Response to Noam Chomsky's dismissal of 9/11 Truth

The following is a response to an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

=======================

Mr. Chomsky,

I have to admit it is very difficult to reconcile your 9/11 stance with other words of yours, for example, those contained in Secrets, Lies and Democracy (Interviews with Noam Chomsky) 1994 by David Barsamian where you said,

"I could imagine a democratic society with an organization that carries out intelligence-gathering functions. But that's a very minor part of what the CIA does. Its main purpose is to carry out secret and usually illegal activities for the executive branch, which wants to keep these activities secret because it knows that the public won't accept them. So even inside the US, it's highly undemocratic."

But, Mr Chomsky, you seem to have turned your back on that analysis when considering 9/11. We have seen mounting evidence of CIA awareness of, if not involvement with, the purported hijackers prior to 911. We have seen how aggressively this administration has treated whistleblowers and dissenters such as Joe Wilson, John O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Siebel Edmonds, David Schippers, and others.

You've said that the culpable would've been mad to do this, and wouldn't have dared to endanger the Republican party. But, if we accept that the official story is not correct or at least not complete, we must also accept that those who steered these events were not primarily concerned about the survival of the Republican Party. They must also have known that those who are interested in the survival of the Republican party would fall in line pretty quickly. Those interested in preserving order and America's claim to the source of all that is democratic and civilized would also fall in line. Nothing about the "conspiracy" theories is implausible, and nothing is even new. You have taught us that Mr Chomsky!

You have also discounted any evidence presented saying,

"As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly."

But, let me say that David Ray Griffin provides an excellent study of the available evidence in his two books "The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions: A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report” . You state that a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence is at the heart of these conspiracies, but I believe Griffin presents a proper, thorough analysis of what the evidence is and what possibilities it supports. Are you specifically dismissing this analysis Mr Chomsky? If so, how can that be, as you claim such analysis is below your level of contemplation? How can you confuse investigation, research and analysis with one's opinion - if you don't do the former, how can you dismiss the latter?

Mr Chomsky, you said chaos would make loose ends that appear as conspiracy. Well, this chaotic event did in fact spawn a number of coincidences, contradictions and loose ends. But it also spawned many inconsistencies and some outright lies by official sources which you lump with the former. Most physical evidence, that of the WTC towers debris, the plane debris, the black boxes, video from surveillance cameras, were whisked away without any public analysis whatsoever, or never declared to be found, rendering the gathering of some very clear evidence impossible. It took enormous pressure from 9/11 victim's families to have a 9/11 investigation, poor and hampered as it was, at all.

As for the general public apathy and acquiescence, surely the mind behind Manufacturing Consent can comprehend how a nation's public, faced with such a shocking event, would not seek to find evidence, or be expected to ask the right questions. But those endowed with the public trust should have ask questions, and failed. Also, intellectuals, such as yourself, fell into their usual pattern of debating each other within the framework of the official dialogue, too afraid, unwilling, or unable to stray into or even see disturbing waters.

I am perplexed by your position , and can only surmise you do not want to be associated with something that you perceive will never see the light of day. Well, newsflash Mr Chomsky, it has, but it needs a push from more reputable people like yourself . I cannot see anything more important. It is one thing for America to fool its people about the state of democracy in Haiti or Columbia, but if they can allow their own people to be attacked, and not be called to account, then there is no hope at all and all your past legacy of activism rendered moot. Mr Chomsky, you will then end up in the category of those, who by act or omission, supported status quo for personal gain, or fear of loss, and failed your fellows when needed most.