Even Chomsky doubts 9/11 conspiracies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I'm certainly not one to quote Chomsky, but I just happened upon this video where he, quite reasonably and logically, points out how absurd the ideas put out by the 9/11 Truthers are.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    What do you mean "even" Chomsky ? He's a serious Left intellectual, long focussed on US media and political realities. Why would anyone like him be chasing after BS like that ?

    He has written quite a bit on the deflection of actual inquiry and accountability, by the US media, and the role of factions like the Truthers or the Swiftboaters. He would be the first to notice that, for example, the Truthers are being used by the power centers to damage Ron Paul and reduce Paul's influence, regardless of Paul's agreement with them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Fisk ( another serious journalist) had some doubts about the US govt. lack of preparedness etc, but Chomsky never believed the conspiracy theories. He did make note of the use of the images and the spin coverage by the government.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The idea that we still have an incomplete picture of the events is not absurd. The focus on things like the melting point of steel and freefall speed are.
     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    In such discussions as this, it's important to specify the degree of conspiracy. For example, suppressing the identities and backgrounds of the terrorist pilots of 9-11 after the fact would require a very different scale of conspiracy than the outlandish theories of massive "false flag" US Government conspiracy. Exploring the evidence for a more limited and likely conspiracy requires no leaps from reason. But in the public arena, the USA still lacks an environment hospitable to reasonable discussion about the perpetrators of 9-11. Having jumped to conclusions as a nation, we find it collectively disturbing and destabilizing to look back carefully to the origins of our rapid, historic, and irreversible national reaction.

    Within the intellectual cliques of those who advance theories of vast and intricate conspiracies requiring thousands of accomplices (as with claims of the Loose Change variety), rigorous and rational thinking and discussion is necessarily substituted with obvious abandonment of reason; abandonment of the scientific method; abandonment of customary decorum.

    It's not a question of political orientation when we consider who supports the most outrageous conspiracy theories. People who are seduced by the most outrageous theories are easily distinguishable from those who are truly motivated by a respect for truth by their lines of reasoning. Clear reasoning moves forward in reasonable steps. Hysteria leaps far ahead without rational thought.

    Chomsky is a left-wing intellectual who is no friend of the masters of US Government, and he can rationally articulate his reasons. But Chomsky is not a contributor to the Loose Change phenomenon, because entertaining that perspective requires the protracted suspension of the most basic ad universal priciples of reason.

    It is surely welcome cover for any real (if less grandiose) conspiracy to be immersed in a background din of public hysteria involving grand conspiracies. Within such an environment, due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction. Reasonable questions are often drowned out by an irrational rabble seeking glorious villains, and shunning the banality of dystopia. The vulnerabilities of our USAmerican society not only include our political apathy and blissful ignorance of the word outside. We're vulnerably crippled by a lack of collective reasoning skills. So handicapped, we're most inspired by fear. And the more USAmericans put our heads together in fear, the dumber we're going to collectively get.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2008
  9. Jozen-Bo The Wheel Spinning King!!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,597
    Fear is a disease. Get over it quick!!!
    Why fear death? Overcome this fear and you have overcame fear itself!
     
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    He may not be of like mind with such folks, but I don't think we remember the impact Chomsky's 9/11 pamphlet had when it was released. It came out relatively quickly after the actual event and it raised all sorts of ominous questions and attacked the US government. Most of the pamphlet's material was political in nature, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that the feeling of radical skepticisim it contains helped to enable the sort of kookery that came later...

    You continually make this claim, but provide no evidence to support it.

    9/11 has been scrutinized more than any event in recent history. There are few, if any, truths out there about the perpetrators — or their enablers — left to discover, I think. But then, you have displayed astonishing ignorance about this subject in the past...
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2008
  11. Mr.Spock Back from the dead Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,938
    the US hasnt gained anything out of this to this date. so blaming them for doing this is straight forward spinning.
     
  12. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    countezero: "Chomsky's 9/11 pamphlet"

    I'm Googling for that right now- Do you have a link to it?

    --------------​


    Due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction.

    "You continually make this claim, but provide no evidence to support it."

    15/19 Hijackers Saudi- Yet no evidence of serious investigation within Saudi Arabia. Hijackers' false identities exposed- Yet no evidence of proper investigation.
    Compare the public evidence from all 9-11 investigation with that of any major organized-crime investigation: The money trail; the organizational chart; the public testimony. It's been a shambles, and the lack of a coherent investigation remains buried in layers of bullshit and hysteria.

    "9/11 has been scrutinized more than any event in recent history."

    Not in terms of criminal investigation. There are drug-store robberies that have received much more thorough investigations.

    "There are few, if any, truths out there about the perpetrators — or their enablers — left to discover"

    Who were the pilots, countezero?
     
