• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

Score so far

Mirror, mirror, on the wall
Who's the best at giving mechanisms for organizational protection
Against investigations and dissenters
Certainly, not you all


Score:

Chomsky: 2
Debunkers: 0
10-12 year olds: 0
Truthers*: 0


* I was tempted to give Heiwa 1 point. I basically agree with
Evidently it is understood that the commission cannot find any real faults with elected politicians and their appointed civil servants. The result will be the usual white wash and elected politicians and their civil servants can carry on as usual. Any politician or civil servant trying to break rank or private citizen for that matter will be intimidated to simply shut up and support the government as a good patriot.
Click to expand...

I didn't, though, because no strong arguments are presented as to why this is an example of a deceptive whitewash. If the 'World at Risk' document is considered a "big joke" in Europe, certainly there must be reasons given by some serious people who have gone through it, carefully.
 
Last edited:
Hey metamars, your hero doesn't agree with your fantasy. Thought it should be said again.
 
metamars said:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall
Who's the best at giving mechanisms for organizational protection
Against investigations and dissenters
Certainly, not you all
Click to expand...

Are you going to give specifics on how this theory applies to the 911 Commission? Here's the way I see it: you've got a bi-partisan commission composed of two rival parties vying for power, each would love to see the others' demise. If there was something incriminating to the other party, they would have found it. There's no there there.
 
metamars said:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall
Who's the best at giving mechanisms for organizational protection
Against investigations and dissenters
Certainly, not you all
Click to expand...

I just gave you an example of a mechanism that protects against such protection, democracy, the cyclical renewing of government.
 
JohnG said:
2. I suspect that if someone accused your mother of murder and you knew that she was innocent, I doubt that you'd just sit back, say "live and let live" and forget about it, especially if those same people were trying to take her to court or worse.
Click to expand...

Is the US state your Mummy?
 
TexasJack said:
Are you going to give specifics on how this theory applies to the 911 Commission? Here's the way I see it: you've got a bi-partisan commission composed of two rival parties vying for power, each would love to see the others' demise. If there was something incriminating to the other party, they would have found it. There's no there there.
Click to expand...

I recently read The Commission. The Uncensored History Of The 911 Investigation by Philip Shenon, from which it is crystal clear that the Commission had very little chance of uncovering anything that the various organs of the State didn't want them to uncover. It was a depressing read.

Like other 911 Investigations, the approved conclusion was decided on before the investigation began.

Democrats and Republicans are defending the same status quo.

BTW: I don't consider Shenon's History to be "uncensored"!
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
I was tempted to give Heiwa 1 point.

I didn't, though, because no strong arguments are presented as to why this is an example of a deceptive whitewash. If the 'World at Risk' document is considered a "big joke" in Europe, certainly there must be reasons given by some serious people who have gone through it, carefully.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being tempted to give me 1 point. Maybe some serious people consider the following from World at Risk not to be serious?

It is our hope to break the all-too-familiar cycle in which disaster strikes and a commission is formed to report to us about what our government should have known and done to keep us safe. This time we do know. We know the threat we face. We know that our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing. And we know what we must do to counter the risk. There is no excuse now for allowing domestic partisanship or international rivalries to prevent or delay the actions that must be taken. We need unity at all levels—nationally, locally, and among people all across the globe. There is still time to defend ourselves, if we act with the urgency called for by the nature of the threat that confronts us. Sounding that call for urgent action is the purpose of this report.

RECOMMENDATION 13: The next administration must work to openly and honestly engage the American citizen, encouraging a participatory approach to meeting the challenges of the new century.

Hm, I wonder what all those poor American citizens who have pointed out serious errors in all those government reports trying to clarify 9/11 and why strong buildings suddenly collapse think about that?
 
JihadJane said:
Like other 911 Investigations, the approved conclusion was decided on before the investigation began.
Click to expand...

Which was what? Approved by who? How did they influence the outcome of the investigation to arrive at the approved conclusion? How do you influence 100's of people to come to the same conclusion? What was the contingency plan if there wasn't concensus among the participants?

Answer these questions and you have a new truther in me.
 
Drudgewire said:
Since you didn't bump those other threads and instead started a new one, I fail to see how pointing out Chomsky doesn't believe 9/11 conspiracies in a thread using Chomsky's hypothesis about government to suggest a 9/11 conspiracy is "derailing" it.
Click to expand...

The two questions I posed can be considered to have 3 parts, each. In each and every one of those 6 cases, I have made it clear that the premise involves cause for the protective mechanisms to be invoked.

Since Chomsky rejects the notion of 911 LIHOP and 911 MIHOP completely, his statements for these two 911 related cases of mine, which presuppose LIHOP and MIHOP, are irrelevant, since what they are presupposing is the exact opposite of what Chomsky is claiming. (Not in so many words.)

If we asked Chomsky the question "Well, suppose some parts of the US government did LIHOP 911, what sort of mechanisms would we then expect to see to protect against serious investigations and internal dissent from those parts?", then it would be rather dumb, or at least obviously evasive, of Chomsky to answer "But I think LIHOP is nonsense." That's because Chomsky understands what the word "suppose" means. Do you?

Needless to say, invoking this Chomsky non-argument makes even less sense in the other 4 cases.
 
Last edited:
Some hints

Some hints to get the brain juices flowing:

1) carrots
2) sticks
3) Operation Gladio


I know very, very little about Operation Gladio. But for those who are interested in making a reasonable argument for what sort of protective mechanisms might be invoked to cover up 911 MIHOP, they can study Gladio, and see what sort of mechanisms were used by the perpetrators of those false flag atrocities, that made it into the public domain. I guessing that there is some such information, because some of these operations were tried in court. (in Italy, IIRC). Thus, there may be info courtesy of both the legal system, as well as a stimulated media.
 
Pardalis said:
So why do you invoke it as an example?
Click to expand...

I invoke it as an example of a hint to be pursued, for the reasons that I gave. There's only a few sentences in the post directly above yours and about half of them answer your question. How did you miss it?
 
metamars said:
I invoke it as an example of a hint to be pursued, for the reasons that I gave. There's only a few sentences in the post directly above yours and about half of them answer your question. How did you miss it?
Click to expand...

You seem very pedantic about something you admittedly know very little about and at the same time you claim proves your point, which is kind of odd and backwards.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
The two questions I posed can be considered to have 3 parts, each. In each and every one of those 6 cases, I have made it clear that the premise involves cause for the protective mechanisms to be invoked.

Since Chomsky rejects the notion of 911 LIHOP and 911 MIHOP completely, his statements for these two 911 related cases of mine, which presuppose LIHOP and MIHOP, are irrelevant, since what they are presupposing is the exact opposite of what Chomsky is claiming. (Not in so many words.)

If we asked Chomsky the question "Well, suppose some parts of the US government did LIHOP 911, what sort of mechanisms would we then expect to see to protect against serious investigations and internal dissent from those parts?", then it would be rather dumb, or at least obviously evasive, of Chomsky to answer "But I think LIHOP is nonsense." That's because Chomsky understands what the word "suppose" means. Do you?

Needless to say, invoking this Chomsky non-argument makes even less sense in the other 4 cases.
Click to expand...

No it absolutely doesn't. Chomsky himself understands there are more factors at work than the formula he himself wrote, and that it doesn't apply to 9/11.

The only way one can make it apply is to "suppose," to which I counter "suppose unicorns brought down the towers." In that case I could use childrens' books as evidence as relevant as what you're doing in this thread.

Only in fantasyland would Chomsky's views on 9/11 conspiracy theories not be relevant to a thread about how Chomsky's principles fit into the conspiracy. But... oh, now I see your point. :p
 
Drudgewire said:
No it absolutely doesn't. Chomsky himself understands there are more factors at work than the formula he himself wrote, and that it doesn't apply to 9/11.

The only way one can make it apply is to "suppose," to which I counter "suppose unicorns brought down the towers." In that case I could use childrens' books as evidence as relevant as what you're doing in this thread.
Click to expand...

You should "counter" by starting a new thread, not by spamming this one. Enjoy your useful exchanges on your unicorn thread.

I note, also, that you and the rest of the debunkers are not only ducking the 911 specific question, but the more general one, as well. Well, either ducking, or constitutionally unable. I deliberately asked the more general question, as well, fully anticipating that giving answers for the 911 specific question, even theoretical ones inspired by plot lines of Saturday morning cartoons and easily discernible by 10-year-olds, is something that debunkers wouldn't allow themselves to do.

I had thought there might be a couple of takers for the more general question, though. But, apparently even that one scares them.

Finally, referring to "Chomsky's principles" is misleading. I asked for mechanisms, not principles, and gave 2 examples from Chomsky, and told you that you could find more in Chomsky's book. If you actually think that there's anything new about either cooption or explicit threats, you would do well to read some history.
 
So is this thread all about how people working within government institutions would never ever blow the whistle on their boss if he was ordering them to commit crimes?

Is it?

Am I expected to believe that not one public servant would object to their boss telling them to participate in either mass murder or its subsequent cover-up?

Saying that generally people within institutions have a vested interest in ensuring the continued existence of their jobs is one thing (I kind of agree), but taking that general rule-of-thumb and trying to stretch it to mean that no one will ever expose their boss for murder is totally stupid.
 
So in other words, this whole thread is the old "What if there really was a conspiracy, how would they have covered it up?" thought exercise only with you namedropping Chomsky?
 
metamars said:
Noam Chomsky, when describing subtle methods of control in academia, journalism, etc. in the book Understanding Power ( p. 242), wrote:
Click to expand...

I am not a 9/11 conspiracy debunker. Is this the same Noam Chomsky who when asked whether 9/11 could have been an inside job remarked:

Noam Chomsky said:
"I mean, even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows, and who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?"
Click to expand...

Is this bastion of intellectualism really suggesting that it doesn't matter who was responsible for 9/11, or the death of Kennedy? Why this fraud has any credibility with anyone is a mystery to me.

You can watch the video yourself on youtube. Fast forward to 3:45.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&feature=related
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom