Chomsky and Zinn can’t seem to escape their well-tended Skinner boxes. Here Chomsky discusses the facts about the extensive and decades long history of CIA training and funding of the database (al qaeda) and the resultant terrorist attacks without questioning whether AQ might still be working for the CIA, as evidenced by the fact that their actions continue to serve its interests to a tee. He even refers to the role of the “intellectual class” in supporting the official narrative without questioning his own role in supporting the “alternative” official narrative, both of which conclude that the USA is under attack from foreign forces and feed directly into the agenda that Chomsky purports to oppose.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of propaganda knows that you have to tailor the lies to the specific demographic that you want to control. The standard lie of US exceptionalism and its messianic obligation to bring “civilization” to the rest of the world suffices for those who aren’t paying attention, but in the USA perhaps the second largest demographic is people who understand the immorality of US foreign policy in the mideast and how it might plausibly lead to the terrorism phenomenon. This demographic cannot be ignored due to its tendency to political activism. The simplest solution: impose tunnel vision and confine such discourse to well trodden political explanations by putting out disprovable lies and wild speculation like the “no planes/space beams” theory of the WTC collapses to divert and marginalize scientific research and keep the official alternative narrative simple enough to satisfy occam’s razor. Chomsky has bought it, hook line and sinker.
Chomsky claims no understanding of physics, chemistry, architecture or engineering, but instead defers to experts in evaluating the physical evidence on 9/11. Yet there are credentialed experts on both sides of the “false flag” divide, he simply subscribes to one group and not the other without explanation. Furthermore he must know something about the history of official enemies and staged events like tonkin gulf and the proposed operation northwood, at least enough to understand how the “intellectual class” and media can be recruited to serve the interests of the empire builders.
I suppose I shouldn’t be too hard on him though, if I hadn’t stumbled across the uncensored evidence on the net I might find myself in agreement. It is after all the simpler explanation. But the deluge of scientific and historical evidence is such that only Chomsky’s level of specialization and compartmentalization could suffice to prevent a broader understanding of current events. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t take the weight of his own words seriously enough to challenge himself and step out of his comfort zone. He doesn’t even need to address basic arguments about conservation of momentum or energy, the discovery of thermite in the WTC dust, or the dozens of incriminating eyewitnesses and video clips. All he needs to do is ask “what happened to NORAD?”
This is my version of occam’s razor, given the added complexity of the evidence that Chomsky and Zinn refuse to acknowledge, outlined in the “reference section” on this site.