A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

[JihadJane]

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.

The911 Commission's full title already contains the Commission's predefined conclusion. It was decided by the chairmen, in advance, that no fingers would be pointed and that subpoena's would not be routinely used.

"100's of people" didn't write the Report or decide it contents and conclusion. Researchers were compartmentalized. All information was filtered through the intimidating Bush regime insider, Zelikow.

The Commissioners were carefully chosen to guarantee consensus. Dissenters either left in disgust or were sacked.

The Commission was insufficiently empowered and funded and was rushed. As a result, many stones were left unturned.

 

[Bell]

The911 Commission's full title already contains the Commission's predefined conclusion.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

What is predefined in this title?
Terrorists attacked the US and killed nearly 3000 people.

 

[Brainache]

The911 Commission's full title already contains the Commission's predefined conclusion. It was decided by the chairmen, in advance, that no fingers would be pointed and that subpoena's would not be routinely used.

"100's of people" didn't write the Report or decide it contents and conclusion. Researchers were compartmentalized. All information was filtered through the intimidating Bush regime insider, Zelikow.

The Commissioners were carefully chosen to guarantee consensus. Dissenters either left in disgust or were sacked.

The Commission was insufficiently empowered and funded and was rushed. As a result, many stones were left unturned.

Has it been pointed out to you that the 9/11 commission was not the investigation?

 

[metamars]

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?

Not quite. Again, there's 6 parts, and two of those part (the "mega-OOPS" ones) don't involve conspiracy, except in the limited sense of possibly conspiring to cover the government's (actually, some subset of the government) ass. Also, when you say "they covered it up" you seem to be suggesting that all aspects of a cover up had to be directed, as opposed to allowing much of it to simply manifest, thanks to an acculturated conformity that, Chomsky reminds us, in part goes back to kindergarten.

The bit about "namedropping Chomsky" is a cheap shot. He's provided very convincing examples of the sorts of mechanisms that he also talks about more abstractly, and I quoted him extensively on just this subject, on another thread. Unfortunately, most of what I quoted had to be deleted. The book I quoted from is also very interesting (some of his work is much drier), so don't feel bashful about getting the book, reading it, and quoting from it, yourself. I promise not to say that you're "namedropping" Chomsky.

 

[metamars]

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:



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

I think Chomsky may have subsequently clarified things a bit. Being somewhat familiar with his thoughts over a long period of time, I have to say that it's absurd to think that he "doesn't care" at all. It looks like Chomsky is looking at the great number of foreigners killed before and after 911, doesn't think 3,000 Americans is all that much compared to those millions of others, and furthermore (as he's made clear) doesn't believe that pursuing 911 truth will lead anywhere productive.

Personally, I mostly agree with that last sentence. E.g., I have urged 911 truthers to expand the scope of their activism (in large part, in a direction that would make Chomsky gag. ), since I don't see where it's made much difference, politically, and worse, don't see where it will make much of a difference, unless there's a change of direction.* I think Zinn was fed up with the sort of religious attitude of some 911 truthers when he recently made similar comments. If 911 was some sort of Rosetta stone or magic key, then why is it taking so long for the Promised Land to appear?

I don't think it's fair to judge Chomsky on just his 911 and Kennedy assassination stances. I mean, the guy's been around for quite a while, is a prolific author, etc. - you can't reduce his lifetime of work to just being an anti-conspiracy theory gatekeeper. (Though Barrie Zwicker goes in this direction in his critique of Chomsky and left gatekeepers.)

* There could, though, have been a huge effect behind the scenes. E.g., some military officers made have found their spines, to the extent that they let it be known that if there's another 911, they will not be quiet about it. This is speculation on my part, which underscores the fact that there is no visible effect on the US's war and death-machine-like foreign policy, much less an honest, public, inquiry into 911.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

I think Chomsky may have subsequently clarified things a bit. Being somewhat familiar with his thoughts over a long period of time, I have to say that it's absurd to think that he "doesn't care" at all. It looks like Chomsky is looking at the great number of foreigners killed before and after 911, doesn't think 3,000 Americans is all that much compared to those millions of others, and furthermore (as he's made clear) doesn't believe that pursuing 911 truth will lead anywhere productive.

Personally, I mostly agree with that last sentence. E.g., I have urged 911 truthers to expand the scope of their activism (in large part, in a direction that would make Chomsky gag. ), since I don't see where it's made much difference, politically, and worse, don't see where it will make much of a difference, unless there's a change of direction.* I think Zinn was fed up with the sort of religious attitude of some 911 truthers when he recently made similar comments. If 911 was some sort of Rosetta stone or magic key, then why is it taking so long for the Promised Land to appear?

I don't think it's fair to judge Chomsky on just his 911 and Kennedy assassination stances. I mean, the guy's been around for quite a while, is a prolific author, etc. - you can't reduce his lifetime of work to just being an anti-conspiracy theory gatekeeper. (Though Barrie Zwicker goes in this direction in his critique of Chomsky and left gatekeepers.)

* There could, though, have been a huge effect behind the scenes. E.g., some military officers made have found their spines, to the extent that they let it be known that if there's another 911, they will not be quiet about it. This is speculation on my part, which underscores the fact that there is no visible effect on the US's war and death-machine-like foreign policy, much less an honest, public, inquiry into 911.

I don't think he is anti-conspiracy as much as he is the conspiracy isn't what's really important. He’s always trying to look at the bigger picture.

It seems to be more of a view that the conspiracy theorist can't see the forest for the trees.

But as far as this place goes at least the conspiracy theorist can see the trees.

 

[Furcifer]

The911 Commission's full title already contains the Commission's predefined conclusion. It was decided by the chairmen, in advance, that no fingers would be pointed and that subpoena's would not be routinely used.

"100's of people" didn't write the Report or decide it contents and conclusion. Researchers were compartmentalized. All information was filtered through the intimidating Bush regime insider, Zelikow.

The Commissioners were carefully chosen to guarantee consensus. Dissenters either left in disgust or were sacked.

The Commission was insufficiently empowered and funded and was rushed. As a result, many stones were left unturned.

So, who chose the commissioners, who dissented and who was sacked?

 

[JohnG]

That's funny, I thought the most important part of the Chomsky quote was:

"I mean, even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares?"

That, at the end of the day is all that the debunkers are saying; that a conspiracy (at least LIHOP) is by no means impossible, but there is no convincing evidence to suggest that it is likely.

Having said that, I find it hard take Chomsky seriously about anything when his reaction to the possibility that the government conspired to kill 3,000 people is "who cares?".

 

[Tippit]

I think Chomsky may have subsequently clarified things a bit. Being somewhat familiar with his thoughts over a long period of time, I have to say that it's absurd to think that he "doesn't care" at all. It looks like Chomsky is looking at the great number of foreigners killed before and after 911, doesn't think 3,000 Americans is all that much compared to those millions of others, and furthermore (as he's made clear) doesn't believe that pursuing 911 truth will lead anywhere productive.

Your apology for Chomsky's comments is not accepted. Apparently you either lack reading/listening comprehension, or you're trying to spin what he said, which was quite clear. In the context of the question Chomsky was answering, he said that if it were true that 9/11 was an inside job it would have no significance.

Why any rational person, let alone an intellectual would make this claim is mystifying, at least to me. To state what should be obvious to Chomsky and yourself, the course of action post-9/11 is utterly dependent on who was responsible, both from the standpoint of bringing the perpetrators to justice, and with respect to foreign policy going forward. I'm certain that most people who believe that 19 hijackers and Osama Bin Laden were responsible for 9/11 think it's important that we know who did it. That's why police carry out investigations - to enact justice, and to ostensibly prevent crimes from happening again by apprehending the perpetrators.

The idea that Chomsky doesn't care about the three-thousand people who died is an equivocation on your part. Clearly he doesn't care about who did 9/11.

The more important question in light of his remarkable statements is, why should anyone care what Noam Chomsky thinks?

Personally, I mostly agree with that last sentence. E.g., I have urged 911 truthers to expand the scope of their activism (in large part, in a direction that would make Chomsky gag. ), since I don't see where it's made much difference, politically, and worse, don't see where it will make much of a difference, unless there's a change of direction.* I think Zinn was fed up with the sort of religious attitude of some 911 truthers when he recently made similar comments. If 911 was some sort of Rosetta stone or magic key, then why is it taking so long for the Promised Land to appear?

You mostly agree with Chomsky's last sentence? You mean the one where he said:

"Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?"

I suppose all of the people who voted for John F. Kennedy think it matters, since whoever killed him essentially nullified their vote and influenced the lives of millions, for better or worse. But since Chomsky only pays lip service to so-called democratic ideals I'm not exactly surprised at his pathetic response.

I must admit I'm baffled by your 9/11 "Rosetta Stone/magic key" analogy. The truth of what happened on 9/11 doesn't depend on some cathartic watershed future event. Going forward there will be people who believe the official story, and there will be people who don't. That's how it is, and probably how it will be. If you thought 9/11 was going to be the catalyst for some kind of social change (for the better), you should probably think again.

I don't think it's fair to judge Chomsky on just his 911 and Kennedy assassination stances. I mean, the guy's been around for quite a while, is a prolific author, etc. - you can't reduce his lifetime of work to just being an anti-conspiracy theory gatekeeper. (Though Barrie Zwicker goes in this direction in his critique of Chomsky and left gatekeepers.)

I don't think Chomsky is relevant anymore, judging him is a waste of time. If he thinks the perpetrators of some of the most sad and shocking events in human history are insignificant, then I wonder what is significant to him. But only for a brief moment, before I realize I don't much care about Chomsky or what he thinks.

 

[metamars]

You mostly agree with Chomsky's last sentence? You mean the one where he said:

I was referring to the sentence that I wrote:

It looks like Chomsky is looking at the great number of foreigners killed before and after 911, doesn't think 3,000 Americans is all that much compared to those millions of others, and furthermore (as he's made clear) doesn't believe that pursuing 911 truth will lead anywhere productive.

I must admit I'm baffled by your 9/11 "Rosetta Stone/magic key" analogy. The truth of what happened on 9/11 doesn't depend on some cathartic watershed future event. Going forward there will be people who believe the official story, and there will be people who don't. That's how it is, and probably how it will be. If you thought 9/11 was going to be the catalyst for some kind of social change (for the better), you should probably think again.

I long ago soured on single issue activism, for any issue*. I don't want to take the time to explain that. In the case of 911, I've put the question to 911 truthers "Even if 911 is fully investigated and 10 or 20 traitors are thrown in jail, what is to prevent another 911 from happening the very next day?" I don't recall ever getting an answer - not even a skimpy one that makes no sense. I've concluded that my notion of the whole point of 911 activism is different from many others. I think the point is an ethical government, and to achieve that, you need ethical people throughout, a media which performs it's proper democratic function, and an educational system which teaches the unvarnished truth. There is systemic rot, and attention needs to be paid to the most important facets of our society to correct that.

For all the efforts of 911 truth activists, how much closer are we to a re-investigation, must less an ethical government (which is far more important)? I'm not criticizing anybody's good intentions, I'm criticizing their effectiveness, as well as their capacity for self-examination of purposes and track record (which, I realize, can be very painful to look at).

If you, personally, have never looked at 911 as some sort of key that, if it's properly 'inserted', opens the door to an ethical government, that's great. Unfortunately, I often get that impression from other 911 truthers. That's partly a function of the very human tendencies to identify with an idea or set of ideas, and then to react to people who reject that idea or set of ideas as though they were a member of an opposing tribe. Rationality tends to go right out the window. This behavior is readily observed even in politics that have nothing to do with what I call "high strangeness" events, like a 911. We are not just fighting "them", we are fighting human nature.... theirs and ours.

Now, if you don't view 911 as some sort of key or Rosetta stone, then why is Chomsky's statement so horrible (again, not taken literally)? Remember, Chomsky views US atrocities as much more a function of systems of government than particular individuals who comprise the government at any particular time. Under Bush II, there have been something like 2 million Iraqi and Afghani deaths that didn't need to happen. What is the optimal way to prevent a couple of million victims of US bombs and foreign policy under a President Obama? What would have happened if, during the last 7 years, 911 activists had spent half their time helping bring about the replacement of our current travesty of a media, with a replacement (say, including help push therealnews.com)? And if they had handed out DVD's to all college freshmen which spent more time supplying context to 911 (via honest discussion of evidence for other false flag attacks, real imperialist history, financier/business corruption of government, hidden agendas in high places, etc.), as opposed to being so focussed on just 911?

