Watch Noam Chomsky Set 9/11 Truther Straight

In this video, Noam Chomsky responds at a recent Q&A at the University of Florida to a 9/11 truther. The  participant asks Chomsky about the “scientific consensus” among a small group of engineers about the suspicious collapse of building 7.  Chomsky lays out in 7 minutes why this is probably a crock of shit.

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” Chomsky notes of many 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

“They’re not doing what scientists do when they think they’ve discovered something,” Chomsky responds. If, in fact, engineers have conclusive proof of shenanigans during 9/11, they should write articles, give talks to conferences and so on.

Some will argue, Chomsky says,  dissenters are intimidated by a government crackdown on truth-teller. This is bullshit, the long time anarchist and government protester notes. “It’s almost riskless,” Chomsky notes about political activism. Complaining about the government in American academia is literally one of the safest professions around.

Watch below.


  • jobs_redeemer

    This proves Noam Chomsky is just a tool. I have lost all respect for him. People can describe him as an anarchist all they want; it doesn’t make it so.

    I wonder how Chomsky explains away Operation Northwoods? Obviously he’s aware of it and the documentation establishing it as fact. One thing and one thing only prevented that incident from occurring, and that is JFK putting his foot down. Who believes that Bush Sr. or Jr. has the same integrity? Recall what Richard Nixon said about George Bush the elder, that he’s a bastard willing to do anything, capable of sinking to any level.

    • teedle

      oof, this is the logic of a 9-11 truther. Operation Northwoods (which never happened, had nothing to do with 9-11) is proof that 9-11 was a government attack? OK.

      • cobhc1x

        He’s not saying that dumbass. He’s implying how can you dismiss the possibility of Operation Northwoods being tried for real this time.

        • Albury Smith

          Try lack of even the slightest bit of evidence, no plausible and coherent motive, the impossibility of it, and al Qaeda’s bragging about and lack of denial of their 9/11/2001 Planes Operation suicide attacks on the evil US infidel for starters, genius. Duh…

    • Ron Brassfield

      You’re correct in your assessment.

    • Albury Smith

      If Chomsky’s “just a tool,” what do you call people who spend an hour on the Internet reading unscientific garbage from 9/11 truther nuts and presume to know a lot about physics?

  • David McNerney

    Chomsky’s only rebuttal when cornered with the overwhelming emerging evidence that there is more to the 9/11 story than we’ve been led to believe always falls back to “who cares?” As in, it’s not that many people who died, or our gov has done worse, or what are we going to do about it now. This betrays an intellectual dishonesty that has made a lot of people question his motives, because it’s not the attitude you’d expect from one of the world’s most public and acclaimed intellectuals who often urges us to “question everything.” His stance on 9/11 has become the definition of tooldom, truthers shouldn’t have to defend their questioning the main narrative which everyone knows is pure BS. What the fuck actually happened? Who knows. But truthers care enough to keep asking questions, and god help the most fanatic, actually propose their own theories…

    • Harper

      I think his point is that proportional weight should be given to a small consensus if it is not supported by scientific analysis. I am an architect, and 99.9% of us think that the fireproofing on the structure was dislodged from the impact of the plane. The fireproofing was designed for impact from a small single engine plane, but not a large commercial airliner. This would lead one to reasonably believe that the steel structure would fail from the heat in the speed and manner that it did. The 99.9% of us are without motive except to understand and accept basic fact.

