Chomsky Confronted on 9/11: Admits LIHOP is "Conceivable"
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091105_chomsky_confronted.htm
Chomsky Confronted on 9/11; Admits LIHOP is "conceivable"
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
5 November, 2009
A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging remarks about 9/11 truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is "conceivable." Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:
The video comes from a speaking engagement that venerated linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky was giving at the First Unitarian Church of Portland on October 2, 2009. In his question, 9/11 activist Mark Abell first details the historical precedents of the Reichstag fire and FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor to establish that false flags and LIHOP events have been used in the past to justify warmongering. Then he asks why the notion of 9/11 as an inside job is such an "inconceivable idea" for Chomsky to a round of applause from the audience.
Chomsky then launches into a diatribe against the notion of a 9/11 inside job before bizarrely declaring the Bush Administration "absolved" of the crimes of 9/11 because it would have been "senseless" for them to use their CIA-created, DIA protected, State Department handled and White House sanctioned Sunni terrorists to carry out an attack they openly called for that Chomsky himself admits they benefited from. He then states that it is "conceivable" that the administration knew about an attack ahead of time and let it happen, but adds dismissively that he doesn't know of any evidence for the idea.
It would be truly surprising if Chomsky did not know of any of the evidence that the administration knew specific details of the plot ahead of time. Aside from well-covered issues like the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 (immortalized in this moment from the 9/11 Commission hearings), there is the still-unresolved issue of the 9/11 insider trading, the sworn testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the information provided by FBI informant Randy Glass, and literally hundreds of other pieces of evidence that directly demonstrate foreknowledge of administration officials about the 9/11 attacks. But perhaps Mr. Chomsky has not yet seen this information.
Despite seeming to be singularly uninformed on the relevant names, dates, figures and facts surrounding the issue of government complicity in 9/11, Chomsky apparently sees no intellectual dishonesty in calling this evidence "outlandish" while maintaining that Osama Bin Laden is most likely the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks despite the fact that no solid evidence has ever been presented to suggest such a thing. Of course, the issue of Chomsky's intellectual dishonesty on 9/11 is by no means new. The Corbett Report released a two-part documentary last year entitled "Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent" which painstakingly details how Chomsky's 9/11 arguments are dishonest and inconsistent:
NOAM CHOMSKY MANUFACTURING DISSENT PART ONE
NOAM CHOMSKY MANUFACTURING DISSENT PART TWO
Abell must be commended for using a focused, contextualized question to get Chomsky to go further than before on the possibility that we are being lied to about 9/11. One can only hope that others will take up this example to continue the work of confronting prominent politicians, intellectuals and decision makers about the lies of 9/11. Only by doing so can we supply the definitive answer to Chomsky's infamous two word dismissal of 9/11 truth: "who cares?"
- corbettreport's blog
- Login to post comments
The usage of the phrase...
LIHOP should not be condoned, as I pointed out to Dr. Griffin recently as shown here. With regards to Chomsky, I put this together today.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
What should we use
What terminology should we use to describe the efforts of those who wish to persuade the people that the Bush Administration merely let the 9-11 attacks happen on purpose?
LIHOP seems straight to the point, and appropriate.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
They couldn't have...
"Let it happen" because protocols in place would have prevented the majority of the attacks. They had to take an active role. What that role is, I don't know.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
The protocols were dropped
The protocols were dropped to let the terrorist Muslim suicide hijackers do their deeds. That is the let it happen on purpose view.
In general, the protocols were dropped to distract and deceive in order to pull off the deception. This is a part of the made it happen on purpose view.
If you want to classify LET IT HAPPEN as MADE IT HAPPEN, then again I ask, what would be the terminology to best differentiate the two?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
How about...
We were lied to and elements within our Government and others have earned the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11? As opposed to your way which indicates you know what happened on 9/11, which you do not.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
My way?
What is my way?
I know some things that happened or didn't happen on 9-11. Hijackers flying airplanes - 99% sure that didn't happen. Hijackers lining the towers with explosives - 99% sure that didn't happen.
LIHOP is bad for the truth movement because it propagates terrorist Muslim suicide hijackers and it justifies the wars in the Middle East to many.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
So you were on those planes?
And know exactly who was flying them, etc...? I find that hard to believe. Yet, another theory. As I told Adam, you should read this.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Reality - Let's deal with it
You seem to live in a world where there is no such thing as crazy muslim terrorists. And after all the hard work the U.S. Israel and Great Britain, have gone to create them and put their asset Bin Laden in charge of them.
That's like saying Oswald didn't kill Kennedy because he never existed.
The Military Industrial Complex needs enemies. The USSR really did exist. Oswald really lived, and the Mujihaden really had training camps in Afghanistan. Ali Mohammad helped set it up and Brezinsky is rather proud of it.
If someone was convicted for
If someone was convicted for shoplifting, the next time a shopkeeper finds stock missing they should go find, re arrest and convict the same person without the need to prove guilt right? Even if lots of hard scientific evidence suggests the shop keeper took the stock himself for an insurance scam.
"That's like saying Oswald didn't kill Kennedy because he never existed."
No, its like saying there is no proof that the planes were hijacked and flown into the buildings on 911 by the alleged hijackers.!
Airphones work on planes
"No, its like saying there is no proof that the planes were hijacked and flown into the buildings on 911 by the alleged hijackers.!"
Actually there is proof. The phone calls prove it. But you'd rather go off into kookville and say that the calls are fake and it's the NWO using their fancy voice morphing technology. Guess what? You have no proof of that. These were not cell phone calls. They were air phone calls. And the "NWO" isn't going to notify the authorities that planes are hijacked and need to be intercepted 25 minutes before any plane hit any building. We could use this, as it is also proof that when the message gets to Rice and Bush they change it from a known hijacking to "a weird Accident".
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-American-Airlines.pdf
But cell phones don't work from 40,000 feet!! That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter, The calls were not cell phone calls, they were airphone calls, including Binghams, "you believe me don't you", which was in reference to the plane being hijacked.
"BINGHAM then said, "I'm on a flight from Newark to San
Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the air phone."
"......."You've got to believe me. It's true."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-19-FBI-FD302-mark-kendall-bingham2...
"Before the plane crashed, SWEENEY stated that AA flight
attendant, BETTY ONG, was in' the last row of the coach section
talking to someone on the air phone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-American-Airlines.pdf
Flight attendants Sweeny and Ong both called the authorities on AIRPHONES telling what was going on. There was ample warning and it was known to be a terrorist attack before any plane hit any building.
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong.pdf
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong-tape.pdf
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-phone-conversation-record.pdf
I explain here how this is vital evidence that you want to throw away in favor of a silly NWO f**king with victims scenio that has NO PROOF, and makes no sense....
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=104723.0
IF the towers were blown up, then the planes HAD to have been taken over by remote control. With the patsies behind the wheel.
LOL
"I see water, I see buildings! Oh my god!"
Doesn't Sweeney see buildings and water everyday on the job? LOL
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Laugh it up
Laugh at the victims as they give you the proof that Bush and Rice knew it was no "weird accident".
I guess it never occurred to you that a plane flying low and fast in a city would be scarry, and NOT what she sees everyday.
Keep making fun of victims and heroes who actually gave us valuable evidence, and all you're doing is marginalizing this movement
jim, you hit a new low
I am not laughing at the victims, and I take deep offense to you saying that. "Keep making fun of victims and heroes"?! That is disgusting, and you dare bring that attitude into this discussion? Unreal. You are resulting to smear tactics. Why? That's like loose nuke and Jon Gold bringing dying first responders, and family members into every debate.
I was laughing at the ridiculousness of that hearsay evidence, and that was just the first link (I really am late, I have to leave out the door now). The guy didn't say that she said "we are flying low and fast in a city", he said that she said "i see water and buildings, oh my god" Considering she would have been looking out the side of the plane, why would that matter? His testimony is very suspect.
Try to maintain your footing, and make your way to the high ground Jim.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
9/11 TRUTH IS NOT A FUCKING GAME...
This isn't my theory is better than your theory. THERE ARE FAMILY MEMBERS HURTING, AND 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS DYING That is the REALITY. You do not put forward questionable information as FACT. You do NOT put forward information that has been argued about FOR ALL ETERNITY ALREADY on a CONSISTENT basis so it can be argued about SOME MORE. You do NOT proclaim everything that doesn't coincide with what you think happened as "fake." You promote the best damn information possible AT ALL TIMES. This isn't fucking rocket science.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Gravity
Gravity isn't rocket science either Jon.
And you've failed to comprehend that ...repeatedly...to the point of causing offense...
You're a self described 'veteran' in the Truth Movement...
So you've heard of William Rodriguez ?
And you still say you don't understand 'controlled demolition' because you're not qualified ?
(Needless to say I don't think all the 'controlled demolition denial' comments add any credibility to this site.)
Can you point me...
To anything you have done for the cause of 9/11 Truth?
Thanks.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I speak the Truth,. And the rest is none of your business.
"Gravity". " Resistance"
Jon - look them up.
No.
But you're a problem or potential problem to the movement or at least to this site...
So you think William Rodriguez is lying ?
What exactly is the point you're trying to make in 'controlled demolition' denial ?
What's your theory ?
You've had your ass handed to you so many times on this site - I almost feel sorry for you.
It's like deja vu all over again...
Cliff Notes
They took out the comment
"Jon : Oh. In other words you're a troll"
Then go to " No" etc...
When they start editing comments the next ones seem a bit out of context.
(Oh. I hate to go on topic - but I wasn't thrilled with the camera work on this Chumpsky link.
. Like do these camera people stand on all fours ? Maybe consider a still and narration.
Not all of us view these things on the horizontal... in bed etc...")
For the record
the following comment where Binkster suggests Jon is a troll was also unpublished.
And I've been promoting credible evidence of CD since 2005. And I reject divisive tactics, such as claiming everyone needs to promote/believe it. I have no issue with people who promote credible evidence- even if it's not 'all' the evidence. I do have an issue with people promoting bogus evidence, and engaging in disruptive behavior.
Here's a summary from my blog of CD evidence (suggestions welcome)
9/11 Truth, Part 7 of 11: Destruction of World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7, “The Air is Safe to Breathe” Lies & Giuliani
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/911-truth-part-7-of-11-lies-about-the-collapses-of-world-trade-center-1-2-7-and-“the-air-is-safe-to-breathe”/
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
"smear tactics"
bruno, I hope you take a 2nd look at this when you get back:
"LOL - "I see water, I see buildings! Oh my god!" - Doesn't Sweeney see buildings and water everyday on the job? LOL"
So you're suggesting that Sweeney didn't say that and Mike Woodward was lying? You didn't provide evidence, you simply speculated that "His testimony is very suspect". And you wrote "LOL"; this is what's called "making fun". Unless you have strong evidence Sweeney didn't die on that plane- and there's a lot of evidence she did- you're mocking the death of someone who died in a horrible plane crash- someone whose death was then exploited to launch wars and subvert the Constitution.
