9/11 being al queda 'Blowback' and Inside Job are BOTH TRUE

Kurt Nimmo says in this article, Corporate Media Embraces 9/11 Blowback Theory http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=870 , that Ron Paul's dust up about 9/11 with Giuliani is in opposition to 9/11 truth. While I fully agree that blowback has been used, especially by gatekeepers like Chomsky, to go against 9/11 truth, in actually, it isn't in opposition at all.

9/11 inside job, and 'blowback' can be, and are, BOTH TRUE. There are radicalized Muslims as the result of western policy in the middle east. The number one reason that Muslims are pissed off is the Israel-Palestinian situation and the Western one-sided support of Israel. This anger was tapped into starting in the late 70s, with the recruitment of 35,000 Muslims, throughout the middle east but mainly from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to help the mujahideen fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan 1980-1988. This aided a lot of interests. The U.S. because it was against the Soviet Union. Egypt and Saudi Arabia because it allowed them a siphon to get their radicalized youth out of the country so that their anger wasn't directed at the governments themselves and their perceived 'friendliness' to Israel. Pakistan was very much a big supporter of this effort because they could utilize radicalized militants in their battle with India over the region of Kashmir, and get western Pakistani tribes to direct their anger not at the Pakistani government but at the invading Soviets in Afghanistan. That is why 'al queda' camps basically were Pakistani ISI camps. Then following the collapse of the soviet union and the first Gulf War, many of the radicalized Muslims for Salafist schools, especially from Saudi Arabia, were PISSED OFF by American troops' continued presence on their holy land (Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are). They also were very pissed at the collective punishment to Iraqi civilians following the Gulf War (which led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead).

During the 1990s, the terror networks now called al queda weren't just thinking the whole time when they professed anger at the U.S., "this is all bullshit backstory for a CIA inside job coming up in several years." As the U.S. one-sided support of Israel became more and more brazen and easily documented in the early to mid-90s, we became more the object of the anger related to the Israel issue. Many Americans became more angry, including Pat Buchanan and his run for president in 1992, and Ron Paul, who comes from the same school of foreign policy. It was a key part in the growth of the 'patriot' community. Now, western intelligence services (CIA, MI6, Mossad, and their underling associates in the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt) continued to utilize what is now known as al queda in the mid 90s through directing their networks and providing resources for conflicts such as in the newly independent former Soviet Union countries, and the Balkan conflict. When Bin Laden issued his fatwa in 1996 against the U.S., he may have been entirely sincere. He may have just been responding to the sentiments of the radicalized guys coming out of Saudi Arabia at that point. He loved being the mouthpiece for anything, including things he wasn't even involved in. Remember, the leadership of Saudi Arabia were actually, truly worried about the anger that came from having U.S. bases on their land. They told us in the mid-to-late 90s we needed to do something. Bin Laden's fatwa may have even been helpful to the Saudi Arabian princes because it focused the anger at the United States (instead of allowing all the anger to build up against the Saudi Arabian princes for allowing the U.S. there).

Having these terrorist networks now angry at the U.S. didn't mean that these networks weren't useful to western intelligence services. Now they could be the 'bad guy' for the American empire, along with Saddam Hussein. Remember, in 1990 and 91 Bush Sr. announced a new post-Cold War world order basically organized as the world behind the U.S. going up against 'rogue states'. Clinton closely followed that same foreign policy. It was sold as Pax Americana. Now they had networks of pissed off Muslims they could use to help label countries as rogue nations (i.e. Somalia, Sudan, Taliban, etc.) As many people have documented, most of the time a country was labeled rogue, it more had to do with not bowing down to U.S. imperial interests, or just having resources we wanted to control. Maybe Osama wasn't sure when he issued the fatwa in 1996 that western intelligence would still support and work with those same networks as they had in the past, but it would be apparant based on those networks' involvement in the balkans and former soviet republics and other things that they would.

The bottom line is, over the 90s the U.S. DID become enemy #1 of radicalized muslims in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, etc. because of its policies. That was the blowback. That anger was used to continue to recruit them into the terror networks by Bin Laden and others. The militant networks we set up and worked with were still useful to the United States, however, as a managed adversary, when in 1979-1989 they were a manged ally (i.e. the mujahideen propaganda film, Rambo III). Having a managed adversary actually was extremely important for the military industrial complex, which faced an industry crisis with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. It's hard to dupe the public into agreeing to spend so much money when you say your biggest problem, which used to be the Soviet Union with thousands of nukes, planes, and tanks, is now what tribe in Somalia or Sudan or Afghanistan weilds power. Most of the public will say, who really cares? We aren't the world's police, it's not worth our money and lives. But if you are able to attach the conflict of what tribe controls some backwater nation to TERRORISM that could strike people at home here in the West, you get your money, big time. Some time in the mid to late 90s, this strategy was decided upon. You started seeing Osama Bin Laden on network TV news programs being interviewed by reporters who had to go blindfolded to his secret hideouts, etc. The mainstream media was fully on board hyping up the terrorism threat. Clinton started hyping the biological terrorist threat that would supposedly kill thousands. We saw all sorts of stories on the news about how anyone could steal a nuke from the former soviet union, including 'suitcase' nukes.

The powers that be (whatever name you want to call them) felt that one big successful terrorist attack on the West would be needed to really make this world order stick. News stories on threats and embassies getting hit just wouldn't be enough. The world order following WWII was the West vs. Communists (U.S.S.R.). That order lasted 45 years. Then there was a transition period in the 90s, and then the world order in the 21st century was going to be the West vs. Terrorists. The need for this was not only important to the military industrial complex, but also for Big Energy, because the lands of terrorism happen to line up with the lands of oil. They also wanted this to last decades (guaranteed gigantic budgets, which to them means profits), which is why they tried calling it the Long War from the start. Neocons provided their take on how the U.S. should act under this upcoming world order (PNAC). Al queda was a useful asset as a managed adversary to really usher in this world order, because a significant event was needed, much in the same way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only ended WWII, but ushered in the West vs. Communists world order. And that's where the inside job comes in. The powers that be utilized complicit people within the U.S. government and complicit people among western intelligence services directed elements of the now blowback-minded al queda to engineer the transformational event of 9/11. (9/11 was fully MIHOP). And the result is the nightmare we've been living in ever since.

I'm confused. So if Chomsky

I'm confused. So if Chomsky says 911 is "blowback" he's scum, but if Ron Paul says the same thing he's good to go? mmmkkay.

How bout this: both value their careers more than the truth? Both are acting like politicians rather than human beings? Both are full of shit? both are knowingly lying?

"the press would crucify Paul if he spoke the truth!"

Well, same goes for any other prominent figure. Why do you think so few have spoken out?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Was Ron Paul using

blowback to rip 9/11 truth in the debates? I don't think so. Have I seen Chomsky use blowback to rip 9/11 truth, yes.

Do not be confused :)

Chomsky is not scum, either. He's not scum just because Barry Zwicker says so, and he's not scum just because his interests lie elsewhere. And he certainly isn't scum because he says he'd need to study civil engineering for two years before he'd speak out on controlled demolition - in fact, it only demonstrates his integrity. Steven Jones is an expert in construction. I am not, most people here are not, and Chomsky isn't either.

I find it regrettable that Chomsky chooses not to investigate 9/11, but as I understand his perspective, he is interested in long-time political/social processes, of which 9/11 is an episode. He has every right to be more interested in policies that have resulted in millions of deaths in developing countries than, as he says, in an event that killed 3000 people in the US.

Most of us here will disagree with Chomsky for lots of reasons - because 9/11 affected us so much, or because it may well be the first time in history that citizens stand a good chance of blowing a whistle on a huge false flag event, and if we succeed, we would help shift all of politics and perhaps unravel the whole slimy ball of injustices everywhere. So we disagree, but that doesn't make Chomsky scum, I think.

On edit: "we" still have Peter Dale Scott :) His is not a household name yet, but he's as strong a researcher as Chomsky is. I can't wait for his new book, out this September.

lets not forget that Chomsky

also has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "even if 9/11 was an inside job, would it really matter?"
RP was speaking of 9/11 in terms of interventionist foriegn policy and was implying that blow-back was a credible matter.

On 9/11, was anyone here shocked when the media started saying that it was radical muslim terrorists that did this? No you werent. Why? Because you have been conditioned with the demonization of "muslims" and that they hate us and want to kill us for whatever reasons. "Hate our freedoms" came along after 9/11, not before. How many times have we seen angry mobs in some foriegn arab land burning american flags on tv? Plenty. So with all that, we are left with the impression that they hate us for something we did, even if we dont know what that was, yet suddenly "blow-back" becomes implausible? We all know 9/11 wasnt carried out by arabs with a grudge, but the premise is very viable. Its in that context that Paul made his comments, sort of like "why would anyone be surprised".

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Good points, Danse.......

But I'd like to think, and hope I'm not wrong, that Ron Paul is "playing the game"
and following the official story until, if and when, he gets in and can actually do
something about 9/11 truth.

I absolutely believe that if he said "we should have a new, true 9/11 investigation",
or something along those lines, instead of "it was an inside job",
that his support would go thru the roof.

That's assuming, at this point, most people have serious doubts about it
I'm not even sure about that anymore. Most people don't want to even think
about it.

Just my 2 cents.

Ron Paul = Chomsky?? I don't think so...

I think the comparison some are making is a little short-sighted. First of all, neither men's careers are at stake. Both have clear niches in their political and academic worlds. But that doesn't mean both of them are identical. For one, Chomsky is a god among liberal, leftist intellectuals. He has made a life of articulately revealing the hypocrisy of the United State's foreign policy. A big part of being a left-leaning intellectual means fighting off charges of cowardice--and I think that's one of the reason that so-called gate-keepers are wary of touching 9/11. It would mean that they are, in the eyes of their opponents, not only cowards but crazy cowards. So, I don't excuse Chomsky's obvious resistance to the issues raised by the 9/11 truth movement, but I don't think it is grounds to indict him as part of the dark side.

Secondly, Ron Paul's political and intellectual career have been marked by a consistency and an integrity that is worthy of praise. Chomsky's authored over 100 books and is called the 'most quoted intellectual alive'. Paul on the other hand has lived in a political hole. Nobody even knew he was until a few months ago (libertarians aside). What Paul says about 9/11 is the mark of a principled and thoughtful American. People aren't just born thinking 9/11 was an inside job. They slowly come to learn about it over time and then perhaps jump to that conclusion. This may be especially hard, hardest even, for those who already have a strong antagonism to their government. It's easy for some of us who were only marginally involved in politics to suddenly see the government's ineptitude and apparent criminality. I imagine it's much harder for someone who always thought that but never conceived it could go as deep as many have come to believe.

In sum, I think Paul is a worthwhile candidate. He is already receiving waves of his own blowback from the conservative right; what would it look like if he not only suggested our foreign policy was to blame for 9/11 but our own government. I'm not saying he should 'play games'--I genuinely don't think he believes it (yet); but, I do think he would benefit from our support and that the truth movement would benefit from his candor and integrity.


*Everything 'You' Should Know About the 9/11 Truth Movement

You're hilarious. You dog

You're hilarious. You dog one guy for arguing blow back, you praise another. Hyprocrisy much? There's no excuse in this day and age for arguing blowback; that goes for both Chomsky and Paul.

Paul is arguing the exact same position Chomsky is. One's scum, the other's a saint. Make up your mind.

Neither should argue blowback; both should argue the truth.

Why is that controversial?

It's too late in the game for "playing your cards close to the vest". Hell, I could argue the same dumb logic about Chomsky. Do the right thing or fuck off.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

you say

"There's no excuse in this day and age for arguing blowback;"

So is it your contention that nobody in the terrorist netowks now known as al queda was angry at the U.S. ? Were they all just for the years between gulf war I and 9/11 faking being upset at the United States and Israel to provide cover for the CIA they were happily working for?

110% behind you Danse

blowback is a copout, whoever you are. blowback is the way that they can preserve the myth of evil muslims out to get us. the argument is, well, we created the problem, but now it is real. it's the frankenstein argument. this is precisely why we have Mossad recruiting kids in Gaza to join fake al Qaeda cells, and why every post-9/11 "terrorist" bust has been a result of entrapment--the threat is manufactured. If it were so real, why would they have to fake it?

9/11 had nothing to do with muslim extremism except for the fact that it was blamed on muslim extremists. period. blowback is so transparently an effort to preserve the myth--Chomsky seems pretty clearly to know this and does it on purpose. Ron Paul? Well, I hear all kinds of argumnets for why HIM saying blowback is a great sign of him being on our side, that he CAN'T come out and tell the truth or he'll be killed (I think the term in vogue is "Wellstoned") Huh? I guess we should all shut up or go out in the streets claiming blowback--I mean, who wants to be killed?

