Chomsky And 9/11, Disinfo on 9/11

This is heartbreaking to watch.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/...akes-sense.html

Noam is obviously saying things he doesn't believe himself. The Question is, "Why is he doing it?"

This article has a theory.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=3632
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=3633
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noam Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper in the aftermath of the 9-11 crimes, lashing out at the 9-11 truth movement and claiming any suggestions of government complicity are fabrications. The "radical" Chomsky takes a position so deeply rooted in denial that it makes the staged 9-11 whitewash commission look like an honest study. He belligerently refuses to discuss any of the massive evidence proving government foreknowledge and participation in the crimes, claiming it would destroy the activist movements worldwide:

"If the left spends its time on this, that's the end of the left, in my opinion: the mainstream would be utterly delighted. It is highly likely that nothing significant will be found. And if – which I very greatly doubt -- something is found that would quickly send everyone in Washington to the death chamber, the left is unlikely to emerge triumphant."

In other words, Chomsky is telling his followers to ignore the evidence because according to him, none exists. However even if there is massive evidence, responsible activists should ignore it because it would be "the end of the Left." Chomsky’s role as a 9-11 gatekeeper goes even further as he denies each piece of evidence individually. The following examples should suffice:

1) As most honest 9-11 researchers know, 7 of the accused 19 hijackers are alive, proving the official story is a fabrication. Many of the remaining 12 were trained as U.S. Air Force bases and CIA-connected Huffman Aviation. Many of the accused "religious fanatics" acted more like degenerate contract agents, as they flashed wads of cash, visited strip clubs, drank profusely, blew cocaine, smoked weed, cavorted with strippers and had strange meetings in the drug-rich Florida keys.

Men like Mohammed Atta fit the MO of an undercover CIA drug runner: a man trained at U.S. Air Force bases, fluent in many languages, able to evade INS regulations, working with drug dealers, and receiving wired bank funds from CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence. There remains no photographic evidence of these supposed hijackers ever getting on the planes (walking through airport security does not count). Furthermore, the autopsy list of Flight 77 which supposedly hit the Pentagon listed none of the accused hijackers.

Regarding the evidence of government complicity in training the hijackers, Chomsky wrote the following:

Nothing empirical is impossible. Thus, it is conceivable that everyone in the White House is totally insane. And in my opinion, that's what they would have had to be to try something that would have been very likely to turn into an utter fiasco, and if by some miracle had succeeded, would almost certainly have leaked, so that they would all be facing the death sentence. Possible, but not likely.

2) What about the unprecedented NORAD stand down on 9-11 which broke standard operation procedure? Over 67 times in 2001, NORAD had dispatched jets when they deviated from their flight path. In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart’s single engine Lear in depressurized, NORAD planes were flying around the vessel in 20 minutes.

But on 9-11, Ben Sliney, in his first day on the job as hijacking coordinator for the FAA, delayed calls to NORAD. Meanwhile NORAD ran at least 7 hijacking drills that morning like Operation Vigilant Guardian where commercial jets crashed into government buildings in Manhattan, Washington DC, and Virginia. These "mock" drills, designed to give live on 9-11, helped to distract the honest people within NORAD and the FAA, and to evade suspicion from patriotic investigators within the CIA, FBI, and NSA’s Echelon network.

Of the subject of the NORAD stand down, Chomsky wrote the following:

"Whether NORAD followed SOP, I have no idea, not having investigated the matter. I think the case is very weak, and diverts people from the really serious issues."

3) How about the document called "Operation Northwoods" signed off in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff like Generals Lemnitzer and Landsdale? These men, sworn to protect the Constitution, devised a plan to create false-flag terrorism in order to engineer a war with Cuba. Their treasonous plans included the following:

-"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."

-"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

- "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation."

This document was discovered in the National Archives and has been the subject of mainstream articles by ABCNEWS and others. It stands as clear evidence that the U.S. government has designed plans to engineer terrorist attacks and blame them on foreign enemies. Yet Noam Chomsky does not think the Northwoods document matters:

Operation Northwoods example is only one of many reasons for being skeptical about this: it doesn't even come close, and it was not carried out. Furthermore, there is nothing in history that even remotely resembles what is being proposed. Of course, that does not show that the thesis is impossible: nothing could show that, by definition. And if someone can put together some evidence and refute the arguments as to why it is extraordinarily unlikely, then the matter will be worth pursuing.

Chomsky’s role as the chief 9-11 gatekeeper proves he is distracting his leftist followers from the truth. Instead of facing the clear facts, he claims that 19 hijackers did it and that al-Qaeda is a real terrorist enemy. When presented with documented evidence, from living hijacker patsies to the NORAD stand down, he simply claims it doesn’t exist. He resorts to emotional "they would never do it" appeals in order to deny the obvious.

Chomsky is exhibiting far more than logical skepticism, but instead is actively engaging in disinformation.


9-11 Prior Knowledge:

Chomsky denial of government complicity in the crimes of September 11 is one thing, but he goes further, claiming the government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. Mind you, this is a position even weaker than Michael Moore’s tepid <>Fahrenheit 9-11<>, which at least tacitly suggested a degree of prior knowledge.

Chomsky’s position is untenable. For a man who prides himself on science and logic, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge mainstream media reports finds him using arguments similar to Holocaust deniers; one can show them photographs, videos, testimony, and physical evidence but the burden of proof is impossible. Such is the case with Chomsky who ignores the many government admissions of prior knowledge widely available even in the 9-11 whitewash commission report. Here is Noam Chomsky writing on government prior knowledge:

That tells us even less. Every intelligence agency is flooded, daily, with information of very low credibility. In retrospect, one can sometimes pick out pieces that mean something. At the time, that's a virtual impossibility. By arguments like this we can prove that someone blew up the White House yesterday.

If they did not have prior knowledge, why were Cheney and NORAD running drills that morning where hijacked jets flew into buildings in New York, Washington DC and Virginia? Also, wouldn’t the NSA’s Echelon network have picked up the chatter?

Of course, Chomsky does not even admit the Echelon network exists. This despite the NSA’s openly acknowledged ability to monitor all phone calls, emails and satellite communication with keyword software which can identify phrases and immediately begin tracking the communication. This despite their admitted bases at Fort Meade, with sister sites in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other unknown locations.

Students of the intelligence world know full well that the NSA’s Echelon network picked up the chatter for weeks before the attacks. In fact, the NSA admitted it, saying that on September 10 agents intercepted calls from hijackers but, *ahem*, did not translate them until after the attacks. Such admissions are red herrings, clearly designed to excuse massive prior knowledge at tops levels of the intelligence circles.

What about the President Daily Briefing given to Bush in late August which discussed the threat of hijacked jets? What about intelligence groups like Able Danger and FBI agents like Robert Wright who warned of the flight school trainees? What about FBI agent John O’Neill’s investigation into Al-Qaeda financing which was quashed by Bush? What about attorney David Schippers who desperately tried to warn Ashcroft about the impending attacks? Why was the CIA admittedly tracking the accused hijackers since 2000? Why was FEMA running drills in Manhattan that morning out of WTC-7? Why did PNAC documents like "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" call for helpful Pearl Harbor style attacks?

Those are just a smattering of the mountain of evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the U.S. government had prior knowledge. But Chomsky must deny these, because his role is to mislead and distract while chastising the 9-11 truth movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before 9/11 Chomsky never talked about the Bilderberg group.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_E...erbergClub.html
I always thought that it was because he was afraid to do it. I figured he was afraid the government would arrange for some of his family to have accidents if he did it.
None of the other big name anti-establishment pundits say that 9/11 was an inside job either.

http://www.rebelion.org/petrasenglish.htm
http://www.killinghope.org/
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=72
http://www.michaelparenti.org/articles.html

I wonder if it's because they're afraid to.
I still have hope that Noam is taking this stand because he's being blackmailed. He has several grandchildren. I would do the same if I were in his shoes if I had to worry about the government arranging for my grandchildren to have accidents if I said that 9/11 was an inside job.

Who has some ideas on this?

Here's Chomsky's web page.

http://www.chomsky.info/

They have: http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

Chomsky also thinks JFK was not assasinated but rather was killed by "lone gunman" Lee Harvey Oswald. Chomsky has absolutely no credibility.

To be honest... I don't think Chomsky is intentionally misleading or covering up. I think he speaks his opinion and he is wrong. Simple as that.

He says it would have been madness for the Neo-Cons to have carried out 9/11. Never a truer thing said. It was madness. Chomsky just doesn't realise that the Neo-Cons are as mad as they are stupid.

I agree. I'm just wondering why he says these things. I hope he's doing it because he's being blackmailed. If he were to go whole hog and talk about the Bilderberg group and say that 9/11 was an inside job and that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, all his grandchildren would probably die in accidents very soon afterwards. That's what I think would happen anyway. If that's why he says the things he says, we should be understanding and forgive him. He's opened the eyes of a lot of Americans when it comes to other issues.

I pretty much agree with you.

I'm sure he's seen "Painful Deceptions" and "Loose Change" and all of the other documentaries about 9/11.

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

Anyone who sees the blow-up that shows the nose of what hit the Pentagon can't truly believe that. Chomsky is one of the most hard-to-fool people around.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...6giantpsyop.htm

I still have hope that's he's being blackmailed.

Wow, I think thats a first!

Awww, come on, you know that's not true.

These guys don't say that 9/11 was an inside job either.

http://www.rebelion.org/petrasenglish.htm
http://www.killinghope.org/
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=72
http://www.michaelparenti.org/articles.html

I think it's because they're being blackmailed. What does everybody else think?

I don't believe this for a second. He doesn't question one damn bit of the official story. That's absolutely absurd.

I agree - but I think he's just plain wrong. I don't see any evidence it *knows* and refuses to say.

William Blum isn't a truther? Shit, thats surprising. I'm reading his book, Killing Hope, at the moment. Its all about CIA ops in other countries. I was sure he must be a truther.

Well, someone should interview the guy and ask him if he believes the entire official story. Maybe he is simply focusing all his brain power on Iraq, Iran, and Palestine. Maybe he believes that Al Qaeda did carry out 9-11 but the Bush administration knew of it and actively allowed it to happen (my pet theory). Or maybe he is just getting old. Hypothesizing his reasons can only get us so far..maybe he will appear on a call in show and someone can ask him.

You would have to either a moron or a liar not to acknowlege serious problems with the official version and the subsequent investigations. Chomsky is not a moron.

This post has been edited by hdog on Oct 9 2006, 07:34 PM

The

1.
far left accepts 9-11 as inside job - but not from knowledge but for its usefulness as an ideological tool

2.
left, like Chomsky, are liars, not true intellectuals. They only care about "market share" for "the left." They cannot seem to understand the clear historical record of "the left" being just as imperialistic and fascistic as "the right". (I personally think Chomsky, a Ph.D. linquist, is a has-been, and is a perfect example of how intellectually and morally bankfupt the left is. Is that all they got?)

3.
establishment right is made up of two groups -

3.a
intellectual conservatives but usually not Christian, and often atheist or agnostic. These folks are just arrogant and condescending and have a deep-seated NAZI mentality. They will not stoop to or deign to investigating facts which are screaming for intelligent investigation.

3.b
Bushies - Christian right wingers - totally in denial about 9-11 and Bush and Republican party and just about everything. The tenuous state of the integrity of their psyche precludes their intellingently discussing any small part of 9-11 inside-job evidence. These "Chrsitian patriots" act a whole like NAZIs too, and can be just as vicious and unreasonable as all of these groups.

4. "paleo conservatives" or whatever name conservatives are who just cannot understand how anyone would not question the official 9-11 story and why anyone would not think this world changing event demands thorough academic investigation. In many ways, this group most closely matches true intellectuals, like the scholars for 9-11 truth, because we understand that this historical event must be recorded and understood only in its full truthfulness. 9-11 truth can change the direction the USA is going and the direction the world is going. Take-over-the-worlders could be stopped by 9-11 truth and justice.

This post has been edited by Dachsie on Oct 9 2006, 07:34 PM

Another consideration is that Chomsky IS actually a moronn and that's exactly why he gets the media attention he does. It's possible and maybe even probable that he has the unusual name, says JFK was not assasinated and 911 wasn't an iside job so he becomes as Eric Hufschmit so eloquently puts it, a "useful idiot".

Either way, he has no credibilty in my book.

Stick to the chalkboard Noam; a detective you ain't.

I pretty much agree with you.

I dont buy the fact that highly intelligent people with above average IQs reaching towards genius and all the intellect and time they spent with books and researching can make a mistake as big as thinking that some towel heads did 911.


That bird dont fly folks.


with shill chomskey, I go with my good old stand by.

http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm

Chomsky's strength has always been heavy documentation, and turning the 'mainstream' against itself by citing their own works to defend his arguments. He rarely gets caught up in details, he's a macroperspective.

I know it doesn't sound true if you haven't read much of his work, but I think Chomsky's point was made when he stated that it was irrelevant one way or the other. That to get caught up in the singular event misses the big picture, which is where chomsky lives. In a sense, the truth movement's mission is about investigating the methods behind a murder, Chomsky's mission is to bring an end to murder as a method.

So he doesn't really fit the paradigm. I think he's wrong on 9/11 but I also see his logic in deferring the entire argument. He has awakened more people to the reality of NWO than anyone else alive, so I'd cut him some slack as far as the 'gatekeeping' myth.

Good point Roger. At least that's how he comes across. But why does he ALWAYS get it wrong? He stated that JFK was not assasinated. I wonder what he would say about the London and Spain bombings? If Chomsky is going to keep speaking about US/NATO policies and "terorrism" what is the point of anyone listening to him if he can't even name the biggest terror group on the map? At some point people have to say, "What's wrong with this guy? Why does anyone value his opinions?"

Chomsky wants the official story to be true because it would mean that the Third World had managed to strike back. It suits the way he sees the world.

I's say the only lie he told was when he said he'd looked at the evidence for an inside job. I'm sure he hasn't, or just glanced at it and dismissed it out of hand.

AHa! Excellent take on it Seabhcan.

This is very similar to Ward Churchill's take on 911 which he say was "blowback" due to US foriegn policy as well. I have to tell you though that it is a strange way of looking at it. It also unintentionally reinforces the idea of "Al Qaeda" being a legit threat.

It sounds more and more like Mr Chomsky's opinions should be dismissed out of hand.

Psychobable. He's an f'ing liar.

Upon further review I have t go with on this one. Chomsky simply has access to too many resouces to be wrong on JFK, 911, the London and Spain bombings. He's wrong on 4 for 4? It's just not possible. Either he's brain-dead or a liar.

Not at all. He has a lot of very interesting and true things to say on propaganda and media control. He's just wrong on 9/11.

Chomsky's response to my inquiry about his support for the 9/11 Truth movement. I was asking him how to efficiently employ counter-propaganda.

This post has been edited by rishta on Oct 9 2006, 08:32 PM

Not at all. He has a lot of very interesting and true things to say on propaganda and media control. He's just wrong on 9/11.

He sure gives a good perspective (Piarates and Emperors) on what the world is about.

There you go apparently he's actually looked into 9/11 and found the evidence unconvincing. Yeah, right.

Great. Let Noam tell the families of the Al CIAda London and Spain bombing victims why 911 wasn't worth looking into. This guy has got to rank as one of the world's biggest jerks.

I know and it troubles me, but he's right on the former point. Bites his own tail, I might say.

I agree with hdog, Chomsky is a LIAR! If I can figure out 9/11 was an inside job surely he can! I don't believe he's being threatened or blackmailed either. Just a shill for the NWO! Read his quotes, his big concern is perpetuating the right vs. left, us vs. them paradigm!

Fight the Fascists!

J4Justice