A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

[metamars]

Noam Chomsky, when describing subtle methods of control in academia, journalism, etc. in the book Understanding Power ( p. 242), wrote:

Alright, all of these are subtle forms of control, with the effect of preventing serious insight into the way that power actually works in the society. And it makes very good sense for a system to be set up like that: powerful institutions don't want to be investigated, obviously. Why would they? They don't want the public to know how they work - maybe the people inside them understand how they work, but they don't want anybody else to know, because that would threaten and undermine their power. So one should expect the institutions to function in such a way as to protect themselves - and some of the ways in which they protect themselves are by various subtle techniques of ideological control like these.

(emphasis mine)

For those of you who agree that "powerful institutions don't want to be investigated, obviously", then how do you think that whatever parts of the US government that the public may have depended upon to investigate other parts of the US government (or even their own part) which either goofed bigtime ("mega-OOPS"), let 911 happen on purpose ("LIHOP"), or made 911 happen on purpose ("MIHOP"), would have failed the public trust? Chomsky goes into subtle and crude methods of control, by which institutions suppress dissenting viewpoints. Right now, I can't quote extensively from the book, though I highly recommend it.

However, a swarm of debunkers wielding their awesome power of logic and critical thinking can probably figure out either general methods used by what I assume is the largest non-religious institution in the world, viz., the US government, to protect itself against serious investigation, or even specific methods used by the parts of government which investigated 911 to assure this same protection.

You're allowed to cheat by looking up the Chomsky reference and reading the whole section. You are also allowed to cheat by asking any reasonably bright 12 year old. For, as Chomsky says in the same section, discussing a related point

I mean, there's nothing in what I just said that you couldn't explain to junior high school students, it's all pretty straightforward. But it's not what you study in a junior high Civics course - what you study there is propaganda about the way systems are supposed to work but don't.

I'll check back on this thread on Sunday for a fresh dose of JREF enlightenmet!!

 

[Drudgewire]

And yet Chomsky doesn't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, because despite what the idiotic truth movement would have you believe there's a world of difference between "never questioning the government" and "continuing to believe in bull despite every single bit of legitimate evidence to the contrary."

Noam Chomsky explains why he doesn't believe there was a conspiracy.

How's that for JREF enlightenment?

 

[beachnut]

Major 9/11 investigations have revealed 19 terrorists did it. While you were looking for ways to attack the government, 9/11 was solved. You are off topic as are all 9/11 terrorist apologists who want to blame the government. Reminds me of JFK asking what we can do for our government. Guess you failed to bring up JFK ideas and instead choose paranoid anti-government tripe to support the hearsay, lies and fantasy of 9/11 truth. You are not skeptical of the liars in 9/11 truth, in fact you repeat the failed ideas.

19 terrorists took 4 planes; even Chomsky agrees 9/11 was done by terrorist. Why do you bring up junk ideas when they do not apply to 9/11? Are you a 9/11-truth believer who has no evidence so you side track things with junk that has nothing to do with 9/11?

 

[Baylor]

The argument itself is a fallacy. Just what I expect from a truther inspired by Chomsky. Institutions don't "want" anything, because institutions don't have emotions. Individuals in different institutions may or may not "want to be investigated." These individuals differ in age, race, religion, attitudes, political ideology, etc. "Institutions" and "US Government" are being reified, which is a logical fallacy. Truthers cannot describe or explain anything. All they have are fallacies, distortions, lies, and ignorance.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Noam Chomsky, when describing subtle methods of control in academia, journalism, etc. in the book Understanding Power (p. 242), wrote:

It only takes one person with a conscience—just one—to destroy his point.

 

[Travis]

Chomsky not believing the US government was behind 9/11 is the one time in the history of everything that he got something right. So good for him. Now he only has all those BS books and all those annoying speeches to atone for.

 

[1337m4n]

For those of you who agree that "powerful institutions don't want to be investigated, obviously", then how do you think that whatever parts of the US government that the public may have depended upon to investigate other parts of the US government (or even their own part) which either goofed bigtime ("mega-OOPS"), let 911 happen on purpose ("LIHOP"), or made 911 happen on purpose ("MIHOP"), would have failed the public trust?

What do you mean, how do I think they would have failed the public trust?

Your question does not make any sense. It is pure nonsense. It is ironic you bring up twelve-year-olds because that is all it would take to see you are talking out of your ass and using nonsense arguments and bad logic.

Try writing a coherent thought; there are none in your post.

 

[Drudgewire]

Your question does not make any sense. It is pure nonsense. It is ironic you bring up twelve-year-olds because that is all it would take to see you are talking out of your ass and using nonsense arguments and bad logic.

Not only that, but I again get to laugh at the brilliant rebuttal so prevalent in twoofdom: "If you'd just think like a child you'd see things my way."

Bravo!

 

[dtugg]

I find it amazing how metamars persists to use Noam Chomskey to defend his fantasy when he knows very well that Chomskey out right rejects it.

 

[Pardalis]

Where's the question?

 

[volatile]

Chomsky not believing the US government was behind 9/11 is the one time in the history of everything that he got something right. So good for him. Now he only has all those BS books and all those annoying speeches to atone for.

You realise that he almost single-handedly changed the face of 20th century linguistics, right?

Wind your neck in, Trav.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

the fundamental flaw in the argument is the representation of the government as a single monolithic entity, with singular goals and methods

it is in fact a collection of dozens of agencies, hundreds of departments, and thousands of individuals, many with no particular loyalty or incentive to cover up the flaws of another agency

 

[plumjam]

Institutions don't "want" anything

Hmm.. so I guess the US Govt's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were ... well, I dunno what they were. Acts of God maybe, like earthquakes or floods.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You realise that he almost single-handedly changed the face of 20th century linguistics, right?

Wind your neck in, Trav.

Quite possibly true, but he's written more books about politics and economics than books on his area of expertise.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

If 911 was so conclusively not an inside job why do some people get so angry and insultive in order to attack those who question it?

If twoofers are so nutty why are they such a threat that you people have to get so defensive?

Me thinks dewunking is not about the twoofers, but about the dewunkers themselves. I think clinging on to a such a fundamentalists position so tightly is a daily pill for dewunkers to counteract their low self esteem.

Why else would anyone spend so much energy placing ones self superior to another group?

Dewunkers are so trigger happy and earer for a daily fix of self esteem boosting even a mild claim of 911 agnosticism is enough to stir up the hornets nest buzzing shouting "Twoofer! Twoofer! Twoofer! Twoofer! Twoofer! "

It's quite an interesting psychological observation. There's enough here for a whole conference.

 

[Heiwa]

However, a swarm of debunkers wielding their awesome power of logic and critical thinking can probably figure out either general methods used by what I assume is the largest non-religious institution in the world, viz., the US government, to protect itself against serious investigation, or even specific methods used by the parts of government which investigated 911 to assure this same protection.

I'll check back on this thread on Sunday for a fresh dose of JREF enlightenmet!!

Intimidation works well everywhere as a general and a specific method to force people to do what they really should not do, e.g. stop checking their own government. It is not easy to think clearly when you are being threatened or intimidated by institutions that are supposed to serve you.

 

[Drudgewire]

If 911 was so conclusively not an inside job why do some people get so angry and insultive in order to attack those who question it?

If twoofers are so nutty why are they such a threat that you people have to get so defensive?

"Some people:"

-take the very real murder of 3,000 people seriously and get a bit touchy about it being reduced to the plot of a crappy movie.
-can only hear "just asking questions" so many times after answering them repeatedly only to have them brought back up again as if for the first time, often within the confines of the same forum thread.
-have issues with abject stupidity/fantasy/psychosis fraudulently portrayed as being "open-minded."

Me? I don't get defensive. I prefer pointing and laughing at you guys.

 

[JohnG]

If 911 was so conclusively not an inside job why do some people get so angry and insultive in order to attack those who question it?

Why? I can think of two reasons off the top of my head:

1. The claim that 9/11 was an inside job is a lie and lies are generally considered bad things, even if the lies are told about people you have no respect for or even actively dislike.

2. I suspect that if someone accused your mother of murder and you knew that she was innocent, I doubt that you'd just sit back, say "live and let live" and forget about it, especially if those same people were trying to take her to court or worse.

If twoofers are so nutty why are they such a threat that you people have to get so defensive?

A 'nut' named Mark David Chapman killed one of my musical heroes.

It would be bad enough if the mentally ill were only a danger to themselves, but they are often a danger to others.

Don't worry, when you've lived more than a couple of decades, these things will start to become clearer to you.


ETA: Oh, and Chomsky thinks 9/11 CTs are nonsense. It's been said several times before but it bears repeating.

 

[Bobert]

Why would one quote someone who doesnt even support their FANTASIES?

 

[Horatius]

Hmm.. so I guess the US Govt's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were ... well, I dunno what they were. Acts of God maybe, like earthquakes or floods.

No, they were acts of men - which is the whole point. "Institutions" don't do anything, they don't want anything; it is the people who make up the institution that do these things.

The Truthers would have us believe that some massive, monolithic non-human force simply decided one day to cause 9/11, when in fact, it would take the actions and complicity of a large number of people to pull off the conspiracy they claim to have uncovered. Foisting responsibility off on some "Institution" relieves them of the burden of explaining why hundreds, if not thousands, of Fathers, Sons, Mother, Daughters, Wives, Husbands, Brothers, and Sisters suddenly decided to join forces with Evil, and cause 9/11.