A Conversation with Noam Chomsky

After reading Professor Kevin Barrett's correspondence with Noam Chomsky concerning the events of September 11, 2001, I decided to write to Chomsky myself to see if I could get a response. To my great surprise and gleeful pleasure, he responded the next day! Here is Dr. Kevin Barrett's correspondence link http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm

The following is my email to Noam Chomsky, his reply, and my reply to his reply (I will post here if he replies again).

Hi Noam,
My name is Chris Bowers here in Spokane, WA (got to hear you a few years ago when you were here) and after reading the lengthy exchange you had with Professor K. Barrett, I understand the logical/sensible position you have adopted much better concerning the events of September 11, 2001. I understand that you can only do so much and must prioritize, especially at your age when you must be quite aware that you only have so much time left to do what you can anyway. I also believe you won the "academic" debate (as classic debating contests go here in the states) because so many debate contest victories are simply reduced to "number of casualties" in the final analysis.

I have personally researched the events of September 11 for about 3 years now because I was so fed up with some of my friends constantly droning on about it like it was some kind of new religious cult. There was finally (for me), after much research (from a neutral-to-hostile position), a defining moment when I knew something was very wrong with the officially-sanctioned story and NIST report. It came in the form of researching building 7 and watching it fall straight down into its footprint (without damaging any adjacent buildings, or streets for that matter) at near free fall speed (6.5 seconds). I am an architect and have worked intimately with structural engineers all my professional life and one thing structural engineers are widely known for is structural overkill to the chagrin of the architect's budget. They simply do not ever want any project coming back on them (stands to reason). Building 7 was an asymmetrical steel structure due to an existing facility it had to span over. The only possible way to make that building fall straight down at near freefall speed was by very careful and artful design and engineering forethought. The "pulling" of building seven was a thing of beauty from a demolition firm's perspective. I wont bore you with the blatant structural/physics details of the twin towers right now, but suffice it to say that there simply was not enough energy in an airliner full of kerosene, the law of gravity and a class alpha fire for a global collapse of those reference standard steel structures at near freefall speed. Its not even close! If you were aware of the amount of energy required to do what we all saw happen to those towers, you would be quite convinced by that alone.

I know you have "prioritized" the events of 9-11 far down your "to do" list as per the "number of casualties" equation, and very rightly so from a logical perspective. What I am imploring you to do is to just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that the events of September 11th are very much the "touchstone" of this present despotic era we find ourselves in today. You must know by now the dumbed-down masses will never understand the larger atrocities you so rightly prioritize (too busy with American Idol, Survivor and Dancing with the Stars), but they may very well be sufficiently moved en mass "politically" if they were to truly understand and "viscerally" realize the "lesser" atrocities (as per number of casualties) conducted on 9-11 when they finally understand that it was virtually impossible for 4 airliners to do what they did that morning without someone(s) in high places issuing stand down orders on the military side of things. That is something that Bin Laden could never have done, as well as prepping those structures for controlled demolition. Those who have already come forward from the military/national defense/NORAD/NEADS are very clear on this matter. That alone should scare the poop out of most people considering we are talking about national security and a trillion dollar system (best in the world) that had worked so well right up to that fateful morning. I propose to you that "the Barbarians are inside the gates" and the "dramatic/dynamic" details of September 11 can very possibly be just enough, when truly understood/considered, to take the wheel from these dark despotic maniacs once and for all (or at least for a good while).

So please keep an open mind on this important "touchstone" and consider how many were condemned to death the minute "they" got away with this and used it to go to war in Central Asia/Caspian Basin and Middle East to secure energy and usher in their geopolitical design as per men like Leo Strauss and Bernard Lewis (have you ever seen Bernard Lewis' redrawn map of Iran?). If the American people and world community could prosecute the perps responsible for the events of 9-11, it would set these despots so far back that it just might give us enough time to change the way things are done globally, and set up a viable/unassailable world court system that would not be controlled by these evil power brokers. You might look at it like Capone being imprisoned for the lesser charge of tax evasion, LOL.....

Sincerely working beside you for the same cause of world peace and proper equity among all men and women (and other life forms for that matter),
Chris Bowers

Noam Chomsky's reply (this goes a long way in explaining how Chomsky is not a left wing "gatekeeper", but an old warrior who has his logical priorities (with only so much time left) and has a big bone to pick with how the "9-11 Truth Movement" has conducted itself.

Thanks for your letter.

I don't have the technical competence to evaluate what happened to building 7, and for reasons too obvious to mention, don't intend to take the time to gain it. So, as I have tried to explain over and over, I treat the matter as I (and other scientists) do any technical matter outside our specific area of competence: wait for publication in some standard scientific source and see what the reaction is of competent scientists and engineers. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened.

Suppose it was a controlled demolition. Then comes the next question. Who could have done it? Here there is another question outside my technical competence. Would it have been harder for bin Laden to arrange than for Bush? Not easy to argue. But there is a much more significant question. Who gains by blowing up Building 7 and attributing it to Saudi hijackers? Surely not Bush-Cheney-et al. They were presumably seeking to build support for an invasion of Iraq, and the Saudi connection undermines their plans -- as well as seriously prejudicing their relations with one of their most valued allies, not to speak of the embarrassment of having to fly their Saudi cronies out of the country afterwards in violation of their own air space restrictions. So it would be necessary to explain why after all this elaborate planning and cover-up, the deliberately chose to shoot themselves in the foot.

On the other hand, for bin Laden it's a dream come true: the Saudis are his main enemy, and harming their relations with the US is a very high objective.

So the logical conclusion from the assumption that it was a controlled demolition is that bin Laden is responsible. In fact, this would be the first significant evidence tracing it back to bin Laden. As I've repeatedly pointed out in print, the FBI conceded long after that they couldn't do so.

On Norad, etc., that doesn't seem to me very convincing. It's what's called in the trade a "normal accident." We just saw a spectacular example: the flight of a nuclear-armed bomber across the country, violating the highest imaginable security conditions, and taken seriously enough to lead to the firing of the secretary of the air force and air force commander. Study of the record of intelligence reveals astonishing examples, much beyond what's alleged on 9/11.

I'm not persuaded that it would make much difference to the public if it were traced to Bush-Cheney. In fact, we have evidence about that. Polls indicate that something like 30% of the population either believe it or think it's plausible. Result? A yawn. Not even minimal protests, let alone civil disobedience, law suits, etc. I also don't share your feeling that people don't care about the real crimes. Half a century of activism has convinced me otherwise.

But I certainly agree with your advice to keep an open mind. Suppose that those who are competent to judge do go public in forums of the kind that others can evaluate (as with intelligent design, global warming skepticism, etc.), and can somehow explain why Bush-Cheney would have chosen to shoot themselves in the foot by blaming Saudis (plus a whole lot more that has to be explained, clearly). Suppose they really put forward a convincing case. That would certainly be important. Bush, Cheney, and a few others would receive the death sentence, and the Republican party would have to be reconstituted somehow. It's not clear to me that there would be any other consequences, and in fact it would be easily absorbed, I think, by the reigning doctrinal system, which is willing to tolerate "bad apples" but not institutional critique, of the kind that would be deflected by this operation.

Anyway, those seem to me reasonable judgments. To date, the only notable effect of the "Truth Movement" has been to divert large amounts of time and energy away from action to stop really serious crimes. And I'd be surprised if it will be different in the future -- though of course I'll keep an open mind about that too.

Noam

My reply to his reply: Thank you so much for your quick response Noam! I cant tell you how honored I am that you took the time (being that you are one of my dissent heroes)! I understand completely your logical and rational reasons and I will be waiting with you for those more professionally appropriate to deliver some kind of peer reviewed publication(s) and see what the professional world's response is. I do not know who would have set those demolition charges, or had the time/opportunity to do so (Controlled Demolition Inc.?) and how/why, but what I am quite sure of from my extensive experience with highly redundant steel structure high rise design and the widely-distributed video evidence of the global collapse (from fire) of the first three steel structures in the history of steel structure design is we were witnessing the carefully planned and very professional demolition of three highly redundant steel structures on that morning. I do not claim to know all of the benefits that that would have provided the "perps", but I suspect that Larry Silverstein and the NY Port Authority were two immediate beneficiaries financially and logistically. The Port Authority had made two formal requests to "pull" the twin towers prior to Sept. 11, but the asbestos fireproofing made that a non starter and it would have cost more than the towers were worth to carefully remove the asbestos and/or bring the towers down piece by piece. They were also having alot of trouble keeping occupancy at a fiscally reasonable level and the aluminum exterior connected to the steel structures was beginning to deteriorate at the connections (how did the designers overlook that little design flaw? forest for the trees syndrome?). Also, Larry Silverstein, along with his financial partners, took out an insurance policy that covered terrorist attacks seven weeks prior to Sept. 11. You should see the new 55 story glass building 7! It is absolutely magnificent in a less is more kind of way. Silverstein, because of that well-designed insurance policy, was able to build the new bldg. 7 virtually for free and pocket close to a half billion when he was done. The new buildings 1-6 in "the tub" may turn out to be a bit of a different story (in spite of the settlement he won in court for two terrorist attacks) because he has to pay about 125 million each year (during development that is taking longer than expected) to retain the redevelopment rights and there is evidence that they are, once again, having trouble getting enough commitments for financially feasible occupancy levels.

In any case, something stinks to high heaven about all of this (concerning the events of Sept. 11) and I wait patiently and hopefully with you, with eyes wide open, to see what becomes of the memory/history of that fateful day. Keep on rockin' my dear brother in the endeavors your heart and mind guide you towards. You have been of such faithful and great service to this deteriorating republic that is teetering on the edge of disaster while screaming, "we rule!".
Ignorance and arrogance is such a scary combination....

Chris

This does not completely solve the confusion/questions concerning Chomsky's hardline position on the subject of September 11, but goes a long way in helping us understand it better.... What think ye all???