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

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. Here is what he said in an interview about the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Part 1:
www.youtube.com...

Part 2:
www.youtube.com...

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and scientists who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and thus he is badly misinformed and his views are outdated.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?!

We need to educate him and let him know that his views are outdated and that as of now, there are 777 architects and engineers that support the controlled demolition hypothesis, which Richard Gage derived at using the scientific method in his film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth". Would 777 architects and engineers endorse something that was BS? NOT!

He needs to know that this conclusion has been proven and reached using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

And he needs to be informed of the scientific forensic evidence of thermite found in the WTC dust, which has been published in three peer reviewed scientific journals already, by Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones. This is hard evidence, not some theory that serves as a diversion!

I suggest that we all help educate him by emailing him about all this. His public email from his webpage is this:

web.mit.edu...

[email protected]

So please help write him and update him with the facts so that he loses his false impression of us!

Thanks.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by WWu777]

reply to post by WWu777


If he is your intellectual hero, then maybe this is a sign for you to re-examine your beliefs. That's what role models are for - to set an example.

great interview with a brilliant man.

Thanks

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and scientists who believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and thus he is badly misinformed and his views are outdated.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 alone. Only a tiny handful have problems with the NIST and FEMA studies released showing things like how the WTC buildings collapsed due to plane impacts, fires, loss of structural integrity.

A few of those who attached their names to Engineers for Truth have complained how they were railroaded into signing by Richard Gage who gave he them deceptive paperwork in which it only said there are outstanding questions that still need investigation.

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

Stephen Jones, a low level physics prof has been going around with a claim he found traces of an explosive in WTC dust. Independent scientists have looked at it and see nothing to substantiate his claims. No credible scientif journal will publish it due to the shoddy agenda driven science. And it would be a great coup if it were solid.

The young and gullible are easy targets for the handful 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 wild no-planes theories, controlled demolitions, etc - only serve to discredit attempts at public inquiry. The hobbyist Truther movement has only been an impediment to making the public aware of critical questions.

Is is just greedy opportunism or something else?


Mike



[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Here's an idea. Send Chomsky this link where 786 architects and engineers provide their full names and statements about why they think the official 9/11 theory is false. It's overwhelming and he can't deny it. Then ask him, "Would 786 professional licensed architects and engineers sign their name to something that was BS? I don't think so!"

www.ae911truth.org...

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by WWu777

 

If he is your intellectual hero, then maybe this is a sign for you to re-examine your beliefs. That's what role models are for - to set an example.

Uh dude, just cause someone is your hero doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say, esp when they are not informed of the facts.

Question for you: Would 786 professional architects and engineers sign their name to something that was BS? I don't think so.

See here:

www.ae911truth.org...

Watch this film too. It uses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to explain why only the controlled demolition hypothesis fits all the data. Your fire induced hypothesis has a one in a trillion chance of occurring.

video.google.com...

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?

Some more examples:

Cynthia Howard
AIA
Lic: MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MA
Biddeford Pool, ME

Architecture — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

Architectural education MIT (Masters), and Harvard GSD, (taught course Developing Historic Properties). Studied Structural Engineering under William LeMessurier, at MIT.

30 years private practice:
Preservation Planning for municipalities, agencies and historic societies
Energy-efficient historic restoration and new construction projects, concentrated in coast and mill communities.

Served on the Board of the Boston Society of Architects, as President of the New England Chapter of the AIA, and as President and Board member of AIA Maine.

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

I believe that it is physically/scientifically impossible for the heat from the burning planes to have caused the collapse. If the steel had failed by heat, as has been claimed, the building would have deformed.

The speed of the building's collapse, indicating no resistance as it fell, further indicates that only carefully placed and timed detonation devices throughout the skeletal structure could account for the sudden implosion of the towers into their footprints.

The only plausible reason for collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane, is similarly, timed explosives within the building.

