Noam Chomsky Schools 9/11 Truther; Explains the Science of Making Credible Claims

We don’t often write up videos post­ed by 9–11 Truthers, but you can watch an inter­est­ing exchange when this par­tic­u­lar Truther con­fronts well-known lin­guist and polit­i­cal observ­er Noam Chom­sky dur­ing the ques­tion ses­sion after the lat­ter’s talk at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Flori­da. “You’ve men­tioned quite a few con­tra­dic­tions from the media and their pre­sen­ta­tions on things, and I think the most noto­ri­ous case of this is with Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001,” says the Truther after tak­ing the micro­phone. “You want­ed to see a con­sen­sus of engi­neers and spe­cial­ists that under­stand the actu­al struc­tures of these build­ings and their pos­si­ble col­lapse, and there is such a group. It’s called Archi­tects and Engi­neers for 9–11 Truth.” As the Truther gets into the “con­sen­sus of over 2000 of them,” the mod­er­a­tor inter­rupts, won­der­ing if he actu­al­ly has a ques­tion. (Sure­ly we’ve all endured these moments in ques­tion seg­ment.) But the Truther con­tin­ues: “This con­sen­sus shows that Build­ing 7, the third build­ing that fell on 9/11, fell in freefall speed as the [Nation­al Insti­tute of Stan­dard and Tech­nol­o­gy] report acknowl­edges. Are you ready to come for­ward and jump on board with 9/11?” Thus asked to com­ment on whether the media has cov­ered up the man­ner in which this par­tic­u­lar build­ing col­lapsed, Chom­sky replies with a defense of stan­dard sci­en­tif­ic pro­ce­dures.

“In fact, you’re right that there’s a con­sen­sus among a minis­cule num­ber of archi­tects and engi­neers. They are not doing what sci­en­tists and engi­neers do when they think they’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, and present your results, then pro­ceed to try to con­vince the nation­al acad­e­mies, the pro­fes­sion­al soci­ety of physi­cists and civ­il engi­neers, the depart­ments of the major uni­ver­si­ties, that you’ve dis­cov­ered some­thing. There hap­pen to be a lot of peo­ple around who spend an hour on the inter­net and think they know a lot physics, but it does­n’t work like that. There’s a rea­son there are grad­u­ate schools in these depart­ments.” But has­n’t the gov­ern­ment intim­i­dat­ed those who know the real sto­ry from speak­ing out against the offi­cial line? “Any­body who has 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.” Chom­sky has more to say about the facts we can use, the opin­ions he dis­avows, and the forces dri­ving the Iraq War in the remain­der of the sev­en-minute clip. “We will let you be the judge of his response,” say the video’s notes. Indeed.

via Crit­i­cal The­o­ry

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chom­sky and Michel Fou­cault Debate Human Nature and Pow­er on Dutch TV, 1971

Noam Chom­sky vs. William F. Buck­ley, 1969

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on lit­er­a­ture, film, cities, Asia, and aes­thet­ics. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­lesA Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

by | Permalink | Comments (98) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (98)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Shannon Stoney says:

    But Chom­sky him­self at one time said that 9/11 was retal­i­a­tion by TX elites against East Coast elites for the Enron bust.

  • Carson says:

    Pedan­tic, eva­sive and disin­gen­u­ous answer, when this is nor­mal­ly not his style. Dis­ap­point­ing.

  • Sam R. says:

    No sur­pris­es here. Chom­sky has always been anti-con­spir­a­cy. In his view, every­thing is basi­cal­ly out there, on the sur­face, you just have to pay atten­tion to what the pow­er elite are say­ing to each oth­er. And he’s had that accom­pa­ny­ing pos­i­tivist, sci­en­tif­ic, empir­i­cal, pro-acad­eme stance for­ev­er. Aca­d­e­m­ic research pro­ceeds onward, dis­cov­er­ing the truth, etc.nnFrom any rea­son­able state of mind, though, the whole set of con­vo­lut­ed 9/11 con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries are pret­ty com­i­cal if you actu­al­ly start read­ing them. That goes for “the planes got evac­u­at­ed” to “Jews did it” all the way through the tru­ly inspired “all the videos show­ing planes are fake.”

    • Andreas Meyer says:

      Have a look at “man­u­fac­tur­ing con­sent”.

      • Sam R. says:

        In film form? Check out:n book form? Check out the sec­ond page of the pref­ace (which is avail­able in the pre­view on, with the para­graph starting:n“Institutional cri­tiques such as we present in this book are com­mon­ly dis­missed by estab­lish­ment com­men­ta­tors as ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries,’ but this is mere­ly an eva­sion. We do not use any kind of ‘con­spir­a­cy’ hypoth­e­sis to explain mass-media per­for­mance. In fact, our treat­ment is much clos­er to a ‘free mar­ket’ analy­sis, with the results large­ly an out­come of the work­ings of mar­ket forces.”

    • Ian Fantom says:

      But none so com­i­cal as the Bush-Blair fan­ta­sy that a sick man in a cave in the Black Moun­tains of Afghanistan orches­trat­ed the whole thing whilst under the watch­ful eye of the CIA. The 9/11 Truth Move­ment is not a mem­ber­ship organ­i­sa­tion, nor is it a vast con­spir­a­cy against the state, as some peo­ple seem to be sug­gest­ing. It’s thou­sands upon thou­sands of indi­vid­u­als and small groups who don’t believe in the offi­cial con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry. Of course peo­ple have con­tra­dic­to­ry ideas — espe­cial­ly when red her­rings are thrown in to make the whole thing look ridicu­lous. But who in this whole saga can pos­si­bly look more ridicu­lous than your very own George W Bush?

    • polfilmblog says:

      Chom­sky bla­tant­ly spins 9/11, claim­ing “they” (the Bush regime) blamed 9/11 on their “allies” (the Sau­di regime). This is a false real­i­ty. nnThe Sau­di regime PERPETRATED the crime, and were a par­ty to it. They were not BLAMED by the Bush white house for the crime. That is what is cov­ered up to this day, and what Sen­a­tor Bob Gra­ham has been talk­ing about for 12 years now…nn’s false real­i­ty, imply­ing that the Saud­is were some­how held respon­si­ble for this attack on Amer­i­ca is through the look­ing glass. A sec­ond con­spir­a­cy is clear­ly evi­dent in cov­er­ing up Sau­di cul­pa­bil­i­ty and spon­sor­ship of the Sep­tem­ber 11th attacks. The cov­er up itself is trea­son accord­ing to the Con­sti­tu­tion, “aid and com­fort” to those who wage war on the US. nnnnAll this pass­es by casu­al­ly with the dis­missals of the thought leader Chom­sky, the great mis­leader of the impo­tent left. That Chom­sky would dis­re­gard evi­dence and a long his­to­ry of covert col­lu­sion between US intel­li­gence and these despot­ic regimes, tells us plen­ty about him. Usu­al­ly, Mr. Chom­sky wants to bring out the evi­dence and elu­ci­date on the mean­ing of these con­nec­tions. In the case of 9/11, how­ev­er, it’s the oppo­site. He is okay with the cov­er up, and he does­n’t want to talk about it. nThat is unchar­ac­ter­is­tic of him. He is not a trust­wor­thy source on this issue at all, and he does not want to know.

