chomsky fears 9-11 debate...WHY?

[darkbeforedawn]

Hi GC You are so right!! I'm chiming in to say what JEff say much months ago-physical evidence game is a seductive quigmire Go for the jugular, go for all their lies and cover-ups --it took me awhile to pick up the ball, but I just saw Pressfortruth and now I'm running with it!! Absolutely BEST thing on 9-11 I have ever seen. I'm gonna buy a tv just so I can burn one million copies and send them to everyone I know. <p></p><i></i>

[Gouda]

I'll have to assume that because some are so hungry for the head of Chomsky re: 911 it must mean that truthers admire and respect his scholarship, politics, stature, authority and voice and want him as a valuable ally, a part of the "true patriot" 911 "truth" group. <br><br>But who needs Chomsky when we are all more than pleased to have this bunch of patriotic insiders on our side, a group who has done so much to fight the establishment throughout their careers: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/">www.patriotsquestion911.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>Not sure what is worse: Chomsky as a belated asset of the empire, or these patriots recently assuming the role of enemies of the empire. Pissed off cabbie is right: very little is what it seems. <br><br>I am on record somewhere on this board getting all bitter about Chomsky being, unfortunately, a "gatekeeper" regarding 911. That's because I respect his body of work for the most part. Anti-authoritarians owe a debt of respect to him (anti-authoritarians can make respect too!) for the pioneering work he has done. I don't think much of his JFK and 911 conspiracy denial, nor his recent words hinting at a surrender to fascist authority should the globe face imminent eco emergency... <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>which it is, I guess, especially according to Al Gore...Gore: eco emergency! Chomsky: fascism to the rescue! Maurice Strong: shouldn't it be our duty to bring that about?...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Then I realized that even if Chomsky is an asset of the empire, this may be <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>even worse</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->: he has exhausted his line of scholarship! New avenues are being pioneered, new ways of doing politics are being created. Isn't it up to us cooperatively manufacture a connect between the old and the new via the whole open-source, anti-elitist, decentralized, horizontal outsider thang?! Respectful, constructive peer review will still be essential, but headhunting is not necessary when certain heads have become irrelevant to the tasks ahead. Qutb and Nomo are not irrelevant -- open-source peers, they -- whereas Chomsky may be. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/16/06 4:36 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Hey Gouda, These people at patriots website aren't people/thinkers that I especially admire. They have been inside gov and or military and they are "respectable". You would not believe that flack I have taken for saying what I believe and for providing evidence that it is true. One line I heard over and over again is that "everyone couldn't be lying; therefore 9-11 truth is deluded." People need to hear it from a uniform or from a suit and tie. The big disappointment about Chomsky is he knows better. He knows very well and he really is lying. I was literally thrilled to see this patriots website because so often when I talked to people it was insinuated that I was a. not being patriotic and b. should defer to people in authority. Well here are some patriotic authority figures to give these people. I am sending it out to many other establishment types. I personally don't need them . However, I do think there are some very admirable people among them such as Robert Bowman. Chomsky is a traitor to everything he presented as his ideals. Qutb and Nomo...well better let that one alone. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=darkbeforedawn>darkbeforedawn</A> at: 9/16/06 11:24 pm<br></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

I don't think we can say Chomsky "knows better." His disdain for "conspiracy theory" rests upon his presumption that conspiracy represents an aberration in the system, and Chomsky is all about systems. To him, investigation of conspiracy is a distraction from the critique of capitalism, unlike Peter Dale Scott who regards "conspiracy" as the deep politics undergirding the system itself. Chomsky isn't lying; it's just his methodology won't show him what we can see. <br><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"People need to hear it from a uniform or from a suit and tie."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>That's what they count on. They're the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>authorities</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, and they're among the loudest voices pushing holograms at the World Trade Centre and missile at the Pentagon. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 9/16/06 10:05 pm<br></i>

[greencrow0]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"...Chomsky isn't lying; it's just his methodology won't show him what we can see."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Isn't Chomsky a linguist? He should know that the term 'conspiracy theorist' is a crock. A conspiracy is something that is the product of more than one person...that's all.<br><br>No, Jeff, I think Chomsky is smart enough that we have to hold him responsible for his gate-keeping.<br><br>gc <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/16/06 11:42 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

So Jeff, just out of curiosity, I am wondering if you are just referring to Reynolds as the big "no-planer" or are there others at the Patriotsquestion911 webste who are talking no planes/holograms etc? Most of the little blurps I read there on the lineup of truth supporters didnot go into much detail...but didn't read them all<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Where's that wonderful skepticism when it comes to WTC7?"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>It helps me understand that the controlled demolition theory is the least probable explanation that has been advanced.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"The physical evidence is piling up and is compelling..."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>It is indeed, and it proves quite conclusively that the three buildings were not demolished with explosives. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

That "patriotsquestion911" site gives the impression that these "insiders" whose pictures are posted there are affiliated with the site, and share some core assumptions about 9/11. That's not the case, though. Though they've both criticized the 9/11 Commission, the criticism put forth by Morgan Reynolds has little in common with that put forward by Curt Weldon. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I did not pick up on any "affiliation" insinuations. The site is titled Patriots QUESTION 9-11. Not patriots agree on 9-11. Even a superficial skimming of the material reveals that there is not an agreement on many key issues. So what's your point? Is it that all these highly "credible" people are raining on the parade story you love so much:<br>Ahrab terrists who flunked flight school, simultaniously overpowering the crews of four jumbo jets using boxcutters and korans expertly guide their respective crafts which they had never flown before directly into the targeted sites, completely destroying the WTC and much of the financial record system at the pentagon? GREAT comic book material. In fact they are using it for that (which is really all its good for besides fooling the most gullible easily manipulated population in the world) The "official explanation" is a joke. And you are the butt of it.... <p></p><i></i>

[Infernal Optimist]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>It helps me understand that the controlled demolition theory is the least probable explanation that has been advanced.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I never said anything about CD. What is the most probable explantion for what happened to WTC7? Or are you going to defer to the long-deayed NIST report again? <p></p><i></i>

[yesferatu]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Chomsky is all about systems<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If so, that is some egregious compartmentalizing on the part of Chomsky. It is the argument he is so smart, it makes him stupid. <br><br>I'm not sure I can buy that a smart man can be so specialized in his brain activity that he cannot see clearly. If so, then Chomsky has a mild form of idiot savant retardation.<br>And I doubt that.<br><br>(edited first sentence) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yesferatu@rigorousintuition>yesferatu</A> at: 9/17/06 8:51 pm<br></i>

[Mel]

In case anyone missed it, I repost my observations about the collapse of WTC 7, followed by some thought experiments maybe qtub and others can have a go at:<br><br>Watch all videos of WTC 7's collapse here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html">www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY appreciable trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a fact that to me is only explainable via CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground with enough force to snap off small sections at the bottom. The columns essentially had no structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is not possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).<br><br>An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8">www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).<br><br>Now a couple of thought experiments:<br><br>1. If a laboratory worker hoisted a very long steel column (let's call it 500 feet, comprised of shorter steel columns, butt-jointed and, at the very least, bolted together...possibly welded...I believe NIST says the joints were welded) vertically such that its bottom was, say, 50 ft. off the ground, then dropped the column (and I have NO idea how this exact scenario happened to ALL the columns immediately behind the visible walls in the videos), would the column spear smoothly into the ground, systematically breaking itself apart ONLY at the bottom joints, and thus resulting in a pile of short pieces? And would this process continue unabated, all the way to the ground, even though the column is getting shorter and shorter, and thus lighter and lighter, as it proceeded into the ground?<br><br>2. If you are hanging 200 ft. above ground from the branch of a tree (a non-flexible branch, for this analogy), and someone "magically" removes the bottom 50 ft of the tree INSTANTLY (and this is what happened to all of Tower 7's steel columns immediately behind the visible walls... SIMULTANEOUSLY, no less), what's going to happen to you when the bottom of the tree hits the ground? What's going to happen to the trunk of the tree?<br><br>Anyone have any comments on these thought experiments and how they relate to the bizarre behaviour of WTC's walls? What prevented the walls of WTC 7 from behaving "appropriately" by coming to a jarring halt on their first several-story plunge, with vast amounts of facade material (windows, concrete, whatever) breaking loose from the jarring? <p></p><i></i>

[blogbart]

Compare Chomsky in Jan. 4, 2005 interview by David McNeill, in which he dismisses both strong and weak theories (that the administration had something to do with 9-11) first by saying that a purported attempt.<br><br>"would be swamped by chaos, and thus revealed, therefore not ever undertaken for that reason. Second you say that "they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly,.. " <br><br>How very difficult it is to reconcile this with, for example, his statements contained in Secrets, Lies and Democracy (Interviews with Noam Chomsky) 1994 by David Barsamian in which he said, <br><br>"You could imagine a democratic society with an organization that carries out intelligence-gathering functions. But that's a very minor part of what the CIA does. Its main purpose is to carry out secret and usually illegal activities for the executive branch, which wants to keep these activities secret because it knows that the public won't accept them. So even inside the US, it's highly undemocratic." <br><br>He is disavowing his past statements utterly.<br><br>I think Chomsky is letting vanity get the best of him and doesn't wnat to go down as a "911 conspiracy theorist".<br><br>However, there is the intriguing possibility that Chomsky believes that hiding 911 truth is necessary. Chomsky has said that he sees a situation where a dictatorship is acceptable, even necessary, if humankinds's survival depended on it. <br><br>Maybe Chomsky sees global warming, terrorism, or existential threats from emerging technologies as potential threats to humankind's survival and that 9/11, as a step towards dictatorship, is necessary. <p></p><i></i>

[yesferatu]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>However, there is the intriguing possibility that Chomsky believes that hiding 911 truth is necessary. Chomsky has said that he sees a situation where a dictatorship is acceptable, even necessary, if humankinds's survival depended on it. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>yes, I can see an intellectual acknowledgment that 9/11 was such a grand fuck-up on so many levels that there is really no sane response but to suppress it's conclusive effect: society and government will function in only a debilatory way, civil war completely unavoidable, anarchy, and revolution, and, oh yes, quite a bit of blood-letting.<br><br>Why would Chomsky want that? Why do any of us want the "truth" out? To win our case is to lose something big.<br>As long as we are okay with that, then onward. <br><br>If one is not okay with that, it is not a bad thing for the Chomsky's out there to wish continued stability. <br><br>I wish it to go forward to it's ultimately bloody conclusion simply for this reason: why put off the inevitable?<br> <p></p><i></i>