Response to Zeitgeist 9/11 theories

In my opinion, conspiracy theories form part of an emerging 'New Age' mythology, generated by those who have lost trust in western institutions and their ability to deal with the awesome challenges this planet is now facing. The creation of this counter-culture mythology forms part of an attempt to break away from old patterns of culturally conditioned thought, and behavior, systemic of our current global crisis. This myth making (propagated by pseudo documentaries like Zeitgeist) is a valuable process in so far as it challenges the status quo, prompting people to question their basic assumptions, but fails to serve anybody when it becomes an escape into fantasy and delusion. The ideas in Zeitgeist, that people should not lend unthinking acquiescence to what they are told by government or the media is certainly worthy. However, wallowing in a bunch of alternative history or alternative reality theories that are no more substantiated is not likely to create an environment of critical thinking.
Those who recognise the urgency of ushering in a new paradigm, and are seriously engaged in the process of change, should exercise a degree of sobriety and rationality in their thought and action because, as we all know, our beliefs shape reality. The disastrous results of constructing a world view based on flawed and ill conceived beliefs are coalescing in our current global crisis, and serve as strong testimony for the importance of maintaining critical awareness. Noam Chomsky criticises the 9/11 Truth movement for its low level of critical engagement.

People who know nothing about civil engineering, except what they picked up on the internet somewhere, are giving learned treatise on what must have happened: How could a building do this, that, and the other thing? These are not trivial matters. You can’t just look up on the internet and say, “I’m an accomplished civil engineer.” So those who make such claims just don’t understand the nature of evidence. (Chomsky, 2007, p.13)

Noam Chomsky’s stance on 9/11 is that the debate over whether or not the Bush administration was involved in blowing up the World Trade Centre is periphery to far more serious problems and serves as a kind of distraction from the real, proven, and ongoing crimes of the U.S. administration. These crimes form part of America's quest for global domination that began after World War II, a quest which is now entering an advanced stage. This should be far more concerning than 9/11 conspiracy theories as Chomsky states:

Power centers treat (conspiracy theories) very sympathetically, which takes us to another point. Why are they treated sympathetically? Because It’s diverting enormous amounts of energy away from real crimes of the administration, which are far more serious, even than what they are accused of at 9/11. So suppose they blew up the World Trade Center. By their standards, that’s a minor crime. Take increasing the threat of nuclear war and environmental disaster. That’s a far worse crime, and it may lead to extinction of the species. Take the invasion of Iraq. Take the invasion of Lebanon. Take what they are doing to working people in the U.S. The list goes on and on and there is very little protest. One reason is that an enormous amount of potential activist energy has been directed into this so from their point of view its great. (Chomsky, 2008)

I can understand why Chomsky is dismayed with the 911 Truth movement. He has devoted his life to uncovering real atrocities committed by the U.S. government. His books point with laser accuracy to U.S. war crimes involving the slaughter of millions of people in the name of materialism and U.S. global hegemony. He is a true scholar, prolific in his publication of reasoned intelligent argument supported by meticulously researched facts that demonstrate the real and provable ways in which the US Government is threatening global security, waging a militant and propagandistic war on democracy, freedom, and life. Chomsky has already done all the hard work to bring this to people's attention! In comparison the 9/11 Truth movement looks facile and misguided, displaying all the worst qualities of blind fanaticism and hysteria. With the quality of the evidence provided in support of 9/11 theories you could prove that the White House was blown up yesterday. This is why Chomsky regards these theories as a drain on energy. He suggests that they are actually encouraged by the establishment as a smoke screen, to distract people from real issues.

References
Chomsky, N. (2007). Perilous power: the middle east and U.S. foreign policy. Paradigm Publishers, London
Chomsky, N. (2008) Noam Chomsky on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76eSchi4heU&feature=related


Comments Submitted from postings to other sites

Maynard Kings wrote on February 25, 2009 at 12:22pm

If the USG is in anyway involved in 9-11 then it is a real issue. Your very well spoken and address several valid points, although I feel taking attention away from something that can be proved scientifically, and drawing attention to something more ambiguous or esoteric only perpetuates confusion. I love Chomsky, seriously but hegemony or survival isn't the most accessible material for someone who needs something tangible to hold whist questioning the very fabric of there reality (in my opinion most people are not educated enough to be able to conceptualize hegemony or it's affect on society)
I advocate information to the lowest common denominator, and admit that disinformation is as prevalent in my campaign as truth. But certain things are inalienable, beyond the realm of theory situated in fact. Acknowledge the truth, i am a structural engineer and i specialize in demolition, please friend take my word for it something is wrong.

good night and good luck

Post #3You wrote on April 11, 2009 at 4:13pm

I don't discount the possibility of controlled demolition. I am not an engineer so I cant contribute to any educated scientific debate. I think it is important to maintain an open mind and I'm always ready to re-evaluate my opinion when I’m presented with credible evidence to the contrary. I watched a presentation recently by a structural engineer who made a strong case for controlled demolition. Good luck with your campaign.

Post #4Maynard King wrote on April 12, 2009 at 4:51pm

thank you
yourself as well


That's quite the conspiracy
Submitted by optigon on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 20:04.

That's quite the conspiracy theory there coming from someone who classifies them as mythology. There are nearly a thousand engineers signed on to one facet of this 'truth' movement. So, no... the evidence is not coming form a bunch of people surfing the internet claiming to have the knowledge of a civil engineer. There are plenty of credible folks on board for truth from many professions. Furthermore, just because someone is a professional making a living doing something, that does not mean someone with average to above average intellectual abilities cannot do some reading, educate themselves a bit, and grasp the concepts and laws involved. We really need to stop depending on the scientific 'priesthood' to provide all of our answers, as if somehow there's something magical going on granting them superior understanding. Information is everywhere now and it's available to us all. In many cases, these professionals tend to be very dogmatic and fearful of controversy among their peers, especially regarding 9/11. So independent research, with no ties to an employer, corporation, or institution can be liberating.

"With the quality of the evidence provided in support of 9/11 theories you could prove that the White House was blown up yesterday."

Sorry, but that statement is just ridiculous. Either you haven't looked at any of the evidence or you're just making things up.

"I can understand why Chomsky is dismayed with the 911 Truth movement. He has devoted his life to uncovering real atrocities committed by the U.S. government."

Real atrocities? Exactly how is 9/11 NOT A REAL ATROCITY?! And, how can you expect us to uncover the larger conspiracy (which I don't doubt exists) if we can't even uncover 9/11 for what it was? And contrary to what you say, the evidence is staggering. In my opinion, 9/11 is our only hope, and a gateway to revealing the grand conspiracy that you've outlined.


I stand corrected
Submitted by nickysurf on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 20:28.

Yes, I could be guilty of parroting Chomsky here... I will take a closer look at the evidence for controlled demolition... Thanks for the response.

Ongoing crimes of the U.S. Administation
Submitted by nickysurf on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 20:45.

No commision of inquiry needed here:
The illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in more deaths than 9/11 Here are some other worthy causes for political dissent:
Depleted Uranium Radioactive Contamination In Iraq: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3116
Afghanistan, Another Untold Story http://www.michaelparenti.org/afghanistan%20story%20untold.html

thought experiment...
Submitted by E. Sam on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 02:07.

It seems to me that some 911 U.S.G. conspiracy believers are rational, and I think in principle we could have a reasonable discussion about evidence and so forth. However, I have noticed that some, perhaps only a very tiny minority, and I am not accusing anyone in particular, are not as rational as they think, despite writing their "arguments" clearly and succinctly. Now again, I am not accusing anyone, but what I perceive is perhaps a mild case of psychosis or schizophrenia; and such people are furthermore just beyond the reach of rational argument.

Often, when we try to argue for something logically, behind the logic is intuition (gut instincts). And because we deem ourselves clear-thinking, when we go to translate this intuition to written logical argument, we trust that the correspondence will be seamless. This is very much like what happens in writing mathematical proofs (for those who know a little math -- I assume most people have at least a very crude understanding of what a mathematical proof is): One usually starts with an intuitive idea of how the proof should go, and then one translates ones intuition into logic. The trouble is that if one is mentally ill, one often has impaired metacognitive powers, and so cannot perceive that ones intuition does not match logic. So, fitting ones intuition to logic is like trying to fit a square peg to a round hole, and what comes out superficially looks logical, but isn't -- this is much like how anosognosiacs can offer quasi-logical arguments that they have no handicaps, even though it is evident to a third-person observer (psychiatrist) that they do.

As a thought experiment, I want you to read the Unabomber Manifesto. And then I want to you play prosecutor, and look for even the tiniest logical error you can find. Don't accept one of Kaczynski's arguments just because it feels right and is well-written -- ask yourself whether it is logical. I have read it, and it is full of logical errors, as one would expect from a schizophrenic. Most of them seem to be non-sequitirs. Try it and see if you agree, and then ask yourself whether your arguments are illogical.


Can you give an example of a
Submitted by optigon on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 02:28.

Can you give an example of a popular 9/11 conspiracy argument that you think is intuition translated into logic? There are only a handful of key issues that are argued as contradicting the official story, so that should be easy to do. Or are you mainly talking about the more speculative issues (ie, why they did it, how it was pulled-off, etc.)?

I only ask because I think your point will be made much more easily that way. Unfortunately, I don't think many of us have the time to read the Unabomber Manifesto any time soon. At least, I don't.


your question...
Submitted by E. Sam on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 18:51.

I was thinking more to certain particular people's arguments (even though I don't want to accuse them publically), not general arguments about 911 conspiracy. I don't want to get into a long, drawn-out back-and-forth, so I will not point out which individuals I think have illogical arguments; furthermore, I don't want to be impolite.

If you noticed, there is a slight non-sequitir in one of the things that I wrote above. Specifically, one of the sentences beginning with ``So,...''. That sentence should perhaps begin with ``and, in such a case...''. See how easy it is to miss illogical comments? -- I would have thought a 911 person would have jumped right on it! (I had planned to edit it last night after posting, but you wrote your response too soon after I had finished! )

Looking again just now at the Manifesto, it seems like there are more ``Just-so'' unsubstantiated or false statements than outright non-sequitirs (though there are still plenty). Particularly, read the section on ``The Motives of Scientists''.

This is my last posting to this thread.