Making the obvious truth sound weird

I'm not sure if this is technically a fallacy. It might just be labeled a propaganda technique, but I wondered if anyone could shed more light on it or help me give it a name or categorize it.

As you probably know, many 9/11 truthers point out that the 9/11 terrorist attacks helped George Bush's administration, the military-industrial complex, the corporate sector, the United States' allies, etc. It doesn't prove anything, but it is a key piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - a so-called "false flag attack."

I just watched a video in which Noam Chomsky emphasizes the fact that this is "so predictable." He said governments always benefit from disasters and tragedies, both man-made and natural.

He makes it sound like this predictability is an argument against the false-flag-attack theory, when it's actually just the opposite. Why would conspirators want to engineer something as big as 9/11 if they weren't sure what the results would be? Predictability would be precisely what they were looking for.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslim fanatics or home grown fanatics. I believe Dr. Bo has stated that he doesn't believe the false-flag theory.

But regardless of which side of the fence you're on, Chomsky's "argument" that the government's response to 9/11 was PREDICTABLE, therefore, it could not have been an since job , is ridiculous.

On second thought, this does sound like a genuine logical fallacy. You could almost reduce it to a math formula:

predictability = no conspiracy
non-predictability = conspiracy

Again, why would conspirators want to plot a conspiracy if they have no way of knowing (predicting) what the results will be?

Thanks.

Again, why would conspirators want to plot a conspiracy if they have no way of knowing (predicting) what the results will be?
This seems like a false premise..not sure if its fallacious, maybe jumping to a conclusion, non sequitur possibly..
Just to this statement.......if the conspirators are the responders or control the response then it wouldn't follow that.......conspiracy equals unpredictable response. Maybe its akin to the mafia offering protection to a shopkeeper and then attacking the shopkeeper if they don't pay.

Chomsky’s predictability dismissal is referring to Occam’s razor and the so-called “truthers” are indulging in the age-old Appeal to complexity i.e. the more complex the answer is the more reasonable.

Chomsky wins hands down.

Reminds me that unfortunately "appeal to motive" doesn't have it's own entry in the list of fallacies. It's a rhetoric fallacy as even if there is a potential or real "motive" behind a proposition, this does not invalidate the argument.

In fact, I believe that "appeal to motive" is one of the most common rhetoric fallacies that we encounter in politics, and all sides are pretty much equally guilty of committing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I will do my best to stick with fallacies here, as this is what this site is about.

As you probably know, many 9/11 truthers point out that the 9/11 terrorist attacks helped George Bush's administration, the military-industrial complex, the corporate sector, the United States' allies, etc. It doesn't prove anything, but it is a key piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - a so-called "false flag attack."

This is a good example of the Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy, or would be depending on how significantly this is weighed as evidence. For example, when my mom died, I got about $100 worth of her stuff. This isn't evidence that I killed her. Through the confirmation bias , one may only pay attention to the benefits and ignore (consciously or subconsciously) the great costs. Also, we should distinguish between evidence for motive vs. evidence for the crime. For example, if Trump were murdered, roughly 60% of Americans would have motive. In no way is this evidence that any of them committed the crime.

Chomsky's "argument" that the government's response to 9/11 was PREDICTABLE, therefore, it could not have been an since [sic] job, is ridiculous.

Had Chomsky stated this or even indirectly implied it, it would be an example of a non-sequiter . It doesn't follow that predictability validates or invalidates the conspiracy.

I have not watched the video, but I would be really surprised that someone of Chomsky's intelligence and experience would say or even imply such an argument. He may have, or you may be creating a strawman of his position. It is difficult when one does not have the opportunity to ask questions (i.e., "Noam, are you saying that because it was predictable it couldn't have been an inside job???"). In absence of clear information, we tend to support the interpretation that supports our position. So perhaps the best we can say is "we don't know what Chomsky meant exactly".