      • Ron Brassfield

        That is not believable. A smaller, lighter mass, particularly one which is itself clearly in the process of disintegrating, cannot pulverize a larger, heavier mass beneath it to fine powdered concrete and hurtling steel debris. The energy isn’t there. Even had the tops of the buildings remained intact, the observed effects could not possibly have damaged more than about fifteen floors of the north tower, or roughly thirty floors of the south tower, before the momentum of their fall would have been exhausted by absorption against the aforesaid larger, heavier mass below. The upright support girders were thicker toward the bottom, too, to support the buildings’ height. As for steel needing fireproofing to resist building collapses due to office fires (this is all that was going on, and the fires were past their peak intensity and cooling as evidenced by the black smoke), that is an inane meme. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and would have dissipated the temperatures of office fires out over a large area; the heat would not have remained concentrated in an open-air environment and, considering this was a kerosene-type open air fire, not a gigantic acetylene blowtorch, could only have burned at a fraction of the intensity needed to deform steel. An out-of-control fire in the North Tower in 1975 absolutely gutted the 11th floor and burned down to the 9th and up to the 14th floors , in a blaze a firefighter described as like fighting a blowtorch. Nothing so intense was observed by firefighters in the towers on 9/11/01 as evidenced by recorded radio traffic. Nor would the fires have melted the steel, any more than they did in 1975, with the weight of 99 floors above bearing down on them without collapsing. I watched live television on 9/11/01 and soon found myself extremely disappointed at the sheer dumbness of my countrymen when they rushed to embrace groundless, official pseudo-scientific yarns of buildings “unzipping” and “pancaking.” NIST couldn’t replicate the story of sagging steel in their single phsyical test; they had to resort to a computer model to explain even the inception of collapse (leaving completely unexplained its unnatural symmetry and rapidity;seriously, utter pulverization at a rate of 11 floors per second? try even just clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds), and a court declared the settings on their computer model used to cheat that result for these Commerce Department employees’ politically-falsified report as a “national security secret.” May God help us all for harboring the criminals and fools who have perpetrated this deed and lovingly embraced its bolstering, deadly public falsehoods!

        • Harper

          You did not address the fact that the fireproofing on the steel was DISLODGED from the impact of the plane. If in tact, the spray on fireproofing was designed to protect the steel for 2 hours which is why the steel did not fail in the 1975 fire. That means you can torch the columns for 2 hours with no impact on structural integrity so long as the fireproofing is in tact. You also fail to understand that the towers had a structural envelope, which means the load is distributed through smaller members surrounding the perimeter, so the tower itself acts as one giant column. This would reasonably explain a pancaking collapse if the steel holding up just one floor fails. The fact that steel is highly conductive would explain why it would fail at a rapid rate if unprotected. Using that fact to prove the opposite is incorrect. If you choose to reply, please save the grand standing and address this point directly. Otherwise, I do not wish to continue this discussion

          • Ron Brassfield

            I’ll bet you don’t care to! The New York Times reported it took three hours to bring the blaze under control. If you think the fires on a few floors could bring the entire 110-story towers down that way in under an hour in 2001 when they didn’t in three hours in 1975, I have nothing more to say to you, either, other than to beg you to read an article on the topic that can explain why you’re fooling yourself. I understand how painful it is to comprehend that 9/11 was an inside job. I wish you and the others still living in denial had the guts to face up to the way power actually works in our world. Not as it should, to be sure.

          • Harper

            My point is I only care to discuss the forensics of the building collapse because it benefits people to understand the professions knowledge base so they can reach their own reasoned conclusions instead of being persuaded by hyperbole. To Noam Chomsky’s point, just because you read something on the internet for an hour doesn’t make you an expert on building forensics (this is not my specialty either for the record, but I am trying to share 10 years of professional knowledge). I’m actually glad you encouraged me to read up on the 1975 fire because it allows me to clarify and explain the difference. First, according to the original NYT article, the fire originated in a utility core, essentially a shaft that penetrates between floors that houses things such as electrical wiring. By fire code at the time, these shafts were required to be 4 to 8 hour rated, depending. The floor and column assemblies were required to be 2 hour assemblies. Why? because if you logically look at fire protection, the areas that carry through floors should be protected longer than areas that are contained to just one floor. It’s a sequence of priorities instead of a blanket fire rating. You can look up the fire code or you can take my word for it, but to my larger point, if you frame the scenario as “A smaller, lighter mass, particularly one which is itself clearly in the process of disintegrating, cannot pulverize a larger, heavier mass beneath it to fine powdered concrete and hurtling steel debris.”, then yes, that is unbelievable, but if you explain it as a sequence of events as I have, then it is certainly plausible, and for people like me, factual. My goal is not to persuade you or anyone, but just to share knowledge to clarify the event.

