The Political Philosophy of Noam Chomsky

... by Noam's position on 9/11. It wasnt too long ago that the lack of peer reviewed science appeared to be his main qualm:

"Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."

http://www.rense.com/general74/dismiss.htm

Well, this has now been done in a pretty drastic way, with the publication of Harritt et als paper in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, illustrating the presence of undetonated nanothermite chips in the WTC dust:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

Following Prof Chomsky's argument, if the evidence is serious, it will be peer reviewed, and published. This is precisely what has happened. Since the publication, there has been, to my and Prof Harrit's knowledge, no scientific controversy or serious disagreement about its findings. Now given that we can therefore reasonably agree that these particles were present, the next point is who placed them there, and no one  serious is going to argue that it was Al Qaeda...

Once this has been established, the answers to Noam's other questions fall neatly into place. For instance the charge that if the Bush admin had orchestrated the attack from A-Z, they would have ensured that Iraqis were flying the planes, and not Saudis. But there is a critical assumption that is being made here- namely that anyone is alleging they planned the attacks from A-Z. No one I know makes that allegation. That they colluded in it to a criminal degree, yes; that they took steps to ensure that the manner of the attacks would not jeopardise  their subsequent strategic plans, probably (and note how it didnt); but that they planned to the attacks from start to finish, picking the hijackers etc, that is an assumption that no one is making, save (the otherwise admirable) Prof Chomsky.

So I think that once one lets go off unreasonable assumptions, and focusses on the concrete evidence, it becomes pretty impossible to argue against the need for a criminal investigation into USG collusion in the attacks.