Murray I. Brill
Registered Professional Engineer, CE #8928, ME #43
Lic: C8928, M433 California
BAE Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic I
Los Angeles, DC

Engineering — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

Worked 52 years as Engineer including 11 foreign countries.

Consulting Engineering firms (such as TAMS), Government Departments (such as city and county bldg, bridge div, USAID) and private companies, on bridges, buildings and structures, and other projects in planning, design and construction supervision in the field.

I am now retired in Athens, Greece

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

I was open minded without any definite opinion until today when I spent two hours carefully listening and watching the video 9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition).

I am now totally convinced by the evidence presented that the destruction of the three buildings had to be by controlled demolition rather than the impacts of the plane crashes.

I am crushed by this realization and very angry that we haven't brought the truth to the attention of the public the way it should be. I will lend my support to this endeavor.

Lester D. Baker
Consulting Professional Civil Engineer
Lic: Utah- PE=143426,, Wyo.- PE=1317, Ida. PE/LS=2282
BSCE Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah, 1954
Ogden, UT

Engineering — Degreed and Licensed

• Bio:

I am a registered Prof. Civil Engineer in Utah (since 1967), Wyoming and Idaho (qualified short time later). Am a Prof. Land Surveyor in Idaho.
Received my BSCE from Utah State University Logan, Utah in 1954. Was with U.S. Bur. of Public Roads for 3 years located in Oreg., Wash,. Alaska, and Wyo. Interstate Hwy Design engineer on I-15 from Lehi to Provo, Utah. After that, I was appointed Utah DOT's Standards Engineer (I started with zero standards.) Some BPR Standards were adopted, Developed new format, construction details and all new standards for all types of state roads and highway construction, plus traffic control design, signage and standards. Revised the Utah Road Commission payment handbook, which determined the methods for calculating the contactor's payment.
As a Facilities Engr, for Hercules, I was placed in charge of all roads, buildings, roofs, barricades, parking & utilities lines, including: acid, steam, air, water, sewer and N. gas, plus projects: using, air, hydraulic, explosion-proof equipment & handling equipment.
Mapped 6 underground coal mines in Utah, They used Explosives.
I had an day to day association with an "Explosives Expert & Chemist" for several years."
In 1949 (USAF) I flew over many bombed German cities and witnessed the damage done by bombs in WWII. The corners of the bombed-out buildings stood up 10 to 30 feet higher than the middle portion of the straight perimeter walls of the damaged structures. (Not true for 911 Bldg. #7. I see that example as more proof that all 3 WTC buildings were "Imploded". The corners failed due to the extra explosives.

Lester D. Baker, P.E.
Ogden, Utah

• Personal 9/11 Statement:

When a bldg drops/falls at "free fall" speed, it means to me that the floor above did not "help", or cause the collapse of the next floor below (that would have caused a "short" delay). It means to me that there was "no resistance, or delay" by the floor below and therefore that floors below had already failed "completely" before the upper floor could get there. Each and every floor failed "TIMELY". Only a well-controlled "Implosion" could do this 110 times in a row. And it was repeated for 2 more buildings (another 110 stories and then on another 47 story building.)
I suspect that if any of the floors had failed untimely (too soon or too late), it would have caused a totally different "failure scenario". Both would likely have missed the "footprint" below. The "lower" floors failed exactly as planned (which was about one-tenth of one second apart). Three huge buildings went down without a "hitch". It could not have been better, if it were planned. And yet they say that it was NOT planned. If that is true, The only "tougher" job I can think of - is for someone to build one of those buildings - WITHOUT A PLAN - Timing may not be so critical.

reply to post by WWu777


I didn't say you had to agree with him, maybe just rethink what you believe, play the skeptic for awhile.

Yes, they would. If they are professionals and they really did sign it. 786? That's the best they could do? That's not even a drop in the bucket. I think the few that did sign says more than you think. It says that it really is B.S.

Originally posted by WWu777

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!

No, I look at hundreds of studies by independent professionals. Misinformation on dozens of websites does not negate the hundreds of thousands of pages on rigorous scientific investigation, documentation, tangible evidence, testimony, gathered. Professionals worldwide, almost all autonomous, have gone over the science.

Guys selling videos and T-shirts with no real understanding of thermodynamics, structural engineering, demolition - are not reliable sources.

Were anyone able to prove the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives, it would mean a fortune to an author or publisher. Thousands have looked at the evidence from Truther sources. It falls apart.

Try some of the better debunking sites which expose the frauds perpetrated by the websites pushing their unsupported speculation.

With half a million related field professionals and academics examining closely the published evidence and less that 1% having difficulty with it - what does that tell you?


Mike





[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by WWu777
I suggest that we all help educate him by emailing him about all this.

spamming the man's e-mail will hardly help. if he is uninformed, he's probably not that interested and if he is informed, he already knows what you're going to send him and doesn't agree with you, so e-mailing him is pointless.

if you want to do something worth while, go annoy a politician with 50 e-mails a day, there are tons of politicians to choose from and tons of things to annoy them about, and it's their job to listen to you, take advantage, go nuts.

leave poor Noam alone, don't you think he's had enough hardship in his life, growing up with a name like Noam?

[edit on 25/8/09 by pieman]

reply to post by WWu777


Have you ever considered that the signatories might be wrong, regardless of their credentials? That what they believe is based on their gut feelings and not on any evidence? That they think that they understand what should have happened but don't? That they overestimate their knowledge of the situation and assume that they are correct without physical evidence? That they have been duped by the same con-men that try to dupe everyone else into joining up, saluting and memorizing the little red book, all the while sending cash to the con-men to help fund the cause? All those with good intentions sending cash to the 911 Conspiracy sites like little old ladies sending their life savings to the latest televangelist who promises salvation. An Ivy league education does not prevent one from being suckered and may actually help.
How many sent money and where did it go? Have we seen the results of any class action lawsuits, yet? How about the NY ballot effort? Poor reading comprehension made that a non-starter.
It would surprise me if those that have made a career of this really want any resolution. It is actually an evergreen source of greenbacks and backstrokes for the egos of the self-appointed guardian heroes of the cause.

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

That number is irrelevant however. Richard gage was also under the impression that the OS was kosher until he looked at the scenario closely. Out of those 141,000 members how many have reviewed the data? Thats your starting point.

He is wrong. Even intelligent people can only make decisions based on the information available. I guess he listens to the completely wrong people.

Originally posted by jprophet420

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

That number is irrelevant however. Richard gage was also under the impression that the OS was kosher until he looked at the scenario closely. Out of those 141,000 members how many have reviewed the data? Thats your starting point.

Thousands of independent experts in related fields from a dozen countries have reviewed the material extensively. Probably tens of thousands. Hundreds of articles in professional journals have critiqued and commented. The information is out there, but not on over the top web pages and videos. Check scientific discussion forums.

Gage has been outed as a charaltan a dozen of times. He constantly begs for money. Outside the Truther community no one takes him seriously. He is just another snake oil salesman grabbing a quick buck from the ignorant and deluded. You see a similar phenomenon with out of work academics doing the UFO circuit. Talks about Disclosure, govt cover-ups, how they're champions of THE REAL TRUTH.

Travelling Preachers. Always new customers. Lots of uninformed people out there.


Mike

Whether it's Chomsky or a person who's homeless w/o a pot to pee in, humans will believe what they want to believe no matter the evidence brought before them that may point to the contrary. Just my opinion ofcourse, but Chomsky's opinion means no more than the homeless person, for his knowledge, or capacity for it, grants him no more of the truth than the latter. What's intriguing to me is the insurmountable ridecule that internationally reputable engineers knowingly risk by feverously disagreeing with the official story. For one, I agree with the disagreeance.

