Thursday, December 14, 2006

Chomsky Speaks Again on 9/11

I find this rather ironic, since I can't stand Chomsky normally, but he continues to speak out against the 9/11 idiocy, and continues to receive the wrath of those who would normally adorn him with praise:

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

He sums it up appropriately here:

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel.

62 Comments:

At 14 December, 2006 07:32, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I guess they will have to have Charlie Sheen speaking in the beginning of the next edition of Loose Change, sigh.

 
At 14 December, 2006 08:19, Blogger SFC B said...

Noam Chomsky: Shill for the Bush Administration.

Dear god, the NWO has long tentacles.

 
At 14 December, 2006 09:08, Blogger CHF said...

The twoofers are an irrelivant fringe group and yet they fansy themselves as being a revolutionary movement poised to sieze power.

The only way they can keep this fantasy going is if they convince themselves that people like Noam Chomsky are actually on the side of the US government.

Just think about the level of devotion required to believe something that retarded.....

 
At 14 December, 2006 09:14, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Chomsky IMHO is an idealist who continues to encourage people to fix the underlying problems with society which of course can't be fixed. Something of a Catch 22.
Ideally, sure they could be fixed and we would all live in perfect harmony where the pursuit of greedy desires is a taboo and government represents and fights for the good of the people, but realistically, that will never happen. I suspect that is the nature of capitalism.

 
At 14 December, 2006 09:24, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

CHOMSKY: Well, for example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example...


Yet Chomsky has no thought of entertaining anything regarding U.S. involvement in 9/11 no matter what the size or scale or involvement.(the HOPS side so to speak)
I wonder if he did entertain said examples if he would be removed from his teaching positions, any speaking engagements, and book publishing deals.
Is he avoiding carreer suicide or does he truly believe what he states in regards to 9/11?

So the U.S. can committ terrorism abroad, but is given a pass when it comes to terrorism at home. Of course that flies in the face of the historical record but Noam apparently ignores that issue.

 
At 14 December, 2006 09:47, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

I don't care what he says which appears to be "normal" - Chomsky is a far, far, far leftwing nutbag and never will be anything but.

'Nuff said.

 
At 14 December, 2006 09:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a change, I'm trying to make any comments which I post here short, meaningful, and not of an incendiary nature.

I don't see this move on my part as conceding any points, just coming to terms with the recalcitrance that is to be expected at this blog.

I don't expect anything other than the complete sliming of me as usual, but the following should be part of this topic.

The coherent 9/11 doubters don't heap the mass of the responsibility of G W Bush, or the Bush Admin.

Chomsky, when he sets up such a line of argumentation about the "Bush Administration", is deftly setting up an argument that is a slam dunk in his favor.

Is his manipulation calculated, or just a by-product of his lazy investigation?... I don't know.

From my standpoint, if one hasn't followed the oddities of the WTC 1993 bombing, the development of Al-Quaida (as Peter Lance's book outlines), the most likely truth about the Murrah bldg bombing, and other events that reach back to the Clinton and Bush '41 administration, then one will be hopeless clueless as Chomsky is.

Is Chomsky clueless on purpose? I say yes, but arguing that someone is clueless on purpose rather than just clueless is a much higher standard of proof.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:01, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:01, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

I don't see what's clueless about what Chomsky is saying.

He's basically saying "take your evidence to experts because they are best able to judge these matters."

It's not his fault that experts say your evidence is bullcrap.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:02, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Simon I agree. He is completely left. But he also agrees with the far right on this issue.

The coherent 9/11 doubters don't heap the mass of the responsibility of G W Bush, or the Bush Admin.
Exactly. Too much credit to Bush. Anyway I agree with you BG. Although one would think self-preservation might play a part in his stance, considering the acadamic/public back lash to any scholar who has publically doubted the OS.

It would seem to fall right into his area of expertise as an apparent 'America hater' to blame the administration for this act.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:29, Blogger James B. said...

Although one would think self-preservation might play a part in his stance, considering the acadamic/public back lash to any scholar who has publically doubted the OS.


Oh please, he has been tenured for the last 40 years. They can't even get rid of Churchill and he is a complete fraud without a PhD. If they haven't fired Chomsky for writing 20 books denouncing America over the years, they are not going to do it just because he becomes a truther.

Besides, he is over 70 and a multi-millionaire, not like he needs a job.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

To make my point, let me discuss one small area of 9/11 that has to do with the, at minimum, LIHOP activities before 9/11, and the cover up activities after 9/11.

Rather that focus on US Presidential Administrations, or other elected individuals, one area ripe for analysis is the actions of FBI personnel. If there are any reasons that things are not what they seems about 9/11, there's no doubt that individuals within our FBI would have to be part of the cover up, and most likely would have been part of the planning and were part of what many people seems to explain away as government / buearucratic mistakes in "connecting the dots".

Now, I believe I can direct you to evidence related to the FBI that supports doubting the govt. story of 9/11 based on the logic of certain events reported in MSM, as well as others that may not be "front page news".

The weight of my argument that Chomsky is either lazy or knowingly misleading is the fact that Chomsky does not even pretend to comment about 9/11 based on parts of the govt. that are pernament fixtures from Admin to Admin such as the FBI, and the CIA, NSA, ONI, etc.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:46, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

If they haven't fired Chomsky for writing 20 books denouncing America over the years, they are not going to do it just because he becomes a truther.

Denouncing America is part of the liberal academic atmosphere, James. Of course they aren't going to fire him for that.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:48, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Besides, he is over 70 and a multi-millionaire, not like he needs a job.

So do you think he is just bored or does he enjoy being the left gate keeper?

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I was reading this thread, and thinking about my "standard" for what is coherent to allege about 9/11, it occurs to me that DRG's heavy rhetoric where his targets the Bush Admin would tend to put him in the category of "incoherent truthers".

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:50, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

Spare me the blah, blah, blah.

Chomsky is telling you to bring your "evidence" to qualfied experts. There are thousands of these people around the world.

So are you gonna do it or not?

It's a yes or no question.

 
At 14 December, 2006 10:53, Blogger CHF said...

Swing Dangler,

you're trying desperately to invent a world where twoofers are ruthlessly oppressed and you just can't do it.

After 9/11 Chomsky basically said "America asked for it."

And yet he's a leftie "gate keeper" because he refuses to join the world of James Fetzer and Stephen Jones???

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:10, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

you're trying desperately to invent a world where twoofers are ruthlessly oppressed

CHF, I have no idea where you came up with that.

And yet he's a leftie "gate keeper" because he refuses to join the world of James Fetzer and Stephen Jones???

Again, where do you come up with this stuff?

I called him a 'gatekeeper' because over the years has done nothing to achieve his underlying goal accept write and talk about it. He would impress me if he took action.
In regards to 9/11 he promotes the official propaganda of the state and amplifies what is not credible. Yet his own basic premise allows for state sponsored terrorism to exist within the states own borders, but he chooses not to examine the event as a possiblity. Even further, he redirects the mere thought of an event to the underlying problems of society and solving those issues. Hence my comment on him being an idealist.
He has been hammering the same issues since at least the early 60's. I would say to Noam, you have to start somewhere, why not start with 9/11?

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:18, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival.

Refresh my memory, what is Noam referring to here? The Bush Admin. was a lame duck prior to 9/11, was it not?
What crimes were they committing?

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...

The main evidence is available in my suggested reading list:

Would you like that?

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:29, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Off Topic here but---

Disgrunteled employee or Truther?Interview with former Boston Center Air Traffic Controller and pilotsfor911truth.org member Robin Hordon. Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for latest analysis into the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.

A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.

After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.

"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.

Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.

"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.

Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.

He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.

G

"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing."

Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.

He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.

"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."

"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.

"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."

Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.

"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.

(SD-which to highlight that point above, happens routinely when pilots encouter UFO's. Source-documentary on Discovery Channel or Sci-Fi. Easy to find. They actually played the recordings on the docu.)

This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed.

Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.

"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.

"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.

This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded , because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.

"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.

Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9147890225218338952&hl=en

14 December, 2006 11:28

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:30, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

BG I would enjoy reading that information.

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:35, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

SD strikes me as the kind of dude who lives in the lap of luxury yet complains all of the time about how bad it is here.

He wouldnt have the balls to go and assist peeple who live in third world countries and experience poverty, famine, and disease all around them on a daily basis OR countries where death squads run rampant.

You make me sick SD.

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:37, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

For a change, I'm trying to make any comments which I post here short, meaningful, and not of an incendiary nature.

I don't see this move on my part as conceding any points, just coming to terms with the recalcitrance that is to be expected at this blog.

I don't expect anything other than the complete sliming of me as usual, but the following should be part of this topic.

The coherent 9/11 doubters don't heap the mass of the responsibility of G W Bush, or the Bush Admin.

Chomsky, when he sets up such a line of argumentation about the "Bush Administration", is deftly setting up an argument that is a slam dunk in his favor.

Is his manipulation calculated, or just a by-product of his lazy investigation?... I don't know.

From my standpoint, if one hasn't followed the oddities of the WTC 1993 bombing, the development of Al-Quaida (as Peter Lance's book outlines), the most likely truth about the Murrah bldg bombing, and other events that reach back to the Clinton and Bush '41 administration, then one will be hopeless clueless as Chomsky is.

Is Chomsky clueless on purpose? I say yes, but arguing that someone is clueless on purpose rather than just clueless is a much higher standard of proof.


ITS ALL ABOUT ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

He wouldnt have the balls to go and assist peeple who live in third world countries and experience poverty, famine, and disease all around them on a daily basis OR countries where death squads run rampant.

It isn't a question of balls, Dylan, it is a question of priority. I would much rather help the poor, diseased, and hungry in my own country instead of a third world country. The fact that you would place citizens in third world countries above your own disgusts me.

 
At 14 December, 2006 12:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9/11 Reading List (1st Draft)

 
At 14 December, 2006 12:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

The hopelessly befuddled Swing Dangler has outdone himself again. Chomsky has savaged his country for decades, lending credence to a variety of smears. He has called America a terror state and has argued that Pol Pot's genocide was, somehow, our fault. His star in academia has never shone brighter.

Yet, now we are supposed to wonder if he would suffer repercussions if he embraced the incredibly puerile and idiotic fantasies of the conspiracy loons. A few reasonable questions arise:

Why hasn't he embraced the loons? When you get right down to it, the idiocy he's spouted for over thirty years is almost as insane as their nonsense. Chomsky has never relied much on facts.

Why hasn't he suffered repercussions for saying so many silly things? Radical leftist professor Michael Berube complained when Chomsky was raving about America's planned genocide in Afghanistan that it had become really hard to defend him these days.


Yeah, Swingie, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy goes after those thousands of nutty America-hating academics with a vengeance. Those Marxist radicals must quake in their boots every time they issue a new slander of this nation or suppress the First Amendment rights of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

 
At 14 December, 2006 12:05, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Thanks BG, just bookmarked it.

Another off topic item- WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand a high speed impact of a 707 DC-8, 600 mph's to be exact.

Where as the official story has it as a low speed impact.

Yet another inconsistency in the OS.

Source: WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper.

I only wish the designers would have taken into consideration that blasted disel fuel in that DC-8.

 
At 14 December, 2006 12:16, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

take your reading list to an engineer.

Swing,

Chomsky went to Pakistan in October 2001 to spread his message about American imperialism while the US was at war next door in Afghanistan.

He does more with his veiws than every twoofer in the world put together.

 
At 14 December, 2006 12:28, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Well befuddled is step up from retarded. Thanks Pom.

Why hasn't he embraced the loons?
Because it distracts from activits working on the real social problems of our time. He answers that in his own remarks.

Why hasn't he suffered repercussions for saying so many silly things? Perhaps because they are correct? Or is it the first ammendment issue? Or both? Read William Blume's Killing Hope for a more detailed example of my country's foreign policy. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with crying foul when your government is committing foul. In fact, that is the duty of an American citizen. The next logical step is action. That is one issue I have with the Truth Movement for the time being, lack of action. Hell they can produce all the videos, books, etc, but until they take political action, nothing will change. I believe that is part of Noam's point as well.

Yeah, Swingie, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy goes after those thousands of nutty America-hating academics with a vengeance.

Well I'm not sure where you going with this, Pom.

1. When you describe a Vast Conspriacy, what are you referring to exactly?

2. Can you explain what you mean by 'going after'?

You don't have to be part of a poltical conspiracy to critizes, lambast, tarnish, degrade, etc. those who believe in such things. Nor do you have to be a part of a conspiracy to take action, etc. against a particluar person or in this case an academic.

With that said, a person could be fired or punished and at the least ridiculed for publically voicing their particular beliefs within a given workplace. Why even address the "boogie boogie secret notes distributed at the Free Mason/NWO meetings stating all academics who question 9/11 must be placed on leave and eventually fired."?

A very elementary approach in my opinion.

It really isn't that complicated, Pom, when you look at the historical record of response by academia, media, and government to conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts in general. The same relentless character attacks are provided by each institution; organzied or not. Is that what you are referring to in the Vast Conspiracy comment? An organzied campaing to tarnish those who go public with doubts about 9/11? If there were, it could never be proven. It's not like your going to see that memo laying around from the "Free Mason" meeting.

Self-censorship is a mandatory requirement for self-preservation in many careers.

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:07, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

CHF-Chomsky went to Pakistan in October 2001 to spread his message about American imperialism while the US was at war next door in Afghanistan.

Chf that is an excellent point that proves nothing.

Chomsky's primary thesis is curing the social ills of America by informing and educating people of America's problems in the hopes they might take action to solve those problems.

Unless you are suggesting that Choamsky's actions, which could be interpeted as inciting our 'supposed' ally on the War on Terror's populace, are helping America in some way, you error in your thinking.

Pakistan, in my opinion is an enemy of the United States.
1. It has stated it will not imprison or capture OBL. Yes I'm fully aware of their stated reason, personally I don't buy it.

2. The north essentially is a rest and recoup/staging area for Afghanistan. However, if the General would use his troops to squash the supposed culprits for 9/11 instead of his own populace, the war in Afghanistan might just be over, instead of escalating.

2.Musharff openly additted they joined the war on terror, because if they did not, they would be a target. A sort of *click-click* are you with us or against us?

How do the above actions support your view that Noam is helping America and hence doing more with his veiws than every twoofer in the world put together.


So, CHF, when you use the style over substance fallacy regarding the Truth Movement versus Noam debate, I have to call you on it.

Next?

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said...

Another off topic item- WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand a high speed impact of a 707 DC-8, 600 mph's to be exact.

Where as the official story has it as a low speed impact.

Yet another inconsistency in the OS.

Source: WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper.

I only wish the designers would have taken into consideration that blasted disel fuel in that DC-8.

14 December, 2006 12:05


I think your presentation of the facts and implications is a little off-center and not as strong as it could be.

Let's back up. Except for Bush saying that the terrorists knew how to make bombs go off in the WTC (Bush's Odd Remark about Explosives at WTC), as part of the hijacking and crash, there's no part of the official story that says there were bombs in the WTC on 9/11.

So, step back and view 9/11 from a big picture concept, and take the official story as gospel, the idea that the planning of flying planes into the WTC building may have had (hypothetically) the possible result of causing massive destruction of WTC 1,2, 7. However, one could hardly say the planners would have been able to 100% count on that outcome, especially WTC 7. Surely even those here at SLC blog are not saying the destruction of WTC 7 is like a trick shot in Pool... happens every time if you set the "balls" up right.

What I'm pointing out is that there a huge difference between the argument that the Tower's could have come down due to the impact of the planes, the jet fuel and other fires, on the one hand, and the argument that the planners of 9/11 somehow anticipated and intended the almost total destruction.

I realize that one is getting away from hard science when one tries to identify the exact motives or end result anticipated by the terrorist planners. I realize that many people would and do accept that planes were willfully flown into towers, which is a crime regardless of what the expected outcome was.

However, I think it's important to remember and point out that even if we allow for the NIST explanation as possible, the exact unfolding of events that NIST was attempting to model would need to have some components of chaos theory to begin to account for the particular manifestaton of the outcome we witnessed as "THE" reality.

In summary, the explanation for what happened will always be more than some equation that reads:

"Speed of Plane" plus "Size of Plane", plus Jet Fuel, plus support beams destroyed upon impact, plus office files, plus dislodged fire protection, plus proximity of WTC 7 to falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2, etc..., etc.

equals

Spectacular buidlings being blown up and WTC 7 going down in a classic CD.

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:31, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

Chomsky went to Pakistan to stir up anti-US sentiment while a war was going on next door.

You realize that most Pakistanis were against the war, right?

So he goes over there to inflame popular opposition to a US war and a US-backed regime...and you think he's somehow on the US government's side.

How do the above actions support your view that Noam is helping America

I never said he was! Good Lord, can you read? He's anti-American to the core!

Chomsky would leap on any opportunity to prove the US is evil and a 9/11 false flag op would be the greatest opportunity ever.

He doesn't join your team cuz he realizes your case is based on horseshit. That's why he asks you to submit your proof to experts.

Get it?

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just in case, I've buried the "money" quote in my link, here it is:

"He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

and it can be found in context here

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:42, Blogger rocketdoodle said...

I like how bg refuses to 'concede any points', and then calls us 'recalcitrant' in the same sentence.

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:49, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

CHF

Yes I read the very first question in regards to his view on physical evidence. He uses that example as his assertion to not entertain the thought at all.

Lets examine the history of Noam, and conspiracies.

In January of 2002, Noam Chomsky was asked the following question by an audience member at a speaking engagement for FAIR in New York: "Is there credible evidence that some part of the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?" His answer: "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."

As a matter of fact, the accusation of evidence for USG complicity had been made just days before by former top German minister and widely recognized intelligence expert Andreas von Buelow in an interview with Tagesspiel, adding weight to a number of independent investigations that had already been very effectively raising serious questions for several months. No, not quite an "internet theory."

Noam and JFK-he and a handful of other "leftist" figures signed onto a savage establishment media attack on Oliver Stone and his film JFK, which brought an interpretation of the JFK assassination conspiracy to the public. In addition to defending the Warren Commission report's "lone gunman" findings, these anticonspiratorialists made a peculiar far-fetched hedge, claiming that the assassination did not result in any significant changes to US policy or the political power structure, and hence need not concern Left political analysis in the slightest!
Hmmm. Not only have the latter arguments been very soundly demolished by recent (mainstream) historical work, but another recent news item made light of the whole situation, although it slipped by with very little notice during the uproar over Israel's incursion into Palestinian territory last Spring. This was the completion of a top-flight official scientific study of audio recordings from Dealey Plaza, reported in the Washington Post, which finally confirmed the existence of a second gunman at the notorious "grassy knoll" with almost total certainty (repeating the results of a similar study carried out for the House Assassinations Cmte. in the 1970s). So, now science has spoken: those who continue to accept the "lone gunman" findings of the Warren Commission Report are, well, frauds.
Hmmm. Not only have the latter arguments been very soundly demolished by recent (mainstream) historical work, but another recent news item made light of the whole situation, although it slipped by with very little notice during the uproar over Israel's incursion into Palestinian territory last Spring. This was the completion of a top-flight official scientific study of audio recordings from Dealey Plaza, reported in the Washington Post, which finally confirmed the existence of a second gunman at the notorious "grassy knoll" with almost total certainty (repeating the results of a similar study carried out for the House Assassinations Cmte. in the 1970s). So, now science has spoken: those who continue to accept the "lone gunman" findings of the Warren Commission Report are, well, frauds.
Still, a lot of people seem gullible enough to believe that "America's leading intellectual dissident" can be trusted to give them the real scoop on 9/11; his lightweight pamphlet, '9/11', has been a bestseller, becoming for many the default "dissident" view of the "War on Terror". Meanwhile, a number of political scholars and security experts are now openly discussing the very strong evidence suggesting that 9/11 was probably an inside job and the al Qaeda terrorists were setup patsies, with the overwhelmingly critical implication that the trigger for the "War on Terrorism" was a fabricated deception. Chomsky, true to form, seems to pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
There is one piece of documentation, however that Chomsky did seem to find interesting, which he made sure to include in his book's appendix: The US State Department's Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, from the Office of the Coordinator of Counterterrorism.
Michael Parenti on Noam Chomsky and JFK, as a characteristic example of Left anticonspiracism:
Conspiracy Phobia on the Left

Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation (Citizens for the Truth About the Kennedy Assassination, May 1994)
JFK Conspiracy: The Intellectual Dishonesty and Cowardice of Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky (Michael Worsham, The Touchstone. Feb 1997)
My Beef With Chomsky (Michael Morrissey, Sep 2000)
Concerning Chomsky's arrogant evasions of fact and truly bizarre double standards about trusting official sources, in regards to several critical conspiracy issues (including the JFK assassination). Also, he points out Chomsky's change of mind from his keen interest in the JFK assassination in the late 60s, something he doesn't seem to have anything to say about these days.
Rethinking Chomsky (Michael Morrissey, May 1994)
Rethinking Camelot (Boston: South End Press, 1993) "Noam Chomsky's worst book. I don't think it merits a detailed review, but we should be clear about the stand that 'America's leading intellectual dissident,' as he is often called, has taken on the assassination. It is not significantly different from that of the Warren Commission or the majority of Establishment journalists and government apologists, and diametrically opposed to the view 'widely held in the grassroots movements and among left intellectuals' (p. 37) and in fact to the view of the majority of the population."
Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation (Gary Aguilar, PROBE. Sep 2000)
A very detailed and lengthy rebuttal of Max Holland (who has been featured in The Nation) and his defence of the Warren Commission. On the subject of the JFK assassination, Holland is roughly in the same camp as Chomsky and Cockburn.
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/casestudy1.htm

 
At 14 December, 2006 13:52, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

CHF Let me see if I understand you then. Your equating Anti-American Noam's with Anti-American Truth Movements actions?

Or should I drop the adjective?

 
At 14 December, 2006 15:18, Blogger shawn said...

Yet Chomsky has no thought of entertaining anything regarding U.S. involvement in 9/11 no matter what the size or scale or involvement.(

Because there wasn't an involvement.

Denouncing America is part of the liberal academic atmosphere, James. Of course they aren't going to fire him for that.

Read his books. The things he says are disgusting, irresponsible, illogical, and unsupported by historical fact.

So pretty much latching onto 9/11 inside job theories would be a normal thing for the Professor.

He has called America a terror state and has argued that Pol Pot's genocide was, somehow, our fault

Not only that, but he and his co-author were practically deniers of Pol Pot's genocide, and he has this fascination with calling anything terror (whether it be a reaction to terror or not, what normal people call "counter-terrorism" he calls "terrorism").

Chomsky went to Pakistan in October 2001 to spread his message about American imperialism while the US was at war next door in Afghanistan.

He also said there'd be a silent genocide in Afghanistan of millions (never happened) and visited Hizbollah and praised them.

When you get right down to it, the idiocy he's spouted for over thirty years is almost as insane as their nonsense. Chomsky has never relied much on facts.

True. This is probably the greatest blow to the Truthers - a man who loathes his country and everything it stands for, who has never been one to use a fact when an invented fantasy worked better for his point, and who smears his opponents with labels like totalitarianism when they rightfully call him anti-American - will not accept their nonsense theories, even though the movement is full of people who mirror him exactly.

 
At 14 December, 2006 16:06, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

President Bush and his words in context:

The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.
He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

What building is Bush referring to?

Who are "the operatives"?

 
At 14 December, 2006 16:35, Blogger shawn said...

What building is Bush referring to?

The towers.

Who are "the operatives"?

Operatives of al-Qaeda.

 
At 14 December, 2006 17:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Swing:

on your off topic post.

The Boston ATC guy was fired by Reagan back in the early 80's like so many others. He is a member of "Pilotsfor911truth". He mysteriously waited 5 years to break this news, and then rather than go to CNN/MSNBC/ or anyone else, or to the Democratic party, he announces it on "Pilotsfor911truth", and is then picked up by...dum dum dum...Paul Watson of prisonplanet.

The story smells so bad, I can barely keep my dinner down.

TAM

 
At 14 December, 2006 17:33, Blogger Crungy said...

Not a Chomsky fan, but I do give him props, as well as fellow lefty Alexander Cockburn, for calling out the nutters for the moon bats that they are. At least Noam is intellegent enough to refer to the proper experts in the scientific community. The nutters consult Okie bombing nutter Mr. Bubblebath. When looking for a explanation for the structural failure of the WTC buildings I always call out to Mr. Bubblebath high level manager at UL, you know the company that certified the steel used to build the trade center towers. If anyone should know, it's that dumpling of a man Kevin Ryan.

In true nutter fashion the acoustic evidence of a second gunman is trotted out once again, just in case the 8 people on the planet who aren't aware of the story surrounding that tainted data. Absolutely amazing.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

 
At 14 December, 2006 18:24, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Tam Can you hook me up with the information you have over the indidvidual in question?

You ask why wait 5 years? Great question. Why not ask him?

Second, I would also go public with my stance through an organization with other flight industry professionals rather than individually seek out the mainstream media, and whose to say they would listen anyway?

Third, we don't know if he tried to do that or not.

Fourth, make sure you address the i his facts supporting the position rather than the various outlets distributing his statement.

 
At 14 December, 2006 18:54, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Simon I agree. He is completely left. But he also agrees with the far right on this issue.

I don't consider this a "far right" issue.

If someone who is far right came up with the baloney the Troothers dredge up, I would denounce them as well.

We cannot have policy made in this country based on allegations which have disproven time and time again, despite how much a slim number of psychotic losers wish them to be true. We can't have leftwingers making shit up, and we can't have rightwingers making shit up.

If we allow one person to capitalize on allegations which have no substance in truth, then what can be trusted, ever again? We depend on trust in all areas of society: the police, the courts, the government, the military, the banking system, etc. If we allow some idiots to allege that a massive conspiracy carried off 9/11, instead of the truth which is that the attack was by Islamic terrorists, and let them go unchallenged, we are all finished.

I don't see the Troothers as anything to laugh at. They are dangerous, unstable nuts who should be ignored, not laughed at.

I am glad, however, that this site does its damndest to nail the likes of Avery and Fetzer and all the others for their lies and delusions. The whole thing is rather disgusting, that we have alleged adults peddling such fallacies as truth.

There - I got that off of my chest. Thanks for letting me "rant away."

 
At 14 December, 2006 19:54, Blogger ConsDemo said...

He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions.

Really? Who were they? Why don't they come forward with this stunning information?

 
At 14 December, 2006 20:22, Blogger pomeroo said...

My comments were sufficiently clear for most readers.

Chomsky has suffered no consequences for his relentless smears of America because no leftist ever suffers any consequences for spreading falsehoods.

The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy posited by the tinfoil-hatters can't suppress anyone for a very good reason: It doesn't exist.

People on these blogs fabricate absurd fantasies to besmirch America and exonerate the jihadists who attacked it. No one "comes after" them. The coercive muscle that keeps all those hundreds of researchers towing the government line is a product of your imagination.

 
At 14 December, 2006 21:21, Blogger Alex said...

Not to cast a sour note on the celebrations, but we really shouldn't be advertising the fact that Chomsky agrees with us. Frankly, we all know the guy's a nut, and it's obvious that he's willing to believe in all sorts of nonsense, so he's not exactly a critical thinker. I think the only reason he hasn't bought into the 9/11 CT nonsense is because this way he gets yet another opportunity to bash US policy. Think about it. If he says "yes, 9/11 was an inside job" then it follows that the US is NOT as hated around the world as he'd like everyone to believe. After all, why attack yourself unless nobody else is willing to do it? On the other hand, if he sticks with the official explanation, it lets him go on his usual rants about the evils of US foreign policy and the evils of capitalism. That's not exactly a glowing endorsement of the official explanation, and he's not someone I'd want to be associated with. The guy's crazy enough to make some of the trolls here look sane in comparison.

 
At 14 December, 2006 22:49, Blogger James B. said...

I am not celebrating the fact, I just find it ironic that even he won't buy off on this crap.

I still think he is an idiot, politically speaking at least, his work in linguistics is quite good.

 
At 15 December, 2006 03:04, Blogger Pepik said...

I get a really good feeling of schadenfreude whenever I read Chomsky on 911 conspiracies. After dumbing the left down for decades, he is finally seeing it coming back to take a bite out of his ass. All they are doing is turning his own logic back on him - and he can't explain why the "worlds biggest terrorist" wouldn't behind this terrorism, why the "manufacturing consent" media can't be blamed for covering it up, and why the great conspiracy of the capitalist elite couldn't be be behind such a secret war.

You've made your bed... if the shoe fits... etc etc, Chumpsky.

 
At 15 December, 2006 05:06, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I do see a lot of problems with Chomsky in the sense that he tends to make claims without citing sources. Also his whole left-wing libertarianism really smacks of utopianism in the sense that he condemns not only imperialism and socialism but also socialism as well.

That being said, a lot of people tend to repeat lies about Chomsky; most commonly that he "supported" the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. It's not hard to look at his writings on the subject and see the point he was trying to make about uneven coverage of the Western media.

He made a similar point about Rwanda; disagreeing with people who thought it had something to do with race. The problem with Rwanda is that stopping the genocide had little benefit to the powers that be(who would have been sending the troops). Bosnia, on the other hand, offered the ability to expand NATO and establish authority of the EU over more of Europe.

 
At 15 December, 2006 06:15, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Why don't they come forward with this stunning information?

Well I can think of numerous reasons:

1. Gag orders by superiors or the feds. The old National Securitything keep your mouth shut or go to jail.

2.Self-censorship for self-preservation or for that matter the person's family preservation. No income at xmas is going to suck for the kids.

3.Fear of retribution in any form.

TAM, you have seen what happens to others who go to the MSM with their information. The MSM isn't accepting of those kinds of things, even during this day of 'its cool to hate on Bush now'. I'm also awaiting your information link or at least your reference regarding the pilot.

Secondly, TAM, does that mean I can discount and ignore medical information from you because you stopped practicing medicine?



CHF Don't get me wrong, CHF, I know exactly why he doesn't 'join the team'. It has nothing to do with facts. If he kept referring back to that issue when it came to physical evidence, then I would agree with you. However he doesn't. Read his response carefully. Anytime he is confronted with the idea alone, he dismisses it, at one point blaming Bush's sanity of all things.

His reponse to the JFK issue when presented with facts was the same. Nothing here to see, now go back to hating the U.S. Govt.

The same is with 9/11. Nothing here to see, now go back to hating the U.S. Govt.
And it really has nothing to do with the evidence and experts. When a person like Noam refuses to even entertain the idea when it would lend massive support to his thesis in the first place, then something is certainly not right with Noam. Notice in his comments he refuses to entertain that idea alone, nevermind the facts that raise questions. That is my point and that is why I called him a 'left gatekeeper'.

Shawn-Read his books. The things he says are disgusting, irresponsible, illogical, and unsupported by historical fact.
I have. I own a couple of them, Manufacturing Consent, to be precise. I would have to search through my library to find the other. What you say is actually false, with the exception of disgusting, which is your opinion. The rest if true, would not be published because it would fail legal review by the publishers.

Again, Shawn, read Killing Hope by William Bloom. Great factual/historical analysis of our foreign policy since the end of WW2. That book alone explains why much of the world hates us to this day.

