Noam Chomsky - Q&A @ Sussex University (1)

Question 1 regarding 9-11 conspiracy theories

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Noam
• Chomsky
• 911
• Truth
• Revolution
• Terrorism
• Terrorist
• Attack

[bootleg42]

Chomsky, as usual, challenges power and uses logic at the same time.

[historywillabsolve]

Chomsky is right as usual

[annoloki]

Anyone who thinks that 9/11 was needed to go to war in Iraq etc is a little naive really... Bush would've gone to war with Iraq without 9/11 just fine, perhaps even more easily as there wouldn't've already been a war going on in Afganistan. The US didn't need to fake some attack to go to war with Libya, or be issuing drone attacks against Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. Not even Congress stops the president from going to war. They don't need a false flag!

[winston2015]

911 truth does NOT say the 'government' did it but that individuals in positions of power must have been involved. And the evidence for this is massively overwhelming..

So unless Chomsky is suggesting the laws of physics were suspended for that day then it must have been explosives that were responsible for wtc 1,2,&7 These were not just terrorist attacks The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were made possible by 9/11! why the hell does Chomsky ignore the obvious? well, it happened My chomsky

[DINGLEtheBERRY]

well we know who this poindexter is working for. chompskey my ass. what a fucking smokescreen. shaaaaaaaaaat aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap

[WTCnucleardemolition]

Google "9/11 Nukes - Radiation-induced cancers"

[Grensinlos]

@stoprainingonme Although i agree with your analysis on the reaction, i dont agree with you about the terms left and right. I consider myself to be part of the left although (not democrat or anything like that.. ) but just to clarify i mean left in the derridean sense more than the linear analogy used in america.

but yeah, fuck the bush admin

[stoprainingonme]

@Grensinlos The Left would have criticised it and the Right would have indorsed it. Whatever the evidence that's how each faction would have responded. Thinking people (who, in my opinion, don't usually fall into either category) would have been more favourable to it than say the Iraq invasion, or any other of America's preemptive strikes. Very interesting question though. Anyway, Bush's administration probably would have botched it whoever ligitimate the purpose.

[okayillgonow]

It is strange how Steven Jones talks about finding sulfur and iron at the WTC, yet does not illustrate thermite/thermate's main byproducts: aluminum oxide and barium nitrate.

[Grensinlos]

Question to the Readers on this post:

If the Governemnt did take action to stop the plot/ use the knowledge to stop the 911 attacks, would that be considered Neo-Conservative, just like Bush's rhetoric was considered-the whole stop a attack with a preemptive strike.

[archeronthehill]

Engineering journals would deal precisely with a subject such as a building collapse. Many papers from professional engineers about the twin towers collapsing have been submitted and published, discussing how buildings in the future might be designed better to prevent a recurrence.

None have ever been submitted for proper peer review explaining how 'demolitions' or 'thermite' might be responsible. Why? Brcause it's bollocks, and they would be taken apart by professionals who know better.

[archeronthehill]

You're on to something. For about three years now it's looked to me that the '9/11 was an inside job' cult belief-system has been manufactured and sustained to distract the gullible and ignorant from engaging in anything important or real.

Chomsky himself has said elsewhere that it wouldn't surprise him if 30 years from now we discover that the conspiracies about 9/11 demolitions etc. were being 'fed' by psi-ops. Wouldn't surprise me either. In fact, I am certain of it.