Craig wrote:
Noam Chomsky just posted his responses to questions about the "9/11
movement" in his blog. I recommend paying attention.
9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory:
http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2779
Craig, here is my email dialog on the subject with Noam below. I've
bracketed his responses with ** so it's clearer.
I think the fact that the Foley affair has turned the most people
against the Republicans is good evidence that I'm right that IF it
comes out that certain people in the govt. were complicit in 9/11, it
will turn FAR more people against the govt than any institutional
analysis. Reasonable people can disagree.
-Evan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:05:35 -0400
From: Noam Chomsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Evan Daniel Ravitz (by way of Noam Chomsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thanks for endorsing Gravel's project; etc.
*Swamped with mail. Below.
Noam Chomsky*
----- Original Message -----
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz
To: Noam Chomsky
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Thanks for endorsing Gravel's project; etc.
Dear Mr. Chomsky,
Thank you again for endorsing former US Senator Mike Gravel's
National Initiative for Democracy and meeting with me in Boulder a
couple of years ago. Mike recently addressed Camp Democracy on the
Washington Mall:
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/video/gravel.wmv
I owe you, Mike and Dan Ellsburg (another endorser) a great deal, as
I was drafted in 1972 but after refusing twice I was finally given the
CO status I'd applied for at 18. Your books helped make me politically
aware. (All endorsers listed at http://vote.org/?q=node/2)
* Very glad to hear that you got CO status, and hope Mike's talk went
well.*
I'm writing you because I saw a video showing you indeed doubted us
"9/11 conspiracy theorists" and said "who cares. it's not of any
significance." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4&NR%3EYouTube
* I don't recall ever being videotaped on this, and have no idea what
you saw (or time to look), so can't comment on it.*
I tried to understand that this time, having disregarded the idea
that it doesn't matter the other time I'd heard it.
I agree that the US govt has committed far worse crimes; rationally,
it is a big distraction from the work ahead, as you inferred.
* Absolutely. I think that is why the 9/11 movement is treated quite
tolerantly by centers of power, and gains such enormous interest among
potential activists. For the former, it has the great advantage of
drawing energy and activism away from really serious crimes of state,
far worse than this. That's one of the main reasons there's so little
protest over Iraq, Iran, Lebanon-Palestine, health care monstrosities,
etc. The potential activists are busy on the internet. For the, it
also has a great advantage. A lot easier to spend hours on the
internet exchanging possible scenarios, etc., then to get out and do
the hard and risky work required to organize and educate, and bring
serious movements of protest and resistance and social change into
being.*
But humans were instinctual before they were rational; we're often
emotional before we're rational. The Bush administration has profited
enormously from that.
* If you're suggesting that this is emotional rather than rational, I
agree.*
IF it's true the government let it happen or made it happen, then I
think it's likely that the betrayal and anguish will cause people to
question authority and demand more direct democracy like nothing in
recent history.
* Since this would be far less of a crime than others that are
ongoing, if it's true, which I doubt, it would simply increase
irrationality and strengthen authority. If anything marginally
credible could be shown, the Bush administration would be lined up
before firing squads, and clones would take over, demanding more
executive power to keep things like that from happening again. That,
I think, is the likely result in an extremely depoliticized society,
becoming more so thanks to the huge energy poured into these
pursuits.*
To address briefly 3 specifics:
You said anybody who knows anything about sciences would see it your
way. I received 800 on my Math SAT but I'd already decided I'd never
be an Einstein, feeling guilty and wishing I'd been a plumber! I see
it exactly the opposite, and so do a host of physicists and scholars
at:
http://www.physics911.net and http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
* There's a simple way of checking. The country has thousands of
highly qualified specialists in the relevant fields --
civil/mechanical engineer, materials science, etc. To my knowledge,
not one paper has been submitted by anyone to a reputable scientific
engineering journal.
You said the planes could have easily missed the buildings. (This is
certainly true of alleged 9/11 hijacker/pilot Hani Hanjour who "could
not fly at all." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html) IF
they'd missed, they'd just circle back and try again until they hit.
With our air defences up north in war games, "they" had lots of time.
* In real world events of this vastness and complexity, predicting
what would happen would be quite low probability. That's one of the
reasons why scientists and engineers don't take any of this seriously.
1000 things could have happened. Passengers could have overwhelmed
the hijackers, the captain could have taken control, landing the
plane, and revealing at once that Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush ordered the
whole thing. Or innumerable other possibilities. Pointless to
speculate. That's why scientists do experiments.*
You said they'd "have to be insane to try anything like that." Many
of us think some are emotional and insane, not just cold and
calculating. Hugo Chavez seems to be one, though he's certainly
confused about you.
* If you think they are insane, you're making a serious mistake,
another contribution to enhancing power and domination.*
Finally, one reason this is quite different from the JFK event is
that there is so much more public evidence available immediately, and
an internet. And 9/11 (kind of) changed everything, unlike the JFK
event.
* The internet has indeed made a difference. It's a device for
quickly escalating bits and pieces of mostly meaningless evidence into
vast conspiracies, and drawing enormous numbers of people into it,
because it is so tempting, for the reasons already mentioned. The
public evidence is a collection of anecdotes that you can find in any
complex event, and the physical evidence -- to repeat -- has not even
led to a single submission to a serious journal, to my knowledge.*
It distresses me to see progressives splitting over this. Ward
Churchill told a "9/11 truth" event in Boulder that Barsamian told him
that us "conspiracists" were racist because we didn't think that Arabs
could have done it!
I initially accepted the official story. But it kept changing. (see
my http://evanravitz.com/911 for 1 example) And I'd read a 1986 novel
in which the government allowed terrorists to plant a nuke under NY,
tacitly cooperating, each for their own agendas. (The author Vince
Campbell is a retired Sociology professor who's promoted direct
democracy since the 60s, and a friend.) It's a good read:
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Terrorism&rh=k%3ATerrorism%2Cn%3A1000%2Cn%3A18&page=1
I invite discussion if you're interested. Progressives do need more
unity.
* Thanks for the invitation, but I'm not interested in discussing
this, for the reasons mentioned. In my view, it's a gift to the
powerful, drawing vast amounts of energy and effort away from really
serious tasks, and undermining progressive causes. That's my
judgment. You have to follow your own, of course.*
Sincerely,
Evan
Evan Ravitz
1130 11th St. #3
Boulder CO 80302
(303)440-6838
(775)245-1326 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi
