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

dannyb

Thinker
D
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
140
As most of you will know, Chomsky does not subscribe to any kind of 'truther' thinking and, rightly, considers it a distraction from serious issues. But I want to share these videos here as I assume those of you who frequent this forum maintain an interest in 9/11. To cover my back, I will say that if there was a 9/11 'conspiracy' it was the Commission downplaying - although not entirely suppressing - the main motivations for al-Qaeda to carry out the attack.

One thing I have noticed about this forum, and is perhaps part of the reason truthers dismiss your impressive technical knowledge, is that it contains a lot of reactionaries and nationalists. A familiar refrain when I have shared such material in the past is that one is 'justifying' terrorism. First of all, it's important to differentiate between an explanation and a justification - something the educated among you should have no problem distinguishing. Second of all - and more importantly - is getting out of the imperialist mentality of Western superiority. Just because 'we' use sophisticated military technology and 'they' use suicide hijackers does not make us morally superior.

The last video is, arguably, the most important; so please watch all three if you can.



 
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...
 
dannyb said:
As most of you will know, Chomsky does not subscribe to any kind of 'truther' thinking and, rightly, considers it a distraction from serious issues. But I want to share these videos here as I assume those of you who frequent this forum maintain an interest in 9/11. To cover my back, I will say that if there was a 9/11 'conspiracy' it was the Commission downplaying - although not entirely suppressing - the main motivations for al-Qaeda to carry out the attack.

One thing I have noticed about this forum, and is perhaps part of the reason truthers dismiss your impressive technical knowledge, is that it contains a lot of reactionaries and nationalists.
Click to expand...

Debunkers are of all political stripes. My own political views are pretty close to what writer Bill Kauffman calls "Front Porch Anarchist". Chomsky, IMNSHO, is the kind of fellow who either hits a spectacular home run, or strikes out embarrassingly.

What we have in common is that we reject conspiracist fantasies based upon rejected Mission Impossible scripts and what some guy on the internet is hearing from the voices in his head. Those with dissenting political views who wish to be taken seriously are well-advised to steer clear of Holocaust-denying Jew-baiters like Kevin Barrett, or complete loons like Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. Chomsky is smart enough to realize this.
 
ergo said:
Um, in fact, that appears to be exactly what you believe in. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Not even 10 seconds in and the lies start on that idiocy, come on Ergo can't you do better than dialysis and cave men? 12 years and counting. Oh and you're off topic as usual.
 
It's also interesting that many of the conspiracy front guys have a very strange *resume* to say the least. It certainly does make one wonder. I see a lot of cherry licking, misreading and misunderstanding of the evidence and the technical issues, and misapplication of logic, not to mention that they seem to be trying to prove their assumptions instead of actually explaining the facts we have. The range of theories includes some genuine off the wall stuff and so the overall impression is that 9/11 truth is off the reservation. Yet there are some apparently rational and educated people who both trust and accept arguments made by others who they assume are scientific and rigorous. Most are not. In actual fact the complexity of the technical explanations are way beyond most observers and this includes the truth movement. This leads to over simplified and incorrect understanding... and lots of black box thinking.

Governments are not open and bureaucracies (and individuals in power with responsibilities) will over try to protect themselves and their performance/behavior or lack thereof. Accordingly they will spin everything to serve some agenda and deflect responsibility and always report anonymous sources and hide behind classified documents, state secrets privilege and claims of national security.

Not having transparency leads to all manner of speculation of both operations and motives. The rabbit hole of history becomes a convenient place for facts.
 
dannyb said:
.

One thing I have noticed about this forum, and is perhaps part of the reason truthers dismiss your impressive technical knowledge, is that it contains a lot of reactionaries and nationalists.
Click to expand...

BwaHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You mean the technical knowledge from the likes of MIT, Purdue, NIST and R. Mackey? None of these jokers have proven any of the myths pushed by the official story faithful such as Chomsky or any of the other faux opposition from AJ to Penn and Teller.


Who benefits from invasions, the invaded or the invaders? God forbid Chomsky should recognize the only people 9/11 benefitted are the people who profit from war.
 
yankee451 said:
BwaHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You mean the technical knowledge from the likes of MIT, Purdue, NIST and R. Mackey? None of these jokers have proven any of the myths pushed by the official story faithful such as Chomsky or any of the other faux opposition from AJ to Penn and Teller.


Who benefits from invasions, the invaded or the invaders? God forbid Chomsky should recognize the only people 9/11 benefitted are the people who profit from war.
Click to expand...

May I ask who have gone through the efforts of "proving" the conspiracy theories?
 
dannyb said:
Second of all - and more importantly - is getting out of the imperialist mentality of Western superiority. Just because 'we' use sophisticated military technology and 'they' use suicide hijackers does not make us morally superior.
Click to expand...

Look, no matter where you're from, if you go out of your way to kill as many random innocent people as you can, then yes, I am morally superior.
 
BNRT said:
Look, no matter where you're from, if you go out of your way to kill as many random innocent people as you can, then yes, I am morally superior.
Click to expand...

We maintain our moral superiority by careful use of labels.

When we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people we refer to them as terrorist sympathizers or "collateral damage". We use "smart bombs", whereas they use "suicide bombers". We are "educated" to defend peace and freedom, whereas they are indoctrinated to be Islamist extremists.

Even if everything we were told about 9/11 is true, to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people as retribution for the actions of 19 people who were already dead is barbaric, but thanks to the power of propaganda we are shielded from that reality.
 
yankee451 said:
We maintain our moral superiority by careful use of labels.

When we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people we refer to them as terrorist sympathizers or "collateral damage". We use "smart bombs", whereas they use "suicide bombers". We are "educated" to defend peace and freedom, whereas they are indoctrinated to be Islamist extremists.

Even if everything we were told about 9/11 is true, to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people as retribution for the actions of 19 people who were already dead is barbaric, but thanks to the power of propaganda we are shielded from that reality.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what I wrote, at all.

I (singular) don't try to kill as many random, innocent people as I can, which makes me (in my opinion) morally superior to people who do. Any people, whether that be people who hijack planes to fly into buildings people who go on a shooting rampage in a school. Naturally, this also means any soldier or armed force actually trying to randomly kill as many innocent people as possible. The thing is, I don't think there are many modern armed forces who do this.

Take your example of collateral damage and smart bombs. I think there is a huge moral difference between stepping on a crowded bus strapped with explosives and trying to take out a target with smart ammunition to minimize the deaths innocent bystanders. In the first case you are actively trying to kill random, innocent people. In the second case you are actively trying to minimize the deaths of random, innocent people.

Also, if western forces were actually trying to kill as many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think they would use muchmore effective measures.
 
plague311 said:
May I ask who have gone through the efforts of "proving" the conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...

You believe a conspiracy theory simply because it's been shouted at you from every radio station, television and newspaper, but every single attempt to prove that wacky theory has been shot-down repeatedly.

The original claim is aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through concrete and sliced steel, none of which can or has been proven in the real world, but that doesn't stop the true believers from claiming they have. This is the power of propaganda at work, but this is something no good propagandist would ever consider to be an option, so we end up with "intellectuals" like Chomsky with long-winded explanations which deliberately dance around the only conclusion that can answer all the questions; that 9/11 was and remains an operation run from the top, down.
 
yankee451 said:
You believe a conspiracy theory simply because it's been shouted at you from every radio station, television and newspaper, but every single attempt to prove that wacky theory has been shot-down repeatedly.

The original claim is aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through concrete and sliced steel, none of which can or has been proven in the real world, but that doesn't stop the true believers from claiming they have. This is the power of propaganda at work, but this is something no good propagandist would ever consider to be an option, so we end up with "intellectuals" like Chomsky with long-winded explanations which deliberately dance around the only conclusion that can answer all the questions; that 9/11 was and remains an operation run from the top, down.
Click to expand...

The only thing worse than somebody who is wrong is somebody who is arrogantly wrong; You're more of a sheep than most of us will ever be.
 
BNRT said:
Except that isn't what I wrote, at all.

I (singular) don't try to kill as many random, innocent people as I can, which makes me (in my opinion) morally superior to people who do. Any people, whether that be people who hijack planes to fly into buildings people who go on a shooting rampage in a school. Naturally, this also means any soldier or armed force actually trying to randomly kill as many innocent people as possible. The thing is, I don't think there are many modern armed forces who do this.

Take your example of collateral damage and smart bombs. I think there is a huge moral difference between stepping on a crowded bus strapped with explosives and trying to take out a target with smart ammunition to minimize the deaths innocent bystanders. In the first case you are actively trying to kill random, innocent people. In the second case you are actively trying to minimize the deaths of random, innocent people.

Also, if western forces were actually trying to kill as many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think they would use muchmore effective measures.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where to begin.

Are you saying "suicide bombers" have killed more than our "smart bombs" have? After a decade of occupying two entire nations and decimating a couple more while sending unmanned aerial drones into still another to bomb wedding parties and funerals, are you saying the "terrorists" have killed more innocents than our so-called armed forces have?

As if one death, innocent or guilty, isn't too many.

Edit: it is interesting to note that the definition of the word "terrorism" is difficult to pin down.

Wikipedia says:

The term "terrorism" comes from French terrorisme, from Latin: 'terror', "great fear", "dread", related to the Latin verb terrere, "to frighten". The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105BC. The French National Convention declared in September 1793 that "terror is the order of the day". The period 1793–94 is referred to as La Terreur (Reign of Terror). Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution proclaimed in 1794 that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."[11]

The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists".[12] The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in 1798 as meaning "systematic use of terror as a policy".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Click to expand...

About a decade ago it was much easier to find a definition for the word "terrorism" than it is today, for example, here is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (2000, 4th edition):

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Click to expand...

Notice the language? Had they not included "unlawful", then the people with armies at their disposal, who also happen to define what is "lawful", would be considered terrorists.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
We maintain our moral superiority by careful use of labels.

When we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people we refer to them as terrorist sympathizers or "collateral damage". We use "smart bombs", whereas they use "suicide bombers". We are "educated" to defend peace and freedom, whereas they are indoctrinated to be Islamist extremists.

Even if everything we were told about 9/11 is true, to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people as retribution for the actions of 19 people who were already dead is barbaric, but thanks to the power of propaganda we are shielded from that reality.
Click to expand...

Lone Ranger:

Looks bad Tonto, we're surrounded by hundreds of Indians.

Tonto:

Who's this we, white man?
 
yankee451 said:
I'm not sure where to begin.
Click to expand...

You might want to start by reading my posts.

yankee451 said:
Are you saying "suicide bombers" have killed more than our "smart bombs" have?
Click to expand...

That‘s not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I think I'm morally superior than people who try to kill random, innocent people. That's it.

yankee451 said:
After a decade of occupying two entire nations and decimating a couple more while sending unmanned aerial drones into still another to bomb wedding parties and funerals, are you saying the "terrorists" have killed more innocents than our so-called armed forces have?

As if one death, innocent or guilty, isn't too many.
Click to expand...

Again, not what I'm saying at all. I don't believe most armed forces are out to kill innocent people. I'm not saying it's okay for one side to kill innocent people, but not for the other. I'm saying there's a moral difference between maximizing innocent deaths (e.g. 9/11) or trying to minimize them (e.g. to use smart ammunition to avoid collateral damage).

swright777 said:
I'm pretty sure he was saying that some people have killed more innocent people than he has personally, and that he feels (rightly) morally superior to those people. You get an F- for reading comprehension. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the fact that some people try to kill as much random, innocent people. I doubt I would find a police officer who accidentally and for justifiable reasons killed an innocent person morally inferior.
 
swright777 said:
That's obvious.


I'm pretty sure he was saying that some people have killed more innocent people than he has personally, and that he feels (rightly) morally superior to those people. You get an F- for reading comprehension. :boggled:
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom