Chomsky Gets an F
Noam Chomsky, in explaining why he is not interested in 9/11, makes a number of basic logical errors. For example:
• Chomsky assumes that nothing like a 9/11 inside-job scenario has ever happened before. He might be very knowledgeable about many parts of U.S. foreign policy, but Chomsky doesn't know the first thing about the frequently used tactic of false flag terrorism
• Chomsky argues that "the administration would [not] have been so utterly insane as to try something like this". Really? I guess faking WMDs and other intelligence, spying on grandmothers and other innocent Americans without a warrant, torturing people, repealing large chunks of the Constitution, and gearing up for more "elective" wars -- perhaps using nukes -- is sane? Again, If Chomsky knew how many governments have committed (and gotten away with) false flag attacks, he wouldn't think it was so insane for the American government to carry out the 9/11 attacks to justify its pre-planned agenda
• Chomsky says that civil and mechanical engineers are needed to determine why the Twin Towers collapsed. But civil and mechanical engineers (and physicists) have already determined that the Towers (and building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition
• Chomsky assumes that 9/11 truth takes energy away from more important activist activities. But every Constitution-revoking law, executive order, and regulation, and every act of military aggression uses 9/11 as its excuse. 9/11 is the excuse and justification for everything Chomsky dislikes. 9/11 is the mortar and cement which props up this regime and which makes it impossible to take any part of its agenda away
Noam Chomsky is widely accepted as one of the smartest guys around. He basically invented the field of linguistics. The New York Times called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive". And when he was on the Charlie Rose show last year, he demolished Rose in debate, and Rose was left whining "How do you know all that?" So Chomsky's brains are not the problem.
Instead, Chomsky's mistakes in basic logic and faulty assumptions regarding 9/11 show that even someone brilliant in one area can make monumental mistakes in another because he has failed to look at the facts for himself. Professor Chomsky may have "written the book" on some subjects, but he gets an F regarding 9/11.
The take-home message is that -- no matter how smart and successful you are in your given field -- you've got to look at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job for yourself before dismissing it out of hand.
• Chomsky assumes that nothing like a 9/11 inside-job scenario has ever happened before. He might be very knowledgeable about many parts of U.S. foreign policy, but Chomsky doesn't know the first thing about the frequently used tactic of false flag terrorism
• Chomsky argues that "the administration would [not] have been so utterly insane as to try something like this". Really? I guess faking WMDs and other intelligence, spying on grandmothers and other innocent Americans without a warrant, torturing people, repealing large chunks of the Constitution, and gearing up for more "elective" wars -- perhaps using nukes -- is sane? Again, If Chomsky knew how many governments have committed (and gotten away with) false flag attacks, he wouldn't think it was so insane for the American government to carry out the 9/11 attacks to justify its pre-planned agenda
• Chomsky says that civil and mechanical engineers are needed to determine why the Twin Towers collapsed. But civil and mechanical engineers (and physicists) have already determined that the Towers (and building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition
• Chomsky assumes that 9/11 truth takes energy away from more important activist activities. But every Constitution-revoking law, executive order, and regulation, and every act of military aggression uses 9/11 as its excuse. 9/11 is the excuse and justification for everything Chomsky dislikes. 9/11 is the mortar and cement which props up this regime and which makes it impossible to take any part of its agenda away
Noam Chomsky is widely accepted as one of the smartest guys around. He basically invented the field of linguistics. The New York Times called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive". And when he was on the Charlie Rose show last year, he demolished Rose in debate, and Rose was left whining "How do you know all that?" So Chomsky's brains are not the problem.
Instead, Chomsky's mistakes in basic logic and faulty assumptions regarding 9/11 show that even someone brilliant in one area can make monumental mistakes in another because he has failed to look at the facts for himself. Professor Chomsky may have "written the book" on some subjects, but he gets an F regarding 9/11.
The take-home message is that -- no matter how smart and successful you are in your given field -- you've got to look at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job for yourself before dismissing it out of hand.
10 Comments:
Noam Chomsky, ... makes a number of basic logical errors.
Nope, Chomsky thinks first and THEN speaks and he is careful to avoid errors. This blog contains errors. Very Very many errors. Try to find one in the 2000 publications/speeches by Noam... I challenge you.
Chomsky assumes that nothing like a 9/11 inside-job scenario has ever happened before.
Where have airplanes been used to create a SUPERB deception and 3000 New Yorkers have been sacrificed on the altar of Oil? This is not a simple false flag operation... its the MOST OBVIOUS mass murder and it is MOST HEINOUSLY blamed on arabs, in full view of billions?
Come on! give us a break!
Chomsky argues that "the administration would [not] have been so utterly insane as to try something like this".
Come on... remote-controlling airplanes and bombing the pentagon... thats insane all right. Also, how do you know it was the government? I think it was a coup-d-etat, and it was non-government spooks and military.
Again, If Chomsky knew how many
Does that count as a separate logical error?
Chomsky assumes that 9/11 truth takes energy away from more important activist activities. But every Constitution-revoking law, executive order, and regulation, and every act of military aggression uses 9/11 as its excuse. 9/11 is the excuse and justification for everything Chomsky dislikes. 9/11 is the mortar and cement
Is that so? What do YOU know about it? Maybe the backlash will be the
downfall? Maybe you could do something worthwile, like make a support-group for the ongoin repression in Colombia, the US stealing of the chacos Islands or simply the inhumane conditions that your black population is suffering?
Instead you are WASTING OUR TIME supposing, imagining, lambasting and waffling..
The take home message is that -- no matter how smart and successful
outch.. and now you are arrogant.
that 9/11 was an inside job for yourself before dismissing it out of hand.
and now you are a liar, too.
He did not dismiss it OUT OF HAND.
u2r2h
The 911 Truth movement is not well served by bashing folks like Professor Noam Chomsky or (as I've seen previously elsewhere) Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Instead, we should respectfully welcome the challenge to meet their thresholds of credibility that earn their attention. There are also very human elements that contribute to surprising reactions to what appears to us as obvious-even by the very gifted. We should never loose sight of the contributions of our most articulate voices speaking truth to power.
"We should never loose sight of the contributions of our most articulate voices speaking truth to power."
How obvious is it that building seven was a controlled demolition? Its beyond the pale and then some....what are they waiting for, the empire to pancake collapse? These people you admire are quick to point out the bad manners of empire, but they stop short when given the silver bullets to end empire (Chomsky still accepts the Warren Commission findings, WACO accounts, etc.). They know which side the butter's on...same side as the guns, (MIT and democratic party funding). We need know them by their fruits and quit wasting our time following their cues if we are to ever stop the evil they display such disdain for.
For the truth on Chomsky, read this article, which exposes how he shills for the CIA, NSA, Federal Reserve, Bilderberg, 911 conspirators, etc.
He is nothing but a pathetic NSA operative used to manipulate social movements and prevent the discovery of the actual ruling oligarchy.
http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm
"But civil and mechanical engineers (and physicists) have already determined that the Towers (and building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition."
But I see no civil engineer on the Full Member list of Scholars for Truth.
I strongly suggest you not to identify people which are not with you on your quest for 911 truth with people which are against you. I do not think Chomsky has ever tried to ridicule the 911 truth movement. Ray McGovern has never publicly claimed that 911 was an inside job either. Yet, he has suggested that it could be the case. I think NC does not view 911 as a particulary horrendous act of terror when compared to the many US sponsored acts of terrors everywhere else in the world. What makes the difference is only the nature of the victims, which of course are american in this case.
Regarding J.T.Waldrons comment.
I sir am probably the person to whom who refer to, as 'elsewhere' brashly bashing Amy Goodman and Professor Chomsky and I agree that it does not best serve the 911 truth movement. I am however, perhaps misguidely of the opinion that on this one issue alone, I am correct in my ascertions. If you will allow me to explain. NC has a position of great influence over the thinking and correctly concerned and activist left, that is unparralled, and to himself seem to brashly bash the 9/11 truth movement through comments such as "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it." or to ascert that a high school kids sciences could discredit the theories, is I am afraid to say a brush off and an attack upon us, in its own right. Its power from his authority, is to remove an audience of thousands from an important activist issue and my attack upon him in return, is not so much an attack but an attempt to dent the dismmissal we are given by his followers. Professor Jones is no high school physics dolt. He too took time to realise thier maybe some credence in the tin-foil hatted claims of true Patriots that came before him, in fact he's now pretty convinced and convincing.
Structural engineers we may well lack at present but they are usually government based in thier work and many, have never read even the FEMA or NIST reports themselves, simply having followed the media's retoric without self research. Fire studies in the UK commissioned as a result of the attacks, seem to contain plenty that discredits the offical fire and pancake theory but just dont directly state it. Whilst other leading credible people have backed the demolition hypothesis. To brush us off as not worth the time, as diversions from attacking other US policies and attrocities when most now stem from 9/11 is absurd and kills off a major force of activists that united, could be this administrations downfall. So my assertions of NC not telling the truth on this one issue, or of being guilty of not researching it enough, are I feel valid. A CIA agent he is probably not however.
Amy Goodman has, if assertions by certain 911 truth members are valid, repeatedly been given (on film)and sent 911 based materials and each time claims, she has not seen such things before. She then gives it no coverage. So again I feel an important audience for these materials is being wasted by people who wish the end of this regime and future bad US actions from any administration. So again I feel valid in my criticism. As I said before, I dont dislike these people, I respect thier histories and works but they must give this issue some more serious research and credibility, to allow it to reach the wider audience of angry patriots that will make a difference, when armed with the potential truths that are being confirmed further each day.
Anonymous said...
Noam Chomsky, ... makes a number of basic logical errors.
Nope, Chomsky thinks first and THEN speaks and he is careful to avoid errors. This blog contains errors. Very Very many errors. Try to find one in the 2000 publications/speeches by Noam... I challenge you.
My reply:
This is merely an assertion. I do not believe for a second that Chomsky has never made an error, nor would I expect him to claim that himself. This really is a very strong claim and goes hand in hand with your ungrammatical claim that this blog contains ‘Very Very many errors’. Please provide a list of these errors.
Chomsky assumes that nothing like a 9/11 inside-job scenario has ever happened before.
Where have airplanes been used to create a SUPERB deception and 3000 New Yorkers have been sacrificed on the altar of Oil? This is not a simple false flag operation... its the MOST OBVIOUS mass murder and it is MOST HEINOUSLY blamed on arabs, in full view of billions?
Come on! give us a break!
My reply:
Learn English and go to University. Preferably in that order, although it’s rare these days. What is a ‘superb’ deception if not a well executed one? Are you asking us to evaluate past deceptions for ‘superbness’ – of course, only those with planes? Please explain what the rest of your argument is here. It sounds like you are claiming: (a) 9/11 was an inside job that was obviously so and heinously blamed on Arabs and (b) given that 9/11 didn’t happen before 9/11 Chomsky is right in not investigating it.
Chomsky argues that "the administration would [not] have been so utterly insane as to try something like this".
Come on... remote-controlling airplanes and bombing the pentagon... thats insane all right. Also, how do you know it was the government? I think it was a coup-d-etat, and it was non-government spooks and military.
My reply:
Ah. Too insane for the government, you think with Chomsky. Not too insane for the government’s employees, though. Why?
Also, are you now arguing that 9/11 was an inside job? If so you are disagreeing with Chomsky on the point that the article was disputing.
Can you please explain why it is insane to remote control planes? Also, do you think that everyone in the 9/11 movement believes there were remote controlled planes? Why is it insane to bomb the pentagon? Please reference the widely disseminated theories regarding the motivation of the attack in your response.
Please also explain exactly how you think that the non-government spooks (sic) and military carried out their plan without any single member of the administration. What are your reaons for believing this happened?
Again, If Chomsky knew how many
Does that count as a separate logical error?
My reply:
?
Chomsky assumes that 9/11 truth takes energy away from more important activist activities. But every Constitution-revoking law, executive order, and regulation, and every act of military aggression uses 9/11 as its excuse. 9/11 is the excuse and justification for everything Chomsky dislikes. 9/11 is the mortar and cement
Is that so? What do YOU know about it? Maybe the backlash will be the
downfall? Maybe you could do something worthwile, like make a support-group for the ongoin repression in Colombia, the US stealing of the chacos Islands or simply the inhumane conditions that your black population is suffering?
Instead you are WASTING OUR TIME supposing, imagining, lambasting and waffling..
My reply:
Support groups, the answer to geopolitical problems: as recommended by some guy on a blog. I reckon here the author gives himself away. He’s a schoolkid. This is why he is defending his hero while unknowingly agreeing with the guy disputing his hero’s comments. The key to this secret is the childish first three sentences of this reply. ‘Who says?’, he says, sticking his tongue out. By the way, young man, what did you mean by ‘Maybe the backlash will be the downfall?’ Are you suggesting that the 9/11 truth movement could bring down the government? Because then … oops!
The take home message is that -- no matter how smart and successful
outch.. and now you are arrogant.
My reply:
Listen America! It is arrogant to question your leaders and academic teachers! Please desist.
that 9/11 was an inside job for yourself before dismissing it out of hand.
and now you are a liar, too.
He did not dismiss it OUT OF HAND.
My reply:
He refused to look at the evidence. Ergo, he dismissed it out of hand. The take home message for you kid is to examine the evidence yourself and evaluate your poster-boy on the basis of his response to that evidence.
I think one has to consider--and I don't mean to state my opinion as fact in any sense, I mean just what I said, that one has to consider--that Noam Chomsky is almost 80 years old. He has grandchildren. He has been exposing the lie of American "democracy" and "free markets" since the early 1960s, if not earlier.
I, too, am very uncomfortable with the idea that he would refuse to write or speak about the role which the US government played in 9/11. None of us knows what that role was exactly, but, from available evidence, it appears to have been pretty large.
But think about it...we are talking about Noam Chomsky here. In my opinion, there are two reasons he might have for wanting to avoid the 9/11 conspiracy issue, even if he is fully aware (how could he not be?) of it and its implications.
First, he is probably mindful that, with his respectable status in the US and especially abroad, any attempts by him to disclose a conspiracy related to 9/11 would intensify the desires of business and government to silence him. Fatally, if need be. That may not be a risk he is willing to take as a near-octagenarian with grandchildren as when he was a young academic protesting against Vietnam.
Secondly, assume that a 9/11 conspiracy was publicly disclosed and the Bush administration and everyone associated with it got the chair. Okay, that's a victory for truth, but then a new administration comes in and begins a new neoliberal agenda, and eventually what you have is more of the same. Perhaps the reason that Chomsky does not want to dwell on the 9/11 subject, particularly compounded with the first reason, is that he would prefer that people focus their attention and their resources on the source of the problems rather than their symptoms, of which 9/11 is the largest, certainly, but still a symptom.
I'm not making any claims as to the moral validity of either of these reasons, if they in fact exist. I'm just saying, give Chomsky a little more credit than that.
Also, I'm sorry to double comment you, but I forgot to make this point, if it is a point:
Chomsky is a linguist. He is skilled with language beyond what is apparent on the surface.
When he says that the Bush administration would have been "insane" and without "historical analogue" to have explicit complicity in the bombings, is that really a condemnation of 9/11 conspiracists, or is he just stating the truth artfully? There is no question that Chomsky is trying to seriously downplay the matter, and I, like you, have problems with that. But closely examine the language he uses when he talks about it. It might surprise you.
I'd give him an F on 9/11 too. But it is possible to flunk on purpose.
Post a Comment
<< Home