Rebuttal of Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Comments

The Corbett Report has just released a two-part documentary as a rebuttal to Chomsky's infamous 9/11 comments. These videos seek to expose the nonsensical and contradictory arguments Chomsky makes in trying to discredit 9/11 Truth. The documentary is intended to be an activist tool for spreading 9/11 Truth to academics, leftists and Chomskyites. If you think it is well-presented, please help get the word out by sending the link to people you think it might wake up.

Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent 1/2

Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent 2/2

The first video covers Chomsky's denial of the viability of 9/11 science and his bizarre non sequitur that people shouldn't look into 9/11 Truth because someone can make up a conspiracy about a car crash. In our second video we delve into some of the numerous reasons people should look into 9/11 Truth, from terrorist financiers meeting with intelligence committee chairman on the day of the attack to CIA insider trading to Able Danger to military drills. We end by answering Chomsky's infamous question "Who cares?" about 9/11 Truth.

If you think these videos are effective, please help spread the word on them.

NOTE: This is a re-post of an earlier entry. The videos were edited to correct the earlier mistaken implication that Chomsky's comments in video 1 came after the publication of Professor Jones et. al.'s scientific peer-reviewed paper. The comments were in fact made 10 days before the release of that article, though it makes no difference to the argument contained in the videos.


It's well done.

I would include more snippets of the physical evidence (i.e., B7 collapse, Jones lecture, etc.) and also a snippit of the families saying there are lies, because a lot of people will come to look at the film *only* because it has Chomsky in the title and will never have seen the evidence. You could do that in a few short clips. Also, it isn't clear that the Fourteen Points paper is published in a journal, and isn't just featured on a blog from the way it's shown.

My main critique is that I think the promo to Alex Jones and Prison Planet at the end would completely turn Chomsky or any of his supporters off, since AJ is the opposite of what any of them are. They consider themselves thinkers, intellectuals, and will see AJ as a screaming salesman, so that will confirm for them, "Oh, right, this is all about selling DVDs, selling Alex Jones, etc." and they will walk away smugly.

Steve's paper got published in part because they thought a lot about how to reach the audience they were targeting. Chomsky's audience will require similar kid glove handling to reach. What do we agree with Chomsky on (you actually did that very well in the start)?

The clip with him talking about the first bombing was excellent. A very good point.

How much longer do you suppose we'll need to mollycoddle

Chomsky disciples & their ilk? It's far beyond tedious already.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

Great job!

Great job!

chomsky is no longer relevent

after reading many of his books i must abandon him, he proves that the elites will never break ranks in the class wars of these dark times,his complicity is mass murder complicity

i wonder if he is of their mind of has he been frightened into
delivering these attacks on 911 inquiry

Sample questions for Chomsky

"You have made remarks in the past disparaging the 9/11 Truth movement and the numerous questions they raise. I am curious if you actually have studied the evidence and arguments related to the fall of WTC7, the NORAD standdown, the molten steel found beneath the rubble, and so forth. If you have, do you feel qualified to sustain any kind of argument relating to these matters? If you have not, why do you feel qualified to disparage the 9/11 Truth movement?

"How do you feel the quality of the voluminous evidence that you cite in your many political books stacks up against the voluminous evidence raised by the 9/11 Truth movement that point towards 9/11 being an 'inside job?' Is there a difference in the quality of evidence presented, and what would that be? If you could give specific examples instead of broad generalizations, it would be much appreciated."

"Earlier, you have brought up the problem that coming to a conclusion on the charges made by the 9/11 Truth movement would require specialized knowledge, such as an advanced knowledge of engineering. Do you feel it is possible for non-specialists to come to conclusions regarding areas involving specialized knowledge? If you do not, I would be curious what your opinion is of our current jury system, where laymen are frequently expected to draw conclusions based on the evidence and arguments presented by experts or specialists in given fields."

