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

[dannyb]

9/11 was not a US government conspiracy.

I agree.

By saying so you invalidate every other point you want to make.

I've never said so because I've never thought that.

It is one thing to point out that the Bush administration used 9/11 to invade Iraq, but to say that they staged 9/11 so that they could justify an invasion is just silly.

I agree.


I would like to give a more comprehensive answer to the rest of your post at some point, but I think I deserve an apology for the wrongful accusation of being a truther - I find that insulting.

 

[trustbutverify]

I was behind 9/11.

I did it to raise my post count so I can post links.

I suspected you immediately.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

The neocons did 9/11 QUOTE]




And your evidence would be......?

 

[OCaptain]

In a nutshell he was saying "terrorists" are morally inferior to "armed forces" because they actively target innocent people whereas our "armed forces" do not. However, if 9/11 was a ruse (it was) perpetrated by the same people who sent the armed forces to kick the world's ass and seize their natural resources, the moral superiority of the armed forces fizzles, doesn't it?

Quite the assumption there. Noone on the 9/11 truth side has come anywhere NEAR to offering compelling proof of this.

Maybe you will be the first?

 

[OCaptain]

The underlying cause for Islamist extremist terrorists isn't our actions but their extremist beliefs. They simply use our actions as an EXCUSE for their bloodthirsty ways.

You can blame the USA and the Jews all you like.

Yes it sounds similar to the rationalization of abusers towards those they abuse. In other words, it sounds like the old excuse "well, you made me do it!"

The failure to own their own actions is crystal clear. There is something emotionally stunted about their whole thing.

 

[OCaptain]

We've murdered hundreds of thousands of people over the actions of our own leaders, if you want to compare extremist ideologies at least be honest about it.

Speaking of honesty, will you explain why you brought up "the Jews"?

You seem to be suggesting that raw numbers of deaths trumps intent, here.

Am I correct?

 

[OCaptain]

So in this case, "follow the money" to the people with the means, motive and opportunity doesn't apply, no that would be too simpleminded!

You guys kill me, really. You should have a comic show, or a magic act or something...no wait...

By your logic, FEMA and other disaster response agencies and contractors are responsible for creating weather disasters because they benefit financially from disaster relief and reconstruction.

Do you believe this?

 

[OCaptain]

Let me put this another way -

If Colonel Mustard published his intent to kill Miss Scarlett with a candlestick in the Drawing Room, and a few weeks later Miss Scarlett's bludgeoned body was found in the Drawing Room next to a bloody candlestick, would you accuse Mrs. Peacock of murder?

If Mrs. Peacock did the crime in full view of everyone in the house (with cameras going and everything) you're damned right I would accuse her. Not only that, I'd arrest her, too.

And you'd have a problem with that?

 

[OCaptain]

Not really. He'd bin dead for about a decaden that's all folks.

Should be easy to prove that, if so.

Why don't you get right on that? Don't rest (and don't come back) until you have that proof! Then you'll show 'em!

 

[OCaptain]

They didn't plant any WMDs for same reason the fake 9/11 hijackers were all pretty much citizens of our allies. They could be duped. Enemy citizens could not.

So, wait. I thought we could MK ULTRA anybody?!?

 

[OCaptain]

What mysterious limousine?

Yeah, this is a new one on me, too! And this, in the midst of 9/11 Truth where "new evidence" comes out almost every week.

 

[OCaptain]

Fire is erratic and damages unevenly.

I see your "fire is erratic and damages unevenly" and raise you a "controlled demolition is loud, bright and obvious".

 

[OCaptain]

But NOT three times.

Why not? What's magic about the number 3?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Why not? What's magic about the number 3?

It's called over acting.

 

[OCaptain]

It's called over acting.

So, you're acting here. You're not being serious.

I will certainly cease taking you seriously from now on, Clayton.

 

[swright777]

The neocons did 9/11

And your evidence would be......?

... nonexistent.

 

[George 152]

So, you're acting here. You're not being serious.

I will certainly cease taking you seriously from now on, Clayton.

You must be the only poster here who ever considered taking him seriously

 

[OCaptain]

You must be the only poster here who ever considered taking him seriously

What can I say? I'm generous.

 

[Jango]

I have seen these viedos and am very familiar with Chomsky. To me, the political issues that divide us at JREF are secondary. Many of us are nationalistic, conservative, etc. Many others are leftists, moderates, radicals, etc. The political spectrum we represent trends towards somewhat moderate positions left, right or center. In 9/11 Truth I see many more 9/11 Truth people trending towards more extreme right or left-wing positions, which certainly makes for interesting public meetings! I do think both sides tend to focus on the fact that SOME of us disagree with SOME of them and vice versa. Chomsky certainly has some very important points to make, and some 9/11 Truth people think he is actually secretly "one of them," a position I have found no evidence for...

Because he isn't. I imagine that Chomsky would have some interesting things to say if he did up a few hundred page book that covered the true bookends to 9/11 and all of its relevant contents. Not just cover pet theories or the narrative of events as told by those in government. Like, what do you think Chomsky would say about all of the spy stuff relevant to 9/11? IMO, he'd note the fragmentary record but note that what is known is interesting and puzzling, because it is. I'm sure he'd have some stinging commentary, with historical parallels (Blind Sheikh), about the known and openly discussed blunders of the security services that weren't tugged on too hard by the media -- like asking follow-up questions and demanding answers like an adversarial press should act with a government that doesn't like to account for their claims and narratives with a lot of documentary evidence and more of "Trust Us" and "Because...National Security."

 

[Oystein]

In my view, there are two sides to Chomsky.

On the one hand, he is a brilliant and capable thinker, very much able to gather and grasp enormous amounts of informartion and put them into a structured, coherent whole. Much of his analysis of government organisation and processes is brilliant and often convincing.

On the other hand, I have seen him shoe-horn events into patterns that I am not sure always fit: He seems guided by ideology and prejudice just like everybody else. This biases his choice of information as much as the weighing of the possibilities.