Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

The Energy Revolution Is In Reverse




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Life and Fate

Life and Fate

By Vasily Grossman; Robert Chandler (Introduction by)

more items

 
A/V Booth

Chomsky Disputes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 29, 2007
Chomsky
onegoodmove.org

Probably fielding this type of question for the millionth time, Noam Chomsky explains in this video clip, apparently taken from an overseas panel discussion, why he doesn’t believe that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were an inside job.  “Did the Bush administration gain from Sept. 11th?  Answer:  Yes.  Does that tell you anything?  No,” Chomsky opined.

Follow this link to watch the clip.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By listentous, November 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

after reading the entire transcript of the captain i really don’t think that Paracelsus was quote mining. i think the captain was telling us that there were orange and red explosions going around and up the building she didn’t know what they were in her fear and the mass confusion going on around her. one explanation that has been put forth was that they were transformers, this really doesn’t ring true because they are interior and if they were blowing there would be no exterior yellow and orange fires blowing from the middle of the building through the office space and out the side of the building. i don’t know what the explosions were i do however know that the 911 commission did terrible research and my main question would be why? and why did our leaders wait so long after the event to even form an investigation team? that stinks of cover-up from day one imho. i just want the truth wherever it may lead.

Report this

By niloroth, November 1, 2007 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

Okay, nice attempt at quote mining.  You would figure that if she really thought she was seeing and experiencing the controlled demolition of the towers then maybe she would come forward as a witness.  After all, at the end of the interview she says she is retiring from her job as an EMS, so she didn’t have to worry about her job did she?  Well, the fact is, that if you go read the WHOLE interview, you will see the parts that the people show mined this quote don’t want you to read.  It undermines their attempt to bend this ladies words to their purpose.  Really, go read it, i will even give you the link to the entire interview.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF

Hint: it has a lot to do with the part where she says “I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST A MAJOR EXPLOSION ” and then it goes on from there.

Do you people EVER check the sources?

really?

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 1, 2007 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, Cyrena, Louise, Blackolive, and anybody else I may have missed. I felt for so long the lone voice in the wilderness. I am glad to see so many people waking up. It was a lonely going in 2002. I felt like a social leper back then.

Report this

By Louise, November 1, 2007 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

#110678 by voice of truth on 10/31 at 8:33 am


“This has to be the funniest thread I have read in quite some time.”

*

Your right, this thread is funny, as is the clip. Not funny haw-haw, but funny peculiar.

Peculiar because it demonstrates no matter how learned or intelligent a person is, their fear of being labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist” overcomes their fear of the horrible consequences of accepting the lie that will justify the outrageous abuses that will surely follow the original outrage.

Another peculiarity. People become alarmed and angry at the suggestion that neo-cons and/or government agents executed, then benefited from 9/11. So angry they would rather defend the lie. [official government explanation] Even if it means indirectly supporting the abusers they continually condemn for their outrageous abuses.

Still another peculiarity. People who have no knowledge of construction, engineering, construction materials and their specific reactions to a given set of circumstances will embrace the fantasy, as outlined in the “official theory” and dismiss the testimony of those scientists and engineers and experts in the industry of both explosives and steel frame construction, who know better. And who have presented factual evidence to back up their position.

Another peculiarity. People who dismiss, or refuse to listen to the eyewitness testimony of so many who heard and saw explosions, from the basement before the plane hit, and on other levels in the building, before and during the so-called collapse. Testimony from fire-fighters and WTC employees. Testimony from people in the street. Testimony from news people. All ignored and dismissed.

Because I respect and admire the volumes of positive work Chomsky has given us, I cant say to him, “sir you are wrong.”

But I can certainly ask him, “sir what is the real reason for you rigid position?”

Explosive Evidence - WTC Was Too Hot
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/explosive-evidence-wtc-was-too-hot.html

“Dr. Steven Jones found iron spheres in samples of dust from the World Trade Center which were collected by ground zero resident Janette MacKinlay.
Why is this important? Because iron melts at about the same temperature as steel. But the government has admitted that the fires in the World Trade Centers were not hot enough to melt steel.

Indeed, the temperature needed to melt iron is almost twice the maximum temperature that can be reached by jet fuel, diesel, office supplies and equipment, and the other flammable material which could possibly have burned in the World Trade Centers. So what, other than explosives producing enormous heat, could have produced temperatures hot enough to form the iron spheres?”

*

When Dr. Jones first began an examination of 9/11,  it was never to disprove the official story. It was to create an opportunity for his students to study an actual dynamic. Their study led them to the obvious conclusion. What we were told is not what really happened.

Perhaps if people could overcome their fear and reluctance to believe “an American, and/or a friend of America” could have deliberately had any part in this horror called 9/11, they will ask how.

And when the how is understood, the why will be asked.

And the answer to the why becomes more obvious every day.

Now it’s time to study on the who.

All moot I realize when one is dealing with a mind that has already been closed on the subject. Which is after all why conspiracies, no matter how evil, are successful.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 1, 2007 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

@ #110925 by niloroth


http://www.911eyewitness.com/videos01.html

The short clips are free. Knock yourself out.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 1, 2007 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/demolition-detonations-confirmed-in-official-statement/1621/


Smoking gun testimony, demolition detonations reported by top brass in official statement

The rank of this witness is:
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE QUOTE :

“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT.

“INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS I COULD SEE.

“THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER, GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING. I WENT INSIDE AND TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE OTHER BUILDING OR THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION OCCURRING UP THERE AND SAID THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER MAJOR EXPLOSION. I DONT KNOW IF WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SAFE HERE.”

The second building was being demolished.

Report this

By Bill Backolive, November 1, 2007 at 9:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, thanks much.  What good work from you at this site, I wonder have you done any books.  And such strange times, what marvel.  What are we to confront.

Report this

By niloroth, November 1, 2007 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

No, won’t buy it, but if it is available online i will watch it.  I make it a point not to support the people who take advantage of the gullible folks like you.  Ever notice that all these truthers are selling things?  A fool and his money and all that.

I like your idea of providing evidence though.  I give you quotes, links, and pictures, you give me a movie.  Way to be specific there big guy.  You astound me with you ability to dodge yet again.

Report this

By ribbie, November 1, 2007 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Who cares?”...This comment by Chomsky in the context of “what if the allegations of 9/11 conspiracy were true” is truly moronic.  He makes some cogent points and then completely destroys his credibility by making this inane comment.  I am certain that many people would care if any of the conspiracy theories were to be proven.  We need to get answers to the many legitimate questions surrounding 9/11 events and not jump to conclusions on who was responsible for them. 

What we really need to do is hold those responsible for the lack of interest in Osama Bin Laden’s activities prior to 9/11 (Read Richard Clarke’s book on 7 months of the Bush Administration’s refusal to even MEET on the subject).  It is much more more important to hold Rudy Giuliani responsible for his horrible decisions prior to (and just after) 9/11 than it is to divide our attention now tracking down conspiracies.  There will be ample time to answer these questions AFTER we elect a responsible (and responsive) Democratic President and Congress.  If we do not elect officials who will pursue the truth, it will never come out.

Giuliani’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission, where he admits that he was essentially clueless on Al Quaida and other related threats, is not scheduled to be released until December 2008, AFTER the election.  Do you think that we will ever learn the truth about 9/11 if this man is elected president?

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, November 1, 2007 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, thanks much.  What verbal energy you have.  I wonder do you write books.  But good work you do here.  But is not this such marvel.  Such strange times and to warp minds.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, November 1, 2007 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, thanks much.  What verbal energy you have.  Have you throught about or written books?  Well, what you are doing in here is nice work.  Besides is not this such marvel?  Strange times for sure.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 1, 2007 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

#110914 by niloroth

The video is called 9-11 eyewitness. You might have to buy it.

Report this

By niloroth, November 1, 2007 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, Peracelcus:

“I mean, look at these pages and pages of comments from distracters like ITW and Nimrod, and whomever else they can get to engage in pointless details about fine dust versus course dust, and on and on. They just like to engage in whatever will distract from the bottom line, which is that these towers were exploded by demolition, which can only have been planned in advance. Whether the final product is 100% fine dust, or 90% course rubble, the bottom line is that these towers were brought down by explosion, and all of the NIST and other reports in the world, about pancake collapses and anything else, has been nothing more than MORE distraction from the obvious. They were blown up.”

Really, all i am asking for is some evidence that was the case and the NIST report was wrong.  If it is so obvious, it should be easy to find right?  So far all i have gotten is peracelcus continually moving the goalposts as i show him evidence that his statement was incorrect.  I even quoted another truther debunking your arguments?  Do you want me to point you to other sites that show and list debris far larger than dust?  I can, and if you want i will.  But since neither of you live in the world where evidence and facts are used to support your theories, i don’t know what good it would do. 

Please stop making baseless assertions without evidence.  Show me a video where explosives were either seen or heard going off.  Do you have any idea the amount of energy that would have been requiered to do the demolition you think happened?  I could point you toward some references that go into that, but again, that would be facts, and i know you hate those.  But non the less, the energy expended to do that much damage would be neither quiet or invisable, unless you think that the jpeople who blew it up were able to defy the laws of pysics?  Please, either put up or shut up.

Report this

By originallycredulous, November 1, 2007 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Are there underlying American powers perverse enough to kill 3,000 innocent Americans?  Ask 1,000,000 dead Iraqis, or the 4,000,000 displaced Iraqi’s, not to mention the maimed shell-shocked and grieving.  Or ask the official American War dead (or the unofficial ones that died later, away from the killing zone).  Question the families of the thousands of American maimed and shell-shocked.  The insanity is now ready to move onward to Iran, while our country heads into debt by $1 Trillion every 15 months.  But do not ask a smiling, cajoling, lying president about such things.

Now Mr. Chomsky proposes that nothing as large as 911 could be covered up, however psychologists know that human beings must clutch to an entrenched belief system.  History shows this trait is easily manipulated, especially by introducing shock and fear.  If this were not the case, there would be no wars.  For many reasoning people, the destruction of the U.S. Constitution is the smoking gun.  This is much larger than 911 itself, and has essentially been greeted with a yawn by the majority of Americans.  The perpetrators of 911 needed something visceral as a prelude to future conquest on the grand chessboard.  It has succeeded.  Lets face it; propaganda is the greatest war tool.  The leaders behind the administration are not so stupid to have thought we would have won hearts and minds in the Middle East; what they truly require is to control the emotions of Americans.

Last point:  Mr. Chomsky ultimately comes to the conclusion of:  “Who cares?”  This statement is such a non sequitur and oddity that it must be a riddle for aspiring intellectuals.

Epilogue:  Please read “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin.  There are various levels of complicity possible short of planting explosives in the towers.  So first dismiss the physics and structural engineers that propose this.  Use only the behind-the-scenes actions of the agencies in the US and internationally that were accumulated by research in mainstream media sources.  Then, armed only with this, perhaps ask a statistician about the exponential odds of each successive coincidence (or smoking gun, if you will) listed by David Ray Griffin to arrive at the likelihood that governmental entities played some role.  Then divide the number by ten in order to play it safe.  You will still arrive at huge odds pointing to complicity in the government.  If that doesn’t arouse your curiosity, research the histories of empires by another celebrated academic: Carroll Quigley.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 1, 2007 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

cyrena on 10/31 at 11:38 pm
(1419 comments total)

#110830 by Paracelsus
• From the pictorial evidence you linked to I am convinced that that building had been blasted hard by professionals.

Paracelsus,

You’re right you know. I only want to say that it’s not worth attempting a valid argument with either of these people. It’s all strawman stuff. I knew that as soon as nimrod got going on the totally pulverized to fine dust BS. The buildings were blown up, and by professionals in demolition. NOT by airplanes or jet fuel.

But, they’ll argue about whatever they think they can pull you into, and distract, distract, distract, from the obvious.

*************

Not a shred of evidence, links to nut-house sites, and assertions of things you “know” to be true but can’t even get past the straight-faced test.

And even assertions of things that CLEARLY aren’t true—that the WTC was pulverized to dust—yet I remember multi-story steel frames that had to be cut up with torches, and monster chunks of concrete that had to be jack-hammered or sawn apart.

And Cyrena’s “expert” and mentor on it is a lunatic who claims to have over 500 professions, and claims to be an expert in literally everything from law to engineering to martial arts, psychology, and everything else.

You’re right, Cyrena: you can’t talk to me. You are irrational as is Paracelsus, Robert, and all the other tin-foil hatters.

Report this

By cyrena, November 1, 2007 at 12:38 am Link to this comment

#110830 by Paracelsus
•  From the pictorial evidence you linked to I am convinced that that building had been blasted hard by professionals.

Paracelsus,

You’re right you know. I only want to say that it’s not worth attempting a valid argument with either of these people. It’s all strawman stuff. I knew that as soon as nimrod got going on the totally pulverized to fine dust BS. The buildings were blown up, and by professionals in demolition. NOT by airplanes or jet fuel.

But, they’ll argue about whatever they think they can pull you into, and distract, distract, distract, from the obvious.

Report this

By cyrena, November 1, 2007 at 12:36 am Link to this comment

#110693 by Bill Blackolive

•  Now, Chomsky is odd. He writes great books of global social commentary, while he cannot handle the Kennedy coverup and now the 9/11 coverup.  I wish he would find his way to patriotsquestion9/11.com/media, though it is now more difficult to get to that site.

Bill Blackolive,

You’ve articulated this so well. I don’t know what the deal is with Chomsky, except to say what I’ve mentioned before, which is that this simply isn’t his field, and so he dances around it. He may honestly NOT KNOW, and so he finds it easier to just stay safe. I mean, that’s a guess.

But, I should add that many in the same ‘circle’ of academics have passed everything off as ‘conspiracies’, BUT…they did that at the beginning, when some of the loonier theories were hitting the airwaves…things that NOBODY would believe, which didn’t leave much of an alternative. (and that may have been intentional as well). Even I withheld any judgment on what COULD have happened, even though I knew that what they were telling us happened, did not.

Since then of course, there’s been far more pieces to fill in the puzzle, and it could very well be that these people in the Chomsky circle, really haven’t much bothered to keep up with any of it. In fact, it’s been my experience that they have mostly been concentrating (as does Chomsky here) on how the Bushies have used it to turn the US into a fascist oligarchy. So, there’s a possibility that they just haven’t bothered with the details, and a quick read through any number of these blogs, could pretty much tell you why.

I mean, look at these pages and pages of comments from distracters like ITW and Nimrod, and whomever else they can get to engage in pointless details about fine dust versus course dust, and on and on. They just like to engage in whatever will distract from the bottom line, which is that these towers were exploded by demolition, which can only have been planned in advance. Whether the final product is 100% fine dust, or 90% course rubble, the bottom line is that these towers were brought down by explosion, and all of the NIST and other reports in the world, about pancake collapses and anything else, has been nothing more than MORE distraction from the obvious. They were blown up.

BUT, the longer they can keep people away from that basic reality, (which isn’t the least bit complicated) the longer they can postpone the who/how/why part of it.

The thing that I continue to marvel at, is the stupidity of not building the demolition into the Official Lie. If they wanted to blame it on Islamic Extremists, (from ANYWHERE) why not just say that these bad guys had found a way to put the bombs in there BEFORE the airplanes flew into them, and that it was all part of the ‘terrorist’ plan. That they planned to bomb the buildings, and that the airplanes were just for show? Instead, they’ve spent years and jillions of dollars, and time and energy, trying to make people believe that they didn’t see what they saw…buildings collapsing as a result of controlled demolition. If they were gonna blame the terrorists for the airplanes, why not just blame them for setting up the demolitions in advance as well? By lying about the most obvious, (the fact that the buildings were done in by controlled demolition) they just force the public to question even the airplane part of the story. (especially when we know that there was no 757 that hit the Pentagon).

So, that’s the thing that has always made me curious. Why try to lie about the most obvious? (not that the airplane highjackings themselves aren’t hooky as well, but still).

So, maybe one hand didn’t know what the other was doing. Sort of like a half-double cross.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 31, 2007 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment

#110802 by Inherit The Wind


From the pictures you showed me I am suitably impressed by the power it took to reduce that building to the mess I saw at ground level. Again you are using an early, early statement of mine to make another straw man argument. It is idiotic to argue over trivia, Most of that building was carried away from the weather. There will be some larger bits of shards at ground zero. From the pictorial evidence you linked to I am convinced that that building had been blasted hard by professionals. Come on now. There were pools of molten metal in the pits of those towers that took weeks to cool down. A pancaked structure does produce molten metal at its base. This argument of yours is absurd. The cleaning crews had to wait for the site to cool down before going in there. I can’t see how you can keep arguing idiocies. It so obvious. Please don’t add mini-nukes or laser beams to this. It would show how craven you are about denying reality.

Report this

By mdruss42, October 31, 2007 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

Better than Bill Clinton’s crotch!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus on 10/31 at 3:06 pm
(76 comments total)

@ #110760 by niloroth

“large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape
and size, one was approximately 5 cm X 3 cm X 3cm)”

If a building can be reduced to “large” chunks of concrete that can be measured at 5 cm and less in dimension then I am fantastically impressed that a pancaking collapse could produce that. Your ability to rationalize is off the charts. And somehow you will find some nitpicking particular in my answer to argue the ridiculous. I have faith in that! You like to argue from conclusion not from fact.

***************

This is idiotic.  There were huge chunks of steel that required cranes and cutting torches to get them on the flat-beds hauling them out of Ground Zero.  There were large chunks of concrete that required the largest front-loaders to get them in the dump trucks needed to remove them.

You saw it. I saw it. EVERYBODY saw it.  This is total bullshit to claim the WTC was pulverized to dust.

Either you are a complete flake, a total moron, or you think everybody else is and you can fool us into believing you, and not what we saw.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 31, 2007 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

@ #110760 by niloroth

“large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape
and size, one was approximately 5 cm X 3 cm X 3cm)”

If a building can be reduced to “large” chunks of concrete that can be measured at 5 cm and less in dimension then I am fantastically impressed that a pancaking collapse could produce that. Your ability to rationalize is off the charts. And somehow you will find some nitpicking particular in my answer to argue the ridiculous. I have faith in that! You like to argue from conclusion not from fact.

Report this

By niloroth, October 31, 2007 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Paracelcus:

Are you then challenging Steven Jones’s statements that “As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape
and size, one was approximately 5 cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wallboard
(with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust,
and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be
expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the
mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather
than in fine-dust form. …
It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust
particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that
significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.”

Because i thought he was a truther.  The best thing about following the truth movement’s lies for a while is that eventually they even start to contradict each other.  A problem that the real versions of events doesn’t foster, because there is only one way the events unfolded.  The real way.  So tell me, which version of the truther story is the real version?  The dust or the no dust version?

