Noam Chomsky, phony American dissident

Tue, 2009-05-26 22:48 by James Sinnamon

Noam Chomsky, a supposed US dissident, in fact, uses his influence amongst progressive people to convince them of ideas that serve the interest of the same US elites he purports to oppose. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration of former US President George W Bush as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.

See also: YouTube broadcast
Update: , 25 Dec 09.

Of the overwhelming evidence which contradicted the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who murdered President John F Kennedy in 1963, Noam Chomsky said:

"I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?" (See YouTube broadcast )

Chomsky insists that Oswald, acting alone, murdered President John F Kennedy, but also says that even if it was not the case, and he was, indeed, murdered by people within the US administration, why should it matter?

The answer should have been obvious. If it was purely bad luck that Kennedy was murdered, then other political figures, opposed to the establishment, would have little to fear. Peoplehttp://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/sacred-cow-noam-chomsky-gored-by-barry.html such as Barack Obama who were (once) thought to pose a threat to the US corporate elites would have had little reason to fear that those corporate elites would be so ruthless and so unconscionable as to conspire to have him killed, contrary to what many of his supporters openly feared would happen. Strangely, even people such as Australia's Phillip Adams, who refuses to consider JFK and 9/11 'conspiracy theories', expressed this fear for Barack Obama before he was elected. If, on the other hand, there was a conspiracy to murder JFK as many credible people argue, because he posed a threat to powerful vested interests who wanted to escalate the Vietnam War, then surely others, who stand opposed to those vested interests, should also fear assassination. Clearly it must matter whether or not a gunman acting alone murdered JFK and Chomsky could not possibly have been so stupid as to not have understood that. The only possible reason why Chomsky would choose to insist that it does not is to allow him to avoid having to openly defend the lone crazed gunman theory, which has happily peddled on other occasions. In fact, in the same decade, three of the other most charismatic and effective leaders opposed to the US establishment also met violent deaths in suspicious circumstances that were never properly investigated - Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert F Kennedy. In all cases, Noam Chomsky insisted that there was nothing suspicious. Almost certainly, because of the influence he wielded amongst progressive circles, many who would have otherwise followed the trail that would have led to the killers of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK were dissuaded from doing so.

Thus the left of the 1960's was decapitated and those responsible were never unmasked and brought to justice.

Shortly after the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 Chomsky pronounced that Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had indeed master-minded the attacks, just as George Bush had insisted. Those who questioned the official account and pointed to the glaring contradictions and absurdities of the official account of 9/11 were dismissed by Chomsky as conspiracy theorists. Once again, many, who held Chomsky in high regard, were dissuaded from questioning the official 9/11 fiction, thus leaving unchallenged the huge propaganda advantage that made it possible for the US rulers to overcome public opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous attacks on civil liberties and democratic freedoms in the West. During my participation in the protest movement against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I never personally doubted the official 9/11 explanation nor was I aware of anyone else who questioned it, such was the influence of the likes of Chomsky on the anti-war movement in Australia. Barrie Zwicker has -fn1" id="main-fn1-txt">1 how Noam Chomsky is a practitioner of the 'bait and switch' technique. The 'bait' is his many scholarly works which show up many of the crimes of the US rulers (although rarely accompanied by practical suggestions as to how to prevent these crimes). The 'switch' are ideas that serve the interests of the US rulers. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.

 

Postscript: (19 July) In spite of the damning critique of Noam Chomsky by Zwicker, and Chomsky's failure to acknowledge, let alone respond to that critique, many progressives, even amongst those aware of the truth of 'false flag' attacks such as 9/11, still accord Chomsky credibility that he clearly does not deserve. One of many possible examples is the publication of the article also by Information Clearing House. Whatever may be the merit of that article, the fact remains that Chomsky has done enormous harm to the causes he claims to support and will continue to harm those causes until more people are able to see him for what he is.

 

Appendix 1: Online forum discussion about influence of Noam Chomsky in Australia

So, far, on two occasions, when I have participated in online forums, my detractors have referred to my low regard for Noam Chomsky as expressed in this article in attempts to discredit the views I had put to those forums. The following are recent posts to a Larvatus Prodeo discussion about 9/11:

-825973">18 Sep 09:

 

Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.

They'll link to some complex document that has a lot of equations and fancy theories that explains how such a freak occurrence is possible and there’s nothing untoward about it happening three times on one morning in one place. There’s citations of various experts who've written debunking articles but those I've read can’t explain it either.

Can you? Can you understand? Because this is what Noam Chomsky refers to when he talks about the manufacturing of consent. The issue is inherently outré . This is how Foucault describes our power structure as a demarker of normality, morality, sanity and those that fall outside.

And it’s interesting that people who've read books by both men somehow play the game they’re describing. By all means ban Daggett. S/he’s obviously crazy.

My comment: Whilst Chomsky was cited in my defence here, I felt most anxious that the undeserved credibility given to Chomsky not be left to stand. I was helped somewhat in this, when further along, one of my detractors wrote:

-826069">18 Sep 09:

 

Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.

To be fair, Adrien, this happens even when you don’t ask the free-fall question.

As to Chomsky, Daggett will explain to you that Chomsky is a phony, because he accepts the “official conspiracy theory”. [see]

That is convincing proof of just how vast and pernicious the cover-up is, wouldn't you say?

My response was:

-826069">18 Sep 09:

 

Why is the Australian far-left seemingly unanimous in its resolve (as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out -825585">above (on LP)) to defend ground which accepts that terrorists, from the region in which our armies are now fighting wars that they say they oppose, did launch 9/11, 7/7 the Madrid bombings, Bali, etc, but refuse to even contemplate examining evidence that would enable them to shift to ground which I would have thought would be much easier to defend, that is, the ground on which it is maintained that the US government itself committed the crimes which it has knowingly and falsely blamed on so-called Muslim extremists. (Words from earlier discussion on Online Opinion about the movie 'Balibo'.) Why, instead of calmly asssessing the evidence to determine whether it just might be true, do so many on the supposed left of Australian politics, instead, spill bucketloads of electronic ink personally attacking 9/11 Truthers?

Noam Chomsky

Of course, part of the reason, but only part, must lie with the influence of Noam Chomsky, who is regarded as an unquestionable guru by many in Australia. In spite of the fact that Noam Chomsky has written some good ideas as Missy Higgins -825973">pointed out, I am, nevertheless, convinced that he is a fraud.

In fact, Noam Chomsky, himself, has acted contrary to many of his own good ideas.

Very shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he produced an article which essentially accepted the Official US Government 9/11 Conspiracy and has spent much of his energy since then attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.

This, together with Chomsky's absurd insistence that there was nothing suspicious about the murders, in the 1960's, of all four of America's most charismatic and effective political leaders who were prepared to stand up to America's oligarchy -- JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK -- has resulted in some, including an erstwhile protege, Canadian Barrie Zwicker to question Chomsky's true motives.

I have written some of this in the brief article that GregM mentioned. I urge people to read that article and to follow the links to other articles and YouTube Broadcasts. The Short Youtube Broadcast by Barrie Zwicker linked to from there is well worth looking at.

I would be most interested to know if GregM concurs with Chomsky's view:

I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?

I consider Chomsky's ludicrous -826015">position on Cambodia, which he inexplicably held on to even as late as early this century to be a component of his overall disinformation effort.

Sometime earlier this decade I heard an interview of Chomsky by fellow left gatekeeper Phillip Adams. In that interview he accused the media of being hypocritical for focusing on Cambodia in the late 1970's instead of on East Timor. It may well be that for a while some of the media was hypocritical, but his point seemed ludicrous. If anything, the Cambodian genocide was an even greater crime than Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.

Sadly, some on the left had an emotional need to deny that those who had 'liberated' Cambodia in 1975 were gencocidal killers, but surely years after the Khmer Rouge had been used as a tool by the West against the Vietnamese who removed that genocidal regime, that emotional need should have long disappeared.

However, the greatest harm that is done when Chomsky effectively apologises for Khmer Rouge crimes, is not to himself, but to others who oppose US foreign policy, whom the broader public assumes to share his views.

