Noam Chomsky’s 9/11 “Truther” Debunking Debunked: Yes Noam, They Were Lunatics

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE:

Chomsky’s Hypocrisy Knows No Limits: Tweets About “voluntary propaganda of the intellectual class”

——

Chomsky’s conclusion: “They weren’t lunatics so they didn’t do it”

Noam Chomsky is dead wrong regarding 9/11 and you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.

What is being hailed as the End-All-Be-All of “truther debunking” is disturbing to watch. This video is mentioned on places like the Huffington Post as something to show to “anyone who still buys into the 9/11 truther stuff”. It’s a video of Bob Tuskin asking Noam Chomsky a question about Building 7 at a speech Noam gave at the University of Florida.

(see video at the end of this article)

Here is my effort at debunking a man who I have defended for apparently far too long. His ignorance of the geopolitical climate prior to the invasion of Afghanistan is, quite frankly, unforgivable given his acute awareness of such matters. His forgetting that he himself has stated on many occasions that there is no evidence of bin Laden being involved in 9/11 is also quite telling here. I will break down his 3 uncontroversial “facts” which prove the Bush administration had nothing to do with 9/11 and I will also expose his hypocrisy and the petty little debunking tricks he uses to marginalize those of us who still question the events of 9/11.

But in the end, it’s his statement that the Bush administration wasn’t run by lunatics that leaves me most disgusted by the man and the activist I revered so much because it is a lie and he knows it is a lie.

Ergo, here I offer my Chomsky mia culpa by way of debunking his pathetic debunking of 9/11 truth activists. To my great shame and disappointment, Noam Chomsky exposes himself as not only a left-wing gatekeeper but also a flat out liar and hypocrite.

Frankly, his response to the scientific aspects of Building 7, it’s collapse for 3 seconds at pure free fall acceleration (impossible without controlled demolition) is noteworthy… he ignored it. He ignored it because he is smart enough to know he can’t get into that debate with anyone… even someone who has only “spent an hour on the internet and they think they know physics”

So, Noam said he has “no opinion” on the scientific evidence since he’s not a professional in that field. Of course, that means you aren’t supposed to have one as well seeing as how no one can understand gravity unless they’ve been awarded a sheepskin from MIT.

When confronted with the information that there are over 2,000 professionals in the field, engineers and architects, who do have an opinion after studying the facts in the matter, he blew them off as some “small number” comparatively to the entire professions here in the States. Again, a typical gatekeeper/debunker tactic.

For decades Chomsky himself was one of only a relative few political analyst talking about what our savage capitalist foreign policy has been doing to other nations on behalf of big business interests. He never suggested back then that you shouldn’t listen to him or have an opinion on the subject because he was in the minority or you didn’t have an advanced degree in economics or political science.

Chomsky also stated, quite remarkably, that it is silly to think that working professionals in the fields of engineering and architecture would remain silent on this matter or openly support the ridiculous official theory of collapses of these buildings because they were afraid of government pressure.

Chomsky has stated and written on SEVERAL occasions that working professionals in various fields (especially the press) deliberately sensor themselves when it comes to contradicting the conventional wisdom of the establishment. He knows all too well how the corporate model  punishes those who stray too far from the party line and that those who dwell within it’s ranks live with that knowledge and all too often base their public appearances on it. In short, he knows people don’t have to be “threatened by the government” to know to keep their mouths shut.

He himself added “maybe they would be laughed at” …. proving my point and making his. Yes, they would be laughed at and thus loose their professional reputations… and their income potential. “Its an almost riskless position so that can’t be the reason that nobody is convinced” is what he ended up saying and he knows for a fact, that is not the case and notice he is immediately marginalizing the 2,000 professional engineers and architects who are convinced as if they are “nobody”

Let’s also not forget Phil Donahue who lost his #2 rated news and talk show just prior to the invasion of Iraq because he dared to question the evidence presented by the government as he had one truth telling figure on after another presenting the case that the Bush administration was lying us into a full scale war. Is it really “riskless” to stand opposed to such a vast conspiracy as the Global War (of) Terror and all the profits it will amass over the next decade or so?

Chomsky himself understands quite well the risk unconventional journalists and whistle-blowers face. He was part of the legal challenge to the NDAA 2012 law that provides for indefinite military detentions of people like us. He knows full well what this system is setting up for.

So his statement that taking positions like these are ‘riskless” is absurd and quite frankly, given his personal experience as of late, a lie.

He brought up the “nanothermite” paper, and we can all thank Steven Jones and BYU for that one.

Then he said…

“However, there is a much more deeper issue which has been brought up repeatedly and I have yet to hear a response to it… there’s just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved. Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute. (applause) So let’s think for a minute”

Basically what Noam is doing is a typical debunker tactic. He’s saying ignore 2,000 engineers and architects, ignore the witnesses at the scene who heard explosions, ignore the physical evidence of melted steel and the RJ Lee report that claims the collapse of those buildings was a ‘combustion event”… ignore all of that and “think”… “for a minute”

“There are a couple of facts which are uncontroversial. One fact that is uncontroversial is that the Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq. Long standing goal… second uncontroversial fact, they didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis, they blamed it on (Saudis) mainly, that’s their major ally. So they blamed it on people from their major ally (Saudi Arabia) not on people that they wanted to invade. Third uncontroversial fact unless they are total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis if they were involved in any way. That would have given them open season on Invading Iraq.”

Aside from the fact that Noam is telling these young minds at the University of Florida that they should ignore hard physical evidence and 2,000 engineers and listen to his opinions of a foreign policy he was not party to making,  let’s take these one at a time shall we?

1. Bush wanted to invade Iraq

This is true quite obviously so. But it presupposes that Bush ONLY wished to invade Iraq. If you take that out of the equation, Chomsky’s entire line of reasoning falls apart. Fact is, the Bush administration had plans for Afghanistan as well due to the Trans Afghan Pipeline which they were in negotiations with the Taliban over right up until July of 2001. They had come to Texas and D.C. for negotiations which got hung up over our demand that we wanted to station troops in Afghanistan to secure the pipeline. The Taliban refused the carpet of gold that we offered and a few months later were buried under a carpet of bombs… just like they were told would happen.

But lets’ also not forget.. the Bush administration DID try to frame Iraq for 9/11 in order to justify an invasion so much so, many people to this day still think Saddam had something to do with it.

And also don’t forget the Amerithrax attacks which happened right after 9/11. They tried to claim, in the press and in the halls of congress, that Saddam was responsible for that.

Ultimately, 9/11 was blamed on Iraq and it factored into the molding of the public mind in order to justify the illegal invasion.

To say that it doesn’t count as too their planning of 9/11 because it happened 16 months later is silly.

They had another item on their action item report to attend to, but in reality, they started pushing the “invade Iraq because of 9/11” narrative almost immediately after the dust cleared.

2. Bush administration didn’t blame 9/11 on people they wanted to invade, they blamed the Saudis

Did Noam forget the plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were formalized and placed on President Bush’s desk just two weeks before 9/11?

Again, Chomsky seems to be forgetting the obvious. Afghanistan was blamed, not Saudi Arabia.

And the allies that Chomsky is talking about were al Qaeda operatives (from Saudi Arabia), long time CIA assets and useful tools to destabilize various countries in the past (Yugoslavia for one, Afghanistan for another). Hillary Clinton herself has admitted publicly that we created al Qaeda for just such purposes.

Chomsky also seems to forget that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the Bush administration presented proof that he was responsible for 9/11. This is an uncontroversial fact that Chomsky himself has mentioned in the past. Bush simply ignored the Taliban’s offer because the plan was to invade all along.

Also as Chomsky himself has pointed out, the Bush administration and no one else to this day, has presented one single shred of evidence that bin Laden had ANYTHING to do with 9/11… case in point… the last verified video of bin Laden, verified by the CIA as authentic, shows him saying he had nothing to do with 9/11… a point Noam Chomsky has made himself several times. For that matter, there is no hard evidence to suggest the hijackers were even on the flights as I believe Chomsky has also mentioned in the past.

To give you an idea of how badly the Bush administration wanted to invade Afghanistan… where are our troops today? Are they still technically in Iraq? No. Are they leaving Afghanistan anytime soon? No. This element of the Silk Road project was so important, is so important, that they are planning to set up permanent bases in Afghanistan and remain their indefinitely.

Those troops which Obama is desperate to see stationed in Afghanistan indefinitely just HAPPEN to be the sticking point in the negotiations the Bush administration had with the Taliban.

Starting to get the picture? Just “think about it for a minute” and it’ll sink in.

Afghanistan is the key to the Caspian Sea basin LNG and oil reserves. The energy producing resources are virtually worthless unless you can transport them out of the area to regions starving for them and thus the Trans Afghan Pipeline is a crucial element of a long range plan to seize and control the wealth of the area.

But Afghanistan also contains vast deposits of material wealth within it’s own borders. That’s to say nothing of the wealth being generated by the Bush administration’s reestablishing of their poppy crop which is providing vast profits for both the pharmaceutical industry and the illegal drug trade as well.

“Afghanistan has never been anyone’s colony – no foreigner had ever “dug” here before the 1950s. The Hindu Kush mountains, stretching, together with their foothills, over a vast area in Afghanistan, are where the minerals lie. Over the past 40 years, several dozen deposits have been discovered in Afghanistan, and most of these discoveries were sensational. They were kept secret, however, but even so certain facts have recently become known.

It turns out that Afghanistan possesses reserves of nonferrous and ferrous metals and precious stones, and, if exploited, they would possibly be able to cover even the earnings from the drug industry. The copper deposit in Aynak in the southern Afghan Helmand Province is said to be the largest in the Eurasian continent, and its location (40 km from Kabul) makes it cheap to develop. The iron ore deposit at Hajigak in the central Bamian Province yields ore of an extraordinarily high quality, the reserves of which are estimated to be 500m tonnes. A coal deposit has also been discovered not far from there.

Afghanistan is spoken of as a transit country for oil and gas. However, only a very few people know that Soviet specialists discovered huge gas reserves there in the 1960s and built the first gas pipeline in the country to supply gas to Uzbekistan. At that time, the Soviet Union used to receive 2.5 bn cubic metres of Afghan gas annually. During the same period, large deposits of gold, fluorite, barytes and marble onyxes that have a very rare pattern were found.” (RIA Novosti, January 6, 2002)

The oil in Iraq that the administration wished to control is nothing in comparison to the LNG and oil in the Caspian Sea basin which they needed the Trans Afghan Pipeline to convey to India and China and it’s nothing in comparison to the profits the banks are raking in by laundering illegal drug money and it’s nothing in comparison to the profits being made by Big Pharma on their opiates and it’s it’s nothing in comparison to the vast mineral wealth located in the soil in Afghanistan.

And furthermore… it’s nothing in comparison to the vast wealth that can and will be accumulated by our “national interests”, banking interests, now that they have remade Afghanistan’s central bank into our for-profit model.

The oil in Iraq, the invasion of Iraq, is part of a larger agenda but it’s only a part. To argue that since they didn’t invade Iraq first they didn’t plan 9/11, is remarkably arrogant and undoubtedly ignorant of the larger plan that’s in motion.

As Chomsky himself has said before, it requires a really good education to be that ignorant of the facts.

3. The Bush administration aren’t lunatics

All the other obfuscation and disinformation aside, this is perhaps the most telling of Mr. Chomsky’s gatekeeping rubbish.

The Bush administration were in fact lunatics.

Their plans for what Condi Rice called the “New Middle East” proves it. The Patriot Act proves it. Their lying 935 times to go to war with Iraq proves it. Shock and Awe proves it. Torture proves it. Extraordinary renditions prove it. The Amerithrax attacks prove it. The constant barrage of fabricated terror attacks in the U.S. foiled by the institutions that created them prove it. Lying to the U.N. Security Council with fabricated evidence proves it.

The neocons who made up the bulk of the Bush administration used to be called “the crazies” when they were in power back in the late 70s and 80s. They were called that by the sane members of the Ford and Reagan administrations. They were called that by Noam Chomsky himself.

Remember Cheney boasting on live television that the U.S. was going to have to walk on “the dark side” in order to combat the terrorist threat? Remember the neocons raving about the ‘endless war”, the “long war” the “hundred year war”? Remember PNAC writing in 200o they needed “a new Pearl Harbor type event” in order to facilitate their New American Century plan? They got it didn’t they.

How can anyone who is supposed to be as informed on the geopolitical landscape and history as Chomsky obviously is, ignore all of these things and the myriad of other crazy crap the Bush administration did, while coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration (and the Obama administration following them) aren’t, weren’t lunatics?

How many international laws did the Bush administration violate in order to Shock and Awe Iraq? Why did they respond to a criminal act with the bombing of an entire country in Afghanistan after the government in charge of that country offered bin Laden’s head on a plate? They even attempted to fabricate a justification to attack Iran during their little run in the White House. How can anyone with any common sense imagine for a minute that they weren’t sociopaths and lunatics?

And that is too say nothing of the controlled demolition they allowed to take place of our economy on behalf of their bankster friends.

How can anyone reasonably conclude the Bush administration weren’t lunatics? They can’t.

“The conclusion is pretty straight forward. Either they were total lunatics or they weren’t involved. And they’re not total lunatics. So whatever you think about Building 7, there are other considerations to be concerned with” Noam Chomsky

And on that note, the college kid acting as moderator for the session said there would be no more questions about 9/11 allowed at the forum. The crowd applauded as the heretics among us would have to be silent.

Conclusion

What has Noam done here?

Well, it’s obvious that he’s acting as a gatekeeper and it’s still more obvious he doesn’t want to simply look at the hard evidence of the case. Molten metal, molten concrete, witnesses who saw explosions, hundreds of first responders who heard explosions, recording of explosions, the RJ Lee report that concludes it was a “combustion event”, the laws of physics ignored, thousands of engineers ignored, NIST’s own conclusions ignored…

When hard physical evidence takes a back seat to such rubbish as Noam Chomsky just uttered, you don’t have an informed public making reasonable conclusions based on facts… you have propaganda, a national mythology which rises above logic and reason to an almost religious stature. And that is what Mr. Chomsky has offered us and that is what places like the Huffington Post are trying to sell us.

Defending the national mythology doesn’t require real evidence or facts. Like the “shining city on the hill” fable, the story of 9/11 flies in the face of so much evidence, all one has left to defend it is faith. You have to have faith in the lies else face ridicule and excommunication. This is why so many applauded when the moderator shut down any followup questions regarding Chomsky’s ludicrous reply. Like watching a faith healing in a revival tent, the audience needs confirmation of what they take on faith. The confirmation is all the proof they need in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary that what they see is an absolute lie.

If everyone believes it, it must be true, so sit down and shut up. You had the same gimmick in play in the lead up to the Iraq invasion by the way… if the president says it, it must be true… so support the cause or shut up. You have to have faith.

In spite of his star power and his lame, historically ignorant “they aren’t lunatics” whitewash, Mr. Chomsky’s efforts  undermine his conclusion because in the end all he can come up with, all his inaccurate geopolitical evaluations aside, is “They weren’t lunatics so they didn’t do it”

Well, I think it’s been pretty well established by a decade of research and evaluation and about a million dead innocent people on behalf of various greedy interests, that it’s clear they were lunatics… in every definition of the term.

And when you throw that simple uncontroversial fact into the mix, Mr. Chomsky’s conclusion takes on a completely different meaning, doesn’t it?

Noam Chomsky is dead wrong regarding 9/11 and you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.

.

.

———–

Only a few more donations urgently needed

If you can, consider DONATING to American Everyman BY USING THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE RIGHT.

Or, you can contact me at RSCdesigns@verizon.net for other arraignments

Thank you.

Advertisements

22 Responses

  1. The following passage is from my article, “Chomsky, the Fraud, on 9/11.”:

    What is on display in Chomsky’s talk is really just a smattering of the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression,” particularly no. 11, “Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance.” As we say, “With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.” Indeed, Chomsky acts as if addressing the actual evidence is beneath him.

    And this brings us to another of the techniques whose use by Chomsky might not be quite so obvious. That is no. 7, “Invoke authority.” It is not obvious because the authority that he invokes is none other than himself, and he does it with his manner. It has probably intimidated generations of students and colleagues. It is really hard to imagine anyone else propounding such complete nonsense with such surpassing confidence. (end passage)

    That article is at http://gmailwww.dcdave.com/article5/121108.htm. The “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression” referred to in the passage are at http://www.dcdave.com/article3/991228.html.

    In the later video on display here, Chomsky does more than invoke his own authority, he invokes the authority of the academic scientific community, which, I might add, depends utterly upon federal government grants for its professional livelihood. See Part 4 of my “America’s Dreyfus Affair”for a discussion of that phenomenon: http://www.dcdave.com/article1/971230.htm

    Those people in the audience applauding Chomsky are either plants or they are gullible fools. Chomsky, himself, may be summed up as a thoroughly evil man.

  2. well done, Scott – excellent!

  3. excellent article, scott, thanks much! “disturbing to watch,” at best. chomsky is sickening.
    i’ve figured chomsky to be a (perhaps *THE* most important/prominent) left wing gatekeeper on 9/11 and the jfk assassination ever since i discovered his speech mocking 9/11 and jfk assassination truth seekers with a “who cares?” in chomsky’s view, 9/11 and jfk don’t matter. the video has been somewhat hard to find nowadays via google, but there’a a copy available (for now) at the url that follows–to avoid getting too sick watching and listening to drone chumpsky, tune in around the 5:55 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc
    –d.

  4. david, can’t agree about zinn. he did endorse drg’s work, see here: http://www.911truth.org/howard_zinn/

    • Looks like rather faint praise to me. Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” says next to nothing about the 20th century assassinations. The entire ZNet crowd, of which Chomsky and Zinn were a part, failed the test on the Vince Foster murder case as well. See http://www.dcdave.com/article4/030720.html.

      • david,

        we disagree that zinn’s words amount to feint praise. he wrote, as per the url, above: “Griffin’s status as a renowned theologian and his systematic approach to the documented evidence lend this work unique importance and authority. Although still shunned by the mainstream media, his book has already encouraged many thousands to debate the case for possible government complicity and at the very least to demand a full, transparent and truly independent public inquiry. Democracy requires citizen vigilance, informed debate and official accountability. In that spirit, David Ray Griffin’s book deserves to be widely read.”

        i know very little about vince foster, and so do have not considered whether his alleged murder should be some sort of litmus test.

        • I do, and it is.

          • You seem to be missing the point I was making with this article.

            Chomsky isn’t discredited because he didn’t know enough facts about the case to form an opinion as may or may not be the case with Zinn regarding Vince Foster… Chomsky exhibited stereotypical debunker tactics, employing them in order to cover for his inability to argue a point with an obviously more informed individual who was asking him very direct and pointed questions (Bob)

            He then proceeded to contradict various aspects of his own research and writing over the past few years in pursuit of a conclusion that is laughable at best (Bush admin not run by lunatics)

            This demonstrates a clear determination to MISLEAD folks on a rather important topic… one that I feel could STILL change the course of history were the facts known today (unlike the murder of JFK which would probably have some ramifications if the truth were known, but it certainly wouldn’t end the “endless War of Terror” as we know it)

            That’s vastly different than Howard Zinn not including the murder of Vince Foster in his People’s History of the United States which was first published in 1980 and since revised up until 2005 or so I believe.

            Even if Zinn believed bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, that is not enough reason for us to dismiss his excellent work of the past. For that matter, I don’t put any stock in the “litmus test” the way so many of our libertarian friends tend to especially regarding left leaning dissidents and researchers (they never seem to hold their right wingers to the same standards… Ron and Rand Paul for example)

            The litmus test trick is designed to keep us from reading and learning from certain writers and activists. that’s all.

            If Zinn is mistaken in this matter or others, so be it. And I have said as much in the past regarding Chomsky.

            The difference today in what I wrote is Noam is clearly misleading his audience as I proved in this article. he is doing so deliberately and quite clumsily in my opinion. Anyone who has read his writings should be able to see it quite easily.

            That is the difference.

            Being wrong is one thing, lying is another.

            My ONLY litmus test is honesty. Once they betray that, it’s whole different ball game. unfortunately for Mr. Chomsky, while he may have been trying to preserve his credibility in certain circles with his little act last month, he forfeited it in other, more important ones.

            Phil Donahue sacrificed his career trying to inform his audience of the lies behind the build up to war. He was trying to stop it. He was remaining true to his profession. And he paid for it.

            We can’t expect the same from other self appointed heroes, but we can hope for it. And when they fail to live up to the image they have made of themselves, we can and should hold them accountable.

            By the way he did what he did and the way he said what he said… it is obvious, or it should be, that he knows full well what happened that day. THAT is why I have a problem with Chomsky… not his previous dismissal of 9/11 Truth. There is a difference.

            • Scott,
              Can you get this article to Bob, the interviewer? And/or the student newspaper(s) at the University of Florida? Might so some good.
              –D

            • You have written a fine article on Chomsky, and as you see above I have weighed in in support of it. Then I posted a video showing Howard Zinn giving a similar, though not so egregious brush-off to a 9/11 questioner. That manifest disdain for examining the facts of 9/11 seems to have been ignored by Zinn’s would-be defenders. I also noted that in his big history book he gives short shrift to the 20th century assassinations. The big ones, of course are JFK, RFK, and MLK, Jr. His mildly favorable nod toward Griffen’s work on 9/11 hardly counterbalances the negatives I have pointed out. My allusion to my article on Foster was meant as an indictment of the whole ZNet crowd, which included at the time both Chomsky and Zinn. One must read it to see the point.

              • David,

                Thanks for your feedback. I totally agree re the importance of the assassination aspects; JFK, MLK, and RFK are key. Right up there with 9/11.

                And to a somewhat less prominent extent, Wellstone, Carnahan. and John Lennon.

                And there are others, including, some say, Malcom X, which I have not researched deeply enough. Hale Boggs too, I would wager. Also, Danny Jawenko, and Barry Jennings, I suspect.

                For the record, I have not read Zinn’s “history.” and so cannot offer a take on that except to say that I started to read it, but became bored and stopped. I think for exactly the reasons that you mention. I got a few pages in, not too many.

                One thing that strikes me re Zinn is an absence of a timeline: when did he say what? Maybe he woke up belatedly. He endorsed DRG, to me that is HUGE.

                Finally, I had never heard of (or can’t remember hearing of) Znet until your post.

                For what it’s worth, and offered just to keep the record straight.

                –D

        • If you truly haven’t any knowledge whatsoever regarding the murder of Vincent Foster, you can’t do any better than perusing all of DCDave’s articles. He’s pretty much put the lie to the official story, aided by the testimonies of Patrick Knowlton, Miguel Rodriguez and, of course, the truth.

  5. Why would he blow the whistle on his own tribe?

    • ding ding ding ding, we have a winner!

      And, great job dissecting Chomsky’s lies, Scott. Have you seen the recent James Corbett video on Noam? Interesting and revealing…. but, your article was better. Thanks.

  6. Maybe he just doesn’t want to be assassinated.

  7. Chomsky must have been a prime target for CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA and probably others as well. Nobody can hold up against that lot for long, so he has probably been a controlled asset for quite a long time.

  8. Michael Parenti’s article “Conspiracy Phobia on the Left”, written pre-9/11, is an excellent expose on the political Left’s disdain for conspiracy theories, and the dishonest tactics the Left (mainly the so-called “dissident intellectuals”) uses to shun conspiracy (e.g. Chomsky’s “Who cares?” on who did 9/11 or killed JFK). Michael Parenti is one of the few on the Left who breaks the mold for better.

    Archive of his article here:

    http://www.freezepage.com/1365364027GZEOSBOCRW

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: