MB Civic

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 at 4:54 PM and filed under Articles, Human Interest, Politics, Terrorism, Videos. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

One Response to “AlterNet: Blogs: Video: Noam Chomsky Weighs In On 9/11 Conspiracy Theories [VIDEO]”

1. Ian Alterman said:

   He must be kidding! I have rarely heard such weak arguments from such a respected and respectable figure.

   First, he is wrong re “leaks.” Historically, not a single one of the now-known “false flag” operations – the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc. – was “leaked” at any point. Indeed, the truth about these incidents was not known until years, sometimes decades, later. Indeed, that Chomsky does not even address the issue of “false flag” operations (of which he knows a great deal) makes his comments here extremely suspect.

   Nor is he right about conspiracies and leaks in general. In short, the reason an event like 9/11 COULD be executed without leaks is that a successful conspiracy has a “need to know” pyramid structure in which those at the bottom levels know only what they are supposed to do – and may not even know that their action is part of a larger plan. In this way, everyone up the chain has a higher degree of “plausible deniability.” In addition, even if someone lower down figured out AFTER the event that they were part of it, and went to the press, etc., they would simply be (and indeed are) painted as “kooks” or (in extreme cases) “disappeared.” Indeed, “whistle-blowing” re conspiracies is virtually impossible, unless a true “smoking gun” comes to light.

   Second, Chomsky is wrong re “evidence” as well. Indeed, there are as many respected scientists (structural, mechanical and safety engineers, fire professionals, physicists, etc.) on the alternative theory side as there are on the “official story” side – and many on the “official story” side are government-related or at least government-paid. So who has the greater vested interest in “fudging” (if not falsifying) the science? In this regard, the scientific evidence supporting controlled demolition – or at very least seriously questioning the ability of the fires to cause the collapses, particularly at near free-fall speed – is FAR stronger than the science supporting the “official story.”

   Third, Chomsky completely destroys his credibility on this issue with his beliefs re the JFK assassination. His “lone gunman” and “single bullet theory” myopia is well-known – and largely ridiculed. Indeed, even setting aside that the vast majority of the American public no longer believes the lone gunman theory (and that number has been growing steadily), the serious JFK murder researchers are all in agreement that there must have been a conspiracy – even if they disagree on who specifically was involved.

   Note finally that he ALMOST calls those on the left who support alternative theories “insane.” (He gets out the “in,” but then obviously thinks better of it and changes his wording.) This, too, brings up questions about Chomsky’s motives here.

   For someone who has long held anti-establishment (or at least questioning) views, the only thing that would seem to explain Chomsky’s position on 9/11 is that, like so many others, he simply cannot wrap his mind around the idea that the president and his cabal could wantonly murder almost 3,000 American citizens simply to advance a neocon agenda and attempt to capture a larger percent of the world’s oil. But for anyone who knows history (and Chomsky certainly does), this type of decision has been made many times by many leaders for a host of reasons, all of which they (perhaps even honestly) believed were for the “greater good” of their country’s safety, well-being or other interests.

   Peace.

   Posted on 31-Oct-07 at 1:47 pm | Permalink