Earwicker wrote:And also, I should perhaps ask, do you think the case against the box cutters would stand up in a court of law?

They would never dare try it. Allow real defense attorneys to subpoena witnesses? Be forced to really explain WTC7? Show all that video they confiscated around the Pentagon?

Here's all you need to know: of the 19 names and profiles of the boxcutter battalion that were released on 9/14/01 by the FBI, there are claims that four to seven of the alleged hijackers are alive, and three that I know of have been interviewed by news organizations, including Waleed al-Shehri by the BBC ( in Morocco, working for Royal Air Maroc ) and Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, interviewed by the UK Telegraph.

The Kean/Zelikow 9/11 Commission did its usual thorough job- repeated the same names, published the same photographs presented by the FBI, didn't address the appearances of living hijackers in the media, but did have the gall to speculate that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing a flight attendant on Flight 11.

To my knowledge, there has never been a question asked of anyone in the FBI, CIA, or NSA about whether they have attempted to corroborate these media reports of living hijackers, let alone prepared to hunt them down and extradite them.

They don't want to know. The official story is done. They won't touch a hair on its head, because they know they don't have to- we don't have a government that answers to us.

Earwicker wrote:And Bob I have to ask, you say you use the UN as some sort of short hand for the international conspiracy. Do you think Griffin is doing this or do you think he actually believes the UN is out to subvert the will of Americans literally?

I think that Griffin may be occasionally using the UN for a stand-in, but that's just my speculation. In the finishing chapters of the book on the Fed ( that focus on globalism ), he divides up his criticism between the IMF, World Bank and the trade cooperatives but he also spends a lot of time on population control strategies, world health organizations, environmental issues, etc., and he sees the UN as a direct arm of the New World Order in these areas. I think if he phrased his 13 predictions article more precisely, they would be more resilient to criticism. Criticising more precisely is something I should pay more attention to also.

Earwicker wrote:First of all I suggest you look at some statistics regarding Americans who believe the government at least knew about 9/11.

I don't know of any serious polls or statistics regarding this subject. If they exist, I would be interested in reading them. I was really just giving Bob a little shit. I have no idea what the numbers are.

Secondly, and i don't want to bring this up in a confrontational way but could you have a look at this i wrote:


While I'm at it I'm going to bring something up again. A question no one answered.
Do you (anti conspiracy theory types) think the current Neo-con administration would ever think of harming 'it's own' people for personal advantage?
If you think they would be ethically capable then can you say why they would not have at least allowed 9/11 if not being directly involved?
If you think they would never allow such a thing can you tell me why?
I'll add to this - if you think they are morally capable of harming 'their own' people then would occam's razor not suggest that a multi billion dollar super secret intelligence agency might be a more likely guilty party than 19 fellas with box cutters?

I'm going to quote Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky wrote:On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly. I really am rushed, so I hope you won't mind if I just paste in [see below] one of the 100s of letters I've written about this, in response to a deluge of queries: it really is an industry. I should say, however, that I never become publicly involved in these matters, if I can help it.

I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence. You can find the details in an excellent book by British political scientist Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand (p. 7), the best study by far of British intelligence (with a lot about US intelligence too, for one reason, because the British were of course spying on the Americans, just as conversely).

[Comment pasted in by Noam Chomsky from an e-mail response to a query:]


There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, 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; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.

One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as they all did -- one of the easiest predictions. So that shows nothing.

Noam Chomsky wrote:On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

If this wasn't a quote from Chomsky, I'd laugh my ass off at the silliness of it. How old is it, Nihil, if you know?

"There are far more important things to be concerned about"? It's the height of arrogance to preach to others what is and isn't important enough for them to spend their time on, and I should know, because I catch myself doing it all the time.

Chomsky decided very early on that he would not question the official story, and he has not been man enough to revisit the matter as the evidence of complicity has grown. Typical of an old dog unwilling to learn new tricks. They don't actually support the official story, except by smugly advising you that you should not spend your time constructing an alternative history. All these old school lefties love to schedule everyone else's time- predictable, when the time spent by the masses using their rusting methods shrinks every year.

I'd love to see evidence of Chomsky specifically addressing any of the odd events of that day. I would be shocked if he's ever thought about the behavior of NORAD or the war games or the core columns of the towers.

And yes, even from Chomsky, a failure to think about these issues doesn't demonstrate that he's too smart for conspiracy theories, it demonstrates that he's too rigid for them.

Noam Chomsky wrote:I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence.

What is he saying here? That disinformation was leaked to distract from what serious questions- serious questions about the Warren Report, or serious questions about foreign policy somehow not connected to that bloody military coup in Dallas? Is Chomsky also urging that no attention be paid to the JFK assassination? Chomsky thinks that Oswald acted and fired alone- that's genuinely embarrassing for the man.

Noam Chomsky wrote:That aside, 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.

Damn. Chomsky believes that our government can be trusted to investigate itself. Damn. A swift rooting out of the culprits? A flurry of leaks? Which country has he been observing?

Here's a page with multiple links to criticism of Chomsky's anti-conspiratorial straitjacket that keeps him from going near the subject of shadow government at home, which he somehow manages to do while also describing the behavior of US military/intelligence overseas as exhibiting all the characteristics of a shadow government in action.

Chomsky and his careful choice of battles

clocker bob wrote:

Noam Chomsky wrote:On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

If this wasn't a quote from Chomsky, I'd laugh my ass off at the silliness of it. How old is it, Nihil, if you know?

2005

"There are far more important things to be concerned about"? It's the height of arrogance to preach to others what is and isn't important enough for them to spend their time on, and I should know, because I catch myself doing it all the time.

The occupation of Iraq still rages on....thousands upon thousand of innocent people including woman and children will more than likely suffer or die in the coming years. This doesn't seem more important to you?

I couldn't help notice that you chose to ignore this:

As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly.

And this:

The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky.

Noam Chomsky wrote:I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence.

bob wrote: What is he saying here? That disinformation was leaked to distract from what serious questions- serious questions about the Warren Report, or serious questions about foreign policy somehow not connected to that bloody military coup in Dallas?

No. It was 1998, Bob. The DOD report was suggesting that info on the JFK assassination should be released every once in a while to distract dewds like you from asking questions about serious subjects such as the constant bombing of Iraq at the time and the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by sanctions.

Chomsky and his careful choice of battles

Very interesting website, Bob. I was especially enlightened by the haiku page.

nihil wrote:The occupation of Iraq still rages on....thousands upon thousand of innocent people including woman and children will more than likely suffer or die in the coming years. This doesn't seem more important to you?

Yeah, umm- nihil, not to kerble you, but if you used the search function, you'd see that I mention Iraq in about half of my posts. And every time I do, I make better points than you could ever make even if you plagiarized yours- something you should consider, for the sake of intelligibility. You would be very smart to never tell me in person that I'm unconcerned about the people of Iraq.

This is my favorite part of our little talks- the end. This time it's permanent. You are a fool, and you write like shit, so that makes you useless.

REASON HAS TRIUMPHED

clocker bob wrote:

Antero wrote:Nihil is interested in dismantling the power of corporations and undemocratic governments.

That are controlled by cabals connected to secret societies and inherited wealth.

Antero wrote: You're interested in battling the Illuminati.

Who, along with other secret societies and cabals founded on inherited wealth, control corporations and undemocratic governments.

And good job on putting words in my mouth, too. Hmm... someone's talking about central banking- I know! Say they're talking about the Illuminati. Then say they're talking about the lizard men. Then say they're talking about the Repitilian Greys. Keep distorting the conspiracy offered into something more easily disproved- good strategy.

Honestly, I would not be surprised if you whipped out lizardmen, because your analysis of Griffin's predictions has been far from objective, and your conspiracy theory in general is hardly selective in its scope. What it really comes down to is that you are arguing from a conclusion, rather than to one.

nihil wrote:The occupation of Iraq still rages on....thousands upon thousand of innocent people including woman and children will more than likely suffer or die in the coming years. This doesn't seem more important to you?

Yeah, umm- nihil, not to kerble you, but if you used the search function, you'd see that I mention Iraq in about half of my posts. And every time I do, I make better points than you could ever make even if you plagiarized yours- something you should consider, for the sake of intelligibility.

Who did I plagiarize?

You would be very smart to never tell me in person that I'm unconcerned about the people of Iraq.

1. I never said you were unconcerned with the people of Iraq. I simply asked what issue you thought was more of a priority.
2. With regard to the "in person" comment, are you suggesting violence?
3. Does this mean that we can't have a drink sometime?

This is my favorite part of our little talks- the end. This time it's permanent. You are a fool, and you write like shit, so that makes you useless.

A very compelling argument. Are you related to Bill O'Reilly? Did I touch a nerve?

Look Bob, I suggested many posts ago that we end this discussion because it has no hope of progress. I'm not contributing to this discussion to make enemies. It's a subject that I feel strongly about. I sincerely hoped that we could find a common ground. I guess not.