Originally posted by rygi23
What's intriguing to me is the insurmountable ridecule that internationally reputable engineers knowingly risk by feverously disagreeing with the official story. For one, I agree with the disagreeance.

How many professionals have you known in your life? I've met thousands.

Do you think more than 5% of people who have architectural degrees ever get work as architects? Do you know how many engineering degrees are issued every year? Thousands. Only a small percent ever find meaningful work in their chosen fields.

There are diploma factories worldwide with no standards that churn out engineers. You pay $25,000 and up for the title.

As we see there are hundred more than willing to associate themselves with anything that might mean an opportunity or a buck for themselves.

They don't have to provide their work experience, just sign their name.
Showing a track record of working on increasingly important projects indicates credibility as an engineer. Not a degree.


Mike




[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

I think one must step back and see the absurdity of message board posters wondering how they will educate and enlighten Chomsky.

Seriously, just think about that for a moment?

I do believe some of us no longer understand what, "truth," is.

Well hell, Noam said it!!! I take back everything my common sense and my eyes told me and bow to Chomsky's otherworldly like intellect!

Just don't ask Noam for advice on how to remove batteries from a flashlight.

Peace

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are 141,000 members of the Association of Civil Engineers alone. Only a tiny handful have problems with the NIST and FEMA studies released

Unless you've spoken to every single one of them, I don't see how you could possibly know what any of those members think about anything. Just because they haven't went public with their thoughts one way or the other, doesn't automatically mean they support the official version. You're just speculating with zero proof.

Originally posted by mmiichael
A few of those who attached their names to Engineers for Truth have complained how they were railroaded into signing by Richard Gage who gave he them deceptive paperwork

I'm calling you out on this. It's against the ToS of ATS to knowlingly post false information (disinformation). I want to see some tangible proof of your claim.

Originally posted by mmiichael
There has been a whole sub-industry created capitalizing on 9/11, selling videos, organizing conferences, and other ways to extract money from Truthers.

More disinformation. The conferences are to educate people. It costs money to set up conferences. It costs money to fly the speakers to the conferences and provide their room and board. It costs money to make videos, even though most, if not all have also released their videos for free online. Everything costs money and not a single person in the 9/11 truth movement is doing any of this for profit. It's to educate people and get them informed.

Your accusations are misguided or purposeful disinformation.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Stephen Jones, a low level physics prof

You are becoming the instant king of disinformation. Dr. Steven Jones, PhD. (yes, smarter than you) is not a "low-level" physics professor. He has an impressive resume and you'd do yourself some good to research his 20-year physics background.

You can start here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by mmiichael
Independent scientists have looked at it and see nothing to substantiate his claims.

Really? Let's see some independent papers that were written to counter the claims of the thermite paper by Dr. Jones, et al. If you can't provide any, then this claim will also be disinfo.

Originally posted by mmiichael
With half a million related field professionals and academics examining closely the published evidence and less that 1% having difficulty with it - what does that tell you?

Again, a claim which you cannot provide proof. You haven't the slightest clue whether any person believes the official story or a conspiracy. Again, just because they haven't went public one way or the other, doesn't mean they automatically support the official story.

Here's a challenge for you. Provide a list of names that is equal to or greater than 800 that consists of architects and engineers that support the official story. If you cannot (I know you can't), then you will concede and stop this nonsense.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of independent experts in related fields from a dozen countries have reviewed the material extensively. Probably tens of thousands.

And yet still again, you can't possibly know what people do outside of your computer. You have no idea who has reviewed what or what they believe.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You see a similar phenomenon with out of work academics doing the UFO circuit. Talks about Disclosure, govt cover-ups, how they're champions of THE REAL TRUTH.

This quote right here tells me that you know nothing about science or physics.

Your posts in this thread have been nothing but made-up BS that you can't back up, all because of your denial disorder. If only you could see the fool that you make yourself look like by typing the things you do.