Jesse Ventura comes out about 9/11 being a False Flag Inside Job

[Jerome Scuggs]

Yeah, how 'bout some logic? What does Chomsky have to gain by supporting a 9/11 conspiracy? Nothing. What does he have to lose? Everything. He stated "their" motives several times in that video. "It's a diversion of the public's attention to what's really going on." *(Can you say Helegian dialectic?) University professors that agree with some kind of conspiracy regarding the events of 9/11 usually find themselves out of a job with no credibility left to their name. Anyone with any kind of influence on the masses are prime candidates and suspects of being manipulated by the 'elite' that call the shots around the world. :fear: -_-

first "hegel", second misapplication of his method, nice

chomsky has ideas i disagree with but he is anything but a fraud. he's a brilliant man and his ideas deserve respect, because what he says has alot of merit. if all you can do is attack his character - and not refute anything he actually says - well, i believe that speaks volumes about what he actually is, character-wise.

[Tone]

The following Youtube is for Jerome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMjgyzKoXy4

[gran guerrero]

i saw him on colbert. everything he said kind of made the whole interview seem awkward a bit. Like colbert didn't have his usual rapid clever responses in this one. Also I saw that little revolution movement of jesse trying to get colbert to start it up ("They need you")

[HeavenSent]

first "hegel", second misapplication of his method, nice

chomsky has ideas i disagree with but he is anything but a fraud. he's a brilliant man and his ideas deserve respect, because what he says has alot of merit. if all you can do is attack his character - and not refute anything he actually says - well, i believe that speaks volumes about what he actually is, character-wise.

First: If I was referring to "Hegel" I would have written Hegel. (other wise, forgive my typo. thx)

Second: It was wasn't a misapplication of his method. More likely a misinterpretation of where his method was being applied on your part.

Third: The 'elite' that pull the strings on society are no less than brilliant. The people they use are brilliant. It's part of their prerequisite.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Third: The 'elite' that pull the strings on society are no less than brilliant. The people they use are brilliant. It's part of their prerequisite.

brilliant people don't get exposed on the internet by morons

if you expose them, it means you are more brilliant

considering you are not rich and/or elite, which by your own admission brilliance is a prerequisite of,

[HeavenSent]

:shuriken: I think you mean "more on"

The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented.

Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.

Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.

Chomsky lies
Chomsky's articles are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up.

In Distortions at Fourth Hand [1] , Chomsky and Herman assure us that anything wrong in Cambodia was the fault of the USA, that there was decisive evidence proving the innocence of the Khmer Rouge, evidence which, alas, “space limitations preclude” them from presenting.

I checked every citation in the entire article. Not one of them was wholly truthful. At best they were slippery equivocations, with the obvious meaning being a lie, and an alternate, hidden meaning, true but irrelevant, to provide an escape hatch should the lie be discovered.

As i said, Anyone with any kind of influence on the masses are candidates and suspects of being manipulated by the 'elite' that call the shots around the world.

[Jerome Scuggs]

like i said, i also disagree with chomsky on many issues

but it doesn't negate a good argument, his refutation of the 9/11 conspiracies are not "wrong by association". so unless you plan to directly refute what he directly says about 9/11,

[Pearl Jam]

Didn't Jesse get killed by the Predator? We need Arnold in the while house to fix matters with ET.

that's what they want you to think, sheeple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HeavenSent]

like i said, i also disagree with chomsky on many issues

but it doesn't negate a good argument, his refutation of the 9/11 conspiracies are not "wrong by association". so unless you plan to directly refute what he directly says about 9/11,

There's much to refute in what he says regarding 9/11, but here, it's not worth the time with people that have already made up their mind... especially with the blind, stubborn bias for anything espoused from certain individuals. <_<

[Jerome Scuggs]

There's much to refute in what he says regarding 9/11, but here, it's not worth the time with people that have already made up their mind... especially with the blind, stubborn bias for anything espoused from certain individuals. <_<

if you truly believed in whatever bullshit you're espousing, you'd take the time to build your case, not write off people who come to you asking for your point - giving you a chance to have your side heard, mind you - as morons.

i'm asking for your refutation. he states many ideas that are not unique to him, but he combines them in a very intelligent way. you keep saying that he's a "fraud" who is keeping us from the real truth: evidence. but what he's doing is criticizing that very notion - the method in which the 'truthers' have interpreted sets of events. as far as blind stubbornness, i think it's the opposite. you seem to start from the statement that the government WAS behind it, and proceed to then integrate anything that might confirm your view into the paradigm. i'm always open to new ideas. i remember laughing at all the bullshit t0ne used to spout, but since i've come to see that alot of the points that get echoed elsewhere, even by alex jones - things like freedom, liberty, the state as an encroaching tyrant, etc - are, in fact, very valid truths.

but at the root of those ideals, the very ideals the entire '9/11 truthers' movement is founded on, is logic, reasoning, rationality. man as a thinker first arrived at the concept of the state being evil by logic - read frederic bastiat's "the state", and even Revolutionary thomas paine's work, you'll find all sorts of fantastic displays of thorough logic used to prove truth. if those guys don't do it for you, there's tons more out there. arisotle, locke, socrates.

so please, stop acting like i'm ignoring all your evidence and all your bullshit: i'm not. i've seen it all, and i'm saying that you haven't made your case. the evidence does bring questions to light, but i feel the refutations have been very adequate enough to mitigate the possibility. you keep dismissing chomsky for reasons unrelated to his argument... an argument i find compelling. so if you're not going to help me see your side to his point, how am i the stubborn one?

[genocidal]

Removed -Kolar

[HeavenSent]

if you truly believed in whatever bullshit you're espousing, you'd take the time to build your case,

I did already:
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=32622
But like i said in that thread,

If we were in a trial, all these questions & images, with their audio, video & witnesses would be put in front of you... the jury, to judge. You guys (you know who you are) talk of 'ONUS' but yet when the evidence is placed before you, you look the other way, then claim it's not there.

you keep saying that he's a "fraud"

Keep saying? I haven't even said it once!

you seem to start from the statement that the government WAS behind it

No. There's where you're misinterpreting where I'm coming from. Apparently my first post in this thread went over your head too. Although they may have some of thier own within, the 'elite' aren't a part of the government. They control the government. 9/11 wasn't concieved by Bush, his administration or even the government. It was merely used as a vehicle to ensure it's success and it worked perfectly, because of those other entities 'they' also control, i.e. the media and educational institutions, along with brilliant minds like Chomsky and many like him that have a great influence on the moods and intellectual directions of the masses.

so please, stop acting like i'm ignoring all your evidence and all your bullshit: i'm not. i've seen it all, and i'm saying that you haven't made your case. the evidence does bring questions to light, but i feel the refutations have been very adequate enough to mitigate the possibility. you keep dismissing chomsky for reasons unrelated to his argument... an argument i find compelling. so if you're not going to help me see your side to his point, how am i the stubborn one?

Did I say you were the stubborn one? I don't believe I did. Likewise, I don't 'keep' dismissing Chomsky for reasons unrelated to his argument. My first reply to you was directly related to his argument. Yet I find it hard to motivate myself to continue this and humor you any further since all you really want to see is more of my 'bullshit' to attack. I gave my opinion, you can take it or leave it. It's no thang to me either way. <_<

[Epinephrine]

I bet the 'elite' wants us to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy, or maybe they want us to think that we think that 9/11 is a conspiracy or maybe they think that we should think that it isn't that it is that it isn't that it is a conspiracy. I mean hell, they control the world.

[HeavenSent]

I bet the 'elite' wants us to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy, or maybe they want us to think that we think that 9/11 is a conspiracy or maybe they think that we should think that it isn't that it is that it isn't that it is a conspiracy. I mean hell, they control the world.

[Rigor]

I thought Tone decided to leave forums forever or something. Did I miss something?