Conspiracy Theories

Watch Noam Chomsky smack down a smug 9/11 truther during a college lecture

During a lecture earlier this month at the University of Florida, MIT professor Noam Chomsky was asked a question by 9/11 truth activist Bob Tuskin regarding an alleged media ‘cover-up’ of evidence regarding the collapse of Building 7.

In spite of Chomsky’s former dismissals of truther theories as a “distraction,” Tuskin wondered if he was ready to “jump on board” with the 9/11 truther movement.

“You’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers. But they are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something,” Chomsky replied.

“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something.”

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments,” he added.

Watch the entire exchange in the video below, uploaded to Youtube by Bob Tuskin himself:

Facebook Comment
57 Comments

57 Comments

  1. Not Yours

    November 26, 2013 at 12:32 am

    He’s just leading the way to the path of ‘official rejection’… Suddenly, according to this guy, a fact ISN’T a fact (despite already being studied/reported) UNLESS it’s re-submitted through THREE different chains of ‘authority’ (so they can approve/reject THE TRUTH mind you), and then you have to write an article about WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY REPORTED ABOUT STEEL AND JET ENGINE FUEL, and PRETEND like you DON’T expect it to be rejected for being BASED ON PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ARTICLES…. YES… THE SCIENCE IS ~ALREADY~ PUBLISHED, MISTER… You just WONT, no matter what, LOOK AT IT… You INSIST anybody who has anything to say about it must SUBMIT AN ARTICLE – Only so YOUR FRIENDS, who don’t want to read the same things you don’t want to read, can JUST REJECT IT ANYWAY… WHAT… A LOAD…. OF BS. >: l

  2. Nick Zedd

    November 26, 2013 at 2:50 am

    “Never let us tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…” -G.W.Bush. “Look, this is just conspiracy theory.” -Noam Chomsky. Thanks for the identical advice, George Bush and Noam Chomsky. But no thanks.

  3. Daniel

    November 26, 2013 at 3:17 am

    That was hardly a smack down. In fact, it was kind of mealy mouthed. Chomsky didn’t refute a thing. He just jabbered on and on.

  4. Pingback: VIDEO: Watch Noam Chomsky smack down a 9/11 tru...

  5. kilongfellow

    November 26, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Norm isn’t stupid, but his reply is. When you’re facing down the kind of people who could such a thing as take down our own buildings killing our own people (if they did, and I personally think they did), you not only don’t, but can’t do the “usual thing.” What a maroon.

  6. K McArthur

    November 27, 2013 at 12:25 am

    Then how come all the conspiracists don’t do as he suggests and take their “findings” to the right achedemics? is it because they are largely unqualified to go to them?

  7. David Ward

    November 27, 2013 at 12:39 am

    He was being perfectly reasonable. If these so-called engineers want to be taken seriously, they need to have their work and conclusions be peer-reviewed. That is how things are done. This doesn’t mean being approved by the government, it means being approved by an academy of outstanding professionals in a field- engineering, physics, whatever.

  8. Joshua K

    November 27, 2013 at 12:45 am

    Truthers tend to sound as delusional and illogical as your general UFOlogist, douser, Illiminati, NWO true believer. I can believe the Bush administration could have purposely neglected to stop the hijackers, but I put more trust in the scientific community as a whole than I do the types of “thinkers” that make up the truther movement.

    As I understand it, the peer review process has failed to confirm the conspiracy theory. The explanations for each of the buildings falling sound as plausible to me as the alternative. The difference is, I don’t trust the Truthers to allow the scientific process to persuade them out of their position if they are wrong. Sort of like anti-vaxers, psychics, alien abductees, young-earth creationists, flat earthers, etc. I know that not even leftists are immune to believing such B.S.

