There's some most interesting YouTube resources from Canadian Journalist Barry Zwicker on the net.

He challenges left gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky whom he had previously respected to take a stance against the cover-up of evidence of US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Incredibly Chomsky, previously a harsh critic of US foreign policy stated on a YouTube broadcast at http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM “it doesn’t have any significance” if it was indeed the Bush administration that planned the 9/11 attacks.

Barry Zwicker had previously been a great admirer of Chomsky and a proponent of his ideas. In a YouTube broadcast at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU he describes the confusion that Chomsky's denial of the evidence of a cover-up had caused himself. He considers the role of people like Chomsky to have been very harmful to democracy in North America.

Interestingly, in correspondence with Kim Bax an Australian supporter of the 9/11 truth movement, Phillip Adams used Chomsky's authority to justify his view that the views of the 9/11 Truth movement were 'utter nonsense', 'bul**i*t' and 'nuts'. (See
http://www.kimspages.org/phillipadams.htm)

It would be interesting to know if Phillip Adams agrees with Chomsky's view if that what they were to accept as incontrovertible proof of the US Government's complicity in these attacks were to emerge, that it would be of "no consequence". (Indeed I have e-mailed Phillip Adams to put that very question to him.)

Does anyone else here happen to agree with Chomsky that it is of no consequence whether of not the Bush administration was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

I suspect that an examination of the role played by such left gate-keepers might go some way towards explaining why those in this country demanding a proper investigation of the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.911oz.com) have, at least up until now, been marginalised. (See also "Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational" of 6 May 05 by Jack Straw at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html

James, since it was you who wrote

<< (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>

surely it is relevant to the thread you started. Also, you implied that you'd explain how this strange turn of events came to pass. I hypothesised that the CIA had hacked your "cacofonix" sock puppet account, so that would be relevant to a thread that attempts to implicate that agency in the 9/11 terrorist attack if it was true, wouldn't it?

Personally, I'm with Phillip Adams in his characterisation of the 9/11 Truth nutters. That page of Kim Bax's is very revealing of the degree of obsession that some poor fools suffer in relation to this frootloop conspiracy theory. I'm sure Adams is used to receiving unsolicited emails from any number of nutbags, and his response to Kim Bax seems pretty mild to me.

As for Chomsky, I have no intention wasting bandwidth to watch a YouTube video in order to validate your crackpot ideas. Give it a rest - get help.

9/11 'truth' is like the "Oklahoma City Bombing truth" nutters....

No matter how much fact is placed before them..they can still become polemical Lazarus's and rise up again sprouting the same rubbish.

OKLAHOMA claims "Because the explosion was not symetrical extra explosive MUST have been used on some structural pylons"
Even a General, a defense expert on ordinance was adamant that it HAD to be extra explosives.

OKLAHOMA TRUTH.. Tests were conducted to simulate the force of the truck bomb and analyse the way the structure collapsed.
Long story short, independant laboratories completely vindicated the official version...and showed what a pack of loonies these so called truth seekers are.

Now..that's the point where Polemical Lazarus get's another life and they start whispering about "Men in black who intimidate the indepenant labs" :)

Bottom line..if u want to believe something.. forget about the facts, you want consider them anyway.

Have fun :)

CJ Moron wrote, "I hypothesised that the CIA had hacked your "cacofonix" sock puppet account, so that would be relevant to a thread that attempts to implicate that agency in the 9/11 terrorist attack if it was true, wouldn't it?"

Yes, CJ Moron, if it was true that the CIA had hacked my "'cacofonix' sock puppet account" then I guess that it would be relevant, however that is not what happened, so it is not relevant.

James Sinnamon: << if it was true that the CIA had hacked my "'cacofonix' sock puppet account" then I guess that it would be relevant, however that is not what happened, so it is not relevant >>

They didn't organise the 9/11 attacks either, but that doesn't you from babbling on about it.

So if it wasn't the CIA who took over your sock puppet, who was it? You seem pretty definite that it wasn't the CIA.

Can you prove this?

CJ Moron wrote, "So if it wasn't the CIA who took over your sock puppet, who was it?"

If it wasn't the CIA, then (I ask again) what relevance does it have to the topic at hand?

CJ Moron wrote, "They didn't organise the 9/11 attacks either, ..."

CJ Moron, do you also happen to believe that the CIA didn't organise coups in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, Zaire, Indonesia, Chile and hadn't interfered in most other countries across the globe, including Australia?

Anyway, If you had been paying attention, you would know that I hadn't named the CIA, because I don't pretend to know for certain which US Government agencies were responsible.

(Funny how CJ Moron demands answers of everyone else, no matter how irrelevant to the topic at hand his questions are, but adamantly refuses to answer questions put to him by others.)

CJ Moron continued, "... but that doesn't you from babbling on about it."

Well, I thought it was our right to "babble" on an OLO forum about whatever we chose to "babble" about that is relevant to the topic at hand.

It would appear that CJ Moron has, from the outset, decided that we don't have that right and that he is entitled to do whatever it takes to prevent others from holding that discussion.

It would seem that CJM would allow us to discuss ib these forums, are CJM's judgements of anyone who disagrees with him as being "patholog(ical)," "paranoid", "frootloops", etc.

CJ Moron wrote "... I have no intention wasting bandwidth to watch a YouTube video ..."

Why am I not surprised?

It's plain to everyone here that CJM has not bothered to view any of the evidence, written or video, made available by the 9/11 Truth movement.