          • Ron Brassfield

            I hope you realize that, if what you believe were factual, then there would be no need to hire Controlled Demolition, Inc., to demolish steel frame buildings. You could, at much less cost and no need for any expert planting of explosive cutter charges whatsoever, simply swing a hollow, somewhat brittle wrecking ball full of kerosene with ignitor stubs on the surface of the ball into the building and demolish it, utterly, by destroying some random number of the supports in one-to-four floors and setting it on fire. It wouldn’t matter if you struck it squarely in the center (North Tower) or just gashed open a side (South Tower). Either way, a building would catch fire, and, by the “logic” you are embracing, all the steel would reach that “taffy” point of meltdown claimed for the Twin Towers of 9/11 inside of just ONE hour. Then, even if the buildings were even 110 stories high, they would NOT TOPPLE from an asymmetric blow, but would neatly disintegrate, top to bottom, at a rapid and even rate of speed, into pyroclastic-like clouds of 100-micron fine concrete dust in a bit over ten seconds. But, of course, you’re willing to believe that temperatures that could not achieve that effect on even a localized area of steel, fireproofing or not, would make taffy of even 110 stories of steel, and fine powder of all the concrete. That’s drastically out of all proportion to the available energy, allowing for an outsized effect from the heat and disregards its tendency to cool via dissipation over a massive area due to the conductivity of the steel, as well as the fact (evidenced by the blackening of smoke indicating increasingly oxygen-starved fires) that the fires were COOLING before the “collapes” (disintegrations, I say) occurred. Accepting the premises you say you believe in, it’s hard to see how other steel skyscrapers have ever endured much hotter, longer-burning fires so well, isn’t it? It’s hard to see why building a high-rise building is still allowed at all, given that they might catch on fire, or, like the Chrysler Building so long ago, be struck by a plane, if this is what can be expected once that happens. Heck, it’s even hard to see why a chopped tree topples, instead of turning right into sawdust and disintegrating straight down toward the ground once it’s been notched with an ax, if what you believe are physical principles really were. Are you sure you (and Noam) are not making the world more mysterious than it really is? Let’s call this new phsyics the Establishmentarian Uncertainty Principle, shall we?

          • Harper

            So all you have to offer is conjecture, false analogies, and lazy rhetorical questioning? fact – as a volume, the wtc towers were 95% hollow i.e. nothing like a tree. fact – structural steel loses 50% of it’s structural integrity at 1200 deg F. fact – simulated airplane engine explosions have generated heat up to 1500 deg F. The building did not collapse from the force of the plane. The fireproofing dislodged from the force of the plane, and the steel failed from heat caused by combustion, and gravity caused floor slabs to fall and compound in weight on the way down, but I guess I’ve been indoctrinated with high school level Newtonian physics. Please forgive me. I’ll leave you with an easy anaology that you can understand: If you melt the wax columns of a wedding cake simultaneously, does it topple to the side, or does it fall straight down? I’m out. Thanks for wasting my time.

          • Ron Brassfield

            No less than you wasted mine. I’m sure you agree that the South Tower, second struck, first to fall, should have had its top 32 floors or so separate, as a unit, 56 minutes after being struck through one side, start turning as a unit, then, as we saw, disintegrate into PULVERIZED CONCRETE DUST and debris in mid-fall, as photos and videos from neighboring buildings show, and STILL find nothing odd about the rest of the tower symmetrically and rapidly disintegrating — because you think that, without a veneer of fireproofing, a hundred thousand tons of well-braced steel and 213,000 cubic yards of concrete are as nothing in the face of an office fire (but only in 2001, not in 1975). Because short burst of flame can reach 1,500 degrees fahrenheit in a localized area, that’s a case closed for you — the whole structure’s taffy in a jif. Whole steel skyscrapers — three times in one day, but never before or since — quite logically, you think, came down. And, at least one piece of debris was caught on camera sharply changing course in mid-air. Nothing odd about that, I’m sure, either. Bah! There’s nothing I, or anyone else other than yourself, can do to help you face the reality of this. If you accept all this as caused by a plane impact and office fires, there’s no way I’m believing you grasp Newtonian high-school physics. I believe that what you do grasp is the concept of clutching at any straw in an effort to go along to get along. Good boy. You can run away now, and you can hide your head in a hole again, and you can even kiss Noam Chomsky’s evidence-less, pseudo- authoritative butt if you so desire (“Tell me lies, Noam, tell me sweet little lies”), but you can’t win this argument, simply because you have nothing substantial to stand on. You’re also implicitly accepting that Building 7 would come down exactly as in a controlled demolition from just having some nicks gouged out of one of its corners. Meanwhile, the bones of the much smaller Buildings 5 and 6, directly in the path of the vast bulk of falling disintegration debris from the Towers, held up much better than 7. I’m politically liberal in my sentiments, but this kind of cowardly, willful cluelessness is exactly why I stopped wasting my time, money, and shoe leather supporting the gutless captives of the globalist oppressors who are known as the Democratic Party. Standard-issue liberal types pat themselves on the back for their awareness and compassion, but when something like this comes along to separate the men from the boys, down at the core, they’re just another version of the morally bankrupt conned-servative, status-quo power-worshippers. And so, as a people, as a nation, we’re universally deceived and utterly doomed to blindly fight over scraps while never facing up to the fact that certain networks of people, planning certain outcomes for the world, are the core problems causing nearly all our grief, while we surrenderall our hard-won assets and ability to self-govern to their machinations. All you have to ask to grasp that concept is one simple question, “Qui bono?” There are answers, but you don’t find them hiding your head in a hole. OR kissing Noam Chomsky’s purposely deceitful, Pied-Piperish ass.

          • Albury Smith

            Ron jabbers stupidly: “You’re also implicitly accepting that Building 7 would come down exactly as in a controlled demolition from just having some nicks gouged out of one of its corners.”
            Please read NCSTAR 1A before embarrassing yourself any further. Despite some initial speculation, North Tower debris damage to the SW corner of your Sacred Tower 7 was found not to have been a factor in its ~5:21 PM fire-induced collapse.
            As for the “Qui bono?” sophistry you’re peddling to the gullible, the NYC building trades were among many who did, so please feel free to tell the Local 40 & 361 ironworkers about all of that controlled demolition evidence they all missed during the nearly 8 months it took them to cut up and remove the structural steel from the site.

          • Sure, Albury, as if the Commerce Dept.’s (NIST) report were unimpeachable, or even truly scientific in itself, with its top-secret computer data inputs, selective mechanical support exclusions, and cessation of analysis at the “initiation” of “collapse,” and being “unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse” as it could not “actually include the structural behavior of the tower after conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” And, of course, NIST’s John Gross denying the molten steel beneath the three destroyed towers because he knew no office fires burned hot enough to provide it and NIST was systematically excluding any factor which would explain its continuing real-world presence for weeks on end, as asserted by firefighters, clean-up workers, and a report by “60 Minutes” Ed Bradley.
            You may, Albury, against all known physical evidence and precedent, choose to believe fire utterly destroyed the three steel New York towers in record time and in an uprededented manner if you want to, due to what NIST claims was a “previously unknown” physical phenomena of “thermal expansion,” and in exactly the manner recorded. I was dismayed anyone ever believed that all those uprights and supports would symmetrically fail in uniform fashion, I saw no reason to believe anything that happened pulverized all that concrete into dust, and I remain so, no matter that insults may be slung against me. It impresses me not in the slightest that the consolidated corporate media exposed as censorious in the book by reporters, “Into the Buzzsaw,” has slandered and omitted all opposition voices, or that linguist Noam Chomsky, himself no physicist, has chosen to disengenuously act as a “thought gatekeeper” on both the JFK assassination and on the events of 9/11. I can’t locate the exact quote any more, but CHomsky even intimated that physics might have gone haywire while the towers burned… yet, he scoffs at AE911 Truth’s members and the physicists who endorsed the evidence of nano-thermite in the dust. He claims we “don’t know what that means.” And he has no urge to find out. But some people, I recognize, positively worship power and money, and will follow wherever those may lead them. Logically, however, it remains true that no one should suspect fire would achieve effects on that one day, in that one city, what it has never done anywhere else in world history.
            Independent thinkers cannot but regard Noam Chomsky as a fraud, just as he is called out for being in this article.
            And here is another rebuttal to Chomky’s “deceive, dodge, deny, discredit” assertions, from someone who, in contrast to Chomsky, stood up for establishing some truth in regard to 9/11 and suffered the consequences for doing so. The linguist, Chomsky, of course, has taken his disingenuous positions on the most crucial political pivot points of modern US history, and, not by coincidence, I dare say, has certainly suffered no consequences, which is purely coincidental, I’m sure, to all the “coincidence theorists” who pay no mind to the seemingly dozens of ways Federal actions (and deliberate inactions) aided in the success of the 9/11 destruction and deaths. Peter Dale Scott has established himself as by far the more honest scholar analyzing 9/11, rather than “America’s misleading intellectual dissident,” Chomsky. The fact that standard-issue liberals, apparently lemming-like beings who couldn’t care less what’s actually true, applaud Chomsky’s shallow sneers, apparently equating them with intellectual gigantism, only reveals what servile “dwarves” they really are as human beings.

