Difference between revisions of "Naom Chomsky"

Latest revision as of 05:03, 6 May 2024

Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7

Noam Chomsky Schools 9/11 Truther; Explains the Science of Making Credible Claims https://www.openculture.com/2013/10/noam-chomsky-derides-911-truthers.html

Part 1: Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7

00:08

all right

00:10

now thanks for coming uh

00:13

you've mentioned quite a few

00:14

contradictions from the media and their

00:17

presentation on things

00:18

and i think the most uh notorious case

00:21

of this

00:22

is with september 11 2001.

00:25

you mentioned in a forum on z-net

00:28

in 2006 that you wanted to see a

00:32

consensus of

00:33

engineers and specialists that

00:35

understand the actual structures of

00:37

these buildings and their possible

00:39

collapse

00:40

and there is such a group and i'm here

00:42

to tell you about that and ask you a

00:43

follow-up question

00:45

it's called architects and engineers for

00:47

9 11

00:48

truth there's a consensus of over two

00:50

thousand dollars right

00:51

is this a question i'm asking a question

00:55

i'm setting it up thank you

00:57

this consensus shows that building seven

00:59

the third building that fell on 911 fell

01:02

in free fall speed as this report

01:04

acknowledges

01:05

are you ready to come forward and jump

01:06

on board with 911 i know you've

01:08

mentioned it's a distraction but there's

01:10

no better case

01:11

of the media covering up things than not

01:14

presenting building seven that third

01:16

building we've all seen the other towers

01:18

fall but what about building seven gnome

01:20

well in fact uh you're right that

01:23

there's a consensus among a

01:25

minuscule number of architects and

01:28

engineers

01:29

tiny number their couple of them are

01:31

perfectly serious

01:33

they are not doing what scientists and

01:36

engineers do

01:37

when they think they've discovered

01:39

something what you do

01:42

when you think you've discovered

01:43

something what you do

01:45

is write articles and scientific

01:47

journals

01:48

gift talks at the professional societies

01:51

that go to the civil engineering

01:53

department at mit

01:55

or florida or wherever you are and

01:58

present your

01:59

results and then proceed to try to

02:03

convince

02:04

the national academies the professional

02:07

society

02:08

of physicists and civil engineers the

02:11

departments and the major universities

02:13

convince them that you've discovered

02:15

something

02:16

now there happened to be a lot of people

02:17

around who spent

02:19

an hour on the internet and think they

02:21

know a lot of physics

02:22

but it doesn't work like that there's a

02:24

reason why there are

02:28

i mean there's a reason there's a math

02:31

finish

02:31

there's a reason why there are graduate

02:33

schools in these departments and

02:35

and research so the thing to do is

02:38

pretty straightforward

02:40

do what scientists and engineers do who

02:43

think they've made a discovery

02:45

now when this is brought up as it has

02:47

been

02:48

uh there are one or two minor articles

02:51

like this one article that appeared in

02:53

an online

02:55

journal which claims to have found

02:58

where someone claims to have found

03:00

traces of nanothermite

03:02

in building seven i don't know what that

03:05

means

03:06

you don't know what that means uh but if

03:08

it means anything

03:10

bring it to the attention of the

03:11

scientific community that's

03:13

a couple of other fragments like that so

03:16

yes

03:17

there are there's a small group of

03:19

people who believe this

03:21

and there's a straightforward way to

03:23

proceed now when this is brought up

03:25

there's a standard reaction

03:27

scientists and engineers and

03:29

professional societies and

03:31

physicists are so intimidated by the

03:34

government

03:35

that they're afraid to take to they

03:37

don't have the courage to take this

03:39

position

03:41

anyone who has any part record of part

03:45

any familiarity with political activism

03:48

knows that this is one of the safest

03:50

things you can do

03:51

it's almost riskless people take risks

03:55

far beyond this constantly including

03:58

scientists and engineers

04:00

i could have run through and can run

04:02

through

04:03

many examples i mean you know is it kind

04:06

of a

04:06

maybe people laugh at you but that's

04:08

about it

04:09

it's an almost riskless position so that

04:12

can't be the reason why nobody's

04:14

convinced

04:15

however there's a much more deeper issue

04:18

which has been brought up

04:19

repeatedly and i have yet to hear a

04:21

response to it

04:23

there happens to be whatever one thinks

04:25

about building seven

04:26

frankly i have no opinion i i don't know

04:29

as much uh science and engineering as

04:33

the people who believe that they have an

04:34

answer to this

04:36

so i am willing to let the professional

04:40

societies

04:41

determine it if they get the information

04:43

so whatever the facts

04:45

there's just overwhelming evidence that

04:47

the bush administration wasn't involved

04:50

very elementary evidence you don't have

04:53

to be a physicist to understand it

Bush was not involved with 9/11

04:56

you just have to think for a minute okay

04:59

so let's think for a minute the

05:05

there's a couple of facts which are

05:06

uncontroversial right

05:09

one fact that is uncontroversial is that

05:12

the bush administration

05:13

desperately wanted to invade iraq that's

05:16

a long-standing goal it's good reasons

05:19

for it

05:20

the second largest energy resources in

05:23

the world

05:24

right in the middle of the world's major

05:26

energy producing region you know

05:27

perfectly obvious reasons

05:29

which they in fact later stated but they

05:31

were obvious anyway

05:32

so they wanted to invade iraq one

05:34

uncontroversial fact

05:36

second uncontroversial fact they didn't

05:39

blame the

05:40

911 on iraqis they blamed it on saudis

05:45

mainly that's their major ally so they

05:48

blamed it

05:49

on people from their major ally

05:52

not on the country that they wanted to

05:54

invade

05:55

a third uncontroversial fact unless

05:58

they're total

05:59

lunatics they would have blamed it on

06:01

iraqis

06:02

if they were involved in any way that

06:05

would have given them

06:07

a open season on invading iraq

06:10

a total support international support

06:14

a u.n resolution no need to

06:17

concoct wild stories about

06:21

the weapons of mass destruction and

06:23

contacts between saddam and al-qaeda

06:26

which of course quickly exploded

06:27

discrediting them

06:29

no reason to invade afghanistan which

06:31

mostly a waste of time for them

06:33

but they didn't well the

06:37

conclusion is pretty straightforward

06:39

either they are total lunatics

06:42

or they weren't involved and they're not

06:44

total lunatics

06:45

so whatever you think about building

06:47

seven there are other considerations to

06:49

be

06:50

concerned with all right i think our

06:53

speaker

06:54

answered that question succinctly so

06:56

that's the

06:57