Chomsky on 911 conspiracy


菊池誠氏の「陰謀のふたつの顔」というエントリー*2に対しては、コメントが476もある。その全ては読みきれないが、その中の幾つかは「陰謀理論」を信じる人の思考のスタイルのサンプルとして興味深いところはある。さてそこから、2005年1月に行われたノーム・チョムスキーへのインタヴューを知る; (Japanese translation)

その最後の部分で911に関する「陰謀理論」について触れている。そこで、チョムスキーは「陰謀理論」について、”an awful waste of time”と述べているのだが、その最後に添付されたテクストを引用しておく;

There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.

One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as they all did -- one of the easiest predictions. So that shows nothing.