Remember that as we get closer to everyone knowing the truth, the attempts at damage control are going to become intense and frequent. Don't take the bait, people!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Blowback - LIHOP - MIHOP

I agree with your points. I think people like Chomsky shouldn't be named traitors just because they are immersed in a specific mindset. Despite being against dogma, Chomsky himself has limitations. I correspond a bit with Chomsky in private, mostly regarding Central America and propaganda model in the western democracies (which he is an expert in), but haven't brought up 911 truth yet.. I agree though, that it's wrong of him to say that "even if 911 was an inside job, it would be of no consequence." The consequence would be that the entire "War on Terror" would lose legitimacy, as well as all other wars of oppression around the world. China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya. Israel's "peace process" et al. But in Chomsky's world, and those like him, they are more concerned with the more egregious acts of aggression. For example, George Schultz's and Reagan's terrorist war against the indigenous populations of Central America. Aptly titled "War on Terror" in the 80s, though I'd call it the way Borat does: "War OF Terror" as that is precisely what it was. An interesting coincidence is that the 11th of September 1973 was the day when the coup in Chile occurred. So when people are referring to 911, ask them which one? The one in 73 or 01? I don't know who else have brought up 911 with Chomsky - but I have read and heard his arguments against following this line of inquiry. The arguments included things such as "no peer-reviewed scientific journals have been published as far as I know" and things like that. Of course, he should know better than anyone that academia is often dogmatic and conservative - like to go in their old trodden tracks. Also, I think 911 Truth would help demolish any credibility of the War on Terror, which he knows a great deal about I have to say. "The War on Terror" wasn't declared on 911, it was RE-declared. It was first declared in the 80s, when the "scourge of evil" (George Schultz) of Central America was moving in to destroy planet earth. Then Ronald Reagan blurted on television and declared a national emergency, because Nicaraugan forces was a 48 hours drive from Texas! Nicaragua could actually invade the United States of America any moment now. Had the preposterous absurdity of this declaration been contemplated by an informed populace, this would not inherit. Unfortunately it did. Nicaragua's economy destroyed for 20 years after it. Percentage of Nicaraguan people killed amounted to an equivalent of 2 million US citizens (percentage-wise) which is more than all US casualties from all world wars plus the entire Civil War. It's a bit purile and juvenile to ostracize great intellectuals as Chomsky for not following the party line. Instead of blaming, it should be our job to convince him that the official story is incorrect. Forget any theories we may have. We can all agree that the official story did NOT happen the way they say. That fact should be made clear, and it is the only way to reach these kinds of people. I think they are far too entrenched in dogmatic belief system - ironically enough. For people such as Chomsky one would not expect this, but everybody got something....

I think that Ron Paul is indeed playing the game. He has indeed stated that he wants a new investigation of 911 (Alex Jones).


"To know a thing well, know its limits. Only when pushed beyond its tolerances will its true nature be seen."
-The Amtal Rule, DUNE

Subtlety and Integrity Negate Hypocrisy

I don't want to make this more complicated than it needs to be, but I do think it's not as simple as you're trying to make it. Regardless of what Alex Jones would like to think, the world is not just black and white. Real people with long pasts, busy and active presents, and uncertain futures all come to this issue from different places for different reasons and at different times. I think the kind of knee-jerk intolerance you have for anyone who mentions blowback is a way of not acknowledging the possibility of people changing their minds. You might find alternative 911 theories obvious and beyond questions, but millions of people are still being introduced to even the idea that there might be questions.

So, what's the difference between Chomsky and Paul? Chomsky, from what it seems, will never accept the conspiracy hypothesis; Paul on the other hand appears to be the kind of man who would do it the day he felt convinced (and do it publicly).


