Chomsky: No Evidence That Al Qaeda or bin Laden Carried Out 9/11 Attack

by Scott Creighton

I have written several times in the past that I thought Noam Chomsky was more of a Truth advocate than he really let on. I suggested people read his 2006 book Failed States and kind of read “between the lines” to get the real message that he was trying to leave his readers with.  Several readers took exception with that theory of mine (the list is growing longer by the day) preferring to recite the status quo Truth movement opinion of Mr. Chomsky, that he was “limited hangout” at best, and/or something else altogether.

I have even pointed out comments made by Chomsky in public that would tend to make him at least appear to be moving to our side; statements like “the supposed hijackers of 911 were never accurately identified by the US and they still haven’t been” and “the US doesn’t want to put “terror” suspects on trial in civilian courts because they have no evidence” these statements were made on Democracy Now back in March of 2010 yet pretty much went unnoticed by the majority of the Truth movement.

A few days ago some news came out that makes my position a little easier to swallow for my fellow Truth advocates, or at least, it should. This has shaken up the Truth movement a bit and they have been chatting about it on Blogger for quite sometime now.

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.

“The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any,” the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV’s program a Simple Question.

We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any.”

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later. Press TV

Chomsky went on to say that a few weeks after the war started “a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban… That was later turned into the official justification for the war.”

This is the essence of the Truth movement, that there was and IS no valid evidence of al Qaeda or bin Laden attacking us on Sept. 11th 2001 and that the entire thing was used to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and then later Iraq (and now Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen)

If this doesn’t make Noam Chomsky a Truth advocate I don’t know what does. So yes, here I am patting myself on the back once again. I know it’s tasteless and self-serving, but you know what? My life sucks so I find the little joys in it where I can. Sue me.

If you like, you can go here to watch the Press TV show in which Noam made the comments. The show is about 28 minutes long.

23 Responses

  1. I think you are stretching a bit here to be honest. I’m not impressed at all by his comments, especially when you again consider the disdain he has showed to 9/11 activists in the recent past. I can show you some emails from Mr. Chomsky that make it clear what he really thinks of the truth movement. Reading between the lines is all well and good for some but its not good enough for me. Shit or get off the pot Noam. Attack the lie head on and clearly. Most of Chomksys(certainly not all but most) readers have a similar disdain for the truth movement because of Noams open condescension of it in the past. Will these latest tepid comments change their minds? I’m not holding my breath. Sadly they trust this man very much and until hes clear about 9/11 being a total fucking fraud they will not be.

  2. Yeah, nine years later and he finally does something not “between the lines”. When every other issue he addresses is plain and obvious with no delay. And btw, this is STILL between the lines, imo.

    And I believe the essence of the Truth Movement is saying outright that new investigations are warranted and SHOULD be carried out. No “between the lines” stuff.

    Most of us REAL truth movement advocates, however, have been doing so from the onset. There is no bullshit from me.

    Wonder where Chomsky was for all those years? Well, he tip toed around this when he never tip toes around anything else.

    Tell you what, Scott, when that man actually says what we say and asks for a REAL investigation (instead of BS’ing us with “between the lines” shit), I will agree with you that he is actually a Truth Movement advocate. Until then, it is just “reading between the lines”.

    Like Chris said, he needs to be clear.

  3. Chris

    As you probably know, I didn’t come to this position just recently; Chomsky has made other comments on other shows namely Democracy Now in March of 2010 (which I have included in the article above just now), not to mention what I think is the entire point of “Failed States” and that is to point out that most if not all recent terrorism of the past 20 or 30 years seems to be State Sponsored terrorism in order to create the “failed state” model for our economic emipire to gain access to the targeted nation.

    Sso if this is a “stretch” as you put it, it’s rooted in quite a bit of research and not just one interview.

    Now as far as his animosity toward the Truth movement is concerned, tell me a Truth advocate that doesn’t have animosity toward someone or some TrueFaction in the Truth movement? Do you? I know I do.

    Fact is, the Truth movement has been hijacked you know it, I know it.

    But what he said, not just the other day, but SEVERAL times now on public interviews (you know, if Rand Paul had said ANYTHING like this, the AJ crowd would be beating off in the streets with bullhorns right now) is the essence of the Truth advocate. You can’t argue that. Call them tepid if you want, but these statements ARE the Truth movement and I think his readers (as you put it) may have already come to conclusions that you just don’t know about, even though they may not be standing on the streets with signs in their hands.

    Now, that said, let’s look at the real value of Chomsky.

    No one… not one single Truth advocate, has done as much with their lives to expose the state sponsored terrorism the United States, Britain, and Israel have committed.

    No one. period.

    again, read his books. Read Failed States.

    that is why he is demonized on the right AND the left equally.

    Now God Knows I support DRG and David Chandler and a few others in this movement as being legitimate Truth advocates. I think there are few that aren’t tainted and touched by now by some form or coersion or another unfortunately.

    And look at what they are doing to DRG; they are trying to marginalize him because he has the audacity to look at the photos of the Pentagon and wonder where the hell the 757 is.

    and for the most part, those are the same people who will continue to try and drive a wedge between Truth advocates and Noam Chomsky.

    Fact is, there are people in this movement who don’t want you reading Chomsky’s work, believe it or not just like there are people who don’t want you reading DRG’s work (especially his latest)

  4. Hi BuelahMan

    Another investigation.

    Well, that would certainly help, as long as it was a criminal investigation based on new evidence (I suggest testing for residues of commercial grade high explosives, but that’s just me)

    But would a new 9/11 Commission Report led by Obama’s version of Philip Zelikow actually help or hurt our efforts?

    And let’s say something came out that proved the original official story of 9/11 was wrong, like say was done in the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 which proved the Warren Commission wrong. What exactly did we get from that? People like you and I know what came out of that “new investigation” but for the most part, it was swept under the rug.

    Truth and Reconciliation investigations rarely do anything worthwhile but I would certainly be glad to see a criminal investigation brought forward in the case of 9/11, I think that could shake up a lot of people and if it was serious and they had some tangible hard evidence I think a lot of people would come out of the wood work looking to cut a deal… which is probably why the Obama administration went out of their way to make sure that would never happen.

  5. Chomsky talks more about the fallout from false flags instead of actually talking about the false flags themselves and the likely people involved. This is a problem, ignoring the catalyst of much of what he speaks against. I find myself agreeing with Chomsky almost every time I hear him speak but even more I find myself screaming at the tv/computer when I hear what he DOESN’T say. I think we disagree with the effectiveness and value of what Chomsky actually does say as opposed to what the truth movement says.

    Obviously the truth movement is a very large beast and there are all sorts of different “factions” as you point out. I couldn’t agree more that it has been hijacked, it almost certainly was from the very start. All dangerous(to the establishment) movements get infiltrated as is well known. Is this any excuse for Chomsky to be so dismissive about 9/11 truth though? How many different factions make up the general anti-war movement? Chomsky is very much a part of that movement(though not nearly as effective as the 9/11 truth portion of the anti-war movement imho), I notice he doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to that movement like he does with the 9/11 movement though.

    I have my issues with DRG, I feel he too dances around certain subjects, but I would not put Chomsky in the same sentence as him in terms of effectively taking on the establishment/ruling class with their own lies. Chomsky has reached his ceiling, over the years he has made many people look more critically at US foreign policy and what drives it. Some great work over the years but DRG and other 9/11 activists are striking at the root while Chomsky preaches to the choir and gives the 9/11 perps a pass. In doing so he leaves that most effective of lies in place, the lie that keeps on giving(whens that “draw down” date in Afghanistan again? Is that gonna be like the Iraq “draw down”?) both at home and abroad.

    How many “leftists” have you met who rail against the decision to go into Iraq but grudgingly “admit” we “had” to go into Afghanistan because of 9/11? Too many. Ignoring or belittling 9/11 truth doesn’t make that problem go away. We still have a large majority of people in this country who fear “ground zero mosques” and think that Obama is a muslim and is actually “on their side” while he continues the occupations of numerous muslims majority countries. We have “terror threats” all the time that most people buy into that reinforces their support of the “war on terror”. This is all thanks to the 9/11 fraud-the one that Chomsky has spent a decade ignoring(that is when hes not taking shots at 9/11 activists).

    Reminds me of his longtime JFK denial-“it doesn’t matter who did it”. He has essentially said the same thing about 9/11. This is a pattern. If there is another major, politically convenient false flag or assassination-will he again say it doesn’t matter who did it while railing against the fallout? Or maybe throw some crumbs a decade after the fact after catching heat from some of his own supporters? To support or sustain the 9/11 lie is to support and sustain the “war on terror” and all that goes with it, regardless of whatever else you speak out on. Thats how I see it.

    Oh, and Rand Paul is a fraud, he has his fathers same scary corporatist views on the economy without his strong anti-war, anti-imperial views. He shares his aversion to 9/11 truth though.

  6. “How many “leftists” have you met who rail against the decision to go into Iraq but grudgingly “admit” we “had” to go into Afghanistan because of 9/11? ”

    I would really like you to tell me what part of what Chomsky said in the interview supports this claim of yours. Also note the link I made to his March 2010 Democracy Now interview where he expresses the same ideas talked about in the Press TV interview.

  7. Chomsky in his own words:

    ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

    Noam Chomsky: I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn’t changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes — and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

    ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor – which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson’s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

    Noam Chomsky: The concept of “false flag operation” is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I’d suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

    ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world’s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?

    Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

    Gee Noam, call me crazy but I think you have it exactly backwards on the “diverting energy” front. How many wars and occupations have your lectures prevented or ended again? Again, Noam has indeed done some good work but to say something like “the concept of false flag operations is not serious” speaks either to just how far out touch Noam is or how deceptive he is on this subject.

    And “far more serious crimes”? Really? Yeah, the murders of 3000 innocent people that leads directly to multiple still ongoing wars and the deaths of probably millions more worldwide, that leads directly to the torture/spying/gulag/Patriot act policies and leads directly to an unprecedented explosion in military spending-that isn’t all that “serious” is it Noam? US foreign policy is currently built around the 9/11 lie, but its not “serious” to Noam. What the fuck.

    The above is from the shady website “OilEmpire”, do not take it as an endorsement of the site by me:

  8. My point was not that Chomsky himself holds this view(maybe you can tell me though-was Chomsky against the attack on Afghanistan from the start?) but that his and others silence on the obvious 9/11 lies has led to
    “leftist” support for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan(among other negative things). The conventional wisdom(lies) that leads to support for the “war on terror” and rampant islamophobia is in part attributed to the leading lights of the “left” failing to take on the 9/11 fraud. They have ceded the debate to the neocon/zionist/warmonger set. The 9/11 lies frame the debate and Chomsky has went along with that by way of his silence.

  9. You and I feel the same way about Oil Empire, that is good to see.

    the interview you selected is dated Oct. 6th, 2006

    I myself have learned a great deal about 9/11 since that date.

    Is it not possible that Chomsky has as well?

    Would you hold me accountable for things that I said before I began researching 9/11 back in 2005 and 2006? If so, you could say that I don’t support the Truth movement because back in those days, I did not. I thought the buildings fell down and the cover-up occured because of shotty steel and the fear of massive lawsuits.

    I have come a long way since then. Perhaps you have as well. Maybe Noam has too.

    I would at least like to think so.

  10. I have some emails from less than a year ago showing his disdain for 9/11 activism and how “useless” it is 🙂 It is possible he has changed his stance though, I look forward to hearing him say clearly that he has. Saying the FBI doesn’t have the goods on the patsies isn’t exactly earth shattering in my opinion. Its a start. Maybe he sees the worm turning and wants be on the right side of history or maybe he genuinely has taken a fresh look at 9/11 and has thus changed his stance. He has a lot to make up for though, a lot of explaining to do. He does not OWE me or anybody else an explanation but I for one will continue to be wary of him unless and until he does.

  11. You know, I had thought recently that maybe he and Hedges and Klein just need the right venue and the right angle to help them lend their credibility and their name recognition to the fight, without giving the MSM the oportunity to marginalize the rest of their valuable work as a result.

    To that end I have been writing an open letter inviting them to a discussion of the matter, perhaps even a peer review of a thesis paper or something, then an open discussion on it’s merits.

    Might be a sillty idea but I thought it would give them a venue to openly talk about the subject, to interject information and research of their own, and still remain in the “neutral” corner as far as the MSM is concerned.

    I don’t know. what do you think?

  12. and if you have his email address, I would like to send him my write-up on my controlled demolition theory analysis and ask him about whether or not he thinks we should test for explosive residue… that would give him the “hard evidence” he was asking for, now wouldn’t it?

  13. I’m all about people getting in touch with Chomsky or anybody else who holds influence and letting them know how “serious” 9/11 really is. His email is public record I’m pretty sure, I found it on one of his articles from somewhere awhile back so I’ll just post it here(delete it if you see fit of course):


    I asked him many direct questions, I thought I was level headed and rational but he proceeded to duck just about everything I asked. I wish you better luck than I had in trying to get a straight answer out of him.
    “I don’t have time or interest, or responsibility, to look at the mass of material that circulates on the internet.”-that was basically the gist of what I got from Chomsky throughout our exchange. No time or interest for even looking at 9/11-who cares what it led to and made possible. He did give me this gem though-“I’ve read Zwicker, and found it even more ridiculous than Atzmon.”. I don’t know, I thought Zwicker did a fairly nice job of calling him out in his book on 9/11 and the media.

  14. A lot of truthers have misunderstood Chomsky’s point – He argued from the beginning that it didn’t matter whether the government actually conducted the false flag operation or whether they just funded it or whether they caused it by committing atrocities in other countries and allowed the blowback or even if they didn’t intentionally allow the blowback.

    For him, they are equivalently evil. So what he says is, he doesn’t have to prove the government did it. Even the stuff that the openly government admits to doing is enough to put em all away for life.

  15. Let’s keep things simple. Chomsky has to grow some balls and get to the point. Like Zinn, he’s basically a coward. That english scientist Kelly had the balls, but he, like others (namely bhutto) are now dead people, thanks to darth cheney’s hit squad. The question at hand is really – how do we string the guilty parties up?

