The WTC towers owner had probably installed explosives in the case of an attack to get insurance compensation and get rid of the old building which needed a costly renovation (lead in its construction) - so there's a possibility it was just another greedy capitalist acting in his own interest.

Iraq invasion was also a greedy capitalist venture.

Those of you who got to the end of this otherwise excellent program and heard Noam Chomsky expose his embarrasing ignorance on the issue of Building Seven and the 911 issue in general should watch this 15 minute presentation by experts in the field who know what they are talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#!

Professor Peter Phillips of Project Censored and 9/11 Truth Movement figure, David Ray Griffin, get it right when they point out how much good Noam Chomsky has done. I would agree and go so far to say that no other contemporary figure can match Chomsky's positive contributions. But, he is downright wrong about 9/11. Mr. Fillmore in another comment about this show has it right in pointing out just two pieces of a massive body of evidence that utterly invalidates the completely unsupportable conspiracy theory that 19 guys with box cutters who couldn't fly planes could possibly have pulled off 9/11. The list of solid, supportable, rational evidence against the 9/11 commission’s conclusions is too long for a comment section. It’s too bad Chomsky hasn’t looked at it more. The bottom line, though, is that nobody has been more right about as many things as Chomsky, but nobody could be more wrong about 9/11. Sad, but still not grounds for condemnation of Chomsky. It is grounds for criticism, though, of the otherwise great show, Against the Grain, which seems never to tire of grasping at criticism of the evidence that 9/11 is not described accurately by the official version (and, frustratingly—on a completely different note—never tires of re-running counterproductive interviews with Betsy Hartmann, who says overpopulation in the world isn’t really a problem). Sad, since 90% of Against the Grain’s other stuff is absolutely first rate journalism.

Love your show but I have to disagree in the strongest way with Chomsky and I wish you would consider presenting something from the other side on conspiracy theories. Chomsk plus Fenster makes two status quo arguments you have presented on the subject without a representative from the competing prospective. I understand such an alternate view would need to approach the subject on the philosophical level which Fenster and Chomsky have done, and not simply contain an evidentiary argument, But such argumentsand those capable of articulating them in a philosophical manner are out there.

From what I listened to here Chomsky's premise was the government has previously released information regarding the JFK assassination with the expressed purpose of distracting the publics attention from more important issues by encouraging them to believe the government was responsible. First is Chomsky claiming such documents make this statement directly? Or is it is his interpretation of their intent? Perhaps we could learn what documents he is referring to exactly?

Lets give him the unlikely fact of his premise that the government is actually manufacturing and supportive of those who are involved with conspiracy theories. If it is as he claims that government documents make it clear they are planting supposed facts to conspiracy theorists are there not problems with that idea as well? Would it not be the case that this information get out to the CT'ers that they have been had and are simply purposefully distracted government pawns and therefore actually lessen the their interest in pursuing the theory? Also would not the scenario Chomsky suggesst be the ultimate cover for future large scale false flag operations? In other words if the government has convinced intellectuals such as Chomsky that they, the government, are intentionally creating conspiracy theories then he is not likely to believe that any serious false flag operations in the future will ever occur because of his a priori understanding that it is simply a manufactured false false flag diversion.

My point is not that Chomsky's logic is necessarily flawed but rather that all these type of arguments generally have implicit contradictions and rarely live up to their superficial hype. In my opinion all these a priori arguments such as they could not have done it because you could not keep that many people quiet, or that CT'ers have a psychological need, or any of the arguments which wish to circumvent empirical investigation with some claim of a more authoritative argument are always secondary to the approach of direct empirical examination Yet how often do we here this subject mentioned by the Chomsky's and the Fenster's of the world? Maybe you could ask them someday if they believe that empirical examination of forensic evidence. is preferable to a priori arguments which argue against the necessity for such investigation. Yes Chomsky does drop the not so subtle point that empirical investigation of these events may be beyond the ability of the public to understand with his point about the expertise necessary to understand the thermite question. Yet strangely Chomsky, and Fenster for that matter, seem relatively unconcerned about the potential problems of a public which can no longer gauge some of the most significant events in their history. I guess if you have true conviction that things of this scale simply do not happen you do not need concern yourself about the ability of the public to be able to discern them if they were to occur.

This leads me to another point. Why do our status quo friends not address the point of whether dismissing all concerns about the historical accuracies regarding 9/11 gathered into one basket of a conspiracy theory? All the questions of accountability, of the publics access to information, and whether the 9/11 commission actually asked the right questions are all lumped together and then simply dismissed on the basis that all truthers believe it was an inside job. Why is it not possible for someone to have significant questions without having to believe it was an inside job? And why does their conclusion preclude them from having any rational insight into the forensic evidence?

Will no one admit that this logic of lumping all discussion of 9/11 as being akin to a discussion on an inside job conspiracy theory has robbed us of our ability to look at 9/11 coherently. A rational discussion would have seemed to have at least considered that we had a problem with what we thought our civil air defense and intelligence agencies were supposed to be able to accomplish, and that if we had such misunderstandings then an improved ability for public understanding and a more transparent process might be in order.

finally as to Chomsky's seemingly sophomoric claim that if the Bush administration wanted to have a popular rationale to invade Iraq they would have arranged the facts of the 9/11 attack to support the notion that Iraq was responsible instead of putting the responsibility on our ally Saudia Arabia. First the press never picked up on blaming Saudi Arabia. Yes the hijackers were from there but the story line was clearly that Afghanistan was the most responsible but that there was a subtext that al Quida was an a ubiquitous yet amorphous entity which could virtually be anywhere in the world. The perfect enemy for the empire to come

I hope the producers of the show will consider contacting myself or others who can clarify the arguments presented here,and to present the alternative view on conspiracy theories which has been lacking on the show up to this point.

Thank You

Matt Grantham

Napa

mattnapa@aol.com

Again, Chomsky pontificates on an issue he knows nothing about. He dismisses nano thermite evidence. He dimisses two massive sky skrapers pulverized into dust and falling at vertual freefall speed etc. etc.
Another waist of time.

I wish people would stop asking Chomsky about the 911 truth movement. It is very frustrating for people who have researched the mounting evidence for controlled demolition to listen to uninformed opinions such as Chomsky's. It is not a political, logical, or philosophical debate. It doesn't matter what your politics are. It is, ultimately, simply a crime scene, and as A. Conan Doyle remarked through his alter ego, "when you eliminate the impossible, (in this case, the official theory of how the towers fell) whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". It is good that Chomsky does not agree with the "truthers", as any alignment with them would be the end of his exposure on even 'alternative' media. Alexander Cockburn recently wrote a remarkably sloppy and uninformed opinion on the truth movement in which he made no attempt to hide his ignorance and disinterest in the subject, and felt perfectly comfortable in displaying his contempt for those who care enough about it to look at the evidence (he cheerfully dismisses the arguments and evidence presented in David Ray Griffin's book after reading the first paragraph of the first page).