Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 12:45pm PT
|
Karl et al., those of you who know who Noam Chomsky is should read this explanation (taken from the link) about 911 not being an inside job. This is a very good link if you spend the time. You can put away those hats now and focus on more important issues.
More from Noam Chomsky:
"...I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."
"I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments."
"...I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11."
"I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state."
http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:01pm PT
|
Chomsky won a Nobel for his liguistics work as I recall. He's been at MIT for years and has also written many scathing books about our government and the problems with capitalism (that I've read). If this guy doesn't believe 911 was an inside job, nobody should.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:05pm PT
|
"If this guy doesn't believe 911 was an inside job, nobody should."
Using another's position as defense of your own requires me to overlook the many facts I am aware of that are being specifically ignored in mainstream debate. I'm hearing you say "You can't be as smart as this guy on this issue, and he can't be mistaken, therefor your position lacks merit."
I prefer to await answers to my specific questions please.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:14pm PT
|
"It's all moot, since no fighter was even in range to do a shoot-down. These are the problems that should be focused on.
"
BING!!!
NORAD should have scrambled fighters into range within minutes of them leaving their designated flight plan and then not responding to Air Traffic Control towers radio emissions regarding said flight plan deviation.
NORAD didn't.
That's what NORAD does, every day. Without fail. They don't require a special order to scramble teh closest fighter(s) to respond to potential threats. That's their reason for existance and their job description.
It's what they do.
Only they didn't.
hmm....
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:18pm PT
|
PMB, I was merely trying to make a point to the left-leaning posters here. Chomsky is a champion of the Left. If you haven't read his books about the government and its historical missteps and the pitfalls of capitalism, then you missed my point.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:21pm PT
|
there you go pulling out facts again - damn facts...
(fact : debris pattern from flight 93 doesn't quite match the pattern of a crash...flight 93 being the plane rumsfield said was shot down over PA at a press conference, then corrected himself...)
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html
Noam gots nothing on that one...
Edit : Mimi - I've read a bit on many different things. I heard you say what I stated, above. My point is that You can be an expert on anything and still be wrong in anything, even related to your expertise. You have to use your own brain and the actual facts, not let others do the thinking for you.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 22, 2007 - 01:24pm PT
|
I like Noam Chomsky's ideas although I can't subscribe to all of them. He's complaining because the 9-11 conspiracy stuff is distracting folks from the things he wants to tell them
But he doesn't show that he's really familiar with the evidence. Much of the physical evidence was destroyed so it can't be sent to engineers for analysis.
But my main point here is that this "Physical evidence, demolition" is really just disinformation to distract people from the real issues. It's likely that they didn't blow up the towers and no missile hit the pentagon. If you want to get away with a crime like this you have to throw up some false suspicions that can be batted down to discredit the investigators.
I think the likely scenario is that, at a minimum, they heard about the attacks and took active steps to make sure they weren't intercepted. Lois, did you read the war games link above? How will you know about the evidence if you don't read it?
What kind of friggin coincidence is it when a former CIA operative (Bin Laden) whose family has real business links with the President and his family set out to attack this country, and it just so happens that the country has war games going that day that are practically specifically tailored so that our defenses don't thwart it?
That's like the coincidence that Bush won the 2000 election in Florida with no help from his Brother, a totally impartial guy.
Sheep
Would we believe these coincidences if they happened in any other country with any other leaders?
Peace
Karl
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:30pm PT
|
"What kind of friggin coincidence is it when a former CIA operative (Bin Laden) whose family has real business links with the President and his family set out to attack this country, and it just so happens that the country has war games going that day that are practically specifically tailored so that our defenses don't thwart it? "
See also - London Subway Bombing and simulations of same event on same day at the same time in the same places....somebody needs to check with the people in Vegas, I mean, what are the odds ?
"On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch, now Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company.
Power was quoted as saying "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now"
"
All kidding aside - I find these two simple and documented facts, alone, raise more questions then any report to date has at all answered to my satisfaction. As a nation and a species we should be screaming about this, imho.
|
|
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Fairfax, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:34pm PT
|
PMB-
Well said, above.