" id="appendix2">Appendix 2: Comments from forum in response to video "America is not a Democracy"

The of a particularly unoriginal and unremarkable 10 minute video "America is not a Democracy," featuring Noam Chomsky on information Clearing House, attracted, so far , many of them highly critical. Here are some, including a response from myself:

I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.

Chomsky offers an analysis that only considers part of the factors. He picks and chooses to suit his preordained conclusion. In real science, that is not acceptable. Chomsky knows this. When you skew the analysis to fix the results, you end up being no different than a propagandist or a crook. It's dishonest. It prevents real solutions to problems being pursued. It makes the problems worse. He may provide valuable information sometimes, but there is always important pieces missing from the story. Important parts whose absence prevents a person really understanding what they are up against and making workable personal choices to work on turning things around. I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.

Anonymous,

Anonymous and chumpsRus wrote: "I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs."

You've stolen my thunder.

It is striking how little useful advice Chomsky has ever had to offer, in over four decades, to those who may want to build an alternative to the political system he ostensibly denounces.

I thought his attempt to diminish those who fought to reverse the rorting of the 2000 Presidential elections was particularly low.

Yes, obviously the alternative to Bush was far from ideal, but how can Chomsky then conclude from that, that when Fox News and the whole US oligarchy acted in concert to ensure that their chosen glove puppet was installed rather than Al Gore, the candidate who legally won those elections, it was of no concern?

That stolen election laid the groundwork for 9/11 and well over 1 million deaths in wars that 9/11 was used as a pretext for, but of course, as noted by others, Chomsky refuses to speak the truth about the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack and, before that, the murders of JFK. Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.

daggett,

The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.

The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.

The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information. Chomsky may sound good and he may have many good facts but anyone who shilled for token Obama must be called out as a political liar. Obama has been a disaster so far for USA and the rest of the world.

The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information.

Just like the bible says you have to be very careful of wolves in sheep clothing. this Chomsky is a very skilled and highly trained intelligence asset. If he wasn't why would he be allowed to criticise government for all his life while holding government posts? After all it would be pretty easy to neutralise him.

the hierarchy is obsolete,

Editorial comment on previous comment: I think the concluding paragraph is largely correct, but, in a way that was probably unintended, it could be seen as an excuse, if not for obvious US Government shills like Chomsky, at least for academics who remain silent about crimes committed by the US Government.

If Chomsky had spoken the truth about the assassinations of JFK, etc. back in the 1960's, then, obviously he would have faced retaliation. Anyone who sincerely opposes an unjust status quo has to be prepared to pay a price for doing so.

However, there is no automatic guarantee that such retaliation would have succeeded. Had Chomsky been sacked or obviously victimised in some way, there would be every reason to hope that the American public would have rallied to his support.

Furhermore, there is every reason to expect that the efforts of people like Jim Garrison to bring to justice the murderers of JFK would have succeeded. They, and those who protected them within the US state and the corporate sector would have been unmasked, tried and, at least, jailed for the rest of their lives. The hold of the Invisible Government over US politics would have been broken, the Vietnam war would have been ended years sooner, sparing millions of lives in Indo-China and tens of thousands of US lives and the course of history of the latter half of the 20th century would have been altogether different.

However, instead, Chomsky used the considerable prestige he enjoyed amongst most progressive people, to cause Jim Garrison to fail. Consequently, the history of the late 20th century and early 21st century world history turned out the way it did, largely thanks to Chomsky.

Related material

of 31 Oct 09

of 5 Sep 06

- a contrary view.

Forum Discussions

Forum discussion, including from this article on (thanks, StingRay :))
of 5 Nov 09 on 911blogger.com
of 6 Nov 09 on 911blogger.com
of 29 Oct 09 on truthaction.org

" id="syria">Appendix 1: The role of media disinformation in Syria

 

 

Editorial comment: whilst the above interview contains useful material to counter lies against Syria from the mainstream media and phony anti-war activists in the mould of Noam Chomsky, I take exception to a supporter of Syria needlessly giving ammunition to enemies of Syria with claims that Syria needs to be 'reformed'.

