Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'

Noam Chomsky: "...One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

Chomsky doesn't believe that 9/11 represents "real and ongoing crimes of state." However, he never bothers to describe even one "real and ongoing crimes of state" in this exchange.

Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'
12-13-6

http://www.rense.com/general74/dismiss.htm

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see,
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html,
or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what's to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism ­which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson's seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world's leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

If this interview doesn't give Chomsky away.....

....as Left Gatekeeper Extraordinare, I don't know what does....what governmental crime can super-cede killing your own citizens as pretext and false justification for war (and war-profiteering)? Nothing I can imagine, other than genocide.

Even present-day Americans, in their somnambulant state, will not stand for that if it becomes common-knowledge in the near future.

I hope those government grants to MIT that pay your salary are worth it, Gnome.
(sarcasm)

The Gnome dispenses his great knowledge….

Blowback! LOL

Blowback!

LOL

The Cult of Personality

The Cult of Personality

It looks like the creeps are pulling out their aces. Chomsky is finally being asked to pay his MIT (prime government universtity) dues. Notice how he was pulled out for the 911 Press for Truth rebuttal (whatever, Noam). 911 Press for Truth is and will be the most influential piece of documented 911 information which will turn the light on for millions of righteous citizens with a brain, a catalyst for further inspection. It's important to note Chomsky has a cult like following of worshipers who find it difficult to think for themselves, and actually do not mind leaning in closer to him to listen to his annoying, self-styled whispering. My guess is they love his diatribes because they provide intelligent sounding (often substantial) talking points for a wide spread liberal agenda (perhaps a communist agenda). His flock is made up of people who still religiously read the NY Times, even after their dear leader, Noam, has half-assed dismantled the newspaper from a Big-Corp-Advertising-Influence-is-Bad perspective (as opposed to the more damning and more truthful Military-Industrial-Complex-OWNERSHIP-of-the-Paper-is-Bad perspective). Chomsky's style has always been to give a little bit but never the whole enchilada. He's also purported to be a closet zionist; his undying support for an aparteid nation which has killed US sailors and also been caught spying on the USA more than Russia or China is nearly as revolting as his 911 denial. Who knows? Maybe he is one of those self-hating Americans. One thing is for sure, if Chomsky is the best card these creeps have in their hand, I think it's time to raise the an-tee. We are going to break the bank!

Hey Noam, didn't your mudda ever tell'ya to SPEAK UP when you talk to people. It's rude!

911 Press for Truth: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

But all of you reading this are friggin smart individuals, watch the Official 911 Commission's Family Steering Committee's documentary and judge for yourself. 911 Press for Truth: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

Chomsky is a Zionist Israel Supporter?

That's news to me. I thought his book the Fateful Triangle made pretty clear his support for the Palestinian cause. That's why so many Zionists call him a self-hating Jew.

this is an important point

Just because Zionists call him a self-hater doesn't mean a) he's a self-hater or b) he is anti-Zionist. I'm pretty sure he is a staunch supporter of a Palestinian state precisely because that would legitimize Israel's usurpation of the land they took to make a racist, officially Jewish state. No state should have an official religion whose adherents have special rights that others do not, or base such special rights on ethnicity, which is part of the problem with Israel, aside from its human rights abuses and illegal seizing of land outside their recognized boundaries.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Lunchroom Cliques

Chomsky has been purported to be a "closet zionist ," not an outed zionist. It's only worthe mentioning because it's heard often enough on the radio and it lends itself to the Chomsky mystique (like all good cult leaders have), thus mentioning mild gossip and the whispering (no pun intended, Noam) is fine. More over, I wonder about Chomsky's support for Palestine and why after some 30 plus years of discussing his genius ideas on the Israel/Palestine master/slave relationship, just why hasn't he had any long lasting effect? If any at all. He'd only have to go down the hall at MIT and masterfully explain the solution of integration, shared wealth and resources, and respect for international law. Maybe by Noam just switching lunch tables in the cafeteria he could save the world.

The Cult of Personality

It looks like the creeps are pulling out their aces. Chomsky is finally being asked to pay his MIT (prime government universtity) dues. Notice how he was pulled out for the 911 Press for Truth rebuttal (whatever, Noam). 911 Press for Truth is and will be the most influential piece of documented 911 information which will turn the light on for millions of righteous citizens with a brain, a catalyst for further inspection. It's important to note Chomsky has a cult like following of worshipers who find it difficult to think for themselves, and actually do not mind leaning in closer to him to listen to his annoying, self-styled whispering. My guess is they love his diatribes because they provide intelligent sounding (often substantial) talking points for a wide spread liberal agenda (perhaps a communist agenda). His flock is made up of people who still religiously read the NY Times, even after their dear leader, Noam, has half-assed dismantled the newspaper from a Big-Corp-Advertising-Influence-is-Bad perspective (as opposed to the more damning and more truthful Military-Industrial-Complex-OWNERSHIP-of-the-Paper-is-Bad perspective). Chomsky's style has always been to give a little bit but never the whole enchilada. He's also purported to be a closet zionist; his undying support for an aparteid nation which has killed US sailors and also been caught spying on the USA more than Russia or China is nearly as revolting as his 911 denial. Who knows? Maybe he is one of those self-hating Americans. One thing is for sure, if Chomsky is the best card these creeps have in their hand, I think it's time to raise the an-tee. We are going to break the bank!

Hey Noam, didn't your mudda ever tell'ya to SPEAK UP when you talk to people. It's rude!

911 Press for Truth: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

But all of you reading this are friggin smart individuals, watch the Official 911 Commission's Family Steering Committee's documentary and judge for yourself. 911 Press for Truth: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

And he never even states

what those worse crimes might be.

Just as with JFK's murder

Same old 'blah, blah, blah'. 'nothing persuasive,' 'to my knowledge,' etc. This is more of the same from Chomsky, whose opinions are supposed to carry weight even when he doesn't bother to look at the evidence. A decade ago, Michael Parenti wrote a cutting critque of Chomsky's ignorant defense of the Warren report that's applies to his 9/11 stance as well:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html

Pretty amazing logic

"One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

Whaaaaaaaaat? What the FUCK could be more serious than blowing up the WTC and attacking innocent people you have sworn to defend?

Amazing. I am just amazed at this logic. He is simply idly dismissing treason and mass murder.

I...

Called him on that several times in my correspondence...

Here's a blurb...

I don't assume that I am smarter than the great Noam Chomsky. I have no doubt that you have read, and studied more than I can ever know. That being said, your last statement about the seriousness of destroying the WTC reminded me of Sean Hannity. "The planes flew into the towers, and the towers came down." Simplifying the event essentially. If we agree that 9/11 has been used as a "pretext for policies already undertaken and planned", then that means upwards of 655,000 dead Iraqis, 3000 dead American soldiers, an $8Trillion+ deficit, 70,000 sick first responders and New Yorkers, the Patriot Act I & II, the Military Commissions Act, the Signing Statements, Wiretapping, and so on, would not have happened if not for 9/11. Proving that 9/11 is about a little bit more than just "destroying the WTC." I do not expect to change your mind. It is obvious that you have no intention of siding with the "harmless" and "tolerated" 9/11 Truth Movement. I am sorry that you are tolerant of the murder of 2,973+ people, and that you believe no one should be held accountable for that crime. Unless of course you believe the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq were responsible for that crime.

I guess I'm just going to have to continue flyering, writing articles, lobbying members of Congress, writing the media, helping others in their grassroots efforts, etc... It's a shame I don't know about "authentic activism."



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

nice!!!

that was awesome, gold!!!!

Thank you...



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Really?" by Anonymous (not verified)

I get questions all the time...

Like, "what is your evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?", and then I usually respond by posting to some of the blogs I have here, and then I generally get told, "you don't understand what evidence is", and then I point out that they need to look in a mirror, etc...

However, I do get other questions about 9/11... from people trying to figure out what happened. For those people, I'm more than happy to help.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "I get evasions like this all the time" by Anonymous (not verified)

Do you have the capability of saying...

"Yes" or "No?"

If so, please show us by answering this question.

Is there a cover up being perpetrated by the United States Government in regards to 9/11?



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Answer the question, please" by Anonymous (not verified)

Angel is next

accompanied by enough top-secret code to convince Bush's team to fly him immediately to Offut to physically take control of the nuclear trigger - then the call to Putin and the coup was complete - global war of terror - US occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Caspian Basin - mission accomplished

tops,

gold!

Thank you...



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Even kids get it" by Anonymous (not verified)

Um...

I've been doing this since before Loose Change came out. Nor do I agree with everything Loose Change presents.

So if it's anyone that doesn't understand something, I think that would be you.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

No disrespect...

To Dylan, Jason, and Corey... but you know me.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Interestingly, you are the best example" by Anonymous (not verified)

"Better hide this post fast,

"Better hide this post fast, eh?"

Will do.

Show "At least you admit it." by Anonymous (not verified)

So, 911debunker, how is

So, 911debunker, how is finals week going? Getting good marks?

Show "The pay is good" by Anonymous (not verified)

So, you admit you ARE

So, you admit you ARE 911debunker, of the 911Debunker Guide? And you get paid to troll at our site?

Show "Somebody here does not like that info, hid the post." by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm going to take that as a

I'm going to take that as a "yes". And a sign of satisfaction, on your part, with your Holocaust denying playmates at your "totally awesome journal" :

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

Show "So you know Jon Gold is the paymaster" by Anonymous (not verified)

"Unless we are supposed to think you are incredibly stupid."

Stupid is as stupid does.




"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "No evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then." by Anonymous (not verified)

Phhhh...

They covered that here.

That's old news.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Nooooo, they did not." by Anonymous (not verified)

And why...

Won't you answer my question. Is there, or is there not a cover up being perpetrated by the United States Government in regards to 9/11?

A simple yes or no will suffice.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Why do you refuse?" by Anonymous (not verified)

I'll tell you what...

You provide a courtoom, and I'll provide the evidence.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Man...

Would I provide the evidence.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Your Honor...

I'd like to call to the stand Dr. Philip Zelikow...

Dr. Zelikow, could you tell the court please a little bit about your career? Where did you go to school, and what did you study? Who have you worked with? What connection do you have to the Bush Administration?

Remember now, you're under oath...



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Innuendo is no substitute" by Anonymous (not verified)

There is evidence of

There is evidence of foreknowlege, read the newspaper once in awhile. There is also evidence that Pentagon lied to the 911 Commission, that evidence is the tapes the Pentagon finally released and the testimony of Thomas Kean who admitted that he'd been lied to. There is evidence that Atta received money from Pakistani intelligence. There is evidence that the wargames interfered with interception of the hijacked planes. There is evidence of motive in the PNAC documents. There is evidence of cover-up.

