The good professor on 9/11

Interesting point: Nixon can’t keep a simple robbery quiet, yet no leaks since 9/11

Posted in 9/11. 9 Comments »

9 Responses to “The good professor on 9/11”

  1. Logipundit Says:

    Somebody got to him.

  2. scottie Says:

    point of fact, many scientists have refuted the official version, so chomsky’s comments imply that no scientists have looked at the data ; not true.

    its funny how this chomsky quote appears. i guess someone thinks that because scottie agrees with chomsky on many issues, that he holds some power over me.

    chomsky is fallible, and he has not looked at the data, judging from his comments.

    most of his comments are speculative.

    who cares about who killed JFK? might be the most questionable comment i have ever heard from chomsky. it doesnt matter … chomsky said. i disagree vehememtly.

    i still have not received one valid refutation of any of the data ( all verifiable, thats the curious thing)

    the label makers are busy again, not making arguments, but labels.

    just bury your heads in the sand and pretend everything is ok.

  3. Logipundit Says:

    “judging from his comments he hasn’t looked at the data”

    You know this? Are you sure? He’s Mr. Thorough and backs up all his assertions with real data etc, etc, but he somehow just decided not to even look at the “scientific data” you allude to about 9/11.

    Scottie, this is Chomsky’s area of expertise…if anyone on the planet knows more about CIA coverups and various and sundry plots of evil American administrations, it’s this guy. He has talked ad nauseum about the ins and outs of why 9/11 was a result of bad U.S. foreign policies, etc…and so have you.

    Every claim in the Loose Change video (speed of the fall, explosions, etc.) has either been explained or is irrelevant, but you refuse to look at these points of view because it doesn’t fit with your own world view.

    Chomsky, who you have claimed to be quite knowledgable about the when the where and why of terrorism and 9/11 (who shares much of that world view), believes that the evidence is not there.

    Yes Chomsky is fallible, but so are we all. Your failure to concede some of the most basic points just shows how deeply emotionally you’re looking at this.

    I’m just taking (and I think Chomsky is as well) an Occam’s Razor approach to this. The hijackers in question had the motive, had expressed the motive and the desire; (and according to you, Chomsky, and many others I don’t agree with, we obviously deserved it because of our illicit activity around the world).

    These terrorists had attacked us before; they had the means, and they had the opportunity, and it’s simply too much of a stretch for me to believe that they NEEDED or WANTED inside help for this to happen. And with the preponderance of evidence that says there were four planes hijacked by 19 Saudi’s that did it…I unfortunately don’t find that hard to believe.

    I also don’t think that any reasonable person would believe that whoever would be responsible for the inside job (Bush, Cheney, the Prince of Darkness, etc.) would come to the conclusion that two planes hitting the World Trade Center at 9:00 in the morning and killing hundreds of people wouldn’t be enough. Your contention would have to be that the buildings (including WTC7) apparently had to come down in order to fulfill the conspirator’s wishes. That doesn’t logically follow for me.

    And AGAIN, the science doesn’t add up. We’re not burying our heads in the sand, and Chomsky certainly isn’t. THE EVIDENCE IS NOT THERE. THE FACTS ARE NOT THERE.

    Are there some things that are unexplained? Sure. Evidence of a conspiracy? No…sorry. You’re better off going back to saying that we deserved it anyway because of our EVIL foreign policies then referring to a REPEATEDLY discredited set of theories that it was an inside job.

    I’m done with this because (like Chomsky) I believe it’s a waste of time. There are other more important issues to discuss; you can still argue how EVIL the U.S. is without this. Promise.

    I’ll still disagree with you on a most of these things, and will respond accordingly; but this is beneath you…move on.

  4. JohnnyB Says:

    I think he makes a pretty eloquent case, is all.

  5. Foobarista Says:

    I have a one word refutation of any and all 9/11 conspiracy theories: Oprah! Any real conspiracy of this magnitude would require close coordination of numerous government agencies in several different parts of the government (military, DOT, etc) and would involve dozens if not hundreds of workers and officials. Anyone think there are that many people in the government who wouldn’t turn down tens of millions in a blockbuster book deal, Oprah, etc if they “came clean” with evidence? And as for the inevitable “omerta” argument, there are plenty of billionaires who would love to have this stuff proven to take down Dubya, and would gladly protect anyone who brought forth evidence.

    Bin Laden did 9/11 – get over it.

  6. Logipundit Says:

    Thanks for stopping by FooBar…

    My feelings exactly. The main reason I agree with Chomsky on this point is that not only is it not likely and there had to have been a leak, but it simply isn’t necessary.

    Essentially, Chomsky feels that the U.S. (or whoever) doesn’t need to have pulled off this big conspiracy, however unlikely, in order to be guilty of “Imperialism”. Therefore it’s a waste of time to entertain these unlikelihoods without any real evidence.

    Me, I feel that it’s the fault of Bin Laden, al Qaeda, etc, and it’s a waste of time to entertain these unlikelihoods without any real evidence.

    If every explanation for the conspiracy has an alternate explanation in line with the “official” explanation, then why waste time with maybes and 50/50 polls.

  7. scottie Says:

    Chomsky starts by saying “Did the Bush admin plan 9-11 or did they know anything about it? This seems to me to be extremely unlikely. For one thing, they would have been insane to try anything like that. If they had, its almost certain it would have leaked…”

    These were Chomsky’s words, and the cornerstone of your refutation, Butch.

    He’s arguing hypothetically.

    He did not say anything definitive like “the Bushies had nothing to do with it” or “I have read the 9-11 commission report and found through dialogues in the scientific community that the science contained in the official report is valid”

    He did not say these things, so it seems that he might not be aware of the critics’ assessment that the official version has holes.

    Start with something simple :

    how is it possible that a steel-structured building fell at free-fall speed ? how did WTC #7 fall? The leaseholder admitted the damn thing was pulled, AKA demolished. I mean these are basic things, not exactly rocket science.

    I actually have evidence of the squibs … if you know what that means. I have photos of the squibs below the collapse line …

    refute this one thing, the collapse at free-fall speeds . you cannot change the laws of physics. pancaking cannot occur at free-fall speeds, and if you find one engineer or physicist who claims this, you have found a rat.

    the introduction of leaks, oprah winfrey, double negatives, modus ponens,anything else, i dont care about ; all red herrings

    explain the free-fall of the buildings for me, and how concrete dust is formed , and i will never again litter this blogsite with my conspiracy trash ….

  8. Logipundit Says:

    So we’re down to one, now?

    OK…noone has refuted that a steel building SHOULDN’T fall at free fall speeds, they’ve refuted that it did…Concrete dust can be formed in a myriad of ways.

    There is no conclusive video evidence that the building actually did fall at free fall speeds.

    Stop it, you’re killing me.

    and too late on the litter. It’s downright embarassing.

    And thank you for your next post. It might still be poppycock :o) , but at least it’s about real people and real things and not “conspiracy trash”…

    Was that the purpose? to have us so incensed that we had to waste our time with this stupid nonsense that we would be eager to read your BUSHIES and NEOCON diatribes?

    Good job. I’ve said my piece on 911 for now.

  9. scottie Says:

    No conclusive evidence …

    You mean no one can pull out a damn stopwatch and clock it?

    This brings denial to a whole new level.

    Yeah, Butch, my idea was to incense you. I had no other motivation …

    I am that petty, by the way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: