• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who is Behind 9/11 and Why? (Chomsky)

yankee451 said:
My eyes glazed over after; "Since it is clearly going to take a month to tease an actual answer out of you"
Click to expand...



Yeah...judging by the ratio of quantity to quality in your posts, I'm guessing your eyes tend to "glaze over" quite a bit.

You could've just acknowledged that I caught you lying and owned up to it like a gentleman, but the whole courage and honesty thing really isn't in your wheelhouse, is it?
 
JohnG said:
Yeah...judging by the ratio of quantity to quality in your posts, I'm guessing your eyes tend to "glaze over" quite a bit.

You could've just acknowledged that I caught you lying and owned up to it like a gentleman, but the whole courage and honesty thing really isn't in your wheelhouse, is it?
Click to expand...



As I wrote earlier, I didn't read what you had to say because you started out with an insult.
 
yankee451 said:
If you had publicly stated that you were planning on crashing the stock market so you could profit handsomely from it, and then it crashed and you profited handsomely from it, in a real world in a galaxy far, far away, you'd probably fall under suspicion, yes.
Click to expand...

timhau said:
... so the meme 'follow the money' doesn't always apply.
Click to expand...

yankee451 said:
In a real world, certainly; but not here.
Click to expand...

You can't even keep your baloney consistent, can you?
 
yankee451 said:
Why, do you think it's possible for an aluminum jet to slice through dozens of my wood stoves?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn3a--hf7_s
Click to expand...


Why can a soft lead deer slug slice through sheet steel after I pull the trigger on my 12 gauge? Further, can you concede that the hijackers benefited (only very personally and only up until they died) from piloting the planes into the towers and Pentagon?
 
yankee451 said:
As I wrote earlier, I didn't read what you had to say because you started out with an insult.
Click to expand...


It's not an insult, it's an observation and a fairly accurate one, if your last few non-responses to me are any indication. You seem to be suggesting that "who profits" is always a clear indicator of the guilty party in all criminal investigations. For your sake I asked you to clarify your position. You declined to do so and now you seem to be dancing around an honest answer with others.
 
Years ago, before I was even interested in conspiracy discussions, I ran into a reference linking SecDef deputy Stephen Cambone with the origin of the 9/11 conspiracy theories as some kind of disinformation campaign during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Has anyone else ever heard of this one?
 
dannyb said:
That's the self serving explanation. As far back as the Eisenhower administration it was recognised that there were hate campaigns against the US because of its actions in the region. It was concluded that there was little that could be done about this as the US should be looking to control access to resources through its support for dictators.

Pan-Arab nationalism was a secular movement and pre-dates Islamist extremism. It was our holding back of development in the region that thrust people towards religion. Accusing me of anti-Semitism is just a tired tactic, and very unbecoming of you.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely false. Islamist extremism has been going on for CENTURIES. The United States first incurred it's wrath in 1786 with the kidnapping and raiding of ships off the coast of the Muslim Barbary States.

"The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
--words of Thomas Jefferson reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786.

We didn't birth this fundamentalist extremism with anything we did. It's been there for centuries since before Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a...d-the-politics-of-islamophobia_b_3159286.html
 
Sceptic-PK said:
You're colourblind, right? :boggled:
Click to expand...

I think he's reading the height on the graph as the individual budget for each of the sections rather than the thickness of the colour. Had he read the article he'd have seen the actual figures for each (r&d, construction, war budget etc)
 
Reactor drone said:
I think he's reading the height on the graph as the individual budget for each of the sections rather than the thickness of the colour. Had he read the article he'd have seen the actual figures for each (r&d, construction, war budget etc)
Click to expand...

Oh wow! Hahahaha.
 
yankee451 said:
Your figures reinforce the conclusion that without a fraudulent cold war to justify military spending, the Pentagon concocted a "war on terror" to replace it. Your understanding of history is shockingly poor.
Click to expand...

The problem with this handwave is that the US is now out of Iraq and is winding down in Afghanistan. "The Pentagon" knows full well that actual wars cannot go on forever. That was the lesson of Vietnam and it's also the lesson of the Clinton-era peacekeeping operations.

The Cold War was a very different beast; the size of the Soviet threat as it was portrayed justified repeated massive investments in new generations of weapons on land, sea and air. US forces deployed around the world in garrisons that had to be funded indefinitely. When the Cold War ended, troop strengths could be cut. Today, the US Army is no bigger than it was after the post-Cold War cuts. It is down from 750,000 to 560,000 men. Same with the Navy, which now has fewer vessels than at any time since 1917. The Air Force has not bought very many of the new generation fighter aircraft because of prolonged budgetary cuts and because defense spending has gone elsewhere - into the war on terror.

Rumsfeld pissed off the US Army when he cancelled the Crusader self-propelled howitzer in 2002, seeing it as unnecessary to immediate needs in the war on terror.

The other thing you're not getting is how even the biggest defense contractors are relatively small compared to other major corporations. Lockheed Martin had revenues of $46 billion in 2011, but General Motors had revenues of $150 billion. GM sold its defense division to General Dynamics in 2000, getting out of the armored vehicles business. Ford has revenues of $136 billion. Boeing sold $31 billion of defense procurement in 2011, but had overall revenues of $81 billion, since it is after all one of the largest manufacturers of civilian airliners. Apple and Microsoft both trounce Lockheed Martin for sales. Defense firms also cannot guarantee that their products are going to get ordered by the country with the biggest defense budget worldwide.

And now there are defense cuts. That's what your WaPo article shows. If there were any salad days from the war on terror then they are over. That article also confirms what I already said: operating costs far outweigh procurement. Personnel and housing exceed expenditures on weapons.

Which is why your 'arms industry' nonsense is completely clueless. They are one of many players in defense politics, along with the civilian leadership of the DoD (political appointees like Rumsfeld and the other betes noires of the Bush era), and the military leadership, i.e the service chiefs and their staffs. Throw in Congress and Senate, and you have all sorts of people involved in defense strategy. They all have conflicting interests, which is why programs get cancelled and all sorts of hobbyhorses get ignored. Lots of these guys think of themselves as Cassandras over the 'threat' from China, to give one example. They fight with each other, too. The US Army very demonstrably bucked against Rumsfeld in the run-up to Iraq.

There's no way you or anyone else can account for all of the actors involved in US military economics and find that there was anyone who would have thought that striking their own country was going to be the way to bring back the Good Old Days of the 1980s.
 
I haven't read a lot about Noam Chomsky in this Chomsky thread. By way of brief review, Chomsky rejects the 9/11 controlled demolition theory. As a hard-core left-wing anarchist, you can't get much more anti-US foreign policy than Chomsky. I have heard him say that enormous energy is wasted on the left dealing with 9/11 Truth instead of putting that energy into taking a stand against the military-industrial complex. He probably said it on the videos on post #1 here as well.

Yankee, if a guy had a bad marriage to a woman with a big life insurance policy, and she died in a car accident, the guy would make a lot of money. As a matter of course, the coroner's office looks for evidence of foul play, but absent that, most unhappily married guys whose wives die are not murderers.

Is there evidence there for an "inside job" on 9/11? I haven't found it. Does Chomsky believe the US took full advantage of this attack to start wars, curtail civil liberties, etc? Absolutely. Absent evidence of foul play (such as suspicious detonation devices found in the debris), the evidence points to natural collapse. Even the America-hating anarchist commie pinko Chomsky agrees with that. As do nationalistic conservative patriotic right-wingers. And political moderates. And apolitical scientists. Sorry. You have to come up with concrete evidence, not just the fact that the neocons benefited from 9/11!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom