Analysis of the sophistry of Noam Chomsky on 9/11

By Petra Liverani

384954_noam-chomsky-fetzer
Gatekeeping is the term used to describe the process of deciding which information will go forward and which will not. It is to be expected that the mass media/corporate/government triumvirate are strict and vigilant gatekeepers but what is puzzling, to me at least, is that certain progressive intellectuals, who are generally very critical of that triumvirate and who are regarded as important voices in keeping its members to account, also practise gatekeeping but only on a few, though vitally important, issues.
A case in point is the truth about 9/11. The crimes of 9/11 involved a massive conspiracy, planned many years in advance, which have had severe and worsening repercussions; many of us despair and feel quite helpless about what can be done about the spreading of war and terror throughout the globe. However, there is one relatively straightforward action that can be taken, if only the gatekeepers will allow it:

“When the big lie regarding the 9/11 attacks is exposed and understood, the legitimacy of America’s military agenda falls like a house of cards.”
Michel Chossudovsky

One of the most prominent gatekeepers of 9/11 truth is Noam Chomsky. In this article I will analyse two videos of Chomsky speaking about 9/11. What can be observed is that Chomsky consistently avoids discussing hard evidence, exempting himself with the spurious claim that he has insufficient technical expertise to make a judgement, and takes refuge in fallacious argument which falls into two categories: strawman (arguing against a misstated or invented argument from the other side) and argumentum ad speculum (arguing an hypothesis after the fact which may well be contrary to the facts but, in any case, avoids dealing with the actual facts). At core, Chomsky is being dishonest.

Video 1 – “Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic”


The video begins with a time-wasting two-minute strawman piece stating that the fact that the US government benefited from 9/11 doesn’t prove they did it. No one has made such an absurd claim as, by definition, a motive alone cannot prove guilt although, of course, a motive is very handy as a support to concrete evidence.
Chomsky then goes on to say he thinks that it would be extremely unlikely that they would plan such an operation as it’s certain that it would be leaked. The theory of plan leakage seems reasonable but does it stand up? The Manhattan Project involved a vast number of people but it was not leaked. Regardless, it’s a theory. In any case, however, there was obvious foreknowledge: Able Danger, Pentagon, collapse of WTC-7 and insider trading. No one has gone to gaol or even been charged over the implications of this foreknowledge – so far.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank active from 1997 to 2006. Its 25 members included Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Their document Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000) states that the transformation of American armed forces through “new technologies and operational concepts” was likely to be a long one “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour.”
Paul Wolfowitz was a student of the highly-influential Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. A fellow student, Stanley Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated ‘Pearl Harbor-like incident’ as justification. He further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents ‘like September 11th’ and ‘flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s’. See http://911hardfacts.weebly.com/iv-background-and-motive.html. This information does not prove there was a plan but it indicates that one might have been formulated.
His next hypothesis is that they wouldn’t do it because they couldn’t predict that the planes would hit the World Trade Centre. So the US government wouldn’t do it because they couldn’t be certain that the planes would hit the buildings but al-Qaeda took a wild punt with their barely-trained suicide hijackers to not only pull off the astounding stunt of hitting the buildings right on target but to first overcome the seemingly insurmountable hurdle of navigating the most restricted airspace in the world without being molested by a single fighter-interceptor? While Chomsky claims he does not have the technical expertise to have an opinion on how the buildings fell he is confident in his knowledge that the US government would not have had high-tech remote control capability or some other technology to be certain in pulling off the operation. But how does he deal with the surely much more implausible corollary that al-Qaeda was in such possession? He needs to do a little research.
According to this video, 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!, by Jeremy Rys (who may have been trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for fitting the most information into 43 minutes), at least one company within the very towers that were hit, possessed remote-control technology that one could easily believe capable of making certain that a plane could reliably hit not just a tower but specific floors within it. Planes into the towers (or the appearance of it) was the gleaming jewel in the conspiracy.
I will agree that in this case we can only speculate about what exactly happened. There are many different theories which, of course, suits the purposes of perpetrators. The video footage of the second plane seems to show it melting into the building which would defy natural laws. Is it almost-live video compositing? Is it a bomb exploding simultaneously creating a hole for the plane to slip in? Who knows? It was monstrously clever but we don’t need to explain the whole operation, just point out the anomalies that prove it couldn’t be as the official story states.
He next makes the unforgivably false statement, “Anyone who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount the [supposed] evidence [presented by those who reject the official story].” This statement insults members of professional groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A&E911Truth), Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth and other thinking people in the 9/11 truth movement. He does not specify the evidence he alludes to but, rather bizarrely, refutes this unspecified evidence with the argument that, in life, there are plenty of coincidences that can’t be explained. There is only one word for this: nonsense.
He admits that he’s out on his own within those on the left, some of whom have come up with “all kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories.” He applies the tawdry epithet “conspiracy theories”, popularised by the CIA around the time of the JFK assassination to discredit those who had a problem with the ballistic anomalies in the “lone gunman theory”, and then to add insult to injury collocates it with good old “elaborate”. Professor Chomsky, shame on you!
But what “elaborate conspiracy theories” is he referring to? He doesn’t say. So let’s take a look at an “elaborate theory” the truth movement has come up with and contrast it with the “straightforward explanation” of the defenders of the official story.
WTC-7 was a building in the World Trade Centre, not hit by a plane but by the debris from the collapse of the twin towers, that collapsed in 6.5 seconds. That over two seconds of its fall was at free fall acceleration is, to use a favourite word of Chomsky, non-controversial, that is, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency who produced a draft and a final report on WTC-7’s collapse agree with A&E911Truth on this point. This is momentous. When something is falling at free fall acceleration it means that there is nothing resisting its fall underneath – surely, this is not too technical for Chomsky? I, myself, have little understanding of physics but this is self-evident. The most likely explanation for a building falling without resistance is that explosives have removed what is underneath. Additionally, the manner in which WTC-7 came down was exactly that of a classic controlled demolition. On speaking about WTC-7, the evolutionary theorist, Lynn Margulis, stated that scientific method demands that you investigate the most obvious hypothesis first.
It wasn’t until 2005 that NIST produced a draft report on the collapse of WTC-7 followed in 2008 by the final report. Despite the very strong evidence of controlled demolition both reports ignored this hypothesis and no results of tests of dust for explosive material were included. In the draft report, NIST claimed the cause was diesel fires, structural damage and fire while in the final report it claimed it was only fires (see http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#WTC71). Bear in mind that before and since 9/11 no other steel-frame high-rise building has fallen due to fires. What is your conclusion about which side of the argument is responsible for the “elaborate theory” and which side for the “straightforward explanation”?
His final pronouncement is “Who cares?” If it’s a question that makes you wonder, watch this poignant five-minute film, The REAL cost of the war on terror.

Video 2 – “Noam Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories”


In this video Chomsky responds to a question asking how he can maintain his belief in the correctness of the 9/11 Commission Report when a peer-reviewed article in the online journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, indicates that nanothermite was found at the World Trade Centre and that nearly 1,000 architects and engineers have agreed on the controlled demolition hypothesis.
He begins by stating that the architects and engineers are “unknown people” and comments on the smallness of their number. He then states that he does not have the technical expertise to make a comment on nanothermite, that it would be a waste of his time to acquire the expertise and that “these people” should endeavour to get their work published, as others (such as those who believe in intelligent design) do, in scientific journals. He speaks as though scientific journals occupy some sacred world, independent of politics, where any earnest researcher will be published purely on the merit of their work. This is highly disingenuous. Everyone knows that getting papers on controversial topics published is not a simple matter. Happily, notwithstanding the hurdle of gatekeeping politics, A&E9/11Truth did get another paper published last month in Europhysics News, 15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses.
Then he falls back on his trusty argumentum ad speculum although he claims virtual factual status for his hypothesis believing it to be so certain. He said that’s it’s not controversial that the attacks were attributed to Saudis so it follows that if it had actually been the Bush administration who had done it they obviously would have attributed it to Iraqis because they wanted to invade Iraq. He goes on to describe how easy it would have made it for them to invade Iraq if the perpetrators had been Iraqis and how the administration would have avoided ridicule for its made-up WMD pretext.
Perhaps Chomsky is getting his invasion-triggers a little mixed up. The US wanted to invade not only Iraq. On 7 October, not quite four weeks after 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan on the basis that Afghanistan refused to give up Osama Bin Laden who they claimed Afghanistan was harbouring. Afghanistan had not said they would not give him up but first asked for proof Osama Bin Laden was, in fact, behind the 9/11 attacks, which the US, unsurprisingly, did not provide. You cannot get a more contrived reason to invade a country than that. And how was it that the US was all set to militarise in a country far away so soon after 9/11?
One pretext, at least, for going to war with Iraq was supposed to be the anthrax attacks which went from mid-September to early October 2001. However, that pretext collapsed because while initially Iraq was mooted as the source of the anthrax sent in crudely-worded letters, it became apparent that the source of the highly-sophisticated aerosolised and weaponised anthrax had to be a US military laboratory. No matter. The Bush administration happened to find that there was an Iraq / al-Qaeda connection. Wouldn’t you know it?
Apart from providing an excuse to invade Afghanistan, there were good reasons for blaming the Saudi terrorists. For one thing, they seemed to have had some kind of involvement, after all, there is evidence that al-Qaeda is, in fact, a CIA intelligence asset. The alleged hijackers were real people whose background indicated links to terrorist groups and they also received some pilot training on US soil, however token. The alleged hijackers could not just be completely made up people.
I don’t think embarrassment was a major concern of the Bush administration. If we were to assume that the official story is true, they seemed to suffer no embarrassment whatsoever at their half-trillion dollar defense system being unable to foil a band of terrorists or as Ronald D. Ray, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel, has described it, “the dog that doesn’t hunt.”
But what about the plausibility of the official story? Let’s try an argumentum ad speculum from the other side.
