Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7


Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7
Bob Tuskin

Published on Oct 18, 2013

Bob Tuskin questions Noam Chomsky about 9/11. His shocking response and position over the years on 9/11 has baffled many. He invited AE 9/11 truth to present their evidence to MIT. We will let you be the judge of his response.

So many

So many false dilemmas/arguments. What nonsense. He speaks as if there's no institutional push back. Tell that to Dr. Jones.

He knows almost nothing of the subject, yet this does not deter his strong opinions. An intellectual disgrace.

Chomsky is NOT ignorant

He is SLICK!

It is strange

This is a man who has proven that he can study a subject quite deeply, yet the "hour on the internet" seems to be the depth of his personal inquiry into 9/11. Personally, I find the levels or corroborating evidence overwhelming and it can only be experienced by diving into all the materials now available, as many of us have.

Is Chomsky Speaking of New York or Narnia?

Chomsky states: "Either they are total lunatics or they were not involved and they are not total lunatics." This is a specious logical fallacy known as bifurcation. C.S. Lewis put a personal spin on this in his rather homespun treatise entitled Mere Christianity saying of the Christ that: "Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse." This is one of the reasons that Lewis is considered a great in the field of Medieval and Classic studies and is ignored by real theologians. According to Wiki: "Lewis used a similar argument in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, when Digory Kirke advises the young heroes that their sister's claims of a magical world must logically be taken as either lies, madness, or truth." Lewis deftly adds the trifurcation into his argument to obviate the tertium quid which Chomsky failed to do. "Either they are total lunatics or the were not involved and they are not total lunatics or Chomsky is full of shit. And, by the way, the reason that we have graduate schools is not only to get biggerfastersmarter, they also function to create closed corporations that are deliberately exclusive, unitary and bombastic through the use of argot, shibboleths and other forms of academic light and magic.


I like the "trifurcation" argument, Peter. I'll use it.

There are always more than two choices

Obviously 9/11 was done by lunatics, whoever they were.

In his his formulation If-Bush-did-it-then-the-hijackers-would-have-been-Iraqis Chomsky misses several issues:

1) Having Iraqi hijackers might be considered a little bit too convenient, arousing suspicion.

2) With Iraqi hijackers, where's our excuse for invading Afghanistan and exercising influence over those oil reserves in the 'stans?

3) The fact that the alleged hijackers were allegedly Saudi did not exactly inhibit Americans from supporting the Iraq invasion

4) Al Qaeda had access to Saudis. For one reason or another AFAIK it had few if any Iraqis.

5) Saudis could safely participate in an attack on the USA, knowing that the USA would not attack their homeland in reprisal. Iraqis had experienced murderous and arbitrary actions by the USA in the Kuwait War (as well as the Clinton sanctions that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children) and they knew that attacking the USA would bring brutal reprisals.

Saudi Arabia...

This is an interesting article on why the hijackers may have been mostly Saudis:

I think it's instructive to listen to him nevertheless

It helps me to understand what the perceptual barrier is, as he speaks for many, esp on the left, who see 9/11 truth as a fringe concern. Note well that he states that he is willing to let "the professional societies" determine [the facts about WTC 7]... "if they get the appropriate information." This is the approach we want to see as well, I believe.

It is odd that he can recognize corporate and institutional blackballing of some issues but not this one. He is certainly way off base when he pretends that speaking out controversially from within your profession is "risk-free". That is absolute nonsense, and he should know that, even if.he has been protected by tenure throughout his career. And "overwhelming evidence" that Bush co. weren't involved? What is this overwhelming evidence? He presents three disparate facts that could lead to several different conclusions, not necessarily the one he's come to. Very puzzling.

Anyway, no hurry to sign up Chomsky, imo. He says he will defer to the opinions of relevant experts on the matter. In saying so, he must assume that the relevant experts somehow exist outside of the 2,079 AETruth petition signers, and that anyone who hasn't spoken out like that must therefore privately support the official explanation, which is merely another logical failing on his part. But never mind. To borrow from his own remark, I don't think he has taken the time to "think, for a minute" on what he's been shown.


He's either an idiot or he's one of them, and he's no idiot.

Noam Chomsky Loves the Federal Reserve (Video)

Noam Chomsky tells a group of activists that the Federal Reserve System has saved America from a “deep depression”.

Sorry, I can't leave this one alone.

I already commented on this but this one really got to me. "There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics; it doesn't work like that: there's a reason that there are graduate schools....."
Could this guy be more patronizing? I suppose I should just trust my friend with a PhD in botany,a specialty in bioreactors and DNA that, as he says: "GMO's are safe." And the whole idea of "spending an hour on the internet" is just a contemptuous slur and did you notice that someone in the audience was ululating in response to Chomsky like a brides-maid at a Pashtoon wedding? I spent an hour on the internet researching a UFO story that stated there were two crashes around Roswell, New Mexico. The jist of the story was that the second one, the one that is touted in the press, was a cover up for an earlier crash where human body parts were found in the vehicle: you see, the craft in question was a chuck wagon and the aliens were running a commissary from it. So, there is my requisite "hour" and now I am an alien expert and If I Had a Hammer I would ring out a warning to all my brothers and sisters that we are on the menu? Bullshit! Like a lot of people, I spent a lot of time in the restaurant trade, as a chef, when working my way through college, so I know a little about food. Before Scientific American was dumbed down there was a little "poets corner" kind of column where people could write in and discuss scientific quandaries they face in every day life. One of these quandaries that was stumping people was how to keep Hollandaise sauce from separating. Cheap air-fairs to Europe in the 1960s had renewed an interest in food in the U.S. I was the only one in the audience of readers and contributors of both amateur and professional scientists alike that knew that Hollandaise sauce was a two step emulsion. I know a thing or two about food. So, after my "hour" on the internet vis a vis alien diets I know I am no expert. I would need to know, for example, what kind of recipes they had and do they fry or fricassee, what par levels they maintain on their food inventory and what condiments they use and other stuff like that. I do know, however, that UFOs are real in a phenomenological sense as pertains to psychology but that is about all I really know: I don't know, for example, if there are real crafts, what types and kinds there are and if there is a physical wirklichkeit (reality) of these crafts with repair shops, flight schedules, in flight meals (see above) and that sort of thing. I know all this through a process called: thinking . One of the chief problems with thinking is to be able to recognize the limitations of thought. I always found René Descartes' cogito ergo sum to be a high water mark of self reflection and, while a touch hubristic, liberating. While I thrilled to discover Descartes I was crestfallen when presented with his proofs of the existence of God finding them somewhat tedious and parochial. To be crass, and to refer to the example of the alien diet needing more proof, there is a lot of talk about "the loaves and the fishes" but they never mention anything about condiments and unlike Descartes, I would need a lot more data. In the last example I hold my thinking to be above that of Descartes, I don't agree with him as I can think after all. And I know what intergranular melting is and, no, I didn't go to graduate school.

"They wanted to invade Iraq"

Bush initially DID want to blame 9/11 on Iraq.

I'm sorry; I'm coming into this late. At 5:33 Chomsky highlights the discrepancy between Bush wanting to go to war with Iraq--versus the fact that 9/11 was used to to justify attacking Afghanistan. Some, including Bob Woodward, attest to G.W. Bush trying after 9/11 to put the blame on Iraq.

I'm not certain as to the veracity of Susan Lindauer, but she claims that 9/11 was perpetrated (and/or allowed to be perpetrated) firstly for the reason of invading Iraq.

Immensely frustrating to watch a "great thinker"--Chomsky--who has gone far enough down one path in his theory of 9/11, that he feels he can't retrace back to the forking point and begin over. It's extremely rude of him to speak of A/E911Truth as a "minuscule" group. He knows language and he should know better. Call it what it is: namely, "more than 2,000 individuals who are trained as architects and engineers." In my book, that's a lot.

James Corbett

James has put up a fine piece on this issue:

The most troubling aspect of Chomsky's 'arguments' for me is how he assumes that he understands everyone's motives. He makes the point that if 9/11 was some sort of 'inside job' that it was a very high risk operation. Yes, it was a high risk operation, but physics is physics (Noam, Newtonian physics is a high school requirement, not something I picked up in "an hour on the internet").

What is totally clear is that he is choosing to address ONLY the more tenuous arguments of 9/11 skeptics and avoiding seeking out those of us who can present a coherent case in support of our beliefs.