Our favorite left gatekeeper on 9/11

[jakeXT]

MIT professor Noam Chomsky may not know exactly how or why World Trade Center 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, but the one thing he’s sure of is that there’s no federal conspiracy behind it.

http://rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

[cpwm17]

1. Bingo

Why blame the Saudis if you want to invade Iraq? Unless it was actually the Saudis that did 9-11 and there was no Bush administration MIHOP conspiracy.

[Ace Acme]

3. What makes you think Saudis doing it means no MIHOP?

You guys are always leaping to unjustified conclusions. Saudis doing it means MIHOP is more likely. Note how many of the alleged hijackers got their visas at the same consulate (Jedda). Note the connections between the alleged hijackers and the US military--drivers licenses with addresses at Pensacola Naval Air Station, courses at the Defense Language Institute.

[cpwm17]

14. If you move goalposts and invent new CT's

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

you could play this game forever. But that then is a strong indication that you have no evidence for your CT's.

You can play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" and have a very good chance of finding alleged links to various elements in a major event, but that proves nothing. Only evidence can prove your case.

[Ace Acme]

15. I'm not inventing any CTs. I'm just demolishing your bogus and unintelligent certainties. nt

[cpwm17]

16. Chomsky did a good job of showing how nonsensical the popular 9-11 CT is

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)

The burden of proof is 100% on your side for any other CT your creative imagination can produce. You've given no evidence for anything. You've demolished nothing.

[Ace Acme]

18. Chomsky only showed his own nonsense

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is his argument:

A: If the Bush team had done 9/11, they would have used Iraqis and not Saudis to do the dirty deed.

B: Only if they were stupid or crazy would they use Saudis for 9/11.

C: They are not stupid or crazy

D: Therefore they did not do 9/11.


Assumption A is just plain stupid For these reasons:

1. Iraqis were rare or absent in al Qaeda. I've never heard of even one Iraqi member of al Qaeda.
2. Iraqis would have been very difficult to recruit for an attack on the USA, because they would have known that the response would be devastating attacks on their homeland. Saudis, by contrast, could be very confident that Bush would never attack their homeland.
3. Framing Iraqis would be difficult. Friends of Iraq would be very skeptical.
4. Using Saudis gave the Dominators the excuse to bomb many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, AND Iraq) while use of Iraqis would only get a license to bomb Iraq
5. Using Saudis gives the plotters the cooperation of the Saudi government, while no cooperation could be expected from the Iraqi government

Assumption B is just plain stupid because it ignores all the reasons to use Saudis for 9/11.

Assumption C is just plain stupid because it is contrary to evidence. They were demonstrably stupid and crazy even if they didn't do 9/11--and if they did do 9/11, then they were even crazier (how stupid--as opposed to treasonously malign--is open to discussion).

Conclusion D: is not justified.


I don't have to prove any CTs at all. I only need to shoot holes in the silly arguments you guys put up in defense of the prevailing myths you are so desperate to believe.

[cpwm17]

21. How did 9-11 go down and what's your evidence?

Without such knowledge I have no way of knowing where you're coming from.

[Ace Acme]

23. Try evaluating the logic instead of the source. nt

[William Seger]

22. Chomsky makes sense; you do not

Let's start by accurately stating what Chomsky says in the linked video:

1. BushCo desperately wanted to invade Iraq.

2. BushCo blamed 9/11 on Saudis, not Iraqis.

3. Unless they're total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis, not Saudis, so they wouldn't have needed to fabricate claims about WMDs and al Qaeda links that quickly fell apart.

4. Therefore, either BushCo are total lunatics or they weren't involved.

5. They are not total lunatics.

6. Not stated but implied: Therefore, they weren't involved.

I assume you won't argue against 1 and 2, so your attempted refutation begins with 3, to which you say:

> 1. Iraqis were rare or absent in al Qaeda. I've never heard of even one Iraqi member of al Qaeda.

But you're really affirming Chomsky's point! If they planned the attack to justify invading Iraq, then they should want to blame it on Iraqis, not al Qaeda.

2. Iraqis would have been very difficult to recruit for an attack on the USA, because they would have known that the response would be devastating attacks on their homeland. Saudis, by contrast, could be very confident that Bush would never attack their homeland.

And "no true Scotsman..." huh. In addition to your assumption that it would be "very difficult," you failure to distinguish between "very difficult" and "impossible."

> 3. Framing Iraqis would be difficult. Friends of Iraq would be very skeptical.

First, why would the worry about that? But more importantly, since it wasn't just "friends of Iraq" who were more than "very skeptical" of the justifications they actually came up with after blaming the attack on Saudi al Qaeda, you're really just affirming Chomsky's point again.

> 4. Using Saudis gave the Dominators the excuse to bomb many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, AND Iraq) while use of Iraqis would only get a license to bomb Iraq

That's such a total non sequitur it's hard to even comment on, but it appears to be another of your famous "just so" stories that doesn't actually demonstrate anything at all beyond its own assumptions.

> 5. Using Saudis gives the plotters the cooperation of the Saudi government, while no cooperation could be expected from the Iraqi government

And another. Your assumptions about who would and would not cooperate don't even really matter since you didn't establish any reason why BushCo wanted or needed cooperation from either. It's amusing that you say Chomsky's assumption "is just plain stupid" and then give as a reason that BushCo couldn't count on Iraq's "cooperation" in blaming Iraqis to justify invading Iraq.

So, Chomsky's points 1 through 3 survive your blistering rebuttal unscathed, which means the conclusion in point 4 appears to be valid and sound rather than "just plain stupid."

Your rebuttal to point 5 appears to be "Uh-huh, yeah they are lunatics! I've got evidence!" But it seems you forgot to say what evidence you have of that sort of lunacy.

So once again, you seem to be waving empty hands, and yet:

> I don't have to prove any CTs at all. I only need to shoot holes in the silly arguments you guys put up in defense of the prevailing myths you are so desperate to believe.

Self-flattery will get you nowhere. Ditto for imaginary holes; seems to me you can't hit the broad side of a barn. No, you don't have to prove any CTs, provided that you are content with being irrelevant. The "official story" will continue to be the one that makes the most sense, given the actual evidence. Either you've got a more convincing story or you don't, and you admit that you don't. You're just playing games, and not very well.

[Ace Acme]

24. Your points 3,4,5, and 6 are compleat nonsense.

More from the Seger School of Rhetoric:

Post empty assertions verbosely--those who see through you will refrain from disputing what they haven't read, those who agree with you will skim for certitude and terms like "non sequitur" and "no true Scotsman" and assume you know what you're talking about.

They had no problem getting support for attacking Iraq. 9/11 created a state of blind panic among the people, and intimidation amongst the media and the legislature. Americans can't be expected to tell Arabs from Persians, let alone Arabs from Arabs, so there was no need to blame 9/11 on Iraq--the American people did that for themselves. There was no credible threat from an international band of fanatical Iraqi Muslims. It was far more advantageous to blame Islam itself instead of the secular Iraqi regime.

I didn't say BushCo needed cooperation. I said they could expect it from the Saudis and not the Iraqis. For instance, the Iraqi government could be expected to deny Bush claims that they did 9/11. The Saudi government did not deny that Saudis did 9/11.

The Bush actions--torture, illegal war, illegal surveillance--are those of a madman (whether he was truly mad, or it was just going to be his defense at any criminal trials is open to question).

[William Seger]

25. Thanks

Although I find your arguments to be unconvincing, I am developing an appreciation for your concession speeches.

[Ace Acme]

28. In your dreams. nt

[William Seger]

17. "Demolishing" what?

The Standard Conspiracy Theory asserts that the purpose of MIHOP was to justify a War on Terror and specifically to justify invading Iraq. That theory makes no sense if the main perps were Saudis, so at the very least you are inventing some other unspecified purpose. If you want your new motivation theory evaluated, you'll have to actually state it.

Anyway, you are missing the argument and attacking a straw-man: Chomsky does not claim that as evidence against MIHOP, but rather as a reason for why MIHOP is so implausible -- i.e. it's an "extraordinary claim" that the plot was to use Saudi terrorists to justify an invasion of Iraq -- which raises the bar for the level of evidence that would be required to make it sound plausible.

[Ace Acme]

19. There is no contradiction between your postulated purpose of a MIHOP op and the use of

Saudis to carry it out (or serve as patsies). You are very confused. Anyone can see that the use of Saudis served
magnificently to justify a War on Terror and specifically to justify invading Iraq.

The claim was made that Chomsky defeated the CT that the Bush regime did 9/11. That claim was as silly as Dr. Chomsky's argument. He didn't offer evidence. He offered stupid assumptions and an unjustified conclusion.

MIHOP is hardly an extraordinary claim. False-flag ops have been used successfully to initiate wars for a long time--as any student of the US wars with the indigenous peoples of this continent, or of the incidents the Germans and the Japanese used to justify their invasions of their neighbors, can tell you.

[William Seger]

2. Chomsky a "left gatekeeper" ?!

Gonna be hard to take you seriously after that post.

[Ace Acme]

4. So Chomsky is not a lefty? That's a silly thing to say. nt

[William Seger]

5. So Chomsky is a "gatekeeper?" That's an absurd thing to say. (n/t)

[Ace Acme]

6. It's not at all absurd. He says JFK and 9/11 are of no interest

... and a lot of people take his word for it.

[William Seger]

7. No offense, but it could be that Chomsky is much smarter than you

... and a lot of people actually understand what he's saying.

[Ace Acme]

10. Maybe, and maybe not. The jury's still out on that. nt

[Ace Acme]

9. It's not at all absurd. He says JFK and 9/11 are of no interest

... and a lot of people take his word for it.

[jakeXT]

8. I thought the label is common knowledge and nothing new

[William Seger]

11. "Common" among "truthers" perhaps

... but where do you get off calling it "knowledge?" Preposterous theories about controlled demolitions are not made more plausible with preposterous theories about why so many people don't accept bullshit as "truth." Calling Chomsky a "gatekeeper" just makes "truthers" sound even more delusional.

[jakeXT]

12. His claim is "Even if it were true...who cares" /nt

[William Seger]

13. That doesn't make him a "gatekeeper"

That remark sounds flippant but it should be taken in context of what he said just before that ("I think it's diverting people from serious issues&quot and what he said right after ("If there was some reason to believe it was a high-level conspiracy, it might be interesting, but...&quot . Regardless, that opinion doesn't make him a "gatekeeper." There aren't many prominent intellectuals who are as anti-authoritarian as Chomsky.

[Ace Acme]

20. His reputation as an anti-authoritarian is what makes him an effective gate-keeper.

People like you are willing to let Chomsky do your thinking for you.

[William Seger]

26. Ah! Brilliant!

Chomsky's entire intellectual career was just a set-up for helping BushCo cover up a mass murder! Elementary, my dear Watson!

[Ace Acme]

27. I didn't say that.

You'd better stick to long gassy posts nobody's going to read. When you're pithy, you're too obvious.