• Chomsky assumes that nothing like a 9/11 inside-job scenario has ever happened before. He might be very knowledgeable about how governments use a velvet glove to cover their iron fists, but Chomsky does not know anything about the long-established tactic of false flag terrorism

• Chomsky argues that "the administration would [not] have been so utterly insane as to try something like this". Really? I guess faking WMDs and other intelligence, spying on grandmothers and other innocent Americans without a warrant, torturing people, repealing large chunks of the Constitution, and gearing up for more "elective" wars (maybe using nukes) is sane? Again, If Chomsky knew how many governments have gotten away with false flag attacks, he wouldn't think it was so insane for the American government to do the same to justify its pre-planned agenda

• Chomsky assumes that 9/11 truth takes energy away from more important activist activities. But every Constitution-revoking law, executive order, and regulation, and every act of military aggression uses 9/11 as its excuse. 9/11 is the excuse and justification for everything Chomsky dislikes. Indeed, I would argue that until 9/11 is exposed, things cannot change for the better

Noam Chomsky is widely accepted as one of the smartest guys around. He basically invented the field of linguistics. The New York Times called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive". And when he was on the Charlie Rose show last year, he demolished Rose in debate, and Rose was left whining "How do you know all that?"

But Chomsky's sophmoric logical mistakes and faulty assumptions regarding 9/11 show that even someone brilliant in one area can make monumental mistakes in another.

No matter how smart and successful you are in your given field, please look at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job yourself before dismissing it out of hand.