Peter Dale Scott: 9/11, Canada, left gatekeepers & Zelikow

[bronson1958]

ISRAEL est un etat terroriste,il a organisé les attentats contre les etats unis les deux tours jumelles du world trade center , ces attentats avaient comme but,de faire porter la responsabilité aux islamistes d'Alkaida refugiés en Afghanistan afin de justifier l'invasion de ce pays qui etait programmée depuis 1979. La CIA et le MOSSAD ,avaient planifié ces attentats ,en designant les musulmans comme les responsables,celà ferait adherer les Européens à un projet de guerre contre l'IRAQ-petrole.

[GTCism]

We don't know what the truth of a lot of things are, it maybe that there are people and organizations that are quite sinister and off a satanic nature at play in the world. However, 911 was jumbed on and screamed at to the world by Islam is their act, bottom line is they own it now. Hope they like the desert that goes wiht it, their destruction... Islam must be wiped off the face of the earth, it is pure and absolute evil, not unlike anyone esle invovled in this evil act.

[SurprizedDaily]

@GTCism - I really think you should watch the series of video I just added to my channel the other day about the Islamaphobia being perpetrated here in the United States, before spouting off like so many others do! Get educated on the real nature and religion of Islam, before speaking out against something you have NO knowledge about, other then what lame-stream media has put before us all!

[smujismuj]

I respect Scott, but I'm confused by part of his take on Chomsky and Zinn and the "left" "new-left" "old-new-left"??

Scott contradicts himself here when he says first that Chomsky/Zinn were against distinguishing between political factions in favor of attacking the whole power structure, then says they favored keeping the system.

Not sure whether he misspoke, or maybe he was referring to different aspects of the power structure.

I think Scott has exactly the right experience to look into 9/11.

[tom6612]

Chomsky is a human being so he can't be right about everything and here is an instance where is is grossly off the mark. It's nice to see Mr. Scott take apart Chomsky and Zinn on this matter. But you can still learn by studying them. You just can't learn about deep politics.

[goatman257]

Webster Tarpley is a dumbass, agreed.

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Chomsky's analysis is not superficial. It is in fact, quite radical. You can't get much more radical, he's an anarchist.

Radical analysis. looking deep into the root causes of problems in society & power structures, is exactly what causes people to become anarchists.

It doesn't matter who is in power. The problems is, they are in power & the people aren't governing themselves like they would do in a participatory self-governing system, free of hierarchy.

[PSmithFortyTwo]

CH - you make no argument to support your view. Peter Dale Scott provides chapter and verse. Let's see. Believe a closely argued careful case from Peter Dales Scott, or CHs 'faith-based' non-sense. Not much of a challenge, is it?

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Nice attempt to distract from the fact that it is actualy Chomsky Vs Peter Dale Scott that is the question, not me Vs him.

Chomsky is considered one of the greatest living geniuses & is one of the most thoroughly peer reviewed authors of our time. Peter Dale Scott isn't.

Anybody wanting to see just how 'superficial' chomsky's analysis is should go watch the Chomsky Perle debate videos on youtube. They speak - amongst his other works/debates/interviews - for themselves so I don't have to.

[RPenta]

@CapitalistHolocaust Chomsky, Cockburn, and the like cannot even bring themselves to reject the freaking Warren Commission Report--by the way, wasn't that body constituted by LBJ--someone Chomsky and others would spend years criticizing as a "war criminal"? By the way, Shrub Bush himself said he wanted to appoint a 911 Commission which would be modeled on the Warren Commission; and people say Bush always lied.

[rfalfonse]

For a radical analyst Chomsky sure comes across as an establishment stalwart. If Chomsky's analysis is so radical why does he swallow and regurgitate the government's 9/11 conspiracy theories??

Where's his radical analysis of vaccines or water fluoridation? They're both toxic and ineffective. Millions of innocents being poisoned and he's silent? Come on

Why does he still say Oswald killed JFK?

When is he going to acknowledge CIA mind control programs or Operation Mockingbird?

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@rfalfonse

Because he's not a Kookspiracy fruitcake.

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust

Wait a minute. Most of your channel is about CIA conspiracies and you're calling someone else a conspiracy fruitcake? Please. Oh and give your statement some thought. Like I said, your man Chomsky's a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. He believes in the George Bush WHOPPER about the 19 cave dwellers led by a guy on dialysis who magically pulled off 9/11. Belief in a conspiracy theory like that ought to put you in some hall of fame somewhere...

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@rfalfonse:

The points I make in my videos are backed up with absolutely irrefutable evidence, ie acknowledgments from declassified docs. I even have links to the original docs in the video info, wherever possible.

This conclusive, irrefutable evidence is what distinguishes conspiracy fact from conspiracy theory.

Where concrete evidence is not available I try to use peer reviewed sources. This makes for a scientific approach to research.

Anything on 9/11 been submitted for peer review?

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust First off don't commit a logical fallacy by turning citation of peer-review into an appeal to authority.

Second, NONE of the government's 9/11 conspiracy reports have been peer-reviewed.

Third yes at least two 9/11 papers have been peer reviewed:

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction"

and

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@rfalfonse:

Dismissing peer review is akin to dismissing the scientific process.

Those papers aren't necessarily peer reviewed. Stephen Jones (one of the authors) is a bit of a con man when it comes to peer review.

The problem you have with citing Steven Jones work is that he partly set & co-edited his own so called 'peer reviewed' - site called "Journal for 9/11 Studies".

He has even sent his own work to his own website so that he can claim it is peer reviewed.

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Jones had previously claimed that his article "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?" had been peer reviewed.

But it had only been published by his OWN online site that he set up & co-edited, the aforementioned "Journal for 9/11 Studies". Check it out, it was in Volume 3 - September 2006.

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Also, go Google & read the article titled: 'Hoax Article Accepted by "Peer-Reviewed" OA Bentham Journal" in the Library Journal.

"The Open Chemical Physics Journal", which the "Active Thermitic..." paper which you cite was submitted to was published by Bentham Science Publishers with whom the 'hoax' article refers to.

The article claims that one of their journals accepted an article full of "gibberish".

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust Dude, the peer review process has been scandalized many times. You commit another error in logic - the slippery slope fallacy. Just because that journal allegedly accepted a hoax article doesn't mean that ALL its articles are hoaxes.

Why don't you put your bias aside and actually read the thing so you can decide for yourself what to think?

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@rfalfonse:

I wasn't making the assumption that all of Bentham's articles are hoaxes because several hoax articles have gotten through. I was making the point that their editorial process is lax, which puts the integrity of their journals' peer review strongly into doubt.

An appeal to authority, particularly in the case of peer review & nano-thermite technology, is valid, since this type of science is outside of the range of most peoples expertise, certainly mine & most probably yours.

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust First, let's do a primer in logic shall we? An appeal to authority is never valid unless the authority is not considered infallible and is correct.

Second, No, Jones' paper is not beyond the reach of most people's expertise. A moderately educated individual familiar with the use of Google and a dictionary will be able to digest the thrust of that paper inside of 2 hours max.

You'd know this if you quit obfuscating and actually read the thing instead of incessantly quibbling

[CapitalistHolocaust]

You really are in no position to school anyone on logic. You committed the nirvana fallacy earlier by condemning the peer review process on the grounds that it is imperfect & now you are inferring that a system has to be infallible before an appeal to it's authority can be valid.

I read his papers the last time someone passed them off as peer reviewed. You really can't trust a scientist who has attempted to bypass peer review by sending work to an unknown online pay to be published journal.

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust I did NOT commit the nirvana fallacy. I didn't compare the peer review process to or demand an unrealistic alternative. I drew your (limited) attention to its problematic nature. There is nothing fallacious about pointing out flaws in a system or structure. I'll repeat: It's a scandalized, anti-democratic process that's built for corruption. Would you take your car to garage that was so demonstrably unreliable?