I don't know, but I wish I did.

I saw the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", recently. We earthlings better sort things out quickly, because that was just Hollywood. The real aliens may not have anybody as sympathetic as the Keanu Reeves character.

* Well, two exceptions are vote fraud and the media.

 

[beachnut]

I...
I saw the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", recently. We earthlings better sort things out quickly, because that was just Hollywood. The real aliens may not have anybody as sympathetic as the Keanu Reeves character.

...

Clue, 9/11 truth is just like the movie you saw. Fiction.

 

[tanabear]

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...

The goal of a real 9/11 investigation would be to determine who is guilty and who is blameless. A greater understanding of the events surrounding 9/11 can only be helpful. People in positions of power normally oppose investigations because they have something to hide. As well, the 9/11 Truth Movement could respond that tens of thousands lives have already been lost due the lies regarding Iraq, and all this is based on the Big Lie which is 9/11. Every day the truth remains hidden our government has license to murder innocent people, all in the name of fighting a fictional War on Terror.

However, the 9/11 Truth Movement is not preventing the US from stopping the "actual organization who is responsible for 9/11." That honor would go to George Bush and his not-so-merry band of neo-con warmongers. Just six months after 9/11 Bush stated, '"I truly am not that concerned about him[bin Laden]. I know he is on the run." Six months after bin Laden was responsible for 3,000 deaths, Bush had already thrown in the towel. UBL was never meant to be captured, merely to play the role of the boogeyman.

...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.

Conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world. Really?

"It's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable amount of time. When you consider the volumes of trading... we trade in excess of one trillion dollars a year and that's one firm ...when you look at the scope of trading and you look at the infractions, they're relatively small primarily be of all the regulation."
Bernard Madoff

"Conspiracies don't actual occur in the real world" might be how you view history and world, just as a Marxist might say, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." These statements say something about the person making them and their opinions. They tell me nothing about the real world. When circumstances arise that may call into question a person's worldview, they will instantly look for excuses(not reasons) to dismiss anything that contradicts their pre-established notions. To say that conspiracies don't occur, would imply a near omniscience of how the corridors of power and influence work in the world. This is knowledge that no single person has. I believe it was the French scientist Laplace who stated, "That which we know is very little. That which we do not know is immense." Once this is accepted, grand pronouncements like, "conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world" can be dismissed.

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.

But the bi-partisan Commission was not looking to assign blame. The attitude was, "Well, if you don't try to blame Clinton, we won't try to blame Bush." Republican Commissioner Slade Gordon stated,

"We're going to say everything we need to say, but there is not going to be a political 'gotcha.' It is very important to be factual and leave the major conclusions to the people of the United States. There are a huge number of facts which aren't in dispute."

So in the end we got a bland, watered-down, toothless report.

 

[JohnG]

Conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world. Really?

Let me get this straight; you take my quote "I've learned enough to know that these sorts of massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world" and interpret it as meaning that I don't believe in conspiracies at all?? Seriously? Perhaps others here can help me to identify the error you've committed. Reductio ad absurdum, taking my words out of context, or just flat out lying?

Of course conspiracies occur in the real world, but you're not interested in the real, ugly, banal stuff, are you? The only stuff that interests you is the exotic, mysterious, sexy "X Files" type of conspiracies. I understand, and to a certain extent I sympathize, but it's a very juvenile, not to mention erroneous way of viewing the world and its complexities.

There are all sorts of actual crimes and misdemeanors Bush and his cohorts could be charged with, why do you insist on trying to charge them with outlandish, nonsensical crimes that they did not commit? It's positively perverse.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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 twoofers are so nutty why are they such a threat that you people have to get so defensive?

Me thinks dewunking is not about the twoofers, but about the dewunkers themselves. I think clinging on to a such a fundamentalists position so tightly is a daily pill for dewunkers to counteract their low self esteem.

Why else would anyone spend so much energy placing ones self superior to another group?

Dewunkers are so trigger happy and earer for a daily fix of self esteem boosting even a mild claim of 911 agnosticism is enough to stir up the hornets nest buzzing shouting "Twoofer! Twoofer! Twoofer! Twoofer! Twoofer! "

It's quite an interesting psychological observation. There's enough here for a whole conference.

Ah yes, the old "if I was wrong, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me" manuoevre. I also hear it from Creationists, people who think the FBI is reading their thoughts, and some guy who thought he was the Second Coming of Jesus.

I notice, by the way that your post is all about your angry fantasies about debunkers, which shows an amusing lack of self-awareness ... why don't you try posting some evidence that 9/11 was an inside job or something? Instead of, how shall I put it ... shouting "Dewunker! Dewunker! Dewunker!"

"Low "self-esteem", perhaps? ... well, I'll leave the amateur psychoanalysis to you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I believe it was the French scientist Laplace who stated, "That which we know is very little. That which we do not know is immense." Once this is accepted, grand pronouncements like, "conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world" can be dismissed.

All Truther strawmen can be dismissed.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It seems to be more of a view that the conspiracy theorist can't see the forest for the trees.

But as far as this place goes at least the conspiracy theorist can see the trees.

Unfortunately, they also think they can see the Keebler Elves.

 

[JohnG]

Let me get this straight; you take my quote "I've learned enough to know that these sorts of massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world" and interpret it as meaning that I don't believe in conspiracies at all?? Seriously? Perhaps others here can help me to identify the error you've committed. Reductio ad absurdum, taking my words out of context, or just flat out lying?

All Truther strawmen can be dismissed.

Strawman, of course! That's what tanabear was employing. Thanks, Doctor.

 

[TexasJack]

But the bi-partisan Commission was not looking to assign blame. The attitude was, "Well, if you don't try to blame Clinton, we won't try to blame Bush." Republican Commissioner Slade Gordon stated,

"We're going to say everything we need to say, but there is not going to be a political 'gotcha.' It is very important to be factual and leave the major conclusions to the people of the United States. There are a huge number of facts which aren't in dispute."

So in the end we got a bland, watered-down, toothless report.

Your naiveté of U.S. Politics is duly noted. You have to be joking if you don't think the Dems wouldn't nail Bush and Co. if there was something there to nail them with. You've misrepresented the quote completely, what Gordon is saying is there is no there there. The evidence clearly points to an Al-Qaeda attack, but truthers continue to ignore this overwhelming conclusion because it doesn't fit their fantasies.

 

[dudalb]

Why this fraud has any credibility with anyone is a mystery to me.

I 100% agree, but the "Who Cares" comment which is what got you upset is a very minor offense compared to other things Chomsky has said...his undying defense of that butcher Pol Pot being the one that sticks in my craw.
But denouncing 9/11 COnspiracy theories as nonsense is one of the very,very few times Chomsky has made sense since he quit teaching linguistics and become a full time politcal nutcase.

Chomsky is a good example of how a brilliant mind can descend into woo because of blind devotation to ideology.

 

[JihadJane]

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

What is predefined in this title?
Terrorists attacked the US and killed nearly 3000 people.

Well done for answering your own question.

Has it been pointed out to you that the 9/11 commission was not the investigation?

The researchers employed by the Commission certaining thought they were investigating something.

So, who chose the commissioners, who dissented and who was sacked?

President Bush and advisers and Congress.

Max Cleland.

Dana Liesmann.

The Commission’s Chairmen also declared that the Commission was set up to fail.

Is ignoring follow up posts your hobby?

No.

Your follow-up post doesn't address my question about the US State being your Mummy (Daddy would be more likely). It simply pretends that the focus of 911 skeptics is on all the people who you claim they think are “in on it” rather than on elements of the US power nexus:

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.

It’s also relevant to your comment and to the OP to note that social scientists have repeatedly discovered that people do evil things because they are in evil situations rather than because they are inherently evil. This also applies, to some extent, to the kind of criminal sociopaths and psychopaths who are attracted to power.

"It's situations that make ordinary people into evil monsters, and it's situations that make ordinary people into heroes," said Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University and author of "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil."

Charting the psychology of evil, decades after 'shock' experiment

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/19/milgram.experiment.obedience/index.html