-

He makes a good point, though - if you could prove this to be true, it *would* destroy the GOP forever.

Chomsky's a smart guy, and this is worth listening to. His arguments are valid, but not sound - his premises are either false (about whistleblowers etc, as Snake points out), or beg the question (e.g. 'they couldn't have controlled it', which is only true IF the ONYA story is correct).

He also suggest that it's not worth investigating - 'who cares?' - which I find stupefying.

A 911 conspiracy is about as believable as a faked moon landing, and we've seen all the stupid non sequiturs that have been adduced to try to prove that. You don't have to know much philosophy of science to recognize that the evidence for this kind of conspiracy is ridiculously weak and rather rely on ignorance (which is why it's so difficult to convince some people - the incompetent tend to be the most unaware of their level of competence). Chomsky's comment about patterns is apt here. Patterns are relatively easy to perceive (see astrology or the japanese blood type theory of personality) but it's proof that is important, not tendentious appeals to "logical" form or equivocal events.

building 7

Please stop spamming the queue with this crap and upvoting it.

Why would they try to pull off something so risky, when they already had an apathetic and compliant public pre-9/11. The political payoff doesn't match the match the danger they would be placing themselves in. I think the fact that these consiparcy theorys have an traction speaks to how polarized american politics have become, people are so wrapped up in the us vs. them mindset that they've begun to see the other side as evil. Mr. Chomsky makes some good points, a lot of these people are no better than Ann Coulter, making outlandish claims just to sell books.

Chomsky's a right dude very balenced thinker its a shame more people dont think in a simuler way evan if you belive his opinion to be right ore wrong. if others could talk and think like him but with there own opinions it would save alot of waisted time.

I do think he makes a good piont and i agree on most levals.

for example regardless of sep 11th if u isolate the new golf war its still obsurd the idea that removing a govement from a unstable country will some how make it stable and reduce "terroisum" in the west. this was obvouse to me at the time only 16 when it started.

i allso think there is an issue with the contrled demolition thing. why thay would be brought down is open to speculation.

it seems to me that it is a fact that boulding 7 was taken down by controled exsplosives. the man who owned it sead he gave the order to have it nocked down on the news.

Noam Chomsky speaks the truth. Just because many people in power have benefitted due to 9/11, making the move to say they caused it doesn't work. Even if you believe these guys are evil enough to do something like this, the risks involved if were to ever get out would be astronomical.

I'm very open to evidence of a conspiracy, but all the evidence that has been incredibly weak. Chomsky specifically deals here with the physical evidence, which I think fools a lot of people. Just because you can't explain what happened physically does not mean what everyone thought happened did not. It could just as well mean we don't know. Similarly, just because a scientist says 'x couldn't happen because we saw y' also doesn't make it true. Scientists are human, and as individuals they do make mistakes. Thus, you shouldn't take the word of a few scientists as fact.

Unless you really have the scientific backing to make your own assessment, the best you can do is look at what the scientific consesus is. As far as I know, there is none, though I do think it's good for people to explore these issues further. My guess is the vast majority of lay people who think they understand because they took a physics course in high-school or university are not qualified to make a realistic assessment.

samnmax - you're right. Most laypeople aren't in a position to evaluate the science, and there isn't an overwhelming consensus either way. The only claim made by the 9/11 'truth movement' (which is a name I prefer not to use, since it suggests that all who doubt the official story agree with each other, which is patently false) is that these things need investigating.

The important thing to realise is that there is a huge disincentive for academics (despite the fact that academics are disproportionately left-wing) and media personalities to question what happened, because the world is full of people like theo47 who simply put their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la children holocaust deniers wingnuts la la' when they do. The obstacle for 'conspiracy theorists' to overcome is this: Everyone else expects them to explain everything (who, what, why, how) in one go.

But, by their nature, investigations are gradual processes. Steven Jones, the physicist who wrote a paper on the collapse of the buildings, was very clear right from the start that he wasn't interested in speculating about who did what or why - he was only interested in discussing the science. Even so, he was ridiculed and ignored by the mainstream, not because of what he SAID, but because of what his claims IMPLIED. That is short-sighted, and unfortunate.

(As an aside, I would wager that Steven Jones has a firmer grasp of the science involved than Noam Chomsky.)

haggis:

I am absolutely for more investigation. It's really unfortunate that there are people who turn the notion of looking into it as though it somehow bad. I think the 9/11 commission themselves have pretty much acknowledged that their scenerio for why the building collapsed is only the best they can come up with, and not necessarily even likely.

I was especially disgusted with the calls, in particular by politicians, to get rid of professors just because of the position they took on 9/11. It shows a total lack of respect for the academic freedom, which protects research no matter how controversial. If we disallow people to investigate things just because they are controversial, we will only regress as a society.

No one can ask more than that. Conversely, no one can ask less - I believe it's the duty of every citizen to ask tough questions of their government, if only to prevent things getting worse for future generations. The citizens of Germany in the 1930s failed in that duty. We cannot afford to - the stakes are higher now even than they were then.

If everyone was as open-minded as you, the world would be a far better place.

doesnt matter if its true or not were still killing alot of people, and thats not a conspiracy

Chomsky is an idiot. He dismisses evidence and states that even if it is true that we should just forget about it, who cares?!?! American's care and it's time to stop ignoring evidence that clearly points to the signers of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) as traitors of our fine nation!

RE: Constitutional Patriot

Noam Chomsky has been talking about this issue for years, he says Americans wouldn't care because they don't. It's only now several years after the war on terror and the campaign in Iraq that ordinary Americans are coming around.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Manufacturing-Consent-Noam-Chomsky-and-the-Media

I agree with Chomsky about the 'Who Cares?' comment. Because really...I've studied it top to bottom, I believe 9/11 was carried out by criminal elements of our government and now they're benifitting from it. He's exactly right though, who cares...it doesn't matter really. Nothing matters, just go live your lives and have fun. Then ya die.

looks like noam is more curious about a possible cover-up than he's letting on -
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html

he says it's impossibel to predict that the plane would hit the WTC, i dont understand to whom? the hijackers knew it would and aimed them extremely carefully. the goverenment agencies would ahve known an hour before the second plane hit that other hijacked planes were going to hit something important and accurately.

also, his reasoning is flawed when he says 'who cares?' about who did it, 'why should it matter?', saying it diverts attention from things that do. it matters exactly because of what he said at the beginning, if there's some chance that some powerful americans had a part to play in the planning of the 9/11 attacks then they would need to be found. it would be important that people who would plan such things are dealt with.

could someone put this through the front page again so people can debate this?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.

Awarding digitalpimp with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.