News :: International


by Fool me once...

(No verified email address) 14 Sep 2006

When questioned about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
It's all fine and good that Mr. Chomsky confronts Israel for its phony justification for mass murder in Lebanon [ ]-- an obvious attempt by him to regain the trust of the anti-war movement, which is finally embracing the 9/11 Truth movement -- but let us *NEVER FORGET* where he stands on the most important issue of our time: the state-terror apparatus that is plunging the world into a totalitarian fascist nightmare.

When questioned on Dr. Hesham Tillawi's online video program about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened", with 19 Arab hijackers responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
[ ]

At this point in the interview, the informed viewer and reader of his work will ask: "Where has Chomsky been for the last five years? Has he not heard of the work of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, particularly the work of engineer Dr. Judy Wood, physicist Dr. Stephen Jones, philosopher Dr. James Fetzer and theologian Dr. David Griffin? Has he not read about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's appeal to the world for an investigation into 9/11?"


How is it possible that he hasn’t “seen any credible evidence” when the Scholar's work has been posted all over the internet and has even made the corporate press because of the controversy it is initiating? Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss these academics as "lacking credibility"? Where is Chomsky's evidence for this dismissal of his colleagues' work?

Instead he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? Why won’t they, along with the NIST engineers, debate the peer-reviewed science put forth by the Scholars? This group of brave scientists and intellectuals not only possess "appropriate credentials" and backgrounds, but, together, have systematically dismantled the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission cover-up reports. Is it not revealing that these government "scientists" collectively refuse to publicly debate Scholars for 9/11 Truth!!!
[ ]

So where does Chomsky position himself within this debate? Why is he openly accusing the 9/11 truth movement of "wasting an enormous amount of time and energy", that "could be better focused on more important issues"? What issues are more important than the events that have led us into an era of "permanent war"? Why is he ignoring the world public's call for an international and independent public inquiry?


In light of all this, we are forced to ask some very unpleasant questions with regards to Chomsky's political and moral agenda, as well as his ideological allegiances. Does he know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? (Do recall Sharon's explicit declaration on October 3rd, 2001, that "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." [IAP News])

Is Chomsky an ideological supporter of Zionism, as claimed by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, in an interview given to Snowshoe Films? [ Watch "Straussians, My Behind" ] If he is an ideological Zionist, then is he covering up the Israeli power-elite's involvement in international terrorism? Isn't it interesting, if not telling, that he avoids all discussion of the Federal Reserve and its Zionist control when he discusses economic power in America? Is this not lying-by-omission, something that he exposes with regard to the corporate media in his book, "Manufacturing Consent"?

Is his stance with regard to 9/11 and "terrorism" not an indirect means of "manufacturing consent" for the "War on Terror"? If so, Chomsky is complicit in the very power system and war machine that he has always condemned. Is it not significant that he has remained employed, despite his dissident activities, by one of the largest weapons developers in the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he began working directly under the U.S. Army during the 1950s. [ ]

This leads us to this crucial question: is Chomsky's 9/11 position a result of his fear of power, do they have 'dirt' on him, or has he always been a high-level agent of state-propaganda working only within the acceptable confines of a specific, yet ambiguous ideological framework?

Many Possibilities


(1) He is not informed
(2) He is being cautious in making judgement, until there is more open consensus.
(3) He many know the truth but feel now is not the best time to expose it.
(4) he is scared of 'losing' his reputation
(5) He really believes the official version

I think labeliing him Zionist or COINTELPRO is too far fetched and will discredit the movement.

We are all about DEBATE. Why not set up a scientific debate with him?

Chomsky is a puppy on a leash.

Chomsky is funded by warmongers and so is Amy Goodman and other leftist gatekeepers. These people are on a leash an only allowed to stray so far.

Noam Chomsky

i agree that there are many possibilities as to why he hasn't joined the 9/11 truth movement. Same for Amy Goodman and some others. We just need to get the truth out there and get more scientific proof.

another possibility...

(6) He has no, um, testicles!

Chomsky = Fraud

There's a reason the guy is so boring.