|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| How many intellectuals of his caliber are "truthers'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Written by Michael Chertoff's cousin. They grew up together in same house. Isn't randomness incredible. Of course, he denies being cousins. A Dutch journalist called Benjamin Chertoff's parents and they said "of course, they grew up together in NJ". He posted the conversation on youtube and the ADL had it taken down. I'm not going to look but I'm confident it can be found on one of the hundreds of Truther forums.
Basically, I agree with the 2000+ engineers and architects who have put their name to dissent. Three buildings, two planes yet 3 identical collapses. I'm not a math teacher, but that doesn't add up. Fin.
Or maybe this will collapse tomorrow:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/asia/16shanghai.html
I don't care about this topic anymore. One and only post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with you Titus in that I'm not looking to change anyone's mind. I don't claim and have never claimed to my knowledge to have known what happened that day except for the fact that I was at the Adriatic Coast and my flights scheduled for a few days later out of Rome were delayed as a result of. Oh, and also that the official story sounds like a bunch of BS.
Anyway, I did find this interesting:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-09-11/they-saved-their-worldwhat-happened-too-ours
Whatever your opinion, some good music and artwork. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I'm With You
Joined: 01 Sep 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
False flag deception, which Chomsky here doesn't seem to go along with in regards to 9-11, is what a lot of the alternative media sources have been pointing to.
False flag deception, used to get the public on board to support an attack of the enemy, has been a well documented propaganda and military strategy for hundreds of years. It's used as a pretext for attacking the enemy - even if it means slaughtering thousands of your own people to do it. Or making them believe that they've been assaulted by the enemy.
The U.S., Isreal and Saudi Arabia want to take control or, at the very least, upset the Middle East and keep it off balance. It's in their interest to do so and that's what their long-term plan involves.
Contrary to what John Kerry, Obama and CNN say about the - "Let's do it for the children" sympathy - that's bullshit. They want to upset the region as much as possible, cut off the Shiite ties to Iran and keep China from accessing oil and petroleum resources.
Iran would be the next target on the list and Cheney wanted to attack and launch a war with Iran before he officially left office. It's on the Christmas wish-list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are hilarious.
Noam Chomsky is too establishment for your tastes. Meanwhile, supporting evidence for a conspiracy is nowhere to be found. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Threequalseven
Joined: 08 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I certainly don't expect to change anybody's mind, especially on the internet, but the OP actually makes a good point. I've discussed 9/11 with my friends until we were all blue in the face, but ultimately the one thing that can't be disputed is the way in which the three buildings fell. It would have been one hell of a coincidence if World Trade Centers 1, 2, and 7 all fell in the exact same way, which also happens to be the exact same way buildings look during a controlled demolition, without actually undergoing a controlled demolition.
As far as Chomsky goes, he dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories very quickly in one video. While this certainly seems uncharacteristic of him, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that there was a CIA intervention. It's certainly possible, but I think it's more likely he's being genuine. First, academics are notoriously non-speculative. Nothing Chomsky writes about is theoretical. It's all based on real, unchallengeable events. He just takes all this information and presents it in a user-friendly way. So, to that extent, I'd say his rejection of 9/11 conspiracy theories actually fits well within his character. Second, my own theory is that Chomsky has been writing about the government for a long, long time and still sees it in kind of an "analog" way. I think the idea that the powers-that-be are sophisticated and discrete enough to pull this off is too unbelievable to him. The counterargument, of course, is that they are. Also, it should be clear that 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren't saying they know what happened, we're simply saying that the official story is untrue.
One thing that is striking about Chomsky's speech, though, is that he goes onto say that even if it was an inside job, what does it matter? That's like saying if one person kills another person, so what? The answer is that it would not only expose that the U.S. government covered up the deaths of thousands of its own citizens and used it as a means to go to war and pass all sorts of unconstitutional and otherwise unpopular laws, it would also mean that the USA, not radical Islam, was responsible for all the new anti-terrorist measures and the strengthening of despotic regimes across the globe.
Of course, there will always be people who lump all conspiracy theories together and believe that the government is too altruistic to lie to them. The problem with those who support the official story, however, is they automatically assume the burden of proof isn't on them. In reality, you are just as liable to prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job as a person who believes it was. Just because the U.S. government and the incredibly consolidated mass media say something is so, it doesn't automatically make it true. It's like debating a free-market libertarian who feels that the economic policies they support need to be proven wrong, not proven right.... Or debating a religious person who cities their own holy book as proof of their religion. Also, you'd have to already live with rose-tinted glasses on to acknowledge questions such as, "Why isn't the public shown any video of the Pentagon attack?" and still see no reason to suspect anything. Finally, if the mainstream press wasn't at least partially "in on it", we would certainly see a lot more debate about the September 11th attacks on newsstands and TV. Instead, we are given one single narrative across the board, and that's meant to be the truth.
Anyway, here's an easy to digest 2-minute video for those who still think I'm full of it: This is an orange |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Threequalseven wrote: |
Of course, there will always be people who lump all conspiracy theories together and believe that the government is too altruistic to lie to them. The problem with those who support the official story, however, is they automatically assume the burden of proof isn't on them. |
The problem with truthers: they dismiss the host of evidence which shows the hijackers accomplished the destruction of the towers, but accept a theory for which no real evidence exists.
Your long, elegant post lacked any proof for your assertions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I'm With You
Joined: 01 Sep 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Threequalseven wrote: |
I certainly don't expect to change anybody's mind, especially on the internet, but the OP actually makes a good point. I've discussed 9/11 with my friends until we were all blue in the face, but ultimately the one thing that can't be disputed is the way in which the three buildings fell. It would have been one hell of a coincidence if World Trade Centers 1, 2, and 7 all fell in the exact same way, which also happens to be the exact same way buildings look during a controlled demolition, without actually undergoing a controlled demolition.
As far as Chomsky goes, he dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories very quickly in one video. While this certainly seems uncharacteristic of him, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that there was a CIA intervention. It's certainly possible, but I think it's more likely he's being genuine. First, academics are notoriously non-speculative. Nothing Chomsky writes about is theoretical. It's all based on real, unchallengeable events. He just takes all this information and presents it in a user-friendly way. So, to that extent, I'd say his rejection of 9/11 conspiracy theories actually fits well within his character. Second, my own theory is that Chomsky has been writing about the government for a long, long time and still sees it in kind of an "analog" way. I think the idea that the powers-that-be are sophisticated and discrete enough to pull this off is too unbelievable to him. The counterargument, of course, is that they are. Also, it should be clear that 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren't saying they know what happened, we're simply saying that the official story is untrue.
One thing that is striking about Chomsky's speech, though, is that he goes onto say that even if it was an inside job, what does it matter? That's like saying if one person kills another person, so what? The answer is that it would not only expose that the U.S. government covered up the deaths of thousands of its own citizens and used it as a means to go to war and pass all sorts of unconstitutional and otherwise unpopular laws, it would also mean that the USA, not radical Islam, was responsible for all the new anti-terrorist measures and the strengthening of despotic regimes across the globe.
Of course, there will always be people who lump all conspiracy theories together and believe that the government is too altruistic to lie to them. The problem with those who support the official story, however, is they automatically assume the burden of proof isn't on them. In reality, you are just as liable to prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job as a person who believes it was. Just because the U.S. government and the incredibly consolidated mass media say something is so, it doesn't automatically make it true. It's like debating a free-market libertarian who feels that the economic policies they support need to be proven wrong, not proven right.... Or debating a religious person who cities their own holy book as proof of their religion. Also, you'd have to already live with rose-tinted glasses on to acknowledge questions such as, "Why isn't the public shown any video of the Pentagon attack?" and still see no reason to suspect anything. Finally, if the mainstream press wasn't at least partially "in on it", we would certainly see a lot more debate about the September 11th attacks on newsstands and TV. Instead, we are given one single narrative across the board, and that's meant to be the truth.
Anyway, here's an easy to digest 2-minute video for those who still think I'm full of it: This is an orange |
Some really great points here.
Well done! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Threequalseven
Joined: 08 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The problem with truthers: they dismiss the host of evidence which shows the hijackers accomplished the destruction of the towers, but accept a theory for which no real evidence exists.
Your long, elegant post lacked any proof for your assertions. |
If you actually looked, you would find loads of evidence. The only "problem" is that you and many others are simply not looking. I didn't write all of that to convince you 9/11 was an inside job, I wrote it to encourage you and others to do your own research. Though it's not my responsibility to do that for you, I can direct you to a few links:
- Dutch explosives engineer on WTC7
- American physicist explains how NIST wrongly reported on WTC7
- The film "Loose Change" (which there are multiple version of)
- Loads of other 9/11 films
I don't know your specific motives for not listening to evidence presented by those who don't buy the official story, nor do I know the motives of others. I can only assume it's some mix of militarism ("don't ask questions, just obey") and patriotism ("I love my country").
Anyway, you can believe what you want, but you must always consider the source. If the government was even partially responsible, it's pretty obvious that the evidence provided by said government is bunk. If you want to cite mainstream sources like the BBC or Popular Mechanics (owned by Hearst Corporation, one of the largest-mass media conglomerates on the planet), it should be pretty obvious which side they're going to take. Like I said before, you can't cite a holy book to defend your belief in a religion. Likewise, this isn't a court and you're not right until I prove you wrong, so please stop acting like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Except there is no evidence. There are claims..ALL of which have been debunked. And out of all the flaws the one major flaw still remains unanswered. In order for the government to pull this off...hundreds of people would have be involved and play their parts flawlessly. In other words a vast national and international conspiracy. And more than a decade later no hard evidence has come to light...no one directly or indirectly involved has said anything.
Given the incompetence of the government it surpasses all credibility to believe they could pull something like this off...and not be caught out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RangerMcGreggor
Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Location: Somewhere in Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can anyone tell me WHY you have to have a controlled demolition? Flying planes into the towers isn't enough to start a war? Seriously? Americans have gone to war over a few torpedoes fired in the general direction of their ships and over whiskey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chomsky deals in unchallengeable facts" Ha!! HA Ha ha, perhaps the funniest unintentional sentence ever on Dave's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