Show "Yet you cannot provide the evidence?" by Anonymous (not verified)

Ummmmm...

He just did. If you want a more in-depth explanation take a look at 911truth.org (or any of the other 9/11 sites in the links section), or (gasp) EVEN LOOK AT THE RECENT ARTICLES AND MEDIA LISTED IN THE LEFT FRAME OF THIS WEBSITE ALL THE TIME! Then please tell us what part of the evidence you don't get.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

Sorry, we do not depend on conspiracy sites

You would have to be crazy to believe debunked nonsense from sites like 911truth.org.

You need to get out into the real world and stop this silly nonsense of believing what a bunch of amateur paranoid conspiracy kids tell you to believe.

Ask Jon Gold why he is he adamantly refuses to provide evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

You know...

You keep lying about Jon Gold, and eventually people will start to listen to him.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "But you cannot right here?" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "This IS what this forum is for" by Anonymous (not verified)

You claim it was Islamic

You claim it was Islamic terrorists. But you have not remotely provided anything that qualifies as evidence that 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists.

So why, Anonym-ass, are you outright refusing to now, right here, so everyone can see on what basis you are making your claims.

Why are you SO scared to provide evidence, Anonym-ass?

Show "This is not a contest. You have evidence?" by Anonymous (not verified)

One...

Of my favorite movies by the way.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Chomsky nails it on the head" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "The 9/11 Truthe Movement cannot stand the truth" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "Just asl Jon Gold" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "Bingo" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "Jon Gold is afraid" by Anonymous (not verified)

I think I'll call this Anon..Hannity

Well Hannity one thing I get from Jon Gold is this;..afraid is not in his character when it comes to 9/11 truth. You can bet your swiss cheese government defense on that one.
Pat Tillman did begin to realize that the war on terror revealed itself in a more sinister light. Nothing like being lied to with the ideals of truth justice and the American way being your pride and honor to carry into battle and then seeing the reality.
Many more are still over there with the fictitious mantra that Hussein and Al-Queda were in cahoots with each other.
Was it Chevroneeza Rice who said to C.T. Whitman that its OK, the rescuers and first responders can breathe the air with no threat of poisining their bodies? Right There! There's evidence for you..wasn't that a irresponsible thing for "trusted officials" to do? Who's gonna pay for that decision? The ones who would risk their lives to save ours are the ones who are gonna pay and they are now paying the ultimate price and the government turns their back on them. I, for one, will not allow those who have no concern for people's lives get away with it,...ever.

Show "Too bad you are still wrong" by Anonymous (not verified)

Well Hannity, you can say whatever you want about Jon

But I have the the choice to believe if he is a 9/11 truther or not. My choice is Yes Jon Gold IS a 9/11 truther. There is a LOT of things about 9/11 that Him and I agree with, it may not be everything but it is a major amount. It's as simple as that, and that is what debate is all about, We LEARN from each other, connect the dots,find the common ground out of debating with common sense, investigate, become familiar with details unoticed before,but seen clearly now with a more experienced, trained eye.
I can give you a scenario about our government and superimpose another with it that deals with motive for 9/11.
You can call it a conspiracy theory, which it, hypothetically speaking, is. But in order to see it , You will have to read My book...it's called End Around.

Insert Foot

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

The key to Chomsky's comments...... "I think"... "do not think"....

I want him to say.... You know... I have looked at the evidence being presented by those who believe that the government was either involved in the events of 9/11 or allowed these event to happen and.......

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE...... THEN OPEN YOUR MOUTH!!!

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE..... OPEN MOUTH.....INSERT FOOT!!!!

It's a shame that smart men base their thoughts solely on their beliefs.

Noam Chomsky: The concept of

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion.

I wonder why? I think I'll email him and ask.

i actually had a sort of

i actually had a sort of lengthy e-mail exchange with him and he doesnt budge. he fails to answer even the most simple questions or just pleads ignorance. i even asked him if he had read the chapter that Zwicker wrote about him, and though he said "countless" people have asked him to do so, not one has given him "a good reason" why he should. you would think the fact that countless people asked him to do so would be enough. really, he is EXACTLY how you would imagine him to be.

In Reality

In Reality the concept of "False Flag Terrorism" is the most important one!

Can you tell me just one concept that has impacted our world over and over in a more substantial way?

Nearly every war started this way... nearly every time rights were taken was because of an operation of this nature.... "False Flag Terror" Contributes more than any other concept to hate, racism, predjudice and fear..... which in turn infects the psyche of the people of the world.... dividing us... making us suseptable to the will of those in power..... but that not important... is it Chomsky?

the same reason that you or I or nearly every other person would restrain from throwing stones.... or start a revolution... is the same reason that real terrorism would not exist .,.......without the aid of governments around the world.

I actually respected Chomsky

I actually respected Chomsky a bit. Until I read this interview.

Show "Facing reality is hard for all 9/11 Truthers" by Anonymous (not verified)

Noam Chomsky is indeed a

Noam Chomsky is indeed a Leftwing Gatekeeper. And I think he might have dark motives. He rounds up all the leftwing altruists and dissipates their energies by protesting the crimes committed in East Timor and South America as if that's going to change the system for the better. Whenever you approach a hardcore topic like JFK, MLK, RFK, and 9/11, he says it's stupid and highly likely.

I urge you all to go to this interview with Barrie Zwicker and fast forward to the 41:00 mark. What he says about Chomsky is fascinating.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3140806684384864190&q=zwicker+in...

the chapter that Zwicker

the chapter that Zwicker wrote about Chomsky is one of the most fascinating things i have ever read and pretty much sums him up perfectly in my opinion. Chomsky never cared about changing the system, he has always been nothing but a control valve. he is very useful to the powers that be.

Thank you for the Zwicker link

I had never heard him speak. The part about Chomsky was stunning.

It's time to ignore Chomsky.

My correspondence...

With Noam...

Inspired by DBLS.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

"Since the crimes of the

"Since the crimes of the administration are mostly bipartisan, **even demonstrating in a court of law that they were responsible for 9/11 would have little if any effect.**

"That aside, it would never get to a court of law. **If credible evidence surfaced that they were involved in 9/11 -- for example, the kinds of leaks that would be very likely in a massive operation like this -- they'd probably be lined up before firing squads and that would be the end of the Republican Party forever."**

So if it went to a court of law, it would have little effect because the crimes are bipartisan, yet it would mean the end of the Republican party forever?

My 2 year old can pick him apart!

Show "Reality bites" by Anonymous (not verified)

Why is it...

That you can read certain things, but when asked to read one of the many blogs I have posted, you suddenly become illiterate?



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Why is it that you cannot support your claim? We know why." by Anonymous (not verified)

He didn't write that to me...

Here is my correspondence with Noam in that regard...

The first example...

The bankrupting of the nation began well before 9/11, as did Bush administration policies that literally threaten survival of the species. It is true that 9/11 served as a pretext for extending policies already undertaken and planned. That leaves us with a clear choice: (1) act energetically to terminate and reverse the crimes of the administration (which are mostly bipartisan); (2) become involvedin a largely academic debate about what exactly were the origins of 9/11. I have my priorities, you have every right to pursue yours.

That aside, my own view is that nothing will come of the debate over 9/11. Even the strongest proponents of the Truth Movement refuse to undertake the most elementary effort to substantiate their case, e.g., by submitting articles to scientific journals raising questions about what happened and about the reports of professional associations and independent specialists about it. Furthermore, the Truth Movement is drawing enormous energies away from (1), towards (2), which is a lot easier than serious dissent and activism. I suspect that is why the Truth Movement is treated so tolerantly, given time on public TV, etc., all very are for dissident movements.

However, I do question for a moment your right to pursue your priorities.

NC

My response...

If I remember correctly, the Bush Administration inherited a surplus. It doesn't really matter though. This Administration has bankrupted this country. As I said in my last email, I don't know the truth about 9/11. However, what I do know, and as you stated, it served as a pretext for policies already undertaken and planned. It gave them the ability to do what they wanted. This is why when asked by Helen Thomas about wanting to go to war prior to 9/11, the President denied it. Reason being, the desire for a war, that would require an event like 9/11 to bring that desire to fruition, automatically makes the Administration a suspect in the crime if that event takes place. Which it did. If information out there exists that points in the direction of the Administration in regards to that crime, then to me it's a "no-brainer", and it should be pursued in a court of law. If our suspicions are correct, and this Administration, or elements within our Government had a hand in said crime, then that would terminate and reverse the crimes of the administration (which are mostly bipartisan).

To my knowledge, there are papers that have been peer-reviewed in existence. There have also been several books published by reputable companies like Harper Collins, etc... In regards to the Truth Movement being treated so tolerantly by the media, I guess you haven't seen the slanderous remarks like, "Nut, Tin-Foil", and so on.

2,973+ people were murdered on 9/11. I say "+" because a few people have died since from the environmental disaster that was 9/11. There is reason to believe elements within our Government were complicit in those murders. It is our responsibility as citizens to find out the truth to make sure it never happens again. If that truth terminates and reverses the crimes of the administration (which are mostly bipartisan), then I don't understand the logic in not pursuing that truth.

Thank you for your time.

Example #2...

Sorry that you don't seem willing to consider the simple fact that we have two choices: (1) do something to stop massive state crimes, including the killing of 650,000 Iraqis, sharply escalating the threat to survival of the species, etc.; (2) debate the origins of 9/11, which will do precisely nothing to stop those crimes -- and that would be true even if the advocates of the Movement undertook the minimal effort to submit their claims to evaluation in the way that is done by anyone serious.

That's what it comes down to. The rest, I'm afraid, is blowing smoke.

My response...

I believe 2 would bring about 1. If you take away their pretext, then you destroy the legitimacy of everything criminal they have done, and have been able to get away with. I don't see why this is so hard for you to comprehend.

Incidentally, does presenting Attorney General Eliot Spitzer with this:

http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php

Count as a "minimal effort to submit their claims to evaluation in the way that is done by anyone serious?"

I think it does. Why did Eliot Spitzer ignore the complaint? It included signatures from a lot of noteworthy individuals. A few I'm sure you're more than familiar with. I don't think you're as familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement as your critique of it leads one to believe.

You're right. We have a choice. However, I don't think the choices are as you describe. I think those choices are 1) Let them get away with the murder of 2,973+ 2) Don't let them get away with the murder of 2,973+.

I'm going with 2.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Everyone here should read your correspondence with Chomsky" by Anonymous (not verified)

Wow. Noam's own logic

Wow. Noam's own logic doesn't add up. He doesn't even address building 7. What a douche.