Alex-If he says "yes, 9/11 was an inside job" then it follows that the US is NOT as hated around the world as he'd like everyone to believe. After all, why attack yourself unless nobody else is willing to do it?

What makes you think that if 9/11 was an inside job, we would be hated less around the world? My government would be hated even more for perpetrating the attacks on its own citizens and citizens from other nations to justify launching an invastion of the Middle East.

Why attack yourself? Precisely because no one else is stupid enough to do so. If they were, that means the entire nuclear arms race was a complete fraud. Why? So much for the deterrence reason for having enough weapons to blow the Earth up numerous times. WHich is why no power on the planet is going to attack American, be it rag tag SH or Iran.

But to attack your own country or to play any role in such part, you would have to have plausible deniability.

Remember the politican (forgive me for not remembering his name) that stated there was a foreign government lending support to this operation but the American public wouldn't know about until 30 or 40 years later after it became declassified? Remember what country those patsies were from?

Crungy-in true nutter fashion the acoustic evidence of a second gunman is trotted out once again, just in case the 8 people on the planet who aren't aware of the story surrounding that tainted data. Absolutely amazing.

I'm more inclined to believe the governments tests that were backed up by independent tests. I still can't believe you buy the OS on that event. Where can I buy those magic bullets that do all sorts of damage to two humans and come out intact and in realtively great shape? For Christ sakes, you buy that? If so hook me up with some of those bullets. Cause I can save a lot of money at the shooting range.

 
At 15 December, 2006 08:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy, Joseph Cannon, should be another Chomsky-like hero for you guys. He's my douchebag of the day http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/12/hopsicker-on-controlled-demolition.html

 
At 15 December, 2006 10:32, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

Chomsky says you should take your evidence to experts.

You gonna do it or not?

 
At 15 December, 2006 12:09, Blogger shawn said...

The rest if true, would not be published because it would fail legal review by the publishers.


Oh, really? I picked up a book on the Cold War the other day that contains at least three errors (one pretty awful).

You do also realize most of his works aren't published by the big name publishers, right? Of the ones I own, only Hegemony or Survival is published by a large publisher. The New Press publishes a couple of his works, and factual accuracy has never been their strong suit.

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:40, Blogger Alex said...

Chomsky says you should take your evidence to experts.

You gonna do it or not?


I believe the correct answer to that is:

"WHAT evidence?"

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:52, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Fear of retribution in any form.

You conspiracy nuts wore than one out when you were whining about flouride in the water. So many knew about it, but none will talk, yeah, nice punt.

Besides Swing, according to your post in the "No Christmas Card" thread, it is a good thing 9/11 was an inside job. Why don't you go explain your logic to those scared air traffic controllers in Boston, I'm sure they will all start yapping once they hear from you.

 
At 16 December, 2006 04:29, Blogger Democrat said...

those scared air traffic controllers in Boston

If those people knew something, and would read how people with honest questions are confronted here, would they feel an urge to come out with their information?

You'd better think twice on the level of acceptance being given here for open views. It's rather low, and would not support these Boston controllers facing a 911 truth hostile MSM and government (and people influenced by those power structures).

It's almost self-defeating if it wasn't for the anonymous Internet.

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:54, Blogger Alex said...

If those people knew something, and would read how people with honest questions are confronted here, would they feel an urge to come out with their information?

Let's see....3,000 people killed....getting made fun of....

3,000 people killed...getting made fun of....

people getting away with murder....getting made fun of...

Hrm, yeah, I'd definitely stay quiet. I don't like getting my feelings hurt.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:27, Blogger Democrat said...

3,000 people killed, and 3,001 if you put your mouth open.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:13, Blogger Alex said...

It's times like these that I wish for the ability to post an eye-rolling smiley.

Better watch your mind Democrat, the CIA hit-squad will be at your house any minute now. I took the liberty of e-mailing them your experiment with the paper-and-packing-take model of the WTC, and it bumped you up to the top of their elimination list.

P.S. You might want to get the neighbours kid to start your car...

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:57, Blogger Democrat said...

I think I'm not that important. Besides, I am not alone. I am sure 'they' are able to explain why this 'event' was required to keep the game going a little bit further. I have some ideas of my own, but these are not fit for this blog.

 
At 14 August, 2007 06:29, Blogger Tom said...

"I find this rather ironic, since I can't stand Chomsky normally"

James,

There is nothing "ironic" about Chomsky continuing to rely on the facts.

If you can point to a specific point which Chomsky makes which you can dispute, I would love to hear it.

CHOMSKY: 9/11 Truth Movement Pushes Non-Scientific Evidence

 

Post a Comment

<< Home