Who remembers RAWSTORY before being infiltrated?


Noam Chomsky slaps down 9/11 truther: People spend an hour on the Internet and think they know physics
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, November 25, 2013 10:22 EST

MIT professor Noam Chomsky doesn’t know what happened to “Building 7″ of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

But he is convinced that so-called “9/11 Truthers” don’t have the answer.

During a lecture on “Policy and the Media Prism” at the University of Florida a few weeks ago, 9/11 truth activist Bob Tuskin said the mainstream media had covered up evidence that Building 7 imploded in a controlled demolition. Tuskin asked Chomsky if he was finally ready to “jump on board with” 9/11 conspiracy theories.

“You’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers,” Chomsky replied. “They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.”

“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something.”

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments,” he continued.

Chomsky dismissed the claim that scientists and engineers hadn’t followed typical procedures because they felt intimidated by the government. He said publishing an article in an academic journal was virtually risk-free compared to other forms of political activism.

“There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved,” Chomsky added. “Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.”

He noted that the Bush administration blamed the 9/11 attacks on Saudi hijackers. If the U.S. government had staged the attacks as a pretense to invade Iraq, they could have just as easily blamed Iraqi hijackers and avoided the need to “concoct wild stories about weapons of mass destruction” as their justification.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by Bob Tuskin, below:

Eric W. Dolan has served as an editor for Raw Story since August 2010, and is based out of Sacramento, California. He grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and received a Bachelor of Science from Bradley University. Eric is also the publisher and editor of PsyPost. You can follow him on Twitter@ewdolan.

Is that an echo I hear?

Chompsky's opinion of the Kennedy assassination (from http://archive.zcommunications.org/chomchatarch.htm ) (emphasis added is mine):

I know very little about the assassination. The only thing I’ve written about it is that the claim that it was a high–level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible to a quite extraordinary degree. History isn’t physics, and even in physics nothing is really ‘proven,’ but the evidence against this claim is overwhelming, from every testable point of view, remarkably so for a historical event. Given that conclusion, which I think is very well founded (that I have written about, a lot), I have no further interest in the assassination, and while I’ve read a few of the books, out of curiosity, I haven’t given the matter any attention and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed.People shouldn’t be killed, whether they are presidents or kids in the urban slums. I know of no reason to suppose that one should have more interest in the JFK assassination than lots of killings not far from the White House.… One cannot adopt a left–wing perspective (or any other perspective) on an issue that one has no interest in and nothing to say about.… There is no “left–wing” or “right–wing” perspective. The evidence is so overwhelming that questions of interpretation hardly arise. If someone can show that they do, I’ll gladly look. But what I have looked at on this question (for example, various elaborate theories about JFK’s alleged intentions on Vietnam, or policy changes resulting from his death, or similar things about Cuba, the Cold War, etc.) simply does not begin to withstand rational inquiry. That’s true even of work by personal friends who are serious scholars on other issues, but who become so irrational on this issue that they cannot even read the words that are before their eyes, sometimes in the most remarkable ways.As for whether “power elites perceived JFK to be a threat to the status quo,” the statement is close to meaningless. If someone can produce some coherent version of the statement, and then some evidence for that version, I’ll be glad to look at it.

Chomsky Makes No Sense

Chomsky's whole umwelt makes no sense whatsoever. The U.S., according to him, acts in bad faith globally, yet no one is responsible; it all happens in a vacuum.

I can name that tune in 4 notes

Chomsky (sic): "There are no generals."

Good thoughts, Peter. Your comment caused me to think if we could synthesize and ween it down even further.

Chomsky is making himself ridiculous.

I remember Rawstory...

Before they were purchased.

It's all in my book, and elsewhere.