Howard Zinn: “I Don’t Care” If 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn recently told an audience that he didn’t care if 9/11 was an inside job, echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement.
Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7.
Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, “I don’t know much about the situation and the truth is, I don’t care that much about it, that’s passed….that’s a diversion from what we really have to do,” adding that debating who was behind 9/11, “gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation”.
Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn’s fawning army of left-wing sycophants.
- Zinn’s comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and contempt towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite the fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last seven years.
During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth movement peddled “arcane and dubious theories” and had distracted activists from pursuing “crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC,” presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without the pretext of 9/11.
When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, stating, “The concept of “false flag operation” is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I’d suggest that you look at each of them carefully.”
Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New York’s Town Hall, 22 January 2002, “That’s an internet theory and it’s hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don’t see any point in talking about it,” in response to a question about U.S. government foreknowledge.
Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey Oswald was the long gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise.
Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years.
It’s painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them worse than disinformation agents.
“I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent,” states Salandria, “But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency.”
Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK movie, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that it didn’t matter even if it was.
“When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion,” notes one blogger.
The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11.