Noam Chomsky's Lame, Rambling Response When Asked About Building 7
at a recent University of Florida, Gainesville talk Noam Chomsky was asked his opinion on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, in New York City on 11 September 2001.
Professor Chomsky's response seemed even more divergent and dismissive than previously heard, when the topic of 9/11 has been posed to him in the past.
Below is an analysis of the three main "points" he cites (in an exceedingly fuzzy and roundabout way for such an esteemed academic who's spoken so cogently on so many other topics) here in response.
Chomsky' response -- he finally does get to it five minutes in to the above video -- consisting of what he called "3 main uncontroversial facts," cited:
*** --> 1) Bush administration "desperately wanted to invade Iraq"
--Uhh yeah thanks for the reminder that we have pretty solid documentation on Noam.
But your: "so why didn't they blame Iraqis?" is not a sufficient or germane 'alternate' back-explanation for 9/11.
First off, blame was immediately assigned to Bin Laden (and by extension, al Qaeda).
Second, in the run-up to Iraq invasion from fall 2002 to March 2003, Saddam Hussein's "ties" to al Qaeda were constantly invoked (so much, that American citizens years later are _still_ thinking Hussein and al Qaeda are actually somehow linked).
Also keep in mind, that the Iraq invasion only took about 18 months from 11 September 2001 to occur.
(and further, that the Afghanistan invasion begun in Fall 2001 served as something of an Iraq 'prequel' in terms of, for example, the U.S. military and corporate mass media propaganda machines' "warming up" in both their respective functions ...)
*** --> 2) Blamed it -- mainly -- on Saudis, which was "their major ally" (??)
--Wrong, Noam. If we take what you just stated as truth or an 'uncontroversial fact', then it obviously follows that some sort of sanction or reprisal would have been taken against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (for the moment, we won't discuss bin Laden family members being flown out of the U.S. on 11 September 2001...) Anyway the Saudis suffered no ill effects on behalf of the U.S. government as a result of it.
But Afghanistan was the country immediately invaded (not because "Saudis were there", but ostensibly because that's where al Qaeda "headquarters" with bin Laden was supposed to be holed up).... And of course, even Noam would agree that invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 was not simply because of bin Laden's supposed proximity but also many other geopolitical factors long in the making.
As well, the "blame" for 9/11 and various policies set in motion were not only external -- a set of pre-drafted domestic edicts such as USA Patriot act, creation of Department of Homeland Security, TSA etc. went immediately into place.
i.e. 9/11 itself did not simply provoke an "invasion" reaction i.e. let's go bomb Afghanistan/Iraq/whatever.... it produced a sea change in US policy and expenditures, domestically and abroad.
and anyway, nationalities of the "19 hijackers" are irrelevant as we know they were 'Islamic fundamentalists' and furthermore, were members of a Boogeyman group named al Qaeda.
Doesn't matter what country of citizenship to which they individually belonged -- especially as pertains to some sort of posited-by-Noam-Chomsky decision on the part of Bush administration as "which country should we invade?" -- yeah right, _that's_ an Executive Decision which would've surely been made based _solely_ on what nationality those hijackers had turned out to be....
(furthermore, many of the 19 originally ID'd by FBI turned out to be false ... let's not go there, right now though)
But of course Noam Chomsky well knows all this.
He simply didn't (chose not to??) address the 9/11 question.
He wasn't even asked about the 9/11 attacks here, but only -- and specifically -- about the physical and engineering anomalies of Building 7 (to which his reply was just as insufficient: many of AE911Truth's efforts are directed to the staid engineering profession itself, not to mention that more practicing engineers and scientists join their ranks each day - a "few concerned professionals" is growing in number).
His sidelong claim here about science/engineering professionals' speaking out or advocating 'controversial' analyses as being inherently "risk free" is also spurious, as is his personal claim -- RE: Building 7, the only time he actually addressed the actual question topic asked of him here -- that he himself "couldn't understand" what happened with that building's collapse and would leave that to others "better qualified", is also a complete cop-out on not only this specific question but the entire topic of 11 September anomalies.
No, Noam Chomsky -- 9/11 was not "blamed on" Saudis.
It was "blamed" (day of, anyway) on Osama bin Laden, who was purported 'leader' of a 'terror group' named al Qaeda.
This is not an 'uncontroversial fact'.
*** --> 3) "unless they're total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis"
--Well Noam, not sure what you're saying here at all.
Is it truly an 'uncontroversial fact' that 9/11 "should have been blamed on Iraqis" ??
Wouldn't you at least agree, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which arrived that March after more than 9 months of orchestrated buildup in US government and corporate mass media) was only one small part of a broader strategy for US military predominance in the MidEast and western Asia, i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq where dozens of new permanent bases have now been established?
Furthermore, didn't 9/11 launch not a war or invasions simply "in Afghanistan" or "in Iraq" but more broadly a 'War On Terror' -- which is still 12 years later verbatim referred to by all officials of the Obama administration?
or did you forget -- or are incapable of defining, yourself -- documented nature or scope of the War On Terror itself, Mr. Chomsky.
He's either incapable of it, or unwilling to acknowledge this and and many other aspects and repercussions (foreign + domestic) of 11 September 2001's events.
Not just the science, either.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
view discussion from this article