Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11

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?

ChomskyI’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.

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 in Scientific 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.

This entry was posted in 9/11. Bookmark the permalink.

206 Responses to Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11

  1. Pingback: The Progressive Mind » Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 | Dig Within

  2. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 | PremiumTimesPakistan

  3. paul says:

    Folks can scream “conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory” all they want, but I think a time is going to have to come, and soon, when people begin to recognize that there are many more gatekeepers with hidden agendas in the alternative community than we like to admit, and that some of them may be some of the most trusted people in that community, perhaps even people regarded as pillars. Chomsky’s comments should be seen in that light, I think. They clearly aren’t just the obtuse comments of an eminence grise who has lost the plot, bless his heart. No, they are willfully manipulative and dishonest. I think we need to recognize the deeper implications of this, ugly as they are.

    • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

      I think you’re right. I have reason to believe that Chomsky had his hand in the purposeful dumbing-down process of our educational system back in the late fifties/early sixties. Consider that the way English is taught can raise or lower the mean IQ of a population.

      • john burns says:

        I have always kept in mind that Chomsky was a tenured professor at MIT. Hardly a rebel with or without a cause sort of person. Sly? Cunning? The one book of his I read was not too good and had serious errors–propaganda. If you are going to fit in at a prestige university and acquire some fame and fortune, you will have to have some sincerity about being one of that class. Etc. A member of the ruling class or one of their trusted servants.

      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        I’ve read pretty much all of his books, but that was some time ago, so I don’t remember in which one of them he describes the differences between the way East and West deal with criticism. In the East, he said, you just don’t publish what the elite doesn’t want to hear, but in the West, this situation is more subtle. There are critics who really work for the system while appearing to criticize it. I remember thinking how odd it is that he actually describes himself. Maybe he thought that by writing this, people would naturally think he was himself exempt.

      • Really…whats your evidence for that claim?

    • Marcelo says:

      In my humble opinion, calling Noam Chomsky an “academic gatekeeper” for his view on this aspect of the 9/11 attacks is not fair. To my knowledge, with the honorable exceptions of the late Howard Zinn and Susan Sontag, he was one of the few U.S. public intellectuals who opposed the military invasion of Iraq. I can’t think of many academics who have criticized the foreign policy of his country as Chomsky has over the last five decades. Some of his latest books, such as “On Anarchism”, and “Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare”, are good examples. How many U.S. intellectuals have acknowledged that every American President since World War II is a war criminal? I don’t agree with him on several issues. But at 86, he’s still shedding light on many domestic and international policies, from the plutocratic nature of the U.S. political system or the struggle of people for economic justice and peace, to the Israel-Palestine conflict or the drone campaign.

      • Jon says:

        And yet Chomsky’s behavior fits precisely the name “willful ignorance.” The other alternative is callous intellectual dishonesty, regardless of his fine past credentials. There exists a huge amount of scientific evidence painstakingly assembled that belies the governmental story. Yet Chomsky not only does not acknowledge it or claim that he hasn’t seen it, but deliberately ridicules those who have done a true investigation–so far–into the events of that awful day. If this isn’t left gate-keeping, what is?

      • Skip Scott says:

        I think that Chomsky is very conscious of his public image, and is afraid to cross over from foreign policy critic into the realm of “conspiracy theorist”. He talks about documented war crimes. I think Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! falls into this same category. They are afraid of ridicule and the negative impact on their legacies as muckrakers. Basically their egos are controlling where they allow their minds to wander.

      • Juliano says:

        Skip Scott says:
        October 26, 2015 at 2:02 pm

        I think that Chomsky is very conscious of his public image, and is afraid to cross over from foreign policy critic into the realm of “conspiracy theorist”. He talks about documented war crimes. I think Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! falls into this same category. They are afraid of ridicule and the negative impact on their legacies as muckrakers. Basically their egos are controlling where they allow their minds to wander.
        ~~But he already was/is a conspiracy theorist. Which means he is a limited hangout conspiracy theorist. And I think what ‘holds them back’ is their Zionist affiliations, because when you look deep into the 9/11 incident you come face to face with Zionism!

      • That’s why his strange denial about all things 9/11 is so odd. Usually HE’S the one who’s doing the criticizing! But not on this one. No sir, he stays away from it like a hot potato. And that is why I really can’t respect anything he has to say anymore. It’s easy to criticize what’s popular. But the true thinking mind is willing to criticize the unpopular. He’s not willing to do that. All of his “beefs” are either already backed by thousands of people who already agree with him or are issues that don’t have such deep political & emotional consequences. Anyone with a thinking mind who gives one hour to hear the evidence about 9/11 can see that there is at LEAST a need for an official, proper, forensic investigation like we do for every other catastrophic event. But declaring the culprits of 9/11 without a trial or an investigation all within 24 hours of 3 steel buildings falling down the exact same way is something a child would question. Being unwillingly to acknowledge any of the evidence, to me, is cowardly.

      • Lew Welge says:

        Fully, respectfully agree ur denunciation Is apt (FRAUD I aye)

    • Bill Willers says:

      Bill Moyers is another “trusted” public intellectual who revealed more about himself than probably intended by labeling those in the Truth Movement as liars. Some, including a number of prominent engineers, distributed an open letter to Moyers requesting an apology. No apology has resulted nor has Moyers commented on the letter.

    • sansome2012 says:

      Excellent point Paul.

  4. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and Willful Ignorance of 9/11 » New Zealand 911 Truth

  5. fremo says:

    Whatever way around, Noam Chomsky has failed History and Truth at the gates of 911.
    His stupid and vile commentary reveal a thinking that disturbs the deep conscious. He identifies himself by them. He puts the weight back onto ‘outsider’ individual researchers and their bitter discovery of this heinous criminal deception….Confirms to mainstream that ‘911 conspiracy theorists’ exhibit the ‘crippled epistemology’ invented then defined by Sunstein/Vermule in their Naziified ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ paper.
    That he has not, or pretends that he has not, recognized the pattern ‘crippled epistemology’ signals; how his commentaries fit that profile not at all arguing AGAINST it but WITH it, leaves little doubt as to who he is and why he has not, or pretends to have not, read the literature.

    • “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.”

      Now that he has said this, it’s beholden upon him to explain just how either of these personages performed this act under our very noses.

      Of course, he CANNOT.

      • Peter Wells says:

        Chomsky is the master of the throw away line. The hit and run technique. Too bad. His evil twin has taken over.

  6. John Andreini says:

    Funny thing is, Chomsky isn’t a physicist either. He doesn’t know anymore about the science or physics of what happened on 9/11 than I do. He is merely picking one group of physicists and engineers to believe over another. I also find it interesting that so many lefties (Rachel Maddow to name one), people who distrust the government on so many levels, want to believe that everything happened just as the government said it did.

    • winston says:

      You dont need be a physicist to know explosives were involved in the destruction of these buildings.
      The Democrats have been the party that has ‘co-opted’ every major grassroots movement in the last century. The online documentary Lifting The Veil covers this.

      • sansome2012 says:

        Exactly. Like we do not need to be a mechanic to know when a 4 wheel car is trying to run on 3 wheels. Controlled demolition is so blatantly obvious. If it looks like a Duck.,it is likely to be a Duck, we do not need an expert in Zoology to tell us that.

    • Maddow has a great job that affords her fame and money. Stupendously powerful, wealthy organizations own the broadcast outlet on which she appears. It would be unseemly at least, or career suicide at worst to stray from the orthodox catechism
      of the 9/11 event. She is hogtied. Period.

    • Peter Wells says:

      I think Rachel “knows”, but wants to keep her very well paid job. She has chosen to stick to “the script”.

    • Gary Youree says:

      i am afraid that the line ends up being drawn at wealth and continued income. The evidence in the debris and the lungs of first responders clearly shows us what our eyes first showed us The implications are just unfathomable. It means that all our corporate news is pure play acting propaganda. The government can do anything to any of us. Those with much to lose, not only for themselves, but their families are going to say what they have to say whether they believe it or not.
      What is really happening here is a new breed of humanity, the sociopaths. This branch of homo sapiens is doomed to ultimately win against those who still hold empathy as long as they hold in place the cannibalistic capitalist policies of which ensures there will be no economic counterparts with humanist qualities, and as well they are doomed to compete to the very last man. Facing this and selling out to this can be rationalized as being a realist – a coward but not a sociopath.

  7. chroniclesofthemusicman says:

    I’m extremely surprised at the stance of Mr. Chomsky. From a man who knows all too well of the capacity of governments to lie, this statement seems counter to his own intelligence. But he, too, lives in a bubble to not acknowledge the thousands of impeccable architects and engineers, as well as the multitude of sensible people who have done their research with respect to 9/11 and demand the truth.

  8. Will Rivers says:

    He is so old that maybe he has simply lost his ability to consider things that totally exceed the the level of selfishness he thought our Master 1%s are capable of? I know that I will be ridiculed around these circles but IMHO 911 was a mixture of we had it coming Blowback AKA ‘Terrorism’ with a Framing/Entrapment ‘False Flag’. The CIA, DEA, ATF has completely embraced/adopted the concept of trolling (on the street or the internet) for people that they can entice/organize/frame into doing committing a crime can justify their existence/budgets. Cheney could have originated the idea or he could have listened to the brewing ‘Terror Conspiracy’ in a CIA briefing and he spontaneously ejaculated in his pants.. the rest is history.

  9. Will Rivers says:

    BTW I will post this link on my FB Wall because I am not afraid of ANY Truth. I would welcome being proven absolutely wrong at any time.

  10. Phil Watson says:

    Disappointed but I guess everyone has a price. Bibi’s obviously bought Chumpsky! 🙂

  11. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 | History Uncensored

  12. Denis says:

    Thanks for the excellent response to Chomsky’s dishonesty, Kevin. I think you said it all.

    I was so annoyed when the moderator cut the discussion off without any chance for a reply and without a word of protest from Chomsky – anyone who knows his history would have expected him to insist on allowing a reply. The guy asking the question was obviously well prepared and would have likely cut Chomsky’s legs out from under him.

    I was really seething when Noam blew that BS about engineers who doubted the 9/11 line should just publish something. I mean Chomsky wrote the bible on media filters. I think the problem we all have is that Chomsky’s anti-communism filter is outdated and has been replaced by the Israeli/Zionist filter, and I’m not so sure that’s not what’s at work here. Fortunately, the Web is not filterable – at least not until net neutrality comes to an end, and then filtration will be up and running again for those in control. But Chomsky seems to be hiding behind a philosophy that the truth is determined by the majority of those with PhD’s in the closest related discipline. Only those with advanced degrees are entitled to an opinion. This is a spin on the old saying that a cobbler should not stray too far from his last.

    The problem with senility is: how do you know you have it? Someone needs to tell ole’ Noam it’s time to shut up and sit down.

    • Peter Wells says:

      Chomsky must be very much aware that many persons who have spoken out on the issues are no longer drawing a breath. I do not know what pressures have been brought to bear on him, but I suspect he sees no choice in the matter. One might even suspect that his outlandishly exaggerated statements are really a plea for us to see through them and to imagine his mortal plight. No sympathy from me though.

      • Akareyon says:

        I like your thinking. I suspect the same about Professor Zdenek P. Bazant, really. If you look at his “Metaphysics of Progressive Collapse” closely, you will find many instances of him throwing the ball in truther’s laps: he proposes to compare the tower’s collapse with controlled demolitions. He says W[g] was greater than W[p] by a factor of three in Eq. 6 (how did it stay upright then? Or how did it switch from FoS > 2 to FoS = 0.3?). “What matters is neither strength nor stiffness, but energy.” Take away the “crush-up-crush-down” nonsense, and you’ll find his model is genius in its simplicity. It’s a cry for help. Somebody put a gun to his head and told him to throw the weight of his authority into proving how a tower can collapse through itself from top to bottom without explosives, and he did by proposing an “adiabatic process”…

  13. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 | Unmutual76

  14. Eric says:

    Congratulations, Kevin! Great article and much needed. Will do my part in reblogging it with full attribution for greater dissemination.

  15. Orangutan. says:

    Why We All Should Be Whistleblowers
    Margaret Heffernan – The dangers of “willful blindness”

  16. Skip Scott says:

    I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but couldn’t someone do an experiment where they attempt to melt structural steel using jet fuel. This is either possible or it’s not. If it is not, then the towers were obviously brought down by controlled demolition.

