In the spring of 2008, I emailed Noam Chomsky to invite him on my radio show. He agreed, we scheduled a date, and I spread the news.
Then, seemingly out of the blue, he sent me an angry email backing out of the interview. He was furious about an article I had posted at Op-Ed News publicizing our upcoming show. In that article, I quoted William Blum asking “the million dollar question”: Why doesn’t Chomsky think it matters whether or not 9/11 was an inside job? In the article, I said I hoped my upcoming interview with Chomsky might help clarify the issue. (Oddly, at the exact same moment that Chomsky angrily complained to me about the article, Op-Ed News, run by Zionist Rob Kall, took down the article, froze my account, and stopped answering my emails.)
Chomsky was angry about two things. First, he angrily denied Blum’s charged, backed up by various youtube videos, that “Chomsky doesn’t think it matters whether 9/11 was an inside job.” Second, he charged me with reneging on an alleged agreement not to discuss 9/11 with him during our radio interview.
I politely accepted Chomsky’s word, despite video evidence to the contrary, that he DID think it was important whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. And I politely pointed out that I had never agreed not to discuss 9/11 with him during our interview. Instead, I had suggested that we “focus on our points of agreement.” The obvious implication is that we would downplay but not completely ignore our points of disagreement, such as 9/11.
Rather than conceding the point, Chomsky kept repeating the lie that I had agreed not to discuss 9/11 with him.
When you show someone a quote proving that he is lying, and that person just gets angrier and angrier as he repeats the lie louder and louder, something is obviously wrong….