Mark Abell Grills Noam Chomsky On 911 As An Inside Job

Mark Abell Grills Noam Chomsky on 911 as an Inside Job. If the Reichstag Fire was an inside job and Pearl Harbor was an inside job, why then is it inconceivable that 911 was an inside job?

Chomsky says U.S. leaders would have had to be certifiably insane in order to commit 911 as an inside job…

,

  • Donkey

    “Grilled” — Come on guys. Who's posting this stuff?

  • jahson

    It's really hard for me to understand how someone like Chomsky (and Bill Maher), someone so astute on the mechanations of our system would have such a hard time believing 9/11 is an inside job. If you look at the evidence about the twin towers (excluding the questions around the pentagon and the Pa airplane crash) including the molten metal at the base (steel doesn't melt at the temp of burning plane fuel), traces of the trademarked product Thermite which is used for professional demolitions found at the site, 1st hand accounts of people saying they felt huge explosions in the sub basement of the buildings moments before the planes hit the buildings and WTC 7 falling essentially on its own and all 3 buildings falling in classic professional demolition style…as well as other less glaring evidence, I'm not sure why people are so quick to discount 9/11 truthers. I'm not a conspiracy theorist whacko for seeing the evidence. I think the people who make fun of the truthers are delusional.

  • tonyviner

    How was he ''Grilled''? Good job, Noam, don't let that little bugger get under your skin. Who does he think he is, anyway, trying to grill you like that. I don't know where I stand on the “911 Truth'' argument, I both love it and hate it at the same time, for obvious reasons, but as far as I can tell, we are all on the same side so why go out there and try to ''grill'' Noam Chomsky, one of the few truly good people left out there?

  • Commodore Crush

    Hahahaha! Grilled!? He sounded like Chris Farley, “um remember, remember that, that time, when, uh, that time there was an inside job with 9/11…. that was awesome.”

  • pocoTOTO

    Grilled? Sorry, but Chomsky put that guy in his place. Nice try though. When the truthers, birthers, cutters, czarers start to be even remotely interesting, wake me up. They are all bottom feeders. Enjoy your marginally famous fifteen minutes Mark Abell. IcanhazincoherenNaziPearlHarborcomparisontoo? When you are ready to talk with the adults, let us know.

    • jahson

      People who see the evidence of what happened on 9/11 don't give rat's ass 1 about being interesting to you. And your comment about people who believe the official story of 9/11 is crap as being somehow less than adult, I would point out that you've resorted to name calling and sweeping generalizations. When YOU'RE willing to grow the hell up and use that organ between your ears, you can let us know.

      • pocoTOTO

        I saw the evidence of what happened on 9/11. I have listened to countless people try to connect the dots about what they think happened. Chomsky was asked a question in which a bunch of questionable assertions were offered as if each one made the implication more powerful by simple accumulation. What you end up with when you do that doesn't strengthen an argument, it actually takes away from whatever point you might want to make. Chomsky, who is actually sane, suggested a little thought experiment for truthers. You are clearly are not willing to engage in such thought experiments. If, as so many truthers claim, 9/11 was an inside job, then the trajectory of the events following 9/11 make no sense. That was Chomsky's point. It should tell you something that Chomsky, the master of teasing out disturbing historical correlations, thinks that truthers are wasting their time. Chomsky never takes anything at face value and has the body of work to prove it. If you can produce something of similar caliber–something that shows you have done due diligence to prove your case–I and everyone else will listen. That shit was embarrassing. Another commenter compared it to Chris Farley. That's being generous. Chomsky was gracious in his answer. The title of the posting was misleading. What I saw in the clip was an adult (Chomsky) and a stammering hamster at the microphone, not a grilling.

        • jahson

          The posting was exaggerated and I'll agree with that. I'm focusing on what happened on 9/11. You say I should produce the evidence that supports my position that the destruction of the wtc towers didn't happen the way the official report says it did. If you look at my post above you'll see I mention some of the facts without referencing their sources. I got this information from the first hand accounts of people who were in the towers at the time, engineers and demolition experts who have put their reputations on the line for what they believe. I'm not the conspiracy theorist who's saying Bush and co. are behind 9/11 or anyone for that matter. I honestly don't have a clue as to who was behind this event or why other than what we've been told. I'm focusing on the facts and if you look into the details about what happened that day combined with the collapses themselves and what was discovered at the wreckage afterwards, it simply doesn't add up. Maybe it's not such a conspiracy but I'm certain the towers did not fall the way we were told they did and that certainty is not based on a hunch or an emotional feeling. It's based on the evidence. If more people looked at it coldly and objectively I think they would have to admit there's something, at the very least, fishy about it all.

          • Mr. Raven

            How can you be “certain” if there is no evidence, ever here of empiricism?

        • Travisty

          I respect Chomsky quite a bit, however he is forgetting that we were already threatening to invade Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. (it wasn’t on the news but you can find it in documents) additionally what they were looking for was a permanent foothold in the middle east. America never would have gone for that without a terrorist attack. Chomsky made sense, and yeah he put that guy in his place, because the guy only used history as an example, his question was worded clumsily and probably hadn’t done any research. I on the other hand have done hours and hours of research.

    • Danny

      Don't forget the Guy Fawkers.

  • fran

    Noam Chomskys showing his double agent zionist colors straight up! – he makes a living in this country selling doubletalk against US policies and – then when he knows its going to come back around at Zionist Mossad Israel – turn that same doubletalk back on someone who doubts the US media version of the 911 story — I hope i get to punch you at least once in the nuts Noam – when were both sitting in hell

  • fran

    Noam Chomskys showing his double agent zionist colors straight up! – he makes a living in this country selling doubletalk against US policies and – then when he knows its going to come back around at Zionist Mossad Israel – turn that same doubletalk back on someone who doubts the US media version of the 911 story — I hope i get to punch you at least once in the nuts Noam – when were both sitting in hell

  • Mr. Raven

    How can you be “certain” if there is no evidence, ever here of empiricism?

  • Travisty

    I respect Chomsky quite a bit, however he is forgetting that we were already threatening to invade Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. (it wasn’t on the news but you can find it in documents) additionally what they were looking for was a permanent foothold in the middle east. America never would have gone for that without a terrorist attack. Chomsky made sense, and yeah he put that guy in his place, because the guy only used history as an example, his question was worded clumsily and probably hadn’t done any research. I on the other hand have done hours and hours of research.