Noam Chomsky has misled what passes for “the left” in the United States since the September 11th attacks.  His verbal contortions apparently get some traction amongst people who know as little about the actual evidence as he does.

A recent college appearance had Noam slinging the same ignorant blather as he has done for 12 years now, and his reasoning fails due to a) either a complete lack of understanding of international terrorism and its sponsors, or b) dishonesty.

For an alternative perspective there is Senator Bob Graham, who co-wrote the Congressional Joint Inquiry Into the Attacks of September 11th 2001, the most crucial parts of which remain censored to this day (by two administrations).

Luckily Senator Graham has the backbone to tell the public what is being censored: Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now

Censoring clear evidence of Saudi state complicity in the 9/11 attacks on America fits the Constitutional definition of Treason.

Chomsky’s response concerning WTC building 7 is dismissive, claiming that 2000 architects and engineers are a “miniscule” number.  Noam swiftly changes tack so that these professionals, who take very real career risks by openly signing the 9/11 statement, are equated with people who learned about physics for an hour on the Internet.  This sleight of hand earns Chomsky a special place in hell for the damage he has willingly done to the US, just on this one issue.  He also makes ridiculous claims about investigating 9/11 being a “safe” topic (another demonstrable lie), as if those who challenge the US government’s 9/11 story are not routinely attacked across the corporate media as well as on so-called “alternative” foundation-funded media.  That architects and engineers would face reprisals for such political activity as this is inconceivable apparently.

But Chomsky’s Big Lie, pretty unique to himself, is a whopper of irrelevant speculation.  His personal musings are given the label “evidence” with total disregard for so much actual evidence it would humble any real scholar.

Noam Chomsky’s political gibberish, which he had the stones to call “evidence that [the unelected Bush regime] weren’t involved” in the 9/11 attacks, rises to a new level of absurdity:

Noam Chomsky’s (Anti) Conspiracy Theory:

  1. BushCo. wanted to invade Iraq.
  2. The alleged perpetrators were Saudis.  Phrased as “They blamed it on their major ally…”
  3. “Unless they’re total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis…”

There you go.  Noam would have had Central Casting call up some Iraqis to blame the 9/11 attacks on, because… it’s so ridiculous.  It’s astounding that adults, never mind academics in attendance, applauded such foul reasoning.

Here’s an alternative understanding, Noam.  One that actually meshes with the known history of the event and US proxy wars with their partners Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, beginning in 1979 (another uncontroversial fact, see Operation Cyclone).

  1. US “allies” sponsor, train and help radical Sunni militia movements like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, MEK, LIFG, KLA, Chechen separatists…
  2. These groups are not directly controlled by US personnel.  That’s called “plausible deniability,” a term the great professor has apparently never come across at MIT.
  3. The US and partners don’t just want to attack Iraq, Noam.  They want the world, and they want it now.  General Wesley Clark (who helped KLA destroy Serbia and Kosovo btw) told of 7 nations on the Bush regime’s hit list, immediately after 9/11.
  4. The “War on Terror” was not a simple pretext to attack Saddam Hussein, but a new paradigm in the face of a vanquished Soviet Union.  Terrorism replaced communism as the bogey man to open the spigots of unlimited war materiel spending and unlimited surveillance, something MIT might know a thing or two about.

Chomsky has the sense to punt on questions of WTC Building 7, claiming no opinion on the matter (except for his disdain at even being asked).  His opinions of what happened on 9/11 and the geopolitics of empire are hamfisted grasping at straws and desperate squeals from someone who has painted himself into a corner.  Chomsky finds himself in the unfortunate position of being looked to as someone who supposedly knows what he is talking about, and yet his responses reveal that he has no desire to know about the actual September 11th attack operation at all.  That the audience would applaud such mindless obfuscation is indicative of a cult of personality rather than any credibility or superior logic at work.

Chomsky assails the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for not having enough scholarly papers published, in his opinion, and yet they do what he does.  They use alternative media to get the word out.  This is not an academic question but real life and death struggle for the fate of the world.  US empire, Noam Chomsky should know quite well, exploits the 9/11 event to occupy, threaten and covertly destabilize a large chunk of planet earth.  It is their main military recruitment meme.  It is truly a day that changed history, and Chomsky doesn’t want to know what happened.  He doesn’t care.  He is a flagrant misleader who should have shut his mouth if he lacked the spine to learn the truth.


I meant to mention sooner that there is another lie in Chomsky’s statement: “They blamed it on their major ally.”

It is glaringly false on its face, a grotesque mischaracterization.

“They,” the Bush regime, did not “blame it,” 9/11, on their “ally” Saudi Arabia. Quite the opposite, and that’s the problem. They covered it up and redacted the investigation that blames 9/11 on Saudi Arabia. It is this protection of the Saudi regime that’s the central problem. It is also arguably high treason.

Noam Chomsky knows how to string together sentences that are clear and make perfect sense, as well as adhere to the facts. In this case he has gone to opposite land. I have my own hypothesis as to why he’s chosen to toss any credibility he once had over this issue. But the why isn’t as important as showing his statements to be ridiculous, counterproductive, and at odds with the truth and with the millions of people struggling to get the truth out. It is the victim’s families who are the original so-called “truthers” who demanded an independent investigation, only to watch it turn into an obvious and pathetic cover-up. Chomsky finds himself on the wrong side of history, feeding myths to his willfully ignorant followers rather than even acknowledging the cover-up. I have run into several of his ilk who have basically turned off their brains and refuse to even read FBI intelligence reports and the statements of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 9/11/01, Senator Graham. They substitute ignorant speculation for the actual hard evidence uncovered by the FBI. And why wouldn’t they? That’s what Chomsky does.

These are supposed to be the critical thinkers, the political opposition, and yet they are carrying water for Cheney et al. Go explain that one if you can.

Rabbit hole.

  1. RigoHC says:

    The work Chomsky has done for some Five decades combating the official narrative on U.S foreign and domestic policy is unmatched, countless people have opened their eyes to the reality of the country they live in reading him so what is the point in attacking him of all people?? If influencing people toward what you think is the truth is your goal attacking someone like chomsky who as you point out spends little to know time on the subject is odd. many if not most in the left or activist community are closer to chomsky on this topic so are they all liars to be attacked too?? this seems counter-productive in every way In my opinion

  2. Editor says:

    Pointing out lies is never counter-productive, if one actually cares about the truth.

    Chomsky has a history, going back to the JFK assassination, of adhering to official US government cover-ups. He misleads people into ignoring some of the most crucial issues of our time.

  3. RigoHC says:

    no one individual has done more to expose U>S govt. than noam maybe Howard zinn is close and then no one moreover not sharing your analysis is different than a lie Implying that he knowingly misleads people,if that’s the case most people on the left who don’t share your view on 9/11 could call you a liar, I don’t because I don’t assume I know what you really think I take you at your word so I think your wrong but I’m not calling you a liar, mr.chomsky’s credintials as a critic of American Empire need no vouching, for someone from the alternative or left media to attack the leading critic of U.S policy for five decades is baffling to me, surely you can leave that to the New york times, wall street journal, time, newsweek, every major corporate media outlet print and television that has been doing so since the 60’s no

  4. Editor says:

    I don’t care who he is. On 9/11 he’s completely full of shit and people take his shit shoveling as some kind of logical argument. It is not. I don’t know if he’s compromised, threatened, scared, crazy or whatever. He notably took the same line on the JFK assassination, misleading people into thinking that the killing of Kennedy was of no significance. That makes Chomsky suspect in my book.

    You are responding in a manner consistent with the “cult of personality” I referred to. The truth is the truth no matter who says it. If you won’t bother reading the linked sources, then you have nothing to add.

    Chomsky’s opinions on the September 11th attacks are absolutely worthless at best, and malicious lies at worst.

  5. RigoHC says:

    I have read enough on 9/11 And I don’t share your view. you can say ‘cult of personality’ to be dismissive of him or me but what do you call it when you accuse people who disagree with you on something where you are hardly on the consensus or majority view of being liars or just say ‘cult of personality’ to someone who agrees with chomsky not you? that is the only behavior that can be called suspect here

  6. Editor says:

    Unlike you and Mr. Chomsky I have something strange on my side – sources. Unless you’re going to dispute Sen. Bob Graham, his FBI reports showing Saudi government connections to the hijackers, then you are finished here.

    Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

  7. RigoHC says:

    my interest was not to disprove your position on 9/11 simply about you smearing chomsky and anyone that disagrees with you

  8. Editor says:

    So you, like Noam, have no idea what you’re talking about, essentially.
    Got it.

  9. Jordo says:

    Thanks for the Noam video! I think he really put it into perspective. Very nicely done by Prof. Chomsky.

    Yeah, no reason to smear Mr. Chomsky, he laid out the facts and what he thinks very openly and logically. If you disagree, fine. But no reason to go after Chomsky with so much vitriol.

  10. Editor says:

    You’re delusional. His speculations are not “facts.” That’s too ridiculous to bother with. You are exactly the reason I’m challenging him to come clean and state things clearly for the record. You, his delusional , cult of personality, head bobbing, ignorant followers.

  11. bmyra says:

    Great work. Thank you Joe. I think it’s obvious in light of his disinformation about President Kennedy’s assassination, Kennedy’s Vietnam policy, and 911 that Chomsky represents controlled opposition, in other words a propagandist with an agenda of derailing the left.

    Don’t expect his glassy-eyed followers to be happy about hearing this.

Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s