Friday, January 15, 2016

Incontrovertible: A British Made 9/11 Documentary

Incontrovertible A British made 9/11 documentary

Killing Auntie Films - INCONTROVERTIBLE

INCONTROVERTIBLE is the first and only feature length documentary we have which portrays the frank and candid views of Police Officers, Firefighters and Soldiers as they express their grave concerns about the official explanation for the events of 9/11. The film is intended to act as a practical aid in combating the mainstream media's propaganda and outright lies concerning the attacks on September 11th 2001.

This film is intended to be viewed by Police Officers, Firefighters and all those serving in the Armed Forces as they are the among the best placed members of our society to have the ability to change things for the better. If you have friends or family who are serving then please pass this film onto them. Killing Auntie Films

I haven't watched this below as yet, but it comes recommended in the film above.

9-11 Ripple Effect

Posted by This is a special edit from director William Lewis including the integration of two previously deleted scenes. Keep watching after the credit roll... there's a couple of trailers that you'll definitely find of interest and value. Learn more about how you can make a difference. (German)


Anonymous said...

Himself said...

I was was aware of just who the film-maker was, so much so that I thought I might have done a post on the fellow. Evidently not.

Did he win or did he not? Below, if one also includes the first comment, seems quite representative of mixed opinions around the web.

Richard Hall blathers on about it here. (optional)

But in spite of his efforts on the McCann film, Richard Hall is someone that I am more than a tad wary of when it comes to 9/11. To say nothing of his views on extra-terrestrials.

Is there any wonder?

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @19:51

"But in spite of his efforts on the McCann film, Richard Hall is someone that I am more than a tad wary of when it comes to 9/11. To say nothing of his views on extra-terrestrials."

I sometimes wonder whether the very nature of his enterprise (a TV broadcaster?) dictates some of his material/viewpoints. When you think about it, in a world increasingly populated by cynics like us (I'll own up to it anyway) his choice of topic(s) is quite possibly driven by the principal requirement, i.e. to attract an audience.

Be that as it may, Tony Rooke's film is well worth viewing. And if he did win his case, would that not establish a legal precedent for the rest of us? As in: 'I'm not paying your licence fee. See Rooke vs. BBC for justification'. If Rooke's argument is already legally accepted it shouldn't have to be made repeatedly.

There is at least one drawback however. If a 'national movement' should succeed in bankrupting 'Auntie' they wouldn't have funds enough for 'Strictly' - and we'd have to search elsewhere for a glimpse or two of the remarkable Darcey Bussell (Could you make do with half the fee, Mr Director General?)

Himself said...

Above and beyond all things, the first principal of any independent business is to make a profit. No profit, no survive.

Ergo we must relate, as you say, readership to turnover, which gives the potential for profit. Economics 101.

Why Richard Hall chooses the subjects he does I have no idea. Maybe he genuinely believes in such things, maybe he don't.

But in parallel to Hall we have David Icke, who by all accounts has a mega following. And the subjects included in his repertoire?

Shape-shifting and lizard people.

And I fucking despair.

All in all though, not a bad documentary.

T'other one, I've watched 30mins so far but will probably finish it later. Though it does strike me as an old production so I'm not expecting much that is new. That said, some reasonable photo's of the underside of the military jets that hit the towers.

The BBC?

Fuck the BBC.

Martin Roberts said...

Succinct use of descriptive language by Tony Rooke here (51:33 - 51:38). Apposite indeed.


guerra said...

The greater the evil the easier it is to cover it up. The public are more willing to believe that people are delusional than to even consider that the people they trust can coldly commit such horrors.

I believed what I was told by the US mainstream media because I could not bring myself to accept that a government would kill its own citizens. Therefore in my mind there was no need to examine the evidence.

After watching the 9/11 videos on this blog and observing the manner in which these buildings imploded, I have to conclude that these were controlled demolitions. It seems we are a flock of sheep conditioned and controlled by the information we are fed.

Martin Roberts said...

Guerra @ 00:24

Irrespective of where we stand at present I suspect we were all overcome by the horror of these events. If we are the wiser now it is largely, if not entirely in hindsight.

Where Rooke's film succeeds for me particularly is in pointing out that these acts of state-sponsored terrorism were part of a series, and not isolated events.

I came late to the party as far as discussion of the 7/7 London bombings is concerned but have little doubt that these were not planned by a small terrorist cell either.

There is a sequence (from about the 50' mark) where Dick Cheney's case against a public inquiry into 9/11 is closely followed by Tony Blair's presenting the same before the house of commons post 7/7. I consider it instructive that he resorts to the same specious arguments as did Cheney.

These events are now part of history, although we are all living through the consequences. Personally I find it difficult to believe they happened as they did. My difficulty however does not reside in acceptance of the scientific and other facts of the matter, but in coming to terms with the sheer malevolence of those responsible.



Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 17 January 2016 at 12:36

Wise comment, Martin.

Can say no more at the moment for lack of time.



Himself said...

MR 16 January 2016 at 18:28

Indeed Sir, an apt description.

But staying with the BBC, who at the moment are really pissing me off due to their incessant demands that I respond to their letters regarding a licence for the television I don't have.

Who the fuck are the BBC to write in such a manner?

I have been through this twice before, the BBC finally conceding that I don't own a set only after I ran a very vocal who the fuck are you? campaign via twitter.

If from your own 51:33 reference you let it run for a minute or two, we are then treated to the BBC (conspiracy files) reporter doorstepping John Hill, maker of Ripple Effect.

In part: You have made a film that is damaging trust in the British Government.

I beg your pardon, who the fuck are you and what's your game?

Although I picked up on this shameful piece of "unbiased reporting" in its own right, it instantly reminded me of Mike O'Sullivan BBC East Midlands "reporter."

The Dedicated to, Mike O'Sullivan BBC East Midlands, Gallery (latter half of a short clip)

And the BBC wonder why I don't have a television, I'd sooner poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than indulge them in a licence fee. Bastards.

We are the only nation on earth who pay the government a fee in order to listen to their organ of state propaganda, the BBC.

Not this kiddywink, not in a million years.

But if you think the above is in the realm of gor blimey, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Trust us, we're the BBC. Shurely Shome Mishtake

Himself said...

Guerra 17 January 2016 at 00:24

Speaking personally, once you have established yourself in the reality camp and your mind is receptive, then many more things start to cross your mind.

Take for instance the hubris of these people to even think about pulling this thing off. (in broad daylight)

But I don't know which is greater, the hubris, or the contempt that the factions involved hold, not just the American people in, but the whole world. Both are truly staggering.

Now imagine for a moment if things had started to go tits up for Cheney and the factions post 9/11. What do you fancy the outcome might have been?

For my money it would be to "officially" confirm that which is already established in all but name, marshal law/police state. I think the military/FEMA/Homeland Security would have crossed the Rubicon and made a move. And I still think they will eventually, be that in my lifetime I have no idea, but I fancy it will be sooner rather than later.

The infrastructure is already in place, search: fema internment camps

The Sheeple are now compliant after fifteen years of conditioning. Forget airport security, you are just as likely to be subject to the same control when you gen on or OFF a train. There was even talk of this expanding to cover buses, whether that came to pass, I haven't checked?

And if you take umbrage at any of this, the cops will shoot you with impunity. And I mean impunity.

God bless America, home of the brave, land of the free.

Himself said...


The Transportation Security Administration isn't just in airports anymore. TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass transit locations around the country.

Himself said...


Re the above recommendation to search FEMA internment camps. Guess who?

Not that I am about to read it, but if Popular Mechanics are involved, there must be an awful lot of truth in the situation.

For anybody else, Popular Mechanics now has its own tag. This one in particular has a McCann connection, Summers and Swan.

Himself said...

guerra With impunity.

Just one of a gazillion that drop into my inbox.

Himself said...

At the 1:06mns 9-11 Ripple Effect we have more Popular Mechanics. But what I did notice was a familiar name, Chertoff, Benjamin Chertoff. Surely a coincidence I'm thinking.

If only.

Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM’s writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for PM's 911 Debunking article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. Bollyn then wrote an essay entitled "9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propoganda for PM." The Hearst Corporation, Bollyn charged, had hired young Chertoff to work on an article supporting the very interpretation of 9/11 that had led to the creation of the department now headed by his older cousin.

Nice huh? More

Himself said...


This came up on finishing the Ripple Effect film.

7/7 Ripple Effect 2

Muad'Dib's expanded new version of the acclaimed original 7/7 Ripple Effect.

After being unlawfully jailed for 157 days based on trumped-up charges, and the BBC making a dedicated hit-piece on the original 7/7 Ripple Effect, the film-maker Muad'Dib expands upon the original film and has added over 60 minutes of new material connecting the dots of what most likely really did happen in London on July 7th 2005, when 3 tube-trains and a double-decker bus were exploded.

Watching this film should leave the viewer no doubt that the crimes and murder committed in London were done by other organizations than by claimed by the official and corporate media.

"I must say, in my opinion this is a masterpiece. In less than an hour, the film explains how this whole event was planned, how it was
staged, what went wrong, how the authorities sought to cover it up and the failure of the press to cover it adequately. I think it is as
marvellous a microcosm for understanding the nature of inside-jobs as anyone has ever produced, so I must congratulate you and tell you how much I admire your work."

Of which I'm about to have a look see.

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @19:18

On board with all you say. I've already watched RE2. Solid for the most part, although still enshrining one or two unjustified assumptions. That doesn't destroy the premise however.

I got off the bus before the end though, at the point where he invokes Christianity and advocates questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy (not because I am an inveterate monarchist - Tony Robinson's already established that the true heir is alive and well in Australia!).

Something else Rooke's film exposes for me is the sycophantic, 'couldn't give a shit for the truth or the public' nature of the Blair government.

When you think that the treasonous arsehole (Rooke's well chosen phrase) was wholly unconcerned at the prospect of countless deaths in Iraq and subsequently presided over the sacrifice of his own citizens in London (he MUST have known what would happen), then the fact of a single child missing believed dead in Portugal would not have merited a second thought. Air-lifting Clarence Mitchell from the FO (which No. 10 had a strangle-hold on) was akin to fitting a muzzle to an unpredictable dog.

In sum, under Blair, government involvement in the disappearance of MM is entirely consistent with his earlier behaviour in respect of both 7/7 and 9/11. Like 'W' and his crew Blair has pinned his defence on the supposed naivety of the populace. As you say, hubris taken to extremes.

Once it becomes generally accepted that 9/11 was indeed the greatest ever crime then ACL Blair must be considered a confederate of the worst ever criminals.

guerra said...

@Martin 17 Jan 12.36

Yes, that is the difficulty, coming to terms with what appears to be a government that instead of protecting its citizens turned against them, killed them without remorse.

I’ve since learned that there are people among us that have no empathy. They learn how to express emotion by observation and imitation. They aren’t burdened by emotions so they often end up in positions of authority, which is dangerous because they regard people as objects to be used to fulfill their needs.



guerra said...

Hi Himself,

That’s a lot of information to digest, never heard of FEMA internment camps before. I don’t know what will happen in the near future but I do know that, because we live in a closed system with limited resources and a growing population, there will be more wars and eventually there will be intolerable levels of pollution, accompanied by famine, disease and mass die off.

Hey, so do you think Chelsea is heading for relegation?

Anonymous said...

This is from Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture.

Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.

As you say Martin (@17 January 2016 at 20:02): the fact of a single child missing believed dead in Portugal would not have merited a second thought.

Not forgetting DCI Redwood and his publicity shot (what else to call it) with the "age progressed" photo placed casually to the foreground of his desk.

Regards to all,


Martin Roberts said...

Guerra @ 06:18

"I’ve since learned that there are people among us that have no empathy. They learn how to express emotion by observation and imitation. They aren’t burdened by emotions so they often end up in positions of authority, which is dangerous because they regard people as objects to be used to fulfil their needs."

Only last night I watched a TV production (Deadline Gallipoli) which perfectly illustrated your point. Richard Attenborough's first outing as a director (Oh What a Lovely War) achieved the same - and that was a 'Musical' for goodness' sake!


I understand Extinction, like death, is an inevitability. As a species we appear to be the only one intent on hastening our own (the anthropologist who first coined the term 'sapiens' might have had second thoughts had he realized).

Chelsea for the drop? How can you possibly think such a thing? Roman could buy the entire Leicester first XI and field them for the rest of the season if it came to it (they play in blue - who's going to notice?)

Regards, and thanks for your sobering thoughts.


Anonymous said...

Agnos 18 January 2016 at 08:59

Thunderous applause, Agnos, good to her from you. I remember that Pinter’s speech very well and have it on disk ‘just in case’. Yes, he didn’t beat about the bush!

As always, Martin is on target and Himself’s intensity is well measured.

I’ve been following both 911 and 7/7 from day one. Much has been discovered by those who care, while nothing has been done by those in power (the latter persist in telling us otherwise of course).

In case someone interested did not get to read the following item published years ago:

My interested in football awakens only when Pelé, Garrincha, Best, Messi and a few others play.

The rumour has it that Roman started his fortune with meagre $600.000.000, or thereabouts, at the age of about 26 just like so many of us... ‘Speak as the Romans do’ I do, but do as Roman does I don’t. Do you?

Thank you all here present.



Himself said...

guerra 18 January 2016 at 06:18

I’ve since learned that there are people among us that have no empathy. They learn how to express emotion by observation and imitation. They aren’t burdened by emotions so they often end up in positions of authority, which is dangerous because they regard people as objects to be used to fulfil their needs.

My introduction only to the titled post.

Afghanistan: State Controlled Women's Shelters A Recipe For Tears

When any story which emits from these mediaeval countries, contain the words conservative political leaders and women in the same text, there is only ever going to be one outcome, tears, women's tears. And this is just one of those stories.

And while here in Britain, the pap and sentimentality given over to the, (invariably if not prominently dead) heroes of this conflict, the British troops, I do have to say, there are no such sentiments here on this blog, just as equally there are no heroes. Being sent to Afghanistan by some skanky politician who will never give you another passing thought, only then to get blown up by an IED, doesn't make you a hero, it makes you unlucky at best, and a mug and unlucky at worse.

And when it's all over and everybody comes home, except those that won't be coming home, the same old question will be asked, and will be greeted with the same old answer. And that answer will be, as well you know, fuck all, absolutely fuck all.

Himself said...

Guerra 18 January 2016 at 08:15
MR 18 January 2016 at 10:58

A search of this blog will bring up numerous results for mass extinction, The majority under the Japan tag and post Fukushima.

Here's one of a different ilk that I transcribed.

A Short Conversation With Paul Watson

But if you wish to read where I think we are headed as a species, try this.

Our Planet Our Future?

Himself said...

Why George Bush is Insane - Harold Pinter

Himself said...

MR 18 January 2016 at 14:55

Bookmarked for later. I need to catch up on 7/7, I have been in a bubble regarding these nefarious goings on.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the links.

Bombs are its only vocabulary. H.P.

What a line.


Martin Roberts said...

Greetings everyone

Thanks to Agnos for linking to that extraordinary Nobel prize-winning speech of Pinter's, to rtgr for reminding us of 'little bird' and soccer's golden era, and to Himself for this week's reading list!

Pray forgive and indulge this monologue. Even though I have watched a number of 9/11 videos over time, something has only now occurred to me as a result of watching these more recent postings.

It's all about the 'MO'.

If, for the sake of argument, Osama's merry men had planned and executed 9/11, they would no doubt have adopted the same approach to each target, viz. Hijack plane. Fly plane into building (Except they seem to have been a few wings short of a squadron. Perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far).

As regards the Pentagon, any pilot with a 'kamikaze' mindset would simply have pancaked onto the roof, rather than risk the impossible, which, had it been attempted in a large Boeing would unquestionably have resulted in failure (i.e., crashed and burned before even reaching the target).

So whatever did hit the Pentagon, it wasn't a Boeing piloted by an Arab.

Turning now to the WTC, building 7 simply collapsed, even though no plane had struck it. It was of course brought down by explosives placed inside. By extrapolation, it can reasonably be argued that the twin towers fell for much the same reason, the aircraft being a distraction. That, therefore, becomes the alternative MO - to bomb from the inside using a plane as 'cover'. It is not one that can be attributed to terrorists however.

Now let's return to the Pentagon and the absence of a crash on either the lawn or the roof.

Perhaps someone among the 'joint chiefs' had the prescience to point out that a ground-level strike by a large jet was physically impossible. Nevertheless, a ground level strike it had to be, because Donald Rumsfeld would be in his office on the other side and the stretch of the building to be attacked, besides accommodating the offices of greatest interest (to accountants), was the one where damage resistance had recently been upgraded.

Just as a single bomb placed on the floor of an underground railway carriage cannot be the cause of three holes in the same floor, so a strike by a single Boeing jet, cruise missile or whatever could not have resulted in three separate 'punch out' locations within the inner 'C ring of the Pentagon, as occurred.

So, boys and girls, we have a 'bombs inside - planes outside' scenario common to ALL targets on 9/11 that cannot possibly have been the 'MO' of Al Qaeda martyrs. It can ONLY have been accomplished on behalf of the US administration, the explosives being introduced under cover of 'refurbishment'.

Regards to all


Anonymous said...

Thank you, Himself, for the links.

Having read everything on this thread, I have just now watched for the first time Incontrovertible - New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke at

A commendable contribution to a worthy cause!

A few notes ‘on the hoof’:

1.21.52, 1.22.14, 1.22.47 “…hijackers…” (What seems to be implied herein is irrefutably incorrect (on the available expert evidence capable of withstanding hostile cross-examination, in the absence of authenticated passenger lists, flight manifests, boarding passes with the names of the alleged hijackers, security videos, body remains with chain of custody reports, sworn witness testimony/ies that the alleged hijackers boarded the planes)).

1.27.59 …it is a criminal offence to follow an unlawful order… (Indeed. Good to remember this bearing in mind that ignorance of the law can not be used in defence of those who break it)

1.35.34 – 1.40.13 KEN O’KEEFE, 1.40.38 – 1.45.34 DALE PIERCE, 1.47.54 and 1.53.02 JUDGE FERDINANDO IMPOSIMATO (most agreeable comments)

1.52.53 David Rastuccio, NYC Fire Dept. Lt. “We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would come down on its own, or it would be taken down.” (Therefore there had existed an arrangement whereby it could be taken down at short notice. What was the arrangement, and perhaps more importantly, why was the arrangement in place?) (A ‘possible’ answer: all steel-framed buildings are wired for demolition ‘just in case’)

There remains much to be said about this video.

911 Ripple Effect has been out for long and is well known, therefore I assume it needs no comment here.

Peace and thanks to all.


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 18 January 2016 at 22:08

I posted today at 15.56, it appeared on the thread and then disappeared. Posted same again at 16.00, the same happened. Something/one doesn’t like me…:-(

“It's all about the 'MO'.”

Well spotted, Martin, thank you.



Anonymous said...

Many thanks to the entity that made my post of 19 January 2016 at 15:56 on this thread re-appear.



Himself said...

rtgr It was in the spam box, understandably Blogger didn't like the look of it. Too many different fonts and too "busy" I guess.

There are quiet a few vids and clips under the 9/11 tag, but this 2015 offering is worthy of anybody's attention.

Martin Roberts said...

rtgr @15:56

"1.52.53 David Rastuccio, NYC Fire Dept. Lt. “We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would come down on its own, or it would be taken down.” (Therefore there had existed an arrangement whereby it could be taken down at short notice. What was the arrangement, and perhaps more importantly, why was the arrangement in place?) (A ‘possible’ answer: all steel-framed buildings are wired for demolition ‘just in case’)"

Some icing on the criminal cake:

Under New York City statutes it is illegal to prepare occupied premises for demolition, nor can buildings be demolished 'willy nilly'. They have in fact to be disassembled.

It might be supposed therefore that Larry Silverstein was 'between a rock and a hard place'. Having bought the lease on TWO white elephants that would have cost $millions in asbestos removal, their LEGAL demolition threatened to be prohibitively expensive.

Did Silverstein succeed in business by being that short-sighted?

Hardly. He signed the lease agreement (which included HIS right to re-development!!) barely six weeks before the planes did him a favour, then claimed on his insurers for TWO SEPARATE acts of terrorism. The eventual pay out was a negotiated settlement, but it still left him comfortably in profit. He now owns the new WTC of course.

The original Twin Towers were owned by the Port Authority, who sold the lease to Silverstein at a discount. Given the timing of events, are we really to suppose he was simply the unwitting victim of circumstance? Although familiar with the saying 'It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good', I personally doubt he just 'got lucky'.



Anonymous said...

I’m working my way through documentaries, this week’s reading list, and instructive comments. Thank you all.

Probably nothing new to you, but the sniffing dogs caught my eye, in an article dated September 11, 2001.

“Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.”

"It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good", and Google is my friend.



Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Maren @23:04
Anonymous @07:26

From the 'Truth and Shadows' link:

"It might be useful to point out to those who aren’t aware of it that the company that had the contract to provide security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport at the time was called Securicom (now Stratesec). One of the directors of the company from 1993-2000 was George W. Bush’s younger brother, Marvin Bush. The CEO of the company from 1999-2002 was the Bush brothers’ cousin, Wirt D. Walker III.

"Between 1996 and 2000, Securicom installed a new security system in the World Trade Center. Unfortunately, the details of what work they did were destroyed along with the towers on 9/11.

"After Marvin Bush left Securicom in 2000, he became a director of HCC Insurance Holdings Inc. (until 2002), which was one of the companies insuring the World Trade Center. Small world, eh?"

Isn't it time to stop beating about the Bush? It's blairingly obvious who was involved in this crime, and others to follow!

Anonymous said...

Himself 19 January 2016 at 17:36

Thanks for finding my post and for the link.

I read and contemplated that essay and posted on its thread in the recent past. It is worthy of anybody's attention indeed!

I note and appreciate all your comments.

And I do remember my yet unfulfilled promise on another thread to get ‘physical’ in the company of your kind self and two equally kind others.

Good wishes to you and your family.


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 20 January 2016 at 09:57

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.

T.S. Eliot

The future is incapable of being ascertained.

Isn't it time to stop beating about the Bush? It's blairingly obvious who was involved in this crime, and others to follow!


blairingly… What a find! Your dog must’ve sniffed it in a bush while walking you. Like master, like dog!

I seem to remember Christopher Hitchens’ momentary appearance in one of your essays (posts?). Are you aware that his take on 911 was (as is Noam Chomsky’s) incompatible with most of the available evidence?

(Last year, if my memory is good, Cristobell Hutton informed her readers of her discovery of Noam Chomsky’s writings. As Cristobell and yourself have recently exchanged opinions on another thread of this blog, I thought I might as well mention NC here)

I found your 6 January 2016 at 23:10 reply to Christobell entirely satisfactory and pointing in the right direction.

I have yet to post my expanded view on her proposed ‘extrapolation’ of a seemingly likely future from the partly seemingly likely and partly certain past with reference to the proposition The McCann pact is not sustainable because there are too many people involved and Christobell’s remarks on my tentative objection to said proposition.

Many thanks and good wishes.


Anonymous said...

For instance:

Noam Chomsky on 911 at 2.14 (!)

Christopher Hitchens on 911 (arguing, somewhat more carefully than Chomsky, against the incontrovertible evidence)

It hardly needs saying that both are erudite, sophisticated, experienced thinkers and speakers with irreproachable command of English who are undoubtedly aware of the score.

Why are they are talking tosh? Any suggestions?



Martin Roberts said...

rtgr 20.1 @18:30

"Are you aware that his (Hitchens) take on 911 was (as is Noam Chomsky’s) incompatible with most of the available evidence?"

Yes. So too George Galloway, although he has a very deliberate agenda of his own for invoking Muslim terrorism.

21.1 @09:28

"Why are they are talking tosh? Any suggestions?"

'Why' I cannot be sure, but they most certainly are.

Hitchens first.

Here he takes the 'You are beneath me' approach to a question from the floor and flat out refuses to hear it much less answer it:

Elsewhere he claims responsibility for inducing Kissinger's non-acceptance of the inquiry chair, but adds, that had Kissinger assumed the role it would have been a clear sign of a cover-up!(?). (That must be the intention read into the proposed appointment therefore, or am I missing the point).

And now Chomsky (all quotes from:

"Things like this happen. Power systems will exploit it (the catastrophe) to expand their own power over their primary enemies, which are their domestic enemies, their own population" (1:45 – 1:58). (You don't say...)

“(The Bush administration) would have had to be insane to try anything like that (9/11)”

As you say Noam -

Following a lesson on 'leakage' we are told things are predictable:

“Every authoritarian system in the world gained from September the 11th and it was immediately predictable”. (0:07 – 0:14)

When they're not really:

“Further, it was completely unpredictable what was going to happen. You couldn’t predict the plane was actually going to hit the world trade centre, uh, it happened that it did but, you know, it could easily have missed” (2:51 – 3:02

“If you look at the evidence, er, anyone who knows anything about the sciences, would instantly discount that evidence” (3:42 -3:51)

Says LINGUIST Noam Chomsky. He elsewhere derides the 2000 or so Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth as a 'miniscule number'.

“So the evidence that’s been produced, in my opinion, is essentially worthless” (5:14 – 5:19)

Again, the opinion of a linguist, who, again elsewhere, argues that those members of the scientific community who claim to have 'discovered something' should pursue the conventional channels of peer review publication and presentation before accredited academic bodies. What he appears not to appreciate is that A&E for 9/11 Truth nowhere lay claim to scientific 'discovery' per se, as in a hitherto unknown element or hidden metallurgical phenomenon. The channels Chomsky advocates are not therefore appropriate to the circumstance as he misleadingly maintains.

And now, since this comment is already overlong, I'll post the remainder as a continuation.



Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 16 January 2016 at 18:28

As assiduous a student of yours as I am, I am unable to do you justice. You are a wonderful teacher, Martin (and, like kind Gerry, you like dogs).

It’s so often the little things that hit the hardest. God is indeed in the detail! So, they say, is they Devil,. No hoofprints on the path your dog and your good self tread, for sure.

Can’t help thinking of Madeleine, the little one, bless her.



Martin Roberts said...

Chomsky continued...

Once more from

“And the belief that it could have been done is so, kin, you know, er, has such low credibility that I, I don’t really think it’s (looks sideways to his right – for approval?) serious” (5:20 – 5:33)

“Afterwards, you can put them (unexplained results) into some kind of pattern, but beforehand you can’t, er, and the pattern may be completely meaningless, ‘cause you can put them into some other pattern too if you want'”. (5:00 – 5:11)

Ok Noam. Let's just remind ourselves of something you said earlier: “If you look at the evidence, er, anyone who knows anything about the sciences, would instantly discount that evidence” (3:42 -3:51)

Knowing at least a little about the sciences, I suggest we adopt your very own analogy and consider 'patterns'.

Specifically I should like to contrast two diametrically opposing hypotheses (always the strongest paradigm if ever you get the chance):

Question: Which of two presumed conspiracies better accommodates the data - 1. That of Al Qaida or 2. An 'inside job' of some kind?

Answer: 2


Because in 1 TWO aircraft are missing from the evidence.

(Nothing flew into WTC7 and no Boeing jet crashed either at the Pentagon or on approach to it, as would have happened had a novice pilot been at the controls. A Boeing 747 is fitted with two engines. Only ONE rotor component was found on the Pentagon lawn and was way too small to have come from a RR power plant).

In 2 only ONE aircraft is missing from evidence (the one that didn't hit WTC7), making it the better explanation for events.

(note the deliberate reference here to 'aircraft' and not 'aeroplanes').

Chomsky's 'deep structure' theory of 'universal grammar' was revolutionary in its time. Sad to say it, but I can forgive myself for at least considering the possibility that his views regarding 9/11 are conditioned more by his actual name than the one he made for himself within the domain of Linguistics.



Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 21 January 2016 at 13:01
rtgr 21 January 2016 at 13:05

Four minutes apart... Let’s get it done and go, you name the time, I name the space - and we’ll spacetime the fandango.

Martin Roberts 21 January 2016 at 13:27

My last post has been pincered by yours. Sun-tzu or Heinz Guderian?

Have yet only glimpsed at what you’ve said: the net is cast, the last sentence sings plenty of fish for my supper today, miraculously…

Now back to perusal and contemplation.

Many thanks and good wishes to your dog and you.


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts

Please substitute ‘the Little One’ for “the little one” in the last sentence of my 21 January 2016 at 13:05 post.

I am awful.


Anonymous said...

“If you look at the evidence, er, anybody who knows anything about the sciences, would instantly discount that evidence.”

You wouldn’t say, but Chomsky is also a cognitive scientist and a logician.



Martin Roberts said...

rtgr @14:16

Do have some bread with your fish:


"You are a wonderful teacher, Martin"

That's not how my city council saw me, despite my pupils achieving 100% exam passes across the board, in terms of both age and ability (infant to adult, primary to advanced).

Not a subject I usually broach, but it provided me with a clear-cut example of how people behave in organizations. Basically, if you're perceived as a vocal non-conformist you're out, and those on the inside are perfectly capable of conspiring in unprofessional, as well as unethical, behaviour, in order to accomplish that end, whilst those with a measure of conscience are stigmatized as 'whistle blowers', 'malicious gossips', 'vindictive', etc. etc.

Mine is of course a tale of only personal importance, but, by extrapolation from evidence at my disposal, it is quite clear to me that the 'someone at the top would have talked by now' argument concerning 9/11 is mistaken.

People don't talk that freely. If you're familiar with the experience of reporters Bernstein and Woodward over the Watergate story, you'll know that people refused to talk, despite being invited to. Coming forward was the last thing on their minds!



Anonymous said...

Maren 21 January 2016 at 15:02

Appeal to authority (scientists in Chomsky’s case) is one of several mortal sins in logic.

Sorry, have to ‘fly’ off (avoiding high-rise buildings on the way) to a meeting with several teachers who know about art, poetry, ‘getting physical’ and elliptical curves.

Kind regards.


Martin Roberts said...

Maren @15:02

"You wouldn’t say, but Chomsky is also a cognitive scientist and a logician."

So was I once (a cognitive scientist that is) and I get VERY hot under the collar when academics of any complexion exceed the boundaries of their own discipline in an attempt to advance an argument.

Chomsky's line about 'airing discoveries before the scientific community', should be reserved for the likes of NIST, who seem to have 'discovered' that oxygen-starved fires can soften steel at well below its known melting point.

I don't see them promoting their thesis in any way differently to those of A@E for 9/11 Truth, do you? (Himself will know more about the structural properties of steel, I'm sure).

He also, as he admits elsewhere, does not know anything about metallurgy or related sciences (nor do I). I find his associated comment about people discounting evidence to be nothing short of offensive therefore (“If you look at the evidence, er, anyone who knows anything about the sciences, would instantly discount that evidence”).

Interestingly, when faced with a question specifically concerning WTC7 (the anomaly of which it doesn't take the pursuance of a graduate programme to understand) he pleads his own ignorance, and basically ducks it.

I neither disparage nor underestimate Chomsky's intellect, but even bright people can overlook things that are clearer to others of us with an ostensibly simplistic viewpoint.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, but if there is one thing I despise as much as the duplicity of politicians it is academic posturing. A person's expertise/reputation does not qualify them to be messianic in other domains. Anyway, as Chomsky himself admits, he is out on a limb among thinkers 'on the left'.

Quelle surprise! (NOT)



Himself said...

In part, Hitchens on Chomsky.

Hitchens was a dear friend of John Pilger. I'm sure there is plenty more around the web on Pilger/Hitchens.

It is as if writers as watchdogs are extinct, or in thrall to a sociopathic zeitgeist, convinced they are too clever to be duped. Witness the stampede of sycophants eager to deify Christopher Hitchens, a war lover who longed to be allowed to justify the crimes of rapacious power. "For almost the first time in two centuries," wrote Terry Eagleton, "there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life." No Orwell warns that we do not need to live in a totalitarian society to be corrupted by totalitarianism. No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake proffers a vision, no Wilde reminds us that "disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue". And grievously no Pinter rages at the war machine, as in "American Football":

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 21 January 2016 at 15:11

He who giveth fish giveth bread.

Be generous therefore.

Sorry, Martin, have to rush off very shortly.

Have much to say about teachers.

For now, on the fly.

Perhaps that which is most important in a good teacher is her/his/its ability to lead the pupils/students where they need (even without their realising it) to go and without necessarily any them (teacher, pupils, students) knowing either the direction or destination (or both). And that’s where you come (fly) in.

See you later.

Regards to all.


Himself said...

M.R. 21 January 2016 at 15:39

Disregarding the structural properties of steel, let me put it in layman's terms.

At the bottom of this page there are two drawings that represent the core columns. You will note that the wall thickness of these structures is five inch, yes five inches. You could, in compression, sit the moon on any one of the rascals alone.

But what you mustn't lose sight of is, although they may be individual structures, they will by means of other ironwork be tied together, thus making the core columns one homogeneous steel structure.

So, not only could you sit a moon on one column, you could sit another planet on a bunch of them. And this lot collapsed at the speed it did due gravity? Oh my giddy aunt!

Martin Roberts said...

rtgr @09:28

"Why are they are talking tosh? Any suggestions?"

This from Wikipedia:

'The Anglo-American writer Christopher Hitchens said of Pilger: "I remember thinking that his work from Vietnam was very good at the time. I dare say if I went back and read it again I'd probably still admire quite a lot of it. But there is a word that gets overused and can be misused – namely, anti-American – and it has to be used about him. So that for me sort of spoils it... even when I'm inclined to agree."'

Offers a clue in (part) answer to your question perhaps. Christopher Hitchens, Fidei Defensor vis-à-vis the US government.

But why?

This link (courtesy of 'Himself') is an interesting read:



Martin Roberts said...

Himself @16:48

Thank you for that reminder.

As regards Noam Chomsky, I'm afraid I don't know the Dutch for 'He's talking bollocks', but, in the various vids I've seen of him discussing 9/11, he simply is.

Given his proven intellect (I'll reserve the word 'intelligence', which is rather more all-encompassing) he must have a motive for doing so. Or maybe he doesn't listen to himself speak? Unlike Hitchens, who must have saved on toilet paper in the bathroom for similar reasons.



Himself said...

"Talking bollocks" there's a lot of it about.

I see the name bandied about in these comments, but have you ever searched: Bob Woodward Bush shill ?

Here's a very short taster.

Anonymous said...

Chomsky's Grand Social Critique has consistently failed the test of real events and of specific analyses. It sells, I think, by virtue of its being an overarching generalisation that offers a ready supply of soundbytes and "put down". If Chomsky himself is discomfited by the critique, when it can so easily be turned against the authority that he himself has (more than once) assumed as a mantel of "judgement", then professionally he is faced with a choice:

1. He might return to the question of his own thesis and attempt to establish a set of relations that he considers to be more constructive, vis-à-vis an appeal to Institutions of authority/"truth".
2. He might keep marketing the same thesis; whilst, at the same, detract from his own shortcomings by inventing a series of strawmen with which to argue and thereby maintain some vestige of "authority".

Chomsky has consistently chosen the latter.

cf. The almost comical grudge he has held against Foucault for decades now. Foucault died in 1984, and Chomsky is still at him (absurdly so)! There is a light hearted take here. Comment 1 hits a mark.

Interestingly enough the straw targets cited in the link (Lacan, Zizek, Foucalut) are of the "old continent" of thought, certainly not America. I wonder if Chomsky's left hand has ever made the acquaintance of his right. Leave that to the psychologists!!


(Not too keen on might have gathered!)

Martin Roberts said...

Agnos @09:36

Thank you for that broader context and link which I shall peruse in due course.


Himself 21.1 @14:47

Maybe Woodward drank from the same bottle as Hitchens. Who knows? However, deleting his name from the equation does not, I think, undermine the argument concerning other's reluctance to speak out.

...and for Maren (again in reply to 21.1 @15:02) a further, and somewhat more personal, example of the sort of Maverick behaviour among academic authority figures that really gets my goat:

“Teachers need to remember the parallel of learning to read music with speaking and reading. Reading the words is a process which cannot start before a considerable memory bank exists of words and constructions. Similarly, reading music should never begin until the pupils are conversant with musical sounds, procedures and constructions and can manipulate them fluently themselves.”

The contradiction inherent in these remarks by George Odam is clear. If, as Odam maintains, “We learn music by imitating it” then THERE IS NO PARALLEL between ‘learning to read music’ and ‘speaking and reading.’ We do not learn our native tongue by imitation. If the reference is to second language learning, then what are we to suppose is the musical equivalent of the first?

Regards to all


Anonymous said...

Martin @11.33,

Quite apart from Chomsky's track record with respect to other thinkers, I think you have summed him perfectly: maybe he doesn't listen to himself speak?

Rather than address specifics, Chomsky elects to call someone an "extremist" (Foucault in this case). It is as meaningless coming from his mouth as it is that of Bush/Blair et al!

