Dear Noam,

I just sent you a letter about 9/11

Didn\'t think of you or your time sorry if its an in convienience.

Thanks for your service.

I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job . I think that the spector of fear and its possible causes are allowed to exists in managable amounts so as to keep a ready boogeyman in the wings or in the for front, depending on what is required to leverage the populace this way or that.

Because the hegomony or corp. et al  keep violent people around as agents and henchmen; because they maintain, for the sake of perpetuating their empire,  entities which commit actions such as 9/11, 9/11 occured. Those in power are guilty of creating situations in which events like 9/11 happen. While this is a crime, it is far larger than an investigation into 9/11 could grasp or prosecute.

Victor, well said. I hope mr. Chomsky reads it and ponders it.

It's great that so many people have been ignited with indignation at the US government over their failure to stop the occurrence of 9/11, the Iraq war, and the hopeless response to Katrina. And I agree that 9/11 has obviously been a very strong event for the 'activation' of many Americans, and people all around the world for that matter. Especially among younger generations who were brought up in a more media-saturated environment (TV, video games etc.) and a period of greater affluence and consumption in some western countries, to whom much of this new-found indignation has come as a relevatory awakening, to consider true sources of power, larger power systems, political agendas etc. Maybe Noam underestimates the magnitude of this awakening for many 20-40 somethings who were not babyboomers previously drawn to activism in the civil rights movements of the 60s, the terrible consequences of the Vietnam war or otherwise politicised. This has been a long struggle for him.

Noam is into his 70s now. This contemporary period which has raised so much fresh indignation - importantly so, as everyone here agrees - probably doesn't seem anywhere near as stark to him as it does many of us. And why would it. He has been commenting on atrocities like 9/11, as far worse, for probably 50 years or more. The only difference is that in this instance, it took a major terrorist action on US home soil for anyone to give a shit and question the motives of the US government. The indignation is inwardly directed - look what you have done to us: to ME. I imagine that this is the source of much of Noam's disinterest in 9/11 conspiracy theories, because it is energy that has only arisen in response to our own sufferings. Which are mild compared to what he has been covering in detail for longer than most of those freshly aroused have been alive for. That kind of self-obsessed indignation is the very thing that Noam has been drawing our attention to for ever: the notion of universalism.

Not only that, but he has been drawing everybody's attention to democratic deficits in the US and beyond for as long as most will remember, and longer. It hardly matters that he doesn't buy into some theory about explosives or remote-controlled planes or whatever else. He has ALWAYS spoken of brutal power systems (US government policies) and propaganda machines. His position is simply not swayed by pop-culture posturing of inside jobs- his mind is still on the 'real fights'.

And frankly, why would he risk his credible position as the pre-eminent critical commentator of power sources. He has worked tirelessly for decades on his work, from even before the time that there was ANY real critical intellectual commentary on US domestic and world affairs, then through the important 60s and 70s, in which time momentum built and many civil liberties were won. After such an important and hard-fought slog of work that he needed not do (he has only said it takes away from his time and energy in linguistics and cognitive science), yet felt compelled to, because he has the ability to do so.

So after all that, for people to ignorantly come in to a forum where he has again given his time, and to shout him down and denigrate his work, just because he doesn't agree (or is not willing to publically risk a devaluation of his intellectual status to 'conspiracy theory nut', when his own current work explains the world and the extent of current democratic deficits and war-ralated crimes through imperial corporo-conquest just fine as is) with various different 9/11 conspiracy theories is a show of bad faith that in itself is barely comprehendable. To denounce the importance of all his work, or the use of his texts as firewood is so ignorant that it really calls into question the maturity of those in question to begin with.

So in conclusion, this rant may be far too late for anyone to read it but if it is by chance read, I hope that some of the more sensible among you see my points and consider your own positions a little, as you see fit.

To Noam: Thanks for all your efforts through out your lifetime. We are forever indebted to your generous work.

Ben

the war in iraq, just like the war in vietnam, was never ment to end. it was meant to continue to

A-extract money

B-captivate the public with fake issues

EVERYONE READ BEHOLD A PALE HORSE

gw spit and hit a boy when we was 8. yeah, forget the Texas years, lets start from there ..

Consider heating the book under dry heat, impregnating it with wax; then using the artifact as a custom toilet gasket.

Prior to 9/11 there was every reason to believe a terrorist attack against the US - even on our soil - was imminent. Several during the Clinton pres. And why wouldn't the administration - any administration - prepare in advance how they would control such an events meaning and the meaning of the actors involved ("they hate our freedom"), justifying what they want to accomplish nationally and FP-wise. This is what states do. (At least sine Truman, as intelligence gathering has had an increasing prescience of possible threats and conflicts.) Yet this by no means serves as evidence this administration is complicit in 911. (As some have suggested.) Even if they had a certain "awareness" of an impending attack, their ability to prevent it may have indeed been limited. (Idealizing the US intelligence community is based on a false and arrogant assumption that American intelligence is omniscient, whereas some "barbaric" middle easterners are incompetent.) The greater evil (and this one is no conspiracy) is how this administration has defined the conflict, events, and the enemy in such a way that Americans have had to redefine themselves (gradually, imperceptibly), a transformation into something new, more complicit, and far more sinister. Certainly nothing over the long haul that will support democracy, if democracy means a sacrifice of security. This may, I venture, be the source of the growing contempt for NC. The frustration at who we are becoming, unsupported by any sustainable leftist politics of resistance, is discharged into those stalwarts of resistance. In this way, the frustration is with leftist politics in general - that it exists on the blogoshpere...but where is the substantial driving force? What justifies it? The irony is the left (detached from labor in any meaningful manner) is left defending itself from its radical (radically hollow) form - 911 movement - in horror and contempt. The second irony is when the left defends - distances - itself through a fundamental misrecognition - misrecognizing the nature of the 911 movement. The left misrecognizes its own radical image, fundamentally self-divided And here then stays impotent to capital. The 911 movement ought to be a wake-up call to the left, that its self-division - and failure to recognize it as such - bars, precludes its own substantial existence.

And so is David Horowitz.

Chomskys a fraud. A tool of the Hegelian Dialectic. How long does it take to figure it out???

For decades, Prof. Chomsky's advice has been for we activists to simply continue to do what we do. While his analysis of history and politics may be insightful, he is at a total loss when it comes to strategically bringing about change.

Activism alone does not bring about change; there must be a convergence of realities. Millions died globally due to Reagan policies, and there were numerous activist communities arrayed against his administration. But we were unable to awaken the American people to the reality, so Reagan died a hero.

This neocon bunch have the same vision, but are much more arrogant; they've screwed up big time, with Katrina, Iraq, and so on, but still it may appear as simply corruption and incompetence to the masses. With 911, we have an enormous opportunity, bigger in potential than all the activism we could ever hope to muster. 911 conveniently ties all the neocon/corporatist agenda together to make it more apparent and alarming than we could ever hope to do without it.

For the moment, forget hard proof. The multitude of circumstantial evidence IS enough for most reasonable people. For Descartes, no amount of physical evidence was proof that the animals he was vivisecting actually felt pain or anything. But most people, when they hear shrieks and see convulsing, they put 2 and 2 together and that's good enough for them. There is much more and much broader evidence to suggest that 911 was a conspiracy than that it wasn't. Gee, we've even got the owner on film saying that a determination was made to "pull' building 7. For most Americans, I don't think we need more.

What we need to do is to get behind this very visual, stirring, horrifying and rare opportunity and help people to see how it fits with the neocon agenda. Hell, innocent people that average Americans can relate to were murdered, and worse, heroic firemen were murdered before they were allowed to do their heroic work. You can't write this kind of tragedy and make it as widely and deeply felt as 911. The chance for a real awakening is here folks!

If we just sit by and allow this growing and energetic 911 truth movement to fade into irrelevance, we will have lost the best opportunity we may ever have to put an end to fascism once and for all. If we don't do all we can to parlay this tragedy into an opportunity for real, meaningful change, then we may well be dooming any hopes of ever achieving such change.

Well,there you go. live in Norway , read lots of sites and decide that the chosen ones explain it all...is your grip of English that good or even American English?...not to be able to either read between the lines or comfortably sit there and sup-up the ersatz gravy mix of those that want you to believe the pedantic and distanced analysis of the desired reading for upwardly mobile buffoons!

I suggest that like Mr Believes(its all)Bollocks you get focused and realize that this is a serious crime situation that requires difusing...there are plenty of media bases that just love to confuse, but believing in the truth (which has nothing to do with religious status) has everything to do with questioning and searching for the evidences( which are certainly there in the scores) that show the truth...ultimately..if only for those murdered people...only 3K or so, but they all had a right to see the day out.

Of course Norway had its 'Quislings' too and those who are conscious of historical events and their players realize that the Nazis never really lost...it has been explained that the Fourth Reich is amongst us and for those of the religious ilk will see the mark of 666 and the invisible (as yet) swastika as one.  That flag is currently being hidden within the fabric of the Stars & Stripes.

 

Well that was a load of old bollocks...and what is it you are actually trying to say and, have you really read all the previous comments and where the hell does truth being realized become only in the realm of religion or "by religious means"?

Maybe you're like the old lorry in the desert with hydraulics gone dry!

As you have clearly not observed, there is ample evidence to support the conspiracy charge and exactly how the buildings came down, including "free-falling"WTC7 is part of the charge that has yet to be fully and independently explained.Get focused!

 

This is an entirely correct and perceptive assumption as all the blatherings thus far, say say nothing and mean everything that has nothing to do with the core issue...that this event was allowed to happen and that it was a conspiracy to defraud  nations of their national and cultural rights by the underlying nazi doctrines in which the bigger the lies to more confusing(therefore)believable.

The extrapolation of details as to how and by how many is just another web of time wasting subjective argument enveigled by those who have the vested interests to flannel the whole story out so that it dies an uncertain but eventual public interest death. You are quite right sir. 

 

Thanks for this reasoned comment. In some ways, given the search for reasons why 9/11 happened, one might think that your simple and obvious truth about real Arab grievances would have been more looked into. The other night in the GOP debate, candidate Ron Paul made the "outrageous" suggestion that U.S. policies might have been in some part responsible for 9/11. While I'm not a fan of Paul's politics, the instantaneous response by Giuliani was to sharply rebuke Paul, to the wild applause of the crowd (and to my utter dismay). The willingness to believe that terrorist acts against us are caused by crazed "Islamofascists" angry about our freedoms is apparently still highly attractive, so that Americans can continue to deny our hubris and arrogance abroad. In some ways, I think it is most comforting to blame Bush and the administration because, without him to blame, some large part of the blame may rest squarely on all our shoulders, an uncomfortable thought for sure. Not insignificantly, merely bringing up this possibility often generates immediate suggestions that I'm anti-American. In this blog, Chomsky, a brilliant and erstwhile supporter of media truthfulness, has been painted a liar. Chomsky, decades ago, threw down the gauntlet against Walter Lippmann, and Lippmann's idea that Americans could not understand international politics, and therefore we needed a media elite to "manage" the news so as not to confuse us. NC has always stood for good sense and straight talk, so it's sad that here 9/11 truthers have confused a determined respect for truth and the scientific method with some sort of dishonesty. In fact, Chomsky is sensible above all else, and hopefully, the 9/11 truthers will run out of steam fairly soon. The real 9/11 truth is to be found in the minds of people far away, in a culture most of us cannot easily understand.

Truthers assert the unfalsifiable, but Dr. Chomsky was unfailingly kind and patient. If an MIT undergraduate came up with such speculative nonsense, Chomsky would probably throw him/her out of his office. He is after all a scientist (psycho-linguist) and so has a perfect right, even an obligation, to fend off the untestable. Since truthers cannot be embarrassed by such assertions, any serious argument is sort of wasted on them.

OTOH, it is quite likely that Chomsky, an aging man, finds, in the quietude of his MIT office, his telepathic conversations with the lizard people, and their secret connections with the Illuminati, and with Skull and Bones, quite stimulating.

What strikes me the most about the conspiracy theory crowd is the complete discounting of the very real grievances Arabs would have with the U.S., as motivations for carrying out such attacks. I mean I read one of Griffin's books, "A New Pearl Harbor" I believe is the title, and what was completely missing from it were the reasons Bin Laden gave for why the attacks happened: U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians, U.S. soldiers occupying Saudi soil and the U.S. led torture of Iraq under a brutal sanctions regime that had been rightly characterized as genocidal. You can't discuss that in the world of conspiracy theory, because to do so would entail the task of confronting life as we know it, something the conspiracy theory crowd isn't ready to do.

In the world of the 911 conspiracy theorists the Hand of God is replaced with the many hands of the Bush administrations, and its puppets all over the world. If there were Arabs on those highjacked planes, they must have been the hired hands of the Bush administration who were part of the vast conspiracy.

It's completely ridiculous and it gets us away from principled opposition to U.S. led military assaults against defenseless people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just reading through some of this - a few short comments:

 

It is a constant struggle to get people to accept controversial facts that are 100% demonstrable and from impeccable sources. There is so much going on that we can prove - why spend our time with stuff we can't? If you can't convince the guy next door that the US govt is the only country convicted of terrorism, is the only country to have vetoed a UN resolution calling on all states to obey international law - bulldozed surrendering Iraqi conscripts in their trenches in 1991 - what chance do you think you'll have when you don't have all the evidence...?

It's like your trying to fell a tree with one swing of your axe.

Someone mentioned Alex Jones - he'd be good if he could close his mouth for even a second. I've seen that guy threatening to beat up members of his audience - I actually have it on tape. I heard him interview Noam a couple of years ago and he was not impressive - just characteristically rude AFTER he had put the phone down.

Jones is an egomaniac - that much is obvious.

Interesting to note how much time and effort people have gone into in this thread compared to, say, the threads about ongoing crimes in the middle east that the US is responsible for right now and that real activism could bring to an end.

Also interesting to note how so-called 'truthers' have completely ignored the real truth: our rulers are all actually disguised lizards from outer space. Come on, it's all proved in David Icke's books.

The fact that Chomsky ignores such obvious truth proves he's one of the lizards himself and that everything he's said in the past about Israel/Palestine, Vietnam, East Timor, Central/South America and so on has been to prop up the intergalactic power elites.

And anyone here who denies this, well frankly I suspect you of being a CIA agent. Or an iguana. Or both.

 

I know I'm going to regret this, but...I get tired of Truthers throwing up "facts" that they obviously copied from another Truthers website without even attempting to check their accuracy.

In your 1st "fact" about Cheny and Mineta, the actual transcript reads very differently. The testimony is from

"

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES

Public Hearing

Friday, May 23, 2003

Hart Senate Office Building
Room 216
Washington, DC "

Anyone can look at a copy at http://www.9-11commission.gov/  and at many other sites. 

  

"MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out. "

 

So when you read the actual transcript it becomes obvious that "the order" that you try to portray as mysterious and unexplained actually is explained. They were refering to the order by the President to shoot down any airliner that was believed to be controlled by terrorists. But that obvious interpretation is completely masked by your fanciful notions of some other secret order for which you offer no proof.

Just saw “In Plane Sight” and I was stoned when I've heard the firefighters' comments. It was an entire war between me and my friends about the collapsing of WTC towers. I can swear I've seen some explosions just under the collapsing edge. They were like every 10 floors. Some images showed on media that day kept the explosions just fine. I did not see those images ever since. ~~ search engine placement

the "burden of proof" is the obligation to prove "allegations"

the "allegations" that must be proven are the official ones.

the "conspiracy theory" is the "official version of events".

the issue here is "911 TRUTH". This movement seeks to debunk the official conspiracy theory - which as you say is bollox. we may never know what happened but that doesn't mean we must agree with George W Bush's conspiracy.

the allegation is that we have been lied to and the investigation in to this event was full of further lies. lies upon lies.
I hope we can all agree on that.

 

If your mother was murdered right when you were running a drill of her murder that day with all the correct murder weapons and there were no other suspects would there be a murder investigation and would the police let you be in charge?

Sometimes the level of "proof" Chomsky requires takes all the fun out of things. His is certainly a safe position to take, but awfully indecisive. Many of the people I meet on the streets are NEW activists. They hadn't been inspired by any of slow trickle of crimes against humanity. 9/11 was a catalyst for these people.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Notice that everytime Chomsky is questioned along these lines, he refuses to even address the very obvious discrepancies and he is quick to point out that submission of all the alleged evidence to 'serious' journals for peer review would be appropriate. But I'm sure he is informed enough to realize that the government is on the record as having actively impeded any proper forensic investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Chomsky himself has outlined many false-flag, psychological operations, black-ops, etc, carried out by governments, especially the US, to further agendas and interests of a few wealthy elite. But when it comes to the most important event of our lifetime, which is being used as an excuse for anything our governments want to do, regardless of the popular resistance, all his knowledge and insight evaporates before our very eyes and he resorts to the same tactics he so often accuses others of employing. You should have heard an interview he did with Alex Jones of infowars.com. Alex was looking forward to a civil, honest discussion of the issues with this supposed intellectual giant. After confronting Chomsky with mounds of facts supporting the claims of so many 911 prominent truth seekers, the only thing Chomsky could do is giggle and dismiss his questions outright.

Chomsky may have good intentions, but unfortunately either he suffers from the very brainwashing that he so eloquently describes in his voluminous publications on the subject of propaganada or, as you have insinuated Victor, there is more to Chomsky than meets the eye. And we all know MIT is an NSA/CIA recruitment camp. Just a thought.

Be a real patriot everyone and keep questioning the 'official' story - the biggest conspiracy theory of them all! Leave Chomsky for the comfy upper middle-class 'liberals' who believe that activism is going to hear all of Chomsky's increasingly sedate lectures on the intricacies of foreign policy and media manipulation.

 

 

I have seen Noam respond to 9/11 questions on video and he likes to make the broader point that, yes, many nations are experiencing benefits from the attack on the US. They will be allowed to implement plans that would never have been acceptable before the attack and they have a great response to any critics that they are only fighting terrorism. I think this a safe approach for him. I don't think it is his responsibility to provide amazing answers and solutions for every question put forth to him. It is dangerous to place him on a pedistal and get upset when he doesn't meet your demands. He has done a lot of great work for people. It would be great if he had something more to say, but there are plenty of others who might shed light on this area of modern history and make the lesser known details more accessible to the general public

well what can i say you might be right...

by tramadol bowling alley 350z body kit Golf Cart Accessory

I agree. I tend to the "the US found out about the attack plan and let it happen for their own advantage" group, but in the grandest scale it is only one chess move in the US ugly imperialist agenda, an agenda that is destined to fail as every other imperialist agenda has failed. People long to be free and empires have failed throughout history because the people will eventually fight to throw off colonial power. In addition, these CIA "geniuses" are arrogant enough to ignore that the people they are subjugating ascribe to a religion that abhors US cultural values and provides a suicide military tactic that they will be unable to deal with.

