Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin

Crimes of the State

Noam Chomsky's 2006 "analysis" of US government 9/11 complicity is being promoted by Alternet.org as if it was news. That's because Chomsky basically sides with the editors there and their dismissive attitudes toward looking at the evidence.

In this battle of ideas, it warms my heart that Alternet's boards are swamped with controversy the minute they try to push this garbage onto the unsuspecting.

I remain a bit dazed though that hard core "leftists" accept Chomsky's thin dismissal, and ignore the most important admission Chomsky has made:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky

"My column will include voices so often excluded, people whose views the media mostly ignore, issues they distort and even ridicule."— Amy Goodman from her first piece for her weekly column "Breaking the Sound Barrier"

“Of course, there will be those who demand silent obedience. We expect that from the ultra-right, and anyone with a little familiarity with history will expect it from some left intellectuals as well, perhaps in an even more virulent form. But it is important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of what one does, or fails to do. All truisms, but worth bearing in mind. Beyond the truisms, we turn to specific questions, for inquiry and for action.”—Noam Chomsky from the last page in his pamphlet “9-11”

The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky on 9/11

by Tom Breidenbach

“It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.”
—General Douglas MacArthur, 15 May 1951

“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
—Sun Tzu

“…which is just gonna leave a lot of things unexplained, I mean that’s the way the world is.”
—Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky has bridled at the idea that 9/11 could have been to any significant degree the result of a state-level conspiracy, expressing his irritation at a recent presentation where he held forth for several minutes on the topic. Chomsky is a figure worthy in certain respects of the esteem accorded him, but his views on 9/11 reflect a common and dangerous mis-appraisal of the techniques of contemporary statecraft and, more shockingly (coming from him), of the long-worsening psychosis afflicting and increasingly characterizing the US military/industrial complex. The point made by Chomsky during his talk that 9/11 was a boon for authoritarian governments the world over is well-taken (if hardly original), yet beyond this his opinions regarding the attacks range from foolish to insidious.

Listed in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (1992) as the most often-cited living author of the 1980s, Chomsky was recently touted on the floor of the UN’s General Assembly by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and, in another indication of his singular cultural status, has been referred to by international pop star Bono as a “rebel without a pause, the Elvis of academia.” Considering his academic and popular reputation, and his generally laudable contributions to letters historically, Chomsky’s irked condescension on the matter of 9/11 is especially perilous, given that—in light of critical studies by (among others) David Ray Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed—the psychosis of US state militarism appears to have manifested to a very real and criminal degree in Anglo-American state sponsorship of the September 11th 2001 attacks.

911 and the Propaganda Model

The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood. Back in 1921, the highly influential political columnist and media analyst Walter Lippmann, wrote the book “Public Opinion”,where he discussed the need for the “manufacture of consent”; given the inherent pitfalls and barriers to an accurate and effective public opinion (democracy, essentially), it is necessary that this opinion is crafted by a higher sphere of influence. This was understood very well by Edward Bernays, who was the founder of Public Relations (he indeed coined the term), and the formulator of not just corporate, but also political PR. He sketches out his views on this in his 1928 work, "Propaganda where he states that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”, suggesting like Lippmann, that democracy is a “chaos” that needs regulation from above. This “above” is a small section of elites: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” These are the people who will ensure that the masses are sedated, and free to run their daily lives, without participating in the broader picture of public policy, given the dangers that this would pose to the influence of said elites, and thus the smooth functioning of society. To paraphrase Bernays, a leader must serve by leading, not lead by serving.

One of the most 'controversial' chapters to appear in any 9/11 book, was written by Barrie Zwicker in his 'Towers of Deception'. This 'controversial' but true, accurate and highly education chapter has found its way onto the internet, and has been reproduced as far as I can see word for word and illustration for illustration. So if you would like to analyze the methods of propaganda, and dissect through the obfuscation here are the links:

http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky.htm
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/agent_noam_chomsky/chomsky.htm3

Here are two reviews of the book from Amazon.com, which particularly mention this specific chapter as forming the basis of opinion concerning the book, and the review written about it:

The first reader gives the book 2 Starts out of 5 (2/5):
I gave the book two stars mainly because Zwicker's treatment of Noam Chomsky, with its continual oscillation between fawning adulation and vituperative disgust, is worth a read.

The second reder gives the book 5 Starts out of 5 (5/5):

From indoctriNATION @ TheFilter.ca

I recently dug up an episode of one of my favoutrite Canadian alternative radio shows, Elephant Talk, which is broadcast from CHLY 101.7 in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Progressive Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker was the guest, discussing his new book Towers of Deception, The Media Cover-Up of 9/11.

One of the hosts of the show, James Booker, asked the award-winning journalist and university professor about something that had been on my mind for months, ever since I read Noam Chomsky’s uncharacteristicly emotional and logically stunted arguments against the hypothesis that 9/11 was a covert operation perpetrated by criminal elements of the US government.

Visit indoctriNATION to listen to Barrie Zwicker on Elephant Talk

The following is a transcription of part of their conversation (from 14:56 to 21:27):

Noam Chomsky, "the great intellectual", has in a PBS interview once again embraced his supposed worst enemy's favourite war-justifying psychological weapon, that being the "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory".

It stands in stark contrast to 9/11 widow Patty Casazza's earlier PBS interview, in which she mentions WTC 7, the continued need for an impartial investigation, as well as the Henry Kissinger meeting, the loss of civil rights and other things of real importance. Things of real importance which are dismissed as "non-issues" and "distractions" by "the great intellectual" Mr Chomsky.

To listen to Chomsky’s interview click here.

To listen to Patty Casazza's click here.

Chomsky's disappointing and perplexing support for the NIST 9/11 conclusions does nothing to undermine the 9/11 truth movement or its findings. Scientific debate entitles Chomsky to whatever opinion he chooses. The truth movement has no reason to despair over this as long as it continues to focus on the science of 9/11.

Chomsky argues against a US false flag operation on two counts: 1) the scale of the operation and the high probability of a leak would render it too risky; and 2) lack of scientific evidence supporting an alternative theory.

Neither of these arguments is credible or defensible. Chomsky devoted much of his career to cataloging a century of US global terror conducted on a far grander scale than 9/11. Is he now proposing that these covert operations are limited only to foreign targets due to unstoppable domestic whistleblowers? On the face of it, this is absurd. Covert operations of this magnitude and gravity operate by different laws. Leaking information would be suicidal.

But let’s assume Chomsky is correct. If so, is the US unique in producing whistleblowers willing to risk their lives to expose Uncle Sam’s dark side? Does the same argument apply to Hussein, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Pinochet, or Pol Pot? Shall we also draw a line through their domestic atrocities as too implausible due to home grown whistleblowers? Furthermore, what shall we make of the released Northwoods documents revealing false flag plans against American citizens by the US military in the early ‘60s?

At about 3:50 of this video, Noam says "Even if it's true, who cares? It doesn't make any significance" when he is talking about the 9/11 "conspiracy theories".

I bet the 3,000 family members cares? I bet they feel its of significance?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM

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:

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,

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

____

Dear Noam Chomsky,

You proclaim that to challenge the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK as being anything other than as officially described would be the "Death of the Left". No, sir people you are becoming the "Death of the Left", because you and the other foundation funded "Leaders" have been politically castrating the political Left. And all with the anaesthetic of half-truths and micro revelations that steam valve just how corrupt things are. So the “Death of the Left” will be the slow political impotency that no longer inspires new generations to challenge the things that need challenging the most, “politically correct” or not. Above all though your constant dismissal of the 9/11 issue is frankly vomit inducing. There are credible, valid and rational reasons to doubt the official narrative describing that attack, yet you plead ignorance and show distain for such a critical subject, why? Beucase of this enigmatic stance of yours I actually now sympathise with those who would call you a gutless, visionless charlatan and coward.

Ok, I've just transcribed a small section on Chomsky from Barry Zwicker’s stunning book “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11” which I strongly recommend everyone go out and kop, it's excellent. Find the Amazon link below;