A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

[Baylor]

Hmm.. so I guess the US Govt's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were ... well, I dunno what they were. Acts of God maybe, like earthquakes or floods.

What are you trying to say?

 

[dudalb]

Quite possibly true, but he's written more books about politics and economics than books on his area of expertise.

Chomsky might be a brilliant linguist, but that does not mean his opinions on politics and economics are worth a damn.

 

[volatile]

Quite possibly true, but he's written more books about politics and economics than books on his area of expertise.

That's true. Nevertheless, even if you disagree with his politics (and Travis - have you read any of his books at all?), the statement that his 9/11 stance "is the one time in the history of everything that he got something right" is massively, laughably untrue.

 

[Earthborn]

The argument itself is a fallacy. Just what I expect from a truther inspired by Chomsky. Institutions don't "want" anything, because institutions don't have emotions. Individuals in different institutions may or may not "want to be investigated." These individuals differ in age, race, religion, attitudes, political ideology, etc. "Institutions" and "US Government" are being reified, which is a logical fallacy.

I'll bet Chomsky would agree with you on that and try to explain that the reification in this quote is more a figure of speech to explain that the overall result of the behaviours of these individuals within an institution tends to be to protect the institution.

It only takes one person with a conscience—just one—to destroy his point.

Only if his point is that all individuals within the institution can only serve to protect the institution. And I doubt that's his point.

You realise that he almost single-handedly changed the face of 20th century linguistics, right?

And we're still picking up the pieces... He is a much better political commentator, he really is.

 

[1337m4n]

If 911 was so conclusively not an inside job why do some people get so angry and insultive in order to attack those who question it?

If Alex Jones is so conclusively not an anti-Semite, why do some racist idiots get so angry and...

...huh. Damndest thing--I can't find the word "insultive" in any dictionary. I guess you made it up, just like you made up the lie about the KSM trial being rigged, which you have not proven, and will not prove, to defend the murder of 3000 innocent people on 9/11 by Al-Quaeda terrorists.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. Why do some racist idiots get so angry and hostile (perhaps that is the word you were looking for?) in order to attack those who question his motives?

Just as you are defensive of Jew-haters and terrorists, I am defensive of facts, logic, and innocents who died and suffered from 9/11 attacks, committed by the terrorists you defend. 9/11 Truth spews anti-intellectual crap, defends terrorists, harasses people in public, beats girls in wheelchairs, threatens its opponents with death, spams message boards, and teaches bad logic. It is amazing with all that effort they have failed to accomplish anything in 7 years.

7 years of zero accomplishments and failed goals. Maybe you should ask your own question of yourself: Why do you keep coming here? Why keep posting, if you think debunkers are so bad and mean? Why haven't you provided any proof of your made-up lies regarding the KSM confession and trial?

 

[metamars]

Focus, please

I hadn't intended to write anything until Sunday, but, while participation in this thread is good, the quality of the participation is not. In particular, rant-type posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand serve not only to make any potential benefit of this thread lessen, but may destine it for AAH.

This is partly my fault, as I could have explained the question better. But first, let me reiterate what I previously wrote:

For those of you who agree that "powerful institutions don't want to be investigated, obviously," then how do you think ....

If you don't agree with the premise, you weren't supposed to post in this thread (well, either that or respond to somebody else who does). I'll expand the scope of this thread, though, so that if you don't believe that "powerful institutions don't want to be investigated", then please explain why you believe thusly.

Now, if you do agree with the notion that "powerful institutions don't want to be investigated, obviously", what I had asked you to do (though I didn't explain clearly enough) was to state the mechanisms by which powerful institutions protect themselves from such investigations.

E.g., if you read the Chomsky book, you will see that a cruder method of control in academia is via explicit threat. The head of some department at MIT

come(s) into his office and told him straight out: "If you ever want to get tenure in this department, keep away from anything after the New Deal; you can write all of your radical stuff up to the New Deal, but if you try and do it for the post-New Deal period, you're never going to get tenure in this department."

But other methods of control Chomsky mentions are much subtler, such as social interactions at such groups as the "Society of Fellows", of which Chomsky himself was a member. Or via programs whereby up and coming union activists get to mingle with business elites - the goal being to get the union activist to conflate the good of the union members as a part of a business with the business as a whole, which is (misre)presented as teamwork with management acting in good faith. However, Chomsky tells us, management is, in fact, simultaneously "fighting a vicious class war on the side." So, in this case the mechanism of control or socialization is socializing under false pretenses. In other words, another control mechanism is cooption.

There are definitely other means by which a powerful institution can protect itself from investigation and dissent. My original question was two-fold, which I now restate with an added clause to make things clearer, still:

1) How would the US government protect itself from investigation and dissent from within itself, if it was so inclined. (Of course,it's assumed that, for purposes of this question, the parts of the government in question had done something wrong or distatestful enough so as to attract the attention of citizens who suspected that an investigation was merited.) This could be any branch of government. E.g., let's say that the EPA gives terrible advice about dealing with some environmental toxin. People die, babies are born with birth defects, the whole thing's a mess. You and I, as tax-paying citizens, would like to know how this happened, so as to hopefully prevent this from happening again. How would the EPA protect itself from investigation, or from internal dissent? An internal dissenter could be either a whistle blower, or else somebody who was looking at the same data as whoever made the call which turned out to be wrong, but was not given a means to convey an honest difference of opinion.

2) How would the US government protect itself from investigation and dissent from within itself of the 911 atrocities, where the level of US government cupability was mega-OOPS, LIHOP, or MIHOP, if it was so inclined. Once again, it's assumed that, for purposes of this question, somebody within the government has goofed or consciously participated in evil, so that there is a reason for the institution to protect itself.


I bolded the newly added clause "if it was so inclined." since some of you are so dead-set against this possibility, you are more intent of thinking ways to refute this notion than you are in answering my question, which is what are the mechanisms by which such obstruction of investigation and internal dissent could occur, in both a general case, as well as the specific case of 911.

If it makes you happy, you can add disclaimers to your post along these lines "But, of course, though these mechanisms were available to the US government, there is no evidence that any were actually employed in the case of 911 or any other conspiracy."

 

[Drudgewire]

So... not touching the "Chomsky himself thinks you're full of crap" stuff with a ten foot pole then I take it.

 

[metamars]

So... not touching the "Chomsky himself thinks you're full of crap" stuff with a ten foot pole then I take it.

I've already answered this question, at least twice, in other threads. Now, stop the derail.

 

[Drudgewire]

I've already answered this question, at least twice, in other threads. Now, stop the derail.

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.

 

[twinstead]

I've already answered this question, at least twice, in other threads. Now, stop the derail.

Oh, but we never get tired of asking it. Chomsky thinks your full of it concerning 911. I may not agree with much of his politics, but at least he is honest enough about 911 to seperate facts from ideology.

The same thing goes for just about every REAL expert on Earth, your inisistance that unless they specifically come out in support of the 'official story' they might be truthers aside.

 

[tanabear]

I believe Paul Craig Roberts made a similar point, "The purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically." In the case of the 9/11 Commission, it's goal was to assign no blame whatsoever. After 9/11, how many institutions came out and said, "Please, investigate us! Please, hold us accountable for our failures!" Whenever a national tragedy does occur it is standard protocol to have an investigation. However, the 9/11 investigations have been nothing more the window dressing. They've allow the government to say, "okay, we've looked into this now let's move on", without providing any real substance.

As a conservative, I've never been a fan of Chomsky. Chomsky has no real knowledge regarding the events surrounding 9/11, so why should his opinion matter? In fact, he doesn't even seem to care. If it was an inside job his response was, "Even if it were true...who cares." Good attitude regarding the deaths of 3,000 people.

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.

Interesting comment. You have the same sentiments, feelings, and emotions to the current Administration as you do to your own mother? When it comes to a criminal trial, a family member is not allowed on the jury due to their personal feelings that could lead them to discount the evidence against the accused. It is nice to finally see some honesty from a JREF'er. It is what we Truther's have always suspected. "Debunkers" are slavishly devoted to regurgitating government propaganda.

However, most Truthers at this point are merely calling for a real investigation into 9/11. Legendary prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi is, however, calling for criminal trial against George Bush where he would be prosecuted for murder. Are you upset that he is going after your "mother"?

 

[Baylor]

However, most Truthers at this point are merely calling for a real investigation into 9/11.

No True Scottsman. Post #4 confirmed.

Truthers cannot describe or explain anything. All they have are fallacies, distortions, lies, and ignorance.

 

[MarkyX]

If 911 was so conclusively not an inside job why do some people get so angry and insultive in order to attack those who question it?

Maybe because most of the "questioning" has turned into accusations towards the victim's families and the NYFD. Not only this, but it also resulted in a handicap woman assaulted and a father murdered by his own son during his sleep.

Yeah, no need to get defensive at all against such a sane group of individuals.

 

[beachnut]

I believe Paul Craig Roberts made a similar point, "The purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically." In the case of the 9/11 Commission, it's goal was to assign no blame whatsoever.
...

19 terrorists were blamed; missed a minor point, eh?
PrisonPlanet and inforwar junk! How anti-intellectual can 9/11 truth get?

19 terrorists, and you are apologizing for them. You have no evidence just hearsay, ignorant statements, and fantasy. You missed the fact 19 terrorist killed people on 9/11.

You scramble to say all those who refuse your tripe to be blindly following the government as you spew lies, hearsay, and false information from 9/11 truth without backing it up with evidence. You are wrong about 9/11, and those who use evidence to see you are supporting false ideas, nut case ideas, and pure junk of 9/11 truth.

7 years of hearsay, lies and false information for you to support with unsubstantiated posts and talk. Kind of late to repeat the same old refuted, wrong ideas.

 

[Jontg]

Ahh, Tana, your pop psych is so nostalgic--it reminds me of me, back when I was a teenage idiot full of vague, left-wing resentment.

 

[JohnG]

Interesting comment. You have the same sentiments, feelings, and emotions to the current Administration as you do to your own mother? When it comes to a criminal trial, a family member is not allowed on the jury due to their personal feelings that could lead them to discount the evidence against the accused. It is nice to finally see some honesty from a JREF'er. It is what we Truther's have always suspected. "Debunkers" are slavishly devoted to regurgitating government propaganda.

However, most Truthers at this point are merely calling for a real investigation into 9/11. Legendary prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi is, however, calling for criminal trial against George Bush where he would be prosecuted for murder. Are you upset that he is going after your "mother"?

Steady, there tanabear. That may not have been the best example, but the point I tried (and evidently failed) to make was that the whole truther vs. debunker debate isn't some abstract thought experiment. I sincerely believe that if you get your way, lots of innocent people are going to be harmed, and we still won't be any closer to being able to understand or stop the actual organization who is responsible for 9/11. It's easy to dehumanize your opponent when you think they are some kind of inhuman monster, but all of those people who you think are "in on it" are all sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, fathers and yes, mothers of someone.

As a child of the seventies, watching scandals such as Watergate unfold on TV I have always had a healthy (and sometimes not so healthy) mistrust of government and big business. I have no problem stating that that grinning cretin currently in the White House is the worst, most incompetent President in our nation's history. That doesn't however mean that I have to shore up my beliefs and opinion of him by thinking that he and his cronies are personally responsible for every bad thing that has happened in the world in the last eight years. For that extreme a belief I'd need equally extreme evidence, and I just haven't seen it.

As someone who has been alive on this planet for 42 years, and at one point believed some of the same sorts of things you currently do I've learned enough to know that these sorts of massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world and that the only people who believe otherwise are (more often than not) adolescents and/or the mentally ill.

Being an admittedly slow learner, I didn't fully abandon my beliefs until my mid twenties. What's your story?

 

[Pardalis]

Metamars, how will the government protect itself when the new administration will come into office, since it's your contention that it was the Bush administration that "did it"?

Sure, I can imagine that they can sustain a certain level of conspiracy and protect themselves while they are in power, but what happens when they go, and a completely new administration, completely new people take their place?

That is of course assuming you're not one of those NWO type conspiracy theorists, in that case this whole discussion would be irrelevant.

 

[Heiwa]

1) How would the US government protect itself from investigation and dissent from within itself, if it was so inclined.

2) How would the US government protect itself from investigation and dissent from within itself of the 911 atrocities, where the level of US government cupability was mega-OOPS, LIHOP, or MIHOP, if it was so inclined.

In either case the government forms a commission to investigate the matter. This commission is given extensive power and support to carry out its mission; only limitation are questions of national security and foreign policy, etc. 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 initimidated to simply shut up and support the government as a good patriot.

Just read World At Risk - http://documents.scribd.com/docs/15bq1nrl9aerfu0yu9qd.pdf - a typical example of such a commission (where evidently 9/11 was done by UBL, etc):

"The intent of this report is neither to frighten nor to reassure the American people about the current state of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It is to underscore that the U.S. government has yet to fully adapt to these circumstances, and to convey the sobering reality that the risks are growing faster than our multilayered defenses. Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.

…

The Commission believes that unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013. The Commission further believes that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon. The Commission believes that the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bioterror attack.

Further compounding the nuclear threat is the proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities to new states and the decision by several existing nuclear states to build up their arsenals. Such proliferation is a concern in its own right because it may increase the prospect of military crises that could lead to war and catastrophic use of these weapons. As former Senator Sam Nunn testified to our Commission: “The risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding.”"

The good news are however that this US report is just regarded as a big joke over here in old Europe and probably also in the rest of the world; another example of US high level paranoia!

 

[Corsair 115]

Hmm.. so I guess the US Govt's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were ... well, I dunno what they were. Acts of God maybe, like earthquakes or floods.

You ought to separate the executive and legislative branches of government from the rest of government which handles all the day-to-day operations of their respective administrations, deparments, agencies, commissions, and bureaus.

Unless you wish to assert that the Department of Agriculture, Federal Communications Commission, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, just to name three agencies that are part of the United States government, were somehow involved and participated in the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Chomsky might be a brilliant linguist, but that does not mean his opinions on politics and economics are worth a damn.

I admire your not going for the cheap and obvious (and way overused) joke.

If you don't agree with the premise, you weren't supposed to post in this thread (well, either that or respond to somebody else who does). I'll expand the scope of this thread, though, so that if you don't believe that "powerful institutions don't want to be investigated", then please explain why you believe thusly.

[bolding mine] What is the deal with these people who seem to believe they somehow have ownership of certain threads and can dictate who posts in them? Or what they should say in their posts?