(similar) "Earlier, you have brought up the problem that coming to a conclusion on the charges made by the 9/11 Truth movement would require specialized knowledge, such as an advanced knowledge of engineering. Are you aware that David Ray Griffin, one of the leading authors of the 9/11 Truth movement, has written a book, 9/11 Contradictions, that presents 25 major unanswered questions about 9/11 that do not involve any kind of expert knowledge. Are you familiar with this book, and if so, do you feel qualified to answer any of the questions raised by Mr. Griffin? If you are not familiar with this book or at least the arguments it raises, do you still feel qualified to offer an opinion on the 9/11 Truth Movement and its position that 9/11 was an 'inside job'?" [Note: only ask this if you are quite familiar with the book yourself!]

I'm just throwing some ideas out there. :-)

Noam Chomsky has been a NWO asset & left-gatekeeper at

least as far back as the JFK inside job! The man is a traitor & a fraud.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

I used to like this guy. But:: Now he's a casualty!

In the war for truth he's a casualty!
He can't pass the 911 litmus test, so he's a fake. He is compromised, how he got that way we can only guess! How was Earl Warren compromised? Did Dulles convince him he was saving the world from WWIII? Does Chomsky believe the next false flag will be nuclear or multiple attacks? Who Knows? Why he draws the line on 911 we don't know. He's no help and we need to recognize that in the war for truth we are leaving lots of casualties on the battlefield. It most likely will get worse but this is our best chance to break up the matrix, 911 is the best crack in the illusion we have had, and may ever get for that matter. I think we can expect that the war for truth will get uglier!

Victronix is right on! AJ-PP

At this stage of spreading 9/11 Truth seeking, the single most important point regarding the creation of any assets for "spreading the word", is without any doubt, to consider the audience before creating the info packages.

One of the greatest accomplishments that the 9/11 Truth Movement has developed is the variety of ways that individula truthers have cultivated to "reach" people on the street. Each of us has our personal best approach, and each of us may report the best "angle", or piece of evidence, that seems to relate best to the people in the dispera in which we are "spreading the word" as being very different. Well, the same should go for developing plans and tactics to approach unique groups such as the "Chomsky Diaspera".

I see the above two paragraphs as being similar, but the latter one still more in the developmental and "concept stage". So, Victronix is offering excellent advice, and whomever chastised the "Chomsky Diaspera" is correct in concept yet disasterous in effectiveness of application of that attitude. We have to hold MANY people's hands, and always will because the 9/11 Truth will ALWAYS BE a hot potato until someone is in the Rabbitt Hole. Its just that for people other than the likes of myself, who have always been dubious regarding the pompous nature of such "intellectuals", there is a presumption that "Chomsky will get it...". NOT!

In fact, it was sure easy for me to predict that he would be a 9/11 Truth gatekeeper...DUHHHH! What else could he do? So much for intellectual prowess. Chomsky abuses his "not so very well earned position", and I fall back on the fact that Chomsky and Derschowitz hold world court at the opposite ends of Mass. Ave. in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This juxtaposition of the "opposites" along Mass. Ave is WAY to limiting a range of information and opinion....and of course, its not at all by accident.

Regarding Alex Jones, Prison Planet, the advent of We Are Changes, and The Ron Paul Experiment [all redundant...], it should be obvious to most that their "attack approach" has accomplished its goals and has produced some positive growth. However, its unlikely that there are that many more people out there who react positively to such tactics.

So again, Victronix offers sav vy advice...Don't use the attack approach, don't tie in ANYTHING to the above elements of "The Ron Paul Experiment and Campaign Structure" because people who are in the middle range within the USofA will conclude and react EXACTLY as Victronix postulates.

Its time to refine our approaches and adjust them to reach particular target audiences.

CLEARLY we have the information and we have the skill sets to do so...its just that we have yet to realize that one cannot fix a wrist watch with a hammer...unles one wants to destroy the watch. This is something to think hard and long about because the 9/1 Truith Movement was well established BEFORE WACs, and BEFORE "The Ron Paul Experiment and Campaign Structure" got into the game and took over the 9/11 Truth Movement. Of course, AJ and PP have been in the game all along. Dots anyone?

Lets refine the tools of communication...

Love, Peace and Progress with:


Robin Hordon