He doesn't accept the premise of any of the questions...

Chomsky refuses to accept the premise of any of the questions… 

“Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered.” 

Until he accepts that the video evidence, eyewitness testimony, and scientific evidence even exists, he won’t accept anything. 

“major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis.” 

What is more heinous than mass murder?  

“Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions.” 

He’s either a stubborn fool or a tool. 

“Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11” 

OK, maybe they’ve committed mass murder before – but this is current and they are trying to rub our faces in it while waiving the flag. 

“I think that's the wrong way to look at it.” 

I think you’re an idiot. 

“The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion.” 

Your opinion is worthless to me. 

“I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests,” 

Everything the Bush administration has done has been utterly insane.  Whay would 9/11 be any different? 

“and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel.”

Chomsky selectively denies history - I bet he doesn’t deny the holocaust. 

“The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.” 

Mass murder just isn’t serious enough for Chomsky. What an a-hole.

no bullshit, i got pretty

no bullshit, i got pretty much the same exact answers, word for word. i saw some of Jons exchange with him and also noticed some of the same answers word for word. he is pathetic. turns every question around or flat out rejects the premise of it. very smart, manipulative creep.

"very smart, manipulative

"very smart, manipulative creep."

^ Well said man, so true!

What a slippery POS that man has become!

"High-minded intellect", my ass.

In every response, Mr. Chomsky (I do not find him deserving of ANY title once earned long ago if he does not maintain the due respect now only implied by such a title) clearly avoids and dodges the point to which he supposedly "answers". The man is simply a punk. His savvy and erudite words no longer mask a disposition to obfuscate and down-play the significance of the 9/11 watershed event SPECIFICALLY employed by overlords to DISTRACT away from the very same "ongoing crimes" of the U.S. Government he endlessly, but only, eludes to.

Why not enumerate the dastardly deeds, dear Noam? Is it because he knows he can't, for in each case... the very government he claims to be indictable for "other, greater crimes", will instantaneously remind us all again, over and over how "9/11 changed everything".

He's just a circle-jerking lens-bending ass... "nothing to see here, folks. Move along".

e

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Show "Admit the truth" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "This is an excellent example" by Anonymous (not verified)

I urge everyone to drop a

I urge everyone to drop a truth bomb on this guy's left-gatekeerping ponkass, here's his mail: chomsky@mit.edu

The more that Chomsky speaks

The more that Chomsky speaks about his views on 9/11, the more he exposes himself for the gatekeeping troll that he is. I honestly believe that he's been a witting asset of the New World Order since well before he became well-known.
We need to become a GATE-CRASHING movement as well as an anti-false-flag movement.

A small list of gatekeepers that I can think of:

Noam Chomsky
Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow!
Michael Moore
Infoshop.org
nyc.indymedia.org
The Nation magazine

These sources need to be regarded and treated as enemies of truth, in fact more so than even the corporate media.

Michael Moore is not as bad

Michael Moore is not as bad as most of these people. He was the first guy to put his balls out there on some of this stuff so it started to reach the mainstream. He also said that stuff about the pentagon cameras. He's done more than most of these people who try to act like nothing strange happened at all.

Right. I don't know how

Right. I don't know how good the man is, but if he were to honestly approach the 9/11 question, his reputation would be destroyed and humiliated. That's why no one famous has come forward (with the exception of Sheen, etc.). If you come forward, you lose it all. However, if 6 celebs come out at once, that would be something to behold.

Show "You are jealous in your small world" by Anonymous (not verified)

God what a zionist dipshit.

God what a zionist dipshit. Correct me if I'm wrong but he's saying.. If A, there have been worse crimes than 911 in history, then B, no crimes that are less than the greatest crime in history ever need be investigated. So if there has been something worse than a single murder in a local town of an innocent person, then it need not be investigated because Joseph Stalin killed ten million russians. Chomsky is not even close to this stupid, but boy he becomes a real nose picking moron the minute accusations get anywhere close to globalist zionists. This was really a sad read, and it made me sick. Also, Chomsky doesn't mention the real numbers lost that our misdirected reaction to this crime represents. Iraq, 650,000 innocent people. 2 million dead since the beginning of sanctions after the gulf war. All the palestinians and Lebanese. This is just inexcusable.

Remember that Chomsky, when

Remember that Chomsky, when he was a kid, went to the same Hebrew(?) summer camp as Alan Dershowitz. And we know how Alan turned out: a rabid zionist. Wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant on Chomsky's part if he was a covert zionist? As Barrie Zwicker says, Chomsky is worth 70 armored divisions to the new world order.

$$

I wonder what it costs for 70 armored divisions....

Armored divisions that make a bunch of noise and look good but whenever confronted with battle.... always turn away.

Phony

fake ass lying bitch

Your Brevity is exceeded....

....only by your Eloquence....

:)

I actually...

carried on a extended email correspondance with Chomsky on this very issue.

Prior to this I was Chomsky's biggest fan and had listened to all his cd's. It is ironic because without having first listened to Chomsky I would have never been able to believe the power systems in the United States would have been able to plan and carry out such a heinous attack against civilians.

I tried to focus on Building 7 and the laws of physics "broken" that day. To my amazement, Chomsky, an MIT professor, told me that "in chaotic systems the laws of physics don't always work the way they are supposed to." He concluded as he always does by saying that I was free to pursue any avenue I thought important, but that he considered it a non-issue un-backed by any proof. After reading that and the infamous "Where Noam Will Not Roam" I have quit Chomsky cold turkey.

My own personal belief, knowing his history with the Kennedy assassination, is that he knows more than he lets on but cannot throw his weight behind 9/11 truth as he is too visible and will put he and his family in danger. He is old, and wants to live out his remaining days in relative peace. I could be wrong, but after reading about his 180 on the Warren commission, I think someone got to him and he just prefers to stay out of it.

i disagree, i dont think hes

i disagree, i dont think hes that noble. i dont think its about his family, its about his career and his cash flow in my opinion. he does more than just stay away from obviously important issues like political assassinations and false flags, he basically disrespects those that find them important and goes out of his to take swipes. like Zwicker said, Chomsky hates the term "conspiracy theorist" when its used against him but hes not above using it on us. people like us threaten the importance of people like him and hes all too aware of that.

" I could be wrong, but

" I could be wrong, but after reading about his 180 on the Warren commission, I think someone got to him and he just prefers to stay out of it."

Wait a minute, you mean he initially supported the Warren commission? You can't just make a statement like that without offering a source or example. Now I see the possibility that he could have been threatened, which of course, is a huge leap from being a willing gatekeeper.

I still believe he knows what he's doing and is happy to do it. You can see it in his face when he speaks. He just doesn't ever seem very passionate about his views. That, and he never issues any "calls to action". I'm sorry, but I strongly suspect that he's bent on global domination. If he was really afraid for his life and wanted to live in "relative peace" he wouldn't be any kind of "dissident" at all. He'd spend his time living in...relative peace.

No......

his 180 is that he originally stated that there were many anomalies within the Warren Report and that he planned to investigate and get the truth about JFKs assassination. Then mysteriously he did a 180 and said the Warren Commission answered all the questions and there is nothing more to be said. He dropped the issue and wrote instead about Cambodia and mass media systems in the United States. You are right that his activism still brings him trouble but I think it is nothing compared to the trouble that would be brought if he started questioning 9/11.

What the...

"I tried to focus on Building 7 and the laws of physics "broken" that day. To my amazement, Chomsky, an MIT professor, told me that "in chaotic systems the laws of physics don't always work the way they are supposed to."

What the f*ck? Is anyone else blown away by this remark? I think he should pass this insight on posthaste to his colleagues on the hard science side of the fence there at MIT because they certainly need to be alerted. I don't think any of them would assume that Lower Manhattan qualified as a system so chaotic that the laws of physics would be suspended.

It reminds me of the argument that if September 11 really proved that steel-framed skyscrapers *can* collapse from fire, then fire codes for skyscrapers need to be revisited in a big way. (Which, oddly enough, I don't believe they have been.) For chrissakes, he's saying that under some conditions entire urban environments may be subject to a catastrophic revision of physical laws!

"What the f*ck? Is anyone

"What the f*ck? Is anyone else blown away by this remark? "

Yes. And what a lovely addition to the current real time wind storm I'm enjoying!

I cannot conceive of an educated person saying this with a straight face in public. I'd ask him what his definition of a chaotic system is, because the ONLY circumstance where this makes sense is the subatomic world of quantum physics.

Newtonian physics is pretty much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get game.

Unbelievable.

Forgot to include

Forgot to include Chaos Theory into my hypothesis.... combined with the will of Allah... those buildings had not a chance

Chaos, twice?

I've heard this "chaos" argument before. Seems to me that chaos wouldn't result in two identical events, the North and South Towers being demolished.

Make that chaos scenario 3 times...WTC 7

When 3 steel structure buildings collapse for the first time in history on the very same day in all the same manner, it becomes more of a pattern, doesn't it? More similar, or controlled , you could say.

"in chaotic systems the laws

"in chaotic systems the laws of physics don't always work the way they are supposed to."

On reflection, this sounds almost poetic. Transendental, in a "wax on, wax off " kind of way.

Look for more wisdom on your way to leftist enlightenment from Koan Chomsky, the Budda of the Gate-keepers.

Or am I just being mean?

Absolutely fucking mind-blowing

"in chaotic systems the laws of physics don't always work the way they are supposed to."

That should be heavily quoted - especially, as you suggest, to his MIT colleagues.

Personally, I think it'll

Personally, I think it'll probably be MANY years until any establishment figure openly questions 9-11. Dubya and his minions will be dead. Once in awhile you may hear someone who's respected express doubt about JFK's murder, but how many years had to go by before anyone could do that? Around 30, I'd say. Some newsman some day might question 9-11, who's probably an infant right now.

All this guy is by the way

All this guy is by the way is a politically active Professor of Linguistics who’s managed to get a cult like “Left” following.

yes, he is very good at

yes, he is very good at twisting words and talking in circles for sure, hahaha.

His only point is incorrect anyway

He keeps saying the 911 Truth movement is taking energy away from the peace movement. This is flat out wrong. The 911 Truth movement has brought many people ACTIVELY into the peace movement. Notice that attendance at peace organization meetings (like UFPJ) has been stagnant. Notice that attendance at 911 Truth events continues to increase.

911 Truth is the most vibrant force for peace in America right now.

I would never in a million

I would never in a million years have gone into a street to protest with others. I'm a very conservative liberal. But after having realized 9/11 was staged, I sympathize will all political causes. I wouldn't hesitate to protest in front of buildings or with others in the street. The 9/11 truth movement is truly original and powerful.