  • skepticR says:

    I’m a para­medic but my father was a civ­il engi­neer and I grew up around heavy con­struc­tion projects, bridges, locks and dams, sea walls and lev­ees, high rise build­ings, even mis­sile silos, etc… and worked in that field to make mon­ey for col­lege So I have an inti­mate real world knowl­edge of con­struc­tion (includ­ing demo­li­tion). When I first start­ed my under­grad­u­ate stud­ies I was think­ing of fol­low­ing my father into the pro­fes­sion and my stud­ies were heavy on math­e­mat­ics and physics and was at the top of my class so I have some knowl­edge in this area (it was only lat­er I decid­ed to switch to pre-med and fell in love with para­med­i­cine while doing obser­va­tion rides). From a pure­ly engi­neer­ing point of view there is just NO evi­dence 9/11 was an ‘inside job’. My father, who was a con­sult­ing engi­neer on the lev­ees around New Orleans after Kat­ri­na, reviewed the reports of the 9/11 com­mis­sion and we had sev­er­al dis­cus­sions about it before his death. He also thought the ‘truther’ argu­ments were ludi­crous. But I guess engi­neer­ing degrees don’t mat­ter any­more because as Noam Chom­sky said any­body can go on the inter­net today and after an hour think they know as much as some­one who com­plet­ed grad­u­ate lev­el stud­ies and then spent a life­time in the field as a work­ing engi­neer. These peo­ple are delu­sion­al. But if any­one wants to see an actu­al SCIENCE based site that explains why there was no gov­ern­ment con­spir­a­cy and how two planes could bring down not only the tow­ers but the oth­er build­ings as well here’s a link to the best one I know of:

    • Deyan says:

      You know what was awe­some? About a quar­ter way read­ing through your post, before you even declared whether or not 9/11 was or was­n’t an inside job, I could already tell that you weren’t going to be a truther. And you know why? Because you actu­al­ly post­ed your expe­ri­ences, and in a very artic­u­late way. And I con­clude, every­time, that who­ev­er has expe­ri­ence in this sort of thing, always comes out to the good side.

    • PecosinRat says:

      That’s an inter­est­ing sto­ry, skep­ti­cR. How­ev­er, it does­n’t answer any of the ques­tions raised about the col­laps­es of the build­ings at the World Trade Cen­ter. Per­haps there is an expla­na­tion (oth­er than con­trolled demo­li­tion) for how a build­ing col­laps­es at (or very near) free fall speed of accel­er­a­tion into its own foot­prints sym­met­ri­cal­ly. I’d be very inter­est­ed in hear­ing it. There would, of course, be a fol­low up ques­tion, “How did it hap­pen three times on the same day?”

      • skepticR says:

        Uh yes it does. I clear­ly linked to a site that pro­vides detailed sci­en­tif­ic analy­sis of the engi­neer­ing and physics relat­ed to ALL the build­ings that fell on 9/11 INCLUDING build­ing sev­en. But since you are appar­ent­ly unaware of how to access such a link I will post it again. What you do is place the cur­sor (that’s the lit­tle arrow look­ing thingy) on it and press the but­ton. Here it is AGAIN—–>

        • PecosinRat says:

          For­give me, I thought your edu­ca­tion­al back­ground, dis­cus­sions with your father, and youth­ful expo­sure to the con­struc­tion world could allow you to help me under­stand how the top 13% of a build­ing could crush the sup­pos­ed­ly undam­aged 87% below it, a seem­ing vio­la­tion of New­ton’s third law–every action has an equal and oppo­site reac­tion. It seems to me that New­ton would have pre­dict­ed that the most that the top part of the build­ing could destroy is anoth­er 13% as it was destroyed itself. Of course, the videos show the top part of the build­ing dis­in­te­grat­ed very short­ly after the col­lapse began, so it was­n’t even there to do the crush­ing.

          • skepticR says:

            I don’t know where you went to school but it’s obvi­ous they did­n’t cov­er physics very well because you appar­ent­ly don’t under­stand New­ton at all.

          • PecosinRat says:

            Thank you for that appraisal, my teach­ers would prob­a­bly have agreed. I’m open to your expla­na­tion.

          • PecosinRat says:

            Per­haps it’s best to acknowl­edge that this teach­able moment has passed. Thanks for the con­ver­sa­tion.

          • skepticR says:

            It’s only passed because YOU refused it. I offered you a link to a site that gives detailed answers to EVERY ques­tion you asked but you FAILED to take advan­tage of it THREE sep­a­rate times. It is not my job to teach YOU physics espe­cial­ly in the com­ments sec­tion of an arti­cle such as this when all you have to do is sim­ply click a link to an excel­lent sci­ence based and peer reviewed web­site that’s already set up. If you don’t under­stand physics fine but you then have NO busi­ness telling those of us who do what it has to say about any­thing par­tic­u­lar­ly a sub­ject such as this. The answers are there ignor­ing them will NOT make them dis­ap­pear nor will it some­how val­i­date your belief in some non­sen­si­cal con­spir­a­cy fan­ta­sy.

        • dog says:

          All debunk­ing claims have actu­al­ly been debunked already.

  • Andreas Meyer says:

    The offi­cial gov­ern­ment approved nar­ra­tive of events is itself a “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry”: n

  • Ian Fantom says:

    Very dis­ap­point­ed to hear that from Chom­sky. He’s blind­ing us with sci­ence. Why not apply the same sci­ence to the politi­cians who have been advanc­ing the idea that Build­ing 7 fell as a con­se­quence of two air­craft hit­ting the oth­er tow­ers? The point about 9/11 Truth is not what we believe but what we don’t believe. As regard Chom­sky’s own idea that the US gov­ern­ment could not have been involved because they did­n’t use that as an excuse to invade Iraq, then why not put that one up to sci­en­tif­ic scruti­ny? In fact the Neo­cons attempt­ed to do just that, but MI5 advised against it, pre­sum­ably because they would­n’t be able to get that past the Brits. So they attacked Afghanistan instead, and then lat­er divert­ed the mil­i­tary effort onto Iraq, using 9/11 as part of the pre­text. What is Chom­sky’s game?

    • ‘Dis­ap­point­ed’? That’s the prob­lem with Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ries — our desire to believe in them clouds our objec­tiv­i­ty.

      • Ian Fantom says:

        Your desire to believe in them, not mine. Not believ­ing what politi­cians tell us is not a the­o­ry. Chom­sky him­self is well-known for his con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries con­cern­ing the US hege­mo­ny of the world. His insis­tence that the state has no secrets is unsci­en­tif­ic. His recent state­ment is rather like say­ing: “The moon is made of cheese. If you don’t believe me, then write a sci­en­tif­ic paper on it and have it peer reviewed. Oth­er­wise you’re an irra­tional con­spir­a­cy looney”. It’s asym­met­ri­cal log­ic.

        • Deyan says:

          Ter­ri­ble anal­o­gy. We know the moon isn’t made of cheese, and there is actu­al­ly sci­en­tif­ic lit­er­a­ture prov­ing this. The claim “the moon is made of cheese” can there­fore be eas­i­ly dis­proved. The prob­lem is that you’re act­ing like the bur­den of proof is on him, when it’s the 9/11 con­spir­a­cy peo­ple who have the bur­den of proof laid on them. We all know what hap­pened that day, four planes were hijacked and crashed into the land­marks of the US. Any­one who dis­agrees and makes a claim that says oth­er­wise, needs to prove it.

          • Ian Fantom says:

            We all know there was a con­spir­a­cy. The ques­tion is who was behind it. The Bush-Blair claim that Osama bin Laden was behind it needs sci­en­tif­ic proof. The 9/11 Truth Move­ment con­sists of indi­vid­u­als who are ask­ing for that proof and not get­ting it. Chom­sky has turned the bur­den of proof around.

          • Deyan says:

            There is proof. Read all 500 pages of the NIST report. It makes sense. It even goes into detail behind the hijack­ers and their plan­ning, and how they almost got caught. That’s the more inter­est­ing part about 9/11, it’s how these guys planned it out.

          • Ian Fantom says:

            Peer reviewed?! Even the authors them­selves dis­cred­it­ed it. They even avoid­ed men­tion­ing Build­ing 7. See what the var­i­ous experts say at nn n

          • Deyan says:

            Thanks for obscure links which I won’t both­er to check out, since they are swim­ming in an aura of bias.

          • polfilmblog says:

            Nist’s “500 pages” (is this proof by page count?) are more note­wor­thy for what they leave out. The reports have been crit­i­cized at length for their unsci­en­tif­ic leaps of log­ic, a prod­uct of a gov­ern­ment guid­ed “study” rigged to come to the pre­or­dained con­clu­sion.

          • Deyan says:

            “more note­wor­thy for what they leave out.… unsci­en­tif­ic leaps of logic“nnCan you cite an exam­ple specif­i­cal­ly from the NIST report?

          • polfilmblog says:

            Talk to the Archi­tects and Engi­neers for 9/11 Truth. nn

          • Deyan says:

            Fan­tas­tic. Anoth­er exam­ple of how when I ask a truther a sim­ple ques­tion, they want me to do their home­work for them.

          • polfilmblog says:

            I think you have it quite back­wards, son. I’m not doing your home­work for you. I actu­al­ly have a life. If you can read, you may be able to fig­ure out a few things. If not, then oh well. Either way, it’s of no con­cern to me.

          • skepticR says:

            That’s it? Your “author­i­ty” is a tiny fringe group made up most­ly of peo­ple who have worked in chem­i­cal or elec­tri­cal engi­neer­ing but who have ZERO expe­ri­ence in CIVIL or STRUCTURAL engi­neer­ing? You do real­ize the dif­fer­ence don’t you? And you do real­ize this group has been THOROUGHLY dis­cred­it­ed by EXPERTS in the RELEVANT fields do you not? If you tru­ly insist on try­ing to foist this canard on peo­ple who actu­al­ly under­stand con­struc­tion you are aware they will only laugh at you right?

          • polfilmblog says:

            Pak­istan and Sau­di Ara­bia, notably, have cre­at­ed, aid­ed and abet­ted the Al Qae­da move­ment for a cou­ple of decades. These are allies of the US play­ing both sides. Peo­ple at the top of the US chain of com­mand know this quite well and use the Al Qae­da brigades in covert wars, chuck­ling glee­ful­ly as they blow up Rus­sians in Afghanistan and Chech­nya, destroy Yugoslavia Libya and now Syria.nnnOsama bin Laden may have some con­nec­tion to the attacks (nev­er shown), but that in no way exon­er­ates the Sau­di gov­ern­ment nor the Pak­istani intel­li­gence, nor our own dark forces who exist in the bow­els of CIA and block warn­ings from reach­ing FBI agents even when the ter­ror­ists are known to have US mul­ti-entry pass­ports and are known to be here on US soil.nnThe 9/11 attacks stink to high heav­ens, and only a dis­hon­est pro­pa­gan­dist would ignore the mas­sive cov­er up and known warn­ings and irreg­u­lar­i­ties sur­round­ing this event.

          • Ian Fantom says:

            Indeed. But it would have been far more dif­fi­cult for Osama bin Laden to keep such an oper­a­tion qui­et than for the CIA. Fur­ther­more, the CIA has a long his­to­ry of such attacks on a less­er scale. Look up NATO’s Oper­a­tion Glad­io — in par­tic­u­lar the BBC’s Time­watch series in 1992, and books by Daniele Ganser and Richard Cot­trell. It looks as if Glad­io has spread to the Mid­dle East.nnnI’m just doing a write-up on Chom­sky for my newslet­ter. Send me an email: first name (at) sec­ond name (dot) co (dot) uk.

          • polfilmblog says:

            I don’t think it was “kept qui­et” as we talk about it exten­sive­ly today, and Bob Gra­ham talks about the “sup­port net­work” of Sau­di gov­ern­ment offi­cials. This is where the evi­dence leads. nn

  • Curt Freeman says:

    I nev­er dreamed that Noam Chom­sky would let me down inso­far as his state­ments being, in this case, sopho­moric. I sub­mit this opin­ion humbly. Case in point: NC “has no opin­ion”, yet he goes on to express his opin­ion, and mean­while man­ages to insin­u­ate that the main­stream media have indeed cov­ered 9/11 with jour­nal­is­tic integri­ty. He also quite offhand­ed­ly not only insin­u­ates but says out­right in so many words that peo­ple who dis­agree with the NIST report are “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists”, and that those with­in Archi­tects & Engi­neers For 9/11 Truth” aren’t QUALIFIED to speak to the mat­ter! Are you kid­ding? These men and women have so much to lose pro­fes­sion­al­ly, and are only ask­ing for a new inves­ti­ga­tion. I’ve always con­sid­ered Chom­sky to be among the most artic­u­late, eru­dite per­sons of our times…in this case, one can only assume that he was hav­ing an off night.

    • Deyan says:

      You do real­ize that the thou­sands of mem­bers of Archi­tects & Engi­neers For 9/11 Truth aren’t actu­al civ­il engi­neers? Many of them are stu­dents and pret­ty much have noth­ing to do with civ­il engi­neer­ing. I mean, how easy is it to join this group with­out any kind of cre­den­tials? I see water tech­ni­cians and land­scape archi­tects sign­ing up for that group, both are fields that have noth­ing to do with con­struc­tion of a high-rise build­ing.

      • Curt Freeman says:

        I real­ize that indeed, Deyan, if you’re includ­ing peo­ple who’ve Liked the Face­book Page as “Mem­bers”. I was speak­ing to Chom­sky’s com­ments direct­ly, and frankly my per­son­al dis­ap­point­ment in them. But to speak to your com­ment, in the Film “Explo­sive Evi­dence: The Experts Speak Out” (pro­duced by A&E For 9/11 Truth”, those per­sons who are rec­og­nized as experts in the field, in near­ly every case, actu­al­ly artic­u­late their pro­fes­sion­al cre­den­tials as well as their expe­ri­ence in Civ­il Engi­neer­ing et al. Your argu­ment that per­sons out­side the engi­neer­ing field agree with the high­ly qual­i­fied experts with­in in it is weak at best. There are those turd­si­cles who have exploit­ed the event for rea­sons both lurid and morbid—even commercial—but if you’ll watch the film, you’ll see peo­ple who have a qual­i­fied opin­ion, and a hell of a lot to lose by stat­ing it.

  • Gnome says:

    Every­thing Chom­sky is say­ing about Archi­tects and Engi­neers, you could say about the govt. sto­ry as well. No ana­lyst from the Govt. ever pub­lished their find­ings about 9/11 in a sci­en­tif­ic jour­nal so oth­er sci­en­tists could eval­u­ate it. No! It was fast, fast, fast. They had their con­clu­sions by the end of the day on 9/11. And there’s been no turn­ing back. George Bush even said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the ter­ror­ists.” Very sci­en­tif­ic!

    Did this guy’s the­o­ry ever get any sci­en­tif­ic review?

  • Seth Stauffer says:

    The point Chom­sky is mak­ing is that the con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists are mak­ing rhetor­i­cal argu­ments, rather than offer­ing up their evi­dence to the wider academic/scientific to devel­op cred­i­bil­i­ty for their argu­ments.

  • Gnome says:

    The point you should take away from this is that sci­ence is use­less against pol­i­tics. Sci­ence is too slow and delib­er­ate. Pol­i­tics isn’t under the same con­straints. It can run on pure emo­tion. That’s why govt. can offer expla­na­tions like, “They hate us for our free­dom!” (Hon­est­ly, do we need to have some­one pub­lish a paper chal­leng­ing this view in a peer-reviewed soci­ol­o­gy jour­nal? Or can we all just agree that it’s bull?)nnThe hor­ror is that pol­i­tics is in charge of the war machine. So the emo­tion­al per­spec­tive that politi­cians play toward isn’t just aca­d­e­m­i­cal­ly frustrating…it jus­ti­fies war and destruc­tion. Basi­cal­ly, sci­ence is too slow and ill-equipped to debunk the non­sense fast enough to pre­vent any­thing at all. Quit turn­ing to it to solve these issues.

  • polfilmblog says:

    Chom­sky knows zero about 9/11 and has point­ed­ly refused to look at evi­dence since that day. If you want to know what some­one who has seen the intel­li­gence and knows what they’re talk­ing about, read Sen­a­tor Bob Gra­ham’s call to “Reopen the 9/11 Inves­ti­ga­tion Imme­di­ate­ly,” exact­ly what he’s been say­ing for 12 years:nn Chom­sky is a mis­leader who argues in gen­er­al­i­ties. He does­n’t actu­al­ly know any­thing spe­cif­ic about the issue, nor does he want to. His argu­ments are base­less in the face of actu­al evi­dence (such as Sen­a­tor Gra­ham’s and 2000 Archi­tects and Engi­neers).

      • polfilmblog says:

        Non-sequiturs are indeed “BS.” Your cher­ry pick­ing web­site says noth­ing what­so­ev­er about the Saud­is aid­ing the hijack­ers. Noth­ing about Omar Bay­ou­mi, the Flori­da cell, the FBI intel­li­gence and the cov­er up that con­tin­ues to this day. If you had integri­ty you’d acknowl­edge the cov­er up, the stuff they refuse to show. That would be hon­est step one, the start­ing square.

        • skepticR says:

          You are a fuck­ing idiot! Do you also believe in the Illu­mi­nat­ti?

          • polfilmblog says:

            Are there mod­er­a­tors here, or does any­thing go? nnSkep­ti­cR, I don’t feel the need to respond to morons of your cal­iber. You can’t dis­prove a sin­gle point I’ve made, and you nev­er will.

          • polfilmblog says:

            Are there mod­er­a­tors here, or does any­thing go? nnSkep­ti­cR, I don’t feel the need to respond to morons of your cal­iber. You can’t dis­prove a sin­gle point I’ve made, and you nev­er will.

          • skepticR says:

            Yep you’re an idiot

          • polfilmblog says:

            Let’s basknin the genius of “Skep­ti­cR” who man­aged to turn on a com­put­er and­npost a hyper­link to a web­site with­out regard for spe­cif­ic ques­tions addressed.nHis bril­liance assumes that all ques­tions are answered by ref­er­enc­ing anweb­site, although he fails to under­stand what the spe­cif­ic points even­nad­dress. His reliance on ad hominemnin­sults like “idiot” require as lit­tle thought and log­i­cal­ncon­sis­ten­cy, but since he placed the word “skep­tic” in his cow­ard­ly­nanony­mous screen­name, we should assume him to be skep­ti­cal, whether or not henevinces any cur­so­ry under­stand­ing of the word.nn nnOth­ernskep­tics may remain skep­ti­cal of a gov­ern­ment shown cov­er­ing up mas­sive amountsnof rel­e­vant intel­li­gence and bas­ing their reports of the 9/11 attacks on then­tor­tured tes­ti­mo­ny of pris­on­ers beyond the reach of inves­ti­ga­tors. Peo­ple might remain skep­ti­cal of a report­nthat a promi­nent Sen­a­tor, Max Cle­land, resigned from while cit­ing the War­ren­nCom­mis­sion as its mod­el. Said Cleland:n“Iu2019m not going to be part of look­ing at infor­ma­tion only par­tial­ly. Iu2019mnnot going to be part of just com­ing to quick con­clu­sions. Iu2019m not going to ben­part of polit­i­cal pres­sure to do this or not do that.“nn nnOth­ernskep­tics note that Kean and Hamil­ton both agreed that the Com­mis­sion itself wasn“set up to fail,” by those types of “polit­i­cal pressures“nreferenced by Cle­land. Staffers weren­fired by Bush crony Phillip Zelikow, who pulled the strings behind the scenes,nfor the crime of get­ting a copy of those 28 redact­ed pages, which Sen­a­torn­Gra­ham co-wrote and talk about Sau­di state links to the hijackers.nn nnSkepticR,nhowever, knows how to post an irrel­e­vant hyper­link, being a supe­ri­or thinkern­who requires no evi­dence of his log­ic skills, which sure­ly must exist,nevidenced by his blind arro­gant cock­i­ness. nFor blind, arro­gant cock­i­ness is a sure sign of truth and under­stand­ingnin today’s world. Ask Bill O’Reil­ly ornSean Han­ni­ty, Rush or Glenn. Some­daynSkep­ti­cR might even post some­thing sort of rel­e­vant. We can but wait for those glo­ri­ous neu­rons ofn­his to spark.

  • polfilmblog says:

    Chom­sky the Liar:nn

    • Edward Caldwell says:

      There are a lot of peo­ple that think Chom­sky walks on water or a sil­ver cloud. They don’t know how much they can be duped by this type of chameleon. They like to let an “expert” think for them.

  • Edward Caldwell says:

    “Unless they are total lunatics…”, well yes Noam, they are. They are called psy­chopaths.

  • Dr A R Bordon says:

    In the black ops world — all well known that Cheney over­saw the oper­a­tion. Now watch and lis­ten to this man who I worked with close­ly at Pine Gap sta­tion down under

  • Science Guy says:

    Chomsky’s not school­ing any­one. Pub­lished April, 2009, in The Open Chem­i­cal Physics Jour­nal:

  • Emile says:

    So.… how do we know Chom­sky is lying?

