Noam Chomsky shoots down 9/11 conspiracy.

[3121guitarist]

The wacky left gets schooled by our favorite linguist. Loose Change is a bunch of crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&mode=related&search=

[Howardx]

1. thanks for playing today

n/t

[johnfunk]

106. Go Noam! Here's one reason we MUST fight to restore the Fairness Doctrine:

Rupert "FAUX American" Murdoch and Roger "Fat Bastard" Ailes would be FORCED to program real balance. Picture this...

and picture what would happen to your average FReeper FAUX viewer...

[Bucky]

2. Chomsky is a DLC tool, probably covering up for his buddy Bush.

:evilgrin:

[BootinUp]

9. Hey, I wanted to post that!

:evilgrin:

[d_b]

12. LOL!

man. It's rare that I actually laugh out loud at the computer.

[Pharaoh]

43. BUT! does'nt matter who killed "Kennedy"

Does'nt matter who knew about 911!!

Not The Noam I know..............
:yoiks:

[Cha]

84. Matters to

me.

[lib2DaBone]

38. Noam Chomsky Gatekeeper

No surprise here. Every time I listen to Noam Chomsky my eyes glaze over and I can hardly stay awake. Chomsky is a Main Stream Media Gatekeeper and good friend of the NeoCons. His only task is to keep the myth of a liberal media alive in the minds of the sheeple. He gets his paycheck directly from Karl Rove and the Boys.

[mdmc]

70. welcome to du

God Bless Bush and the Boys..

[Mr_Spock]

88. lol

someone didn't get it

welcome to DU!

[personman]

166. Telling people to think for themselves and to question authority...

sounds like a brilliant way to carry out an intellectually coercive authoritarian agenda. :eyes:

Here are some of my brain droppings on Chomsky's disinterest in 911 conspiracy theories and the accusations by some that he must therefore be a right-wing shill.

There are so many massive systemic issues, affecting us all right out in the open, that are not just provable but undeniable. We can spend years focusing efforts on Kennedy or 911 and quite possibly not get anywhere (if there is even anywhere to get), in some ways I think it's elitist to sensationalize the big aesthetic problems affecting rich white people over the struggle of the poor to such a disproportionate degree. One point Chomsky makes (It may be in "Part 1" of the interview, linked off of the OP URL.) that I hope you heard, is that it is the power structures who benefit from the terror generated by large, tragic events like 911.

The 911 and Kennedy events, are simply NOT as big or as undeniably systemic an issue as class or barbaric and imperialistic foreign policy, or many of the other completely undeniably systemic problems affecting our government and our world that Chomsky writes about. The body counts, if such a thing could be measured, would not be even close. Katrina alone took a comparable number to those lost in 911. We fought a war against afghanistan after 911, but there was no war against poverty after Katrina, just a media circle-jerk and a bunch of politicians pointing fingers and distracting us. Issues of class and imperialism don't just happen in large events that attract attention like Katrina or Iraq though, they affect people every day.

Investigating 911 is GOOD. Obsessively making it the be-all end-all of your political beliefs, and attacking, smearing and directing name-calling toward anyone who questions or doubts your theories isn't. The 911 CT folks think Chomsky is being disingenuous with his lack of interest in 911 conspiracies or lack of beliefs in whitehouse complicity, and maybe that's where a lot of their hostility is coming from. Personally though, for a lot of the reasons I posted earlier, I don't see any reason to think that. I also think the fact that they'd rather believe Chomsky is a part of the conspiracy then that he is genuinely disinterested, is a symptom of some sort of paranoia which might have led them to consider 911 conspiracy theories in the first place.

Someone who wrote for 911 Truth actually accused Chomsky of being a high-ranking C.I.A. agent. To those who realize Chomsky's career of advocating thinking and questioning-authority are directly contradictory, and harmful to the neocon agenda, (and probably MOST government agenda in general). The accusation is completely illogical.

I don't think an independent mind is a gift you can easily take back. Thinking and questioning authority are tools to deconstruct ANY coercive authority, whether it comes from Rove, or Chomsky himself. The 911 CTs often use this quote of Chomsky's as proof that he is a gatekeeper:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

And the fatal flaw in their logic?...HE TELLS YOU THIS!...If he were to try and coerce us, he has given us all the tools we'd need to dissect it. I don't know if there is a "Gatekeeper" rule book, but if there is, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the first rule in it would be "You DO NOT talk about gatekeepers."

Likewise if there is an "authoritarian imperialist establishment" rule book, it's probably not big on advocating independent thought or suspicion of power.

Welcome to DU. :)

-personman

[Nozebro]

167. Propagandists get paid to do what you're saying is illogical. EOM

nt

[Mr_Spock]

86. lmao

Good one!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Hehe!!!

Let's all say it together, now:

NOAM CHOMSKY IS A BUSHCO SHILL!!!

:evilgrin:

[BootinUp]

5. This is great. I'm startin to like this guy.

Chomsky? is that his name?

[flyingfysh]

17. It is worthwhile reading Chomsky's books

He has several out. You can also find speeches by him in the binary groups on Usenet.

In linguistics, his reputation is roughly comparable to Einstein's reputation in physics.

Chavez recently recommended a Chomsky book in his speech at the UN.

[BootinUp]

19. I was being sarcastic about not knowing

about him. But it was true that my opinion of him has changed somewhat after watching this.

[CanSocDem]

48. Yeh...curious.

"...my opinion of him has changed somewhat after watching this."


I've got a friend, a very intellectual and talented musicologist, who came of age politically at the time of Kennedy's assassination. Was an early conspiracy believer and promoter eventually moving to Canada as a political statement. Nowadays, still a 'left-winger social democrat active politically and socially at the community level.......absolutely denies ANY conspiracy around 911!!

He sounds, suspiciously, just like Chomsky.

I think Chomsky is lying. I would sooner believe this than think that he has become out of touch with the world.

I think that he has weighed the consequences and decided to 'play along', take the road of least resistance. He may simply want to live a while longer trying NOT TO think about the dozens of key players in the Kennedy assassination who met with untimely death.

I'm still going to listen to what he says and read his opinions when I can, but I won't be looking for the 'wisdom' as much as I'll be looking for signs that he is inching toward the door....

OTOH...it could all be a real-life lesson in the art of deception by the good professor.

[BootinUp]

51. You and I are moving

in opposite directions on this one friend. I claim some ignorance on Chomsky, I have never read any of his books, and have only read a couple of his more controversial articles.

[CanSocDem]

55. You too...???!!

I think there was a 911 conspiracy, and you DON'T, is that correct?

[BootinUp]

58. Well...

yes. I believe the essential facts as to the attack, who the perpetrators where, how it was done, are painstakingly laid out in the 9/11 commission report. imho.

The coverup of what happened during the 8 months prior is to be expected, they dropped the ball (understatement), they had the wrong priorities, missile defense, not swatting flies, etc, and now they must cover their ass. No surprise there.