*Everything 'You' Should Know About the 9/11 Truth Movement

thank god that SOMEONE is

thank god that SOMEONE is willing to call out ROn Paul on the 9/11 myth. Ron Paul has this movement captive with his honesty and openness on so many issues but he still buys into the "al qaeda did 9/11 alone" myth just like everyone else. Paul seems like a good man, at least compared to the other candidates but this is no reason to play softball with him on his 9/11 views. 9/11 was NOT blowback. its playing right into their hands to confuse the 2. 9/11 was CLEARLY not blowback and until Paul gets that people like Nimmo and myself will call him on it. best candidate or not.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

i know its not popular to

i know its not popular to talk honestly about Paul's 9/11 views(or lack of) around here but too fuckin bad. minus me all you want but somebody has to do it.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

don't mind the vocal minority Chris

Most people just don't feel like drawing the ire of zealots... I know I don't buy the Saint Paul crap for a minute. Just because he's right about a lot of things (and wrong about much else) doesn’t mean he should be given a pass that no one else gets from us. He’s as complicit as anyone else in the cover-up regardless of how much he may pander to and be adored by elements of the truth movement.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


and i dont even know if i

and i dont even know if i would call it pandering, he may very well believe all the stuff he says about following the constitution etc.(in fact i think he does,his record supports that.) but your right, he says a lot of the right things that get people in a movement like this one to be hopeful. thats not a bad thing but we have to stay realistic. i understand 9/11 isnt the only issue but for me its the biggest and to see Paul fully buy into the need for a "war on terror" and the pack of lies which is 9/11 is a little bit depressing considering he gets so much praise. i'll put it like this, from within the movement im gonna call Paul on his fear of talking honestly about 9/11 every time. from outside of the movement im going to continue to tell people that Paul is the best candidate out of both major parties right now. even though i disagree with him on quite a few things i agree with most here that on the big issues that he can have an impact on hes the best of the bunch, as rotten as it is. i dont see why we should be giving this man a pass from within the movement like we seem to have so far for the most part though. being the best and most realistic out of all of the presidential candidates isnt enough. if/when Paul fails to win the presidency and still doesnt talk honestly about 9/11, is that when we stop giving him a pass? do we give other politicians a pass? when is it ok to stop giving Paul one? i thought this was a 9/11 truth board? where the hell am i?!?!?!?! just kidding,hahaha......

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


If you ever want to advance any serious political changes in this movement, Ron Paul is your best chance to do that.

He is the only one that has shown any seriousness into opening a new 9/11 investigation. Remember, that is the goal of this movement. To open a new transparent internationally open investigation with nothing obscured.



Help me shout 9/11 articles on:


I don't think that is the

I don't think that is the issue. One can believe that Paul is the best candidate and still acknowlege that a double standard exists here for Paul and for other candidates, politicians, journalists, and gatekeepers on 9/11 issues.

If we acknowlege that "coming out" on 9/11 would be professional suicide for Paul, why is that not also true for all of the above who we criticize with impunity? There are many possible, complicated reasons to keep 9/11 on the down-low, including culpability and internalized fear of what the truth revealed would inflict on the world, but surely professional concerns are among them.

Kucinich is also a candidate, with the same reasons to be wary of the issue, yet he announced he was going to instigate a limited investigation beginning in September. I think it's a mistake to believe that Paul is the "9/11 truth candidate" --we don't have one, sadly. He has shown no predisposition to taking the public positions necessary to earn that title, which does not take away from his other qualities.

I wish he didn't tie blowback to the crimes of 9/11, but instead made it clear that we are generally despised throughout the Middle East because of our criminal involvement and mass murder in their countries spanning decades. The two didn't need to be conflated to make the point.

quoting MLK

There comes a time when silence is betrayal. Sometimes, in other words, professional suicide is the only way to go for a moral person.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Easier said than done,

Easier said than done, unfortunately, when it may only be pissing in the wind. How many people here are willing to face personal and professional ruin without any promise of eventual vindication or rehabilitation?

Having said that, I would like to see more "suicide pacts." The only way for journalists, celebrities, or politicians to mitigate against negative repercussions is to join forces and come out in groups.

I'm doing it now, and so are others here!