          • Albury Smith

            NIST’s “previously unknown” phenomenon was NOT thermal expansion; it was a steel-framed building collapse attributed to thermal expansion, so please stop lying about forensic structural engineering reports you’ve never read and aren’t bright enough to understand anyway. Dr. Gross did not deny that molten steel may have been present in the burning WTC debris; he simply asked the 9/11 truther nut at UT Austin to corroborate his claim of “pools of molten STEEL,” and cited its melting point as reason to question it. NIST has never denied it either, as item #13 here clearly proves:
            Now please feel free to list all of the explosives you know of that keep ANY metal molten for 3+ months, and if your imaginary miracle substance is incendiaries today, list all of them too. Your 9/11 crackpots were “reminded of” nanothermite by rust, sulfur, aluminum, etc. in some WTC dust samples (but conveniently provided no exemplars of anything for comparison), and it’s a very high explosive, so let’s see how it produces long-lasting pools of steel.
            You’re a lot better off spewing your ridiculously unscientific crap on Progressive-Tough-Liberal OpEdNews, where Progressive-Tough-Liberal Rob Kall bans everyone who tries to talk sense to 9/11 troofers, and you, Ciepala, and your other equally clueless buddies can jabber away unchallenged by reality.

          • Albury Smith

            Here’s your posting style in 72 seconds:
            You’ve had WAY too much 9/11 “truth movement” Kool-Aid.

          • Sugarsail1

            The structure of a tree and a skyscraper are not analogous. See: Euler column buckling formula for why skyscrapers collapse vertically regardless of cause. Also, structural steel has about 1/4 the yield strength at merely 600C well below temperatures reported in 911. Engineering degree here.

          • Albury Smith

            Did the minor three-alarm fire in 1975 look like this?

          • The 1975 fire engulfed the eleventh floor, set another six floors on fire, and burned for three hours, far longer than the fires of 9/11. Of course, it didn’t pulverize any concrete or melt any steel, because open-air fires burning paper, wallboard, and furniture is not capable of doing any of that, but there are apparently no photos. The fire engine captain was quoted in the papers as saying it was “like fighting a blow torch.” That contrasts with the statement by a fireman in the South Tower, apparently, struck a blow across one side by a jet, yet the first to disintegrate, that there were “two isolated pockets of fire” that could be put out by two lines. The effort to get those water hoses up to the scene was underway when the disintegration took place. Only a lawsuit by The New York Times, and only after years of legal effort, made the recordings public, as Guliani’s City of New York tried to keep all communications recordings secret. Small wonder.. The top bloc of floors of the South Tower broke loose, themselves disintegrated into dust and debris, as seen from certain angles, and yet the entire remaining 78-82 floors went disintegrating into dust and debris, evenly across and at an even rate of speed,down into the ground at 11 floors per second, All this happened without any “crushing weight” for officials and dishonest reporters acting as government stenographers to seize upon as an excuse, a factor experimentation does, in fact disprove, anyway. The whole thing was so unnatural that everyone expressed surprise and dismay at the time. Apparently, some facile, unscientific “explanations,” such as Eagar’s “unzipping, then the “pancaking” notion propagated by NOVA which does not explain what happened to the core, etc., quickly fobbed off on the public were sufficient to enable some people to go back to sleep, and remain asleep even though FEMA and NIST never could explain what happened, either. Belief in the NIST report is the secular equivalent of blind, religious fanaticism. It is held either due to the psychological inability to acknowledge we have been willfully deceived about 9/11, or is held as a claim by military-industrial agents in an effort to counter actual critical throught, The Emperor stands naked before actual examination of 9/11′ events, and so does Noam Chomsky, a sheer disinfo agent on those critical, pivotal events where the chips are truly down for the globalist Establishment interested in the success of such false flag attacks. News broadcasts covered the 1975 fire like so:
            People who are not “walking dead” seeking to “feed on the awesome brain of Chomsky” should consider reasoned analysis, which contrasts quite starkly with Chomsky’s petulant dodging, and sounds more like the analysis of the late Jeff King.

          • Albury Smith

            The 1975 fire did not “engulf” any floors; it was primarily an electrical fire that slowly spread to a limited area of the 11th floor and vertically through a utility chase to 2 floors below and 3 above, where it was very minor and confined to that chase and some electrical closets and burned up some insulation on the cables. All of the ’75 fires except those on the 11th floor were extinguished in minutes. Unlike the 9/11/2001 fires, the ceilings were intact and no SFRM was dislodged, and the result was no structural damage to the very lightweight floor joists.
            By comparison, both WTC towers were hit by ~140-ton 767s going ~440 and ~540 mph respectively and carrying ~9500 gallons of fuel which instantly started massive fires over tens of thousands of square feet and concentrated most of the combustibles in areas opposite the impact sides. The ceilings were trashed and the SFRM was stripped from much of the steel, so the bar joists began sagging from the enormous heat within minutes, and the perimeter columns were SLOWLY pulled INWARD, something not too likely to have been done by explosives. If the 1975 fires even lasted 3 hours, the 9/11/2001 fires burned for more than 100 days pre- and post-collapse, so which is “far longer”?
            FDNY Chief Orio Palmer radioed from THREE FLOORS BELOW the impact level of the South Tower in the stairwell of the 78th floor sky lobby (far fewer combustibles than on a regular office floor) that there were “isolated pockets of fire” there, and never made it to where the real fires were on 81 and above. Since you like to quote mine FDNY, how many of Chief Palmer’s friends and colleagues are 9/11 truther nuts? How many Local 40 & 361 ironworkers who cut up and disposed of the WTC steel are? 16 people, including FDNY rescuers, survived the North Tower collapse INSIDE Stairwell B, and not one of them reported hearing explosives before it came down, so are they part of the alleged cover-up? 236 of the 283 columns in each tower were IN PLAIN SIGHT. There was no place to hide anything on them, and secret explosions anywhere near them would have been IMPOSSIBLE. The huge clouds of smoke weren’t even disturbed before the collapses started, and were never
            blasted out at supersonic speed, so your imaginary explosives didn’t produce shock waves.
            You’re peddling nonsense. Please stick to doing it on Progressive-Tough-Liberal OpEdNews, where
            Progressive-Tough-Liberal Rob Kall bans sane and rational people and encourages 9/11 troofers.

        • Albury Smith

          Why don’t you try to replicate the 9/11 truth movement’s theory of the 3 WTC hi-rise collapses? Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

          If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
          *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

          • My assertions are already supported quite well by experiment, whereas the Commerce Dept’s. NIST, in its attempt to get a full-scale model of two stories of steel framing to collapse from fire, was a real-world failure. That’s why it had to resort to denying molten steel observed by many in the real world and to computer models whose input data is kept a state secret, and, even then, the models do not display symmetrical disintegrations, as was observed in real life.The burden of proof to explain the anomalies observed on and in the wake of 9/11 is still on the government, and it has failed only because it has directed its own controlled entities to reject all evidence which refutes its claims, just as it denied justice to Americans by thwarting the normal judicial process of establishing a grand jury endowed with subpoena power to investigate the crimes themselves. I would agree that the debate would have been long over, had the proponents of the government’s position agreed on the at least two occasions over the years when leading lights of the Truth movement attempted to arrange public debates with them. But, you can’t have a debate when only one side is willing to stand by its analysis, and the government’s “side” declined to show up. I CAN’T BLAME THEM!

          • Albury Smith

            If your assertions are so well supported, Ron, then you should have no problem at all demonstrating them on the
            4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ web, and 215 sq in cross-sectional area of a typical W14 X 730 WTC core column:
            As I suggested before, read NCSTAR 1A and stop embarrassing yourself. All of the input DATA
            is spoon-fed to those “leading lights” of your 9/11 “truth movement,” so please ask them why they’ve never done their own NEW AND INDEPENDENT ANSYS &
            LS-DYNA models using it, or isn’t SIX PLUS YEARS enough time for them to do something so fundamental to real SEs and other experts?
            Your most notorious crackpot is totally ignored by his own(?) AIA:
            the RIBA wants nothing to do with him:
            this ~$314.5 million lawsuit over WTC 7’s collapse doesn’t even mention him or his fantasies:
            the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,, ENR, etc. want nothing to do with him either, nor does the Uniformed Firefighters Association IAFF Local 94, or the Ironworker Locals 40 & 361, so why would the NIST WTC investigators want to waste their time mud wrestling with clueless nitwits?

      • Dom Shenher

        “I am an architect, and 99.9% of us think that the fireproofing on the structure was dislodged from the impact of the plane.”

        You are an architect? You don’t seem to know even the most basic facts about 9/11. If you are referencing the falls of the twin towers i am wondering why you didn’t use the plural form for “structure” and “plane?” You do know know that there were two airplanes hitting the twin towers, and two separate steel framed high rise buildings that were struck by airplanes right?

        How does your belief system square with the “collapse” of building 7? Obviously no airplane struck it so the fireproofing could not have been dislodged from the impact of an airplane.

    • Ron Brassfield

      Anyone with a good, functioning mind and the capacity for intellectual integrity can and should know what COULD NOT have happened on 9/11. See my refutation below. But apparently, the most elementary physical truths now easily elude our stupid populace. As for Chomsky, “Critical Theory” has evidently fallen prey to a cult of poison-ality. This man, Chomsky, has revealed himself as a bought and paid-for “Left Gatekeeper” of acceptable thought for aspiring orthodox liberals, no more and no less. He is a bit player in a shell game the elite have played on the public ever since the Populist Movement days when JP Morgan realized you could defuse the downtrodden masses by making them feel they had a public voice — thus launching The New Republic into publication. It was all a calculated steam valve designed to give the toiling masses false hopes for progress and a feeling that someone understood their plight. The pampered MIT intellectual Noam Chomsky’s “who cares” bullshit about JFK’s assassination and 9/11 is an utterly absurd abdication of basic human morality, and his tired old, usual riff that every disgusting crime perpetrated by the Imperium is simply an ingrained attribute of “the institution” is exactly the same diversion as the Warren Commission’s magic bullet theory and the Bush Administration’s compassionate examination of 9/11 as the occasion for total warfare on the world on the one hand and a blameless exercise in how to avoid another such attack again (why, by instituting a police state society, of course). The Establishment, particularly since the success of the Reagan Revolution, is one monster with two wings. A better deterrent to the global elite’s ever-growing economic and war crimes which are consuming the world would be to round up, try, and publicly hang enough of the leaders of the ever-worsening, legalized frauds and mass murders being inflicted on societies the world over, to give the rest of them some pause. But the intelligence, courage, organization, and will are all on the side of those corporatized dynasties who are orchestrating the rape and pillage of the world and its populations.

      • John Brown

        WOW! Just WOW!

        Do you mind if I plagiarise you lots?

        Can’t believe I’m the first one to give you an uptick!

        The part of it that’s exercising my mind at the moment is people in power know the truth and have known it from the start. Powerful people who didn’t play an active role. I’m wondering what they’ve done or are doing about it. If this isn’t a pivotal right-wrong issue for them then why? Have they all been bought off, either with power or money? Those who know what happened but do nothing because it’s been good for business, good for them. The generals, the arms manufacturers, the bought-off politicians, the very law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating it, beefed-up with new powers and bigger budgets. One long gravy train. All knowing the truth be preferring to indulge the fairy tale. Drunk with power and only interested in number 1. And sure if they rock the boat, they can’t rock the boat. Not a good career move and potentially life-threatening. I wonder one day will they wake up, Bishop Brennan-like, out of their dazed stupour and realise they’ve been kicked up the arse, and bring to bear all their force and indignation down on the heads of evil bastards who have stolen America, and taken their souls too. I live in hope that the powerful will realise that you can’t buy integrity and that it is worth more to them than they knew.

        • Thanks, John. We cannot know if the “Albury Smith” types of the world are sincere, or simply on the “troll” payroll. I have encountered people who genuinely break into sheer hysterics when you mention any facts, and, Lord, there are dozens, if not hundreds of them, which quite obviously refute the corporate government & media’s simple tale. As I found in the 2000s while I, with a sense of urgency, worked with Democrats politically in hopes of electing a better government, liberals these days are quite prepared to defeat themselves and their supposed ideals. As we see with Chomsky, they are prepared to embrace hasty pseudo-science, as with Eagar’s “the buildings unzipped” published article of 9/13/01, while demanding peer-reviewed science from the true skeptics, then scoff when they finally get it. They demand to know “if you were there” on 9/11, then, when you cite eyewitnesses, they scoff and dismiss eyewitnesses as “unreliable.” And so it goes, across the board. The president of a chapter I worked with to try to get Democrats elected averred that he thought it only possible that BushCo officials knew only about the 9/11 plot and allowed it to happen (LIHOP). He didn’t think such a scenario amounted to an impeachable offense…! just like Reid and Pelosi. Baahh-ahh-ahh. Ah, well. You realize the problem when you say that to be in “positions of power” and to rock the boat of globalism is to risk one’s life. Many people do not realize, despite all the signs, that there is an Omerta, a code of silence, which is only violated, truly, at risk of loss of life or loved ones’ lives. “There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy,
          its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas
          of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from
          the law itself.”Sen. Daniel Inouye, Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition (Iran-Contra hearings) (1987) My best surmise as to how this sinister status quo came about, ties in with what Prof. J. Carroll Quigley and few others have written about; as Quigley put it, “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

          — Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20
          Building astronomically on the banknote banking system previously established by the Warburgs and some others, the Rothschilds gained power over the world by Napoleonic times, probably more so than any other power players in existence. If it’s true they took control of the Bank of England, are among the few principal owners of the Federal Reserve banking system and more which is attributed to them, then it stands pretty much to reason their intelligence networks are at the foundations of all Western covert government actions. “Too big to fail” and too big to jail, this class of “top” people can use political donations, blackmail, bribery, economic-hitman carrot$ and $ticks mustering teams and sway whomever it takes to accomplish absolutely anything they deem needs doing in politics, including massive military actions. The unobservant believe we have a free press who staunchly hold the powerful to account for our benefit, and they cling to the notion that those who acquire political power in the USA tend to have the general welfare in mind. Both are mistaken impressions. We have practically all of post-WWII history to prove them wrong, but they don’t know, and they don’t want to know. Yet, perhaps there is a thread which goes back a couple of centuries, here: “Jackson and No Bank!” resulted in Pres. Andrew Jackson’s re-election, the abolition of the Bank of the United States, and then it seems only Providence spared his life when a would-be assassin’s pistols both misfired. Pres. Lincoln printed Greenback Money to help the Union win the war, with aid from Tsar Nicholas Alexander of Russia who dispatched his naval fleet to give the British and French pause while the Union rallied. Lincoln was assassinated and so was the Tsar’s entire family in the next generation. JFK printed Silver Certificates to by-pass the “government debt to private bankers” scam which has since debilitated our nation, and he, too, was eliminated after Treasury Agents, the Secret Service, abandoned his motorcade to sniper fire in Dallas. And so on. But, listen to Chomsky and he’ll absolve you of all your moral obligations. His message is that this is all the doings of “the Institution” and no individuals, therefore, are culpable for the decisions, the treasons, behind these acts. Therefore, there is nothing to be done. That’s the real message, and because liberals of today do not want to be bothered, they will eagerly accept, with hearty thanks, and go back to sleep, without questioning why US jurisprudence was cast aside and no grand jury with full subpoena power to seek the “qui bono?” answers was ever convened over the 9/11 attacks, or many other seriously troubling aspects of the Federal government’s behavior before, during, and after the attacks, not to mention suspicious behavior of many others with ties to overseas “allies.” All in all, it looks like the reconstituted Iran-Contra alliance all participated in 9/11’s catastrophic success. Really, that should come as no surprise, but Americans remain dumb by choice, by and large. Then, there are the trolls on the payroll, too.

    • Albury Smith

      These people know “what the fuck actually happened” during their 9/11/2001 Planes Operation suicide attacks on the evil US infidel, even if you don’t:
      From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans
      and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah…]'”
      Implicit in Mr. Chomsky’s “question everything” is the concept of paying attention to the answers, something you seem unwilling to do.

  • scott_ewing

    Best documentary that I’ve yet seen on the case for Controlled Demolition :

  • John Brown

    I have just listened to it. He says “So what” if the govt did it they’ve done much worse. He lists Iraq among the worse deeds the govt has done. Well d’uh! The premise for Iraq AND the last 12 years (and counting) of Middle Eastern war IS 9/11!!
    I have discovered he published a 9/11 book in November of 2001. Did he rush to judgement? Is that why he clings onto the 19 terrorists fiction, because he bought it himself with his hastily written book?

  • Sugarsail1

    wow..Chumpsky says something intelligent for a change, but it will fall on the deaf ears of paranoid conspiracy theorists with no engineering or metallurgy background. You can’t argue with stupid. The thing that puzzles me is why do people continually go to him regarding scientific issues like global warming and engineering…he’s a LINGGUIST!!!

  • So you’re impressed with a logical fallacy called the “speculative fallacy” or the “counterfactual fallacy,” equating his own made up hypothetical with factual evidence.

  • So you think tossing out a half-baked logical fallacy, an appeal to a hypothetical, counts as setting people “straight?”

    A Public Challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky

  • Chomsky doesn’t set anyone “straight.” H merely misleads people too dumb to comprehend what he’s doing: speculation and non-sequiturs. He is a fact free misleader without an ounce of credibility on the September 11th attacks… And I’m taking him down.

    Noam Chomsky and The War on Straight Answers