Admits LIHOP is “conceivable”
The Corbett Report
Friday, Nov 6th, 2009
A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging remarks about 9/11 truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is “conceivable.” Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:
The video comes from a speaking engagement that venerated linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky was giving at the First Unitarian Church of Portland on October 2, 2009. In his question, 9/11 activist Mark Abell first details the historical precedents of the Reichstag fire and FDR’s foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor to establish that false flags and LIHOP events have been used in the past to justify warmongering. Then he asks why the notion of 9/11 as an inside job is such an “inconceivable idea” for Chomsky to a round of applause from the audience.
Chomsky then launches into a diatribe against the notion of a 9/11 inside job before bizarrely declaring the Bush Administration “absolved” of the crimes of 9/11 because it would have been “senseless” for them to use their CIA-created, DIA protected, State Department handled and White House sanctioned Sunni terrorists to carry out an attack they openly called for that Chomsky himself admits they benefited from. He then states that it is “conceivable” that the administration knew about an attack ahead of time and let it happen, but adds dismissively that he doesn’t know of any evidence for the idea.
It would be truly surprising if Chomsky did not know of any of the evidence that the administration knew specific details of the plot ahead of time. Aside from well-covered issues like the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 (immortalized in this moment from the 9/11 Commission hearings), there is the still-unresolved issue of the 9/11 insider trading, the sworn testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the information provided by FBI informant Randy Glass, and literally hundreds of other pieces of evidence that directly demonstrate foreknowledge of administration officials about the 9/11 attacks. But perhaps Mr. Chomsky has not yet seen this information.
Despite seeming to be singularly uninformed on the relevant names, dates, figures and facts surrounding the issue of government complicity in 9/11, Chomsky apparently sees no intellectual dishonesty in calling this evidence “outlandish” while maintaining that Osama Bin Laden is most likely the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks despite the fact that no solid evidence has ever been presented to suggest such a thing. Of course, the issue of Chomsky’s intellectual dishonesty on 9/11 is by no means new. The Corbett Report released a two-part documentary last year entitled “Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent” which painstakingly details how Chomsky’s 9/11 arguments are dishonest and inconsistent:
Abell must be commended for using a focused, contextualized question to get Chomsky to go further than before on the possibility that we are being lied to about 9/11. One can only hope that others will take up this example to continue the work of confronting prominent politicians, intellectuals and decision makers about the lies of 9/11. Only by doing so can we supply the definitive answer to Chomsky’s infamous two word dismissal of 9/11 truth: “who cares?”
This article was posted: Friday, November 6, 2009 at 4:47 am