Good job!

I feel the exact same way. I've never been into politics, I was for the wars and for Bush and now I am absolutely dedicated to getting this truth out, no matter what I have to do!
I feel so empowered with the truth I can't believe it.
Every time I read this board and see everyone's posts, it just gives me more energy.
You guys have stepped up your game 100 times then what it was even just 6 months ago. You guys make me think, give me links, videos and ideas to consume and analyze.
There are times when I get so angry about what we've become as American people, I can't control myself. But I honestly think we are the last great hope to return to prominence. I am so relieved to know there are still intelligent people out there who are FED UP with what's been shoveled down our throats.
Keep it up, everyone! You are all inspiring.

Good job

Well spoken card51short. That's the passion the revolution will need when the time is right. I know, sounds a little exttreme but I believe the revolution is coming. Hans, Ont. Can

Worth repeating...

"911 Truth is the most vibrant force for peace in America right now."

e

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Agree with Chumpski

We spend way to much time giving a hoot about what this paid agent of the NWO has to say! Let's ignore Chumpski. Maybe he'll go away. Focus on more meaningful issues.
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Chomps is an NWO shill

No reason to pay attention to him. He won't go against his masters, so he will never admit to 9/11 truth no matter what evidence is presented.

myspace chompsky

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&b...
this interview has been posted for quite a while on a gnome myspace account run by some of his disciples. quite a few negative remarks in the comments, but most seem to chomp up every word he says. noam will be exposed as a fraud in the future, don't worry. he's destroyed his place in history as a result of his insidious remarks about 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ciuyS9kuQ

This is the kind of dumbass who unthinkingly adheres to Chomsky and Southpark. He's criticizing a fellow truther on youtube.com who has provided numerous valuable 9/11 videos. He refers to Chomsky and Southpark as if they were gospel, and this is what is keeping many young liberals from seriously considering 9/11 truth. A shame...

This could be part of an

This could be part of an open letter to Mr. Chomsky:

Sir, you no doubt know by now you are called a "gatekeeper" or even "shill" in the 911Truth movement. As a long standing liberal activist this no doubt distresses you. Perhaps analyzing your own words will help clairify this issue:

"Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, ..."

Which crimes of state are you thinking of, Noam? Selling off our natural resources and public air waves to the highest bidder? The profit driven military-industrial complex, or for that matter the K-street project? And you are saying the reason activism hasn't worked is because all the people who would be speaking out against the corrupt institutions and economy are too busy with 911 Truth?

"crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

It's not a contest, Noam. State treason is state treason. However I think you will find MOST people put mass murder, or any murder, in a higher priority than corporate style crime, as serious as it is. Which crimes were you thinking of in particlular that have a higher priority than state sponsored mass murder?

" That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. "

Ah, we are being treated TOLERANTLY. Odd; I thought we were being IGNORED. Mocked, even. Strange definition of tolerance for a linguist.

"How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments."

And here's my judgement: 911 is an intrinsice PART of those priorities of yours, not APART from them. IF the perpetrators are not held accountable, you WILL NEVER fix all those other priorities. While this administration is able to use 911 as an excuse for everything from war to torture, you and your priorites will be spinning in circles ineffectively, changing nothing--kind of like how the elites want it.

And that, sir, is why you are called a shill in the 911Truth movement.

PS: You have said yourself that the US is the largest exporter of terrorism. Why then, sir, is it so difficult for you to consider US involvment in the terrorist actions of 911?

Well, that's me. I don't think there's a point in sending this to him, but anyone else is welcome to plagerise it.

Impeachement. Accountability. A better world.

I hear...

You met casseia last night...



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Yeah, I did. Should put to

Yeah, I did. Should put to rest the "Bubba Jenny" comments from a certain troll--which BTW make me LOL.

This was my first time meeting someone face-to-face that I'd met online. Kind of an odd feeling knowing someone's written communication style and then meeting them live. Not bad, just odd.

It was good to meet other live truthers. I'd forgotten we really do NEED live interaction with people who share our concerns. The interent is a begining, not an end.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Was she...

Cute? :)



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

As if I would say "no"

As if I would say "no" !

Yes, in an unconventional way, but I'm a straight woman so that might not count for much...

Heh...



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

She's trying to be tactful.

The horns, tail, and forked tongue take a little getting used to, but then you'll find I'm one hot Truther.

What about...

The colonel?

And you're funny.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

She's a hot mama.

And also unconventional (most superheroes are.) It's too bad I'm a straight girl.

Thank you. "Hot mama" is

Thank you. "Hot mama" is definitely a step up from "Bubba Jenny" , though I've never heard either IRL. I'm more used to people being at a loss for the right word--trust us on this Jon, my looks are VERY unconventional. NOT a girly-girl. But, hell, who wants to look like a Vogue stick figure?

"Bubba Jenny" still makes me bust a gut, BTW. I think I'm supposed to be offended...lol.

"The interent is a begining,

"The interent is a begining, not an end."

That's supposed to read "internet" not "interent, but it looks like everyone figured that out...

You write all that great

You write all that great stuff and you're not going to send it? Send it lol!

chomsky@mit.edu

Oh, alright! Twist my

Oh, alright! Twist my arm...

Cleaned the text up a bit,

Cleaned the text up a bit, spell checked it and added the following:

"PPS: I am forever indebted to you for helping me understand global politics courtesy of your excellent book "Deterring Democracy"; it is BECAUSE of your past work that I am involved in the 911 Truth movement. But your failure of moral courage regarding 911 is unforgivable for someone with your influence. I will close with these words:

Premeditated murder is always a conspiracy. Those who destroy evidence, attempt to stop the investigation, and then tamper with the investigation, have, at the very least, made themselves accessories after the fact to pre-meditated murder."

Thanks for the email address, btw.

To see his "response" go to

To see his "response" go to the end of the comments, at least at the time of this post.

i think he's just afraid to

i think he's just afraid to rock the boat - and instead would like to steadily proceed with a "mutiny".. by enlightening the people to the other crimes, like illegal wars..

Show "damn you homo's and your" by Anonymous (not verified)

Sunbeam, you just said the

Sunbeam, you just said the wrong thing. You were at -2 when I came by and I thought: well s/he's not causing trouble and they're just floating a thought. Doesn't really deserve to be in the dog house, that is -3 and hidden. So I gave you a point. That Jenny, she's a soft touch.

But thanks to your "homo" comment I'm taking it away! Now repeat after me: homophobia--BAD.

Git.

Show "ok, little miss third person" by Anonymous (not verified)

Sorry, I can't see what

Sorry, I can't see what you're saying. Your comment has been hidden. Just remember: homophobia=BAD.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

I don't understand OPERATION NORTHWOODS....

If passengers were routed to a plane that ends up landing at Elgin AFB and those people get off the plane and the other (DRONE) plane flies over Cuba and is blown up, wouldn't the LIVING passengers that got off the plane at Elgin AFB talk about their experience? People would find out they are still living and were not themselves blown up over Cuba.

Does someone else really understand how this part of Operation Northwoods makes sense because it doesn't make sense to me.

?

If I remember correctly... the people on the plane were going to be agents posing as students....correct me if I'm wrong

Really wasn't a well crafted plan.... but then again they really didn't have the internet to contend with

Operation Northwoods

I guess that would make more sense.....therefore the passenger list of the plane that's blown up would be faked since agents were really involved in the whole scheme and on the plane that lands at Elgin AFB.

I want to understand this since so many people say it suggests something similar to 9/11.

Remember

Kennedy wanted to dissolve the CIA.... he thought they were not in the best interest of the country.... The Bay of Pigs was probably done without his knowledge as well... but he took the fall.

JFK also wanted to rid the country of the Federal Reserve system....

He made two very powerful enemys.... in reality, one which worked for the other.

You all know that there is another secret organization run by our government that is not CIA, FBI, NSA..... and probably has a budget that's more than all those combined

exactly, Kennedy was burnt

exactly, Kennedy was burnt by the CIA early and knew what they were about and capable of. near the end of his life he was obviously(contrary to what people like Noam Chomsky believe) moving in the right direction on many "dangerous" issues to the establishment. he was urging the media to do its job and dig as deep as they could, he wanted to overhaul the CIA and reign it in,he wanted to do something about the federal reserve, he wanted to end the war in Vietnam(despite some of his public remarks,which were usally contradictory on the subject of Vietnam,there were internal documents that prove that Kennedy was going to end the war). Kennedy was far from perfect but he was what he was, a human being in a position of power that was moving in the right direction and was killed for it. but to Chomsky he was just a cold warrior whos death just isnt that important. HA! what a tool. ok, im done.

refresh me

"You all know that there is another secret organization run by our government that is not CIA, FBI, NSA..... and probably has a budget that's more than all those combined"

to which organization are you referring?

My response to Chomsky

Dear professor Chomsky,

you recently said in an interview that "the concept of 'false flag operation' is not a very serious one".

Apparently, then, you don't consider it "serious" that the Soviet artillery in 1939 fired the famous Mainila shots into their own territory, blamed them on the Finns and used them as a pretext to start the Winter War against Finland. Historians have for long known that this was a false-flag operation. But you don't regard it as "serious". Why not? Don't you think its consequences -- 23,000 dead Finns and 127,000 dead Russians -- were indeed serious?

Recently declassified documents show that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which provided the legitimation for the Vietnam War, was fictional. Don't you think that 50,000 dead Americans and millions of dead Vietnamese is "serious"?

What about the fact that Italian terrorism trials revealed operation Gladio, a Cold War project based on a "strategy of tension" in which NATO's stay-behind armies and Western intelligence agencies promoted and assisted right-wing terrorist groups, whose attacks, killing hundreds of people in several countries, were blamed on the political left? Should you not know about this, read, e.g., historian Daniele Ganser's book "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe" (2005) or watch the following BBC documents:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4900756773650110959
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=430206682910394510
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3409375633223151728

A final example -- and one resembling 9/11: the BBC document "Dead in the Water", linked below, deals with the attack on the American intellingence vessel "USS Liberty" during the Six Day War. People have wondered for decades why President Johnson recalled the fighter jets that were sent to defend this ship against the Israeli attack. Recent research has shown that the sinking of the ship was to be blamed on Egypt, which the USA was ready to attack. The conspiracy was foiled by the appearance of a Russian spy ship to observe the attack, which caused the prolonged attack to be interrupted and allowed the vessel to limp to safety. Dozens of sailors died; the survivors were ordered to keep quiet. If the ship had sunk, many more would have died -- and not only on that ship. To me that, too, looks extremely serious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/dead_in_the_water.shtml
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322&q=terror+storm

In fact, as every historian knows, most wars have been started under the pretext of some kind of a false flag operation -- or conspiracy, if you like. Dear mr Chomsky, are you really serious when you say that the concept of false-flag operation is not serious?

Sincerely,
[...]

Show "I imagine Chomsky" by Anonymous (not verified)

You really ARE confused by

You really ARE confused by modern technology.

He doesn't need a waste basket for emails; he just deletes them.

So you weren't pretending when you acted like you didn't know how to use a search engine, were you? Here let me help you out:

Pray to the spirits who live in the magic box in front of you and ask them for wisdom. Words sacred to the spirits are "google" and "yahoo".

Hope that helps.

LOL

That comment inspired a vision of ye olde Chumpmeister kickin' back in his MIT digs, tossing one crumpled letter after another into a big cartoon wastebasket marked 9/11 TRUTH. :D

He is hired help all the way. What a dirtbag.

 

great!

yet you can't explain WHY it is silly. I wonder why!

These post was AMAZING...i really hope he read that...GREAT piece of writing and to-the-point info!

Chomsky

Nothing new here. See http://www.mdmorrissey.info/chomweb .

A couple of years ago I

A couple of years ago I heard Chomsky say that the LIHOP position is tenable while he completely rejected the stronger position. Maybe we should press him on the foreknowlege/LIHOP position and see how he responds now.

Also I notice that when confronted with Paul Thompson and the 911 family members (essentially a LIHOP position based on foreknowlege and wargames) he starts talking about the physical evidence for CD. That's a familiar tactic.

Congressional 1st 100 hrs survey

Off topic, but I just responded to an email from the DCCC that linked to a survey, which should be found @ http://www.dccc.org/100hours/survey

On item #2, check 5 as least important to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. At the bottom, there is a place to add your own comments. I told them why this would be a huge mistake, and what the priorities must be instead. You know what to say. Have at it!

Great suggestion

This seems like an excellent opportunity to let them know what people think. Could this be promoted more broadly?

pass it on

I am passing it on to my contacts, and emailed dz and sbg also. Maybe this could be bumped up and made an item. I am not a registered user here yet. I take advantage of every opportunity like this. You can also slip a little 9/11 Truth into those prepaid envelopes you get when they hit you up for a contribution. I like to slip in a Deception Dollar and a mini-card that says We Know.

survey

http://www.dccc.org/100hours/survey (item 2 check 5, add comments at the bottom)

$$$

Hey Chomsky!
How much and was it worth it?!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

He's not in it for the

He's not in it for the money. He already has plenty from selling his books. Deception is his game.

He just doesn't exude a positive vibe.

Dear Noam; We see your hand now

The project for a new American Century must have been the work of fiction, according to your assimilation of 9/11.
19 Hijackers and 4 planes is all that was needed for everything that followed these past 5 years to put the middle east on the brink of destruction. What? do you suppose the US overreacted by pre-emptively striking Iraq? Having Invasion plans for Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Disregarding terrorist attack warnings prior to 9/11? Torture now as a policy? Detain whoever We want, whenever We want and let them rot in jail?
Keep our soldiers in the middle of a civil war while they are illegally occupying the country to begin with? Do you support those who interpret our Constitution in such a way that they have made this a bastardized, illegitimate form of government
to such a degree that our civil rights are sqaundered if We question the "war on terror"? Electronic voting machines that can be rigged? Telling people in NYC the air is safe to breathe? and now this will cause up to 70,000 more deaths? Is this the government that you believe is telling the truth in the 9/11 commision report? It is impossible for Me to respect this government "of the people" that does not respond to serious discrepencies in dire need of redress.
I once had much respect for you Noam..it's gone now

Battling ignorance.

1. Don't cede the frame.

"I deal in Conspiracy FACT."
-Mike Ruppert

2. Stick to the facts. Stop speculating until you have presented solid, verifiable evidence that they are lying and covering up.

3. The problem is credibility. I would not accept advice about most subjects from "truthers." They are undisciplined and often parrot the same dubious claims.

4. Multiple, credible sources. Do your homework as if it mattered. Because, guess what? It does.

That said, here is what I posted on the ZNet forum, to Chomsky and his sycophants.

What evidence WOULD convince you?
Submitted by John Doraemi (not verified) on Thu, 2006-12-14 22:04.

I have literally gigabytes of data supporting US approval and/or permission for the attacks of 9-11. Paul Thompson's site similarly shows numerous, numerous lies told by the administration
regarding 9-11, and omissions that were not investigated officially.

So it comes down to:

Mr. Chomsky, what evidence would you need to see before you entertained the
notion that the US wanted and allowed these attacks to happen?

If there is NOTHING that will convince you, nothing at all, then you are not a serious authority on this subject. End of discussion.

You tell me what exactly I have to provide, and I'm pretty sure I can come close.

Meanwhile, independent investigator Daniel Hopsicker has just linked an admitted CIA OPERATIVE to MOHAMED ATTA (the purported "lead hijacker" and "ringleader"). Story at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/120112006.html

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

P.S.

I don't actually expect a response.

P.P.S.

This classic and awe inspiring response by Nafeez Ahmed still packs a punch:

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html

What about the conspiracy FACTS?
Submitted by John Doraemi (not verified) on Thu, 2006-12-14 23:00.

I am so sick of these mindless dismissals by lightweights who haven't bothered investigating the issue, in five God damned years.

Here's a conspiracy FACT:

The 9-11 Commission Report tells us Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:58am.

Norman Mineta (Secretary of Transportation) and Richard Clark (Counterterrorism Chief) tell us otherwise. The 9-11 Commission lies about when Cheny arrived and what he did there.

Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??” -Lee Hamilton questions Norman Mineta, 9-11 Commission Hearings

Well, THAT sounds relevant to the investigation into September 11th. It was omitted from the book. Why?

What was Cheney's "order?"

What legal or constitutional authority did the Vice President have for giving an "order" to the military?

Why was Bush sitting reading about a goat while multiple planes are crashing around the nation?

You don't understand Bush's role there, do you?

It will take some more explanation. But it's certainly not "incompetence." That theory is bunk, and easily discredited.

In the third week of July, 2001 -- two months before 9-11 -- Bush, his entourage and his SECRET SERVICE DETAIL were moved out of a high rise
hotel in Genoa Italy during the G8 summit.

Why?

Because Italian secret service got a WARNING from Egypt that "Al Qaeda" was planning to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into the summit
to "ASSASSINATE BUSH AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS" (LA Times,9-27-01)

Secret Service knew: means, perps, target, all of it.

So, what was Bush doing sitting in the class, in a pre-announced highly disclosed location?

Not commanding his military.

Not scrambling interceptor jets.

Not doing his duty to protect and defend the nation.

Mr. Bush was stalling for time, as Ari Fleischer instructed on a writing pad, from the back of the room: "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." (Wash.
Times, 10-7-02, Bill Sammon)

Thirty five minutes LATER, the Pentagon was finally struck.

Back to Cheney -- what was he doing in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and on what authority?

Seems that in May of 2001 Bush put Cheney in charge of all "preparedness exercises", basically in command over all military branches to carry
out system wide military drills, ... to fight terrorism (sic). This was by executive order, which anyone can look up.

On September 11th, at least SIX large drills were underway as the attacks came, including
"live fly" hijacking simulations. All of this is confirmed by military sources, first reported by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon. These military drills paralyzed the defenses and took all of the ready fighter jets away from the region and up into Canada, Alaska and Greenland. This explains the extraordinary lack of fighter response to the largest civil air emergency in history.

All FACTS, not a theory in sight.

Here's a theory about Dick Cheney's "order." (Copyright 2006/John Doraemi)

1. Exercises are all over the sky making it difficult to distinguish military exercise from real world hijacks.

2. In the interest of "safety" (sic), Cheney orders the inbound Pentagon craft to not be intercepted, so no "accident" will happen in an already turbulent sky.

3. The junior officers don't buy it. Interception is mandatory in FAA regs. They try to persuade Cheney to change his mind.

4. The Pentagon is struck. Too late. Ooops. Best to cover it up, and never mention it in public again. Promote everyone. No one is accountable. "Let's roll."

Crimes of the State
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com

response to Chomsky

Noam was my teacher and no matter how misguided he is on this issue, I will always feel fondly toward him. When I was his student, I always felt he respected people who asked difficult questions of him. I can't remember one time that I did.

I've emailed him twice on the issue and received responses quickly to each.

The most challenging question I have yet to present to him is," where do you draw the line between the whistleblowing of Dan Ellsberg and the whistleblowing of Sibel Edmonds? Please look for the coming documentary on Sibel, who gets a lot of support from Ellsberg.

While I do agree there are dangers more prevalent in the 911 truth movement that are less true among the left (the tendency to accuse anyone who disagrees with being a cop, fascination with theory over evidence), Noam seems to confine his critique to engineering aspects of the issue to the exclusuion of say Griffin's 115 omissions and distortions of the Kean Commission. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

I always enjoyed Noam's defense of MIT. The first time I heard it was when he was pleading with antivietnam war activists not to burn the ROTC building because his office was in it. He asserts, I think correctly, that engineers and hard scientists are, or at least should be, more interested in the truth than the social scientists more dominant in the Ivy League. His education was at Penn and post doc at Harvard.

He also once argued against the value of debates. He said truth was not in between two arbitrary points. Truth is wherever it is. Good advice.

I believe his misguided opposition to JFK assasination research is based on his correct concept that one should not generally expect opposition to imperialism to come from the ruling class.

I can't imagine Noam has really looked at Thompson's timeline. Noam , the military changed its timeline of that day TWICE without even trying to give a rationale for why the previous two timelines were put forward.

Noam, the secretary of transportation testified that Cheney knew a plane was approaching the Pentagon.

I also am ecstatic there are so many 911activists who might be said to be right of center who are passionately opposed to imperialism. Would the left debunkers say such antiimperialism is of no value?

My question for leftist debunkers in general is why can't they take Howard Zinn's position?To paraphrase Howard, "The hard questions about 9/11 and the war on terror need to be asked. That's just not where he's focused." Even Chip Berlet and Matt Rothschild agree there should be a real investigation. A shill for PNAC would never agree to that. Did you hear the Popular Mechanics guy on Goyette's radio show actually argue there is no need to release ALL the photos of the Pentagon?

Ultimately, I explain to debunker types that it is not sufficient to counter any one or several of the issues we raise. They need to not only respond to all 115 of Griffin's points. They need to show why further investigation of each of the115 points by the legal power of subpoena is not worthy of consideration, a VERY high bar to meet.

response to Chomsky

Noam was my teacher and no matter how misguided he is on this issue, I will always feel fondly toward him. When I was his student, I always felt he respected people who asked difficult questions of him. I can't remember one time that I did.

I've emailed him twice on the issue and received responses quickly to each.

The most challenging question I have yet to present to him is," where do you draw the line between the whistleblowing of Dan Ellsberg and the whistleblowing of Sibel Edmonds? Please look for the coming documentary on Sibel, who gets a lot of support from Ellsberg.

While I do agree there are dangers more prevalent in the 911 truth movement that are less true among the left (the tendency to accuse anyone who disagrees with being a cop, fascination with theory over evidence), Noam seems to confine his critique to engineering aspects of the issue to the exclusuion of say Griffin's 115 omissions and distortions of the Kean Commission. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

I always enjoyed Noam's defense of MIT. The first time I heard it was when he was pleading with antivietnam war activists not to burn the ROTC building because his office was in it. He asserts, I think correctly, that engineers and hard scientists are, or at least should be, more interested in the truth than the social scientists more dominant in the Ivy League. His education was at Penn and post doc at Harvard.

He also once argued against the value of debates. He said truth was not in between two arbitrary points. Truth is wherever it is. Good advice.

I believe his misguided opposition to JFK assasination research is based on his correct concept that one should not generally expect opposition to imperialism to come from the ruling class.

I can't imagine Noam has really looked at Thompson's timeline. Noam , the military changed its timeline of that day TWICE without even trying to give a rationale for why the previous two timelines were put forward.

Noam, the secretary of transportation testified that Cheney knew a plane was approaching the Pentagon.

I also am ecstatic there are so many 911activists who might be said to be right of center who are passionately opposed to imperialism. Would the left debunkers say such antiimperialism is of no value?

My question for leftist debunkers in general is why can't they take Howard Zinn's position?To paraphrase Howard, "The hard questions about 9/11 and the war on terror need to be asked. That's just not where he's focused." Even Chip Berlet and Matt Rothschild agree there should be a real investigation. A shill for PNAC would never agree to that. Did you hear the Popular Mechanics guy on Goyette's radio show actually argue there is no need to release ALL the photos of the Pentagon?

Ultimately, I explain to debunker types that it is not sufficient to counter any one or several of the issues we raise. They need to not only respond to all 115 of Griffin's points. They need to show why further investigation of each of the115 points by the legal power of subpoena is not worthy of consideration, a VERY high bar to meet.

Circular, evasive, and

Circular, evasive, and self-inflated. I sent this one (and thanks for providing the email address!):

For all of your speaking, writing, and cultish following, what exactly have your focuses and tactics done to change the imperialist progression? Let's take a look-see. The political process become exponentially more corrupted by big money; grossly immoral corporate greed has skyrocketed; the nation's profile has become more politically and religiously conservative (with a Dark Ages anti-scientific mindset to boot); the press has abandoned it's truth-to-power responsibility; the gap between rich and poor is turning us into a banana republic; and the average American has become less informed and more docile.

The Chomsky doctrine is studied like Latin -- an honorable intellectual pursuit, but not particularly practical in a world where no one uses it to communicate. It's wonderful that you sell books and provide fodder for idealists in coffee houses. But if your doctrine is the best use of citizen resources, I submit that it has failed to produce any resounding results. In short, it's failed to change anything you claim to care about.

Preaching to the same choir year after year becomes masturbatory. Mr. and Mrs. Faux News would fall asleep on page one of a Chomsky tome, and wouldn't make it through five minutes of a lecture... but... they would catch Holy Moses FIRE with the truth about internal complicity in 9/11.

Whatever your reasons for willful ignorance and outspoken disdain on 9/11, they can't be honorable. For shame.

WTF?!?!

Noam Chomsky: (I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, )

I dont know what planet youve been living on for the last 6 years Noam, but I've got news for you. The Bush administration is utterly insane. For the love of God, these are the guys planning tactical nukes on Iran, Taxcuts for the wealthiest in a time of "war". Buying boots and playing fiddles while New Orleans drowned and on and on and on. That being said, do we always have to point the finger at Bush when we say it was an inside job, I mean common, the guy probably has Laura tie his shoes for him.

"Tax Cuts for the wealthy"...

Is not a 9/11 issue.
The fact is that we are ALL overtaxed, including the wealthy.
Tax cuts for all is what we should be after. Income tax elimination, we need not be slaves to the government!

Income taxes don't pay for anything. The income tax is a fraud and does not pay for our schools or our roads, or even to run the government.

Watch Freedom to Fascim, this will give you a lot of the story:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

common realist, its an

common realist, its an example of their insanity for christ sake, why dont we just say everything they used 911 to justify doing isnt 911 related. How limited do you want this discussion to be? I agree with you our income tax is a fraud as is the federal reserve i.e. Ive seen The Money Masters and From Freedom to Fascism, now are we to say that isnt 911 related either, after all the bankers and corporations are really the ones pulling the strings.

Crap

The above post was mine, Realist, anyhow no president has ever cut taxes during a time of "war" and to me that makes it fair game to use as an example (along with everything else) of their insanity and thus their willingness to do something as heinous as 911 to pursue their PNAC agenda.

doesn't matter?

i'm so sick of this jerk how in the world could any crimes be "far more serious than blowing up the WTC". 911 is huge. life changing for everyone. pre911 vs. post 911 everything... 911 has shaped foreign and domestic policy completely since it happened and this weirdo doesn't even care who did it or why? If he's so worried about the more important crimes getting buried under the 911 truth movement why doesn't he name one. credibility gone, retire noam

Well, here's his response,

Well, here's his response, everybody--interspersed with original letter; I've marked his email responses for clairity--I hope:

----- Original Message -----
From: Jenny Sparks (by way of Noam Chomsky )
To: Noam Chomsky
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:53 PM
Subject: Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'

Sir, you no doubt know by now you are called a "gatekeeper" or even "shill" in the 911Truth movement. As a long standing liberal activist this no doubt distresses you. Perhaps analyzing your own words will help clarify this issue:

>>>I'm not a "liberal activist," and what distresses me is the extraordinary fanaticism and self-righteousness of the "Truth movement," something I've never come across in 60 years of intensive involvement in activism, apart from religious cults. And also, as I've written, I'm distressed by the fact that it is diverting enormous amounts of energy from crimes that are much more serious than those alleged -- without even the most minimal attempt to establish the claims, I might add.<<<

" One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, ..."

Which crimes of state are you thinking of, Mr. Chomsky? Selling off our natural resources and public air waves to the highest bidder? The profit driven military-industrial complex, or, for that matter, the K-street project? And you are saying the reason activism hasn't worked is because all the people who would be speaking out against the corrupt institutions and economy are too busy with 911 Truth?

>>> You can find out which crimes of state I am thinking of by the device of reading what I write or listening to talks I give. Chief among them are literal threats to the survival of the species: significantly escalating the threat of terminal nuclear war, environmental catastrophe, etc. And a long list of others. Those you mention are so far down the list I barely mention them. And those I do discuss go back well before 9/11, or are very similar to those after 9/11, with the same institutional roots, from which attention is diverted by the 9/11 movement.<<<

"crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

It's not a contest, Mr. Chomsky. State treason is state treason. However I think you will find MOST people put mass murder, or any murder, in a higher priority than corporate style crime, as serious as it is. Which crimes were you thinking of in particular that have a higher priority than state sponsored mass murder?

As noted.

" That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. "

We are being treated TOLERANTLY? Odd; I thought we were being IGNORED. Mocked, even. A strange definition of tolerance from a linguist.

>>> That's a common belief among people who have joined the Truth movement without experience in activism. You'll know that you are not being treated tolerantly when you are subjected to huge campaigns of vilification throughout the mainstream, live with death threats, have to have police protection when you give talks, etc. Not when you are given an unusual amount of time on CSPAN, have books featured in bookstores, etc.<<<

"How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments."

And here's my judgment: 911 is an intrinsic PART of those priorities of yours, not APART from them. If the perpetrators are not held accountable, you WILL NEVER fix all those other priorities. While this administration is able to use 911 as an excuse for everything from war to torture, you and your priorities will be spinning in circles ineffectively, changing nothing--exactly how the elites want it.

>>> I've explained elsewhere why I think your judgment is quite wrong, and won't repeat. But even if we were to accept your judgment, it would change nothing. Take say the murderous invasion of Iraq, with some 650,000 Iraqi deaths, destruction of the country, sharp escalation of the threat of terror and nuclear proliferation, etc. Suppose we agree that Bush wouldn't have done it had it not been for 9/11. Then it follows at once that we should devote ourselves to stopping these ongoing crimes, not indulging in internet debates. That should be elementary. The reason why the Truth movement is treated so tolerantly by centers of power, I presume, is because it is diverting energy away from stopping the crimes, and exposing their institutional roots, which, as noted, underlie crimes that are far worse than the alleged 9/11 crimes are, as well as others much like the post-9/11 crimes, or worse, which have similar institutional roots.<<<

And that, sir, is why you are called a "shill" in the 911Truth movement.

PS: You have said yourself that the US is the largest exporter of terrorism. Why then, sir, is it so difficult for you to consider US involvement in the terrorist actions of 911?

>>> For the same reason that it would be difficult for me to consider Chinese responsibility for 9/11, although China undoubtedly has carried out major crimes, and still does.<<<

PPS: I am forever indebted to you for helping me understand global politics courtesy of your excellent book "Deterring Democracy"; it is BECAUSE of your past work that I am involved in the 911 Truth movement. But your failure of moral courage regarding 911 is unforgivable for someone with your influence. I will close with these words:

>>> It's interesting that advocates of the Truth Movement regard themselves as courageous. No one who has been involved in serious activism, resistance, etc., could possibly believe anything of the sort. There's nothing less risky than having debates on the internet.<<<

Premeditated murder is always a conspiracy. Those who destroy evidence, attempt to stop the investigation, and then tamper with the investigation, have, at the very least, made themselves accessories after the fact to pre-meditated murder.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Col. Jenny Sparks

Now this was a damn quick response. Does anyone else suspect he has hired someone to monitor his email and give prompt but canned responses?

Supposedly he's an email fiend

and just churns out the replies, but who knows.

I like the way he assumes we all came into the Truth movement without previous activism experience.

AAARRGH

Nice try CJS, I just dont relate to his line of thinking. How a person can ignore the event used to justify everything he claims is more important just doesnt fly for me. I wonder if he denies all false flag terrorism? What about Operation Northwoods, the gulf of Tomkin, or the Reichstag fire, do these exist in his world?

I learned about Northwoods, Tonkin and the Reichstag Fire...

from Chomsky.

Your should email him and

Your should email him and remind him of that, in the context of him saying false flag is bunk. Unfortunately you'll just get canned response #356--"Well, those events don't apply because blah, blah, blah."

Great Job Col. Jenny

You letter and your responses are excellent. You challenged his viewpoints very well. Chomsky's reasoning is just baffling. It seems he is quite disconnected from reality.

If Noam believes he's a

If Noam believes he's a man's man in the world of activism, then I wonder if his brassies are big enough to broach the 9/11 issues "subjectively" at one of his "talks". All he's gotta do ask his intellectual audience (hangers-on) to consider some of the more salient points being made by the truth movement. He doesn't have to take a stand one way or the other, but just speak openly our objections to the official story.

I'm willing to bet he doesn't have the caljones to do this, because he is well aware of the dire consequences of someone with his stature talking openly about this stuff. This is not petty shit to be bandied about lightly by someone with his "pull", and he knows it.

Remember, he has a family to consider, and maybe he doesn't have the courage to risk their safety in the pursuit of justice. He's on safe ground with all the peripheral issues he sells to his groupies.

Al Capone - He was a

Al Capone - He was a ruthless gangster who more than likely caused or ordered the murder of dozens if not hundreds of people during his reign.  

He was brought down for tax evasion.

If Mr. Chomsky is serious about bringing stopping "terminal nuclear war"/etc..  Then he must realize you take your opportunities when they arise.  He is a fool or worse if he can't see that... 

"Now this was a damn quick

"Now this was a damn quick response. Does anyone else suspect he has hired someone to monitor his email and give prompt but canned responses?"

He probably gets 50 emails like this per day. He most certainly has a stock response to each of your arguments and points, so it's easy and fast for him to respond.

He dismissed your moral courage point. I think we are full of ourselves at times, but it takes courage to endure the humiliation and condescension as we try to spread the word.

Chumpsky: ">>> You can find

Chumpsky:

">>> You can find out which crimes of state I am thinking of by the device of reading what I write or listening to talks I give."

In other words, buy my books, pay the price of admission. You'll have to pay for an answer.

">>> That's a common belief among people who have joined the Truth movement without experience in activism. You'll know that you are not being treated tolerantly when you are subjected to huge campaigns of vilification throughout the mainstream, live with death threats, have to have police protection when you give talks,"

There are to many of us now. So, the movement as a whole must be villified. How long the villification can go on is questionable. Appears that fairer exposure is increasing daily though.

There are some, probably, who have received death threats. And many who choose to actively and vocally protest will not receive police protection but rather, will receive police brutality.

Those who feel the full force and rath of the PTB are those who possess and share valuable information but fail to make themselves well enough known.

Chompsky may not be on the NWO payroll. However, it seems to me that he has been warned.

So, what are his great achievements, other than selling lots of books? What perpetrators of heinous state-sponsored crimes has the great Gnome brought to justice?

"Premeditated murder is always a conspiracy. Those who destroy evidence, attempt to stop the investigation, and then tamper with the investigation, have, at the very least, made themselves accessories after the fact to pre-meditated murder."

I snipped that one to keep Jen. It's too good.

--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

"Premeditated murder is

"Premeditated murder is always a conspiracy. Those who destroy evidence, attempt to stop the investigation, and then tamper with the investigation, have, at the very least, made themselves accessories after the fact to pre-meditated murder."

Hey, make it viral. This is how I always start my conversations about 911 with people on the fence. It frames the debate as the murder it was , not something scary and vague like "terrorism". And if you run accross a post some where that is identical or nearly so, it is probably me; some places I post as "V".

">>> It's interesting that

">>> It's interesting that advocates of the Truth Movement regard themselves as courageous. No one who has been involved in serious activism, resistance, etc., could possibly believe anything of the sort. There's nothing less risky than having debates on the internet.<<<"

Gnome is evidently technologically retarded. As Voltaire once said, "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Considering the government has been eavesdropping on us all and has the ability to determine where messages originate, unless you're in the minority of internet users smart enough to use anonymous browsing software (blatant promotion-> Tor/privoxy , google it-it's public domain freeware!) , any one posting something negative about the government can be identified. In fact, it would be even easier to identify who is dissenting against the government.

It's amusing that he's taking a shot at the pride of the movement here. What a weak shot it was.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/

chumpsky

chumpsky works for chimpsky

well both on the govt dole...

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/

Not that it'll ever happen,

Not that it'll ever happen, but I DARE Mr. Chomsky to debate David Ray Griffin on the events of 9/11. Why do I have the feeling that Chomsky would cut the debate short and walk out before even the first half was over?

Funny how ...

Funny how Chomsky DOESN'T say "Although the US government was probably behind 9-11, it doesn't matter much, because there are many far more important crimes of state to worry about."

Chomsky's logic is that the idea that the US government was behind 9-11 is so implausible that it can effectively be ruled out. By the same logic, the idea can be dismissed that the US government would do anything worse!

I mean, if the US government wouldn't dare carry out 9-11, what makes him think it would dare do anything worse????

crazy..

I was assuming at first that he was referring to controlled demolition vs. the rest of the conspiracy, until he was asked about the previous examples of government sponsored terrorism.. how could he give an answer like that, saying there is no correlation? Come on.. USS Liberty? 7/7? Gladio? Northwoods? Phthtptpt!!

It seems to be part of the

It seems to be part of the shill play book. 911debunker finally got around to answering your post--what he says reminds me a lot of what Noam is doing, vague slippery evasions...

"The concept of "false flag

"The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully"

Erm, the Gulf of tonkin led to the deaths of 58 thousand Americans and 2 mil veitmaniese.

this Bush admin is now being

this Bush admin is now being blackmailed with 911.It goes like this.

continue the conquest of the Middle East regardless of public opinion or we will expose 911 as an inside job using the mainstream media.

very possible, but

numerous limited hangouts are already rushing through the MSM (Lance, Woodward, ISG Report, NORAD tapes, et al) all pushing open the "incompetence" escape hatch and the rats are fleeing the sinking ship — biggest danger: another event, bigger and nastier than 9/11 — keep pouring these idea into the middle-left blogs: The Myth of Islamofascism has replaced the Myth of Monolithic Communism; al Queda is Gladio for the Middle East; the War of Terror is the Strategy of Tension for the 21st Century; the Axis of Evil is the new Evil Empire

Keep it out there, as Tarpley says, "If WMD go off anywhere in the world, don't look to the cave, bin Laden, the laptop; don't look to the Axis of Evil. Look to Cheney and Cheney's handlers."

Make it harder for them to get away with it again. Question every scenario, e.g. the six Imams ejected from the plane in Phoenix — psy-ops written all over it. Every little "terror cell" bust; follow it until it's thrown out of court as 85% of the cases have been since 9/11. They're front page when first busted then barely make the news at all when thrown out.

Keep exposing their dirty tricks, push it into the public debate in every forum you can find, It's tiring work, but keep it up — soldier on!

FLAGS

'False Flags of our Fathers" a new bio movie
by Sen John Mccain
starring Noam Chumsky
and G W Chimpsky

Chompy..

Ive never known about this Chomsky guy until today anyway.. just seems like an old fart to me.

;-)

Please take this poll.

.

.

Anon...tell me...

...How many leaves on a tree? How many grains of sand at the beach? How many snowflakes at the North Pole" You stupid fuck.

Come on be civil altruist

cussing at anon's is not doing us any good, because they and their master can use posts like those to point at and say look at those nutjob truthers the minute you disagree with them they cuss you out. While I agree that poll is stupid, becuase theres no evidence to show how many people were part of this. There no need to flame him, just ignore him and he will stop posting becuase hes not getting any reaction. Also my idea for dealing with these anon trolls is the site should show there ip when the post. That might have to much of a big brother feeling though.

.

.

No, this isn't about civil "disagreement", ...

....it's that that stupid, unanswerable "question" is repeatedly thrown out there, exactly because it can't be answered...to make us look like we don't know what we're talking about...just like the "well, if 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?" red herring...

What, like we planned and executed the attacks? Only the people who did those things have those answers. Yet, we're expected to try and answer that BS. I've lost my patience.

Go ahead and sincerely debate these anonymous assholes, I'm sure it's time well spent...(sarcasm)

Show "Now this is truly hilarious" by Anonymous (not verified)

how many

Q. How many do we need to convict?

One at a time.

So, 911debunker, finals week

So, 911debunker, finals week getting you down? I notice you haven't written in your "totally awesome journal" lately. BTW, I'll only call it that while you post anonymously. So I guess during X-mass break you can make a 24/7 go of trolling, eh?

He's not saying debate them; he's saying ignore them.

That said, it IS an anonymous git and I'm for any motivation to get these tossers to either stop hiding or go away.

The try to keep us running

The try to keep us running in circles to deplete our spirit...

EVERYTIME they attempt this tactic I am even more determined to see all the lies from 9/11 are exposed, and after that the rest of those lies going back to WWII... 

Dumb poll, don't

Dumb poll, don't bother.

What you see in the post is the only question--the answers are a list of numeric ranges. My guess is someone trying to build a data base to see how many conspiritors most people think it is, then, if it's a high number, it can be used to dismiss the Inside Job premise thusly: if there were that many people no way possible could it be kept a secret.

If you must answer, take the lowest number range. That should bollocks up the project.

That's hilarious! If it

That's hilarious!

If it were done by insiders, the majority think it would take 1000 or more. But if Islamic "Tourists" do it, it would take 19 + 1 OBL.

Bizarro Anti-Logic of the 9/11 Deniers

Da Chumpmeister is like Lord God of 9/11 Denial.

Look at these absurd fucking quotes of his.

Someone should write a serious article about this nutcase, maybe a book.

Here dude: Excerpt from

Here dude: Excerpt from Barry Zwicker’s “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11”

On Amazon

(Chapter 5, p 179)

The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left

“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories ….”
-President George Bush, Nov. 10, 2001,
to the United Nations General Assembly

“Look, this is just conspiracy theory.”
- Noam Chomsky to author in conversation,
November 14th, 2002

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
- Herbert Spencer

Thanks for the identical advice, George Bush and Noam Chomsky. But no thanks.
There’s something very strange here. You’d expect George Bush, the most visible face of the American Empire, to employ the intellectually-bankrupt put-down phrase “conspiracy theory” as an element of his propagandistic rhetoric in defence of the of the official story of 9/11. On the other hand, about the last person you’d expect use the same phase the same way for the same purpose would be Noam Chomsky, known for his masterful deconstructions of propaganda.

You’d expect Noam Chomsky to be unmasking the nature of this phrase and the purpose of George Bush in using it. As we shall see, this phrase (and its friends “conspiracy nut,” “conspiracy whacko,” etc.) is far more than simply another misleading figure of speech. It’s a particularly effective tool for suppressing healthy skepticism about the contradictions and absurdities of 9/11 and further investigation into them.

Chomsky himself at one point issued a strong caution against the use of the term. He had just explained, at a public meeting, how mainstream meida stories are skewed to favour vested interests by means of reporters quoting establishment representatives at length while neglecting to quote critics of the establishment. “Would you characterize [your] media analysis as a “conspiracy theory” at all?” a woman asked Chomsky.
“It’s precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory, actually,” Chomsky said. “… institutional factors … set boundaries for reporting and interpretation in ideological institutions.” He continued: “Any economist knows this: It’s not a conspiracy theory to point [out] that … it’s just taken for granted as an institutional fact. If someone were to say ‘Oh no, that’s a conspiracy theory,’ people would laugh.” He concluded: “For people to call [Chomsky’s media analysis] ‘conspiracy theory’ is part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works, in my view – ‘conspiracy theory’ has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it’s something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on.”

So, when Noam Chomsky repeatedly uses the phrase “conspiracy theory” to describe questioning the official story of 9/11, he clearly knows its power and purpose of its use.

(Sidebar): Emotional Considerations Arising from a Study of Chomsky’s Work

Among readers of this book’s draft form, this chapter became the most controversial. These readers include writer friends, other friends, and colleagues. No one was close to neutral. This chapter – and I – encountered strong praise and strong aversion, hearty congratulations and dire warnings, gratitude, anger and suspicion.

I came to realize how deep for others – and for me – are the feelings associated with this chapter. That caused me to try to separate out the emotional issues. This attempt has helped me think more clearly about Noam Chomsky and the Left Gatekeepers. I hope this sidebar likewise will be useful to you, the reader.

The emotional attitude toward Chomsky on the Right for the most part is simple hatred. A hatchet job on Chomsky in the Saturday observer section of the Ottawa Citizen of November 5, 2005, provides an example. “The Fantastic Professor: As smart as Noam Chomsky is, he can be infuriatingly stupid” titled “Blind genius.” The hatchet is wielded by the paper’s editorial page editor, Leonard Stern. Chomsky’s political views are “crude”. Chomsky is a “weird one” who “buys into ideas that would embarrass the flat earth society.”

One the Left, the feelings are more complicated. The main emotions are gratitude and admiration – sometimes to the extent of near idol worship. As Daniel Abrahamson puts it: “Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous US foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations. He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions [of] leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.”

I myself was one of his earliest supporters, from the days when most had not heard of him. My admiration knew no bounds. I have a stack of his books more then a foot high. I praised him personally and publicly and in my university teaching. I was honoured to interview him for four segments on Vision TV. A friend of mine and I at one time competed to see who could get the lager number of letters to the editor published defending Chomsky against the ill-wishers who twisted his words or called him names such as “anti-American.” I assisted in a small way with the film Manufacturing Consent.

But I became one of those in the Left puzzled, even mystified, as a result of Chomsky’s insistence for more then 40 years the Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. This puzzling anomaly took on a new significance after 9/11 with Chomsky’s opposition to questioning the official 9/11 story – which questioning he says is a huge mistake for the Left.

As I studied his work ever more closely under the intense illumination of 9/11, I became increasingly amazed at patterns, dealt with in this chapter, that emerged from his body of work. Disbelief turned to shock. I feel I have been duped. I feel embarrassment that mainly I duped myself, that I had been in denial. With these realizations came anger from feeling betrayed by someone I welcomed into my innermost sanctum of trust.

One of my emotional tasks is not to go overboard, like the jilted lover who seeks revenge. Trying to be reasonable, I attempted to reconcile these new strong negative emotions with the positive emotion of gratitude that I felt for so long, and that it would seem reasonable that I should continue to feel. Gratitude for all that I did learn from Chomsky, for all the support he has given to causes I support. I still wrestle with these conflicting emotions as I chance across the latest brilliant articulation by Chomsky of the havoc wreaked by the American Empire. For instance, his comments in an article by Jim Mcllroy and Coral Wynter:

Caracas – By sending gas for heating to poor, homeless people for free and at very low prices for those who can pay, “Venezuela is giving a great example of cooperation and solidarity with the people of the United States. And this is being seen by the entire world,” Noam Chomsky, well-known US intellectual, told a public meeting of teachers, students, researchers and journalists on February 13 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to a special report in the February 15 Caracas newspaper Diario Vea.
Chomsky also said that majority of North Americans “receive little or no information of the great achievements of the Bolivian Revolution, that is headed by President Hugo Chavez, because the mass media only emphasise the bad, and are silent about the positive.”

But now, even while reading a report such as this, I cannot forget the evidence of his being a major leader of the “controlled opposition” to the American Empire. My feelings of gratitude are hugely diminished and can never rise again.

I decided to disclose my anger and mixed feelings here, but I have reined them in as much as possible in this chapter. My hope is to channel most of my anger into increased research and into understanding better the complexities of the subject matter. I have also been helped by a friend who is a leader in the “Forgiveness First” movement.

You, too, may encounter strong feeling as you read this chapter. I am grateful for the debate that raged among my friends and colleagues, not least for the emotions directed at me. They have made me reconsider, have rekindled my sensitivity for the feelings of others, and have helped me rewrite usefully, I hope. I also hope you have friends as thoughtful and honest as mine with whom to discuss the intellectual, political and emotional aspects of Chomsky and his work. I must say I now find it creepy.

Thank you for that

Thank you for that thoughtful post. Usually I'm itching for that down arrow if something goes on for more than two pages, but this info is something all of us, especially ex-Chomsky fans, should reflect on.

And you reminded me I meant to buy Towers of Deception.

Cheers again.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Yes, thank you for that. And

Yes, thank you for that. And pass it on to progressives of all stripes, esp. those who are STILL Chomsky fans.

not only that, but pass it

not only that, but pass it on to anyone in the media in any capacity, alternative or mainstream. i was a media activist before i was a 9/11 activist and Zwicker knows his shit and lays it out PERFECTLY. it should shame any media types that read it.

Compared to Rush Limbaugh

Chomsky is an important man. But other than that the guy is a charlatan, big time. Read Jeffrey Blankfort's excellent critique of Chomsky as not so closet Zionist at Dissident Voice, called, "Damage Control."

Now, let's debunk the Hoaxacough with the same spirit we are 911. Thank you President Ahmadenijad and David Duke for kicking that Zionist sucker Wolf Blitzer's kosherized ass.

You know, I think I know

You know, I think I know just the place where you'll fit in, Concrete man--"The 911Debunker Guide"!

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

I think you could help debunker see where his research is faulty, and, unlike us here at 911Blogger, he has absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who don't believe the Holocaust was real in any way. In fact he has said he welcomes all "communication styles" though I warn you this includes gratuitous rudeness.

Go forth, padawan, and strike a blow for Truth!

Letter to Chomsky re 9/11

Mr. Chomsky, I have to admit it is very difficult to reconcile your 9/11 stance with other words of yours, for example, those contained in Secrets, Lies and Democracy (Interviews with Noam Chomsky) 1994 by David Barsamian where you said,

"I could imagine a democratic society with an organization that carries out intelligence-gathering functions. But that's a very minor part of what the CIA does. Its main purpose is to carry out secret and usually illegal activities for the executive branch, which wants to keep these activities secret because it knows that the public won't accept them. So even inside the US, it's highly undemocratic."

But , Mr Chomsky, you seem to have turned your back on that analysis when considering 9/11. We have seen mounting evidence of CIA awareness of, if not involvement with, the purported hijackers prior to 911. We have seen how aggressively this administration has treated whistleblowers and dissenters such as Joe Wilson, John O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Siebel Edmonds, David Schippers, and others.

You've said that the culpable would've been mad to do this, and wouldn't have dared to endanger the Republican party. But, if we accept that the official story is not correct or at least not complete, we must also accept that those who steered these events were not primarily concerned about the survival of the Republican Party. They must also have known that those who are interested in the survival of the Republican party would fall in line pretty quickly. Those interested in preserving order and America's claim to the source of all that is democratic and civilized would also fall in line. Nothing about the "conspiracy" theories is implausible, and nothing is even new. You have taught us that Mr Chomsky!

You have also discounted any evidence presented saying,

"As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly."

But, let me say that David Ray Griffin provides an excellent study of the available evidence in his two books "The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions: A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report” . You state that a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence is at the heart of these conspiracies, but I believe Griffin presents a proper, thorough analysis of what the evidence is and what possibilities it supports. Are you specifically dismissing this analysis Mr Chomsky? If so, how can that be, as you claim such analysis is below your level of contemplation? How can you confuse investigation, research and analysis with one's opinion - if you don't do the former, how can you dismiss the latter?

Mr Chomsky, you said chaos would make loose ends. Well, this chaotic event did in fact spawn a number of coincidences, contradictions and loose ends. But it also spawned many inconsistencies and some outright lies by official sources which you lump with the former. Most physical evidence, that of the WTC towers debris, the plane debris, the black boxes, video from surveillance cameras, were whisked away without any public analysis whatsoever, or never declared to be found, rendering the gathering of some very clear evidence impossible. It took enormous pressure from 9/11 victim's families to have a 9/11 investigation, poor and hampered as it was, at all.

As for the general public apathy and acquiescence, surely the mind behind Manufacturing Consent can comprehend how a nation's public, faced with such a shocking event, would not seek to find evidence, or be expected to ask the right questions. But those endowed with the public trust should have ask questions, and failed. Also, intellectuals, such as yourself, fell into their usual pattern of debating each other within the framework of the official dialogue, too afraid, unwilling, or unable to stray into or even see disturbing waters.

I am perplexed by your position , and can only surmise you do not want to be associated with something that you perceive will never see the light of day. Well, newsflash Mr Chomsky, it has, but it needs a push from more reputable people like yourself . I cannot see anything more important. It is one thing for America to fool its people about the state of democracy in Haiti or Columbia, but if they can allow their own people to be attacked, and not be called to account, then there is no hope at all and all your past legacy of activism rendered moot. Mr Chomsky, you will then end up in the category of those who by act or omission, supported status quo for personal gain, or fear of loss, and failed your fellows when needed most.

Chomsky dubious reliance on peer reviews

The 9/11 is united in the need for an independent inquiry. Left gatekeepers avoid this point like the plaque.
The follow article links to an article in New York times, that puts Chomsky's faith in thje peer review system under severe questioning.
http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/the-scottish-internationalist/20...

errata

The first sentence should begin"The 9/11 truth movement....