Michio Kaku & Noam Chomsky School Moon Landing and 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Who real­ly killed John F. Kennedy? Did Amer­i­ca real­ly land on the moon? What real­ly brought down the Twin Tow­ers? Few mod­ern phe­nom­e­na pos­sess the sheer fas­ci­na­tion quo­tient of con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries. If you believe in them, you’ll of course dig into them obses­sive­ly, and if you don’t believe in them, you sure­ly feel a great curios­i­ty about why oth­er peo­ple do. Sci­ence writer and Skep­tic mag­a­zine Edi­tor in Chief Michael Sher­mer falls, need­less to say, into the sec­ond group; so far into it that exam­in­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries and those who sub­scribe to them has become one of his best-known pro­fes­sion­al pur­suits since at least 1997, the year of his straight­for­ward­ly titled book Why Peo­ple Believe Weird Things.

On the 50th anniver­sary of JFK’s assas­si­na­tion, Sher­mer wrote an arti­cle in the Los Ange­les Times about the rea­sons that event has drawn so many avid con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists over the past half-decade. First: their cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance result­ing from the two seem­ing­ly incom­pat­i­ble ideas, that of JFK “as one of the most pow­er­ful peo­ple on Earth” and JFK “killed by Lee Har­vey Oswald, a lone los­er, a nobody.” Sec­ond: their par­tic­i­pa­tion in a mono­log­i­cal belief sys­tem, “a uni­tary, closed-off world­view in which beliefs come togeth­er in a mutu­al­ly sup­port­ive net­work.” Third: their con­fir­ma­tion bias, or “the ten­den­cy to look for and find con­firm­ing evi­dence for what you already believe” — the umbrel­la man, the grassy knoll — “and to ignore dis­con­firm­ing evi­dence.”

These fac­tors all come into play with the oth­er major Amer­i­can con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries as well. In the pod­cast clip at the top of the post, you can hear physi­cist Michio Kaku try­ing to set straight a moon land­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist. They argue that man has nev­er set foot on the moon, but that the gov­ern­ment instead hood­winked us into believ­ing it with an elab­o­rate audio­vi­su­al pro­duc­tion (direct­ed, some the­o­rists insist, by none oth­er than Stan­ley Kubrick, who sup­pos­ed­ly “con­fessed” in fake inter­view footage that recent­ly made the inter­net rounds). Should you require fur­ther argu­ment to the con­trary, have a look at S.G. Collins’ Moon Hoax Not just above.

No high­er-pro­file set of con­spir­a­cy-the­o­ry move­ment has come out of recent his­to­ry than the 9/11 Truthers, who may dif­fer on the details, but who all gath­er under the umbrel­la of believ­ing that the events of that day hap­pened not because of the actions of a con­spir­a­cy of for­eign ter­ror­ists, but because of a con­spir­a­cy with­in the Unit­ed States gov­ern­ment itself. In the Q&A footage above (orig­i­nal­ly uploaded, in fact, by a believ­er), one such the­o­rist stands up and asks lin­guist and activist Noam Chom­sky to join in on the move­ment, point­ing to a cov­er-up of the man­ner in which 7 World Trade Cen­ter col­lapsed — a big “smok­ing gun” of the larg­er con­spir­a­cy, in their eyes.

This prompts Chom­sky to offer an expla­na­tion of how sci­en­tists and engi­neers actu­al­ly go look­ing for the truth. Have they elim­i­nat­ed entire­ly their cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance, mono­log­i­cal belief sys­tems, and con­fir­ma­tion bias­es? No human could ever do that per­fect­ly — indeed, to be human is to be sub­ject to all these dis­tort­ing con­di­tions and more — but the larg­er enter­prise of sci­ence, at its best, frees us lit­tle by lit­tle from those very shack­les. What a shame to vol­un­tar­i­ly clap one­self back into them.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Michio Kaku Schools a Moon Land­ing-Con­spir­a­cy Believ­er on His Sci­ence Fan­tas­tic Pod­cast

Stan­ley Kubrick Faked the Apol­lo 11 Moon Land­ing in 1969, Or So the Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ry Goes

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

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

by | Permalink | Comments (35) |

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 (35)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Mark Gisleson says:

    Kaku and Chom­sky have posi­tions on JFK’s assas­si­na­tion? My research shows Chom­sky as being indif­fer­ent to the sub­ject, and I can find noth­ing on Kaku’s beliefs regard­ing this.

    I think the author of this arti­cle decid­ed to pile on with an addi­tion­al con­spir­a­cy, not under­stand­ing that his­to­ry sides with those who believe JFK was assas­si­nat­ed by Alan Dulles’ CIA.

    The case for Oswald being the lone assas­sin was refut­ed a long time ago and you will no longer find seri­ous his­to­ri­ans will­ing to endorse the War­ren Report. Were there any, you would have cit­ed one.

  • David says:

    For a less seri­ous approach to fak­ing a moon land­ing, try
    “That Mitchell and Webb Look — Moon Land­ing Sketch”


  • Steve says:

    Physics con­tin­ues to con­firm that he was shot from the rear.

  • Parnaz says:

    My thoughts exact­ly. I can not believe some­one will just increase their arti­cle view by such a mis­lead­ing title.

  • JD Thompson says:

    You should actul­ly research the arti­cle above to find that nowhere does it claim that Kaku or Chom­sky have posi­tions on JFK’s assas­i­na­tion

  • Bob says:

    “Physics con­tin­ues to con­firm that he was shot from the rear.”.…. Real­ly?? What physics are you ref­fer­ing to? Your own opin­ions??

  • John says:

    Mark, his­to­ry most decid­ed­ly does NOT side with those who say that the CIA had JFK killed. If it did, then such infor­ma­tion would be found in his­to­ry books. It isn’t. That’s not to say that the War­ren Com­mis­sion Report was­n’t rid­dled with numer­ous issues. It is say­ing that if you, or any­one else, wish to assert a fact, you need to back it up with what we call EVIDENCE.

  • Ramona says:

    It’s quite fal­la­cious, and prob­a­bly disin­gen­u­ous, to dump in 9/11 and the JFK assas­si­na­tion with the moon hoax. Why not say what’s wrong with all those idiots who ques­tioned WMD in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin inci­dent, 9/11 and the JFK assas­si­na­tion?

    Mr. Mar­shall has obvi­ous­ly not done any inde­pen­dent research on these issues and con­tents him­self with par­rot­ing pre-digest­ed nar­ra­tives. Main­stream shills seem capa­ble of only ad hominem attempts to pathol­o­gize hold­ers of dis­sent­ing views and are ill equipped to argue their view­point on the facts.

    Is is lazi­ness, dis­in­ter­est, or venal­i­ty? Prag­ma­tism would also dis­cour­age main­stream shills to have an open and in-depth dis­cus­sion of the facts because the facts, includ­ing basic laws of physics, over­whelm­ing­ly line up against the offi­cial nar­ra­tives they blind­ly defend.

    For exam­ple, even the NIST admits that Build­ing 7 col­lapsed at absolute free-fall accel­er­a­tion for over 100 feet on 9/11, i.e. all phys­i­cal resis­tance of the entire steel-framed struc­ture of build­ing was erased for 8 sto­ries. There is absolute­ly no sce­nario in this phys­i­cal uni­verse where that could hap­pen due to office fires, the gov­ern­ments’ expla­na­tion. The only way that could hap­pen is a result of demo­li­tion.

    Chom­sky demon­strates the lim­its of his own integri­ty and rein­forces the accu­sa­tion against him as a “left gate­keep­er” by his defi­cient posi­tion on 9/11.

  • phil greco says:

    So much cor­rup­tion. So much greed.

  • kbro says:

    yes, “Why not say what’s wrong with all those idiots who ques­tioned WMD in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin inci­dent, 9/11 and the JFK assas­si­na­tion?”

    not to men­tion dozens of oth­er exam­ples where the “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry” was true. con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries aren’t false because they are con­spir­a­cy theories–if they are false, it’s because in a giv­en instance–they are not true.
    and giv­en the duplic­i­ties of our gov­ern­ment and the main­stream cor­po­rate media– ALWAYS QUESTION THE OFFICIAL STORY !

  • Joe Terrell says:

    I found the videos inter­est­ing and thought­ful as well as the arti­cle that linked them. I do not see any dis-ingen­u­ous­ness on the part of the writer. I see noth­ing about the JFK assas­si­na­tion in the title so I see no decep­tive attempt to drag peo­ple to the arti­cle. Nowhere does the arti­cle say that Chom­sky and Kaku give opin­ions on the JFK assas­si­na­tion. Rather, the author refers to a book that exam­ines why peo­ple are so ready to believe con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries even when they fly in the face of evi­dence. Among the con­spir­a­cies the book ref­er­ences is the JFK assas­si­na­tion.

    I tend to take Chom­sky’s tack on many such argu­ments: all the sup­posed physics aside, the things we DO know about 9–11 make it vir­tu­al­ly impos­si­ble that it was a gov­ern­ment con­spir­a­cy ini­ti­at­ed int he White House. And you must under­stand, that comes from a man who like­ly despised the Bush pres­i­den­cy.

    Con­spir­a­cies are not easy to for­mu­late and exe­cute and the larg­er the con­spir­a­cy the less like­ly it is that it will suc­ceed.

    A con­spir­a­cy to take down the tow­ers or build­ing 7 would have required the silence of so many peo­ple. More­over, one sim­ply can­not set up a con­trolled demo­li­tion of build­ing in secret. It takes months of set up…not just plan­ning, but actu­al­ly enter­ing the build­ing, expos­ing the nec­es­sary strength parts, attach­ing explo­sive with wires run­ning every­where. It can­not be done sur­rep­ti­tious­ly.

  • MaGaO says:

    “For exam­ple, even the NIST admits that Build­ing 7 col­lapsed at absolute free-fall accel­er­a­tion for over 100 feet on 9/11, i.e. all phys­i­cal resis­tance of the entire steel-framed struc­ture of build­ing was erased for 8 sto­ries. There is absolute­ly no sce­nario in this phys­i­cal uni­verse where that could hap­pen due to office fires, the gov­ern­ments’ expla­na­tion. The only way that could hap­pen is a result of demo­li­tion.”
    Actu­al­ly, the NIST doc­u­ments do not say this. They talk about “near free-fall” and they explain why the way the build­ing was con­struct­ed was con­sis­tent with what hap­pened. Since they are pub­lic doc­u­ments, I would rec­om­mend you to read them again.
    In fact, a demo­li­tion would­n’t do that either. But that’s anoth­er issue.

  • Arjuna says:

    The real hoax is the mon­ey the gov­ern­ment use to send peo­ple to the moon.

    Apol­lo 11 (1969).
    The entire pro­gram cost $25.4 bil­lion in 1973 dol­lars or rough­ly $170 bil­lion in 2005 dol­lars, accord­ing to Wikipedia (@http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apo…). Knock off a bil­lion or two from the 1973 fig­ure and you’ll have a guess on how much the pro­gram cost up to Apol­lo 11.

  • Jesse Iniguez says:

    You write so smart, does­n’t mean you are.“the ten­den­cy to look for and find con­firm­ing evi­dence for what you already believe” Thats exact­ly how our judi­cial sys­tem works. Can’t tell which side you’ve cho­sen.

  • Adam says:

    I total­ly dis­agree with Chom­sky, he says Bush admin­is­tra­tion want­ed to attack Iraq, if any­thing they would have blamed 9/11 on Iraqis not Saud­is. What he has for­got­ten is… the inva­sion of Iraq came after the inva­sion Afghanistan. Bush admin blamed it on Bin Laden because he was hid­ing in Afghanistan at the time. They cre­at­ed this fable ene­my to first find an excuse to invade Afg and then use the same excuse (when WMD were not found in Iraq) to top­ple Sadam’s regime. With­out the excuse of fable ene­my US could­n’t have con­vinced the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty and espe­cial­ly its allies to sup­pot the US with two wars.

  • Cjnm says:

    Here is the typ­i­cal pat­tern — lump­ing moon land­ing hoax w jfk / 911- to equate believ­ers of any one of those into that con­de­send­ing “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist” term — shame on you — this poor jour­nal­ism thanks for noth­ing — the CIA recent­ly admit­ted they with­eld evi­dence that should of been sub­mit­ted to the war­ren com­mi­sion — regard­ing their deal­ings w oswald pri­or to assas­i­na­tion — when you obfus­cate a fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tion by with­old­ing evi­dence you are cul­pa­ble for the crime — ‘the cov­er up is worse than the crime’?? Why is shot from rear the ques­tion to debate — ?? It means noth­ing. -
    Same for 911 — i got news for you if 19 men all agreed to hijack 4 seper­ate planes — that is a con­spir­a­cy — and frankly best case sce­nario if that hap­pened — say­ing that who­ev­er fund­ed those 19 was not per­ti­nent to inves­ti­ga­tion is real­ly unfath­omable- why not release 28 page report iden­ti­fing gov­ern­ments that fund­ed it? Why not just check for explo­sives in build­ing dust? Why not just release video of plane hit­ting pen­ta­gon?
    Why not fig­ure out what hap­pened to bldg 7 legit­i­mat­ly? Why not fig­ure out who real­ly mailed the anthrax? Look at what has tran­spired since..? Look around — this coun­try is crum­bling and divid­ing around us- lit­er­al­ly self destruc­t­ing — because we are liv­ing a future that is built on lies, injus­tice, and frankly evil- we are still in iraq, a war that now they even admit they were wrong about? Still in afghanistan? There still is a Tal­iban?? — c’mon you got­ta be kid­ding? Ya know i dont give a crap if 9/11 is the result of crim­i­nal incom­pe­tence, ‘let it hap­pen on pur­pose”, or ‘made it hap­pen on pur­pose” the only dif­fer­ence is the jail sen­tences. .….the real prob­lem is that we are crum­bling because there is a truth that must be faced for us to move foward.…..everyone knows it too

