9/11: What on Earth is up with Chomsky?

Very shortly after 9/11 Noam Chomsky published a book on the subject. Unfortunately, it failed to address any of the evidence that flew in the face the official version.... and there was plenty even back at the time that should have raised the eyebrows of someone of Chomsky's intellect. If anyone would have done the research, Chomsky was the man. But he didn't. What would motivate one of the most formidable intellectuals of modern US history to write what was essentially a propaganda piece, abandoning his normally incisive sense of reason and logic, and instead, going for an unscientific story that relied on cherry-picking and ignoring the awkward evidence?

Even though this is speculative, Chomsky may well have had a "visitor or two", as regards how he should address the subject of 9/11. Chomsky has for decades commanded a huge degree of respect on the left of the political spectrum... and the establishment must have been aware that Chomsky was a potential major thorn in their side, had he followed his historical legacy of rigorous analytical methodology, and examined ALL the evidence. He was likely to have been considered someone who had to be "gotten on the side of the program, by whatever means necessary". In short, the old-fashioned Chomsky could have inspired the major movers and shakers on the American left to raise merry hell, and go up in arms about 9/11...in other words, a big unholy problem that had to be hastily addressed, maybe?

The most plausible reasons for Chomsky to abandon his long established style, a shift from precision to propaganda, are fear based. Perhaps he is afraid of being name-called a "conspiracy-theorist".. ..that little chestnut, despite being worn out and old as the hills, still has great persuasive power to straitjacket otherwise solid, especially intellectuals. Maybe he's scared of being name-called "anti-American", or unpatriotic? That also is a major stigma which reins in many people. Perhaps, by supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement, he felt that some would see him as being "pro-Muslim"... and right there is is a very powerful tool to get people on the straight and narrow; in US political circles, being "pro-Muslim/pro-Arab" is virtually equivalent to "Jew hater", or even "Holocaust denier"... or in Chomsky's case, a "self-hating Jew". Not pretty... and definitely worth avoiding. And we all know too well where much of the power base in Washington DC stands as regards Muslims... and thats downright ugly.

Chomsky's refusal to address 9/11 properly was likely a major factor in creating the taboo on the mainstream US left.., as is still in evidence in Democratic Underground., Huffington Post, The Nation, Amy Goodman, Mother Jones et al. In short we have the insanely illogical position of the US left being one of the pillars of the hard-line rightwing neoconservative policy set. Who would have ever thunked it?

Chomsky's recent take on the nanothermite issue is weird, in that the rambling, incoherent response is just not his style. Has Chomsky gotten senile? Somehow, I doubt that. Perhaps, despite his advancing years, he retains a sense of self preservation?

A famous quote from Chomsky is as follows:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

In the case of 9/11, Chomsky is himself perhaps the unwitting victim re. the methodology of those who wish to keep the people "passive and obedient".