[SouthernBelle82]

63. So let me ask you something

if that's true where was NORAD to shoot down the plane's before they killed 3,000 something people? So you're telling me nineteen so-called hijackers who couldn't fly a plane straight to save their own lives on that day somehow managed to fly that plane very straight into the Pentagon and the WTC towers and get around our military system. LOL!!! And they did all of that with box cutters! LOL!!!!! That is so hilarious! This was done on purpose and Bush's own actions leading up to 9/11 on those months after he was appointed King is proof enough.

[SouthernBelle82]

64. Something else I want to ask

is why do people claim to not believe Bush about anything but yet than they turn around and believe HIS story about 9/11? I find that really quite humerus and I think people do that because it's like a security blanket. They're afraid. That's why they attack those of us who don't buy the "official theory" and call us name's and don't offer anything except incompetence and Bush is a moron as their defense. If Bush was such a moron where was NORAD?

[BootinUp]

80. Why do you believe

that an elected President of the US would purposely annilihate the WTC towers and all the people in it? Please read my other post before replying though.

[SouthernBelle82]

85. I've already answered that question

It's very simple really and that is to control the natural resources and you only claim we say it's because of Iraq which is bullshit. If you read through the PNAC documents you can see that is even there. It's to do with Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. It's to control and make money from the natural resources. Even here in the United States to take away our civil liberties is all about control and power. I suggest you buy and read the book "Armed MadHouse" from Greg Palast. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two. I find it very interesting on Noam's position since his buddy Chavez even believes the Bush's brought down the WTC towers. And people didn't believe Hitler brought down his own building either.....

[dchill]

128. "elected President..."

Come on. There's your sign.

[BootinUp]

131. Name calling its all ya got.

lol.

[dchill]

134. What name...

did I call you? Or anyone else. I just don't see it.

And no, it's not all I got. I just don't think it would be productive to get into it with you, or anyone else. Suffice it to say that I do not tend to believe what I've "officially been told" - I'll trust my own eyes and my gut before I trust the 9/11 Commission.

Cui bono?

[bobbolink]

133. Simple. They neede "a new Pearl Harbor". They already explained

that, before the fact.

Pretty much telegraphed what they were going to do.

[BootinUp]

143. I briefly addressed that below if you

are interested...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2543156&mesg_id=2544797

[druidity33]

155. there is a book...

that was written a couple of years ago called The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin (Olive Branch Press), which lays everything out flat and examines each piece. It is a "scholarly" work written by a theologian, so it is a little dry and heavily footnoted... but it makes the case for LIHOP and/or MIHOP pretty clearly. It should be required reading for every person in this country. An DVD with stills of the Pentagon crash site, the Towers collapsing, remains examination and expert testimony should accompany the book, but doesn't. Not sure why Chomsky didn't do his research here, usually he's pretty good at broad system analysis.

from the backflap:

"The most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event." -Howard Zinn

[leesa]

144. Why? World control. Money, Power. Are you purposefully playing dumb?

[BootinUp]

149. Despite the slightly acidic tone I will answer you

The question was meant to ask for a justification to this unusual theory of a leader authorizing an attack of such magnitude in both infrastructure and innocent lives in peacetime such has never been seen in modern times that I am aware of. Sadly, your answer falls very short on that measure, considering that they possessed those two items and in good quantity already.

[frylock]

169. bush didn't authorize shit..

surely you are not so naive as to believe that bush has much say as to what happens within this admin.

[BootinUp]

170. who did? n/t

[frylock]

172. sigh..

see the signatories to PNAC.

[BootinUp]

71. I have a link for you, made it myself

Sadly, from your tone, I sense that attempting a conversation on this is going to meet with little success on my part.

The link below is the reconstruction of the timeline for all 4 hijacked airplanes, showing when both the FAA Air Traffic Controllers and NORAD were aware of the hijackings (THEY ARE SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS). What it does not show you, bit is left for you to deduce from logic, is that they did not know the intentions of the hijackers, in at least one case they didn't even kow a plane was hijacked but presumed it was crashed. It all unfolded for them in the space of an hour and 40 minutes. You really need to read the timeline and put yourself in their place. Imagine what you would have done if you had the problems described in the timeline and presume that they did not know.

There was a really good post at Kos, by an Air traffic controller I included that as the second link.


http://jimsdigital.homeip.net:8080/911hijacks/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/13/3335/57833

[SouthernBelle82]

82. And that means what exactly?

Nothing. It still doesn't answer my question. Where were they to shoot down those plane's heading towards the WTC? It was obvious when they first found out what was happening and did have time to bring down the plane's at least going to the WTC so 3,000 something people died. And you're going to talk to me about tone when you're going around and acting holier than thou and belittling my opinions and also the opinions of many who have lost people on 9/11? What a bunch of shit. If you want to have a conversation fine but don't you pull your bullshit with me because it isn't going to fly. If you want to be insulting and rude fine but I won't put up with it. I demand respect on my opinions and my information even if you disagree. Even though I have made it clear you're wrong on a good number of things I have not belittled or insulted you so don't you try it with me because it isn't going to fly. Why do you buy the theory from Bush? He has lied about EVERYTHING since he has opened his mouth since 2000 so please give me a reason why he is to be believed? I don't think so. Not when so many people, including TWO MEMBERS FROM THE 9/11 COMMISSION, say other wise. Why was there a military drill happening on that same day and in some phone calls you can hear people asking if this was a drill or not.

[BootinUp]

87. Apologies.

sometimes I am tone deaf to my own posts. I do not know where I said something upsetting but perhaps we can put that aside.

Have you read the info at the links and taken some time to digest it? I think it is important info for this debate.

[SouthernBelle82]

93. Accepted

I know how that can be and have done that several times myself on other boards. But anyways I don't need to read it because I know from your arguments that it's all the same stuff I've heard from other people who make the same arguments you do. Care to answer my other question? Why do you believe Bush on the issue of 9/11 but not with anything else? I also suggest you read "Mad ArmHouse" From Greg Palast. It's a good book and helps people to understand. Plus Palast isn't a "nut" or whatever and has the credentials needed. I found the book at Books-A-Million. I also suggest the new "9/11: Press for Truth" from the Jersey Girls.

[BootinUp]

101. Bush was not on the Commission that wrote the report.

Thank you for the reading suggestions. And if I do not post again in this thread let me say it has been nice chatting, and maybe we can do it again. Oh, and I still think you should check my links above, good stuff there.

[petgoat]

127. NORAD has had seven different stories about what happened

on 9/11. So after six times lying, we should believe number seven?

Why don't they just tell us about the war games instead of playing
around with the timeline trying to come up with something plausible?

[BootinUp]

150. NORAD is not a person, and taped records

are difficult to argue with.

[CanSocDem]

74. Two things...

If you believe the 911 Commission Report then I can only surmise that you are afraid to believe otherwise.....I can understand. 'My lying eyes' scare the shit outa me as well.