  • Dedonarrival says:

    Con­sid­er the motive of the per­pe­tra­tors of 911 what­ev­er, it would inevitably result in world­wide sym­pa­thy for Amer­i­ca not some­thing they would want.
    After all that plan­ning, expense, incred­i­ble luck, mar­tyred heroes, and the exe­cu­tion of the most dynam­ic ter­ror­ist attack in the his­to­ry of the world you would expect the author of such a stu­pen­dous project to shrug off his mod­esty put his hands up and get into the his­to­ry books. The man accused insists he did not do it and the FBI most want­ed site agrees with him.
    Note Hitler is still the dar­ling of the Dis­cov­ery Chan­nel, not a men­tion about 911, Where are the books and doc­u­men­taries describ­ing in detail how the perps did it Do you know WTC7 has been rebuilt?
    When ole Chom­sky ( who is we may sus­pect under some threat) states essen­tial­ly that we should not ques­tion author­i­ty on this 911 occa­sion then we have to remem­ber that he, as a lin­guist, has been ques­tion­ing west­ern for­eign pol­i­cy for decades and inspir­ing many to do the same yet I sus­pect he does not hold the nec­es­sary piece of paper for him to unques­tion­ing­ly do this.
    The core of this vile con­spir­a­cy is the con­trolled media “serv­ing” a semi- illit­er­ate soci­ety. And the last book you read was? do you qual­i­fy as one of the3% book read­ing Amer­i­can pub­lic?

  • psikeyhackr says:

    The 9/11 Affair has pre­sent­ed this soci­ety with a seri­ous prob­lem of cred­i­bil­i­ty and integri­ty. Chom­sky tries to tell us what the prop­er sci­en­tif­ic method­ol­o­gy for this prob­lem is. So there is a HUGE Cul­tur­al prob­lem if he is wrong.

    Inter­est­ing­ly the Twin Tow­ers were among the first build­ings designed with the help of a com­put­er, an IBM 1620. But now com­put­ers can sup­pos­ed­ly sim­u­late the Earth­’s cli­mate 100 years in the future. So why can’t they sim­u­late the col­lapse of the north tow­er? But how can that be done with­out know­ing the dis­tri­b­u­tions of steel and con­crete down the tow­ers. Te 10,000 page NIST report does not even spec­i­fy the total amount of con­crete.

    Anoth­er fun­ny thing is that Retard Gage and his cronies do not bring up that issue either. It seems we have an infi­nite debate that is not real­ly try­ing to solve the prob­lem, but bore every­one into for­get­ting the issue. When does any­one talk about the cen­ter of mass of the tilt­ed top por­tion of the south tow­er? Is that too “sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly” com­pli­cat­ed for Chom­sky to won­der about?

    The nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell every­one the tons of steel and tons of con­crete on every lev­el of build­ings designed before the Moon land­ing.

    Very “Sci­en­tif­ic”!

  • Bob Hannan says:


    I can’t wrap my head around those who either refuse to view the vid of WTC7
    free-falling or see it and stil don’t get it.
    sim­ple physics.

  • Eddie k says:

    Jet fuel can not melt
    Steel you can see it pour­ing out the build­ing if you can explain what coused that effect i,ll eat my hat

  • Francis Battaglia says:

    Three build­ings sud­den­ly col­lapsed com­plete­ly, all under 12 sec­onds, through the path of great­est resis­tance, after get­ting hit by two planes. The videos are com­pelling.

    Short videos of the build­ing col­laps­es:

    The offi­cial­ly expla­na­tion (NIST) decribes the Twin Tow­ers col­laps­ing at “essen­tial­ly free fall”, and Build­ing 7 at free fall for over 100 feet. Chom­sky and every­one knows high school physics. Steel-framed build­ings do not sud­den­ly col­lapse in freefall with­out all resis­tance being removed (except the resis­tance of air itself) with explo­sives.

    The TSA will check your fam­i­ly’s under­wear for explo­sives at the air­port, but still won’t both­er to test for explo­sives in the WTC dust. The USGS and oth­er inde­pen­dent groups all found evi­dence of ther­mite in the dust, and even pub­lished one of those peer-reviewed arti­cles Chom­sky sup­port­ed.

  • Johannes says:

    From “Debunk­ing 9/11 dot com”

    Struc­ture Mag­a­zine explains one prob­a­ble cause of the WTC 7 col­lapse. “Sin­gle Point of Fail­ure: How the Loss of One Col­umn May Have Led to the Col­lapse of WTC 7”

    “Prob­a­ble Cause” — In whose opin­ion , the gov­ern­ment ?

    “May have led to” — May It ? — Not very sci­en­tif­ic , if I may say so.

  • Mike says:

    What kills me is you men­tion a few fringe the­o­ries that pos­si­bly could have been a miss­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign by the gov­ern­ment to smear con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists or they could have be some rad­i­cal con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists on the inter­net so with 9/11 is just like racism you stereo type the worst of the race and com­plete­ly ignore the over­whelm­ing sol­id and con­crete hard facts that have been claimed to be dis­proved but haven’t til this day. Chom­sky knows it appar­ent­ly from some of his email exchanges which he is inter­est­ed in the con­spir­a­cy just not in pub­lic just to save face. Lets get some­thing straight you can call a per­son what­ev­er name you want but you are not going to change the law of grav­i­ty and physics.

  • Chloe7 says:

    Well, who knows! From all the shenani­gans in high places, how can we be sure they did­n’t “get” to him. When your fam­i­ly etc are threat­ened, what are you to do. So soft­en the speach to go either way.

  • Curt says:

    One of only a few times I’d dare to ques­tion Chom­sky, let alone con­tra­dict him. I’m think­ing he was just hav­ing an off day. His argu­ment is facile, and beneath him.

  • Alex Bunardzic says:

    I’m very dis­ap­point­ed by sheer, almost absolute lev­el of dog­ma­tism exhib­it­ed by Chom­sky in the above video clip. As any dog­mat­ics since the begin­ning of time, Chom­sky keeps insist­ing on the cut-and-dry method­ol­o­gy, rit­u­al and cer­e­mo­ny regard­ing how are things done the ‘prop­er’ way. Dis­re­gard­ing any empir­i­cal evi­dence, he is stick­ing out his scholas­tic, rigid way of approach­ing any prob­lem, and is telling every­one else in the world to mere­ly ‘talk to the hand’. Despi­ca­ble and idi­ot­ic stance, some­thing he should be ashamed of.

  • Joe Giambrone says:

    Noam Chom­sky does­n’t “SCHOOL” any­one. Those who clapped at his bla­tant spec­u­la­tion and log­i­cal fal­lac­i­es, non-sequiturs, need to go back to school.

    Chom­sky mis­leads you peo­ple who are too lazy to do actu­al research. He is lying.

    Noam Chom­sky and The War on Straight Answers

  • Killuminati says:

    skep­ti­cR Youz one son of a bitch! Trolling, spread­ing mis­in­for­ma­tion, you’re clear­ly on a pay­roll, spew­ing arro­gance, pre­tend­ing as if you invent­ed physics… Do tell me in your own words, how New­ton’s 3rd law was vio­lat­ed by the col­lapse, with­out send­ing me to a gov­ern­men­tal link. Bend over and let uncle sam put it in! Punk ass bitch!

  • Ironman says:

    None of the three WTC build­ings fell at free fall speed.
    WTCs 1&2 are shown clear­ly with debris and dust falling out and down falling faster than the upper sec­tion of the build­ing. Large sec­tions of the exte­ri­or wall are seen falling past the main sec­tion and hit­ting the ground in free fall.
    Like all unin­formed con­spir­a­cy pro­po­nents with almost no under­stand­ing, they grab onto terms, like; inside job, free-fall, con­trolled-demo­li­tion, nano-ther­mite, and dozens more.
    If WTC1 could fall, so could WTC 2. WTC2 struck low­er, with more weight above the dam­aged sec­tion failed soon­er.
    skep­ti­cR is cor­rect, you under­stand noth­ing about ohysics or New­ton’s laws.
    The,upper 13% as you state did not crush the bot­tom 87%. It caused one or sev­er­al dam­aged floors of the build­ing to fail, NON­sy­met­ri­cal­ly, which fell on the next floor caus­ing it to fail. That caused the next floor to fail, which caused the next floor to fail.
    Your abject igno­rance pur­ports that 13% of the build­ing, mil­lions of lbs, should only fall through the next 13% of the build­ing, and sud­den­ly stop.
    Now that would defy,physics. Engi­neers have said, the upper sec­tion would need fall only 20 inch­es to cre­ate enough ener­gy to cause the floors below to fail.
    Each floor was just over 12 feet high.

  • Bryan Lynch says:

    the debunk­ing 911 site is not as sci­en­tif­ic as would have us believe skep­ti­cR. If any­thing, it’s as weak as the so-called con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries.

    skep­ti­cR you have NO busi­ness telling ANYBODY what they can and can’t say, no mat­ter how ridicu­lous you think it may be.

    That is called cen­sor­ship — what hap­pened to one’s free­dom of speech?

    P.S. cap­i­tal­is­ing is very rude :)

  • Ken Cabeen says:

    You don’t need to go off and study for years. You need your own eyes, crit­i­cal think­ing, and a basic lev­el under­stand­ing of first semes­ter physics to know there’s no way, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the case of WTC 7, those build­ings came down sym­met­i­cal­ly at or very near the accel­er­a­tion of grav­i­ty with­out the resis­tance under­neath being removed by explo­sives. And then of course, there’s that pesky 2009 paper by Har­rit et al that shows unre­act­ed nan­oth­er­mite in the WTC dust. Please, stop being flat-earth­ers, you grav­i­ty-dri­ven, pro­gres­sive col­lapse pro­po­nents.

  • Ken Cabeen says:

    Please see “The Physics of 9/11” by David Chan­der, on YouTube. WTC fell at 9.8m/sec^2 for near­ly 2.5 sec­onds in clas­sic, con­trolled demo­li­tion fash­ion. He even turns the two NIST sci­en­tists at a pub­lic brief­ing into stut­ter­ing chimps before they are forced to admit this. The only pos­si­ble expla­na­tion for this is the com­plete, sym­met­ri­cal, per­fect­ly timed, and com­plete removal of the sup­port­ing columns, by explo­sives, beneath the mea­sured roof line. It’s just impos­si­ble for the fail­ure of col­umn 79 to have ini­ti­at­ed this. Wake up, peo­ple. Chom­sky is a 9/11 Gate­keep­er, which is so iron­ic, since that event served as the pre­text for the wars that he and oth­er Gate­keep­ers of the left rail against.

  • Btc says:

    All I know is that this men­tal giant, whom you all wor­ship, vot­ed for Hillary Clinton.…So he can’t be that f#*king bright!

  • Zeppelin says: Oops…Looks like Norm is a lot smarter than he is hon­est!

  • Giancana says:

    The fact that after 16 years, this “debate” car­ries on is a tes­ta­ment to the emo­tion­al­ly infan­tile nature of many Amer­i­cans, who despite the obvi­ous con­tin­ue to stand by what is arguably the most evil, cor­rupt and ruth­less empire to ever exist.

    Who­ev­er woke up on Sep­tem­ber 12, 2001 still believ­ing that some guy on a dial­y­sis machine in a cave thou­sands of miles away orches­trat­ed this trans­par­ent, yet unprece­dent­ed geo-polit­i­cal ploy is noth­ing but a mind­less cheer­leader for a real­i­ty, which bare­ly touch­es beyond a life of work­ing to make mort­gages pay­ments, have Sun­day bar­be­cues and buy foot­ball jer­seys.

    Noam, for his part, is a pseu­do-intel­lec­tu­al who is too com­pro­mised to ven­ture any­where near what real­ly hap­pened on that day.

  • JSerin says:

    Please see the debate between Chom­sky and Michele Fou­cault. It should be obvi­ous who the intel­lec­tu­al was, Fou­cault.

    Any­ways, 15 years lat­er and still no answer for

    1. Top lighter (even with plane) 1/3 destroys more mas­sive and undam­aged 2/3 with no mea­sur­able dec­la­ra­tion of the roof line (i.e. it’s kenetc ener­gy nev­er mate­ri­al­ized into work done-as in destroy­ing what was below)

    2. Video of and wit­ness­es of molten steel pour­ing out the side of 1 and 2. Also, last fire at ground zero put out on 3/2002. (And no, it was no molten alu­minum or organ­ics melt­ed with alu­minum, see actu­al exper­i­ments)

    3. Video of and wit­ness­es describ­ing explo­sions. A cou­ple even seen explo­sions in WTC 7 (Bar­ry Jen­nings)

    4. 41 % of vic­tims still uniden­ti­fied. Google it, it was cov­ered by CNN, new york times, etc. Not even a frag­ment large enough to extract DNA from has been found for the 41%. In one case, 200 fra­gents found for a sin­gle vic­tim. Grav­i­ta­tion­al col­lapse sure does not explain this.

    5. PEER-REVIEWED (duh chom­sky, you idiot) jour­nals have been writ­ten over the un-ignight­ed nano-ter­mite chips along with iron rich spheres. Jones, Hewitt

    6. Are you freak­ing kid­ding me, WTC 7, a build­ing that would be tallest in 32 states, fell at free fall for over 100 feet, 6.7 sec­onds total, into its own foot print even though no plane hit it, and no fire has ever col­lapsed a build­ing. If you watch the video, and you do not start hav­ing ques­tions, well then, there is no help for you. Poor soul you.

  • DrRiz says:

    Did you see how Gren­fell Tow­er in Lon­don fell at near free fall speed after the infer­no that engulfed near­ly the whole build­ing and raged for hours??

    No — nei­ther did I.

    And fires that are pathet­i­cal­ly small­er than the fire in Gren­fell caused WTC 7 to col­lapse!? Give me a break!

    Debunkers present no “facts”. They believe the stu­pid­est con­spir­a­cy of all — the one about 19 Arab “expert” pilots hijack­ing 4 flights under the USA “bogie man” on dial­y­sis in a cave!

    Don’t waste your time argu­ing with CIA stooges.

    911 = Neo-con Pearl Har­bour

    Strange how the USA keep attack­ing all the coun­tries who refuse to sup­port the petrodol­lar and who reject cen­tral bank­ing.

    Open your eyes — read some­thing oth­er than main stream pro­pa­gan­da.

    USA looks a lot like North Korea to me … CIA con­trolled media or what!?

    Speak­ing of North Korea — guess which 3 coun­tries still don’t a have Ros­thchild con­trolled cen­tral bank? Cuba, North Korea and Iran .…. That list used to include Afghanistan and Iraq — Go fig­ure it out for your­selves.

  • Mein Sohn says:

    Leslie Roberton,Chief Struc­tur­al Engi­neer on the twin tow­ers said in lec­ture at Stan­ford in 2002 that he saw molten steel. Lat­er ‚in a record­ed tele­phone con­ver­sa­tion, he denied it.

    911 was a false flag , with­out a doubt

  • Jerry says:

    George Bushs famous idiot speech stand­ing on the rub­ble “and the peo­ple who knocked down these build­ings will hear from us soon. They may have known they had zero proof iraq was involved. Truthers know they had no proof oh wise speak­er on video. Still they got Amer­i­cans fired up for war due to 9/11 because 0% of cit­i­zens gave a shit bout weapons of mass destruc­tion and thought we were going because of 9.11 so your reply was idi­ot­ic.

    The fact the speak­er would not take any more ques­tions on 9/11 spoke vol­umes because he knew the Bush/Cheney ridicu­lous sto­ry was fix­ing to resem­ble swiss cheese and be blitzed with so many facts that the gov­ern­ments bull­shit could not deny a sin­gle one of them.

    The deep deep cov­er up beat goes on. Bush. Cheney, CIA and Israel. Bin­go that is who is respon­si­ble for 9/11 and the entire sto­ry can be found on the inter­net all tied in a bow. I defy any­one to watch that truth and then com­pare it with uncle sams sto­ry of 19 terrorists(8 of who have been proven still alive) with box cut­ters, mag­ic planes fly­ing 200 mph faster than sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble, steel struc­ture build­ings com­ing down in 1 hour when oth­er steel framed build­ings have burned 24 hours and not 1 in his­to­ry has ever come down. Yeah, com­pare an intel­li­gent truth sto­ry and sick as it may make you about our gov­ern­ment, com­pare it to the bozo sto­ry aka uncle sams pack of lies that moron­ic as they are seems more like they made it stu­pid as pos­si­ble to prove the sheep will believe.

    Truth, if you do not 100% real­ize Bush Cheney and many oth­ers pulled this off, the only expla­na­tion is you are either an idiot of huge pro­por­tions, too chick­en shit to look at the truth, or you sim­ply do not care enough about your coun­try to tear your­self away from your video game, joint or meth pipe.

    By the time you see the truth, lets pray you are not in a wal mart deten­tion cen­ter. Wake up you fuck­ing morons!!! Gov­ern­ment has to be think­ing fuck this is too easy…

    God bless my Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca. Where the fuck did it go? Giv­en away by a gen­er­a­tion of com­plete and total pussies.

  • Frederick Smith says:

    Jer­ry, your own words allow the rest of us to know one thing: you aren’t an expert, nor do you have any facts at your dis­pos­al and you are act­ing out of pure emo­tion. You are enti­tled to believe what you want, but your arro­gance is aston­ish­ing.

  • Paul says:

    Ok then, tell us why oth­er equal­ly (maybe more so) qual­i­fied experts as your father, dis­agree with the offi­cial nar­ra­tive regard­ing the build­ings that fell that day ?
    Why should we believe experts that pos­si­bly have hid­den agen­das, but dis­miss oth­ers experts that clear­ly don’t ?
    Why did NIST dis­miss the numer­ous wit­ness­es that heard mas­sive explo­sions before tow­ers fell ? Wit­ness­es that spoke of the result of these explo­sions before the tow­ers fell ? The molten steel seen flow­ing by fire­fight­ers months after the event.
    Not to men­tion why the gov­ern­ment in the inter­est of putting this thing to bed, if at least for the peace of mind of the vic­tims fam­i­lies, not released ANY CONCLUSIVE FOOTAGE OF A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON ????
    NIST basi­cal­ly has said “we don’t know what hap­pened”
    CHOMSKY is a shill, reveal­ing some hid­den truths but not the
    truths need­ed to have a real impact on the world.

  • Paul says:

    Fred­dy Smith (yeah sure)
    1) No pen­ta­gon footage of plane
    2) expert pilots agree manoeu­vre pilot pulled off before hit­ting pen­ta­gon was vir­tu­al­ly impos­si­ble
    3) Plane looped around and hit part of pen­ta­gon that was being ren­o­vat­ed
    4) Vir­tu­al­ly all of the plane and those onboard dis­in­te­grat­ed
    5) shanksvilke crash site, again no evi­dence of a plane or peo­ple ( besides appar­ent bones frag­ments)

    6) WTC 1 and WTC 2 both col­lapsed, NIST have dis­agreed with all the­o­ries put to them try­ing to explain their col­lapse, con­clud­ing they don’t know what hap­pened.

    7) Only thing NIST didn’t test for, was evi­dence of a demo­li­tion
    8) Numer­ous wit­ness­es can be seen telling cam­era oper­a­tors of explo­sions before the col­lapse, telling of peo­ple dying and injured as a result, explo­sions in ele­va­tor shafts, stair­wells etc.
    8) The facts you say are absent from Jerry’s post, like thou­sands of struc­tur­al engi­neers, archi­tects, physi­cists, all stat­ing that the evi­dence is over­whelm­ing of a con­trolled demo­li­tion.
    9) Chom­sky is sim­ply wrong, how does he expect any Uni­ver­si­ty or sci­en­tif­ic jour­nal to prove NIST wrong ?
    University’s and jour­nals aren’t inde­pen­dent, they know bet­ter to be involved in the truth, it dan­ger­ous to be right, when the gov­ern­ment is wrong.
    Smith, you either get your infor­ma­tion from the MSM only, and you refuse to look into any­thing your­self because you can’t stand the thought of pos­si­bly being fooled, or you have ulte­ri­or motives.
    It irrel­e­vant real­ly, because real crit­i­cal thinkers look at your post and see the total lack of infor­ma­tion sup­port­ing the offi­cial nar­ra­tive.
    All the anom­alies attrib­uted to 9/11 aren’t all coin­ci­den­tal.
    I weep for the mass epi­dem­ic engulf­ing human­i­ty, numb­ing stu­pid­i­ty.

  • Colin Doran says:

    The only time I’ve seen Noam Chom­sky talk about 9/11 is when peo­ple in the 9/11 truth move­ment ask him what he thinks about 9/11. And he tells them what he thinks. And then they post , and share and link to the video of Noam Chom­sky and they say ‘Look Noam Chom­sky is a ‘gate­keep­er’ , he is try­ing to cov­er up the truth! Watch the video of Noam Chom­sky try­ing to dis­suade the 9/11 truth seek­ers’.
    This is like putting a gate in the mid­dle of a field, get­ting some­one to stand beside the gate and as all the peo­ple just walk freely past the gate they point to him and call him a gate­keep­er who is try­ing to stop them from cross­ing the field.
    I weep for the mass epi­dem­ic engulf­ing human­i­ty, numb­ing stu­pid­i­ty.

  • Anson Chillicothe says:

    This top­ic per­fect­ly illu­mi­nates a few things about humans and their soci­eties that many of us do not real­ize, or are too afraid to real­ize.

    Humans have been selec­tive­ly bred and con­di­tioned for obe­di­ence to author­i­ty for the last 10,000 years. Stan­ley Mil­gram made this per­fect­ly clear when he showed us some of the dan­gers this fact presents for our world. Cou­ple Mil­grams find­ings with those of Solomon Asch’s con­for­mi­ty exper­i­ments and it starts becom­ing clear why a large part of the pop­u­la­tion will nev­er be able to ques­tion the offi­cial ortho­doxy regard­ing this “New Pearl Har­bor”. These peo­ple sim­ply do not have the men­tal abil­i­ty to ques­tion those in a per­ceived posi­tion of author­i­ty. These peo­ple are used to fol­low­ing orders. They are not thinkers.

    We all know Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001, was an inside/outside job. Cui bono? The axis of kind­ness. The U.S./Nato, Sau­di Ara­bia and Israel com­mit­ted 911 so they could esca­late their wars in the mid­dle east to redraw the map for greater Israel while secur­ing the oil in the mid­dle east and the min­er­als in Afghanistan. The mil­i­tary indus­tri­al com­plex needs end­less wars to jus­ti­fy their one tril­lion dol­lar per year bud­get and all the pow­er that comes with it.

    The same peo­ple who prof­it­ed from the event are the same peo­ple who orches­trat­ed and exe­cut­ed the event. They are also the peo­ple who had the tools to make it hap­pen. For­tu­nate­ly for them they are above the law and will nev­er be held account­able.

    So buy police bru­tal­i­ty bonds and pay your vic­to­ry tax.
    And have lots of babies… Your work will set you free.

  • Faggonzo says:

    You are prac­ti­cal­ly retard­ed

  • awake says:

    people,people…people .lets just take the words of any great song .i will use one from the leg­endry the CURE.THE INNOCENCE OF SLEEPING CHILDREN.…..Stop fight­ing each oth­er .A peo­ple divid­ed is peo­ple to fall.Let the chil­dren sleep Us awake elders can car­ry the truth with­out falling over. Lets be empa­thet­ic par­ents and pro­tect our kids

  • awake says:

    and yes our retard­ed chil­dren to .stop judg­ing our chil­dren .you must get there ‚and you will ‚if you are aspir­ing to be a car­ing ‚loy­al ‚lov­ing human. phew.……

  • awake says:

    wes there this much bul­ly­ing in the school play­grounds of the past ?. NO ‚it was there but in my day peo­ple still had their giv­en right to be kind. its not a que­tion of the right to be neg­a­tive… its about the ral right not to be. Stay pos­i­tive my sons and daugh­ters . Dad

  • awake says:

    sor­ry for the spelling , as an artist i care for flow not cor­rect­ness .sure the point is giv­en .

  • Nephre says:

    It makes sense that Noam Chom­sky would “school a truther on the ‘sci­ence’ of mak­ing sci­en­tif­ic claims.” Look up the word: “casu­istry” — this is Chom­sky’s “art” — the art of lying with con­vinc­ing sound­ing rhetoric. It’s not that Chom­sky’s thoughts on pol­i­tics are wrong. I’ve read all his polit­i­cal books (none of his lin­guis­tics). It’s that he turned off his “sci­ence” when 911 occurred, pret­ty much brand­ing him­self as a shill for the elites. The sci­ence of 911 is not even remote­ly in ques­tion. The build­ings fell into their won foot­prints- WTCs 1 and 2, with­in 15 sec­onds and WTC 7 with­in 7 sec­onds. This means, with­out any fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion that they build­ings were dropped by con­trolled demo­li­tion. All the oth­er ques­tions pro­ceed from there: 1. How is that pos­si­ble? 2. Who had the means to do that? 3. Why was all the evi­dence tak­en away before suf­fi­cient inves­ti­ga­tion took place? … and so on. There is no ques­tion at all that air­planes could cause those spec­tac­u­lar vapor­iz­ings of steel. On that front, the sci­ence is also clear. Chomk­sky, being a smart man, knows this and his only answer to the peo­ple who’ve risked lives and rep­u­ta­tions in expos­ing these obvi­ous sci­en­tif­ic facts, is to use rhetor­i­cal blus­ter. It does call one to ques­tion every­thing he’s said on pol­i­tics. I won­der who autho­rized him to be “Amer­i­can’s Dis­si­dent™” … At least it marks a bound­ary and expos­es an obvi­ous liar/fraud.

  • Gordon says:

    Nev­er in the his­to­ry of the world has a fire caused a build­ing to dis­ap­pear. If you think it’s pos­si­ble because some physi­cist said it was then you’re a fool.

  • Dean says:

    I rarely hear any­one ask the log­i­cal ques­tion “WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE CONTENTS OF THE TOWERS”? How can two 110 storey build­ings, with the com­bined weight of 1–1.5 MILLION TONS, basi­cal­ly turn to dust in 15 sec­onds or less??? As Dr. Judy Wood asks: “WHERE did the tow­ers go?”

  • Ryan says:

    there was some­thing like 180,000 tons of steel in each build­ing. to imag­ine that EVERY col­umn (on the cor­ners, fram­ing the ele­va­tor shaft, etc) fell simul­ta­ne­ous­ly direct­ly into their ‘foot­print’ defies imag­i­na­tion.

    I’m not an engi­neer.

    Seems obvi­ous that at least one of the columns on the oppo­site cor­ners of the build­ing would still be stand­ing — per­haps bent, man­gled.. but still stand­ing.

  • Joan Clark says:

    Very dis­ap­point­ing. I am/was a devot­ed fan of his; not so much any­more. There is so much info out there if you look for it, as I just did. It was­n’t “just a hand­ful of sci­en­tists or what­ev­er out there”; there were hun­dreds of tes­ta­ments. And all were way more believ­able than what we have been told to believe.

  • Chris Sheridan says:

    I used to admire Noam Chom­sky so deeply — but his stance on 9/11 has has revealed how utter­ly cow­ard­ly he real­ly is when it comes to chal­leng­ing pow­er. He’s dead to me now and always will be. The Truth of 9/11 will come out in spite of apol­o­gists like him

  • Jam Hargreaves says:

    Chom­sky is a trai­tor to the nation and the truth.

  • Jim Shaw says:

    Chom­sky did­n’t “school” the ques­tion­er. What’s real­ly telling is that Chom­sky has “no opin­ion” on Build­ing 7’s demise. If there were any pos­si­ble expla­na­tion that fit the offi­cial con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry, he would have voiced it. Those 3 WTC build­ings are the only steel struc­tures ever to ful­ly col­lapse from fire; the laws of physics were sus­pend­ed for that one day. I recall the video of the Dutch demo­li­tion expert, Dan­ny Jowenko, who did­n’t know about Build­ing 7, and was shown its “col­lapse” with­out let­ting on what it was. Jowenko was adamant that build­ing’s destruc­tion was a con­trolled demo­li­tion. Of course we also have the thor­ough, painstak­ing study of WTC 7 done by the U. of Alas­ka at Fair­banks, that con­clud­ed that fire could not have brought down the build­ing in that man­ner. Grow up, peo­ple, and allow your­selves to see the ugly truth that the peo­ple who seek pow­er are usu­al­ly not the most moral­ly ground­ed among us — quite the oppo­site.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.