The real problem is that our political system is not able to mandate a change to our petroleum-based economy and we thus must defend our "interests" in that resource, no matter the cost. Future generations (if there are any) will judge us very harshly.

I would bet the truth behind 9/11 is far stranger and far more complex than any of these conspiracy theories. I would love to sit down and have a drink with guys like Chomsky and get their real feelings and thoughts off the record on events like 9/11.

 I think Noam knows theirs a line you cross that you don't ever come back from. Anybody with Chomsky's influence would be considered extremely dangerous if he were to sign on to these conspiracies, and I'm sure he would meet with considerable resistance from forces that are far more dangerous than any of us realize.

 I personaly believe Noam has probably had a few encounters with these types of forces in the past and knows its a no win situation. I think he has done a great job exposing the big picture as much as he can without putting his world in jeopardy.

 

Wow, I think this comments fest is bending reality... OK can I just point out that Noam doesn't say what he really thinks about the 9/11 attacks remember this guy is a linguist... everyone knows it was a cover up but Chomsky is quite right not to pursue conspiracies, it's not his field, and plus there's much worse stuff around

It's also useless to believe in the conspiracy itself anyway look at what good it's done, the perpetrators are still in power, sure there are people on the streets shouting '9/11 truth' well does anyone with a scrap of influence give a damn, nope

All NC says there is that there's more to it than meets the eye

 

Chomsky, rightly, does not attempt a point by point rebuttal of every technical flaw that is presented by conspiracy theorists. This has been done already by individuals far better qualified than any of us here. That is not to say we are not able to understand or comment on such matters, but as Chomsky has said in interview, it is possible for us to learn and find a path to understand, and understand and debate them in considerable detail, if we want to (he was actually talking about postmodernism, but it applies here too). If you really want a clear rebuttal of the technical points above, then the National Institute for Standards and Technology provides one here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

If you accuse me, or anyone else who rejects the proposal that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, of merely being a part of, or serving the establishment in their attempt to cover up this alleged plot, then you have not actually refuted any counter claim or counter rebuttal to your proposition. Within this discussion there have been, on top of this, a combination of specific fallacies committed by those attempting to refute such claims:

Bandwagon arguments (i.e. the rest of the left believes this, therefore so should you) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html

Personal Attacks: (i.e. you dont believe this, therefore you a CIA stooge)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

and Straw Man arguments (i.e. I know you have presented this argument about 9/11, but im going to ignore that and instead focus on this imaginary argument that you made that is easier to rebut than the one you actually made)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

Perhaps the most powerful rebuttals have been offfered by the respected leftist thinker George Monbiot who offered a common-sense dismissal of the 9/11 conspiracy on very similiar grounds as Chomsky, in the Guardian (a UK national newspaper - i cant find the exact link right now, my apologies) but with two additional rebuttals to the general proposition of a conspiracy.

 

1. If the Bush administration had such little qualms about killing of 3000 of their citizens in such a public manner, then those behind the 9/11 conspiracy movement would surely be dead by now.

2. If this was all a plot by the neo - conservative movement, then it would have failed through poor management, incompetence, arrogance and dismal ignorance, much like most of their other projects (iraq, afghanistan, etc).

There is a reason why Prof Chomsky doesn't delve into the depths of the WTC terrorist attacks, it isn't important. Although I suspect that a better reason is because his work is invaluable, that is its reality, backed up by about 4 decades worth of facts, deals with millions of deaths and injustices handed out by the U.S on a global level and to jump on a 9/11 bandwagon would discredit a life times worth of real work.

Yes AMERICAN reading this, take a deep breath, calm down and realize, no one fucking cares but you.

Did the U.S government fire rockets at the pentagon and plant explosives through the twin towers in an evil scheme? unlikely.

Did the U.S know in advance about the attacks and do nothing? maybe, doesn't change anything.

No one cares but you.

Showing us blurry pictures of the planes hitting isn't convincing anyone. WHY IS THAT PIECE OF BLURY FOOTAGE A DEEPER SHADE OF GREY THAN THE REST!? No one cares.

Showing us pictures of the pentagon. WHY IS THE HOLE SO SMALL IF THAT WAS MEANT TO BE A PLANE! WHERE IS THE FOOTAGE FROM THE CAMERAS!. No one cares.

THE OFFICIAL REPORT HAS HOLES! THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION! No one cares.

The fact you morons go on about this shit clearly shows you have very little understanding of history, Chomsky's work, dissent in general or any of the events the U.S has caused to kill MILLIONS (not 3000) people. So quit jumping up and down about them killing "their OWN" people and realize that everyone else in the world doesn't give a fuck when they have killed "OTHER" people millions of times over, which makes you look like you pick and choose your ethics and the value of human life based on nation residents.

If the U.S government planned all this wacky conspiracy shit and killed its own people, so what? seriously so fucking what? you think it will be the catalyst for social and cultural change within the U.S? you're going to scrap your ridiculous "democracy" and actually implement a real one? you are going to become a socialist or better yet stateless paradise and destroy capitalism? No, I didn't think so. IF the U.S government did it, it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the global environment and if you cannot understand this you actually need to READ and LISTEN to Chomsky and similar works of dissent.

I get the strange feeling that even if a more serious investigation is done, no matter who's responsible, the verdict would be somewhere in the realm of "We had the facilities secretly wired and demolished purely for security purposes for the American people in case such an attack were to occur. For it is simply a preventative measure we used to avoid the destruction of the surrounding facilities."  

Mr. Chomsky: I respect some of your opinions, but it's clear that you are now nothing more than a deep cover CIA plant trying to divert The Left's (or should I say the Fake-Left's) attention away from one of the most heinous crimes in American history.

 

We all know that your people (the Hebrews) have a VERY LONG history of propagating misinformation campaigns, and the tradition continues...

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

However, as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.

His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame "America" and "corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.

In his book "The Conspirator's Hierarchy," Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr. Coleman's claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky's role as a Left gatekeeper.

See videos on world's largest T organization

Misinformation by Chomsky

See some the truth here about who or what controls America and its highly paid intelligentia...more coming out everyday!

I think that the 9/11 'conspiracy theory' is a load of bollocks (to use the technical term), but I may be mistaken.*  The burden lies with the proponents of the theory to come up with concrete evidence (not speculation or hearsay) and identify the suspects -- apart from the Gov those who actually laid the explosives etc.--and then they can make their case (these are VERY VERY serious allegations, remember). If they do this they will have a serious case at least; however, even then, if others still aren't convinced that's just too bad. 

 

*Note: To say I don't buy (which is reasonable) it is fundamentally different that to say this is The Truth (which is irrational – The Truth is only discoverable by religious means). It is in fact the theorists who are saying the latter; i.e. the theorists are the ones being irrational in this case--one has no right to through a fit because others doubt what they say.

In the case of the Oklahoma City Building bombing experts were surprised at the extent of the damage. Various tests were devised, including using models, and what was discovered was that this building (and others like it) had a particular weakness. If only a couple pillars on the ground floor were taken out (as happened) multiple pillars on the floors above would then loose their support. A simple demonstration using a crude model will show this—but it wasn't until after these (very careful) tests were done (taking several years I believe) that the weakness was discovered. Maybe a few engineers had some idea before; but it would have just been speculation at that stage.

 

In the case of the way the WTC, it could take years of scientific investigation to figure out exactly why the Towers collapsed the way they did. In this case scientists are working from scratch –  there aren't to my knowledge any precedents for jets intentionally flying into very tall buildings – no one knows what a tall building is ‘supposed to do' when a plane crashes into one (and, remember, architecture varies among buildings, perhaps in significant ways, even if they look similar to a layman—It may be a mistake to generalize too readily.). The conclusions that are currently being made are without scientific basis and are being made by non-experts relying on for 'evidence'something allong the lines of ‘so-and-so said his engineer friend...'

What's desperately needed is concrete evidence -- and evidence that implicates particular agents. Surely there most have been numerous people who knew something about the plot [to blow up the WTC as alleged], and who played some role. To make a case, instead of wild speculation and hearsay, serious investigation ought to be undertaken by concerned individuals. Hitherto this has not been done. In fact, known evidence would seem to correlate to the official story and vindicate the government of allegations of direct responsibility. The government is of course still responsible for failing to prevent the attack, as it should have done. Considering the massive investment in security and intelligence this failure is a huge embarrassment for the government (an raises unwelcome questions). It is hardly surprising they don't want a serious investigation that would doubtless illuminate their ineptitude further.

It is also interesting, and worth noting, that the attention 9/11 receives is quite disproportionate to the scale of the atrocity (frighteningly it has taken on virtual religious significance). Vastly more people have died in Iraq (hundreds of thousands) and everyone knows beyond all doubt who's responsible for that. It seems to me our energies would be better invested bringing Bush (inter alia) to trial for this atrocity and figuring out how to prevent such atrocities in future.

When we talk about divisiveness, this is what we're talking about:

"I am so sick of these mindless dismissals by lightweights who
haven't bothered investigating the issue, in five God damned years."

"Maybe Noam would feel differently if some of his family had been murdered by their own government.

He better hope I never meet him. Pathetic worm."

"i've lost much respect for this man and will never again take him seriously. he is, in essence, an asset to the military-industrial complex by spewing this drivel."

Do you really think this is a form of the left "awakening from its stupor"? It's not. It's a quagmire caused by reactionary fanaticism within the left. This is what happens in asymmetrical situations... the marginalized sector (the left, in this case) sees that it's at a disadvantage, it FREAKS OUT (over 9/11, in this case) and it ends up contributing to its own demise. It's a form of schizmogenesis.

As thoughtful leftists, we've gotta keep our cool. Investigate 9/11, if that's your thing... especially if you have a personal connection to it. But don't mistake 9/11 for the ultimate goal of leftist politics, and don't mistake Chomsky, who's a well-spoken, assertive advocate of American leftist critique, for an enemy just because he's not on board with your particular leftist agenda.

Whether Chomsky's right about 9/11 or not, he's definitely right about a lot of things. Have your disagreements, but don't let them overshadow your convictions.

After reading about conspiracy theories of 9-11 and finding them more able to explain what happened than what I was told by the mass media, I believe we should consider such possibilities.  I agree with Mr Chomsky, many crimes are still committed by our governments (I'm Canadian)and require our attention.  Altough, in order to reach the people of our countries, inquiring and proving there was an inside job on the WTC and the pentagon  could convince a lot of people to act toward a restructuring of our politics.  People heard more about 9-11 than they will ever hear about what happened in Timor or in Iraq and it's obvious to me that a lot of activists are concerned with that matter specifically.  I think Chomsky should consider that it is easier to reach people on subjects that they were exposed to. 

Chomsky blew the whistle on Operation Gladio a long time ago. Just like he has blown the whistle on thousands of other Fascist Actions by the USA government (and other countries).

If there is so little of what could be considered hard, non-circumstantial, evidence in the public domain. Then surely to accept one belief or another, as a reasoning individual, at this time cannot be possible?

One of the key, critical, issues surrounding situations like this is the lack of concerted effort to make the evidence for institutional thinking apparent to the public.

On the issue of 9/11 this is very true. The information released by governmental institutions into the public domain has been very weak in nature. Mccarthy style testimonial evidence (hearsay/rumour) from 'experts' being what the public is expected to believe with little question allowed.

Many of the 9/11 centric organisations are not accusing the administration of being culpable, but simply want access to the source materials on which the administration claim to be basing their own conclusions. They are being blocked at almost every turn and that fuels the fear that they are being deceived.

Note that I'm not talking about the event itself, but the way in which information has been placed in or withheld from the public domain since. e.g. Pentagon Video Surveillance (CCTV) and the lack of dicussion regarding Building 7.

What Professor Chomsky can certainly look to in 9/11, and the ensuing actions, is a demonstration of propganda at work. I'm sure he has done so and written about the linkages between 9/11 and the occupation of Iraq. He has noted plenty of uses of 'PR' to misappropriate public support for crusades against foreign nationals for the economic benefit of a privileged minority before. What makes 9/11 an exception with its use in justifying anti-terrorism laws and international aggression in the pursuit of natural resource?

What seems certain about 9/11 is that, regardless of who commited the acts of causing those explosions by whatever methods, there is still a conspiracy at work. Even the 'institutional' conclusion is that there was a conspiracy, though it is not labelled as such (In the same way that 'Shock and Awe' is not 'Hi-tech Terrorism'). There has also been demonstrated, in the aftermath, evidence of (opportunist?) conspiracy to decieve the public at large (Bernays/Lippman style). The fact of this being concious and/or dictated/supported by the behaviour of a system is, to a certain degree, an irrelevency.

As Victor notes, the mass seem to like a cause celebre to rally around, and if it is 9/11 then what reason is there to fight it? Why not embrace the moment?

Perhaps it is simply a rejection of the popular, as it seems some of the readers here fear? If a large percentage of the population were to make a big fuss about Nicaragua right now (to the exclusion of other issues) would that be a problem for the Professor?

Perhaps it is simply caution, in that to associate with one side or another at this point could effectively marginalise the Professor and some of his other statements?

Perhaps it is because of political conviction and the concern that all 'uncovering' 9/11 will do is prompt the replacement of the current heirarchy with another? Progression rather than a true revolution (as in Bookchin's critiques of marxism) which might be prompted by a broader understanding?

What disturbs me about this is the Professor's apparent lack of commitment to offering his own opinions on individual pieces of evidence. Perhaps he could assuage some of the common fever by examining the evidence given from certain sources and attempting to strip away some of the rhetoric? A real weakness of some of the '9/11 truth' advocates is that they are prone to go a step too far in drawing conclusions, appearing dogmatic, and discrediting their own assertions. (These are, of course, the only ones who actually get any (though not much) attention by the mass media. Propaganda at work again.)

One thing clear to me is that I'm not sated by the answer that 'there is no historical parallel'. Was there a historical parallel for the propganda systems put into place around WWI? Is it possible that there are examples that do not meet the scale required to match 9/11 though are the same in method? I would certainly have prefered the reply to that question to have been stated in less cryptic terms.

As I mentioned before, a lot of '9/11 truth' supporters are not accusing the US Government of even being complicit, simply that they were being opportunistic in the aftermath and are withholding material evidence which contradicts the 'institutional' conclusions.

In many cases people are presenting solutions on what evidence they have to hand and we're choosing the ones we like. Prof Chomsky can be just as guilty of this as the rest of us.

This is hardly the best blog entry to respond to though. It is a trap of the most vicious kind to use a sound bite like "A vs. B" to define an arguement, as you are stepping straight into the world of black and white absolutism that narrows thinking in the first place. Stereotypes are at work by the time you approach the first sentence. I find Leila Mouammar's articles on the topic to be far more valuable.

My own personal conviction is that the cirmcumstances surrounding the 'conspiracy theories' of 9/11 could be largely beneficial, if people do not treat it as the beginning and end of the matter.

If 9/11 'conspiracy theory' has (re)introduced people to skepticism and critical thinking then, as far as I am concerned, that can only be a positive thing.

IF... I were to meet Noam Chomsky in person, and I could ask him one question. The question would be:

 

Dr. Chomsky, please explain to me Operation Gladio?

 

John Dorarmi publishes Crimes of the State

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Again don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see "experts" complain about Chomsky being "establishment" when it comes to 911 conspiracy (crap). Chomsky was the only ... THE ONLY person (30 years ago) that began writing and speaking out on Fascist USA/CIA actions. Again .. give me one piece of evidence that Bush/CIA used plastic explosives to take down the Twin Towers ... again JUST ONE piece of evidence.

A peer reviewed article is no substitute for an independent investigation as called for by Hugo Chavezetc. Peer reviews have been corrupt (see link below)in the past. There are very little checks on vested interests.

Chomsky's line of refutation favours the establishment who dont even for instance want to count the dead in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?ei=5088&en=989fce7c62c8e849&ex=1304222400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1166879670-yEPi5WirZMXUqd3Xvag8ZA

I am about at the end of my rope with naive "progressive" bullshit artists like Chomsky. He is a glib font of facts and figures, but he seemingly can't put it all together and come up with a grounded perspective if his life depends on it. So he doesn't think there's any reason to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And why? Because prominent professionals aren't queuing up to put their necks on the chopping block of corporate media accusations of "conspiracy theorist"? Gee, I wonder why?

You're a bloody stealth-Nazi idiot, Chomsky. You like being in the useless liberal mainstream, don't you? Butters your bread, does it? I hope being totally irrelevant butters your bread as well. That's what you've consigned yourself to in the name of staying in the safe zone and providing cathartic fodder for the left wing. The neocons love people like you, Chomsky.

By the way Chomsky, the "narrow" claims of the Cheney regime are hardly narrow. In fact I'd argue that complete global hegemonic domination of the planet is fairly broad.

 Narrow? This man is clearly not who he says he is. If otherwise, how could he conclude that the agenda of the global elite is...(chuckle)...narrow?

Sorry for the double post, but there doesn't seem to be an "edit" option, which seems counter-intuitive to me.

I'd just like to add that there are plenty anarchists and anti-authoritarians/anti-capitalists who are involved with the 9/11 truth movement and who believe that 9/11 was planned, blueprinted, engineered, executed, and covered-up by the White House, the Pentagon, and the U.S. intelligence agencies. Infoshop.org does not represent all anarchists. In fact I'd argue that Infoshop.org doesn't even represent legitimate anarchism itself, by virtue of it's own refusal to call for an independent investigation. Or even further, by its own parrotted ad hominem, Bill O'Reilly-like attacks on 9/11 truthers.

 Anyone who dares call themself an anti-authoritarian but who steadfastly supports the official conspiracy theory has absolutely no right to publicly criticize any other anti-authoritarian who DOES suspect government culpability in the 9/11 attacks as well as the anthrax attacks.

I'd just like to add that there are plenty anarchists and anti-authoritarians/anti-capitalists who are involved with the 9/11 truth movement and who believe that 9/11 was planned, blueprinted, engineered, executed, and covered-up by the White House, the Pentagon, and the U.S. intelligence agencies. Infoshop.org does not represent all anarchists. In fact I'd argue that Infoshop.org doesn't even represent legitimate anarchism itself, by virtue of it's own refusal to call for an independent investigation. Or even further, by its own parrotted ad hominem, Bill O'Reilly-like attacks on 9/11 truthers.

 Anyone who dares call themself an anti-authoritarian but who steadfastly supports the official conspiracy theory has absolutely no right to publicly criticize any other anti-authoritarian who DOES suspect government culpability in the 9/11 attacks as well as the anthrax attacks.

It cracks me up when people fall into the 9/11 CONSPIRACY trap set by the C.I.A. The Federal Government of the USA built 50 secret prisons across the USA during the Vietnam fiasco - just in case there was a violent revolution to stop the war. You have to realize that only 10% of all Marines - ever - has gone into battle. 90% of Marines are kept in the USA ready to move on any armed revolutionary action. The C.I.A. is now funding all these PAY FOR SAY 9/11 CONSPIRACY blogs in order to collect a list of people who will fill these 50 prisons - if any armed revolutionary action starts in the USA.

When it comes to all these folks posting stuff on the web about the so-called 9/11 CONSPIRACY - what a bunch of crap! It's all based on "since an Apple is roundish - all roundish fruit must be apples". Ever piece put up on the web, in books , in videos is pure gibberish. I don't know whether to laugh or cry as fools actually start believing this 9/11 CONSPIRACY crap.

 We are told that 19 Arabs with box cutters directed by the nefarious Osama Bin Laden on a cell phone from a cave in Afghanistan accomplished 3 out of 4 successful terrorist mission targets that included two World Trade Centre Towers, an unthinkable strike on the Pentagon, the most anti aircraft defense protected target in the world, and in doing so these lap dancing devotees of Allah displayed a flying finesse that would challenge a 30 year mission seasoned veteran. Incredibly four or more planes defeated the trillion dollar NORAD defense system for two hours. The most sophisticated radar tools where these guys can even see a volley ball spike up in the air at a beach game in California. When 6 or more of these Arab gentlemen have since showed up alive and well with jobs in the Middle East; with wall to wall security cameras in the Boston Airport, yet not one photo has been released showing any of these characters at Boston nor were they even on any of the passenger lists as having purchased tickets. Serious flaws in the 911 fact suite include:1.0  Three symmetrical building failures resulting from asymmetrical impact damage in two of three cases and for all intents and purposes, no physical impact damage in the third case. When a building fails from an aircraft strike and the resulting fire the laws of physics which consistently govern our reality dictate that the building fail asymmetrically. That is it would topple on adjacent buildings crushing them and not implode into its own foot print. Never mind until these three modern steel buildings failed in a single day, none had ever failed in history, with numerous examples of weaker designs enduring much higher temperature for much longer fire durations.2.0  The facts surrounding WTC Building Seven is probably most problematic in that it was a block and a half a way from Buildings 1 and 2. Other much closer structures experienced significantly more physical damage and they easily survived. Somehow officials would have us believe that Building 7 collapsed from only psychological shock when its proximity to cause, could just as well have placed it in Baltimore. Basically all it had in common with WTC buildings 1&2 causality was the named beneficiary in the unusual insurance policy recently taken out on it. 3.0   WTC buildings 1, 2, & 7 still had molten metal deep into their undergrounds five weeks after the Sept. 11^th event. I won't bore you with the laws of thermal dynamics but this too seriously defy the laws of physics and is a telling piece of physical evidence that now gives the fact suite a mechanism with which to overcome the impossible problem of symmetrical failure due to asymmetrical impact damage.4.0  This critical slag material trace elements have been independently laboratory verified as thermate. Thermate is the tool of choice to cut massive steel beams and columns used by building demolition experts who evidently take weeks per building to perform their work.5.0  Now that the serious problem of building failure symmetry is accounted for by the presence of thermate residue we have a whole host of other problems introduced into the inquiry, the main being who planted the explosive charges and when and how did they plant the steel cutter charges in the WTC Buildings? At this point the material facts have taken us so far from the official 911 version, as to make the findings of the 911 Commission complete rubbish.  One naturally starts an objective inquiry willing to hear everyone out, giving every one the benefit of the doubt; but when one encounters such a huge disparity with reality, its becomes evident that we are up against a cover up agenda.  Facts are basically static to deal with… a piece of evidence just sits on the ground where it fell, no more, or no less.  A cover up agenda on the other hand is dynamic and slipperier than a greased pig. One has a great deal of difficulty getting your hands around it and it keeps changing with time and place.   So with some jaundice now added to the inquiry perspective, let's continue examining the 911 material evidence.  6.0  It's now necessary to ask, “How did the thermate explosives get into the building?”  Were they placed there or were they freight on board the airplanes? Remember the symmetrical failure, there is no getting around it… the explosives were planted. Building 7 was not struck by an airplane and yet its symmetrical failure was that of a classical building demolition failure pattern…. It's very likely they were expertly placed there and when you use follow the money as a guide, likely in the weeks after the WTC ownership changed to this infinitely interesting Mr. Larry Silverstein.7.0  With such a flawed official accounting of the facts calling for a much more critical view at all of the evidence starting with the publicly aired videos with their live audio tracks. The www.letsroll911.org website has done most of this for us using public TV footage from all the networks slowed down frame by frame. Unfortunately the frame by frame review of these history making 911 tragic events only take us further from the myth fostered by the media and administration officials.  Frames showing a large and unusual appendage attached to the underbody of the airplane. Oddly we see what appears to be a flash of light just prior to the nose striking the building. On replaying it again we see the source of this flash starts midway down the fuselage traveling along side the fuselage and then strikes the building just a split second before the nose cone and offset to the right of the nose contact point. The same is seen frame by frame from all the different network footage. This evidence can not be said to be conclusive but it is still important corroborated evidence and it really opens up a can of worms. For if indeed that was the same Boeing 767 that left Logan Airport that morning, it did some miraculous (transformer toy) work to itself on the way over to New York.8.0  Flying any thin skinned aluminum aircraft into massive 4” thick steel girders and columns has the predictable result of a compete disintegration of the aircraft (take an empty beer can and swing at it with all your might a using ten pound sledge hammer and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about).  The sledge hammer decisively wins that contest with the exception of heavier elements like landing gear, spar beam and the two 6 ton engine pods (containing lots of titanium parts and these would be expected to survive somewhat intact). Back to the network frame by frame footage we do see an engine pod exiting the far side of the building and it lands a couple blocks away on Murray Street.  Photographers took high resolution photographs of this debris evidence and nothing should be unusual about that except for the fact that what flew into the building was supposedly a Boeing 767 from Logan Airport in Boston and yet  the engine that flew out the opposite side  was turbine spindle from a Boeing 737 from God knows only where… So now to buy into the official 911 version we have to believe that the engine that landed on Murray Street did this magic transformation thing bouncing through the offices partitions out the windows on the other side. Haven't we heard this sort of thing before? A lot like that magic soft lead bullet that killed President Kennedy and made seven 90 degree course changes through bone and was still in pristine condition. 9.0  Many survivors firemen etc who were in or near the WTC complex reported multiple secondary explosions and these were clearly recorded in audio tapes from many different vantage points and then corroborated in independent time dated seismic data recordings. 10.0            The physical structures of WTC have a known mass and hence also have a known energy potential as that mass falls to the ground. The complete pulverization of the concrete, building mass and dust gas cloud requires the additional energy input of some 14 tons of TNT to account the dispersal energy audit. Further the flimsy floor pancake failure offered by the official account would give us a collapse timeline markedly different from that of a free fall imploded collapse which actually occurred. On one hand the officials would have us believe that impact forces were such that the flight data recorders were disintegrated by the impact and ensuing infernos and yet our terrorist pilot's paper passport miraculously fluttered down and settled onto the dust and debris and was found and shown on TV without so much as a singe from his shirt pocket as he made his way to on to Allah in heaven to rightfully claim his allotted 72 virgins. On the that note now that we've walked completely away from any conceivable reality lets see what we are left with.  We can begin to appreciate why 36% of the American population believes that 911 was an inside job…. The official story grossly defies physical reality and violates all known laws of physics. It simply did not occur nor could it have occurred as we've been led to believe. The cover up becomes at least as interesting as the deed itself. Even the FBI's most wanted list does not have Osama Bin Laden listed because they say they do not have any material evidence linking him to 911. If your own research only covers the publicly available sourced information above, then you too must agree that we've been fed a lot of horse manure and played as ignorant fools.  Indeed, scientists have reputations that concern them in the course of their work and they are mindful of the backlash sensitivities of their public statements. Engineers and physicists are by nature one of the most conservative populations in society and it is unheard of for this select population to be at the center of what is known as conspiracy theory. Any that have made even cursory examinations here see that this is BIG and implicates the highest offices in the land, and even more troubling, the media consistently appears to be in on the fix as well.  Evident as well, since 911 was largely the pretext for invading two sovereign countries and killing some ¼ to ½ a million innocent people, the consequences of facing or not facing the truth about 911 will go on to determine the fate of the entire world.  PNAC, CFR, Northwoods, Pearl Harbor, WMD, and the nonexistent babies thrown from incubators in Kuwait all figure into this scenario. Considerations eclipsing professional standing and risk to personal careers are now mute points and thanks to courageous people like Physics Professor Steven Jones, Professor Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, Ray McGovern former CIA Analyst, and alternative media like Rense.com and the Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen, the truth is finally being told and will ultimately win out. The “Scholars for 911 Truth” movement has become a pathway for the world to walk back into reality and possibly even peace, out from this fabricated illusion of fear that contains a very real never ending global war and the destruction of the environment. These patriots have provided us with a way to confront the unthinkable and also the inevitable reality and facts of 911. Nothing has or will be ever as important as the outcome of this 911 reality walk.   I'll gladly pay $100 dollars for your Paul Revere Impeachment CD, bring it on Chicks…. Martin

Look "reject conspiracism", you can throw any label you want at those who have discovered that the official 9/11 story does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny, but that's just your way of avoiding the discussion of evidence. Denial seems to flow strong within those who allow "authorities" to tell them what to think, whether those "authorities" are the government, mainstream media, or gatekeepers like Noam Chomsky (I used to uncritically accept Chomsky's assertions myself until I started looking at how Chomsky is often guilty of using the same rhetorical propoganda tricks as he accuses others of using). Before you just uncritically accept the "analysis" of organizations like Political Research Associates, you should possibly do some research about the motives and biases of such organizations and what their background might be in serving as disinformation agents. Political Research Associates has been funded by the Militaristic Establishment's Ford Foundation, which has historic ties to the CIA. see http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/ChipBerletSponsoredByFordFoundationByBobFeldman120903.htm Although Political Research Associates publicly describes itself as a progressive watchdog monitering right wing groups, it seems to spend much of its energy attacking those on the left who delve into CIA black ops crimes and other areas that PRA apparently deems "out of bounds". When it comes to the overwhelming evidence of electoral fraud in the last 2 presidential elections, political assinations, and other of the most serious and evil crimes of the powers that be, the well-funded PRA seems to be fullfilling the role of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" debunkers against the left masquerading as a progressive/leftist advocacy group. It's main protagonist - Chip Berlet - spends 99 percent of his time attacking the people who have actually exposed U.S. Government crimes and cover-ups, and one percent of his time exposing same. This is 100 percent U.S. Government damage control. Attacking some of the best investigators of Imperial state crimes is a state lap dog's job. He babbles incessantly about the need for and value of "progressive power structure research," but he never does any. Instead he whines constantly about "pseudo-radical allegations of conspiracism." He attacks the Christic Institute and defends Bush, Rockefeller and the Imperial oligarchy. See: http://www.redshift.com/%7Edamason/lhreport/flash/truthmatters.html for more on Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. Here's an excellent critique regarding the pajoritive label of "conspiracy theorist" and its variations against those who would expose government crimes and cover-ups: "For people to call [this media analysis] 'conspiracy theory' is part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works, in my view - 'conspiracy theory' has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it's something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on." Guess who said the above? None other than Noam Chomsky! This is one thing I whole-heartedly agree with Chomsky about. It's too bad Chomsky is behaving like such a hypocrite now with the use of this pajoritivized use of the term against the 9/11 truth movement. When Noam Chomsky repeatedly uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe quistioning of the official story of 9/11, he clearly knows its power and purpose of its use. So, "reject conspiracism", I challenge you to reject the simplistic slogans such as "reject conspiracism" that would distract real progressives from asking the legitimage questions and thinking about what's really going on, preventing an understanding of how the world works. The very real threat to our democracy, and indeed, the survival of humanity, predicated on the official version of events of 9/11/01, demands that we progressives grapple with these uncomfortable questions and take back our responsibility for how we discover and dissiminate the truth.

I am so sick of these mindless dismissals by lightweights who haven't bothered investigating the issue, in five God damned years.

 

Here's a conspiracy FACT:

The 9-11 Commission Report tells us Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:58am.

Norman Mineta (Secretary of Transportation) and Richard Clark (Counterterrorism Chief) tell us otherwise. The 9-11 Commission lies about when Cheny arrived and what he did there.

Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??” -Lee Hamilton questions Norman Mineta, 9-11 Commission Hearings

Well, THAT sounds relevant to the investigation into September 11th. It was omitted from the book. Why?

What was Cheney's "order?"

What legal or constitutional authority did the Vice President have for giving an "order" to the military?

Why was Bush sitting reading about a goat while multiple planes are crashing around the nation?

You don't understand Bush's role there, do you?

It will take some more explanation. But it's certainly not "incompetence." That theory is bunk, and easily discredited.

In the third week of July, 2001 -- two months before 9-11 -- Bush, his entourage and his SECRET SERVICE DETAIL were moved out of a high rise hotel in Genoa Italy during the G8 summit.

Why?

Because Italian secret service got a WARNING from Egypt that "Al Qaeda" was planning to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into the summit to "ASSASSINATE BUSH AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS" (LA Times,9-27-01)

Secret Service knew: means, perps, target, all of it.

So, what was Bush doing sitting in the class, in a pre-announced highly disclosed location?

Not commanding his military.

Not scrambling interceptor jets.

Not doing his duty to protect and defend the nation.

Mr. Bush was stalling for time, as Ari Fleischer instructed on a writing pad, from the back of the room: "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." (Wash. Times, 10-7-02, Bill Sammon)

Thirty five minutes LATER, the Pentagon was finally struck.

Back to Cheney -- what was he doing in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and on what authority?

Seems that in May of 2001 Bush put Cheney in charge of all "preparedness exercises", basically in command over all military branches to carry out system wide military drills, ... to fight terrorism (sic). This was by executive order, which anyone can look up.

On September 11th, at least SIX large drills were underway as the attacks came, including "live fly" hijacking simulations. All of this is confirmed by military sources, first reported by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon. These military drills paralyzed the defenses and took all of the ready fighter jets away from the region and up into Canada, Alaska and Greenland. This explains the extraordinary lack of fighter response to the largest civil air emergency in history.

All FACTS, not a theory in sight.

 

Here's a theory about Dick Cheney's "order." (Copyright 2006/John Doraemi)

1. Exercises are all over the sky making it difficult to distinguish military exercise from real world hijacks.

2. In the interest of "safety" (sic), Cheney orders the inbound Pentagon craft to not be intercepted, so no "accident" will happen in an already turbulent sky.

3. The junior officers don't buy it. Interception is mandatory in FAA regs. They try to persuade Cheney to change his mind.

4. The Pentagon is struck. Too late. Ooops. Best to cover it up, and never mention it in public again. Promote everyone. No one is accountable. "Let's roll."

 

Crimes of the State
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com

"It is prepostrous to cite Iraq as a reason to hatch 9/11"

They wrote about the need to occupy Iraq in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses." They also said that need "transcends the regime of Saddam Hussein." They also called for a "catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

What's truly preposterous is your simplemindedness.

September 11 wasn't just about Iraq. It was about total global domination. That's what they strive for, and that is what they wrote about. If you have a problem with these concepts, talk to the neocons. I'm not making it up. They are. And they are "reshaping the Middle East", calling for "first strike" nuclear atrocities and "full spectrum dominance" according to long held plans.

Now I can prove they are covering up the facts of 9-11 in at least twenty different ways, with solid evidence published in mainstream sources.

I have done so repeatedly since 2002, and it is not a hard challenge.

What's hard is getting you idiots to actually care that they are. I honestly believe thee faux intellectual lefties don't give a rat's ass if there was high treason on September 11th, 2001. That is how they behave, and those are the sentiments they type.

So whose side are you on?

What do you stand for?

What are you really about?

9/11 Press For Truth 

 

Crimes of the State 

I have literally gigabytes of data supporting US approval and/or permission for the attacks of 9-11. Paul Thompson's site similarly shows numerous, numerous lies told by the administration regarding 9-11, and omissions that were not investigated officially.

So it comes down to:

Mr. Chomsky, what evidence would you need to see before you entertained the notion that the US wanted and allowed these attacks to happen?

If there is NOTHING that will convince you, nothing at all, then you are not a serious authority on this subject. End of discussion.

You tell me what exactly I have to provide, and I'm pretty sure I can come close.

Meanwhile, independent investigator Daniel Hopsicker has just linked an admitted CIA OPERATIVE to MOHAMED ATTA (the purported "lead hijacker" and "ringleader"). Story at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/120112006.html

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

 

P.S.

I don't actually expect a response.

 

P.P.S.

This classic and awe inspiring response by Nafeez Ahmed still packs a punch:

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis

How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

 http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore, he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are "nothing organizations." When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt. Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur..."

He NEVER refers to any evidence, just generalised mutterings on how the 9/11 or 7/7 truth movement are distracting people...

 

Maybe Noam would feel differently if some of his family had been murdered by their own government.

 

He better hope I never meet him. Pathetic worm.

 

Viva la Renaissance.

As a former fan of Chomsky, I'd refer anyone who kisses the ground he walks on (like the sad folks at Infoshop.org) to Barry Zwicker's book "Towers of Deception". Also check out this link on what he has to say about Chomsky...skip to 41 minutes to get to what he says about Chomsky. It's utterly fascinating.

 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3140806684384864190&q=zwicker+interview

 

I have his book "Hegemony or Survival". I have lost all respect for Noam. None of what he says related to 9/11 makes any sense.

I'm sorry Noam, but you made me very, very upset.

Consider your book firewood!!!

 

 

Noam,

Please, I beg you, please do what's right and speak the truth.

The fraud is being exposed en masse. You have a choice - either come clean now and take the logical and right moral stance, or wait until the truth becomes most widely accepted, at which point you will have egg all over your face.

Please, I beg you, do the right thing for humanity. I know you know the truth. The choice is yours.

 

“Far more serious crimes than blowing up the WTC?” Come on Noam, you know better!

