Stumble This | You should also watch “Noam Chomsky BBC Interview - 2002” |
911,chomsky,dissent,interview Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy claims
Comments 
playlists with this video
World Trade Center by choggie
who voted for this video
Krupo
- dag
- therealblankman
- sfjocko
- dotdude
- pho3n1x
- haggis
- PinkGlitter
- deputydog
- mychesspants
- vermonter
- EntertainmentMajor
- pass.the.grog.
- samnmax
- joemawlma
- messenger
- cardboardhut
- choggie
- Farhad2000
- galactic_dev
- AnimalsForCrackers
- qbert
- Fletch
- Constitutional_Patriot
- eric3579
- simonmichelmore
- jonny
- johnald128
- BoneyD
- Zifnab
- flavioribeiro
- kulpims
who voted against this video
ant
Noam Chomsky On 911 Conspiracy Claims Related Videos
Noam Chomsky BBC Interview - 2002 |  Noam Chomsky - Q&A @ Sussex University | The Ideas of Noam Chomsky - BBC interview |
Art Videos Being Viewed Right Now
Friends O' the Sift
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
He also suggest that it's not worth investigating - 'who cares?' - which I find stupefying.
I do think he makes a good piont and i agree on most levals.
for example regardless of sep 11th if u isolate the new golf war its still obsurd the idea that removing a govement from a unstable country will some how make it stable and reduce "terroisum" in the west. this was obvouse to me at the time only 16 when it started.
i allso think there is an issue with the contrled demolition thing. why thay would be brought down is open to speculation.
it seems to me that it is a fact that boulding 7 was taken down by controled exsplosives. the man who owned it sead he gave the order to have it nocked down on the news.
I'm very open to evidence of a conspiracy, but all the evidence that has been incredibly weak. Chomsky specifically deals here with the physical evidence, which I think fools a lot of people. Just because you can't explain what happened physically does not mean what everyone thought happened did not. It could just as well mean we don't know. Similarly, just because a scientist says 'x couldn't happen because we saw y' also doesn't make it true. Scientists are human, and as individuals they do make mistakes. Thus, you shouldn't take the word of a few scientists as fact.
Unless you really have the scientific backing to make your own assessment, the best you can do is look at what the scientific consesus is. As far as I know, there is none, though I do think it's good for people to explore these issues further. My guess is the vast majority of lay people who think they understand because they took a physics course in high-school or university are not qualified to make a realistic assessment.
The important thing to realise is that there is a huge disincentive for academics (despite the fact that academics are disproportionately left-wing) and media personalities to question what happened, because the world is full of people like theo47 who simply put their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la children holocaust deniers wingnuts la la' when they do. The obstacle for 'conspiracy theorists' to overcome is this: Everyone else expects them to explain everything (who, what, why, how) in one go.
But, by their nature, investigations are gradual processes. Steven Jones, the physicist who wrote a paper on the collapse of the buildings, was very clear right from the start that he wasn't interested in speculating about who did what or why - he was only interested in discussing the science. Even so, he was ridiculed and ignored by the mainstream, not because of what he SAID, but because of what his claims IMPLIED. That is short-sighted, and unfortunate.
(As an aside, I would wager that Steven Jones has a firmer grasp of the science involved than Noam Chomsky.)
I am absolutely for more investigation. It's really unfortunate that there are people who turn the notion of looking into it as though it somehow bad. I think the 9/11 commission themselves have pretty much acknowledged that their scenerio for why the building collapsed is only the best they can come up with, and not necessarily even likely.
I was especially disgusted with the calls, in particular by politicians, to get rid of professors just because of the position they took on 9/11. It shows a total lack of respect for the academic freedom, which protects research no matter how controversial. If we disallow people to investigate things just because they are controversial, we will only regress as a society.
If everyone was as open-minded as you, the world would be a far better place.
Noam Chomsky has been talking about this issue for years, he says Americans wouldn't care because they don't. It's only now several years after the war on terror and the campaign in Iraq that ordinary Americans are coming around.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Manufacturing-Consent-Noam-Chomsky-and-the-Media
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html
he says it's impossibel to predict that the plane would hit the WTC, i dont understand to whom? the hijackers knew it would and aimed them extremely carefully. the goverenment agencies would ahve known an hour before the second plane hit that other hijacked planes were going to hit something important and accurately.
also, his reasoning is flawed when he says 'who cares?' about who did it, 'why should it matter?', saying it diverts attention from things that do. it matters exactly because of what he said at the beginning, if there's some chance that some powerful americans had a part to play in the planning of the 9/11 attacks then they would need to be found. it would be important that people who would plan such things are dealt with.
could someone put this through the front page again so people can debate this?