  9. anon4cecAnon

    November 27, 2013 at 12:57 am

    a.) Relevant: It led to more than Iraq, in foreign and domestic policy (AUMF, Patriot Act, NDAA, DHS, TSA, SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/ACTA/TPP.
    b.) Incorrect: A/E is publishing and has petitioned and published scholarly, peer reviewed articles – under intense pressure.
    c.) Non-solution: Many Universities (MIT included) receive block grants and subsidies from corporations which has fundamentally changed them – ie risk adverse, politicized.
    d.) Logic flaw: Just because the thermite as a specific adjuvant theory proved controversial (by Scientific Anerican – a periodical) and lacking evidence due to the short order destruction of evidence, does not discount every other theory A/E presents.
    e.) Points for admitting this: He didn’t address building 7, he doesn’t know.
    f.) Gaslighting: His geopolitical reasoning and rebuttal was not factual, discounting many other factors occurring at the time (legal, impeachable minefields at UN etc.), circuitous and rather worthless beyond his celebrity having condescension weight (you Internet bloggers!). The Internet is just an information medium, that’s how I found scholarly articles.
    g.) Aye: He actually agrees with the questioner that more scientific inquiry and peer review should take place.
    10.) Consider the source: It’s not his area of expertise. I don’t expect Angelina Jolie to have an opinion either – she’s an actress. Frankly, my plumber knows more. To cast aspersions, while by his own admission he ‘doesn’t know,’ is just weird hubris and cognitive dissonance.

  10. Daniel Walker Cole

    November 27, 2013 at 1:10 am

    Um you are a fool. APPLICATIONS of old science to NEW happenings ARE published. Ever heard the saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Mind pointing to the PEER REVIEWED papers that you SAY prove this? What a load of bullocks. When you disparage someone who works at MIT you have lost all credibility.

  11. Plato

    November 27, 2013 at 1:12 am

    All of the above comment show what is wrong with conspiracy theories–they are non-falsifiable. Chomsky is right. And another thing: to hold together as many people as you truthers claim are in on the conspiracy is impossible. You’re the moroons.

  12. Daniel Walker Cole

    November 27, 2013 at 1:13 am

    When you learn to spell come back and MAYBE I will take you seriously and the “people” you are facing are not the academies, the scientists. I WISH the government had the kind of power you seem to think it does.

  13. russelln

    November 27, 2013 at 1:16 am

    just like TWA 800 gained altitude after the plane blew in two..he is just parrot for the official line

  14. Viola DaGamba

    November 27, 2013 at 1:21 am

    I live in NYC that day. This truther business doesn’t hold any water. Now that science has killed religion, it’s sad that gullible people have to invent new superstitions.

  15. Alan

    November 27, 2013 at 1:38 am

    If the obvious route of action for the Bush Administration was to blame it on Irag, and if it only took ‘a little bit of thinking’ to figure that out, don’t you think someone in the Bush administration would advise for a slightly more clever plan?

    I agree, this didn’t refute much at all, and certainly wasn’t a display of critical thinking.

  16. Alan

    November 27, 2013 at 1:38 am

    If the obvious route of action for the Bush Administration was to blame it on Iraq, and if it only took ‘a little bit of thinking’ to figure that out, don’t you think someone in the Bush administration would advise for a slightly more clever plan?

    I agree, this didn’t refute much at all, and certainly wasn’t a display of critical thinking.

  17. Mark

    November 27, 2013 at 2:30 am

    Actually, if I may, just state that what Chomsky is stating is that there is such a thing as the Scientific Method, which is a tried and true system of developing models, testing them, and presenting your results. Now, alias “Not Yours” claims that there is some board of scientists that approve of facts and numbers before they can be published. This is not true. In fact a staggering number of articles that have been written are proven wrong as more research is conducted on the subject. There is no board to approve of these papers and articles. No body “approves the truth” as you seem to believe.

    And to Daniel, Just because his explanation was long doesn’t mean he was as you say “meaty mouthed.” He went through a very systematic logic based argument discussing the evidence against the argument that our government planned 9/11.

    I know you will not read this, and that if you do you will disagree with me. YOu have a closed minded world view, and have made up your minds. I just want those who read this comment boards to have multiple view points to look at, so that those who are critical thinkers have more to go off of.

    If I offended you I’m sorry, thats not the point. The point was to explain to you the misconceptions about the scientific community, so that you may see this lecture in a different light.

  18. Aaron

    November 27, 2013 at 2:57 am

    “a fact ISN’T a fact (despite already being studied/reported) UNLESS it’s re-submitted through THREE different chains of ‘authority’”

    I’m sorry, what is your issue with this exactly? His suggestion that we go through the scientific process of PEER REVIEW? You know, that pesky thing that EVERYTHING ELSE has to go through before it is considered fact?

    Yeah, seriously Noam, come on!

  19. Joey Rogers

    November 27, 2013 at 4:47 am

    “it’s re-submitted through THREE different chains of ‘authority’”
    Scientific method. If you don’t trust it, then don’t take advantage of medicine, cars, planes, any electronic devices, or pretty much anything related to modern technology because they rely on the methods that you have described. Methods that you apparently do not trust.
    Those chains of authority are third-party researchers who have established themselves as professionals and experts in their fields. If you don’t trust them, then I have to ask: Who do you trust?
    “THE TRUTH” as you put it is a completely human construct. In social situations such as this, it’s not an objective reality, it’s something that we all come to a consensus on. Facts, on the other hand, are irrefutable bits of information which can be observed under normal conditions. If someone has access to this data, they should bring it to light. If they haven’t found their audience, then they need to do a better job at either one, establishing their credibility so we can ‘trust’ them, or two, do a better job at communicating their message. 90% of the globe isn’t biased against this information. If the evidence hasn’t found its audience yet then that alone makes me question it.

    “Only so YOUR FRIENDS” <- This is just willful ignorance and disregard of plain reality. Peer review consists of making one's findings public and accessible to all, in order to establish said findings. It's not handed out to a circle of conspirators. You can check the peer-reviews yourself by searching for them of a particular document and searching for a connection between the author and the reviewer.

    This all just stinks of anger and emotional attachment and this is why I can't take this movement seriously anymore. The guy even shouted Noam down when he interjected to ask if there was even going to be a question or if it was just an imposed 'lecture'. If you guys want to be taken seriously, then you need to be serious and stop approaching this topic with a chip on your shoulder. If you have facts to display, then do so. If it turns out no one agrees with you, then find out why. Doesn't it seem oddly convenient that it's the world that's wrong and not you?

  20. Rob S. Pierre

    November 27, 2013 at 4:47 am

    A bunch of idiot truthers having a circle jerk. Have fun at your minimum wage jobs losers.

  21. M Robinson

    November 27, 2013 at 5:03 am

    Yay! He is not a truther. We all have our crazies, glad he is not one of them.

  22. Steve

    November 27, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    So tell me why is it not required to have science tell me something is wrong when my eyes tell me so. It is in fact at this point when Science needs to be pouring out explanations, peer reviewed by thousands to explain it, and PROVE it…WHICH THEY HAVE NOT….the engineers who support the governments position are also “miniscule” why? And why does the media elect to believe them? Answer that please Noam Chomsky.

  23. Steve

    November 27, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    news flash…it ain’t the government..that would be impossible, politicians keeping a secret, as if.

  24. Steve

    November 27, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    I don’t buy a conspiracy, per-sai, yet one has to ask how come, that leads me to believe somewhere someone outside the terrorists themselves knew of the plot, and decided to capitalize on it, and that is not impossible if it were done thru the CIA or NSA, as for the initial argument itself, one has to ask “Why believe the engineers who support the governments position as they too are “miniscule”and why does the media elect to believe them? And why do you? Watch the collapse of building 7, forget all the conspiracy shit just that one thing, building 7, and ask yourself who do choose to believe? Do you believe a miniscule number of “engineers” that recount this event is explainable by no invasive means and dismiss a miniscule number who don’t accept those explanations?…that begs to ask.. Did you believed all that weapons of mass destruction nonsense too?

  25. Steve

    November 27, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I don’t buy a conspiracy, per-sai, yet one has to ask how come building collapsed as it did, so perfectly, without intervention, the first time ever in the history of building collapses?,
    That leads me to ask why, is there motive? Well yes there were many who benefited from the collapse and destruction of all the contents of building 7. So why not pursue a line of investigation? Why is seen as repugnant by so many people?
    The possibility that somewhere, someone outside the terrorists themselves knew of the plot, and decided to capitalize on it is not impossible.
    The CIA FBI and the NSA have all proven themselves to be liars. So why trust their account?
    As for the initial argument itself, one has to ask “Why believe the engineers who support the governments position as they too are “miniscule” so why does the media elect to believe them?
    And why do you?
    Watch the collapse of building 7, 5 full hours later, never hit by anything, forget all the conspiracy shit and watch just that one thing, building 7. Then ask yourself who do choose to believe?
    Do you believe a miniscule number of “engineers” that recount this event is explainable by no invasive means and dismiss a miniscule number who don’t accept those explanations?
    That begs to ask.. Did you believe all that talk about weapons of mass destruction?
    If yes then by all means lap it up and question your government not. I like to ask why until I get an answer that stops the question, hasn’t happened yet and I have been looking… on both sides…neither has satisfied me yet.

