Noted scientist pans 9/11 conspiracy theory

Noam Chomsky, a scientist who revolutionized the study of linguistics, takes the position that there is no credible evidence that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that 9/11 truth activists are draining energy from the serious left-wing.

This closely parallels statements he made in 1993 about the JFK assassination, a time when the CIA was balking at obeying a law requiring it to declassify and release documents concerning that slaying.

In October 2006, Chomsky said he was "not persuaded that much documentation and other evidence" of government coverup concerning 9/11 had been uncovered.

"To determine that," he said, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have requisite backgrounds in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis;

[perhaps he overlooked physicists]

and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet

[unless one goes to the NIST web site].

In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers

[who were "absorbed" by the feds and did not publish their own study].

Or take a course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."

[Yet, the state uses the mass media as a propaganda arm, the scientist has said. However, apparently peer-reviewed media are exempt from clandestine pressure tactics.]

Chomsky continued, "One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away away from real, ongoing crimes of the state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up a world trade center would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

[So, Chomsky knows there is no credibility here. Does this mean he is an expert on the facts of 9/11 and has done adequate research? Or, is this an uninformed opinion?]

He said that "the 9/11 movement has been treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work."

[Is he saying the centers of power have been giving him a very, very bad time?, that he hasn't been treated tolerantly?]

In 2005, Chomsky said that "I think the Bush administration would have to have been utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests" and argued that serious evidence had not been provided to support the "oulandish" claims about an event that has "no remote historical parallel."

[Reichstag fire?]

In 1993, the scientist also said conspiracy theorists were damaging left-wing interests.

"Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination

[ignited by the Oliver Stone film "JFK" and the furor over release of intelligence records concerning the murder]

"I mean, I don't know who assassinated him and I don't care, but what difference does it make? It's not an issue of any general public interest. And there's a huge amount of energy and effort going into that. If somebody could show there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high-level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event."

Otherwise, the slaying was an insignificant event, like a murder in Hoboken, Chomsky said.

[The scientist doesn't know who killed JFK, but finds that the evidence points to a random criminal event. He's fairly sure there was no conspiracy because, he says, no policy changed. So high-level involvement hasn't been shown. This is somewhat akin to vouching for the Warren commission report based on the, essentially unproved, notion that there was no real change in the power structure.]

http://blog/zmag.org/node/2779
http://davidcogswell.com/Political/Chomsky_Interview_93.htm