Chomsky and 9/11

Just shows there's a difference between being anti the US government and being ridiculously credulous, I suppose.

How come none of that "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" bunch have grandchildren? Or are you just making allegations without any evidence again?

No, David, theories require evidence. Do you have evidence to show that Noam Chomsky's family has been threatened but Stephen Jones's hasn't? No. You have rampant speculation based on biased websites.

But he has to link to other people's websites, how else can he show that he actually is capable of original thought?

David

Let me check this to make sure I got it right:

1. The fact that there's no evidence that 9/11 was faked is proof that evidence has been suppressed.

2. The fact that traditional critics of the government accept the official story is proof they're being pressured.

So, in other words, the very evidence that would suggest that the official story is what actually happened is actually evidence that it was faked?

Do you suppose that defence lawyers try that one in court? "Your Honour, the police have presented evidence that my client was found at the scene of the crime, with the victim's blood all over his clothing. They have also presented evidence that witnesses heard my client threaten to kill the victim only a minute before he was shot, and those same witnesses heard my client confess his guilt immediately afterwards. They have also presented evidence that the handgun he was holding when he was arrested was the murder weapon. Your Honour, can't you see my client must be innocent? That amount of evidence could only have been assembled against him if he was being set up!"

By the way, I don't remember when I first heard of Noam Chomsky--for one thing, he writes in the field of linguistics, too, so I might've heard of that long before the political stuff--but my best friend confirms that she was reading it in the early to mid 90s.

Chomsky has been around a long time - whatever you think of him - and has been accusing the government of committing and/or abetting murder, particularly in Central America, for quite a long time.

It's just that, because he's not doing it this time, he's plainly being suppressed. Of course. Just like anyone else who doesn't agree that the gov't pulled of 9/11 (unless they're a dupe/stooge/etc.).

BTW, my invitation still stands.

I don't see how anybody can say that with a straight face. Have you seen "Painful Deceptions", "Loose Change", "In Plane Sight", or "The Great Conspiracy"?

www.question911.com/linksall.htm

These are pretty good too.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047&q=9%2F11
s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx
www.snowshoefilms.com/featured.html

Once people see a couple of these documentaries there isn't much you can do to make them think that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. The evidence is too clear.
This photo here is proof by itself if it hasn't been doctored.
www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpg

It's the photo released by the government so it's not likely that it's been doctored. It's obviously not the nose of a 757--it's too pointed.

This other picture of it shows that it's too short to be a 757.
0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm




If somebody's grandchildren start to have accidents after somebody alleges that 9/11 was an inside job, it's too obvious. They probably talked to Chomsky before he had a chance to comment on it as the government knows that a lot of people listen when he talks. The same is probably true of the other people I mentioned above.


The evidence is circumstantial. It's very out-of-character for Chomsky and those other people to ignore the evidence in those videos. Chomsky has also said some very dogmatic things about this. It's very out-of character for Chomsky to be dogmatic. That was probably his way of telling us that he knows 9/11 was an inside job but can't say anything.

www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

I think he also says Oswald killed Kennedy. That's what I've read but I haven't seen the exact quote. He was probably visited by some goons from the government long ago on that one. That's a red flag right there. He can't really believe that.


That's a pretty simple-minded statement. Evidence is pictures, physical things like plane parts, witnesses, etc. They can be on TV, DVDs, or the internet. We just have to try to figure out what was planted or doctored and which witness were planted, etc.


You seem to be suffering from "Invincible ignorance and/or "Cognitive dissonance".
www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/invincible_ignorance.asp
www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

I showed you this a long time ago and explained that this is basic knowledge outside of the US.
www.theunjustmedia.com/major_general_smedley_butler.htm

Let's hear your analysis of it now. Those sites I post are reality sites as what they say reflects reality. I'd learned what those articles and videos say long before I read about it just from living abroad.
I've already posted this list on some other threads but here it is again.

www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1995/95-05-17-Guatemala.gif
www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/guatemal.htm
www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2002/0413angola.htm
www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/127.html
www.namebase.org/scott.html

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/WTI062405V.shtml
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html
michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
www.chomsky.info/articles/19860409.htm
www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000133.htm
www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html
www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html
www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm


www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html
www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket.html

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13622.htm

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&pl=true
video.google.es/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11635.htm
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7333556703536657423
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4827358238697503
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3453261789658676035&q=oil
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8085945499556832271
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14295.htm
www.jonhs.net/911/911_american_empire.htm
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061222&articleId=4245
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13416.htm

Let's hear your analysis of one or two of them. I'm sorry but this is the reality of what the US government does outside of the US. Chomsky and those other people know about it and write about it but they have to be careful. Don't forget about what happened to Steve Kangas.
www.google.es/search?hl=en&q=who+killed+steve+kangas&btnG=Search

Here's some of the stuff he wrote.

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

This is what got him killed. He had a knack for explaining things. If I were Chomsky, I'd do exactly what he did. He's still one of the people I most admire in spite of his stand on 9/11.

You are a little vague here on whether you think Oswald acted alone and killed Kennedy. I'd like to hear what you think and why you think Chomsky agrees with the official version.