Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

[jvnk08]

I'm not sure if this has ever been shared here before, I apologize if so. A search of "noam chomsky" came up with no threads specific to this video.

Noam makes a pretty solid argument as to why the obvious use of 9/11 to further questionable national security objectives is not evidence that it was planned by the government. We as the public should be well aware by now that tragedies are often used to further political agendas, because people want action and that directly translates into votes for the most vocal. But that doesn't mean they planned the attacks, it just means that (as expected) they exploited them - and, as he explains, so did every other country in the world.

​

 

[Mick West]

It's the "glad it happened" end of the conspiracy theory spectrum.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1139-Four-Types-of-Event-Conspiracy-Theory

 

[Mick West]

Here's a transcript of that video:

"Every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11 and it was immediately predictable. I remember my first interviews with journalists a couple of hours afterwards. First question I was asked about this I said: ‘Look, every power system in the world is cheering, the Russians love it. It’s giving them an excuse to increase their atrocities in Chechnya under the pretext that they’re defending themselves from terror. The Chinese love it. They’re going to step up their atrocities in western China against the Uyghurs claiming it’s defense against terror. Indonesia loves it. They’re going to go on a rampage in Aceh and massacre everyone because they’ve got to defend themselves against terror. Ariel Sharon will go wild and occupy territories because we have to protect ourselves from terror.’ And so it continues, in fact, just about every country… I mean the more violent ones just extended their own violence, but the less violent ones, say like England, United States or France, immediately imposed what they called ‘the protection against terrorism’-act. Which had almost nothing to do with terror, but a lot to do with disciplining their own populations. So, if you take a look around the world at what are called the more democratic nations, they instituted mechanisms of control of their population under the pretext of defending themselves against terror. And this, I mean, was completely predictable. Even after an earthquake, things like this happen. Power systems will exploit it to expand their own power over their primary enemies, which are their domestic enemies, their own population. And if they happen to be carrying out violent repression they’ll extend it.


So, if the Bush administration gained from it? Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t seem to tell you anything. It just says they’re one of the power systems in the world, so they gained from it. Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it? This seems to be extremely unlikely. For one thing, they would have had to be insane to try anything like that. First, if they had it’s almost certain it would have leaked. It’s a very poor system, secrets are very hard to keep. So something will have leaked out, very likely. And if they had, they would all be put in front of firing squads and that would be the end of the Republican party forever. To take a chance on that, even if you could control what would happen …, further it would be completely unpredictable what was going to happen. You couldn’t predict that the plane would actually hit the World Trade Center. I mean, it happened, it did, but it could easily have missed. So, you could hardly control it, but what you can almost be certain of is that any hint of a plan would have leaked and would have just destroyed them and to take a chance on something like that would be meaningless.


Now there’s a big industry in the United States, on the Left as well, I mean, you should see the e-mail that I get. This huge internet industry from the Left trying to demonstrate, and there’s books coming out, best-sellers in France and so on, that this was all faked and was planned by the Bush administration and so on. If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence. I mean, there’s plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena, “why did this happen and why did that happen” and so on, but if you look at a controlled scientific experiment the same thing is true. When somebody carries out a controlled scientific experiment at the best laboratories at the end there are lots of things that are unexplained and there are funny coincidences and this and that. If you want to get a sense of it, take a look at the letters columns in the technical scientific journals, like ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’ or something, the letters are commonly about unexplained properties of reports of technical experiments carried out under controlled conditions which are just going to leave a lot of things unexplained. That’s just the way the world is. Now when you take a natural event, not something that was controlled, most of it will be unexplained. There will be all sorts of things that happened. Afterwards you can put them into some kind of pattern but beforehand you can’t and the pattern may be completely meaningless, because you can put them in some other pattern too if you want. That’s just the way complicated events are. So, the evidence that’s been produced in my eyes is essentially worthless. And the belief that it could have been done has such low credibility.


I should say I’m pretty isolated on this in the West. A large part on the Left completely disagrees on this and has all kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories about how it happened and why it happened and so on. First of all, I think it’s completely wrong, but also I think it’s diverting people away from serious issues. And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn’t have any significance. It’s a little bit like the huge energy that’s put out on trying to figure out who killed John Kennedy. Who knows? Who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there were some reason to believe that there was some high level conspiracy it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, it’s just a matter of whether it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else. What difference does it make? It’s just taking energy away from serious issues after the ones that don’t matter. And I just think the same is true here, it’s not my personal opinion.”

Content from external source

 

[mynym]

Every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11 and it was immediately predictable.

So if there was a "top secret" international network of "skull and bones" types/privateers and mercenaries and so on and so forth it would be in all of their interests to carry out an attack like 911.

Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it? This seems to be extremely unlikely. For one thing, they would have had to be insane to try anything like that.

Exactly.

First, if they had it’s almost certain it would have leaked.

He is ignorant.

It’s a very poor system, secrets are very hard to keep.

Then why have secret societies been around for thousands of years?

So something will have leaked out, very likely. And if they had, they would all be put in front of firing squads and that would be the end of the Republican party forever.

He's joking, right? If history is any measure then it's more likely that the whistle blower or person leaking would have been prosecuted or shot.

Now there’s a big industry in the United States, on the Left as well, I mean, you should see the e-mail that I get.

I'm sure. But as far as industries go... why is it that Chomsky Inc. seems to be doing well?

Now when you take a natural event, not something that was controlled, most of it will be unexplained.

911 wasn't a natural event no matter what one might imagine of it. It was either a Muslim conspiracy directed from one of Osama's cave complexes (before he was found... in a house, etc.) or it was some other type of conspiracy.

So, the evidence that’s been produced in my eyes is essentially worthless.

Ideas produced by a person who can't distinguish between natural events and intelligence are essentially worthless to me.

And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn’t have any significance.

I do. Why shouldn't I?

Curious the tower between the two pillars of the Right and the Left in the brains between our temples represents caring/wisdom/Solomon in Masonic symbolism. I'm aware that it looks like a Rorschach test to ignorant people though. Maybe people like Chomsky should care more...

 

[hiper]

Well it seems even mr. Chomsky who I like listening to got deceived.
The fact that he says that it "would seem to be extremely unlikely" does not really compare with reality.
Did he forget how many 100 000's of people have died in the subsequent US invasion wars? That does not really point to an administration worrying about death and destruction.

 

[mynym]

What difference does it make?

He sounds like Hillary on Benghazi.

I wonder if he has psychopathic tendencies too.

 

[Mick West]

He is ignorant.

Noam Chomsky is "ignorant"?

 

[Mick West]

He sounds like Hillary on Benghazi.

I wonder if he has psychopathic tendencies too.

You are veering towards the bottom of the pyramid here. Perhaps instead of calling him names and simply contradicting him, you could provide some counterargument? Or even a refutation?

 

[mynym]

I'm probably more ignorant than Chomsky overall.

But in this specific case, yes... he seems to be ignorant of the fact that when people are members of secret societies they don't necessarily leak or try to overturn the system. (Not unless they want to risk their honor, their lives... eh, I forget how the Founders put it all but they basically outlined it. "Give me liberty or give me death... and pass the potatoes while you're at it." Etc.)

 

[hiper]

Noam Chomsky is "ignorant"?

Chomsky knows how many tens of millions of people in the 20th century were killed by their own government...
And he also says he is quite isolated on the matter.

 

[Mick West]

I'm probably more ignorant than Chomsky overall.

But in this specific case, yes... he seems to be ignorant of the fact that when people are members of secret societies they don't necessarily leak or try to overturn the system. (Not unless they want to risk their honor, their lives... [...])

You think he does not know this?

Obviously he DOES know this, so you are misinterpreting what he is saying.

So, if the Bush administration gained from it? Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t seem to tell you anything. It just says they’re one of the power systems in the world, so they gained from it. Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it? This seems to be extremely unlikely. For one thing, they would have had to be insane to try anything like that. First, if they had it’s almost certain it would have leaked. It’s a very poor system, secrets are very hard to keep.

Content from external source

He's not talking about a tiny secret society. He's talking about the Bush Administration, and all the people required to both carry out the plan, and to cover it up. How do they keep all the FBI agents silent? All the scientists?

 

[Mick West]

Chomsky knows how many tens of millions of people in the 20th century were killed by their own government...
And he also says he is quite isolated on the matter.

How does knowing that make him ignorant?

 

[mynym]

You are veering towards the bottom of the pyramid here.

As Chomsky might say... who cares? What's done is done... etc. Just kidding. The top of the pyramid between the Right and the Left is defined by caring if you get things right... but he's sitting there saying "who cares?" and so forth? That's a psychopathic tendency emerging and evolving in his random brain events, I'd imagine. (It's not like I said that he's attended a big hidden ceremony where people try to engage in the theatrical production of the Cremation of Care, by happenstance. That might be insulting.)

As far as answering his points, I answered many of them. And on his point about "Who cares?" I'd note this... the families do. Do you care?

 

[Mick West]

As Chomsky might say... who cares? What's done is done... etc. Just kidding. The top of the pyramid between the Right and the Left is defined by caring if you get things right... but he's sitting there saying "who cares?" and so forth? That's a psychopathic tendency emerging and evolving in his random brain events, I'd imagine. (It's not like I said that he's attended a big hidden ceremony where people try to engage in the theatrical production of the Cremation of Care, by happenstance. That might be insulting.)

As far as answering his points, I answered many of them. And on his point about "Who cares?" I'd note this... the families do. Do you care?

I care, but I think his (extemporaneous) point was better expressed when he said:

First of all, I think it’s completely wrong, but also I think it’s diverting people away from serious issues.

Content from external source

That is what I think, and part of the reason why I debunk. Bunk is a distraction from serious issues.

 

[hiper]

How does knowing that make him ignorant?

He knows what governments are capable of so him saying "extremely unlikely" is to a degree contradictory.

First of all, I think it’s completely wrong, but also I think it’s diverting people away from serious issues.

Content from external source

That is what I think, and part of the reason why I debunk. Bunk is a distraction from serious issues.

Serious issues like the 100 000's of deaths caused by US invasions under G W Bush perhaps?

 

[Mick West]

He knows what governments are capable of so him saying "extremely unlikely" is to a degree contradictory.

I don't think he's saying they would not if they could get away with it. He's saying that there's no evidence than they did it, it would be an insane risk, and it would be essentially impossible to cover up.

Serious issues like the 100 000's of deaths caused by US invasions under G W Bush perhaps?

Exactly.

 

[mynym]

I'm not sure what imaginary scenario would give rise to the idea that it's diverting people away from serious issues. After all, 911 and the War on Terror/War on Fear that it created are basically central to the current world order and the current status of the Right and Left in politics and so forth. (At least until the theatrical production of the collapse of the Almighty Dollar, I'd imagine.) A note on its centrality:

9/11 was the ultimate weapon against Bush; indeed, it was the only effective weapon–how ironic that it was the weapon which the hysterical left liberals categorically refused to take up. Here were persons who claimed they would do anything to stop the war in Iraq, anything to roll back the domestic police state. But address the truth about 9/11, where the absurdities of the official version cried out to heaven? Horrors! Never!–was the response of Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, The Nation magazine, Greg Palast, and most of the broadcasters associated with Air America. From one plausible point of view, the left gatekeepers were, by their craven refusal to tackle 9/11, taking upon themselves a large measure of Afghan and Iraq (and Iran) war guilt, plus responsibility for totalitarianism on the home front.
What a wretched position was that of the gatekeepers! They were propounding the patent absurdity that, while Bush had been an inveterate liar all his life until September 11, 2001, he mysteriously began to tell the truth on that day–even if he relapsed into mendacity in the early days of January, 2002, before his “axis of evil” State of the Union speech. The left gatekeepers preened themselves on never believing Bush. If they were caught in public giving credence to Bush on any other issue–be it Iraq, the deficit, Katrina, Plamegate, prescription drug reform, or oil drilling in Alaska, they would have died of mortification and humiliation. But on 9/11, the biggest issue of them all, the fountainhead of all wars, the pretext for all police states, the true caput horum et causa malorum–they were eager not just to repeat Bush’s lies, but to aid in crushing anyone who dared to contradict them. (Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley)

As far as who cares goes... an artist's rendition:
​

 

[Mick West]

I'm not sure what imaginary scenario would give rise to the idea that it's diverting people away from serious issues.

The conspiracy theory is quite obviously diverting people away from serious issues.

 

[Oxymoron]

I care, but I think his (extemporaneous) point was better expressed when he said:

First of all, I think it’s completely wrong, but also I think it’s diverting people away from serious issues.

Content from external source

That is what I think, and part of the reason why I debunk. Bunk is a distraction from serious issues.

That is a very big statement you made there Mick. pleased to see it.

It is a deviation from your usual neutrality, which I understand the reason for but nevertheless, I would genuinely appreciate if you would expand on it. I know it sounds a bit like entrapment but I would really be interested to know what 'serious issues' are to you. I agree with Hiper when he asks if the massive death toll and ongoing occupation etc are amongst them?

 

[Mick West]

9/11 was the ultimate weapon against Bush; indeed, it was the only effective weapon–how ironic that it was the weapon which the hysterical left liberals categorically refused to take up.

This argument only actually holds water if Bush actually WAS behind 9/11. If it's just a baseless conspiracy theory, then why should "the left" take it up?

There has been plenty of criticism of the exploitation of 9/11.

 

[mynym]

...it would be an insane risk, and it would be essentially impossible to cover up.

Imagine it like the production of a collateralized debt obligation. The only people taking insane risks would be the patsies (the poor people buying a house with no money to do so), the handlers above them wouldn't be at risk of as much (the realtors and lenders handling the deal and laundering the debt/money) and the people guiding their trends (the Fed) would have almost zero risk.

It's not necessary that anyone in the system necessarily believes that they have much of anything to cover up or leak. It usually only looks that way in retrospect, so those supporting the system would naturally say: "Who cares? What's done is done."

Not to mention that once you get to the top it's multinational corporations, global banksters and multinational mercenaries and so forth. What are they going to do, report on themselves to the corporate media and hope that they don't wind up being spied on like Petraeus?

The imaginary scenario of many seems to be: "Surely someone would leak!"

But... why? It's unlikely that they're sitting there thinking, "We're a bunch of criminal conspirators. Someone here should really leak that we're a bunch of criminals... but I won't." Etc. Imagining that someone high up in the leadership would leak might be almost as bad as imagining that Bin Laden's cohorts would leak... thereby "falsify" the official conspiracy theory based on imaginary evidence. There again, what evidence does Chomsky actually cite or deal with in this demonstration of "sheer logic" other than his own imagination. He imagines that someone would leak... QED? Well, I'd imagine that they'd organize their plot in such a way that it wouldn't leak just like the official story about Osama organizing his plot that way.

So, there you go.

 

[Mick West]

That is a very big statement you made there Mick. pleased to see it.

I would genuinely appreciate if you would expand on it. I know it sounds a bit like entrapment but I would really be interested to know what 'serious issues' are to you. I agree with Hiper when he asks if the massive death toll and ongoing occupation etc are amongst them?

Serious issues need to be ROOT issues. Things like the Iraq sanctions are in some ways the end result, and not an issue in themselves. For me the key issue is the role of money in politics, which then leads to the military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes, and corrupt revolving door politics, which leads to unnecessary wars, and an insane domestic prison population.

 

[Mick West]

Well, I'd imagine that they'd organize their plot in such a way that it wouldn't leak just like the official story about Osama organizing his plot that way.

So they do it in such a way that it does not require the complicity of the FBI? The FBI is totally unaware of what is going on? The FBI (and the CIA, and the NSA, and then the DHS) will be tricked into going down an entirely dead end investigation, and become convinced that it was Bin Laden? All of them?

And they don't need to pressure all the scientists in the entire world to keep silent? It was done in such a way that the millions of expert people who understand physics will not notice anything wrong, only a few lay people will notice the physics errors?

How would they do this exactly? They would have to make it look EXACTLY like the collapse was a result of the collision and fire. Do you think that's what they did?

 

[jvnk08]

The left gatekeepers preened themselves on never believing Bush. If they were caught in public giving credence to Bush on any other issue–be it Iraq, the deficit, Katrina, Plamegate, prescription drug reform, or oil drilling in Alaska, they would have died of mortification and humiliation. But on 9/11, the biggest issue of them all, the fountainhead of all wars, the pretext for all police states, the true caput horum et causa malorum–they were eager not just to repeat Bush’s lies, but to aid in crushing anyone who dared to contradict them.

But see, it's not Bush's words they are "repeating".

It's the evidence-backed, overwhelmingly mutually supported narrative constructed from the accounts of thousands of people who were there during the attacks, who were inside the government, who were in the military in the ensuing conflicts. All of them must be lying or mistaken, a notion that makes far more unsupportable assertions to bridge the gap between the event and a conspiracy.

It's the lack of logically sound hypothesized motives behind destroying a national icon, behind abruptly halting economic activity in the largest economic center on the planet and further disrupting it for months afterwards. "The money" seems to be the only consistently described incentive(depending on who you ask) for the attacks to have been orchestrated from the inside, something they could have made a lot more of had the attacks never occurred.

It's the lack of verifiable whistleblowers voicing to the contrary. Is there any evidence that people within the government or the military have come out and said that AQ could not have pulled off the attack, or if they could have did so at the behest of the US government? I suggest making a new thread if so, because that would be more convincing evidence. So far I haven't seen any so far that is, again, verifiable and consistent in its claims.

 

[mynym]

The conspiracy theory is quite obviously diverting people away from serious issues.

Not at all. If you don't understand what happened on 911 then you're not going to understand the next "drill" based on imaginary scenarios and so on.

And an awareness of conspiracies, conspirators, banksters and psychopaths could be a useful form of knowledge with more explanatory power than most coincidence theories, e.g.:

....the 9/11 terror assault was a state-sponsored, false-flag war provocation, carried out from inside the US federal government by a private rogue network which is ultimately controlled by Wall Street and the City of London. This war provocation was executed by an extensive apparatus which included the patsies who were identified and demonized by the FBI and the mass media, the moles who served the rogue network inside government institutions, and the expert but shadowy technicians who actually produced the tragic effects observed. The main aspects were bootlegged or conduit-ed through legally approved drills and war games, which were transformed, re-directed, and taken live by small cadres of rogue network loyalists. The overall command center is likely to have been located in an elaborate war room in a private military firm. All aspects of these events took place in a media environment of the most extreme mass manipulation and mass brainwashing. 9/11 was a coup d’état, or better yet a kind of putsch by cliques of generals, top intelligence officers, and other high government officials against the existing US government. It was geopolitical or spheres of influence terrorism, and successfully started a war of civilizations which US and British imperialist institutions have used down to the present day in an attempt to organize world affairs... (Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley)

 

[Mick West]

Not at all. If you don't understand what happened on 911 then you're not going to understand the next "drill" based on imaginary scenarios and so on.

But you are presupposing it was an inside job, an "imaginary scenario". What if it were more or less as Chomsky said. Terrorists attack, then it is exploited by those in power.

What do you think actually happened?

 

[mynym]

What do you think actually happened?

I'm not sure yet. I actually haven't finished reading Tarpley's book.

What if it were more or less as Chomsky said.

Sounds like a coincidence theory to me... and in politics, everything is usually a conspiracy. (On a side note, I also simply didn't like his "Who cares?" thing. Ironically, if he doesn't care about the truth for its own sake then he could have used the event as a technique to reach whatever ends he actually does care about.)

 

[mynym]

It's the evidence-backed, overwhelmingly mutually supported narrative constructed from the accounts of thousands of people who were there during the attacks, who were inside the government, who were in the military in the ensuing conflicts. All of them must be lying or mistaken...

Study history, it's not as if a mutually supported narrative among thousands of lemmings about a false flag attack would be without precedent. And if that was the case then, it could be the case now.

 

[Mick West]

I'm not sure yet. I actually haven't finished reading Tarpley's book.

Tarpley claims it was undeniably controlled demolition, probably organized by Cheney, and it was done to maintain petrodollar hegemony.

And more specifically he claims (emphasis his)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf

1. The government’s assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being
detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the
alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself.
The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double agents or, more
bluntly, patsies

2. The government’s assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken
over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI is at or
beyond the limits of physical and technical reality. The planes were in all
probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote
control.


3. The government’s assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog
of war is lame and absurd. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles
operating inside the government.


4. The government’s assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is physically
impossible. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must
therefore be considered.


5. The government’s assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center
collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and of the subsequent fire is
physically impossible. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the
hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including
unconventional methods employing new physical principles.


6. The government’s assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EDT
on September 11 purely as a result of fire is physically impossible. The collapse
of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.


7. The government’s assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by
the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is physically impossible,
given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points
towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot down by US military aircraft.


8. The government’s refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and
United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the
systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents
point unmistakably to an attempted coverup on the part of the entire US
government and establishment.

Content from external source

Which I'm pretty sure is all bunk.

 

[jvnk08]

Study history, it's not as if a mutually supported narrative among thousands of lemmings about a false flag attack would be without precedent. And if that was the case then, it could be the case now.

Except there are some key differences between "then" and recent history: the Internet, ubiquitous cameras and computing devices.

It is by all accounts incredibly easy to blow the whistle on wrongdoing today. Without a doubt the folks within the intelligence community privy to such wrongdoing would have the know-how to blow the whistle anonymously - software developments throughout the 2000s have made it incredibly easy, even for the layperson. The government even started one such effort in 2002: Tor, designed to enable those living in countries with oppressive regimes to anonymously leak information to the outside world. There are even more advanced techniques possible with a bit of understanding regarding how computers, networks and encryption work.

In light of that, we're basically left with two options: everyone within said agencies is completely brainwashed and they are air-tight(which, going on your suggestion to look at history has never been the case), or the story is a lot simpler than the conspiracy narrative.

 

[hiper]

So they do it in such a way that it does not require the complicity of the FBI? The FBI is totally unaware of what is going on? The FBI (and the CIA, and the NSA, and then the DHS) will be tricked into going down an entirely dead end investigation, and become convinced that it was Bin Laden? All of them?

And they don't need to pressure all the scientists in the entire world to keep silent? It was done in such a way that the millions of expert people who understand physics will not notice anything wrong, only a few lay people will notice the physics errors?

How would they do this exactly? They would have to make it look EXACTLY like the collapse was a result of the collision and fire. Do you think that's what they did?

You forget one thing.. they first told the incredibly believable lie that it were terrorists who attacked on 9/11.
Thus creating an easy way out 'mentally' for most...

And this is the moment they spread this lie the evening of 11/09/2001.

 

[Grieves]

And they don't need to pressure all the scientists in the entire world to keep silent? It was done in such a way that the millions of expert people who understand physics will not notice anything wrong, only a few lay people will notice the physics errors?

This concept that 'every scientist in the world' but for a few 'laypeople' backs the official account is a total fiction. Should know better.

 

[Mick West]

This concept that 'every scientist in the world' but for a few 'laypeople' backs the official account is a total fiction. Should know better.

Sorry, let's go with "pretty much every scientist in the world".

 

[Grieves]

Again, nonsense. Were all the physicists, demolitions experts and structural engineers on the planet polled for their opinion? Where are you getting this notion that 'pretty much every scientist in the world' agrees with the official account? Are you seriously making the assumption that those who've come out, on the record, in disagreement with the official account are the ONLY qualified people in the world who share that opinion? Or that everyone who failed to speak up is in automatic agreement with the official account? Where are you getting your figure of 'Pretty much every scientist in the world?' What constitutes 'pretty much'?
It's a contrivance, distracting from the fact that there are quite a few pertinent professionals who don't buy the official account. Sure, they appear to be in the minority, but that doesn't make them 'laypeople', nor does being in the minority where such matters are concerned automatically make you wrong.

 

[mynym]

Which I'm pretty sure is all bunk.

I'm not sure on what basis he's writing half the stuff he wrote.

Sometimes 911 reminds me of a sort of gnostic initiation ceremony where everyone begins to have secret knowledge, etc. I would note that claims to secret knowledge is ultimately anti-scientific. At least, according to the laws that an alchemist (Who thought that he had secret knowledge.) formulated for others and so forth. The story of an apple (forbidden fruit) falling on Newton's head and imparting the secret knowledge that lead him to the theory of gravity and so forth is bunk, by the way. But anyway, from this we get Apple Inc. being traded in the Big Apple in NYC... which is a big epicenter of abject corruption. Maybe it's all just symbolic and artistic expressions of "bunk" that might as well carry the same epistemic weight as a Rorschach test... except when it isn't.

In any case, is there anything about the official story that you think might be bunk? Anything at all? Or did they get it all right, from the narratives provided on the day of the attacks onward.

Anyway... I'd imagine that if people can successfully conscript a lot of resources and wealth to build buildings that have their "top secret" symbolism encrypted in them, then the same types of groups might also be able to figure out ways to successfully demolish buildings in order to bring the Right and the Left and then the Center together into a new order. Chomsky said that people would have to be insane to try that. And? I hadn't noticed the ruling/measuring classes with their symbolic compass and square and so forth overflowing with sanity these days. The insane part of it would be if Bush's thousand points of light began to look suspiciously like a thousand peasants with torches and pitchforks headed toward the houses of their current ruling/Masonic class, etc. "Wait a second, that's not a thousand points of light... uh don't leave your child behind! You can afford some more compassionate conservatism with the banksters voodoo economics... or somethin'." Etc.

But what if Bush himself was ultimately a scapegoat left to read "My Pet Goat"? I guess if one goes with Chomsky's answer of "Who cares?" then people will never even get to the next level of compartmentalization and implausible deniability with respect to events like the JFK assassination and 911. And that's no fun. What does he care about, anyway?

 

[Mick West]

Again, nonsense. Were all the physicists, demolitions experts and structural engineers on the planet polled for their opinion? Where are you getting this notion that 'pretty much every scientist in the world' agrees with the official account? Are you seriously making the assumption that those who've come out, on the record, in disagreement with the official account are the ONLY qualified people in the world who share that opinion? Or that everyone who failed to speak up is in automatic agreement with the official account? Where are you getting your figure of 'Pretty much every scientist in the world?' What constitutes 'pretty much'?
It's a contrivance, distracting from the fact that there are quite a few pertinent professionals who don't buy the official account. Sure, they appear to be in the minority, but that doesn't make them 'laypeople', nor does being in the minority where such matters are concerned automatically make you wrong.

Okay, then let's just go with "hundreds of thousands", for the sake of argument.

How did they get hundreds of thousands of scientists to go along with the story?

 

[Mick West]

In any case, is there anything about the official story that you think might be bunk? Anything at all? Or did they get it all right, from the narratives provided on the day of the attacks onward.

I don't know of anything wrong in the NIST reports. I suspect there might be errors or omissions in some of the background stuff in the 9/11 commission report, particularly to do with the CIA involvement in Jihadist groups, and the involvement of powerful Saudis.

However I full agree with the official story of how the buildings collapse. It makes perfect scientific sense.

On the conspiracy spectrum I'm in the (they are) "glad it happened" camp, with perhaps a small scoop of "let it happen".

 

[Grieves]

How did they get hundreds of thousands of scientists to go along with the story?

By presenting a more-or-less believable scenario for an extremely traumatic event that next to no one wants to believe was anything more than a terrorist attack. Time and time again one of the primary causes for the scientific community to disregard the explosives scenario in spite of no one having adequately tested for it is how 'totally unbelievable' the premise of pre-planned collapses is, and how 'impossible' the logistics of setting such a thing up would be... how the people involved would 'have to be crazy', and such crazies could never get into the positions of influence required. The possibility of an explosives scenario is very often dismissed from a position of moral outrage at the idea, before the scientific possibility has even been entertained, or before the lack of a scientific investigation into that possibility has been questioned.

 

[hiper]

Okay, then let's just go with "hundreds of thousands", for the sake of argument.

How did they get hundreds of thousands of scientists to go along with the story?

A percentage of them believes the official lie..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but doesn't really care..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but for whatever reason fears speaking out..
A percentage of them knows what's going on and have joined a truth movement..

Don't forget all were obviously educated by and employed in the same system.. They have build a career, have kids a mortgage...
Going against government is still perceived (as mad as it sounds) as going against the majority consensus trance...
Don't dismiss the giant wall these people are in front of.. you are basically asking them to turn their lives upside down...

 

[Mick West]

By presenting a more-or-less believable scenario for an extremely traumatic event that next to no one no one wants to believe was anything more than a terrorist attack. Time and time again one of the primary causes for the scientific community to disregard the explosives scenario in spite of no one having adequately tested for it is how 'totally unbelievable' the premise of pre-planned collapses is, and how 'impossible' the logistics of setting such a thing up would be... how the people involved would 'have to be crazy', and such crazies could never get into the positions of influence required. The possibility of an explosives scenario is very often dismissed from a position of moral outrage at the idea, before the scientific possibility has even been entertained, or before the lack of a scientific investigation into that possibility has been questioned.

A percentage of them believes the official lie..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but doesn't really care..
A percentage of them knows what's going on but for whatever reason fears speaking out..
A percentage of them knows what's going on and have joined a truth movement..

Don't forget all were obviously educated by and employed in the same system.. They have build a career, have kids a mortgage...
Going against government is still perceived (as mad as it sounds) as going against the majority consensus trance...
Don't dismiss the giant wall these people are in front of.. you are basically asking them to turn their lives upside down...

And then how do you explain the scientifically literate skeptics and debunkers like myself. Why am I siding with the official story?