My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!, page 1

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by WWu777
Have you all heard what Chomsky said about us Truthers? He is one of my heros and one of the world's greatest intellectuals so this is sad and hurtful.

He seems to be under the impression that there are no real structural engineers and scientists who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and thus he is badly misinformed and his views are outdated. He also thinks it probable that the Bush Administration helps fund the 9/11 Truth Movement as a diversion from real issues! How could such a great intellectual think like this?!

Chomsky is right. There are 141,000 members of the Association of Civil Engineers. Only a tiny handful, a few hundred, have problems with the NIST and FEMA studies released showing things like how the WTC buildings collpased due to plae impacts, fires, loss of structural integrity.

A few of thos who signed on for things like Engineers for Truth have complained how they were railraoded inot signing by people like Richard Gage who gave he them deceptive paperwork in which it said there are outstanding questions that still need investigation.

There has been a whole sub-industry created capittalizing on 9/11, selling videos, organizing conferences, and other ways to extract money form Truthers.

Stephen Jones, a low level physics prof has been going around with a claim he foundd traces of an explosive in WTC dust. Independent scientists have looked at it and see nothing to substantiate his claims.

The young and gullible are eay targets for the tiny number of professionals out there trying to capitalize on the alternative theories circulating on the Net.

There are many things the US govt and it's agencies still have to answer on what happend on 9/11. But wild goose chases with no-planes theories, controlled demolitions, etc - only serve to discredit attempts at public inquiries. The hobbyist Truther movement has only been an impediment to making the public aware of criticsal issues.

Mike

You are spouting PURE CONJECTURE, not facts. Let's look at what signers of AE911Truth have to say, in THEIR OWN WORDS, not your distorted ones! Does it look like they were conned by Richard Gage? NOT!

Examples:

www.ae911truth.org...

Name: Claude Robert Briscoe
Title: P.E.
License #: Civil Engineer C17546 -- California
Degree: BS Engineering, UCLA
City: Santa Rosa
State: CA
Country: USA
Category: Engineers (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired)
Discipline: Engineering
Status: Degreed and Licensed
Bio:

45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.

Personal 9/11 Statement:

The collapse of the three WTC buildings would seem to defy the laws of mechanics, conservation of energy and known structural failure behavior. The case for the destruction of the three WTC buildings by means of "controlled demolition" is overwhelming.

Verification Status: Verified

L. Alan Pyeatt
P.E.
Lic: C56857 CA (Civil Engineer)
B.S.C.E.
Malibu, CA

Engineering — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

Over 25 years experience in civil engineering and construction (mostly public works). Project Manager for Federal Demonstration Project and two APWA/Southern California award-winning projects in West Hollywood, California. Also served as Project Manager for a fire sprinkler subcontractor on building projects in Houston, Texas (including high-rise buildings in Houston and San Antonio).

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

The fact that both towers collapsed in their footprints, without any toppling of the upper floors, clearly indicates controlled demolition as the cause of the buildings' collapse, rather than structural failure. In my opinion, the collapse of the south tower (WTC 2) illustrates this idea most clearly. The airplane which hit this tower entered the south wall, and wreckage can be seen in the videos exiting the east wall. As a result, one would expect the damage to be worse near the southeast corner of the building, and any structural collapse should have occurred first at this corner. This should have resulted in the upper floors toppling toward the southeast. However, videos of the building's collapse clearly show it failing in a more or less symmetrical manner.

In contrast, the north tower (WTC 1) was hit by the first airplane in the north wall, at almost a perpendicular angle to the north wall. And yet, the upper floors of this building leaned toward the south as the building collapsed.

Likewise, there are two failure phenomena which cannot be explained by the "pancake collapse" theory. First, video of the collapse of the north tower shows the upper floors (approx. 10 stories) toppling toward the south. Yet, instead of falling to the ground relatively intact (as they should have done with no structure supporting them from beneath at that point, and nothing pressing down on them from above), they mysteriously disintegrated in mid-air. What forces (other than explosives) could have caused this?

Second, a video exists which shows part of the inner core of the north tower still standing prior to the south tower's collapse. And yet, with only minor debris falling on it from the south tower, the remaining core structure disintegrates. Unless the video is faked (and I have seen no evidence of this), what would have caused the remaining core structure to collapse?