Forum

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

Chomsky's 911 stance

 
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: Chomsky's 911 stance Reply with quote

"I’ve read that many believe Noam Chomsky's outright rejection of the 9/11 truth movement is incongruent with his many insightful writings on media and government control [...]

Chomsky dismisses the 9/11 movement as a distraction from more important work to be done:

Quote:
“One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis...”


Chomsky seems to miss an important point when dismissing 9/11 queries as a waste of energy. If 9/11 can be blown open, then absolutely everything can be challenged, because evidence will exist of the huge scope of the supporting conspiracy.

In fact, if [the science of free-fall acceleration, easily checked by anyone with a stopwatch] were to be universally [seen]and its implications digested, then a paradigm may emerge where the burden of proof shifts. It may become the norm that parties - whose behavior suggests complicity - have to prove they were NOT implicated. All of Chomsky’s projects would benefit from this.

In other interviews, when he is asked what the common person can do to change the world, he always responds that people should “organize” and cites the marvelous changes that have come about at MIT in his years spent there as a consequence of social movements, for instance that women and ethnic minorities are now welcome to study there.

The changes he describes are welcome of course, but he seems to miss the point.

George Carlin said a few years ago, that all of the basic civil rights and equality steps which have been taken in recent decades have been merely accommodated by the special interests who own the place, but who had recognized that these were ideas whose time had come.

I think that if Chomsky wishes to use examples of accommodations to argue that we should forget the 9/11 question, then he seems to have a different priority set. Maybe he has benevolent reasons for adopting this position? Maybe it’s his way of continuing to make the world a better place whilst accommodating the special interests?

911blogger.com/news/2013-03-28/some-thoughts-noam-chomskys-911-stance
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Comments below the line:

"Chomsky does know a lot but that doesn't mean he knows everything. He's human, like everyone else."


Comment #1:

Quote:
"It's just odd that someone who lives to think critically should take this position. He defined a precise means of making sense of media manipulation a very long time ago and seems able to accept that amoral special interests which run our governments will do literally anything they can get away with, but doesn't think they would do this.

"His argument that they would easily be found out so wouldn't do it, isn't something he seems to take into account in other areas. He is more familiar with the 'hiding in plain sight' principle than most, yet he doesn't seem to countenance it here.

"Maybe an ... opportunity will present itself and someone can challenge Chomsky in a respectful but persistent manner"



comment # 2

Quote:
"[Chomsky] says that anyone caught conspiring in this (and they would have been caught because people would have talked) would have been up against a firing squad and it would be the end of the Republican Party.

"This is disingenuous; because it seems likely the preparations would have begun before the Republicans took power [only a few months before]. Chomsky is not lazy in assigning blame to individuals or groups under normal conditions, so why here?

2. He says the conspirators couldn’t predict the planes would hit the towers, could easily have missed and the conspiracy failed.. Well, discussions have taken place on this forum where it has been plausibly suggested that advanced (at the time [though available to military]) GPS technology would have ensured the planes did exactly as programmed. Again, Chomsky isn't lazy, so why would he assume that only technology available to internet shoppers was available to the planners of the coup?

3. He says that anyone who knows anything about science would instantly discount the evidence, since unexplained factors are observable even after lab tests and the 9/11 truth community has become dazzled by unexplained details.

I wonder if he took account of the fact that the [free-fall accleration] collapses are perfectly explicable by the CD hypothesis. Or, that NIST [conceded freefall acceleration] and adamantly refused to seriously look at the most likely explanation and instead adopted a hypothesis they themselves [admit they] consider 'unlikely to have occurred'.

4. I would expect someone of his capability, if he was merely blinkered, to say he hadn't seen convincing evidence and didn't intend to waste time looking for any, but to claim to have seen evidence that convinced him of the opposite position, is astonishing
.


comment # 3

Quote:
"Peter Dale Scott offers a plausible explanation for NC’s thinking: he draws a system boundary around the ruling classes and assumes that the system’s output will be rational.

If he says that the system acts inefficiently (due to power struggles) in a way which benefits those within it, taking almost no account of cost or effect on those outside it (except in controlling them), then maybe you can say it is rational?

Perhaps a psychopath is only irrational if we try to judge the person by conventional behavioural and ethical standards?

I think the key point is that PDS implies that Chomsky actively chooses not to delve into the governing system, but confines his (published) analyses to its output effects. ... Why would he choose to do that, since as PDS says, it leads to superficial analyses?


comment #4

Quote:
Also, Chomsky has written that 9/11 sceptics should submit their work to the numerous independent peer-reviewed journals out there. ...blind spot...

He himself has written about "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" and notes how the responsibility and ironically, the irresponsibility, of intellectuals, is to be servants of Power. So how can peer-reviewers, who are power servers, be perfectly independent?

Think of all of his high level friends who asked him or are known to have looked into 9/11 and he simply brushed them aside .. this includes Richard Falk, Marcus Raskin, John McMurtry and Graeme MacQueen.


Marcus Raskin: Political Philosopher, Peace and Social Justice Activist: b. 1934
"Democracy and its operative principle, the rule of law, require a ground on which to stand.
That ground is the truth. When the government lies, or is structured like our national security state
to promote lies and self-deception, then our official structures have broken faith with the
essential precondition for constitutional government in democracy. "


Last edited by marc on Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:18 am; edited 3 times in total
Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:49 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35595.htm

Noam Chomsky is in Denial About 9/11

By Mark H Gaffney

DURING A a recent interview on Democracy Now, Noam Chomsky stated that he believes Osama bin Laden was probably behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.i The statement was curious because in earlier interviews Chomsky described the evidence against bin Laden as thin to nonexistent,ii which was accurate and, no doubt, explains why the US Department of Justice never indicted bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.

Nor has any new evidence against bin Laden come to light; on the contrary. A compelling body of evidence now points in a very different direction, toward the unthinkable.

Three years ago (in July 2010) I attempted to engage Professor Chomsky in a conversation about this new evidence. Chomsky, however, showed no interest in the subject. After responding in a way that can only be described as incomprehensible, Chomsky repeated what he had stated in an earlier email: that skeptics of the official story should pursue the usual pathways to advance their ideas. In other words, they should publish their work.

By 2010, however, this had already been done. Indeed, my reason for contacting Chomsky at the time was to alert him to the serious implications of the new research that I will very briefly summarize in this article.

Before I do that, however, I need to preface this discussion with the obvious. Professor Chomsky has been one of our leading intellectuals for more than half a century. Since the time he first began to participate in teach-ins at MIT protesting the Vietnam War, Chomsky has mentored successive generations of US peace activists, including this writer. Much of what I know about geopolitics, especially the Middle East, I learned from Chomsky. The man’s grasp of the region’s history and its fractious politics is near-encyclopedic. I have never once caught Chomsky in a historical error. He seems never to forget a name, a date, or a place.

Beyond this, I owe Chomsky a personal debt of gratitude. Without his assistance my first book would never have seen print. Chomsky was there for me at a crucial moment, and I have no doubt that other writers and activists can relate similar stories. I was always amazed by the way Chomsky stayed on top of his correspondence, given the heavy demands on his time. Without fail, he would get right back. This kind of accessibility and generosity has no parallel in my experience, and it explains my respect for the man and my reluctance to criticize him. Nor would I do so now if the facts in the case were not so compelling, and the need so great....

article continues at Information Clearing House --- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35595.htm


Last edited by marc on Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:19 am; edited 2 times in total
Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:03 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Whistle-blower Kevin Ryan participates in a Q & A with a professor from the University of Kentucky for her upcoming course:
“(UKC 381) Deliberation, Persuasion, and Bullshit in the Public Sphere.” Chomsky mentioned.

See full interview here: http://digwithin.net/2013/07/31/uk-professor/
Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:52 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Chomsky on Building Seven, at University of Florida, responding to question from Bob Ruskin, Radio Show host

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc

From the comments section at "Florida University: Chomsky Has No Opinion on Bldg 7": http://911blogger.com/news/2013-10-21/noam-chomsky-has-no-opinion-building-7
Quote:

"It is odd that he can recognize corporate and institutional blackballing of some issues but not this one. He is certainly way off base when he pretends that speaking out controversially from within your profession is "risk-free". That is absolute nonsense, and he should know that, even if he has been protected by tenure throughout his career. And "overwhelming evidence" that Bush co. weren't involved? What is this overwhelming evidence? He presents three disparate facts that could lead to several different conclusions, not necessarily the one he's come to. Very puzzling.
"He says he will defer to the opinions of relevant experts on the matter. In saying so, he must assume that the relevant experts somehow exist outside of the 2,090 AETruth petition signers, and that anyone who hasn't spoken out like that must therefore privately support the official explanation, which is merely another logical failing on his part..."



also

Quote:
"Chomsky states: "Either they are total lunatics or they were not involved and they are not total lunatics." This is a specious logical fallacy known as bifurcation.

"C.S. Lewis put a personal spin on this in his rather homespun treatise entitled "Mere Christianity" saying of the Christ that: "Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse." "This is one of the reasons that Lewis is considered a great in the field of Medieval and Classic studies and is ignored by real theologians.

"According to Wiki: "Lewis used a similar argument in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", when Digory Kirke advises the young heroes that their sister's claims of a magical world must logically be taken as either lies, madness, or truth." Lewis deftly adds the trifurcation into his argument to obviate the tertium quid which Chomsky failed to do. "Either they are total lunatics or they were not involved and they are not total lunatics or ... "
Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:45 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Chomsky argues against questioning official version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc [600 000 views]

Chomsky and 911 consent:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/10/noam-chomsky-manufactures-911-consent.html

Blum vs Chomsky:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00100.htm

Chomsky on 'Conspiracy Theory' at Z-Net:
http://www.zcommunications.org/9-11-institutional-analysis-vs-conspiracy-theory-by-noam-chomsky.html


Last edited by marc on Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:23 am; edited 8 times in total
Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:27 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Mr Chomsky,

Like many others, we highly value your work. We recently viewed the video of your reply to Bob Ruskin at the University of Florida:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc

A question for you, allied to Ruskin's query:

"Can an object fall vertically through mass five times greater than itself,
falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air,
when the only force available is gravity?"


Understandably, you may have neither the time nor expertise to answer this. We request you re-think the use of the phrase 'conspiracy theory' in relation to those who do.[1]

Like millions of others ill-served by media, you may not be aware that journalists failed to report physicist David Chandler's correction of the US Dept of Commerce's non-peer-reviewed NIST report in 2008. They also failed to report NIST's subsequent admission of 'freefall acceleration'. Physics teacher Chandler described the implosion of WTC Building Seven (Solomon Bros Building) in simple terms, verifiable by anyone with access to the video and a stopwatch: "The building went from full support to zero support instantly... All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second." [2]

Engineers in direct correspondence with NIST write: "One reason we find NIST’s admission of freefall to be stunning, and calling out for an explanation, is that at freefall all of the potential energy of the building is being converted to kinetic energy, so there is no energy left to do any work—no energy to bend things, or break things, or push things out of the way. [3] [See NIST's reply at footnote [3] below]

NIST's crucial concession of 'freefall' in its final report (November 2008) was highly newsworthy by any criteria. The media's lacuna, that lie of omission, was notable.

"And what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the interests of suffering people and not the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that is dripping from their hands because of the way they're allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system." - Noam Chomsky.

You've advised NIST's critics to 'present their work' to science journals as you say it is a 'risk-free' process, although you've previously pointed to academic filters. [4]

In fact, a number of papers have been published by the critics of the US government's in-house reports. [5]

As a linguist, you'll appreciate that 'conspiracy theorist' is a loaded phrase. [6] A couple of hundred credentialed civil and structural engineers take the pejorative on the chin, including 17 MIT alumni who publicly question NIST-science at the group AE911. [6]

We wonder why you may think that the majority of the world's engineers and scientists support the official conspiracy theory (OCT). Where is the evidence for that? It seems rather that no scientists will defend it any more, or even discuss it:

"No study has been published in a peer reviewed journal supporting the OCT since 2008. No scientists have come forward publicly to challenge the call for a new investigation. Listed below are academic degree holders who have supported the OCT in the past: [Director of NIST] Sham Sunder, PhD (MIT) - refuses to comment on 9/11 and defend his findings; John Gross, PhD (Cornell) - refuses to comment or defend his [NIST] statements from 2008; Zdenek Bazant, PhD (Northwester) - has not responded to critique of his 2001 article in over 10 years". [8]

Science aside, scrutiny of media performance around the 9/11 critique is of interest. Whistle-blower Kevin Ryan, a scientist who worked with the insurer of World Trade Centre construction steel, notes: "It was quickly discovered that the NIST report was a very poor attempt at a realistic explanation for what happened... It seems that NIST didn't even try to present a logical explanation for what happened but simply relied on the idea that a compliant media would help them close the public discussion quickly." [9]

We appeal to you for a measure of understanding, nothing more. This issue is not an ivory tower quibble. People continue to die as the '911 gift keeps on giving' [10], even after a decade of what philosopher John McMurtry terms "the 911 wars".


Kind regards

Notes

[1] Z-Net Debate with Chomsky on 911: http://rense.com/general74/dismiss.htm

[2] NIST finally admits freefall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
David Chandler's lecture at The Toronto Hearings, Ryerson University:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErOy9lwfhc
Day 3: Q & A at The Toronto Hearings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuBM4pAfUq0
Free-Fall:
http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

[3] NIST Replies to Three Questions:
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-16/nist-replies-three-questions-wtc7-nano-thermite-microspheres

[4] “The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out
people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions.
--Noam Chomsky

[5] See Journal Papers list "911 in the Academic Community"
http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/
See Information Clearing House: '911 in Academia"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36615.htm


[6] "If something comes along that you don’t like, there are a few sort of four-letter words that you can use to push it out of the sphere of discussion. If you were in a bar downtown, they might have different words, but if you’re an educated person what you use are complicated words like ‘conspiracy theory’ or ‘Marxist’." -- Noam Chomsky

[7] "Who Exactly Are These 2 090 Engineers and Architects?"
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/798-who-are-these-2000-architects-and-engineers.html

[8] AE Petition Summary:
http://www.aneta.org/AE911Truth/petition/summary/

[9] "Another Nineteen", Kevin Robert Ryan (Microbloom) 2013. Chapter 1: Introduction.

[10] Pepe Escobar: "911 and NSA: The gift that keeps on giving"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGcEwANTVSc


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The official 911 narrative has been the greatest manipulation of scientific facts for private gain in the 21st century.
If this is not challenged, it sets a precedent." - quote from French engineer, AE Petition

Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:32 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

from the Huffington Post:


"Here's The Video To Share With Anybody Who Still Buys Into 9/11 Truther Stuff "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/noam-chomsky-911-truther_n_4345829.html

MIT linguist and peace activist Noam Chomsky has delivered what ought to be the coup de grace to what's left of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.


Noam Chomsky video used by official narrative supporters


Right of Reply:

"Kevin Ryan Replies to Chomsky":

http://digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky/

During a "Policy and the Media Prism" lecture at the University of Florida several weeks ago, 9/11 truther activist Bob Tuskin asked Chomsky what he had to say about Building 7, the third structure to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001. The media, in Tuskin's opinion, has ignored evidence about the building's collapse.

Chomsky shut down Tuskin's claims. If scientists had strong evidence to support 9/11 conspiracy theories, he said, they would have presented their discoveries to other architects and engineers, would have published their arguments in scientific journals and attempted to persuade other professionals that they'd found something worth investigating.

"There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics," he added, "but it doesn't work like that ... There's a reason there are graduate schools in these departments."

Chomsky said the Bush administration had little motivation to identify the hijackers as Saudi, since that country is a U.S. ally, when they could have pointed a finger at Iraq, a nation they'd been hoping to invade.

"There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn't involved. Very elementary evidence. You don't have to be a physicist to understand it, you just have to think for a minute," he said. "The conclusion is pretty straightforward: Either they're total lunatics, or they weren't involved. And they're not total lunatics."


Last edited by marc on Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:28 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

How to Shut Down A 'Truther' - Christopher Hitchens style

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAaDKZ-SuE#t=104
Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:19 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Noam Chomsky and Willful Ignorance

Kevin Ryan replies to Chomsky's "University of Florida' statements

"IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”

"If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?

"I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so." ..... article continues > http://digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Last edited by marc on Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:30 am; edited 2 times in total
Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:43 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

M.I.I Dept of Engineering works hand-in-hand with US military on certain projects:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/isnqa.html

... see also:

From Chomsky's M.I.T. fellows ... "The Towers Lost and Beyond"

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

Since these reports were written, carrying the heft of M.I.T., the US Department of Commerce agency NIST 'investigated', then revised. It refuses to release its computer simulations for scrutiny (FOIA).

Compare Chomsky's M.I.T colleague prof Ghoniem's hand-wave estimate of 1000 degree fires with the information here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html In particular:


Last edited by marc on Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:07 pm; edited 3 times in total
Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:46 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

9/11...so what?

by David Chandler, physics teacher
http://911speakout.org/
Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:35 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.examiner.com/article/noam-chomsky-helps-manufacture-consent-for-9-11-myth

Noam Chomsky helps manufacture consent for 9/11 myth

November 18, 2013 [..]

[..] Chomsky has offered only discouragement and dismissal in response to any attempt to shed light on the taboo topic of 9/11. [Most recently] he was questioned on the subject by journalist and radio host Bob Tuskin.

Blatantly insulting his fellow academic professionals, he described the over 2,000 member strong organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as a "miniscule" consensus of professionals, only a few of whom are "perfectly serious."

He followed this by claiming that the majority of architects and engineers are on board with the US government's epically unscientific explanation for the September 11th attacks.

Not only is this claim an unsightly affront to the scientific process, which thrives on evidence and study instead of political consensus, but it is also patently false. The truth is that the vast majority of architects and engineers have simply evoked their right to remain silent, and have made no professional statements about the attacks whatsoever.

The deafening silence emanating from the majority of qualified academics on the subject of 9/11 seems to have been interpreted by Chomsky as confirmation of the federal government's trustworthiness, rather than an unsettling sign of corporate and academic intimidation for the purpose of aiding in a coverup of the terror attacks.

This inexplicably gullible approach to government narratives is being curiously offered up by the same supposed intellectual who not long ago wrote:
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the US media."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:03 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Axis of Logic - Editor's Note on Chomsky:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_66219.shtml

Open Letter to Chomsky et al, from D. R. Griffin:

http://www.medialens.org/23_fg_75_lc/viewtopic.php?t=3134


Last edited by marc on Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:35 am; edited 2 times in total
Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:55 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

* Chomsky, 9/11 and obfuscational linguistics

"A question on Building 7 was put to the well-known linguist and political writer Noam Chomsky following a talk of his at the University of Florida. He replied by calling the 2000 architects and engineers who are calling for a proper investigation of 9/11 “a miniscule number”, saying that they “are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something”. Then he said: “There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments”. Yes, and I’m a product of one of them, and so are 2000 architects and engineers http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/noam-chomsky-derides-911-truthers.html

It’s a bit like saying: “The moon’s made of cheese; anyone who doesn’t believe me should write a scientific paper to disprove it”. ... Very disappointed to hear that from Chomsky. He’s blinding us with science. Why not apply the same science to the politicians who have been advancing the idea that Building 7 fell as a consequence of two aircraft hitting the other two towers? The point about 9/11 Truth is not what we believe but what we don’t believe." - - ian


Last edited by marc on Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:11 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"Left denial on 911 turns irrational"

Any rational discussion of the evidence would have a hard time concluding that the official explanation of the events makes any sense...

" But Chomsky’s statement (referred to earlier) tries to write it all off as “unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, chaos,...” (sic) as if quantum theory trumps the laws of mechanics even in the case of bodies far larger than the sub-atomic particles this theory is pertinent to."

Brown people could no more accomplish what was supposedly done on 9/11, as claimed by the official story, than white people could, even super wealthy ones. The evidence from that day shows that the official account violates the laws of physics. Videos clearly show that as the WTC towers collapsed, material from the upper floors fell down through the remaining steel and concrete of the lower floors as fast as it fell through the adjoining air, requiring steel and concrete to provide no more resistance than air. Even if you can come up with some far fetched explanation how that’s possible with a gravity-driven collapse created by the plane collisions and fires, you would have to explain why the upper floors meanwhile were turning to dust and small pieces, which would indicate they were facing massive resistance, assuming they were merely free-falling. Only demolition explains both phenomena simultaneously.

Indeed, the very notion that fires could have caused collapses is negated by the evidence. Testing by federal agencies found almost all columns experienced temperatures not in excess of 450 degrees F , well short of the 1022 degrees required to even weaken unprotected structural steel, let alone melt it. Videos show the fires burning fiercely for only a short period, especially in the second-hit South Tower, where the plane almost missed the building, hitting only a corner. Various photos and videos clearly show people standing in the impact zone, not something anyone could do in the midst of a steel-weakening inferno. Firefighters on audio tapes specifically talked of finding just small fires in the impact zone of the South Tower (WTC2), minutes before the collapse. Few people now realize that not only was Trade Center 2 hit less directly than building 1, but the jet-liner collision with building 2 occurred nearly 20 minutes after the day's first crash, the strike on WTC1. The simple fact that WTC2 was hit both less directly and well after WTC1, yet somehow still collapsed first just doesn’t fit with official government explanations of "gravity driven structure-wide 'pancake' failures generated solely by commercial airliner impacts and the resulting fires” as the only causes. Think about it— common sense is something you don't have to get from official expert sources. Much, much more evidence exists, references are provided at the end.

Any rational discussion of the evidence would have a hard time concluding that the official explanation of the events makes any sense. But Chomsky’s statement (referred to earlier) tries to write it all off as “unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, chaos,...” as if quantum theory trumps the laws of mechanics even in the case of bodies far larger than the sub-atomic particles this theory is pertinent to.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

See: "Left denial on 911 turns irrational"
http://www.dailybattle.pair.com/2010/left_denial_on_911.shtml
Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:40 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"Strategy of Tension Gone Global'

http://www.dailybattle.pair.com/2010/strategy_of_tension_gone_global.shtml


Last edited by marc on Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:22 pm; edited 3 times in total
Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:56 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://911blogger.com/node/17126

Review of "The Hidden History of 9-11" (2nd ed., revised and updated), edited by Dr Paul Zarembka, professor of economics at State University New York.

"In chapter entitled "September 11 as `Machiavellian State Terror'", David MacGregor, professor of sociology at King's University College, presents a theory of "Machiavellian state terrorism" (MST) as the basis of a leftist analysis of the events of 9/11.

"He defines MST as "terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and ... secretly perpetrated by or on behalf of the violated state itself" (p. 184).

"On this basis he is able to provide a sorely-needed critique of the lame response to the 9/11 attacks by the established "Left" in the US, represented by Noam Chomsky and progressive organs like Z Magazine (and their many fellow-travelers), who accept the official story and view the attacks as "blowback" for US imperial policy.

" After presenting a detailed historical overview of recent acts of state terrorism in Europe (mostly sponsored by the covert arms of the US government) and Canada, MacGregor concludes that "The left embraces a distorted notion of political violence that sees it as an understandable response of the weak to provocations of the powerful. Yet ... acts of terror are vulnerable to manipulation, and far more likely to be a weapon of state rulers and their agents, than [of] the oppressed masses. As a legitimized protection racket, the state may be tempted to inflict harm secretly on its own citizens ... to achieve ... highly desired goals" (p. 209).
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-9-11-Paul-Zarembka/dp/158322825X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218129756&sr=1-1
Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:04 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"To this day [Chomsky's] only message is: see, think, judge and decide for yourself. This is Chomsky’s own particular talent: he is very good at stepping back and thinking about what it is he’s actually seeing. That’s why he asks questions other people don’t ask. It's no accident that Martians regularly crop up in everything he writes, whether the topic is language or power. What would Martians see if they could observe us from afar?" http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031206.htm

What would Martians see?"The Semantics of Deception: Category Error" - C Thurston
http://truememes.com/semantics.html


What would Martians see? A perfectly normal, organic 'gravity-led fall' (NIST) or explosive energy? ?
Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:14 am
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