  13. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Is this the "pamphlet" of which you speak, countezero?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Shall we explore this kernel of "kookery" together? I don't have a copy. Do you?

    Edit- Oh look: Here it is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2008
  14. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Well I don't think anyone has ever said it was a conspiracy for the sake of the average american, or the US as a whole. Certain people did successfully use 9/11 to their advantage.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    First of all Hypewaders, perhaps you are speaking about yourself. There is plenty of money to be made from books and movies and net conspiracy videos. Wanna buy my DVD? only $19.95 plus tax.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think it's a stretch either. I think it's a deliberate and common ploy, in the first place, reiterated and amplified by reliable agency.

    To accomplish what ? Among other things, this:
    side note:
    I've mentioned before how striking the pattern of this kind of odd rhetorical confusion, especially the eventual saying of almost or exactly the opposite of what is apparently meant, has been on the Sandy side of political discourse , on this forum and in the general public arena.
     
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Well, let's all try and dispel some of that confusion right here. I trust that I am referring to the very literature that you brought up, countezero. In search of what you found kooky, I read the whole thing, which doesn't require much time at all. So what's kooky about it?


    Or was it this that you found kooky?


    The vague thesis of the madanthoywayne's OP seems to hint that the official US government explanation of 9/11 events and parties responsible is all we need know, and all further questions are kooky; that even Noam Chomsky finds all further questions kooky. That would obviously be a hasty assumption, all the more apparent when we look at what Chomsky actually has had to say on the subject. I suspect that if we look further into Chomsky's more recent comments, we'll find him characteristically reluctant to close the book, and still questioning of popular assumptions, even as he rejects the wilder fantasies such as expressed in Loose Change.

    countezero has fittingly pointed us to some of Chomsky's early observations regarding 9/11, with the suggestion that Chomsky contributed somehow to the conspiracy-theory kookiness that supporters of present leadership like to lump everyone else together with. Reading this "pamphlet" for the first time, I've discovered some well-balanced food for thought, and can't find the kooky. How about you, c-0? Are you prepared to sincerely discuss the Chomsky interviews you have referenced, and the associated issues?

    Let's read and discuss. Don't worry, it's safe. Reminds me of a cartoon, where a beagle is making a gleeful post: "On the internet, nobody can tell you're a dog!". Well, nobody will expose you in public, reading and discussing Chomsky, either. Take courage- dig in!
     
  18. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    John99: "Hypewaders, perhaps you are speaking about yourself. There is plenty of money to be made from books and movies and net conspiracy videos."

    Ha! Not so much as you might think. I can assure you my neighbor Dylan's 15 minutes of fame have not made the man. I have higher standards and aspirations.
     
  19. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Then I would ask you to define "sorely neglected." The identities of the hijackers are known, a timeline of their final months on earth has been put together by various governments, journalists and news organizations. Brief biographies about them have been published. What, of relevance, is left to know?

    I would also point out that your reluctance to accept the identities does not qualify as a minor conspiracy to me. Covering up — or ignoring — who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks is a major act, by any definition.

    For what? The terrorists were trained and financed by Al Qaeda, an organization that was located in Afghanistan. No one can deny that the Saudis, through their significant financial resources, have helped the rise of militant Islam, but the people who see some direct Saudi connection to 9/11 seem to be engaging in a spat of wishful thinking, carried out, I imagine, because of ideological problems with the desert kingdom.

    Here you show your ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming. The money-trail is well establishedm the organization of Al Qaeda, such as it is, has been documented and explained by various governments and intelligence agencies. What more do you want? Or rather, what do you see lacking? Again, this event has been combed over and explained in exhaustive detail...

    This is a ridiculous statement that implies a total disconnect from reality.

    I don't know their names offhand, but they aren't hard to find. Again, biographies have been written about them. And if you're still confused about them, go to your local bookstore and find a copy of The Looming Tower. The pictures of the hijackers are on the cover...

    It's been years since I read it, so I'm not in a position to speak about its merits and failures. I'd like to point out that I didn't say it was "kooky." I said it enabled "the sort of kookery that came later."

    Sure, but I would need to re-read it first. Again the tenor of my initial remarks concerned the atmosphere the book helped create, not the book itself. But given that you fail to see such distinctions, and fail to acknowledge universal facts about 9/11, I'm not certain our conversations will be that fruitful.

    And who would that be? I came to opinion all by my lonesome...

    I have re-read this sentence and noticed the word "should" is there. It shouldn't be. I have edited it, and hope my intention is more clear.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The location of organization, financing, and training of the 9/11 hijackers has never been shown to have had much to do with Afghanistan, AFAIK, outside of some apparent advance knowledge of some kind of plan by OBL and his immediate associates there. Sums of money have been traced to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, organization to Germany, pilot training alleged to have taken place in the US at puddle jumper flight schools, etc. IIRC the only demonstrated connection to Afghanistan was some allegations of possible hand to hand fighting instruction for some of the thugs.
    And I'd like to point out that there exists no evidence of any such "enabling", and some evidence (such as Chomsky's actual writings and well-known opinions in the matter, among those who pay any attention at all to Chomsky and would thus be vulnerable to such "enabling" were it to be a factor) against it.

    You appear to "sort" the kookery according to the categories supplied by the Right Official Media, with Chomsky on the same general end of the same scale as the Truthers.
    Just as you came to your vocabulary ("partisan" etc) and your concerns (Ahmadinejad's speeches, etc ) all by your lonesome, so that the alignments with the Righty ConMedia in style and substance are mere coincidence.
     
  21. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    countezero: "...define "sorely neglected.""

    The hijackers, and especially the pilots who flew the planes to target have yet to be plausibly identified.

    "The identities of the hijackers are known, a timeline of their final months on earth has been put together by various governments, journalists and news organizations."

    Under false aliases, and with many gaps and inconsistencies.

    "Brief biographies about them have been published. What, of relevance, is left to know?"

    What their real names were; where they learned to proficiently fly low-level jet attack; who recruited them; who bankrolled them; who their associates were, and yes, their biographies- basic things like that.

    "your reluctance to accept the identities does not qualify as a minor conspiracy to me."

    It would involve a minor conspiracy only in comparison with theories that the US government perpetrated the attacks.

    "Covering up — or ignoring — who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks is a major act, by any definition."

    Fine. Let's get to the bottom of it then. Saudi Arabia would be a fine place to start.

    "For what?"

    Arabia's flying mujaheddin.

    "The terrorists were trained and financed by Al Qaeda, an organization that was located in Afghanistan."

    No, Bin Laden's organization primarily hailed from Saudi Arabia.

    "No one can deny that the Saudis, through their significant financial resources, have helped the rise of militant Islam, but the people who see some direct Saudi connection to 9/11 seem to be engaging in a spat of wishful thinking...

    Get a clue.

    "...[wishful thinking] carried out, I imagine, because of ideological problems with the desert kingdom."

    No, al-Qaeda's roots are revolutionary- they despise the Sa'ud dynasty for inviting Western "cultural attack". This is often overlooked in superficial overgeneralizations about the "War on Terror". The Sa'ud family has always demurred when it comes to Western collaboration in their domestic terrorism problem, and the Bush administration has consistently obliged. No disclosures about 9-11 involving the KSA were pursued or revealed, and the lack of a coherent investigation remains buried in layers of bullshit and hysteria.

    "Here you show your ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming. The money-trail is well establishedm the organization of Al Qaeda, such as it is, has been documented and explained by various governments and intelligence agencies."

    That just isn't true. I've never seen a coherent description of who, what, and how al-Qaeda financed 9/11, and there has been no disclosure of al-Qaeda's actual Arabian connections.

    "What more do you want? Or rather, what do you see lacking?"

    Compare any major financial scandal like Enron, or BCCI. Compare famous organized crime cases, like those that involved personalities like Gotti, Luciano, Capone, etc. If you can't see the difference between those cases and the investigation of bin Laden's al-Qaeda, you must be willfully blind.

    "Again, this event has been combed over and explained in exhaustive detail."

    Not in terms of criminal investigation. There are drug-store robberies that have received much more thorough investigations.

    "This is a ridiculous statement that implies a total disconnect from reality."

    I don't think so. Thorough investigation means building a case. Our War on Terror has never built a convincing case identifying the perpetrators of 9/11 that would hold up in any court. Along the national warpath, the major media has never stopped to follow up when suspects identities were proven false. Who were the pilots, countezero?

    "I don't know their names offhand, but they aren't hard to find."

    Yes they are- several of the identities provided were products of identity theft, and those discrepancies have never been rectified.

    "Again, biographies have been written about them."

    Is that so? Name one book that positively links any individual to the controls of one of the 9-11 planes. Every account I've read is shaky. Got a link?

    "And if you're still confused about them, go to your local bookstore and find a copy of The Looming Tower. The pictures of the hijackers are on the cover..."

    Look, The Looming Tower's cover art is not a complete chain of evidence. You're stretching credulity far beyond judging a book by its cover.

    Speaking of going deeper than the cover, what's kooky about Chomsky's 9-11?

    "It's been years since I read it, so I'm not in a position to speak about its merits and failures."

    But you said that it enabled truther kookiness.

    "I said it enabled "the sort of kookery that came later."

    How? Are you prepared to sincerely discuss the Chomsky interviews you have referenced, and the associated issues?

    "Sure, but I would need to re-read it first."

    You can review it online right now. It's a quick 30 pages (or so) of text.

    "the tenor of my initial remarks concerned the atmosphere the book helped create, not the book itself."

    How did Chomsky's book help create an atmosphere?

    "you fail to see such distinctions"

    I'm sincerely trying to, and I'm offering you the opportunity right here to clearly make them.

    "[you] fail to acknowledge universal facts about 9/11"

    I'm sure we can agree that the hijackings of AA11, UA175, AA77, and UA 93 caused the destruction that occured on 9-11, and that bin Laden and al-Qaeda took oblique credit for the attacks. Beyond that, what do you consider to be the further "universal facts" of the case?
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2008
  22. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    I thought it was to save money didn't the insurance or something come up.
    (human life is the most expendable resource on the planet).
    Professional demolition expert's say they could not of collapsed it better.
    their trying to claim insurance which is going through the courts.
    Pass blame to claim oil?
    kill sadam quickly so there can be no inquiry?
    America has suddenly become a kurdish country!!
    'you can fool some people some of the time ,but you can't fool all the people all the time'.
     
  23. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Let's start this response by seeing if you're actually brave enough to answer a simple question you rebuffed several times before: Do you think there is evidence Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11?

    As is usually the case when this subject and this region come up, you're either extremely ignorant or intentionally ignoring facts you don't want people to know, as they may harm the wobbly edifice of your argument. All of what appears below can be found in Ghost Wars, The Looming Tower or the 9/11 Commission report.

    Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. This is well know and well documented. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed planned the attacks, with help from Mohammed Atef and bin Laden. The go ahead for the plan came in 1999 from bin Laden (in Afghanistan), who personally helped select the targets and altered part of KSM's plan by canceling a part wherein a hijacked plane would be flown to the Middle East and all the passengers releases "as a sign of mercy." The hijackers all visited Afghanistan and were personally selected for the mission by bin Laden after they were noticed in the training camps there (The Looming Tower).

    The so-called Hamburg cell were in Kandahar in late 1999. "Nearly all of the supporting hijackers visited Afghanistan for the first time in 1999 or 2000, as Mohammed Atef and (KSM) began to organize the final version of their suicide hijacking plan" (Ghost Wars p. 570).

    The "Hamburg Cell" eventually flew to Kuala Lumpur, where the CIA monitored their meeting and photographed the men meeting with KSM. There was no audio, and so no one knew what was discussed (The Looming Tower).

    Bin Laden financed the plot, from all the pilot training to providing all the money for the airline tickets and such. The FBI interviewed a man who revealed he handed over $36,000 to Al Qaeda that was eventually passed to the hijackers to cover their expenses in America prior to the attacks. (The Looming Tower).

    "The hijackers' money came from Al Qaeda contacts living in UAE. One of these, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali ... used Western Union and less formal currency exchange offices in Dubai and other Persian gulf cities to send $119,500 to (Atta) and others in his group while they attended school in Florida and elsewhere." Mustafa Alhawsawi sent another $18,000 and received a $42,000 balance in return of unused funds shortly before the attacks (Ghost Wars p 571).

    If you tried read something beyond your usual fluff, you might actually know something about this...

    By "enable," I meant establish a foundation for. I never said there are any "facts" to link Chomsky to idiots like the Truthers, because there isn't. I was stating my opinion. Nothing more (You, being used to stating opinions as facts, probably can't tell the difference). Chomsky's too smart to associate with those fools, and I seriously doubt he believes in their claims.

    What I said, or rather what I thought was clear, is that I think that when Chomsky directly attacked the US government while the WTC site and Pentagon were still smoldering, he kicked open the door through which other, more kooky people would follow (Leftists, like yourself, often worship the man and follow his singular arguments). Chomsky, in my opinion, used 9/11 as a convenient tool to promote his anti-American ravings, and while he is much more educated and interesting than boneheads like the Truthers (he's even right, sometimes), his obsessive mania, his overt bias and his rank opportunism were a preview of the sort of behavior that came later, in other, less acceptable forms.

    Yup, that's me man: A total sellout. You're the only independent thinker on this site, Ice. It's too bad plenty of your conclusions have no basis in reality and facts. But hey, go on believing man. Adhering to your own, unique brand of bullshit does, in fact, make you unique. So, to quote an old song, don't stop believing, Ice. Solipsism can be fun. It really is everyone else. You're special. You're different. You see more clearly. You know more...

    Go look the word up. Maybe then you will quit boring us with your questionable attempts to control the language people use.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partisan
     

Share This Page