"You are resulting to smear tactics. Why? That's like loose nuke and Jon Gold bringing dying first responders, and family members into every debate."
Bringing up the first responders and family members is a "smear tactic"? Please explain.
It's a blatantly false claim that even Jon Gold- the single-most consistent advocate for the first responders and family members- brings them "into every debate". And anyway- if more people were concerned for their plight and the injustice, than for their own pet theories, that would be a good thing.
Bruno, I really hope you reconsider what you've done here, because what you've said dishonors the victims, reflects poorly on you (and the truth movement by association), and it hands the debunkers ammunition.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Newton was a 'Quak' ?
So Loose Nuke - since you and Jon Gold seem to be "playing on the same team" - what 's your stand on controlled demolition ? Don't understand ?
(The last time I posted this question to loose nuke - it was removed from the site.)
We're still waiting Nukey
If you're still somewhat confused - I suggest Richard Gage's nifty site
AE911truth.org
You'll find some useful info there.
Yours in the struggle
Binkster
Well
Well ok - so far a link to Richard Gages's site has delivered a negative 4 on a 9/11 Truth site...
And still no comment from 'loose nuke'
So maybe I'll take a bit of time off and go bowling or something....and how about them Yankees ?
(This one's just in case you missed it the first time. Feel free to disregard because I'm not sure how to erase it.)
What's going on here?
"Unless you have strong evidence Sweeney didn't die on that plane- and there's a lot of evidence she did- you're mocking the death of someone who died in a horrible plane crash- someone whose death was then exploited to launch wars and subvert the Constitution."
What does whether or not Sweeney died on the plane have to do with Woodward's ridiculous testimony? And how am I mocking her death? I was mocking Woodward's testimony about what he claims Sweeney allegedly said on the air phone. It makes no sense at all that she would say "I see water, I see buildings! Oh my god!" and maybe because I was being rushed I didn't help others to see what I assumed was blatantly obvious - how ludicrous this testimony is. She is on the phone talking about hijackers on the plane, and in the middle of her efforts to relay information to her superior about the dire situation they are in inside the plane, she decides to look out of the side window. Seeing buildings and water while flying is common, right? Furthermore, if she sees the buildings and the water at the same time, then they must be in a distance because buildings are not sitting in water, which makes Woodward's claim that Sweeney actually said those words out of shock and awe even less believable. Hijackers had never flown planes into buildings before, so that concept 99% most likely would not even be in her thoughts.
"you're mocking the death"
Loose Nuke, your efforts to use Sweeney's death to chastise me for talking about Woodward's testimony is tantamount to you exploiting her death to derail the discussion. I was not mocking her death, and that was obvious.
"It's a blatantly false claim that even Jon Gold- the single-most consistent advocate for the first responders and family members- brings them "into every debate". And anyway- if more people were concerned for their plight and the injustice, than for their own pet theories, that would be a good thing."
Maybe he doesn't bring them into every debate, but why bring them into any debate? That is tantamount to exploiting their plight, and I will not waver from my position on this. Why did he bring them into this debate? Everything I do is for those who died on 9-11 and for those who continue to be tortured and slaughtered because of 9-11, and I think every time, in the middle of a discussion on a different subject, that anybody brings up the 9-11 First Responders, family members and those who died on 9-11 they are exploiting these people in order to derail the discussion instead of sticking to the subject at hand.
Anytime someone changes the subject, their motives become suspect. Jon Gold saying things like "What have you done for the 9-11 Truth?" is really out of line, especially when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What does he know about anybody else's efforts, and what right does anybody have to question what anybody else has done? That is yet another tactic to derail the discussion and that tactic HURTS the 9-11 Truth movement.
"Bruno, I really hope you reconsider what you've done here, because what you've said dishonors the victims, reflects poorly on you (and the truth movement by association), and it hands the debunkers ammunition."
I have not dishonored the victims. On 911blogger, I stand up for the victims when I find someone else exploiting them. What really needs to be explained is how we went from talking about evidence or no evidence of hijackers to using the plight of the victims and making false claims that I am dishonoring them. I am defending them. Sweeney is not here to speak for herself, and the hell if I am going to sit back idly while others use her to propagate the official story.
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the victims, and the family members, but I refuse to use them or hide behind them. Everybody else should do the same. We could go on about this, or we could get back to the subject at hand.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_________________________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, the 9-11 victim family members, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
How many times...
Do you need to be told that the 9/11 Family Members know more about 9/11 than anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and their opinions are invaluable? How many times do you need to be told that I work alongside the 9/11 Family Members, and do not use them or hide behind them? How many times do you need to be told about the reality of the situation which is that there is a HUGE amount of family members watching the names of their loved ones used to commit horrible atrocities in this country and around the world, all the while not knowing how and why their loved ones were murdered? Mentioning the plight of the 9/11 Families is not using them or hiding behind them. Making the world know of their plight as often as possible is the right thing to do.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
You said...
"Maybe he doesn't bring them into every debate, but why bring them into any debate?"
I responded.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
For the record...
For those browsing this site, I do not think William Rodriguez is a liar. He is a friend of mine. He recently asked me to watch his upcoming movie, and it was great. When Willie was touring the world, he would send me updates to post to this site, and I did so for years. Just yesterday I wished him well for Rosie's show. So, there is a liar here, but it's not Willie, and it's not me.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
William R
What does he think about you not being able to understand controlled demolition of the Towers ?
He hasn't been able to convince you there were explosions ? I'm having a bit of disconnect here.
Please explain your theories Jon.
William Rodriquez...
Does not talk about "Controlled Demolition." He tells his story, which mentions explosions in the basement. He doesn't go any further than that. This has been discussed on this site before. So there's no disconnect, except from you, and the truth.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
1 + 1
As far as I know controlled demolitions involve explosives of some kind...
What do you think ?
And so do bombs...
Which wouldn't be a "Controlled Demolition." I'm done talking to you now.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
post
moved
The caller says, "Mom? This
The caller says, "Mom? This is Mark Bingham."
Let's ask his MOM
Who cares if you think that's odd? What does his own mom say? Her name is Alice Hoglan...
"I took the phone and I heard my son's voice and he said to me, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." I knew from that he was trying to maintain composure, but I could tell he was a little rattled because he was giving me his first and last names."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1726647.stm
And..
Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".
You can see her say it on a video that is located on a debunkers site because all this kook stuff turns you into a debunkers puching bag. ....
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mom,_this_is_Mark_Bingham
Stop laughing at the victims and falling for this preposterous disinfo that is making some of you a debunkers punching bag. Wise up- these calls can be used to expose the Bush Administration.
So you know for a fact the call could not be faked?
I would like to know what evidence you have that voice morphing technology isn't real and functional?
Have you ever seen the movie (Simone)? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/
"A producer's film is endangered when his star walks off, so he decides to digitally create an actress to substitute for the star, becoming an overnight sensation that everyone thinks is a real person."
Watch the film Jimd and then tell me what you think. By the way the actress who plays Simone may surprise you since she was entirely digitally created voice and all for the movie. She looks 100% real and sounds 100% real so don't be so sure the techies involved with the 9/11 plot could not have pulled a wag the dog type scenario with the phone calls ok because to borrow a phrase from Jon "you don't know".
I stand by David Ray Griffin that voice morphing is not only possible but that they actually did it. BTW I have never in my life said "mom, this is Adam Ruff" you know why, because she knows my voice instantly just like all moms know their own childs voices. The statement supposedly made by Bingham is highly suspicious.
Jim, just do a search above
Jim, just do a search above type phone calls, and read all the articles before you suggest that the phone calls are proof of hijacking.
Remote control?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20979
But why did the hijackers need to be behind the wheel? or even on board?
Thanx for the Advice but I've done the research
"Jim, just do a search above type phone calls, and read all the articles before you suggest that the phone calls are proof of hijacking."
Maybe you should take your own advice and then show us the proof that these AIRPHONE calls are really a mysterious unknown member of the NWO who is f**king with the victims families.
Meanwhile I'm going to point out that they are evidence that the Bush Administration knew what was going on and made sure it happened. I'm not going along with the preposterous missiles, flyovers, fake calls and other nonsense that doesn't accomplish anything but marginalize the movement and be a debunkers punching bag.
Start recognizing DisInfo and why it's there.
Jim,
Are you aware that one of the main phone calls used by the corporate media in the aftermath to sell the official story was Barbara Olson's supposed call to Ted? Her phone call is the only 9/11 call to mention "boxcutters." Ted Olson changed his story twice, first saying airphone, then cell phone, then back to airphone. The FBI even admitted during the Moussaoui trial that there were only 2 connection attempts from Barbara, and even these lasted "zero seconds." Couple that with absurdities like "Mom this is Mark Bingham" and it is no wonder that many in the 9/11 truth community find very doubtful the "phone calls" as a whole.
Jim, I've noticed you hardly ever post here except to (1) prop up the "Al Qaeda hijacked airplanes" scenario and (2) neutralize all Mihop level research into what really happened at the Pentagon. You express identical outrage over (a) the phone calls being fake and (b) Lloyde England being a planted Pentagon eyewitness. Since it's obvious that Lloyde's testimony is un-credible, and since it's obvious that Ted Olson's testimony is un-credible, one can only wonder why you're trying to keep these myths alive.
a mysterious unknown member of the NWO who is f**king with the victims families.
I see. So the mysterious members of the NWO are evil enough to demolish the WTC, but mysterious members of the NWO aren't quite so evil as to f**k with the victims' families. Stop appealing to emotion. You sound exactly like a JREFer.
Stop playing the role of disinfo police. You're being very transparent.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
transparent
You don't know what you're talking about. Lloyde didn't confess to anything, he's just a cab driver that was nearly killed. Him and Olson are not the ones who are un-credible. It's you, and your missile/ flyover fantasies, and accusations against people who are innocent and are actually victims of this attack and victims again from so called "truthers' like you.
The FBI didn't admit Olson lied. You again have no clue what you're talking about. The FBI in a court case in 2006 presented phone calls made at the mousoui trial. And you claim that is proof they are calling him a liar. It's not. Anyone can go here.....
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
And download the presentation from the case. Or see a snapshot here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/aa77_calls.png
They claim from flight 77 Renee May made 2 calls 1 for a total of 0 seconds. They say Barbara Olson made 1 call lasting 0 seconds.
And then you like to run off and say the FBI admitted Olson is a liar. No, that would be you. Because some of us are going to point out that they also present 5 other calls as unknown but give their times and duration.
So? Who are these other 5 calls attributed to?
Why are you pretending this isn't here?
Ted Olson wasn't on trial here so they don't need to go into presenting all the evidence to prove who these calls were from and to who, but it's possible to figure it out with interviews of people. Like for instance the people who actually talked with Barbara Olson and who confirm Ted Olsons storey, so you have no choice now but to also call them liars as well.
Their names are Teresa Gonzalez and Mercy Lorenzo. These are the AT&T operators that put the calls through and spoke with her as well. Also his secretary Lori Lynn Keyton, she is "in on it" too, right? Since it was her, not Ted that actually answered the calls initially.
"Keyton advised that there is no caller identification feature on the phone she was using."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf
Remember those 5 unknown calls on flight 77 mentioned earlier? While you spout off that the FBI admitted Olson lied at the 2006 trial with that as your evidence, the fact is the FBI is part of the Dept of Justice and knew for years before that, some of the unknown calls were Barbara Olson calls. .....
"Event: Department of Justice briefing on cell and phone calls from AA Flight 77"
"Date: May 20, 2004"
"This work was conducted in support of the U.S. Justice Department's criminal case against Zacarias Moussaoui."
"While there was no direct evidence with respect to the "unknown calls," interviews with recipients (especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone in Ted Olson's office on 9/1 1), plus interviews of family members of other Flight 77 passengers, has lead to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52...
"Stop playing the role of disinfo police. You're being very transparent."
Am I "in on it" too? Or perhaps I'm someone who prefers this so called "truth" movement actually have it's facts in order?
When they get you to ask the wrong Questions they don't need to worry about the answers. Wise up.
"the fact is the FBI is part
"the fact is the FBI is part of the Dept of Justice and knew for years before that, some of the unknown calls were Barbara Olson calls.'
Jim, can you explain this statement? How did they know that some of the unknown calls were Barbara Olson calls? Was she the only one using the air phone? How do you know? Thanks
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, the 9-11 victim family members, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
BTW
This MIHOP LIHOP crap means as much to me as Democrat and Republican.
LIHOP
Jim, one of the primary reasons the powers that be want the public to believe in 9-11 as a 'new pearl harbor', that the government let the terrorist Muslim suicide hijackers do their dirty deeds, is to keep the public believing in terrorist Muslim suicide attacks. The danger to the establishment is that once the public realizes that 9-11 was totally a black op from beginning to end, is that the public will begin questioning all claims of suicide attacks.
To create a suicide attack, all Israel or the U.S. has to do is report an explosion as a suicide attack. That's it. They can blow up a hotel and say a suicide bomber did it. Well, thank goodness that's now being questioned openly in the Mainstream Media. You better believe the 9-11 truth movement has everything to do with that questioning.
By the way, most likely Oswald did not even touch a gun that day. He didn't have to. He was framed. Just like Atta did not have to actually board a plane that day.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Hey wow...
Look at this new article by Nafeez Ahmed. Boy, Nafeez is great isn't he? Or maybe... maybe we should ignore this information because it doesn't talk about Controlled Demolition or what flew over the Pentagon. Is that a good idea?
You know what? I'm going to let Donna Marsh O'Connor answer. Pay special attention to the part where she says, "Is one Arab the same as all Arabs? HOW DARE THAT WORK IN AMERICA?!?
You blame the individuals involved. You do NOT blame the entire religion, nationality, or ideology. And you do NOT ignore information that is credible, and is EVERY BIT as "MIHOP" as all of your favorite arguments. Simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Donna Marsh O'Connor
Thanks for posting the Donna Marsh O'Connor video. It's my favorite 9/11 truth video. She speaks from the heart. After watching this video if you still think the official story is true you need a shrink big time.
My pleasure.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
LIHOP is MIHOP is treason and mass murder
Bruno, who are you aware of that actually suggests "allowing" the 9/11 attacks to happen does not equate to "making" them happen, and that it is not treason and mass murder?
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
say what?
I don't understand the first part of your question, but I didn't say anything about 'not treason and mass murder' loose nuke. A LIHOP scenario propagates the notion that there were actually terrorist Muslim sucide hijackers flying planes on 9-11. The powers 'let it happen' by not stopping them.
It's critical to make people aware that the events on 9-11 were made to happen as a grand deception. Is there no line to be drawn loose nuke?
I realize there are many levels and layers to the grand deception, but I think this is where one line can be drawn. This is open to discussion of course.
LIHOP = NO controlled demolition; Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon
MIHOP = controlled demolition; Flight 77 did NOT come near the Pentagon
We don't need terminology for mass murder and treason because those words do the job, but I am curious what terminology we can use to describe the 'truth' camp that believes in terrorist Muslim suicide hijacked planes hitting their targets on 9-11?
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Good points Bruno...
...In addition:
LIHOP = Todd Beamer declares "Let's roll!" upon which the passengers heroically revolt against the evil Muslim suicide hijackers
MIHOP = Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville
I'm beginning to explore the Flight 93 anomalies more closely now.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
How about...
LIHOP = a phrase created by the insane Nico Haupt used by people to denounce other people's lines of inquiry because it doesn't coincide with whatever theory they have concocted? That would be more accurate. In my experience, if you talk about the 9/11 Commission, the families, the responders, the lies, contradictions from people, contradictions from accounts we were told about that day, then that would also be considered LIHOP by those who use the phrase.
By the way, it's only individuals who oppose whatever LIHOP means that address the hijackers as "evil Muslims." I never reference their religion.
Have you read this?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
So then
You do believe there were terrorist Muslim suicide hijackers flying planes on 9-11, Jon?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
You didn't read my article.
I don't know what happened on those planes, and neither do you, but there is information to suggest that there were "hijackers" on those planes. Whether as patsies or full fledged hijackers, neither you or I know.
You might want to give this a read as well.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
There is no evidence
There is no evidence of hijackers Jon.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Are you spreading misinformation...
Or disinformation? What do you make of this?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
That source
That source claims that there is video of Atta passing thru security on 9-11. Can you point me to that video?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I don't read anything...
About a video in that entry. What are you talking about? What do you make of that entry in particular? Are you saying they didn't purchase those tickets?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
The same paper
The same paper that is presented as 'evidence' that Atta purchased flight tickets, also says that Atta was video taped going through security at Portland. Where is that video, Jon?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
And still frames from
And still frames from Portland airport don't count.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
What paper are you referring to?
This is the document from that entry that references Atta purchasing tickets.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Entry from your page of evidence
August 28: Mohamed Atta uses his debit card to buy tickets for American Airlines flight 11 for himself and Abdulaziz Alomari from the AA.com website. [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 pdf file] <-- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
So you're saying this...
Isn't good enough for you? No, I do not have the video. Why don't you FOIA for them?
What about Michael Tuohey who spoke to them?
And what about the fact that they purchased tickets for those flights? You have yet to address that.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Your witness
Your alleged witness says they are wearing jackets and ties, yet the alleged security photo shows them not wearing jackets or ties (plus the airport is empty- it's easier to photoshop people into an empty background - that's why we must all insist on moving clear video :).
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
My "witness"...
Says he recognized them... is it possible that they took off their jacket and tie? Again, what about the fact that they purchased those tickets? Do I have to ask again? Is everything "fake" according to you?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Evidence
Where is your evidence that they purchased those tickets? What do you mean he recognized them? Your witness's credibility is getting thinner by the moment.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
That document I linked to?
Um, it says in that entry that he recognized them from the video? Or can't you read?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Really?
Because I think that guy in the video frame is actually a friend of mine that I work with. Looks just like him, well, as far as a low resolution video frame is concerned. Your witness says he recognized him from that video frame? Like I said your witness is losing credibility by the moment.
How come Atta is not on the passenger list for that flight?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Learn to read Bruno...
Although recognizing the two men, he notices that in the video (not the video frame) they are no longer wearing the jackets and ties they’d had on when checking in just minutes before.
Do you have the manifest from that flight (and not the victim's list from CNN)? I'd like to see it.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Victim's list?
That's funny, because CNN called it the passenger list, not the victim's list. You sound like a debunker, Jon. You are stretching to make any connection possible to 'prove' your scenario (the official story) and you are hand waving away any evidence that counters your scenario.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
What about this entry...
That talks about Atta's name being on the manifest? Fake?
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a930frenimanifests#a930fr...
I'm not stretching, I'm simply pointing out there is information that exists to suggest there were possible hijackers on those planes. You said, "there is no evidence of hijackers Jon." I can't help it if you don't remember the stupid things you say.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
A leading European truth activist...
... Elias Davidsson some time ago pointed out in his memo to the UN that there is next to no evidence that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.
He said no (credible)
He said no (credible) evidence of HIJACKERS Jon.
You have to prove the alledged hijackers were on the plane AND carried out a hijacking
what exactly is a "possible hijacker"?
You really should read and try and respond to what is said rather than what you want to say.
Arguing with you is like trying to nail jelly to a wall, you never stay on point.
Weak
Even if we accept all the hearsay you present as evidence, Jon, which means we accept they were on the plane, we still need evidence that the men actually hijacked the planes. It's like saying Oswald shot the gun that couldn't possibly hit Kennedy just because there is evidence that Oswald was in the building at the time. Weak.
By the way, I can show you the same manifests without their names on it. I have to get ready to go do an outreach event, but I will create it, oops I mean find it tomorrow if you insist.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Video?
"he notices that in the video (not the video frame)"
What video? I'd like to see that video. As far as I know, it does not exist, just like the 'video' that showed the three terrorists entering the train station for 7-7-05. It does not exist. It's only a video frame.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
Reply to "say what?"- bruno
I'm interested in evidence, not labels and pigeon holes- especially not divisive labels invented by Nico Haupt, who has verbally and physically attacked truth activists, and actively promoted discredited information and 'theories'
It's not my job to explain how and why 9/11 happened- it's my job to raise questions about the enormous body of evidence in the public record that disproves the notion that Bin Laden/Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11 all by themselves, and points to powerful parties in the US, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being involved in various aspects of the 9/11 plot. Different evidence points to different conclusions about what really happened, and what roles different entities played, that contributed to the success of the attacks. A full investigation is needed to expose all the relevant facts and parties, and trials- or a truth and reconciliation commission- is needed to conclusively and fairly assign the responsibility for all parties.
There's been a cover up of what happened- this is grounds for a full investigation, and covering up is itself a crime.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
LIHOP coverup
Controlled Demolition deniers are part of the cover up, would you not agree?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I reject your premise
"Controlled Demolition deniers"
With the use of this phrase, and his previous claim that there's no place in the 9/11 truth movement for those who don't believe in CD, Bruno is effectively choosing to isolate and marginalize truth activists from the far larger number of people- 50% of Americans- who support a new investigation, but don't insist that WTC controlled demolition is an undeniable fact. Choosing to use such divisive language is also likely offensive to many who are lurking here, seeking to learn and figure out what's going on.
Is that your goal, Bruno? Offend and divide? If not, please reconsider what you've said here.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
"Don't insist that WTC
"Don't insist that WTC controlled demolition is an undeniable fact. Choosing to use such divisive language is also likely offensive to many who are lurking here"
So David Ray Griffin is now offensive to 911 blogger and divisive?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21671
He and Ae911Truth have more credibility than you or Jon . They have done more for 911 awareness than you or Jon.
Please reconsider what you've said here ?
Without trying to canvass opinion , without debating the issue openly , and having lost the Lihop/Mihop debate you, a moderator here, and Jon,the most voluminous contributor, have unilaterally decided to re-brand Lihop into "We need to change the way we are perceived to be successful"and "The movement has been damaged by an over emphasis on CD" and attempt to make this site reflective of your minority view.
In doing so you have now repeatedly made statements that CD is inconclusive, when CD is an undeniable fact for many , and the most solid evidence that exists in 911truth.
You have decided instead, to select and promote weaker evidence which does nothing to challenge the OT and in fact, some of it reinforces the unproven premise that "Muslims Did 911". You've allowed hundreds of links to this unapproved "Selection" across every single article, distorting its importance and destroying the previously multi lateral nature of content here.
Maybe it is time we should have this debate. Maybe people who want change need to place distance between themselves and people here who promote evidence which damages the potential of 911 truth to effect change.
It is you who are divisive. We did not try to change the movement, you did, and you have done it in a very underhand and dishonest way on this site.
The truth is...
People wouldn't know who David Ray Griffin is if not for people like me. We didn't exactly see his books on the sides of buses, in magazines, on billboards, on the radio or on the TV. People learned about him from people like me.
Incidentally, not everything David Ray Griffin does or says is gospel.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Can't Wait
Looking forward to your books on the subject Jon !!
Enough
All arguments aside, on whatever topic, I don't think I've ever witnessed, whether in 9/11 truth or any other cause, the kind of ceaseless vanity and self-regard such as that displayed by Jon Gold on this list. On and on and on we get:
'I did this..I did this' Me' 'Me' 'Me' 'Me' 'Me'
I find this most off-putting.
It's getting nauseating.
Enough already.
I could not agree more.
In addition I have something to say about CD which may get me banned from this site in which case I am OK with that.
If you still at this point do not consider CD a fact then I have no interest in you or what you have to say. As far as I am concerned you are a JREF troll and are my mortal enemy in the struggle for truth. CD is without a doubt the strongest evidence we have. I have no respect whatsoever for those who disregard the massive evidence for CD and I consider those that do disregard it to be COINTELPRO traitors. I am not a diplomat I am a truther so ban me as you wish but I am NOT playing along with CD denial. I consider CD denial to be the same as DEW advocates, in other words, liars and disinformationists. I thank Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, Neills Harret, and all the real truthers who have struggled so hard to bring us the truth about CD and consider me to be at war from this point on with those who deny CD. I am calling you out as shills.
Quote taken out of context, false statements
This is my full statement from the comment AllendeAdmirer replied to: "the far larger number of people- 50% of Americans- who support a new investigation, but don't insist that WTC controlled demolition is an undeniable fact." By cutting it to "Don't insist" the context is changed, so that it appears I was advising Bruno, rather than making an observation about the effect of his tactic.
AA has accused me of the following:
AA- "Without trying to canvass opinion , without debating the issue openly , and having lost the Lihop/Mihop debate you, a moderator here, and Jon,the most voluminous contributor, have unilaterally decided to re-brand Lihop"
False; i denied the validity of the LIHOP/MIHOP distinction, which is a divisive term invented by Nico Haupt, a known provocateur and promoter of bogus claims. As I explained, I choose to promote credible evidence of cover up and criminal negligence/complicity re: 9/11. I advocate for a full investigation; like 50% of Americans. It's not our job to explain what happened or solve the crime, it's our job to demand answers and hold the govt and media accountable; the US govt is suppressing evidence, and has failed to provide a credible explanation for 9/11, and failed to address a large body of evidence in the public domain which contradicts what has been claimed. The MSM have failed to honestly address these issues.
AA- ""We need to change the way we are perceived to be successful"and "The movement has been damaged by an over emphasis on CD" and attempt to make this site reflective of your minority view." and "In doing so you have now repeatedly made statements that CD is inconclusive, when CD is an undeniable fact for many , and the most solid evidence that exists in 911truth."
Those quotes may be Jon's, but aren't mine. It's my view there's little credible evidence for NIST's claims, and a lot of good evidence of CD- I've been promoting the good evidence since 2005- and Jon has publicized the work of Jones and Ryan, and includes some evidence in his Facts compiliation. Research should continue, and the evidence needs to be addressed. I do think activists for truth and justice should be aware of, and consider how claims have been used against the movement. I disagree CD needs to be the central issue, and it's obvious that it's been given a lot more attention than other evidence. When the MSM put out a hit piece on 9/11 Truth, CD and the '757 didn't hit the Pentagon' claims are the 2 most commonly featured- and 'holograms' gets a good bit of attention as well. MSM almost never mention the Commission's conflicts of interest, families' unanswered questions, air defense failures, coincident war games, ignored warnings, obstructed investigations, insider trading, GID/ISI/Mossad links, etc. The Establishment has experts that sound authoritative when they explain away the WTC as 'collapse'. They have no reasonable explanations for the evidence I pointed out, which are almost always entirely ignored.
AA- "You have decided instead, to select and promote weaker evidence which does nothing to challenge the OT"
False; no evidence provided for the above claim. While I do use comments to correct misinformation and bogus claims, I also comment and post original/other's material in my blog that contradicts the OCT. Also see my 'Overview' series, which has a page devoted to CD evidence: http://911reports.wordpress.com/911-truth-overview-series/
AA- "and in fact, some of it reinforces the unproven premise that "Muslims Did 911"."
I've never claimed 'Muslims Did 911"; however, evidence exists that the alleged hijackers/probable patsies/double agents/stolen identities were people mostly from Saudi Arabia, and a few from other Arabic nations. Some of them were conspicuously leaving evidence that ties them to Islam- yet a number were also engaging in activities no devout Muslim would; alcohol/drugs, lap dances/strippers/porno, etc.
AA- "You've allowed hundreds of links to this unapproved "Selection" across every single article, distorting its importance and destroying the previously multi lateral nature of content here."
I don't understand what you're accusing me of here; by "unapproved 'Selection' across every single article", are you referring to your accusation that I promote 'LIHOP' (which I've already refuted), or what are you saying?
AA- "Maybe it is time we should have this debate."
The 'debate' over the meaning/value of different evidence has been ongoing since 9/11- and Haupt's LIHOP/MIHOP false distinction was invented not long after. Jon's been involved since around 2003? I've been involved since Aug 2005. If you've only engaged in research/activism recently, I can understand why you might think the 9/11 Truth Movement is primarily about CD evidence; you'd do well to examine its history. If you've been around for years, just not at this site- why are you making these claims?
AA- "Maybe people who want change need to place distance between themselves and people here who promote evidence which damages the potential of 911 truth to effect change. It is you who are divisive. We did not try to change the movement, you did, and you have done it in a very underhand and dishonest way on this site."
How ironic; AA suggests division, and in the next sentence claims Jon and I are the ones being divisive. To sum up; I'm interested in credible evidence- I reject divisive and pointless labels, such as LIHOP/MIHOP
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
I am afraid I misread your
I am afraid I misread your comment, and took it to mean what you suggest I did. Tho the error is entirely mine, I hope that you can see a single substituttion of a comma for a full stop would give that impression, and that my mistake was genuine, not deliberate.
Therefore all the accusations against you In my comment are withdrawn with apologies.
They do stand against Jon though.
The comment I made (about links to a selection) are the now hundreds of links on this site to Jons FACTS at the end of every comment he makes.
To anyone lurking as you say, the blanket publicizing of "THE FACTS" is detrimental to the neutrality of research here, and as a moderator, I would ask if you think such tactics are fair. As I have argued , there are aspects of the selection of material in "THE FACTS" which I believe are IN PARTS offensive to those who believe in CD evidence, for the following reasons.
1.Within 'fog of war' and "you cant deny Muslim terrorists exist (so even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)" mentality, people are less likely to want to re apply scrutiny to 911, than if they believed it was an inside job. Therefore any gain you may have in including people who are anti-cd is offset by the prorogation of ANY inference (intended or misconceived) that "Muslims DID 911" (unproven,) as it will actually lessen the desire for answers and cause division in 911 truth.
2. If you promote a large amount of weak evidence and arguments, you also dilute stronger evidence.
None of this is a problem , UNLESS you start to select and prioritize evidence,place it into a "50 most important list" then swamp this site with that selection and start making dumb comments REPEATEDLY that CD has damaged the movement , is inconclusive, and is too difficult to understand
Thanks for giving us David
Thanks for giving us David Ray Griffin Jon.
Why...
Don't you answer my very simple question?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
No I am not a frequenter of
No I am not a frequenter of wtcdemolition, but having read some of the stuff there I might be now .
It explains why you have never addressed or answered any of my constructive criticism in your attempt to re-focus the movement and this site.
I do not agree with ever bringing religion or ethnic origin into an argument, so don't pretend I have any prejudice against you other than your comments and tactics here the last weeks.
Your ego is clouding your judgment Jon. Others have proven CD and shown the extent of the problem we face. Things have moved beyond "I just want someone to re investigate so I can to find out if anything bad was done .We Know it was. Rather than face that, acknowledge how far DRG and AE911truth have taken us, and think about the best way forward to effect change, you decided to try to change everyone else to your minority view so you could be the leader .
I said every time, Yes Diversity, YES keep investigating . No to CD only. Yes do what you think , but you had to keep blowing your own tune regardless of what I was saying, and keep making comments pissing on CD , and promoting YOUR selection of relevant "FACTS" to fit your agenda. How arrogant !
I was not against you but what you said, repeatedly , here, the last weeks. Don't you understand that ?
See ya.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Allende Admirer
Re: your statement: "The comment I made (about links to a selection) are the now hundreds of links on this site to Jons FACTS at the end of every comment he makes. To anyone lurking as you say, the blanket publicizing of "THE FACTS" is detrimental to the neutrality of research here, and as a moderator, I would ask if you think such tactics are fair."
What anyone, including Jon and yourself, puts as their 'comment signature' and in their own blog at 911blogger reflects only their own views. It seems like you're suggesting that it reflects on 911blogger; it does not. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to express themselves here in whatever way they want, as long as they don't violate the rules. http://www.911blogger.com/rules As you've no doubt noticed, credible CD evidence is heavily promoted and discussed on 911blogger. Jon has interjected his own opinion on the value of doing so, as is his right. You and everyone else are free to consider/reject/ignore/adopt whatever elements of it you want- and certainly, that's what everyone's doing, with everyone else's opinion.
1. I don't accept your professed view that promoting credible evidence of malfeasance/contradictions is unhelpful to the cause of establishing truth and justice. And I've never seen this argued; "even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)" mentality"- I'm not sure that view is seriously held by anyone- if you have evidence that it is, even a quote or two from a forum post, it would be interesting to see, though I'd still be skeptical if more than a tiny minority of real, but ignorant, people will defend that viewpoint- trolls/fakes might promote it.
2. I don't accept your premise that the evidence presented in the Facts piece presents 'weak' evidence. Some of it is stronger than others. Some of the evidence makes more sense when considered in context with other evidence. As a whole, it's an overwhelming case the OCT false, and an overwhelming case for a full investigation- even if you drop out what Jon included about CD.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Loose nuke, "I've never seen
Loose nuke,
"I've never seen this argued; "even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)" mentality"- I'm not sure that view is seriously held by anyone- if you have evidence that it is, even a quote or two from a forum post, it would be interesting to see"
A perfect example is here by The Iconoclast starting "Precisely"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21723
there is another one on this very article first page of comments starting "Reality Lets Deal With It"
OF COURSE they could be trolls!
But then that is further evidence that this mentality is of importance in putting people off the movement, which was my point.
1."I don't accept your professed view that promoting credible evidence of malfeasance/contradictions is unhelpful to the cause of establishing truth and justice."
I never said that , I said that if you PROMOTE (not research) INCONCLUSIVE anomalies suggesting Muslim involvement it is unhelpful to the MOTIVATION of your audience .The two links I just gave are classic examples of this thinking in action.
Hopefully truth and Justice will have its day but we are a long way away from achieving that.
2." I don't accept your premise that the evidence presented in the Facts piece presents 'weak' evidence. Some of it is stronger than others.."
As I said myself many times , (along with some offensive points that suggest Muslim culpability with inconclusive evidence), there are good things on the list, however there are weak arguments too -Bush was re-elected? There are also many points which are not facts. It may be a fact that someone has given some testimony, but that does not establish that that testimony is factual. Nor does the fact that something was published in the press.
I did not have a problem with Jon making his list I have a problem with his blanket publicity for it, with an astounding number of links to it throughout every page. He is obviously very interested in "Lurkers" and this is a conscious plan on his part to present his priorities over others. I don't know what was wrong with letting the diversity and quality of research of many wonderful people here speak for itself.
If you do allow such a HIGH PROFILE Selection of facts on this site, then maybe it should be a collaborative effort, because there are many other pieces of evidence left out which go in directions Jon wants to steer away from. Therefore I respect but dissent to your decision that Jon is allowed to spread many hundreds of links to his minority view of what are the most important "FACTS"
Do you not criticize people for billposting, or have I seen that somewhere else?
If you allow this for Jon then am I allowed to place a link to an attack on Jon's Selection every comment I make , even if it is a comment of "Thanks?
I ask that you think where this policy will head.
" an overwhelming case for a full investigation" maybe, but if we are never going to be allowed an investigation?, and we have to consider this likely hood now. Maybe instead he should be making an overwhelming case for change instead, and that has always been the essence of my problem here.
"even if you drop out what Jon included about CD."
I hope this is not a suggestion! (I am sure it wasn't), you have been fair with me and it is a refreshing change to be able to discuss things in a logical point on point basis. It is a great shame that this could not have been done earlier to avoid tempers being flared.
What ICONOCLAST said (first
What ICONOCLAST said (first part):
"For people to assert that there was definitely no involvement by islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden and Al Qeada in 9/11 is wrong. It is clear that 9/11 involved aspects of the CIA, Mossad, ISI, FBI, Saudi Intelligence, and possibly Iran and Turkey's intelligence services. We can all agree on this. And whether or not Al Qeada is truly funded and operated by banking elites and other internationalists (it most probably is) is irrelevant to this particular issue. The fact remains that there are "radicals" who actively engage in terrorism and would willingly go along with a plot like 9/11. So we need to keep open the possibility that background information on 9/11 such as, "The Looming Tower," is not necessarily inaccurate but incomplete. Much like our history of WWII."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21723#comment-220450
To assert there was no involvement by Bin Laden/sympathizers is not appropriate- the public does not have all the facts- some things are ambiguous/unanswered- and they need to be- to expect the public to swallow what we've been told by the BS Administration and the MSM, is also not appropriate. It's a fact that specific people have been alleged to have been hijackers- if they were patsies, some of them may have really believed they were taking part in a suicide plot as part of their faith. Terrorism is not unique to any culture, and it's not only employed by intelligence agencies/ruling elites- terrorism has a long history. Bin Laden may not have understood he was being co-opted- perhaps the puppet masters assumed he was going to openly take credit for the attacks- do you think they expected him to deny it? If so, why were the denials suppressed by MSM? And what about all the warning signs? http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin... Some of the alleged hijackers were being monitored by, and/or had links to the CIA, NSA, Mossad, ISI and GID http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin.... So who were the alleged hijackers? Certain things may be clear to some people- CD, cover up- but they're not clear to everyone. 50% of Americans support a new investigation, 81% believe there's been a cover up on some level. CD evidence is compelling to some, others don't feel qualified to make a judgment.
in my view 'the 9/11 Truth Movement' is not proclaiming 'the truth', it's demanding it. The public does not have all the facts- we have many reasonable questions, and there are many facts which contradict what we were told, some of which point to cover up, others point to inside job. I'm interested in evidence- all of it needs to be addressed, in the proper forum, which we are unlikely to get without almost a wholesale replacement of the corporate Democrats and Republicans, and until people stop relying on the MSM. The movement is still in the raising awareness stage, but eventually there needs to be a full investigation. Simply pointing that out is destructive to the OCT, which claims the issue's settled, there's nothing more to be told.
You can put many things in your comment signature- as long as it doesn't violate the rules. Jon's Facts piece is only in his comment signature, and, again, it doesn't represent 911blogger, it represents his views. I'm really not understanding why you're having an issue with it. You registered an account 30 weeks ago, and first posted almost 5 weeks ago. I'm curious; how long have you been visiting 911blogger, and when/how did you first become aware that 9/11 isn't what we've been told? From your own comments it's clear you know that CD evidence is promoted/discussed here far more than any other single line of evidence, though other evidence is promoted/discussed.
In the early days of the 9/11 Truth Movement there was research into CD, but it wasn't the main focus- questions about it were a small part of the several hundred questions submitted by the FSC. The disproportionate focus on CD is a change that began around 2005, when LC and In Plane Site came out, and it became even more pronounced with the appearance of Jones, Gage and others. And recently, some here have made claims that it is/has to be akin to a central tenet, and that those who don't promote/agree with it are shills/traitors- I disagree, and I oppose divisiveness. There is an enormous body of evidence and a wide range of viewpoints- basically the only thing we all agree on is the truth has not been told. There are also efforts to disrupt and discredit the movement, through promotion of bogus claims and use of divisive tactics. Activists should beware.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
You said "I've never seen
You said
"I've never seen this argued; "even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)" mentality"- I'm not sure that view is seriously held by anyone- if you have evidence that it is, even a quote or two from a forum post, it would be interesting to see"
I gave you an example & In your first paragraph you reply quoting The Iconoclast
"The fact remains that there are "radicals" who actively engage in terrorism and would willingly go along with a plot like 9/11"
I took this to suggest that if Muslims did not do 911 they wanted to. If you apply this to a fog of war argument, then we went after the right people for the right reasons. If they did not do it this time they will next time .
Please bear in mind my whole argument was about MOTIVATION in others . I was saying that this sort of reasoning exists (maybe only in right wingers ). Therefore only ***if*** you start to SELECT and PRIORITIZE evidence to present to hypothetical punter, then choose stuff that avoids the premise (if unproven and i suggest it is) that Muslims were in part responsible, because this fits into bigotry perpetuated in the whole 911 scam and aftermath that Muslims are evil.
I have been reading this site for many years on and off, I signed up a while ago intending to comment /Blog, but other things got in the way.
I paid money to NYC CAN and was very hopeful of it, then it failed . People have been doing great things here, and there was no need for me to interject.
When NYC CAN Failed I had to speak out because suggestions were made change to and head in directions I think are dangerous.
I was involved in debunking the BBC programs on the BBC site comments for conspiracy files. my tag was Milgram Sheep , I have studied propaganda and media control for decades, and knew or suspected fairly early on that 911 was another in a long line of shenanigans I knew a lot about already (A lot from Chomsky as it goes, and in particular John Pilgers journalism.)
I realize that a big part of the problem is propaganda through mass media, and that the Net was a new form of mass communication not under MSM control and potentially quite threatening .911 truth more than any other is its test case. I believe to try and neutralize it a lot of effort is going into misdirecting misleading and diverting the movement. If we ever manage to overcome this and be a real threat, the likelyhood is that net neutrality will be
destroyed marginalizing or censoring sites like this instantly. then MSM will be back with 100% control of state sponsored info.
There are many indicators , moves , debates going on right now re net neutrality, and I believe the writing is on the wall. That is why I have been involved here recently, because there is likely to be only a short window of opportunity for 911 truth before it is potentially eliminated overnight (Off the net)
The most important thing to me is not to miss the window, and ask how to effect change whilst there is still time. I think with NYC CAN the reinvestigation path is unlikely now, and we have to step up our game.
The specific precise explanation of my thought are here.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21771
I think it is fairly precise, yet I am being pulled up on many side issues not to do with what I am saying.
"even if 911 is staged we
"even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)" mentality"
That is clearly NOT what ICONOCLAST was saying. 1) he was saying that it cannot be ruled out that there was a plot being carried out by Bin Laden/Islamist radicals- and it was hijacked/helped by others for their own reasons. 2) he's not saying we went after the right people, or the ends justify the means.
If Muslims took part in 9/11, or even many other terrorist actions, it doesn't mean Islam itself is violent, or that all Muslims are violent/evil. Only bigoted people suggest that's the case, and even Republican politicians who believe that generally know better than to express that view publicly, in this advanced day and age of PC. And I've never seen an internet posting that argues, "even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)". It almost seems like you're implying that no terrorist act has ever been carried out by Muslims as an act of faith- or that you seek to deflect inquiry into whatever role Bin Laden/Al Qaeda played. Is that what you believe/are trying to do?
While many may have firm ideas about what happened, the polls show at least half of Americans support a full, honest investigation of 9/11, including into the conduct of the Executive before, during and after 9/11. This means investigating all the facts, letting the chips fall where they may, letting the truth be revealed, and holding the responsible people accountable. If we don't have that, there's no reason to believe what we've been told, which clearly does not square with the public record as it exists so far- and the record is very incomplete.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Ok, now I think you are
Ok, now I think you are deliberately nit picking to try and discredit what I am saying.
Any propaganda or motivation technique has to consider pre existing beliefs within people and be tuned to that.
How many Hollywood movies have Muslim terrorist bad guys?
Do you think the war on terror has been facilitated by Fear?
Fear of what specifically might I ask?terrorism, by whom, who have we seen portrayed as terrorist the most often on Fox news?
The same fox news of the propaganda campaign you have just posted about?
In whose countries have we murdered countless people in response to that preconceived fear?.
If we conducted a false flag, who would be the most easily accepted patsies?
Yes there is Muslim terrorism, that is why it is perfect propaganda to fit into preconceptions.
For someone who is interested in propaganda you dont really know how it works do you?
Is there ANY evidence that Muslims were RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTS on 911 ?
If there are please share, if not then why mention it?
Oh I know, because even if they did not do it they wanted to........
So it does not matter there is no proof then, the preconceptions prevail?
Now lets go to truther motivation, assuming the same preconceptions that are endemic because of the above.
Lets compare 2 potential pieces of info
1. The towers were asbestos ridden white elephants, and NY port authority were denied demolition several times ,and were facing a £1.5 billion bill to dismatle because of being denied demolition.
2. There is evidence that Atta was paid £100,000 by the Pakistani ISI.
Which of these 2 do you think is more motivational to the punter?
My fairly obvious suggestion here, was that because of preconceptions and fears about Muslims, the 2nd is less motivational because without knowing a great deal about the intricacies of the evidence it suggests Muslims are responsible(unproven).What is more, the fact that he was paid could be for a part in the training exercise and was duped, So if Cheney even put the money in his hand, you could think he was paid for a role, but he actually took over and did it plot. Therefore embarrassing for Cheney , but no criminality on his part.
So my question is, even if in your wildest dreams all the things you insinuate are true, It does not prove government
complicity so what value is it to choose to select and promote this to others who you want to be engaged in 911 truth.
To fit their preconceptions about terrorists perhaps?
Do you not know enough about the world, the century of military industrial madness 911, the aftermath, the current and future imperialistic insanity, to realize that we don t just need re investigation (Which could be fixed again incidentally) but CHANGE. Have YOU seen enough yet to hazard a GUESS?
Oh, but wait a minute, we don't KNOW what happened on 911 so we need a new investigation to tell us.
Grow up!
What is your plan if you don't get given a reinvestigation (By the same criminal oligarchy that are responsible
Hmm that is going to be a real eye opener eh?)
What is your contingency plan ? NOTHING
Do you understand, or have you ever heard the term Fog of War ? What do you think that term means?
It means justification obscures the line of conduct does'nt it?
You asked for examples of fog of war mentality I gave you two - what about the other one on this thread?
It is fairly obvious what those statements meant. You cant deny Muslims are involved in terrorism............
Dont try and suggest that I am bigoted or that bigotry or preconceptions about Muslims dont exist.
You have failed to show that the comments you asked for (and I supplied ) dont mean exactly what I said they meant
within the context of my discussion
Your nit picking is asinine, I have proved my points.
You are not only doing it here, but on the vote thread also where you are trying to reinterpret stuff I said about the families being misrepresented in propaganda ( I was asked for examples and provided them)Your absurd attempt there is to show the propaganda was against CD not the Families. You are wrong there you are wrong here.
You are using distraction and disseminating, and straw man tactics to try and discredit my argument.
You have also ignored half of the argument.
What happens if we dont get a reinvestigation? can you tell me any news that suggests we will ? Well?
Do you realize that under Flu epidemic, national emergency etc they can take over control of telecommunications tonight? What do you think is likely to happen first? Re investigation that shows the criminality of a administration its Media system ,and many high level people & politicians , Or will they just censor 911 web Sites?
Then you are screwed , you have no contingency plan except "awareness" which is useless in a 2 party co opted media controlled system.
You people need to wake up fast and start worrying about change whilst you still can .
Instead you want to go to a softly softly approach ,because some people are put off by CD?
Instead you want to promote weak unsubstantiated inconclusive evidence and spend lots of time here highlighting "Links" to Muslims and showing Muslim terrorism exists......
. How is that going to help?
That is the MSM are you no different?
Ok so come back and tell me again that we dont Know what happened, we need an investigation to tell us,
or just pick up one of the above sentences and nit pick at that for a few hundred words whilst ignoring the bulk
of what I say.
You are wasting my time now, I will work now on CD proofs instead.
It's not the crime that gets you...
It's the cover-up.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
That was great. As an aside
That was great. As an aside and I apologize for this if it's off topic but does anyone know how the French TV debate went over? The one that was scheduled for the 28th of October?
Accessory before the fact.
If they (whoever "they" are) "let it happen on purpose", then they are clearly "accessory before the fact" to the crime. Prior knowledge of a crime is accessory before the fact, and the definition on this page makes it clear the gravity of this offense:
http://chestofbooks.com/reference/American-Cyclopaedia-V1/Accessory.html
In particular this: ".......the statutes of Massachusetts and New York provide that any person who, by counselling, hiring, or otherwise procuring the commission of a felony, becomes an accessory before the fact, shall be punished in the same manner as the principal felon. In New York it is also provided that the accessory before or after the fact may be indicted, tried, convicted, and punished, notwithstanding that the principal felon has been pardoned or otherwise discharged before conviction....."
In other words, in the State of New York, anyone who was privy to 9/11 before it happened is liable to the same penalties as those who were responsible for flying the planes into the buildings etc... (I wonder what the law is regarding DC?). Clearly, there is no legal differentiation between letting it happen, or making it happen... the law regards both as equally serious. LIHOP, MIHOP: same deal if you're in the dock!
His answer is that it would make them
certifiably insane, so it can't be possible?
What the hell kind of answer is that? Of course they're insane. You don't need 9/11 to prove that. Look at most any of their actions and you can call them insane!
I don't know what Chomsky is on about, but his stance on 9/11, especially making a comment such as 9/11 really doesn't matter, and there are bigger things to be concerned with, to this man's humble opinion, is enough for me to call him insane.
kennedy
Remember Chomsky's long record of siding with the Warren Commission on Kennedy's assassination. This means that Chomsky knowingly supports a "magic bullet" theory as being more plausible than a "second shooter" theory. He ignores much evidence that Kennedy was shot from the front.
Chomsky is an intelligence asset, and not the champion of freedom and democracy that the deluded "left" holds him as.
URGENT ACTION NEEDED: CONTACT THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND NOTIFY THEM OF BUSH'S TREASON RELATED TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS (SAMPLE)
chomsky has revealed himself
darkbeforedawn
He has proven that he is a company man and will support the Corporate line...in this case the company is the military industrial complex that continues to drag us all into endless senseless wars and violence while raping the planet.
Chomsky is a joker/liar. He's gotten away with his overblown hype of using really big words strung together in really complicated sentences to form loopholes and cover-ups for criminals while appearing to establish some sort of humanistic intellectual discourse.
This phony old man should be laughed to death.
Chomsky
is NWO all the way. Can't stand the fool.
Bonfire or the Vanities
Sad
An elderly man at the twilight of his brilliant career, stuttering and stammering, painted into a corner, unable or unwilling to admit error.
Doubly sad because excepting exchanges with 911 truth activists, Chomsky never loses a debate. Whether Richard Perle, Allan Dershowitz, William F. Buckley or Michel Foucault, you can pair him with the slimiest neocon or the most insightful philosopher and he will come out tops. 911 truth activists make him look like he never made it out of the high-school debating club.
Perhaps what we’re seeing here is the triumph of Chomsky’s much-touted “Cartesian common sense” over ivory tower intellectualism, adding another layer of irony to the spectacle of the world’s greatest propaganda analyst ignoring the most sophisticated exercise in (black) propaganda the world has ever seen.
I don’t think it’s the negative connotations of “conspiracy theory” per se that explain his recalcitrance. As a long-time admirer of his non-911-related work, I can tell you that Chomsky has rarely shied away from covert ops. His article, “Domestic Terrorism: Notes on the State System of Oppression” [Found here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199909--.htm] is one of the very best dissections of COINTELPRO. He discusses the murder of Fred Hampton, state sponsored terrorism against the American Indian movement and the “New Left”, and even a false flag operation in which the CIA created a fake “Maoist” group and tried to provocateur activists into setting fire to a bus at a Republican Convention.
His audio lecture on the American Drug War includes a section on CIA drug trafficking and money laundering through respectable banks, including mention of Poppy Bush’s role in the whole sordid affair.
He is heavily critical of orgs like the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, though his criticism relates to their elitist, anti-democratic nature rather than any alleged role in ending the United States.
In “Understanding Power”, he admits that it was “probable” that MLK was taken out by the state, while also drawing attention to the infusion of narcotics into American ghettos (which occurred at the same time that people were beginning to organize en masse). On this later point, he seems to go further even that Gary Webb.
The claim that Chomsky is a “mole” is exceedingly unlikely, not least because of facts such as above, but because he does not embrace the fake left/right paradigm. He is equally critical of Bolshevism/authoritarian socialism and the democratic party as state capitalism and the far right. When you are dismissed as a counter-revolutionary by the Soviets and a communist by the West – and all in one week – you have to be doing something right. He advocates local control and participatory democracy rather than centralized power. He has spoken out in defense of “Holocaust Deniers” and their right to publish their views without being criminalized. I could go on but you get the point. I have no doubt that some, perhaps many “progressives” operating out of spook-infested outlets like the Nation Magazine are indeed on the CIA’s payroll, but Chomsky isn’t one of them.
There are two issues where Chomsky falls apart: JFK and 911.
Others have already offered sensible reasons as to why the peculiar myopia.
- Having spent his entire career at the receiving end of “conspiracy theorist” accusations and relentless mudslinging by the establishment, he is frightened of giving ammunition to his critics and being dismissed at the end of his life as a nut.
- He feels (narcissistically) that his body of work cannot be tarred in this fashion (ends justify the means)
- His ego is so large/delicate that he after arguing blowback for the past ten years, he can't admit to such a mammoth error.
- He has been at the receiving end of direct threats to his person or his family. It happened to Tom Feeley from ICH recently, it could conceivably happen to Noam.
- He honestly believes that 911 truth is a waste of time and a “wild goose chase” that saps energy from other forms of activism
The failure of the left as a whole to come to terms with 911 points to something more complex, or simple, depending on how you look at it. McMurtry calls it the “ruling group mind”; Peter Phillips at Project Censored speaks of a “threshold concept”, using JFK and 911 as the two most prominent examples. Pass the threshold and you are officially persona non grata in “respectable” society.
At this point I think it’s a waste of time to harangue Chomsky on 911. He’s at the end of his days and is obviously not going to support our efforts. Attacking him will alienate potential allies on the left. He will be remembered as a great man and dissident who fell short on the most important issue of his day. Because he was too frightened to do the right thing.
Very well said. I think also
Very well said.
I think also Chomsky probably took the hardest hit of his career when supporting the freedom of speech of french holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. He (unfairly) has been personally accused of Holocaust denial ever since. Maybe with the press touting Holocaust denial + 911 truth together ,with Chomsky
it is perhaps just as well he is not on board.
I actually found his answers to Jon Gold in his exchange quite reasonable , but, to deny the possibility of inside job though is something else, and he has to be criticized for that.
Excellent analysis
It is ironic that Chomsky has supported Cynthia McKinney, one of the most eloquent spokespersons for 9/11 truth: he voted for her and tried to help her during her clash with Israel. (Note that he is also heavily critical of Israel.)
A while ago I wrote to him the following:
It's funny how many countries are engaged in the "war on terror" you
mentioned. Russia in Chechenya, for one. No matter that the Russian
secret service was caught red-handed planting one of the apartment
bombs blamed on Chechens - an operation that was then declared to have
been just an anti-terrorism exercise. The same with the 2001 anthrax
attacks attempting to frame Muslims, which turned out to have been a
high-tech, carefully planned inside job, one which the FBI have over
the years been trying to blame on some one mad government scientist.
Cynthia, of course, has been courageously searching for the truth
about the 9/11 attacks, asking questions related, for example, to the
fantastic coincidence of the war games overlapping the attacks -
including the rather ridiculous coincidence of a live-fly
antiterrorism exercise with government-operated aircraft posing as
hijacked aircraft, right down to false radar "injects" on radar
screens, as revealed by Canadian media.
The western media's unwillingness to ask *any* of the difficult but
obvious questions about the basis of the "war on terror" resembles the
"Finlandized" media of the past decades.
* * *
He replied briefly that he had predicted after the attacks that all repressive systems in the world would seize on 9/11 and that equally predictably, "the media would go along with it all" throughout the world. He wondered if there were exceptions. I was a bit surprised at this answer.
Has Chomsky ever written about...
False flag operations? I'm not a reader of Chomsky extensive output. Has he covered the idea of false flags. I think many on the left doing great work don't discuss FFO for various reasons. Of course there are FFO conducted by others (Reichstag Fire) and those conducted by (or planned) by US. Does Chomsky identify US FFOs?
Thanks Danse for great overview.
Chomsky is a left gatekeeper for...
Israel and the Military Industrial Complex...knowingly or not!
A previous blogger noted Chomsky's pattern of word uses and sentence composition which he has spun into a subculture of followers and non-self-thinkers. The peons in this subculture now follow Chomsky [and Zinn]...lemminglike. I call these 60s-70s relics "The Great Gray Nappers"...because that's what they are up to now. The more the hair is gray, the deepr is their NAP. "Comfortably Numb" is another appropriate term.
By criticizing Israel at KNOWN and ACCEPTED levels...and...by exposing the Military Industrial Complex in KNOWN and ACCEPTED involvements, Chomsky "appears" to be out there on the edge to those who are not as well informed as is he...aka...to his GREAT GRAY NAPPING followers.
And of course MIT gets millions and millions for MIC research...and its only a few accounting moves to keep the payments appearing to be indirect. And Israel's monies and influences are TRULY difficult to trace...no matter...the truth is on the way.
One point that I would like to contribute is that both Zinn and Chomsky have been completely overrun by the world wide web...and the many millions of very, very bright people who are using it and getting more well informed every day.
It used to be that whenever Zinn and Chomsky "held court", those deliberations would become THE way to think...and THE only points to consider...and THE only way to behave as citizens. Sadly, such is the influence that Chomsky and Zinn STILL have over these non-thinking followers. Its akin to a Chomsky-Zinn religion in my view.
Another point that I'd like to support which was made by another blogger when he/she noted that Chomsky [and I add Zinn] is [are] more valuable to the "powers to be" than massive amounts of extra armaments.
And he/she is absolutely correct...because Chomsky and Zinn have led usually solid "thinkers" into NOT thinking for themselves. Again, I CHARGE these followers as being "The Great Gray Nappers"...
...and being gray haired and coming out of the 60s myself, I claim that I have learned more from my involvement with the 9/11 Truth Movement [and all its expository tentacles] than I learned in my last 40 years as an activist...
...AND I claim the right to say this because I WAS one of them...but have grown past the informational brackets established long ago by not only COINTELPRO...but by the Chomskys and Zinns of the world...let alone the corporate/Mockingbird media...and of course our HI PERP friends in and around the Pentagon and the Intel services.
In reviewing the video at the start of this thread something stood out to me from what Chomsky states about the much greater total number of people killed in either Cambodia or Thailand...or both. What he finds surprising is that we NOW know this to be the case.
I wonder if he got that info from his connections to this century's webworld? If so, what else is he missing that we AREN'T missing?
But here is the major point of the deep shame that I sense they each feel.
For the most part, each of these academians have HAD THE EVIDENCE of governemental malfeasances on MAJOR scales for decades now...FOR DECADES!!!...and they have only led their followers into diminished numbers...into a dysfunctional and now marginalized "peace movement?"...and into a process where citizenship is maintained by ONLY participating in the "big event" political actions exampled by presidential elections every four years...and...so very, very obviously, the "peace marches" that happen only every now and then.
These two gentlemen have led their adoring and ONCE concerned and much more effective following masses into the very same ineffectiveness that Chomsky and Zinn enjoy now themselves.
Its certainly COINTELPRO...and certainly Zionism...that are doing everything that they can to keep the 9/11 Truth Movement from being joined by the remnants of the "peace movements"...because:
IF...those old Great Gray Nappers were to wake up, see that Chomsky and Zinn are talking nothing but LAST CENTURY TACTICS, got themselves a laptop, asked their grandchildren how to use it, and became plugged into THIS CENTURY's "information age"...the all hell would break loose...because:
Once awakened...and once remembering that it is up to THEM...The Great Gray Nappers...to uphold their end of being a good citizen by getting more "informed" and giving or witholding their "consent"...like they once did three and four decades ago...things would change IMMEDIATELY!
This Great Gray Napping group is THAT LARGE...and they are THAT POWERFUL...they just have remained asleep...and listening to some very, very old voices.
And it appears to be quite true...Chomsky and Zinn CANNOT hold up to the questions of some of our best 9/11 Truthers who can cobble together some good questions about past and present historical events.
So, it is indeed hard for me to decide whether or not these two are indeed now operating on the "other side"...or are simply relics from last century still operating as "one trick ponies"...just like last century's "peace? movements?" still operate like to this very day.
If I were amongst the HI PERPS...I'd be damned concerned about the remanants of the "peace? movements?" getting upgraded, learning about this century's "webworld", and begining to march in THIS century's peace movement...alongside us the 9/11 Truth Movement.
I write alot about why Zionists are so desperately inhibiting any and all exposure of Israel's role in 9/11/2001...and Israel has a LOT to loose...but:
It PALES in comparison to what John Perkins' "corporatocracy" has got to loose...its growing empire!
9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE...this is OUR world and not theirs...
and...
PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY
Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Plus some not-so-gray hairs
' both Zinn and Chomsky have been completely overrun by the world wide web...'
And ain't that grand! However, I think we should be aware that the reputations of Chomsky and Zinn continue to hold sway among many who do not fit the description of the 'gray nappers' who were around in the '60s. When I was in college in the '80s and early '90s--the Reagan and Bush I years--Chomsky was still regarded as THE dissident intellectual, the guy you had to read to learn what was really going on. For young people at that time, tired of Reagan-era propaganda and airheaded MTV culture, reading Chomsky or hearing him speak was like a revelation, as it had been for students in the Vietnam War era. Later, I learned about groups like FAIR and their publication, 'Extra!,' which kept abreast of how coverage of current topics in US news was consistenly slanted towards corporate interests, and would expose the role in this played by lavishly funded think-tanks.
Think of all this as something like a first awakening. Eventually, all of us who are currently in the 9/11 Truth movement have had a second awakening (if they needed it, that is; and I know I'm one who did). Having learned not to trust corporate media, I entered this current decade still with the impression that, 'well, at least there's alternative media.' At least there are intellectuals like Chomsky, Zinn, etc., and groups like FAIR, publications like The Nation or Z or the Progressive. Well, this whole past decade has been one long, bitter (though ultimately liberating) lesson that it is simply untrue to believe alternative media, any more than corporate media, are free to cover anything they like. They can cover things that corporate media don't, but they, just like corporate media, are held within certain boundaries. Clearly, the most taboo topic of all for so-called 'alternative media' is the question of what really happened on 9/11 (and how, and by whom).
And yes, the internet has been getting out information regardless, and a movement such as 9/11 Truth has grown to the point of engendering attacks and attempts to disrupt. But I would still like to point out that the problem of gatekeeping media and intellectuals is not limited their influence over the so-called 'gray nappers' that Robin Hordon refers to. I continue to come across people younger than I who are as computer savvy as the 9/11 truthers of their generation, but who--when it comes to information--remain stuck in this world of Huffington Post/Common Dreams/AlterNet, etc. (the list could go on, as we know). And if you look at some of the audiences at talks given by Chomsky or Zinn, you will still find heads with very few gray hairs in attendance.
So it is not simply a matter of older people learning how to use a laptop, since the gatekeeper presence on the internet is very strong. Through whatever medium, from whatever generation, people have to learn that it is simply not the case that 'alternative' media are free to go wherever they want to go, cover whatever they wish to cover. Everyone has to learn, with whatever they read or watch, to think for him or herself. It's not about substituting one group of news sources or pundits or intellectuals for another.
I sometimes think of a quote from the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant: 'Dare to know. Have the courage to use your own understanding.' I think a statement like that is as relevant now as its ever been, and it's the experience of the pervasive attempts to suppress the truth about 9/11 that has made me aware of this more than anything else.
Thank you...I don't have all the answers...and
...that someone is offering another perspective and making me get out of my own box will encourage others to do the same.
I'm just so BUMMED OUT that so many of my fellow "grayhairs" are now so "comfortably numb"...SOOOO I'm taking them on...even one at a time with my weekly public CI activisms...
...and BTW... not NONE of them ever disagrees that it was on THEIR watch that this government disintegrated...and that it is in part because of THEIR disengagement and chasing materialism.
Can't thank you enough rm...
...and can only ask what YOU think would be the best approach to the "non-gray hairs" that THINK like the "grayhairs"?
THIS...is an important question that I'd LOVE to watch become answered...its key to our success.
Thanks again...
Love, Peace and Progress...
Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
PS: I have not talked much about the Reagan Youth [who have now grown much older]...they are HOPELESS in my view...unchangable...and they only go by their mantra implanted by the Reagan era..."Those who die with the most toys WINS!"
How the hell can ANYBODY with a soul, or a concern for other human beings even allow those words to be uttered through thier lips?
If THIS is the demographic that shapes your perspectives...UGH!
But, if its others whose parents, or who themselves have actually "thought of others"...then maybe we have a shot...rdh
Nor do I
I think I understand your viewpoint concerning the now-grayhaired '60s generation, whom I at one time would regard with a mix of envy (because of the incredible spirit of change and possibility that they got to live through in their youth) and resentment (because of the complacency that they swiftly fell into once they got past a certain age). I had a few words about that on this site a couple of months ago regarding the swipe that Gary Trudeau took at the Truth movement in a Doonesbury strip.
Oh, how I wish I had an answer for how to break through resistance to 9/11 truth in ANY age group. Of course, it's encouraging that skepticism toward the official story is highest among the young. Yet there are still those people of (in my experience) varying ages who still don't fully appreciate the limits of gatekeeping 'alternative' media. And the problem is actually similar to that of reaching people who still naively trust (more or less) in the news from the corporate networks on TV. In either case, the reaction that 9/11 activists encounter is something like, 'if there's anything to what you're saying, I'm sure [fill in the blank] would have covered it by now.' It may even be more difficult in the case of those familiar with 'alternative' news sources since they can point to topics covered in such media that are taboo in corporate media, and thereby make the mistaken assumption that no topic is taboo when it comes to such 'alternative' media'; and that anything will be covered so long as there's 'something to it,' and if it's not covered, it must be because it's not true. And it becomes like a Catch-22: Before they can learn to be less trusting and more skeptical about such news sources, you first have to convince them that those sources have been suppressing important truths; but that same trust and lack of skepticism rules out the possibility that they would ever suppress the truth about anything, thus making it impossible for you to convince them that they have done so, therefore impossible to convince them that they shouldn't be so trusting of them.
If that makes sense...It can be exasperating.
And yet...each one of the people now in the 9/11 Truth movement must have undergone such a change at some point. Each of us has had to unlearn, at some point, what we had been brought up to think regarding such things as a 'free press' and 'academic freedom.' Some would have learned how skeptical we need to be with respect to all media well before 9/11; others would have come a good part of the way by 9/11; while there are probably others who have undergone a change in outlook mostly since 9/11.
The irony is, some of us have been helped along in this process of learning by none other than the likes of Chomsky. And then, at some point, the 'students' began outdoing some of these 'teachers' when it came to critically examining what's going on in the world.
If it's been possible for us to allow our minds to be opened and keep learning, then it ought to be possible for still more to do so. How to get a mind to open when it's closed? I wish I knew. Sometimes, it might help with someone who is resistant to ask them to try to think back to their own reactions on the day of 9/11 and in the days immediately afterwards. Do they recall having questions? Having a sense that there was something not quite right with this picture? About Bush lingering in a classroom while the country was under attack? About the government going from supposedly knowing so little just before the event to so much the day afterward, and with legislation ready to ram through Congress pronto? If we can do something to see if there isn't some kind of suppressed skepticism that lies buried within, then jar it loose, try to get them to start using their own mind again, and thereby loosen the grip which has been exercised over them by gatekeeping media...then maybe we can find some kind of opening to introduce whatever information about 9/11 we feel best able to discuss.
True to the PNAC conception of a 'catastrophic and catalyzing event,' 9/11 was a collective experience, an event experienced by millions of people simultaneously; and the branding of the official version in people's minds likewise was a mass, collective, simultaneous experience. By contrast, realization of the falsity of the official version has occurred on an individual basis, gradually, one pair of eyes at a time being opened to the truth. A much longer process, difficult and immensely challenging; but the most positive aspect of this is that when each individual achieves this kind of realization, it's a more meaningful and lasting kind of awareness since it depends on each person learning to use their own judgment and think for themselves, rather than follow the dicates of such and such a journal or this or that intellectual. And I think that this authentically grassroots nature of the 9/11 Truth movement is reflected in its orginality, such as is indicated by the sheer variety of some of its most prominent members. Pre-9/11, who would have envisioned a political movement that bypasses institutional boundaries to consist of scientists, architects, theologians, FBI and military personnel, entertainers, amateur filmmakers, etc.? Not the custodians of acceptable dissent at The Nation magazine, I can tell you that!
Chomsky and Zinn are doubly guilty
darkbeforedawn
As Robin has shown in his excellent analysis......they have known (and known very well) the depth of the depravity and deception being practiced on the public here in American and worldwide...
Yet they continued....they willingly participated in subverting and misdirecting this knowledge so that it was ineffective....
In a way, they are far more guilty than the straight forward murderers and liars of the pentagon, some of whom may in their own way, have believed themselves to be true patriots acting for "the good of the country".
No, Chomsky and Zinn knew they were misleading and deceiving and scattering the only opportunities for a real movement to promote peace and justice in the preinternet times.
And how they got praised and slobbered over for it by all the finest institutions! ......it's revolting. Now we can see why they were allowed to say what they did say. It was harmless to them and their goals.
Even if we do not get any immediate results, continuing our quest to bring the truth about 911 to the peace movement is essential.
We must note and remember those who are fighting so hard to keep us out of Peace activism and as well as the eye of the main stream media.
A day may soon be coming when they will have to answer for their false fronts and deceptions.
My thoughts on the HOP labels
We all want justice.
We all dream of seeing George Bush and Dick Cheney behind bars, preferably solitary confinement.
If that "new investigation" ever took place and the PNAC gang were found guilty of LIHOP, this would surely be enough to send the criminals to jail for life, if not put on death row.
We don't need an exact scenario of: "We the jury... find the Bush Administration GUILTY of bringing the World Trade Center down with controlled demolition..."
In this respect, LIHOP = MIHOP = treason and mass murder by the Bush administration. in order to see Bushco in prison.
(Remember, OJ Simpson is in jail, probably for the rest of his life... but he wasn't convicted of "controlled demolition" i.e. the murders for which we all wanted to see him convicted.)
HOWEVER...
While on the one hand there's the quest to get Dick Cheney behind bars, there is on the other hand the pure quest for truth, the quest to revise history as thoroughly as we can and make sure our childrens' history books are as accurate as possible. We have already arrived at much truth even without that "new investigation."
Some citizens fear the worst -- that we will never get that new, independent, official investigation. As such, courageous citizens ranging from Steven Jones to Craig Ranke have instigated that "new investigation," unofficially, themselves. And they have found much evidence that rules out a pure LIHOP scenario.
In the quest for historical truth, LIHOP and MIHOP are important. Bruno made some excellent points as to why the two are very different.
The main point above all is that a LIHOP scenario still "accepts" the "reality" that a small band of Muslim extremists had a genuine desire and plan to attack NYC and DC out of hatred for America, whether "for our freedoms" or due to "blowback."
In a nutshell, a LIHOP scenario posits that the US govt deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden and his 19 men to attack us. Of course, citizen investigators have discovered that FBI has no hard evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11. And much else.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
Succinctly and eloquently put...
... Adam. Thank you.
Thanks.
Incidentally, I would say I have been a "truther" since 2005. That was when I watched "In Plane Site" and became convinced of a MIHOP scenario. However, I had previously held the LIHOP position since as far back as late 2002. When Bush declared that he didn't care about Bin Laden and instead focused the spotlight back on Saddam, it was obvious to me that the attacks were too convenient for it to have been chance. However I was certainly no truth activist until the MIHOP stuff really sank in. As someone who held the L position for 3 years before the M position, I can say that there is very much a difference between the two.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
I also started to "see the light" in 2005...
... and "In Plane Site" was probably the first 9/11 film I saw. (Not that I'd recommend it now.)
True, but you also have to
True, but you also have to consider motivation to re investigate.
If people believe LIHOP, although technically it may be in law as bad to allow murder than to do it, within 'fog of war' and "you cant deny Muslim terrorists exist (so even if 911 is staged we went after the right people)" type arguments, people are less likely to want to re apply scrutiny to 911, than if they believed it was an inside job.
In other words
In other words, it effectively keeps alive in people's minds the 'widely perceived external threat' which Brzezinski said they would need to carry out their plans for that region. And this feeling of a terrifying external threat suffices to counteract whatever feelings of anger people might feel towards elements in the government which treasonously 'allowed' external, autonomous forces to accompish their schemes.
Chomsky
I could care less what Chomsky thinks, cares or does. He is a looser in my book. An egotistical, blow hard looser.
According to Chomsky
the reason to doubt that 911 was an inside job (MIHOP) is because it would make more sense if the planners made sure the hijackers were said to be from Iraq. Well, maybe it would have been more difficult to stage an Iraqi terrorist attack and stage Saddam Hussein taking credit for the event. Osama Bin Laden was a natural fit. Maybe the perpetrators figured the goal was to get a global war on terror and get the public behind any wars of aggression they wanted. The war in Afghanistan may have had to do with opium, natural gas pipelines, and permanent military bases. If the target is only Iraq, then why are we now building permanent military bases in Afghanistan? Next we invade Iraq with the majority of the public believing Saddam Hussein was involved with 911 as well. The plan worked wonderfully. Not only does the public think there are Al Qaida terrorist cells all over the US, they will be more willing to invade other countries like Iran because of 911.
Yes--is that so complicated?
There--you've just made a series of very sensible observations which should be plainly obvious to Chomsky and other 9/11-deniers in the antiwar movement. But they robotically refer to the same old talking points and pretend not to see.
Sahooties?
If I understand the intro text properly, NC is saying "Sunnis". Ok. Fine. But it sure sounds like he's saying "Sahooties" which I took to be some fancy-schmancy was to say "Saudis". Also, I've never heard the 19 alleged hijickers collectively described as "Sunnis". Time to update the cable box in my cave?
chomsky s deep shame
if you want to fully understand the despicable nature of chomskys position on 911 , then look into his position on the kennedy assassination, chomsky
is a dangerous tool of asmerican fascism , and the interntional effort against common people, in this horrific new, mass- murdering, heightened class war he willingly participates in.
he is more valuble to the 911 mass killers than 10,000 batallions , 100 aircraft carriers, or an army of terrorists- for-hire
A fully a comitted enemy of humanity by his disinformastion actions and false incredulity where it concerns false flag state sponsored murder , chomsky only inhabits my librarys trashbin, ......................his reputation as an honest man , histories...........
It make me sad to see
........arguing between ourselves. I sure hope we ALL can agree that we were lied to about 9/11, and that there are a whole lot of questions that deserve answers.
Most people
.........................won't understand that the collapse of WTC1 & 2 .........Not to mention the collapse of WTC#7 could have never of happened as the official fairy tale portraits to be.
We as a truth movement have compiled enough to know what we as Americans were told was a lie.
Where we take it is up to us. Nothing is to small to be irrelevant. Sorry Noam you're head is up you're ass..
WAKE UP AMERICA!
invading afghanistan
Does Chomsky really believe that the US had no interest in invading Afghanistan? come on.
how can he not know that the plans for the afghanistan invasion were on the presidents desk before 911?
Diana
www.investigar11s.org