Mine is not so much a career as a good steady job, but I put it at risk every day by never holding my tongue a) about 9/11 and b) about Harvard generally and especially about the issues where the two coincide, such as with Prof. Ernest May's buddy buddy relationship to Philip Zelikow. No one has ever promised me a reward, or protection of any kind. Every day I walk around with truth materials and I am well known in some circles as "that crazy 9/11 guy". Big deal--it's the right thing to do. That we should have to be making excuses for our LEADERS at this point is a pretty sad commentary, and one reason why I have no faith in that route. The people have to lead, and that's us. The leaders WILL follow, or they will cease to be leaders. Maybe not now, but very soon.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Changing my tune on Paul and Kucinich

I used to think it would be useful to get Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on the 9/11 truther's side. Late as it seems, they still would not admit to the inside job angle in public unless a gun was held to their head. Even then they might not speak up still. If we know about 9-11being an inside job, I am sure they know as well, maybe more -they have budgets, manpower and inside connections for research. They won't win the elections anyway, so why expend extra effort trying to wake up somebody who is pretending to sleep. If all we could get from them is media mileage, then might as well just get big name movie stars on board, at least they are less likely to know about 9-11 and just be pretending not to. For all current presidentiables, we know they know -it's their job to know and speak up- their silence is complicity.

But if someone told you

But if someone told you point-blank that you would be fired, that you would be blackballed from other jobs, etc., would you still do it? Maybe you would. I'm just pointing out that activists are not all in a position to take the same risks, particularly if they have families.

As to our purported "leaders," that's a different category, and, like I said, they can minimize their risks by giving them a lot of flies to swat at once. They're not supposed to lead anything -- they're supposed to be citizen representatives. When politicians have to be led kicking and screaming to barely touch on the most important issues of the electorate, it's amazing to me that anyone can be believe we have anything approaching representational democracy.

Have you heard about the button that says "I don't vote -- it just encourages them?"

sure no argument tehre

citizen activists have little power and so can't be expected to do the work of congresspeople who get paid to do the right thing for the country.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


High horse

It's easy to ride a high horse and preach on what is moral. Chomsky has been speaking out for most of his life. He may be the most frequently quoted intellectual, but he's also one of the most vilified.

I really don't see what the big whine is all about. It's not like he's the one last stumbling block on the way to 9-11 enlightenment. Why not just ignore him? It might be helpful is he were on our side, but how helpful exactly? How much CNN airtime does Chomsky get?

At any rate, I'll take Chomsky's theories on propaganda over Barry Zwicker's theory of "pods" under the planes.

why not just ignore him? you

why not just ignore him? you answered your own question with this qoute:"He may be the most frequently quoted intellectual". your obviously a fan of his and you dont fall for his 9/11 obfuscation and misdirection. good for you. not all of his cult like followers are so smart. its up to us to show them that their emperor has no clothes. how did you like Chomsky's JFK work? oh wait........ Chomsky couldnt clean Zwicker's fucking toilet.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

dont you understand that

dont you understand that Chomsky is a part of the very propaganda operation he speaks out about? do you know what a steam valve is when it comes to the media and "alternative" media? have you read Zwicker's chapter on Chomsky? no? well when you do we can have a REAL conversation about Zwicker and Chomksky and what role each of them plays. i look forward to it.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

We must agree to disagree

No, I don't "understand" that Chomsky is merely a safety valve, because I haven't seen convincing evidence of that. Meanwhile, all his writings indicate that he is genuine. Yes, I've read the chapter from Zwicker's book (and only that one), and all I see is his "why is Chomsky GOD and I'm just Barry Zwicker" attitude. Yes, I think there's some emotional underplay there. I just don't find his claims convincing, and above all, character assassination is a pointless waste of time. (Does Zwicker still believe in pods? Does this affect Zwicker's credibility in any way?)

I'm not saying the "left gatekeeper" phenomenon does not exist. Amy Goodman won't mention 9/11 either, and Democracy Now gets grant money from Ford foundation. So maybe there's something to it - or maybe there isn't. This is not sufficient evidence of, well, conspiracy.

Compared to Chomsky, we're almost all neophytes. All I'm saying is we should beware neophytes' zeal. We're eager to crucify anyone who doesn't belive in The Cause, and you know what - that's the neocons' attitude. Nobody has to like Chomsly or respect him, but making him out to be some kind of arch-villain standing in the way of 9/11 TRUTH is just silly. We should be picking the right fights, and fighting Chomsky is not one of those.

I've read a opinion, don't t recall the source at the moment, that the reason Chomsky and many other left-leaning ideologues won't accept MIHOP is that for years they have studied politics as a social process, as class struggle. In a way this process occurs autonomously, on the level of whole societies, and individual people do not direct it. In other words, Chomsky and those like him are not interested in Hitler's biography or the Reichstag fire - they're interested in the larger social processes that brought about the war. Hence their dislike of "conspiracies", because they have no conceptual framework to account for them. To accept that there are "secret societies" working undetectably in concert and capable of directing world history would be too big a concession. Maybe that's true, and if it is, then Chomsky has made himself irrelevant in the 9/11 context. May we live to see who was right.

im in a hurry so this might

im in a hurry so this might be jumbled but here we go. all of his writings indicate that? how about his work on JFK? oh wait, thats unimportant to Chomsky. and by the way, Chomsky would be proud of your liberal use of the word "conspiracy". he tends to do the same thing when asked why he chooses not to look into JFK, 9/11 or anything else that might shatter his worldview or at least radically change it. hes happy being the big man on campus and if he starts to talk honestly about this governments 2 biggest crimes he will be called, you guessed it, a conspiracy theorist. its not worth it to him, hes clearly happy with where hes at. if using facts to point out a clear history of obfuscation is "character assassination" then i guess all of us engage in that daily in a movement like this. Chomsky doesnt have to believe in "the Cause". i personally could care less but he has clearly gone out of his way to bash people who think that JFK was murdered by someone other than Oswald, people who find that fact important, and people who question 9/11. he has gone out of his way and been particularly disrespectful. so hes called on it and people like you, his fans, take it personally. again, hes not some arch villain standing in the way of 9/11 truth but hes also not going to get a pass simply because 'hes right on so much and therefor must be genuine". what does avoiding JFK and 9/11 truth have to do with secret societies? this is EXACTLY what your boy Chomsky does when backed into a corner. nobody brought that up. i know i never said that "secret societies" rule the world and im a 9/11 truther. Chomsky doesnt have to believe 9/11 was an inside job and he can believe that Oswald killed JFK and that the truth of that murder doesnt matter all he wants. i call bullshit. im sorry if his fans cant take it. Chomsky has enormous influence with certain sections of society and when he goes out of his way to bash people who find the JFK murder important or think that 9/11 is a fraud many of the people that look up to and listen to him will buy into what hes saying. im not gonna let Chomsky go unchallenged just because hes not a neocon or whatever. there are plenty of lefties out there that refuse to take a position on 9/11 but few go as far as Chomsky as to say that it doesnt even matter. true, they dont get the treatment Chomsky gets but they also dont have the influence he has(and again, they dont go out of their way to take shots at us). you seem more concerned with protecting Chomsky than with 9/11 truth. and thats fine, like Chomsky you probably dont find the truth of 9/11 all that important in the grand scheme of things. i disagree.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

not upto speed

Hi medfreak,

Sorry for not being updated as everyone here, but where did Ron Paul say he was for a serious investigation of 9-11. I know Kucinich went public on his "limited investigation". I did not see Ron Paul's pronouncement on this.

I do believe 9-11 should be investigated thoroughly but have no idea how this could come about. Ideally this would be a congressional investigation, but no one from Congress is being honest about the issue, if they were then we wouldn't have to bribe, cajole, and coerce them to investigate, with the facts that they know, they should initiate it themselves.

I hate to burst anyone's Kucinich bubble

but Kucinich is a gun-grabbing globalist, and fights against the constitution's 2nd Ammendment. Is that really the candidate you want? I'm convinced he was coached into acting as if he's for 9/11 Truth, and to tell that to people who ask, by dropping these nice little carrots along the path... The path to what though? I have grave concerns for anyone who is against the 2nd ammendment.

I'd have no problem with Ron Paul doing or saying anything else about 9/11 other than he would support a new independent investigation, and he would make sure that constitutional laws were followed, and that he supports the rule of law and supports this valid investigation wherever, and to whomever, it leads.
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

I hate to burst anyone's ron Paul bubble

but Paul is a dog-eat-dog libertarian :) He would have scrapped things like the New Deal and the Marshall Plan the second he heard of those.

Of course, these days libertarians shold be considered friends-in-need of the left, inasmuch as they care deeply about civil liberties and apparently have a rational understanding of geopolitics. If Ron Paul stops at blowback and never moves to MIHOP, he's still doing a good job of educating people, because blowback is real, and the policies that inspire it are real, whether 9/11 was a case of blowback or not.