Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
CHOMSKY FEARS 9/11 DEBATE
When questioned about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
It's all fine and good that Mr. Chomsky confronts Israel for its phony justification for mass murder in Lebanon -- an obvious attempt by him to regain the trust of the anti-war movement, which is finally embracing the 9/11 Truth movement -- but let us *NEVER FORGET* where he stands on the most important issue of our time: the state-terror apparatus that is plunging the world into a totalitarian fascist nightmare.
When questioned on Dr. Hesham Tillawi's online video program about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened", with 19 Arab hijackers responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
[ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515995256268661504 ]
At this point in the interview, the informed viewer and reader of his work will ask: "Where has Chomsky been for the last five years? Has he not heard of the work of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, particularly the work of engineer Dr. Judy Wood, physicist Dr. Stephen Jones, philosopher Dr. James Fetzer and theologian Dr. David Griffin? Has he not read about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's appeal to the world for an investigation into 9/11?"
CHOMSKY’S LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS 9/11 POSITION
How is it possible when the Scholar's work has been posted all over the internet and has even made the corporate press because of the controversy it is initiating? Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss these academics as "lacking credibility"? Where is Chomsky's evidence for this dismissal of his colleagues' work?
Instead he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? Why won’t they, along with the NIST engineers, debate the peer-reviewed science put forth by the Scholars? This group of brave scientists and intellectuals not only possess "appropriate credentials" and backgrounds, but, together, have systematically dismantled the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission cover-up reports. Is it not revealing that these government "scientists" collectively refuse to publicly debate Scholars for 9/11 Truth!!!
[ http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html ]
So where does Chomsky position himself within this debate? Why is he openly accusing the 9/11 truth movement of "wasting an enormous amount of time and energy", that "could be better focused on more important issues"? What issues are more important than the events that have led us into an era of "permanent war"? Why is he ignoring the world public's call for an international and independent public inquiry?
NECESSARY QUESTIONS ON UNNECESSARY ILLUSIONS
In light of all this, we are forced to ask some very unpleasant questions with regards to Chomsky's political and moral agenda, as well as his ideological allegiances. Does he know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? (Do recall Sharon's explicit declaration on October 3rd, 2001, that "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." [IAP News])
Is Chomsky an ideological supporter of Zionism, as claimed by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, in an interview given to Snowshoe Films? [ Watch "Straussians, My Behind" http://www.snowshoefilms.com/palestine.html ] If he is an ideological Zionist, then is he covering up the Israeli power-elite's involvement in international terrorism? Isn't it interesting, if not telling, that he avoids all discussion of the Federal Reserve and its Zionist control when he discusses economic power in America? Is this not lying-by-omission, something that he exposes with regard to the corporate media in his book, "Manufacturing Consent"?
Is his stance with regard to 9/11 and "terrorism" not an indirect means of "manufacturing consent" for the "War on Terror"? If so, Chomsky is complicit in the very power system and war machine that he has always condemned. Is it not significant that he has remained employed, despite his dissident activities, by one of the largest weapons developers in the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he began working directly under the U.S. Army during the 1950s. [ http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0920_response.html ]
This leads us to this crucial question: is Chomsky's 9/11 position a result of his fear of power, do they have 'dirt' on him, or has he always been a high-level agent of state-propaganda working only within the acceptable confines of a specific, yet ambiguous ideological framework?
When questioned on Dr. Hesham Tillawi's online video program about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened", with 19 Arab hijackers responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
[ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515995256268661504 ]
At this point in the interview, the informed viewer and reader of his work will ask: "Where has Chomsky been for the last five years? Has he not heard of the work of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, particularly the work of engineer Dr. Judy Wood, physicist Dr. Stephen Jones, philosopher Dr. James Fetzer and theologian Dr. David Griffin? Has he not read about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's appeal to the world for an investigation into 9/11?"
CHOMSKY’S LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS 9/11 POSITION
How is it possible when the Scholar's work has been posted all over the internet and has even made the corporate press because of the controversy it is initiating? Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss these academics as "lacking credibility"? Where is Chomsky's evidence for this dismissal of his colleagues' work?
Instead he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? Why won’t they, along with the NIST engineers, debate the peer-reviewed science put forth by the Scholars? This group of brave scientists and intellectuals not only possess "appropriate credentials" and backgrounds, but, together, have systematically dismantled the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission cover-up reports. Is it not revealing that these government "scientists" collectively refuse to publicly debate Scholars for 9/11 Truth!!!
[ http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html ]
So where does Chomsky position himself within this debate? Why is he openly accusing the 9/11 truth movement of "wasting an enormous amount of time and energy", that "could be better focused on more important issues"? What issues are more important than the events that have led us into an era of "permanent war"? Why is he ignoring the world public's call for an international and independent public inquiry?
NECESSARY QUESTIONS ON UNNECESSARY ILLUSIONS
In light of all this, we are forced to ask some very unpleasant questions with regards to Chomsky's political and moral agenda, as well as his ideological allegiances. Does he know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? (Do recall Sharon's explicit declaration on October 3rd, 2001, that "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." [IAP News])
Is Chomsky an ideological supporter of Zionism, as claimed by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, in an interview given to Snowshoe Films? [ Watch "Straussians, My Behind" http://www.snowshoefilms.com/palestine.html ] If he is an ideological Zionist, then is he covering up the Israeli power-elite's involvement in international terrorism? Isn't it interesting, if not telling, that he avoids all discussion of the Federal Reserve and its Zionist control when he discusses economic power in America? Is this not lying-by-omission, something that he exposes with regard to the corporate media in his book, "Manufacturing Consent"?
Is his stance with regard to 9/11 and "terrorism" not an indirect means of "manufacturing consent" for the "War on Terror"? If so, Chomsky is complicit in the very power system and war machine that he has always condemned. Is it not significant that he has remained employed, despite his dissident activities, by one of the largest weapons developers in the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he began working directly under the U.S. Army during the 1950s. [ http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0920_response.html ]
This leads us to this crucial question: is Chomsky's 9/11 position a result of his fear of power, do they have 'dirt' on him, or has he always been a high-level agent of state-propaganda working only within the acceptable confines of a specific, yet ambiguous ideological framework?
For more information:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
The so-called truth movement say a missle hit the Pentagon not a plane, which was seen by hundreds of witnesses and captured on video. Where are the missile fragments? What about the people who fired the missile? Where are they? Where did they fire it from? How come no one on the busy highway next to the Pentagon saw anything?
This stuff is silly nonsense, that doesn't even rise to the level of a poorly written spy novel. That's why Chomsky won't be bothered with it. He has better things to do. And frankly so do the rest of us.
The people of the World will never be able to rest as long as this state-terror campaign continues.
Did you loose anyone in NY, London, Madrid, Balli, etc.?
I guess it's easy for those who aren't suffering under tyranny to 'rest'.
There is little or no evidence to support it. Not even a burnt remnant of a corpse.
Chomsky is far too lazy and self-righteous to cut the mustard as an Israeli settler so he decided to take the easy way out and become an academic on the Eastern Seaboard.
MIT is far from being a weapons developer. MIT is the most credible university that exists in the United States. One of few. I doubt if they have a football team.
Weapons development cannot be surrendered to the Satanic academics of Harvard, Yale, and Texas A&M.
Need proof that Texas A&M is a satanic university? Remember the bonfire? If you aren't convinced by studying the history of the aggie bonfire, then I can explain it to you. There are many universities and churches dedicated to the advancement of satanism.
You have got to be kidding, man! Where do you get your misinformation?
Next time you try making such an outlandish and ignorant statement, try using Google to make sure that you don't end up looking and feeling like a fool.
Not only is MIT into weapons and military BIG-TIME, but the below links only scratch the surface. Most of their contracts are done in secret.
If you were a subscriber to Popular Mechanics, New Scientist, Scientific American, or any Materials Science journal, you wouldn't hold MIT in such undeserving high regard.
Furthermore, I recall a controversy where Albert, from ZMag, censored a major independent journalism study of MIT’s military contracts. ZMag and Chomsky will probably never live it down.
________________________________________
"Subrata Ghoshroy has been a Senior Defense Analyst at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) since 1998. He is currently on a leave of absence from GAO and is working as a research associate in the Science, Technology, and Society Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is leading a project called Promoting Nuclear Stability in South Asia. In addition, he is conducting research on space weapons and international space cooperation.”
“Mr. Ghoshroy was a Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University from September 2002 to December 2003 on a sabbatical from GAO. During this time, he conducted independent research on weaponization of space and edited a book entitled Ensuring America’s Space Security, which was published by the Federation of American Scientists in October 2004."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eTq84tRv0BgJ:http://www.house.gov/berman/newsroom/Subrata_bio_January_2006.doc+MIT+weapons+research&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=4
________________________________________
MIT’S DRAPER LABORATORY
"Draper Lab is a private, nonprofit R&D lab, spun out of MIT's Instrumentation Lab in 1973 - amid protests from students about the school's deep involvement in military work. The Instrumentation Lab employed as many as 2,000 people at its peak, developing guidance systems for missiles used in Vietnam, as well as in aircraft and the Apollo program. Charles Stark Draper was director of the Instrumentation Lab, and president of the Draper Lab for two years before retiring. Draper (who spent twelve years as a graduate student at MIT), and his students developed gyroscopic inertial navigation technologies after the war, which revolutionized aeronautics and made nuclear missiles possible. The lab now employs around 750 people and the majority of the lab's work is still in developing guidance systems for military applications."
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/MA3136/
________________________________________
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH LOOKS AT ADVANCING WEAPONS SOLDIER USES
"Tomorrow’s soldiers may be equipped with a weapon that can fire a projectile that won’t need gunpowder. At the same time, that soldier may also be protected with a uniform that inflates like an automobile airbag and absorbs the impact of an enemy bullet."
"Students and researchers at the University of Texas and MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY have been working on these and other technological advances to benefit the Army and other services. Professors from the two universities briefed attendees Feb. 15 at the Association of the United States Army’s winter symposium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on this ongoing research."
http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptHome.nsf/byid/SSHE-6M3JYL
________________________________________
TWENTY YEARS LATER, MIT STILL DOING MILITARY RESEARCH PROJECTS
"Unfortunately, military research is still very much a part of MIT. MIT is currently engaged in several hundred research projects for the Department of Defense."
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N6/glenn.06o.html
____________________________________________
TECHNOCRACY IN AMERICA
"A new biography traces how net visionary Vannevar bush orchestrated a grand postwar alliance of scientists, industry and the military."
"Bush convinced military leaders that it was in their best interest to contract out weapons research to academics at MIT, Harvard, Berkeley and other elite educational institutions."
http://archive.salon.com/21st/books/1997/12/08books.html
____________________________________________
MIT: STILL COLLABORATING WITH THE PENTAGON
"MIT was the 10th-largest recipient of U.S. Air Force contracts during the 1999 fiscal year. And, coincidentally, between 1993 and 1997, MIT Professor Sheila Widnall was the Clinton Administration's Secretary of the Air Force. In addition, an MIT Corporation Chairman of the Board, Paul Gray, has sat on the board of directors of Boeing in recent years."
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/mit.htm
____________________________________________
And so on, and so forth…
Do your research.
This article's title was removed from the sidewire on IMC Portland, but it remains on the sidewire of its 911 Investigation page. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/911investigation/
The article itself was deleted from the server and is now unavailable.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/345917.shtml
Portland has been INFILTRATED by COINTELPRO moles, either cyber or real.
I am keeping track of the administrative "anomalies" the I am encountering at various Indymedia sites.
Something is going on and I suspect cyber infiltration of the websites and/or physical infiltration of the collectives.
COINTELPRO is more extensive and far-reaching than ever.
What a surprise under the Bush/Israel fascist regime!
Also, you say there were no body parts from the crashes. So what were hundreds of forensics team personnel doing at the various sites collecting? mushrooms? Federal, state, and local coroners have collected thousands of human remains and belongings for identification over the past five years. They did it with professionalism and dignity and respect for the victims and their families. Yet people like you want to say it was all a fantasy. You really are quite a piece of work. And you should be ashamed.
This is the only argument the gov. trolls can come up with???? There are literally hundreds of scientific questions waiting to be answered that nobody from NIST, FEMA, 911 Commission will address.
Number one question: near FREE FALL collapse of the 3 buildings that broke Sir Isaac Newton's laws of gravity. Remember him? The same guy that physicists and engineers have been teaching for centuries. The same guy who formulated the PHYSICAL LAWS that explain the PHYSICAL CONSTANTS that hold us to the Earth?????
Never mind him and the physics of our known universe; he was just a looney tune!! We have the neo-fascists to tell us what is white, what is black, which way is up, and which way is down.
Who are the looney tunes????????
"They did it with professionalism and dignity and respect for the victims and their families. Yet people like you want to say it was all a fantasy. You really are quite a piece of work. And you should be ashamed."
What agency did you say you were from??
P.S. I wonder how long it will be before this comment is removed. At least 3 of my previous comments disappeared from this site.
Political rhetoric will does not represent scientific fact. This isn't even a political issue. It is about wing-nuts making claims about things they know nothing about. If you have any concrete scientific proof to back up your claims, then present them. If not just go away.