Regards as always,


Martin Roberts said...

Agnos @09:36 and 12:08

Having invoked the link you provided I was met, unfortunately, with this:

"Noam Chomsky on ‘Moral Rel…’ The You Tube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement."

Pity. Nevertheless, on seeing the picture of Noam at his desk and reading the intro. to the video, something occurs to me.

The various vids. of Chomsky discussing 9/11 collectively portray him, albeit unintentionally, of 'lining up' with the official narrative like one of so many iron filings around a magnetic field.

Chomsky's world, like that of the various philosophers with whom he has dealings/ takes issue etc., is that of the mind, where intellectual argument exists largely in the abstract, although propped up by 'real world' examples wherever deemed appropriate.

However, as Chomsky himself opines in the context of 9/11, there can often be more than one pattern, one explanation for things. From which I take it that there may well be alternative explanations for the real world events he and others co-opt as instances in support of their particular viewpoint(s). In other words, their interpretation of things/events is simply that, and cannot exist in isolation from plausible alternatives.

I am no philosopher and I don't intend this train of thought to become 'heavy', but, as 'guerra' and I agreed (up-thread), reconciling the sheer magnitude of the barbarity attaching to 9/11 with deliberate subversion by the state itself is far from easy, even for those prepared to take a step back and consider the possibility. How much harder must it be therefore for those unprepared to do so.

Basically, Chomsky (and others) may simply be in denial, appending philosophical interpretation to something that is humongously real and humongously human into the bargain - not insofar as it has affected many thousands of us, one way or another, but because it was designed and perpetrated by relatively few, and for motives as old as Methuselah (I'd be inclined to put 'greed' somewhere near the top of the list myself).

Nevertheless, I stand by my argument that there is always risk inherent in authority figures over-stepping the interpretive mark, however innocently they may do so.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Martin @14.54,

I stand by my argument that there is always risk inherent in authority figures over-stepping the interpretive mark, however innocently they may do so.

I couldn't agree more, and Chomsky, I would argue, is particularly fond of the persona of "authority figure". It is a persona that has perhaps run ahead of the true merit of his position - even within his own field!

Kind regards,


Anonymous said...

Martin R. 21.1 @15:39

Thanks for your elaboration; a comprehensive viewpoint from my point of view.

A brain teaser, and to think I haven’t yet completed this week’s reading list which gets longer by the day. I’m busy contemplating (stolen from rtgr).

“Given his proven intellect (I'll reserve the word 'intelligence', which is rather more all-encompassing) he must have a motive for doing so.”

A thought to ponder.

Kind regards,


Martin Roberts said...

Maren @21:00

Hello there

I'm sorry if my earlier responses appeared somewhat sharp. Unfortunately you touched a 'raw nerve' you could not possibly have known existed.

The statement at 17:17, which you quote, was not intended to be facetious. I deliberately wanted to distinguish between Chomsky's academic prowess and 'intelligence' in general, which has broader connotations (there was a saying among psychologists a few decades ago that 'Intelligence is what Intelligence Tests measure' - a deliberately circular definition, because, like certain clinical conditions, they couldn't be absolutely sure what they were dealing with!).

Anyway, back to the topic in hand...

"he must have a motive for doing so” was my instinctive reaction to the puzzling situation (to me) of an academic claiming to espouse the scientific method while misrepresenting it in public and leading the audience toward his own unfounded conclusions. Who would do such a thing without good reason?

However, thanks to the observations here of Agnos, I have had time to reconsider Chomsky's position/motives. If you have not already done so, might I suggest you read my earlier response to him (Agnos) at 14:54.

When all's said and done I am neither philosopher nor 'shrink' and not therefore qualified (even if qualification comes into it) to evaluate Chomsky's behaviour, as a clinician might for instance. I can only venture an opinion, but, in this case at least, I have greater familiarity with his terms of reference than many in his chosen audience(s).

Kind Regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Martin, Maren,

If we weren't somewhat sharp on the subject of Chomsky, then something would be wrong! As you might have spotted, I too have a declared interest, unimportant in itself, but guaranteed to raise my hackles. When linking to Foucault etc, there are one or two names missing from those cited who are Chomsky's real targets and either he fails to grasp what they represent (very possible), or he deliberately misrepresents them. In lieu of the real debate, he sees only: aliens, extremists, frauds... etc.

I find it very difficult to say this succinctly. But those denunciations that Chomsky does make of the US (and yes, he does it well) are eminently "safe". They are also rather profitable. As I have read elsewhere: he sets the bar very low. I might also add that having established such a strong "brand" as Chomsky has become, it may be that he falls victim to his own creation. The "maverick" is occasionally discovered to be a conservative (albeit with a small "c") - perhaps informing his response to 911. At least in part.

I'm rambling!

Cheers to all,


Anonymous said...

Spellcheck...Agnos above.

Martin Roberts said...

Agnos(tic) @08:03

Many thanks for your knowledgeable arbitration. If only others could 'ramble' to such good effect.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

Greetings all

Ref. my 11:49 reply to Agnos above. I should have added 'present company excepted'.

Sorry. No offence meant.



Anonymous said...

Agnos 23 January 2016 at 08:03


Yours is the ultimate masterstroke.

Ramble on! (rtgr after Led Zeppelin)


What is mine is yours.

Thank you Maren, Himself, Martin and everyone else on this blog.

Thank you Agnos.



Anonymous said...

Himself @16:48
Martin R. @17:17

As regards Noam Chomsky, ‘bollocks’ translates as onzin (nonsense) or dwaasheid (folly), but 'He's talking bollocks.' is equivalent to Hij lult uit zijn nek. I can’t help it, I was born here.



Anonymous said...

Martin, rtgr,

You are both far too kind. For every person that might think "ramble on", I promise you there are dozens who have said "oh hell, don't get him started"!!

Cheers for now,


Himself said...

Noam Chomsky has been described as "arguably the most important intellectual alive". And as one of the world's most celebrated academics, he has published more than 100 books and is a leading critic on United States foreign policy.

In the first of a special two-part interview, Chomsky sits down with Mehdi Hasan to discuss the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group, Ukraine and Turkey.

25 min video which I ain't watched.

Anonymous said...


Thanks. I watched it! Mehdi Hasan was appalling, Chomsky appeared tired. I try to be fair to the guy, but when he presumes to have the "answer" to events in the Ukraine (I think that was his word - I'm not looking again!) my teeth begin to grind. It's all so easy, from a chair, in the US.

Insofar as he articulates anything that might be deemed as belonging to a US left (if there is such a thing) then that is fine by me. I'm not expecting the miracle of saints! But I can't find the substance to him that many clearly do; and that is quite apart from other "problems".

Ah well!

All the best,


Martin Roberts said...

Himself @17:01
Agnos @22:00

Chomsky twice refers to Saudi Arabia as America's ally in the Middle East, while holding them responsible for underwriting insurgence in the area.(?)

Also (at 7:43/4): “I don’t pay attention to what leaders of state say”.

He ought not to be overly surprised then, should others not pay any attention to what he himself says.

As for his hair-splitting separation of 'Imperialism' from overseas interference....come on Noam.

The age of flag planting on behalf of the mother country has long since passed (you no longer have to own the establishment in order to manage the casino). So, on whose behalf (and in whose interest) does he suppose a puppet government ultimately operates?

Yours unimpressed

Martin R.

Martin Roberts said...

Maren @14:43

Isn't human language endlessly fascinating? It gets a bit spooky though when one discovers that we have evolved uniquely as a 'speaking' primate, i.e. capable of phonation, although accomplished at some in principle risk of suffocation (don't talk and eat at the same time folks).

Thank you for the interesting translation(s). We were all born somewhere.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Martin @ 00.41,

Also (at 7:43/4): “I don’t pay attention to what leaders of state say”.

I can't thank you enough - I had missed that!

There we have it: real (and necessary) political discourse displaced by an academic "authority".

(Early morning!)


Martin Roberts said...

Agnos @07;15

D'you know, I thought that remark was quizzical as soon as I heard it, but without immediately appreciating quite why. Now I do. Thanks.

It's wholly consistent with the 'academic' approach to almost any problem, i.e. study it to death, solution pending. And yet, ironically, major breakthroughs in science, as well as other disciplines let it be said, have resulted as frequently from serendipity as intellectual rigor.

Years ago James Burke pursued a line of inquiry which he published as 'Connections', only to be criticised by the intelligentsia for implying a causal connection between unrelated events/developments, when in fact he did no such thing.

I too am intrigued by metaphorical relationships. Quite recently I watched a docu-drama concerning Richard III, and was left with a new found appreciation of chess!

I intuit that the game's early origins and longevity are each attributable to the manner in which it reflects human interaction across the board (i.e., by no means confined to 'war' situations), Richard III's 'game' with the Woodvilles being a fascinating case in point.

For all his 'authority' Noam Chomsky, like the rest of us, is a political observer, not a player. Even if he made it onto the board, it would be as a 'knight' at best (and at the outside), I imagine.

Political discourse cannot proceed without reference to those controlling the pieces, can it? Or does Chomsky wish to segregate what the player says from what he/she does? An approach of questionable merit it seems to me, without first defining the intended audience, since what we say is as much a part of the game as what we do.

Here endeth my 'ramble'. As far as Chomsky on 9/11 goes, I prefer my own, simplistic, 'count the planes' test.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Martin @12.00,

The metaphor of chess hits the mark. I think Noam would disdain to play at all. He spoke of the Ukraine as a region requiring an "answer" (his answer). The people of the region were mentioned as a condescending afterthought, and their state representatives are to be ignored altogether(?)

You're right, we'd best leave Chomsky - over 100 books and counting (Himself @23 January 2016 at 17:01).

Kind regards,


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 24 January 2016 at 12:00

It's wholly consistent with the 'academic' approach to almost any problem, i.e. study it to death, solution pending. And yet, ironically, major breakthroughs in science, as well as other disciplines let it be said, have resulted as frequently from serendipity as intellectual rigor.

Struck by unexpectedly meeting an old friend, I came across the question of discovery many a year ago, I stopped reading the rest of your post to post the instant message.

Would you also be prepared to consider that serendipity or something alike, in other words not ‘studying’, is always necessarily present at the point of departure of any investigation (à la Karl Popper)?

Thank you both Martin and dog.

Kind regards.


Back to your post.

Himself said...


I have just penned you a mighty reply that has seen fit to bugger orf into cyberspace. And I'm too ill to compose the thing again.

But I was discussing a totally unrelated subject with Martin and Chomsky reared his head again. First clip, Hugo Chavez addressing the UN.

What do you smell Polly? Sulphur Hugo, I smell sulphur. lol

Martin Roberts said...

rtgr @16:02

"Would you also be prepared to consider that serendipity or something alike, in other words not ‘studying’, is always necessarily present at the point of departure of any investigation (à la Karl Popper)?"

Perhaps insight rather more than serendipity per se.

I was thinking of chance events when I made my earlier comment, such as would include, for instance, the unexpected (re)discovery of a historical text or manuscript, or even a salient reference therein to something else of signficance. Otto Hahn's seemingly anomalous results (successfully interpreted by Lise Meitner) are classic examples of their kind.

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...


I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

2006 - Chavez quotes Chomsky:

"...the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated."

Well now! Whence the change Mr Chomsky: from Empire correctly defined as a system of domination, to the 2016 version of "flag planting" (Martin @00.41). Chomsky can hardly be regarded as naïve with respect to history.

I'm inclined to think that Mr Chomsky is somewhat less than serious. Talk about the penny finally dropping!

Himself, it sounds altogether too commonplace to say "take care of yourself", and I know that obligations don't always make that possible - but do!

Many thanks as always,


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 24 January 2016 at 16:57

Understood, though not necessarily agreed in principle, at least no yet. You seem to have wisely expanded the terms of reference which I welcome.

I have not ploughed through all the comments on this thread so far. I’ll sleep, likely more than once, on what you’ve said and comment in due course.

Contemplation rules the waves! But how? Or does it? (Both ?? are hypothetical in that I am not prompting you to reply)

Many thanks and kind regards to all (dogs included).


Himself said...


Thank you for your good wishes, they are not unappreciated.


Gunner Jacky said...

Thanks for the post. People who are really concerned regarding the safety and safeguard of their people must be ready to combat with any situation that can be in-front of them at any time of life. I mean, it is simply a thing of concern that the act of inhumanity and cowardliness gets so much popularity whether good or bad they do it to be known.
MA Gun License