Momopi, Chomsky is doing same thing u r and getting blasted!

[Winston]

Analysis and reasons about why Chomsky, one of the greatest intellectuals, is closed minded and dismissive regarding 9/11, to the point of irrationality, as Momopi is too. Very eloquent.


http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... mskys.html

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21779

[Winston]

Momopi, do you agree with Chomsky when he said:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." - Chomsky

"Is there anyone in their right frame of mind who agrees with the above quote?"

You really have to wonder the mindset that admits the government could have participated in the mass murder of our fellow civilians, and yet works overtime trying to dismiss it as "irrelevant."

Well obviously it's not "irrelevant" to us, nor to the family members affected by it, nor to a hell of a lot of people around the world. That it is apparently "irrelevant" to Noam Chomsky and his dwindling band of followers speaks volumes about their priorities, as well as their morality, or apparent lack thereof. Perhaps it is they who are "irrelevant?"

Treason does not matter to these people.

[Winston]

This is a revealing point: (see the part in bold)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21779

what to make of Chomsky. As a longtime admirer and student of Chomsky's work, I was very surprised to learn of his dismissive attitude toward the truth (or even study) of 9/11 ... my appraisal of Chomsky has since undergone considerable revision.

Still, I find it hard to believe that Chomsky is as naive and credulous as he acts in regard to the truth of 9/11. I think he may be motivated to conceal his real opinion on the subject in public, by fear of the personal consequence he might suffer if he didn't... ie. the sort of self-censorship he describes in his book 'Manufacturing Consent'.

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that he is a mole, ie. faux dissenter ... and to my mind, that doesn't seem very likely.

I wonder how Chomsky reconciles the notion that if 9/11 was a conspiracy involving terrorists, only 19 conspirators are required, but if it was a conspiracy involving government officials, it would require thousands ... if terrorists are really that much more competent than government officials, maybe we should employ terrorists to run govt,.. perhaps that's what's happening already...

Johnscriv,

You make a sterling point here !

it is a logic fallacy that we can point out to ANYONE that counters 9/11 truth arguments by saying "it would have required thousands...."

Why is is easy for 19 hijackers (led a dialysis patient in a cave), to pull off 9/11, yet it purportedly requires thousands of insiders to do the same thing?

[Winston]

Momopi, does this "higher cause" explanation explain your reasons for being closed minded and dismissive toward 9/11?

was just telling that to my friend. saw this article here and started thinking.
i mean, chomsky is obviously no fool. thats for sure. and his work was always
good and interesting, but why would he act as such a coward when it came
to 9/11? curious. i was. and i came up with two explanations:

one is what you've said - they lie because mossad was maybe involved and that
would hurt israel on the "international scene" (whatever that bullcrap means)

and two: think of leftgatekeepers. people like, let's say... zinn, goodman, chomsky,
even tv celebrities such as jon stewart etc. those people, die-hard liberals, are lying
about 9/11 because they know that if the truth got out, the civilisation as we know it
may come to an abrupt end. because if people realized that their own gvt killed 3000
of them (people), and then lied about it and everything else... i don't think it would
be too long before angry mobs would start to pillage washington dc and impaling all
politicians. also, those same die-hard liberals are also aware of their complicity in
the cover-up. they kept quiet (even blatantly lied, like chomsky for instance) when they
should have asked questions.

so, it is a "higher cause". "yes, 9/11 was an inside job", noam thinks to himself.
"i mean", chomsky keeps on talking to himself, "it was more than obvious, but
there are some other, more important things involved here and that's the survival
of the civilization, therefore, i noam chomsky will lie".

for now, that is the only logical explanation of chomsky's behaviour. at least to me.
same pattern, or principle, can be found when you think about why would us gvt
kill 3000 of it's own people. i mean, sure to start a war, but that's a bit too small
of a "win" for such a risk.

and then it dawned upon me: oil peak was starting to happen, us got worried
they wont have enough oil, millions of people would die because of the lack
of the oil, sooo... kill 3000 to save millions. that's the most logical explanation
to me. stage a terrorist attack, kill 3000 of your own citizens, get the public on
your side (they're dumbasses anyway, right?) and go to iraq, open military bases
and oil is secured.

and yes. just like that crazy general in "dr strangelove". dick cheney in rl.

[Winston]

"With this in mind, a highly intelligent man such as Chomsky can only behave like i simpleton if there is some deeper motivation."

Noam Chomsky is COMRPOMISED. That is the most likely explanation.

Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... sible-noam...

Chomsky could easily have taken the neutral position. That the investigations were inadequate, and we need to know more. Having investigations interfered with by the Bush administration is not only glaringly obvious to anyone who looks, but expected.

That's not what he did. He went to bat for the other side. Positing riduculous theories about how it could not have happened, and refusing to address any actual evidence at all, he has thrown away his credibility as an independent thinker.

