Jon Gold Corresponds With Noam Chomsky About 9/11 - November 2006

This took place in November 2006. I have decided to gather our correspondence and place it into one page. It was originally posted here. Peter Dale Scott told me he enjoyed this at the time.

Inspired by DBLS, I sent Noam Chomsky an email that had my "A Challenge To The Media" in it... that started some correspondence.

Mr. Chomsky, this is a challenge I sent to the media.

"A Challenge To The Media"

What would be your argument against this?

Thank you,


Jon Gold

His response...

If the last question is addressed to me, I don't have any argument against providing even more attention to the Truth Movement.

My response...

Do you endorse the family members' call for a new investigation?

His response...

I don't endorse it or object to it. In my opinion there are far more significant topics, but we have to use our own judgments.

My response...

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but you don't comprehend the fact that both wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, our loss of civil liberties, the bankrupting of this nation, the loss of habeas corpus, etc... all stem from 9/11. If the truth of 9/11 were exposed, it would destroy the legitimacy for all of this. I don't understand your apprehension.

And incidentally, I don't know the truth of 9/11. I do know we were lied to about it.

His response...

The bankrupting of the nation began well before 9/11, as did Bush administration policies that literally threaten survival of the species. It is true that 9/11 served as a pretext for extending policies already undertaken and planned. That leaves us with a clear choice: (1) act energetically to terminate and reverse the crimes of the administration (which are mostly bipartisan); (2) become involvedin a largely academic debate about what exactly were the origins of 9/11. I have my priorities, you have every right to pursue yours.

That aside, my own view is that nothing will come of the debate over 9/11. Even the strongest proponents of the Truth Movement refuse to undertake the most elementary effort to substantiate their case, e.g., by submitting articles to scientific journals raising questions about what happened and about the reports of professional associations and independent specialists about it. Furthermore, the Truth Movement is drawing enormous energies away from (1), towards (2), which is a lot easier than serious dissent and activism. I suspect that is why the Truth Movement is treated so tolerantly, given time on public TV, etc., all very are for dissident movements.

However, I do question for a moment your right to pursue your priorities.


My response...

If I remember correctly, the Bush Administration inherited a surplus. It doesn't really matter though. This Administration has bankrupted this country. As I said in my last email, I don't know the truth about 9/11. However, what I do know, and as you stated, it served as a pretext for policies already undertaken and planned. It gave them the ability to do what they wanted. This is why when asked by Helen Thomas about wanting to go to war prior to 9/11, the President denied it. Reason being, the desire for a war, that would require an event like 9/11 to bring that desire to fruition, automatically makes the Administration a suspect in the crime if that event takes place. Which it did. If information out there exists that points in the direction of the Administration in regards to that crime, then to me it's a "no-brainer", and it should be pursued in a court of law. If our suspicions are correct, and this Administration, or elements within our Government had a hand in said crime, then that would terminate and reverse the crimes of the administration (which are mostly bipartisan).

To my knowledge, there are papers that have been peer-reviewed in existence. There have also been several books published by reputable companies like Harper Collins, etc... In regards to the Truth Movement being treated so tolerantly by the media, I guess you haven't seen the slanderous remarks like, "Nut, Tin-Foil", and so on.

2,973+ people were murdered on 9/11. I say "+" because a few people have died since from the environmental disaster that was 9/11. There is reason to believe elements within our Government were complicit in those murders. It is our responsibility as citizens to find out the truth to make sure it never happens again. If that truth terminates and reverses the crimes of the administration (which are mostly bipartisan), then I don't understand the logic in not pursuing that truth.

Thank you for your time.

His response...

It inherited a surplus, but immediately enacted a tax cut for the rich and other measures to drive the country to a "fiscal train wreck," following the early Reagan programs and probably for the same reasons (though the Reaganites, less extreme, laterbacked off). The Bush administration also immediately escalated the policies that threaten survival of the species, far more serious.

Since the crimes of the administration are mostly bipartisan, even demonstrating in a court of law that they were responsible for 9/11 would have little if any effect. That aside, it would never get to a court of law. Ifcredible evidence surfaced that they were involved in 9/11 -- for example, the kinds of leaks that would be very likely in a massive operation like this -- they'd probably be lined up before firing squads and that would be the end of the Republican Party forever. That's one of the reasons why there is nothing remotely like it in history, and another reason to be skeptical about the claims (which, as I pointed out, even the proponents refuse to put to the minimal test).

