| Editor's Comment:
In the video that follows this article, Chomsky's anti-imperialist
talks, with which we generally agree and have frequently published on Axis of Logic, are reviewed with excerpts from his speeches. But the video also gives
examples of his surprising support of the Federal Reserve, his support
of the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination and dismissal
of any possible high level conspiracy, and his support for
Washington's 9/11 report and his outspoken scorn and contempt for any who question it. One of the most interesting of Chomsky's comments about 9/11 (that goes unaddressed in the video), is his argument that the US would have been foolish to blame Saudi terrorists for the attacks - that if there had been a US government conspiracy behind them, the US would have blamed Iraqis, a country they wanted to invade and not Afghanistan a country in which the US had no interest. Intense pre-9/11 US interest in Afghanistan should be obvious for a number of reasons: the US commitment under George Bush to build a petro pipeline through the country; geo-political-military positioning; and of course the ongoing US/Israeli war against Muslim countries for dominance in the Middle East and Asia. Chomsky is certainly aware of all three motives. His mixed messages on capitalism, the US debt and causes & remedies for the US economic collapse are also included in the video. - Les Blough, Editor Axis of Logic
Noam Chomsky and the willful ignorance of 9/11 by Kevin Ryan, Global Research In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.” If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times? I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so. Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false. There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or for the Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives. The obviously bogus “tiny number” statement from Chomsky is only one of several such absurdities the man uttered in his lecture response. Here are a few of the others.
I’ve copied Chomsky on more than two peer-reviewed scientific articles in mainstream journals that describe evidence for demolition at the WTC. Therefore he knows that this statement is not true. And I’ve given dozens of talks around the U.S. and Canada that focused on the WTC demolition theory, many of which were at universities. I’ve also pointed out that MIT’s civil engineering professor Eduardo Kausel made elementary mistakes in his public comments about the WTC disaster. Kausel claimed in Scientific American that the WTC towers were “never designed for the the intense jet fuel fires—a key design omission.” Kausel also claimed that jet fuel from the aircraft “softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum.” At the risk of making a Chomsky-like exaggeration, I’ll venture that nearly everyone today knows that these statements are false. Chomsky went on in an attempt to belittle, and downplay the sacrifices of, people seeking the truth.
Chomsky knows that I was fired from my job as Site Manager at Underwriters Laboratories for publicly challenging the government’s investigation into the WTC tragedy. He knows that many others have suffered similar responses as well, including Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones and University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who were forced into retirement for speaking out. And although everyone knows that researchers and universities today depend on billions of grant dollars from the government, Chomsky implies that such funding could never be impacted in any way by questioning of the government’s most sensitive political positions. The “hour on the internet” nonsense is ludicrous, of course, and Chomsky knows it well. Jones and Harrit have better scientific credentials than some MIT professors and we have all spent many years studying the events of 9/11. I’ve spent over a decade, and have contributed to many books and scientific articles, on the subject. Pandering to the hecklers in the crowd, Chomsky summarized his simplistic (public) position on the events of 9/11.
Basically, these three “overwhelming” reasons boil down to one reason—Chomsky assumes that if the Bush Administration was involved it would have immediately blamed Iraq for 9/11. Of course, Bush Administration leaders did immediately blame Iraq for 9/11 and they did so repeatedly. That was one of the two original justifications given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq. Moreover, Chomsky most definitely received a response to his “deeper issue” when he received a copy of my new book Another Nineteen several months before his comments. The book gives ample reasons—meaning actual overwhelming evidence—to suspect that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and nineteen of their colleagues were behind the 9/11 attacks. After writing that he was “glad to learn about the new book,” he sent his mailing address for a free copy. Chomsky acknowledged receiving the book in August and wrote to me that he was “pleased to have a copy of the book, and hope to be able to get to it before too long.” Therefore, Chomsky has either ignored the response to his one major concern for several months or he knows that his concern is no longer valid. What would make him feign ignorance in such a way? Perhaps it is the fact that he would lose a great deal of face if he were to finally admit that there is much more to the story of 9/11. Regardless, when a tiny number begins at 2,100 and “just overwhelming evidence” to exonerate the Bush Administration boils down to one bad assumption, we are again reminded of the power that 9/11 holds. When presented with substantial evidence for complicity on the part of corporate and government leaders, the obvious becomes either undeniable or an emotional cue to dissemble.
Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper
Is Noam Chomsky an anarcho-syndicalist or proponent of the Federal Reserve? A fearless political crusader or defender of the Warren Commission JFK orthodoxy? A tireless campaigner for justice or someone who doesn't care who did 9/11? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we examine some of the subjects that Chomsky would prefer you didn't think about.
Source: Corbett Report Critiques of Chomsky published on Axis of Logic The War on Syria and Noam Chomsky, by Ghali Hassan, Axis of Logic, September 4, 2013 Chomsky's Hypocrisy, by Ghali Hassan, Axis of Logic Friday, June 18, 2010 Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, by Peter Schweizer Hoover Digest, June 3, 2008 Protecting Israel: Chomsky’s Way, by Ghali Hassan Counter Currents, Apr 5, 2006 Iraq Elections And The Liberal Elites: A Response To Noam Chomsky, by Ghali Hassan Countercurrents.org via Uruknet, March 12, 2005 Noam Chomsky and "Left" Apologetics for Injustice in Palestine, by Noah Cohen. Axis of Logic Exclusive, Aug 23, 2004 Noam Chomsky replies to Noah Cohen's article published last week on Axis of Logic. By Noam Chomsky, ZNet, Thursday, Aug 26, 2004 The Cohen-Chomsky Debate Continues: Chomsky's "Realism" and "Advocacy" : Advocacy for what and for whom?, by Noah Cohen, Axis of Logic, Aug 30, 2004 Axis of Logic Readers join the Cohen-Chomsky Debate, Sep 2, 2004 Letters and a reply. Professor Chomsky comes in from the cold, by David Walsh, WSWS. Apr 17, 2004 |