Noam Chomsky's glaring logical inconsistencies

Chomsky Says President Obama Continues Bush Policy To Control Middle East Oil
by Sherwood Ross

Noam Chomsky spoke at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th.
Academic activist Chomsky is known to the 911 Truth Movement as a denier of the facts of controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, in spite of the massive amount of irrefutable evidence (most of us see it as ordinary common sense backed up by hard core science).

As I recall, Chomsky also insisted, as many deniers do, that any conspiracy would have to be too large, that too many people would have to be involved, for it to have occurred. Then he dismissed his challengers with a wave of the hand and said, "What does it matter?"

I suspect that when Chomsky did this, he knew his arguments couldn't stand up, but he couldn't admit his mistake or the fact that he had been deceived, so he resorted to outright denial and a pretense of apathy; I also believe he still can't admit that he was wrong but probably knows it deep inside.

Now here we have Chomsky giving a speech in which he describes the war in Iraq as
"a major crime" designed to enable the US to control middle east oil reserves. Further on, he compares US actions to those of a Mafia organisation.

So let me get this straight.

Chomsky believes the Iraq War is a major crime;

Chomsky believes it was "designed" to enable the US to control middle east oil;

Chomsky believes that the US operates like the Mafia criminal organisation.

So I would love to ask Mr Chomsky some pertinent questions:

Who does Chomsky think is responsible, who are the perpetrators of the crime?

What exactly did the perpetrators do? If the pretext for war is legitimate (according to Chomsky, it was, because he says 911 was not a contrived event) then exactly what crimes have been committed by people in the US and who committed them?

If the war was purposely designed, then how can the pretext for that war, 911, not also have been purposely designed? Is he really saying 911 was a fluke?

How does this square up with his previous arguments that 911 was not a contrived event nor a conspiracy involving US Government officials in any way?

It would be great to see Chomsky have to answer these and similar questions. What a world we live in, when supposedly one of the most brilliant intellectuals on the planet cannot see these obvious gaping holes in his presentation of the facts.

When you have eliminated the impossible ........

In "A study in Scarlet", Sherlock Holmes said: When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever else remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
With this in mind, a highly intelligent man such as Chomsky can only behave like i simpleton if there is some deeper motivation.
I wonder if the FBi or the CIA know something about Chomsky that would ruin his career if it were to be made public?

It's on us

The purpose that Chomsky and other academics, celebrities and such serve for the 9-11 Truth movement is to endure our relentless pestering questions that expose their participation in the cover up, and thus expose the cover up itself.

I hope to get the opportunity to pester him with your excellent questions Alison.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

I don't know ...

what to make of Chomsky. As a longtime admirer and student of Chomsky's work, I was very surprised to learn of his dismissive attitude toward the truth (or even study) of 9/11 ... my appraisal of Chomsky has since undergone considerable revision.

Still, I find it hard to believe that Chomsky is as naive and credulous as he acts in regard to the truth of 9/11. I think he may be motivated to conceal his real opinion on the subject in public, by fear of the personal consequence he might suffer if he didn't... ie. the sort of self-censorship he describes in his book 'Manufacturing Consent'.

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that he is a mole, ie. faux dissenter ... and to my mind, that doesn't seem very likely.

I wonder how Chomsky reconciles the notion that if 9/11 was a conspiracy involving terrorists, only 19 conspirators are required, but if it was a conspiracy involving government officials, it would require thousands ... if terrorists are really that much more competent than government officials, maybe we should employ terrorists to run govt,.. perhaps that's what's happening already...

19 vs. thousands?


You make a sterling point here !

it is a logic fallacy that we can point out to ANYONE that counters 9/11 truth arguments by saying "it would have required thousands...."

Why is is easy for 19 hijackers (led a dialysis patient in a cave), to pull off 9/11, yet it purportedly requires thousands of insiders to do the same thing?

Manufacturing Consent

Great points by Alison- detail; the linked article is by Sherwood Ross, not Ross Sherman

johnscriv- "Still, I find it hard to believe that Chomsky is as naive and credulous as he acts in regard to the truth of 9/11. I think he may be motivated to conceal his real opinion on the subject in public, by fear of the personal consequence he might suffer if he didn't... ie. the sort of self-censorship he describes in his book 'Manufacturing Consent'.

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that he is a mole, ie. faux dissenter ... and to my mind, that doesn't seem very likely."

Chomsky's role as 'America's dissident intellectual' is continually hyped by the same MSM that sell the 9/11 lies and disparage the questions, and that also sold the Iraq war lies and have participated in deflecting public inquiry instead of doing investigative reporting. This same MSM gatekeeps on every issue important to continued social and economic control by the same illegitimate 'elite' class that sits on the interlocking directorates of corporate America and owns the vast majority of stock and wealth, and the vast majority of Republicans, Democrats and media outlets. Chomsky's book shows how consent is manufactured by selective promotion of information, and the defining of the range of debate and relevance- 'alternative' view points and 'dissidents' such as Chomsky are actually promoted, as they provide the illusion of a free debate.

Chomsky's not an idiot- it could be his refusal to critically examine the historical record on 9/11 (as well as the science and common sense), and his shockingly obtuse and ignorant answers on 9/11 (and JFK) are due to a calculation about how to preserve his career and public standing. It could also be he's part of some other agenda. I don't have all the facts, and I'm not going to rule anything out. In any case, it's clear Chomsky has zero credibility, and nothing he says should be taken at face value and accepted as factual without corroboration by truly independent sources. However, what he says can and will be used against him.

Sherwood Ross

Somehow I managed to mess up the article authors name. Does anyone know if I should edit the blog or is it too late to fix this? (Sorry my first blog here).

Chomsky advice to Finkelstein

I corrected it for you, as you asked, and to save this from going back into the queue.

A clue to Chomsky's thinking- advice he gave to Norman Finkelstein about being critical of the book "From Time Immemorial", which posited that Palestine was populated by Jews and Arabs around the same time, and was largely unpopulated beforehand. The book was used to belittle Palestinian claims that the area has been their homeland for a much longer period of time.

Chomsky: "I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you."


Interesting. Do you have a source for that quote?


whoops, meant to include that:
Noam Chomsky (2002). ""The Fate of an Honest Intellectual"". "Understanding Power". The New Press. pp. pp. 244-248, p.244..

In fairness...

...Chomsky was highly supportive of Norman Finkelstein's work.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence


Chumpsky as I like to call him is an intellectual bullshitter.He has on a number of occasions dismissed the possibility that 911 was an inside job with the nonchalant impertinence of his psuedo intellectual superiority.
He has this almost guru like appeal to many many people who see him as a moral and intellectual fortress of truth,,What Chumpsky deems to be true MUST be true! and if Chumpsky says that 911 was NOT an inside job then who are we Der Untermensch to argue!


This sounds like a huge helping of raw truth, including his take on Israel.

Someone here recently posited that Chomsky, Amy Goodman, et al., wouldn't touch the subject of 9/11 because they possibly feared the consequences to Israel if The Truth ever came out.

I thought that was a very interesting theory. I'd never considered it before. If true, why then would he be talking straight up about Israel now?

What am I missing?

ps. Many thanks, Alison!


was just telling that to my friend. saw this article here and started thinking.
i mean, chomsky is obviously no fool. thats for sure. and his work was always
good and interesting, but why would he act as such a coward when it came
to 9/11? curious. i was. and i came up with two explanations:

one is what you've said - they lie because mossad was maybe involved and that
would hurt israel on the "international scene" (whatever that bullcrap means)

and two: think of leftgatekeepers. people like, let's say... zinn, goodman, chomsky,
even tv celebrities such as jon stewart etc. those people, die-hard liberals, are lying
about 9/11 because they know that if the truth got out, the civilisation as we know it
may come to an abrupt end. because if people realized that their own gvt killed 3000
of them (people), and then lied about it and everything else... i don't think it would
be too long before angry mobs would start to pillage washington dc and impaling all
politicians. also, those same die-hard liberals are also aware of their complicity in
the cover-up. they kept quiet (even blatantly lied, like chomsky for instance) when they
should have asked questions.

