Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

On 'factoids' and 'internet experts'

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: On 'factoids' and 'internet experts' Reply with quote

Chomsky: on 'factoids' and 'internet experts'

http://www.zcommunications.org/chomsky-sessions-ii-science-religion-and-human-nature-part-ii-by-noam-chomsky

Excerpt:

Quote:
Chomsky: - - - “The 9-11 (conspiracy) is pretty interesting, actually. .. think it's like maybe a third or half the population.

The activists in it, the people in the center of it, as far as I can tell, very few of them are people with any record or involvement in political activism.

"Maybe a couple here and there. Most of them are just drawn into it. And there's, and they have factoids too.

[...]
“Now, the people who are writing about this, they are “experts” in physics and civil engineering on the basis of an hour on the internet.

“So you spend an hour on the internet, you become an expert in civil engineering, physics and you learn what nano-thermite is and so on.

"I don't have to tell you what it takes to understand something about physics. It's not an hour on the internet.

“They've managed to collect a very small scattering of architects and one or two people who are supposed to be scientists and a couple of others, who write articles in the journal of 9-11 studies and maybe sometimes in an online journal somewhere.

"And so that proves that the scientific world is with us. And then along comes the big story.

“Well, there are some obvious questions. Like, suppose the Bush administration did it. Why would they blame Saudis? Are they insane? I mean, they wanted to invade Iraq, right? Everybody agrees with that. So, why didn't they blame Iraqis? Well, if they had blamed Iraqis [they would have had an] open-shot case. You know, the whole country's for you, you get a U.N. resolution, NATO supports you, you can just go ahead and invade Iraq. Since they blamed Saudis, therefore harming themselves, that's their closest ally, they had to go jump through hoops to try to invent stories about weapons of mass destruction, connections to Al Qaeda and all those other things and then they finally invaded Iraq. So are they lunatics? I mean, that's one possibility, of course.
[…]

"… like, Bush put the bombs in Building 7 and so on. [...]

"But people who are, you know, kind of at a loss. They don't trust anything, rightly. You know, they don't trust institutions, they think everybody's lying to them, the lies are no good, nothing makes any sense. …

"And if you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."

[...] Alright, you've made a factual claim. Back it up. Do you have scientific basis for it? Do you have evidence for it?
- - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - - - - ----------- - - - - - - - -----------

No one seriously says "Bush put bombs" anywhere.

The US Dept of Commerce's NIST reports have themselves never been peer-reviewed or published in a journal. Four peer-reviewed papers have been published by truth movement scientists during 2008 and 2009 - in The Environmentalist, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Open Civil Engineering Journal and Open Chemical Physics Journal.

By his own admission, Chomsky has not evaluated the forensic evidence and is clearly not interested in doing so. That's his prerogative.

But does he have anything to say about the cover-up. viz. the demonstrably erroneous US Dept of Commerce NIST report and the Philip Zelikow-directed 911 Commission Report, predicated on information gained via torture, denounced by two of the commissioners and described by the late Professor Dr Benjamin DeMott (who studied it carefully) as 'a cheat and a fraud'?

Experts have pooled knowledge (with no assistance from corporate 'investigative' journalists) in a citizen's peer-review. NIST refused engineer Ronald Brookman S.E. an FOIA request for its computer modelling on the grounds it 'jeopardises public safety'.


Last edited by marc on Sat May 19, 2012 5:34 pm; edited 21 times in total
Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:26 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for this Marc. It's worth looking at Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky - quoting from his book Towers of Deception -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

Chomsky actually has the same attitude to the Kennedy assassination. He dismisses evidence, will not discuss it seriously and scorns those of us who question the official Oswald story.
Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:14 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker