----- Original Message -----
From: <edited>
To: "Noam Chomsky" <chomsky@MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: RE: Your help is needed!
You are, as I have pointed out, the harbinger of intellectual, progressive
thinking in America. Your prominence alone merits you step into the fray on
the side of the "truth movement." You, professor, can make a difference.
"Of course, I remain open-minded, and if anyone can provide an argument in
support of the demand that I shift
priorities, I'll look at it."
1) I argue that you adjust your priorities because it appears to me that
there is a growing awareness that 9/11 was an inside job and a thinker of
your status officially asserting that 9/11 was an inside job might just
prove to be enough to push the movement to the next level. In short, I like
to believe we are reaching some sort of threshold. We need you because you
are prominent, respected, powerful.
2) I argue that you adjust your priorities because 9/11 is the cornerstone
of the racist xenophobic ideology that motivates Americans to support, as
you put it, "far more serious crimes of government." In other words attack
the vampire by striking the heart of the thing with a wooden spear as
opposed to trying to knock its fangs out with your bare fists.
3) Kill several birds with one stone by acknowledging the supreme role of
the intelligence sect in a world run by bankers and oligarchs. Hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of acts of false-flag terror have been committed in Iraq
to foment and further a civil war that without said acts of false-flag
terror simply would not be. Scores of black ops are currently being carried
out in Africa, Asia and former Soviet states. I personally believe that with
each successful operation the criminals become more bold, more daring, more
extreme. The cycle must be broken and it starts by exposing 9/11 for what it
was, an act of false-flag terror, an inside job.
4) I argue that by expressing your view that 9/11 was a false-flag terror
operation, an inside job, you will at the same time be announcing that you
will not permit another similar operation to happen. In short you will be
participating in a movement geared to prevent history from repeating itself
in the near future, something America definitely risks being the general
attention defecit disorder plaguing America's communal conscious.
5) I argue that by announcing that 9/11 was an inside job you will at the
same time be announcing that the foundation upon which the government bases
its argument to rescind our liberties is a myth. You will be engaging in a
debate aimed at reforming both foreign and domestic policy.
These five reasons immediately come to mind without much pondering.
On another subject, you are wrong to assert that researchers and writers
have not put their lives on the line to defeat the Bush family crime
syndicate and to expose the truth about 9/11. Two immediate examples come to
mind, perhaps foremost being Michael Ruppert, whose publication, From the
Wilderness, appears to have been infiltrated by a sex op while it was being
surveilled by the FBI. His workplace was destroyed, his staff partially
ruined, and, after years of battling the CIA, he was forced to leave the
country, fearing for his life. In the second instance, the mother of the
editor of insidermagazine.com was recently bludgeoned to death in her own
home as recourse to his investigation into the death of a Florida Highway
Patrolman, an investigation that allegedly eventually leads to Jeb Bush.
Going further, I am sure you know that joining the "truth movement" amounts,
in many cases to career suicide for anybody of any prominence. If you go on
the record and announce that 9/11 was an inside job you will be hounded,
ridiculed, harassed, perhapse even have your job threatened. You will lose
connections. You will alienate friends and family. This is the price you
will pay and I know you know it. Certainly this is your primary reason not
to enter the fray. You indeed have much to lose. But acting as if you are
above the "truth movement" and instead righteously engaged in debate
centered on "far greater crimes of government" is indeed shallow and could
be interpreted as a form of cowering.
