Noam Chomsky: 9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory

[8den]

You/they glad to see you understand the concept of generalisation. Of course rationalists like you never deal in such things...except when you do.



And of course because you say that's the case it is. I think you deserve another for that bit of unsubstantiated, totally subjective hogwash. I doubt you have ever spoken with a real life quantum physicist. I have. But that's beside the point. Tell me how the universe is about absolutes then. Please enlighten me.

Do you really want to have a debate about Quantum Mechanics and how it will prove the conspiracy? I'm up for it. Start the ball rolling, and state your theory.

maybe I couldn't, but journalists, police and anyone else with a vested interest certainly can and you also can and do, and of course when it suits you, you can believe anything. So a passport was found at the site...look how you accept any story that fits into your neat supposition that it proves something against conspiracy nuts...who all think exactly the same thoughts of course. You use exactly the same rationale you accuse conspiracy theorists of using, but you're too dumb to see how you do the same. Truly sad.

So is what your saying happened here is

A) The gubiment afraid that the found passport was the smoking gun, killed Lidley and planted the passport at the crash site. To "prove" a passport can survive a plane crash?

or

B) the gubiment hearing of lidley's plane crash decided now to strike while the Iron is hot and planted a copy of Lidley passport that they happened to have lying around?

I mean honestly, you think by acting as if you are some harbinger of logic, without diplaying ANY logic in your argument you convince me of your intelligence? Trust me you don't even begin to. You need your mates backing you up to make it look like you are winning. All patting you on the back like playground bullies. And like bullies you are cowards at heart.


Your attempts at showing me how your logic works fail miserably as do all those pathetic 1,000 page websites that claim to disprove conspiracies. If you can't see where the logic fails in that you truly are as weak a debater as you display on this thread.

Generally I find the guy shouting "thats pathetic" and "you're weak" with out making any pretense of an argument is the one who has a poor grasp of logic.

and by the way that plane scattered debris, it did not disintegrate like the boeings did on 911. explain to me how passports flew out of those planes on 911.

You do know that more than just a passport was found don't you? It's not just the only thing that survived, personal affects, even airline chairs were found strew on the streets of NYC.

you honestly believe they did? and you honestly accept that black box recorders weren't found?

Can you offer any real evidence that they were found? Jazzz's link references a book but doesn't give a specific quote, and an off the cuff remark by a unnamed federal offical.

Gosh theres a smoking gun.

Seriously you're making a claim the onus is on you to support it. Not demand I disprove it.

 

[iROBOT]

Having read this thread and (sadly) many like it and echoing Chomsky's sentiments is that all these conspiracy theories about 9/11 are diverting us from the real truth of the USA's TRUE involvement in 9/11.

The USA did cause 9/11 by their policy in the Middle East vis-a-vie Israel, their support of the Taliban when they were allies during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, and then supporting Pakistanis racalising of the Taliban. They did cause 9/11 by being so dependent on oil so that they allowed the likes of Bin Laden to emerge (from this reliance) with a ultra radical anti west agenda backed up by a family fortune counted in billions. The USA did cause 9/11 because of their lack of outrage during the Chechnian war where the Russian army decimated whole villages.

Telling us that The USA kill's it's own people (example below in link) is stating the obvious to the point where I start to think that YOU LOT are a plant by the CIA to divert Forums such as these to the true nature of The USA's fucked up foreign policy. (erm...that was a joke)



http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html

 

[Jazzz]

In your head, perhaps.

And in that sci-fi 'army manual' set in 2025, of course.

Not only in those places, but also on www.zebraimaging.com (terrorist simulations for defence industries a speciality)

 

[editor]

Not only in those places, but also on www.zebraimaging.com (terrorist simulations for defence industries a speciality)

So they've invented huge, rivet-perfect, noise-creating, self-powered flying holograms that can hurtle across the New York skyline in broad daylight and fool everyone from every angle have they?

Show us your proof then.

PS That link you've provided. Is that for comic effect or something?

How is a Zebra mounted and displayed?
Zebras are "reflection" holograms, which means they must be illuminated from the front in order to communicate the three-dimensional effect

A single point light source, such as a halogen lamp or stronger, is best. A Zebra is best displayed indoors or at night with a single light source shining directly on it

x off the scale at Jazzz's incredible stupidity.

 

[Ned Pointsman]

I'm fairly certain last nights episode of south park was based on Jazzz.

 

[editor]

After looking closely at the 9/11 footage, I take it back.

It was clearly a zebraimaging.com holographic plane, illuminated from the front as per the company's instructions.

Well spotted Jazzz!

 

[Jazzz]

Show us your proof then.

That is the question to be asked of the USG and the official theory, not me.

 

[iROBOT]

Not only in those places, but also on www.zebraimaging.com (terrorist simulations for defence industries a speciality)

That is a cool site...still think you're a nutter though.

 

[editor]

That is the question to be asked of the USG and the official theory, not me.

So are you claiming that this little-known hologram-making company were capable of creating 100% perfect, self-powered, explosive 'holographic planes' that hit the WTC or not?

You see, if you can't produce a single example of such technology being successfully invented and tested (I'm afraid the sci-fi manual set in 2025 you produced earlier doesn't count) then any theories about holographic planes roaming the skies five years ago are sheer demented conspiraloon fantasy.

So how you got any proof of this remarkable technology or is it all in your head?

 

[Blagsta]

I doubt you have ever spoken with a real life quantum physicist. I have.

This is hilarious!

 

[Jonti]

It's embarrassing.

 

[Jazzz]

So are you claiming that this little-known hologram-making company were capable of creating 100% perfect, self-powered, explosive 'holographic planes' that hit the WTC or not?

You see, if you can't produce a single example of such technology being successfully invented and tested (I'm afraid the sci-fi manual set in 2025 you produced earlier doesn't count) then any theories about holographic planes roaming the skies five years ago are sheer demented conspiraloon fantasy.

So how you got any proof of this remarkable technology or is it all in your head?

Why must you incessantly badger people with aggressive questions? I've already said that 1) I don't believe the hologram theory 2) I don't know what happened on 9/11 3) It is up to the USG to prove its version of events.

But to answer your question, when I did a tiny bit of looking into it, the hologram theory doesn't seem to be beyond the boundaries of possibility at all. As you note, the zebraimaging stuff reduces the problem of creating such a hologram to that of producing the illumination for it. There are sites which claim to have pictures from 9/11 of the very devices which were used for that purpose; I'm not going to produce them, because again, I don't subscribe to the hologram theory, and doubtless you would start claiming that I do.

I don't have to have proof of the hologram theory technology in order not to reject it as a possibility, what a ridiculous proposition.

 

[8den]

Why must you incessantly badger people with aggressive questions? I've already said that 1) I don't believe the hologram theory 2) I don't know what happened on 9/11 3) It is up to the USG to prove its version of events.

The NIST report an exhaustive detailed report? What aspects of that "story" don't you think the NIST fail to answer?

But to answer your question, when I did a tiny bit of looking into it, the hologram theory doesn't seem to be beyond the boundaries of possibility at all. As you note, the zebraimaging stuff reduces the problem of creating such a hologram to that of producing the illumination for it

Whut? Do you know how light works? These holograms are only effective looking straight at them, and preferably in low light conditions? How does that reduce the problem? The Zebraimaging site discredits the claim that holograms would be effective?

. There are sites which claim to have pictures from 9/11 of the very devices which were used for that purpose; I'm not going to produce them, because again, I don't subscribe to the hologram theory, and doubtless you would start claiming that I do.

I would suggest you then drop it so.

I don't have to have proof of the hologram theory technology in order not to reject it as a possibility, what a ridiculous proposition.

What a fun world you live.

Conspiraloon
"It could have been holograms!"

Conspiraloon 2
"Yeah I mean theres no evidence to support this and the cursory research I've done shows it's utterly unlikely, but hey why let facts get in the way of the theory"

 

[Jazzz]

The NIST report an exhaustive detailed report? What aspects of that "story" don't you think the NIST fail to answer?

Good god, we obviously have a very new entrant to 9/11 threads. I think you are confused as to who NIST are. They are simply responsible here for producing reports into the collapse of the WTC. They aren't even responsible for any of the evidence at the WTC. Do you want to rephrase your question more sensibly, or must I work it out for you?

Whut? Do you know how light works? These holograms are only effective looking straight at them, and preferably in low light conditions? How does that reduce the problem? The Zebraimaging site discredits the claim that holograms would be effective?

If you read the site you will find out that zebraimaging can produce moving, large-scale holograms viewable not from one angle as you seem to imply but a wide range. That's the hard bit. A few million dollars of secret military money might just make the necessary projectors, one would be a fool to think that the military does not have some very fancy technology up its sleeve that we don't know about.

I would suggest you then drop it so.

I assume you are directing this to editor who has raised and continues to press the subject (edited to add - and yourself, of course)

What a fun world you live.

Conspiraloon
"It could have been holograms!"

Conspiraloon 2
"Yeah I mean theres no evidence to support this and the cursory research I've done shows it's utterly unlikely, but hey why let facts get in the way of the theory"

You are funny.

 

[editor]

But to answer your question, when I did a tiny bit of looking into it, the hologram theory doesn't seem to be beyond the boundaries of possibility at all.

Really?

And these credible sources that support the likelihood of high speed, flying, self-powered, world-fooling, exploding holographic aircraft hurtling over the skies of NY in broad daylight over five years ago are where exactly?

Perhaps you could share the exact details of these compelling sources that you uncovered when you did a "tiny bit of looking into...the hologram theory"?

 

[exosculate]

Is Jazz deliberately taking the piss?

 

[editor]

Is Jazz deliberately taking the piss?

I'd like to think so because he's becoming increasingly more detached from reality in these threads.

 

[Jazzz]

Really?

And these credible sources that support the likelihood of high speed, flying, self-powered, world-fooling, exploding holographic aircraft hurtling over the skies of NY in broad daylight over five years ago are where exactly?

Perhaps you could share the exact details of these compelling sources that you uncovered when you did a "tiny bit of looking into...the hologram theory"?

As I said, I don't subscribe to the hologram theory; I simply don't reject it outright. If you are really interested I am sure you are capable of finding the links.

 

[squeegee]

Yeah it was a pleasure to talk to Dr Fred Alan Wolf, quantum physicist, and understand the kind of cynicism he has to encounter and to be inspired by his belief that the upcoming generation of physicists are slowly but surely replacing the old guard, who are slowly, but surely, dying away. And where will you be left then without your comforting Newtonian model of reality?

But I'm sure anyone who does not pray at the altar of Newtonian dynamics can be ignored or ridiculed for a little while longer, or, like Rupert Sheldrake, another pioneering scientist, be ostracised by the cowards in the orthodox scientific community when their research fails to substantiate this antiquated world view.

How does this relate to conspiracy theories? You really think I would waste my time speaking to those who do not wish to hear?

I like the way you talk about the passport of the plane that just crashed in New York. How about the boeings on 911? You really think one passport fell out of those disintegrating planes and just wafted to the ground? Or that black box recorders just vanished? Or that removing the scattered debris against FAA guidelines was not supicious and does not suggest a cover up? Anything is possible isn't it? Even that!

No, I don't have to prove ANYTHING to you. You are the one implying that ANY suspicion is evidence of conspiraloonery. A blatant ad hominem argument. And failing to address those points tells me all I need to know about your integrity. You have no interest in the truth. You simply have a deep prejudice towards anyone who fails to toe the "official" line.

To deny the possibility of holograms, however miniscule and implausible and even though it is likely to be misinformation, simply by making personal attacks and failing to address the issue, shows your duplicity. Why would "they" need to cover up anything when there are so many people willing, consciously or unconsciously, to protect that which they do not even understand.

The anti-conspiracy mob, like the anti-spirituality mob, accuse the pros of seeking cosy answers. On the contrary it is the anti brigade who seek to preserve a degree of comfort in a chaotic world by stalling any doubts and fears and, in the process, allowing greater and greater acts of mass-murder to occur.

I dare you to have the courage to say what your argument implies. That no government (certainly not us "good guys" in the West) would be capable of sacrificing hundreds or even thousands of lives for a military objective. To deny this possibility is startling in its naivety, but as I said, though you imply it with every word you write, you lack the courage to actually come out and say it.

If you could at least admit that and then follow up by saying but we cannot prove anything so let's just hold back and see, would at least be dignified and understandable. But you don't believe that, do you?

You actually believe that the UK and US governments are incapable of carrying out such an act.

Isn't that so?

 

[editor]

As I said, I don't subscribe to the hologram theory; I simply don't reject it outright.

Please explain to me on what basis you're "not rejecting" the existence of an unseen, unknown, highly advanced science fiction technology that has yet to surface in any comparable form a whole five years after 9/11, please.

Or do you not reject the existence of talking gnomes and pixies too?

 

[editor]

Yeah it was a pleasure to talk to Dr Fred Alan Wolf....

I'm truly delighted for you.

But what's this got to do with 9/11 and Chomsky please?

To deny the possibility of holograms, however miniscule and implausible and even though it is likely to be misinformation, simply by making personal attacks and failing to address the issue, shows your duplicity. .

Is he saying that these holographic planes actually existed five years ago then?

 

[axon]

Yeah it was a pleasure to talk to Dr Fred Alan Wolf, quantum physicist, and understand the kind of cynicism he has to encounter and to be inspired by his belief that the upcoming generation of physicists are slowly but surely replacing the old guard, who are slowly, but surely, dying away. And where will you be left then without your comforting Newtonian model of reality?

This is classic
Just how old are the "old guard" given the Newton's "model of reality" was shown to be incorrect over 90 years ago?

I dare you to have the courage to say what your argument implies. That no government (certainly not us "good guys" in the West) would be capable of sacrificing hundreds or even thousands of lives for a military objective. To deny this possibility is startling in its naivety, but as I said, though you imply it with every word you write, you lack the courage to actually come out and say it.

This is one of the problems with conspiraloons. I actually do believe that a government would sacrifice thousands of lives for their own twisted objectives (the British government in WWI, Pol Pot etc). However this does not automatically mean that the US government were responsible for 911. You need to get over the illogical conclusion that just because something is possible, that it happened, (or is even probable).
I have yet to see any evidence for a conspiracy that hasn't either been debunked or could also be explained by incompetence.

 

[squeegee]

I actually do believe that a government would sacrifice thousands of lives for their own twisted objectives (the British government in WWI, Pol Pot etc).

Thank you. Would that others could admit the same.

However this does not automatically mean that the US government were responsible for 911.

Of course it doesn't. But as you suggest above, it means you can't rule it out either.

You need to get over the illogical conclusion that just because something is possible, that it happened, (or is even probable).
I have yet to see any evidence for a conspiracy that hasn't either been debunked or could also be explained by incompetence.

Again you have made a mistaken inference from what I've said based on your assumptions about me. Very illogical. You have yet to see any evidence? Or you refuse to see the evidence that might certainly lead to supicion, of which there is more than enough.

 

[squeegee]

This is classic
Just how old are the "old guard" given the Newton's "model of reality" was shown to be incorrect over 90 years ago?

Yeah you're right. Amazing how an outdated world view can stick around for so long, and even today be defended by high up pillars of the scientific establishment. It's more the philosophy behiind it that says the world we live in is solid and fixed because it seems that way rather than a teeming mass of dynamic possibilities, the strongest of which materialise into what we perceive as reality.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yeah you're right. Amazing how an outdated world view can stick around for so long, and even today be defended by high up pillars of the scientific establishment. It's more the philosophy behiind it that says the world we live in is solid and fixed because it seems that way rather than a teeming mass of dynamic possibilities, the strongest of which materialise into what we perceive as reality.

squeegee, you seem to be missing the point, i did three years of QM. It's nothing special anymore. However you haven't done any at all or you wouldn't use that really bloody stupid comment earlier as it shows you haven't got a sodding clue.

Oh, this post reinforces that impression too. Find an A level physics text book down the library and have a read. QM is not what you think.

As for what is and isn't possible you might want to take a look at ocham's razor while you're there.

 

[editor]

Yeah you're right. Amazing how an outdated world view can stick around for so long, and even today be defended by high up pillars of the scientific establishment. I

Fascinating, I'm sure.

And it's relevance to Chomsky's analysis of 9/11 is what precisely?

 

[Loki]

This has absolutely no relevance to Chomsky or 9/11 but I had a one to one conversation with Carl Sagan once. True! What do I win?

 

[squeegee]

I'm truly delighted for you.

But what's this got to do with 9/11 and Chomsky please?Is he saying that these holographic planes actually existed five years ago then?

Am I? No, it is you who are rejecting the possibility out of hand. And what qualifies you to make such an absolute statement. I mean I know you're the editor of a website, but I hadn't realised you were God the Almighty as well. Even though, as I have said many times before, the holographic plane theory seems likely to be misinformation to me (jazzz, do you really think it the most likely explanation?), I would never be so bold as to say categorically that it is impossible. A multi-billion dollar annual budget is certainly not going into (and this equally applies pre-911) kit and armour for troops. So that money can be spent on alot of research into things we can barely conceive of. And just because we can't conceive of them doesn't mean they don't exist. You get that surely.

But you're right, holograms, like quantum physics and multi-dimensional universes, is getting away from the topic of Chomsky distancing himself from the homogenous "conspiracy theories".

But then I made my point quite clearly on that one. And the replies on that point (or lack of them – it was others who began derailing this thread, I'm just supposed to ignore the FAQ-busting abuse right?) have been made.

He distances himself, IMO, because mud slung from apes sticks, and he has no need to embroil himself in such things when he can concentrate on those things that are apparent to all, such as the actual debacle of an ill-thought out (or deliberately chaotic) campaign. And even then he gets slated as a liar who twists information.

Amazing that, A man whose footnotes and documented sources are usually as text-heavy as his actual writing still gets accused of lying. So what hope those of us who simply go on a hunch.

You can insult my intelligence, question my sanity, insist on proof when you yourself cannot provide such to justify your beliefs, but you have yet to do anything that can dissuade me from believeing that US/UK governments were somehow involved in the 911 attacks.

And despite what you say and your attitude more and more people are beginning to make the connection. And that's not fantasy. I'm now starting to hear people I would never have suspected of being "conspiracy theorists" stating the same.

When the time comes Chmosky I'm sure will say his piece. And when he does you can bet your life it will be the final damnation.

Have a good day people

 

[squeegee]

This has absolutely no relevance to Chomsky or 9/11 but I had a one to one conversation with Carl Sagan once. True! What do I win?

What does this post have to do with Chomsky?

 

[editor]

No, it is you who are rejecting the possibility out of hand.

I'll make it easy for you.

What actual evidence do you have for the research, development and successful deployment of a self powered, world-fooling, plane-producing, explosive holographic plane system over half a decade ago?

Anything? Anything at all?

At this rate you may as well be claiming that 9/11 was done by a pixie riding a UFO.