9/11 has been used to justify numerous illegal acts by the Bush administration - most serious of course being the slaughter of almost 700,000 Iraqi's (John Zogby agrees with this number), and the destruction of America, Canada, Iraq and Afghanistan's sovereignty. Here are the obvious examples illustrating how the 9/11 fraud is "THE" most "IMPORTANT" issue to derail:

It was used to implement:

(1) Passage of Patriot Act

(2) Passage of Military Commissions Act

(3) Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq

(4) Passage of SPP and North American Union

(5) Milking of almost 1/2 Trillion Dollars to finance invasions

The list goes on, and on, and on. With perhaps the most unsettling result being the deceitful manipulation of the world public through selling this hoax - this fake "war on terror".

The "war on terror" is a fraud and it will be used to suck us right into endless war to feed the military/banking/industrial complex tapeworm! 9/11 is THE ONLY ISSUE and needs to be exposed now. Get over it you gatekeepers, the perpetrators overextended their hand and got caught! The buildings were pulverized at near free-fall speed and collapsed, straight down, into the path of MOST RESISTANCE! Repeat, MOST RESISTANCE! In one sentence it can be proved that the buildings were blown up. The laws of physics cannot be broken. I'm surprised of all people, Noam, you don't get it!?

Chomsky, in my opinion, you're either incredibly naive, or yourself a fraud! Your nonsense is already exposed and your credibility has just been flushed down the toilet.

The truth has come out. You either change your stance and acknowledge the obvious, or your career and reputation will be forever tarnished.

Wake up!

See http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm

Does anyone suspect as I do that Chomsky has disinfo agendas. A lot of truth mixed with diversion. Let's just forget the biggest crime of our lifetime and only discuss what he thinks is relevant. Most Americans will never know or understand anything Chomsky has ever said but they may eventually understand the false flag crime of 911 for what it is. Can truth prevail? One can only hope.

Comments please.

I highly recommend the work of Political Research Associates

I am a big fan of Noam Chomskys work but I have to say that I am very disappointed in him when it comes to this issue. First of all, I was just watching an interview entitled the ideology of the nwo and when the question came up about the bush admin being involved with 911 chomsky actually said that even if it was true who cares? I cannot believe this came out of his mouth, the american people care, the families of the people who lost their lives on that day care, and should have the truth about what really happened. The people who orchestrated 911 should be held accountable. Chomsky says that bush would have to be utterly insane to try anything like this. I have to ask, have you ever heard of operation northwoods? The goverment planned terrorist attacks on the people of the U.S. in order to blame them on Cuba as a pretext for war. How about operation ajex, where the U.S. actually carried out terrorist attacks in Iran. No evidence? How about presidential decision directive w99i, where bush ordered all federaql agaents to back off al-queda before 911 under threat of arrest. How about the missing surveilance tapes from around the pentagon that would show what actually hit the pentagon. Or the scientist and structural engineers that have come forward to say that those planes could not have possibly caused the towers to collapse. Building 7, the only modern building in history to collapse from a fire, besides the towers. Numerous eyewitnesses that report numerous explosions inside the towers after the impact. The NATO exercises where they had simulated an attack by airliners on the wtc and pentagon years before 911. The complete disappearance of any kind of plane structure around the pentagon, planes don't just disappear, even in crashes. Mr. Chomsky the list can go on and on and on for pages. I am very disappointed to see an intelligent man as yourself who has worked so hard to bring about truth shrug this off in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence. You say that there are much worse things going on in the world, I agree but exposure of this crime on our own people will open the countries eyes to the crimes commited by our goverment in the rest of the world.Ray McGovern and the rest of the leaders of the 911 truth movement are not consiracy nuts these are people who have had roles in goverment and companies that did studies on the wtc buildings. You say that what you do is institutional analysis but when someone else is working on something that you don't believe you refer to them as conspiracy theorist. I beg of you to look into this evidence and the mountain of other evidence and reconsider your position. You said they would have to be insane, would you not also have to be insane to invade a country killing thousand upon thousands of innocent civilians. Wake up Mr. Chomsky the truth needs you now more than ever. Anyone who feels the same as me please e mail me at astrophel_26@yahoo.com

man, why even bother.. chimpsky doesn't mention a single fact in his responses - never has even addressed any of the facts, why would he start now?

i've lost a lot of respect for the guy, that's for sure. (same goes for this pussy magazine)

yeah, Jones is much more of a patriot than Chimpsky is.. that's for sure.. these morons here crying(as usual) about how 9/11 truth is hurting their cause.. oh booohoooo.. if you can't focus on truth then you're all hypocrites.

Is actually called, "It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up", but the cache got me.

By Jon Gold 10/23/2006 A lot of us within the 9/11 Truth Movement spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out the crime that took place on 9/11. We want to figure out who, what, when, why, and where. Simply put, no one within this movement has the proper access to the information we need in order to do that. We don't have access to classified documentation, the Air Traffic Controllers, the pilots, the NORAD officers on duty that morning, the individuals within the PEOC, and many other facets that would need to be looked at in order to solve this crime. Sure, we have an idea of who was involved. Sure, we have an idea of why they were involved. However, we could spend an eternity trying to figure out the what, when, and where, and never accomplish anything. Most of us "joined" the movement when we realized that our Government was covering up aspects of the crime. There are a plethora of examples that show this. The following list shows the signs of a cover-up involving our Government, and the attacks of 9/11:

• Colin Powell promised a "white paper" that would establish the guilt of Osama Bin Laden and associates. That never came.
• Dick Cheney and George Bush asked Tom Daschle to "limit the scope" of the Congressional Inquiry.
• The Congressional Inquiry released a report with 28 redacted pages.
• The family members had to fight "tooth and nail" against the Bush Administration to create a commission to investigate the attacks.
• The Bush Administration appointed Henry Kissinger to lead the Commission. A man known for too many secrets.
• After the families' forced Kissinger's resignation, the Bush Administration appointed Thomas Kean, someone "who will be easily controlled by the administration" to head the Commission.
• The Bush Administration appointed Lee Hamilton to be the co-chair. Hamilton chaired the Iran Contra Congressional Investigation, and "was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing."
• The Bush Administration appointed Philip Zelikow to be the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. A man who served on the Bush Transition Team. A man who was a good friend of Condoleezza Rice's. A man who is a self described expert at creating "public myths."
• The families submitted well researched questions to the 9/11 Commission in the hopes that they would be answered. The Commission touched on, at best, 30% of their questions.
• The families asked for Zelikow's resignation, but were denied.
• The 9/11 Commission was underfunded, and had a limited amount of time to conduct their work.
• Very few individuals that testified before the 9/11 Commission, did so under oath. In fact, the Vice President, and the President refused to do so. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied.
• The 9/11 Commission turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information.
• One whistleblower they were forced to see by the families', Sibel Edmonds, is now the "most gagged person in American History." She testified for 3 hours before the 9/11 Commission and received a footnote in the back of their report.
• The White House vetted each and every chapter of a report that was supposed to be independent, and bi-partisan.
• On October 21, 2003, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, two senior Commission staff members, and a representative of the executive branch, met at Bagram Base, Afghanistan, with three individuals doing intelligence work for the Department of Defense. The work they were doing was in regards to Able Danger. Something that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report.
• A July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report.
• The CIA Inspector General's report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks” has not been released to the public.
• World Trade Center 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Report, even though it was one of the three buildings that collapsed that day. NIST has yet to release a report explaining the collapse of that building.
• Upwards of 7 wargames were taking place on the morning of 9/11. Only one received a footnote in the back of the 9/11 Report.
• Pakistan's involvement in the 9/11 attacks was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Report even though it was one of the questions submitted by the families.
• The 9/11 Commission thought that following the money behind the 9/11 Attacks was "of little practical significance."

Given the loss of civil liberties, the war that "won't end in our lifetime", the bankrupting of this country, and the threat to our Democracy, don't you think it's time we found out what they are trying to cover-up?

Dear Media, Within the last few months, you've given a lot of attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement. In rare circumstances, we've even gotten a "fair shake." However, your guests have consisted of Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe, Jason Bermas, James Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, Dave Von Kleist, Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones, Dr. Robert Bowman, Michael Berger, Paul Thompson and Dr. David Ray Griffin. We don't know if you're aware or not (you haven't reported on it), but the original members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been busy as of late. On August 4th, 2006, 9/11 family members Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, and Monica Gabrielle released a statement that questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 Commission's report. On September 5th, 2006, a documentary endorsed by the families that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission was released entitled, "9/11: Press For Truth." On September 11th, 2006, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., family members Donna Marsh O'Connor, Michelle Little, and Christina Kminek asked for, "a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end." On October 14th, 2006, Monica Gabrielle, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza released a petition that calls for, "the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice" as well as "the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General's report, "CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks". In the span of three days, they've managed to get 2041 signatures. Considering all of the nice publicity you gave to Ann Coulter, don't you think it's time you started giving OTHER members of the 9/11 Truth Movement a "fair shake?" We do. You have been challenged. Sincerely, The 9/11 Truth Movement

less than 0.001% of 9/11 skeptics think no planes hit the towers. that same factor thinks space beams took them down. they are nothing but bogus disinformation set on painting 9/11 skeptics as clowns.

start some research with the wargames running that morning, and ignore these intent trolls.

A number of posters insist that the truth on 9/11 is important for the American people, because almost 3,000 Americans were killed on that day.  This is certainly true and I am truly baffled by Chomsky's attempts to elude the issue. However, 9/11 was not only an attack upon Americans, but constituted legally a "crime against humanity", which is defined as an international crime of concern to the entire global community.  The UN Security Council adopted a resolution requiring all UN members to cooperate in finding and prosecuting those responsible.  This has not been done, because of US refusal to investigate the crime.Instead the US has led a global "war on terrorism", endorsed by the UN Security Council, which requires every government in the world to enact laws reducing human rights and increasing police powers.  The "war on terrorism" has permitted the US to bomb and invade Afghanistan without any opposition by any government and not even by the anti-war movement (which swallowed the official accusations against Osama bin Laden and kept low).  Now, most governments use the "terror scare" as a means to consolidate their power and mass surveillance.  Without 9/11 this would not have been possible.By exposing the nature of 9/11 and the fraudulent account on Islamic terrorism, it might be possible to restore at least the old liberal bourgeois order which left us some leeway of resistance.  It might also help expose other elements of the capitalist structure, which allowed 9/11 to happen and the corporate media, which covered up the crime.The struggle for 9/11 truth is, therefore a crucial element in the global struggle against imperialism and fascism. 

"If you believe this nonsense, you divert efforts from focusing on the root causes of Islamic hatred for the U.S., namely U.S. support for Israel and U.S. military presence in the Middle East."

 

YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK THIS... GROW UP YOU NUT.

 

Is there noone examples you can provide us that would fit the definiton of having no touch of sanity? You haven't offered any counter evidence or fact-based arguments, just baseless ridicule. Try doing some research to become more informed on this subject and then get back to us when you have some actual valid arguments to offer.

Can you please provide us with some specifics of any of Jone's equations, models, or calculations that are not sound? Don't you have any examples? Or are you are just farting. 

JoMama, do yo have anything to offer this debate other than ad hominem attacks against those who don't buy the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT) and blind belief in Chomsky?

Some "911 was an inside job" camps like to lay out 4 scenarios. Briefly they go as follows.

1 Is the official story.
We got caught with our pants down and terrorists did 911. And the wars in the Middle East are part of the greater war on terrorism.

2 The incompetence excuse
There was information available about the coming attacks but because of our incompetence we failed to see it. Terrorists attacked the US. And the wars in the Middle East were based on mistakes (more incompetence) but now we got to stay.

3 They let it happen
They knew full well about the coming 911 attacks but allowed it to happen in order to use it as a pretext to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan as it was in military and corporate interests (particularly oil) to do so.

4 They made it happen. (They meaning just vaguely the Bush Admin)
The Bush government either helped protect the terrorists or simply used them as patsies, and assisted the plane crashes effects with bombs placed inside the towers prior to 911. The wars in the Middle East were about oil.

The 911 was an inside job camps then say the evidence must land you somewhere between 3 and 4 with more research dropping you firmly on 4.

Let me now throw in a 5th scenario

5 The Neocons Made it happen with the assistance of a foreign government, the same government where PNAC was first written, and who we have caught spies from who have been stealing secrets from us about Iran, and who made up the shadow government of the OSP which is who cherry picked and fabricated the lies told about Iraq in order to start the war. The Wars in the middle east were for separate reasons, Afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quantities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the Russian and US invasions) and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA uses drug money to fund it's off the book black operations such as the now known massive secret prison systems, (torture camps and human medical/scientific testing). Location-wise Afghanistan is coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle China and Russia with US bases and puppets, (add to that the lesser known negotiations with Japan to allow nuclear subs into the Japanese Sea [pointed at China] in exchange for moving troops from Okinawa to Guam). The main goal however, which the PNAC think tank states, is to keep the eye on the pie: Iran, which Afghanistan and Iraq both boarder. The invasion of Iraq was to solve Israel's oil crisis and stop the threat of a secular Middle East which would become a true economic player and was a threat to the aggressive state of Israel.

The evidence if it was ALL being stated, especially pertaining to the war in Iraq, would land you somewhere between scenario 4 and 5 and more research would land you firmly in 5.

 

MORE......

 http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

Jones is a wacko who has no clue what he is talking about. Just because you produce some equation doesn't mean your model is sound.

I don't think Chomsky reads this blog. I've never seen a reply from him. If you want his views on issues you can post a question in the Sustainer Forum (https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/forums/). To become a sustainer: http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm.

Its hard to believe any one who would say anything about 9/11 would be unfamiliar with Steven Jones paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”  I can only imagine two scenarios, ignorance, or obfuscation. Chomsky says, “To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.”  If Jones paper can be ignored by anyone seriously considering the topic, that Jones has found evidence of thermate cannot be ignored.   Jones knew what he was testing for, when a happenstance sample of WTC steel came into his possession.  He knew due to very substantial observation.  Circumstantial evidence suggesting complicity, if lacking official documentation is at least voluminous.  But we should be careful about what we relegate to “circumstantial”.

I am not normally lost for words, but this article and the comments...  Is there noone here with even a touch of sanity? 

 

by Ryan Dawson

Some "911 was an inside job" camps like to lay out 4 scenarios. Briefly they go as follows.

1 Is the official story.
We got caught with our pants down and terrorists did 911. And the wars in the Middle East are part of the greater war on terrorism.

2 The incompetence excuse
There was information available about the coming attacks but because of our incompetence we failed to see it. Terrorists attacked the US. And the wars in the Middle East were based on mistakes (more incompetence) but now we got to stay.

3 They let it happen
They knew full well about the coming 911 attacks but allowed it to happen in order to use it as a pretext to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan as it was in military and corporate interests (particularly oil) to do so.

4 They made it happen. (They meaning just vaguely the Bush Admin)
The Bush government either helped protect the terrorists or simply used them as patsies, and assisted the plane crashes effects with bombs placed inside the towers prior to 911. The wars in the Middle East were about oil.

The 911 was an inside job camps then say the evidence must land you somewhere between 3 and 4 with more research dropping you firmly on 4.

Let me now throw in a 5th scenario

5 The Neocons Made it happen with the assistance of a foreign government, the same government where PNAC was first written, and who we have caught spies from who have been stealing secrets from us about Iran, and who made up the shadow government of the OSP which is who cherry picked and fabricated the lies told about Iraq in order to start the war. The Wars in the middle east were for separate reasons, Afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quantities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the Russian and US invasions) and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA uses drug money to fund it's off the book black operations such as the now known massive secret prison systems, (torture camps and human medical/scientific testing). Location-wise Afghanistan is coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle China and Russia with US bases and puppets, (add to that the lesser known negotiations with Japan to allow nuclear subs into the Japanese Sea [pointed at China] in exchange for moving troops from Okinawa to Guam). The main goal however, which the PNAC think tank states, is to keep the eye on the pie: Iran, which Afghanistan and Iraq both boarder. The invasion of Iraq was to solve Israel's oil crisis and stop the threat of a secular Middle East which would become a true economic player and was a threat to the aggressive state of Israel.

The evidence if it was ALL being stated, especially pertaining to the war in Iraq, would land you somewhere between scenario 4 and 5 and more research would land you firmly in 5.

 

more:

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

One of my friends one day told me about your blog, and i have been reading it ever since, I enjoy listening to the thoughts of a scholar, I am in the third year of my schooling, and struggling, as an electrical engineering major, But i like to be well versed in Political discussions.

 

One of your recent entries was the possibility of the US attacking iran, Could you not ask the same question now about the US attacking North Korea? Bush and Co. see's thier nuclear threat as a direct defiance of the international community.

Instead of this topic of discussion, i would like to know your thoughts on mans tendancy to self distruct, the constant tendancy to be conflicted. Are you not already at war with two countries? I'm a peace loving man, where I see the necesssity for a powerful army, but i think that if you have great power for war, you have even more knowledge on how to keep the peace.

We are almost always at war, sometimes with ourselves and our thoughts, but other occasions we thrive on our anger to fight an opponent. I would like to use the analogy of ten guys all standing around a table arm wrestling to see who is the strongest man. Who is stronger, the alpha male, for persons with this mentality, it is almost an issue of control over others, to me, other people are free to do as they wish,

It is wise to be appreciative of your fellow man rather than try to suppress him.

It is not wise to make such blanket statements, because a governments very purpose is to have control over thier people, with no control over the people, the definition is anarchy.

So a government is needed, but this line of how much control the government has over the people, has always been argued. So i ask this question, does the government have the right to send someone to war? Does the government have the right to send an entire country to war? I did not go to war, but i lost a very close cousin in Iraq, war affects everybody. If not because of the losses of our companions, but for the budget that the government has, instead of buying books for our children.

This situation doubles in the severity because our children are then being raised in a country that is at war, and being under educated. I dont want to comment on the university system, but if the war drives our discussions,(My very entry is about violence) kids in grammer school are more than impressionable.

So my conclusion is that if no forseeable good can come of our violence, and destructive behaviors, Why have we not educated ourselves to a new manner of thinking, to avoid such dangerous conflicts. Even under this manner of thinking, the typical bar brawl, is an ignorant expression of raw testosterone.

Joe Smigelski

I cannot understand why Noam Chomsky, one of the world's great readers and evidence mongers, appears to be uninterested in the facts behind 9/11.  Like many in this blog, I say, no way was Bushco complicit:  they are flatly far too incompetent to pull it off.  But there are some openly-known and undisputed facts in this case which defy explanation by the conventional line.  Among the two most prominent of these are:  (1) the collapse of Building Seven ["unexplained" according to a short comment in the 9/11 report,] and (2) the very small hole, clearly seen in an early photo of the Pentagon to be 20 or so feet in diameter, before the collapse, a hole that is supposed to have been made by the collision of an airliner flying a few feet above the ground after doing a descending 270-degree circle round the building, and flown by somebody with no actual flight experience on such a plane.  He says we waste our time on infertile ground; yet, as many here said, If there was complicity on the part of anybody (and my leading candidate would be a military-industrial cabal with the means to run the cover-up and etc.), it would be a matter which would, stronger than any other occurrence in the history of the nation, indicate a failure of the fundamental structure of our society and government, that is, the Mother Of All Chomskian Structural Failures.  And this WOULD be a time for progressives to rise and demand the kind of fundamental revisions to the system that Chomsky suggests, not asserts, are needed, and with all of the attendant Gandhian sacrifices alluded to herein.  Conceding to the anticonspiracists is easy:  I know of nothing by way of hard evidence, apart from a long and remarkable string of coincidences and circumstantial evidence, to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy/deliberate destruction of planes and buildings.  Therefore, those of us who argue that these matters need to be investigated aggressively, and that such investigation is not an unwanted diversion in the exploration of Chomsky's larger issues, resemble those of us, including me, who assert, and again without compelling evidence, that we must deal with global warming and soon.  The basic argument in either case is:  if the hypothesis is correct, then the implications are monstrous or disastrous for everybody.  So:  it's the old multiply infinity by zero proposition:  HUGE consequence times small probability of affirmation = ????  I say, whatever it is, we MUST be thinking about these things and trying to find out the relevant facts; to do otherwise is, I believe, to court, seriously! the destruction of the human species on this planet, by wars and other political atrocities in the first case and by natural processes in the second.

Congratulations Professor Chomsky for being a voice of sanity. There is no credible evidence 9/11 is an inside job. People believe it because they want to believe it. It is a convenient distraction from real more complex issues. If you believe this nonsense, you divert efforts from focusing on the root causes of Islamic hatred for the U.S., namely U.S. support for Israel and U.S. military presence in the Middle East.

To the conspiracy nuts: Grow Up!

 

...Considering how colossally incompetent the Bush Adminstration is,
how ....

If you read Chomsky there is nothing Incompetence in what US goveronment does, did or will do. what you see is only a facade. incompetent for a trillion dollar killing machine , hahahaha

All states function the same way left or right. Having such great power concentrated to a country for the first time, a cancer is chewing it away. How much it will damage the whole of world body remains to be seen.

 

655,000 Iraqis.

j.g. While I must disagree with your assertion that 9/11 is not worth Left's efforts, I must agree deeply with the rest of what you say. The Left these days seems to express outrage but it is always like smoke without fire. Gandhi always took the position that one who places himself against authority must be ready to accept his due, and if he is committed to a greater cause, the sacrifice will be of small concern. Truly, one should even be proud to be the target of aggressive acts by the Dark One. As for 9/11, I do not believe for a moment that the Left has ever embraced the possibility of a massive crime at all. I don't think it has truly embraced anything in many years. Sadly, the entire movement is little more than an anachronism now, a grand ideal lost in time and memory, an empty shell of what it once was.

Victor:

I sympathize with your determination to fight for those killed in 9/11 and those killed in the wars started afterwards. Any death is tragic and 3,000 deaths is certainly a horror.

However, I have to agree with Chomsky when he says that the 9/11 movement is given slack by those in the elite because it does not pose a significant threat to their power or the the power of the instituions they control.

I live in California and recently there was a huge outrcy from Progressives because it was uncovered that the Bush administration had spied on rather small peace groups organizing against the Iraq war--it should be noted that there has never been a formal declaration of war against Iraq by Congress.

In any case there was all of this outrage that the CIA/FBI would actually spy on relatively harmless groups of liberals in the name of national security.

However, I have a different take on the incident and my perspective is relevant to this discussion about 9/11.

1. Why were liberals, progressives, suprised? It certainly did not suprise me. Ofcourse there will be pathetic attempts at "protecting National Security" by these governmental agencies. It has been going on for many decades and I see no reason why it would stop now.

2. More importantly, who cares? I mean we should certainly assume that any non-profit or NGO or grouping of individuals will be spied on, inflitrated...if they become a threat. That just comes with the territory of organizing. So if anyone is actually deeply dedicated to fundamental opposition to the US government then ofcourse there is going to be hell to pay.

It seems to me that the Left in general wants to have its cake and eat it too. Those who call themselves Leftist, Progressives, Liberals...want to organize, march, participate in civil disobedience etc. without paying the price. And since it will take a great deal more then the customary and quite archaic progressive tactics to affect change then you are either willing to do real oppositional/transofrmative tactics and 1. get hurt 2. get incarcerated or 3. get killed or you are not. And I do not think I go out on a limb by saying that at this time in this nation there are far too few who are willing to meet these sacrifices directly.

The Left needs to stop going for numbers and instead go for depth. That is, it is, in my humble opinion, far more powerful to have a small group of individuals deeply dedicated to their goals then a large group with very little true dedication. And in that context I question whether the enormous amount of time spent on the possible government complicity in 9/11 is moving progressives towards deeper committments for change. What is missing, in a fundamental way, is heart. And given the degree of alienation and isolation in this society the creation of a movement with heart is a mighty but necessary task.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Veale is a believer of Chomsky but when it comes to 9/11 and theories, Bill Veale, who now is running for US Senate, seems to have come up with a few theories himself. Worth a look: http://vealetruth.com/2006/08/07/chomsky-vs-will/

sandwich is to be made in a kitchen 100% contaminated with e-coli, and if that curtain is in a house with a rotten and crumbling foundation, then you are addressing the wrong set of details and will soon pay the price.

certainly makes a ton of sense - I mean, after all - it takes a gourmet chef to make peanut butter and jelly sandwich... that is if you go by his reasoning that it takes a structural engineer to see that the basic laws of physics were violated.

Don't mind the man behind the curtain - you're not an interior designer! see, makes perfect sense!

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/

 

There are many sound and rational questions that have yet gone unanswered. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to think that there is something very fishy about the government's explanation of what happened. The most troubling question in my mind, however, is why wasn't there ever an authoritative and formal investigation into the crime, like any other crime would have received? How many crimes are we aware of where there is no official investigation held afterwards? How many crime scenes are allowed to be disturbed and evidence removed to places unknown immediately after the crime? The 9/11 Commission was not such an investigation. The people deserve one. They need closure. Otherwise, we will have nothing but crazy theories running rampant as they are today. Some of the theories make sense - others are nuts. None rely upon the results of a lawful and formal investigation that has access to those who were in some way a part of the event and to sealed government files which are not accessible to those putting forth theories today.

There is no such thing as a realm of undeniable facts. A realm of reasonable conclusions, sure there is : this is what we call hypothetico-deductive thinking. The belief that absolute truth values can be assigned to facts pertaining to reality is called realism. You and chomsy are realists. Positivism on the other hand states that only hypothetico-deductive facts can be known for sure. The so-called "conspiracy theory" has got a lot of these ("if the buildings were demolitionned, then the access would have had to be eased to the perpetrators", to cite one of them). With a sufficient corpus of such deductions, one can then attempt to draw some inductive conclusions, one of them being that the governement knew. All of this is perfectly valid on a scientific point of view (that is if you're a positivist of course).

So the issue here is with the philosophical standpoint of Chomsky, which is wrong and prevents him from joining the only reasonable position : the "conspirationists'", and that is a pity because he's a prominent american dissident and his voice would weight a great deal.

Another flaw in your argument is when you say that "it would have been an utterly insane act which would have been superfluous to start with" and then immediately after you mention the JFK case which indeed would have been utterly insane etc. but as far as we know, was acually perpetrated by the ones in power. You say however that "in the JFK case it can reasonably be argued that there will be no conclusive answers", however 30 years ago the internet didn't exist and everybody on the planet couldn't turn him/herself in a private detective as easily as now, so here we clearly missed the opportunity. I guess this is someting the present culprits have underestimated : if we finally confound them, it will be thanks to the network of people inquiring on the internet. As a non-american, and in opposition to the 911 comission conclusion, I think it is utterly desirable to know who is behind this and to take them to trial, be it only for the sake of the people presently convicted for this crime and, if the "conspirationists" are right, wrongly. See for instance the Z. Moussaoui case.

IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT IS JUST TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT 9/11 WAS REALLY DONE BY MARTIAN UFOS. I HAVE DONE COUNTLESS HOURS RESEARCHING PHIYICS AND THE VIDEOS! ALL OF YOU PEOPE CLAIMING IT WAS BUSH WHO DID IT ARE ALL GATEKEEPERS OF THE MARTIAN CONSPIRICACY!! MAYBE EVEN AGENTS OF THEM DIRECTLY>!!!!

WJHY WON"T YOU TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11?!!?!?!

 

Here's the followign links THAT PROVE IT WAS A MARTIAN CONSPIRICAY:

www.goodl.com/martinaconsipircy.html

http://www.swans.com/library/art12/rdeck061.html

http://townofatumn.com/blog/2006/09/11/more-important-than-911/

http://digg.com/sace/Sad_News_for_Conspiracy_Buffs_No_Face_on_Mars_Update_Best_Data_Ever

I do think we, meaning the left, should move on from the 9/11 issue (in this sense we've been talking about). Not at all because it's "loony" or a "conspiracy theory" -- there are a lot of holes in the offical story, etc. -- but because it won't lead anywhere, and isn't really necessary.

I fully respect the position noted here that if someone were to uncover some kind of false-flag or other conspiracy about 9/11, then a lot of heads would roll. I don't think that will happen, whether there was a conspiracy or not, for reasons stated above (evidence gone or there was no conspiracy). The worst "conspiracies" happen right out in the open, like Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, the domestic prison system, the "war on drugs," the removal of habeas corpus, et al. That's plenty of known crime to go after.

I think the notion of a 9/11 conspiracy, which I (perhaps wrongly) think is unknowable, or at least unprovable, is attractive because it is assumed that it would be the silver bullet that would take down this lycanthropic regime. Perhaps it would, but I don't think you'll ever have enough data to sway those who can't conceive of government crimes that are right in front of their noses, let alone circumstantial cases.

Americans believe in their country's innate goodness -- most of them, anyway -- and that's no accident. As Chomsky (and many others) have pointed out, that's about as close to a sociohistorical truism as you can get; we are not all that exceptional in thinking we're exceptional. Thus, the degree of solid proof one would need to surmount the inconceivablility of a self-inflicted (or -allowed) 9/11 is sky-high, and this is understandable, given the general ignorance of what our country did and does. Like most other countries with any power.

I think that's the key reason to leave it alone -- although no one need listen to me, of course! I think focusing on the appalling actions noted above, which are touted proudly by the administration, and educating the public (those who need it) on just how bad not having habeas corpus, say, is, is a far better, though less glamorous, less argentine bullet.

Best,

Doug Tarnopol

oh, there's no taking control back - all progress has been an illusion.. we will see many things and all the blaming of 9/11 "truthers" does nothing at all- just like all the hot air about new economic models.

I do not know if you have seen the images, but before the start of the collapse, the building was not moving at all ... that is why I think the zero initial velocity assumption is obvious.

Then "free fall" here is given as a reference. Free fall provides a lower bound of collapse time under the assumption that the building collapsed because of gravity and a weakening of its structure. Of course, if some kind of additional energy (like explosives) is provided, the model would not fit. But the OFFICIAL STORY of 9/11 is that the buildings collapsed because of its weight and a weakened steal structure. My model is not free fall but takes into account the resistance of lower floors when hit by upper floors. In this model, I have maximized the weakening of the steal structure: I have removed it.

You are right to argue that the momentum and energy carried by the projectile should be taken into account. According to the official story, its effect was a weakening of some steal beams and fire, i.e. growth of temperature. So this has no impact on the model which ignores the steal structure and the temperature.

You could argue that the model is not accurate enough to compute a realistic collapse time: that is not my point. I claim the model provides a lower bound (12.5s) to the collapse time, in case of a "perfect" pancake collapse. Not an accurate collapse time.

The collapse time I compute in my model mesures the timing between the moment where the roof starts to fall and the moment when the first floor hits the ground (in fact in the model, at the end of the collapse, all the floors are stockpiled over the first floor).

Why "free fall"? I.e. Why did you assume the initial velocity of the fall is zero? I don't know any ballistic but it seems when a building is struck down the momentum of the projectile has to go somewhere.The way this momentum partitions up would depend on the detail of the impact, the construction of the tower etc. "Free fall" or zero initial velocity is an assumption in addition to fundamental physics which you base your model on. How justifiable is that? And also how do you define the time of fall? The centre of mass is somewhere in the middle of the tower, not the top floor. The tower wasn't a point particle. Meanwhile,if you measure the time it took the top floor to fall it fell on a pile of rubbles which means the actual distance of fall was less than the height of the tower.How much less I don't know, that depends on the height of the wreckage. This may (or may not) be important as you are qubbling over a second or two. Theoretical physicists use this kind of thumb nail calculations to get rough ideas of orders of magnitude and some rough pictures, they are never expected to be accurate enough for the purpose you intend, indeed usually way off.

But you wait till it is done to us and ours, then talk to me about already having rough times. After the first American children are dropped out of planes...THE CONDOR GUY IS BAAAACK.... after several weeks in one of our corpgov´s torture houses...contracted out of course...........or maybe a stoning. public not only invited but required...as the main stoners. Think it cannot happen here......read about the ideas of Gary North and his ilk, learn how much influence they have on the present gang in Washington, look at what has happened to the Reps in the last 25 years and be afraid.......be very afraid........cause if we do not take control back from the crazies.......you ain´t seen nothing yet. 

I have invested myself heavily into the various cnspiracy theories, their debunking, the responses to the debunking and really, there is no proof anywhere that there is a LIH or MIH scenario. When I mention proof, I refer to something that would even remotely hold up to any debate on the matter. You can either accept this statement or present further evidence, nauseating as it may be.

What has been proven is that theofficial conclusions leave many questions unanswered,some of them can be irrefutable proved to be a fallacy but the bottom line is that there is no proof that either the administration had sufficient foreknowledge to insinuate an intentional dereliction or even sponsored the whole event.

All that has become clear is that the official version seems to have a variety of holes in it, something that is not surprising given the far-reaching international presumptions of the case. Consequently all of us have questions but there really is no light at the end of the tunnel and, as Chomsky rightfully points out, it would have been an utterly insane act which would have been superfluous to start with as the elites have been able to dupe the public to a much greater extent without taking such risks at being caught red-handed.

Just like in the JFK case it can reasonably be argued that there will be no conclusive answers in the next 20 or 30 years, maybe never.

In the end, it is of no consequence in respect to how the monstrosity of the military-industrial complex wields its power both domestically and internationally in the interest of power and greed and at the expense of nations and millions of people.

To insinuate that Mr. Chomsky does not exercise due diligence by participating in an indepth analysis of scientific findings, theories, conclusions that are often non-sequiturs and then refuted again in a never-ending game of cat-and-mouse, is doing him injustice.

I certainly do not worship his theories unquestionably and, at times, disagree but his argument is plain common sense and his insistence to deal with issues that exist in the realm of undeniable facts and reasonable conclusions makes sense. Why waste time and energy on something that has the potential of an explosive psychological change in the mentality of the American mind but has minute possibility to come to fruition when we (the Left) can dedicate our efforts on facts that are undisputed, even by the Right?

I share the spirit of some that the Left seems to have little relevance these days and doubt it has anything to do with its focus on 9/11.

For me it would be of much greater interest to hear from Mr. Chomsky on how he sees a possibility to change this status quo. I have heard utter many times that he has a sense of hope for change but have not been able to follow suit. As Michael Berman in 'Dark Ages America' puts it, this is a one-way street and we can do things to delay the inevitable but the empire will eventually collapse.

9/11 appear irrelevant. With half a million dead Iraqis and the U.S. being the pariah of the planet; have just returned from the Middle East where I received a good dose of reality; we have passed the point where critical mass can be achieved.There is a remote chance that it can be demonstrated that certain elements were involved that we haven;t thought of and these elements could be brought to justice but it would change nothing of the dynamicswhich either already existed or came to be as a consequence of the events.

We need to move on.

Yeah, I saw the second plane crash personally from across the east river in NYC. I guess that makes me part of the "conspiracy" too!

I don't know if there was a conspiracy or not, but I *do* know that there was really a second plane. Or will someone who has watched too much star trek claim it was a hologram, martian spaceship, or hallucination brought on by flouridated water? Come on, I could use a laugh . . .

I saw the second plane hit the WTC with my own eyes from across the East river on 9/11/01, so I know you're wrong about the second plane being "video faked."

I don't know if there is a conspiracy or not, but I'm honestly disgusted by people who believe in a conspiracy attacking Chomsky for disagreeing with them. That's no better than someone who doesn't believe in a conspiracy attacking those who do because of their beliefs as to what happened. It would be nice if people could be a little more mature, just accept that reasonable minds can disagree on a matter like this, and just move on. I don't think David Icke is right about alien reptiles running the world; does that mean I deserve to be flamed also?

"we could be in for some rough times. "

We already are, Mariam..

While I agree with the gist of Noam Chomsky's statements, there actually is one historical parallel that comes close as far as the theory of an attack like 9/11: namely the Northwoods documents that showed the conception (though it didn't go much further) of a plan to crash U.S. airliners and blame it on Cuba. I would use that more as a parallel to this administration's (especially the rehashed Reaganites within it) irrational and transparent obsession with Iraq than as a precursor to possible planning of a similar event vis a vis 9/11, but it still shows how plausible that train of thought can be when dealing with certain patches of our intelligence services and their occasional "Man From U.N.K.L.E." schemes.

I don't think he's saying 9-11 isn't important, it's just looked at from a fairly naive perspective in the US all too often because there hadn't been a significant attack on the US mainland for so long. I think he's saying it's very important to Americans, but of less significance to the rest of the world that's more accustomed to this sort of violence.

I think he's also just upset that people are selective about their indignation. I think there was a recent figure that came out indicating that 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the Iraq war. While I don't know what the breakdown is in terms of how these deaths came about, I havn't seen much outrage about that. Why are 3,000 odd American lives more important than over half a million Iraqi lives? Did the Iraqis who died "deserve" the Iraq war any more than we "deserved" 9/11?

This sort of point has often been countered with "It's different when suicide bombers attack with the intention to kill civilians, and when civilians are killed as an indirect result of a military attack." Fine. That's a great comfort to people in Fallujah who had their faces burned off by white phospherous grenades. It's really relevant to them that "we didn't mean it."

I know the old saying is that "it all depends on whose ox is getting gored," but as long as we keep thinking that way, it seems to me we're always going to have endless war and violence.  Even one death is important, but it's counter productive not to acknowledge that there's been a lot of suffering in other parts of the world also, and some of it can be linked to political or military policies of the US.  Whether different choices could have been made is debatable, what is not debatable is that our leadership has chosen to abdicate taking responsibility for its mistakes and live in a polyanna world where the policies are facing minor setbacks but are still rationally sound, rather than the reality, which shows that there's been a critical and fatal lack of situational awareness from day zero.

Most people have the right to their opinions, i can't see why at this people seem compelled with making chomsky rejoice the 9/11 conspiracy.. I am not going to debate scientific methods used to deconstruct the 9/11 history..my experience is that where ever there is smoke ; there is also fire..I cannot dismiss the conspiracy theorists for the simple reason that insofar: - Originally , Bin Laden denied being responsible for 9/11 attacks.( and why would he deny it ?) - Bin Laden blamed the CIA - The produced videos claiming Bin Laden's guilt do not constitute valid proof that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 this said, it is possible that some other party other the current US administration(Bush) has been responsible for setting up 9/11, The CIA offices are not limited to the US; their offices are spread spread in many other countries. Who knows what can come up from Al-Quaida and CIA operatives in remote regions? We will never know. also technically speaking, it is true that official stories raise suspicion.. - The absence of F16 and F18 when the airflights were reported missing. - The way the WTC building fells compatible with implosions. - plane passengers able to use their phones at very high altitudes.. - I say there is definetely something wrong with the official stories.. may be chomsky is taking the safest approach considering we may never see the who was truly responsible.

Let N be the number of floors(N=110)

Let g be the acceleration of the gravity and h0 the height between to floors.

g = 9.80 m/(s*s)

N*h0 = 417 m --> h0 = 3.79m

Then the free-fall time for an object falling from the roof of the building is

Tff(N) = sqrt(2*N*h0/g) = 9.22s

The total pancake collapse time in the preceeding model

Tpc(N) = sqrt(h0/g)*(sqrt(N+1)+sqrt(N)-1) = 12.52s

Sorry in my memory it was 13.5s ... I have recomputed everything. Nevertheless, this is still more than the upperbound for collapse time given by the Kean report (12s) and this model should really give lower bounds since we ignore the resistance of the steal structure and the pulverisation of concrete which would both absord some amount of cinetic energy ...

 

Of course you have to build models to explain what happened in "reality" and models are always an approximation of "reality". But you expect models to give reasonable predictions that may compare with what you can observe in "reality". I put "reality" between quotes because it is also a model which is dependent on how you observe it.

Having said that, do your homework. Compute the collapse time how WTC1 or WTC2 within the following model. Ignore the steal structure. Just consider the floors which fly into thin air and which start to fall when the upper floors fall down onto the lower floors. Ignore anything (like air resistance, concrete pulverisation ...) but the floors and their inertia. This is a model of the pancake collapse starting from the top floor. To maximize cinectic energy transmission, suppose the floors do not bump onto each other but simply stockpile.

I suppose you could agree that this should give a lower bound to a pancake collapse time.

Once done, compare with the following times. Free fall : 9.5 seconds. Official collapse time (Kean report) : between 10 and 12 seconds. Pancake collapse time (this model, my computation) : 13.5 seconds.

Do you think pancake collapse is a reasonable theory to explain the observed collapse time of the buildings ?

For your question: "where did they hide explosives" ? Are you an expert in controlled demolition ? Is this simply a question for a physicist ? I suppose it is more a question of logistics and engineering. And I am not sure it is impossible at all to hide explosives for one week or two. I think your are answering a question outside our area of expertise ...

And as for peer reviewed publication ... which editor do you think would risk his reputation on a theory that implies US gouvernment complicity in a mass murder ?

What I am convinced of has nothing to do with hope or belief. It is about doubts. The official story does not account for too many observations like free-fall time, molten metal pools, concrete pulverization, FAA/NORAD non-response, Pentagon attacked ...

 

After you have chronicled 25,000 dead here, 80,000 dead there, 500,000 dead somewhere else.......all either directly or indirectly attributable to one corpgov.......... That we get very exercised that they were Americans inside the country....actually attacked on homeground.....is understandable........and someone needs to pay..........but how.....who controls the corpgov, justice dept, policing agencies, etc. We can either concentrate on trying to take the government of the US back into the hands of the people, or we can go off in so many directions, and dissipate  our efforts to the point that nothing gets accomplished. The Reps are successful because they do not get distracted for long from the main points of their platform that keeps their voter base happy, speaking of which, a goodly part of the rep voter base are lead by people who would like to introduce stoning and biblical law after they have dismantled the government.......so worry about who is wagging what in the rep party, because if the tail is wagging the dog, we could be in for some rough times.   

So did any one watch South Park tonight, they made the astonishing claim that one quarter of the countrys population is retarded, I for one was shocked. They did at least make up for it by revealing that it was in fact Kyle was responsible for 9.11...   

If I'm not mistaken, I believe I've read things of Chomsky's where he explicitly states his conviction that one ought to characterize their actions most chiefly with an uncompromising adherence to the truth. From what I've heard him say and from my own conclusions on the theories I've been able to draw from looking at some of the supposed “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy myself, I'm figuring he really just simply thinks all of the theories are a bunch of bunk and really just foolish, but he's not normally predisposed toward using caustic terms and so was probably trying to get the same point across with language diplomatic enough so as not to make the person he was conversing with feel stupid and that they were being talked down to. Chomsky may possibly have private suspicions about certain aspects of the 9/11 attacks; I don't really know and am not going to purport myself to be able figure out exactly what's going on in his head, but even if lingering suspicions do exist inside him, as a lifelong devotee to and advocate of the empirical rigors of science, Chomsky understands all too well the difference between hunches and provable facts, or, in other words, “truthful” assertions, and wouldn't be so reckless as to bandy about every little gut feeling that popped into his brain. There's a big difference between the consequentialist's account of the importance of the pursuit of the truth and the empiricist's account of the importance of getting your facts straight so that no baseless accusation could ever get the chance to be afforded the privilege of being heralded as “The Truth.”

haha.. this comment by "wise one"... oh wise one, what is life? and where can we get one?

haha.. i think he brings up a good point - WTC7 collapsing.. what does the almighty wise one have to say about that?(instead of "get a life", of course).. i mean, you must have the answer, wouldn't it be nice of you to share that wisdom with us morons who believe in the laws of physics??

"whereas many "leftists" tend to react only emotionally."

 

kind of like you did...?

first of all, i'm not a leftist.. and secondly, i never described why i think there are high probabilities of an inside job, you automatically assume it's because "things appear to work in the favour of some conservative elements" - I never said that.

My point is that, if it was an inside job, exposing it as such would have a much greater impact on social change - ie. the conservative base that supports Bush would be incensed and political dialogue might actually open up to the point when we all realize there is not much of a difference between left-right..

 

I am an "expert" in phyiscs by most Americans' standard and I am certainly very good at doing intergrals and derivatives, but I wouldn't say I am qualify to pontificate on how building should collapes if I don't know how to build one in the first place. There are only a few "principles" in Newtonian physics but it is highly non trivial to use them. Moon landing doesn't involve anything more than Newtonian physics in principle, but let's see a high school grad designs a space ship or figures out why one explodes and how. All sciences involved building models, and without the appropiate background I cannot asses the reasonableness of the scientific assumptions that underlies the models used by people such as jones. Many people with the proper background, however, deem them inappropiate. That incude for example people who do controlled demolition for a living (and where did they hide the explosives if it was control demolition?) The interpretations of the evidence is also not trivial.Suffices is to say that most experts don't agree with the way Jones et al interprete the data on many counts. You are mistaken if you think you can just get a copy of "physics for dummies" and begin your investigation. As Chomsky said, if there is any merit to their claims they should publish them in peer reviewed journals instead of on the internet. Of course you would argue that all respectible journals are either paid for or imtimidated to shut up.These are very convenient excuses. But they don't even have to publish in American journals. French, German or Russians would be fine too. The bottom line is you want to believe. You HOPE that there was a conspiracy.

Gallos research was groundbreaking by all means ! The developement of <hiv like bugs before the event of <<<<aids seems interresting, no matter wether it be hapenstance or circumcision.

Well what does computer logic have to do with building collapse?

"You obviously have no experience in science if you think anyone with highschool physics"

When you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger. I am a professional scientist with a PhD in "logic for computer science" working in the CNRS, France. And I had degrees in mathematics and physics at university levels (just below PhD in these fields).

I know S. Jones is a nuclear physicist. Have you read his report on WTC7 ? Then of course, just "conservation of momentum and energy" was an image to situate the level of knowledge needed. You need to be able to compute integrals and derivatives and to comprehend a simple model of the towers, for example by ignoring the steal structure which would then provide lower bounds (that is not the sibject of Jones paper). 9/11 was not extraordinary enough to refute Newtonian physics.

Ok you want experts of controlled demolition. Here you are. Read this article translated from a german article of D. Ganser which cites several Swiss experts of engineering and structural analysis : "The Bitter Debate Over September 11th"

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2925

If you are lazy, just view this video concentrating on WTC7 :

http://911blogger.com/node/2807

Why so many experts do not come out contradicting the official theory ? First, there are some who come out but they risk losing their jobs ... then no so many people are able to face the truth that the hand that feeds them also kills. Fear is what kept so many experts from questioning : remember what Dan Rather said about being necklaced. Then of course, many simply do not have time or wish or courage to study the subject and simply blindly believe what the governement said. Finally, there is of course the fact that a conspiracy is unbelievable if you trust the government ... and many experts are directly or indirectly government employees. Also a huge and groving of US citizens are directly dependant on huge defense spendings (as explains Chalmers Johnson for example) and that is why the military and industrial complex is so powerful and unchallenged.

They are not co-conspirators. They simply do not what to have anything to do with something that can threaten their well-being or lives or the fantasy of the great nation they live in. In if this fantasy is doomed.

If you think there are wrinkles in the official account (there probably are) there are holes you can drive a train through in the conspiracy theories. Yes, individual experts can be paid off, but you are talking about armies of experts and investigators who would put their reputations on the line by appearing not konwing even highschool physics(according to you).To remove and doctor physical evidence would involve another group of investigators and experts.. You obviously have no experience in science if you think anyone with highschool physics is well equipped to play armchair investigator. The devil is in the QUANTITATIVE details. If you insist on believing in X-file scenario no amount of reasoning can persuade you otherwise. It is a psychological urge, "I want to believe" as the poster in agent Maulder's office says. But I agree with Chomsky that it is complete waste of time and it makes the left come off like morons.

You may not need a lot of people to actually carry out an attack, but since by your account all the sciences don't add up in a way that only high school physics is sufficient to detect the discrepancies you will have to have thousands of experts, police investigators,forensic experts and government agencies consciously participating in order to pull off a cover up. It is a lot more logical and probable to attribute the conspiracy theory to a few crackpots with an axe to grind. Steve Jones is neither a material scientist nor a civil engineer, he is a nuclear physicist who was involved in "Cold fusion". Check it out. P.S. It does not involve only "conservation of momentum and energy". Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Armed with that level of knowledge even creationism can sound credible to you if you visit some of their websites.

You are right, the physical evidence needed to prove a conspiracy might have disappeared or might be dismissed in court because the defendent would have a nearly infinite amount of money to pay "experts" that would explain the inexplicable with various theories...

This is the argument that M. Ruppert uses to distance himself for the physical evidence centered truthers because, as he stresses it judiciously, JFK was officially killed by the "magic" bullet coming from the front where the Zapruder film clearly shows he was shot from the back.

I will make 2 remarks:

1/ There is enough physical evidence to prove that the official theory is bullshit. Just apply basic physics and chemistry to the existing official reports of FEMA and NIST.

2/ Proving before court is not the same as convincing people of the US. I am not a specialist but I doubt any running government has ever been dismissed by the action of justice. Because the government has too many means to obstruct its judicial system. By this, I do not imply the whole government is responsible but it will as a whole protect the rulers which might be indicted if their conviction would imply the fall of the government.

The goal of the 911 truth movement is to convince the people of the US to overthrow the government which is trying to enslave them into fear and lies, and may be, if one day, some of the co-conspirators are in a position to be indicted, to convict them for treason and murder.

If it is a conspiracy then it has to involve a lot of people including Bush and then, maintaining secret would be impossible. Since no one from inside has talked, it cannot be a conspiracy.

This argument is FALSE moreover, is completely INCONSISTENT with the official conspiracy theory. Indeed the official story claims only a bunch of fanatic mulsims with boxcutters were needed to perpetrate the attacks. I do not understand why the US governement would need thousands of people to execute the same attacks. I mean, if the official claim is true, then your argument makes no sense.

Then it is FALSE. Indeed neither Bush nor thousands of people should be aware of the conspiracy. People should only know what they need to know to fullfil the precise task they are assigned and only a small number of conspirators should know the big picture. Moreover, there exists examples of secret projects like the Manhattan project or the F117 project which involved 10s of thousand of people and which were only revealed after having been accomplished. They also used the effective technique of compartmentalization.

Then people could have been involved in the plot without knowing it using exercices (like Vigilant guardian, Northern vigilance, Global guardian etc...) that were simulating a slight variation of what was happening in reality or where aimed at paralysing FAA/NORAD response.

So such a conspiracy does not need to involve thousands of people knowing the whole plot and its final goal (I personnally think it must involve D. Cheney as major player, but not necessarily GWB).

So I would classify your argument as a "minimum brainpower to disprove" argument. It falls short after a bit of reasoning and historical study.

Then, you say that the "scholars" are not professionals in the field of civil engineering. It is exact that not all of them are civil engineering but there are some (K. Ryan, S. Jones for example) and you only need to master basic physics (conservation of momentum, cinetic energy) to understand that a building cannot fall down at nearly free-fall speed while its 450000 tons of concrete are evaporating into fine dust. There is simply not enough gravitational energy for this. You do not need much chemistry to read the FEMA report that stresses they were not able to explains the sulfidation process that occured deep inside the steal-beams of WTC7 (it is easily explained by the use of explosives in a controlled demolition) ...

The only thing to do is to read what as already been showed by many truthers and to make your own oppinion. But this you will not do because it would not lead you where you want to go : quickly disprove all these nutty theories ...

There were no 5 "israeli spies" caught taping the towers falling down, these guys were working in the area and saw the events. If I had a camera I would have recorded it too just for the spectacle. Do you have to be a spy to video tape car crashes or police beatings? People do that all the time. The five were arrested for "bizzare behaviour" and later deported for immigration violations. Israel doesn't need to "frame the muslims". Al Queada is absolutly proud of it. I fail to see what Israel has to gain by having the U.S. invading Afghanistan.It doesn't need any U.S. precedence to strike hard at the Palestinians, it has been doing that for a long time. Yes, AIDs is U.S germ warfare went out of hand and of course the joos were somehow involved too. No wonder the loonie left has no credibility.

So because things appear to work in the favour of some conservative elements it indicates a "high probability" of inside job? Like I asked yesterday, suppose your mother died and left you a hefty inherentance, does it follow that there is a "high probability" that you have murdered her? One thing that I respect Chomsky for even though I don't always agree with him is his strong logical thinking, whereas many "leftists" tend to react only emotionally.

Yeah, suddenly everyone becomes an expert in civil engineering and forensic science just becaue he has watched some vedeo clips and visited some websites(their so called "research" LOL) One wonder why stupid people are spending years and years in school and pay through their noses to acquire those expertise. Most so called "top scientists" who float around conspiracy theories, like the so called scholars for 911 truth are not even scientists. Out of these seventy odd so called "top academics" there are only something like 3 physicists (in the wrong fields like nuclear physics) and 4 engineers, one is a "dental engineer". The rest are psychologists, lawyers, literature professors and "Islamic scholars". And yes, there are probably one or two ex officers (not sure if they are affliated with the group), but you don't take washed up officers and ex-generals seriously when they appear on CNN as talking heads to pontificate about the Iraq war.Why should they be getting more respect when expounding 911 conspirarcy theories? The U.S. president cannot even cover up something as trivial as getting a bj from an intern or watergate. If 9/11 is a conspiracy it has to be one of astronomical scale involving thousands of people and many agencies. If it could go off without a hitch and remains so well concealed the U.S. government is darn close to God like omnipotence. One only wishes the government is so efficient. If there is any cover up in the investigation it is most likely an attempt to conceal the incompetence of U.S. intelligence for dropping the ball. It is prepostrous to cite Iraq as a reason to hatch 9/11. If the purpose was to invade Iraq why attribute 9/11 to bin Laden? 9/11 has never been a main reason to invade Iraq, it was more like a convenient afterthought, and hardly very convincing. Chomsky is 99% correct. Take off your tin foil cap people. The 1% that I disagree with Chomsky is the claim that there is a media conspiracy to indulge 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Noam,

Just think about this - how much progress has been rolled back and/or eliminated because of 9/11? How close are we to even further losses?

As a person who believes in the high probability of an inside job, I see the opposite of what you see - I see the "left gatekeepers", ignoring the 9/11 movement, as the big problem. If people worked on activism in order to promote ideals, then we may win over the "on-the-fence" people.

But, if 9/11 was indeed an inside job - then exposing it would do far more good than all activism since JFK has done.

It's all about Justice and that goes for the people we need to convince the most that we need change - the Bush supporters. They would be won over instantly if it were exposed to be an inside job.

When you use the term "utilitarian," do you mean so in the Betham and Mill sense, or in some other sense? 

Please explain.

 

Yes one can view 9/11 as a minor issue, a minor crime regarding many other crimes of the US administration.

But it was a crime directly against US citizens and for this, it carries an enormous political strengh: not the crime itself, but the lie which surrounds it. Uncovered, it has the capability to break the USA appart and provoke secessions from different states or even civil war.

On the other hand, hidden, it remains a cancer, a poison flowing in the veins of your republic, turning it into a fascist state. How do you cover up this lie without permanently propagating other lies and other crimes, without silencing dissending views, which is beginning right now: see want happens to truthers like M. Ruppert, K. Barrett, S. Jones, D.R. Griffin ... Do you want to live in a country like this ?

in the 80's, during the war against Iran. Because all the West wanted Iraq to seriously weaken the Iranian regime. So we sold weapons, and even WMD to Iraq, just as Rumsfeld did.

Now, this stockpile had been largely destroyed by Gulf War I in which France was a participant. Then, the inspection regime destroyed the remaining stockpile and weakened the regime so much it could not even think starting costly weapons programs. That is what Scott Ritter and Hans Blix said before the invasion in 2003 and we, in France, had no reason to doubt the inspectors.

The US administration "doubted" the inspectors purposedly because it wanted to attack Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with WMD (as Wolfowitz acknowledges) but everything to do with the control of oil and it "stupendous strategic power" (Kissinger). Same reason invoked for Iran. And same real motive.

What the US administration fears are not WMD, but the loss of its control of oil exchanges through the dollar and military power, especially as "Peak Oil" is becoming clear to more and more powerful players. For this, they needed a pretext which will convince the american people, and that is what 9/11 provided (there is no debate on this point). Did they have a motive to fabricate the pretext ?

 

I am surprised most of my friends hold Chomsky to such high esteem.  A man such as him who must have done research to write all the books that he has, should be willing to seriously research the 9/11 event and possible motives for the event.  Surely, he doesn't expect blind patiotic faith from the masses.  I'm a retired Republican military man myself, but too many things seem irregular about the 9/11 event.  My only account up until a month ago of the towers were what I heard from CNN and the BBC.  I have been living in South Korea  since 2000.  I've spent  3-9 hours everyday for the last month looking at 9/11 from all sides of the issue.  I have tried my damndest to disprove the conspiracy theory.  I simply haven't been able to.  I may never know what happened at the "Big Event" but I am convinced that explovises brought the towers down and no plane hit the Pentagon or landed in the field.  So, rather than waste  time by decrediting the conspiracy, I think Chomsky would be better served to ask "What the hell happened"?  Perhaps, Chompsky might have sold out to the other side to ease his rift with Uncle Sam on his past transgressions. Just my opinion! 

deleted--double posting

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

 

This article brings up a lot of points for people to at least reconsider the possibility of a rigged election.

If your mother died and left you a big inheritance, does it follow that you murdered her?

Sure, Chomsky might be wrong. There are a lot of unanswered questions. I don't think Chomsky would argue that this administration is morally incapable of killing 3000 citizens -- anyone who would do so would have to be totally ignorant of not only US history, but also of human nature, and the nature of the powerful, in general. Chomsky is far from ignorant on all those scores.

The question is: does it matter whether the Bush admin pulled off or allowed 9/11 when we have far worse atrocities occurring right now in Iraq, in which 600,000 people have died since we invaded, plus a total of US soldiers approaching 9/11 (to say nothing of the injured)? Just to take one example.

I am very far from a Noam-worshipper. I appreciate and mostly agree with his political and media analyses. In fact, anyone who is a "Noam-worshipper" has missed the point of his anarcho-syndicalism -- a fact I find amusing.

It may come out that 9/11 was either allowed to happen or (less likely) engineered. The point is, why worry about unknowns when there are so many known atrocities, foreign and domestic, that require nonstop effort to combat? JFK's assasination may have been an inside job, too. So? What's more important -- that, or the fact that he launched the Vietnam war, among other notable crimes?

That's where the "distraction" notion comes in. I would put it that it doesn't matter much whether 9/11 was an inside job in the 9/11 movement's sense of the term, because, ultimately, we all know that it was an inside job, insofar as the people we once trained, armed, and supported got pissed off at us and struck back. Blowback. Happens all the time.

Whether or not these yahoos in DC torched the "Reichstag" or not, they certainly have taken advantage of it quite disturbingly. That is known, and requires much effort to stop and overturn. Disappearing into a miasma of what might have happened would be quite useful to those who, whatever their guilt on this particular issue, would very much like to stay in power and keep the opposition off-balance and distracted.

As this string amply demonstrates.

 

Doug Tarnopol

Eric,

 

Please note a factual error in your post.

Kevin Ryan was not employed by UL in the mid-1960s when UL performed the ASTM-119 fire assembly test on the WTC mockups. Mr. Ryan has addressed this at st911.org.

 

 

 

I am really afraid of what US rednecks lie Jack are willing to sanction.

The next hundred thousand innocent brown people are already lined up to be massacred by US high-tech remote-control weaponry.

The justification is always the same. We are good, the others are bad. They attack, we just react.

I am very sad that the JACKs in the USA cannot see this.

They just don't think.

Or they justify themselves and the status quo ..

to me that is exactly the behaviour of the germans in 1939...

Hitler just defended the germans, remember? He legalised torture,

remember? But to say it was Hitler is misleading. It is the logic of money, the logic of credit creation, the oil, the bases, the raw-material and the fear. Most yanks shit their pants. The Jacks really need to justify their threatening others, it helps them to cope.

 

 

 

 

 

FYI.....Looking at details like the mess in Iraq or the mess of Katrina and deciding that the Bushies are incompetent is to mislead yourself. The Bushies have done everything they set out to do...what you are calling incompetence is more collateral damage that they had sure foreknowledge of but considered worth it to accomplish their goals of removing all social programs and controling the Middle East with the spoils going to people who are supporters. I think Bush hams it up as a distraction and it works.

Here's more WMD info.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/iraqintell/home.cfm

The best you can say is "We don't know."  To say "Bush lied" is in itself, a lie.

The French knew there were no WMDs? Huh?  The French are who sold Hussein all is capabilities!

 Regardless, here's more evidence of Hussein's WMD capability.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

 

Folks, PC says you are using up your energy chasing phantoms while your government is busily destroying your rights.....Mr Clinton was as set on restrictive laws as the Bushies, just not as successful...the rights and economies of countless people and countries all over the world, increasing the already impressive body count of our corpgov, and working actively to destroy the world you live on............among which the blowing up of several buildings or the killing of a president is small potatoes indeed.

From France, we had serious doubts about the claim that Saddam Hussein still had WMD in 2003. The Bush administration claimed it had no doubt Saddam had them (Cheney), and that they were all over the place (Rumsfeld) and that he was actively seeking yellowcake (Rice and Bush).

All these claims have proven WRONG. And everybody except the US and Britain public KNEW these were just pretexts for invasion and that their claims were not based on facts (how could they ?)

So, they lied. Simple as that. Because they made ungrounded accusations. And they lost trust: shame on Powell for having played their infamous game.

They also obviously lied to cover up some events of 9/11. Even the Kean commission acknowledges this: they knew NORAD was not telling the truth but still accepted their lies as evidence. And what about Rice and her meeting with Tenet. And what about the war games (R. Clarke). And what about D. Cheney's energy task force in january 2001 ? So ? Don't want to know why they lied ?

Don't confuse WMDs with Nukes. Besides, the IAEA said they didn't know what was going on in Iraq up to the begining of the war.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n020.html

As far as the election fraud goes, it hasn't been documented because it never occured.  The Civil Rights Commission found NOTHING!

Are you blaming Enron on Bush?  Was he manipulating the stock market and energy prices?

Like I said before, there may be many reasons for not liking Bush, but if you're going to bash him, bash him based on facts and not emotion.

This is important because it ties in to the same emotional motivations of those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Facts are ignored, other fact are discounted, non-experts become experts, and in the middle of it all, truth is lost.   

 

 

 

I've never seen more absurd claims in my life. Get a life

If the question is that disagreeing with Chomsky on one point is disagreeing with Chomsky on all points, then I must disagree. Chomsky is human, folks. As a human, he is sometimes wrong. That doesn't take away from his value to the human race. For God's sake, let's keep all this in perspective. In this case, I believe he is as wrong as a human can be. But do I dismiss him now as an important source of information? Duh.... On the other hand, if people are telling me that I must agree with him on ALL points, then my only option is to say....fuck you.

The soul searching goes on. I have been guided and helped by Chomsky's humane and brilliant works for years now. I will not suddenly dismiss him due to a difference of opinion. I think Noam suffers a bit from celebrity status in reading some of the comments here. However the question of 9/11 IS important. I have closely studied terrorism in Northern Ireland (1970 - 1995) and in West Germany (1970 - 1977). In both cases there is clear evidence of the State manipulating stuff for propaganda purposes. The 9/11 disaster was perhaps not the worst crime ever BUT it had enormous symbolic importance and has been used as a propaganda tool ever since. The Reichstag fire in 1938 was of similar symbolic importance.

Are you talking about how every recount showed GWB won? Are you talking about how all the networks said that Gore one in FL even though all the FL polling places weren't closed yet? 

Come on, this is bullshit.

 

The theory that Saddam has WMD's was a minority theory all the way till the war. Not the Security Council, not the IAEA, not the overhelming majority of the world believed, that the country under the closest control in imports, with restrictions on air space and highest surveillance by almost every intelligency agency of the world would have developed a serious amount of WMD's without any proof (Do you remember the ridicouls pictures Powell showed at the council... that should be all?).

There was only the british and the american Intelligence Agency TALKING about the possibilites of Saddam having WMD's. Most of the other Agencies around the world (Including the german, the pakistani, the french, the russian, the chinese) made quite clear (or their govs) that this claims are fairy tales.

Hussein himself did not give any reasons for thinking he has WMDs. He let foreign inspectors (coming from countries which wanted to bomb him) in its country, he got to terms with IAEA (a far not "neutral" organisation) and he even agreed in destroying the last more or less valuable rockets of his entire army (shortly before the war started, they were destroyed) with a range of a bit more then two hundred kilometres. There was NO EVIDENCE. Not even a serious programm to construct Weapons in the coming years. NOTHING.... how could in this case the whole world believe that their are??? When there nothing happened, how do people suddenly get the idea, Iraq is full of WMD... yep, Propaganda and who do you think did invent and distribute it?

But to the general topic. Yes of course, it is of intereset, who killed JKF and of even more intereset, what the real background of the WTC-Attack was.

But: You don't need to know that, for moving from thinking to acting. Isn't it enough to know, that for example the Bush Administration faked the all the prestories to the Iraq war (and there is a famous predecessors of it. Do you remember the emotional story of the Kuwaitian babys throwed out of their beds by Iraqi soldiers 1990. Told by a young "nurse" even in front of a congress committee... ->http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117426.php)

The election fraud (which is far more clear and documentated), the various crimes during Bushs time as Governor, the crimes of Falluja, the methods in Guantanamo, the ENRON-Scandal. What do you need more? To proof 9/11 as "Bushs" action would be very difficult and still it is not clear if "he was it". But you already know, that he and the persons supported knowingly his other actions did more than enough proofed crimes to blame for.

It makes no sense to get divided (and not take Chomsky serious anymore blabla) upon the question if the Bush-Administration was behind the 9/11 attacks as long as you still agree on all those other facts!

Why does everyone insist that GWB lied about the WMD?  Are you saying that you, who are not part of the intelligence community, knew the truth?

Are you forgetting that EVERY intelligence agency in the world thought that Hussein was hiding WMDs?  Did you really know better than the governments of the USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia and everyone else in the United Nations?

I don't think you did.

Are you forgetting that Hussein himself gave every reason in the world for the WORLD to believe he did possess WMDs? 

Unfortunately, the answer can only be yes.  Because when the evidence showed he did have the WMDs, the cry wasn't "no he doesn't," but instead, "let diplomacy run its course."

That doesn't discount your dislike for GWB.  There are many valid reasons to dislike him. But if you're going to dislike him, do so based on facts rather than irrational emotion.  Get the WMD story straight.

Yeah, your right i did just hit reply and yours was at the bottom.

Just lazy on my part....

Thanks for everybody's comments today. I agree with Chomsky that with any gathering of facts (and with something so heinous as what happened on that shocking day, information can be compiled to support myriad theories, as any reader of the JFK conspiracy books should well know.<p> Dozens of detailed, convincing books have been written on the JFK assassination (I know because I have read many of them, and I have an IQ at least as high as George Bush). They have often shown, from the evidence, and with virtual certainty, who committed the crime: the CIA, Hoover and the FBI, the KGB, LBJ, the Mafia, the Corsican Mafia, Jack Ruby, just Oswald, the Cubans, the Man Who Knew Too Much (823 pgs!—Lord have mercy), the Warren Report (how many volumes?), the Russians, even the Israelis (I never read about that, but I've heard), and any mixture of the aforementioned and on and on. And let us not forget Oliver Stone's impassioned film “JFK,” mixing the works of Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs, I believe.<p> In short, over 40 years have passed since the assassination and we still don't know what happened that day (and how much difference does it make?). We all know Bush and company lied about WMDs and all else, and what difference did it make in terms of US foreign policy? Perhaps zilch. This is truly shocking.<p> If anything, as Bush's ratings fall, the media and most observers/citizens start to believe that this regime is the problem, not something much wider (which includes, much to my dismay, human nature).<p> By our natures, it could be surmised, humans largely assemble information (and everything else) that suits our belief systems or our interests (personally or collectively). This seems to be virtually unavoidable.<p> Such a technique of gathering info is in many ways the backbone of both our legal system and media bias—which should be a warning to all of us.<p> What I think so many human beings long for is an undeniable reason and way to feel involved and participatory in this ongoing process of life-unfolding, a means of combatting atrocities committed in our tax-paying names, and a path towards service to others for a more just and sane world.<p> Thus I love the passion of all of us who write and strive for some answers, some hope in a climate of hopelessness. It's so painful, crushing and frustrating to not be able to make the world better through our proclamations! Who wouldn't want tangible proof as to why this world is so outrageously confusing, brutal and, one cannot deny, simultaneously stunningly wonderful? But if we project solely outwards, and not enough inwards, where do we end up…? Is not the extreme of outward projection colonialism, misogyny, empirical foreign policy, idiotic Left and Right infighting leading nowhere, and fundamentalism and extremism of all kinds (may they one day soften enough for conversation)?<p> Ghandi once said: “It is foolish to believe too much in one's own wisdom.”<p> The guy was comfortable walking around in a diaper, so it must be true.<p> There are concerns everywhere. Who has the answers?<p> When I remember that we are all sisters and brothers (don't you just hate family sometimes?), I can move forward with more questions than answers, more hope than anger, and I can see the greatness of the human desire (almost) everywhere striving for love, honesty and justice (so evident in the impassioned blog comments here). <p> That's my sermon for today. Keep going. I wish you all joy and insight, and I am grateful for Chomsky's relentless pursuit of justice as he sees it, and his generosity of time with me over the years.

Regarding contentions made about videos of the second airplane crashing into the WTC having been faked with computer editing, may I remind everyone that this occurred in New York City, where there were thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses to the event that could corroborate the contents of the video?

AJ, you're not criticizing me, are you? I'm agreeing with you. I'm supposing you just hit the reply button on my message because it was the last message on the list when you posted.

In my humble opinion, here is how I perceive Chomsky position which is also the position of many of the so-called "left gate-keepers."

1/ George Bush is stupid

2/ Nonetheless, he would be utterly crazy having just though to organize 911

3/ Moreover, he is incapable of organizing such a crime

Thus it cannot be a conspiracy and thus, any proof of conspiracy must have a counter-proof debunking it. For each proof, let me pick the first counter-proof I find regardless of its accuracy or origin since it confirms my belief. And let's not invest a single second of non-necessary brain-power to these wildly crazy theories ...

So these people do not even know that there are dozens of contradictions or physical impossibilities lying into the official theory. Like for example, the collapse speed of the buildings, the gravitational pulverisation of 450000 tons of concrete, the sulfidation and melting of steel the not even FEMA is able to explain, the incredible inefficiency of NORAD/FAA and of the Pentagon defense system, the existence of multiple wargames "simulating" the actual events precisely as they were unfolding ...

Yes 450000 tons of concrete are pulverized into fine dust if you simply let gravity work. Gravity as always been the universal tool of building demolition. After all, buildings are just as fragile as a deck of cards. And anybody who thinks the contrary must be wrong because otherwise, it would imply GWB is not as stupid as he seems to be.

I might surpise you but I agree with 1/, 2/ and 3/ but I nevertheless do not conclude it is not a US conspiracy. Simply, the conspiracy was not conducted by GWB. He was largely out of the loop, reading the "pet goat". But it must have been conducted from inside the US defense apparatus because there is no other credible explanation of the multiple facts that doom the official explanation of events, which is now assumed to be a cover-up, even by the very members of the Kean commission.

Moreover, I think Chomsky is ambiguous regarding the "moral meaning" of the 9/11 crime. On one side, it is a little crime when considering the number of direct victims. In his books, Chomsky lists many other crime perpetrated by the US governement and involving tens of thousand of victims. On the other side, the victims were us ... and as he discusses it by large, we are not the "terrorists" and thus it must be a "infamous" crime. So it could not have been committed by us on ourselves.

If one is serious about studying 9/11, the means, the motive and the opportunity should be the first questions to be asked ... Who had all three ? Then why not wanting to find the truth about what happened ? Is this a logical position for the US governement unless it does not want the truth to be found out ?

I respect Chomsky for what I have read from him but he is only human and not God, even for the anti-war and progressist movements. Thus he can fail. And with respect to 9/11, he is obviously in pure denial, based on beliefs, not facts or reasoning. I doubt he has seriously considered the case of a US conspiracy outside the scheme I have presented here: prove it wrong using the minimum brain-power needed.

 

Come on people!!!

How many passenger planes, cargo planes or military planes have you seen fly into a skyscraper before?

How many times have you seen a Building with a Steel Core Construction rather than the conventional Concrete Core Construction collapse?

Like me i'm assuming it was NONE prior to 9/11.

How could you possibly know how these unique set of events are supposed to unfold? I only have a rather small amount of construction knowledge but even i know that steel loses it's strength at a lower temperature than jet fuel burns...

Every single piece of evidence that i have ever seen to try and argue the case for conspiracy has been systematically debunked by actual experts over and over...

Bush is obviously far too incompetent to actually cover something like this up. Think Watergate, think Iran/Contra. There's no way that many people could possibly keep there mouths shut!!!

All Chomsky is saying that the left should be focused on actual crimes of the West rather than these ridiculous fairytales...

This is getting beyond ridiculous. You're sayint there was no second plane that hit the WTC? That the huge gaping hole in the side of the building was just an illusion? Come on man, get back down to earth. With this level of "analysis" it's no wonder the theory is getting nowhere, and has no credibility. The theory is based on huge leaps of the imagination. In science you are supposed to look at the evidence, then analyse it and try to come up with a thery that explains what is happening. You don't come up with a theory, and then try to fit evidence around it. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the US government was involved in 9/11. If people are interested in a bit more sober analysis than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists offer, I suggest visiting 9/11 Myths and Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

First of all, the reason Chomsky is going to be so dubious about any conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theories are always going to be extremely incredible since they necessarily concern some sort of alleged concerted, perfectly clandestine effort undertaken by countless people, a premise in and of itself unlikely, even without complicating it with all the details peculiar to a specific situation a given conspiracy theory centers itself around. With that in mind, I would surmise to say that Chomsky's standards of evidence are probably a little higher for conspiracy theories than they are for other things, so it's understandable to me that the present circumstantial, nebulous state of the case for the theory about 9/11 thus far neither impresses him in the least nor even prompts him to investigate any further the theory himself. Structural hypotheses, on the other hand, aren't prototypically founded upon any presuppositions nearly as sensational or difficult to demonstrate to be valid. The legitimacy of any one of them merely relies on it being proven that certain institutions have certain concomitant phenomena. This is why Chomsky sees them as being much more apt for meaningful study that actually accomplishes something—and then also doesn't make us end up looking like lunatics to people not acquainted with radical political thought. It's really enough that the prejudice already exists that anarchists are crazy people who get some sort of sadistic pleasure out of throwing bombs into crowded areas for us now to have to start dealing with more stereotypes.

The WTC7 demolition is sooo obvious: Come on, now, Noam. This building went down at 5pm and housed SEC, CIA etc pp ... NO ARAB DID THAT. The reason why nobody has submitted any paper to an engineering journal is simple, too:

• Evidence is hard to come by (massive cover-up)
• Career death.

Hollow Aluminium hitting steel... but no crumple!! The evidence of video tampering should be enough to dismiss the official version per se. Granted, the 911 crimes are fundamental justifications for much bigger crimes. But don't we need to come clean on that first? Noam can't touch this subject. He fears that if he would, much more important facts would go under. But the world is waiting for Noam to come aboard. My girlfriends and I agreed that we heard on multiple occasions that people would take 911 conspiracies serious when Noam Chomsky starts talking about it!

Noam is not a computer fan. The fascination that ANONYMOUS REMOTE CONTROL by computer network exerts is like a drug. The military loves it. 911 was executed that way, by unwitting electronics technicians who died in front of their high-tech simulation terminals inside the Pentagon. They were running sophisticated wargames, precise computer-scheduled events. The whole thing went "live" upon the first (real plane) impact. The second impact WAS VIDEO FAKED. Ask Noam whether he believes the footage of an airliner MELTING into a buidling. 1. Video clip shows alleged U.A. Flight 175 (Boeing 767) entering the building. 2. Clip shows plane proceeding to enter building, however the left horizontal stabilizer seems to be missing (yellow arrow). 3. Clip shows where right engine entered building (orange arrow) and the right wing tip still sticking out (green arrow). Building between right engine and wing tip looks undamaged (yellow arrow). 4. Clip seems to show no entry point or damage to the building where the right wing was seen going through (yellow arrow).

I agree 100% with Chomsky here. These wild conspiracy theories is looking more and more like the drugs that destroyed activism in the late 60s/early 70s. People are getting occupied with things that in the end destroys the movement. There isn't a shred of proof that the US government was involved in this, and I don't think they were. They would have to be utterly insane. We all know they are more murderous and jingoistic than previous administrations, but they are not insane, and they are not stupid. There will always be loose ends in in such a chaotic situation as it was on that day. This, as always, is being taken advantage of, and the result is conspiracy theories. 9/11 conspiracy theories are now serving to take the heat off the horrible crimes being carried out in the Middle East. I think it would be much better to focus on that instead. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

"So I ask you. Where is this Left you speak of, and the "energy" and solidarity it has to divert to any cause? ..."

Well, two days ago thousands of people participated in demonstrations in over 200 cities across the country organized by World Can't Wait.

http://www.worldcantwait.org/

The Left in America and the industrialised countries of the world is no longer a viable political force. It has become fat and lazy and satisfied with the status quo... and politically impotent. There remains little or no energy to draw from. The workers and unions have abandoned it. Politicians no longer listen to it. No one fears it any longer. It has become little more than a cyberspace mouth dispensing empty platitudes and gripes. Its leaders are not those who would spill blood for the cause, who would sacrifice family and home and career for justice, as has happened in Latin America, Indonesia and so many other oppressed countries of the world. The leaders of the "Left" in America would have too much difficulty getting away from their book promotional tours and TV apearances to give true sacrifice much thought. Divisiveness? Don't you think that is precisely what the Left in America needs right now to awaken it from its stuper? If I can awaken just one leader of the American Left from his sleep through a nasty little ad hominem argument, I am more than willing to make that small sacrifice of personal intellectual integrity. A huge percentage of Americans want out of the war in Iraq and believe Bush deceived them. A growing percentage of Americans believe that 9/11 was an event concocted by their own government to gain their support for an endless war. Whether that is true or not is absolutely not the issue here. The fact is that the very existence of the doubt raises an immense opportunity for the Left to make its case for a formal and official investigation (which, I might remind you NEVER took place) and for structural changes in Government. Where is the Left? Global warming is a danger to the entire planet and our existence, and is the direct result of both rapacious business practices taken by greedy capitalists of America and inactions on the part of Government to stop it. Where the fuck has the American Left been on environmental issues in the last 30 years? What a bleeping wonderful opportunity for structural change! The tax breaks and economic favors given to the rich over the past 6 years have deeply widened the growing chasm between rich and poor in this country and the other countries of the industrialized world. Business is booming for billionaires. Meanwhile the rest of us are losing health and retirement benefits, the middle class is disappearing, average wages are decreasing and public services are being turned over to privatised, profit-driven interests. Where are the bloodied and imprisoned union leaders of the early 20th century? The American political system has degenerated to the point that Diebold now is responsible for election results. Where the hell is the Left? Who is going to stop this? The American Congress has just passed a law, the Military Commissions Act, that gives the President unprecedented powers in this country. Where is the Left? The Bush administration now sets up "free Speech Zones" where so-called "activists" can demonstrate at political functions now? Where are the leftist leaders who, at risk of injury and imprisonment, will break through those boundaries in the name of true free speech? Where are the magnetic leaders like Chavez who will mobilize the people of the United States to refuse to co-operate any longer with their Government or the industry it is in league with? Where are those who will sacrifice all and say to the powers that be "Here we stand. We will go no further."? Where are the leaders who will become for us like Mahatma Gandhi who brought the British Empire to its knees through non-cooperation? Our Left leaders are immobilized because they no longer believe the people have power. The people are immobilized because THEY do not believe they have the power. So I ask you. Where is this Left you speak of, and the "energy" and solidarity it has to divert to any cause? When are people going to understand that it is not PROOF of an action like 9/11 that they need to make change, but the political opportunity and leverage it gives rise to? Where are the Leftist leaders who will mobilize the people? Where are the leaders who will sacrifice all for what is right and good and just? Which ones are doing any more than complaining like children about something we all already know? Only sacrifice will awaken the American conscience. Only the spilling of blood and imprisonment by the American Government will demonstrate the need for change. Where the hell is Ganghi, and why didn't he train his replacement?

I think Chomsky's position is clear and well reasoned. I have thought 9/11 was at some level an inside job since around 5 p.m., 9/11/2001. However, without solid evidence, a belief will always remain a belief. I have read many of the critical articles, and although they strongly support a theory, there is to my knowledge, no proof. Victor, I think this sentence in your comment, as ad hominens do, reveals the lack of a good argument. "People who are satisfied with their standard of living and their ability to eat, find shelter write books and make promotional appearances become fat and lazy and impotent and even a little arrogant." This is the sort of divisiveness that draws energy from the activist left.

Does all this talk mean that you all won't be following Chomsky anymore because you think he's wrong for not believing in the conspiracy theory?

For the most part, Proffesor Chomsky's comments do not suprise me: I'm fairly certain I heard him voice an identical opinion over two years ago

But then, surely this is also a problem? The 9/11 truth movement was tiny two years ago to where it is today: the infamous recent scripps howard poll put disbelief in the official 9/11 story at 36% of Americans. Time Magazine has declared it "a new political reality". How can Proffesor Chomsky's perspective not have advanced in the light of this shift in public perception? The upshot of this is that large sections of the American people are showing willingness to seriously question their government. Is this not a massive opportunity for a real change in how the public relates to the institutions of the state

What I really dont understand is how proffesor chomsky's response does not deal with the section on the message he has quoted. Instead he seems to be talking about another section of the message he has not quoted.

The information now being put forward by the Jersey Girls and Paul Thompson acheives three objectives extremely convincingly

 1) It demonstrates clear prior knowledge of the attack coming from multiple sources and an administration that did nothing effective to act on that knowledge

 2) It shows the intimate nature of the conduct of the 9/11 Commission and leaves no doubt that it was a Whitewash

 3) It shows how Osama Bin Laden was permitted to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan, and how funding for the terrorists was channeled through the Pakistani ISI

 Now if exposing this frauds at the heart of an unending War of fruads is of no interest to the Left, what on earth is the left for?

 And, given that the three points above are clearly established fact: not theory, conpiritorial or otherwise:

 Why has the left wasted 5 years avoiding these issues?

i've lost much respect for this man and will never again take him seriously.  he is, in essence, an asset to the military-industrial complex by spewing this drivel. 

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw

People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

However, as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.
http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm

Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

"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."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3419

Cyrano - what you say I believe is true. I think what most left intellectuals (I include here Chomsky, Paul Street, etc.) would seem to believe is that the REAL problem human government faces is structural in nature. It's not the people running the government - it's the structure that allows this to happen in the first place. They bemoan all attempts to shine the fierce light of truth on these folks because they imply that by doing so we are accomplishing nothing but pointing out what everyone already knew to be true, and therefore, it is a waste of time and energy and focus, when actually, we should be devoting that time, energy and focus upon the REAL issue - structure. As for the structural point, I totally, 100%, agree with such lines of thought. Where we part company, however, is where we refuse to bring these people to account for their vicious assault upon human freedom, dignity, economic fairness, and the environment. But only by convincing the people that there is a structural problem in the first place can we hope to get anything accomplished. And in my mind, we don't sit in dark corners of cyberspace whispering among ourselves and pretending that we are reaching the masses with the truth about structure. At least we don't do that and expect to see structural change. In my mind the object is to focus upon areas that not only clearly demonstrate the monstrous nature of the current structure but also, and perhaps more importantly, focus upon those crmes that will COMMUNICATE CLEARLY to the people that something is terribly wrong that needs fixing. You don't communicate such things by accusing the USA and the UK of international terrorism and being economic bullies. Some will believe you - most won't. Life will go on. We will argue until the cows come home (and they are just about home!). No, what is needed in my mind to is to select a signal and pivotal event in modern human history that is close to home for the people. Something big. Something truly evil. Something that, if the truth were known, would drive a dagger through the heart of those listening, and fill them with deep pain and disgust and raging anger and the overwhelming need to change the structure that allowed such a thing to happen. And for the people of the United States and its allies, in my mind that event could very well be 9/11. When David Ray Griffith's and Michael Ruppert's books came across my desk, I read with disbelief and then with horror and then with sobering acceptance of a deeply evil act on the part of those entrusted with power in our society - an act against their own people for their own benefit and that of the monied interests supporting them. This act did exactly what they intended, probably with results far better than even they had ever hoped. It literally changed the world from that point. It tipped the balance of power firmly to those who wield fear and repression as weapons for tranforming a society into a willing and weak vassal serving their needs. It alone enabled the immediate passage of the infamous Patriot Act, a document already prepared for Congressional action before 9/11 even happened. It alone ultimately enabled the passage of the final nail in the coffin of freedom in the Dark Empire, an act known as the Military Commissions Act, that hands the President full power to remove anyone he deems dangerous to his position. This one act of the destruction of the WTC was not simply a crime among many crimes committed by these folks as Chomsky would have us accept. This was an act of great defiance in the face of the masses and of the sanctity of Law, a cold-hearted manipulation of an entire people. A blatant and intentional assault upon freedom and justice and fairness. And they got away with it. And even though there are people out there in growing numbers who are beginning to listen to the 9/11 "freaks and cranks", the Left is certainly not among them, being strangely absent from the rising ruckus - silent, unperturbed, uninvolved in this most crucial of issues. People who are satisfied with their standard of living and their ability to eat, find shelter write books and make promotional appearances become fat and lazy and impotent and even a little arrogant. Here is indeed an opportunity that if successful could send waves of change throughout the structure of the USA. And the irony is that IF that ever happens because of the changes wrought by shining the light of truth upon this montrous act, that NONE of that change would be the result of the Left, who chose to remain silent,"focussed" upon their own navels. If truth be known the only people I have seen to date who have the balls to stand up to these people and cry "Not me. Not now. Not ever." are the Muslim world, who know in their hearts the evil spawning in America and who will not bow to it under any condition.

Victor, you want to know where everybody is? Behind their computers. Or, on occassion, at demos for which they apply and obtain official permission from the people whose authority it is they are protesting. The point you make (in your "righteous impotence" comment) is fine, but don't make it. Take action. One other thing: I have to disagree with the assessment that there is a "horror overtaking [your] country", as though booting out this administration for only slightly less insufferable jerks (with blue ties) will bring some kind of relief. I know that's not specifically what you were implying, but the creeping horror has its roots long before you or I were born, and will surely lurk after we're gone, and it's to that we should direct our attention. The Bush Admin. is a sideshow in a vast circus. Keir The Hague

Victor, Chomsky does not believe there the US government was involved with 9/11..

Victor, for some reasons chomsky does not believe there was government involvement in 9/11..

OK, Asil and Kier. You are both of course quite correct. I'm afraid I suffer from what I call "righteous impotence", the feeling that I must speak out against a horror overtaking my country and my world but feeling at the same time deep impotence that anything will come of it. Those who see the great wrong and the harm in the world posed by this government seem to be losing power and focus as time marches on. Prof Chomsky talks about losing focus, but he is talking to the Great Unfocussed. Where is the Left? Where did they go? Where are the Activists? Where are those who used to invade government offices and sit until action was taken to correct a wrong? Where are those who used to place themselves in front of a tank? Where are those who used break into Federal Buildings and destroy the files in the name of righteous justice? Where are those who went to jail in the name of right? Over the top? Over-react? I suppose that's me...;-) Here I am. Silent and impotent in the noisy din of a sea of militarism, might and money. But where's the Left? Not just the Left - where are those who will risk all against fascism and imperial power? We whisper among ourselves in dark lonely corners of the world. We shake our heads and wring our hands in righteous indignation. Haven't we understood yet what it takes to be heard? Real sacrifice? The smell of blood in the streets? The cracking of skulls? Only martyrs are heard above the noise of fear.

Hello Victor,

I usually tend to agree with you since I find your comments informative, amusing and downright caustic especially when you're lashing back at right-wing blockhead fanatics, of which there are plenty here at Z. However, as serious as 9-11 was, I think what Chomsky is trying to say is that the fact that the left-wing activists are so focused on 9-11 (whether the Bush administration is responsible or Al-Qaeda) is diverting attention from state crimes that have been going on for decades now. Of course, I think there should be an fair and impartial investigation, but do you really think this is the first time that the U.S government has screwed with the American people in a really big way? This might just be the most visible crime. I think Chomsky is saying that 9-11 is having the desired effect. People are so side-tracked by it that everything else pales in comparison (on-going corporate crimes, state crimes, etc, etc). In a democracy, (and I'm using the term very loosely here) like the U.S, (where unlike Third World fascist states and dictatorships-all supported and financed by the U.S of course),Americans enjoy a greater measure of freedom; freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom of information, priveleges such as education, the simple right to not go hungry. So I find it unbelievable that the American people could be so duped, hood-winked and brainwashed. Why did take a 9-11 to jolt them out of their 100-year slumber? I can't believe that its the media. The media and educational/indoctrination institutions can only go so far and then its upto the individual to question, to doubt, to be skeptical. I mean, why didn't the American people immediately demand a fair and impartial investigation right after 9-11, instead of, worked up into their usual bloodlust, rallying behind the devil to unlease further destruction on Afghanistan and finish up the job in Iraq? Why weren't they more aware and educated enough about their country's horrendous, blood-soaked foreign policy to stop and think, "A government that has no scruples about killing innocents around the world, will not balk at killing its own civilians to meet a certain objective?" Anyways, I'm probably way off-topic, but these are important questions Americans should ask themselves before they do any more damage.

Easy does it Victor. You are falling into the precise trap Chomsky is referring to. "Shame on you, Professor". . . ? Are you joking? Can't you think of more valuable ways of engaging with the world than this? For what it's worth I don't embrace the conspiracy theories. I have to agree with Chomsky that those accused of conspiracy were verifiable criminals well before they took office. To take a very tiny, but important example: George W. Bush had proved himself to be an sociopathic, inhumane thug when as governor of Texas he proudly presided over countless state murders. He should have been locked up years before 9/11. Or take Cheney, our brave secretary of defense who administered the war crimes against Iraq in 1991. The list goes on. Chomsky makes a valid point: the dark secrets everybody has a hard-on to unravel aren't secrets. Conspiracy theorists are just barking up the wrong tree and wasting energy. Keir The Hague

It was this dastardly act that enabled the passage of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and the plunge of America into fascism. Without a new "Pearl Harbor" none of these hoorendous assaults upon the Bill of Rights would have been possible. Shame on you, Professor. Shame. Shame. Shame.

I am normally 100% behind Professor Chomsky, but here I have to draw the line. Since when is it not important that the American Government murdered 3000 of its own citizens and those of other countries, devastated the families of those victims, spit in the face of law and decency, committed the highest of treasonous acts, and subjected the world to an highly increased level of aggressive militaristic acts including the destruction of Iraq and the inflammation of Middle East tensions and the hyperbolic increase in terrorist activity where there was little, if any, before in Iraq? What if this REALLY happened? How can he simply say such notions are "arcane and dubious" theories? How can he simply brush off the fact that there was NEVER an offical government investigation into this event? How can he sit there and calmly say that that there are more important and "provable" crimes to think about? How can he say that the Left has beter things to do than prove that the American Government has willfully sucked this country into a war without end by creating its own version of a Pearl Harbor? How can he say that such a supposition is not worthy of the attention of the American people in general, and the Left specifically? How can he cavalierly assign to the trash can those who believe that a heinous crime might well have been committed by those entrusted by the people with power? There are many, many engineers who would strongly diagree with the so-called findings of the professional association of civil engineers, an organisation with deep financial interests in staying on the good side of the current administration? Just what is it, Professor Chomsky, that makes a crime worthy of your attention, or mine, or anyone's? Does it have to be of a specific magnitude? Is not the murder of 3000 Americans by their own government not worthy of the impotent Left's royal attention? Is the "valuable" time of so-called Activists so precious that they have no need to consider such a possibility? I am unfortunately left with the sickening feeling that there may be deeper motivations behind Professor Chomsky's position on this matter. I am deeply, deeply disappointed. And for the sake of all those murdered and their families, and for the sake of all those 3000 to date brave young men and women, our sons and daughters, and husbands and fathers, and mothers, and wives, who have subsequently given their lives and limbs and mental health in Afghanistan and Iraq as a DIRECT result of THIS monstrous act, I say no act is more deserving of a fair and impartial investigation.