Chomsky was compromised a long time ago, when he did the same thing regarding the Kennedy assassination. By siding with those who posit a "magic bullet" theory, and ignoring (knowingly disregarding) the evidence that Kennedy was shot from the front, Chomsky exposes himself as a leashed dog.

Chomsky's ineffectual and useless critique of the empire inspires no one. He sidelines his adherents into safe places where they can blog about their systemic critiques, never holding people directly accountable for official crimes.
Paricularly, they ignore the official crimes for which there is outrage, evidence, and a chance to make a real change.

They must have Chomsky by the balls. And he misleads his followers.

Chomsky's critique of the empire ... is indeed ineffectual and worse, it's desultory, depressing and disempowering. You are correct that the "systemic analysis" favoured by Chomsky avoids personal accountability and downplays the influence of collusion within power structures.

Chomsky does not offer his audience any ideas about how to recognize, challenge or deal with the corrupt, incumbent regime. His portrayal of systemic dysfunction is characterized by a litany of entrenched criminality, but never any remedy.

Chomsky's anti-intellectual treatment of 9/11 and the murder of JFK certainly seems to support the accusation that his credibility is compromised.

"Chomsky could easily have taken the neutral position" ... instead he chose to defend the indefensible ... that says it all.

[momopi]

If by making one statement, he can garish this much publicity, he's accompolished his objective.

How many books does he have an Amazon.com for sale?

[PatrickSMcNally]

This is a revealing point:

I wonder how Chomsky reconciles the notion that if 9/11 was a conspiracy involving terrorists, only 19 conspirators are required, but if it was a conspiracy involving government officials, it would require thousands ... if terrorists are really that much more competent than government officials, maybe we should employ terrorists to run govt,.. perhaps that's what's happening already...

That's a faulty argument. If we assume that 19 Arabs were carrying this off as a retaliatory blow against US imperialism, then they would want their identity and motive to become known after the event. Keeping it secret would defeat the entire purpose. It takes fewer people to carry off an operation for which one expects and desires the main facts to be learned after it is over. On the other hand, a hypothetical inside-job scenario would require that the conspirators plan in advance to cover up their tracks and make certain nothing gets out retroactively which would give their game away. Even if you wish to argue that this is plausible, it's clear that Chomsky's point was to assert here that in his opinion this specific taks of keeping everything secret would require thousands of people. He was not saying that Arab terrorists were more competent but only that if we assume that they carried it off then the complications involved in keeping the secret are unnecessary and therefore do not apply. Hence no higher competence is necessary to carry off a terrorist act where you expect and wish for the true facts to emerge. The person you were quoting was making a totally false analogy in this case.

[momopi]

If you wanted 19 Arab guys to jack planes, the most direct course of action is to get 19 Arab guys and have them jack planes.

Or, you could secretely build UAV's shaped like Boeing jets with extra humps (and forget to paint fake windows on it), spend months to secretely plant explosives in several skyscrapers under the nose of its tenants, use a cruise missile to hit the Pentagon and hope that the hole would look like one made by passenger jet with wings, truck in and plant many aircraft pieces around ground zero, have men in black (complete with dark sunglasses) stand over under-sized aircraft parts for photo-op and claim that it came from a Boeing Jet... then employ demolition experts to make sure the buildings collapse with a precisely vertifical fashion, at free-fall rate, into a very tidy pile of rubble to bury all the evidence under it. Oh and afterwards, you probably need to tie up the loose ends by rounding up the people involved, chain weights to their legs and push them overboard at sea.

Gee um... I know which one I'd pick if I were going to plot a conspiracy.


==========

http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Co ... 84086.html

Entering the world of conspiracy theories and secret societies is like stepping into a distant, parallel universe where the laws of physics have completely changed: black means white, up is down, and if you want to understand what?s really going on, you need a good reference book. That?s where Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies comes in.

Whether you?re a skeptic or a true believer, this fascinating guide, packed with the latest information, walks you through some of the most infamous conspiracy theories ? such as Area 51 and the assassination of JFK ? and introduces you to such mysterious organizations as the Freemasons, the Ninjas, the Mafia, and Rosicrucians. This behind-the-curtain guide helps you separate fact from fiction and helps you the global impact of these mysterious events and groups on our modern world. Discover how to:

* Test a conspiracy theory
* Spot a sinister secret society
* Assess the Internet?s role in fueling conspiracy theories
* Explore world domination schemes
* Evaluate 9/11 conspiracy theories
* Figure out who ?they? are
* Grasp the model on which conspiracy theories are built
* Figure out whether what ?everybody knows? is true
* Distinguish one assassination brotherhood from another
* Understand why there?s no such thing as a ?lone assassin?

Why do hot dogs come in packages of ten, while buns come in eight-packs? Everybody knows its a conspiracy, right? Find out in Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies.