Chomsky, Cockburn & other gatekeepers are no concern to 9/11 Truth Seekers

[Nozebro]

There is no good reason to pay the least bit of attention to what left gatekeepers have to say about 9/11. They aren't informed about it and unfortunately tbey have an incentive (funding) to pretend that the Conspiracy Theory favored by RWingers everywhere is the truth.

[Beam Me Up]

1. Every individual and institution that has underscored the impossible

is now stuck with that tar-baby. The official story is as physically impossible as Santa and his annual reindeer drawn sleigh ride and it doesn't take a degree in engineering or physics to figure it out.

The credibility of every institution of our society has now been thrown into doubt by the fundamental laws of physics itself.

A house divided can not stand. Either these institutions will change or they will perish or we shall move backward into an age of superstition populated with red clad elves and flying Rangifer Tarandus

[TheWraith]

2. The laws of physics apparently don't mean what you think they do.

Because your statement that the consensus view of the collapse is "impossible" is completely and totally wrong. It is, in fact, generally agreed upon by almost every structural engineer, physicist, and respectable scientific mind who has looked at it.

[Beam Me Up]

3. Oh, yeah, sure.

Steel structures can fall through themselves at the same rate as if they were falling through the air.

Yep.

And Santa is real, too.

[LARED]

10. I don't want to hijack the thread so

perhaps you would be kind enough to tell the world how you think Steel structures can fall through themselves at the same rate as if they were falling through the air.on a new thread.

I'll tell you right up front that I did not see that happen on any of the collapse videos, but I would be most curious to see you explain your theory using any collapse scenario, including CD and nuclear bombs, or alien technology.

[pauldp]

4. Chomsky's take on election fraud was enough

to make me stop paying attention to him.

[rman]

5. Direct manipulation of elections results is only one

way to affect the vote.
Even without it there's still those darn "liberal media" - you know, the manufacture of consent and all that. People have been deceived into voting against their own interests for decades at least. Don't you think that's a significant factor? If you don't then your reaction is understandable, but if you do, you'll agree that in the bigger scheme of things election fraud - although significant - is not the single most important issue. Election fraud is a symptom, not a cause.

[pauldp]

9. I think the potential for election fraud is a bigger issue.

There currently exists no basis for confidence in the results
of our national elections since the introduction of HAVA.
Obviously many people have been working hard to change this, but
I'm baffled at Chomsky's claim that this has only minimal potential
to affect election outcomes. Does he know something about electronic
voting that we (and the GAO) don't?

Deception of voters by politicians and the media
has certainly gotten much worse, but at least with
marginally reliable elections the political ambitions
of the two parties will work to counter balance
each other even if gullible voters are voting against their own interests.

We now have a situation where one party can potentially leverage
an illegitimately dominant position through massive undetectable fraud.
I can't think of a more fundamental subversion of our electoral system.
That Chomsky dismisses this issue IMO affects his credibility as a champion of
systemic reform.

[Nozebro]

11. You are exactly right. That's why the OP says what it does. Chomsky

is not what he appears to be, and I think some of the corporate-think at the WSJ rubbed off on Cockburn from his stint writing an op-ed piece they used to run in the Journal. Plus both gentleman have connections with intelligence services like the CIA and CIA-funded groups.

[rman]

16. What do you think Chomsky appears to be?

If he's a gatekeeper in so far that he denies the notion of false-flag/black-ops instigated by the US and performed on US targets - what does that mean?
Note that Chomsky does not deny the notion false-flag/black-ops instigated by the US and performed on non-US targets.

If Chomsky is a gatekeeper, then what does that make the MSM? - yet we still use the MSM as a source of information, knowing they don't tell us everything.
Chomsky tells us far more than the MSM - even though he to does not tell us everything.

So, I ask again: if Chomsky is a gatekeeper (which i think he may well be), what does that mean?

[rman]

15. There no healthy democracy - in effect no democracy -

in the absence of an independent press.
And the independent press has been absent for a long long time.

There's hardly any point in having "reliable elections" if people are uninformed, and vote based on considerations that have nothing to do with the issues. Such elections are hollow and farcical even if reliable.

[pauldp]

19. I agree an independent press in certainly essential.

But despite the corporate grip on the mainstream press, thankfully there are still
some independent outlets. So I certainly don't think the entire electorate is
uninformed or deceived.

My point is that the framers understood that deception and distortion are part of politics.
After all they understood that all forms of government if unchecked will slide
into tyranny. Ambition countering ambition is the keystone of the balance of
power. It helps to facilitate the truth, but not because one party is inherently more honest.

The only way to get a free press is to vote in the opposition and press for media reform.
But that can't happen if one party maintains power through massive election fraud.

The problem of corporate press monopolies and the problem with our elections are both systemic, institutional problems.

[rman]

21. independent outlets have not enough effect

to neutralize the propaganda. By far most people get by far most of their information from a limited number of corporate controlled media.

For the propaganda to work it is not required that all people are deceived; "most" will do. So the fact that some people are not deceived make the democracy only a little more healthy at best.

If there had been no election fraud in 2000 and 04 then Democrats would have been in power, which is just a little less of the same thing. It would have been only a minor setback for the corporate rulers.
There'd still be oppression and exploitation of workers practically everywhere. It's like a wife-beater who beats his wife a little less. Hardly worth calling an improvement, it leaves the problem unsolved.

Otoh the fact that reliable elections are not the solution to the problem, doesn't mean election fraud is irrelevant. After all, there is no single solution anyway. There are only small incremental gains to be made on many fronts, of which the reliability of elections is one.

[rman]

6. As far as i know none of these gatekeepers has actually endorsed

the OCT. In fact they don't say anything concrete about it. Which indeed makes what they say about 9/11 rather irrelevant to the truth movement.

[LARED]

7. You have embarked upon a very wise course of action

to attain the truth.

Ignore those that disagree with you and cast them as uninformed and unethical people although there is no evidence that any of your implications are correct.

Great wisdom. How soon until you stomp your feet and pout in the corner attempting to win the argument?

[medienanalyse]

8. to win an argument means: to argue. Chomsky uttered opinion

and that is the difference,

It is no problem to laugh away the so-called "physical evidence" ( the hole tooo small, the steel too strong)
See:


Even in the cold steel looses structure:



Everybody who ever had a car accident knows that.
Chomsky knows that too.

His mistake is: to take the claim of tze CT guys face value (we have the sciense on our side) and to judge the whole event by dismissing the idiots claims.

To dismiss the idiotisms, to ignore the leaks (Chomsky asks for leaks if 9/11 was an inside job) and to not ask questions is not the scientific approach we could expect by Chomsky.

I am very sad that such a great scientist judges himself for omnipotent and so lost his scientific senses.

It WAS an inside job.
Only some of the "evidence" is pure rubbish.,

[Daneel]

12. If you know so much about scientific inquiry

you also should know the question of why there are no leaks is a valid one in this case.

Chomsky is not omnipotent and has never pretended to be. His books are based on solid evidence and hard investigative work and in fact he encourages his readers to check it for themselves.

Your assertion that it is anywhere implied his word should be taken at face value is absurd.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

14. Is that the best you have?

Accusing people of being Bush supporters?

[Nozebro]

18. Is that person a co-worker of yours?

n/t

[LARED]

20. What person? (n/t)

[Nozebro]

24. happy now?

nt

[LARED]

25. Is it safe to assume you are

referring to your comment being deleted? It wasn't me.

[Nozebro]

27. Yes, I know YOU can't delete it. At least I don't think you've been given THAT

much control.

[rman]

17. I don't think Chomsky has investigated 9/11 in the same way

that he has investigated the subjects about which he has published.
I take his opinion on 9/11 to be his personal opinion, not his opinion as an academic analyst.

[medienanalyse]

22. This I can agree to except

"not his opinion as an academic analyst"

Is it possible that Chomsky can be divided in a privat person and the analyst?

As an analyst he should know when it is usefull to stay quiet. The mere opinion of a scientist is something anybody can agree to or not. U.e.: it is a rainy day and Chomsky utters that it is fine weather because he likes the rain. Agree or not, it is opinion.

But in the video in question he tries to pose as an analyst. He uses his credits, gambls and - looses. Yes he is not well informed - but he pretends to be so.
What a shame, what a blame.

[medienanalyse]

23. ???

"why there are no leaks is a valid (question) one in this case.

Where did I say it is not ?

I said that Chomsky ignores the existing leaks. The motives were clearly defined by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Krepinsky. The participants are mostly known by name (Rumsfeld, Arnold, Myers and so on),, only some details of the technical implications are still unclear.

Chomsky does not analyse that. He scrambles the CTers a little bit and ends in the world of coincidences. If every experiment were full of coincidences - how to sort them out to find the scientific truth ? It is agonizing ignorance, childish in its approach, what Chomsky utters.

What a disappointment.
"

[Daneel]

26. It depends

It depends on the context. Richard Clarke was a leak and came forward with solid and implicating evidence of at least (criminal?) negligence. No sane person is questioning wether this administration's ineptness and Clarke's revelations served to bolster this already prevailing impression.

What we are talking about here are various levels of conspiracy theories. To date there has been very little to go on. Nobody has come forward to testify that the planes were ordered to stay grounded, nobody has come forward to testify that they planted explosives all the way trough the towers without anyone noticing, or that they were hired to fly a plane into a building.

A serious analyst or independent thinker should always look at the available evidence from a dispassionate viewpoint. The conclusion is that there was serious incompetence in dealing with the situation and that it was used to the max for political purposes that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

One might even plausibly surmise that at one point they learned of some imminent attack and seized the oppertunity to create a situation in which these attacks could occur and at the same time defend themselves by playing incompetent.

To get to the truth the government must fully and openly investigate everything seriously. Such a thing is impossible so long as the republicans remain in effective control.

Unfortunately, serious investigators are over-shouted by the true lunatic fringe who conjure up preposterous theories. And saying that those who do not agree with you are in the pay of the RW isn't very helpful either.

Until such a time as more evidence becomes available caution and restrained is advised. Chomsky understands this very well.

[Nozebro]

28. Oh, brother. Now, we're back to the "incompetence" CT - but with a twist.

"They" (i.e. the perps) are incompetent, but Chomsky is smart enough to keep his mouth shut until the CT'ers from booshco tell him it's okay to tell the truth.
That about it?

[Daneel]

29. ...

You go on believing what you want to believe about demolitions, the impossibility of freefall, the nullification of the laws of physics, and rayguns.

I'll reserve drawing conclusions until all the facts are in, thank you very much.

[Nozebro]

30. You too, could be (come) an active, informed, thoughtful, optimistic

DLC member one day soon. Are you sure you're getting enough ketchup in your diet? It's important, you know.

[medienanalyse]

31. Sorry Daneel - you are terribly wrong

When we all - all over the earth - could watch this happen:



the whole Bush administration had decided to do NOTHING. Dolce far niente. Reading goat stories or taking breakfast while their fellow countrymen jumped. And when journalists started to report and to take photos, when paramedics ran, when fireworkers stormed inside the WTC, when the whole world changed its course and stopped the normal procedures.

Rumsfeld did not ask for fighter jets, although his boss got the information "America is under attack".

These mass mirderers which you call government you want to bring into action ? "To get to the truth the government must fully and openly investigate everything ". Ridiculous. Those who desperately wanted a new Pearl Harbor, who orchestrated it and who judged it a new Pearl Harbor and used it as a new Pearl Harbor ?


What do you want ?: "To date there has been very little to go on. Nobody has come forward to testify that the planes were ordered to stay grounded, nobody has come forward to testify that they planted explosives all the way trough the towers without anyone noticing, or that they were hired to fly a plane into a building."

You ask for "orders" ?

We do not need orders which say that the Andrews AFB interceptors stay grounded. Not to scramble them is good enough a cause for a firing squad. Not to take the normal action according the SOPs is worth the electric chair.

Mr. war criminal Rumsfeld (quote Military Times) has to face the death penalty not for DOING this or that on 9/11 but for NOT doing his job.

And forget about confessions about exlosives in the WTC. Where never explosives were never confessions will be.

So all in all it was a nice try of you to divert attention angain from the criminal massmurderers.

Nixon got free. He only was a the head of a burglars gang.

Not so Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld and so on. It is all in the open what they did (not).

[Bonescrat]

44. I'll echo this point...

"Not to scramble them is good enough a cause for a firing squad."

[SidDithers]

32. The world according to Nozebro..

If you don't agree with him, you're either on the payroll, or you just haven't studied the evidence closely enough.

You're not allowed to actually have an informed, dissenting opinion of your own.

Sid

[Nozebro]

33. The 1,000 other CT'ers here don't have any trouble posting their whatever

you'd call it (in polite company), but if DU has adopted a new policy of forbidding conspiracy theorists from soiling the space here, I confess that would be fine by me. After all, the idea here is to discuss the events of 9/11, not conspiracy theories...especially the crazy ones about a caveman & his supposed cokehead-followers coming over and defeating the entire U.S. Defense system.

So, hurry up, Syd and get your CT version posted before it's too late IYKWIM.

[rman]

34. I'd say Chomsky is relevant to truth seekers

who concern themselves with more then only 9/11.

Is anyone here willing to claim that Chomsky tells lies about US foreign and domestic policy, or that he tells lies about the media? - or that any of it is irrelevant to truth seekers?

False flag-ops, the US govt assassinating statesmen, etc, are very much part of Chonsky's world view - just not in the US by the US. That's were his gate is.

Just ignore anything he says about things he has not researched; things about which he has not made any publications.

Who benefits from discrediting Noam Chomsky all together?

None of what Chomsky usually says is mere opinion; everything is thouroughly documented.


Noam Chomsky on power and human destiny:

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation.
Now it's long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time.
It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails, as long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can.

At this stage of history, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy and concern for others; or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control.

As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now, that means the global community.

The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must – namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved, or threats to be avoided.
In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival."

-- Noam Chomsky, in "Manufacturing Consent"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media
www.chomsky.info

video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSxYEzSpFdc

[Nozebro]

35. Even a STOPPED clock is right twice a day. Does your view include boosh too?

After all, he DOES know a little bit about MLBaseball, the energy business, and how to con taxpayers into transferring local tax dollars to elite business owners. AND, he's got the experience to prove it.

[rman]

36. Tell me what Chomsky is wrong about,

aside from the few things that he does not speak about as a researcher.

I disregard the topic of Bush as a straw man.

[Nozebro]

37. Did you get a chance to read the OP?

Chomsky is wrong about not speaking out about the 9/11 false flag operation. As you may know, many people have strong reservations about Chomsky and question his objectivity about the things that he DOES speak out about (other than linguistics and semiotics). I don't know where his true allegiance belongs, but it doesn't matter because the topic of THIS thread is left gatekeepers, and why they should be of no concern to 9/11 Truth Seekers...with regards to 9/11.

What do you think he is RIGHT about? The Middle East?

[rman]

38. I think he's right about pretty much everything else

that he says. And it seems you agree with that.

I think he is right about everything that he has researched as an academic; all the things that he has published about. I have specified that in a previous post so i won't repeat it here. I have invited you to point out about which of those issues Chomsky is wrong, but you have only said he is wrong about 9/11 - one of few issues that Chomsky talks about without having done academic research on it. It is not one of "all the other issues" that Chomsky talks about.
You are aware Chomsky speaks about more than just the middle east, i presume.

To me it looks like you mean to dismiss Chomsky and similar gatekeepers alltogether, and i think that's wrong. The MSM are also gatekeepers - keeping a gate that's much further from complete disclosure than Chomsky's gate is - yet we/you do use the MSM as a source.
After all there is a difference between gatekeepers and disinfo agents.

I think that ignoring Chomsky et all completely is doing a favor to the "specialized class" - it's not doing a favor to truth seekers.

Although i do agree with you that this forum should be used primarily to discuss 9/11, and not be a dumping ground for just about every conspiracy theory that's out there, i also think that focusing on 9/11 at the exclusion of all other issues is to narrow. Ie I do think it is relevant that the same names that were involved with for instance the JFK assassination and Iran/Contra are also involved with 9/11.

Finally, saying that Chomsky is irrelevant to 9/11 truth is like saying An Coulter is irrelevant to 9/11 truth; it's kindof obvious. There are hundreds of people and institutions that are irrelevant to 9/11 truth - all far worse gatekeepers than Chomsky, yet you don't mention those.
I don't think any of the 9/11 truth seekers will start believing the OCT simply because Chomsky doesn't believe there's a conspiracy involving the government re 9/11.

[Nozebro]

39. First of all, Chomsky knows 9/11 was an inside job. It is simply not the case

that he "doesn't believe there's a conspiracy involving the government". How could HE, of all people, NOT know that 9/11 was an inside job?

As an icon for many in the Left,he has greatly damaged the 9/11 Truth Movement by "staying in the river" -- and doing so gives cover to the disinfo people who can point to people like him, Cockburn, Pacifica "The Nation", "The Prgressive", Amy Goodman, and others and say: "See, the most highly regarded Progressives in the country don't believe the Truth Seekers, and it's only the most fanatical paranoids that believe 9/11 was an inside job".

Left Gatekeepers like Chomsky are of no concern to 9/11 Truth Seekers. He is irrelevant on this issue and he has only damaged himself, in my view.

[rman]

42. Chomsky says he doesn't believe it was an inside job

that's all i know for sure, and that's what i go on - not on speculation about what Chomsky "really" thinks.

The gatekeepers that you mention have never actually said what you claim they have said; "See, the most highly regarded Progressives in the country don't believe the Truth Seekers, and it's only the most fanatical paranoids that believe 9/11 was an inside job".

If the MSM - the mainstream gatekeepers - *are* relevant to 9/11 truth (see Thompson's time line), then how can it be that a keeper of a gate that's much closer to the truth is not relevant?

[Nozebro]

43. With that logic, you could say OBL did...or OBL did NOT confess. EOM

The MSM are relevant to 9/11 truth ONLY in the sense that they are like Chomsky and the rest: irrelevant and an impediment to the search for truth.

[rman]

45. the MSM irrelevant? tell that to Paul Thompson.

I suppose you haven't seen "9/11 Press for Truth".

[Nozebro]

40. Not sure what you mean by "right about..." - what are some of the things

that you consider he is "right" about? He has expressed many opinions & some people like them and some don't. I'm unaware of anything in the way of solutions to problems that he has advocated, so perhaps you could inform me about some of them and then I can say whether or not I agree that he is "right", or at least I can say whether or not I agree with his viewpoint on those particular things.

[rman]

41. Your idea of being "right" is to offer solutions to problems?

Just observation and reporting on facts isn't good enough?

Chomsky has never claimed to be some kind of messiah who has the solutions to the problems he sees. Nevertheless he says he thinks that it is a good thing to have many grass-roots movements that focus on various issues, and although he warns against centralized control of these movements he does think that some coordination between these movements would be a good thing. No one single magic solution, but a lot of hard work, taking many small steps.

As i've stated before, what i think Chomsky is right about: aside from linguistics, primarily US foreign policy, and the media as a propaganda tool of the ruling class, used to cover up the reality of that foreign policy.
Contrary to what you suggest what Chomsky says about those topics is not so much opinion as they are the result of research. You'd know that if you are familiar with Chomsky's work.

[gaja]

46. Why should Chomsky go all the way?

...Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free....

An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception....

Engineering Opinion
It is also necessary to whip up the population in support of foreign adventures. Usually the population is pacifist, just like they were during the First World War. The public sees no reason to get involved in foreign adventures, killing, and torture. So you have to whip them up. And to whip them up you have to frighten them....

To a certain extent then, that ideal was achieved, but never completely. There are institutions which it has as yet been impossible to destroy. The churches, for example, still exist.

Representation as Reality
It's also necessary to completely falsify history... There has been a huge effort since the Vietnam war to reconstruct the history of that. Too many people began to understand what was really going on. Including plenty of soldiers and a lot of young people who were involved with the peace movement and others. That was bad. It was necessary to rearrange those bad thoughts and to restore some form of sanity, namely, a recognition that whatever we do is noble and right.

I think he knows what has been done, and he thinks that knowing the truth is a bad thing.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html

[Amused Musings]

47. My sides

were aching with laughter after I read Matt Taibi's imagined dialogue of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney conspiring "The Great Hoax!" (cue "Psycho" music). And Cockburn: he reminds me of how Hitchens version 1.0 used to write. Articulate with a rapier wit!