On 20th November 2003 The Daily Telegraph published an interview with the former German Secretary of State for Defense (who had also served as Chair of the Parliamentary Intelligence Services Oversight Committee), Andreas Von Bulow. Von Bulow had published a bestselling book in Germany earlier that year entitled 'Die CIA und der 11 September' (The CIA and September 11th). In explaining the title and providing a concise summary of the thesis of the book Von Bulow stated the following, ""What I saw on September 11th was a perfectly executed act that could have happened only with the support of intelligence services...I'm convinced that the US [intelligence] apparatus must have played a role and my theory is backed up by the government's refusal to present any proof whatsoever of what [they claim] happened...They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence - that they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda - in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation." ('German Sept 11 theory stokes anti-US feeling', Daily Telegraph, 20/11/03.)
Von Bulow was not alone among eminently qualified commentators expressing fundamental doubts about the nature of the attacks. For example, at the 2005 Brussels Axis For Peace Conference General Leonid Ivashov who at the time of September 11th 2001 was Head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation (currently Vice-President of the Russian Academy for Geopolitical Affairs) gave a talk in which he stated the following: "Osama bin Laden and 'Al Qaeda' cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders... Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist – let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this scale is extremely complex."
In this little book '9-11: Was There an Alternative?' Noam Chomsky, normally quite fearless when it comes to speaking truth to power, presents his 'blowback' thesis of the 9/11 event. This thesis is based on the assumption that the US government's official narrative is broadly correct and truthful. Chomsky waxes profoundly on the grave and great significance of America being attacked on its own soil by those fed up with US imperialism and its incessant meddling in the affairs of other countries. 9/11 is seen as an inevitable consequence of this meddling over many decades which has caused unimaginable suffering through CIA death squads, US installed brutal dictatorships, US support of Israel and the grievous consequences of this for the Palestinian people. There is never any question in Chomsky's narrative as to the veracity of the government's account that nineteen muslim hijacker's were responsible for the day's tragic events. The problem is that Chomsky can only present such a thesis by ignoring vast and overwhelming evidence gathered in the years following the event by independent researchers (civil engineers, architects, university professors, intelligence professionals, demolition experts to name but a few) that 9/11 was not the work of any Islamist terrorist group but rather a False Flag operation by the Shadow Government of the Anglo-American-Israeli Banking-Intelligence apparatus. Chomsky tellingly ignores the perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse of Building Seven (WTC7) the so-called 'smoking gun' of 9/11 which clearly evidences controlled demolition. Neither does he find anything unusual in the highly ordered and systematic top down destruction of the twin towers in which hundreds of thousands of tons of massive interlaced steel girders at the core of each of the twin towers simply turned to dust within the space of fifteen seconds or so also requiring the input of vast quantities of energy possible only with pre-planted explosive materials. Chomsky's willful ignorance of elementary laws of physics in favour of going along with the government's obviously fraudulent account of the day's events has alienated many of his admirers and perhaps more importantly made them wonder why he would do such a thing (more on this later).
Regrettably, although Chomsky has been on the whole a great force for good as a moral and political teacher of all citizens of conscience, he has, nonetheless acted as a vital gatekeeper for established power at certain critical junctures of recent history. Because Chomsky, (at least to his admirers) is a paragon of rational thought his rare forays into irrationalism do tend to draw attention to themselves. I remember being somewhat puzzled when I heard him decrying 'conspiracy theories' about the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Chomsky has always promoted the 'lone gunman theory' that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK. There is a problem here, however: The House Select Committee On Assassinations, an official research body established by the federal government of the United States reporting in 1978 was forced to acknowledge on the basis of scientific evidence presented by acoustics experts Dr. James Barger and Dr. Mark Weiss that the acoustic evidence alone proves unequivocally that there was more than one gunman firing at the President and that the third shot (with a probability of 95% or higher) came from the Grassy Knoll and not the Texas School Book Depository. The Committee was forced to conclude in its summing up that the assassination of the President of the United States was therefore in all probability the result of a conspiracy.
The conclusions of the House Select Committee supports the multiple bullet thesis that counters the so-called 'magic bullet' theory presented by the Warren Commission to explain the several wounds and bullet holes found in Kennedy, Governor Connally and the limousine itself. The multiple gunman scenario is nowadays generally accepted by the JFK assassination research community and accounts for the title of the most famous general work on the assassination of John F Kennedy, Crossfire by Jim Marrs (principal source for Oliver Stone's movie JFK). Eyewitness testimony overwhelmingly concurred with the visual evidence of the Zapruder film that the fatal shot which exploded the President of the United States' head was fired from behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. If you look at home movies of the scene minutes after the President is shot you can see scores of Dallas policemen (many more than those in and around the School Book Depository) scouring the area on the Grassy Knoll around the picket fence looking for the assassin (since eyewitnesses on Dealey Plaza had pointed them in that general direction). As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison asserted Lee Harvey Oswald was merely a patsy set up as a scapegoat for the far more powerful men who organized this assassination. Chomsky chooses to ignore all the JFK assassination research in favour of the lone gunman mantra endlessly repeated seemingly to lull everyone to sleep. In the face of such deliberate ignorance of the facts one must question Chomsky's integrity or at least his motives.
Similarly, with regard to 9/11, we have a wealth of evidence flagrantly disproving the federal government's official account of what happened on that fateful day. Authors such as David Ray Griffin and Webster Tarpley; groups of professionals such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have conducted extensive forensic investigations into the 9/11 event with the finger pointing from all quarters to the Anglo-American Establishment (with more than a little help from Israel). Chomsky, strangely ignores all of it and says "Who Cares?" (A famous YouTube video has him saying "If the government did it, 'Who cares?' ").
Chomsky's high intelligence combined with a perverse refusal to look at the facts suggests complicity with the perpetrators of this event. I must confess that this behaviour led me to reassess Israel's involvement in both of these events to a degree that I had not allowed myself to consider before. Former Director of Studies at the US Army War College and holder of the The Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute, Dr Alan Sabrosky (himself of Jewish ethnicity), has confidently asserted that 9/11 was an Israeli MOSSAD operation (undertaken with the connivance of the US military and security services). This stark conclusion by a well respected security consultant has been corroborated by the extensive research of journalist Christopher Bollyn in his excellent work Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World
'. Bollyn, reluctantly, was forced to conclude on the basis of his own extensive research that the principal actors who organized 9-11 were Zionist Israeli Jews (many of whom held dual US-Israeli citizenship and were active members of important Neo-Con groups such as PNAC or The Council On Foreign Relations). However, although it is now well-known that Israeli nationals played an overwhelmingly central role in the 9/11 false flag operation it is unrealistic to believe that Israel could have perpetrated such a sophisticated operation without the knowledge and consent of the 'Shadow' or 'Inner' government of the United States. The event was 'good for Israel' (as Netanyahu put it) and certainly was designed to advance the Zionist agenda (viz the long term goal of Israeli territorial expansion known as the Oded Yinon plan or The Greater Israel Project). However, the rather too accurate foreshadowed knowledge of Philip Zelikow, Ashton Carter and John Deutsch in their extremely prescient 1998 Foreign Affairs article 'Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger' does make it far more likely that 9/11 was the brainchild of the Anglo-US establishment for the purpose of advancing a military agenda in the Middle-East using proxy armies to destabilize the region. On the other hand Michael Collins Piper in his book Final Judgement does persuasively argue that Israel was ultimately behind the assassination of JFK due to Kennedy's adamant opposition to Israel developing its own nuclear weapons arsenal.
So in conclusion the fundamental premise of Chomsky's little book is both erroneous as well as disingenuous. I say 'disingenuous' because Chomsky knows full well that the narrative he is promoting in this book is entirely false. He is diverting attention away from the true culprits of 9/11 namely a collaboration between Israeli and US security services. However, although given that some three thousand mostly US citizens were murdered in the 9/11 event Chomsky must still be saluted for all that he has done throughout his career to advance the cause of ethical civilization. Notwithstanding this ugly blot on his copybook he is still one of the great beacons of light who has been a tremendous source of hope and encouragement for those seeking to create a better world for all humanity.