwest corner of WTC chopped off?
Please explain firefighters predicting WTC 7's collapse HOURS ahead?
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 4 months ago