It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to bsbray11

We have today Chomsky able to tell us what he thinks about what's happening right here and now. Not theoretically, but specifically.
Much has gone on since he wrote his books.

Myself I find Chomsky's political analysis pretty one-note. He absorbed a lot from the more active philosophical and political currents in France, where people like Derrida and Foucault offer much deeper analysis of global politics, communication, informaton dissemination, etc. They're the cutting edge.

I still think of him as an extraordinary scientist specializing in how the mind operates, the nature of language, etc. He's 80 now, and keeps changing the goalposts of his 'unified theory'. Fascinating but frustrating to see his ideas constantly evolving. What will be his final word? Is there such a thing?

I guess when we get to human sciences we shouldn't expect anything to be static.


Mike




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
We have today Chomsky able to tell us what he thinks about what's happening right here and now. Not theoretically, but specifically.
Much has gone on since he wrote his books.


So exactly what are you saying, that he no longer believes that the MSM is shaped by US foreign policy-makers, when the MSM is worse today than ever?


I guess when we get to human sciences we shouldn't expect anything to be static.


Sure but a man's opinions isn't science, even if he is a scientist.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So exactly what are you saying, that he no longer believes that the MSM is shaped by US foreign policy-makers, when the MSM is worse today than ever?



There we go with language distortion. MSM automatically equates to "HISS BOO"!

Things are more complex than the pejorative labels we put on them. It's not just a tool of evil corporations for subjugating the masses.

You could say Chomsky is now iconic thanks to the MSM. Without it he'd just be some respected linguist with an aberrant political bent. Systems can be used or abused.

Chomsky takes more care in his pronouncements. He's becomes more attuned to the perils of generalities. The MSM is now his biggest promoter. He's been turned into an alternative thinker's guru.

Media is just an environment. It can work for or against you, depending how you play it.

Mike



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Chomsky as your hero dismays you?

There's a simple solution.

Don't have heroes.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
" Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the (U.S.) media."

Noam Chomsky


with that said i suggest you go read this



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Well, you didn't really answer my question. Are you or are you not saying Chomsky no longer supports work like "Manufacturing Consent"?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Well, you didn't really answer my question. Are you or are you not saying Chomsky no longer supports work like "Manufacturing Consent"?
I really think there is a point being missed. You don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Chomsky is a genius. His analysis of Israel, in The Fateful Triangle et al, is as pertinent as any.

He CHOOSES not to engage with 'micro' issues, such as the JFK assassination or 9/11. This is a failing, perhaps, but it allows him to maintain focus on macro, global issues, and in that sphere he is crucial.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well, you didn't really answer my question. Are you or are you not saying Chomsky no longer supports work like "Manufacturing Consent"?


The book was written in the mid-80s. Corporate controlled broadcasting and traditional newspapers pretty much had a lock on mass market information dissemination.

Now the Internet has changed the landscape and rules. Radical politics, alternative culture, dissent, conspiracy, are now integrated as divisions in mainstream culture. They even have their own marketing.

And Chomsky's perspective is no longer that of an academic on the outside looking in.

"Manufacturing Consent" was a breakthrough look at how things were at the time. But it's a completely different world now. Chomsky would be the first to see that.

I personally follow his language and communications thinking more than his politics or thoughts on media, but imagine he's integrated all that's happened into a broader view.


Mike



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
"Manufacturing Consent" was a breakthrough look at how things were at the time. But it's a completely different world now. Chomsky would be the first to see that.


Yeah, that's the part where I'd like to see Chomsky agreeing, like maybe an article or something, because I kind of doubt it. And either way I know I definitely don't agree with it myself. Major media companies have only been consolidated since the 80s. Even with the internet, you have AOL-Time-Warner and other huge mergers constantly through and since the 80s. But forget all that, I don't care. I just don't think Chomsky would agree with you.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, that's the part where I'd like to see Chomsky agreeing, like maybe an article or something, because I kind of doubt it. And either way I know I definitely don't agree with it myself. Major media companies have only been consolidated since the 80s. Even with the internet, you have AOL-Time-Warner and other huge mergers constantly through and since the 80s. But forget all that, I don't care. I just don't think Chomsky would agree with you.


I don't care that much what Chomsky says any more. He has to conform to the image he's created for himself now. As an aging celeb he's more inclined to respond to what's expected of his role as the Big Media Critic rather than come up with something new.

Interesting relating to his views on Conspiracy, and you'll disagee, I'm sure. Back in the 80s Conspiracy was the domain of the extreme right wing. Gun nuts and people like Alex Jones's father down in Texas. More Midwest and Southern, they were the ones paranoid and distrustful of government controls. Now with Conspiracy urbanized, popularized and commercialized, it's lost it's political edge.

Chomsky's probably leery of it all out of habit.


Mike




[edit on 28-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


The sad thing is people who pride themselves on independent thinking are the most susceptible to any con game that feeds their appetite for anger and resentment - and self loathing.

The defaut dismissal of criticism is to say the sources are trolls, disinformation agents, right wing extremists, whatever.

The close-minded are never aware of their own state.


M





This is exactly what so many here are trying to tell you son.
Just in more gentle ways. Go in peace!


[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Don't be so patronizing, son. I understand, son, you have no idea who you are speaking to, son, so lacking an argument of any sort, you will take liberties, son.
Mike has many years of experience in the world, son, which apparently you do not have, and has read many of Chomsky's works. He is certainly qualified to comment on them. You obviously never paid attention in school, son, but if you pay attention now you just might learn something.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
" Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the (U.S.) media."

Noam Chomsky


with that said i suggest you go read this


What is your take on this link you post?
I read it and can't believe I wasted my time.
What do you see in it? Make that long read worth my while. Please.
Not knocking it. But if you understand it at all please share.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by utgardloki

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Well, you didn't really answer my question. Are you or are you not saying Chomsky no longer supports work like "Manufacturing Consent"?
I really think there is a point being missed. You don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Chomsky is a genius. His analysis of Israel, in The Fateful Triangle et al, is as pertinent as any.

He CHOOSES not to engage with 'micro' issues, such as the JFK assassination or 9/11. This is a failing, perhaps, but it allows him to maintain focus on macro, global issues, and in that sphere he is crucial.


Sweet can you expand on those macro aspects.
thanks donny



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Chomsky, by his own admission, gets all his information from the mainstream media for his criticisms. He has stated the information is there, you just have to look very hard for it. The only problem now is even that information has disappeared from the mainstream. The margin hasn't narrowed, it has completely disappeared, especially where 9/11 is concerned. So he's out of his depth and in a very shaky position. At his age he may not be firing on all cylinders, add that to the fear factor and it's no surprise he doesnt want to touch it.

Just as a side note, how does one become qualified to comment on something? What happened to freedom of speech?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
A good summation of Chomsky's looka at 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

One is reminded why he is considered a genius. He appraises situations and make predictions with unerring accuracy and precision.


digg.com...


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.



Mike



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by A Fortiori

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.


Mike


If you know this, then you sir are poised to exploit this knowledge and become a multi millionaire... all you need to do is patent a jet fuel demolition scheme.

Currently these so called "demolition experts" painstakingly set strategically placed expensive explosive charges to get a structure to neatly collapse.

9/11 showed us these so called demolition pros are greedy frauds, why take all that time paying dozens of people setting pricey explosive charges, when minimal effort is needed setting random inexpensive jet fuel fires.. then waiting for heat & gravity to do the rest.

This 9/11 jet fuel demolition method will surely revolutionize the demolition industry and replace any need for explosives.

To silence "truthers", NIST should take up the challenge of bringing down the next condemned building "9/11 WTC 7 style".. NIST engineers can set steel weakening (lol) jet fuel fires and show us all how it will neatly crumble. I'd really like to see that.

One question to ask yourself: why do almost all controlled demolitions collapse as if they were struck in a random location by fuel loaded jet liners?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
One question to ask yourself: why do almost all controlled demolitions collapse as if they were struck in a random location by fuel loaded jet liners?


I'll just reiterate what Chomsky has said. Amateur and non-expert opinions are meaningless. Scientists regularly enounter unusual and unanticipated phenomena when there are an high number of variables.

Uninformed websites reduce it to the temperature of burning jet fuel or something else simple-minded. In an essentially chaos environment, there were many other factors including the stripping of fire protection, steel losing full strength causing unprecedented load demands on key supporting beams, building and office materials being consumed, and so on.

There are hundreds of thousands of experts in fields like thermodynamics, structural engineering, demolition, and other disciplines. A good percentage, in dozens of countries, have looked closely at the data and anaysis. Hundreds of papers have been published on different aspects of the WTC collapses.

Not even 1% of those who have reviewed the material have found serious difficulties with the conclusions.

And this does not even touch upon the extreme improbability that for the added dramatic effect of collapses, anyone would take on incredible risks to further demolish already destroyed building.

Demolition is extremely intricate, requires base upward sequenced detonation and would have been impossible to conceal. And there is zero forensic evidence of explosive charges, cabling, caps, etc.


Mike





[edit on 1-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GovtFlu
One question to ask yourself: why do almost all controlled demolitions collapse as if they were struck in a random location by fuel loaded jet liners?


I'll just reiterate what Chomsky has said. Amateur and non-expert opinions are meaningless. Scientists regularly enounter unusual and unanticipated phenomena when there are an high number of variables.

Uninformed websites reduce it to the temperature of burning jet fuel or something else simple-minded. In an essentially chaos environment, there were many other factors including the stripping of fire protection, steel losing full strength causing unprecedented load demands on key supporting beams, building and office materials being consumed, and so on.

There are hundreds of thousands of experts in fields like thermodynamics, structural engineering, demolition, and other disciplines. A good percentage, in dozens of countries, have looked closely at the data and anaysis. Hundreds of papers have been published on different aspects of the WTC collapses.

Not even 1% of those who have reviewed the material have found serious difficulties with the conclusions.

And this does not even touch upon the extreme improbability that for the added dramatic effect of collapses, anyone would take on incredible risks to further demolish already destroyed building.

Demolition is extremely intricate, requires base upward sequenced detonation and would have been impossible to conceal. And there is zero forensic evidence of explosive charges, cabling, caps, etc.


Mike





[edit on 1-9-2009 by mmiichael]


This is a childish way of saying nothing. As usual.
SHOW us a expert that proves the towers were felled by flames.
Better yet show us one under oath.
Please post this damning evidence you always rattle on about but never post.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
This is a childish way of saying nothing. As usual.
SHOW us a expert that proves the towers were felled by flames.
Better yet show us one under oath.
Please post this damning evidence you always rattle on about but never post.


Apart from reports from NIST and FEMA there are many sites online that go into enormous detail and provide data, photos, analysis. How many of them have you read through and what are your assessments?

There are also dozens probably hundreds of threads you can find through a quick search right on this forum.

Then you might want to think why posts like the one you just sent get ignored.

Mike



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join