Chaz-
Do you also believe in 'creation science', and dismiss all those paleontologist wackjobs?
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 01:57pm PT
|
Good on you Karl. Keep up the effort. "What are you going to do about it?" ? We're going to keep it on the front page until questions are answered. (30% of Americans now believe in a cover up by the way.) If nothing else the so called good-guys should be worried that the gov is losing the credibility of their own people. Just answer a few simple questions instead of hiding behind a intricate facade of lies.
I don't know if this link has been posted yet but even the junior neo-cons have to respect these guys' opinions...
(a bunch of ex military brass speaking out on cover-up)
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
And someone said "neo-cons believe in a war of civilizations" (or something to that effect). That's right. And they also no longer believe in democracy. Democracy is rooted on informed opinion and respect for the will of the populace. Not secret decisions hidden from public view. The neo-cons' view of reality is fundamentally fascistic. The sad irony is that behind their rhetoric and the flags they wave they are ultimately "anti-democrats" in the most insidious way.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 22, 2007 - 02:24pm PT
|
More today's info on Gov stonewalling about 9-11
from the New York Times, quoted here
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/22/5964/
9/11 Panel Study Finds That C.I.A. Withheld Tapes
WASHINGTON — A review of classified documents by former members of the Sept. 11 commission shows that the panel made repeated and detailed requests to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and were told by a top C.I.A. official that the agency had “produced or made available for review” everything that had been requested.
The review was conducted earlier this month after the disclosure that in November 2005, the C.I.A. destroyed videotapes documenting the interrogations of two Qaeda operatives.
A seven-page memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelikow, the panel’s former executive director, concluded that “further investigation is needed” to determine whether the C.I.A.’s withholding of the tapes from the commission violated federal law.
In interviews this week, the two chairmen of the commission, Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean, said their reading of the report had convinced them that the agency had made a conscious decision to impede the Sept. 11 commission’s inquiry.
Mr. Kean said the panel would provide the memorandum to the federal prosecutors and congressional investigators who are trying to determine whether the destruction of the tapes or withholding them from the courts and the commission was improper.
A C.I.A. spokesman said that the agency had been prepared to give the Sept. 11 commission the interrogation videotapes, but that commission staff members never specifically asked for interrogation videos.
The review by Mr. Zelikow does not assert that the commission specifically asked for videotapes, but it quotes from formal requests by the commission to the C.I.A. that sought “documents,” “reports” and “information” related to the interrogations.
Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey, said of the agency’s decision not to disclose the existence of the videotapes, “I don’t know whether that’s illegal or not, but it’s certainly wrong.” Mr. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said that the C.I.A. “clearly obstructed” the commission’s investigation....."
So the 9-11 panel, investigating 9-11, didn't even have direct data from the terrorists supposedly involved? Investigate the crime of the century without even hearing the interrogations?
Bogus
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 22, 2007 - 02:42pm PT
|
Hi Lois
I love ya, but I think I've reaching your "Loising Point" Read if you like but I won't be responding to your questions cause I don't think you've looked at the material I posted or understood what I'm saying
Peace
Karl
But Post away if you can stay on topic! bumpity bump
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 02:53pm PT
|
I am against the belief that the government destroyed the twin towers.
How DARE you take away the great forsight and ability of the greatest minds in the world? And by greatest minds, I mean the terrorists. They are completely capable of destroying not only those towers, but ANYTHING! Terrorists can literally destroy the sun, they are that badass.
I think we need to stop letting the government plagiarize the hard work of Al Qaeda. Its wrong enough that they faked the moon landing and "invented" the halocaust (C'mon, germans just make good chocolate. Of course the Jews were bitter about it) but now we have to BELIEVE that some a-hole white house-sitter organized an intelligent plan like that?
I think we should rename National Prayer Day to National Terrorists kicked our own asses and we had it coming day.
Later, yo. I'm off to to californ-ia with a banjo on my knee.
and by california, I mean the golden gate bridge.
and by banjo, I mean a homemade bomb made from cow sh#t and nickwax.
|
|
fairweather
Mountain climber
Roseville, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 03:24pm PT
|
There are far too many gullible people spending way too much time surfing the internet and gossip papers like the NY Times. I have had first hand knowledge of a few different new stories, and in every case, better than 50% of the so called facts reported were inaccurate. Sure the reporters got the basics (such as "the crash killed 2 people"), but nearly all the details were misreported. Yet people such as Karl are all to eager to pick up on anything they read on the internet (especially if it fits their agenda)as fact. In this information age, the internet has become a facilitator for the conspiracy theorists, doomsday predictors, left/right wing wacko's, and others with far too much free time on their hands. Exactly how much time has Karl spent surfing the net for his posts on this topic alone? And how much information did he pass over, that didn't help his argument?
The sky is falling, the sky is falling - it said so on the internet.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 03:26pm PT
|
WHATEVER SHEEP
KEEP WATCHING FOX NEWS NEOCONTARD
FAIR AND BALANCED MY VAGINA
ME? ILL STICK TO YOUTUBE. I DONT BUY INTO BIAS.
FACT
99% OF AMERICANS ARE OBESE AND LOVE JESUS!
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 03:28pm PT
|
BTW, if you haven't already seen the video that was released recently that shows the small explosion around the 13th floor on tower 2, take a look before it gets banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
|
|
Nate Furman
climber
Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 03:36pm PT
|
Thanks for posting this stuff, Karl. I wish that people were able post arguments that were free of fallacies. It would make it more valuable to be able to follow a thread of thought rather than be interrupted by observations that are affectively-based.
From my perspective, the citizens of the United States haven't been offered the full truth. And because of this withholding, it is our duty/responsibility to speculate. I don't care what the politics are or who the president is, the people of the United States must vigorously demand full disclosure or it will not be given.
In a small but meaningful fashion, that's what I see Karl doing. Speaking (or persistently posting on a forum) is action, so when someone asks what action Karl is taking, the answer is somewhat self evident.
Generally speaking, it is not in the best interest of the government to provide us with a full set of facts. The government rarely does this because the citizens rarely demand it. For whatever reason, we're too busy being overworked (an explicit tool of the govt.?) or watching T.V. (maybe not a tool of the govt. but a co-conspirator?) to make these demands.
One of the most ancient tools of a government is to discredit it's adversaries. The co-conspirators of the current administration (military? right-wing media?) have been effective weapons for the present administration in achieving this objective. They've done a fantastic job at discrediting people who challenge them.
The problem, then, is if you believe too much that our present administration is benevolent and you're happily drinking the kool-aid they serve, then you'll most likely buy into their view that people who question them are "nutjobs" (Orrin Hatch's term) or similar.
It's so tempting to believe the government wholeheartedly. On one hand (for many), it is the ultimate father figure and source of reassurance. It is the source of identity (we are Americans! Our country is the greatest ever!) and symbolically represents the great history of our country. It's tempting to believe what they tell us.
But in reality, the government is made up of some of the most power-seeking people on the planet. And one of the surest ways to gain and maintain power is through manipulation, propaganda and deception. The politicians, and thus the government, use the symbols of the flag, and of America, and of liberty to help us gain their trust. And they do a damn good job of it.
In the end, we have to critically think for yourself about what is going on. No matter if we are of the same political affiliation of a candidate or administration; no matter if we agree with their views or have a strong estimation of their character. You can't drink the kool-aid. This is what I believe, nothing more.
And given that belief, and given that the administration has not been forthcoming with evidence or transparent in their actions, and given that they have lied and tried to cover up those lies...
I wonder what it is they're hiding.
Cheers,
Nate
1st taco political post.
It's got electrolytes.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007 - 03:40pm PT
|
"Speaking (or persistently posting on a forum) is action"
The strongest type!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 22, 2007 - 03:52pm PT
|
Nice Post Nate
Funny thing about credibility. Some folks who have come out to speak out against the Iraq war and how it's run have been generals and the folks that Bush himself appointed to run the occupation or the WMD search. These are right wing guys, chosen for sensitive positions for their loyalty.
But as soon as they speak out, they're nutjobs too!
Go figure
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!