[SouthernBelle82]

61. Very interesting

I find it interesting people are so sure of the Kennedy murder being done by the government but not 9/11. I guess it's easier to think about it being from the government when it's one person and not around 3,000 and got you into a war. This is right up Hitler's play book so I could see why people are afraid of knowing the truth. I was very shocked and it was very hard for me to believe it but after looking at everything it all became so clear and my life did definitely change after I learned the truth. We don't claim to know the whole truth (and I say "we" as in the people who don't buy the "official" crap) but what we do know is that whatever we were told about 9/11 on the official story is bullshit and even two of the 9/11 Commission members have come out earlier this year with a book and went on Lou Dobbs saying there is still a lot the people don't know and are being lied to and even former Reagan and just former government officials in general have come out and said 9/11 was a lie and the government knew and it was an inside job.

[moodforaday]

171. JFK is "history"

Perhaps you are right about it being one person vs 3 thousand, but I also think there's another reason. The JFK murder is "history", and I'm using quotes sarcastically here. It doesn't feel that urgent anymore. Anyone who didn't live at the time (including myself) will have a harder time connecting to it. So yes, most people are more or less convinced there was a coverup, but it's 40 years later, the perps may well be dead by now and there's very little chance of uncovering the truth.

But we've all lived through 9-11, it is emphatically OUR story. We are responsible for figuring out what happened, and the longer it takes, the harder it will be to do. Ten years from now, even if no global catastrophe happens in between (nuclear exchange, global warming, peak oil, what have you), 9-11 will be a distant memory, it will no longer seem so critical. It is critical today, because we are witnessing direct consequences of the attack and of the administration's response to it. And if there *is* a catastophe like any of those, then discovering who did 9-11 is going to become a total non-priority,once you're unable to feed your family or find clean water or if we're all dying from fallout or unlivable climate. And yet whatever happens, except for an abrupt climate change, will be a consequence of 9-11. This is why it's so important to keep the pressure NOW. Next generations will have their own problems to worry about.

(Yes, there's a faction in the 9-11 movement who actually connect JFK and 9-11 via Bush senior, but I feel it's far-fetched, in absence of any hard evidence.)

[bobbolink]

130. RuhRoh... you went and mentioned Chavez... there went Chomsky..

:rofl:

[SouthernBelle82]

59. So does

Chomsky actually prove that it's a bunch of crap or does he just say it and that must mean it's true right?

[frylock]

6. the official version is a bunch of crap as well..

maybe we can find a middle ground, Noam.

[lvx35]

35. I was disappointed he didn't say that.

You can disagree with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you absolutely can't deny how hard this administration has worked to put out disinfo about 9/11 and block serious investigation. People can't be blamed for coming to strange conclusions in the almost total void of information to the contrary from the Bush regime.

[Pharaoh]

42. yup! n/t

[SouthernBelle82]

65. It's not strange when

you have facts on your side like common sense and government documents etc. like the "Loose Change" guys.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

117. facts and common sense are two very different things. n/t

[readmoreoften]

115. Basically it's a play on the left to look "reasonable" and "serious'

while our enemies have no gravitas.

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. That would be refreshing.

[INDIA]

7. But.....But.....

MIHOP! It HAS to be true!:cry:

[BootinUp]

8. K&R !!!!1111

:kick:

[tridim]

10. I respect Chomsky and his opinions

But he's no more a physicist than Bush.

I disagree with his opinion in this case and I certainly disagree with his comments about controlled experiments and unexplained phenomena. He's just wrong.

[darkism]

11. Best hed ever.

Well, maybe not the best, but still.

Haha.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Meh.

That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[cobalt1999]

14. that's great.

However, rational arguments don't work with conspiracy nuts.

[SouthernBelle82]

66. Oh please

That is such crap. We have everything from scientists, government officials (former), government documents. Alex Jones predicted this would happen in July of 2001 (this as in 9/11) with government documents he got a hold of from the Freedom of Information Act and guess what happened? He was correct. I'm not saying Jones knows everything and he does spew the lie about Clinton and BinLadin but my point is in conspiracy theories we do use information not only from the government but main stream sources as well.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Junkdrawer]

15. How old is that interview...

Sounds like it might be 2001/2002 vintage...

[Junkdrawer]

20. I don't think the government did it either...

I think the shadow government did it. A few moles in the government helped cover it up.

[H2O Man]

73. "A few moles ..."

It would seem likely that at some level, people betrayed this country. A single mole can compromise national security. (Get three together, and you can have a neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal.)

[American Jesus]

139. It wasn't a "few moles"

PNAC, the very people whose agenda DEMANDED such an event as 9-11, includes such people as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle among others. These are not "shadow government moles", they're the cabinet which Cheney personally chose for the Chimp.

[rman]

161. The shadow govt. consists of quite a bit more than "a few moles"

[H2O Man]

21. Late 1990s ....

further proof.

[BootinUp]

ROFL.

you hurt me there dude. :rofl:

[InternalDialogue]

36. *snort*

:spray:

[Junkdrawer]

25. Since he talks about a French book coming out, I'd say mid-2002...

and his opinion mirrors what many now in the MIHOP camp thought in mid-2002...

[Henny Penny]

16. I like Noam, really I do....

but he's got nothing....

"They would'a had to 'been insane"... you betcha!

"Most of it will be unexplained..." yeah that's the point of those letters, books, internet sites...

"...even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares..?" that's where Noam's at... at least at the time of making this video.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

37. "...even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares..?"

wow.

[SouthernBelle82]

67. "Who cares"?

Did he really say that? WHO CARES? Bush has abused 9/11 to get us into Afghanistan, into Iraq and has taken away our civil liberties and all he can say is "who cares?"?!?!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

114. actually i think he went one further.

as in: "even if it is LI or MI-HOP who cares?"

uh. well gee Noam, I'm not saying it was or it wasn't a HOP but - WERE IT- do you think maybe we ought to do something about it ya know as opposed to sitting around talking about talking?

[Henny Penny]

156. My quote is accurate at least as far as this clip goes...

check out from about 4.05 mins...

[moodforaday]

173. He may be jaded

I realize this sounds freaky, but this guy has been studying government propaganda and covert politics for most of his life. He's been studying and talking to people about what the US were doing in South America, in Middle East, for years and years - and suddenly there's this bunch of neophytes one-upping him, you know? He *knows* all this already. He may not be interested in the details of 9-11, because (a) he'd seen it all before, and (b) he's looking at a bigger picture, at the historical processes. And in this context, 9-11 isn't really new. It's a remake, with better special effects.

Of course I'm speculating here, but try to see it from his perspective, from the perspective of someone who's been documenting government cover-ups and abuses for decades. Now that 9-11 is the thing, who cares about what happened in Cambodia, Nicaragua, Honduras, who cares about all those things he was bringing to light and trying to alert people to for so long. 9-11 is, in the end, only the latest event in a very long chain. COINTELPRO - that's one hair-raising scandal, a total abrogation of civil rights and all, but who's following that little piece of evildoing? Operation Gladio - another one, and a fairly recent development too, but nobody's fixated on THAT.

I think Chomsky is making a mistake here, disengaging himself from the 9-11 debate, because everything he has been talking about LEADS to 9-11, and there is a reverse relationship also: 9-11 rekindles interest in historical antecedents, the very issues Chomsky lives and breathes. But maybe his plate is just full.

[SlipperySlope]

18. K&R

Love the sarcasm above...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. He says nothing of value in this clip

He speaks in generalities and does not address any 1 specific event that needs investigation. What a turd.

[slackmaster]

23. So Noam is part of the Conspiracy after all

I would never have guessed it.

[Disturbed]

27. LIHOP

The knew it was coming and ignored it.

[jus_the_facts]

45. I still think MIHOP because the hijackers were Saudi's and Pakistani's...yet....

....we invade Afghanistan and Iraq instead and S.A. and Pakistan are our *allies*...and there were no military jets to scramble to intercept the planes either..but as I've said before...we still don't know all there is to know about Nov. 22, 1963...and we'll never know the truth about Sept. 11, 2001. :nopity:

[SouthernBelle82]

69. And also don't forget

about UAE as well. They're a part of this too and housed BinLadin and even went hunting with him several times and that one time was a reason why Clinton couldn't get him because the CIA told him no since he was out hunting with UAE which were harboring at least two of the 9/11 so-called hijackers. Also something else I've been wondering is how did the hijackers know on that day there would hardly be anybody on the plane? I think I remember reading that was significant so they wouldn't have much of a fight. How did they know though?
On edit I forgot to mention that Bush also took US troops out of Saudi which is something that BinLadin has wanted for a couple of years now and Bush did it. This is the first time in history when a "president" took out troops from a country. I have read from the BBC that some Saudi royals didn't ask Bush to do it and some said they did so they don't have their story straight or something. This happened according to Greg Palast a week before Bush's whole "Mission Accomplished" nonsense.

[Postman]

24. I love Noam but - "what difference does it make" - WHAT?!?!?

I don't think the neo-cons planned 9/11. I do think they took advantage of it to put in motion their agenda.

[BootinUp]

26. Someone give it a 5th Rec!

Come on, one more please.

[and-justice-for-all]

28. Bullshit! utter Bullshit!!!!! I can not believe....

...Those words are coming out of his mouth.

[MadHound]

29. You can fool some of the people some of the time

Perhaps your time has come Noam.

Look, I respect the guy, but he is no physicist, architect, arson investigator, fire fighter, or scientist. He talks in generalities, and ignores most of the loose ends still out there.

Noam should stick to things that he knows about, politics, history, philosophy. Otherwise he looks foolish.

[BootinUp]

30. What he does

is lay to waste the methods used to build the conspiracy theories LIHOP and MIHOP.

[Henny Penny]

31. Not in this clip!

feel free to post a link to where he does that. Ineffectual hand waving does not constitute "laying waste" to very much in my book.

[BootinUp]

32. logical arguments probably do

seem like hand waving to some people.

[frylock]

33. Ineffectual hand waving does not constitute "laying waste" to very much in my book.

It does in the OCT clique.

[MadHound]

46. He is using the same tired excuses that were used vis-a-vis the JFK murder

I especially like this one, a staple during the sixties: "Almost certain something would have leaked" This tired canard was used throughout the sixties and well into the seventies, yet amazingly enough the truth is that the JFK assasination was the result of a conspiracy. The House Select Committee on Assasinations reluctantly came to this conclusion in 1979. And yet none of this was leaked out.

Nor does he address any of the specific loose ends and coincedences surrounding 911 such as where were our defensive flights, how did a fire, with a max possible burning temp of 1000 degrees F manage to weaken structural steel tested to not weaken until minimum temp of 1100 degree F, why were the firefighters only calling for three lines, and indication of a controlable fire, a fact substantiated by other eye witnesses. He doesn't address these specifics, he is only dealing in generalities.

I also think that this quote is truly telling: "I mean even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares?" I care, goddamn it! And so do millions of others around this country and around the world. What this means is that those in power have decided to kill their own people in order to advance their own interests, and therefore they need to be brought to justice. It means that we have a group of rogue governmental officials sanctioning mass murder! Yet in Chomsky's eyes this is no big deal? The entire basis for the enaction of the Patriot Act and other Constituion-shredding laws, along with the illegal, immoral war against Iraq is founded on the attacks of 911. Hello Noam, if the foundation is rotten, well what does that make the rest of the structure.

Look, I respect and admire Noam when he is coming from his own areas of expertise. But he is fighting way out of his weight class on this one, and doing so ineffectually. That combined with his casual dismissal of the issue as I quoted above really makes me question his competency in this and other areas. Will I stop reading his work? No, probably not, but I will peruse it with a much more critical eye in the future.

[BootinUp]

54. Lets take his main point which you overlook

The main supporting structure to the 9/11 LIHOP and MIHOP theories is that they did it to gain more power, to be able to invade Iraq.

Chomsky correctly points out, that virtually all powerful authorities gained more power after 9/11. Essentially any entity that wanted to invoke fear to gain power and didn't mind killing some Americans had motive. The invasion of Iraq and other grabs for power is not proof in any way that our Government was involved. It was a logical result of the attack.

And to make that point further, I suggest you review the fact that the Neocons believed in 1998 there was already sufficient cause for invasion and wrote Clinton to make that case. Sufficent cause, as in, we don't need no stinking 9/11.

[Junkdrawer]

57. Are you saying the Senate would have voted to invade Iraq with no 9/11...

I think that's silly.

[BootinUp]

62. You leap to an unnecessary conclusion

The Bushies believed they could make the same case, to enforce the UN resolutions, and thought they could get enough support to carry out some kind of military operation. That does not mean they would have gotten it.

It is not necessary at all for us to believe they could have gotten that IWR vote, to see that they thought they could get that or something similar during their 8 years in office. The timing and urgency were merely accellerated.

[Junkdrawer]

68. Regime change and the construction of 14 multi-billion dollar US military bases...

in Iraq surrounding the world's biggest know reserves of oil outside of Saudi Arabia (and WHO knows how much they have left) is ONLY possible with 9/11.

That's the game.

[H2O Man]

79. While I do not

subscribe to either MIHOP or LIHOP, I have assumed that many of my intelligent, thoughful, and sincere friends who do tend to, believe it may have had as much to do with consolidating the power in America. Things such as imposing "laws" that fly in the face of the Constitution. Denial of the Bill of Rights. Ignoring the separation of powers in the federal government. I assume the theories are based more on domestic consequences as Iraq.

[Junkdrawer]

91. Control of Oil = Control of much of the world's economy...

If you read this worthy History of Oil from Professor Cowen of UC Davis...

http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH13oil.html

you'll find that, perhaps, there may not be as much separation of US Big Oil and the Saudi government as some seem to think. You'll also find that keeping Iraqi Oil off the market is a long time strategy of Big Oil.

Now, suppose for a moment that the Saudi Oil is being depleted faster than the Saudis tell us. Wouldn't that mean that, without an Iraqi invasion, power would shift to the Iraq/Iran axis? Wouldn't that mean that China would gain even more power faster than they already have?

And if you then concluded that an Iraqi invasion NOW, while the US still had military supremacy, was necessary, how the hell could it be done without a 9/11 type event?

[H2O Man]

100. Oil ....

There's an interesting book "Farewell America," which has some chapters relating to the influence of oil in world events. I think it's fair to say that the invasion of Iraq was largely based upon the desire to control their resources. However, in regard to how it could be done without a 9/11, one need only examine the past for numerous examples. Our history has plenty of instances of invading countries without having a 9/11 to get the ball rolling. In fact, unless people like Paul O'Neill are wrong, the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq from January 2001.

[Junkdrawer]

104. Outside of the Western Hemisphere? The bad old CIA did a lot of black ops....

outside of our hemisphere but, outside of WWII, I can't remember one large scale invasion.

[H2O Man]

109. One example

that might be related would be the first Gulf War. It is also worth noting that the administration may not have had a good appreciation for what the result of invading Iraq would be. There were, as documented in Isikoff & Corn's book, efforts at a different level than a large scale invasion to change the control of the government in Iraq. And, again, unless Paul O'Neill was mistaken or fibbing, the administration absolutely was planning to take out Saddam from January 2001 on.

While I do not view it the same as you and others, I do recognize that you raise good questions, and make valid points. We do best, as a nation, when citizens question everything. I think it is important that people look closely at every aspect of the entire 9/11 business.

[MadHound]

72. Go read your PNAC, and take Chomsky with you

In the PNAC publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" it is described how the US should go about remaining the lone super power. Invading Iraq, Iran and Syria for control of their oil is tops on the list. However in that document the authors clearly state that none of this can be more easily achieved, in fact the neccessary prerequisite: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Hmm, what was 911 repeatedly described as by the Bush administration? Oh, yeah, that's right, a modern day Pearl Harbor.

I will also direct you to go check out not only who the authors of this particular piece were, but also who the members of PNAC are. Hint, a lot of them either have held, or currently held positions of great power in our country. Note especially the signatories to their Statement of Principles <http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html>

And by the by, the main supporting structure to MIHOP/LIHOP theories isn't who gained from 911, but more about all the loose ends, like where was our air defense that day, and why were a grossly significant increase in put orders for companies like UA and tenants of the WTC traced back to a CIA figure? It isn't so much who gains power, but the lack of explanation for all of these so called coincedences.

[BootinUp]

76. Read your own post

All that it says is a long transformation is anticipated unless something unanticipated happens. I already knew you would latch onto that old chestnut. It is a logical conclusion that anyone would have made in their position, doesn't in any way implicate them in 9/11, only for someone who is afraid of the boogey man under their bed or in their government.

[MadHound]

81. Then I suggest you go reread the document for content then

Your interpretation, while creative, isn't factual. Any serious reading of that document shows that what these people are planning is a ME invasion, and that they're admitting they won't be able to do so easily without a "new Pearl Harbor".

And again, neither Chomsky nor you are addressing any of the very strange loose ends that enshroud 911. For instance, why was that CIA figure registering an abnormal amount of put options on companies soon to be effected by 911? This is where Chomsky fails on this issue, in not addressing these specifics.

[BootinUp]

83. Yeah, planning since the early 90's ME invasion... correct.

So what we knew that for years. Many in the US government believed Sadaam was a threat that may eventually require the use of force.

[MadHound]

92. Your grasp of history is weak

Even when the documents are linked for you. PNAC wasn't in existence until '97. Note that the document I refer to has a Sept. 2000 date. And those in government during the '90s, ie Clinton, thought that Saddam was pretty well controlled. Again, go reread the document I refered to you and *note* they're not proposing to invade Iraq, Iran and Syria because they believe that those respective countries are a threat. They want to do so in order to control the largest central reserve of oil left in the ME, all to keep the US the only world superpower. Please, go read this document before you continue making yourself look foolish making inane comments on something you're obviously not familiar with.

Still waiting for explanation on put options too.

[SouthernBelle82]

94. Exactly

Even a good couple of months before they started their war drumming Condi Rice and Colin Powell were out there saying that Saddam was not a threat and he was very well controlled. Was he a bastard? Sure but you can't ignore international law and just invade a country and kill thousands. That is why the Nuremberg trials happened so that it would never happen again. When people say "never forget" I think they did forget.

[BootinUp]

99. Colin and Condi

were not driving forces of PNAC the Bush administration brought them in for nice showpieces. Cheney and Rummy are the architects.

[BootinUp]

96. The military had been planning

for an invasion for 10 years, and the members of PNAC did not suddenly in 97 decide they wanted to invade Iraq, this was something they had on their minds since after the 91 war.

[MadHound]

154. Got any source to back up that claim?

For one thing, it isn't the military who decided to go into Iraq, it is the members of the civilian government who decide when and where to send the military. Sure, the military has all sorts of contingency plans, including one to suppress the US in a time of turmoil and impose martial law. But this is the job of the military, to be prepared for all possibilities.

As far as PNAC goes, they actually decided on invading Iraq back in '98, a year after they were formed. And while individuals may have had ME hegemony on their minds, they didn't actually put forth a coherent policy on this until the late '90s. If you wish for more history on this, pick up Francis Fukuyama's "America at the Crossroads". Fukuyama is an apostate neo-con, one of the principle founding members of PNAC. He lays out in great detail the whens and wheres of how this plan came together, and a good history of the neocon movement in general.

And as I stated earlier, the Clinton administration, who was in power for most of the '90s, didn't think that Iraq was a threat, and was indeed considering lifting the embargo on Iraq. However the whole Lewinsky affair took his eye off the ball, and thus it continued to lanquish until Bush decided to get his war on. And 911 provided the perfect excuse.

Again, please explain some of these loose ends I keep bringing up, put options, a fire that is too cool to weaken structural steel, etc.

[BootinUp]

157. Here

Wolfowitz argued for us to go into Baghdad in 91. Cheney and Wolfowitz drafted a new aggressive use of military policy in 92 that specifically mentioned secret war plans against Iraq, it was leaked and they never officially adopted it. On the other hand you are correct that 97 -98 is the first overt efforts on behal of the PNAC'ers. I think I coul have argued this point a little differently, the people behind PNAC have been influencing foreign policy in the direction of using military agressively for many years before 1998.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/invading.html

Policy draft on U.S. power

Still, the most hawkish members of the Bush administration, who are clearly in the driver's seat, have ties to PNAC. Their ideas about the aggressive use of American clout and military force arose more than a decade ago, in the wake of the collapse of communism and victory in the Persian Gulf War.

