Originally posted by Dr Love
Well hell, Noam said it!!! I take back everything my common sense and my eyes told me and bow to Chomsky's otherworldly like intellect!

Just don't ask Noam for advice on how to remove batteries from a flashlight

Not sure if there's a reference I don't get here.

For the record, I admire Chomsky for radical revolutionizing the entire field of neurolingustics. Even if he's been undoing what he said 20 years
ago.

On the strength of his high profile he makes some pretty outlandish statements. But one has to concede he moves in political circles where
he is better positioned to know what's really going on than the average person on an Internet forum.

He is no apologist for the US govt. And he is an authority on communications and information.

Pretty solid credentials.


Mike

We must inform him of the facts...because he doesnt know the facts...

hey guess what...those conspiracy sites you can quote, you know the ones you got all your "facts" from...are a waste of time.

When you have "facts" is when you call each and every one of those 141,000 people and ask them yourself.

Until then, stop talking and trying to inform him on nothing you can substantiate.

i love how everyones on the right path of knowledge, THEY REALLY KNOW WHATS GOING ON.... no. you know either

1. what they will let you know, nothing more
2. see above.

I am disappointed in Chomsky's opinion of 911.

He points out that even if it is true it doesn't matter because no one will ever believe it possible. He points out the JFK assassination as an example. While that may be true it seems a convenient excuse to avoid an embarrassing label...conspiracy theorist.

Many have criticized Chomsky as a left wing "gatekeeper" and that is possible when you take into account the basic profile of a Chomsky acolyte...your average academic armchair leftists with no intention of getting involved in the dirtywork of revolution or active resistance.

Chomsky appeases this crowd and gives the impression they are actually doing something, when in fact they are only furthering their intellectual isolation.

I love his work but I am really beginning to wonder about his loyalties.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I am disappointed in Chomsky's opinion of 911.

He points out that even if it is true it doesn't matter because no one will ever believe it possible. He points out the JFK assassination as an example. While that may be true it seems a convenient excuse to avoid an embarrassing label...conspiracy theorist.

Many have criticized Chomsky as a left wing "gatekeeper" and that is possible when you take into account the basic profile of a Chomsky acolyte...your average academic armchair leftists with no intention of getting involved in the dirtywork of revolution or active resistance.

Chomsky appeases this crowd and gives the impression they are actually doing something, when in fact they are only furthering their intellectual isolation.

I love his work but I am really beginning to wonder about his loyalties.

I think you're a bit out of date with your observations on Chomsky's audience. A whole new generation of young people, 15-30, think he's some kind of hero. Of course almost none of them have ever read any extended works by him. Just blurbs and mentions on websites.

But he's seen as a critic of the media and status quo, so he's up there in the Pantheon.

Works too hard an being a big name celebrity, I'd say. Naive politically, with a one-note message. Wish he'd get back to the sciences he knows best.

Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by WWu777

You are spouting PURE CONJECTURE, not facts. Let's look at what signers of AE911Truth have to say, in THEIR OWN WORDS, not your distorted ones! Does it look like they were conned by Richard Gage? NOT!

No, I look at hundreds of studies by independent professionals. Misinformation on dozens of websites does not negate the hundreds of thousands of pages on rigorous scientific investigation, documentation, tangible evidence, testimony, gathered. Professionals worldwide, almost all autonomous, have gone over the science.

Guys selling videos and T-shirts with no real understanding of thermodynamics, structural engineering, demolition - are not reliable sources.

Were anyone able to prove the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives, it would mean a fortune to an author or publisher. Thousands have looked at the evidence from Truther sources. It falls apart.

Try some of the better debunking sites which expose the frauds perpetrated by the websites pushing their unsupported speculation.

With half a million related field professionals and academics examining closely the published evidence and less that 1% having difficulty with it - what does that tell you?


Mike





[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

When Popular Mechanics studied it and "debunked it" did you notice the credentials of the individuals doing the debunking?

Every EOD person I have met (and if any of you are out there reading please tell me if I'm wrong) have looked at the collapse and went: controlled demolition. I have yet to meet one who said otherwise. Now, it is possible, I suppose that I just happened upon every EOD person who thinks this way and the larger Pangaea feel otherwise, but I doubt it.

Structural engineers know how to create buildings that can defy earthquakes and natural disasters. They do not build buildings to withstand demolitions. Why would they? Their expertise is more in building structures, not tearing them down (structural versus chemical and physical engineering), ergo demolitions are not their expertise. It is the expertise of people in the Marine Corp, Navy, and state and local demolitions crews, many of whom have been very vocal about what the collapses looked like to them.

Furthermore, any published PhD or high profile corporate citizen would be committing career suicide to say that the government blew up their own buildings. Humans are nothing if not self-protective. I highly doubt you will find someone not half-crazy who will admit to anything other than the party line.

I'm not saying that we destroyed our own buildings, I'm just saying at this point from what I've researched and the people I talk to the government's story is very shady. If our government had been squeaky clean in this respect I would be less likely to raise an eyebrow, but if the people in power want respectability and trust then they need to not do untrustworthy things. Gulf of Tonkin...Tuskegee Experiments...Yellowcake, etc. These things do not instill my trust, and their current behavior is unhelpful.

So, I'll reserve my skepticism for those who've abused my trust, and place my trust in those who have yet to abuse it.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

I'm not saying that we destroyed our own buildings, I'm just saying at this point from what I've researched and the people I talk to the government's story is very shady. If our government had been squeaky clean in this respect I would be less likely to raise an eyebrow, but if the people in power want respectability and trust then they need to not do untrustworthy things. Gulf of Tonkin...Tuskegee Experiments...Yellowcake, etc. These things do not instill my trust, and their current behavior is unhelpful.

So, I'll reserve my skepticism for those who've abused my trust, and place my trust in those who have yet to abuse it.

We also know from thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, thermodynamics scientists, how the towers fell. Unusual structural design from the 60s which did not anticipate a 50% loss of steel support strength as temperatures rose due to the fuel fed fires. Once one section weakened and floors stated falling ont each other it all came down like a hous of cards.

There's no question there were people in the US govt and it's agencies aware that 9/11 was coming down the pike. We know know the Saudis financed the operation through proxies, Pakistani military co-ordinated, etc. Further investigation is needed.

The Truther Movement deflects from the issue concentrating on the building collapses, trying to prove a plane didn't actually hit the Pentagon, and other delusional notions.

This does more harm than good.

Mike

He's not saying that, and you don't have to agree 100% with everyone you find influential.

He's saying the Truthers are going about exposing the truth in the wrong way.

He's explaining that inorder for mainstream people to undersand, and believe any theory of skepticism, there has to be a self consensus to become qualified to take the proper steps to argue undisputed facts.

On the strength of his high profile he makes some pretty outlandish statements. But one has to concede he moves in political circles where
he is better positioned to know what's really going on than the average person on an Internet forum.

Like John Lear?

Originally posted by jprophet420

On the strength of his high profile he makes some pretty outlandish statements. But one has to concede he moves in political circles where
he is better positioned to know what's really going on than the average person on an Internet forum.

Like John Lear?

Except that Chomsky is one of the great thinkers of the 20th Century who radically changed his field and our understanding of language and communication. A Genius.

John Lear claims he discovered man-made structures on the moon, cities on Mars, extraterrestrial ships mining the rings of Saturn. A Whack job.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by jprophet420

On the strength of his high profile he makes some pretty outlandish statements. But one has to concede he moves in political circles where
he is better positioned to know what's really going on than the average person on an Internet forum.

Like John Lear?

Except that Chomsky is one of the great thinkers of the 20th Century who radically changed his field and our understanding of language and communication. A Genius.

John Lear claims he discovered man-made structures on the moon, cities on Mars, extraterrestrial ships mining the rings of Saturn. A Whack job.


Mike

And that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. You are willing to post a character assassination fallacy for someone who did both great and controversial things that is involved with the truth movement, but the opposite treatment is applied to non-truthers.

Originally posted by jprophet420

And that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. You are willing to post a character assassination fallacy for someone who did both great and controversial things that is involved with the truth movement, but the opposite treatment is applied to non-truthers.


Try to simplify so you can understand. Chomsky is a Genius, Lear is an Idiot.

Don't ask me what I think of Truthers.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by rygi23
What's intriguing to me is the insurmountable ridecule that internationally reputable engineers knowingly risk by feverously disagreeing with the official story. For one, I agree with the disagreeance.

How many professionals have you known in your life? I've met thousands.

Do you think more than 5% of people who have architectural degrees ever get work as architects? Do you know how many engineering degrees are issued every year? Thousands. Only a small percent ever find meaningful work in their chosen fields.

There are diploma factories worldwide with no standards that churn out engineers. You pay $25,000 and up for the title.

As we see there are hundred more than willing to associate themselves with anything that might mean an opportunity or a buck for themselves.

They don't have to provide their work experience, just sign their name.
Showing a track record of working on increasingly important projects indicates credibility as an engineer. Not a degree.


Mike

[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Uh you didn't go to my link or read my post. Many of the 786 engineers who signed the AE911Truth petition have 40 years or more of PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

Example.

Name: Claude Robert Briscoe
Title: P.E.
License #: Civil Engineer C17546 -- California
Degree: BS Engineering, UCLA
City: Santa Rosa
State: CA
Country: USA
Category: Engineers (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired)
Discipline: Engineering
Status: Degreed and Licensed
Bio:

45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.

Personal 9/11 Statement:

The collapse of the three WTC buildings would seem to defy the laws of mechanics, conservation of energy and known structural failure behavior. The case for the destruction of the three WTC buildings by means of "controlled demolition" is overwhelming.

Verification Status: Verified

Quit blowing hot air will you?

Originally posted by WWu777
If the WTC controlled demolition theory is ridiculous, as you disinfo people claim, then would Europe's top demolitions expert say that it was controlled demolition? DUH!

DUH, indeed. Ask the top demolitions expert when he last expertly demolished buildings the size of WTC so as to have the experience to know that they fell because of CD.
Ask him how he would have placed the charges; what kinds, how many, how big, and where.
Ask him how he would have prepared the building for a top down collapse. Ask him how he would have removed all traces of demolition.

I'll bet when he actually thinks before talking, you'll get a different answer.