Am I the only one to be thinking "well duh!" ?

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 9:59am PDT - promote requested by hpqp.

Typical godless heathen mindset.







Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Again, this is referring to the outlandish fringe that think GW and his cronies pulled off 9/11.

I'll just leave this here as well:

Yeah he's right. Who cares? It's insignificant. 3000+ people died, but so what? Who cares who killed Kennedy, people get killed all the time.

By the way, if there's no conspiracy, this don't belong in my channel since, well there's no conspiracy, right?

*nochannel *debunked *politics

This video has been removed from all channels (Politics, Conspiracy, Debunked) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by Duckman33. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Debunked, Politics) - requested by Duckman33.

scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)

I'll leave this here too:
http://i.imgur.com/EZLaA.jpg

>> ^Duckman33:

Again, this is referring to the outlandish fringe that think GW and his cronies pulled off 9/11.
I'll just leave this here as well:
Yeah he's right. Who cares? It's insignificant. 3000+ people died, but so what? Who cares who killed Kennedy, people get killed all the time.


You want to compare 3,000 people dying to the rest of the crimes around the world that the US commits and the 9/11 Truthers don't raise any stink about? How about the great man Kennedy was for Vietnam and Cuba?

>> ^marinara:

scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)


It was just a question...he was writing a thesis on it. He was asked so he answered with the knowledge that he had because guess what he studies all other kinds of stuff.

Also really Chomsky is a scumbag? Fuck off with that noise.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Duckman33:
Again, this is referring to the outlandish fringe that think GW and his cronies pulled off 9/11.
I'll just leave this here as well:
Yeah he's right. Who cares? It's insignificant. 3000+ people died, but so what? Who cares who killed Kennedy, people get killed all the time.

You want to compare 3,000 people dying to the rest of the crimes around the world that the US commits and the 9/11 Truthers don't raise any stink about? How about the great man Kennedy was for Vietnam and Cuba?


This coming from someone that "loves this country and what we do all over the world"? LOL

And who are you to say what the "truthers" care or don't care about? Do you know all of them personally? I think not. I have said many times even here on VS I don't appreciate what is being done in my name by this country and the US government. Specifically with the "War on terror" and the "War on drugs" they are "fighting".

scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)


Meh - he clearly presented the strongest argument against the "conspiracy theory": that it doesn't make any sense. As he explains, it requires tremendous risk, is far from foolproof, requires magical execution, and there's much, much simpler ways to get to the same place. These are the same simple objections that should come up in anyone's mind when presented with this theory.

Why don't you tell us what you think happened and who did what? Don't be a coward and say "well, I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't because of these X things that I don't accept the explanation of". How about you just tell us what happened and why you think that it makes any sense whatsoever? Or, and this is a much bigger task, provide an explanation that makes more sense and fits better with evidence than the official explanation?

Chomsky would love to be able to get behind this kind of conspiracy (or even leave open the possibility) - heaven knows he loves the underdog, and obviously he had no love for Bush - but he's a rational, smart guy.

Now, if you were calling him a scumbag for defending some dictator in the 70s, then whatever - but calling him a scumbag because even he's not willing to get on this crazy bus? You don't know him, or you're nuts. When Chomsky won't even entertain an idea like this, it says something about the idea, not about Chomsky.

>> ^jmzero:

scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)

Meh - he clearly presented the strongest argument against the "conspiracy theory": that it doesn't make any sense. As he explains, it requires tremendous risk, is far from foolproof, requires magical execution, and there's much, much simpler ways to get to the same place. These are the same simple objections that should come up in anyone's mind when presented with this theory.
Why don't you tell us what you think happened and who did what? Don't be a coward and say "well, I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't because of these X things that I don't accept the explanation of". How about you just tell us what happened and why you think that it makes any sense whatsoever? Or, and this is a much bigger task, provide an explanation that makes more sense and fits better with evidence than the official explanation?
Chomsky would love to be able to get behind this kind of conspiracy (or even leave open the possibility) - heaven knows he loves the underdog, and obviously he had no love for Bush - but he's a rational, smart guy.
Now, if you were calling him a scumbag for defending some dictator in the 70s, then whatever - but calling him a scumbag because even he's not willing to get on this crazy bus? You don't know him, or you're nuts. When Chomsky won't even entertain an idea like this, it says something about the idea, not about Chomsky.


What I liked in particular about his reply was the observation that in many scientific experiments you will observe events that perhaps don't make sense or cannot be easily explained. That perhaps is simply a limitation of our current knowledge and in the real world doesn't necessarily imply a vast, rather complex conspiracy that is far more plausible in a comic book.

>> ^Duckman33:

I'll leave this here too:
http://i.imgur.com/EZLaA.jpg

He didn't say the US didn't gain anything by it, but not even Hitler murdered 3000 of his own countrymen to build a stronger case against the Jews. It especially doesn't make any sense when you consider that they had to sell the idea of WMDs in Iraq and fabricate as many connections between Saddam and Osama as possible. If they really plotted to bring those buildings down and had the competence to keep it so well hidden then why did they get the wrong fall guy?


There are no such thing as secrets now anyway. Given the scale of 9/11, the coordination with the planes striking the building...any conspiracy must have had a rather large number of people involved. Any conspirator must have known there was a massive risk that any one of these people would have second thoughts about murdering thousands of civilians or improperly covering their tracks. The chance of discovery is colossal and I can't see how the benefits of this stunt would ever outweight the risks. Succeed and you get the Patriot Act. Fail and you doom your party/political ideology for the next century or two.

Razer: "Plane hit building. Building fall down."

I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^Duckman33:
I'll leave this here too:
http://i.imgur.com/EZLaA.jpg

He didn't say the US didn't gain anything by it, but not even Hitler murdered 3000 of his own countrymen to build a stronger case against the Jews. It especially doesn't make any sense when you consider that they had to sell the idea of WMDs in Iraq and fabricate as many connections between Saddam and Osama as possible. If they really plotted to bring those buildings down and had the competence to keep it so well hidden then why did they get the wrong fall guy?

There are no such thing as secrets now anyway. Given the scale of 9/11, the coordination with the planes striking the building...any conspiracy must have had a rather large number of people involved. Any conspirator must have known there was a massive risk that any one of these people would have second thoughts about murdering thousands of civilians or improperly covering their tracks. The chance of discovery is colossal and I can't see how the benefits of this stunt would ever outweight the risks. Succeed and you get the Patriot Act. Fail and you doom your party/political ideology for the next century or two.
Razer: "Plane hit building. Building fall down."


I posted that for something to think about, not as a plausible theory as to why or how 9/11 happened. But please, go on with your bad self. And I will state for the record again since you guys REALLY don't seem to get it, I never said Bush had anything to do with 9/11. In fact if you read my comments in this thread it's pretty obvious I'm not of that line of thinking in this matter. But by all means guys, keep putting words in my mouth.

Upvote just for the title. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists are immune to Logic. What Comsky needs to be using is fire, and lots of it...

>> ^Deano:

I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.


I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.


So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?

I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.


Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.

Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.


Don't misunderstand me. I hold no argument that Cambodia and many other American atrocities were far greater crimes than 9/11.

What I am saying is from the view of an American President, killing a million people with aerial bombings in a foreign country during a war(declared or not) is one thing. Even if you did it in secret, when the secret comes out your administration might survive it by saying something about necessity. Killing 3000 American civilians, solely to trick the rest of America's civilians to support a war you want to start though, when that comes out it's worse. They are both crazy, but the important distinction is the later is also suicidal.

Which is Chomsky's point. America has done lots of horrible things, but being caught responsible for 9/11 would be far worse for the leader and party than pretty much anything in American history, ever.

9/11 may be a much lesser crime than Cambodia, but as far as picking one to be found out as responsible for, EVERY American politician will stand up and claim Cambodia as their choice before ever letting it be thought they were behind 9/11. At least Cambodia leaves the more acceptable lie of killing foreigners to protect Americans.

>> ^bookface:

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.


This. (thanks @bookface)

Think of the Iran-Contra scandal. Was Reagan involved? "I Don't recall."

"funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (or in this case the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments.[47] Funding from one foreign country, Brunei, was botched when North's secretary, Fawn Hall, transposed the numbers of North's Swiss bank account number. A Swiss businessman, suddenly $10 million richer, alerted the authorities of the mistake. The money was eventually returned to the Sultan of Brunei, with interest.[48]<-wikipedia

^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

>> ^marinara:
I guess according to chompsky, Iran contra couldn't have happened either, because it would have been too vast a conspiracy. (Wait, that doesn't prove my point, ahh nevermind)


Well, here's the thing: There were lots of leaks about the Iran-Contras scandal. That's why it became a scandal. Chomsky's point holds here too, in that conspiracies are impossible to keep hidden.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.


Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^marinara:
I guess according to chompsky, Iran contra couldn't have happened either, because it would have been too vast a conspiracy. (Wait, that doesn't prove my point, ahh nevermind)

Well, here's the thing: There were lots of leaks about the Iran-Contras scandal. That's why it became a scandal. Chomsky's point holds here too, in that conspiracies are impossible to keep hidden.


Oh, so conspiracies only exist when we know about them. Yeah, that makes sense.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?


Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?

I think the most interesting thing here was Chomsky talking about how humans are absolutely terrible at predicting things before they happen, but have an amazing capacity to construct narratives to explain events after they occur (often with zero evidence).

It just so happens there's an entire book on that called "The Black Swan". I highly recommend it. The author is also coming out with a new book called "Anti-Fragility" and has released several draft chapters on his FB page (I hate FB...his is the only page I go to).
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/13012333374

I think this Taleb guy is one of the most important thinkers around...he's just not as public as Chomsky, Dawkins, etc, nor is he an academic.

@marbles

That's not what I said, and it's not what Chomsky said either. My point is that when they couldn't keep Iran-Contras leak free, there's no way that they could prevent a multitude of leaks about the much larger supposed 9/11 conspiracy. And we don't see that.

What we see, according to the truthers, are several unexplained phenomena about the collapse of the two largest office buildings in the world and one of their neighbours. Well, what a fucking surprise. It's not every day that giant skyscrapers get hit by planes and fall down. It's a damn complex event that we don't know everything about, especially not the truthers.

There are enough real problems and conspiracies in this world without people inventing new ones. Why not invest time and energy to solve for instance the AIDS problem in Africa? That would actually help real people. But it's much more comfortable to watch cleverly edited youtube videos at home. That way one doesn't have to think.

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out
But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?

>> ^Fade:

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?



Funny, NIST asked structural engineers and architects too, and the ones they asked came up with the official story. What's more, thousands upon thousands of other scientists and professionals all accept the official collapse story. What do you believe, that all those thousands are in on the government conspiracy? Myself, I find the much more plausible explanation to be that there are a few gullible people in any profession, and the truthers found a few and put them on video.

>> ^Ornthoron:
There are enough real problems and conspiracies in this world without people inventing new ones. Why not invest time and energy to solve for instance the AIDS problem in Africa? That would actually help real people. But it's much more comfortable to watch cleverly edited youtube videos at home. That way one doesn't have to think.


Exactly! This is what drives me crazy, and I keep saying. Why go out and FIND things to be angry about when we have 100% genuine shit on our doorstep every day

>> ^Fade:

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?



Someone made a really good point in the WTC 7 video the other day where they pointed out that just because they're scientists/experts doesn't mean they're immune to a good conspiracy. Surely it's not lost on you that you are taking their word for it and ignoring the "experts" who debunk it?

This is starting to look like climate change deniers vs climate change supporters.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9376/neverforgetwtc7lt5.gif

I'd say improbable is a better word here than impossible.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^marinara:
I guess according to chompsky, Iran contra couldn't have happened either, because it would have been too vast a conspiracy. (Wait, that doesn't prove my point, ahh nevermind)

Well, here's the thing: There were lots of leaks about the Iran-Contras scandal. That's why it became a scandal. Chomsky's point holds here too, in that conspiracies are impossible to keep hidden.

I was going to say we've come a long way in this thread without anyone mentioning Hitler, but I think someone actually did, and quite early.

Meanwhile, Chompsky just getts more and more compelling to me. Such a smart, clear thinker.