  17. Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

    In the last chapter of one of his books on Language (sorry I don’t have it at hand) Chomsky explains the difference between Eastern and Western censorship. Eastern censorship is simple: if the powers that be don’t like it, it doesn’t get published. In the West, criticism is published, and even encouraged, so long as it remain within certain limits. What those limits are is easy to discern upon examination of his career. Of course, he’s aware that his recent performance in answer to Bob Tuskin’s question contains at least six logical and factual errors. So, Chomsky is describing himself in that chapter: he’s a shill.
    And one could make worse accusations. We know that these days many high school graduates cannot read their own diplomas. Chomsky is largely responsible for this, though I cannot prove it. In the late fifties/early sixties, a teaching methodology surfaced, one which would have guaranteed that fourth graders could read and write their native language cogently. Studies indicated this and also showed that if this teaching methodology were practice, the mean IQ of the practicing population would be raised by several points. Several points may not seem like much, but, like a two-inch rise in ocean level, it could have been a quantum leap for humanity. Because it was known what would raise mean IQ, the opposite was implemented in the educational system. And Chomsky was behind it.

  18. Fremo says:

    Wilful blindness.
    That says it.

  19. bluerider says:

    Congrats indeed. Even if there were only ONE engineer, challenging the official version, that would be worth listening to him or her. Reminds me of “12 ANGRY MEN”, in which Henri Fonda challenges the judge’s opinion and convinces all other members of the jury. Reminds me of Zola’s “J’accuse” in the L’Aurore newswpaper, which ultimately led to the liberation of the French officer Charles Dreyfus. Reminds me of quite a bunch of Hollywwodian movies,based on the “one against all ” plot….. why wouldn’t it work with the 911 case ? Chomsky is out. Even against his own words and principles.

  20. mikecorbeil says:

    Chomsky was said to be friends with Howard Zinn and what I recall reading about him with respect to 9/11 is that he minimally supported the need for a new and real 9/11 investigation. Ever since learning this about Zinn, I’ve wondered what Chomsky would be willing to explicitly say in terms of Zinn’s p.o.v. regarding 9/11. Whenever Chomsky derides work for real and thorough 9/11 truth, he seems to always speak only in general terms, but what would he say if asked what he thinks of his friend Howard Zinn suppporting the need for a new and real investigation, and clearly because he agreed that the 9/11 Commission investigation isn’t satisfactory.

    Is Chomsky willing to say that his historian friend is a quack, or is this treatment only reserved for the rest of us?

    I could add more, but it isn’t really important, for I don’t think that Chomsky is seriously important. He’s done some good work, but we can say the same thing about many people who flip burgers at McD’s. He, anyone for that matter, can criticize completely nonsensical 9/11 “theories”, such as the one that proposed that no aeroplanes were used for the 9/11 attacks and that, instead, what we were shown were holographic images. Anyone can safely thrash such nonsense. But he isn’t technically qualified for pretending that he can discredit the real 9/11 reseachers/analysts and he should know this, if he truly merited PhD status.

    The “Peter Principle” has taken him too far; to a topic area in which he isn’t qualified all while he dreamfully thinks that he is. He should stick to linguistics.

  21. A.Wright says:

    @Kevin Ryan
    I see that ‘in response to a question at the University of Florida recently ‘ Noam Chomsky expressed his view that he didn’t think 911 was an ‘inside job’ orchestrated by the Bush administration. What this shows is that Noam Chomsky has some common sense. But apparently according to the 911 Truth Movement Mr. Chomsky is a ‘gatekeeper’. This is a ‘gate’ that Mr. Chomsky is constantly being asked to stand in front of by people in the 911 Truth Movement who then point their fingers at him and say ‘Noam Chomsky is a gatekeeper’. Given the vast and easily accessible nature of the internet and the ability of basically anyone to communicate their views in uncountable websites, videos and blogs ,this is like putting a small gate in the middle of the Mojave desert, asking someone to stand in front of it and then accusing them of trying to prevent people crossing the Mojave desert.
    Implicit in this is that the ‘gate’ that Mr. Chomsky ‘commands’ is one to some vast corral of sheep ,who hang upon his every word and say ‘Oh Great Noam , please tell us what should we think about 911. We are but poor sheep who can’t think for ourselves have no access to the vast and easily accessible internet and we wait for your guidance.” And outside the corral the Truth People try to communicate with the vast flock of sheep within, but are unable to reach them due to the gatekeeper they have asked to stand in front of the gate.

    • A.Wright says:

      “I wish you would explain what in the fantastic Boys with Box Cutters tale of the official narrative has a shred of ‘common sense.’”
      The unsquareable circle of the 911 Truth movement. Trying to sell the idea of a plausible believable plot that people would plausibly not only come up with, but actually take part in, and at the same time telling people how it doesn’t make sense. A real plan to frame people for a faked plan that wouldn’t be credible if it were a real plan. A plan to frame people for a crime they couldn’t commit. The implausible-plausible story. The incredible -credible story. ‘Can’t you see how it makes sense that it was an inside job – since it doesn’t make sense.’
      “Nobody is “asking” Chomsky to stand at the Left Gate. He does it willingly.”
      He is constantly asked by people in the 911 Truth movement what he thinks of 911 and he tells them. They then publicise his response and post it on the internet and write articles and blogs and comments about what Noam Chomsky thinks about 911 and how he is trying to stop people finding the ‘Truth’ about 911 – by publicising his views about it. They think it is inexplicable that Noam Chomsky disagrees with them. This is only inexplicable to people who think people can’t make up their own minds about something or that they shouldn’t make up their own minds about it.

      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        Common sense? He presents six arguments/facts. Each one of them is either not true of flawed logically. He strikes out six times and you think it’s a home run?

    • John Burns says:

      Excellent and very funny.

    • John Burns says:

      This illustrates what a powerful hold the Jewish people have on their people. I doubt Chomsky is very religious–but the ethnic grasp of Judaism is extremely powerful. The problem though is that they often end up being quite unethical.

    • Eric says:

      To A. Wright:
      1. You are babbling. Perhaps it was my fault asking you to provide an example of a single shred of common sense in the Boys with Boxcutters Tale (BBT).
      To discuss the common sense in it is as wrong as criticizing A Thousand and One Nights on its scientific errors. The BBT should rightfully be judged only on its literary merits, which are not negligible. In fact no subsequent productions (The Shoelace Arsonist, the Underwear Bomber, mediocre all) came anywhere near it. Perhaps it is true that every artists has only one book in him. Or perhaps they do not have a common authorship.
      It is worth admitting that the BBT created a compelling character in Osama: the very tall diabetic in renal failure who dwelt in a cave that had six stories carved into a mountain, equipped with the most dastardly djins of modern technology from which he commanded NORAD, obtained day-only passwords and knew all the secret anti-terrorist air attack simulation plans to cite only a few.
      Animated by a burning hatred against infidels he wished to take epic revenge against them and succeeded, thereupon running from one mountain to another, flowing robes in the wind, he not only escaped the most sophisticated sateite-aided detection attempts of his enemies and avoided capture but produced videos! That alone is a masterful image.
      Protean like a true Arab djin, he would change his appearance and even become younger and younger in each video. I rate this an “A.”
      Can’t say he same about the Boys with Boxcutters: sloppy character development, glaring errors of what cinematographers call “continuity,” and no charisma. The only element of inspiration–the passport found in the hit ashes — is bot nearly enough to save this hopelessly sub-mediocre script from its deserved contempt. I rate this an “E”
      Overall I give the BBT in its totality a “C’ but I suspect I am tilting towards lenience only because I compare it to the much inferior productions that followed.
      2. So Chomsky’s lying/prevaricating/dissimulating is the fault of those who ask him questions…. They make him do it, bad conspiracy theorists that they are. Oy!

    • kenjams says:

      “the anti-zionist zionists’ catcher in the rye”
      Heavy and very thought-provoking. Of course you’re referring to “controlled opposition”.
      Another thing, much like the way Greenspan worked, they try to “intellectualize you into submission”.
      “He’s so smart, he must know what he’s talking about. Maybe I should rethink these conspiracy theories”, thinks the unsuspecting goy.

  22. Skip Scott says:

    Yes, Jet fuel is just a high grade diesel, like kerosene. I have read Paul Craig Roberts and others who talk about the temperature limits of burning jet fuel, and how it falls well short of the temps needed to melt steel. I also look back on the TV footage of the towers coming down, and thinking how unbelievable it was that an airplane flying into them could cause such a thing. And, of course, there’s building 7. It’s amazing to me that more engineers haven’t spoken up. I suppose they fear for their jobs. I also remember the Zupruder film of the JFK assassination, and how they tried to sell the story of the fatal shot coming from behind. Any fool can see that it isn’t so, yet so many folks just gobble up the gov’t lies. The power of the corporate sponsored mass media is astounding. I fear for the future of our species.

    • A.Wright says:

      @Skip Scott
      How many of the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth have lost their jobs?

      • Skip Scott says:

        I don’t have a number. I’ve heard that an engineer at BYU lost his job immediately after declaring that the twin towers obviously fell due to controlled demolition. I imagine this had a chilling effect on others’ willingness to speak out. Many corporations have bought their way into many top universities and control the purse strings. Freedom of thought now has it’s limits if you wish to remain employed at one of those places. Just as journalists for major TV networks are only allowed to have opinions that fall within a certain spectrum (just ask Amanpoure, Donahue, Rather, Moyers and others), college professors now have to be of a certain mindset to be acceptable at many universities.

    • John Burns says:

      NPR had a nice “scientific” bit on why a shot from behind would cause JFK to jerk back and also gave some strange explanation having to do with nerves. Nice stuff for young people! Managed even to work Newton into the mix. Where there is money . . . great cleverness arises.

      • Researchguy says:

        A buddy and I actually did an experiment many years ago in which we fired a rifle at #10 cans of hominy. I forget whether we shot three or four of them. But in one case, the can did fall over towards the rifle. The jet effect is real. But there’s tons of other evidence that rules out the lone gunman theory.

      • Skip Scott says:

        I imagine if you hit the can low, it could fall towards the rifle. However JFK’s head not only went back and to the side; his brains splattered onto the trunk, an obvious exit wound. Plus many heads in the crowd turned towards the sound of the shot. The gov’t has spent 50 years trying to tell me what I didn’t see with my own eyes. Sorry, not working.

      • lynn bradbury says: chomsky knew about and originally supported all the anti warren commission evidence. but never supported the movement to publicly discredit and redo the investigation. the leading leftists of the day, disappointingly including journalist i.f. stone, all lacked the courage to challenge the official story. more kudos, especially, therefore, to that of kevin ryan, et al. brilliant realm of integrity.

      • travis122013 says:

        Regarding major left journalists uncritical or tacit endorsement of the Warren Commission — the case of Dorothy Kilgallen was probably an object lesson. Her nationally syndicate column was more of a celebrity gossip column until she became obessed with the JFK assassination. She went to New Orleans and began investigating before Jim Garrison. Then she snagged the only private interview with Jack Ruby in his jail cell, and came out announcing that she was going to break the JFK case wide open.

        Days or weeks later — I can’t recall — she was found dead in her apartment, attributed to drug/alcohol overdose and “depression.” Her notes from the Ruby interview were never found. Why a journalist breaking the story of his or her career (like Michael Hastings) would suddenly become depressed and suicidal is… Most likely, she was “suicided,” and this suspicion surely had an effect on her fellow journalists. Jim Koethe, a reporter who knew Ruby well, also ended up being murdered.

        As for Truman’s l12-22-63 letter being suppressed by most of the media — Operation Mockingbird is likely the answer.

      • John Burns says:

        The moral of the story is: tell your friends the journey was a waste of time, that the Jack Ruby involved had little of value to say and that you would never knowingly again waste time on a long shot. But do not over do it and change the subject. Then break the story. In the meantime have some fake notes that say how depressing the journey was and a waste of money. And maybe some anecdotes that Ruby told you which can be fabrications. Put the hot stuff in a safe place. In spite of this some of our best minds held out till the end. How much were they paid and in what currency? Promotions? Cash? Women, wine and song? Just think: a life devoted to falsehoods and betrayals and now on your death bed no one wants to hear your story.

  23. Pingback: STJ911 Blog » Blog Archive » Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11

  24. Ken says:

    Well said and I agree. Him and Amy Goodman know what feet not to step on.

  25. The simple fact that nanothermite was found at ground zero, supports the theory of a conspiracy. the real problem thou it in our ability as citizen to hold the ppl responsible for this attack. and we all must remember that the media was the one to accuse OBL. not the FBI or the CIA.

  26. Denis says:

    NC said it doesn’t matter who killed JFK??? Could you give us a source on that, please.

    And the reason I’m incredulous is that I have never in all my flea-bitten days heard anyone say it doesn’t matter.

    It may not matter (much) if the hit was entirely domestic. For instance, what would it matter if the Mafia took out JFK and RFK because they killed Monroe, viz a viz if Oswald took out JFK because LHO was a wacko? The difference between these two would be zilch as far as history is concerned. Dead is dead.

    But — like 9/11 — if the truth crosses international boundaries, the ultimate answer has to matter hugely. Would it matter to history if Castro took out JFK as opposed to, say, Ben-Gurion? Absolutely. Downstream history would be changed forever b/c in one case Cuba would be smoldering and in the other case Israel would be — assuming the truth were made known.