However, all of this is peripheral to the main point. We -- you and I -- have the two choices I mentioned, (1) and (2). (2) is surely the easiest, butthose who think it's more important have every right topursue it, as I have every right to make my own judgments. I don't see what issue you are raising.

My response...

Being a member of this movement going on 4 years, I can tell you beyond the shadow of doubt that #2 is BY FAR the easiest. The issue that I'm raising is... if the possibility exists that this Administration or elements within our Government were complicit in the attacks, then it is irresponsible of us as citizens to let "them" get away with it. That is why Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution was written. Murdering 2,973+ individuals is most certainly treasonous.

I am asking that you look at the information, and please consider "jumping on the bandwagon" as it were. Feel free to watch 9/11: Press For Truth which shows the cover-up from the families' perspective.

Again, thank you for your time.


His response...

We're back to where we were. In my opinion, four years could be far better spent in the much harder task of opposing and terminating the crimes of the administration (most of them bipartisan), but I would never have the arrogance to suggest that you follow my judgment rather than yours.

As for letting administrations get away with complicity for crimes, this case ranks very low. How about the crime of escalating the threat of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, which may bring human existence to an end. And hideous crimes of state going back well beyond. Take today's papers, on the recommendation to appoint Robert Gates as head of the CIA. Today we learned about newly released documents on his call to bomb Nicaragua in 1984 right after its free election turned out "the wrong way," when he was second in command at the CIA. The US was, after all, condemned by the World Court and the Security Council (twice, both resolutions vetoed by the US) for its criminal attack on Nicaragua, which was incomparably worse than what happened on 9/11. The number of Nicaraguans killed, on a per capita basis, was greater than all Americans killed in all wars, and the country was virtually destroyed and may never recover, even without following Gates's recommendation, obviously criminal. Or take a few days ago, when Bush visited the country where US aggression killed some 3-4 million people and left it a wreck and ruin, and where, we have recently learned, the bombing of Cambodia alone was 5 times as high as previously reported, practically creating the Khmer Rouge.Has anyone been charged with these crimes --all in violation of the USConstitution, Article VII.And on and on.


My response...

There is no question in my mind that 9/11 was "business as usual." And there is no doubt that the American Empire has most certainly caused horrific things around the world. However, that is around the world. Not here. 9/11 was here. Americans may be more prone to expose 9/11 because it did happen here, than they would be to expose crimes taking place in other parts of the world. If you expose 9/11, then you expose the corrupt portion of our Government responsible for all of the atrocities you mentioned. It has to stop. 9/11 Truth can do that.

If you can, please take the time to watch the movie. It is available for free online.

Thank you.


His response...

The threat of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe are here. The threat of fiscal train wreck and maintaining the worst health care system in the industrial world is here, and now, and causing far more deaths than 9/11. I do not happen to share your feeling that killing thousands of Americans is worse than killing tens of millions of others, but even if I did, 9/11 would rank low among crimes of Americans.

So we are back to the two choices: action to stop the crimes, or academic debates where even the proponents of one side are unwilling even to take the minimal steps to submit their claims to evaluation.

My response...

For the record, I didn't say murdering 2,973+ is worse than killing millions. I said, "Americans may be more prone to expose 9/11 because it did happen here, than they would be to expose crimes taking place in other parts of the world." There isn't a "Nicaragua Truth Movement." There is, however, a "9/11 Truth Movement."

His response...

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I don't share your cynical view of Americans, but if it is correct, then we face another task that (in my judgment) is vastly more significant than debating the background of 9/11 (and would be even if adherents of the Truth Movement were willing to take the most elementary steps towards submitting their theses to examination): namely, overcoming the extremely dangerous imperial mentality and profound moral deficiency that you attributeto our fellow-citizens, which (to the extent that it exists, and to someextent it certainly does)lies at the root ofmajor crimes against humanity, and worse to come.

You're quite wrong about the non-existence of a Nicaragua Truth Movement, in arevealintg way. It not onlyexisted, but it was vastly more significant than the 9/11 Truth Movement. During the 1980s, for the first time in the history of Western imperial atrocities, many thousands of Americans went to live with the victims of our crimes, to assist them, and to offer them the protection that comes from a white face. In Nicaragua in particular. That was entirely new. No one dreamed of living for these reasonsin an Algerian or Vietnamese village, or ever in the history ofWestern imperial crimes Furthermore, the roots of these mass movements were in mainstream America: rural Kansas and Arizona and Maryland, etc., often evangelical churches. Furthermore, many are still there, doing exceptional work. And more significant, these movements have since expanded over much of the world: Christian peacemakers, International Solidarity Movement, others, making enormous contributions and facing dangers that are very real. Just a few days ago, for example, a young woman accompanying Palestinian children to schoolin Hebron -- necessary, to protect them from the brutality of mostly US immigrants supported by the US government in their illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank -- was attacked by settlers, beaten, her jaw broken by a bottle that one of them swung at her. The US-armed and -supported Israeli army, which is supposed to protect the children, stood by, but finally intervened to tell the settlers that it was enough, and a Palestinian ambulance was allowed to come to take her to a hospital. That happens regularly, thanks to the overt support or passivity of American citizens, who bear primary responsibility for these crimes, in this case, destruction of a nation before our eyes -- a rare event in history.

It's quite true that these movements are far less known than the groups debating 9/11. The reasons are pretty obvious, I think. They are taking courageous stands against systems of power, and therefore are reviled and marginalized. The last thing that centers of power want -- including media, journals, educational institutions -- is for people like you to know about authentic activism, and to decide to participate in it. In contrast, the 9/11 Truth Movement is quite harmless, therefore treated quite tolerantly. As perhaps I have mentioned to you before, I would not be at all surprised if a few years down the road internal government documents surface similar to those concerned with the JFK assassination, urging the executive to release material on the assassination periodically, to keep the assassination movements focused on this wild goose chase and to keep them away from real and serious crimes of state.

None of this, however, bears on the choice between (1) and (2), unless we believe that Americans do not even care about crimes against them and their children that are far more serious than destroying the WTC.

My response...

I don't assume that I am smarter than the great Noam Chomsky. I have no doubt that you have read, and studied more than I can ever know. That being said, your last statement about the seriousness of destroying the WTC reminded me of Sean Hannity. "The planes flew into the towers, and the towers came down." Simplifying the event essentially. If we agree that 9/11 has been used as a "pretext for policies already undertaken and planned", then that means upwards of 655,000 dead Iraqis, 3000 dead American soldiers, an $8Trillion+ deficit, 70,000 sick first responders and New Yorkers, the Patriot Act I & II, the Military Commissions Act, the Signing Statements, Wiretapping, and so on, would not have happened if not for 9/11. Proving that 9/11 is about a little bit more than just "destroying the WTC." I do not expect to change your mind. It is obvious that you have no intention of siding with the "harmless" and "tolerated" 9/11 Truth Movement. I am sorry that you are tolerant of the murder of 2,973+ people, and that you believe no one should be held accountable for that crime. Unless of course you believe the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq were responsible for that crime.

I guess I'm just going to have to continue flyering, writing articles, lobbying members of Congress, writing the media, helping others in their grassroots efforts, etc... It's a shame I don't know about "authentic activism."

His response...

Sorry that you don't seem willing to consider the simple fact that we have two choices: (1) do something to stop massive state crimes, including the killing of 650,000 Iraqis, sharply escalating the threat to survival of the species, etc.; (2) debate the origins of 9/11, which will do precisely nothing to stop those crimes -- and that would be true even if the advocates of the Movement undertook the minimal effort to submit their claims to evaluation in the way that is done by anyone serious.

That's what it comes down to. The rest, I'm afraid, is blowing smoke.

My response...

I believe 2 would bring about 1. If you take away their pretext, then you destroy the legitimacy of everything criminal they have done, and have been able to get away with. I don't see why this is so hard for you to comprehend.

Incidentally, does presenting Attorney General Eliot Spitzer with this:

Count as a "minimal effort to submit their claims to evaluation in the way that is done by anyone serious?"

I think it does. Why did Eliot Spitzer ignore the complaint? It included signatures from a lot of noteworthy individuals. A few I'm sure you're more than familiar with. I don't think you're as familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement as your critique of it leads one to believe.

You're right. We have a choice. However, I don't think the choices are as you describe. I think those choices are 1) Let them get away with the murder of 2,973+ 2) Don't let them get away with the murder of 2,973+.

I'm going with 2.

I find it VERY hard to

I find it VERY hard to believe that Chomsky is having so much trouble connecting the dots about 9/11. I think he is now simply worried that endorsing 9/11 Truth would result in a very public, Fox News driven debate about his sanity, something akin to what we saw with Van Jones, and the voice of educated reason from the left would be discredited. That rationale is arrogant and fraudulent. Continuing the debates about the bipartisan issues to which he refers, in the face of the 9/11 fraud, is criminal negligence.

This is great

Great job.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

3 years ago

Oh, this is from 3 years ago. Why is this reposted on the front page of 911blogger as if this is new? You had me fooled.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

Had you fooled? The date is in the headline!

You must be pretty easy to fool.

Fool me once..

.. oh, never mind.

Forgive me

I try to get right to the meat of an article because I am time constrained. I just assumed that since it was on the front page of 911blogger, it was current or new.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, the 9-11 victim family members, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

I think it's more about high-placed intellectuals

who would frown on such questions from him. It's anathema, as we know, among the liberal intelligencia to entertain questions about 9/11--it's considered a direct attack on Israel and an alignment with malicious anti-Jewish conspiracists. How convenient for the perpetrators of 9/11 that this is imagined to be the case.

The most basic dots of all

The most basic dots of all--detectable before one even examines the details of the 9/11 events--are those connecting the official version of those events with the policies of war and lawlessness and repression that it made possible. Not just Chomsky but many 'antiwar' activists are willfully obtuse in pretending not to see those dots. And likewise, they also pretend not to see that for us in the 9/11 truth movement, those dots are fundamental to why we care about the issue; and so, outrageously, like to portray us as being inward-looking, caring only about the deaths of Americans.

Oh, I just love it when members of the truthless, toothless antiwar groups act as if they've been sooooooooooooooo successful at preventing the deaths of Iraqis and other invaded peoples!


...You did damn good! It's amazes me that a person as smart as Noam could be so stupid.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.


it is something else... such as lying Con Man; deceiving for a variety of reasons.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

shilling for the empire

Chomsky's position is inexcusable. When he was asked about 9/11, he could have remained neutral, said "I don't know."

He went on the offensive, in the face of overwhelming evidence, which he ignores.

Chomsky is a fake leader, a compromised typist.

Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin

One has to consider what would happen if the full Urban Moving Systems case became part of the public record. Did Mossad put thermate in the World Trade Center? What would happen to beloved Israel should this become public?

Is this the line where Jewish Amercan scholars fear to tread?

Do they know?

Do they suspect?

Is this possibility the sword of damacles hanging over their heads?

My modest contribution towards warning the world against Chomsky

My own modest contribution towards warning the world against Chomsky's insidious influence is "Noam Chomsky, phony American dissident" of 26 May 2009.

I will be sure to link from there to this and other excellent articles linked to from this page in the near future.


Naomi Klein recognizes that certain political and economic right wing thinkers throughout history have exploited shocks of various sorts to push through agendas otherwise resisted by the general public. Philip Zelicow wrote about this well before 911 and so did Project for a New American Century.

How does Noam Chomsky not get this concept in an equally opposite sense? Should he not recognize that an equal and opposite shock is needed to shock the American public into intervening? That shock being the realization of just how offensive and egregious it is that our national wealth and treasures have funded the crimes against our own people under a false flag? And now those fabricated events provide the pretext for crimes upon crimes in a never ending twisted lie!

The American people are the greatest variable in this discussion. We are like a giant of frightening power, but asleep and unaware. Both Jon and Chomsky are recognizing the giant's potential for changing the course of history but disagreeing about how to wake the giant. I'm with Jon. Nothing will invoke the anger of the American people like a universal awakening that we have been tricked. This is betrayal and nothing is more painful than betrayal. An attack by an enemy has it's own pain but we must reframe what has happened...

This is the accurate frame... Unknown members of our own society who have been entrusted with the public good actually plotted against us in fabricating the crimes of 911 under a false flag. Then, parading themselves as the heros and protectors of society have asked us to sacrifice blood and treasure to chase phantoms in a never ending and very self serving war on terror, the terror actually being a product of those who stand most to profit from this war!

Las Cruces, NM


Asset Chomsky will use any topic he can think of to derail the 9/11 investigation and avoid its evidence and implications.

Every single point he makes is toward minimizing the importance and relevance of US government complicity in the terror attacks. This refusal to hold to account covert forces who attack us here in the US leaves open the possibility of further attacks whenever needed by the elites.

Chomsky is an enemy of the Ameircan public, and I cannot stomach this old scumbag. He's lied about Kennedy's murder for decades, also choosing to minimize its importance at every turn. And now he pretends that 9/11 isn't important when compared to US actions in Nicaragua in the 80's.

Anyone who believes that old liar is deluded.

Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin

I hold him directly responsible for lying to a sizeable portion of the population and getting them to be hostile to something as basic to democracy as learning the truth about who attacked us and provided cassus bellis for multiple wars. Chomsky should be held in disgrace and disregarded by thinking people.

And another thing or two...

"That's one of the reasons why there is nothing remotely like it in history, and another reason to be skeptical about the claims (which, as I pointed out, even the proponents refuse to put to the minimal test)."

So now Chomsky's never heard of the Reichstag fire?

Statesman to clown.

Minimal test? Like the victim's family lawsuit against the Saudi government?

Like 28 redacted pages in the Congressional Joint Inquiry?

Like the head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence telling us "foreign governments" (plural) participated in the attacks?

Chomsky is an unabashed LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR.


Even the strongest proponents of the Truth Movement refuse to undertake the most elementary effort to substantiate their case, e.g., by submitting articles to scientific journals raising questions about what happened and about the reports of professional associations and independent specialists about it. - Noam Chomsky

Either incredibly ignorant or incredibly compromised.

Edit: Jon, your response to the above was: To my knowledge, there are papers that have been peer-reviewed in existence.

Why didn't you mention and provide links to the specific papers, particularly the Bentham Paper and the one in the Environmentalist?

That was a missed opportunity imho.
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

November 2006.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.


....................Oh well. It's small potato's. We have a powerful section of of government hell bent on evil.
I lost a lot of respect of a man i thought was smart.
Jon you did so good.
9/11 defines what America needs to regain respect. It's American values that wins the worlds admiration.

Thanks again.

Here's a song for you.

Click Here

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.


I wouldn't even have any idea how to contact a person like Chomsky. I'm amazed that you did and that he replied and conversed. Well, known people are often inundated by those wishing to communicate with them. How in the heck did you even find the guy's address, email address, fax line or whatever means you used.

I only read this once and I'm tired but, it seems to me that nothing here is mutually exclusive. NC could publicly support many causes, both big efforts and small. All he has to do is lend his name and support to it. Hey, I'm "nobody" and I support and work for multiple causes. I have my opinions on all sorts of things, just like NC, and most people have. I mean, how does he know, how does anyone know how the future of movements and causes will unfold.

Just because I can't do much and am not sure that they can either, doesn't stop me from signing every petition on for a cause I believe in.

Here's the bottom line:

-- Much to my chagrin, I discovered (what many of who are less naive may have long known or suspected) that Academia is a racket.
-- Chomsky is a man, no more, no less.
-- He puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like all the rest of us do.
-- He has some very interesting things to say and some very interesting ways to say them, but so do most of you!

Trust in yourselves.

and, thanks, Jon.


"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi


Posted his email in his thread that I have posted above. That's all.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

My Email Exchange with Chomsky

On Sept. 2, 2007 I had an email exchange with Noam Chomsky about the newly-formed AE911truth group and the Journal of 9/11 Studies. (190 Architects and Engineers at the time, for which I provided the link, as well as the link to He challenged the journal, presupposed his own correctness of the data, and then called the Truth Movement self-righteous! This is the actual response from Dr. Chomsky: (Sunday, Sept. 2, 2007)

"You've confirmed my observation that no advocate of these views has had enough confidence to do what everyone does who thinks they've made a scientific discovery: submit a paper to a reputable journal.

If someone believes in "intelligent design," we're not impressed if they submit articles to a peer-reviewed Journal of Intelligent Design Studies. We begin to take notice when they submit articles to Science, Nature, etc.-- as they do, and are then refuted by peers.

The idea that people are taking risks by putting forth these views is a remarkable feature of the Truth Movement, probably because participants have had no experience with dissidence and activism, and don't understand the real risks that are faced regularly, without posturing.

Another intriguing feature of the Movement is its incredible arrogance and self-righteousness, common in religious cults but not serious enterprises. So if someone doesn't accept the Party Line, they become "gatekeepers" or worse."

(I did mention that these professionals are putting their reputations on the line by presenting evidence for controlled demolition and calling for a new investigation).

(I forwarded this email to Kevin Ryan, who said this is a typical response and that attempts HAD been previously made to submit articles to the above journals, but they wouldn't allow them. In other words, they were censored-- not refuted).

Great email exchange

I very much enjoyed your respectful discussion with Chomsky. You made your point very well, and though he did not agree with you, at the very least he discussed with you and tried to rationalize his own stance. That may be a first step for him towards the realization that his opinion may need some introspection.

Thanks Jon, and keep up the good work!


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

First they said "Find a Structural Engineer.."

so when we found dozens, they moved the goalposts. Then it was "publish in a peer-reviewed journal." So when we did, it was "that journal is open-source," or "I don't like that journal." Never a refutation, just a dismissal. Sad.

When Gatekeepers Squirm

Well done. Thanks for posting this I missed it the first time around.

Good work, Jon, for challenging Chomsky...

It's strange that not only Chomsky, but also the prime movers and shakers of the supposedly "progressive" liberal community, have closed ranks on 9/11, and are effectively acting as a shield to protect the perpetrators of the worst ever crime on US soil. It's not just Chomsky; the likes of Arianna Huffington, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, David Swanson, Markos Moulitsas (Kos), David Corn, and many others are acting as an effective barrier against the dissemination of the most reliable information we have on 9/11. Is it because it fails to conform to the official Bush Administration's fairytale? Is it because such material dilutes or negates Muslim involvement? All said and done, 9/11 "justified" the ongoing and endless war against the world's Muslim community, under the banner of "war on terrorism". What is it that Chomsky et al are so scared of, that they are prepared to invest so much effort in support of the officially endorsed position, ie the worst crime on US soil must remain unsolved, uninvestigated and unpunished?

With friends like Noam Chomsky and Arianna Huffington etc, who the hell needs enemies?

911 = Censored

I guess you know, but Huffington said she was not our friend a couple of months ago. She's been officially censoring 911 from her site for ages:

While we're at it here's that 911 censoring Kos creep admitting he completed enrollment with the CIA's clandestine services, why they're so wonderful and how sometimes they just have to kill people:

"I don't share your cynical view of Americans"

"I don't share your cynical view of Americans, but if it is correct, then we face another task that (in my judgment) is vastly more significant than debating the background of 9/11 [sic]; namely, overcoming the extremely dangerous imperial mentality and profound moral deficiency that you attribute to our fellow-citizens, which (to the extent that it exists, and to some extent it certainly does) lies at the root of major crimes against humanity, and worse to come."

how does the great noam chomsky not share in a point-of-view that he himself affirms as true???

what the fuck kind of statement is that? what kind of stance is that?? the man contradicts himself in the same breath! he essentially calls you cynical for holding the view that americans have a "profound moral deficiency" and then agrees that this same deficiency is the root cause of "major crimes against humanity."

clearly mr. chomsky is not arguing honestly here. i hate to say it -- but this exchange certainly proves it so -- noam was playing you, jon... or he's playing himself and can't accept that he's a fraud, as evidenced by the quote above. i wonder how he reconciles the huge disparities in his vast body of knowledge against his actions? what a miserable man he must be. how tragic.

on second thought

i think noam's reached a state of protracted apathy as a result of his repeated encounters with futility.

He's joking, right?

And what about the way he claimed Jon was cynical of Americans in the first place, when all he'd said was
"Americans may be more prone to expose 9/11 because it did happen here, than they would be to expose crimes taking place in other parts of the world."

This is a completely reasonable assumption, and would be wherever he was talking about. Credit to Jon for choosing his words wisely, and forcing the linguist to attempt such a brazen misreading.

This correspondence shows Chomsky sat backwards on his high horse.

it's true.

he sets up a "you're so cynical" strawman -- which he then attacks -- and in literally the same instance agrees with the basis for the cynicism which he ascribes to jon... it's pretty silly.

Cindy Sheehan interviews Noam Chomsky...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.