A more extreme variant of this myth is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is corrupt and a brutal ruler. This from the list of speakers at the recent "Stop The War" conference in the UK.

Whilst no country, particularly one which has fought foreign aggression for almost 3 years as Syria has done, can claim to be perfect, many aspects of the Syrian system are vastly better than those of most other countries, particularly countries whose governments are hostile to Syria. Examples include: free education all the way to tertiary level and free medicine. Rather than advocating 'reform', supporters of Syria should make known to the wider world how the Syrian government helps its ownpeople and campaign for their own governments to emulate Syria's fine example.

" id="corbett">Appendix 2: James Corbett on Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

 

Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

Above video can also be on the

-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. -fn1-txt">↑ If you follow , you will notice on the top left-hand an image and a caption which implies that the plane which struck the South Tower was a holographic image (as of 29 Aug 09). The image shows Flight 175 plunging into the South Tower with the comment, "Real planes don't do this." From that distance at that instant Flight 175 appears to be flying through South Tower as if either the South Tower was not real, Flight 175 was not real real or both were not real. This has led some to claim that the flights which hit the Twin Towers were holographic images.

In fact, it is hardly surprising that it should appear thus given that passenger airlines such as the Boeing 767-222 which was used for the doomed Flight 175 are constructed of light weight aluminium and that the much of the material comprising the outer walls of the Twin Towers were not of great strength, unlike the inner core of the buildings.

That some in the 9/11 Truth Movement have seized upon this to claim that Flights 11 and 175 must have been holographic images is unfortunate. Undoubtedly, many working to to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement on behalf of the US Government give such people every encouragement. Other ludicrous claims made by ostensible 9/11 Truth activists include that the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers were, in fact, caused by by mini-thermonuclear bombs (i.e. mini hydrogen bombs) or that the Twin Towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Such claims have been repudiated by serious knowledgeable 9/11 Truth activists.

In spite of that unfortunate image caption on 'Ningen's blog' on which the interview with Barrie Zwicker is embedded, the video is well worth the 45 minutes it takes to watch. The direct link to the video is .

Topic:

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-07-19 01:06

I have personally encountered resistance from Phillip Adams when it comes to looking at the issue of 9/11. Adams' claims he accepts the Official Conspiracy Theory and disparages those who question it. He does not seem to have any interest at all in the research that has been done over the last eight years. He likes to characterize all who doubt the official story as "conspiracy nutters" and he has no time for anyone who does not support the Official Conspiracy Theory. I see troubling signs here.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-07-19 19:14

Only earlier this year I heard Phillip Adams state that the second of the World Trade Centre (WTC) towers decided to collapse after the first collapsed on 9/11 , because it could not bear to stand there on its own. Whilst of course, Adams an avowed atheist and scientific sceptic, could not have been altogether serious in what he said, it is striking that he is only willing to discuss the collapse of Twin Towers in such mystical terms whilst refusing to consider the hard scientific evidence that the Twin Towers could not have been brought down merely as a consequence of the impacts of the planes and resultant fires. My misplaced trust in Phillip Adams' integrity and judgement caused me from the early 1990's to dismiss the evidence presented in Oliver Stone's monumental JFK, in spite of my having been immensely moved and persuaded by it at the time I saw it in 1991 . About roughly a year after I saw JFK, during an interview with a guest, whose name escapes me Adams put to his guest that Jim Garrison, who was featured in JFK and who heroically, to the end of his life, tried to bring the murderers of JFK to justice, was a fraud and that Oliver Stone had been duped by him. He never explained why to his audience, as far as I know, but as I trusted Adams, I came to the conclusion that I must have been duped in turn by Oliver Stone and for well over a decade discounted the valuable knowledge that Stone had made available about that critical event of late 20th century world history. Over the last two years as I have become aware that the official 9/11 story was a lie, I have also been made to look again at the JFK issue and have learnt that Stone and others, who questioned the JFK single-crazed-gunman myth, had been telling the truth all along. By smearing Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone in the way he did, I consider that Phillip Adams has, like Chomsky, done immense harm to the progressive causes he claims to support. Whether he did so intentionally or simply because he placed unwarranted trust in others not deserving of that trust, I cannot say. I include below two e-mails, I sent to Phillip Adams concerning this issue. He replied to neither. 1. E-mail sent 13 Oct 08 Hi Phillip, ... I note that you dismiss the (alternative as opposed to official US Government) 9/11 conspiracy theories as 'utter nonsense', 'bullshit' and 'nuts'.  (See ) As you cited Noam Chomsky's authority amongst others to justify that view, could you tell me also, do you share Chomsky's view that “it doesn’t have any significance” if it was indeed the Bush administration that planned the 9/11 attacks? ) If you agree with Chomksy, would you extend that view to the Reichstag fire of 1933?  If you had lived in Germany in the 1930's would you also have argued that “it doesn’t have any significance” whether or not Hitler was behind the Reichstag fire? The reason I ask is that you do wield enormous influence over a sizable section of Australian public opinion and it seems to me that, largely because of such influence, those demanding a proper investigation into the 9/11 attacks have been marginalised, at least up until now, in Australia. An example of your influence was your pronouncement of Jim Garrison as a fraud and Oliver Stone as his dupe some years ago.   I still don't know the basis of that allegation, however, up until that point I had found Oliver Stone's "JFK" to have been a very persuasive and moving film. Was it because Chomsky believes that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK that you dismissed Stone's movie, or where there other more substantive reasons? I note that Chomsky also stated that he doesn't believe it is of any great consequence it the lone gunman theory turns out not to be true.  Do you also agree that it is of no consequence? Also, could I have your permission to publish any response to this and other e-mails? Thank you. sincerely, James Sinnamon 2. E-mail sent 14 Oct 08 Dear Phillip Adams, Further to yesterday's e-mail concerning Oliver Stone's JFK, Canadian Journalist Barrie Zwicker author of "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11", wrote to me the following of Oliver Stone's "JFK": "Olive Stone's JFK not only has not been comprehensively debunked, it has not been debunked in the slightest. The brilliant monologue of J. Fletcher Prouty (played by Donald Sutherland in the movie) has the whole DNA of Kennedy's assassination and who was behind it, in a couple of minutes. No one could read Garrison's book On The Trail of The Assassins (I can't recommend it too highly) and come away without admiration for Garrison, or solid belief in the whole story he tells (and tells so well) in that book." So, could I ask you again, why did you pronounce Jim Garrison to be a fraud all those years ago (some time in the mid to early 1990's), and why did you pronounce Oliver Stone to be a dupe of Jim Garrison?  Why did you choose in a subsequent program, as I recall, to liken Oliver Stone to gallstones? And, again, can I ask do you agree with Noam Chomsky that it is of no consequence whether or not senior US Government officials and legislators were complicit in JFK's murder? I would like, with your permission, to be able to publish your responses to this and other e-mails. yours sincerely, James Sinnamon

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-08-29 17:53

One sided debate is not dissimmilar in lethargy to the domination in cricket by Australia losing appeal outside the wining team 'Australia', particularly disenfranschised in recent years by the English. That is until England's Andrew Strauss turned it all around on merit and grasped the ashes to re-establish the contest of cricket as a stimulating game to watch. But on ABC Radio National its... Adams wins Adams wins Adams wins.. ...which without contest does not encourage support and listeners.

Bernard (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-08 23:22

Like you, I have noted Adams' dismissal of all but the official conspiracy theory about the Twin Towers collapse. I think it is because he knows that any real investigation of that and other atrocities would lead straight to the activities of Israeli secret agents in the US and of Zionist loyalists in high positions in the US Government. Adams makes no secret of his fervent attachment to Jewish causes. You may call him a left gatekeeper; I would call him at best a sentimental, egotistical soft-liberal who loves above all the sound of his own voice. The fellow is also profoundly ignorant scientifically, to the point of imbecility. I refer you to the campaign he mounted about 2 years ago in support of Dr James Whisson and his so-called water machine, which he claimed could extract huge quantities of water from the atmosphere using wind power alone. Of course it was pure quackery, as anyone familiar with high-school physics could see straight away, but Adams encouraged the gullible masses through all possible media outlets (including the Inventors program on ABCTV) to invest their money in it. I emailed him to protest about this; all I got in reply from Adams was a list of all the clever things he claims to have done over the years, and a statement of his faith in Dr Whisson. In the light of that, I suggest to you that there is no point in trying to persuade Adams of the scientific and physical impossibility of the official 9/11 story. It is all way above his head.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-11-09 00:29

Thanks for your sharing your observations about Phillip Adams with us. I personally don't understand why so many people if we are rightly critical of US military aggression, we should necessarily feel bound to view this through the prism of the Palestine vs. Israel conflict. To me, it seems that the US rulers are engaged in these wars not to suit Israel or 'Zionism', but rather to suit their own ends. Obviously, there is a lot of confluence of interest between Israel on the one hand and the US rulers on the other and I agree that the US is highly partisan in favour of Israel in that conflict, but I still find it hard to accept the view that the US rulers are somehow dancing to the tune of Israel and 'Zionism'. My mind is not closed on this one way or the other, by the way. I think Adams displays an irritating fetish for just about everything Jewish in the world on his program, but in regard to the Palestine-Israel conflict he strikes me as more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel. Of course, so is, supposedy, fellow 'left' Gatekeeper Noam Chomsky. As far as I am concerned, they are both effectively in the service of both Israel and the US rulers. Certainly Addams strikes me as often gullible and impressionable. He seems to have a capacity to be wholly agreeable with everyone who comes on his program. Once, years ago, even war criminal Henry Kissinger appeared on his program. He never breathed a word about his carpet bombing of Cambodia or his role in orchestrating the 1973 coup in Chile and his many other cirmes against humanity. The a few years later, he interviewed Christopher Hitchens, who, is spite of being an apologist for US wars, today, was then commendably trying to get Kissinger tried for his war crimes. I didn't hear Adams make any reference to the way he, himself had been so accomodating to that very same war criminal. He will accept uncritically the views of people who argue that China's attempt to control it's population numbers placed it at a competietive disadvanatge with with India as he did early in 2008 and then a fe months later will just as uncritically accept the (in this case correct) views of population stability campaigners such as Mark O'Connor.

admin

Sun, 2009-11-08 12:41

The following was sent to me through the feedback form. - JS Dear Sir, Thank you for an excellent piece. More please, Much appreciate your insight and work. Your assessment that Chomsky and his fellow travelers -- like Naomi Klein[1], Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman -- all sayanim[2] for the NWO. Close research reveals that Chomsky was Director of the Institute for Policy Studies back in the 1960's when it was at the top of its influence molding the SDS etc. IPS was a covert MI6 sponsee of the Tavistock Institute and very hooked up with its brethen groups to further the cultural/intellectual side of the NWO. Chomsky is as fake as they come. And he is NOT "brilliant"- his stuff is muddled, inconsistent and anything but original. Just another of the stooges, like Obama, who has been branded and stuffed down our throats via the overwhelming media propaganda. Chomsky is a "designated opposition" of the NWO and has been from the very start. Research what Dr John Coleman (former MI6 agent) has to say on Chomsky... Hard to believe, but the Left is even more conformist than the right. Just my opinion as strictly a Party of One, neither left, right or center. Footnotes 1. I still have a lot of time for . Her book "The Shock Doctrine" of 2007 is towering and indispensable and represents a massive propaganda blow against the disaster capitalist elite who have guided much of the world's destiny since at least 1973, in spite of its failure to point out the obvious truth about 9/11 (and, also, less 'politically correct' on our part, its effective in favour of high immigration.) If it were not for the fact that she produced this book, I would consider Klein a left gatekeeper. I can only offer as a possible explanation that some people around her in whom she has placed her trust have counselled her to steer clear of the 9/11 Truth Movement in order to be able to better sell the message contained in the pages of "The Shock Doctrine." Of course, my mind is open to being swayed in either direction depending upon what further evidence is forthcoming. Other people I have grave doubts about, who are not usually included in lists of left gatekeepers include and . I would be most interested to read further comments to any of the three forums to which I have linked, either in defence of or critical of these two. 2. I'm not sure whether or not the word ''sayanim' was the result of mis-typing, so, for now, I have left it as it was. - JS.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-08 13:07

Subject was "Real planes?" - JS Good to see more criticism of Chomsky around the issue of 9/11. Chomsky was a big influence on my gradual political awakening, but I am very distrustful of him at this point. "From that distance at that instant Flight 175 appears to be flying through South Tower as if either the South Tower was not real, Flight 175 was not real real or both were not real." The Hezarkhani/"ghost plane" footage (which is what I currently see a still from on the blog you've linked to) is clear enough and shows an impossibility. This has been gone over elsewhere, but if you freeze frame through the footage, you will see, for instance, a point at which the plane is half-in and half-out, yes there is no evidence of debris, the planes are not deformed (despite having hit heavy steel columns), and there is no explosion. And how about the Fairbanks footage? Is that not taken from a close enough vantage point for you? Again, it shows an absurdity. "In fact, it is hardly surprising that it should appear thus given that passenger airlines such as the Boeing 767-222 which was used for the doomed Flight 175 are constructed of light weight aluminum and that the much of the material comprising the outer walls of the Twin Towers were not of great strength, unlike the inner core of the buildings." I'm not sure I follow all of this, but as for the second part, the outer walls of the Twin Towers were built of heavy steel. Go look at how the Twin Towers were constructed. I'm sorry we are stuck with a "weird" theory that this was faked somehow (I go with cgi rather than holographs, incidentally), but I think it's the best one. There's no question that the no planer wing (as it were) of the 9/11 truth movement(s) is full of dubious characters, but some of the core arguments are quite solid. One simply has to focus on the arguments and the information presented and try not to accept anyone as a guru. I admit I have made the mistake of giving some people the benefit of the doubt on some of their arguments I didn't quite follow, because other things they said made sense. Don't give anyone in the 9/11 truth movement the benefit of the doubt! I will add that in my opinion (Australia's own) "Genghis6199" has been the most reliable in presenting serious evidence-based arguments and in trying to encourage group self-criticism and self-regulation rather than simply embracing any new theory anyone within the no-planer group happens to propose. (That's not to say he is a "nice," even-tempered fellow!)

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-08 20:18

The planes did not enter the buildings the way ordinary planes would enter ordinary buildings. Not because there were no planes, but because both the planes and the buildings had been prepared in a special way. The buildings were full of various sets of explosives. With both planes the contact was preceded by a bright flash. Most probably a missile. There is no excuse for someone into 9/11 truth not knowing about this. It was extensively analyzed in the first serious 9/11 documentary, In Plane Sight, still easily available. The mechanism for the planes having left a Roadrunner-silhouette sort of gash can be easily explained as the result of explosives in the leading parts of the plane set off by the missile's detonation. This and the resulting fireball were straight out of Hollywood -- probably literally, as Christopher Bollyn has pointed out. As professional show business -- albeit in the service of evil -- it was top class. Oscar material.

Dr. Ed Kendrick (not verified)

Sun, 2010-01-10 12:16

Why do we assume the planes were of normal construction. It is possible that the leading edges of the wings were of some more robust composition and design which could accomplish the "road runner" punch-through of the Twin Towers. Let's stop being enamored with the "how"--it is time to focus upon the "who". (what is missing here are many who cover-up 9/11 ongoingly--including the "trollsteins" in many blogs and so-called 'alternative' media)

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2010-01-10 21:35

It seems to me that what is written here would be difficult to prove one way or the other and I don't see how resolving this particular controversy is critical to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement. What we know is that whether or not the planes were of normal construction the respective impact of Flights 11 and 175 respectively into the North and South Towers and the subsequent fires should not have caused them to collapse at all, let alone to collapse into dust in only 14 seconds. The list on looks very useful, thank you. However, whilst it seems likely to me that Israel and Mossad were complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and obviously gained a great deal from them I would hesitate to claim that they were the principle perpetrators of 9/11. It seems to me that the principle perpetrators were within the US establishment.

Add comment