I've made a similar comment before, but any number of us could mop up on the extremely weak arguments Chomsky presents (and I say that acknowledging that he likely has a higher nuts-and-bolts IQ than me). He always seems to enjoy the benefit of never having his assumptions challenged by debate and follow up questions.

Chomsky is a "witting victim" to his own statement:

*

"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."

*

Regarding 9/11, Chomsky knows *exactly* what is going on - unlike the Kardashian-etc-obsessed public, he is politically super-aware, the polar opposite of "ignorant" or "somnambulistic". He has a long and illustrious history of speaking "truth to power", by exposing the character and M.O. of our corporate media and speaking eloquently on any number of issues with political significance. As such, the powers-that-be must have regarded him as a potential loose cannon in the wake of 9/11: A "free speaking Chomsky" on 9/11 would have likely rallied the intellectual community and the left in the same way that the likes of Alex Jones et al. fired up the libertarian right in the years shortly after the attacks.

Chomsky was also one of the first authors to write a book on 9/11. In typical Chomsky style, it was couched in the type of language, intellect and historical background to give it credibility to most readership; however it had zero "investigative" content and merely echoed the official tale - or assumed it to be 100% correct, and diverts the reader by including some criticism of the US government by reinforcing the "blowback" scenario. (This was Chomsky's get out, to avoid giving the reader the impression that he was suddenly in the Bush camp!). This short, but popularly selling book came out in 2002 while the US public were in a delicate state, reeling under the psychological hammer blow of 9/11's "shock and awe".

Chomsky may have once been a "man of the people"; but absolutely NOT any longer.... certainly not since 9/11. By siding with the "axis of élitists" on such thorny topics as the Federal Reserve, alongside 9/11, he has become a traitor to his own base, albeit in a subtle and very well-disguised way, masked by his intellect and clever use of language.

The obvious question here is "why did Chomsky become a turncoat"? To be a little speculative (but perhaps realistic), he may either have been given clear instructions, or was aware enough to know that to speak out would have been dangerous without having to be told. Either "conform to your very own words" (see Chomsky quote above), "or else"... he was either censored or self-censored. (If the (most likely) perps of 9/11 had no qualms or conscience as regards the mass murder of 3000 of our own innocent citizens, then to terminate an irritating professor - either literally or career/respect wise would have been, to them, like swatting a mosquito). Chomsky, like all of us, has a sense of self-preservation - why else would he sacrifice his integrity and turn into a spokesperson for intellectual cowardice - just like the rest of the "gatekeepers on the left" like David Corn, Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow etc, or their opposite numbers on the right, such as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity?

The trouble with Chomsky is that as he is so gifted in the art linguistic conjuring that he is able to present the public with a dog's turd on a silver plate and convince most people that its a sparkling diamond. It's no wonder that he got owned by the enemy.