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@rfalfonse:

You are demanding unrealistic alternatives.

You want peer review to be democratic. How can an integral part of the scientific process be democratic? Peer review is about experts analyzing & reviewing other experts work. Not about allowing crackpots or people who know nothing about it talk chip in.

You also want it to be scandal free? How do you propose this be done? Ban people like Jones from setting up his own sites online?

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust Not that this is relevant to your belief in the the government/Chomsky's 911 conspiracy theories but it can be democratic by allowing transparency and accountability for starters. You should be able to appeal a panel decision and its membership. Its membership should be made public so conflicts can be avoided. Those steps will go along way to making it scandal free. Like it's my responsibility to come up with an alternative.

You mentioned crackpots not me. Relevance?

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust No one should accept anything peer-reviewed UNLESS they check the core assumptions and assertions of the paper out for themselves. Which YOU haven't done.

But let's cut to the chase (again). Why do you keep changing the subject? Jones is not the issue. Your faith in the absurd is. I challenged you on your and your man Chomsky's belief in the government's 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'll do so again: Why do you believe the government's (racist) 9/11 conspiracy theories??

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@rfalfonse

Yes, just because something is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it's correct. That's what peer review & the scientific process is all about. It's just the beginning. It's now up for review by experts, who through this process can get closer to to truth than by any other process.

I'm not changing the subject. We were talking about peer review in relation to Jones' work as far back as I can remember.

Who says I believe the US govt's version of 9/11?

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust At the outset I asked you why you believe the government's/Chomsky's 911 conspiracy theories.

Do you or do you not?

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust I'm familiar with the article. He says it's peer reviewed because it has passed though the analysis of his peers at the Journal. Yes it's not formal peer review but if you're going to say Jones' peers aren't reliable peers then you have to concede that formal peer review is unreliable as well. It's an anti-democratic process built for corruption that's been scandalized dozens of times

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust Who wouldn't dismiss peer review? As I said it's unreliable. It's been scandalized many times, anti-democratic and built for corruption. It's also on its best day fallible given the obvious fact that it's based on fallible human judgment and prone to human error. And your constant citation of it has now become an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is legit as long as the authority s right and not considered infallible Peer review meets neither criteria reliably

[CapitalistHolocaust]

Serious scholars & experts, would not only NOT dismiss peer review, they would demand its application to any body of work or research that wants to be taken seriously.

Dismissing peer review is like dismissing the scientific process in favour of blind faith.

In fact, this is most likely why Jones pretended that his papers had been peer reviewed by submitting them to his own site he set up, he understands the importance of it.

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust Serious scholars and experts would also acknowledge that it's an anti-democratic scandalized process built for corruption. And if you read my post you'll see that two of his papers have been published in peer reviewed journals.

I can see you have no respect f r logic. But let me ask  you something. Why are you hiding behind criticisms of Jones instead of reading his work and deciding for yourself?

Why are you not so demanding of the government's 911 conspiracy theories?

[CapitalistHolocaust]

The fact that Jones partly set up & co-edited one of the journals he submitted his work to completely undermines the integrity of it's peer review process.

The editor in chief of the Bentham journal actually resigned, commenting: "It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign..There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles..If no one reads it, it is a bad journal" (english translation of videnskab article 28 Apr 2009).

[rfalfonse]

@CapitalistHolocaust You can hide behind all the sophistries you want, but you're still stuck with the fact that two of Jones' papers made it into peer reviewed journals. And attacking the credibility of a journal because of an alleged lax process is to ignore the merits of the paper itself. It's also hypocritical because you're not conceding the fact that many journals have been scandalized.

Jones' papers aside, What has you so afraid of questioning the government's 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[yankeepedaler]

I love to hear intelligent, non-corrupt people making sense.

[EsotericThrone]

Noam Chomsky is not a shill. If you really understood PD Scott's work you wouldn't be so confused. It blows my mind that those interested in 911 haven't realized that Scott is far and away their best resource... nearly their only resource, really. Stop reading people like Webster Tarpley, and other random conspiratorial thinkers who get a book published. Consider your sources of information!

[PSmithFortyTwo]

Excellent. Spot on. Absolutely perfect advice.

[kevhead66]

I also think David Ray Griffin is an excellent resource for 911

[FightTheElite]

@EsotericThrone

Why should people stop reading Webster Tarpley's books? I'd love to hear some motivation for that advice.

[crazyforcanada]

@EsotericThrone - F. R. Scott, poet, lawyer, Rhodes Scholar and father of Peter Dale Scott, attended the joint Canada-US meetings in 1942-43 at which principles & postulates were drafted for the “International Law of the Future” (i.e., basis of the U.N. & world government); meetings under control of the unbroken, ongoing "shadow government". These meetings were reported by the Canadian Bar Review, Vol. XXII April, 1944 No. 4.

[crazyforcanada]

@crazyforcanada - 9/11 was done as a pretext to force NAFTA forward into continental union, as Canada's resources are necessary to the U.N. to secure its control as world government for the next century under a continental military perimeter. Which is why it wasn't too bright of the 1942-43 meeting attendees to participate in private, illegal, unconstitutional meetings that common sense ought to have told them would lead to the overthrow of their own countries and constitutions.

[narskie]

The fact that there is a healthy debate and disagreement between thinkers like Scott and Chomsky and Zinn is wonderful. But the idea that because Chomsky neglects to discuss the Federal Reserve scam in order to discuss issues he believes are more important makes him a CIA operative is outrageous. Once you give people a little truth they will inevitably seek out more, so the Chomsky as a CIA operative theory would in effect be the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

[stupidgirl816]

What about the fact that he (Chomsky) also dismisses both 9/11 and JFK assassinations? It is called "controlled opposition" and it is not only not shooting yourself in the foot, it is genius.

[Rickdeckard2020]

I have to agree with stupidgirl, you are missing the whole point of a gatekeeper. Also consider that many tactics at a glance appear counterary to your aim, like using agent provocateur which overtly act against your interest but in effect undermines the opposition, funding your own opposition group to split the opposition in two camps, false flag operations, etc

[PSmithFortyTwo]

I agree with narskie 100%.

Chomsky says "check for yourself." He says find your own sources of information. He says don't rely on suggestions from him, or anyone else. He says that the 911 movement has taken HUGE amounts of activist energy from any interest in larger and FAR more important events. For 8 years.

What more important events?

Well how about Global Thermonuclear War (started by a nuclear attack on Iran).

Or the deaths of 2.2m plus human beings over eighteen years in Iraq.

[ronheri]

These evil, murdering elements of our government must be stopped from the JFK muder to the 911 cover-up. America is not a dictatorship, yet. Support Ron Paul, our last best hope!

[SurprizedDaily]

@ronheri Voting won't change a thing! They control it also! Look at the Bush vs. Kerry election, both were out of Skull & Bones! Out of All the millions of Americans, how can it be that the 2 we had that year, Both came out of the same secret society satanic club?

[bytwyzz]

ZEITGEIST ,,THE MOVIE ,, NEWER VERSION ,, GOOGLE VID'S

GOD , GUNS , MONEY ..... AND VERICHIPS . be afraid .

[FightTheElite]

Thanks for posting this!

I've got more good videos of this sort in my favorites if anyone's interested.

[Fatima74]

I am so sick of people using the word "conspiracy". STOP using that word, find out if something is a lie or a fact. LIE vs FACT is what matters. Using words like "conspiracy" is another ploy to minimize and distract people from finding out what the TRUTH is.

[gratex]

Yet another worshipper of consequences who thinks that changing the guy at the top can solve the problem. What about the next time? Gah.

[AetiusRomulous]

Is there always a conspircay behind every historic event in America ? Maybe. But I think we can say this, there is a great deal to each story that will be left to historians to sort out.