  16. “For him, they are equivalently evil. So what he says is, he doesn’t have to prove the government did it. Even the stuff that the openly government admits to doing is enough to put em all away for life.”

    Obviously not, as the war crimes are common knowledge, but Israeli and American involvement in 9/11 has NOT been properly exposed(lets be clear here-involvement in a terrorist act on 3000 Americans is,like it or not, going to piss off the American people and lead to actual accountability a lot quicker than the knowledge of blowback). Thanks in large part to our consolidated media, including to some degree the “alternative” media like Chomsky the people by and large are still in the dark. I agree with cinderman, he is a coward at best, something else at worst. His excuses don’t stand up to scrutiny. It didn”t work with JFK and it doesn’t work with 9/11, at least not with me. “It doesn’t matter’ is an absurd attempt to shut down discussion and give himself a pass for not using critical thought on those 2 issues.

  17. And Dave, not to be an asshole, but not a lot of “truthers(I prefer 9/11 activists myself) actually blame “the government”, even if some(key word) involved in the 9/11 false flag appear to have been within the government. Not exactly a “government plot”.

    Also, “equivalently evil”? Really? Do you buy that he actually believes that, and actually believes that exposure of SOME government(and private) involvement in 9/11, the lie that made all of those atrocities that Chomsky talks about possible in Iraq,Pakistan and Afghanistan doesn’t matter and that what we know now “is enough”? Did I miss the trials? Because last time I checked George Bush was shilling his book all over the place and was barely even asked about any of the war crimes his administration oversaw, let alone rotting in a cell somewhere like he and many others should be.

    Exposing that guys like Zakheim,Suter,Silverstein,Cheney,Hauer etc. did 9/11 and not guys like Mohhamed,Bin Laden,Atta etc. would be a bit more shocking to the populace than shining a critical spotlight on our standard operating foreign policy, sick as it is. Not to mention that as long as most think 9/11 was a “muslim plot” the underlying support for the “war on terror” and all that goes with it will remain high enough to sustain it. Thats what Chomsky fans don’t seem to get. Chomsky’s entire argument is laughable.

  18. Willy (aka Scott Creighton),
    Your knowledge of explosives is laughable. By suggesting that explosives were used in controlled demolitions, and doing all that you can to discredit Judy Wood exposes you as a disinformation agent. Sad… because you’ve written some very intelligent pieces on in months past and I was hoping to read something more informed from you than the drivel you propose. You need to read a little more. Explosives don’t turn matter into dust (unless there is enough explosive used to destroy everything within miles of ground zero as in a nuclear blast). High explosives don’t vaporize steel as seen in 911 videos. Controlled demolitions leave a seismic signature equivalent to the volume of mass destroyed. The destruction of the WTC left a signature of an 18 story building… and that of WTC #7 was that of a jackhammer. How do explosives drop a 47 story building on it’s footprint and leave a seismic footprint of a jackhammer? They don’t… though you seem to think your argument still has merit.
    Suggest you inform yourself a little better before discrediting Judy Wood… as you have egg all over your face (and you appear to revel in it).

    Chomsky is pussyfooting around the seminal event that justifies illegal wars that will never end… as long as those who perpetrated the event are not brought to justice.

    Have you no shame?

  19. Sad to hear Larry’s attacking the hard evidence of explosives published in a peer review paper that could be tested over and over.. and pushing another theory (Judy Wood’s) that just gets things more confused.. People mistake ‘belief’ for real evidence, scientific sort that was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal:

    I will be linking to this page from my web site, under my linking to Noam Chomsky’s excellent analysis of the WikiLeaks US government spin and hatred and distortion of democratic principles.

  20. Hi Scott, I see you are doing some great work, thank you for this, I think it is important to keep giving people chances to redefine their positions, like Chomsky seems to be doing. No need to post this, it is just to say hello, I picked this up off the , Jonathan is one of my 911 friends from up in Boston. I am in Spain now and have been traveling a lot, following the trail of MMS, now Russian energy medicine, also meeting the activists here in Spain, we did a chemtrails action in Barcelona Nov 20, life is pretty exciting for me. Thinking of you and wishing you the best, always~
    PS now that I am thinking about it, I just did a translation and I really need it dubbed, would like a man’s voice to dub please have a look at it, I can send you the text, I am ready to see this happen and the artist-creator is very excited to see it go up in English…thanks Mia

  21. […] 06 November 2010 – Word Press – Scott Creighton Chomsky: No Evidence That Al Qaeda or bin Laden Carried Out 9/11 Attack […]

  22. […] 06 November 2010 – Word Press – Scott Creighton Chomsky: No Evidence That Al Qaeda or bin Laden Carried Out 9/11 Attack […]

  23. […] 06 November 2010 – Word Press – Scott Creighton Chomsky: No Evidence That Al Qaeda or bin Laden Carried Out 9/11 Attack […]

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: