Written by polfilmblog@gmail.com   

by Joe Giambrone


In the wake of Donald Trump's shocking pledge: “You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center,” many Americans may find themselves staring into the abyss. The implication has reached the mainstream, that we do not exactly know who was behind the September 11th attacks, which are trotted out to justify every policy enacted ever since.

“Because they have papers in there that are very secret,” continued Trump, “you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”
It was genuinely a surprise that Trump would commit to uncovering the truth of the September 11th attacks, while the de facto leader of the American left, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, had long ago and repeatedly dismissed the 9/11 attacks as holding no importance whatsoever.

“Who cares?” was Noam Chomsky's now infamous 2007 quote.

"I mean even if it [a September 11th government conspiracy] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance."

In an email to Professor Chomsky I demanded he answer one very direct, albeit surprisingly controversial question. His non-response speaks volumes. My public debate challenge stands unanswered.

That vital question I posed to Chomsky, a cornerstone question for our age, concerns reality as we know it today (or as many do not). It is a “yes” or “no” proposition, and so without the opportunity for any fanciful verbal contortions.

Is there a US government cover-up of the facts of the September 11th attacks? YES or NO?

You may want to ask Professor Chomsky this question yourself ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ). Don't expect a response, although he may double down on “who cares?”

Noam Chomsky's record on the subject of the September 11th attacks is marked by circumlocution and a logical fallacy known as "hypothesis contrary to fact" or “argumentum ad speculum” or simply appealing to one's own pet hypothetical. Most mere mortals are unaware of this fallacious strategy of appealing to a hypothetical rationale to make one's case, but a world-famous linguist—America's most “renowned” academic no less—has likely come across this concept before.

A yes/no question eliminates all of that.

Thirty-five co-sponsors in Congress (H. Res. 14) currently demand the release of the censored 28 pages of the 2002 House/Senate Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. More cover-up concerns a Sarasota Florida mansion where hijackers gathered prior to the attacks; yet this never made it into any of the official “investigations.”

These facts are sufficient to call into question pretty much everything Professor Noam Chomsky has said on the subject. Chomsky has chosen muddling over clarity, word games over facts. He presents his position in terms of a vague defense of his ideology, a rationale that is repeated by his many followers.

Chomsky:

“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.” (Z-Net, 2006)
Far more serious crimes than September 11th? Real crimes? As 9/11 is the rationale employed by politicians to enable these later war crimes that Chomsky alludes to, his attempt to downgrade it falls flat. Without 9/11 there would be no war on Iraq at all, nor on Afghanistan.

Chomsky uses his talent for word games to dismiss things that cannot be dismissed. With a sentence he denigrates all evidence of government malfeasance around 9/11:

“...I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered.” (Z-Net, 2006)
Which is why I led with the 28 censored pages and the Sarasota Florida cover-up of 80,000 pages that were hidden from investigators for a decade and a half. Chomsky's dismissive arrogance carries no weight of facts, only speculation. The 9/11 cover-up has left an extensive paper trail. Willful blindness is not a valid logical rationale, although many of his acolytes might disagree.

“Foreign Governments” (plural)

Senator Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 9/11, perhaps the last patriot of the old republic, has maintained since 2002:

“I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.”

Is that "significant" to anyone other than Professor Chomsky?

Senator Graham seems to think so.

To assume that Noam Chomsky remains ignorant of the subject, a topic which he pens both books and articles about, is unrealistic. Chomsky knows who Senator Bob Graham is, but pointedly ignores talking about his revelations.

Senator Graham renders Noam Chomsky's lighthearted dismissals completely irrelevant. Though Chomsky's musings about the 9/11 attacks may be meritless, his influence in the “alternative” media sphere has been undeniably significant.

By misleading millions of genuinely inquisitive people—and by misleading numerous alternative media editors and publishers who took cues from him—Professor Chomsky bears significant personal responsibility. Pretending that a major and outrageous cover-up does not exist, or even more shockingly that it does not matter, inflicts real-world harm to truth, justice, ethics, morality, and, yes, world peace, with a sizable and ever-increasing body count. These are the real costs of official lies.

Professor Chomsky must defend his ridiculous statements. "Ridiculous" here is literal, worthy of ridicule, absurd, and unacceptable.

"I mean even if it [a September 11th government conspiracy] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance."

Rational people, if there are any remaining in the U.S., establish what actually happened first before deciding for the world if it might "care" or if future facts would have any "significance." Significant to whom? Professor Chomsky's logic of dismissal and disregard should be rejected outright.

The September 11th attack cover-up itself rises to the level of Treason, as defined in the U.S. Constitution. It is “aid and comfort” to those “foreign governments,” which Senator Graham has told us about. Since 2002 Treason has lived inside the White House, and quite probably before that point.

How did the United States reach a point where Donald J. Trump remains concerned about the “significance” of the 9/11 attacks, while counter-culture guru Professor Noam Chomsky “cares” not a whit? Go on and ask him.

Is there a US government cover-up of the facts of the September 11th attacks? YES or NO?

Of course there is, although Professor Chomsky refuses to respond to his critics. By admitting to the existence of this cover-up Chomsky would have to explain his illogical pattern of obfuscation over these past fifteen years. A cover-up that provides “aid and comfort” to a foreign power is technically high Treason, and so Chomsky's “who cares” response holds no sway. He remains firmly on the wrong side of history.

Argumentum Ad Speculum

Noam Chomsky went on to fabricate a hypothetical scenario to explain the September 11th attacks to his own satisfaction. His argument became dangerous when passed on by others in order to shut down honest debate and fact-based inquiry. He has substituted speculation for factual analysis, and this passes without comment in the foundation-funded left press.

Noam-Chomsky-at-the-University-of-Florida-Screenshot-800x430

Chomsky labeled his appeal to a hypothetical as "overwhelming evidence." His alleged “overwhelming evidence” is this:

"Unless they’re total lunatics [the Bush White House], they would have blamed it [9/11] on Iraqis if they were involved in any way.”
A crowd at the University of Florida applauded this claim, as if it held actual meaning. It does not. It is both a non-sequitur and a hypothesis contrary to fact.

As soon as "they would have" enters the discussion we have the counter-factual fallacy. This is only evidence of speculation, or of deliberate sleight of hand.

They would have blamed it on Nigerians; or they would have blamed it on Eskimos; or they would have blamed it on aliens; these are non-sequiturs which have no logical connection to the crime. One can speculate any number of irrelevant hypothetical scenarios.

It is unimportant whom the Bush Administration blames or doesn't blame after the fact. Those are just words. This proves nothing, and it cannot be considered by adults “overwhelming evidence.” That is a red flag.

In fact, the Bush regime did attempt to blame Iraq for 9/11, as we all know, committing torture in order to fabricate testimony from a prisoner to that effect. But that's hardly relevant to what happened prior to the event, the actual attack operation. Those are two very different things.

It is vital to expose what the facts of the crime were, the actions of perpetrators. Who did what? Actions, not words after the fact, Mr. Chomsky.

That is what Senator Bob Graham has been fighting for since the attacks occurred, and yet, surprisingly, he has met resistance from across the political spectrum. His call to expose White House ties to the sponsors of the hijackers—to the people who actually made it happen—has been pointedly swept from history. Loose ends hang from this cover-up yet the U.S. public was diverted from demanding full disclosure and accountability for 9/11 by wars and propaganda blitzkriegs, by disinformation, and through a general dumbing down: the degradation of public discourse, a fact-free discourse now at pathetic levels of ignorance. It has been a very dark age.

Every other criminal case involves establishing facts first, not speculating one's path to a conviction or to an acquittal. This is fundamental to justice, to the scientific method and to logic. Those who hide the facts are generally treated as suspects.

In this glaring schism between the irresponsible speculation of Professor Noam Chomsky versus the factual analysis of Senator Bob Graham—the guy who wrote the censored Congressional report—it is quite evident to anyone who reads that Graham checkmates Chomsky. It is not even a real debate, as Chomsky offers no facts. He merely claims to have seen no evidence to persuade him, an argument of convenient willful ignorance. One does not see what one refuses to look for.

Professor Chomsky's dismissal of the September 11th controversy has brought with it significant repercussions, as editors, publishers, and politically active citizens accepted his logical fallacies in place of hard evidence and the struggle for truth and justice. The damage has been incalculable.

If Senator Bob Graham had simply commanded the widespread media penetration and exaggerated social influence that Professor Noam Chomsky enjoys we might all live in a very, very different world today.

---------------------------------------------------

Joe Giambrone is an American author, freelance writer and filmmaker. Non-fiction works appear at International Policy Digest,WhoWhatWhy, Foreign Policy Journal, Counterpunch,Globalresearch, OpedNews, High Times and other online outlets. His science fiction thriller Transfixion and his Hollywood satire Hell of a Deal are available through Amazon, B&N, Smashwords and Createspace.

@polfilmblog