Professor Noam Chomsky has recently been embroiled with an angered 9/11 truther movement, which has swarmed about his every word like hornets in a summer squash patch.
Mr. Chomsky opined that the Building 7 controversy was essentially a non-starter except for a few disgruntled theorists who should spend more than an hour on the internet to get informed about the matter.
Audience at the University of Florida responded so happily to this commentary Mr. Chomsky was forced to assert a modicum of irritation as with, "Can I finish?"
He continued by indicating the complete lack of plausibility that any nasty business could possibly have happened regarding Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11.
Doubts on credibility, as with possible nano-thermite in Building 7, devolve not from the actual investigation of Building 7, which was completed in 08 via the NIST investigation.
Instead, all thinking persons should doubt foul play because, if anything significantly nasty had occurred, it would have been presented in critical scientific circles by distinguished gentlemen of academia, like Mr. Chomsky himself.
Presenting such questioning is essentially "riskless," according to Mr. Chomsky. In fact, there is a too "miniscule" amount of interest in the topic from those with the brains to deal with it. Ergo there is no problem.
Mr. Chomsky's commentary had an air of fatigue about it.
These commentaries were quick to spring a horde of angry rejoinders in a fine spirit of demonizing and name-calling amidst internet commentators in response to Mr. Chomsky and each other.
Mr. Chomsky himself was larded with a share of these nits and twiggers of opprobrium generally running along the theme of "shill," "idiot," "brainwashed," and "obviously you are employed by the CIA."
Indeed, the controversy over just what happened to bring down the WTC, including Building 7, is such that nothing short of declaration by a deity is likely to settle it.
Meanwhile, the deity of the human forebrain weighs in.
A group of 1900 engineers and physicists is available against Mr. Chomsky's claim that only "one or two" critics have said anything. This group firmly disbelieves the official version of how Building 7 went down.
On the other hand, spokespersons for Mr. Bush have sprung forward with nodding heads and serious brows, agreeing Mr. Chomsky has used scientific methodology to conclude no funny business occurred on the terrible day.
As a proof Mr. Chomsky argued that whereas Mr. Bush badly wanted war with Iraq, when opportunity presented itself at 9/11 his administration blamed the Saudis.
Hornets were heard angrily murmuring, "Do you mean 'rogue Saudis?' And was not Mr. Rumsfeld heard darkly forecasting war with Iraq on the very afternoon of the attacks?"
Thus, the hornet's nest of suspicion is stirred again, and scientific methodology in assessing national crises given new vigor.
Key to the methodology is "principles," "facts," and "experts from academia" as guides.