If You Lose Chomsky ...

[kpete]

If You Lose Chomsky ...


JOSH MARSHALL – NOVEMBER 27, 2013, 5:19 PM EST11069
Perhaps it had to fall to Noam Chomsky of all people to deliver the ultimate smackdown to 9/11 Truthers.

"There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that ... There's a reason there are graduate schools in these departments."

Video after the jump ...

This is probably more snark on Chomsky than many would like. Chomsky is a radical but also an empiricist, not a conspiracist. I respect that.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/chomsky-not-on-board-with-911-truth

[SidDithers]

1. Who needs Chomsky when you've got Alex Jones?...

Thanks for posting.

Sid

[tina tron]

2. I'm not a truther

but Chomsky smacks me of an elitist gatekeeper.

[struggle4progress]

3. um ... well ...

oh dear

Chomsky's at MIT, not because he sucked up to the elite, but because of important work he has done in linguistics and also in theoretical computer science

Despite this background, which would have allowed him to sit back comfortably in his professorship, he has been for many years a prolific and very cogent commentator on institutions: the propaganda model, developed in his work with Hermann, for example, explains in considerable detail exactly how one can understand the conformity of, and limits of dissent in, standard US corporate media coverage without any need to appeal to conspiracy theories

His reflex there has always been to doubt the official justifications for US foreign adventurism, and for many years he regularly churned out highly informative and thought-provoking interpretations of events, and decodings of official speech, rather well documented by one little snippet after another, teased from a bit of news coverage here and a bit of official document there, which several generations of activists have found quite useful

I don't always agree with him, and I don't regard him as a particularly useful observer of day-to-day political nitty-gritty, but he is a sparkling gem of a curmudgeon -- a genuine leftist who has often given careful attention to details and who has again and again shown a real and creative intelligence when comparing what our institutions say with what they do

[BelgianMadCow]

6. I second your opinion of Noam Chomsky, and hold him in high esteem

but in this case, he merely points out that people should publish on the issues and have it peer-reviewed. But then you have to get past the editorial boards, maybe that's why we haven't seen those papers.

Cognitive dissonance is a strong force, and Chomsky isn't god.

I say subpoena Bush and Cheney, separately, not holding hands, and question them under oath. Ever wonder why that didn't happen?

[tina tron]

7. He sets the tone

for popular opinion among the far left. He's just one person with one opinion.

[struggle4progress]

33. To be clear, I'm not very interested when he just gives his opinion without supporting argument

but when he makes the effort to put his evidence together in a logical framework it has often seemed to me that he is providing a useful and interesting counterpoint to narratives widely and uncritically accepted narratives

And I'd say the same about anyone who merely states opinions resembling or echoing Chomsky's opinions, without bothering to argue the case cogently, based on facts: in such cases, I'll have to agree with you that it's just one person with an opinion

[Cha]

26. Lol.. thanks for your view on Chomsky, struggle

[struggle4progress]

34. I think I understand your LOL: Chomsky, at his worst, seems to me entirely unhelpful

with respect to practical politics

His advice for progressives for the 2012 elections was “spend five or ten minutes on it -- seeing if there’s a point in taking part in the carefully orchestrated electoral extravaganza," and he indicated he himself intended to vote for Jill Stein

That view seems to spring from Chomsky's utopian anarchist prejudices: to my thinking, it shows no real grasp of practical politics and is simply unsupportable, to the point of seeming even downright moronic to me

But I do think Chomsky can be an astute observer of institutions, which (as Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out long ago) we should not expect to behave according to the moral standards of individuals, and which (therefore) must constantly be brought under control by struggle and conflict. And, unfortunately, it is too easy to become lazy or complacent in such matters, accepting misleading interpretations of institutional behavior, that mask the underlying issues and interests. Chomsky, at his best, has examined the mechanisms that produce "mainstream" interpretations of institutional behavior and has sometimes rather carefully provided (with evidence) informative non-"mainstream" interpretations of the issues and interests underlying institutional behavior, making clear how far from the actual facts "mainstream" interpretations can be. And in my view, that can be valuable, not just as an intellectual exercise, but as a practical aid to those who engage in the struggles and conflicts that are always required to limit the amoral behavior of institutions

A genuine underlying problem here, in my view, is that our way forward requires both practical politics (together with all its tactical half-steps or compromises) and also a more urgent (and less morally-compromising grassroots pressure) for the changes we want. And, unfortunately, because the political professionals and the community activists barely speak the same language, communication and coordination between the different groups is difficult. Unlike Chomsky, I conclude that community activists must involve themselves in electoral politics in order to further their own aims by building relationships with competent candidates and helping elect suitable officials

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Did he mention Operation Northwoods???

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans included the assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities..."

[BelgianMadCow]

5. ...you've lost Chomsky. And he admits he has no opinion or relevant expertise.

I happened to study seven years for my masters in engineering, specialty materials & metallurgy. So the "one hour on the internet" doesn't apply to me. The official story is a total crock, imho. Buildings do not fall through the path of greatest resistance at free fall speed. It simply does not compute.

But Chomsky does have a point: if people have a case to present, they should present it. Where I disagree with him is whether any mainstream publication wouldn't dismiss say a theoretical paper exposing flaws in the official version out of hand.

[Blanks]

8. I'm a civil engineer (licensed in 3 states) and my background is not in structures, but...

I agree with you completely. It doesn't add up, and there are more architects and engineers at the site that he mentioned than he let on.

I haven't signed up at the site and this is why: If you've put your name to an unproven conspiracy, that's gonna follow you. Sure they might laugh at you, but if you're trying to get a job from the government (and most civil engineering work is at some level of the government)- giving them a reason to laugh it you up front isn't the best way to open doors.

There's bound to be more architects and engineers who feel the same way that I do. Beyond that, it isn't just architects and engineers that don't believe the government story - demolition experts question the explanation.

It isn't a matter of establishing that the explanation is fiction - the question is: if it is established as fiction, then what?

You could construct a tinker toy tower, light the top of it on fire and it wouldn't collapse perfectly vertical - it's just not how things fail.

As far as the Bush conspiracy part of it, I agree with Chomsky. That's not the reason to pursue an investigation, but there is something screwy.

[Pharaoh]

11. When Bush and Cheney

would not give testimony under oath and had to be interviewed together (lest numb nuts where to tell a different story,) how can anyone not suspect that they had shit to hide.

I'm sorry but it seems to me (and I'm a huge Chomsky fan) that he has not looked in to this at all, he asks the questioner to gather scientific proof of those theory's yet the 911 commission never gave anything of the sort of in depth proof of anything, just a white wash like the Warren commission.

[Blanks]

20. It wouldn't do any good to make a connection...

To the administration. I'm not necessarily suggesting that there isn't any connection. If we did investigate that and find there was a connection - what then?

There's video footage to analyze of the buildings collapsing. Chomsky is right - someone should investigate the collapse using proper scientific analysis methods and techniques and report on it. I think proving that the administration was involved beyond a reasonable doubt would be impossible - a fools errand.

Who would profit financially from such an analysis? I expect that's the problem.

Unfortunately, the administration's involvement (or lack thereof) is one of those things that we just have to move on from IMHO. I don't think that's necessarily the case with the buildings' collapse. Shenanigans can be proven I believe.

[BelgianMadCow]

30. Thanks for chiming in. I didn't sign on to the petition either.

and you make a good point besides the speed of collapse: the symmetry of it. That too flies in the face of reason - assymetrical damage and a symmetrical collapse.

I once refuted a million dollar claim from Audi about aluminium we delivered by showing them that the damage they were seeing on pressed hoods was always located in one corner, and that given the symmetry of our material properties, it had to come from assymmetry in their tools. On a side note

I don't "know" what really happened. It's just that the official story is patently absurd, and such a seminal event deserves an investigation that isn't stalled, corrupted and censored.

[zeemike]

17. And they run into gate keeping just like the end of this video..

where the audience is told "that is the last question we will have on this subject"
And I suspect that it would be carer ending move for anyone in the media to ask those questions or entertain it...which leaves Alex Jones the only one talking about it, and further makes it crazy talk because he is associated with it.
And even here at DU the subject can only be talked about at CS group.

[hack89]

23. Except the building did not fall at free fall speed

Unless you have another reason why debris was falling faster than the collapse zone. We do have pictures of the collapse after all.

[BelgianMadCow]

25. Aren't you thinking about the other buildings?

There's no such debris in the WTC 7 footage, if you know of any, I'm glad to see it.

What we do have is analysed below, it's near perfect free-fall in the case of WTC7.

[me b zola]

27. Thank you for this post n/t

[hack89]

31. WTC 7 was a three phased collapse

Internal collapse at one end as evidenced by the collapse of the penthouse, followed by that end collapsing, followed by the collapse of the rest of the building.

You are aware of eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage and numerous large unfought fires? How about the fact that the FDNY was monitoring a bulge in the side of the building for several hours before it collapsed? They fully expected the building to fall.

I will take the word of eyewitness experts over CT Google engineers every time.

[TBF]

9. Well most leftists are going to agree that capitalism

is bad enough on it's face that we've got enough to deal with. We don't need to look deeper for even more problems ...

[Kurska]

10. Chomsky, though intelligent, often acts like a major twit.

If I'm not wrong, isn't Chomsky's Ph.D. in linguistics? Is not it rather ironic that he would criticize people for discussing physics without an advanced degree in it, when he constantly discusses politics without an advanced degree in political science? Or does having a post-graduate degree in anything qualify you as an expert in anything?

I'm not a 9-11 truffer or anything, I'm more offended by the rampant display of academic elitism.

[L0oniX]

12. Like Zinn ...enjoy him while he's here.

[lofty1]

13. I choose to lose Chomsky and Josh Marshall on this one

I think the two of them have too much to lose if they go there. Alex Jones has done a bang up job of spreading disinformation and turning off rational minded persons, single-handedly turning the seeking of the truth of 9/11 into Kryptonite for all of us.

[BootinUp]

14. Someone let me know if there is an intelligent challenge to Chomsky's logic

that ever shows up in this thread. I don't see how it would be possible though.

[KoKo]

15. No one is perfect...and don't know why Chomsky spoke out about what he

was trying to say about "9/11 Skeptics"....but the body of his work is too good to ignore over this issue that many of us feel needs "more to come out" about.

So...don't know why Josh took up on this...(I read it first, elsewhere). But, I worry more about those who don't realize that the "Truth about 9/11" and "JFK/Bobby and other "mysteries" stay alive.

THE TRUTH WILL OUT....one day....one day.

Sad thing is that most of us who queried will probably be dead and it will be up to a new generation to work with the revelations...if they still care from handed down by parents or grandparents?

[nikto]

16. Do a little cui bono

Regardless of the controversy, what Chomsky thinks, etc, the unequivocal part that
I can't ignore is the cui bono---Know what I'm sayin'?

WHO BENEFITTED from 9-11?

The MIC, arms industries & related investors, CIA, Neocons, security/surveillance industries.


Probably doesn't mean anything, but the Iraq war, Kennedy assassinations, possibility of war with Iran/Syria
ALL benefit many of the same interests.


But it don't mean nothin'.

[KoKo]

18. Indeed..."Follow the Money." n/t

[RoccoR5955]

19. Chomsky clearly states

That he has "no opinion on what happened to building 7."
He merely stated some facts about 9/11 that are evident to everyone.
And though Dr. Chomsky has not seen papers written in journals stating that the towers were not brought down by planes, they are out there. I guess he just doesn't read the engineering journals. Many have been peer reviewed. There are differences in even the engineering world as to how the towers collapsed.

As far as I'm concerned, though I do respect Chomsky on socio-political matters, I am not sure that he has the proper training to make opinions about engineering. Though the Bush Administration may not have set up the collapse of the towers, they surely did let it happen. There are just still too many questions, even in the official report to convince me that these planes caused so much damage.
Then there is the Pentagon. Since day zero, I asked myself, "Where are the engines and where is the damage from the titanium used in them?" I saw pictures of large spools of wire that were still standing on end, and were not toppled by such a force. This alone told me that something was up.

Again, I am not sure what happened, because I have not been privy to all of the "evidence," and still have many many questions.

Chomsky may be correct most of the time, but I think that he missed the point this time. Perhaps he was just trying to keep his credibility intact, and not become one of "those" conspiracy theorists. Who knows.

[Skip Intro]

21. I will believe what I am told without question, and never

doubt the media or my government again.

[morningfog]

32. That is not Chomsky's message at all. Lol.

[stupidicus]

22. doesn't necessarily mean you've lost a whole lot

particularly when as he argued, you're talking about things well outside of his field of expertise.

perhaps he should engage one or more of these people

Over 200 senior military and government officials
Over 400 respected professors
Over 2,000 architects and engineers http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_truth_movement

and quit picking on the little people who simply give them credibility he apparently isn't willing to.

It doesn't take much education or any genius to know and understand that something remains rotten in this Denmark, and if the goal for him with that kinda rhetoric is to stand in the way of further investigations, then he's being derelict in his duty as an alleged truth seeker and teller, nor is it required that one be convinced that "Bush did it" to smell the stench. https://www.google.com/search?q=9+11+commission+say+they+were+lied+to&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNQN_enUS484 you just have to be aware that usually lies in fact or omission are used to cover shit up.

Maybe Chompster thinks we haven't any right to know what that is, and prefers that govs lie to their own people for "their own good".

Furthermore, as one who isn't an expert in any of the relevant fields, it's always seemed odd to me for several reasons I won't go into here, that three buildings, two of which that suffered asymetrical damage, should all fall into their own footprint. And given the "complicated" arguments posed, like here http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/03/22511-answers-from-nist-to-questions-by.html it's not a matter of people spending an hour on the internet and becoming Einstein, but rather discovering that if nothing else, the investigation was botched, and there's much disagreement on the explanations front, as already shown, and here http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/cambridge-university-twin-towers-theory-debunked/

Chompster needs to butt out of this one, or chew on more of what is known himself. Maybe then he'd understand why so many question the "official" version of everything that happened that day and why, and want another "official" look that takes into account everything that has bubbled up since.

WHere's the harm, except potentially to those responsible for it?

[MisterP]

24. you start with Chomsky, not end with him

[jakeXT]

28. To lose something, first you have to own it. It was never the case with Chomsky.

[Democracyinkind]

29. "Even if there was a conspiracy, it doesn't matter"

Seems like he lost himself. This is him simply refusing to engage, very much like his reaction to the assassination of JFK. It is not an informed opinion, as he himself admits.

And no, of course Chomsky doesn't have to answer any kooky question that is posed to him. I understand his reluctance. But it's not as if he said "I've looked into this deeply and there's no reason to be suspicious". It's more like "In my world view, conspiracy or not, it doesn't matter". At least that's how I remember this (by now rather old) story.