Opinion - Chomsky and 9/11

Chomsky's disappointing and perplexing support for the NIST 9/11 conclusions does nothing to undermine the 9/11 truth movement or its findings. Scientific debate entitles Chomsky to whatever opinion he chooses. The truth movement has no reason to despair over this as long as it continues to focus on the science of 9/11.

Chomsky argues against a US false flag operation on two counts: 1) the scale of the operation and the high probability of a leak would render it too risky; and 2) lack of scientific evidence supporting an alternative theory.

Neither of these arguments is credible or defensible. Chomsky devoted much of his career to cataloging a century of US global terror conducted on a far grander scale than 9/11. Is he now proposing that these covert operations are limited only to foreign targets due to unstoppable domestic whistleblowers? On the face of it, this is absurd. Covert operations of this magnitude and gravity operate by different laws. Leaking information would be suicidal.

But let’s assume Chomsky is correct. If so, is the US unique in producing whistleblowers willing to risk their lives to expose Uncle Sam’s dark side? Does the same argument apply to Hussein, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Pinochet, or Pol Pot? Shall we also draw a line through their domestic atrocities as too implausible due to home grown whistleblowers? Furthermore, what shall we make of the released Northwoods documents revealing false flag plans against American citizens by the US military in the early ‘60s?

Chomsky’s second point about evidence requires dismissing official observations (e.g, molten metal pools at each WTC collapse site, near free fall speed of the collapses, the symmetry of the collapses, etc). These are legitimate areas of contention that NIST does not account for in its conclusions. It ignores them.

NIST’s selective investigating amounts to pseudo-science designed to steer the public toward conclusions which do not reflect reality. Recently, Chomsky labeled similar selectivity in Israeli reporting of facts related to recent border abductions as “cynical fraud.”

The truth about 9/11 was ascertainable five years ago, and it might still be if independent investigators are permitted access to the remaining evidence, but this is unlikely. The improbability of proving government involvement might explain why Chomsky chooses to align himself with those in control of the evidence.

Unfortunately, the 9/11 truth movement might be confined to a study of official conduct in the NIST investigation, but this also can be quite revealing. Ethical standards for scientific investigative practices are strict, and the consequences quite severe to scientists who violate them, normally. The degree to which federal investigators adhere to these standards and the degree to which they are held accountable when they do not, reflect true intent and objectivity, or lack of.

The following is worth noting about the scientific method, from the perspective of a former chemist in a Fortune 500 research laboratory:

1) The scientific method requires embracing one’s critics, not shunning them. Critics are fundamental to the pursuit of truth. Nobel prizes offer no safe harbors from them. “Thousands of experts agree with my results” is no answer to them. What matters are the data and the ability of researchers to validate it and provide a working hypothesis supported by it.

2) The scientific method requires full disclosure when results are challenged. Results must be reproducible by independent researchers, preferably critics. Intentional non-disclosure is tantamount to “cynical fraud.”

3) The scientific method does not permit researchers to cherry-pick data or destroy evidence that would lead to alternate conclusions. Data may not be discarded if it does not “fit.”

Even one violation of the above is serious in normal scientific circles. At the very least one’s professional integrity may be questioned. Career termination is possible and likely.

It is not unusual in many of the finest research laboratories for honest, intelligent, highly educated people to take opposite positions on technical issues. If both parties adhere to the scientific method, the cycle of experimentation, disclosure, debate and further experimentation gradually weeds out personal bias to reveal the underlying truth. It is critical that neither side interfere in the process.

Did the government fail this standard with respect to its investigation of 9/11?

Yes it did. But first, it is noteworthy that five years after 9/11, official findings have not weakened the controlled demolition hypothesis of WTC 1, 2 and 7. The most critical thing one can say about it today is that it remains at least as persuasive on scientific grounds as any other hypothesis, although federal investigators refuse to consider it (i.e. test for it). More importantly, it was rejected at the outset, a priori. NIST used the in-our professional-judgment argument to exclude it with no evidence whatsoever – a strong indication of deliberate steering by those in control. NIST intransigence continued even after all other explanations for the collapse of WTC7 were deemed a “low probability.” Incredibly, NIST remains closed to the controlled demolition hypothesis despite the owner of WTC7 saying in a publicized videotape that the building was “pulled” (imploded) on 9/11.

The above is sufficient to doubt NIST’s scientific objectivity, as well as the objectivity of every scientist connected to the investigation. But the federal government went beyond this. It destroyed the WTC steel before it could be independently analyzed. Evidence tampering to block scientific investigation is of course a most serious offense.

An investigator might exclude a hypothesis based on positive results (the experiments proved something else was true) or negative results (the experiments showed no evidence in support of a hypothesis). The testing must be comprehensive enough to distinguish between alternate hypotheses. NIST inexplicably did not conduct tests that would permit exclusion of the controlled demolition hypothesis except by way of vague hand-waving arguments referencing professional experience. It revealed its internal bias by the testing it did NOT do.

For example, it failed to analyze the chemical composition of the molten metal pools beneath each WTC collapse site. These pools persisted weeks after the collapses, although NIST barely acknowledged their existence.

NIST also did not analyze the fractures in the forty-seven core vertical support columns in WTC 1 and 2. The failure of these columns goes to the heart of the collapse mechanism. These massive, 1000+ ft long, continuous, steel box columns anchored in the bedrock all fractured into smaller segments during the collapse - at the same time. Did NIST at least photograph these fractures? Did they attempt to reconstruct the columns in an open field and compare fractures? Did they analyze the metal residues around the fractures? Where is an in-depth chemical and physical examination of the core columns?

The scientific community does not tolerate intentional deception normally. In the real world, funding is cut, careers are lost, and data and conclusions are discounted until independently validated.

The importance of full disclosure cannot be over-emphasized. Results must be reproducible, and this is only possible with full disclosure.

It is apparent that NIST’s methods, analyses and reporting were at the very least steered by pre-ordained conclusions. The scientific community has an obligation now to raise its voice in protest. It is time for NIST to open its books and submit the remaining 9/11 evidence to a fully independent scientific investigation.

Scientists must be willing to respect a diverse range of opinion while conducting investigations. Chomsky's personal views should be welcomed as a stimulus to 9/11 researchers to practice even greater diligence in the pursuit of verifiable facts where possible, while adhering to the principles of the scientific method. Those involved on both sides of the issue should not forget that the most revered preconception can be defeated by a single good experiment from the lowest ranking investigator. Likewise, the most articulate and decorated advocate of the wrong hypothesis cannot be saved by his or her degrees, status or high honors in a truly open forum.

I hope 9/11 researchers will press on with their good work, obtaining relevant, measurable and falsifiable data wherever possible while practicing extreme care not to exclude valid information from the public that might undermine the controlled demolition hypothesis. Researchers must seek the truth first, whatever it is. They must allow the data to speak the truth, regardless of which theory it supports. Professor Steven Jones serves as a model of professional conduct in this regard.

That was fantastic.

That was fantastic.

Great piece. It's

Great piece. It's refreshing to see a sane analysis of this subject. This is how we'll win progressive hearts, not by yelling about "shills" working for the New World Order.

For some reason Chomsky has become the whipping boy of 911 truth, probably because he's usually so dead on and it stretches credulity to imagine that he doesn't realize, at this point, his error. Also because his political outlook does not conform to the standard constitutionalist paradigm of the paleoconservative right, he is viewed as a threat by certain people.

Chomsky does not ignore black ops per se; he's produced some excellent work on Project Paperclip, COINTELPRO, the drug trade and the CIA, intelligence connections with the mafia, and so on. But there's no doubt that he drops the ball on false flag operations and the JFK assassination. This was probably a conscious decision on is part; in order to retain credibility in the eyes of dominant institutions and prevent being called a "conspiracy theorist" he has decided not to go down that path. I also think he considers what he calls "institutional analysis" a more effective way of demonstrating to people how this society functions. He's more interested in the dynamics of state capitalism on a macro scale than what most people find infinitely more entertaiing: black ops.

All this said, 911 truth cannot be swept under the rug, and a mature institutional analysis must incorporate false flags. These are not irrelevent quirks of history, these are a vital weapon in the elite's arsenal. I suspect that Chomsky started out believing the official story like the most of us, and now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to admit he was wrong. I do not think he will do as much, but I don't think it really matters anyway.

He's done some excellent work on a multitude of subjects. But the future belongs to people unafraid of speaking the truth.

"This is how we'll win

"This is how we'll win progressive hearts, not by yelling about "shills" working for the New World Order."

Exactly. I've used the Shill word too much, there are some individuals out there who do deserve it though lol.

Show "DBLS called me a shill, too" by u2r2h

You & the other shills annoy the hell out of me with your fake

planes at the WTC bullshit!

Crazy lady's post is hidden now

but click on it to see a very interesting shot of the South Tower impact.

"crazy lady"

HA! thats great, im gonna steal that from you and call her that from now on. or at least until she tells me where shes from so i can paint all of her countries people with the same broad brush she uses on us americans regularly. i get so sick of that shit.

Interesting shot? Photographer: Handschuh

Yey, people calling each other names INSTEAD of focussing on uncovering the crime. The perps love you.

You can call me what you want, but please be more entertaining... you bore me.

Yes the photo is very interesting, and it has a history that needs to be told:

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/12/wtc-impact-photo.html

Well-written post and

Well-written post and analysis Danse.

A GOOD scientist will

A GOOD scientist will absolutely NOT make useless attempts to discredit his peers (or anyone else for that matter) for reacting to gut instincts to investigate either the unknown, the bizarre, or already so-called proven theories. It is at the crux of science to be inquisitive, forthright and focused on phenomenon that has either been explained or unexplained. A CREDIBLE scientist will not only encourage the deep seeded instincts of his peers, but support anyone of those peers that responds to those instincts.

To make armchair quarterback comments on the unimportance of independent studies on issues or events where qualified (even unqualified individuals) have a desire to gather and report information, is in effect a discredit to the individual who is making the comments. To discourage or debunk anyone's attempt at gathering truthful facts is irresponsible and completely against scientific principle. In short, it removes all credibility of any results of any investigations that this individual has conducted in the past.....simply because of the individuals' refusal to conduct himself with an open mind and heart.....in other words 'purely' scientific.

This quote by a disputed source, “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”, exemplifies the ignorance of Noam Chomsky.

The significance of his comments about 911 is paramount. Arguing about specific facts based on your own research is one matter. The importance of discovery, at any level, can simply not be debated.

I'm sick of hearing people make excuses for this pompous little prick-like egomaniac. He is a discredit to his peers. Period, exclamation point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"So this is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause." ~ Padme' ~ (Star Wars Episode III)

I don't understand why

I don't understand why everyone worships him anyway. Yes, Noam Chomsky is an amazing intellect and has piercing insights. But he's not a god and does not possess all truth. He is man and mortal.

Show "Another approach against left-gatekeepers like him" by Brend

Chomsky is a shill, a fraud, and an NSA/CIA asset!

How the hell could a "genius" like Chomsky insist that Oswald was a lone nut who murdered JFK??? It was a no-brainer that that was an inside job, just like 9/11!!!

Chomsky is clearly a well-paid gatekeeper!