RICHARD GAGE-- Live, 6PM eastern, Sunday NOV 6th

Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth, will be joining us in The 911 Truth Movement Paltalk Room at 6pm eastern on Sunday November 6th

UPDATE: Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters For 9/11 Truth and Chris Sarns will be joining the discussion this evening
What is Paltalk?

This is a live, two hour Question and Answer session--Your opportunity to ask Richard Gage questions and hear him bring everyone up to date on what AE911TRUTH has accomplished recently.

Richard joins us on the first Sunday of each month.

Paltalk is a cool way to interact with other 911 activists through voice and text chat. You can also split off from the main room and engage in private chat sessions, as well as share files and video.

The 911 Truth Movement Room has over 200 important videos in its library.


PC users---

Mac Users---

After you register, In the Paltalk Messenger window click View All, search 911, highlight the 911 Truth Movement Room. Right click Add To Your Favorites. Double click on that room to enter.


Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters For 9/11 Truth, will be joining Richard Gage on Sunday NOV 6, at 6pm Eastern.

Good to see Gage still promoting debate ... pity about Chomsky

Open debate and respectful examination of evidence without 'a priori' dismissal is the life-blood of democracy.

Which is why these comments from leading intellectual Noam Chomsky are so shocking - and somewhat nauseating.

How embarrassing, in the long term, for Chomsky's followers.

Chomsky is an intellectual giant whose contributions are enormous - but he risks leaving the following legacy for future generations: The great thought-leader who shamefully slammed the gate on critical thinking when it mattered most. And the legacy for the Chomsky left will be: fearful, sheep-like followers who bowed to authority and failed to think for themselves.

Transcript from this recent, disturbing Chomsky discussion:

>>[Btw, If you see the video clip, you will see an old man at a kitchen table, talking in bitter terms. As someone who has learnt a lot from the man, I find the sweeping generalisations and undermining of science experts shocking, coming from the world's leading linguist - a man who well understands the power and meaning of words. ]<<


Chomsky: - - - “The 9-11 (conspiracy) is pretty interesting, actually. .. think it's like maybe a third or half the population. The activists in it, the people in the center of it, as far as I can tell, very few of them are people with any record or involvement in political activism. Maybe a couple here and there. Most of them are just drawn into it.

"And, there's, (sic) and they have factoids too.

“Like, somebody found nano-thermite, whatever the hell that is, in the bottom of Building 7 or whatever. I have no idea what it means or if it means anything.

"But, that's the core of a large part of the evidence that it was done by the Bush administration.”

“Now, the people who are writing about this, they are “experts” in physics and civil engineering on the basis of an hour on the internet.

“So you spend an hour on the internet, you become an expert in civil engineering, physics and you learn what nano-thermite is and so on.

I don't have to tell you what it takes to understand something about physics. It's not an hour on the internet.

“They've managed to collect a very small scattering of architects and one or two people who are supposed to be scientists and a couple of others, who write articles in the journal of 9-11 studies and maybe sometimes in an online journal somewhere.

And so that proves that the scientific world is with us. And then along comes the big story.

“Well, there are some obvious questions. Like, suppose the Bush administration did it. Why would they blame Saudis? Are they insane? I mean, they wanted to invade Iraq, right? Everybody agrees with that. So, why didn't they blame Iraqis? Well, if they had blamed Iraqis [they would have had an] open-shot case. You know, the whole country's for you, you get a U.N. resolution, NATO supports you, you can just go ahead and invade Iraq. Since they blamed Saudis, therefore harming themselves, that's their closest ally, they had to go jump through hoops to try to invent stories about weapons of mass destruction, connections to Al Qaeda and all those other things and then they finally invaded Iraq. So are they lunatics? I mean, that's one possibility, of course.

… like, Bush put the bombs in Building 7 and so on.

And, you can build up big stories like that and a lot of people believe them. I mean, it's a little bit like believing that the reason for why my life is collapsing is because the rich liberals who own the corporations are giving everything away to illegal immigrants. You know, it's an answer too, you can find some factoids about that.

But people who are, you know, kind of at a loss. They don't trust anything, rightly. You know, they don't trust institutions, they think everybody's lying to them, the lies are no good, nothing makes any sense. …

And if you don't understand what an explanation is, a collection of factoids is an explanation."

It is almost unreal

to hear Chomsky, a man who has talked about imperialism a lot before, and certainly knows or should know about falseflag operations, dismiss 9/11 as if it was the dumbest or farfetched thing to believe, while there are so many indications that there is at the least a massive cover-up going on.

Makes one wonder who has talked to him, or what has been going through his mind at the time. Certainly he realizes that 1600+ A&E's are a very significant amount of professionals that do constitute a serious voice in this matter. Maybe he doesn't even realize how many people still don't know about Building 7. He talks about that building as if the fact that it came down (has he even seen it collapse you wonder?) so symmetrically and fast is of no significance whatsoever.
Come on.

Will he have the nerve and find the freedom & strength to speak out before he's leaving us?

We'll see.

Chomsky... a neocon apologist...but *WHY?*

Very shortly after 9/11 Chomsky published a book which failed to address any of the evidence that questioned the official version.... and there was plenty even back at the time that should have raised the eyebrows of someone of Chomsky's intellect.... and if anyone would have done the research... he would have. What would motivate one of the greatest intellectuals of modern US history to write what was essentially a propaganda piece, abandoning his normally incisive sense of reason and logic, and instead, going for an unscientific story that relied on cherry-picking and ignoring the awkward evidence, and the most relevant issue of motivation?

Even though this is speculative, Chomsky may have been "chatted with" as regards 9/11. Chomsky has for decades commanded a huge degree of respect on the left of the political spectrum... and the establishment must have been aware that Chomsky was a probable major thorn in their side, had he followed his historical legacy of rigorous analytical methodology, and examined *ALL* the evidence. He was likely to have been considered someone who had to be "gotten on the side of the program, by whatever means necessary". In short, the old-fashioned Chomsky could have inspired the major movers and shakers on the American left to raise hell, and go up in arms about 9/11... a problem that had to be addressed, maybe?

Chomsky's refusal to address 9/11 properly was likely a major factor in creating the taboo on the mainstream US left.., as is still in evidence in Democratic Underground., Huffington Post, The Nation, Amy Goodman, Mother Jones, etc. etc. etc. In short we have the insanely illogical position of the US left being one of the pillars of the hard-line rightwing neoconservative policy set. Who would have ever thunked it?

Read Chomsky 's take on the nanothermite issue.. I have read his books and watched his documentaries. This rambling, incoherent nonsense is not his style.....this is more like what a 10th grader, and someone who is unaware of the 9/11 controversies, might come out with. Has Chomsky gotten senile? Somehow, I doubt that.

Perhaps, despite his advancing years, he retains a sense of self preservation?

Sorry to be repetitive but...

this is nothing new for Chomsky. The problem of left gatekeeping precedes 9/11, and concerns more than just Chomsky. I have posted the link below many, many times in similar threads on this site--and it seems to be called for again. The piece was written by Michael Parenti in the mid-90s, focusing on the dismissive, poorly reasoned rejections of Kennedy assassination alternative research offered by otherwise sharp writers like Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn (there is also a preface--written by either Brian or Eric Salter of the relevance of Parenti's piece to the left intelligentsia's acceptance of the 9/11 official story). As you'll see (and as is manifest in Chomsky's rambling comments above), a frequent argument such left intellectuals like to resort to is a false dichotomy between 'institutional' and 'conspiratorial' analysis:

I often hear people in the truth movement talk about how 'mindboggling' it is that so many left intellectuals basically accept the 9/11 official story, when they are the very people who should be the most knowledgeable about what governements and their rich cohorts are capable of. But personally, I no longer find it mindboggling. However contradictory, this tendency occurs with such regularity that after a while, it becomes a recognizable trait--something that I have come to expect (much as I don't want to), so that, when you find one of them who's actually open to considering that 9/11 was an inside job, it comes as a pleasant surprise, because it's so outside the norm.

I have been involved in many conversations over the years with people trying to find an explanation for the gatekeeping left, and ultimately have found them tiresome, and that they lead nowhere. Yes, I think it's possible that some might be acting out of fear, perhaps even (as it sounds bloggulator is suggesting) in response to specific threats. And I think their postion of dependency--on government and/or corporate funding--could also be a reason.

Those are probably the explanations that I most often find discussed. But sometimes I think these high-profile public intellectuals might be uncomfortable with the democratizing effects of the internet, wherein people who haven't even finished (or started!) college can learn about matters that previously they would depend on such intellectuals to inform them about.

And I think about other possible psychological factors. Much as the left like to think of themselves--and particularly of left intellectuals--as being principled and courageous by nature, I'm afraid they are as susceptible to the same forces of groupthink and conformity that we find in the corporate media, and in the public at large. They're proud to not conform to the views that the corporate media and politicians want them to conform; but just like most anyone else, they are loathe to find themselves standing apart from their own group. I recall how the first edition of Griffin's 'The New Pearl Harbor' included an endorsement from Howard Zinn; then, about a year before Zinn's death, I saw a clip from an interview in which, while offering some mealy-mouthed support for 9/11 truth, he was clearly trying to backpedal, saying he was worried the issue was serving as a 'distraction' from other issues (another of the standard bogus talking points). Had Zinn been 'gotten to'? Or was he simply tired of being isolated from so many of his peers on this issue, and so seeking to distance himself from the truth movement? I think both are possible. But I think it wastes time to pretend to be certain what the explanation is, when really the best we can do is guess.

For me, to use words such as 'maddening' or 'disappointing' to describe left gatekeepers still isn't sufficient to convey the full depth of frustration and disappointment and disillusion. After all, public intellectuals of their stature and reputation ARE supposed to be principled and courageous by definition. But evidently, that's how it is, and we need to keep whatever sense of frustration we feel from making us less effective communicators with those who are members of their audience.

One other point: Sometimes I come across people in the truth movement who appear to be using the term 'gatekeeper' as exclusively meaning those in the 'alternative' press whom they suspect are getting paid off and willingly 'working for the other side.' I think that is an unhelpfully narrow use of the term. What ultimately is at issue isn't the character of the gatekeeper, but the harm done by the act of gatekeeping. When important information is prevented from flowing freely, through the very channels where it is expected to flow most freely, that is very, very, harmful indeed. And the harm done is the same whether the person who is doing the gatekeeping is motivated by fear or greed, by blackmail, bribery, ego, a desire to conform, or whatever.

And yet another point: I have also encountered people in the truth movement who speak as if 'support for Israel' is a sufficient explanation for left gatekeeping. As difficult as it is to dislodge this notion in the minds of those who are attached to it--and, again, as I have posted many times previously in the threads on this site--there is a simple rebuttal to this position (which I have yet to see refuted, only ignored), at least where the issue of 9/11 truth is concerned. That rebuttal is: Counterpunch, It would be hard to find two websites more critical of Israeli policy and the pro-Israel lobby than these; yet their scorn for 9/11 truth is identical to that found in much of the rest of the so-called alternative press. (Or have they changed since I got fed up and stopped visiting those sites? Somehow I doubt it.) In fact, it's not difficult to find websites and orgnazations that are sympathetic toward the Palestinians, and that are opposed to Islamophobia in general, but are not at all receptive toward 9/11 truth.

All valid points for sure...

All valid points for sure... but it does seem that Chomsky's take (on 9/11) does not come from positions of reason, logic, or coherent, scientific deduction... he is parroting the propaganda spouted by his (supposed) political enemies. The only plausible reasons are fear based... perhaps fear of being name-called a "conspiracy-theorist".. that one really has great persuasive power to straitjacket otherwise solid people. Perhaps he's scared of being name-called "anti-American", or unpatriotic? That also is a major stigma which reins in many people. Perhaps, by supporting the 9/11 truth movement, he felt that some would see him as being "pro-Muslim"... and right there is is a very powerful tool to get people on the straight and narrow; in US political circles, being "pro-Muslim/pro-Arab" is virtually equivalent to "Jew hater", or even "Holocaust denier"... or in Chomsky's case, a "self-hating Jew". Not pretty... and definitely worth avoiding.

A famous quote from Chomsky is as follows:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

In the case of 9/11, Chomsky is himself perhaps the unwitting victim re. the methodology of those who wish to keep the people "passive and obedient".


While thinking about the attitude that Chomsky has adopted, I cannot help but draw a comparison with physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones. When Jones looked at the evidence, he and his team studied it rigorously, and the resulting papers were favorably reviewed in the anonymous peer-review process - a foundation stone of the scientific method. The uncomfortable conclusion, was that the official version of the Twin Towers and WTC7's destruction (and by extension the rest of the official story) was by and large untrue. Dr. Jones, despite threats, refused to compromise his findings to accommodate the popular mandate and the public comfort zone.... to blame Muslims and Muslims only. As a result, he was kicked out of BYU for conducting research that, despite being scientifically sound and still unrefuted to this day....arrived at a conclusion that the powers-that-be could not handle.

In other words, Jones walked the walk, while Chomsky weaseled out. How sad (read disgusting)..that a scientist with a long standing career is kicked into touch for being transparent and honest, while another highly respected intellectual can turn against his own principles, and in effect, lend comfort to those who are trashing our society, and may have been involved in the mass murder of 3000 of our own people.

There are no words.

Rank dishonesty

In the following exchange with the interviewer, Chomsky is being just plain dishonest:

'But it is interesting because it says, What do you have to do to talk to that sector of people, not about 9-11, but about changing the world that they live in...'

'I ask a lot of people that. So, you know, you think you're being run by a maniac who wants to kill all the Americans, why don't you do anything about it? The answer's always the same: It's hopeless. There's nothing we can do. I mean, we're just victims of some powerful force.'

Sure, Noam, Can you document that? I cannot think of a greater mischaracterization of the people who are involved in the 9/11 truth movement. If there's one thing we all agree on, it is that the mass of the people can be made aware that the official 9/11 story is not credible; and that as this awareness spreads, they will be less susceptible to being manipulated by fear--and the very legitimacy of the current political order will be called into question by more and more people (as it damn well should). All things which the left should supposedly want. But the dogma among intellectuals like Chomsky is that belief in high-level conspiracies can only give the masses a sense of hopelessness that anything can be done. Rather than 'knowledge is power'--which the 9/11 truth movement absolutely believes, and that progressives are supposed to believe--Chomsky and others who argue this line instead imply that 'knowledge is disempowering'--to the point that he even imputes such feelings of disempowerment to those who've expressed no such thing.

It isn't 9/11 truth that causes me to struggle with feelings of hopelessness. If anything does, it's when left gatekeepers continue to use their influence against 9/11 skepticism (that is, on behalf of the 9/11 official story).

Fighting Chomsky's pseudo-intellectualism

Good points! Yes, Chomsky embarrassingly makes up factoids when it suits him. How can we fight this pseudo-intellectualism? Here are some thoughts of mine on how to approach a Chomsky fan on this issue.

I think it is necessary to repeatedly point to clear examples where Chomsky is pseudo-intellectual. And in my experience it takes some time to make people aware of and admit that Chomsky is blatantly pseudo-intellectual in the case of 911. The trick to get people to see the pseudo-intellectualism is to repeatedly get back to concrete examples of Chomsky's writings or interviews. The direct evidence for his pseudo-intellectualism is right there. No need to speculate or get into Chomsky's motives (whatever they are). Just home in on the concrete examples (and there are plenty on this page!!).

Since Chomsky's pseudo-intellectualism is so blatantly obvious even a Chomsky supporter will eventually see that. But it requires some effort and consistency. Sometimes it can be a good strategy to take one of Chomsky's blatant examples of pseudo-intellectualism and ask the person himself, as an exercise, to point out the logical fallacies. Tell him/her that unless s/he is able to point them out it will be very hard to have a sensible discussion. Ask *them* to demonstrate to *you* that they have some level of critical thinking.

Another key point is to also praise Chomsky where praise is due. In other areas he is scholarly and then this should be recognized and not downplayed.

Anyway, this is my (limited) experience of this situation!

Richard Gage AIA & Erik Lawyer "LIVE TONIGHT"

The 911 Truth Movement On Paltalk.

This is a live, two hour Question and Answer session--Your opportunity to ask Richard Gage or Erik lawyer questions and hear him bring everyone up to date on what AE911TRUTH has accomplished recently.

PC Users

Mac Users

Be the media...

Spread the news any way you can. Be the Media.