Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11

19
860

Kevin Ryan

In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimedthat 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 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 forthe 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.

The obviously bogus “tiny number” statement from Chomsky is only one of several such absurdities the man uttered in his lecture response. Here are a few of the others.

“[Scientists seeking the truth about 9/11] are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do, when you think you have discovered something, is you write articles in scientific journals [he admits to “one or two minor articles”], give talks at the professional societies, and go to the Civil Engineering Department at MIT, or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results.”

I’ve copied Chomsky on more than two peer-reviewed scientific articles in mainstream journals that describe evidence for demolition at the WTC. Therefore he knows that this statement is not true. And I’ve given dozens of talks around the U.S. and Canada that focused on the WTC demolition theory, many of which were at universities.

I’ve also pointed out that MIT’s civil engineering professor Eduardo Kausel made elementary mistakes in his public comments about the WTC disaster. Kausel claimed inScientific American that the WTC towers were “never designed for the the intense jet fuel fires–a key design omission.” Kausel also claimed that jet fuel from the aircraft “softened or melted the structural elements–floor trusses and columns–so that they became like chewing gum.” At the risk of making a Chomsky-like exaggeration, I’ll venture that nearly everyone today knows that these statements are false.

Chomsky went on in an attempt to belittle, and downplay the sacrifices of, people seeking the truth.

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet who think they know a lot of physics but it doesn’t work like that.”

“Anyone who has any record of, any familiarity, with political activism knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It’s almost riskless. People take risks far beyond this constantly, including scientists and engineers. I could, have run through, and can run through many examples. Maybe people will laugh at you but that’s about it. It’s almost a riskless position.”

Chomsky knows that I was fired from my job as Site Manager at Underwriters Laboratories for publicly challenging the government’s investigation into the WTC tragedy. He knows that many others have suffered similar responses as well, including Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones and University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who were forced into retirement for speaking out. And although everyone knows that researchers and universities today depend on billions of grant dollars from the government, Chomsky implies that such funding could never be impacted in any way by questioning of the government’s most sensitive political positions.

The “hour on the internet” nonsense is ludicrous, of course, and Chomsky knows it well. Jones and Harrit have better scientific credentials than some MIT professors and we have all spent many years studying the events of 9/11. I’ve spent over a decade, and have contributed to many books and scientific articles, on the subject.

Pandering to the hecklers in the crowd, Chomsky summarized his simplistic (public) position on the events of 9/11.

“However, there’s a much more deeper issue which has been brought up repeatedly and I have yet to hear a response to it. There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved–very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it, you just have to think for a minute. There’s a couple of facts which are uncontroversial:

#1–The Bush Administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq. (He goes on to say that there were good reasons, including that Iraq was “right in the middle if the world’s energy producing region.)

#2–They didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis, they blamed it on Saudis–that’s their major ally.

#3–Unless they’re total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis if they were involved in any way.” He continues to say that “there was no reason to invade Afghanistan” which “has been mostly a waste of time.”

Basically, these three “overwhelming” reasons boil down to one reason–Chomsky assumes that if the Bush Administration was involved it would have immediately blamed Iraq for 9/11. Of course, Bush Administration leaders did immediately blame Iraq for 9/11 and they did so repeatedly. That was one of the two original justifications given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.

Moreover, Chomsky most definitely received a response to his “deeper issue” when he received a copy of my new book Another Nineteen several months before his comments. The book gives ample reasons–meaning actual overwhelming evidence–to suspect that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and nineteen of their colleagues were behind the 9/11 attacks. After writing that he was “glad to learn about the new book,” he sent his mailing address for a free copy. Chomsky acknowledged receiving the book in August and wrote to me that he was “pleased to have a copy of the book, and hope to be able to get to it before too long.”

Therefore, Chomsky has either ignored the response to his one major concern for several months or he knows that his concern is no longer valid. What would make him feign ignorance in such a way? Perhaps it is the fact that he would lose a great deal of face if he were to finally admit that there is much more to the story of 9/11.

Regardless, when a tiny number begins at 2,100 and “just overwhelming evidence” to exonerate the Bush Administration boils down to one bad assumption, we are again reminded of the power that 9/11 holds. When presented with substantial evidence for complicity on the part of corporate and government leaders, the obvious becomes either undeniable or an emotional cue to dissemble.

Dig Within

  • Dick

    I gave up expecting for anyone, no matter how great they are or how many letters they have after their name, to get everything 100% right all the time. Just take the good and leave the bad where ever you find it.

    The best place to see HOW you should approach things is in the writings of Poncho Threetrees.

    • David Infinger

      I think he is being smart here. He is already fighting a war with Dershowshit from Harvard and others like him. He is staying focus on his circle of influence and not his circle of concern. Love him or hate him, he is doing the most with what he can change.

  • Hello Kevin,

    Thanks for the incisive summary above.

    We can all put a metric tonne of verified material evidence under the noses of people like Chomsky and David Ray Griffin; however, if their medical cases of acute cognitive dissonance are as serious as I suspect, their foregone conclusions can be expected to filter that evidence every single time.

    My office lodged a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld, that is bolstered by an extensive amount of documentary evidence calling for the conclusion that the run-up to the Iraq invasion was planned far in advance of 9/11/2001.

    Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O’Neill witnessed Cabinet meetings where the attack on Iraq was openly discussed, and he was fired by GW most probably because O’Neill had protested that advance planning.

    One of the documents incorporated as a formal Exhibit was a detailed study of nuclear proliferation by the State of Israel, published at Maxwell AFB two years to the month prior to 9/11:

    In that report, the “yellow cake” (uranium oxide) was transferred to the Israeli secret police for immediate transport to Israel’s nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert in Southern Israel. So much for the lie that Iraq had imported that yellow cake.

    Another horrific example of premeditated negligence is the refusal of people like Chomsky and Griffin to confront the detailed photographic evidence of aircraft debris which remained at the Pentagon until all of it was removed.

    Our pro bono assistance to U.S. Coast Guard Investigations in San Diego uncovered a key photo of two PLANAR fuselage sections, one of which shows the telltale external refueling line still attached. Boeing 757s have an obviously cylindrical fuselage, and NO external refueling lines; and, there are very few U.S. military aircraft which have BOTH a rectangular fuselage AND an external refueling line (cf. U.S. Navy A-3 Skywarrior).

    Our surviving hypothesis is that the Office of Naval Intelligence (“ONI”) was already ONTO the run-up to 9/11, and members of the USAF were already locked into a long-standing pattern of resource competition with the U.S. Navy e.g. $2.3 TRILLION reported missing by Rumsfeld at his press conference on 9/10/2001 (the day before).

    The hits on the WTC triggered an emergency meeting of Naval Commanders at the Naval Command Center, where they were sitting ducks for a precision attack by an AGM followed immediately by a modified A-3 Skywarrior packed with TNT and jet fuel. Those explosions also took out the adjacent offices where the missing $2.3 TRILLION was being actively investigated by Pentagon forensic accountants.

    Another facet of the Pentagon attack is the report we received that Captain Gerald DeConto was on the telephone to the Secretary of the Navy, to request verbal authorization to “engage the incoming”. There is only ONE REASON why DeConto would have been requesting that verbal authorization: the Pentagon’s automatic fire control system was tricked into standing down, most probably by a friendly transponder identification beacon which had been installed on that modified A-3 Skywarrior.

    A Russian surveillance satellite reportedly photographed its launch from the flight deck of the USS George Washington, which was anchored off the coast of Long Island that morning.

    Then, there is the full El Al Boeing 747 which departed JFK at 4:11 PM on 9/11/2001, destination David Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv: that flight departed in obvious violation of the grounding order issued earlier that day by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and its take-off was assisted by U.S. Military ground crews, most probably USAF (again).

    Can you say “getaway vehicle”?

    In summary, the best and most powerful single litmus test you can apply to these fakers and phonies is the hit on the Pentagon: if anyone tries to tell you that a Boeing 757 crashed into the “E” Ring that morning, you will know instantly where they are coming from!

  • Brian

    He is either a gate keeper or is so in love with his mind that any deviation would shatter it into a million pieces.
    I Think he is an intellectual gate keeper.
    “Chomsky I worship you I worship you…..”.

  • justin

    Criminal.

  • Steve Hines

    You can’t expect everything from one guy. In a very important sense, who killed JFK and if the US government is responsible for 9-11 don’t matter. I can see Chomsky’s point. I disagree, but I can see his point. This guy has chronicled the crimes of empire for 50 years. Fateful Triangle is the most devastating indictment of the US-Israel special relationship available. Deterring Democracy deconstructs US mythology in such a systematic way that the most committed commissars can’t deny the facts. Year 501 lays the crimes the Europeans committed in the New World bare. To call him a “gatekeeper” is just stupid. EVERYONE knows what happened on 9-11, including Chomsky. For some reason, he isn’t interested in so called 9-11 truth. I, personally. think it’s important and relevant because exposing the truth can snap people out of complacency. Evidently, he doesn’t feel that way. He has more than sufficiently exposed and denounced the subsequent crimes and carefully discussed the geopolitical imperatives behind them. Why he doesn’t want to be involved in the “Truth” movement is a matter for speculation only, but, if he doesn’t want to address it, then who cares? I mean, do you really NEED Chomsky to lend credibility to the endeavor?

  • It’s not “willful ignorance”, or as another poster put it, his “acute cognitive dissonance”, either.

    Noam Chomsky is well aware of what happened on 9-11, and he chooses to lie about it because he knows what side of his bread the butter is on.

    He’s just another lying Zionist shill, and I don’t know why anyone even cares what he thinks.

    The scientific evidence is IN on 9-11, and it’s indisputable that the WTC towers (all THREE of them) were felled via controlled demolition.

    Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot, or a lying sack of dung, but either way, their opinion, like Chomsky’s, is irrelevant.

    • KD

      You hit the nail directly on its head. Well said!

  • Noam Chomsky: Cuddle Pet of the Subversive Academic Left
    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/12/noam-chomsky-cuddle-pet-of-subversive.html

  • KD

    …OR it could be the onset of senility. He could simply be unable to devote mental gray matter to a new, deep, confusing to those with pre-conceived notions sort of argument that this deep governmental conspiracy requires.

    Much like the Kennedy assassination. Chomsky is a no-show on that one as well.

    Someone said take the good, discard the bad. But that’s not quite right, thought it sounds a reasonable thought. When you let them deceive you in the slightest, they will confuse the subject in your mind. You have to do the mental work, and Chomsky is now too old.

    But he was always a gatekeeper.

  • There’s a special place in hell for dissemblers like Noam Chomsky. The ONLY good that’s come out of 9/11 is its ability to separate the wheat from the chaff…and the gate keepers from the courageous truth tellers.

  • DDearborn

    Hmmm

    CHUMPsky’s job is to run covert interference for israel from the far left. He is truly a traitor and a liar. He is now and always has been an agent of israel.

  • carlos santana

    Chomsky the jew covering for the crimes of his evil tribe. Ole Chomsky’s satanic tribe did 9/11, JFK, RFK, MLK, OK City, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston, Vietnam, USS Liberty, and much, much more. The same tribe of scum run the FED, own ALL media, start ALL wars, own Hollywood and the trash that it produces. Ignore trash like Chomsky. He is a liar. Wake up Goyim. The tribe controls just about everything.

  • Steve Hines

    So: calling Chomsky a “Zionist gatekeeper” reflects the PRECISE kind of mentality of one who has “spent an hour on the internet” and then drawn conclusions. Now, I’m no scholar or library rat, nor do I pretend to be, but, if you have ever read the titles I cited above you would know how stupid that characterization of Chomsky is. Thank you for confirming what Chomsky asserted and thereby proving the very claim to which you object. Maybe if there were a little more honesty and credibility among the 911 truthers then real scholars like Chomsky would be inclined to support your charges. I mentioned that it was a matter of speculation why he decides not to align himself with the 9-11 truth movement. Here is one such speculation: Maybe he doesn’t want to be associated with people who have never read a book.

  • jim malalhu

    These three videos (5 hours) summarize it nicely:

    One
    Two
    Three

  • The comment that 2100 Architects and Engineers are a small number is meaningless because we would have to compare that number with any such group supporting the official story. Where can you find a group of more than 2100 professional Architects and Engineers to coalesce behind the official story?

    The other argument Chomsky makes is appeal to authority, Science is not opinion of any elite, I find this particularly repugnant as because of such a view, the world has had conventional economics perpetrated on it, which is founded on the most insane and absurd axioms, such as there exists an rational entity that is simultaneously a unit of measure and a scarce commodity. What is that? It is the conventional notion of money, the real root behind 9/11 and the rest of the current nightmare.

    For breaking out of the scientific truth monopoly read this: http://bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/14-english-root/115-testing-for-true-science

    To break out of the money delusion read this:
    http://bibocurrency.com/index.php/money-psyop-2

    And to learn the science behind stable money read this: http://bibocurrency.com/index.php/stability-passivity

    It isn’t that hard even challenged Chomsky could understand, but maybe he won’t let us know, right?

  • Greg Burton

    There is no doubt that Chomsky is a brilliant semanticist. An expert on who understands how public relations works: that it is meant to be a mind control industry. A man who knows that this industry has now grown completely out of control, fabricating completely illusory realities to the masses through the media.

    This same media has created a whole artificial realities in the wake of 911…an artificial reality that has generated shadow enemies, illegal wars, the pretext for shredding of our constitutional rights, torture, a police state where most of the crimes that support this structure could only have occurred with the assistance of agent provocateurs, laws passed to de-regulate and make business less transparent, tax cuts that have re-created a hereditary class and the looting of Wall Street and America: hiding the reality of economic disaster and environmental debacles.

    It is self-evident to any sentient being that 911, by itself, has been the biggest single false reality created and designed to manipulate public opinion. Yet Chomsky, this “brilliant semanticist”, can’t bring himself to conclude that this signal event of modern history, this terrorist attack, could have been staged, despite the overwhelming evidence indicating such, and that there should be a new and thorough 911 investigation to truly identify who was behind and who benefited from 911; saying only that “911 doesn’t matter” or that “there was an alternative” that confirms the official myth, the Osama bin Laden lie, while maintaining we reacted wrong, completely ignoring the growing evidence of a global oligarchy using false-flag terror and the police state to loot the world. Pffft!

    There is something serious awry here with this man. He has been labelled as gifted and a person who has no peer, so it can’t be for lack of intellect. It can only be from Chomsky willfully averring the 9/11 official lie, from the truth that is as plain as the nose on his face: 911 was an inside job; and I for one am now labeling him for what his is: Agent. But an agent for whom?

    Hey, Noam. 911 was an inside job.

  • Frank

    Chomsky is just shilling for his tribe, and in the process, making himself look foolish and untrustworthy. Another agent of controlled opposition bites the dust.

  • Aprom Date

    Oh boy were you hurt, when you were turned down for a date to the Prom, a turndown you simply couldn’t get over, so what have we now? A dedicated chubby Chomsky chaser, who will chase him – or any mention thereof – all over the net over a single issue that important only in passing as one of the many, many that comprise the notion of permanent and profitable war.

    Chomsky is quite aware of your little hissyfit, but turns his attention to more important issues, namely the need to hold our government leaders fully accountable, in Nuremburg fashion. If you spin any faster, you’ll emerge in China…