He is playing chess on a higher level and recognizes what he can't get into at this point, without sacrificing his credibility.

Exactly. I feel like people who call him a shill don't understand what position he is in. If you really listen to his wording, on the war on terror for example, you can pick up on subtleties that hint at the truth. He's just covering his ass as far as I see. He knows that they will Norman Finklestien him so fast. He wants to go out with a sterling reputation.

Subtleties? He tells his audience that "Bush didn't do 911", no shit, and considers anyone who questions nist as engaging in pseudo-science. I think Chomsky has done good work in other areas but with 911 he's intentionally being a shithead and I don't understand how people can defend obfuscating truth to perserve some sterling career, you might as well believe in the official 911 story if you think lying is admirable.

Controlled op

Eh, I don't think so. Daniele Ganser wrote in his expose of Operation Gladio, "Very warm thanks also go to Professor Noam Chomsky in Boston who not only encouraged my research but also provided me with valuable contacts during our meetings in the United States and Switzerland."

Chomsky thus knows and agrees that the US organized false flag terror in Europe for decades. He is not as keen to speak out about these issues because he would be ostracized, which doesn't do any good in the long run.

He has said multiple times that he doesn't believe it was an inside job.

but then he also said this...

Yes. He mentions several times there is no evidence that Muslims were involved in 9/11 and the government has been unable to produce any evidence.

9/11 is just drop in bucket. They have done worse things. The people at the top are like "shrug they have been doing this forever" and do not see it as a problem. They literally say "focus on what you can do in your own life and what you can control" and just accept it. They know that JFK, King were killed and what 9/11 was, but dont care. Its just normal now.

The top level of politics has always been this way, for hundreds of years. Nothing new under the sun. If anything the violence, assassinations and overt coups have decreased. The public is shocked, because they are naive.

I think 9/11 could be considered a violent government coup, given number of political deaths, black mailed senators, rigged elections with computerized lists used to disqualify voters who voted for wrong person, judges removed and people in press/media retaliated against or threatened. On top of the election being stolen from the winner through the supreme court, followed by the 9/11 attacks.

People are waking up to the fact that the government is just ruled by a self-interested aristocracy that does not care about the public at all, except to keep them in line, prevent them from obtaining any type of control or influence over the government and keep the money flowing. The bureaucracy doesnt really care who is in charge and they can kill each other and perform coups or rig elections or whatever and the machine just keeps chugging along.

The problem is not the leaders, its the naive belief in democracy and inability of public to acknowledge how all governments work and have always worked.

were you going through my comments?

Yes

well can you answer me then?

well can you answer me then?

What do you want the answer to?

He says Bush didn't do it.

It would pretty much be career suicide.

Being labeled a "truther" has a pretty adverse effect on people. Especially if those people are paid to give their opinion.

Saying that Chomsky is a shill or controlled op or a limited hangout is such an ignorant and naive point of view. Read his essay here about the fate of Norman Finklestien if you want insight into how he tap dances around certain issues.

I think after he dies he might have certain more radical writings published. However if you've ever read anything he's written, not just some 2 minute interview segments on youtube then you understand that he's been saying really radical and extreme shit for years.

I agree with everything he said about the truther movement: Average joes on their computers watch a few youtube videos and think that all of a sudden they're experts on physics and engineering (jet fuel cant melt steel beams, free fall speed.) Then they rally their new found brilliance behind broad empty slogans like "911 was an inside job" and waste their time an everyone else's handing out flyers that say 'investigate Bush' or something.

It's so fucking ridiculous. This is not investigation, this is not activism it's pablum for idiots and it will never accomplish anything. Especially if you have any concept of actual world events. People wake up to the idea that their government is out to get them and they think a home made documentary about jet fuel is gonna help change the world. The truther movement will never accomplish anything because it's based around obsessing the forensic minutia of a crime scene ten blocks wide that blew up 15 years ago.

Truthers can't grasp the difference between causing a tragedy and exploiting one. They don't understand that the "government" is not a monolithic entity that has the ability to control world events on such a granular scale. Ultimately truthers are chasing their tail's when they talk about the temperature that jet fuel burns at or the speed at which a building can fall. It's the magic bullet all over again. These are abstract cinematic distractions which only serve to divide citizens further amongst themselves.

He dissed occupy for the same reasons. Essentially you have this massive groundswell of people who are waking up and then immediately pissing away their potential by rallying behind vague slogans and cute little names. Even when people protest now it can't be done with out referencing a movie and buying a product ( guy fawkes masks). And the protests themselves are meaningless.

The large amounts of matching debris are a pretty good indicator.

Care to show some of this 'matching debris'?

[http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html] Here you go.

I saw one picture of something that might be part of a plane, in good condition, not burned in anyway.

Other than that, I don't see much of a plane or wing or anything being shorn off.

Why would any of it be in good condition? That's ridiculous.

This hull piece is not burned or singed in anyway, despite the rest of the plane vaporiIng into a liquid state upon impact. That does t seem strange to you?

Nope. Why should it?

Because it's allegedly part of a 757 that hit the Pentagon at 600+ mph?

Do you have a point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do6o57N_SVA

He is a gatekeeper for the "Left".

Becuase he has spent a lifetime investigating global political relations and he understands that Muslim extremists could absolutely have had the motive to commit the act after decades of abuse by the hand of the USGOvt.

Because he is Jewish.

He publicly stated that Israel is a terrorist nation and that anyone who cross references their behavior with the UN statues on terrorism can see this for themselves. As a result of this he had his passport revoked (he is Israeli) and was ordered to be arrested if he ever tried to access Israel again.

Read anything he's said over the years. His characterization of the US and israel is particularly brutal. He has never once made the government of either country look like anything other than vicious tyrants. Jewish leaders hate him for this. He has been called an anti-semite and a self hating jew.

Controlled op

Eh, I don't think so. Daniele Ganser wrote in his expose of Operation Gladio, "Very warm thanks also go to Professor Noam Chomsky in Boston who not only encouraged my research but also provided me with valuable contacts during our meetings in the United States and Switzerland."

Chomsky thus knows and agrees that the US organized false flag terror in Europe for decades. He is not as keen to speak out about these issues because he would be ostracized, which doesn't do any good in the long run.

Nope. Why should it?