Fight the power.

Radio Raheem like a motherfucker.

nihil wrote:I'm going to quote Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky wrote:On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly. I really am rushed, so I hope you won't mind if I just paste in [see below] one of the 100s of letters I've written about this, in response to a deluge of queries: it really is an industry. I should say, however, that I never become publicly involved in these matters, if I can help it.

I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence. You can find the details in an excellent book by British political scientist Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand (p. 7), the best study by far of British intelligence (with a lot about US intelligence too, for one reason, because the British were of course spying on the Americans, just as conversely).

[Comment pasted in by Noam Chomsky from an e-mail response to a query:]


There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, 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; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.

One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as they all did -- one of the easiest predictions. So that shows nothing.

Sorry for bumping this back again but I’ve not had chance to look through it all week.

Thanks Noam for responding to my question I have a few comments:

First of all you’re not really answering all my question(s).
I was asking questions regarding people’s views about the current administration and relating that to the whole 9/11 conspiracy business.

I think evidence for all the theories is flimsy so someone claiming that such and such a theory is definitely what happened would, yes, be failing to understand properly what evidence is.
This, however, also applies to the official theory.

You say they would have to be quite mad to try anything like what happened on 9/11 but I would say that power hungry war mongers are not the sanest of people in the world from the get go, so appealing to these fellas’ sanity is not much of an argument.
Madness would also seem to be a pre-requisite of 19 Jihadis flying aeroplanes into buildings but this is, we are told, what happened.
You’d think the current administration would have to be crazy to steal the presidency, twice! So in love are Americans with democracy and their right to vote you’d think this might happen when it leaked:

“they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever..”
Turns out people have more important things to be looking in to.

Would it not be fair to say that a big crime was committed on that day?
The biggest in American history? (apart from the genocidal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people)

Yes is the answer – fairly obviously.

Does the explanation given reasonably explain the days events?

No, it does not.

Where there is evidence that could prove the official theory (or disprove the conspiracies) it is withheld or has ‘disappeared’.

Where incompetence is used as an explanation many of those (ir)responsible were promoted, not sacked.

It is not, therefore, unreasonable or, I would say, unimportant or a waste of time for people to try and explain exactly what happened.

Our friend Nihil has suggested Iraq is more important than what happened that day but this ignores the fact that without the events of 9/11 it is very unlikely America and Britain could have got the backing they needed (and they didn’t get much) to invade Iraq.
In other words, the two are not separate issues.

Also Noam. I had a quick glance at a website and it said you think Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy on his own.
Do you really believe that?
This seems odd to me or is the ‘magic bullet’ one of the ‘unexplained phenomena’ that we even find in controlled scientific experiments?

I guess it must be.

How about the apparent media bias in favour of news stories that support the current ruling elite’s agenda?
Could this just be down to ‘unexplained phenomena’ and ‘strange coincidence’?
On the balance of probability you’d have to say no. There is an agreement amongst the major media institutions and the ruling elites(banks/governments etc) which leads to the news being presented as it is.
There’s no hard evidence for the shadowy meetings in which these agreements take place but by looking at the phenomena you can draw a reasonable conclusion.

Hey Mr Chomsky is this your double standard or did someone else leave it lying around?

So, Nihil, after discussion with Mr Chomsky what do you think:

Do you (anti conspiracy theory types) think the current Neo-con administration would ever think of harming 'it's own' people for personal advantage?
If you think they would be ethically capable then can you say why they would not have at least allowed 9/11 if not being directly involved?
If you think they would never allow such a thing can you tell me why?
I'll add to this - if you think they are morally capable of harming 'their own' people then would occam's razor not suggest that a multi billion dollar super secret intelligence agency might be a more likely guilty party than 19 fellas with box cutters?


To Bob: try to stop getting so angry. Nihil just disagrees and I think he writes well.
You’ve said elsewhere that one of the reasons you come on this forum is to test out ideas so try not to get too frustrated when someone (or in your several people) put you to the test.

Also, has anyone seen the pilot of the Lone Gunmen, an X Files off shoot aired in February 2001?
I’ve done a search and not seen it mentioned but someone sent it me yesterday. Guess what the Lone Gunmen uncover?
That’s right - a secret government conspiracy to pretend to hijack an aeroplane but actually remotely fly it into the twin towers to increase spending for the military Industrial Complex.
The Lone Gunmen win the day.
The pilot was unsuccessful but not because of some government suppression. It was because it was rubbish.
Woody Allen was right, Life doesn’t imitate art, it imitates bad television.