what to make of Chomsky. As a longtime admirer and student of Chomsky's work, I was very surprised to learn of his dismissive attitude toward the truth (or even study) of 9/11 ... my appraisal of Chomsky has since undergone considerable revision.
Still, I find it hard to believe that Chomsky is as naive and credulous as he acts in regard to the truth of 9/11. I think he may be motivated to conceal his real opinion on the subject in public, by fear of the personal consequence he might suffer if he didn't... ie. the sort of self-censorship he describes in his book 'Manufacturing Consent'.
The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that he is a mole, ie. faux dissenter ... and to my mind, that doesn't seem very likely.
I wonder how Chomsky reconciles the notion that if 9/11 was a conspiracy involving terrorists, only 19 conspirators are required, but if it was a conspiracy involving government officials, it would require thousands ... if terrorists are really that much more competent than government officials, maybe we should employ terrorists to run govt,.. perhaps that's what's happening already...
You make a sterling point here !
it is a logic fallacy that we can point out to ANYONE that counters 9/11 truth arguments by saying "it would have required thousands...."
Why is is easy for 19 hijackers (led a dialysis patient in a cave), to pull off 9/11, yet it purportedly requires thousands of insiders to do the same thing?