A 9/11 "coming out" for Chomsky? The new video

Hi everyone,

Noam Chomsky has recently made some specific comments on 9/11 : http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-05/chomsky-revisits-9-11

For my article on the subject for the French website Oumma.com, I found and isolated the video sequence of his declaration broadcasted last Monday by Press Tv.

Take a look :

big story...

I just noticed that Raw Story ('nation' section, front page) is linking to George Washington's article via Zero Hedge...


It is great to see Chomsky speaking those words.

It is great to see Chomsky speaking those words.

Globereporter, I'm glad you posted the video. I have been looking for the video of the PressTv interview since the "news" came out.

I should add that I do not trust him at all but his followers might take a another look at 9/11 and begin thinking for themselves.

Beware of Chomsky

I myself confronted him in 1981 at Ohio State University where he was lionizing the "freedom fighters" in Afganistan - read terrorists - supposedly fighting with "rusty muskets" against the progressive nationalist regime in Kabul. That was the biggest CIA covert op to date.
He signed on in the 90's to the demonization of the Serbs - signing an add in the NYT calling for US military intervention to save the embattled Moslems. An intervention which led to the bombing of Yugoslavia for 80 days with uranium weapons. ALL based on lies.
We know his role on 911 'conspiracy" - he had the same line on Kennedy and King assassinations.
His handlers are evidently trying to refurbish his credibility in the face of an exploding and unprecidented 911 Truth movement.
The man's a fraud.

The man's a fraud.

You hit the nail on the head dave mann. I pay no attention to anything he says. The 9/11 truth movement can do just fine without his input.

Sorry, no major change here

I don't discern any major change in his position. All he's saying is that it was criminal for the U. S. to invade Afghanistan because the "terrorists" were operating out of UAE and Germany.

He says

"the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in the UAE and Germany..".

(but the FBI offered no proof)

Not major, but can still help

Yes, as I've mentioned in other related threads, it's not like he's actually stating or even implying a view that the attacks were an inside job with these remarks. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that there are many people who look up to him who have simply been accepting the contention of Bid Laden's culpability as beyond question. In the case of such people, Chomsky's remarks might help open their minds a crack. Our task is to make use of that opening should we find it, start clearing out whatever other falsehoods may be cluttering up their minds about 9/11, and replacing it with the facts that leave the official story in tatters. We still need to do this since, I'm afraid, the leap from 'They had no proof of Bin Laden's role' to 'it was an inside job' is not nearly so quick and automatic as many of us who are already in the truth movement would like to think. But, again, I think what Chomsky has said can have the effect of aiding us in that task.

I noticed

that he didn't even get the words (or rather, the numbers) 911 out of his mouth. He hesitated for a moment, and then decided to call it the "World tradecenter Pentagon terrorist attacks". My guess is that he unconsciously tried to avoid the term "911-attacks). Just a small detail, but notable in my view. Or maybe his age starts to take his toll on his memory a bit.
Anyway, I also don't see any major change in position, but it is or might be a first step for him into some more questioning of the 911-story. Because if the US govt. didn't have any evidence to hand over to the Taliban, because there wasn't any to begin with, could it have been that they might've had something to do with it themselves? For a person like Chomsky, that wouldn't be all that farfetched to ask, would it?

Not an age thing,

he wants a good definition which will be understood by the international English speaking audience of this Iranian program. "911" is not recognizable for everybody.

Maybe you're right

But I always thought that 911 would be an easier term to refer to those terrorist attacks. But maybe in Iran it's different indeed.

Chomsky is a Linguist

He chose his words carefully.

For his purpose he needed to differentiate between "World tradecenter Pentagon terrorist attacks" where there is no evidence "the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. (Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda operating in Afghanistan) and 9/11 which increasingly connotes ""CONSPIRACY" and "INSIDE JOB" in the minds of the people everywhere.

His purpose was to negate Obama's stated reason for accelerating the illegal war on Afghanistan.

Chomsky is indeed a cunning linguist.

We should all probably try to use a phrase like

the attacks of september 11th and not use 911. After hearing Dick Gregory discuss this subtle but important difference I am convinced that not only the date of the attack but the continued use of the phrase 911 is a terror component going directly back to the root plan of the evil perps. Dick Gregory is a man with his eyes wide open!

Re: attacks of september 11th

I seldom use "attacks of September 11th" or "9/11", since I assume that using the word "attacks" brings images of hijackers and airplanes crashing into buildings into people's minds, and the terse "9/11" makes it sound like it's all wrapped up, fully investigated, and complete; no further questions need be asked. Instead of these terms, I use "the September 11th event" or "the September 11th incident". The evidence indicates that the hijackers (if there were any) and the airplanes were just cover for a much larger and far more destructive operation, and I feel that the terminology should reflect this.

'Attacks' is exactly what they were

and for us to refrain from calling them that only makes it easier for our opponents to monopolize it and to have 'images of hijackers and airplanes crashing into buildings' permanently etched in people's minds in association with the word 'attack' whenever they hear it. The 'real terrorists' win by default that way.

'Conspiracy,' 'terrorist,' 'attack'--again and again I come across people in the truth movement who seem to me, in effect, to be conceding the power over language to the powers that be. As far as I'm concerned, the abuse of language is such a fundamental weapon of the ruling elites nowadays that a truth movement is failing in its task if it doesn't confront and contest it.

If you think it's better to start with something like 'events' or 'incident,' OK--but I would hate for us to become reluctant to use the word 'attacks' because, in plain English, that's what they were.

I can see your point about the word "attack"

to the average person it most likely conveys an attack from an outsider etc. Most folks still don't understand the "false flag" tactic and assume someone attacked the US. However, I can also see that using a word like event could result in an unintentional downplaying of this terrible, horrific, inhuman episode of darkness.

I have to confess " sometimes" after discussing various corruption and unknown facts with "certain" people in general about the US, I do use the phrase the 911LIE. In the right sequence, I feel it may use the heightened emergency vibration of 911 to emphasize my key word LIE. Lots of folks know that our govt lies to us and after almost 10 years, the loss of jobs, the latest banking crisis etc, many people are ready to listen these days.

Funny the other day I was having coffee with some contractors I barely new and they just wanted to hear more and more without skipping a beat. Then this 40+ year old fellow tells me his mother is searching the internet and talking to him about FEMA camps and the Bilderbergers! I thought to myself America is waking up!

"9/11 false flag attack"

is the phrase I generally use.

I never refer to the event as the "9/11terrorist attacks" unless I modify it with "alleged".

Language matters.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Darn right language matters

and that's why a movement for truth must not flee this critical zone on the propaganda battlefield and leave the government and media's biased appropriation of language uncontested.

On 9/11, civilians were attacked so that the American public would be instilled with a sense of terror. People who carry out acts meant to terrorize civilian populations are terrorists. I don't see how a movement that can't be truthful about those basics when speaking with people--even as our lying (or deceived), war-mongering opponents are clear on those points, for everything else they're wrong about--can be called a 'truth' movement.

If questioning the alleged role of Muslim extremists depends on avoiding the use of terms such as 'terror,' 'terrorist,' and 'attacks,' we only have the effect of reinforcing in people's minds--inviting them to continue entertaining--the absurd notions that:

'It isn't terror or terrorism unless Muslim extremists do it. That must be so because not even 9/11 truth activists are contesting this usage. If responsibility ultimately lay elsewhere--say, with white guys in suits-- then it must not have been terrorism, since that is something of which, by definition, non-Muslim-extremists can never be guilty.'

'They aren't attacks unless they originated beyond our borders, or--if domestic--with groups far from the centers of power. That must be so because not even 9/11 truth activists are contesting this usage. Whatever the powers-that-be might be capable of doing to their own domestic populations, they are incapable, by definition, of attacking them.'

Above all, it has the effect of encouraging people to accept that words really do mean whatever government and media would have us think they mean--and we become a 'truth' movement that participates in making Orwell spin in his grave!

Let's not forget that in the phrase 'false-flag attack' or 'false-flag terrorism,' it is the word 'flag' that is modified by 'false,' not 'attack' or 'terrorism,' because the terror-inducing attack can be all too real.

Tricky Chomsky

Hey, Chomsky's been a hero of mine since the 60's. But his take on the JFK assassination and 9/11 have been puzzling and disappointing. And now, this, which forces me to ask: what the hell is he saying?

That we (Bush) refused to give evidence to the Taliban because we (Bush) didn't have any. That's it. Oh, and that the "terrorist attacks" (his words) was "implemented," (now what the hell does THAT mean?) in Germany and the UAR.

That's it.

He said nothing.

If we actually HAVE evidence that the "attacks" were "implemented" in Germany and the UAR, then what is that evidence? Has anyone seen it? Has Chomsky seen it? He speaks as though he has.

Still disappointed.

He did say:

"The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any,
We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."