  26. Nick Zedd

    November 27, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    He’s not a truther, he’s a liar. That’s nothing to celebrate. There’s nothing crazy about knowing the government lied about the 9/11 inside job. It’s easy to be a dupe. Misunderstanding is all you see.

  27. David Prater

    November 28, 2013 at 5:50 am

    This is sad. How can anyone call this a “smackdown of a truther”? Chomsky sounded old, irrelevant and condescending. Furthermore, his rambling response smacked of Northeastern Elitism and reeked of tenured entitlement. A blind man could drive the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division through the massive black holes in his argument. The bottom line? Chomsky is wrong. Seriously wrong.

  28. W.G.

    November 28, 2013 at 11:42 am

    The load of B.S.is the theory that the administration at the time had anything
    to do with it . I´m really tired of these
    conspiricy FRAUDS getting in the way of
    History . The reason papers are resubmitted are for the simple reason of PROVING A CASE !

  29. random mouse (@anoynamouse)

    November 28, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    Dear conspiracy clowns?

    Where are the hundreds or even thousands of people that would be required for a such a conspiracy? You all watch to much TV. The bad guy just doesn’t put on the waiter or janitor outfit and walk around a building place charges without me and my team of facility managers seeing people that don’t belong doing things they shouldn’t be doing!

    *It takes weeks or days to set charges.
    *People talk…they always do someone would be telling the truth no matter how much you think a “black hand” is at work.
    *Science has taught us that people of above average intel see conspiracy because they cannot the dots but no see the silliness or improbability.
    *Just because it’s possible doesn’t make it probable.

    Norm is spot and and lives in the real word. Those who think there is a black hand at work telling the media to NOT talk about it are foolish. The media in fact would LOVE to talk about such a conspiracy…were little things like Watergate of interest to the people?

  30. cmholm

    November 29, 2013 at 9:32 am

    You evidently are unfamiliar with Chomsky’s work. Come back when you’ve purchased a clue.

  31. Pingback: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11 | Promote Liberty

  32. Not Yours

    November 29, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    It is neither intelligence, nor insight, that we find, when we take the mere NAME of an institution, in place of examination of its evidences….and where are my peer-reviewed papers? THIS source I’m about to give you: EXPLAINS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 116 PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ON REFUTING 9/11 SINCE 2009 ALONE. Please stop talking now… Your stupidy it ANNOYING… >: l

  33. Not Yours

    November 29, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    NOTHING is ‘proven’ ultimately in science, until its deemed a LAW of nature. 9/11 = IS NOT A LAW OF NATURE. So it is NOT PROVEN. Does that at least make sense so far? Now… DID the administration have anything to do with it? ~I DUNNO~… Did George bush really hire an overseas accountant from the same ‘Bin Laden’ Family (yes)? DID the Bush Adm. recieve MANY memos and emails about the danger of an attack, including ones involving flying planes into building (yes)? Did they then quickly LIE about whether or not they had gotten/seen those memos and emails (yes they did). When time came to take action after the attack, did the President of the United states take his TOP DEFENSE AID aside, and tell him “I know what this looks like right now, but I want you to start working right now, on how we can make this about Iraq and Suddam.” (YES he DID, they aid came forward and talks about it now openly and EVERYTHING) … Here… HERE’S MY QUESTION TO THE BIG SWARM OF YOU ‘BUSH SUPPORTS’ We’ve apparently found: ….. DO YOU KNOW WHAT A WAR CRIME IS..??? : l

  34. Not Yours

    November 29, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Right. As INCREDIBLY better than it is from the process of faith-based ‘meditative or oracular’ revelation? What people forget is that even the process of scientific discovery/understanding is ~NOT~ perfect. JUST as ALL sectors of the populace suffer under prejudices – so TOO, do the academic circles. If you’re TOTALLY UNHEARD OF as a scientist, then the likelihood that ANYBODY is going to be interested enough to actually try and recreate your findings (you cant FORCE people to do the science you want them to do for you) drops substantially. Whats more stifling: Out of all the scientific journals and university departments, if just ONE person happens to SEE that you’re about to destroy a concepts which presently hold ‘relevance to national SECURITY’ status??? If just ONE Bush-supporter-republican or ex-CIA director turned university professor sees what you’re doing… PEOPLE – THE GOV WORKS ~WITH~ THE UNIVERSITIES… That’s how they STAY on the FORE-FRONT of technology..! If they(gov) SEE SOMETHING like some one about to destroy a NATIONALLY PROTECTED SECRET WITH THE SCIENCE THEY ARE CLOSE TO PUBLISHING….. ~~~~HELLLLLO~~~~…. THEY DESTROY THAT SCIENCE… THEY BURY THE RESEARCH (AND POSSIBLY THE FREAKING RESEARCHER – DON’T LAUGH YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THE CIA IS ~FOR~. You don’t DESERVE to laugh while those people run around KILLING people for your tax dollars), AND THEN?? NO ONE…. EVER ~SEES~ THE SCIENCE/RESEARCH… Lie protected, proof destroyed – problem solved… Solved, UNLESS: You believe in truth holding authority and authority only gaining its right through truth. If you think that : You’re screwed… : l

  35. Not Yours

    November 29, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    @Random Mouse : … Wow, clearly you’ve never seen the movie ‘V for Vendetta’… WHERE are all the people? (With just the mildest of guesses) One could easily deduce that those people who WERE involved directly (which could have been as few as only a couple hundred if that, by how small the team of Hijckrs was, etc) could easily once their ordeal was over, find new jobs/identities EASILY in the republican/government offices. Once a CIA agent completes a very important mission, they ~disappear~. I’m NOT saying ‘they are dead’ – I’m JUST saying that in a plan we already KNOW involved faked-passports? Who is to say that those evil men who were involved in knocking down that building who DID work for our own govenment, didn’t just TAKE ON NEW IDENTITIES and continue living among us? NEED I REMIND YOU: That the U.S. Changed the identities of and secretly harbored Nazis after we defeated their leaders..? I mean… Are you that close minded? : l

  36. Nick Zedd

    November 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    Dear Conspiracy dupe,
    Collaborators don’t need to know how the conspiracy is directed. They just have to be willing and loyal dupes following orders for the conspiracy to succeed. That’s how conspiracies work. It just takes seven insiders in executive positions for a conspiracy like the 9/11 inside job to succeed. The global elite pull off false flag operations all the time this way. Learn to educate yourself regarding the sad, sordid history of false flag atrocities that have changed history. People who watch too much TV believe the official story. Witnesses and expert analysts have already talked. You’re just not listening. Controlled corporate media has the same agenda as the global elite managing the simulation. In warning the Left against examining the evidence on JFK and 9/11, Chomsky lines himself up with George Bush and the corporate media, thereby advancing their agenda – which he otherwise opposes. Dependent on Ford Foundation (CIA) funding, Chomsky and ZMag are part of an “alternative media” that is more bark than bite, which can be relied upon to ignore and dismiss sensitive topics as “irrational distractions” or “conspiracy theories.”

  37. Not Yours

    November 30, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    My ‘issue exactly’ is that if he still holds this stance, then he’s essentially either a hypocrite or he’s just not well informed. There already HAVE been peer-reviewed papers and articles that question the findings in the official 9/11 story. While a few of them may have been debunked, not all of them have. Noam makes it sound though like being peer-reviewed isn’t even enough though, and to be honest: maybe it isn’t. Peer-review, it turns out, is also an imperfect process. Debunkers can debunk GOOD science with BAD science, and don’t forget to watch for that as a ‘casual researcher’ out there in the world. I’ve seen it myself – it DOES happen. Today in Forbes mag I saw an article proclaiming that the science proclaiming GMOs to be dangerous was mis-handled, seeming to say that GMOs really might be safe… Do we really know that GMOs ARE safe? No, at best you can only say that that one study was mishandled. Do you see my point? You can’t simply proclaim, even if a paper or two has been debunked, that therefore the official version MUST be perfect and infallible and accurate. We simply, at this point, have only conflicting expert opinions and some very confusing video imagery evidence and unfortunately for everyone really… That’s not quite enough to really solve/prove… much of anything… Does it mean it was an inside job? No one at this moment can say (GOSH I wouldn’t put this past the BUSH administration tho, omg… those people…)… Does it mean the ‘official version’ is perfect and accurate and totally correct? Well… We already know there are many very BAFFLING circumstances discussed inside the official reports… Like – how some of the ‘hijackers’ that the FBI listed as responsible in their reports, turn out to still be alive and in perfect health. *blinks*

  38. scout

    January 2, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    True, but support groups do NOT know the entire picture, all they know is what they are ordered to do. They also know that they will be protected by higher ups if they do only what they are told to do. And the paycheck follows, monthly, I suspect.

  39. Erin KayKay (@kawaiineko99)

    September 12, 2014 at 5:40 am

    I don’t even want to know where you got this “information”, you tinfoil-clad caps-lock doucherocket. Do you #ShaveBallsFirst?

  40. Diane Gordon

    September 12, 2014 at 6:29 am

    seriously, if you wrote “per-sai,” a common term, you’re functionally illiterate.

  41. Billy D

    September 12, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    I would like to call one comment into question. You state that they received intelligence of the risk of planes being used. Do you realize how much intelligence comes through the door daily? It being reported doesn’t tell how high it was escalated, how corroborated it was, how singular it was in a list of credible threats, etc. I don’t like Bush as a President anymore than the next registered Democrat, but I seriously doubt he had any hand in 9/11 other than possibly incompetency.

  42. Yan

    September 12, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Interesting, considering that guy up there just linked us all to over 100 published articles. You both agree, but one of you must be wrong. Drop the cage.

  43. Yan

    September 12, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    No, he just explained the scientific process. It is hard to not sound condescending when explaining something simple to someone who clearly doesnt want to understand.

  44. Alle Stevens

    September 12, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Actually, that is what the scientific community does, when it has a legitimate theory – they admit it for argument to a jury of their peers. There has been not one single respected scientific theory that has not been subject to this very protocol. Without it, basically. It’s not a scientific theory. Sorry.

  45. Starlarvae (@Starlarvae)

    September 12, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    Isn’t there a double standard here? To which peer-reviewed scientific journals did the 911 commission submit its report? NONE. And why not? They were political appointees, not physicists. Why assume that they got the facts straight, as far as the science goes? How about holding everybody to the same standard?

  46. Fubarific

    September 13, 2014 at 8:42 am

    ” the first time ever in the history of building collapses?,”

    If I am not mistaken I think it was the first time ever in the history of sky-scrapers that
    767 aircraft were flown into them.

    The two times it did happen they fell the same.hmmm. curious.

  47. Aaron

    October 16, 2014 at 5:36 am

    wow, I just lost a lot of respect for Noam. What is he afraid of? Spineless.

  48. Ray

    November 14, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    Professor Chomsky doesn’t seem to know that professionals who’ve spoken up about the fallacies with the government’s and 9/11 Commission’s stories have indeed been blacklisted and terminated from their jobs. Secondly, securing Iraqi oil was just the icing on the cake. Unlimited war made Bush and Cheney fabulously richer thanks to their investments in the arms industry.

  49. jgiambrone

    December 7, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    Chomsky uses a logical fallacy, the appeal to a hypothetical (“they would have blamed it on Iraqis”). He’s selling fiction as fact, and no one should believe a word he says about the 9/11 attacks. He hasn’t investigated, doesn’t want to investigate, and makes sort of outrageously misleading statements.

    A Public Challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky
    https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/a-public-challenge-to-professor-noam-chomsky/

  50. jgiambrone

    March 13, 2016 at 3:07 am

    Noam Chomsky and The War on Straight Answers
    https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/noam-chomsky-and-the-war-on-straight-answers/

    Noam Chomsky doesn’t “smack down” anyone.If you buy that load of shit he spewed in the video, you clearly are not very bright.

  51. great site

    June 23, 2017 at 5:42 am

    I just want to mention I am beginner to blogging and truly savored you’re web page. More than likely I’m want to bookmark your site . You actually come with very good articles. Thanks a lot for sharing with us your web-site.

  52. kumahasiaweh

    June 28, 2017 at 1:10 am

    Hi there, I discovered your web site by means of Google whilst searching for a related matter, your web site came up, it seems great. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

  53. Pozycjonowanie Stron Samemu

    June 30, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    I will right away seize your rss as I can’t to find your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you have any? Kindly let me understand in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

  54. hop over to this website

    June 30, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    It can be almost impossible to come across well-aware viewers on this matter, fortunately you look like you understand the things that you’re writing about! Regards

  55. imp source

    June 30, 2017 at 5:05 pm

    Noticeably beneficial points that you have remarked, a big heads up for adding.

  56. fuhuo

    September 4, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    I wish to voice my affection for your generosity supporting people who must have help with this important niche. Your real dedication to getting the solution all through has been really practical and have in most cases enabled workers much like me to realize their objectives. Your personal invaluable instruction can mean so much a person like me and somewhat more to my office workers. Thanks a ton; from all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top