I have to say that as my dissappointment faded, it was replaced with a "fuck it, what can you do" kind of feeling. If he doesn't wanna spend his time on this stuff, that's his business. This guy has done more for our society in a week than most of us manage to do in a life.
Mr. Chomsky,
Let me first thank you for your tireless work and innumerable contributions to human culture as a whole. Your books Understanding Power and Hegemony or Survival continue to provide deep insight and inspiration on many levels.
The real purpose of this writing, however, is not to praise but to criticize. Perhaps it is not fair that, after a lifetime of work, a slight deviation from the norm should be singled out for criticism, but when you are a champion of truth - supporting a lie is a great disservice to all.
It has been 8 years since 9/11 and the picture is gradually coming into focus. The research has been compiled and something approximating a verdict is in...
Richard Gage at www.ae911truth.org, Steven Jones and his revelatory accounts of unignited nanothermitic material at WTC, the sheer lunacy of the 9/11 commission report, vast documentation that leads with all probability to rogue elements within CIA, Mossad, and other entities....i will not burden you with links because I am certain you know where they can be found.
I would only hope that you use your immense talents and influence to stand with the brave souls who have pursued the truth all these years, for their time is at hand.
Very sincerely and respectfully yours,
Nathan Munn
| show details 14 Jul (1 day ago) |
|
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm familiar with this work, but don't pursue the matter because I think it's seriously misguided, for reasons I've expressed when asked.
Noam Chomsky
| show details 17:57 (22 hours ago) |
|
Thanks very much for your reply.
I can assure you, it is not my intention to attempt to start a debate here - but I have to ask: What exactly do you feel is 'misguided'?
Certainly intentions can be misguided, theories and accusations as well, but I fail to see how actual, physical evidence as the result of employing the scientific method can be perceived as misguided.
Is it the act of investigating 9/11 itself that you feel is misguided?
Thanks again,
Nathan
| show details 19:57 (20 hours ago) |
|
I've been asked about this so often, and gotten so bored with responding, that I've just been sending a letter that I'd written to someone else. I hope this covers your concerns.
If people find physical evidence, fine. They should then submit it to technical specialists and journals. E.g., suppose nanothermite is found. I haven't the slightest idea what that would imply.
NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence about an internal explosion is not very convincing, frankly. But suppose it is true. Then what follows. That is quite straightforward. I have explained it to advocates of the "Truth Movement" innumerable times, and have never received a response. So I will simply copy and paste what I have written to others. Let me stress that this letter is to you, personally, not to be distributed. I don't have time or interest in become involved in internet distractions.
Noam Chomsky
It is all straightforward. Uncontroversially 9/11 was blamed on Saudi
hijackers. Uncontroversially the Bushites wanted to invade Iraq.
Uncontroversially, invasion of Afghanistan was a serious distraction from
their goals, and they had to jump through hoops to try to concoct a
justification to invade Iraq, resorting to torture to try to establish a
Saddam-alQaeda connection, inventing stories about yellowcake, etc., utterly
discrediting themselves. Uncontroversially, if they had blamed Iraqi
hijackers, they would have avoided all of this, proceeded at once to their
goal backed with near-universal public support, a NATO declaration of war,
Security Council authorization, etc. All of that is uncontroversial.
Now let assume that there was an internal explosion. Barring collective
insanity throughout the Bush administration -- not just Bush, but also
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the rest -- they are therefore
absolved. That is not quite as obvious as 2+2 = 4, but about as close as
one can come in the empirical world. Who then? Who would have wanted to
deflect an invasion of Iraq and to harm relations between the US and Saudi
Arabia? I can think of only two candidates: Saddam and bin Laden. No one
has yet suggested others.
Turning now to the evidence, it means very little for reasons I've already
mentioned, but if you think it is convincing it's pointless to write to me
about it. You should publish articles, shout it from the rooftops, undertake
organizing, etc. -- in fact, all the things that people routinely do when
they take seriously some cause that concerns them. I won't spend time and
energy on it, because I have far higher priorities that trying to absolve
Bush and implicate Saddam and bin Laden.
--------
And there you have it.
hijackers. Uncontroversially the Bushites wanted to invade Iraq.
Uncontroversially, invasion of Afghanistan was a serious distraction from
their goals, and they had to jump through hoops to try to concoct a
justification to invade Iraq, resorting to torture to try to establish a
Saddam-alQaeda connection, inventing stories about yellowcake, etc., utterly
discrediting themselves. Uncontroversially, if they had blamed Iraqi
hijackers, they would have avoided all of this, proceeded at once to their
goal backed with near-universal public support, a NATO declaration of war,
Security Council authorization, etc. All of that is uncontroversial.
Now let assume that there was an internal explosion. Barring collective
insanity throughout the Bush administration -- not just Bush, but also
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the rest -- they are therefore
absolved. That is not quite as obvious as 2+2 = 4, but about as close as
one can come in the empirical world. Who then? Who would have wanted to
deflect an invasion of Iraq and to harm relations between the US and Saudi
Arabia? I can think of only two candidates: Saddam and bin Laden. No one
has yet suggested others.
Turning now to the evidence, it means very little for reasons I've already
mentioned, but if you think it is convincing it's pointless to write to me
about it. You should publish articles, shout it from the rooftops, undertake
organizing, etc. -- in fact, all the things that people routinely do when
they take seriously some cause that concerns them. I won't spend time and
energy on it, because I have far higher priorities that trying to absolve
Bush and implicate Saddam and bin Laden.
--------
And there you have it.
