portland independent media center  
images audio video
composted article commentary united states

9.11 investigation | imperialism & war

CHOMSKY FEARS 9/11 DEBATE

When questioned about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
It's all fine and good that Mr. Chomsky confronts Israel for its phony justification for mass murder in Lebanon -- an obvious attempt by him to regain the trust of the anti-war movement, which is finally embracing the 9/11 Truth movement -- but let us *NEVER FORGET* where he stands on the most important issue of our time: the state-terror apparatus that is plunging the world into a totalitarian fascist nightmare.

When questioned on Dr. Hesham Tillawi's online video program about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened", with 19 Arab hijackers responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
[  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515995256268661504 ]

At this point in the interview, the informed viewer and reader of his work will ask: "Where has Chomsky been for the last five years? Has he not heard of the work of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, particularly the work of engineer Dr. Judy Wood, physicist Dr. Stephen Jones, philosopher Dr. James Fetzer and theologian Dr. David Griffin? Has he not read about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's appeal to the world for an investigation into 9/11?"

CHOMSKY'S LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS 9/11 POSITION

How is it possible when the Scholar's work has been posted all over the internet and has even made the corporate press because of the controversy it is initiating? Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss these academics as "lacking credibility"? Where is Chomsky's evidence for this dismissal of his colleagues' work?

Instead he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? Why won't they, along with the NIST engineers, debate the peer-reviewed science put forth by the Scholars? This group of brave scientists and intellectuals not only possess "appropriate credentials" and backgrounds, but, together, have systematically dismantled the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission cover-up reports. Is it not revealing that these government "scientists" collectively refuse to publicly debate Scholars for 9/11 Truth!!!
[  http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html ]

So where does Chomsky position himself within this debate? Why is he openly accusing the 9/11 truth movement of "wasting an enormous amount of time and energy", that "could be better focused on more important issues"? What issues are more important than the events that have led us into an era of "permanent war"? Why is he ignoring the world public's call for an international and independent public inquiry?

NECESSARY QUESTIONS ON UNNECESSARY ILLUSIONS

In light of all this, we are forced to ask some very unpleasant questions with regards to Chomsky's political and moral agenda, as well as his ideological allegiances. Does he know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? (Do recall Sharon's explicit declaration on October 3rd, 2001, that "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." [IAP News])

Is Chomsky an ideological supporter of Zionism, as claimed by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, in an interview given to Snowshoe Films? [ Watch "Straussians, My Behind"  http://www.snowshoefilms.com/palestine.html ] If he is an ideological Zionist, then is he covering up the Israeli power-elite's involvement in international terrorism? Isn't it interesting, if not telling, that he avoids all discussion of the Federal Reserve and its Zionist control when he discusses economic power in America? Is this not lying-by-omission, something that he exposes with regard to the corporate media in his book, "Manufacturing Consent"?

Is his stance with regard to 9/11 and "terrorism" not an indirect means of "manufacturing consent" for the "War on Terror"? If so, Chomsky is complicit in the very power system and war machine that he has always condemned. Is it not significant that he has remained employed, despite his dissident activities, by one of the largest weapons developers in the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he began working directly under the U.S. Army during the 1950s. [  http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0920_response.html ]

This leads us to this crucial question: is Chomsky's 9/11 position a result of his fear of power, do they have 'dirt' on him, or has he always been a high-level agent of state-propaganda working only within the acceptable confines of a specific, yet ambiguous ideological framework?

 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org

reality check 14.Sep.2006 14:40

anonymous

To accuse Chomsky of complicity in covering up the truth of 911 is beyond b__llshit. It screams of absurdity. He is this hemisphere's premier BS detector. Truth is his singular sacred cow. For 30 years he's gone head-head with every entrenched power structure and ideology on the planet - including Zionism. Especially Zionism.

But the article WAS kinda funny in it's extravagant reach. Compare the last three paragraphs to this famous string of illogic from the movie Animal House:

"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

You're Right 14.Sep.2006 14:45

Truth

I couldn't agree more, sad though it is. At least Amy Goodman has finally had something on it with the Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics debate. I thought the Popular Mechanics guys were pathetic.

Lets face the obvious facts 14.Sep.2006 14:50

p

Lets face the obvious facts that it wasn't just the hi-jackers and it wasn't just the muslims and it wasn't just the Bushies who where involved. Neither Chomsky nor David Corn can allow themselves to look to closely at the facts, for many of the strings lead back to Massad (Mabbus). If this had been a strictly internal US operation, then both of the afore mentioned would be all over it.

Go back and remember the pull out of the Israeli company on Sept 6th. Look at the characters in New Jersey who filmed the first hit. (probably the source of the video feed GWB claimed (twice) to have watched before entering the class room). And don't forget the flight school owners. Don't forget who leased the buildings mere months earlier.

It doesn't matter... 14.Sep.2006 15:40

(really)!

Whether it was the US government or a retaliatory act by others, the US government is still at fault. All of this talk about who was flying the planes does nothing but shift the focus away from those at fault. This discussion should be about US repression at home, and US oppression abroad. That is why the attacks happened. The identies of those in the cockpit are meaningless.

911 Is A Sensitive Subject For Many Jews 14.Sep.2006 16:49

Cincinnatus

If Chomsky is endorsing the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory, it is probably because he is acutely aware of the numerous allegations of Israeli(Mossad) involvement - however tangential and minimal that it might have been - in the real plot. There is a logic (of survival) working here that allows him to criticize Israel's aggression in the Middle East, but stops short of any mention of possible aggression against citizens of the United States. What does this say about Chomsky? It says that he is a flawed human being, like all of us. I, for one, never had him on a pedestal. So, for me, his fall from grace on this subject is not so great.

I think alot of Chomsky 14.Sep.2006 16:49

Fred Bauer

But he has a couple of areas that really make you wonder. 911 is one. Another is the Kennedy Assasination. Chomsky says that Oswald killed Kennedy. I find it hard to believe he's covering up, but how could he be so damn dumb about some things?

It's like Amy Goodman, She's great in most areas, but when it comes to 911, it's a different story.

cockburn & chomsky 14.Sep.2006 17:06

rAT

Alexander Cockburn, darling of leftist intellectuals, has also recently come out on record as saying that the official 911 truth version is the true one. He is also famous for dismissing JFK theories, insisting that Oswald did it all by his lonesome. Remember, a Russian spy moled into the top ranks of the CIA for years, undetected. What makes the left so positive that their journalistic heroes are immune to bribery, blackmail, and other devious forms of coercion? Or maybe they're just scared shitless and lack any semblance of spiritual testosterone.

Chomsky Backward in Linguistics... as well as Parrot on 911 14.Sep.2006 17:45

The French

Chomsky is "prescriptive" structuralist linguist... an arch conservative. At a conference in N.Y. he was pompously telling us the rules of language. "English is the only language where a double positive can't signify a negative," he stated with authority. "Ya, ya." Said a cynical bronx heckler in the back of the room. Chomsky turned red and was unable to complete his prepared remarks.