If terrorists had hijacked a plane to fly it into the Pentagon why would they have chosen Wedge One on the opposite side of the building to the top brass? Flying into Wedge One required a 330 degree extremely skilful turn whereas flying into the roof would have been much easier, much more catastrophic and, when you consider the flying skills of Hani Hanjour, a much safer bet. Or, even better, why not target the top brass themselves? The top brass seemed remarkably unfazed when the Pentagon was struck and we see Donald Rumsfeld assisting in carrying in the wounded. Is that what a person in his position should be doing at such a time? Funnily enough, there’s a very good reason that elements within the government would haved wanted Wedge One targeted. The day before, on 10th September, Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget. Wedge One was where analysts from the Office of Naval Intelligence were about to start work tracking the missing money.
Let’s go back to Chomsky’s statement about being alone on the left among all the wacky conspiracy theorists. Who are these people and how can they, without being chemists or structural engineers, nevertheless feel entitled to go beyond hypotheses and make authoritative judgements about the events of 9/11 being at odds with the official story? There’s the renowned economist, Michel Chossudovsky, adviser to the UN and developing countries, whose book, The Globalisation of Poverty and the New World Order, Chomsky appraises thus: “Michel Chossudovsky’s valuable study addresses some of the most important issues of the current era.” So that gets his tick of approval but what would Chomsky make of another of Chossudovsky’s books, War and Globalisation: The Truth Behind September 11? Perhaps he considers it a work of fiction.
There’s also Professor of Philosophy of Theology and Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, whose work on 9/11 truth garnered him a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2008 and 2009. He has written or co-written an impressive number of highly-praised books about 9/11 covering a range of areas, including: inconsistencies, contradictions and coverup in the official story, debunking of the debunkers, omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, WTC-7 and others. His latest book, to be released in December is Bush & Cheney: How they ruined America and the World. While the first two parts discuss various ways in which 9/11 has ruined America and the world, the third part discusses a question that is generally avoided: Were the Bush-Cheney attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq really at the root of the ruination of America and the world in general, or did the original sin lie in 9/11 itself?
Another incorrigible conspiracist is Graeme MacQueen, Professor of Religious Studies, founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University, and author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. In this book, MacQueen examines the clear evidence showing that the anthrax used in the attacks just after 9/11, which the authorities initially suggested was probably from Iraq, was, in fact, a special strain of weaponised anthrax that could only have come from within the US and that the perpetrators of the attacks must be linked to the perpetrators of 9/11. MacQueen also collated a significant number of eyewitness testimonials of people in and around the World Trade Centre buildings on the morning of 9/11 who reported feeling, seeing and hearing explosions and explosives.
Getting the truth out about 9/11 beyond the internet is such hard work when you not only have the official gatekeepers but the leftist progressives to get past as well. I hope they start to get it soon.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nixak
Reader
Nixak

Noam Chomsky is an intellectual icon of the ‘left’, as such his opinions carry much weight w the ‘left’. And no doubt Chomsky’s quite knowledgeable re US politics & geopolitics; otherwise few would want to even know his opinion re matters like the ‘JFK Hit’ & the 9-11 ‘New Pearl Harbor’ Event. IMO Chomsky began to ‘show his hand’ / “show a ‘tell’ ” so to speak circa 1992-93 w the release of Oliver Stone’s classic movie ‘JFK’. Chomsky responded by writing his ‘Rethinking Camelot’ which attempted to negate ‘JFK’s’ premise [from a so-called ‘left’ perspective] of motive for JFK’s… Read more »

Marc Michelsen
Reader
Marc Michelsen

Great article. Chomsky’s position seems too ridiculous for someone with his knowledge. I can’t help but wonder if he has been blackmailed by the deep state/CIA or something.

Eddie
Reader
Eddie

Chomsky’s outlived his usefulness, that is all there is to it. He needs to get with the program and open his eyes. Like someone(s) suggest he’s more worried about his reputation than speaking the truth.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Reader
Sorry, Not Buying It

Much more important than Chomsky’s sophistry on these things is that he offers no concrete suggestions or analysis about how to overthrow capitalism. On this, he waffles incessantly and is the zenith of a bullshitter. He is fixated on non-violent struggle and “universal principles” (apparently winning concrete political power for the masses isn’t one of these principles. He prefers that the working class “work within the system” that exploits them to “see what it can deliver”. When that delivers the monstrous duality of a Clinton-Trump, he falls back on worshiping movements that are leaderless, have only a veneer of concrete… Read more »

Tony
Reader
Tony

Looking for conspiracies through any lense is the inforwars/alex jones crowd that also stakes a claim in the 9/11 false flag. Maybe Chomsky’s gatekeeping is a reaction against them. Even if so, it’s disingenuous of him to relegate a science-based scrutiny that’s obviously due.

flaxgirl
Reader

You don’t actually need science as even the scientists themselves say. WTC-7 obviously came down by controlled demolition and as Graeme MacQueen has said, there’s no room in the official story for controlled demolition. To prove it all you need to do is look at a video of the WTC-7 collapse and then try to describe its fall using the fire hypothesis. It can’t be done whereas if you use the controlled demolition hypothesis it’s very easy. https://www.quora.com/Using-videos-only-and-with-reference-to-the-cause-can-you-describe-in-your-own-words-the-process-of-collapse-of-WTC-7/answer/Petra-Liverani They don’t call their operations psyops for nothing. What I’ve realised is that the truth is actually right out there in plain… Read more »

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

Well Offguarders..the esoterica that was once strictly for blackbelt freemasons and the superannuants of the holy roman empire that still cruise the cloisters of the vatican looking for children to bless, are now in the public domain. A bit slow on the uptake though when you consider that Jane Standly of the BBC tumbled me as a conspiracy theorist a good twenty minutes before I stooped to conspire. Still..ever the contrarian, I decided to consult Americas’, and possibly the worlds’ most revered leftie dissident, Noam Chomsky. Noam was giving one of his dissertations of the bleeding obvious at the time… Read more »

rpsabq2014rpsabq
Reader

Ah, Noam. Yes he’s so smart isn’t he? People like him revel at being “the one” to go to “hear the truth” about the world. He’s on all the news shows on a regular basis. Treated like royalty at MIT and even gets to stand up at the United Nations to share his infinite wisdom. He’s obviously fearful of sacrificing that level of clout and prestige. As a result, every time he speaks there seems to be this elephant in the room and since most of his current topics can all be traced to or are as a result of… Read more »

furiousmat
Reader
furiousmat

“He’s on all the news shows on a regular basis.”
lol. Is he? I’d love you to spend a few minutes demonstrating what a wide media exposure Chomsky has.

Interesting Things
Reader
Quinnjin Williams
Reader

Rt and demo now. Hardly mainstream.

DP
Reader
DP

I really agree with your comment. However, I think it has more to do with his ego/arrogance as a scholar. If he is not the instigator, if he is not “the one” as you say, then it does not count. His main argument regarding 9/11 is that he cannot scientifically verify all the claims (free falling buildings and so on) by himself. Therefore, it is just not receivable. During a lecture, someone brought to his knowledge that a thousand engineers and qualified professionals of the same sort had contested the official version on the base of scientific endeavors. “I cannot… Read more »

flaxgirl
Reader

This is pointed out in the article.

DP
Reader
DP

Thanks for the comment, you actually made me read the article (I had gone straight to the videos and comments!) It is really solid and it had to be read. Apologies to the author, I normally do the reading! Made me rethink my position regarding Chomsky, it is worst than I thought!

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

The twelve tribes are, what the twelve tribes do..pity.

rpsabq2014rpsabq
Reader

agreed.

Benny
Reader
Benny

The problem many people have (understandably) is they just can’t accept how stupid our leaders really are. That’s why they find it unbelievable that a bunch of Saudi Muslim terrorists could fly planes into the WTC. Lax security allowed them to do it. Now the pendulum has swung ridiculously the other way, with citizens being spied on, arrested, shot, for nothing. The US govt. has massively overreacted in an authoritarian manner, which causes people to think they were behind the attack – but that’s not necessarily the case. The govt. just thinks that if they can see what everyone is… Read more »

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT……..no planes?…..or no $%&##@ brains.?

Greg Rzesniowiecki
Reader

Disassociation is the key observation, the buildings were pulverised in mid air. US Geological Survey chart for elements found in the WTC dust throughout New York. Note the samples were taken a few days later so the super radioactive components were breaking down in their half-lives: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/ Have a look at the chart in the link. Rare toxic elements; Barium, Strontium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium including radioactive isotopes. Disassociation would not have recombined the spheroids in the WTC dust with a mixture of elements. None of the zillion health impact reports on Responders or ground zero workers investigates the level… Read more »

flaxgirl
Reader

Benny, no, it couldn’t be that the twin towers were hit by suicide terrorists. If you have a single statement about the so-called terrorists’ participation in the day’s events on 9/11 that stands up to scrutiny I’d be curious to read it.

Benny
Reader
Benny

Well, there’s footage of some of them walking through the airport (Mohammed Atta was one, IIRC), there’s evidence a few of them had flying lessons, and suicide is a frequent option for the modern terrorist.
Occam’s Razor can be usefully employed here. What’s more likely – that the US government devised an extremely risky plot to crash airliners into the WTC and no one who knew about the plot has ever come foward, OR Muslim terrorists hijacked some airliners and flew them into the WTC?
Let’s face it, it’s probably the second one.

Quinnjin Williams
Reader

Occams razor. Did 3 buildings collapse in the manner of a controlled demo from fire and structural damage alone for the forst time in history or was it just a controlled demo. Obviously the latter is more likely. Proceed from their. Did middle eastern terrorists who could barely fly sesnas succesfully get training in the US and then hijack planes and perform incredible actobatic feats and not get brought down on the most heavily defended air space on earth or was their path cleared. Was it just a coincidence tha allof this perfectly dove tailed with neocon administration who had… Read more »

flaxgirl
Reader

Benny, you gotta do better than that. That CCTV footage is not for the plane from Boston to NY, it’s the footage from Portland to Boston – the earlier plane Atta took (in fact, some even claim that is not real). And the question is why is there no footage?? A few flying lessons. Exactly! Not enough flying lessons to fly an airliner in a 330 degrees arc to come level with the ground and penetrate Wedge One of the Pentagon as Hani Hanjour was supposed to have done. It seems he was the weakest “pilot” of them all. Occam’s… Read more »

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

Or anything consistent with nano-thermite bringing the building down. . .Go back and look and believe your eyes this time.. look to the disassociation constant,,,and the Hutchison effect….its real.

flaxgirl
Reader

I mean in the manner typical of a classic controlled demolition.

Benny
Reader
Benny

A few lessons might have been all that was needed. It’s probably like a PC flight simulator. Wherever the plane hit the Pentagon, someone would say “why didn’t they hit such and such a bit, where X was?”. O.R. says whatever is the simplest answer is the most likely (see prev. comment). As far as it ‘looking like’ controlled demolition, well how do skyscrapers hit by airliners normally come down? There’s no other case of it happening. It may indeed look like controlled demolition, or it may be exactly what happens when jumbo jets are flown into very tall buildings.… Read more »

flaxgirl
Reader

WTC-7 was not hit by an airliner – WTC-1 and WTC-2 were the twin towers. When a classic controlled demolition happens everything at the bottom of the building (or section of building) gives way at exactly the same time and the building (or section) falls into its own footprint. For everything to give way at the same time there has to be symmetrical impact which can only be explained in the case of WTC-7 by controlled demolition, certainly not fires.

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

NOT, “classic” controlled demolition at all. Use your eyes. The material of the twin towers effervesced up and cascaded out and down and the huge building elements turned to dust in mid air….. thermite shermite. Were the toasted cars controlled demolition as well?

flaxgirl
Reader

Not talking about the twin towers, talking about WTC-7. OK, it made much less noise I think than a normal classic controlled demolition but I believe other than that it collapsed in the manner typical of a controlled demolition.

DP
Reader
DP

Regarding the point you made in your next comment about YouTube being launched in 2005: I TOTALLY agree with you, Believe it or not, it is something that hit me only very recently, but it is so obvious. IF it was an inside job, that would definitely be THE unforeseen would-be unexpected flaw of the plan. You are so right (“ability to watch over and over again”). Nowadays, YouTube is so widely spread, it is such a big part of our life… but back in the late 90’s… (I didn’t even have an email!). Chomsky has a point: How could… Read more »

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

All contingencies are catered for DP..they WANT you to know they did 9/11… Pre-Columbian neocons threw the beating hearts of their victims down the steps of their truncated pyramids to flaunt internecine terrorism in the faces of a citizenry that had lost its nerve. They threw the beating hearts of the jumpers in the dissociated buildings in our faces and we reported for duty so we wouldn’t have to deal with our loss of nerve.. They flaunt the truncated, myopic pyramid with its remote and unaccountable capstone ( imaged on your quid) in your face. They are flipping the bird… Read more »

Benny
Reader
Benny

(Forgive my ignorance about WTC-7 being hit).
If the conspiritors had gone to such extreme lengths to destroy these buildings (for whatever reason), going so far as to keep everyone involved completely silent, then surely they would have been able to rig the charges in a way that ensured the building did NOT collapse as if by controlled demolition, in order to cover their tracks?

Benny
Reader
Benny

Thanks I’ll check it out, all the best

flaxgirl
Reader

Good on you, Benny. The 3.5 hour film that first got me started is From JFK to 9/11: Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM. There’s only a small amount about 9/11 at the end but it’s a fascinating film and well worth watching to get a sense of how we got to 9/11. There are a few links in the article that are worth following up too.

Benny
Reader
Benny

(There was no ‘Reply’ option under your last comment, so I’ve had to reply to the next one up (mine)).
I did read the article but I must have missed the WTC-7 bit!
I take your point though, about the fact I didn’t already know about WTC-7. I will do more reasearch.

flaxgirl
Reader

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? They did way too good a job, didn’t they? In the case of WTC-7 I don’t think they were anticipating youtube (2005) and the ability for people to watch the video over and over again. I think they thought that WTC-7 would just be buried and forgotten amid all the other consternation. It’s an extraordinary case of the Emperor’s New Clothes and the Hitlerian Lie. Hitler said when you tell a lie make it a whopper because while people recognise small lies they can’t comprehend the audacity of massive lies. Hitler said that with massive… Read more »

jack
Reader
jack

john Pilger is another gatekeeper, and his good mate julian assange, who says that he is annoyed by anyone who doesnt agree with the official account of 9/11

jaques
Reader
jaques

John Pilger is no gate keeper- the man is a legend- and has expressed doubts over the official account of 9/11. He was also witness to the assassination of Robert Kennedy and says he believes he heard more shots fired than Sirhan’s weapon contained… As for Assange- his comments about 9/11 truth are unfortunate- if vague- but ask Hillary today if Assange is a ‘gatekeeper’ friend of hers…. Just look at his situation. Personally: I think he is a sincere enemy of the ‘PTB’ and that they sincerely want him silenced.

jack
Reader
jack

John Pilger IS a gatekeeper. he says, not verbatim, but youll get the gist.. that he thinks, re 9/11, that the most plausible thing is, they, ie; the US Government, “let it happen” the let it happen theory, doesnt gel when you understand that the only way building 7 could have come down the way it did, is via controlled demolition. it takes months of meticulous planning to bring down a building like that, that is not something you let happen, that is something you plan and execute. if the PTB wanted him dead, he would bloody well be dead.… Read more »

psic88
Reader

‘Let it happen’? Of course they could. Mossad could have set it up easily, and looking official too, as it must have done.

flaxgirl
Reader

Mossad no doubt set up the demolitions but there’s the rest of the operation to consider and it all had to be coordinated.

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

Pilger is broadcaster of the bleeding obvious…on the matter of 9/11 he will stay schtumm on the real 9/11 story till someone else has the wontons…tell us what we already know John..oh revelation!, oh joy! He is no gatekeeper per se ….just an actor and a coward.

flaxgirl
Reader

Yes, I do find that strange. This is a very interesting article by Michel Chossudovsky where he talks about “manufacturing dissent”. So true. Are those people really concerned with truth (a depressingly, it seems, small number) just speaking in the wind? Will the truth ever out or will it always be suppressed by the enormous number of middle-gatekeepers as well as those at the top.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-wikileaks-2/22389

lolathecur
Reader
Fredrich
Reader

Eh yeah..nice waste of time. Thanks.

MHB Administrator
Reader

Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.

joekano76
Reader

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

stuartbramhall
Reader

Reblogged this on The Most Revolutionary Act and commented:
*
*
Liverani exposes the establishment’s most prominent 911 gatekeeper – with explicit analysis of Chomsky’s ludicrous irrationality.

Alessandro
Reader
Alessandro

I can understand why people would be disappointed in Chomsky for his position on 9/11, but remember that Chomsky has never been afraid to take up positions that have been unpopular even among others on the left. He’s long been critical of the US’s close connection to the Saudis and isn’t the only one on the left who was more inclined to blame Saudi oil oligarchs, with their long history of sponsoring terrorism, for 9/11. And frankly, some of the wackier stuff – like the comments about numerology in other comments below – unfortunately prevents a lot of people who… Read more »

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

Considering all contingencies is still difficult isn’t it? Noams’ job is to make you feel someone brave is on the job. He merely confirms what we already know..or should know about imperial hegemony. And his ” WHO CARES” deposition. should be proof enough of his position in the hierachy. John Philger and Phillip Adams play similar roles.

rpsabq2014rpsabq
Reader

Yes, because Chomsky has always been so bold in his positions surrounding such issues makes his unwillingness to the do the same about 9/11 all the more mind boggling. My eyes were opened to 9/11 after I took a fresh look at the evidence. After 10+ years I enjoyed forgetting about it. But after a friend made it clear to me that my addiction to CNN was causing my world view to be incredibly naive and misinformed, he challenged me to do the research. I took him up on the challenge and spent a few months catching up. Painful to… Read more »

Colleen Adams
Reader
Colleen Adams

I once saw a short video clip of Putin talking to a group of students who I guessed were aerospace engineering students. The clip was short, and he said, words to the effect :” as we all know there has not been a landing on the moon” No matter what anyone thinks of Putin, I do not believe that he would lie about that.

Admin
Reader

We’ve just had – VERY lengthy – “debate” about the Apollo project, so let’s not revive the corpse quite yet. If Putin did say such a thing, he was probably joking.

flaxgirl
Reader

Sure. Just want to give a link to this video on why Russia didn’t make it which I came across a couple of days ago – and there’s a fascinating little twist at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

Giant Steps are what you take…walking on the moon.

flaxgirl
Reader

Sandy Hook was soooo obviously a staged event, I’m just amazed they keep getting away with it as was Boston bombing and many others in both the US and in other parts of the world. Actually, these staged events have been going on forever I believe. I have to say, despite the anomalies, I still believe we went to the moon mainly because I think all the hours of dialogue of the astronauts simply couldn’t be faked – but knowing how many events have been faked now I’m not certain about anything. I’ve created a page http://www.laverite.weebly.com which gives a… Read more »

rpsabq2014rpsabq
Reader

HAHA! I see i’ve found some of my people. I will check out your links, thanks! I actually believe the Space shuttle deaths really happened. About the moon, we did everything but travel from Earth’s orbit and actually go to the moon. They just simply did not have the technology or the GAS! We’re talking 200,000+ miles here – one way. Also, as NASA easily admits in its education videos meant for young school children, they haven’t figured out a way to get past the Van Allen Radiation Belts and the moon is way past that. We were scared to… Read more »

Jen
Reader
Jen

While he was British Prime Minister, Tony Blair and his wife Cherie dabbled in quite a lot of New Age practices and rituals. Nick Cohen even wrote an article for The Guardian on the Blairs’ New Age beliefs: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/dec/08/cherieblair.labour1 While reading Cohen’s article, bear in mind that Cherie Booth Blair is a QC with her own legal consulting firm Omnia Strategy and that both Blairs are also practising Roman Catholics. The Blairs may not even be all anomalous in their eclectic beliefs and worldview. Most of us have personal superstitions that we may or may not use to guide us… Read more »

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

Tony Blairs’ new age beliefs extended to bird dogging Rupert Murdochs’ misses… Coalition of the willing indeed.

johnny
Reader
johnny

Re numbers, we are often expected to believe in the long list of coincidences in “official versions” so why is it so weird that others can put store in the coincidences of how the numbers fall? Anyway, scientific investigation is never immune from this type of thing, Newton ”chose” seven colours in the spectrum because seven had, he thought, metaphysical and esoteric connotations. Also the belief structures we are left with in modern society, as in everything we are told, have become in effect religions so why shouldn’t the people in charge of it all have similar notions guiding them?

pavlovscat7
Reader
pavlovscat7

The sum is one……pons asinorum.

johnny
Reader
johnny

A home-grown “cover-up” example of this is Bletchley Park and Ultra which employed thousands (I think) of people many of whom were “normal” people recruited from everyday life i.e. without previous security connections. These all apparently kept quiet for 30 years when old ladies could tell their kids “Oh by the way I was a WW11 codebreaker” and the world found out about advances in technology and theoretical thinking that were hitherto not known about. I doubt many of these would fear for their lives or consider the existence of a “deep state” which might harm them, physically or career-wise.… Read more »

Zorg
Reader
Zorg

A long reply (interesting but in french) from ReOpen911 to Noam Chomsky about his positions on the subject :
http://www.reopen911.info/11-septembre/2154/

BigB
Reader
BigB

The paradox of Chomsky on 9/11 is that he did take an incredibly unpopular stance over this – his long held view that America was the worlds leading terrorist state didn’t curry him much favour in the post 9/11 jingoistic xenophobic backlash. As I remember it, he was right up there with bin Laden and Hussein as Americas Most Wanted. That he didn’t get into it – given his predeliction for poring over declassified documents relating to COINTELPRO or CIA death squads (to which he must have dedicated years of his life) – is contradictory to say the least. If… Read more »

joe
Reader
joe

The whistle blower question is basically an none starter considering our current media environment where a few giant corporations own and control all the “vetted” media providers. Cheney himself could come out and claim he managed the entire operation and dollars to donuts he would be lambasted as nuts in the MSM. There have been many whistle blowers in the case of 911 and they have been systematically denigrated and ignored. Additionally the practice of compartmentalization allows complicated schemes to be undertaken with many of the players involved not knowing what they are working on.

dahoit
Reader
dahoit

No,Chomsky wasn’t attacked by the MSM,he is a gatekeeper who tells partial truths to keep some thinking he is non aligned,when any damn fool knows he’s a zionist mole traitor. By deception they rule. But not for long. On Nov.8,Donald Trump will upset their pushcart of lies.

flaxgirl
Reader

As I know next to nothing about the Manhattan Project but vaguely heard that it wasn’t leaked I shouldn’t have used it. Thanks for pointing out the error. I think though that the evidence about 9/11 (not necessarily through leakage) is so damn obvious that Cheney and Rumsfeld should be in gaol. It’s not a case of lack of evidence, it’s that they have too much power and they’re all in it together. It’s the biggest case of the Emperor’s New Clothes in history.

jaques
Reader
jaques

that’s interesting. I just watched that teleseries ‘Manahattan’ and some of that espionage was covered in it. Great little series BTW. Even given the porous security at the manhattan project- there is still the oft repeated ‘proof’ offered in support of the official 9/11 narrative, that ‘ someone would have blabbed’. Of course this is not ‘proof’ at all- and is merely an opinion about human nature. There is a great deal of evidence that proves that humans can keep secrets- and that no one necessarily ‘blabs. In the case of 9/11 it would be fair to assume that the… Read more »

Hertog Jan
Reader
Hertog Jan

Chomsky obviously fears what would happen if Americans understood who really attacked them on 9/11.

johnny
Reader
johnny

HI Hertog Jan, are you from ‘s-Hertogenbosch?

jaques
Reader
jaques

which is perhaps understandable: can you imagine what might happen if the truth were ever to be accepted by the mainstream? They would need trials like Nuremburg to deal with it- and one assumes- in the USA- that the criminals would face the death penalty for such treasonous and murderous crimes. Hard to imagine Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitx, Perle, Meyers, Bush (plural) and all the others facing the death penalty. Such things have never happened. I often wonder just how seismic the affects of the truth about 9/11 would actually be. At this late stage- some 15 years after the… Read more »

BigB
Reader
BigB

The State protects its own via Sovereign Immunity – or should that be impunity – the neocons that you mention will never be tried because of it. Lower hanging fruit – such as ‘moderate Republican’ Christie Todd Whitman (former head of the EPA) – was found to be at fault for telling Manhattans that the air was safe to breathe. But that was overturned on appeal so as to avoid setting ‘a dangerous legal precedent.’ She recently apologised. I’m sure all the surviving first responders that had their lungs burnt out are feeling reassured as they lie on their deathbeds!… Read more »

Clubofinfo
Reader

If you are struggling to “get past” Chomsky, maybe stop trying to pimp him to join the “truther” cause?
Consider he would never have made any “statement” if the 9/11 truthers had not gone to events with the purpose of recruiting him. Writing redfaced comments condemning Chomsky, Snowden, Assange and even Putin as CIA assets for not mentioning truthers’ 9/11 conspiracies is making the truther movement look nuts.

marc
Reader
marc

@clubofinfo – no one here is talking about “Snowden, Assange and Putin” … Off-topic.
No one needs Chomsky to join any cause.
People are asking if he would rather not actively denigrate a cause, without due diligence, given his prominence as ‘the world’s leading intellectual’.
He said what he said, of his own volition. No-one forced him to say anything: he’s a grown man.

clubof.info
Reader

No, they tried to pimp him to join their cause. He responded out of politeness. Stop bullying a great man for not joining your cult.

jaques
Reader
jaques

stop defending your idol- you do him no service- he is no saint beyond criticism. Also he sets a high standard- I think I do him honor by holding him to it: “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” ― Noam Chomsky “How it is we have so much information, but know so little?” ― Noam Chomsky “Responsibility I believe accrues through privilege. People like you and me have an unbelievable amount of privilege and therefore we have a huge amount of responsibility. We live in free societies where we are not afraid of… Read more »

johnny
Reader
johnny

When he comments on “the smallness of their number..” one has to consider that many academics and professionals would be afraid to add to that number; fear of damage to their reputations, fear of damage to their earning potential, fear of “backlegging” or even worse. Maybe Mr Chomsky shares one of these fears (or even worse)

marc
Reader
marc

johnny, are you saying the fearless, peerless Chomsky would wimp out?

johnny
Reader
johnny

even worse!