U.S./Iraq History:

A timeline

When the United States routed Saddam's occupying army from Kuwait in March 1991, most aides - including Cheney - approved of the senior Bush's decision to not push forward to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

Cheney asked at a May 1992 briefing: "How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many."

Yet shortly before that, in February 1992, staffers for Wolfowitz - who was deputy defense secretary under Cheney at the time - drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to aggressively use its military might. The draft made no mention of a role for the United Nations.

The proposed policy urged the United States to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft caused an outcry and was not adopted by Cheney and Wolfowitz.

But in the years immediately following Bush's election defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, Saddam's tight grip on power in Iraq, and his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, began to grate on the former Bush aides.

On your loose ends, please see the Chomsky video, he does an excellent of putting those in perspective.

[John Q. Citizen]

163. Iraq is only the first step of the PNAC plan. The war on terror provides

many future opportunities to keep on going, as PNAC advocates.


You may have noticed we now have bases in many if not all of the "Stans."

Control of the Caspian Basin, the pipeline now being built to move oil from the Caspian Basin, and the need to control Afghanistan to achieve that are all part of PNAC. The plan in a macro sense is American Empire.

Also, PNAC anticipated that most Americans aren't in favor of empire, which is why PNAC suggests that curtailing our peoples civil liberties will be necessary to achieve that empire.

This is why they suggested a "New Pearl Harbor" would be needed to get 'er done.

As far as Chomsky goes, he revolutionized the study of linguistics, and he's on record prior to that clip as saying words to the effect that calling people "conspiracy theorists" is just a ploy to delegitimize your opposition.

Words you seem to have taken to heart, Jim.

[BootinUp]

164. "...would be needed to get 'er done"

That is a distortion John. They suggested it would shorten the otherwise long transition.

[John Q. Citizen]

165. Uh, yeah. How salient of you, Jim n/t

[SouthernBelle82]

95. Oh and speaking of the CIA

Why is it that the FBI does not say BinLadin did 9/11 but yet Bush and all his buddies do and people so easily believe it? According to the CNN archives a guy got to interview BinLadin a few months after 9/11 and he was denying he had anything at all to do with it. Even in his phone call to his mother BinLadin didn't say he was involved in any sort of way. The FBI says they don't have enough proof that BinLadin was involved in 9/11 and he denies doing it which is out of his character. In the past he always took credit for an attack even if he didn't do it and not the case with 9/11. Also on the BinLadin wanted FBI page 9/11 crime is missing. I wonder why....

[SlavesandBulldozers]

118. "doesn't implicate them"

right. it doesn't. you're forgetting or miss the entire point of LIHOP in this.

that document doesn't implicate anything. all it does is show that, in some cases - the beginning of the best offense is a non-existent defense.

[BootinUp]

145. glad you agree. n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

151. i don't agree. but you knew that. n/t

[SouthernBelle82]

90. And something else I find interesting

is a good number of them who are with Bush now were also involved with the whole Iran/Contra affair and that was about the same thing too. Controlling the natural resources. It's not for us as citizen's but for their pocket books. He who controls can control the flow of the resources and make money from it. They can demand a certain price for a certain amount. That's why a lot of the companies (oil) were against drilling in ANWR because they knew that it wouldn't be but a couple of months worth and it'd take a lot of money and their equipment, paying people etc. and it'd in reality just be a waste of time. With this there is just much more.

[Cleita]

108. Applause!

:applause: It looks like we need to educate some more.

I was just re-reading the PNAC documents I downloaded from their website some time ago, yesterday. There definitely is a plan, a wacky one, but a plan that is being played out.

It's much easier to grasp today than it was four years ago, when we were looking to possible future abuses, but now they are easier to see now that they have moved their pieces in the game according to plan and there is a past.

Funny, no one could figure out Hitler's mind, which he laid out in Mein Kampf until after he did all the things he set out to do according to his plan in that book.

[SouthernBelle82]

78. That isn't true

The whole point of 9/11 wasn't to just enter Iraq. It's much bigger than Iraq. It's to turn our country into a fascists state and take away our liberties so they can gain more money and control the natural resources. Afghanistan, Iran and Syria are also involved and not just in Iraq. So you and obviously Noam are wrong on the whole point of the theories. You probably don't need 9/11 but you do need 9/11 to rewrite laws in this country which was the whole point. Look at every time Bush has one of his "laws" that brings us closer to fascism written what is his excuse? 9/11. So perhaps before you go around and "Debunk" something you should actually know what people are saying about the theories and the reason's. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about and this is coming from someone who is a "conspiracy theorist" and has a good number of friends who are too. Even a very realistic friend of mine who is a social worker doesn't believe the official theory from George Bush.

[BootinUp]

148. I believe Chomsky addressed your basic premise

you have the cause and effect out of order.

[JackORoses]

111. it's about so much more than Iraq

Perhaps you are incapable of looking at the Big Picture.

[BootinUp]

147. you have not made a case to argue against. n/t

[moodforaday]

174. But Neocons needed the people to follow

Yes, the Neocons believed what you say, but they couldn't exactly have waged their war by themselves. Clinton wasn't going to go there, so they realized they needed to manufacture a little provocation.

At least, this is one theory. I'm not at all sure Neocons were all involved. Some of them, maybe, but even they didn't have the power to do all that was necessary to pull it off. They may have enlisted some help, but my hunch says *they* were enlisted, to further somebody else's coincident cause. Watch for example "Freedom to Fascism" (on Google video).

[SouthernBelle82]

75. I just find it very insulting when

he said "who cares?" What about the people who lost friends and loved one's who died on that day because of Bush and his backers?

[petgoat]

49. Lays Waste? How?

He says it's unlikely that the Bushcists knew anything in advance
(after warnings from 13 countries, three FBI offices, and the CIA?)

He says somebody would have talked (right--like they talked about
Tonkin Gulf and Operation Northwoods)

He says you could not predict that the planes would hit their targets
(I guess he never heard of autopilots and radio beacons)

He says "the evidence is worthless" and "the belief that it could have been
done is of such low credibility ."

He says Even if it were true, who cares? It doesn't have any significance.
(Huh? The quasi-religious myth that launched a New Crusade is of no significsnce?)

The man is seriously off the mark, and demolished NOTHING.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bjorn Against]

40. Noam Chomsky has always been very careful about embracing conspiracies

He doesn't like to speculate, he wants cold hard evidence. That is a good quality of his, but just because he hasn't personally seen the evidence does not mean it is not there.

He will wave it off as a conspiracy theory and retain his focus on American imperialism until someone can convince him that there is something to the conspiracy, and when the charges are so major he is going to give the benefit of the doubt as long as he possibly can.

My point is this, Noam Chomsky needs to stay focused and we should not attack him just because we may think that he is wrong on this issue. At the same time we need to ask ourselves questions and be careful not to embrace every "fact" that is put in front of our face because while many of those facts may indeed be facts there are certainly others that are completely wrong.

We ALL need to look at things from a critical perspective, and we all need to realize that we can be wrong and Noam Chomsky can be wrong as well. I am convinced that eventually we will learn more about 9/11 and Chomsky may well be proven wrong, but the LIHOP crowd could be proven wrong as well. Lets look at things with a critical eye, but lets not jump all over each other over something that NONE OF US know all the facts on.

[MadHound]

47. We shouldn't attack him?

Why not? After all, he is attacking those who are persuing this line of inquiry. In addtion his statement that "Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares" is a slap in the face of the thousands of people in this country who lost somebody on that day. And his lack of acknowledgement that the JFK assasination wasn't just a wild eyed conspiracy is also telling. He has all the rights in the world to express his opinion, just as we have all the right in the world to call him on his bullshit.

[SouthernBelle82]

97. So than why is it

that he got so much wrong? He claimed Bush didn't know about it and that has been proven false especially by that August of 2001 memo and Clinton and his team warning Bush. If Noam can get that one simple thing wrong than that is really quite sad.

[Tigress DEM]

41. Chomsky runs hot and cold... and he assumes too much.

[stepnw1f]

44. So Which Theory Does He Believe?

All theories and no facts..... doesn't really mean much to an objective person. We need a REAL investigation without politicos whitewashing.

[petgoat]

50. That 'Loose Change' is a bunch of crap shoots down nothing

but Loose Change.

[Junkdrawer]

52. Does Chomsky even talk about Loose Change?

The YouTube video cuts out at abot 2 minutes in for me...

And, as I said above, it sounds like a 2002 vintage interview...

[Quixote1818]

110. No, he dosen't. nt

[SlavesandBulldozers]

125. exactly. n/t

[Quixote1818]

53. Interesting, this thread seems to be falling flat. Momentum has clearly

shifted on DU in the past few years since 9/11 threads were first sent to the basement.

Only 7 recommendations out of 1,700 views? Not exactly catching fire here!

So who are the real conspiracy theory people here now?

[OneBlueSky]

56. um . . . he's wrong . . . n/t

.

[Cocoa]

60. Chomsky is saying he doesn't believe it

and he explains why.

He is not asserting it was not a conspiracy, i.e. "shooting it down." He doesn't know, and doesn't claim to know. That's what I like about Chomsky, he doesn't talk out of his ass.

[Jack Rabbit]

77. Thank you for posting that

/s/



Jack Rabbit.
Conspiracy theory skeptic

My mark placed here with assistance from
the University of Kansas


Hey, Dr. Chomsky!!

:applause:

[greeneyedboy]

89. can't watch the video right now. so does he say...

that "Loose Change" is not well documented? (which i have heard even from people on the side of the filmmakers. i didn't see that one, but IMO "Press for Truth" is far more credible than "Aftermath"--if you want to reach a general audience, stick to the facts, and keep speculation separate.)

or does he say he thinks that nobody in the U.S. gov't LIHOP and/or MIHOP?

[Quixote1818]

98. He doesn't really say much. He doesn't address Loose Change

He just kind of says he doesn't believe Bush had anything to do with 9/11 and that it would be hard to keep such an event under wraps. Nothing to get all excited about.

[greeneyedboy]

102. OK, thanks. appreciate the summary.

[Quixote1818]

103. Here is another interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FujppU50EpA

[porphyrian]

105. What is "the wacky left?"

Do you think it's wacky to believe things you and Chomsky don't? Can you prove their belief wrong?

[readmoreoften]

112. The "wacky left" what makes you think the 9-11 truth movement is on the left?

Paleoconservatives are actually at the helm of that movement, one of the reasons the left seems to want to distance itself from it. Ray McGovern worked for Reagan and Bush Sr. as an advisor. Alex Jones is HARDLY a leftist.

Loose change is poorly put together and makes irrational links. But anyone who doesn't see SERIOUS glaring details with the official story is a fool. The "incomptence theory" is about as far-fetched. Although it does satisfy the requirement for appearing to be reasonable and rational, which has supplanted actual reasonable and rational analysis.

Noam Chomsky has no way of knowing what happened on 9-11 anymore than anyone else.

[Quixote1818]

116. It's an old video. Perhaps 2002. nt

[Octafish]

113. FBI breathes a sigh of relief.

How the FBI Let 9/11 Happen

How the FBI Let 9/11 Happen

Never mind Moussaoui, the smoldering gun was right there all the time

Jeff A. Taylor

Anyone paying attention to the Zacarias Moussaoui trial gets it now. All the 9/11 blanks are filled in, and the picture is complete. Sorry, conspiracy freaks and blind partisan hacks. Dull, common, gross incompetence is again at the heart of a deadly government cluster-hump.

Do not linger on Moussaoui's bizarre suicide-by-testimony or the literal cheerleading for his execution—He knew. He lied. And 2,749 people died.

Neither of these is the real story of this case. Rather, the story is the definitive proof Moussaoui's case provides that the U.S. government—pre-PATRIOT Act, pre-NSA wiretaps and all—had and missed clear opportunities to stop 9/11. The FBI uniquely and repeatedly punted carefully gathered evidence of an attack in favor of adherence to bureaucratic hierarchies and power trips.

The testimony of FBI agent Harry Samit forever buries the quaint notion that 9/11 was unforeseen and unpreventable. Beginning with Moussaoui's August 16, 2001 arrest Samit mounted a global and indefatigable investigation of the man and concluded that an attack involving hijacked airplanes was imminent.

The flipside of Samit is Michael Rolince, former head of the FBI's International Terrorism Operations Section. Rolince is the man who previously deflected questions about the FBI's pursuit, or lack thereof, of pre-9/11 terror suspects with the line, "Would CNN have really aired their photos if we'd asked them?"

CONTINUED...

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:YCd39aryCwsJ:www.reason.com/links/links033006.shtml+jeff+taylor+how+fbi+let+9/11+happen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Weird. This is only available as a cache on the Google.

J Edgar would be so proud of Noam.

[Bushwick Bill]

119. Dear Noam,

Is Sibel Edmonds just a lying bitch?

Why was the head of the Pakistani ISI meeting on Capitol Hill on the morning of 9/11 when he had wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta soon before?

Why were the equivalent of 1/4 of the records of the Library of Congress destroyed regarding Able Danger?

Who was running the wargames that morning?