  • Allen Everhart says:

    There is no need to rebut the moon-land­ing deniers point-for-point. The fact is that the astro­nauts left arti­facts on the Moon that can be detect­ed by any­one on Earth. Now, I’m not talk­ing about boot-prints! The astro­nauts left spe­cial opti­cal devices called ‘cor­ner cubes’ on the moon. These devices have the prop­er­ty that they reflect light back along the direc­tion of inci­dence, no mat­ter the direc­tion of inci­dence. So what one can do is shine very bright laser light on these cubes and look for the reflec­tion. In this way sci­en­tists have been mea­sur­ing the dis­tance to the moon since the 60’s by mea­sur­ing the time it takes to see a reflec­tion from a cor­ner cube. There’s no bet­ter truth than one that can be ver­i­fied again and again.

  • Ben Goldman says:

    Ha he did not answer that suc­cinct­ly, and That was pret­ty fun­ny how he got vak­lempt a cou­ple times. Chom­sky you are also owned by the media play­er…

  • Ramona says:


    I repeat that NIST, after being chal­lenged for their decep­tive, delayed and defi­cient orig­i­nal report on Build­ing 7, had to walk their report back and ADMIT free fall. Try to keep up with events.

    From NIST’s own web­site:

    “Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 sec­onds): grav­i­ta­tion­al accel­er­a­tion (free fall) …

    Dur­ing Stage 2, the north face descend­ed essen­tial­ly in free fall, indi­cat­ing neg­li­gi­ble sup­port from the struc­ture below.”


    You can see their dis­hon­esty at work here as well because they try to say “essen­tial­ly” free fall, when they admit absolute free fall, and “neg­li­gi­ble” when the cor­rect adjec­tive is “no … what­so­ev­er.”

  • Ramona says:

    An alter­nate source:

    “In stage 2, the north face descend­ed at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buck­led columns pro­vid­ed negli­bile sup­port to the upper por­tion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP con­tin­ued for approx­i­mate­ly 8 sto­ries or 32.0 m.”

    “In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempt­ed to cov­er up evi­dence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was trans­par­ent. In its final report, released in Novem­ber 2008, NIST final­ly acknowl­edged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre frame­work that con­tin­ues to deny its clear sig­nif­i­cance. This video dis­plays the brazen­ness of the NIST WTC7 coverup.”

  • Phillip Michaels says:

    Joe, you are undoubt­ed­ly cor­rect that con­struct­ing a con­spir­a­cy like 9/11 would take a real effort. Not only would there have to be an effort before 9/11, but there would be a long “tail” on the event (i.e. after 9/11) where unfa­vor­able infor­ma­tion about the event would have to be sup­pressed. All this would be par­tic­u­lar­ly dif­fi­cult since it would be done in a fish bowl, so to speak. How­ev­er, it would not be impos­si­ble, par­tic­u­lar­ly if the peo­ple involved in the con­spir­a­cy had both mon­ey and exten­sive polit­i­cal pow­er.

    Dif­fi­cult is not the same as impos­si­ble. The col­laps­es we all saw of all three World Trade Cen­ter tow­ers do not con­form to basic laws of physics which deter­mine how things fall. It is impos­si­ble in a real­is­tic world for one asym­met­ri­cal­ly-dam­aged steel-super­struc­ture high-rise to col­lapse sym­met­ri­cal­ly. For three to col­lapse that way on the same day demon­strates clear­ly these were not “nat­ur­al” col­laps­es. Fur­ther, col­laps­ing at (or very near) free fall accel­er­a­tion speed with­out explo­sives to remove the resis­tance that would have been pro­vid­ed by undam­aged steel and con­crete in the build­ings also can’t hap­pen. The videos of the day demon­strate that three high-ris­es fell sym­met­ri­cal­ly into their own foot­prints at free fall-like speeds, con­firm­ing the pres­ences of explo­sives. It was an inside job, no mat­ter how dif­fi­cult the under­tak­ing might have been.

  • Kevin Stoda says:

    I like the way that Noam Chom­sky in Flori­da recent­ly replied to this query about 9–11 The­o­ries that USA gov­ern­ment offi­cials were great­ly respon­si­ble for it. (See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc )

    Your web­site notes:

    “No high­er-pro­file set of con­spir­a­cy-the­o­ry move­ment has come out of recent his­to­ry than the 9/11 Truthers, who may dif­fer on the details, but who all gath­er under the umbrel­la of believ­ing that the events of that day hap­pened not because of the actions of a con­spir­a­cy of for­eign ter­ror­ists, but because of a con­spir­a­cy with­in the Unit­ed States gov­ern­ment itself. In the Q&A footage above (orig­i­nal­ly uploaded, in fact, by a believ­er), one such the­o­rist stands up and asks lin­guist and activist Noam Chom­sky­to join in on the move­ment, point­ing to a cov­er-up of the man­ner in which 7 World Trade Cen­ter col­lapsed — a big “smok­ing gun” of the larg­er con­spir­a­cy, in their eyes.”

    Chom­sky on the video goes on to say that he thinks it illog­i­cal that that the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion would have charged Sau­di Cit­i­zens with the 9–11 crimes instead of Iraqis if the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion had real­ly want­ed to start wars in the Mid­dle East based upon some 9–11 con­spir­a­cy as Truthers claim. I, how­ev­er, find that this sort of argu­ment is tau­to­log­i­cal and unsound by Chom­sky. I am sur­prised Chom­sky used such an argu­ment loaded with more assump­tions that some 9–11 Truthers share.

    Chom­sky expects us to believe that with Sau­di cit­i­zen­ry hav­ing such great involve­ment in 9–11 episode, it was like­ly impos­si­ble for the Bush-Cheney admin­is­tra­tion to fin­ger Iraq imme­di­ate­ly. Per­haps as Truthers have stat­ed, the point of 9–11 was to desta­bi­lize the Mid­dle East, then it was not nec­es­sary to have Iraqis involved in 9–11. The point may have been to have a cru­sade on reli­gion despite what Bush W. claimed lat­er, i.e. in terms of his plat­i­tude call­ing Amer­i­cans not to dis­turb good Mus­lims based on oth­er’s crimes. (Home­land Secu­ri­ty and local police and fed­er­al prac­tices would speak oth­er­wise.)

    There are cer­tain­ly many oth­er argu­ments against the flim­sy Chom­sky Thought Exper­i­ment in the video, i.e. blam­ing rad­i­cal Islam and bomb­ing into stone age has always worked to cre­ate ter­ror in the Mid­dle East.

    Your blog­ger con­tin­ues:

    “This prompts Chom­sky to offer an expla­na­tion of how sci­en­tists and engi­neers actu­al­ly go look­ing for the truth. Have they elim­i­nat­ed entire­ly their cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance, mono­log­i­cal belief sys­tems, and con­fir­ma­tion bias­es? No human could ever do that per­fect­ly — indeed, to be human is to be sub­ject to all these dis­tort­ing con­di­tions and more — but the larg­er enter­prise of sci­ence, at its best, frees us lit­tle by lit­tle from those very shack­les. What a shame to vol­un­tar­i­ly clap one­self back into them.”

    I agree with with Chom­sky’s sug­ges­tion that con­cerned engi­neers and oth­er sci­en­tists pub­lish in well-known jour­nals their argu­ments which sup­port the Truthers. (Even if the best jour­nals reject the arti­cles, the arti­cles could then be pub­lished online after the rejec­tion. Sub­se­quent­ly, oth­er sci­en­tists could ver­i­fy their find­ings.

    I think that if the arti­cles have been sub­mit­ted and reject­ed, the rea­son for rejec­tion must also be made clear by the jour­nals.

  • Emile Cole says:

    The empir­i­cal­ly estab­lished fact (see link below) that WTC7 was destroyed by ener­getic mate­ri­als hav­ing been phys­i­cal­ly trans­port­ed inside the build­ing at some point pri­or to its destruc­tion imme­di­ate­ly shines a bright spot­light (rel­ly more like a giant laser beam) on lit­er­al­ly the only ones on the plan­et who could pos­si­bly have car­ried out a covert domes­tic oper­a­tion of that mag­ni­tude in that build­ing (and by exten­sion the rest of the events that day).… the only ones who had exclu­sive carte blanche 24/7 access to all parts of the high­ly secured build­ing.… the only ones who had ready access to the quan­ti­ty and qual­i­ty of ener­getic mate­ri­als required.… and the only ones who could pos­si­bly have defeat­ed the high lev­el secu­ri­ty sys­tem of the build­ing in order to allow in personnel/assets with the required exper­tise in the effec­tive use of said ener­getic mate­ri­als.

    The fact of the mat­ter is that only the Depart­ment of Defense/Central Intel­li­gence Agency (head­ed at the time by Richard Meyers/George Tenet respec­tive­ly) could have done it, and just as one need­n’t be Isaac New­ton to see there is no oth­er pos­si­ble expla­na­tion for the observed behav­ior of WTC7 oth­er than ener­getic mate­ri­als hav­ing been phys­i­cal­ly trans­port­ed inside the build­ing, one needn’t be Sher­lock Holmes to see there is no oth­er pos­si­ble expla­na­tion as to who could have done it since the build­ing was in per­pet­u­al 24/7 lock down for many years as a high­ly secured gov­ern­ment facil­i­ty right up to the day it was destroyed.… it’s ele­men­tary.

    My (inhal­ing deeply) com­plete iron clad defin­i­tive­ly con­clu­sive pri­ma facie open and shut case top to bot­tom empir­i­cal­ly ver­i­fi­able sci­en­tif­ic method dri­ven graph­i­cal tar­get sys­tem analy­sis and con­clu­sion arrived at by process of elim­i­na­tion con­tin­ues to stand empir­i­cal­ly unas­sailed in any way shape or form now for well over a year (and com­ing up on 50,000 views) over at the Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty spon­sored sci­ence forum TheNaked­Sci­en­tists.…


  • Tom Secker says:

    No doubt a lot of con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists are guilty of para­noia, cir­cu­lar log­ic and con­fir­ma­tion bias. But so are a lot of ‘scep­tics’ who basi­cal­ly dis­be­lieve any­thing except gov­ern­ment reports and main­stream sci­ence.

    Equal­ly, there are dozens of cas­es of equiv­a­lent crimes being com­mit­ted by agents of the state, and then cov­ered up by oth­er agents of the state (Glad­io, BCCI, Iran Con­tra, Gulf of Tonkin).

    Adopt­ing either a total­ly pro or total­ly anti approach to ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries’ is about the dumb­est thing any­one can do. The very nature of the top­ic demands a sub­tle response. Sad­ly such a response was lack­ing in this arti­cle, which is a shame because this is usu­al­ly an excel­lent site.

  • danawanapskana says:

    There’s no ‘school­ing’ of any 9/11 Truth here what­so­ev­er. Chom­sky is so obvi­ous­ly a shill for Zion­ists that he can­not even dis­cuss the facts.

    As for the Moon Land­ing, that is a lot hard­er to prove either way than 9.11

  • Joe Ciolino says:

    Quite right.

    Sher­mer is not to be tak­en seri­ous­ly on ANY top­ic. As with JFK he sim­ply refus­es to acknowl­edge the volu­mi­nous sci­en­tif­ic research done on 9/11 and the degree to which it sup­ports con­spir­a­cy.

    Kaku, sim­ply depends on mon­ey from the gov­ern­ment and big cor­po­ra­tions to sup­port “big sci­ence.” Nat­u­ral­ly, he would nev­er ruf­fle any feath­ers.

    Both are hyp­ocrites.

  • dwayne belton says:

    why is this the first we’re hear­ing of the ‘alu­minum flag’ as opposed to nasa say­ing it decades ago?

  • Richard Miller says:

    JFK could only have been killed in one of three ways: by Lee Har­vey Oswald, by a con­spir­a­cy, or by friend­ly fire.

    Gun­nery Sergeant Car­los Hath­cock is skep­ti­cal of Oswald’s alleged shoot­ing feat. Hath­cock was a for­mer senior instruc­tor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruc­tion School at Quan­ti­co, Vir­ginia. He has been described as the most famous Amer­i­can mil­i­tary sniper in his­to­ry. In Viet­nam he was cred­it­ed with 93 con­firmed kills. Craig Roberts asked Hath­cock about the marks­man­ship feat attrib­uted to Oswald by the War­ren Com­mis­sion. Hath­cock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Com­mis­sion said he did. Added Hath­cock:

    “Let me tell you what we did at Quan­ti­co. We recon­struct­ed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the mov­ing tar­get, the time lim­it, the obsta­cles, every­thing. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we could­n’t dupli­cate what the War­ren Com­mis­sion said Oswald did.”

    If a con­spir­a­cy killed JFK, Bob­by Kennedy would have gone after the killers of his broth­er with the full pow­ers of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. Bob­by had a rep­u­ta­tion as a ruth­less and relent­less inves­ti­ga­tor. There is absolute­ly no evi­dence that Bob­by Kennedy pur­sued an inves­ti­ga­tion for any alleged con­spir­a­tors.

    The reg­u­lar pres­i­den­tial detail, already exhaust­ed, had decid­ed to drink and par­ty the night of Novem­ber 21, 1963 rather then sleep. Some of the agents were drink­ing pure Ever­clear, which is 190 proof or 95% alco­hol by vol­ume. Some agents even stayed up until 5 am. One of the drunk agents lost his Secret Ser­vice ID. The next morn­ing, hun­gover agents recruit­ed George Hick­ey, a non-drinker, who was nor­mal­ly assigned to the motor pool as a dri­ver, to be be part of the pro­tec­tive team in the fol­lowup car behind Kennedy’s limo. Hick­ey was giv­en the job of com­mand­ing the AR-15, a weapon he had nev­er qual­i­fied on.

    On Novem­ber 22, 1963, as the pres­i­den­tial motor­cade drove slow­ly through Dealey Plaza, some­thing caused a loud noise, ampli­fied by the sur­round­ing build­ings. Most bystanders said it sound­ed like a fire­crack­er. Vet­er­an agents thought it was a back­fire. Secret Ser­vice agent George Hick­ey, rid­ing in the left rear seat of the Secret Ser­vice fol­low-up car thought it was a gun­shot. He picked up an AR-15, flicked off the safe­ty, and stands on the rear seat cush­ion rather then the floor of the car. He points the weapon in the direc­tion of the loud noise, the left rear of the car, look­ing for a tar­get.

    Hick­ey, see­ing noth­ing to shoot at, turned towards the front of the car, point­ing his weapon in the gen­er­al direc­tion of the pres­i­den­tial limo. At that moment, Agent Bill Greer, the dri­ver of the Pres­i­den­t’s limo, slowed to almost a stand­still, caus­ing Agent Sam Kin­ney, the dri­ver of the Secret Ser­vice fol­lowup vehi­cle, to brake. Hick­ey lost his foot­ing after the brakes were applied and reflex­ive­ly gripped his weapon, inad­ver­tent­ly squeez­ing the trig­ger once, and fired a three-round-burst, killing Kennedy and wound­ing Gov­er­nor Con­nal­ly.

    The next day, all AR-15’s were removed from the Secret Ser­vice armory.

    Bob­by Kennedy was the fix­er. He ordered the cov­er-up. He was the only one who had the author­i­ty to order the arrest and exe­cu­tion of Lee Har­vey Oswald to deflect the blame and pro­tect the gov­ern­ment from world-wide shame. All videos tak­en by bystanders were con­fis­cat­ed. The videos released to the pub­lic were edit­ed by hav­ing the ori­gin of the fatal shots removed from the film. Since then, the gov­ern­ment has man­u­fac­tured mas­sive amounts of pro­pa­gan­da to con­fuse and deceive the pub­lic, and bury the truth as deeply as pos­si­ble.

    “The Echo from Dealey Plaza” by Abra­ham Bold­en, the only black agent in the Secret Ser­vice, described the leg­endary par­ty­ing of JFK’s Secret Ser­vice detail, and how he was rail­road­ed to prison on trumped up charges by his fel­low agents for telling the War­ren Com­mis­sion the truth about the Secret Ser­vice’s role in the “assas­si­na­tion.”

    Today, Bold­en, a 79-year-old retiree in Chica­go, thinks that drink­ing def­i­nite­ly had some­thing to do with the lack­adaisi­cal Secret Ser­vice per­for­mance dur­ing the Kennedy motor­cade. “The biggest prob­lem I ran into with the Secret Ser­vice when I was an agent was their con­stant drink­ing,” he told me. “When we would get to a place, one of the first things they would do was stock up with liquor. They would drink and then we would go to work.” On Novem­ber 22, Bold­en says, “their reflex­es were def­i­nite­ly affect­ed by, num­ber one, the loss of sleep and, num­ber two, the fact that [some may have] con­sumed that amount of alco­hol.”

    Quotes from the Van­i­ty Fair arti­cle, “Could the Secret Ser­vice Have Saved JFK?”

    “Long work shifts and a tol­er­ance for par­ty­ing, drink­ing, and some­times show­ing up for work with a hang­over had become entrenched dur­ing J.F.K.’s years in office.”

    “Over­worked and under­manned, the agency, under Pres­i­dent Kennedy, had begun to skirt the department’s stric­tures. He was a risk-tak­er and a wom­an­iz­er, who set a bad exam­ple.”

    “Agents acknowl­edged that the Secret Service’s social­iz­ing inten­si­fied each year of the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion, to a point where, by late 1963, a few mem­bers of the pres­i­den­tial detail were reg­u­lar­ly remain­ing in bars until the ear­ly morn­ing hours,” inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist Sey­mour M. Hersh would note in his book The Dark Side of Camelot.”

    “From the begin­ning, the macho pride of the armed men of the ser­vice has made it a cul­ture that has masked its weak­ness­es. Pride is not flex­i­ble and it does not ask for help. And since tough guys don’t com­plain, prob­lems are often down­played. Sleep and care­ful eat­ing are for sissies. Train­ing is for begin­ners.”

    “Even today, this old-school mind­set has bedev­iled the agency. It is still a cul­ture of dis­as­ter — with changes made after prob­lems — rather than a cul­ture of pre­ven­tion.”


    “Mor­tal Error,” a book by Bonar Men­niger, tells the sto­ry about Howard Don­ahue, a bal­lis­tics expert, who stud­ied the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion. He took a human skull and marked on it where the bul­let entered and exit­ed, drilled a hole through those marks and ran a dow­el rod through it to deter­mine the angle of the bul­let’s path. Tilt­ing the skull at the same posi­tion as Kennedy’s head when he was shot, the dow­el rod indi­cat­ed that the path of the bul­let orig­i­nat­ed direct­ly behind Kennedy from the Secret Ser­vice fol­lowup vehi­cle. There was no bal­lis­tics evi­dence that any rounds were fired from the Texas School Book Depos­i­to­ry.

    Read “The Death of A Pres­i­dent” by William Man­ches­ter for the hints of truth writ­ten between the lines of the Offi­cial Lies. The Secret Ser­vice web­site says they take gun safe­ty very seri­ous­ly, a harsh les­son they’ll nev­er for­get.

  • Dave says:

    This guy is full of shit. Take it to the estab­lish­ment? The estab­lish­ment is the the cov­er up. Bush not con­nect­ed, more b.s. Why weren’t there any defences for the Pen­ta­gon? This guy’s argu­ments are not log­i­cal and he los­es all cred­i­bil­i­ty.

  • Danny says:

    I applaud OC For keep­ing these com­ments open… These are com­plex sub­jects that deserve open inves­ti­ga­tion. Libre

  • Kristyn says:

    Final­ly Some­body who makes sense,factual evi­dence rather than con­fus­ing dou­ble­s­peak, strung slop­pal­ly togeth­er. it’s get­ting scary

  • Petra Liverani says:

    Chom­sky’s is “Who cares?”

  • Petra Liverani says:

    We don’t know exact­ly how dif­fi­cult it would have been to set up a con­trolled demo­li­tion in WTC‑7, nor the num­ber of peo­ple involved but we can iden­ti­fy the char­ac­ter­is­tics of a con­trolled demo­li­tion and the col­lapse of WTC‑7 dis­played all the char­ac­ter­is­tics of a clas­sic con­trolled demo­li­tion, aka, an implo­sion:
    * explo­sions pre-col­lapse (to weak­en the build­ing) and explo­sions dur­ing col­lapse (to bring it down);
    * kink in mid­dle at top just as it begins to fall (this reflects the weak­en­ing of the cen­tral columns first to make the build­ing fall in on itself); sud­den onset of destruc­tion; straight-down, sym­met­ri­cal col­lapse through path of great­est resis­tance includ­ing actu­al free fall accel­er­a­tion into build­ing foot­print;
    * pyro­clas­tic-like clouds of pul­verised con­crete (the clouds include the gas­es from the incen­di­aries used which is why they look sim­i­lar to the clouds from vol­canic erup­tions);
    * lim­it­ed dam­age to adja­cent struc­tures; com­plete col­lapse and dis­mem­ber­ment of steel frame;
    * molten steel
    None of these char­ac­ter­is­tics are shared by a col­lapse by fire and, in any case, no high rise steel frame build­ing has ever col­lapsed from fire out­side build­ings whose cause of col­lapse is under con­tention (the three on 9/11 and the Plas­co Build­ing in Tehran). More­over, the build­ing only ever suf­fered quite mod­est fires dur­ing the day and there were real­ly no signs of fire in the col­lapse itself. Com­pare to WTC‑5 which was ablaze but it did­n’t come down.
    See my web­page Occam’s Razor on 9/11: http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/911.html

    Evi­dence trumps spec­u­la­tions about dif­fi­cul­ty of set­up and num­ber of peo­ple involved. Con­spir­a­cies can involve a vast num­ber of peo­ple whose involve­ment var­i­ous on the active/complicit con­tin­u­um.

    We also know that NIST was fraud­u­lent in its ratio­nale for not inves­ti­ga­tion con­trolled demo­li­tion as the most obvi­ous hypoth­e­sis, name­ly, that the sounds of explo­sions weren’t “loud enough” when there are quite loud sounds of explo­sions but in any case the many oth­er char­ac­ter­is­tics made it the most obvi­ous hypoth­e­sis.

    We also know that their claim for fire was based pure­ly on spec­u­la­tion and the­o­ry. NIST sur­mised that “ther­mal expan­sion pushed a gird­er off its seat” and that this dis­placed gird­er ulti­mate­ly “caused a floor to col­lapse lead­ing to a cas­cade of floor fail­ures,” with­out foren­sic exam­i­na­tion of mate­r­i­al and with­out access to data on what went on inside the build­ing before and dur­ing the col­lapse (apart from, alleged­ly, the pres­ence of “uncon­trolled fires”), in oth­er words, with­out a sker­rick of evi­dence of these hith­er­to unknown phe­nom­e­na.

  • Nick East says:

    Every­one knows NASA push­es Flat Earth because Oter Space is Fake.

  • Nick East says:

    “Every­one knows NASA push­es Flat Earth because Out­er Space is Fake.”
    (Spelling cor­rec­tion.)

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.