Tags
9-11 Truth, 9/11 Truth, conspiracy theory, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Government, Inside job, Loose Change, Noam Chomsky, politics, September 11th, September 11th Truth movement
Several weeks ago, after giving a talk at the University of Florida, Noam Chomsky was confronted by a ‘9/11 Truther’ during the Q&A period. The questioner asked Chomsky what he thought about the evidence that 9/11 was the product of a government conspiracy. He specifically noted the large groups of people (in particular a society of ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’) that believe World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished in a controlled explosion.
I’ve transcribed Chomsky’s reply below.
NC: Well, in fact you’re right that there’s a consensus among a minuscule number of architects and engineers – a tiny number – and a couple of them are perfectly serious. But they’re not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something.
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 M.I.T. or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results. And then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional societies of physicists and civil engineers, the departments in the major universities – and convince them that you’ve discovered something.
Now there happen to be a lot of people are around who’ve spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics – but it does not work like that, and it never has.
There are reasons why there are graduate schools in these departments. So the thing to do is pretty straightforward: do what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve made a discovery.
Now when the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement is brought up in talks I give, there are always one or two minor articles cited. Like there’s one article that appeared in an online journal, in which someone claims to have found traces of nano-thermite in Building 7. Now, I don’t know what that means. You don’t know what that means. But if it means anything, bring it to the attention of the scientific community.
So, yes, there’s a small group of people who believe this, and there’s a straightforward way to proceed…
However there’s a much deeper issue, which has been brought up repeatedly, and I have yet to hear a response to it.
Whatever one thinks of Building 7, and frankly I have no opinion: I don’t know as much about science and engineering as the people who believe they have an answer to this. So I am willing to let the professional societies determine it if they get the information.
There’s just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved. Very elementary evidence; you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute. So let’s think for a minute.
There are a couple of facts which are uncontroversial. One fact that is uncontroversial is that the Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq – that’s a longstanding goal, there’s good reasons for it. It has some of the largest energy resources in the world, right in the middle of the world’s energy producing region.
So they wanted to invade Iraq.
Second uncontroversial fact: they didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis. They blamed it on Saudis mainly. And that’s our major ally. So they blamed it on people from a country which is a major ally, not on the country that they wanted to invade.
Third uncontroversial fact: unless they were total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis. That would have given them open season for an invasion of Iraq. Total international support. A UN resolution. No need to concoct wild stories about WMD’s or contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, which of course quickly exploded, discrediting them…
The conclusion is pretty straightforward. Either they are total lunatics, or they weren’t involved. And they’re not total lunatics. So whatever you think about building 7, there are other considerations to be concerned with.
__________
Noam Chomsky, speaking at the University of Florida on October 18, 2013.
Two footnotes:
1. Chomsky underestimates the sustained popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Numerous surveys show that skepticism towards the official story is prevalent around the world. A 2008 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that only 9 of the 17 countries studied featured majorities that held al-Qaeda responsible for the attacks. In the U.S., some 15% of people believe allegations of a controlled demolition to be credible.
2. In vehemently expressing skepticism about the official story, or in directly charging the United States government for the attacks, you are also vindicating the criminals who hijacked those aircrafts and killed thousands. The allegation of a conspiracy is not merely an intellectual position, it is a moral one. Watch Chomsky below.
Food,Photography & France said:
Conspiracy theories abound…from moon landings, Princess Diana’s death, Kennedy’s assassination and more. As with ghost stories, a large section of the population would like there to be something more than the plain truth.
jrbenjamin said:
Very true. And Chomsky’s comments can be applied in many ways to the other conspiracy theories which you mention.
navigator1965 said:
JR,
Another interesting post. I will respectfully disagree with your point 2, with this disagreement being independent of the actual accuracy of the official explanation for 9/11.
An essential aspect of constitutional democracy is distrust of those in positions of political office. Power and access to vast wealth tends to corrupt, or at least to attract those with corrupt natures. There exists a fundamental duty of every citizen or subject in a democracy to treat statements by politicians and officials with a degree of scepticism. I would view the freedom of the press from such a perspective.
Thus, I argue, it is to a degree undemocratic to take the position that what the government states to be true is presumed to true, with the burden of proof to the contrary being upon those who disagree. The burden of proof must remain with the government, and it must meet a relatively high standard of scrutiny in the court of public opinion.
In terms of 9/11 truthers, I refer to Quintillian’s noted quote of “A liar should have a good memory.” If these individuals believe there are logical inconsistencies in the official recounting of events and facts, they have a democratic duty to speak up about these inconsistencies, and to demand explanations from politicians and officials that are collectively logically coherent.
I thus cannot agree with your point two. Truthers do not seek to vindicate criminals; they seek to achieve the necessary degree of certainty as to who the criminals actually were. I see this as the manifestation of the presumption of innocence as well as being the expression of prudent democratic scepticism. One must adhere to fundamental principles, especially in the face of heinous atrocity.
Alas, I have no appreciable grounding in political philosophy, so I thank you for your kindness in providing such individuals a forum on this interesting topic. It was an excellent post with which to disagree.
jrbenjamin said:
I actually agree with basically everything you say here. However, I do think that there are ethical dimensions to the claim that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by anyone other than their perpetrators.
So, many people (especially on the Left) say, for instance, “9/11 is the result of oppressive U.S. policies in the Middle East. It’s just chickens coming home to roost.” Well, I think comments such as that are reprehensible.
Equally, some people (mostly on the Right) have claimed, for example, that, “9/11 is the result of the decadence and moral decay of American society.” Again I say that’s a contemptible thing to say.
Such explanations, like those of 9/11 Truthers generally, obfuscate the essential principle that morality is based on agency — on the principle that you are responsible for what you do, and I am responsible for what I do.
navigator1965 said:
We are in agreement on agency, certainly. And thoughtless recourse to ideological position on the matter of 9/11 (or any other matter) is to be deplored, be that from a reflex conspiracy perspective, one from the right of the political spectrum, or one from the left.
For the minority of lucid academics or experts who are truthers or who at the very least seek to reconcile the official version of events with what they see as logical inconsistencies, I would see them as exempt from the ethical dimensions which you rationally posit.
I did enjoy this exchange, JR. Thank you.
Mike said:
The guy’s a national treasure.
jrbenjamin said:
He is. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the new documentary on him, made by Michel Gondry, called ‘Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?’
It’s available on Amazon and in theaters in some cities.
Thanks for reading.
Broadside Balladeer said:
It is morally repugnant to ignore the laws of physics, to embrace a preposterous official “conspiracy theory” about 19 Arabs while not calling it a “conspiracy”, and to turn a blind eye to the verifiable evidence as well as the omissions and distortions of the official conspiracy theorists. New post at Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance website! Kevin Ryan responds to Noam Chomsky ridicule of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (founded by Richard Gage): “Willful Ignorance” says Ryan in his “Dig Within” Blog. See the article at SF911Truth dot org! http://sf911truth.org/2013/12/noam-chomskys-willful-ignorance-of-911-by-kevin-ryan/
Filip Sandor said:
One of the stupidest conspiracy theories I’ve heard is that a private banking cartel is conspiring to control the politics and economies of the world by controlling the currencies of every nation. Really? I mean how do you think they could trick us to accept this?? How dumb can people be??
Sovereign nations obviously can NOT create their own currency, this is impossible! They must therefore BORROW all the national currency needed to run the economy as DEBT from private banks and must offer up collateral for this debt and pay INTEREST on this debt to the banks, who are the only entities on Earth which can create a currency.
Like what are you…. some CONSPIRACY THEORIST or something?