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

[Bob_the_lost]

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.

This is the entire problem, you're not willing to let the balance of probability overpower your own predjudices. Perhaps we should be insulting your integrity rather than your intellegence.

 

[squeegee]

This is the entire problem, you're not willing to let the balance of probability overpower your own predjudices. Perhaps we should be insulting your integrity rather than your intellegence.

I would say that criticism is exactly what my detractors on here are guilty of. Thanks for the description. Pot - kettle - black

 

[squeegee]

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.

What has this got to do with Chomsky?

 

[Roadkill]

 

[squeegee]

Chomsky's own claims about USG are well documented, yet check out the latest anti-Chomsky thread. So if his detailed evidence still fails to convince those with deep prejudice, what makes you think evidence can convince anyone of anything? You simply use that word to avoid actually discussing any issue which implies USG involvement in 9/11.

I'm not going on about holograms. I'm not saying it is the most likely explnation just that it is not impossible, simply because, according to the laws of this multi-dimensional universe, anything is possible.

But in the most probable universe that we inhabit it is highly unlikely. So why go on about that and not passports flying out of a plane inferno, devout Muslims getting pissed in a titty bar just before getting ready to meet their maker, leaving flying manuals in a passenger seat along with a copy of the koran. Were the planters of this "evidence" watching re runs of Thunderbirds, where "The Hood" would attach bombs to planes with the word "BOMB" written on it? Oh no, that would be the Sun reporter. Fact as fiction, or fiction as fact?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Aint that the truth...

 

[editor]

What has this got to do with Chomsky?

Because you're the fucking twat banging on about holograms.

 

[Structaural]

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?

It's quite simple, we know there have been conspiracies - there is evidence out there and they can be proven. People went and found out what really happened without relying on the testimony of lizards, remote viewers and the possibility of highly imaginative technological marvels that may or may not exist.
Conspiracy 'Theories', on the other hand, are exactly what they say they are - speculation and ideas about what 'might' have happened. That's the nature of theories - they are an inductive method of reasoning that can often end up with new knowledge, the thing is though they have to be proven with evidence/logic/mathematics at a later date - otherwise they stay just pies in the sky.
You can speculate away - no one's stopping you - it's when you start thinking that this speculative theory is the 'truth' that you make an arsehole of yourself, when you consider these madcap ideas a 'belief' system that you lose all credibility. This is board that above all seems to operate on a prove it or fuck off out of it mentality. No one is stopping you entertaining these beliefs - you might be right they might turn out to be true but they seem to be, more often than not, untrue, so don't expect others to indulge your whimsies.

 

[beeboo]

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.
...
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.

oh c'mon, do you actually think Chomsky believes all this clap-trap but is just scared of damaging his reputation?

Personally I think Chomsky amongst the people MOST likely to base his opinions on a through evaluation of available evidence, and LEAST likely to fear expressing the 'wrong' view.

Another quote from the original article:

I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel.

Chomsky isn't generally given to hyperbole, so I'll take 'utterly insane' and 'outlandish' as fairly clear indications of his opinion on this. I don't really he see him changing his tune on this, do you? honestly?

 

[Jonti]

according to the laws of this multi-dimensional universe, anything is possible

Nope.

If anything is possible, then the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions would be possible. But, by definition, the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions is not possible, because they are mutually incompatible. So it is not the case that anything is possible.

God is Great, but not Greatly Absurd.

 

[slaar]

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.

As far as I can tell, the evidence base for these two theories are roughly equivalent.

 

[Jonti]

Not if belief is taken as evidence it's not. See what we're up against?

 

[tarannau]

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

Don't deny that possibility - it's perfectly acceptable for people to believe what the hell they want, regardless of the likelihood or logic. Who the hell do you think you are trying to get those with such strange views to justify themselves on a message board? - you're playing 'god the almighty' as Squeegee says.



You should really listen to the lyrics of Faithless and meet a quantum physicist to get a better insight into the world. You unreasonable bastard - give the hologram theory a chance and sympathise with the opinion that it was a faked atrocity goddamit.

 

[Jonti]

I have to agree with you tarannau. People are entitled to their opinions, and opinions are just opinions, so any opinion is as good as any other.

And anyone who disagrees is a heartless materialist.

Simple!

 

[slaar]

In the words of Radiohead, "just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's real".

 

[Fruitloop]

s'all about facts vs values, innit.

 

[squeegee]

sophistry, pure and simple. that's all you engage in.

twist my words all you want. you're still wrong about what I am saying and about your generalised ideas on what constitutes a "conspiracy theory"

and by the way "utterly insane" and "outlandish" are precise words I would use to describe the USG. chomsky is very careful about what he says. and is evidently smarter than you. you don't get it do you? and i shoudn't be mad at your duplicity or stupidity, i should show some compassion and patience to those who have the misfortune of possessing only half a brain.

 

[editor]

and by the way "utterly insane" and "outlandish" are precise words I would use to describe the USG. chomsky is very careful about what he says. and is evidently smarter than you. you don't get it do you? and i shoudn't be mad at your duplicity or stupidity, i should show some compassion and patience to those who have the misfortune of possessing only half a brain.

Who only possesses "half a brain," squeegee?

 

[Roadkill]

I love the way most of these conspiracy merchants effectively try and justify themselves with all of this postmodern, 'one interpretation is as good as another' bullshit.

It's just a way of ducking the fact that they don't have an argument that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

 

[Structaural]

sophistry, pure and simple. that's all you engage in.

twist my words all you want. you're still wrong about what I am saying and about your generalised ideas on what constitutes a "conspiracy theory"

and by the way "utterly insane" and "outlandish" are precise words I would use to describe the USG. chomsky is very careful about what he says. and is evidently smarter than you. you don't get it do you? and i shoudn't be mad at your duplicity or stupidity, i should show some compassion and patience to those who have the misfortune of possessing only half a brain.

Let me put it even simpler: you talk unmitigated shit.

 

[Blagsta]

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.

But our everyday world is solid and fixed. Quantum effects only happen on a very small scale. No one has reconciled the everyday macro world with the micro quantum world.

 

[Jazzz]

Because you're the fucking twat banging on about holograms.

These insults are really childish. And if I may say, you have been pressing the topic of holograms editor.

 

[editor]

These insults are really childish. And if I may say, it's you who initiated the topic editor.

It's called exasperation at someone being thoroughly dishonest.

But thanks for your valued input.

Now that you're here, could you tell me if you've found any proof of the existence of these high speed, flying, self-powered, world-fooling, exploding holographic aircraft from half a decade ago?

 

[Jonti]

I'd be careful going down that route. It's very much a diversion.

But, while we're diverted ...

No one has reconciled the everyday macro world with the micro quantum world.

Everything you see is mediated by quanta of light. A rod in your retina will respond to a single photon. Your 'puter relies on QM. We are unitary organisms whose workings rely on a whole range of forces from the QM forces that mediate chemical reactions and bonding, right up to emergent phenomena such as friction.

In short, there is no micro quantum world to be reconciled with the everyday macro world. There's just one world. We don't have a unified theory to explain it, is all. It's a bit of a mind fuck to understand how the theories we use to explain quantum phenomena can be reconciled with the theories we use to explain the motion of macroscopic objects.

</diversion>

 

[Jazzz]

It's called exasperation at someone being thoroughly dishonest.

But thanks for your valued input.

Now that you're here, could you tell me if you've found any proof of the existence of these high speed, flying, self-powered, world-fooling, exploding holographic aircraft from half a decade ago?

Didn't you just call squeegee a 'fucking twat' for banging on about holograms?

 

[editor]

Didn't you just call squeegee a 'fucking twat' for banging on about holograms?

I called him a fucking twat because he posted up a sarky one line comment, "What has this got to do with Chomsky?" in response to my comments and then went straight on to talk about holograms again.

Understand now?

 

[beeboo]

and by the way "utterly insane" and "outlandish" are precise words I would use to describe the USG. chomsky is very careful about what he says. and is evidently smarter than you. you don't get it do you? and i shoudn't be mad at your duplicity or stupidity, i should show some compassion and patience to those who have the misfortune of possessing only half a brain.

I have no doubt that Chomsky is smarter than me. I hazard to guess he is a great deal smarter than you as well.

I don't think there is a shadow of a doubt that Chomsky doesn't have any time for the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Another quote:

they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot.

You can pick all you want at the evidence, to find, out of the millions of events which occured on and after the day, the few anomolous details. It doesn't mean anything.

What are the chances of one of the hijackers passports being found? You could probably smash a million planes into a million towers and it wouldn't happen again.

But if you ask what is the likelihood that, in a series of events as massive in scale and unpredictable as 9/11, some things would happen that were entirely unlikely or inprobable, then the answer it would 'a certainty'.

 

[squeegee]

I called him a fucking twat because he posted up a sarky one line comment, "What has this got to do with Chomsky?" in response to my comments and then went straight on to talk about holograms again.

Understand now?

Is that meant to be a joke? I have only discussed holograms in response to your insistence that I am talking about them. I have made my position clear on that. So why do you keep on insisting I am doing something I am not doing? To goad me into responding likewise to your insults and misrepresentation perhaps?

 

[Blagsta]

I'd be careful going down that route. It's very much a diversion.

But, while we're diverted ... Everything you see is mediated by quanta of light. A rod in your retina will respond to a single photon. Your 'puter relies on QM. We are unitary organisms whose workings rely on a whole range of forces from the QM forces that mediate chemical reactions and bonding, right up to emergent phenomena such as friction.

In short, there is no micro quantum world to be reconciled with the everyday macro world. There's just one world. We don't have a unified theory to explain it, is all. It's a bit of a mind fuck to understand how the theories we use to explain quantum phenomena can be reconciled with the theories we use to explain the motion of marcroscopic objects.

</diversion>

Fairynuff, cheers

 

[squeegee]

But if you ask what is the likelihood that, in a series of events as massive in scale and unpredictable as 9/11, some things would happen that were entirely unlikely or inprobable, then the answer it would 'a certainty'.

Thank you