How do you explain this testimony from Norman Mineta?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV-Srod3XUs

What do you think of the Jersey Girls' 9/11 Press For Truth?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250

[Quixote1818]

122. Here is one of Bush's appointees who has some interesting stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w

[Bushwick Bill]

124. Ha, Reynolds.

I am a MIHOPer, but Reynolds has gone looney tunes on 9/11 Truth, calling out Steven Jones and publishing this odd thing.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html

[janedoe]

153. Is that your "scientific analysis?"

I'd like to know why you think this is an "odd thing."

[Doctor_J]

120. Chomsky also thinks Oswald alone killed Kennedy

he got that one wrong too.

[BootinUp]

126. You mean single gunman?

That is the soundest explanation with the evidence available.

[Doctor_J]

129. Sure. A man 200 yards away, with a rifle

that the Italians say caused them to lose WWII, and "never killed anyone on purpose", gets off three shots in 2 sec...oh Christ.

[BootinUp]

138. There was a neat show

on the Discovery channel that reenacted the magic bullet shot. Have you seen that show? Very convincing in fact. And where did you get 2 seconds, that is not the spacing of the three shots, not even close, please research your facts.

[pauldp]

175. So was it just a coincidence that all of those top FBI were murdered

just prior to testifying before the House Select Committee on Assasinations in 1977?
Along with a few mob guys and and some Anti-Castro Cubans.

Just a crazy coincidence I guess.

[BootinUp]

178. How would that info

assuming it can be linked to Oswald, change the analysis of the physical evidence though? I was making a point as to how many shooters there were.

[pauldp]

179. The original point was that Chomsky thinks Oswald acted alone.

It seems you were concurring with that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[BootinUp]

180. I am more interested in

the arguments over the physical evidence. There are way to many permutations of conspiracies beyond that to be examined in my remaining lifetime assuming another 35 years or so.

[pauldp]

181. That's too bad. Because like 911 the physical evidence

can be quite a distraction from obvious political
and intelligence connections that require no scientific debate.

[Ninja Jordan]

135. ...

He lost me after that.

[greenbriar]

121. oh good line

freeptard

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Ummmmm, For The Most Part Loose Change Is A Bunch Of Crap. n/t

[petgoat]

168. For the most part Loose Change is pretty good, but there's some

very sloppy research which then has the effect of throwing doubt on the good stuff.

Watch for Loose Change 3, which will be a corrected version.

[Bushwick Bill]

132. One last thing...

[Quixote1818]

136. I just thought of something

I wonder if Flight 93 was supposed to hit Building 7


Perhaps when the plane didn't hit they just decided to "pull it" to get rid of all that incriminating evidence (cia records, insider trading records etc.)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETtkGnc7EHE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2i4hKxbx1w

[Ninja Jordan]

137. "Even if it's true...who cares?"

He lost me after that.

[SidDithers]

140. Thanks for posting...

and yes, Loose Change is a bunch of crap.

Sid

[Jcrowley]

141. Regardless of what one believes

That was one of the weakest presentations I've ever seen by Chomsky and I've seen numerous. If he were a lawyer attempting to make a case he would've failed terribly.

I like Chomsky alot it is rare to see him say nothing of consequence.

[Quixote1818]

142. Some here think it's an old video. I would have said the same thing

back in 2002.

[savemefromdumbya]

146. he doesn't know what went on

[Crim_n al]

152. If you don't care whether or not your government

murdered over 3000 Americans
and then used their murder to kill far more than that
and to steal the rights of all Americans every where,
doesn't that, by definition, make you a traitor to your country?

[HughBeaumont]

158. ONCE again, WHAT do any of the curmudgeons say about

the LEGITIMATE accounts of what happened? Like for instance, 9/11: Press for Truth or it's far more detailed companion The Terror Timeline? Anyone that doesn't come away from those at LEAST believing or considering LIHOP and realizing the "official account" is a bunch of bunk, I just truly have no hope at all for them.

A speculative documentation like Loose Change is too easy to make fun of because it contains things not easily proveable, just things that make you go "hmmmmmm". That doesn't mean it's a complete falsification, but I prefer to form an opinion and draw a conclusion based on what really DID happen and what we KNOW happened.

[GeorgeGist]

159. Willful ignorance...

isn't difficult to prove. So much for Noam's critical thinking skills.

[leftofthedial]

160. I'm a big fan of Chomsky

but in the first 00:40 I heard five unfounded assertions.

His opinion sin't "schooling."

[rman]

162. True enough; this is not the Chomsky i have come to admire

As far as i know Chomsky has not investigated 9/11 in the manner that he investigates the issues that he usually talks about (the media, US foreign policy).

So I take what he says as his personal opinion, not as the result of an academic analysis.

[reprehensor]

176. Hamstrung analysis.

Left resistance to alternative explanations of 9-11 reflects a general antipathy to conspiracy theory even though the official story itself relies on a very elaborate web of conspiracy, involving bin Laden and many others. This may explain why the editors of the respected left journal Monthly Review signaled soon after the tragedies in New York and Washington that independent investigation of the actual events was off-limits.

There is little we can say directly about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC – except that these were acts of utter, inhuman violence, indefensible in every sense, taking a deep and lasting human toll.

The left favors structural explanations of political and social events, with capacious categories such as social class, globalization, international relations and so forth brought to bear on social phenomena, including terrorism. Oppositional theory (which takes dialectical approach to social relations emphasizes along with structural factors) elite agency: the actions of powerful leaders and organizations with more control over critical events that directly affect our own lives than many leftwing analysts are prepared to accept. Moreover, elites operate within a deep political structure that is an unacknowledged part of the network of political power analyzed by the left.

Commentators on the left, like pundits elsewhere on the political spectrum, are hesitant to go far astray of the limits on accepted discourse regarding controversial questions, especially, as in the case of 9-11, when corporate media and the state heavily police these boundaries. There is a left bias toward explanations of terror as the result of exploitation and revolt of the underprivileged. Finally, the left is averse to conspiracy theories spun by critics of the system, seeing such theories as antithetical to systematic analysis based on larger factors, like class struggle or globalization.

Leftist failure to consider official complicity in the events of September 11 may also arise from a common misapprehension of the historical roots of terror. Most commentators regardless of political stripe regard ‘‘terrorism as a non- or extra-state menace, rather than as state violence.’’ However, this perspective ignores ‘‘the possibility that the excessive violence of the state might itself, in certain instances, constitute a form of terrorist violence’’.” – David MacGregor, in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001"

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

177. MIT.. duh

[mirandapriestly]

182. I'm glad someone else gets it...

[rman]

183. Question is, what does it mean?

Does it mean that Chomsky, Goodman etc can not be trusted to tell the truth? I think not.
They don't tell the whole truth perhaps, and yes that's pretty serious - but i think it is obvious that besides that, the things that they do say are true and relevant, and that they do tell a whole lot more truth than mainstream reporters and academics typically do.
Those folks are essentially on the same page as many a truth-seeker, except that they avoid mentioning about clandestine operations by US forces against US targets. But they do mention black ops against foreign targets.

If that is not what it means, then what does it mean?