Thursday, October 24, 2013

Noam Chomsky Manufactures 9/11 Consent

 A disappointed person recently asked us about Noam Chomsky´s comments at his 10/15/2013 University of Florida presentation. The offending bit of Chomsky´s lecture in question is about the 9/11 attacks, and the cause for alarm is the display of confusion and blatant denial by the lecturer. Chomsky does acknowledge the motive to invade Iraq for oil, but he seems to think that there is "overwhelming evidence that the US government was not involved." To support this conclusion he states that the government would have blamed Iraq for 9/11 if this had been a false-flag, instead of blaming its allies in the region - the Saudis. But Chomsky has completely reversed the reality here since the US government has never accused Saudi-Arabia of involvement, while one of the justifications for invading Iraq was indeed the bogus accusation that it had been behind the attacks - And in fact a 2006 survey showed that almost 90% of the US troops in Iraq still thought they were there to avenge for 9/11. And lets not forget the invasion of Pipeline-istan - which also happens to be rich with natural resources -supposedly to hunt down Osama even though Cheney et al. had not provided any evidence that Osama had been responsible for 9/11 - and never did.

Chomsky also completely ignores all the incriminating evidence suggesting that factions within the government were involved in various ways, including but not limited to the following whistle-blower revelations: The three-letter government agencies knew about the impending attacks but thwarted investigations that would have foiled the plans; some of the hijackers got their US visas through the same CIA embassy in Jeddah as the mujahideen did back in the day and Osama was in fact still working for the US government on 9/11. And then there is Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, the former US Navy Captain and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations (Nixon, Ford and Carter), who has stated in public that he is prepared to testify in front of a grand jury and reveal that a top general told him directly that 9/11 was an inside job. With this in mind, the confusion created by all those air-defense drills on 9/11 and the peculiar total failure of NORAD and all those three-letter agencies starts to makes sense.
As for the collapse of WTC7 and the 2000-plus architects and engineers behind the ReThink9/11 campaign, Mr. Chomsky states that(emphasis mine):
There's a consensus among a minuscule number of architects and engineers, tiny number, a couple of them are perfectly serious. They're not doing what scientists and engineers do, when they think they've discovered something. What you do, when you think you've discovered something, what you do is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT, or Florida or wherever you are..
First of all, Chomsky´s lack of research is astounding: These "perfectly serious" scientists representing 9/11 truth have actually published some of their discoveries in scientific journals, and there is now a healthy selection of papers that refute the official "natural collapse" narrative and support the controlled demolition hypothesis - research the evidence section of the AE9/11Truth webpage. Some of these scientists have given lectures at universities around the world, including Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Niels Harrit who delivered ninety university lectures in seven countries. And AE9/11Truth recently attended the American Institute of Architects' annual convention for the fourth time, along with 14,000 other architects - this is one of the ways the organization has gathered signatories through the years. Finally, Mr. Chomsky should note that these efforts have convinced over 2000 experts to sign the petition, and that many of them have prestigious credentials, including 17 signatories from MIT. The above information puts into perspective Chomsky´s following comment:
There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics; it doesn't work like that: there's a reason that there are graduate schools
Chomsky´s ignorance is jaw-dropping and sad, but his fallacy of appealing to the apparent popularity of the official narrative is enough to bring some of his former fans to tears. Appearances can also be deceiving as J-M Talboo points out in's FAQ 6:
One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history... 
Those of us who have spent a few years advocating 9/11 truth also know that many people are not willing to publicly support the cause due to concerns for their careers, even though they will admit doubts about the official story in private. But Chomsky seems to think that this is completely false:
Now when this is brought up, there's a standard reaction, the scientists and engineers and professional societies and physicists, are so intimidated by the government, that they're afraid to take, they don't have the courage, to take this position. Anyone who has any familiarity with political activism, knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It's almost risk less.
No risk? Try telling that to scientists and whistle-blowers Dr. Cate Jenkins and Kevin Ryan who both lost their jobs. Then try Dr. Steven Jones who was forced to retire in the aftermath of the publishing of the 2009 nano-thermite paper by Harrit et al., in which he was the second author. Ironically this happens to be the only paper that Chomsky mentions in this lecture! Chomsky goes on to admit that scientists may get laughed at for supporting 9/11 truth but dismisses that as not being risky, as if being ridiculed in the media does not involve the risk of being sidelined in your career. Maybe he should spend some time discussing this issue with Harrit et al. and others that have experienced the taboo status of 9/11 investigations within the academic community? And lets not forget that Americans live in a society where the secret service and the main-stream media have a tendency to paint "truthers" as nut-jobs and even potential terrorists, so in all perhaps not the safest thing one can do - let alone a good career move.

Most surprising of all is Chomsky´s attitude towards the discovery of an incendiary or explosive material in the WTC dust: there are one or two minor articles. Like there's one article that appeared in an online journal, which claims to have found traces of nano-thermite in Building 7. I don't know what that means. You don't know what that means. But if it means anything, bring it to the attention of the scientific community.
I find it hard to believe that Mr. Chomsky actually finds it hard to understand what the implication is of an explosive material found in the rubble of the Twin Towers and Building 7 - and considering his uncharacteristic ignorance of all the published papers and all the work done to bring the evidence to the attention of the academia and the relevant experts, it sure looks like pure denial.

But at least Chomsky has admitted that there is no evidence for the official story of the 9/11 attacks, so it should not really trouble him to join us truthers in the demand for a new actual investigation? How about demanding some published papers that support the official narrative?


Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper- Corbettreport Oct 26, 2013

Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy

Noam Chomsky debunked on 9/11 Truth!

The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left. -TAKEN FROM CHAPTER FIVE OF BARRIE ZWICKER'S 'TOWERS OF DECEPTION'