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 31, 2007 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

You are using slight over exaggeration on my part to ignore most of the building (Dare I say over 90% of it.) being reduced to dust. There is not enough building remnant to support the pancaking theorem. You remind of the pet dealer in tha Monty Python skit trying to sell John Cleese a dead parrot. You are using easily ignorable rubble to discredit the idea that 100’s of floors worth of infrastructure were turned to dust! If I had only thought ahead to include that pitifully small amount of debris in my argument you wouldn’t be using your sophistic rhetoric to discredit me, when everybody knows that dust had hung in the air for days on in NYC. Using your logic if I had dropped one of Noam Chomsky’s repetitious tomes on the floor, and it had turned to dust except for the book cover that the whole argument that something funny happened to the book in mid air would be discredited for my not including the book cover in my analysis. It is logical error of some sort, but I am not a dedicated philosopher so I would know how to classify that error of yours. I could say you are too easily accepting a null hypothesis, and that leaves you prone to be in error to an alternative hypothesis. I could get biblical and say there are none so blind, who have eyes but cannot see, and none so deaf who have ears but cannot hear.

Report this

By niloroth, October 31, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

no, you are attempting to avoid the fact that none of the evidence from the events support your insane assertion that everything was reduced to dust.  Here is what you said “How does a pancaking motion reduce everything in its path to dust? If the buildings fell in a pancaking collapse we would still see big gobs of metal and concrete.”

I proved that EVERYTHING was not turned to dust.  And i showed you that there was still metal and concrete.  I answered your own question fully.  The ball is still in your court.  Show me the pictures where everything was reduced to dust.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 31, 2007 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

“The assertion that everything was reduced to dust is false.
http://www.powers-point.com/uploaded_images/workers-72 3055.jpg

want more?

http://www.hkc.org/images/pictures/pa_tf1_wtc/World  Trade Center.JPG

Now, you show me your version where the only debris left is dust and powder.” 

You are making a strawman argument out of just the remnants at the bottom? That is absurd. You have only these little straggles of bent steel. And you are using that to say that my argument if not all the building than at least 90% is dust is not true? That’s nuts. What a desperate answer! You show me a few pieces of bent metal to just say see it wasn’t explosives? And you call people like me Moonbats! You have stupid assertion that not everything was reduced dust; there these little bent pieces at the bottom. You’re ability to twist reality and the English language is amazing! Oh, I don’t play tennis. That expression is from tennis! I have played chess, and I had never heard that uttered in victory. You don’t even know your sports.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, October 31, 2007 at 10:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nilroth would be one of these from sheltered childhood who still eat a lot of candy or whichever sweets for sugar instead of drink, which, for all its ills in Schizoid Nation, stimulates thinking. In as the real world is too, too horrible.  And hippie drugs, pot and acid etc., stimulate further thought or horror of today’s circumstance but anyway.  Now, Chomsky is odd. He writes great books of global social commentary, while he cannot handle the Kennedy coverup and now the 9/11 coverup.  I wish he would find his way to patriotsquestion9/11.com/media, though it is now more difficult to get to that site.  Maybe Chomsky eats a lot of candy too.

Report this

By The Village Idiot, October 31, 2007 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

First, let me say that I am not advancing a theory one way or the other. I am one of the people who have some questions, that’s all. I’ve listened with an open mind to the various explanations, and still do. My main goal is understanding the circumstancess within which a friend’s brother-in-law was killed (he was a pilot of one of the airliners that hit the WTC; a fact that’s not relevant to my questions, but included to illustrate that my interest is personal and not related to a political agenda).
  Anyhow, if two very tall, very heavy buildings were each hit by a large amount of mass traveling at high-velocity, and the impacts occurred up near the tops where that impact would have a greater effect on the overall balance of the building (think about hitting something tall and heavy near its top vs. lower down; it’s much easier to move something like that off-center by pushing from the top due to well-described principles of leverage), why did they both fall so clean and straight down instead of toppling over sideways from the likely-modified center of gravity caused by the impacts? And if not totally sideways, I’d at least expect the sections above the impacts to kick off to one side when they encountered the presumably-intact structrual members beneath them as they fell. I found it doubly strange that they both fell in exactly the same way even though the impacts didn’t occur at the same relative positions on the buildings.
Thoughts?

Report this

By voice of truth, October 31, 2007 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

Sorry for my last post.  This thread is no where near as funny as the one with Bill Clinton telling the moonbats they are nuts!

Report this

By voice of truth, October 31, 2007 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

This has to be the funniest thread I have read in quite some time.

Report this

By jkoch, October 31, 2007 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If certain people believe that Bush or some sort of insider conspiracy cooked up 9/11, does that say a thing about how they will vote in 2008?  Or how about their stance on any tangible policy?  I suspect most are career nonvoters and vehement contrarians who relish being in-your-face eccentrics, precisely because it irks the heck out of conformists they detest.

Now, of course, all rational people will agree that Elvis, ET, and Marilyn were behind 9/11.  One witness swears he heard the King wailing “Jail House Rock” just as the towers fell.  It’s on the video sound track, so it must be true.  The witness also swears the patient in the bed next to him in the asylum also turns into Elvis every night, using secret CIA bionic devices.  Thousands have kept this truth secret.  Anyone who challenges this just ain’t macho or is also a covert Elvis clone.  Now for some jakdanny+meth. Time to watch UFO Chronicals and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Etc.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 31, 2007 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

#110616 by Paracelsus on 10/31 at 4:07 am
(71 comments total)

Addendum….

Apparently you have chosen an apt moniker:

“Paracelsus gained a reputation for being arrogant, and soon garnered the anger of other physicians in Europe. He held the chair of medicine at the University of Basel for less than a year; while there his colleagues became angered by allegations that he had publicly burned traditional medical books. He was forced from the city after having legal trouble over a physician’s fee he sued to collect.”  Wikipedia.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 31, 2007 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

#110616 by Paracelsus on 10/31 at 4:07 am
(71 comments total)

#110610 by Verne Arnold
Yeah, right! A fire reduces all that concrete and steel to dust!! Come on! There is only one thing and one thing only that reduces huge beams of steel and concrete to dust, and that is explosives!!

Game, set and match!

Game, set, match????!!!!!  Surely…you aren’t serious.  Yes?  You have never played chess.

Report this

By jkoch, October 31, 2007 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Osama had any brains, he’d endorse the assorted conspiracy theories and claim that he and Bush were best of buddies.  Perhaps a quotient of Americans already believe this, for a mishmash of reasons.  However, to the extent that OBL and W both want the US to occupy the Mideast (although for opposite reasons), the “friendship” is at least part true.  The fact that most theories and stragegies are mostly bunk does not deter “deciders,” schemers, or the credulous from embracing them body and soul, just so long as some other fools pay the bill or bury the dead.  Nowadays, real men say “be afraid, real afraid,” rather than “there’s nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Happy Halloween.

Report this

By niloroth, October 31, 2007 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

The assertion that everything was reduced to dust is false.
http://www.powers-point.com/uploaded_images/workers-723055.jpg

want more?

http://www.hkc.org/images/pictures/pa_tf1_wtc/World Trade Center.JPG

Now, you show me your version where the only debris left is dust and powder. 

As for the precognition of the destruction of wtc7, it was no secret to anyone in the media that the building was going to come down, since they had been told that it was going to collapse.  The BBC jumped the gun, imagine that, a news network trying to beat the others to a story.

Uh, so not so much for the game, set, match.  Well, at least not if you have any idea what really happened.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 31, 2007 at 5:07 am Link to this comment

#110610 by Verne Arnold

Yeah, right! A fire reduces all that concrete and steel to dust!! Come on! There is only one thing and one thing only that reduces huge beams of steel and concrete to dust, and that is explosives!!

Game, set and match!

In additional how can the BBC predict the Building 7 collapse 23 minutes before it actually happens??? Somebody down the food chain flubbed up his script!!

Again, QED!

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 31, 2007 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

#110458 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/30 at 6:58 am
(1004 comments total)

110435 by Verne Arnold on 10/30 at 3:52 am: “...Did anybody here actually listen to Noam Chomsky… everything he said? I don’t think so….”

Maybe you’d like to comment on this from near the end of the clip:-

Yes, I heard it and it did surprise me…but I would like to know why he thinks it doesn’t matter. 
Anyway, this conspiracy crap gets to me, I’ve watched the Twin Towers go down many times and the heat from the burning fuel did it…period …so I’m out of here.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 31, 2007 at 3:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paracelsus on 10/31 at 12:20 am
(69 comments total)

How does a pancaking motion reduce everything in its path to dust? If the buildings fell in a pancaking collapse we would still see big gobs of metal and concrete.

What’s your point?  That’s EXACTLY what we did see—or do all you conspiracy trolls think the images of huge skeletons of structural steel and mountains of concrete “boulders” were also faked as part to the “conspiracy”?  Or did you “conveniently” forget that part?

That’s what I detest about conspiracy trolls—they constantly and conveniently ignore anything and everything that denies the “plot” that they already “know”, somehow, exists.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 31, 2007 at 1:20 am Link to this comment

How does a pancaking motion reduce everything in its path to dust? If the buildings fell in a pancaking collapse we would still see big gobs of metal and concrete. I don’t care if Chomsky is good at sophistry. All he has are credentials and bad logic as well as appeals to authority and his experience. But no exposition thereof.
Suppose I build a house out of cards, and I did something to make them collapse. It would be freaking unusual if all there was left of the card house was dust!

Report this

By niloroth, October 30, 2007 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Sheila:

I know you won’t answer, but um, did you read this right?

“Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio.”

Note the use of UNTIL?  This does not work as an analogy because the people who worked on the Manhattan project did eventually know about the goal of the project.  Are you saying that 1,000’s of people, now enlightened to their roles in the events on 9/11 have all decided to stay quiet?

Report this

By niloroth, October 30, 2007 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

911truthdotorg:

No, not really.  He was not forced to retire, he retired before an academic review. That review would have been about the accuracy of his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”  It would have included reviews by both the physics department and the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.  After initially stating in public that he looked forward to the reviews, he then decided to retire. 

Kinds funny that he retired before people in the same field as him started questioning him about his findings isn’t it?  Especially since his papers and further research has been shown to be very very lacking by others in the physics field that have reviewed them. 

Jones quit because he was going to be publicly shown up, his peers were going to debunk his paper, and he was going to be punished by the university for his actions.  He is the coward, not Chomsky.

Can you refute any of these statements, or are are you just going to post your mockumentaries again?

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, October 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

Michael Chertoff, our head of Homeland Security has a name that literally means “of the devil” in Russian. Seldom has real life been more Dickensian.

He also has a cousin who wrote the infamous “Popular Mechanics” 9/11 cover story that attempted to debunk all the 9/11 revisionist theories that run counter to the official consensus reality mythos.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3969

Report this

By Sheila Casey, October 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

in response to:
#110506 by Frikken Kids on 10/30 at 12:19 pm

The most compelling point you make has to do with the media.  I am not as persuaded about the difficulty of keeping the actual participants quiet, as there is a precedent in the Manhattan Project.  I found this quote at
http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p4s1.shtml

“Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio.”

In Wikipedia, they say that the project employed 130,000 people.  That’s a lot of people to keep a secret!

However I agree that it is hard to understand why the media, almost uniformly, thinks this story (9/11 truth) is radioactive. 

Go on YouTube and look for the clip of Steven Jones on the Tucker Carlson show, here it is:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

He asks three times for Tucker to show the clip of WTC7 collapsing, but all we ever see is the file photo of the building.  So even when they cover the issue and have someone like Dr. Jones on, they still won’t show certain things! 

Does anyone with longer tenure in the truther community have an explanation for what looks like blatant media cover-up)?  It troubles me quite a bit, I’d like to hear what others think. 

PS I see this forum like a group conversation, or party.  We talk to the people we want to talk to, and there is no obligation to spend time or energy on anyone who we don’t like.  Life is short. If people repeatedly find their comments ignored and are upset by that, perhaps they are at the wrong party.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, October 30, 2007 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

niloroth -

OK, He was forced to retire…happy now?

Now go back to your land of make-believe
where everything bush and fox news says is true.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, 9/11 Mysteries, Terror Storm

Report this

By niloroth, October 30, 2007 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

911truthdotorg:

I realize you just buzz into these threads, post the same tired suggestions for mockumentaries on you tube, and then buzz out again, but cold you please explain why you just lied about Steven Jones?

He was not fired, he retired.  There is a huge differences, most people can tell that.  You truthers can’t seem to be able to.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, October 30, 2007 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

I don’t care how “smart” Chomsky is - he’s an idiot.

He is a coward and doesn’t want the same fate as Steven Jones. He got fired from BYU for being courageous!

The official story of 9/11 is a lie.

If you would simply believe your own eyes, you will
SEE the facts and the truth.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, 9/11 Mysteries, Terror Storm

Report this

By GB, October 30, 2007 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Noam Chomsky either is dodging the question or he doesn’t know what controlled demolition looks like. Really everyone, even if you think 3 skyscrapers can catch fire and loose structural integrety, they will not all fall straight down in totality like they did on 911. This is the worst crime in our history where 3,000 people perished. Bush didn’t want an investigation, said Bin Laden did it, let him escape, and now says he dosen’t put much time in finding him because he’s bogged down in Iraq who had nothing to do with 911. Why wouldn’t you want justice??? We deserve a thorough investigation.

Report this

By Michael Gass, October 30, 2007 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

In response to Frikken Kids…

First, there are TWO separate groups… the “they knew and let it happen” and the “they helped make it happen”.  BOTH are treason.

Second, how many people would it take to know and let it happen?  A handful at most; those in charge.  I.E.: Bush, Cheney, Card, etc.  That’s it.

Third, I’ve pulled 4 Presidential Secret Service VIP Protection missions, one VIP Protection mission for Pope John II, and numerous VIP Protection missions for presidential candidates.  While I’m not an “expert”, I AM knowledgeable that when there is a credible threat, the Secret Service doesn’t play games or stand there with their thumbs up their @sses.  They act, or, they are ordered not to act.

Fourth, the threat in this instance was something that the Secret Service travel team in Florida had ZERO way to defend against.  None.  The school was an obvious target since the photo-op was publicized and (obviously) stationary.  The motorcade would have been safer as it would have been mobile and no way for the terrorists to track it, or, hit it reliably by flying a plane into it.

Cut out all the other garbage you posted.  Deal with THIS issue and this issue only.

BOTH were potential targets.  BOTH were in potential danger. 

The motorcade is always kept ready to move at a moments notice, so, it wasn’t that they had to wait to get it together.

Why would the Secret Service hustle Cheney to the secure bunker in the White House, but, NOT hustle George Bush out of the school in Florida?

Oh, and that the agents themselves made the call isn’t viable when the agents themselves wanted him out the school immediately:

According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush’s phone immediately said to Balkwill, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] (link no longer active)

So, there WERE people who wanted out of the school, again, they had to be ordered to stand down.  Who made that call and WHY?

Report this

By Frikken Kids, October 30, 2007 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

In response to Michael Gass.  It’s interesting to go with a lack of action as proof of your point.  While I am no expert on the workings of the secret service, I would have to guess that the agent in charge decided that there was no obvious immediate treat to the president.  Whether or not that was a good decision is certainly debatable. 

I know this has all been said before, but let’s go on with the lack of action theme.  Think of the number of people or groups of people who would have to have been complacent in the least and possibly deliberate conspirators for the 911 attacks to have been the work of a great American government conspiracy that the 911truth movement insists.

You would have the following small to potentially massive groups of people:
-Teams of demolition specialists who secretly wired two of the largest buildings in the world to blow up.
-Air force pilots ordered not to intervene
-air traffic controllers ordered not to do anything
-Firemen (with hundreds of coworkers killed) who were in on the destruction plans
-all the intelligence operatives who may have been in on it or became suspicious afterward and found the “truth”
-all the spouses of involved persons who figured out why their spouse was acting strangely
-military personnel who apparently sent a cruise missile into the pentagon…a building housing many of their highest commanders
-contractors cleaning up the mess ordered to hide evidence that was found of controlled demolition
-thousands of journalists and TV personalities intimidated into not publishing the truth
-thousands of scientists and engineers ordered to keep quiet

This list could go on and on.  Of all these people, nobody has come forward with any evidence more credible than questionable physics applied to grainy video and elaborate conspiratorial fantasies.  None of these people got drunk and blabbed.  No secretaries leaked a memo.  Nobody ordered to take an action they regret has revolted.  No reputable journalist has jumped on what would be the biggest news story in the last fifty years.  No consensus among scientists exists except that fire brought down the towers. 

The president cannot say a word in public without his speech being leaked days before.  Details of classified meetings get leaked constantly.  Still, there is nothing credible.  No action.  No confession.  Only a deafening silence from anyone who would have to have been in on it and could possibly have anything meaningful to say.

Y’all gotta find something better to do with your time.

Report this

By Akira_Maritias, October 30, 2007 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Why does truthdig keep posting 9/11 conspiracy theory sound bites? Honestly, it’s getting annoying. One covers it pretty good: the truthers are all crazy, whoopdideedoo. Let’s hear it from two more people now.

And all of the ‘truther jumpers’ here that can’t sit on one topic and bicker amongst each other…SIT STILL. For Christ’s sake, -no one- wants to see three pages of your bullshit where you’re hurling childish insults at each other while taking facts from anonymous websites (bonus points if it’s a site with 9/11 in the name!) to prove your point against the people that have the -patience- to talk to you.

Find an article, sit your ass down, and bicker. Seriously. There is NO sense in sitting in an article for three days to bicker, spamming it up, then moving to a new article to continue your argument while you spam it up. Seriously, it’s annoying. The only people that you ‘spread the truth’ to are each other at this point, because if -anyone- read the other articles and saw your bullshit there, then saw your bullshit here, they’d know not to listen to a damn thing you said because you can’t sit still. All have A.D.D, I swear…

Report this

By niloroth, October 30, 2007 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

Found on http://demonweed.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/what-you-should-think-about-911-conspiracy-theories/

“It seems to me that the “9/11 Truth Movement” is, as with “Creation science” or global warming denial, a sort of Special Olympics for people with much more desire than ability to engage in insightful discussion of profound matters.”

Ah, funny.  Sad, True, and funny.

Report this

By niloroth, October 30, 2007 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Lets go over some of the things you have written, and we can read some of the “opinions” you have expressed.  (and failed to back up with any references or evidence at all.)

#108911:

“They DID notice Akira, you haven’t been paying attention. Somebody can find this for you on line. I don’t have time, especially since I already know the buildings were blown up. But yes, there’s eyewitness testimony to ‘strange goings on’ in the weeks prior to 9/11, and on the ‘appropriate floors’ of the towers, both above and below where they were hit. Still, with 50,000 people working in and/or accessing the Towers everyday, it wouldn’t surprise me if nobody saw or heard anything. Yet…they did!!!. Generally at night.”

“Still, one of its many intended purposes was already established, in advance, by Rumsfeld himself. He said, “We need a New Pearl Harbor.” Ergo, 9/11”

#108904:

‘Yes, MANY of us saw those airplanes hit the WTC. They did. They did NOT – however, cause those towers to fall. NO BUILDINGS have EVER fallen in their own footsteps in LESS THAN 10 SECONDS as a result of an airplane strike. It is an impossibility. It does not happen, and all the tapes and videos in the world, cannot make that so”

“Yes, the airplanes hit the buildings, which were already rigged for demolition. Period, dot, end of story. The buildings were blown up. There were no high-jackers with box cutters. (at least not Arab terrorists). No pilots navigated such an operation. Yes, there were pilots in the planes, but they did not run those airplanes into those buildings.”

“Same with UA flight 93. It did not crash in a field in Shanksville. If it had, we would have seen an emergency response to that, (same as every other airplane that has ever crashed) and we did not. Same thing with the Pentagon. No signs of an airplane. No debris anywhere. No even a broken wing light. No emergency vehicle response. There are maybe two photos available – showing a single fire truck with a single hose, and a hole in the building that no airplane could have ever fit through.”

#109868:

“Oh, by-the-way….I’ve NEVER even looked at the ‘loose change video’ and don’t have a clue to what’s in it. All I needed to do was to read the Official/Authorized 911 Commission report, to know that it was an inside job.”

NOTE: this is the same post where you linked to that completely BS article from an anonymous source, about an anonymous person, who worked at an unnamed media outlet. So I don’t have high hopes for your evidence to start with. 

But what is that you say?  “But if you’re just into attacking anything and anyone, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN, (with questionable motives) then you’re wasting time and taking up space.”

I am not attacking people because they have different opinions than I do.  I am attacking people for lying and posting this as fact that are not.  And have you noticed every time I ask for sources, references, or evidence, the person I am requesting it from either just goes on to another topic, or they just slink off somewhere else?  So I ask you, Show me sources, give me proof.  I can see multiple things in the quotes above that are demonstrably false.  You want to try to defend them, or do you want me to just point them out to you?

And please don’t try the whole “I am not going to do your research for you” bit.  I can, have and will post references for every statement I have made in all these threads.  It is only fair to expect you to do the same.  And remember:

#110149: “(books, magazines and movies don’t cut it, we’re talking fact and reality here, not screen plays or comic book stuff).”

And seriously, NIMROD?  Now who is being childish?

Report this

By Mike, October 30, 2007 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If the Kennedy assasination was an inside job than our country was takien over a long time ago. If 9-11 was a totally inside job why not have Iraq or Iran as the terrorists instead of Saudi Araabians.42know

Report this

By Michael Gass, October 30, 2007 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

I have brought out the following numerous times on different blogs.  To date, I have yet for anyone to address it; the lack of Secret Service action at the elementary school the morning of 9/11.

First, one of the arguments used is that the airline transponders were turned off so the FAA and military intercept couldn’t locate them. Given that, how then could the Secret Service know where the airplanes were, or, where they were heading?  They couldn’t.

Second, when asked why Bush wasn’t hustled out of the elementary school, one of the reasons given (and there were a few), was that he was never in any danger. How could they know that if they didn’t know where the planes were heading?  They couldn’t.

Third, by the time Andrew Card tells Bush America is under attack, two planes had already impacted their targets. Time is now crucial because the Secret Service would have no clue if the school was targeted and when that attack could hit the school. So, why were protection protocols not put into effect immediately?

Fourth, the Secret Service in the White House hustled Cheney into the secure bunker in the basement either at the same time Bush was told (around 9:05 am) or not much later (accounts vary on the exact time). The point remains, the Secret Service at the White House got Cheney to a secure location and the Secret Service in Florida did nothing. Why?

Fifth, there is evidence that Bush might have known about the hijackings prior to even getting to the school. This is significant because the Secret Service would have been in full “OS” mode upon the second plane hitting the WTC.  A third plane could have conceivably be diving in on them at that very moment. Yet, the Secret Service did nothing. Why?

And lastly, is just how long the Secret Service actually did nothing. Bush was told between 9:05 and 9:07am by Andrew Card that America was under attack. Bush did not leave the classroom of the elementary school until between 9:13 and 9:16am. But, he didn’t leave the school until 9:35am… a full 30 minutes after being told America was under attack and two hijacked planes already impacting their targets.  So, we are not talking merely a minute or two, but, a full half hour the Secret Service in Florida stood by idle while Bush did a photo op. Why did the Secret Service do nothing for a full half hour in the face of a possibly imminent attack?

The answer here is, and can only be, that they were ordered to stand down and abandon their protection protocols. The question now becomes, who ordered that stand-down, and why?

By all protocols, Bush should have been out of the elementary school within minutes of the second tower being struck and the school ordered to evacuate students since it is now a viable target and there is a viable threat… yet, none of that occurred. And if you are buying that they didn’t evacuate Bush AND the school because they didn’t want to “scare the children” when there was a viable, possibly imminent threat of attack on the school, I have a bridge to sell you.

Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in July 2001, months prior to 9/11 so there was a known credible threat already in the air. Rice tried to say that the intelligence they learned that summer was “chatter” yet Ashcroft stopped flying under that credible threat. The CJCSI for protocol of hijacked civilian aircraft was changed in June 2001 so we can begin to see that the threat was known for a full 5 months prior to 9/11. But, ON 9/11, the President of the United States was allowed to stay vulnerable in an elementary school for a full 30 minutes during an attack that the Secret Service, the FAA, and NORAD couldn’t track, nor defend against.

Forget the thermate, the buildings.  That can be debated, obscured, and dismissed.  Explain to me how the Secret Service failed to protect the President of the United States during the worst attack on our soil ... because THIS is the smoking gun that somebody knew more than we have been told.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 30, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

110435 by Verne Arnold on 10/30 at 3:52 am: “...Did anybody here actually listen to Noam Chomsky… everything he said? I don’t think so….”

Maybe you’d like to comment on this from near the end of the clip:-

Worst of all, though, “even if it were true, who cares? .....doesn’t have any significance…”, uhh!!! Again, “...like who killed John F. Kennnedy? ...who knows and who cares…?”. Obviously, then, the military-industrial complex has gotten to Chomsky in the worst way - he actually seems to believe what he is saying!?!?

( #110407 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/30 at 12:46 am )

Report this

By John Borowski, October 30, 2007 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is interesting that the Republicans (Aka Conservatives right wingers) are feeling the heat with 9/11. (The British call it sticky) They are now soliciting “Do Good Liberals-good is bad” to help them railroad the truth. The Kennedys’ assassinations made the word conspiracy worst than coitus. When the Liberals tried to upgrade the working mans’ quality of life and living standards, the righties made the word Liberal worst than you know what. When they infiltrated the unions by using the Mafia it made the word union worst than you know what. When people questioned the WTC downfall that violated the basic laws of science, they made the word Conspiracy Nuts you know what. Currently they are suckering Clinton and Chomsky to put their shoulder to the BS WTC wheel. I separate the real Conspiracy Nuts and the Trojan Horse Conspiracy Nuts by watching to see if they can board airplanes without problems. If a lukewarm flaming Liberal like Senator Kennedy has problems boarding airplanes, you can imagine what a HOT, HOT flaming Liberal like Chomsky will have. I wanted to speak with Chomsky a while back, but he boarded an airplane (Without a problem) and was now at thirty thousand feet flying to London to confer with London to confer with what I don’t know what.

Report this

By Waz, October 30, 2007 at 6:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Noam Chomsky has dedicated his life toward the pursuit of the truth and that doesn’t mean he is always right but the least people can do is listen to him respectfully. Of course there are unanswered questions about 9/11 and I myself would favor another investigation, except that there are so many things that this administration has done that need investigating ... and I think Waxman is right in concentrating on things where he has a chance of actually making progress. I think Noam’s point is, what is the priority? The priority should be stopping the next Bush-generated catastrophy from happening before it does, which means stopping a war with Iran; and stopping Guliani from being elected, as he seems the worst out there so far. Attacking Bill Maher or Noam Chomsky is a indulgence on the part of the
opposition to Bush which we cannot afford; it is such an insane diversion that Karl Rove and Bush himself must be rolling around on the floor laughing.
People, 20 percent of the troops who have been to Iraq are estimated to have brain damage from the shock waves of the blasts they have experienced.
One million Iraqis have died. How much petroleum has been burned up by all those carrier jets   and Humvees, how much DU has been scattered around and breathed in, how many people there have lost their homes and their futures…all because of Bush’s madness? I think this is what Noam means when he says “who cares”: there is a vast conspiracy which is REAL and needs no proving because it is so obvious, and it remains hidden exactly because it is so enormous, which is the conspiracy on the part of all of us to not realize the true enormity of the disasters which Bush has caused and to bring it all to a halt immediately. You don’t need to look through a microscope at a piece of molten steel, just look at what is going on in the world.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 30, 2007 at 4:52 am Link to this comment

Did anybody here actually listen to Noam Chomsky…everything he said?

I don’t think so.  Excepting Thomas Billis, ITW and a few others, no comment here reflects the things he (Chomsky) said.

When I read all this tripe, I know we are truly doomed.

Report this

By SageSnow, October 30, 2007 at 2:55 am Link to this comment

If Chomsky is such an expert perhaps he can tell Truth dig readers how a Boeing 757 can fly over 700mph and maintain it’s structural integrity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVnGSiu-nL4

Report this

By craig, October 30, 2007 at 2:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The most revealing statement in Chomsky’s analysis was when he states “...it’s like the Kennedy assasination: who cares?” and then goes on to say that the “evidence” in that case is overwhelmingly against the idea of a conspiracy.

(?)

I believe he’s simply saying that the theory, even if proved, will change nothing, and that there is nothing “concrete” to prove a conspiracy, in any case.

When he remarks, “who cares” about the Kennedy assasinaton, he obviously means he doesn’t. I’m sure he’s aware of the often reported fact that an even larger segment of the population believe that was an “inside Job” also.

UFO’s, the Kennedy assasination, and 9/11 will forever be a source of mystery, and spiritual enlightenment, if not a thorough distraction to class wars, economic depression, and the destruction of democracy, world-wide.

Report this

By Freedomfinder, October 30, 2007 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

It’s just like Norm said that there was never any voting fraud in 2000 and 2004…I do not trust him!
I do believe he is here to placate the true left to divert them from the truth.
Who would ever dream that Julia Child was in the OSS the precursor to the CIA?

Report this

By thomas billis, October 30, 2007 at 2:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena I respect your opinion.I am for the full vetting of opinions.I am not one who reads administrtion handouts.My point was that if someone who has been as critical of America and its policies cannot find a link between 911 and the government that is a huge nail in the coffin of conspiracy theorists.Correct me if I am wrong he teaches at MIT where he would have access to experts in the fields necessary to evaluate building collapses.I am not anti conspiracy.I hope before I die I will find out who was involved in the Kennedy assasination.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 30, 2007 at 1:46 am Link to this comment

People still can’t really seem to see that they were being intentionally ‘sold’ something…... now we are being told that the political opportunism was merely incidental. Too many unanswered questions, uhh!

“...they would have had to be insane to try anything like that…” Well, we know that they are indeed! If the plane had missed the first time, it could have made a second attempt…. If a plan was made “on the inside” but executed “on the outside”, it would work and without risk of blame!

So hypocritical, though, to divert attention to what the Chinese and the Russians might have made of it. As it turned out, Indonesia didn’t “go on a rampage” in Aceh - there was a tsunami instead (quote Wiki: “Indonesian central government responded in 2001 by broadening Aceh’s autonomy…”). But Ariel Sharon did perhaps “go wild and occupy some territories” and Israel has continued to do so at even Lebanon’s expense.

Obviously, he doesn’t want anyone to believe the “science” of the critics. He also ridicules any use of deductive logic in regard to 9/11. But the “less violent ones” like Britain and the USA….. turned out to be the worst of all with their imperialistic agendas and subsequent invasions of foreign countries which Chomsky utterly ignores.

Worst of all, though, “even if it were true, who cares? .....doesn’t have any significance…”, uhh!!! Again, “...like who killed John F. Kennnedy? ...who knows and who cares…?”. Obviously, then, the military-industrial complex has gotten to Chomsky in the worst way - he actually seems to believe what he is saying!?!?

Report this

By cyrena, October 30, 2007 at 1:38 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 3 Reply to#110350 by niloroth on 10/29 at 6:01 pm

cyrena:
•  “Did you read the post right below you?  I think that jbart, if not claiming that Chomsky is a member of the NWO, is at least on their payroll.”

NIMROD, Jbart’s post was not there at the time that I made my post. Maybe they were posted at the same time, or maybe that’s just how they fell in the order. I don’t know, because I haven’t a clue to the workings of these blogs. I read. I write. TD posts it if they want, and…there it is. In this case, it wouldn’t have mattered if jbart’s post had been there when I posted my own. I was posting my own opinion, in response to yours…since you were waiting to see someone post exactly what you claim jbart posted. (which he did not!)

And, according to this message you’ve left, you’re pretty true to the claims that others here have made about you. IOW, you didn’t even need to leave this message, directed at me, other than to start shit. Seriously. That seems to be your entire purpose here, while grown folks attempt to discuss various things on which they may or may not agree, you actually attempt to turn things around, and put meaning and innuendo on stuff that doesn’t require it.

You “THINK”, that Jbart , IF NOT CLAIMING…blah, blah, blah. So, you’re going to call attention to something that is NOT what he said directly, (as if I can’t read for myself) and decide that maybe he ‘meant’ something different than what he said. Here’s what jbart actually WROTE, (and did NOT direct it to anyone in particular, as you have):

#110317 by jbart on 10/29
•  Seems “bought and sold” to me. Wasn’t he the guy who was supposed to write an article about the NFL guy’s “discoveries” re: the truth before he was “taken out” by our “righteous” Gov’t.?
Now, how the hell do you translate that into jbart accusing Chomsky of being with NWO? You don’t. You’re just a shit starter, and cannot be taken seriously by serious people.

Now, I’ll say again, what I’ve said before, and then later, I’ll post more information that –may- be useful to others as far as 9/11 is concerned. I say it MAY be. I too, can appreciate Noam Chomsky. But, unlike Thomas billis, (or anyone else who assigns ‘hero’ status to anyone) I don’t always agree with all people, all of the time. In other words, I’ve read much of Noam Chomsky’s work, and I respect and appreciate nearly all of it. I’ve heard him speak/lecture. He’s very knowledgeable about a number of things. HOWEVER, Noam Chomsky is a linguist, and an historian. And, I don’t know of any single person, no matter how much I might respect them or their work, who is going to always be “RIGHT” on every single subject!!! Now some people know more than others, about more things. And, 99.9% of the time, EXPERIENCE…I’m talking LIFE EXPERIENCE..HANDS, ON EYES OPEN EXPERIENCE certainly adds the most important ingredient to one’s personal bank of knowledge. That’s why we have an expression within the academic community that says, “The Truly Educated Never Graduate”.

So, do you get that? If you want to be ‘educated’, you open your mind and your brain to a multiple stage. THEN, as you can obtain more and more of this knowledge and experience, you can learn to fit all of this stuff together, and you get smarter and smarter. For you to suggest THIS:

•  “You just don’t like the fact that it doesn’t support your side.”

PISSES ME OFF! It ALSO proves you to be the HACK that you are, (and a petty -sounding juvenile one at that). And you know how experienced and intelligent people can figure this out? People like YOU will ALWAYS ‘accuse’ whomever they happen to be attacking, of the SAME BEHAVIOR AND THOUGHT PROCESSES – THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE. In short, (as they would say in street language)…you ‘TELL’ on yourself!
To be cont.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 30, 2007 at 1:37 am Link to this comment

People still can’t really seem to see that they were being intentionally ‘sold’ something…... now we are being told that the political opportunism was merely incidental. Too many unanswered questions, uhh!

“...they would have had to be insane to try anything like that…” Well, we know that they are indeed! If the plane had missed the first time, it could have made a second attempt…. If a plan was made “on the inside” but executed “on the outside”, it would work and without risk of blame!

So hypocritical, though, to divert attention to what the Chinese and the Russians might have made of it. As it turned out, Indonesia didn’t “go on a rampage” in Aceh - there was a tsunami instead (quote Wiki: “Indonesian central government responded in 2001 by broadening Aceh’s autonomy…”). But Ariel Sharon did perhaps “go wild and occupy some territories” and Israel has continued to do so at even Lebanon’s expense.

Obviously, he doesn’t want anyone to believe the “science” of the critics. He also ridicules any use of deductive logic in regard to 9/11. But the “less violent ones” like Britain and the USA….. turned out to be the worst of all with their imperialistic agendas and subsequent invasions of foreign countries which Chomsky utterly ignores.

Worst of all, though, “even if it were true, who cares? .....doesn’t have any significance…”, uhh!!! Again, “...like who killed John F. Kennnedy? ...who knows and who cares…?”. Obviously, then, the military-industrial complex has gotten to Chomsky in the worst way - he actually seems to believe what he is saying!?!?

Report this

By cyrena, October 30, 2007 at 1:36 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 3 reply to Nimrod #110350

Because you see, IN REALITY I never said I “didn’t like” anything, nor do I have ‘a’ “SIDE”, because I have 360 degree vision. I have OPINIONS, yes. And, I’ve mentioned some of my opinions on these various threads. I have never claimed a “side”, because just as Noam Chomsky – intelligent and well read/written though he may be- doesn’t know EVERYTHING… neither do I! Nor have I ever claimed to. So…NIMROD, back your ass off, and go play on another site that entertains brats with nothing better to do.
Noam Chomsky is an intelligent knowledgeable scholar. He is not a commercial aviation professional, nor does he have experience in that area, and it so happens… that I DO!!! And, in the case of the attacks on 9/11, that PARTICULAR field of knowledge/experience can indeed be helpful in at least bringing up the questions and the inconsistencies. Again, it doesn’t mean that I KNOW – EXACTLY everything that happened, because I wasn’t personally in any of those locations, on that particular day. HOWEVER, my eyes work fine. I know how to read, and I’m quite good at assembling pieces of information, specifically when it is based on something for which I already have acquired knowledge.

So, when I post anything here, I never fail to make it clear that I either KNOW what I’m saying, or I’m making an EDUCATED guess, or an UNEDUCATED guess, or even if it’s just an ‘intuition”. I also listened to the clip, and in reality, all that Chomsky gave, was an ‘opinion’ himself. So, the hero worship from say Thomas billis, (who is also an intelligent poster) isn’t helpful in any assessment. He suggests that if we don’t ‘believe’ Noam Chomsky, then we’re just too far gone. THAT is dangerous thinking, at least for a thinker. Of course a person’s ‘reputation’ is an added assist. But that’s like saying “as long as the president says it, it must be true. (I think NOT) Besides, he obviously didn’t LISTEN to what Chomsky actually said, which was: THIS STILL TELLS US NOTHING!! He didn’t make any ‘statement of scientific fact.” He didn’t even discuss specific details, other than to possibly refer to ‘robotic’ airplanes, and I have never believed those were ‘robotic’ airplanes myself, at least not in the sense that they were unmanned drones. Nor have I ever seen any ‘squibs’ in the jillions of times that film has been shown. I believe (as far as I know) that those airplanes were in fact what they were. And, since none of those passengers, (or specifically none of the crew – and I personally knew crew members from three of those flights) have yet to appear, I’m willing to accept the fact that the airplanes that hit the towers, were in fact the airplanes that the official report claims. Chomsky ALSO said, (as any educated and intelligent person would say in such an interview/talk….MANY PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME. He didn’t say they were WRONG, or STUPID, or CRAZY that they disagreed with him, although it HIGHLY LIKELY that some of them ARE nut cases. (I’ve heard people claim it was aliens from outer space. YES…crazies are out there) However, that doesn’t negate other possibilities, and people will CONTINUE to question this forever, if only because the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY has too many holes/lies/impossibilities in it. The most OBVIOUS one, (for any aviation professional) is that the airplanes caused those THREE towers to collapse. And YES, the laws of physics and aerodynamics DO still apply. And NO, the airplanes (alone) did not bring those towers down. They were destroyed by controlled demolition. THIS – I KNOW!!!

There is still a great deal to be speculated upon, like who/how/when were the explosives placed in the towers. The thing that I know, is that the airplanes themselves were NOT the SOLE cause of the collapses.
To be cont.

Report this

By cyrena, October 30, 2007 at 1:34 am Link to this comment

Part 3 of 3 reply to Nimrod #110350

So, if you ever want to actually learn anything, and this applies to knowledge IN GENERAL, be advised that very, very, very, rarely, is anything an ‘either/or’ . It’s just not. It’s not ALWAYS either up or down, because it could be in the middle. Matter of fact, in the laws of science, it generally is. Rarely is something so simplistic, but on the other hand, sometimes things are exactly what they LOOK LIKE. Now I know that’s difficult to distinguish in these times, for anyone who has tried to follow the huge collection of lies and distortions that have come from this government. So, I accept that. But sometimes, it makes sense to consider more than yes, or no, and it ALWAYS makes sense to break things down into their individual components, when it is something this vast. For instance, whomever is looking at the collapse of the towers and the aircraft strike, DOES NOT need to consider, (at the same time) WHY it was done. The same person could consider that separately, or someone else can try to put a meaning to it. They don’t need to all be connected until the wrap-up.
This of course, was not done. Nothing was done in the way of an investigation, until nearly 2 years after the fact. The airplanes were allegedly highjacked, we all saw the destruction, and within a few hours, the shrub had an explanation. It was terrorists. They highjacked 4 commercial jetliners. WELL, THAT should have been a clue right there. And for ME, and ONLY because of my experience in the commercial aviation industry, it was a ‘first’ clue. STILL I waited for more information to come out, and as it did, it just got stranger and stranger. Still, I did not know exactly how this had been carried off. In the years since, more and more information has come forward, and that included information that is totally WRONG, (which also provides ‘clues”) as well as information that is highly more likely, when placed in the proper context with everything else. There is as much information to gain from what was NOT presented to the public, as there is from what HAS been presented to the public, via OFFICAL sources from this administration.

However, as long as you have only two channels, and they are controlled by emotion rather than logic, then you will remain stupid, and your ignorance is visible to all, because your BIAS is so visible. When it becomes obvious that any person’s assessment or opinion of things is based on an obvious bias, you have ZERO credibility, EVEN THOUGH, you may actually be correct on a portion of your assessments. Anything you say at that point will be dismissed because it becomes obvious that you’re only looking at the facts (if you are at all) with a conclusion already in mind. Chomsky actually referred to that in this clip, though it might take another ‘linguist’ or ‘scientist’ to pick that up. Still, the point is that you never exclude anything, just because it doesn’t fit with a pre-determined conclusion. All you’ll ever get are jacked-up results. And, you will remain uninformed/misinformed, or just plain ignorant.

You’re out of your league Nimrod. So hang around and listen if you want to learn something. But if you’re just into attacking anything and anyone, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN, (with questionable motives) then you’re wasting time and taking up space. And the more you write, the more you ‘give yourself away’. You’ve blown your own flimsy cover.

No charge for the lesson, Nimrod. Just make sure you quote me. I’m a stickler for authenticity.
The End

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 29, 2007 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

RE:#110351 by Robert Giacobbe on 10/29

That pisses off a lot of professors who worked hard for their tenure, meaning they didn’t have time to write a lot of fancy-schmancy books with big words like “hegemony” because they were too busy teaching and conducting research.

I suppose our rational thinking is supposed to believe you when you say “That pisses off a lot of professors…etc”.  Noticed you didn’t give any names.  BTW, for a lot of us “hegemony” isn’t a fancy-schmancy big word.  Are you Bill O’Really?
————-
RE: #110352 by niloroth on 10/29

Get on it.  Really, after all, you think they are complacent in the murder of about 3,000 citizens of the USA.  Are you going to let them get away with it?

There is a group trying to do just that, what is your point, are you unaware of this?  They are asking for a more thorough and impartial investigation.
————

There are many reasons to doubt the validity of the offical story.  The most obvious being that this administration has done nothing but lie us into one catastrophe after another.  As far as Prof. Chomsky goes, maybe he just doesn’t think there was a conspiracy, so what!  He has a right to his opinion.  I’m sure he based it off of what he felt was appropriate.  Just like anyone else.  No one (including Prof. Chomsky) said we all have to agree.

Personally, I feel we don’t have enough information surrounding the whole ordeal to say POSITIVELY one way or the other.  However that said, I do think the “official” story leaves something to be desired.  I feel that if something “fishy” was going on, there’s no way that the perpetrators could have acted alone.  There’s just too much unsaid and there has been too many ramifications since to simply “trust” the official story.  Remember, Saddam had WMD’s,  there’s billions of dollars unaccounted for and then there was that “problem” during the election, twice!

I believe we’ve gotten those “OFFICIAL” stories too.

Report this

By niloroth, October 29, 2007 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment

Paul Fretheim:

First off, $12.50 is far from minimum wage.  Second, Here at NWO headquarters, we work 12 hours shifts.  none of that sissy 8 hour work that the unions would have us put in.  Third, we don’t have cubicles, our illuminati/free mason/bilderberg group/lizard people/rockefeller/jewish/UN overloards like to be able to see us at all times, so we don’t get to have the privacy of cubicles. Fourth, does it really matter what i do, and who i do it for, if i have the facts?  Like i said, the laws of physics don’t lie, and they don’t support the truth movement.

Report this

By niloroth, October 29, 2007 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment

I think i am just going to post this in every thread i am in that sheila pops up in:

———-
Yay, Sheila Casey has showed up in this thread.

All you truthers, bow down, for none of you are as truthy as sheila.  For though you believe things, sheila believes them even more than you.  She even believes things that you (or anyone else in the truth movement) don’t even believe.  But don’t question her on her beliefs, because she won’t respond to your inquiries, except to maybe say “i stand by my facts.”

Yes, thats right, you are wrong truthers, and sheila is right.  I will prove it:

1) you believe that Marvin Bush sat on the board of Stratesec, well, sheila will do you one better, she believes he OWNED Stratesec!  Yes, facts be damned, he owned it.

2) you believe that Steven E. Jones retired from BYU, well, she believes that he was FIRED!  Yes, forget the whole paid leave pending hearings held by the university, He was fired.

3) you have given up on the whole power shutdown prior to the attack story.  Mostly because it couldn’t be supported by more than 1 person?  Well sheila still believes it it 100% accurate.

Yes, thats right folks, give up now, cause not only does she believe the things you truthers believe, but she also believes things that no one else does, things that are made up and have no basis in reality at all.  And in the end, doesn’t that just make her the biggest truther out there?
———-

Anyway, how does it feel to make your neighbor cry over your unfounded lies?  Do you feel better about yourself now that you have emotionally abused that poor lady?  You really are a unique person aren’t you?

Report this

By heavyrunner, October 29, 2007 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

On other blogs I read and post to Nilroth has been unmasked as a minimum wage hack in a cubicle who is paid to post combative responses to people who support a full and serious investigation of 9/11/2001.

If you watch the times of his posts he only works about an 8 hour day and then disappears until his next shift.

Report this

By P. T., October 29, 2007 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

Noam Chomsky is the most important linguist alive.  He’s the one who came up with transformational (sometimes called generative or transformational-generative) grammar.

Report this

By niloroth, October 29, 2007 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

To quote Chomsky:

“I think studying science is a good way to get into fields like history. The reason is, you learn what an argument means, you learn what evidence is, you learn what makes sense to postulate and when, what’s going to be convincing. You internalize the modes of rational inquiry, which happen to be much more advanced in the sciences than anywhere else.”

I have a strange feeling that just flew over the heads of about 85% of the truthers who will show up in this thread.  It explains, i think, very clearly why he does not support the truth movement.  Smart guy, that Chomsky, try to keep up.

Report this

By Sheila Casey, October 29, 2007 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

#109880 by Peter Holmes on 10/27 at 1:37 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“The heart doesn’t want to believe it, but the brain knows it’s true, obvious even.  We have a major problem on our hands and the sooner we deal with it the easier it will be.”

I don’t think this gets enough emphasis: how emotionally wrenching it is to face and accept these truths about 9/11.  I’ve been talking to my next door neighbor about it these past few months, and she is having a very hard time with it.  She read “A new Pearl Harbor,” and told me she had to put the book down and weep several times, it was so upsetting. 

She told me tonight that even though she believes what I’m doing is important (and I do a lot more than post on blogs, believe me) she can’t talk about 9/11 anymore.  She spent the whole day today crying and feels traumatized by these revelations.  Her solution is to just shut it out. 

She basically said to me: “The evidence is all there and I believe you are right, but I’m not going to believe it, because to think that our own govt would kill Americans in cold blood is just too horrifying and is just too upsetting.”

She was crying as she told me this, could barely get the words out, and of course I told her that I won’t mention it again. 

I share this story because seems like commenters are mainly men who might not realize how emotionally some women make decisions.  Cause I do think that women are more emotional than men, that’s pretty obvious.  That needs to be taken into consideration when you see how much resistance people have to looking at the obvious evidence of an inside job.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, October 29, 2007 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

Folks, you can’t have it both ways… if G.W.Bush is as incompetent and stupid as many claim he is, how in hell can you pin on him the planning and execution of such a spectacularly successful disaster as 9/11?

It’s inconceivable to me how ANYONE could have even foreseen, let alone planned, that flying airliners into the WTCs would cause the entire buildings to collapse. If Osama bin Laden actually did plan the attacks and was watching on TV I’d bet a million bucks that his face wore an expression of astonishment equal to anyone else’s.

Even the architects and builders took months to come up with a “best guess” as to what really happened. It’s my inexpert opinion that the collapse of the buildings was a complete FLUKE.

Report this

By Joe Franks, October 29, 2007 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment

Robert, if the consensus among college professors really is that Chomsky is “not respected in his field at all”, they sure do have a funny way of showing it.  He’s one of the most-cited authors of all time.

Not to denigrate the various fields of scientific study, but it would be nice if professors of all stripes were to devote some of their time to researching issues of great public import, particularly what their governments are doing.  All the more so if the media does a piss poor job at it.  In fact, it’s a shame all professors of literature don’t devote most of their time to the former.  I could not care less about Professor X’s interpretation of Joyce, Flaubert or Pynchon; I can read their books and draw my own (uninformed) conclusions without the aid of a heavily footnoted article.  Sorry!

Report this

By P. T., October 29, 2007 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

“‘Did the Bush administration gain from Sept. 11th?  Answer:  Yes.  Does that tell you anything?  No,’ Chomsky opined.”


It tells you that they had a motive.  However, it does not provide proof.

Report this

By Scott, October 29, 2007 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment

I think the fact so many Americans wouldn’t put it past the Bush administration or the Republican neocons to orchestrate 9/11 is indictment enough.

Its hard to imagine anyone from this current administration could survive impeachment, you want a real conspiracy mystery to dig into? Explain how and why its still so far off the table?

Report this

By niloroth, October 29, 2007 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Paul Fretheim:

Hey, you have a great idea, please get a lawsuit going against the people who have “...ordered the evidence of the crime scene removed and destroyed.  That is a felony.  Those people can be identified and prosecuted.”

Get on it.  Really, after all, you think they are complacent in the murder of about 3,000 citizens of the USA.  Are you going to let them get away with it?

And it’s funny about those security and maintenance people who worked at the WTC’s.  Either they didn’t witness anything out of place, or they are all also complacent in the murder of about 3,000 of their country men.  Which seems more logical to you?

Report this

By niloroth, October 29, 2007 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

cyrena:

“I don’t think it’s at all likely that anyone is going to call Dr. Chomsky a right-wing member of the NWO. At least not anyone who knows his work, or has followed his opinions on anything at all. And, that just proves the ideological incompetency of anyone who would suggest that. Still, it’s expected from niloroth and his types.”

Did you read the post right below you?  I think that jbart, if not claiming that Chomsky is a member of the NWO, is at least on their payroll.  And i actually like Chomsky a lot, this simply raises him even further in my eyes.  While there are things he and i disagree on, there is also a lot i am in lockstep with him on. 

And as far as i know, the laws of physics still apply to us in this universe, so um, no, all the evidence that the buildings failed as the NIST says they did has not been destroyed.  You just don’t like the fact that it doesn’t support your side.

Report this

By heavyrunner, October 29, 2007 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

I am surprised every time I read that Noam Chomsky does not realize that gravity and fire could not possibly have blown a skyscraper to smithereens and that the video of 9/11/2001 in New York shows skyscrapers being blown up into dust. 

I have a lot of respect for Professor Chomsky.  I first came to know him through his work in linguistics when I was working on natural language processing research at the University of Washington in the early 80s.  Only later did I read several of his political books.

I don’t agree that all the evidence has been destroyed.  Some of the security and maintenance people who worked at the WTC are still alive.  They would have seen who came and went who had access to the elevator shafts.  Investigators could still get identification if the right suspects could be located.

Someone ordered the evidence of the crime scene removed and destroyed.  That is a felony.  Those people can be identified and prosecuted.  They might talk if they got long prison sentences for their acts.

There are many other possible avenues of investigation if a serious investigation is launched.

Report this

By 7man, October 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many architects and engineers do question what happened on 9/11 even if Mr. Chomsky hasn’t a clue ( I still respect most of his work), but please look at the evidence for yourself and use what common sense you still have after the maelstrom of lies and deceit we have found ourselves in since 2001.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

If Robert Fisk questions 9/11, others will soon- yes we were all fooled, why stay fooled Noam?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

jbart on 10/29 at 3:50 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Seems “bought and sold” to me. Wasn’t he the guy who was supposed to write an article about the NFL guy’s “discoveries” re: the truth before he was “taken out” by our “righteous” Gov’t.?

Sounds like the radical religious: “I KNOW God exists—you have to prove to me He doesn’t”.

Um, no. You can’t prove a negative. YOU have to prove that God exists.

YOU have to prove that the collapse of the WTC was due to set explosives and a Neocon/Israeli conspiracy.

YOU have to prove that the demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world was done in secret, and how it was done in secret, despite the HUGE difficulties of demo’ing far, far smaller buildings out it the open, with no secrecy at all.

YOU have to prove there was thermite there AND its existence was covered up.

YOU have to prove that airplanes BIGGER than what the architects planned for (707s) couldn’t cause a catastrophic failure.

YOU have to prove that a contained explosion of jet fuel couldn’t burn the temper out of steel.

YOU have to prove all this was possible, and was done.

YOU have to prove that Bush&Co;were behind it, not just opportunistic about exploiting it to attack our freedoms and attack Iraq.

YOU have to prove all this—until then you are all just pissing into the wind.

Report this

By cyrena, October 29, 2007 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think it’s at all likely that anyone is going to call Dr. Chomsky a right-wing member of the NWO. At least not anyone who knows his work, or has followed his opinions on anything at all. And, that just proves the ideological incompetency of anyone who would suggest that. Still, it’s expected from niloroth and his types. These are the types who cannot separate logic from their emotions. These are exactly the same types of people who, if Dick Cheney walked up to them, and TOLD them that he had arranged for this, they’d tell him he was lying. They’d tell him that he hadn’t had a thing to do with any of it.

On the other hand, Mr. Chomsky, (if advised of such from the persons involved) WHOULD hear it out, and be able to accept it. That’s the difference between people who use logic, and have some experience, and those who don’t.

Anyway, it was interesting to hear Dr. Chomsky’s explanation of WHY he believes this to be the case. (that he doesn’t think bush was involved…and I’m not so sure bush was all that involved myself, other than at a last minute or “after the fact” point in time). He says it’s because ‘secrets’ leak out, so there’s no way they could have gotten away with it; because once that happened, the entire Republican party would be taken before a firing squad. He also says, (I think more than once) that they WOULD HAVE TO BE INSANE to try something like that.

HUMM…yes, I agree to all of that. First, that they ARE insane. Next, that such ‘secrets’ would eventually leak out, because they have. The only thing that has NOT happened, is that the entire Republican party has been taken before a firing squad. (though I would love to see that). So, in my humble opinion, I agree. They would have to be crazy, but then they are. And, most assuredly, things have “leaked out’. BUT, it will never make any difference, because what is most needed to prove that they were involved in this, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is evidence that has been destroyed.

So, he’s right about that part. I do think it makes a difference, (so I disagree with him there) but there’s no doubt that all evidence has been destroyed. And basically, he says that as well. He says that it ‘still doesn’t tell us anything’. That’s true. There’s no smoking gun that points to Cheney, or any of the others that would have been involved. But, I think Dr. Chomsky is simply out of the loop on this one, if only because it is another one of the cases of attempting to prove a negative, which is nearly impossible. In this sort of ‘experiment’ that has no remaining ‘evidence’ to look at, one can only attempt to ‘prove’ it by looking at what is MISSING, instead of what is there. I’m sure there’s a technical name for it, that I can’t think of now. But, there are simply too many things ‘missing’ to be a coincidence. And, he doesn’t attempt to link anything to the official conspiracy either. He seems more inclined to just want to wipe it off the discussion board, and chalk it off in very broad terms.

STILL, I don’t believe that any reasonable person is going to accuse him of being a right-wing nut of the NWO. That is clearly NOT his predication. Rather, he is highly respected in his field. His field however, is not aviation science, or even conspiracies. He also assumes (like most of us) that NOBODY would be crazy enough to pull a stunt like this. Yet, somebody was. So, if somebody was that crazy, (or just plain psychopathic) Cheney is right up there on the top of the list. And of course we know george would have gone along. He’s that stupid, and equally callous. Cheney isn’t stupid, but he’s arrogant enough to know that he’d never have to answer for it. He hasn’t answered for a damn thing, and has already said that he’s above the law. So, he doesn’t ever expect to answer for it.

Report this

By jbart, October 29, 2007 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seems “bought and sold” to me. Wasn’t he the guy who was supposed to write an article about the NFL guy’s “discoveries” re: the truth before he was “taken out” by our “righteous” Gov’t.?

Report this

By thomas billis, October 29, 2007 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If the conspiracy theorists cannot believe someone with the credentials of Naom Chomsky then they are too far gone.

Report this

By cheguevara1970, October 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

Niloroth, agreed.

The nut-wingers might start heckling him.  It’s getting beyond ridiculous.  The conspiracy nut cases are intolerant of anyone who does not see 9/11 as Bush’s plan.  Their hate for Bush is similar to the Republicans that despised Bill Clinton: blind!!

Report this

By niloroth, October 29, 2007 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

waiting for someone to call him a right wing member of the NWO.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.