    If NC did say it doesn’t matter who killed JFK, he must have been saying it doesn’t matter given the fact that we will never know, in which case I agree, and in which case you’ve taken him out of context.

    Would love to have the citation to Chomsky’s comment to verify.


    • John Burns says:

      One of the columnists at Veterans Today who has done a great deal of credible research on 9/11 mentioned this in one of his articles–but his name absents me at this time. I also have come across it elsewhere. It seemed at the time quite in keeping with his style of protecting his friends. That is, the Power Elite who have vested interests in the Zionist lobby. The two events, the Assassination and 9/11, appear to have the same Source and to be society changing events which the government refuses to properly investigate. Sorry I can not give you the exact article at this time.
      Israel has also been implicated in the Assassination by some researchers at VT. Chomsky is not seen in favorable light at VT currently. Nor is Israel. Most but not all of their articles are good.

  27. Marc Estrin says:

    Video of Chomsky’s “who cares” response is here: , record of an informal gathering at the Kossuth Klub in Budapest. Comments begin at about 7 minutes

    • Denis says:

      Wow, Marc. You either have terabyte recall, or you are a magician to come up with that obscure Chomsky rap session. Thank you.

      It seems to me he was saying what I suggested above he must have been saying. He clearly says that if JFK was brought down by a jealous husband or the Mafia, who cares? And I agree, only I added a wacko, which goes without saying. Philandering husbands have been targets for as long as there has been marriage and wackos have been pulling triggers for as long as there have been guns. Who cares if it was one or the other? OK, the tabloids, but who else?

      But in his Budapest comments, ANC also explicitly said something like if it was a higher-level conspiracy then that might be worth knowing. So he’s not entirely “who cares?”

      I agree that all conspiracies are not born equal. In the 9/11 debate I am deeply curious with respect to the engineering issues and what they tell us. But there are some out there who say there were no planes, and others say the actual commercial flights really landed at some closed airport and the passengers were all spirited away — well, you know. No plane hit the Pentagon. And that is not really a plane in the strip mine in PA because some reporter said he could not see any debris.

      Lee Harvey wasn’t the only wacko in this world. And it’s the nutter conspiracies that make it hard to separate the 9/11 noise from signal. But I don’t think Chomsky is having this problem — he is attacking the signal: thousands of engineers who are interpreting the evidence on the basis of principles of physics. Chomsky has just gotten too thick or too lazy to try and understand what they’re saying.

      • John Burns says:

        Anyone who is a bit bright and has gone to fairly decent high school or is still in one can easily arrive at an intelligent decisions about 9/11 by watching a few very well done videos–Loose Change or the ones at AE911Truth. So, Chomsky is motivated to go against the educated public on this matter for deep political and affiliation reasons. Glenn Greenwald apparently has the same ones as he agrees with Chomsky. No one makes a fool out of himself for no good reason. Chomsky’s reasons in part may be like Bill Clinton’s. No one thinks Bill is ignorant, unintelligent or senile. In ’08 Bill made remarks about Obama being ineligible and only went silent after a best friend in Arkansas was murdered and his daughter was threatened. Chomsky has celebrity status and must toe the line regarding certain matters. So must Bill Clinton and Hilary. On the other hand no one really expects Bill to espouse conspiracy theories. We are a point now where the evidence is so overwhelming regarding the falsity of the Official Report and NIST that to do more would be almost to do less. The fact that to date Obama has not produced any authentic document indicating his place and time of birth is similar. So we have these cold hard facts and not enough citizens or persons in power are interested in pursuing the situations for one reason or another. This is what decadent societies are like. American has gone from Puritan excesses to La Dolce Vita. And presently there is not an America Fellini to brilliantly place it on the screen. I suspect the internet with its abundance of information has brought into sharp focus much that in preceding decades was hidden unless one had lots of connected friends. We can see more now than ever before and it is rather disheartening. Have things gotten worse or do we simply know more? I think a little bit of both.
        And then we have the Holocaust. The largest most publicized event of the twentieth century for which there is virtually no hard evidence–just the often contradictory testimony of miserable people hanging around during the Nuremberg trials ( whose standards of evidence were shoddy at best). And later on books written by the so called survivors some of which were never in a concentration camp. And people like the Hungarian writer who doesn’t know Hungarian. And on and on. If life were fair it would be called the Holocaust Conspiracy. Maybe life is fair — but just not people.

      • Eric says:

        Dennis, you make some good points. On this:
        “it’s the nutter conspiracies that make it hard to separate the 9/11 noise from signal. ”
        my opinion is that the disinformation propagandists have managed to switch the question on us, which we should not allow.
        If the my house blows up and a “commission of inquiry” tells me it happened because I had an excessive quantity of French cheese in the house which fermented, leading to an accumulation of gas that exploded when it reached the pilot burner of the stove I will say: “No way! This is a blatant lie! I want an independent investigation.”
        Nobody has the right to ask ME to offer alternative explanations.
        Planes, no panes, fake landings, all that is a waste of time and it DIVERTS the attention from the justified demand for a proper investigation, not just of the crime but of the “investigation” done by the 9/11 Commission–a crime of concealment.
        The architects and engineers have proved it could not have happened as described in the report. We have to keep demanding to know how it happened.

      • John Burns says:

        In my opinion the investigation of the investigation as well as the investigation of the events themselves have already been done superbly. All that is left are the trials. But now we see that there is a problem because who will do the arresting, indicting, etc.? The Power Elite is not about to arrest itself. Or have its precious henchman thrown in the clinker. All this points to the inevitable conclusion that we are not being represented so much as repressed. This is not our nation–it is their nation; and if they chose a criminal style, well who are we to interfere? Nothing could be more obvious than that 9/11 was an inside job. It has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the majority of the guilty are known–and they are not Muslims. Sure we may not know the names of the technicians who rigged the buildings and so on. The small fry. But the big guys might as well wear I conspired to bring about 9/11; and the MSN would regard it as a joke. It would never be taken seriously by the drugged majority of citizens. Who killed Kennedy? Why of course Lee Harvey what’s his name! Is the earth flat? Maybe? Mark Dice has done some hilarious videos where he asked people about al Qaeda putting a place on the moon and should American soldiers have to be spread so thin to deal with that? One man said he had been out of town for a week and was not informed about it. Others were not into politics. Is there any hope?

      • Denis says:

        Eric — with you.

        If it were me, I would concentrate 100% on Bldg. #7. It is not complicated by aircraft fuel or impact effects on the frame. It is the clearest case of sabotage out there. If the evidence points to sabotage of #7 beyond reasonable doubt, then Towers 1 & 2 had to be a part of that sabotage b/c nobody would believe it was a coincidence that #7 would just happen to be sabotaged on the same day the airliners hit 1 & 2.

        It’s like a serial killer. If there are 10 cases against him that could get him put away for life but you’ve got good DNA evidence on just one, put the other 9 on hold until you get a conviction on the best case. Why waste time/money on them?

        And so, I would forget Bldgs 1 and 2 for now. A case that Bldg 7 was brought down is all one needs, and it’s the most straight forward. I would certainly forget all of the way out stuff about no planes at all and hundreds of passengers who didn’t die but just disappeared. That stuff smells like an intentional diversion to make all 9/11 doubts seem dumb. The 9/11 truthers keep getting mixed up with wacko birthers and that’s the kiss of death to the 9/11 mission. Next thing ya’ know ya’ got an Orly Taitz coming in and tuning the whole thing into a media circus.

  28. Greg Burton says:

    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.

  29. Jim Hogue says:

    You all have said it so well. What I find in Chomsky’s latest statements is that he is not only lying, but he is also speaking gibberish. This, for a linguist, is an interesting step. By the way, I’ll be interviewing Ross Ashcroft of “The Four Horsemen” film on Monday AM at 8:30 EST on

  30. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 - It's Obama's Fault

  31. Art Lowe says:

    Idiocracy at it’s best, tonight’s guest speaker, yes you guessed it, Noam Chomsky telling the world about his new book, I too was once a teenage zombie, and I still am.

  32. John Burns says:

    Revealing the 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo the Entire US-Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on Reality Asserts Itself:
    A series of interviews with Senator Bob Graham who does regard 9/11 as a conspiracy. This seems relevant and one might suppose Chomsky would come up with some far fetched explanation about Graham not liking the Saudis! Still Graham has connections that most do not have and insider knowledge. Keep in mind the new found friendship between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    • Eric says:

      I think Chomsky and Graham are plowing parallel rows in the same field. In fact I find the Graham shtick so much slicker:
      “OK, doubting Thomases who keep harping on conspiracies, run away from the 9/11 Commission Report and come over here to uncle Graham. He has a conspiracy for you, and guess what: it’s what we told you in the first place: the Saudis did it!
      This is serious stuff, it could even strain our relationship with the Saudis, I swear. Laughter? What laughter? I don’t hear any laughter. Oh, that guy? That’s Michael Oren. No, he was not eavesdropping, he must have just remembered someting funny.”

      • John Burns says:

        Actually this is pretty good coming from a Senator. It is not likely any former Senator would go further. The Federal gov. is the locus of the Ignoble Lie which requires maintenance and military funding. And yes, Saudi Arabia probably did have a financing hand in 9/11 though exactly to what end I do not know. The whole operation could not have been very pricey unless there were lots of persons to bribe which may have been the case. And the nation did loan the US some names and pictures so that there would be the necessary terrorists. But this was flawed as about six of the nineteen turned up alive and well–and where were those videos of the villains? Now my guess is that Graham knows a great deal more than he is revealing and has decided that this angle is the best one for a former Senator. I don’t think we should consider all politicians to have been cut from the same corrupt cloth. His background does not seem to allow for total corruption in the way the Diane Feinstein’s does for example. So I think it best to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has presented a loose corner that can be pulled up in the larger public. That larger public has already condemned anything closer to reality. Remember the earth is flat and the idea you got in school is part of an ongoing conspiracy. The earth is flat. Take a look.

  33. John Burns says:

    “Guilty demeanor: The private 9/11 emails of Noam Chomsky” by Dr. Kevin Barrett
    This is an excellent and amusing article and shows a side of Chomsky that readers here I am sure will appreciate.
    “In the spring of 2008, I emailed Noam Chomsky to invite him on my radio show. He agreed, we scheduled a date, and I spread the news.
    Then, seemingly out of the blue, he sent me an angry email backing out of the interview. He was furious about an article I had posted at Op-Ed News publicizing our upcoming show. In that article, I quoted William Blum asking “the million dollar question”: Why doesn’t Chomsky think it matters whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? In the article, I said I hoped my upcoming interview with Chomsky might help clarify the issue. (Oddly, at the exact same moment that Chomsky angrily complained to me about the article, Op-Ed News, run by Zionist Rob Kall, took down the article, froze my account, and stopped answering my emails [. . .]”

  34. Predrag says:

    Cudos! I liked it! 🙂

  35. John Burns says:

    After twelve years and almost three months now of being a “conspiracy theorist” when it comes to 9/11–it was a video a few days after the events in which the designer of the Twin Towers said the buildings were built to handle multiple hits (which if you think about it is simply common sense)–I have concluded that too few people care what happened and like Noam are ready to face the next thing that comes along. Well, how about turn their backs on the next thing. So, what can I do but accept the fate of being a very outsider along with the relatively few who do care. I remember when Kevin was fired. That in itself ought to have awaken Congress–but they sleep soundly and evidently with quality ear plugs. Or money causes hard of hearing troubles. So this has been a good education in public psychology. Any of us that thought surely now!, this is bound to have repercussions!, how can this be overlooked?–now we know. Any we have an abundance of history to fall back on when persons lived in totalitarian societies for years upon years. How could the Russians put up with Stalin? Still a great unanswered question. Hitler is a very different matter as is Mao. So now the great question is how can Americans put with this? I think I have the answer. Psych meds and rotten education. Bad food. Dangerous prescriptions. Truly idiotic and primary school level MSM. Prosperity of a sort for decades and consumerism. And then finally we probably all have a way too high estimation of the basic human being. Nonetheless persons like Kevin and folks at AE911Truth and others do send a message to the rest of the world; and that is very good indeed.

  36. Reblogged this on Berkeley Calling and commented:
    Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 – Posted on November 29, 2013 by Kevin Ryan in his “Dig Within” Blog. Noam Chomsky recently engaged in a smear campaign against Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth by misrepresenting what their efforts are, what they actually say, and their size. By not availing himself to information about 9/11 that is readily available to everyone these many years after the event, and to Chomsky himself after some 30 correspondences with author-researcher Kevin Ryan, it can only be called “willful ignorance” says former the UL chemist who became a 9/11 whistle-blower. Here is the reaction of Kevin Ryan to the unscientific American professor Chomsky’s latest anti-intellectual rant. In his Florida speech Chomsky claimed not to know the basic laws of physics, saying he would defer on that to people with doctorates. Ryan reveals what Chomsky’s gate-keeper game is all about since he has a long history of dismissing deep political conspiracies since the JFK murder-coup. Kevin Ryan is co-founder of The Journal of 9/11 Studies and has a new book out titled “Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects”.

  37. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 | Berkeley Calling

  38. A.Wright says:

    “ was a video a few days after the events in which the designer of the Twin Towers said the buildings were built to handle multiple hits (which if you think about it is simply common sense)”

    “I remember when Kevin was fired. That in itself ought to have awaken Congress..”

    If that doesn’t illustrate the distorted lens that people in the 911 truth movement see the world through , I don’t know what does.

    • Eric says:

      So if we refuse to believe that the distorting mirrors in the sinister 9/11 Carnival reflect reality we must be looking at them through “distorting lenses”?!?
      Your focus on people’s refusal to believe the Boys with Boxcutters Tale that contradicts all knowledge, experience, track record and indeed common sense does not obfuscate the fact that you refuse to acknowledge its patent absurdity, and the legitimate request for an independent investigation/trial.
      The BBT is a Uri Geller show on a huge, criminal scale: the spoons that bend, the towers that crumble in seconds… Johnny Carson used common sense: he replaced Geller’s spoons with ordinary ones and the lie was plain for all to see.
      Behind the desperate attempt to silence and denigrate the non-believers of the 9/11 Creo quia absurdum lies the FEAR of of exposure.

  39. A.Wright says:

    “Your focus on people’s refusal to believe the Boys with Boxcutters Tale that contradicts all knowledge, experience, track record and indeed common sense does not obfuscate the fact that you refuse to acknowledge its patent absurdity, and the legitimate request for an independent investigation/trial.”
    I should believe something is plausible because you tell me it’s absurd. Talk about undermining your own argument.

    • Eric says:

      Baffling that you seem to think that pretending to be dense works in your favor

      • A.Wright says:

        Please remove that last post – bit of a cheap shot.

      • hybridrogue1 says:


        Do you get paid by the word? If so why are you reaching for a pay cut by asking for one of your comments to be removed?

        You have become somewhat of a poster-boy for the agitprop industry, advertising personally that it doesn’t really take chops to get the job – just the tenacity to go on against all sanity and reason.


      • A.Wright says:

        It was just about not resorting to juvenile ad hominem attacks – you wouldn’t understand.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Oh but Mr Wright,

      It is perfectly clear to myself, and I am sure others here on this thread, that your latest remark and come-back is in fact a lame and none too subtle version of ad hominem, put exceedingly clumsily.

      Your pretense at expressing the thoughts of a sound mind are ludicrous.


  40. Eric says:

    How come nobody talks about all the previous terrorist attacks — Saudis probably — that toppled high rises, especially in Las Vegas:

  41. John Burns says:

    Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK film fakery
    by Jim Fetzer (with James Norwood)

    The fascinating thing about this article is it parallels almost exactly what is continuing to happen with 9/11 investigations. They,whoever they are, realize that the truth just does not matter. Proof and more proof is harmless against their impregnable position behind MSM. And the fact that we can not do a thing. The courts certainly do not take seriously our “conspiracy” claims. Whether it’s JFK Assassination, Obama’s lack of authentic documentation. or the events of 9/11, the door is closed and locked. Clearly there is no lack of proof but simply a lack of the means of justice.
    All efforts are stonewalled.

    So a brand new strategy is needed. Ideas? Schemes? This is very similar to a friend who just will not see the truth. And he drives off with a bald tire and goes off the road when it blows out and destroys his car. I suppose we may have to just stand by as America goes off the rails and creates a big catastrophe. After all a nation that hates the truth will have major consequences to deal with at some point. These “conspiracies” of ours all have to do with the Executive Branch and its growing illegal behavior. The Uber-Presidency as one law professor calls it. Congress being largely full of wimps and sleepers can’t quite think IMPEACHMENT. A whole class of the wealthy and powerful can violate the law and never be indicted-and they know that. Corporations anticipate that they will only be fined a small percentage of their fraudulent take and consider that as just one of the expenses. The pharmaceuticals each year kill hundreds of thousands with their poorly tried medication specials and dutifully pay a little fine and go on to more lousy drugs and dishonest claims. Corruption is what we call it; smart business or politics is what they know it as. In America now you can buy anything. Well, anything but Justice. Bankers like Jimmy Damon have purchased island retreats where they and their families can escape to. So the other criminals will locate these hideaways and attack them and steal the loot, kidnap the kids and wife and so on. Really not a very smart idea. The other criminals are pretty bright as well and maybe even brighter having had to elude the police over the years. Survival of the fittest. So it may end up being the legal criminals versus the illegal criminals. Getting very esoteric now.

  42. John Burns says:

    “If you like your life you can keep it.– Barack Obama

    America has not been especially lucky in Presidents. A few have been great or almost great. But the majority have had lack luster characters or worse. Some have been sociopaths, some even psychopaths. I would not be surprised if the current incumbent was of the latter. I doubt if we will ever get a brain scan though. The last three have been habitual users of cocaine. Cocaine may not be the best thing for the brain. Clinton seemed to survive with intelligence. With the other two we have probably not been so fortunate.

    Now the President is the nation’s chief law enforcer. Try not to laugh! I realize that is funny myself, but we need to stay serious for a bit yet. Now unless the president take action nothing will happen with respect to 9/11. We saw how the ’70’s re-investigation of the Kennedy Assassination went. It would take a courageous President who felt he could over ride the Power Elite. He would have to have tremendous public backing. He would have to have the charisma of a Hitler and the character of a Gandhi. I am not sure America brings forth such souls. Unfortunately America is bringing forth men and women best suited for the Mafia . . . Really the top people in Washington strike me at least as cartoon characters. Mr. Magoo. Tom of Tom and Jerry. Betty Boop. Porky Pig. Bugs Bunny: What’s up, Barack? Presently it is true, a certain number of Congress Critters are wringing their hands about Obama’s unlawful behavior. They need to stand before a mirror and try saying the I-word. And then gradually speak out the syllables . . . im peach ment. They can focus on the peach part. Peaches are sweet. And juicy. Imp is just going to frighten them. And ment is too vague. Pass that along to your Critters.

  43. travis122013 says:

    Chomsky and the late Alex Cockburn (Counterpunch) both swore fealty to the Warren Commission throughout their careers, blinded by a rigid structuralist ideology — the whole system is rotten so it does’nt matter what puppets are on the throne, or dethroned.

    But JFK wasn’t exactly a puppet. As Robert Kennedy, Jr,’s essay in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine establishes — he was unequivocally pulling out of Vietnam before the shots in Dealey Plaza. Yet the conventional wisdom in our pundit class is “JFK started it all,” and would have escalated just like LBJ.

    The “conspiracy theory is nuts” meme was deliberately seeded in the American psyche by CIA Mockingbirds to deflect from suspicion from genuine spook conspiracies — which happens to be their stock in trade. Maybe “Chumsky” is just another Mockingbird.

  44. hybridrogue1 says:

    Dan Quayle might have said it best, although he wasn’t referring to Chomsky at the time:

    When he said, “a mind is a terrible thing to loose.”


  45. Eric says:

    @Denis and all:
    Yes, yes, yes, and yes to:
    “A case that Bldg 7 was brought down is all one needs, and it’s the most straight forward. I would certainly forget all of the way out stuff about no planes at all and hundreds of passengers who didn’t die but just disappeared. That stuff smells like an intentional diversion to make all 9/11 doubts seem dumb.”
    Building #7 needs to be the focus as indeed it was on the billboard in Times Square this November (“Building #7. Re-think 9/11”). It is part and parcel of the official lie and the simplest to (pardon me) demolish for anybody who is still confused.
    What hurts me a lot is that it was possible to fool most Americans for so long. It was possible for Larry Silverstein to say on TV, “so we decided to pull it,” and not cause people to come out with pitchforks.
    I know all the justifications: the MSM pumping lies 24/7 from the first moments of the false flag attack, the dumbing down of America for decades, the pressing concerns of daily life in a basket case economy, the well-directed circus of the two parties, gate keepers everywhere, controlled opposition, limited hangout, confusion, etc. But that was too big not to shake us up and make us stop in our tracks, wonder, question, think.
    Yes, the tide is turning but excruciatingly slowly. 9/11 was the seminal event of our generation and with enough time passing and it may have the fate of JFK’s assassination: most people don’t buy the Warren Commission Report but they shrug it off as ‘sins of our fathers.” If we allow 9/11 to sink into oblivion the next generation will care a lot less. How many young Americans, for another example, even know about USS Liberty and its cover-up?
    The water is simmering, the frog is almost cooked.
    I would like to mention here what a breath of fresh air this site has been for me and how much I appreciate John Burns,’ Denis’ and everyone else’s comments.
    I hope A. Wright will continue to post also, and perhaps bring a few of his like-minded friends as well. While we may all be familiar with hasbara, it is always informative and occasionally entertaining to have it illustrated by trained specialists.

  46. John Burns says:

    “Disneyland Paris is currently besieged by unflattering headlines and faltering finances.” — Spiegel OnLine
    This apparently innocent story line has inspired me with the idea I was searching for. Animated cartoons about 9/11 which will subtly satirize and ridicule the standard model. With good quality characters. It needs to be hilarious but also studious. Ideally a series that covers everything. Later on the series could be expanded to take in other anomalies of society. Ridiculing the ridiculers.

    • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:


      • John Burns says:

        Thanks, Dr. Angela. Mr. Magoo (for wisdom) and Betty Boop (sex sells) get drawn into an investigation of 9/11 along with Bugs Bunny–What’s up. Barack?

      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        No need to call me Drrr. I only use it on bureaucratic occasions when I don’t want to be treated like a stupid old lady, which I get a lot. I live in a small town crawling with artists and writers and film-makers. I’ll run this by a couple of them. The thing was obvious from the get-go. I didn’t (and still don’t) have a TV, so a friend called and told me what had just happened. The first words out of my mouth were, “Bush wants to go to war.” Then I went to take a look on a neighbor’s TV. I’ve seen planes crash into buildings and bombs fall on them (WWII–yup, that how @#$%ing old I am) and I’ve also seen controlled demolition. There is no way in hell to confuse these things.

      • John Burns says:

        You sound a bit like me. No TV. Quick, quicker than me, to grasp the situation. My first impulse was incredulity that a skyscraper was so vulnerable– a few days later the original designer/architect clarified that by stating the buildings could take multiple hits. But no one listened to him. I’m 71. A woman told me today I should do like her and add on 20 years. Says she gets all kinds of compliments.
        It would be great if someone of talent took up the idea and really did a great job. Funny to the point where even the confirmed ignorants would find themselves watching for the laughs. It would be using their weapons back on them. T.S. Eliot made the remark that it is the stuff of rather low quality that impresses people most–not the classics. He meant the stuff we take in uncritically like potato chips. Cartoons then and B movies! Incautious remarks made by parents and teachers . . Hence the need for Betty Boop and Mr. Magoo types.
        What field did you get a PhD in? Usually a smart person can spot a PhD holder. Bureaucrats are a bad lot as a rule. They have a lot of power in the USA.
        The case for an inside job has been done so well it would already pass the “beyond a shadow” test. So that direction has now mostly entertainment value. We need to undermine their confidence in lies by showing them the consequences that befall evil doers. We have lost the scare value of hell so it needs a new birth in these times in some this worldly venue. As an example a Hollywood type film in which a Jimmy Damon and his family flee to an island stronghold only to find their security guards are in league with the illegal criminals. Or in which an expensive stronghold build by some super rich man is finally undermined by an even smarter engineer, That sort of stuff that puts the super rich in a state of nerves and worry. No exit for you guys. I am sure you can think of a dozen good plots. In essence the security counted on turns against them. Maybe this: a Hennings Mankell character–retired genius detective with a touch of psychopath who begins knocking off the famous, super rich and powerful but only after duly warning them to reform. I am trying to think of the right title. Maybe from a classic. His code name could be Odysseus as he was less than admirable but a very clever man and a capable killer.
        Now we need luck!!

      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        Two phids–bad career move for a woman, I can tell you that much. The first one was in “Comparative Disciplines” –kinda like epistemology and figuring out that all that knowledge in different fields was basically just guys telling good stories, though I did run into good thinkers and sometimes good hearts too. The second one was just plain English lit.
        The reason I saw through the whole thing right away is not just because I’d seen bombs drop and planes crash. I was born in Nazi Germany, and my grandfather told me how the money had come from Wall Street and the on-the-ground machinations had come from the Vatican. Then, my last year of high school, I had a physics teacher who’d been a top scientist at Peenemuende along with Wernher von Braun. My teacher confirmed what my grandfather had told me. Same teacher told me a lot about the Nazis and he also said the whole thing would come home to roost in America by the turn of the century. So I’ve been watching.

      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        I just watched the Corbett Report. Priceless. Thanks. Very good laugh.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Hello Angela,

        I just read your comment of, December 6, 2013 at 2:27 am.

        I had to wait and get that information about Wall St financing Hitler from Antony Sutton.
        It is interesting to read someone who has known such things since childhood.

        I had suspicions my whole adult life. From about the time I got into HS, it seemed to me, knowing the prejudices and attitudes of the ‘grown-ups’ around me; parents, friend’s parents, teachers, etc.; that Amerikans weren’t so different than the Nazis I had become familiar with in all those WWII movies I grew up with.

        Like you, I am TV free. I carried the last one I owned out to the curb in 1984. Never regretted it.

        On 9/11 there was a TV in my house though. I had married and my then-wife had a small portable, which was left in the closet, as I had made it clear there was to be no TV in my presence. I did dig it out of the closet when I got home – and watched the coverage with one eye, while searching the web for info with the other.

        So I saw the telecast of the first tower destroyed – I knew then and there that it was impossible for the plane to have had anything to do with that.

        Mr Wright has confronted me before about ‘knowing’ it was impossible for the planes having anything to do with the towers exploding to smithereens…that is making up my mind before all the ‘facts’ were in. I believe my own eyes and good judgement. Those buildings did not ‘collapse’ – they blew up.

        Anyway…here we are now, at the verge of total rupture. Mostly because people won’t believe their own eyes or think for themselves.


      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        The quote sounds like Father Staempfle talking through the mouth of Hitler in Mein Kampf. As for the Islamofascists, don’t forget that many of them were trained by German Nazis. When the Mujahadeen ran their schools in Pakistan for the Afghan orphans that became the Taliban, the Mujahadeen still had their Nazi handlers with them.

    • Jon says:

      Satirists of the World Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Cheneys!

  47. travis122013 says:

    James Corbett’s “Everything You Need to Know About 9/11 in 5 Minutes” is along the lines of what’s been suggested, although not animated characters:

  48. Pingback: “Berkeley Calling” Vic Sadot ReBlogs Kevin Ryan on Chomsky | Vic Sadot Music

  49. Kurt Daims says:

    This is a civil internet discussion. How is this happening !!
    . . . Mr. Chomski may say some nonsense, but it proves nothing about his motivations. Controlled demolition is obviously the cause of the towers’ collapse, but this doesn’t prove that there was a government conspiracy. As in all the other worthy causes, the goal will require a greater commitment from all of us.

    “When Lefties get up in the morning, there will be peace” Kurt Daims (

    • John Burns says:

      What it does prove is that the security firm, Silverstein, and a host of others were coming and going in the buildings without interfering with each other. All things considered they were probably white persons who spoke good English and had access to nano thermite which is not something I have found in local stores. Additionally they had access to top notch skills as it was admittedly a very professional job by a group that wanted to minimize damage to surrounding buildings (which did not I suppose have an asbestos problem). They must also have had the Mayor and Police Commissioners ears and cooperation given the non-investigation that was done and the quick clean up–all things considered. They must also have had good connections to the SEC or whoever found out about and investigated the options on the airline stock . . . which strongly suggests foreknowledge. I could go on but won’t. So it proves a great deal. All I can say is what foresight Silverstein had in getting the insurance he had. Cuo bono? Duh? Bin Laden?

      • Jon says:

        In his book, Slingshot to the Juggernaut, Sander Hicks mentions a little known “defense contractor” that makes BOTH nano-thermite AND anthrax. What an amazing coincidence! He described its name as called Battelle Memorial Institute.

  50. Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

    9/11 backfired on its engineers because it woke people up. I couldn’t say what I knew to any American before 9/11. I don’t know though, how long they’ll stay awake. When I was a child, Germans knew they’d just been majorly screwed. By the time I was 18 in 58 it wasn’t just my physics teacher who said that fascism would come home to roost in America, it was a lot of people. And from then on, it wasn’t hard to figure out the M.O. of the powers that be: 1. install an evil dictator somewhere who’ll deregulate the economy so your corporations can go on a feeding frenzy. 2. Sell your evil dictator a war machine at a healthy profit. If he uses it to expand his territory, so much the better. 3. Make profitable war against him while pretending to liberate the people from him. Destroy the country as much as possible. 4. Make more money while rebuilding the country as a market economy.

    So right after WWII the German people knew what had just happened to them, but I don’t think they remember now. The U.S. controls school systems world-wide. I’ve taught in China, in India, in Greece, in Germany and in the U.S. I’ve lived in France, though I didn’t teach there.

    Times are critical. If enough people world-wide wake up, then the kings and queens are screwed and they know it. The French Revolution scared the living daylights out of them.

  51. Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

    The Hegelian Dialectics was “invented” when the “Divine right of Kings” would no longer fly as an excuse for “leadership” (domination). It is true in my opinion that real leadership does require a profound philosophical basis, but Hegel isn’t deep enough. He believed that the fundamental reality of life is conflict (I’m afraid it’s a guy thing). If we believe that, we’re justifying perpetual war. I think that deepest reality of life is balance.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Hegel isn’t ‘My Thing’, it’s ‘Their Thing’. Please do not mistake my analysis for my own philosophy.

      Leadership requires ‘Followers’ nothing else. Those who go along to get along…not knowing the consequences of where they are going along to.

      I believe in human Liberty: Liberty is not an INVENTION of revolution; Liberty is the DISCOVERY of enlightened reason.


  52. hybridrogue1 says:

    Fe fi fo fum…I smell the blood of an Englishman
    Be he living, or be he dead,
    I’ll grind his bones to mix my bread


    • John Burns says:

      Do you make flat bread or use yeast? You might share the recipe.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Lol…it is a flat bread. Not real tasty, you know British food, but somehow satisfying ne’er the less.
        It’s actually an old recipe from Tahiti brought back with the Bounty…if you know anything about the Tahitian’s vengeance ritual; real FLAT bread.


  53. John Burns says:

    The wrath of God is visiting Great Britain now or is it the UK? Probably for inventing the modern concentration camps. Or letting so many brown skin people die in India at the beginning of WWII.
    Churchill’s idea though Roosevelt volunteered to use US ships to carry food from one area to another. Later Churchill decided to let the Germans starve though again Roosevelt wanted to take food there for the children, women and elderly. Churchill excelled Hitler in my opinion during those times. The photos of corpses shown at Nuremberg were typhus victims and those starved when the Royal Air Force bombed the rail lines leading to the various camps. However, the Zionists found a better use for the photos. For some reason the Brits like starving people–remember the Irish with plenty of food except it went to England. Stalin used this idea in the Ukraine and later Mao in China. Hard to comprehend.
    And sure enough, the Israelis are using this sterling idea in Gaza. It’s sort of gone viral.

    • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

      I’ve heard a lot of stories lately about how the German death camps were not real. And I do know that historians can lie through their teeth. I have personally seen no death camps, but in 1946, after we’d been living like stray animals for almost a year while running away from the invading Russians, my grandparents took in a sixteen-year old homeless boy. He was a Jew. He had watched as the Nazis killed his mother and his father, first raping the mother. Then he’d been worked like a slave in a labor camp. The Nazis had figured out that giving such slaves 800 calories a day was cost effective in terms of how much labor you could get out of a body before it starved. Then, when that point had come for the boy, he, and others like him were sent to a death camp. They all knew where they were going. However, during the transport, there was an air raid, and the boy was able to escape. As I said, he was sixteen, skin and bones, and I don’t think he was making up his story.

      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        Thanks for your thoughtful answer. You said a lot, and so I won’t jump to some answer and will give your words careful consideration before I ask some questions.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Mr Burns’ commentary to do with the European Jews is as I have discovered to be so as well.

        The ‘6 million’ number goes back as far as the late 1800’s as far as what I have seen in print and photocopies.

        Like John, I won’t give any of these leaders a pass. But the west has no lack of blame.
        After all, just like Palestine, the US is stolen land; Turtle Island is what the original inhabitants called it.

        It is said that, “there can be no justice in a stolen land”.


      • John Burns says:

        Recently I came across a study regarding wealthy people and jurors. This should interest all trial attorneys and jury consultants. The study showed that poor people were more genuinely observant of the defendant’s real states of mind and generally more objective and justice oriented than the rich. Should that surprise anyone? The poor were also more interested in reformation than vengeance. Military officers, high office holders, historians and other academics are rarely poor. Yet these are the sources of history books and interviews. Given this study we should not expect a great deal. Thucydides may be the exception or Tacitus. I have read several accounts, one by a soldier who was there, of Eisenhower’s death camp in Germany where a vast number of Germans were pinned up and no one was allowed to give them food or warm clothing. Then there were the Russian soldiers sent back to certain death in Russia by the British and the Cossasks and their families who met a similar fate on their way home. Only when war is presented as humanitarian intervention do these atrocities surprise and shock as they have been the staple of war since civilization first began its perversion of the human being. Raping of women was the accepted reward for hard battles. The fact that the Zionists use nonsense to justify now close to 70 years of theft, murder, etc. just adds to the nauseating reality. Genocide? Of course. But then they suffered so much . . . I guess if you have suffered a lot you can go shoot up children in school, and it is okay if you are an Israeli. There are people whose parent was a very bad man; and who manage to disengage from that behavior and not feel obliged to carry on a family tradition. Anyway if you are ever on a jury or need one, get some homeless people for jurors. You will get more sympathy. But don’t wear a new Brooks Brothers suit–get something that sort of fits at the local thrift store! Oh, and wear white socks. Or else use the Masonic sign and hope for a Mason judge and prosecutor.

  54. John Burns says:

    Leuren Moret: The whole key to what happened at the World Trade Center is the energy budget. How much energy was necessary to break those building materials into nano-particles? And that could not come from a chemical explosive. And secondly, the data that Dr. Thomas Cahill reported from his air monitoring of the World Trade Center for five months beginning October 5th after 9-11 was…He’s the one that reported high levels of uranium, elevated levels of uranium in the dust that was released from the WTC, the highest concentration of fine particles ever measured in an air sample in the US and the highest concentration of metal ever measured in an air sample in the US. And also he reported deuterium, tritium, and like I said the elevated uranium levels.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      I would direct you Mr Burns, to my rebuttal of the possibility of any nuclear aspect to the destruction of WTC:

      If you would like to comment there, note that the blog is automatically on moderation. Once I approve one of your comments, you will no longer be moderated.


      • John Burns says:

        How do we account for all the tritium? And the radioactivity mentioned in this interview with experts? Do read the article posted by me and let me know what you think. I am a mere amateur in the area of nuclear science. My last serous project was in the 9th grade in 1956. Just on paper for school.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        I have read that article. It is disinformation. Fetzer doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about. If you would read my arguments against this you will see how this whole thing is a muddle to dismiss the real evidence of chemical explosives used to demolish the WTC buildings.

        I am not going through this argument here, I have already done so elsewhere. Also with Fetzer by the way. The guy doesn’t know anything about applied physics, he’s a charlatan.


      • John Burns says:

        You may be right, but Fetzer is not presenting himself as a physicist or expert on these matters in the article. What about the two scientists? Then there is the woman scientist whose name eludes me now who has a very different idea from a man in Canada. How do you account though for some of the phenomena? I will read you rebuttal tomorrow as it is late here.

      • John Burns says:

        Just read through your Part 1 and assume Part 2 is still in the making. Here was my experience. With each point you made I could imagine another person pointing out a flaw in your reasoning or some other technical bit of info. That is the problem the non scientist has with these refutations. I could simultaneously hear Judy Wood saying something in my third ear! Now if you had handed me a cookie and told me that this was a new recipe of yours, then I could eat the cookie and comment. Hmm. Delicious. Or, why did you put cilantro in the cookie. I am sorry. I do not think I will eat all of it. You see the intricacy of the presentation arrives at a point where there is the potential for other explanations of phenomena. Judy Wood is no dummy.
        Neither her account nor the AE911Truth account nor any other I have come across let the bad guys off the hook, So there is no particular motive for Judy or Fetzer or anyone else to disinfo in my opinion. What all the accounts do is point out the absurdity of the NIST analysis and at the point we need Detectives for 911Truth. And grand juries and suitable arresting officers and nice empty jail cells . . .
        Just for a moment consider all the trouble that Ptolemy went to to save the appearances with respect to planetary movement with a geocentric concept. Put yourself back there and try your best to sell Ptolemy on the heliocentric idea. It took very brilliant Kepler to finally get it all worked out. Now we may be saddled with a flawed set of ideas from Einstein. Try making a doctoral thesis around something like this and proceed to a job in a fast food restaurant.
        You have by the way done a very good job in Part 1. But I can not critique it as I lack the knowledge a top engineer would possess–hopefully. The cookie on the other hand is not a problem. Thanks. Now this one tastes better by far than the one with cilantro.
        Thanks. Coffee is good also. French roast is my favorite.

    • John Burns says:

      Leuren Moret: And then to add to that…to add to that, New York City is still radioactive after 9-11. And when I started a depleted uranium Geiger counter movement in Hawaii in 2007, the police chief of New York City tried to get a law passed, he panicked because New Yorkers were contacting me and wanted to do a Geiger counter survey in New York City. And he tried to get a law passed in New York City that prohibited citizens from having or using Geiger counters or any air-monitoring instruments. It failed. [same source]
      The discussion is about a new type of bomb capable of disintegrating 500 thousand ton buildings in seconds and which may have been used in Lebanon and also Fallujah.

      Now I am working on a hypothesis that goes like this: everything, virtually everything in the universe, has feeling or sentience. A. N. Whitehead believed this as do the Buddhists. So when we use technology we pick up on this very subhuman consciousness; and are effected by it. The company you keep. So technology can make humans inhuman without their realizing it. I know this sounds a bit fantastic but how account for the atrocities otherwise? I mean principally the drone use. Or even driving a car there is some depersonalization of pedestrians and bicyclists. It just happens as we merge with the car, the technology made of minerals.

      By the way I am sure our host knows Jim Fetzer well, and he is the one conducting this fine interview. Long but fascinating.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        I wouldn’t mention Fetzer to Kevin, you might not get the reaction you might expect…


      • John Burns says:

        They had a falling out? Sorry to hear that. Weren’t they both at Scholars for 9/11? Well, it happens. I hope Kevin hasn’t been listening then.

      • Kevin Ryan says:

        Fetzer is a disinformation specialist and has been for many years. Unfortunately, the people he scammed in the JFK movement (he tried to discredit the Zapruder film) were not able to get the word out to the 9/11 truth movement quickly enough.This was my last word on his nonsense.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “So when we use technology we pick up on this very subhuman consciousness; and are effected by it. The company you keep. So technology can make humans inhuman without their realizing it. I know this sounds a bit fantastic but how account for the atrocities otherwise?”~John Burns

        You would likely appreciate the work of, Jacques Ellul – especially his masterpiece:


        It has very much to do with your hypothesis. The symbiotic relationship of man and his technologies is addressed in a highly original and profound manner by Ellul.
        I recommend this book, and his other works as well.


      • hybridrogue1 says:

        In my rebuttal to the nuclear hypothesis of WTC, I make the point that nuclear contamination of the ground water in the US {and other nations} is ubiquitous…
        This is why finding such contamination is such minor amounts in the aftermath is no proof of a nuclear device.
        This study has just been released:

        >”The legacy of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy development has left ground water and sediment at dozens of sites across the United States and many more around the world contaminated with uranium.
        The uranium is transported through ground water as uranyl (U6+).”


      • John Burns says:

        Your information is a perfect example of what I meant in an earlier post. There is always some qualification on every argument and statement. I doubt a single sentence can written or spoken which is one hundred percent true. Give it a try. There is always knower, the knowing and the thing known. Hard to get them all lined up perfectly. Epistemology.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “There is always knower, the knowing and the thing known. Hard to get them all lined up perfectly. Epistemology.”~John Burns

        John, If you are finding it “hard to get them all lined up perfectly,” I would suggest that you may be trying too hard. I see the depth of complexity in your commentary. I also see from that, there is slipcraft going on in your ‘states’ or ‘bardos’ – if I may use the term in a somewhat unconventional way.

        What I mean by bardos is more like states of being. You are one moment speaking from the time-space-con carne, then you slip into an astral being; and back again, like stepping in and out of ‘worlds’. This is fine when you are aware of it. But at times it seems and unconscious/superconscious state, that when articulated as it is and a swirling blend of contextual metaphor. Which reminds me of avant’ guarde neuro-trans-electonica – a type of modern music that I love.

        How do you get all of it lined up to a state of total awareness? It is there already at the center of your being. I have nothing I could say in human language that can lead you to that place. You already know the way there… it is a matter of going.

        I can promise that “Thar be no dragons here” … and if you meet one it is your own creation. And if you know that, all you have to do is acknowledge it at the moment of confrontation, and it will vanish like mist.

        Paradox divides the whole …
        There is only one, which cannot be divided…[1≡∞]

        Remember there is a distinction between “believing” and “knowing”.


      • John Burns says:

        Interesting observations. You see when I go out of this dualistic mess called the world today, 9/11 and everything else vanishes in the face of big problems like the dogs troubles. Two of his siblings died this autumn and while he (now in his eleventh year) had not seen them for years I believe he has this psychic connection and is feeling a little morose. Today I bought him some Dancing Dog vitamins and minerals for a little lift. What he would like best would be for me to drive endless around as he loves being in the car and barking as cars go by, etc. sniffing the various odors that come in different neighborhoods and protecting the car while I shop. Plus our old cat disappeared and the new cat is still a little shy of snuggling with this big dog–about 90 pounds. There may be some jealousy as well.
        But the Akasha is there for anyone who wishes to go there. So it is just a matter of concentrating until awareness has sufficient energy to escape the lower states of mind. I suspect the world’s greatest detectives have connections to the superconscious, and as long as they are ethical keep them available. Which reminds me that I am of an age where I read the Hardy Boy mysteries before they were rewritten in the late ’50’s. Apparently written by a number of authors under the pen name of Frank Dixon. My daughter had nothing but contempt for the rewrite of the Nancy Drew novels which received the same gentrification at the same time. The Hardy Boys are probably gay now; and Nancy is a lesbian. Or is getting an abortion! Ha. Maybe they are all into doing porn even. I do object though to calling Joe and Frank Hardistein!!
        I used to be primarily a Yogi but now I also dip into Buddhism and Neoplatonism. I am ready if America ever needs a Philosopher King!
        By the way an excellent TV series is the Eagle–Danish and with some great twists. The main character is of course a detective in Copenhagen and has visions. Very well done and great acting. Really inspired directing. The theme music is beautiful. Also the Swedish Wallander–not the ersatz British version. Good luck on you way to the Akasha. Tell the head librarian hello for me.

  55. John Burns says:

    Objective correlative—–
    Eliot used the term exclusively to refer to his claimed artistic mechanism whereby emotion is evoked in the audience:
    “ The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an “objective correlative”; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked. ”

    It seems to be in deference to this principle that Eliot famously described Hamlet as “most certainly an artistic failure”: Eliot felt that Hamlet’s strong emotions “exceeded the facts” of the play, which is to say they were not supported by an “objective correlative.” He acknowledged that such a circumstance is “something which every person of sensibility has known”; but felt that in trying to represent it dramatically, “Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for him.” –Wikipedia
    With a little fiddling here and there I believe this literary term can be used with respect to 9/11 as presented by mainstream media and the Officials including NIST. As a film the Official Presentation would make for a potboiler. From the elves at Wikipedia:A potboiler or pot-boiler is a low-quality novel, play, opera, film, or other creative work whose main purpose was to pay for the creator’s daily expenses—thus the imagery of “boil the pot”,[1] which means “to provide one’s livelihood”.[2] Authors who create potboiler novels or screenplays are sometimes called hack writers or hacks. Novels deemed to be potboilers may also be called pulp fiction, and potboiler films may be called “popcorn movies.”
    In other words the true perpetrators of 9/11were hacks. They took on more than they could handle convincingly, and the critics who viewed the showing wrote bad reviews. Nonetheless it was and continues to be a box office success which simply shows what bad taste most people have. The non-culture of America has thus proved its worth to the criminal element. It has really been one potboiler after another. Perhaps the first really notable one was the JFK Assassination which failed to convince many of us. Still the Warren Commission gave it an Emmy!! But the Official Report like the presentation by TV was popcorn commentary on a potboiler false flag.

    • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

      This is a really brilliant analysis, not only of events such as the assassinations of the sixties and 9/11, but it is also a cogent argument for why the study of literature is necessary for real “literacy” and is not the useless game of trivial pursuits our schools make of it.
      And, by the way, I think Eliot was wrong about Hamlet. Eliot went along with the usual assessment of Hamlet, which is that he “thinks too much.” It’s a shallow interpretation and misses the mark entirely.

      • John Burns says:

        I agree with you, Angela, about Hamlet and Eliot. Thanks for the kind response.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Yes I agree with both of you.

        With Angela in that John’s comment had a lot of nice points and is clear in it’s construction. And both of you about Hamlet, to my mind a incomparable masterpiece..
        .. {well maybe comparable to other works by Shakespeare.}

        As far is John’s analysis, it is right-on in that it speaks to “story”, as that is what public relations are; narratives. As it is, and as we have seen, there is very little real talent in the official ‘Public Relations Regime’. Even Hollywood {part of this regime} is flooded with hacks. .. and hacks promoting hacks with awards and accolades – very much like the political side of the spectrum, where people like Kissinger and Obama are given the Nobel Peace Prize.

        I hope you have both read, ON BULLSHIT, a brilliant exposition on the meaning and validity of the term. That is what I would call this culture; a culture of bullshit.

        I would adjust one comment John made, to do with this ‘culture’. It is not that there is none, it is that it is a designed ‘pathological culture’ … a scum grown in a petri dish by Mad Scientists…a B-grade ‘horror film’ from the 50’s.

        No flies on Frank…


      • Angela Mailander, Ph.D. says:

        I can’t wait to read ON BULLSHIT. Yes, American culture seemed off to me even back when I first encountered it at twelve years old. The miracle is that a good percentage escapes from the bullshit somehow. Here’s an example of BS: I got fired from my last teaching job for asking three Chinese girls to do a research paper on the Kennedy Assassination. They didn’t come up with Oswald somehow, and that was enough to get me fired. I knew it would, too–but I did it anyway.
        Hamlet stands alone, I think. It’s not that some of the other plays don’t have the same depth, but when I look for something comparable to Hamlet in world literature, what I come up with is the Bhavagad Gita.

  56. John Burns says:

    Most of us who are attempting to be vigilant and well informed citizens are not practicing or even leisuring scientists. I was a good science student in school, but I lost interest after my teens. My last year at Stanford I needed science hours to graduate so I took calculus physics. I managed to get through well enough without attending the lectures . . . but I was not enthusiastic about most of it. And now I can not even remember how to differentiate or integrate. Or exactly what an Ohm is.
    So when disputes break out about the agents used to bring down or dustify the World Trade Center I am not in position to make any judgements. I have enjoyed Judy Wood’s presentation as well as those at AE911Truth. If someone did a good job of presenting the ET’s doing it I would take that in as well. But I have no idea who is right. I don’t think it was an Act of God but I would not argue with a Christian who did. My neighbor had a theory about the weight of paper doing it and office files and so on. Nothing i could say in good humor had any effect on his thinking. And he is remarkably clever at doing electronic things. Nor do I think that 9/11 was due to some as yet unknown natural phenomenon. I am fairly certain that the Muslim terrorists were as surprised as everyone else. But I suspect the Israelis were not. I wonder why?
    Anyway the important thing is to locate the villains and bring them to justice. I am sure we can all agree on that.
    Most people know enough science or can quickly learn it to realize that the NIST investigation is bogus. I would be embarrassed to be a party to such shoddy work. Still the pay must be good. Or the threats real scary. Beyond that it gets esoteric. The same with the JFK event. Only people who work in the various fields are qualified. Take global warming and climate change. Here we have lots of disputes. I believe the author of The Chilling Stars is right. I read his book. It makes sense but it would never have entered my mind as I do not know that much science. It would never have occurred to me in a thousand years that clouds are connected to cosmic rays. But the battle rages on. Science which was supposed to be objective turns into politics. Money for equipment and so on. And frankly as a religion science has been as disappointing as any belief system. There are few good scientist around. You might like to read THE VIRTUE OF HERSEY by an astronomer, physicist and mathematician who like a number of people faults Einstein and quantum mechanics.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      I recall considering the ‘Big Bang’ theory…

      In the beginning there was nothing … And then it exploded.


      Yea…that’s it


    • flaxgirl says:

      I’m sure I know less science than you do, John, but you don’t really need to know any science to know that 9/11 was an inside job. You just need to use some straightforward information from experts and your own logic and common sense. The interview with Kathy McGrade, metallurgical engineer, in the A&E9/11Truth series, Experts Speak Out, is quite illuminating in this regard. Kathy recounts her experience of consulting a mechanic about a problem with her car. When he advised her on what was wrong she knew he was lying because she’d happened to have a look under the hood herself and knew that what he said couldn’t be true. She figured out somehow what was wrong and fixed it herself using a YouTube video. With regard to the collapse of the buildings at the WTC she says you don’t need to know anything except that when a building is impacted from the side it cannot collapse symmetrically. Instead of relying on experts, Kathy urges us to work things out for ourselves. I think it’s sad that her interview has so few views.

      I found this tutorial by Richard Gage, the founder of A&E9/11Truth, extremely educative.

      I think this explains very clearly how WTC-7 could only have come down by controlled demolition and as Graeme MacQueen says, “There is no room in the official story for controlled demolition.”

  57. John Burns says:

    In the wee hours of the night back in the autumn of 2000 when George W. was doing his best to get elected and when it was now up to the Supreme Court to help that along, the Omicron Group was putting the final touches on Project Blond Girl. Walking down the dark hall from the men’s room one could see that it was overcast. It was also very silent in this nondescript building especially on the top floor. The building looked abandoned but wasn’t. It was in the outskirts of a run down town in New Jersey and was used now and then for special projects. The lower floors were rented out to various business concerns that needed a fairly economical place to sell their dreams. Of course in the parking lot there were a dozen highly trained personnel making sure they were not interrupted–but apart from that they looked like a drab group of business men. And they needed George W. to get elected. Gore would want to work in global warming and Blond Girl was already burdened as it was. No, Gore would wreck the plan with his carbon dioxide obsession.
    In any case the decision had been made after endless discussions and lectures back in D.C. at the Pentagon. They would use Agents Chartreuse. They would be effective–some thought too effective, but in spite of that they had opted for them because of their almost esoteric nature. None of the men were scientists or engineer but all of them were masterful at getting results. And the results this time would forever banish from their minds any thought of waiting in line at a soup kitchen. Not that the men were poor, but they felt the need for an extra nest egg; and this nest egg would be golden. All the technical stuff would be arranged and carried out by the four Epsilon teams, There was no lack of expertise and no lack of willingness perhaps because they were not citizens or at most were dual citizens. Their one worry was that George W. would get scared or just blurt out with something that would alert the public. But the quack in charge of medical had said he would see that George got some psych meds to ease things along. Then there was Cheney. Would he have a heart attack. They needed a stand in for the possibility. Now they had one. So it was go, go, go. Blond Girl would change the world forever. One of the men had early in his career been a preacher and he could not now resist enjoining the group for a prayer. The prayer over they departed to various places.
    The next ten months passed like a dream and Blond Girl moved ahead like a custom made Mercedes. All twelve men according to wives or mistresses as the case might be were reported to be sleeping like babies. Only one, and he was like this, kept having the same dream in which a haggard old woman would grab him by the arm and call him sonny. And then he would be obliged to walk her across the street which seem to take centuries. The last time he had that dream she told him to beware of betrayal. She told him that at some point Blond Girl might be revealed for what it had been and then he might find himself in prison somewhere. After that dream he started using Atavan and going for long aimless walks. He bought a dog but it did not seem to like him so he gave it to his daughter.
    [The following 200 pages are encrypted, and I am still not able to get them de-encripted.] There are three rather strange pages after that and then someone has scrawled with a blue ball point pen: the end. I have been told that the encryption is so good and so professional that whatever is in those 200 pages must be very important. How did it come to me? Later.

    • hybridrogue1 says:


      I have no idea what your last post is, means, or what it is about…???


      • John Burns says:

        Well, it is an impressionistic portrait of what might have proceeded 9/11 based on lots of readings, video, a bit of the classics and so on. It is easier to proceed with a picture of what might have been the case than to walk ahead blind. Business men with a project. Vaguely religious and keen on making big bucks. Political goals. A reference to the corruption of both parties. Etc. It might be more accurate than anyone would think. Sometimes fiction is stranger than truth. Graham Greene’s novel’s were frequently that way and very prophetic– e.g. A Quiet Man. The encrypted portion may in fact contain some valuable information. Who knows? We will have to wait and see.
        [Once we know for certain as we do now that a great crime has been committed that has led to even greater crimes, something has to be done.]

      • Jon says:

        I once put the phrase “citizen’s arrest” into a search engine and found interesting results. Seems to me this might be a fruitful endeavor.

    • Eric says:

      Please continued to try to decipher the rest, John. It’s pretty good stuff. You are a very talented cryptographer….

      • John Burns says:

        I wonder if you have heard of this composer who put the word out and got thousands of persons to sing various parts of a choral composition–of course this used the resource of the Internet. The result was beautiful. This idea could be used to catch the conspirators. The Internet Detective might go viral. Millions of persons looking for the perpetrators and sending in clues. A massive undertaken that would probably unnerve those that planned and executed it. But —- it would require preliminary planning . . . some kind of sophisticated soft ware that could sort through millions of clue and map them. After maybe a billion hits the clues would dove tail in various places. Composed of things overheard. The murmuring heard by clairaudients. The wife or daughter eaten away by fear and guilt about a father who said some things while drunk. You see where this can go. Anonymous help from the whole globe. A man in Pakistan who overheard his boss a few days before 9/11; someone processing a large bank transfer in Saudi Arabia for a very nervous man who made some remarks to himself. Etc.

  58. John Burns says:

    This would be a good name for the software/algorithm: Claircognizance 911

    “Claircognizance is a very useful but unpopular skill. It means “clear knowing.” In short, you have a knowing about things; the only problem is, you never seem to know HOW you know. You just do. It seems to come from nowhere. Some people mistake claircognizance for intuition or gut feelings, but there’s a difference between the two. Intuition is more based on feelings or emotions, whereas claircognizance is focused more on specific bits of knowledge, such as knowing details of a stranger’s relationship situation or knowing deep down that you have lived in another world. Claircognizance usually comes to you from spirit. It’s basically your guides or other higher entities dumping information into your head.”

    Homo ludens–man the player. The idea being that in play we can sharpen our skills. This is play in the dark area.

  59. Dave Mann says:

    I think Chomsky is a deep cover asset – he is playing a terrible role in regards to ALL the really critical, geo-stategic operations of the Imperial state and it’s mid-Eastern ally. As I stated on facebook – ” Don’t mean to quibble but I wouldn’t say he “JUST blew it” on 911. Consider his stance re the Afghan war where he took a big role in promoting the Mujaheddin – “freedom fighters,” fighting with rusty muskets and farm implements, and supposedly abandon by the West. At the time these terrorists were receiving an estimated $1 billion per year from US, Israel, Saudies – hundreds of terror bases in Pakistan, US Fascist ally, etc. This massive intervention preceded the Soviet intervention, at the behest of the Revolutionary gov’t of Afghanistan. Consider also his role re Yugoslavia – promoting the “Big Lie” of Serb aggression, “rape camps”, “ethnic cleansing”, etc Actually signing on to a full-page ad in NYT calling for US military intervention against Serbia – this resulted in the bombing of Belgrade for 80 days with uranium weapons. Also is role in the cover-up of the assassinations of the 60s – should be taken into account. What he has said about Salvador, Chile, etc – was already quite widely known. Nothing in that was original. All the above leads one to surmise that he has ties in the deep state, perhaps Israel (he was a Zionist youth leader as a young man). Can’t prove that so perhaps I should keep those suspicions to myself. But, his “debates” with Buckley (CIA) and his soft critique of Western imperial policy lead me to believe he is playing the “left” in the Mockingbird game.
    about an hour ago · Like

  60. Pingback: Noam Chomsky et l’aveuglement face au 11 Septembre | How To Experiment ?

  61. Nobody with any expertise says:

    I’m going to add only the following to this thread:

    I think Bin Laden did have some knowledge about 9-11.

    “The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive.”

    Excerpt from Bin Laden interview – The Daily Ummat of Karachi

  62. Threatening the safety of a whistleblower’s loved ones is a time-dishonored method of coercing compliance and creating an unwilling gatekeeper who will alienate and outrage some better-informed people thus achieving a COINTELPRO divisive effect. Surprised folks don’t get that this is going on.
    The rise of the internet over the 90s decade lowered the threshold of the don’t-go-there ‘electric fence’ of retribution since info now spread faster and wider. Previously allowed subversive talk became more critical to suppress. Infowar take backs season. The role of gatekeeper became even more important to create and enforce. You know who qualifies here: Some earnest progressive subversive has a big audience that trusts them…CIA can’t leave that unchecked. The gatekeepers are threatened, warned, then coached – given language and ‘safe harbor’ themes – to help them stay off the ‘electric fence’ with diversions since CIA specializes in psychological operations and has the most vested interest in the ‘success’ of the gatekeeping. Discerning who has been unwillingly coerced and who is a willing sleeper injected into the Left to block…is tricky but not that hard given a little research.
    Wish more media watchdogs educated the choir on CIA control of domestic culture.

  63. quidsapio says:

    Reblogged this on Quid Sapio and commented:
    Chomsky – what happened to you man?

  64. Edward Kerr says:

    It’s difficult to determine the motivation of someone like Chomsky as it relates to his seeming blindness to the fact that the official version of 911 has more holes in it than Dick Cheney’s hunting partners face.
    When one looks under the microscope there are Zionist fingerprints all over 911. That fact makes Chomsky’s position a bit easier to understand.

  65. Paul Mason says:

    The question I would pose to Chomsky would be: There are 2100 registered professional members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 from all over the world, that is a fact. However there are no members of any opposing professional engineering or architectural group. Doesn’t that mean that the numbers that want a new inquiry is infinitely more than those who oppose one?

  66. I would have expected Chomsky to realise that 9/11 was an inside job purely from the rhetoric, without the need for the physics. The reason there are no papers on the twin towers is because NO-ONE was allowed to study the debris. That’s what you really do as an engineer after such an incident (unless you’re trying to hide something). Did Osama Bin Laden hide 130,000 tons of debris after the “collapse”? Don’t get me started on the Pentagon. A blind man can work out that whatever hit, it wasn’t a twin engined aircraft.

    • bluerider says:

      the A320 Germanwings crash in the South of France Alpes mountains has left only tiny pieces of debris and a few sizable ones and both engines have been recovered in the same state as AA77 ones : a trunk, no blades, no casings. Then the DNA recovery is almost completed for the 149 passengers. At such speeds, the entire body and wings and tail turn instantly to dust or so. I myself have been “digging the subject” for years, and I still keep the AA77 case on side, due to lack of certitudes. On the contrary, the WTC issue has improved much much more thanks to the ae911T and scholarsfortruth effortts.

  67. 1984 says:

    A linguistics prof’s opinion on 911 is about as interesting&relevant as a biotech prof’s opinions on contemporary chinese semiotics. His “authority” is a creation of the controlled media, who has chosen him as their voice.

    • But as a linguist, I’m curious to know what he thinks “it” refers to when Larry Silverstein says “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” The debunkers say it refers to “the operation”. If a linguistic expert witness can say that the “it” must refer to the building then it’s pretty compelling evidence that Silverstein knew it was set up with explosives ergo 9/11 was an inside job. Amazing the power of the pronoun “it” in this context.

  68. scottbennett says:

    Well done. The military is awakening to the truth, and quite inspired.

  69. Robert Forte says:

    In 2003, when i finally agreed the official story was bogus (after reading A New Pearl Harbor), I began to inquire why more people had not been as outraged– as i had become. David Griffin informed me that he had sent a manuscript copy of New Pearl Harbor to Chomsky who refused to read it, although two of his closest friends, Richard Falk and Howard Zinn had lauded it’s importance. So I began a brief correspondence with Chomsky. His first defended his position by asserting that it was “implausible” that the administration would be involved. I suggested that if someone told us on Sept 10 that 19 terrorists who failed flight school would hijack planes and expertly pilot them beyond their engineered capabilities into their targets, evading not only airport security but NORAD, we would consider that “implausible” too. The correspondence degenerated after that. Finally the “most important intellectual of the twentieth century” defended his ignorance and apathy by saying, “even if the administration did it, that would be minor compared to other things they have done.”

  70. abc says:

    I love looking through an article that will make people think.
    Also, thanks for allowing for me to comment!

  71. heavywatergate says:

    Chomsky’s arguments (or his “counter-factuals”, rather) are false and bizarre. You did an excellent job showing that, Mr. Ryan.

    Here’s another Chomsky tidbit from a private e-mail (that someone else published without his permission) on 9/11 Truth:

    “Let’s suppose it turns out that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Then who would the finger point to? Osama bin Laden, obviously. After all, related groups came close to blowing up the WTC in 1993, and with a little better planning, would have killed perhaps 10,000 people.”

    The above is a very weak inference, and ignores two facts:

    a. NIST and other government agencies explicitly rejected a controlled demolition hypothesis in their reports, and simply stated that they found no evidence of CD. This is expected, because NIST knows that controlled demolition is synonymous in the public mind with US government involvement. That indicates a public relations agenda.

    If Chomsky’s statement were true, we would expect NIST to explore this hypothesis, as if it were entirely neutral and innocent, devoid of any grave political implications. But no such work was done. Thus, it would be incredibly serendipitous for any finding to both implicate bin Laden and support the CD hypothesis, in particular when CD was almost entirely avoided and opposed by NIST.

    The fact that NIST opposed and avoided the subject of controlled demolition, as if it had grave political implications, directly contradicts Chomsky’s (extremely weak inferred) statement.

    b. Chomsky’s inference is one out of multiple other possible conclusions.

    Now some people claim that Chomsky’s a gatekeeper, which the OP hints at.

    I doubt it. He doesn’t actively oppose 9/11 Truth, or new investigations into it. He only comments on 9/11 Truth when specifically asked, usually after his lectures by people with their own agendas. This is also why you’ll see claims that Chomsky is a “gatekeeper” for the Federal Reserve and other such nonsense. Because Libertarians (and others) are prodding him for answers on irrelevant subjects which they prioritize greatly. He wouldn’t comment on 9/11 Truth if he weren’t asked about it.

    He states that he doesn’t have an opinion on Building 7, because he can’t have one: he’s not qualified to offer a meaningful judgment. He doesn’t have specialist knowledge in civil-mechanical engineering. These statements are from the same published e-mails. This is a reasonable position to take, and is honestly a refreshing one. Like it or not, you can’t have a meaningful opinion on Building 7 after an hour on the internet.

    He asks reasonable questions (not the ones you’ve quoted, but elsewhere) that the Truth movement could answer in order to strengthen their credibility.

    Chomsky correctly notes that the movement is plagued by speculation, rumor, hearsay and reliance on amateur opinion. He also notes, in the same published e-mails, that “gatekeeper” and “disinfo” accusations are rampant within. People are allowed to question narratives, of course, but the Truth movement is just plagued with long-debunked myths, and its non-scientific audience and research makes it excessively speculative by nature.

    He’s right, unfortunately. No “disinfo agents” or “gate-keepers”. People are simply convinced in their beliefs. This goes for Judy Wood, Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, etc. and even you and I. There are no agreed-upon standards to evaluate evidence for 9/11 Truth (and UFOs and JFK and Bigfoot…etc). This means that there are no boundaries to delimit meaningful evidence or the realm of discussion. This creates many potential divisions, as people investigate different lines of evidence and create new theories. Of course, if you dispute someone’s theory, you’re a “shill”. The core of the Truth movement itself is unstable. There’s no need to send “disinfo agents” or “gatekeepers” to destabilize it, it does that itself.

    I have a rule of thumb when it comes to conspiracies: the more theories there are about a topic, the less likely any of them are true. This is intuitive. Models are meant to describe reality and make predictions. A description of reality must be consistent. If there are several models describing different things on the same phenomenon, how do we know which is the reality? They can’t all be true. There is only one reality to describe.

    In general, a choice of models will tend to not vary much in-between them. Large number of models and/or large variance between models for a phenomenon indicates that the evidence is very weak or that no filter for evidence exists.

    Chomsky’s public comments on 9/11 Truth is consistent with his private comments on the matter, and I have no reason to believe that he’s “gate keeping”. Yes, some of his comments on 9/11 Truth are stupid and false, but it seems more like an attempt to maintain credibility on a third-rail issue than to “gate keep”.

    It’s possible—as you’ve indicated – that Chomsky has a private opinion on 9/11 Truth which differs from his public one. Carl Sagan was similar concerning his beliefs on UFOs.

  72. Perhaps he should speak with Mr Silverstein himself. He could put him straight. Who needs a Physicist?!

  73. I’m as distrustful of the US government as anyone, and they may well have had a hand in this. But I suspect that, after the previous (unsuccessful) attack on the Twin Towers in the early 90s, explosives may have been placed within the buildings to ensure that, if they were somehow attacked again, they would collapse vertically, and not sideways onto streets and other buildings which would lead to an even greater loss of life.

    • Dave Mann says:

      Sorry – But you’re just plain LOST. BTW, the 1993 WTC bombing was an FBI operation.

    • Skip Scott says:

      If the buildings had been previously rigged to prevent a sideways collapse, there are some things to consider. First, planes flying into the towers would not have caused any collapse, so there would have been no need to detonate. Since the only thing that could bring down the towers at all would be an explosion, how would they know when to set off their own detonation? It makes no sense. Second, to prevent loss of life, wouldn’t they have waited to evacuate the towers as much as possible before they detonated. Thirdly, if they were rigged with nano-thermite (which can be painted onto surfaces), who supplied the stuff? It is only the military that has access to nano-thermite as far as I know. The elevators were worked on and improved months before 9/11, and I think the elevator shafts would have been an ideal place to work unseen on rigging the towers. I wonder if the same elevator work was done on building 7?

  74. Mike Lowery says:

    You can take a child who knows how gravity works and then show them the footage of WTC7 coming down and ask them to explain what’s happening to the building? Tell them to just explain the best they can and to not let any of their thoughts be held back. They’ll answer with some amazing answers and some will be full of young and fresh insight and some will be amazingly fantastical. But none will be as amazingly fantastical as the NIST report’s answer! It is pure rubbish!

  75. Johanne says:

    Mr Chomskies reputation is shot , I am afraid – The scales fell from my eyes when he used the expression “nano-thermite , whatever the hell that is” – If you don’t know what it is Mr Chomski then you ought to find out.

    • When someone whose reputation which was built on rationality, sound logic and factual argument suddenly morphs into a creepier version of Glen Beck whenever he’s asked a question about the assassination of JFK or 9/11, it would appear time for anyone who can still think for themselves to in fact do so. That Chomsky’s willing to play the fool and sacrifice his reputation for the coverup of these two events speaks volumes about the importance of these events and his true loyalties.

  76. Michael says:

    I think the answer is pretty simple here. I like Chomsky but I had a hard time fully trusting his judgement due to his views on 9/11. That being said Chomsky walks his talk he goes to the places he talks about and he does try to help I can imagine he has gone many places and done many good deeds. I think his views on 9/11 boil down to his career and him not wanting to lose it or maybe he is very conscious of his image and you know 9/11 will do to that. I have read that Chomsky has promoted himself by posting a self voting sponsorship on his own website for the running as top intellectual. All this should be taken with a grain of salt but it does bother me that he can’t be just a little open like Ron Paul’s view which he doesn’t think it was an inside job but he doesn’t condemn those who do.

    • Juliano says:

      I loathe the Noam Chomskys and Ron Pauls of this world more than I do the out and out blatant corporate fascists and that is saying something! At ‘least’ the latter are not the most despicable hypocrites willing to sell their souls (if they have any which they don’t) so as to exist in some dreadful limited hangout. I mean what a sad dismal decrepit existence!!

  77. Editor says:

    I have a challenge to debate Chomsky. Everyone should spread this post widely:

    A Public Challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky:
    Debating the September 11th Attack Evidence

  78. lewwelge says:

    As I said to Ralph Nader on The Nation Cruise, our most appropriate and accurate allegory re 9/11 is the Hans Christian Anderson tale “The Emporer’s New Clothes,” and the brilliant crusader for consumer safety agreed which a genuine Peak Experience ( ref. Abraham Maslow) for yours truly.

  79. Indeed, “it” IS compelling evidence and we’ve an abundance of it, the starkest of all being the video of WTC7’s Controlled Demolition which I show to people on my iphone6 pretty routinely now. Thanks for your activism.

  80. Pingback: Fact-Free Luminaries: Chomsky’s Chumpskies | Political Film Blog

  81. Lew says:

    “Very Interestinck” (ref. Artie Johnson dressed as a WWII German soldier around ’69 on the somewhat subversive, but mostly silly “Laugh In.”

  82. Daniel says:

    I was sad to hear Noam Chomsky’s stance on 9/11. I’ve always, more or less, worshipped him because he seemed to be a thorn in the side of people who have wanted to take advantage of the rest of us. When such an intelligent person disregards such compelling evidence I have to assume that they are either not as intelligent as I once thought, or they are wilfully trying to shut the other persons argument down. I believe Noam Chomsky is an intelligent person. The only thing left for me to believe is that he is wilfully trying to cover up the truth. Or else he has a blind spot on this particular issue. Perhaps some bias which I am unaware of? I know that I am not the only person who has held Noam Chomsky in high regards. His influence on people is very profound. That’s why it is so tragic that he has decided to take the stance on the issue. He has hypnotised so many of his followers into falling in line with his perception. But I am no longer one of those followers. Because of this I now have to re-examine is entire body of work and narrative of history. Though there may be some truth in it, I have to question his intentions in including certain facts and excluding others. But I am glad that I have lost faith in him because I need to wake up and realise that I should never put that much faith in one person.

  83. Chomsky is one of those know it all ego-driven types that unless he’s thought of it first, it’s not important. He knows the truth, he’s not stupid. In fact we should just give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s doing this on purpose so that he can continue to have a career. Even so, it makes him a coward.

  84. Gary Wallin says:

    Since I saw in video Chomsky’s unusual and irrational response: (think about it – don’t look at evidence) to the 9/11 conspiracy, I’ve lost a lot of respect for his objectivity and opinions.
    Could it be he was personally threatened with reprisals on his family or purposely helping Israel from being fingered and allowing Arabs the blame? Or is his contribution to the cover up “for the better good?” All media and newscasters and Chomsky cover for the government, for the Israeli’s, and the corporations to keep their jobs while avoiding ridicule from those others covering up and from ignoramuses who don’t know or don’t want to know the truth. Is Chomsky a part of the so called “new world order?” The country is in deep do do. Free press is a joke..

    • Clinton Scott says:

      Hi Gary-

      I’m not sure if Chomsky is purposely covering for empire. He has attacked them on other grounds all throughout his career. It is curious, however. Another who surprised me was the late Robert Parry. He poo-pooed the 9/11 “truthers” as well. I’ve kept an open mind and followed the investigation here and elsewhere, and I find it hard to believe that there wasn’t a larger conspiracy. Even during the event itself, I was skeptical that buildings that well constructed could collapse perfectly into their own footprint solely due to fire. And of course the lack of video from the Pentagon and Building 7’s free-fall are clinchers.

      Consortium News has kept 9/11 truthers from posting in their comment section. During Robert Parry’s time the posts were accepted, but the current comment “moderator” has repeatedly deleted anything with links to 9/11 Architects and Engineers. It happened to me just yesterday. For many, rethinking the events of 9/11 is just “a bridge too far.”

  85. Eric Bischoff says:

    Of all of the people to pick a fight with on the topic of 9/11 and who did what, why would you choose Noam Chomsky? That makes no sense.

    • Kevin Ryan says:

      Chomsky fashioned himself an expert on 9/11 when he put out a book just after the attacks entitled “9-11.” The webpage for the book says “In 9-11, published in November 2001 and arguably the single most influential post-9/11 book on the subject, internationally renowned thinker Noam Chomsky bridged the information gap around the World Trade Center attacks…”. However, when facts that contradicted his narrow viewpoint were presented to Chomsky publicly, he began to lash out at the critical thinkers who approached him with those facts. And he became a case study in falsehood on the subject. His dissembling in this case is about ego death, I think. Much as it is for his die-hard followers.

      • Skip Scott says:


        Thanks for all your work. The two people I’ve been most disappointed in regarding taking an objective look at all things related to 9/11 are Noam Chomsky and the late Robert Parry. I don’t know why, but they both seemed to shut down too soon, and summarily dismissed the possibility of a government backed (either US or Israeli or both) conspiracy without sufficient examination of the evidence. I have done my best to keep an open mind and to keep informed, and Caitlin Johnstone just wrote an essay that mirrors my current position. I think it’s important that we appreciate and acknowledge the great work that Chomsky and Parry have both done, and allow that we all have our flaws.

      • Kevin Ryan says:

        Parry was a great journalist and unfortunately burned some of his credibility with his indefensible position against 9/11 truth. I wrote something about that here: .

      • Skip Scott says:

        Thanks for the link. Excellent article that I had previously missed.

  86. Seth. Rick says:

    And Amy Goodman states in her book that #7 came down because of a “ fuel tank fire” I have no use for these people , anymore.

  87. Brian M. says:

    One question you have to ask is: why not stay out of it? Chomsky could easily say, “not my area of expertise, I don’t have a well formed opinion.” Why didn’t he do this? In fact, what he does say on the subject is quite bizarre. First, he says he has no technical background in the science, then he goes on to ridicule members of the 9/11 truth community, chiding them essentially as a bunch of losers. Why on Earth would he do this if he had no technical background to evaluate the scientific evidence? My answer: coercion. I suspect The Mossad or some analogous entity sent him some pictures of his grand-kids at play. Something like that.

  88. Evan Ravitz says:

    When I corresponded with Chomsky about 9/11 I said that nothing would bring down the American Empire better than the revelation that 911 was an inside job. He said more than once that it would actually make people more afraid and eager for a strongman to protect them.

  89. septal says:

    Perfect. The world now – post 911 – post Chomsky’s repudiation of the use of facts and data to understand – his desecration of science in any form… shows us now where we are. The cat is belled… millions upon millions of people incapable of reason – wearing masks having no value in stopping an illness that is itself a fabrication wherein eve with the fig leaf of deference to science the creator of the test that they’re using to test refuted it as any such means! The cat is belled and it constitutes the majority call it “left” or call it “right” both sides groping at the throat of the other – in impotent ways that entertain their keepers!

  90. Gatekeeper says:

    Noam Chomsky now supports Xinjiang Genocide propaganda. he’s obviously a gatekeeper. his entire career is tarnished.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s