 |
|
|
|
| 4005 Posts / 51M |
 |
: |
31yrs |
: |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 
quote:
1. Something would have leaked, almost definitely.
Who says something hasn't. How do you notice a leak if you are swimming in openly admitted evidence that is simply not addressed or not addressed with any unbiased and uninfluenced investigation, or just flat out lied about.
It is an established fact that Gen. Mahmud Ahmed of the Pakistani ISI (Their CIA, formed by the CIA and in direct connection to the CIA) wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta and was even visiting the White House during the Attacks. Not even a whimper of conflict of interest.
Norman Mineta testified/leaked testimony of highly questionable events contradicting all official claims of Cheney's whereabouts and activities at the time, his testimony was simply omitted from any official accounts and reports, yet you can find it on youtube.
Members of Bush's own cabinet are crying out against him even making statements to the effect of "everyone on the hill knows", vague and overgeneralized to be sure, but directly quoted as referencing Bush involvement of 9/11.
There are many members of the FBI etc speaking out against Bush and even sueing him for blocking their investigations of terrorist activities, some directly coming back against the US government for involvement. They are being "legally" gagged.
Those who had the greatest positions of power to stand up to Bush directly after 9/11 and specifically in terms of that which cannot be denied to be his work, our domestic police state policies and foreign "pre-emptive" invasion policies, were given Anthrax letters that killed people and sent a very loud message, especially to those who had any clue where the Anthrax came from.
This administration has been attacked from so many sides in terms of its manipulation, control, and restriction of information it is not funny.
From the sciences, the media, to justifications for war and liberty curbing, to you name it. They have bribbed, "legally" donated to or hired those willing to tow whatever line they put out. The point of this being, that information is so intentionally convoluted and controlled and yet frought with open accusation and evidence that Chomsky's response point is proven correct, but not that it hasn't leaked, but that it has.
And this is only a snippet of info of course.
quote:
2. Random events and unexplained phenomenons happen all the time. The pattern we fit them in does not necessitate truth.
Well of course, but this says nothing, because it also means that it does not make it untrue either.
The problem with such an analogy is that the patterns being formed here are not mere cookie cutter conspiracy theory happenstance. You follow the money and connections of those involved, you find motives and then you see what you've got, just to start. The answers found in these investigations have been the most avoided but available, in many respects, and damning, some partially covered above. Just starting with Bushes, Bin Ladens, Saudis, ISI, creates a soup of conflicts.
But more directly, 9/11 was neither a "random event" nor a "unexplained phenomena".
Given that there were, not just some, but a shitload of warnings, there were drills of the events on the very day, not the first of such drills either, and unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I do believe the WTC had been attacked before, supposedly by Muslim extremists.
quote:
3. The uncertainty of the attack and randomness of it made it nearly impossible to risk (he says they would have been insane)
The uncertainty cannot be calculated. He attempted to illustrate this point by pointing out that they couldn't be certain that the planes would even hit. This is a fucktard statement, here is why, not all planes hit their targets. Does this make it not an attack or more of a risk to expose a conspiracy?
But if this even mattered slightly then why would the Arabs have chanced it. They could have driven all the planes straight into the dirt and it would be an attack. As a matter of fact, the Arabs have a far superior likeliness of failure than an inside conspirator who may have remote access to the planes themselves.
Even in the northwoods documents there is a plan to land planes secretly controlled by the government, filled with agents, and replaced by a decoy remotely controlled for whatever end they choose. May sound like a bad conspiracy theory trying to explain some random event or phenomena, but it is not, nor is it a dark room document controlled by a secret cabal within the government, to my knowledge.
They would have to be insane? I like this one, who says they aren't? The Neocons were termed the "Crazies" by Regan, so I've heard. Were they any less insane in lying us into war with Iraq, getting caught, and getting away with it still, shit, then continuing a failed yet successful strategy on to Iran?
I think this is another case of Chomsky proving himself right.
quote:
I'm certain he is aware of all the facts others are presented with in regards to the 9/11 "coincidences" and so it is absolutely false to assume he has not researched it.
I think you are right to say it is false to assume a complete lack of research, which I did not.
I only offered the possibility, based on the sound reason that he dismisses it and does not lecture or write on his research of it, that I'm aware of.
But I find it equally false to assume he has done any significant research on it, do you have any evidence of this other than his statement of "evidence I have seen".
quote:
What remains a mystery is whether he actually has seen all the evidence and is therefore basing his opinion on fact.
Indeed.
quote:
I've never found any reason whatsoever to doubt Chomsky's intentions.
I personally have found more than enough reason to doubt any human beings intentions, at least somewhat.
But none the less. Here's the deal, I like Chomsky, always have, can't say I'm too informed on all his opinions and posistions and his sources for holding them. But I've respected his opinions to the point that I'm disappointed in his blase' attitude towards this issue and am somewhat incensed by his suggestion of who was actually behind it being of little consequence.
I feel this way because I disagree, at least in part, to this type of notion.
quote:
A tragic event of any kind is still a tragic event, but discovering who is responsible or who is to blame does not correct the event nor does it prevent a similar one from occurring again.
It prevents those who have been proven willing and able to do such a thing from doing it again, so yes, to an extent it most certainly does, but only to an extent, there will never be an end to tragedy, but that is not the point.
But to see and solve "larger issues" details and facts are needed, knowledge is power.
I would very much like to know what Chomsky thought did happen that day, what he believes through his research were the factors behind it.
There are most definitely more elements involved with the events beyond a mere short sited conspiracy of select US government officials, insiders, and connected individuals. This was never the argument, because even elevated to the indeed real issue as explained officially of muslims pissed at americans, though they forget to mention why, we then get into what Israel's role may have been.
From the dancing Israelis filming and cheering the event, perhaps even detained and released (forget), to claims of Israeli accents of highjackers all leading to America attacking Israel's greatest mortal enemy. Not to mention half of the neocons and Bush's cabinet being israelis themselves and or Zionist supporters.
Surely Chomsky has something to say about this information, being an officionado on the subject of Israel. Maybe he is simply wryly dismissing White House involvement due to it being mainly Israeli involvement.
I may never know, but I'd like to.
And, believe it or not, I would still love to find that all this white house conspiracy nonesene is just that and be done with it. But then I'm stil faced with the brink of world war that I am responsible for as a US citizen. Shit.
Does Chomsky think it irrelevant that we are killing mass Iraqi civilians? I hear he wasn't fond of the Holocaust. 9/11 is important because it is the excuse, the event that if redefined could change so many things that so many are currently concerned about, including Chomsky. But yes, it is but one peice of a larger puzzle, no doubt, but its a golden peice, one that influenced and continues to influence the attitude and reactions of the entire world.
"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
|
|
|
|
