Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11
by John Doraemi, Crimes of the State Website,
Oct 21, 2007
2006 "analysis" of US government 9/11 complicity is being
Alternet.org as if it was news. That's because Chomsky
basically sides with the editors there and their dismissive
attitudes toward looking at the
In this battle
of ideas, it warms my heart that Alternet's boards are swamped
with controversy the minute they try to push this garbage onto
I remain a bit
dazed though that hard core "leftists" accept Chomsky's thin
dismissal, and ignore the most important admission Chomsky has
even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS]
were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it
doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky
If you aren't
familiar with this quote, read it again. Play the linked
video. Come to terms with what he is saying. Chomsky gives
the same dismissal to the JFK assassination (at the end of the
clip). It just doesn't matter. To whom? Noam? To whom?
I suppose one
could argue that JFK is dead 44 years now, and so America has
moved on.* Not so for 9/11. Not on your life.
admitted that HE doesn't care if elements of the
government were criminally complicit and treasonous in the 9/11
attacks, and that his school of followers shouldn't (doesn't)
concern themselves either.
powerful stuff, given that many "lefty" pinhead types have
internalized the marching orders and come up with elaborate
mental gymnastics to convince themselves that 9/11 is
"irrelevant." You see the "irrelevant" dismissal repeated in the
threads over at that video post.
truthers, you might be right in some form. There might be
enough logical inconsistencies in the media's narrative of
that day to produce some amount of scepticism. All of that
is irrelevant. It does not matter if the towers fell due to
controlled demolition. It does not matter what caused the
collapse of WTC 7. It does not matter because you cannot
prove what did happen, and the government is not going to
help you, no matter how loud you shout outside of its
have to wonder the mindset that admits the government could have
participated in the mass murder of our fellow civilians, and yet
works overtime trying to dismiss it as "irrelevant."
it's not "irrelevant" to us, nor to the family members affected
by it, nor to a hell of a lot of people around the world. That
it is apparently "irrelevant" to Noam Chomsky and his dwindling
band of followers speaks volumes about their priorities, as well
as their morality, or apparent lack thereof. Perhaps it is they
who are "irrelevant?"
does not matter to these people.
derelictions of duty before 9/11 point to high treason (in the
Clinton and Bush regimes), deliberate, calculated,
with historical precedents and whistleblowers exposing the
reality. None of that can sway the Chomskyites, because their
leader seems to have some charismatic cult of personality hold
on their ability to reason these things through.
truth movement assumes that there must have been a massive
conspiracy, in my opinion, because it does not understand
the ramifications of the huge disparity of wealth and power
in our country."
It all comes
back to the Marxist critique of everything, not the actual
evidence of the case. These types always put cart before
horse. The 9/11 movement has waded through thousands and
thousands of pages of evidence to find things that don't appear
right, were covered up, lied about AND EXPOSED AS LIES, and are
downright incriminating. I don't know of anyone who pretends to
know exactly what happened. What we are pretty sure about is
that it shouldn't have happened. In this context, we seem to be
the only ones demanding accountability from an out of control
illegitimate regime, while Chomsky et al. are fabricating
excuses for said regime.
"samco" has the audacity to proclaim:
Truthers are no different that (sic) White Supremacists. For
their own sad psychological reasons, Truthers have bought
into an ideology that, in order to be true, requires the
complete dehumanization of a group of people [Bush et al.]."
indoctrinated "left" have bought a (questionable) ideology. I'm
a hard core skeptic of the government's numerous lies and cover
ups with some actual education about the government's numerous
crimes throughout history. It's quite a difference, no?
Bushites/Democrat elite have murdered about
1.2 million Iraqi civilians since 2003. So how come we're
only "dehumanizing" them as monsters if we add on another 3,000
Americans? Yet I'm supposed to be the white supremacist
in this equation? Go look up "Freudian slip," samco.
reveals a generalized aversion to look at the facts. Chomsky is
famous for his "institutional analysis" that just ignores
individual actions and actors, in favor of glossing over and
generalizing whenever that is more convenient. His posse at
Alternet similarly resorts to anti-intellectual dismissal
tactics in order to avoid very straightforward evidence.
Joshua Holland (Alternet editor and writer of hit pieces against
the 9/11 Truth Movement) got in a half-hearted sniping at me
just as the comments were "closed."
almost certain that it woud have leaked."
something would have leaked out, very likely."
To which I
has nothing to say about Sibel Edmonds, Richard Wright, or
any of the other whistleblowers, up to and including Senator
Bob Graham ("foreign governments assisted the hijackers")
and Senator Max Cleland ("not going to be part of another
leak. It was known ..."
off the rest of my quote in his response, of course, which said:
known by many people before the fact. High level pentagon
oficials cancelled travel plans on 9/10. The mayor of San
Francisco was warned not to fly. Many other leaks are known
if you bother to look."
Holland comes to Chomsky's defense:
depends entirely on what "it" is in the sentence. If you are
claiming that these people said "it" was an inside job, you
are incorrect. Yet an inside job is what Chomsky's
talking about in the clip."
question read to Noam Chomsky at the beginning of the video
attacks) ...directly or indirectly Bush clan is
plan it in any way or know anything about it?"
And the term
"inside job", with whatever fantastical connotations are
in Joshua Holland's mind, is not spoken in this video clip at
Holland. You're out. Thanks for playing.
Joshua Holland has also tried to spin both Sibel Edmonds and FBI
Special Agent Robert Wright.
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said:
Counterintelligence receives information that contains money
laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal
drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities;
and if that information involves certain nations, certain
semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or
political relations in this country, then, that information
is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the
possible severe consequences." -Sibel
Edmonds Letter To Thomas Kean, August 1, 2004
That is an
open accusation of conspiracy. Numerous conspiracies! Directly
related to "terrorist activities!"
forward this over to Noam for me? Hey Joshua, what about you?
Gonna Fedex these facts right over, or continue spinning?
Agent Robert Wright, has said:
“Corruption is knowing when something is not being done,
knowing when the American people are being left unprotected
and when you make a decision not to do something to protect
the American people... And you effectively allow 9/11 to
occur. That is the ultimate form of government
corruption—dereliction of duty. That’s subject in the
military to prosecution, to court martial.... Frankly, if
not treason.” --Robert Wright, Press Conference, Federal
News Service, 5/30/2002,
Chomsky) also seems to have no problem with Senator Bob Graham's
admission about "foreign governments" ... plural.
governments are getting away with mass murder on US soil, I
think a majority of Americans will not only want to know about
it (although they won't hear about it from Alternet or Noam
Chomsky), but they will immediately want to throw out the bums
-- every traitorous stinking last one of them -- who are
protecting these "foreign governments."
governments in question are clearly not on the "enemies" list,
or else such information would quickly have been plastered all
over the world's press as justificaiton for the serial wars that
were planned long before 9/11/01. Yes they were planned in
places like the American Enterprise Institute, the
Project for a New American Century, and in Zbigniew
"foreign governments" assisting the alleged hijackers are
"allies." Allies who crash planes into NY skyscrapers. Allies
who are protected AFTER they crash planes into NY
We are so
through-the-looking-glass here, people, that the only sensible
response to this towering wall of propaganda and disinformation
is to look for the covert control of the "alternate" media and
to question the credibility of the "alternate" icons like
Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others in positions of
editorial control and influence.
Central Intelligence Agency owns everyyone of any
significance in the major media." --Former CIA director
William Colby (quote apparently purged recently from
You can tell
very easily who is concerned with the truth, and who is not by
examining the targets of their ire. Those whose fixation is
"conspiracy theorists" or the "9/11 Truth Movement" are not
interested in knowing. They are simply turning focus and
attention onto a generalized movement, which allows them to
cherry pick claims and ideas to "debunk." They make quite a
sport of this, and have done so for a while.
ideological reasons for doing this -- all the while ignoring the
evidence related to 9/11 -- and they are being misled, clearly
from "above." The "Left Gatekeepers" have done a tremendous
amount of work keeping the focus on amateur investigators and
whatever mistakes they have made, as well as the deliberate
COINTELPRO originated disinformation "theories."
process, these Gatekeepers have given the treasonous faction in
charge a free pass. Why would they do this? Why would they not
want to hold the regime accountable for the atrocities of 9/11?
That's a very fair question.
A number of
Chomskyites admit that the Bush regime is negligent, and
that there was "malfeasance" and other lighter charges.
They omit the part about criminal negligence, with 3,000
homicides in the balance (and two illegal wars as a
consequence). I don't know what they're putting in the bottled
water over in Chomskyland, but I see a problem here.
death didn't matter? Perhaps it did to 58,000 US troops and
3,000,000 Vietnamese citizens.
We had Kennedy
retreating from a belligerent foreign policy after the Cuban
Missile Crisis sent the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Kennedy was proclaimed "soft on communism" when he made a deal
with the Soviets to avoid Armageddon. JFK subsequently refused
to invade Cuba, or to support the CIA's rogue Bay of Pigs
invasion with US air power.
Kennedy was at
war with the CIA when he fired Allan Dulles as CIA head shortly
before his assassination.
some reason ended up on the Warren Commission "investigation"
that brought us the magical bullet of Lee Harvey Oswald. But
none of that matters, ...says Chomsky.
What say you
Not a one of
them had the gumption to answer my question:
even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS]
were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it
doesn't have any significance."
there anyone in their right frame of mind who agrees with
the above quote?"
Just wise cracks about "conspiracy whackoness." Real
intellectual giants over there in Alter-Chomsky universe.
"It is an
article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American
life." - Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within
This page may
contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making
such material available in my efforts to advance understanding
of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.