In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”
If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?
I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so.
Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false. There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or for the Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives.
Huff Po on Chomsky confrontation : "Here's The Video To Share With Anybody Who Still Buys Into 9/11 Truther Stuff"
On Tuesday 11/26 the Huffington Post ran an article and video embed of Noam Chomsky dodging and dismissing Bob Tuskin's questions reguarding WTC7. From the comments I've read, most of them actually call out Chomsky on his sloppy assumptions and fallacious pandering.
Read and Post a comment here
By Noam Chomsky
May 7, 2011
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.
It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."
Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.
"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.
"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."
The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.
I found this video of an interview with Noam Chomsky from over a year ago.
WE ARE A CULT.
Anyone still thinking Noam Chomsky is not a fraud?
This Interview is from April 24, 2009
Link to Video
"This multiple awards winning documentary is a well-executed and comprehensive film that asks tough questions and goes behind the scenes of America’s national security apparatus and military actions. Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy."
"The United States emerged from World War II with its industrial base still intact and the only nation with the atomic bomb. It was without question the most powerful country on earth. What was done with this unprecedented power, the effects it's had on our Republic and the rest of the world is the story of Superpower."
Chomsky Confronted on 9/11; Admits LIHOP is "conceivable"
The Corbett Report
5 November, 2009
A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging+remarks+about+9/11+truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is "conceivable." Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:
This took place in November 2006. I have decided to gather our correspondence and place it into one page. It was originally posted here. Peter Dale Scott told me he enjoyed this at the time.
Mr. Chomsky, this is a challenge I sent to the media.
"A Challenge To The Media"
What would be your argument against this?
If the last question is addressed to me, I don't have any argument against providing even more attention to the Truth Movement.
Do you endorse the family members' call for a new investigation?
I don't endorse it or object to it. In my opinion there are far more significant topics, but we have to use our own judgments.
Chomsky Says President Obama Continues Bush Policy To Control Middle East Oil
by Sherwood Ross
Noam Chomsky spoke at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th.
Academic activist Chomsky is known to the 911 Truth Movement as a denier of the facts of controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, in spite of the massive amount of irrefutable evidence (most of us see it as ordinary common sense backed up by hard core science).
As I recall, Chomsky also insisted, as many deniers do, that any conspiracy would have to be too large, that too many people would have to be involved, for it to have occurred. Then he dismissed his challengers with a wave of the hand and said, "What does it matter?"
I suspect that when Chomsky did this, he knew his arguments couldn't stand up, but he couldn't admit his mistake or the fact that he had been deceived, so he resorted to outright denial and a pretense of apathy; I also believe he still can't admit that he was wrong but probably knows it deep inside.
Now here we have Chomsky giving a speech in which he describes the war in Iraq as
This week's Diet Soap podcast features the second part of a conversation with Peter Dale Scott about his book "The Road to 9/11." Peter also discusses his views on the pros and cons of Noam Chomsky, his admiration and impatience with anarchism and other revolutionary strategies for social change, and the necessary difficulties involved with attempts to understand deep politics. Phil Och's song "Love Me I'm Liberal" along with a factoid on the Titanic are also featured.
The Corbett Report has just released a two-part documentary as a rebuttal to Chomsky's infamous 9/11 comments. These videos seek to expose the nonsensical and contradictory arguments Chomsky makes in trying to discredit 9/11 Truth. The documentary is intended to be an activist tool for spreading 9/11 Truth to academics, leftists and Chomskyites. If you think it is well-presented, please help get the word out by sending the link to people you think it might wake up.
Due to a date error on the Corbett Report video posted yesterday, the blog entry has been removed. Corbett is re-editing the video to correct the error which placed some comments by Chomsky prior to the publication of "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", by 10 days.
Until Corbett reposts, here is a piece produced by Snowshoe Films:
"THE SHAME OF NOAM CHOMSKY & LEFT GATEKEEPERS": featuring Barrie Zwicker;
February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432:
That said, now that Chomsky has agreed to sign the widows’ petition, the Muckraker Report would like to see the following people sign too: Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia.
Like I said in my article from a few days ago, 9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions, the Jersey widows say that once they have 15,000 signatures on their petition, they’re going to head back to Capitol Hill. Right now they have 6,600 signatures, 1023 of them in the last 60 hours. Please e-mail the link of the petition to all your friends. Ask them to sign and forward the petition to their e-mail contacts. The Jersey widows have to get 8,400 more signatures. They need your help. Come on - give them a hand!
“Whether [Islamic terrorists] were involved or not nobody knows. It really doesn’t matter much.” (“An Evening with Noam Chomsky: The War on Terror.” MIT 10/18/2001)
“The evidence (against al-Qaida) is surprisingly thin.” (Noam Chomsky, 9/11)
“Even if (inside job) were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance.”
(Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2, YouTube.)
Does it matter whether 9/11 was an inside job? Chomsky says no. Is his position in any way defensible or excusable? E.M. writes:
"Using Chomsky's logic, where my father does not have to accept a 'conspiracy theory' he admitted that the US is acting like an 'empire' and the war is 'probably criminal.'
Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
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