so, it is a "higher cause". "yes, 9/11 was an inside job", noam thinks to himself.
"i mean", chomsky keeps on talking to himself, "it was more than obvious, but
there are some other, more important things involved here and that's the survival
of the civilization, therefore, i noam chomsky will lie".

for now, that is the only logical explanation of chomsky's behaviour. at least to me.
same pattern, or principle, can be found when you think about why would us gvt
kill 3000 of it's own people. i mean, sure to start a war, but that's a bit too small
of a "win" for such a risk.

and then it dawned upon me: oil peak was starting to happen, us got worried
they wont have enough oil, millions of people would die because of the lack
of the oil, sooo... kill 3000 to save millions. that's the most logical explanation
to me. stage a terrorist attack, kill 3000 of your own citizens, get the public on
your side (they're dumbasses anyway, right?) and go to iraq, open military bases
and oil is secured.

and yes. just like that crazy general in "dr strangelove". :D dick cheney in rl. :D

Spoken Like a Con Man

youtube comment

someone on youtube has this to say about the above video.

"Chomsky is one of the smartest people alive, and has a long history of being proved right: ''it wouldn't shock me if, 30 years from now, we discover the 9/11 industry is being fed by the administration.' 100% right.

I suspected for a long time that the 9/11Truth Cult is created and sustained to distract attention away from the important issues. Create & propagate a fantasy world where '9/11 was an inside job' to keep people distracted, and they'll stay away from what is really going on."

which is exactly what you would expect from a follower of cult Chumpsky.Chomsky is a Gatekeeper and a coward.

'it wouldn't shock me if, 30

'it wouldn't shock me if, 30 years from now, we discover the 9/11 industry is being fed by the administration.'

Well that much is obviously true. The same was true of the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement.

Excuse me?

Please elaborate further.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan

One can easily enough believe the official story about what happened on 911 and still see quite clearly that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were baseless, illegal, and immoral. The invasion of Afghanistan, and overthrow of the Taliban was clearly neither justified even the context of the official story. Nobody ever claimed and no evidence was presented that the Taliban was behind the attacks of 911, and everybody knew that the victims of US bombs were to be Afghans who had absolutely no involvement with Al Qaeda or terrorism. There were no Afghans aboard the hijacked planes. Further, the Taliban first offered to turn over bin Laden if the US could provide evidence of his complicity in 911, and then offered to turn over bin Laden if we would refrain from bombing Afghanistan. Neither offer was accepted. Clearly the goal was not to get bin Laden or fight terrorism. The goal was to occupy Afghanistan.

The plan to invade Afghanistan was already on the president's desk before the attacks of 911.

The invasion of Iraq is even more obviously not justified by the attacks on 911.

Zionists vs. Oil Men

Looks like the honeymoon is over.

Chomsky addresses Nanothermite paper

October 2009

Human Rights in the 21st Century
Speaker: Professor Noam Chomsky
Chair: Howard Davies
This event was recorded on 29 October 2009 in Old Theatre, Old Building
Leading thinker Professor Noam Chomsky considers the state and future of human rights. Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at MIT.
Available as: mp3 (22 MB; approx 94 minutes)

At 52:40, an audience member asks Chomsky about the Nanothermite paper which was published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Chomsky replied that 911 Truthers ought to publish their research in scientific journals rather than asking him, Chomsky, about them (???!!!). He says he did not feel it wise for him (Chomsky) to spend the "years of training" necessary to evaluate such papers. He called the 950 Architects & Engineers a bunch of "unknown people".

Does this sound like a rational reply? No. It is the reply of someone desperate to dismiss the subject out-of-hand. I think Chomsky must calculate some considerable risk to his public standing by becoming identified with the 911 Truth Movement. So he will dismiss 911 Truth in any way he possibly can.

He's AFRAID, plain and simple

why wouldn't he be? Noam is an "official" intellectual and is allowed to officially criticize the empire as part of the "necessary illusion" of our democracy. However, he knows that his international reputation makes any dissent on 911 an "official" problem with severe potential consequences. This is war folks, plain and simple people have been murdered and nothing less than the fate of the empire is at stake. Chomsky is smart enough to know which fights to take on and if he even hints at having an open mind regarding 911 truth his fate could be sealed. How many of us would pack in the tent if our lives or our family lives were immediately at stake? As an international person his exposure is "official". However, as a former fan I wrote to him saying I was disgusted with his position on 911 truth and would never buy another of his books and felt like burning the autographed copies etc. I am sure on some level he and people like Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn feel that they can still make a difference in our world without taking on 911 truth. But the truth is it's not working and things are much worse and more corrupt everyday. It's a bad man's world and I am afraid it's up to the little guys to save each other right now.

top dog

very well said, Peaceful Warrior.
Chomsky also serves as the ubermensch top dog intellectual. Many in the left community use him as cover. If Chomsky dismisses this, then it must be ok for all the sub-intellectuals to do the same. You'd think at the age of 85+/- he'd be less fearful. Maybe he will spill the beans posthumously in book. There may be serve books being written now as we speak to be published with that stipulation. Its deeply disappointing to see this play out, but like you said PW, its war and fate of the corrupt empire is at stake.


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

Nice try Jon.

he's not taking any chances.


"What exactly did the perpetrators do? If the pretext for war is legitimate (according to Chomsky, it was, because he says 911 was not a contrived event).."

I think I know what you mean, in that it obviously *has* given them the pretext they needed.

But even if OBL and AQ were the sole perpetrators, wouldn't the US still have to provide evidence before demanding him turned over? I guess some would say they have evidence now, but wasn't a lot of that obtained through torture? Chumpsky probably doesn't deny that.

And since when was it OK to invade another country in pursuit of a criminal? Never, that's when.

So hardly legitimate!

Crime and pretext for war

Chomsky labels the Iraq War as a major crime, but accepts the pretext for it as legitimate. IE. 19 muslim hijackers organised by OBL really did plan and carry out all aspects of the 911 attacks. This leaves only less significant aspects up for debate, ie. whether or not Iraq had WMD, whether Iraq was co-operating with AQ, whether the wider environment of the middle east where terrorists were being recruited and trained etc necessitated an attack on Iraq and so on. Obfuscation can always make these areas more debatable, but Chomsky is saying that the fundamental pretext given to the US people was legitimate and justified a war.

It's just seems so irrational to say that the pretext was legitimate and then to say it was really about oil.

I agree that this could never legitimate a war in the eyes of probably most people here at blogger, but it did so to the vast majority of the American people who supported the war in the beginning, and that was my point.

I guess I was just trying to show how inconsistent of Chomsky it is to throw around these labels like "major crime", whilst accepting the Official Story, which does, at least to some extent, justify American actions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq IF it is accepted as true.

Thank you everyone for a lively and interesting discussion particularly in respect of the real reasons for Chomsky's denial of 911 Truth fundamentals. I have always found it quite difficult to penetrate the mind of another to uncover these reasons. In the case of Chomsky I also have thought long and hard about how his mind works. I accept his denial as genuine, ie. he really does believe in Al Qaeda, OBL as mastermind, hijackers, incompetence and so on. I personally doubt that he is a Mockingbird type agent, although his denial of both JFK and 911 is very puzzling indeed. It makes the man look stupid, but I accept it could be strategic on his part.

As for his rambling about nuclear weapons, more important crimes and so on, this seems to me just total obfuscation. As we all know here, 911 Truth is the answer to so many other things, but Chomsky seems genuinely not to appreciate this. Furthermore, treason, deception, the secret government, the role of org's like Banks and the CFR, and the outright LIES make 911 truth the only issue we really need to resolve, as it can bring down the whole edifice of lies and gives us a way to really understand WHO has hijacked the US Govt and HOW they did it and WHETHER they are still doing it, too.

What was the ostensible purpose of the Omission Commission after all? If we cannot arrive at an understanding of these things, we can't prevent them from happening again. Why do unsolved murders stay on police files? Chomsky seems to lack appreciation of the most basic ideas about justice.

I am with Jon who points out it comes down to two things only, whether to let them get away with it or not, and the only answer is NOT! After all, we are the ones who might be murdered in cold blood NEXT time, god forbid. And those who were murdered are our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and our precious children.

For the time being, I'll go with the idea that Chomsky is scared, not of the facts of 911 and their implications, but rather he is somewhat ignorant of facts and too scared to even investigate them at all, for fear that everything he has done will be undermined. Thus his rejection of the nanothermite paper and his blanket denials which seem to lack true understanding of the truth movement. On the other hand, his denial of CD seems quite wilful.

I think the jury here has delivered its verdict on Chomsky - a gatekeeper - but the investigation of his motivations and denial goes on. I once thought highly of him. He will never be credible in my eyes again until that day that he addresses 911 truth with a measure of respect for our position. And it looks increasingly like that day will never come.

Love Alison

chomsky's bizarre take on 9-11 and jfk murders


it takes most people a long time of reading and research to break through the
deep structure of american mythology.

chomsky has religiously dismissed jfk's assassination as having something to
do with elements of the secret us government. in doing so, he argued there is
no evidence jfk had plans to draw down us commitment to south vietnam. this
has since been demonstrated not to be true.

chomsky has religiously, not scientifcally, dismisses the events of 9-11 as having
anything to do with elements of the secret us government.

he is nothing if not consistent.

the difference is that he wrote a book immediately after 9-11 in which he leaves
himself open to the possibility of a form of inside job.

on page 120-121 he writes: "it was assumed, plausibly, that the guilty parties were bin
laden and his al qaeda network. No one knows more about them than the CIA, which,
together with his counterparts among US allies, recruited radical Islamists from many
countries and organized them into a military and terrorist force....Us intelligence has
surely been following the other exploits of these networks closely ever since they asassinated
President Sadat of Egypt twenty years ago, and more intensively since the attempt to blow up
The World Trade Center and many other targets in a highly ambitious terrorist operation in 1993.
Nevertheless, despite what must be the most intensive international intelligence investigation
in history, evidence about the perpetrators of 9-11 has been hard to find. Eight months after the
bombing (sic), FBI director Robert Mueller, testifying in Congress, could say only that US
intelligence now "believes" the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though planned and implemented
elswhere. And long after the source of the anthrax attacks was localized to US government laboratories,
it still has not been identified. These are indications of how hard it may be to counter acts of terror
targetting the rich and powerful in the future. Nevertheless, despite thin evidence, the initial conclusion
about 9-11 is presumably correct." 9--11 (2001,2002)"

so Chomsky wrote in his best selling book that there was little evidence, at best thin, but the official
explanation remained plausible and "presumably correct."

what i find striking is he fails to note the close connection between the bombing of 1993 and FBI
agents being aware of the planning for the attack, which he must be familiar with.

Chomsky also fails to note the strangeness of US government tolerance for the Blind Sheik
in Brooklyn, being given a US visa to live near Manhattan and plan terrorist attacks, when he was
well known in Egypt as being part of the same movement which assassinated Sadat.

why did the USA want an Islamic terrorist apologist like the Blind Sheik living in Brooklyn?

connecting the dots is not that difficult for a world class intellectual immersed in politics.

Chomsky has made a decision to draw a line in the sand.

then again, in Edward Kennedy's memoirs, he says he is generally satisfied with the
Warren Commission findings.

Kennedy had become a ferocious critic of the Iraq war in the Senate. But no one ever
expected him to question the official story of 9-11.

best quote

"With this in mind, a highly intelligent man such as Chomsky can only behave like i simpleton if there is some deeper motivation."

Noam Chomsky is COMRPOMISED. That is the most likely explanation.

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

Chomsky could easily have taken the neutral position. That the investigations were inadequate, and we need to know more. Having investigations interfered with by the Bush administration is not only glaringly obvious to anyone who looks, but expected.

That's not what he did. He went to bat for the other side. Positing riduculous theories about how it could not have happened, and refusing to address any actual evidence at all, he has thrown away his credibility as an independent thinker.

Chomsky was compromised a long time ago, when he did the same thing regarding the Kennedy assassination. By siding with those who posit a "magic bullet" theory, and ignoring (knowingly disregarding) the evidence that Kennedy was shot from the front, Chomsky exposes himself as a leashed dog.

Chomsky's ineffectual and useless critique of the empire inspires no one. He sidelines his adherents into safe places where they can blog about their systemic critiques, never holding people directly accountable for official crimes.
Paricularly, they ignore the official crimes for which there is outrage, evidence, and a chance to make a real change.

They must have Chomsky by the balls. And he misleads his followers.


He'd Also Lose his Gravy Train at MIT

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

Chomsky's critique of the empire ...

is indeed ineffectual and worse, it's desultory, depressing and disempowering. You are correct that the "systemic analysis" favoured by Chomsky avoids personal accountability and downplays the influence of collusion within power structures.

Chomsky does not offer his audience any ideas about how to recognize, challenge or deal with the corrupt, incumbent regime. His portrayal of systemic dysfunction is characterized by a litany of entrenched criminality, but never any remedy.

Chomsky's anti-intellectual treatment of 9/11 and the murder of JFK certainly seems to support the accusation that his credibility is compromised.

"Chomsky could easily have taken the neutral position" ... instead he chose to defend the indefensible ... that says it all.

WAC-LA's Bruno on the right track...

Bruno and WAC-LA continue to bring excellent perspectives about how to make the most of our energies and opportunities to spread 9/11 Truth.

Its always best to allow these types of gatekeepers to indict themselves with their own words and not to try and shout them down or run around yelling treason at them [Jeremy?].

Chomsky, Zinn, and Goodman gain great status from their histories and stances on "war and peace".

It seems to me that if we wanted to trump their cards and bring the peace movements back from the dead WITHOUT their compromised leadership, we should consider the concept of:

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE

This ties in our world wide support for both 9/11 Truth and the world's various peace movements. It also puts the Chomsky-Goodman-Zinn types in position to have to wiggle their way through even more obvious facts and their hypocritical responses, which in turn, will expose them all the more...or...hopefully get them to begin to tell the TRUTH about 9/11.

Which in my view, each of them knows about fully well...but are hiding it.

And to anyone who has yet to conclude that Zionism is the largest barrier to 9/11 Truth from getting "out there", take a look at what the US Congress just passed by a HUGE majority regarding the Goldstone report regarding Israel's behaviors in Gaza. Again, do we hear Goodman-Zinn-Chomsky bringing loud perspective to these types of events? No, because they wish not to be muffled.

Israel has a great deal to loose should its involvement with the events on 9/11/2001 become visible. Not only would Israel loose US citizen's support of its "big brother" the USofA, but it will have its position in expanding its real estate in the middle east thwarted will loose a majority of its influence in running the US congress and electing most politicians...including presidents.

Once the TRUTH about Israel's real influence within our boundaries is "out of the barn", then that horse will never be put back in. Hence the continuous efforts to keep the memorable events of 9/11/2001 and Israel's involvement with it under wraps. Of ALL stories in the entire scenario of the events of 9/11/2001, the "Dancing Israelis" story is the smokingest of smoking guns.

How is it possile that Mossad agents were in place before hand in an excellent location to record the events of 9/11 WITHOUT incredibly accurate PRIOR KNOWLEDGE regarding what was just about to happen. This is the big black eye for the 9/11 Truth Movement. How does one stand for exposing the truth but avoid telling and exposing THIS truth about Israel's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Anyway...many US citizens think that politicians are representing citizens...perhaps so, but its only well after Israel...the Military Industrial Complex and its Intel police force...Big Pharma...the lordly financial institutions...and other corporations and their lobbyists.

From what I see, the only time that politicians show that they represent citizens is when they are in front of the citizens back home in their districts.

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE ...and...CI-Civil Informationing...and


Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Well Said!

I am saddened by Obama's backtracking on the freeze of new construction on the west bank and Sec Clinton's nonsense about these being historic or unprecedented offers by Israel. Nothing changes for Palestine except it just gets worse for the injured and better for the bullies. I hold very high regard for Jewish people who stand up for real justice in Palestine.

bad marketing

"9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE" will not work. It hasn't worked, and it is not going to get us any farther than we are now.

You're thinking 2004.

The phrase "9/11 TRUTH" has been demonized in the popular media for years. It is a dead term. It has all sorts of negative associations from space beams to tin foil hats to people who shout and interrupt with incoherent messages.

It is dead.

It was never a good marketing term, and it was always open to attack that we are pushing untruth under the banner of "truth."

The term that packs a much better punch is 9/11 Cover-Up. The Cover-Up is more tangible. It can't be immediately dismissed because everyone, and I do mean everyone, accepts that there are covered up aspects that the government has hidden from us.

Cover-Up puts the focus back onto those who are covering up, rather than onto unreliable sources spouting inanities on message boards.

Cover-Up prompts the listener to consider whether to take a side regarding the Cover-Up issue.

Cover-Up suggests a mystery, and piques curiosity.

Cover-Up has an exciting movie quality, that there is more to the plot that we should want to discover.

Cover-Up leaves open the possibility of criminality, and of uncovering more suspects.

Cover-Up can be considered treason in this matter.

You make a very good point about.... to the uninformed US citizen in that you are tying in the historical truths of the US Governement covering up its bad behaviors over the years.

However, I am looking beyond the US citizen and into the defunct peace groups in the USofA and both the 9/11 Truth groups and peace movements abroad.

I do appreciate your criticism because we DO need to change something around and like the word "liberal", perhaps the 9/11 Truth Movement may be permanently compromized.

Thanks for the critique...I do still think that its gonna be an international solution to this horrible US national catastrophy...and I do hope that other Truthers will provide feedback also.

To me, 9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE brings appropriate perspective regarding what the events of 9/11/2001 have meant to the world.

love, peace an progress...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Hey Robin...

You might want to give this a read. Those accusatory emails about censoring information about Israel's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks that you sent me, as well as your statements that "WE KNOW" that I am a Zionist, two completely bogus statements, means that this applies to you as well.

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

open minded intellectuals can be dismissive about 9/11

I've also corresponded with Chomsky about 9/11 and he was incredibly dismissive and closed mined about it. He refuses to examine arguments and evidence, but just waives a hand of dismissal. Very odd.

But he's not the only intellectual that is closed minded about 9/11. I've noticed that a lot of my friends and website users who are usually very rational, logical, down to earth and open minded, are suddenly dismissive regarding 9/11 truth. They refuse to watch any films about it that I refer them to, and refuse to look at any web links, and refuse to answer unanswered questions. They just dismiss it all with no interest. So, it's odd that even rational open minded people can suddenly be so closed and dismissive about 9/11 without doing any research. Must be an emotional thing.

I wish most people were objective and open minded everything, but they aren't. Most people are only open minded about certain things, but not others.

Check out this conversation I had with this really smart, educated knowledgeable guy on my forum about 9/11. This guy is like a human encyclopedia. Yet when it comes to 9/11, he speculates, call the Truthers "sheeple" and refuses to answer any points, arguments or watch any films I refer him to. His behavior is highly illogical, yet in other subjects he's really smart. But about 9/11, he behaved totally irrational. I pointed all this out to him, yet he still won't budge or address any specific points. Have a look:

BTW, the two best films about 9/11 to refer people to, in my opinion are:

"9/11 Blueprint for Truth"
"Zero: An Investigation into 9/11"

Both those films are outstanding and contain a barrage of solid arguments, valid points, and irrefutable arguments. They are on youtube and google video.