Noam Chomsky on 9/11

There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.

Chomsky tells a willing audience the thermite paper by Harrit et al is worthless, and there’s “overwhelming” evidence Bush did not know about the attacks in advance. This is a similar position to that taken up by another respected critic, who regularly “speaks truth to power”, Robert Parry. Many find this approach persuasive and reality-based. Other find it cowardly or disturbing in its uncritical echoing of mainstream views.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Editor
Reader

Noam Chomsky is demonstrably full of shit and should no longer be considered a reliable, trustworthy source:
Noam Chomsky and The War on Straight Answers
https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/noam-chomsky-and-the-war-on-straight-answers/
If you want to know where the September 11th cover up currently stands:
28 Pages of Treason
http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/911-28-pages-of-treason/

Mr. Chris Gwynne
Reader
Mr. Chris Gwynne

Dr. Chomsky’s best work was to expose the excesses of American Imperialism and the media filters of Western society. However the seeds of betrayal were present with his views regarding the Bolshevik led revolution of 1917. That betrayal to truth and justice is now plain for all to see. At no point has he given practical suggestions to solve the social issues most people face today: such as forming an American Labour Party to represent wage and salary earners. This situation is not surprising to those educated in German philosophy, French socialism and English economy, that is, the Marxist doctrine,… Read more »

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

Chomsky is a pioneer of well-researched comment, and most of the people criticizing him here are simply not knowledgeable enough to appreciate that fact. They simply fill in the gulf between their knowledge and his by attributing to him all sorts of weird motivations for his public statements. That said, I have always found his reluctance to see the obvious – the conspiracy practice, rather than the “theory” – in the 9/11 catastrophe, astonishing. I would, however, say that this is easily explained by the notion of his having conceivably been intimidated into keeping his intelligent thoughts on that one… Read more »

deschutes
Reader
deschutes

Chomsky is hugely overrated. Stop blindly following this old geezer! Lazy lefties especially in the USA have this bad habit of just looking to see what Chomsky®™ thinks on a given issue, then just going along with it because ‘Chomsky®™ said so’. Fuck that shit! Think for yourself and do the work yourself and make your own conclusions. Chomsky’s wimpy put down that ‘only a tiny minority of engineers and architects question the official 9-11 narrative’ is pure stupidity and logical fallacy: in other words just go with the herd, right? Wrong. More recently Chomsky also revealed his stupidity publicly… Read more »

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

Good grief… We should be such hugely overrated old geezers…

Gregory De Wode
Reader
Gregory De Wode

Noam Chomsky is a gatekeeper. Charming gullible pseudo-intellectuals with his mumbling quips.
Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper:

Gregory De Wode
Reader
Gregory De Wode

I jest, but this is a serious matter. Noam Chomsky refuses to question 9/11, inspite of all the evidence exposing the official narrative as a lie, and ridicules those who do. He also is an avid supporter of the Federal Reserve. Please watch the video if you are interested.

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

For what it’s worth, I have had a chance to look at two videos of Mr Chomsky: the original posted in the blog; and the one by Marc entitled “Noam Chomsky discusses 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists”. Looking at those two videos in isolation, I cannot fault what he has to say in either one.

marc
Reader
marc

12 part series on Chomsky at American Herald Tribune:
http://ahtribune.com/opinion/1127-academic-freedom.html

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

You respond to none of the arguments presented in scientific commentary on the observed facts.
You simply repeatedly support this fraudster without even referring to his “who did 9/11 doesn’t matter” comment.
Now you are looking like a newly created Hasbara troll. a propagandist … with no real interest in the subject under debate other than to support government propaganda and diss critics of and exposers of the provably false narrative.
Pray for me, my arse. You probably don’t know what a prayer is, you sanctimonious poser.
You’re a fraud … like the creep you are continuing to determinedly support.

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

Luke 17:11-19

Secret Agent
Reader
Secret Agent

There is a reason that Chomsky is the only dissident that regularly appears on TV.
That being said, keeping Bush out of the loop was an important part of the plot.
It’s starting to look like it was Cheny what done it and the motive was the fear of peak oil and how America would control the global supply.
The shale oil thing changed this thinking, but arguably, peak oil will be back.

Arrby
Reader
aletho
Reader

Carbon fuels are far more abundant than the establishment authorities care to let on.
Shale oil is but one aspect. Methane hydrates are vast and the technology for development is just a matter of investment. There are not centuries but millennia of current energy use.
All of these resources have been well known to those in power.
Peak oil was a complete ruse. Another Chomskyesque diversion from Zionist wars.

Admin
Reader
Admin

Please stick to one issue at a time. This is about 9/11.

aletho
Reader

There has been an entire wing of diversion about 9/11 and GWOT that is premised on the false dictum of “peak oil” being the principal motive. Michael Rupert being the best known promoter.
There is no possibility of excluding this area from the conversation.

Admin
Reader
Admin

Fair enough, in refutation of a point, but don’t get dragged into a long discussion about Peak Oil that wanders off 9/11 altogether.

aletho
Reader

Arguably, Rupert and the “peak oil” fear mongers did more harm to the anti-intervention cause than Chomsky.
“Peak oil” theory actually provides a sort of existential cause for the aggressive use of military superiority. Global warming will be used in the same manner.
The issue is much larger than simply a distraction from wars for Israel.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Everything is just an excuse for the people who drive this stuff. If they weren’t attacking countries for oil, opium or whatever, they’d probably be doing it for dandelions.

aletho
Reader

Carbon fuels are somewhat more important to people living in industrialized economies, especially those who live in areas with life threatening climates.
Chomsky understands these vulnerabilities and he has rolled these fear-mongering memes into his analyses.
Fear is the best tool for control.

Greg Bacon
Reader

When Chomsky stated that it didn’t really matter who did 9/11, I stopped listening to his bilge.
Doesn’t matter? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Afghans. To the one million plus dead Iraqis. To the 100,000 or so dead Libyans and Syrians and Yemeni and Sudanese and if they get their way, Iran.
Doesn’t matter? Like hell.

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

Did Mr Chomsky say that it didn’t really matter who did 9/11? I don’t recall hearing him say that? Is that something he has said previously (elsewhere) or does he say that in the video directly above?

marc
Reader
marc

In one video interview Chomsky says “who cares?” in relation to 911.
In another (linked here) he disparages scientists by referring to their work as “factoids”.

Mr Chomsky is an expert in linguistics. He knows well what a word like “factoids” implies.

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

I am not here to criticise Mr Chomsky, nor am I a sycophant. It is my impression, however, that the pendulum regarding conspiracy theories (yes they do exist, yes they are real) may have swung too far. I feel that that is where he, ever the dry realist, is coming from here (a reversion to the mean): and that he is being genuinely pragmatic about it. That doesn’t mean he is right. But I don’t know that we should be realistically questioning his motives, above and beyond that of normal discourse. The problem is, as you no doubt know, that… Read more »

Seamus Padraig
Reader
Seamus Padraig

“It is my impression, however, that the pendulum regarding conspiracy theories (yes they do exist, yes they are real) may have swung too far. I feel that that is where he, ever the dry realist, is coming from here (a reversion to the mean): and that he is being genuinely pragmatic about it.” If this were indeed Chomsky’s actual point of view, I would be forced to dismiss all his work. This hoary old notion that ‘the truth is always somewhere in the middle’ is simply false. The truth can just as often be found far from the middle. This… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

I wasn’t relating quantum mechanics, merely a simplified explanation for his position. What you do with Chomsky’s point of view is your business. What I do with my own thoughts is mine, lazy or otherwise. Take them or leave them, but don’t denigrate them.

Jen
Reader
Jen

“I wasn’t relating quantum mechanics, merely a simplified explanation for his position. What you do with Chomsky’s point of view is your business. What I do with my own thoughts is mine, lazy or otherwise. Take them or leave them, but don’t denigrate them.” @ P Bobby: If you do not like your thoughts to be picked over and “denigrated” – or rather, exposed for what they are – then why bother to make comments here? The point of having a comments forum is to discuss ideas and opinions. All such ideas and opinions may contain good points and bad… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

It is possible to be full of faith and yet view holier-than-thou contributions like yours as posturing, irrelevant and an avoidance tactic for dealing with challenges to your deluded view of the material world.

Norman Pilon
Reader

In your reply to Seamus Padraig, you write:
“What I do with my own thoughts is mine, lazy or otherwise. Take them or leave them, but don’t denigrate them.”
That was the fillip for my comment, that and the observation that you appear to me to be overly sensitive to having you observations questioned by other commenters. Apparently, our remarks are “personal attacks.” I’m just trying to help you thicken your skin 🙂

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

He is of age. Let him speak for himself.

Norman Pilon
Reader

I never speak for anyone but myself although at times I will test what I think another has meant in writing something by putting into my own words and imputing the gist of that to the person I’m interpreting. Usually the person will come back either questioning my take on what they wrote or acknowledge, either explicitly or implicitly, that I “got it.”
By the tone of your remark, I note that you are beginning to get the “hang of” how things proceed around here.

Norman Pilon
Reader

@ P Bobby This is a public forum for debate. In other words, you have wondered into a jurisdiction where it’s open season on ideas all year ’round. Either ideas bear rational scrutiny or they don’t and in so far as people are able to judge and sometimes demonstrate, by pointing either to internal contradictions in the reasoning being foregrounded or to discrepancies between evidentiary claims and counterclaims. Sometimes, however, what is at issue is the moral content or ethical implications of assertions, and the debate veers sharply and acrimoniously into realms of contending values. Consequently, in a forum such… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

Many a (good) comment have I said unto you. For which of those is this in response?

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

At what point does lazy thinking begin to translate as venal dishonesty?
When the lives of millions hinge on the truth or falsehood of an assertion if you can’t be bothered to make the required effort to understand an issue, you should hold your silence.The deaths of a million+ Iraqis are not a trivial side issue, they are the direct consequence of 9/11 lies.

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

I know you not whence ye are:

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Kindly put. Not sure Chomsky deserves it.

marc
Reader
marc

P Bobby – i agree “we only have ourselves to blame” insofar as we line up behind iconic figures. On the other hand, Chomsky has written about ‘the responsibility of intellectuals” to speak the truth and to follow facts wherever they may lead. As an expert in the psychology and mechanics of language – with a desk at M.I.T – Chomsky could be expected to understand that his words hold sway. Some intellectuals and scientists perceive that Chomsky has not supported their quest to be responsible and to speak out. He has referred to researchers as “one hour on the… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

That’s true Marc, and he will be responsible to the creator for any of his iniquities — just as you will be for yours and I will be for mine. And we need to test every spirit, so to speak. The intellectual atheists of this world — both alive and dead — whether they be Mr Chomsky, Mr Hitchens, or Mr Hawkins for that matter (to name just a few) will have to pay a price for their iniquity, if indeed they lead people astray. That said, some atheists live purer lives than many self-proclaimed Christians. Humans, we tend to… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

First of all, Mr Chomsky’s is–albeit more learned than most–but one opinion. But more importantly, Mr Chomsky always demonstrates great clarity of thought. This is something to be admired, and if possible replicated, by others. That said, we have an obsession with idolising men when the only one we should be idolising is Elohym. Our mindset then, individually and collectively, is (in my opinion) all wrong. Everything’s a false flag. Everyone’s a shrill. Eh … No. Not everything and not everyone. People have opinions, right or wrong. Life is textured and complex and nuanced, and there are vagaries and subtleties.… Read more »

Jen
Reader
Jen

If as you say, Chomsky demonstrates great clarity of thought, then this clarity of thought should lead him at least to have an open mind on what brought down the World Trade Center towers and not simply trust in the opinion of the physics and engineering professors down the hallway at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For all he knows, these professors’ opinion may be as far from the truth of what really happened as the opinions of those he dismisses. Is he not aware that his fellow MIT academics could be subject to restrictions on what they can say… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

Having lost my father suddenly and traumatically, I can assure you that there is no disrespect to the families of victims in my comments (victims are victims, and the families suffer the anguish). Anyone reading into them as such does so at their own discretion. Furthermore, you appear to have read far too much, and gone off way too much on a tangent, into my rather inoffensive commentary. But if you have lost a loved one in the attacks, all I can say is that I wish you comfort and the Lord’s grace.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Seeing that you believe in “The Lord” (as do I also) you must know that ‘The Lord’ affirms all that is (i.e. what is true) and condemns Liars (who affirm falsehood) as being “of Satan”. 18th century genius, scientist, government minister, Emanuel Swedenborg claimed to have spend the final years of his life in a continual ‘near death’ experience, visiting the Heavenly and Hellish realms and writing many long books about his experiences. According to him, in Hell there are three kinds of spirits, the lowest kind “demons”, that delight in the harm they can do and the punishments they… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

Is it not written: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”? One aught to hold the doctrine of the Messiah above that of Mr Swedenborg.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

The Lord commands we do not judge souls and we cannot do this but the fact is we must use our God-given intelligence to discern between truth and falsehood and Chomsky is quite obviously one who trumpets minor crimes in order to defend the perpetrators of greater ones. To me, if not to you, this is obvious. You judge my spiritual take on things Bobby P and you defend your position by aligning your own prejudices by selective use of “God’s word”. Swedenborg had much to say about this kind of abuse of religion as well, by the way. You… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

I have prayed for you physicsandmathsrevision. Let’s just leave it at that.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Playing the holier-than-thou card is hitting below the belt. Very unChristian, surely?

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Can’t rebuff a prayer but are you sure you are not posturing to ‘win’ an argument during which you posted a laughably misplaced judgement about a man who appears to many of us to be rather wicked?
Or do you agree with chomsky that “who did 9/11 does not matter”?

Norman Pilon
Reader

No. Not everything is a false flag, and not everyone is a shill, and indeed, eh, life is textured and complex and nuanced. So why do you “reduce” all views deeming the crime of 9/11 an outrage to be prosecuted to the paranoid ravings of idiots, as if no other rational point of view on 9/11 were possible other than that sanctioned by the “genius” Chomsky? Oh yeah, there most certainly are elements of conspiracy to 9/11, and indeed, some do take the bone and run too far with it. Just read the comments, here, as well as appended to… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

My comments are not directed at any one individual here, but more broadly at the whole discourse on the matter. To take them personally, as it seems you have done, reflects more on you than it does on me. Nor do my comments detract from any conspiracy, merely an observers opinion — that I am free to post like any other — and that you are free to take or leave, but preferably without added inappropriate and most misdirected vitriol. Best wishes to you.

Norman Pilon
Reader

You misconstrue the manner in which I took your comment, and you, not I, are taking this exchange personally. The point of your original comment is that you suspect that people who take 9/11 to be a false flag have a rather simplistic outlook on how the world works, and I’m pointing out to you that if that’s what you suspect, then you yourself are guilty of a similarly simplistic outlook as it bears on the people you are characterizing. Yes, it’s always a bit uncomfortable when our ‘projections’ are pointed out to us. As faults belonging to others, we… Read more »

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

Sir, I do mean best wishes when I say it — that’s why I don’t add: “I mean that most sincerely” at the end of mine. Because I do.

Norman Pilon
Reader

Well, I add “I mean that most sincerely” when “I mean what I just said most sincerely.” Should I add that I meant everything that I just said “most sincerely,” or will you be triply offended?

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

I am not offended, Sir. You misconstrue. I simply point out that I say what I mean and mean what I say, that’s why I don’t need to add: “I mean that most sincerely” at the end of my best wishes.

Norman Pilon
Reader

Good. We are then at ease with each other.

P Bobby
Reader
P Bobby

I am at ease with all, Sir. Even still, you have personally attacked me thrice. And yet the cock will crow. But I am still at ease.

Norman Pilon
Reader

Many thanks for the giggle . . .

susannapanevin
Reader

Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin.

Boo Radley
Reader
Boo Radley

Until a couple of years ago I was a big fan of Chomsky, and still think he has given us a lot of valuable information. The importance of Chomsky with regards to 911 should not be underestimated. His view helps to reassure people of the left that they don’t need to look any further in 911 because he has, and doesn’t find any credible evidence. They respect him to the point where they are willing to overlook any doubts they had and go back to sleep. I have seen this many times with friends and acquaintances. My circle are very… Read more »

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

A fine comment. My own take on Chomsky and 911 is that he is afraid to support the truth, rather than enjoying hiding it. The US doesn’t treat truth-tellers at all well, and in moral turning points such as this, it is positively dangerous to be one of them. Look at Snowden, Assange and Manning… The truth has cost them dear, and I’m sure Chomsky would not like to give up his old-age benefits when he is most likely to need them either. If we’re smart – not even necessarily as smart as Chomsky – we will simply further develop… Read more »

mog
Reader
mog

The failure of Chomsky and the many other Left writers to respond meaningfully to this issue, leaves their work as basically little more than an exercise in ‘documenting imperialism’. Learning of all the countries that have been subverted, bombed and invaded over the decades is of little use when a Big Lie can be concocted, the nation scared witless, and war supported (even by some people on the Left). It matters not how rational the arguments to turn away from war in the aftermath of such events : they are by nature non-rational; they induce a hysterical reaction in society.… Read more »

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

There’s actually nothing very “left” about Chomsky.
A compassionate intellectual doesn’t have to be at all “left” in order to oppose rampant political wickedness and ignorance.
He has, however, clearly switched off his antennae regarding this particular matter.
It’s a pity, but I can understand his reluctance to sacrifice his livelihood.
After all, it takes superhuman courage willingly to annihilate a lifetime’s work.

mog
Reader
mog

Parry reflects upon his encounter with critical perspectives on 911: ‘Essentially, the discussion broke down this way: Some participants felt that Bush had demonstrated his arrogance and incompetence when he brushed aside warnings about a likely al-Qaeda attack. (This is the position that I personally feel is best supported by the available evidence). A second group, however, took the same evidentiary frame and gave it a nasty twist, that Bush knew the attack was coming and “let it happen.” (Though I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to support this conclusion, this analysis at least has the benefit of some… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Reader

Yes: evidence. “All” of it, taken together.

mog
Reader
mog

The Neocon who directed the official investigation that Parry effectively endorses:

Why have Chomsky and others not made more of this glaring and egregious conflict of interest? Why not join the calls for an independent inquiry?

aletho
Reader

Although Parry’s position is unsupportable, Chomsky’s attacks on skepticism are far more strident and obnoxious.

mog
Reader
mog

Chomsky’s comments certainly have a bigger resonance throughout Left discourses. It is rife though, not just in the sense of silent acquiescence (e.g. Medialens, Pilger, Hedges), but in the repeated amplification of the ‘conspiracy theory’ meme by commenters who are normally careful in their critical stance. E.g. Aaron Bastani, in giving his opinion of Tom Watson’s ridiculous Trotskyist entryism allegations, compared his irrational ‘conspiracy theorizing’ to ‘911 truthers’. For someone who has made several recent vidz about mental health issues and the stigma attached, it is instructive to see how compelling the invocation of the Conspiracy Theory concept is (basically… Read more »

Arrby
Reader

“Chomsky’s comments certainly have a bigger resonance throughout Left discourses.” How many of those here who are bashing Chomsky over 9/11 are leftwing? His small book on the subject (which leftwingers would have read), by the way, is very good.
Noam Chomsky’s “9/11 – Was There An Alternative?” – http://bit.ly/2cQPM3Q
I’m all for the facts rather than only those that hero-worshippers prefer. But it’s hard to focus on those when they are accompanied by such vitriol against someone who knows a thing or two.

Bryan Hemming
Reader

Of course, Chomsky is entitled to his opinion like anyone else, but he should base that opinion on evidence, just as he expects others to do. As he admits he is not an expert on civil engineering, it seems rather hypocritical to dismiss the joint opinion of over 2,000 renowned archtects and engineers out of hand. If he won’t accept their shared opinion, based as it is on years of discussion and careful research into the available evidence, would he accept the opinion of 2,000 fellow philosophers on 9/11, if they all reached the same conclusion without reviewing the evidence?… Read more »

marc
Reader
marc

apologies – posted twice in error. Please delete one of my two posts. Thx.

marc
Reader
marc

here’s a series of thought-provoking articles on Chomsky and 911, which some might find interesting: “A Public Challenge to Noam Chomsky” https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/a-public-challenge-to-professor-noam-chomsky/ “Sacred Cows” https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/toxic-beef-sacred-cows-left-gatekeepers/ “Fact-free Luminaries: Chomsky’s chumpskies” https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/fact-free-luminaries-chomskys-chumpskies/ — here’s a section from the latter article: […] “I mean it doesn’t have any significance.” That was Chomsky’s answer to evidence of criminal complicity by US officials in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen in the first place. No “significance” is the Professor’s final word … This ridiculous bunk, the idea that 9/11 is allegedly insignificant, fails the laugh test. “The Chomskyite attempts to use a straw man argument,… Read more »

Ffidel Bennett
Reader
Ffidel Bennett

Chomsky’s attitude to the questioner in the clip is very condescending considering there is so much about 9/11 that he can’t explain or doesn’t even want to investigate. He seems irritated to have even been asked. Is this what they mean by cognitive dissonance? Would proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy by rogue elements of the establishment cause that much of upheaval in his world view that he cannot even contemplate it? Rather than accept that Chomsky’s thinking has become so muddled and cowardly, I’d prefer to believe that the security services have found something in his e-mails to blackmail… Read more »

Chris Foot
Reader
Chris Foot

I remember an article some years ago in Counterpunch in which the author, a musician whose name I can’t remember, was on stage giving a concert for which some 800 people had paid. Half way through the evening a man with a banner proclaiming “911 truth” ran the length of the auditorium repeatedly screaming at the singer to “Get with the 911 Truth” and ruined the evening for everyone. I have followed 911 truth and regard myself as being part of the movement, since about 2003 but I am not on that man’s side. Why are we determined to have… Read more »

marc
Reader
marc

Chris Foot, the difference is that – unlike Hedges, Pilger et al – Chomsky has actively discouraged his legions of followers from taking the 911 researchers seriously. In numerous taped events he has spoken in condescending tones about 911 researchers (many of them well qualified scientists and engineers). If he’d remained neutral (like Pilger, Parenti) it would have been better: but he asserted himself in comments. It appears that many on the left are intellectually and emotionally attached to Chomsky and when he bundles a certain topic aside and indicates it’s not acceptable in progressive discourse, a lot of people… Read more »

mog
Reader
mog

Not wanting to divert the discussion too far, but Chomsky and others on the Left have a history of dismissing allegations/ suspicions of US deep state crimes. The most documented case of this is the JFK murder.
Anyone familiar with the JFK story in any detail must consider what role well known Left dissident writers played (and continue to play) in supporting the thoroughly discredited lone gunman story.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19728

Arrby
Reader

Just out of curiousity (apologies for getting off topic), Do you believe JFK was a good man?

aletho
Reader

Whether or not JFK “was a good man” has no bearing on the issue.
Your question is invalid.

Arrby
Reader

You sound like a Dalek. JFK, for those who worship him: http://bit.ly/1mTMIF2

michaelk
Reader
michaelk

Come to think of it… the hijackers couldn’t have known or assumed that the Twin Towers would collapse in such a dramatic and historically unique fashion when they hatched their plot. Their action was going to strike a blow against these huge symbols of US power, damage the buildings, cause substantial damage and loss of life; but never bring them crashing down totally destroyed. That result was an extraordinary and grotesque bonus they couldn’t have even imagined. If one accepts the official premise that a gang of Saudis did it. Bizarrely, paradoxically, the fact that the towers would have, (under… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Reader

The problem, for me, with Chomsky’s commentary in this video is that he admits to not having the necessary expertise to speak to the forensic evidence that anyone might claim to have uncovered about 9/11, but nevertheless leaves his audience with the impression that he has delved sufficiently in depth and in detail into the claims of what he characterizes as a tiny cohort of engineers and architects — 2000 of them — to be able to offhandedly and confidently dismiss the efforts of the lot, save for that of one or two, as not serious, that is to say,… Read more »

mog
Reader
mog

Just re-read James Douglas’ book ‘JFK and The Unspeakable’.
I reflect upon Chomsky’s position on the subject, and cannot really accept that he is not being deeply disingenuous. I wouldn’t want to speculate why.
This article about Chomsky’s responses to the JFK evidence might be of interest to some here:
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/RMappVIII.html#AB-5Profs