I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky way back in the early 80s. I had to write a paper for a philosophy of language class, and I was having a heck of hard time understanding why "Snow is white" and "Schnee ist weiss" (or whatever the correct spelling for "snow is white" in German is supposed to be) is philosophically interesting. I told my professor I couldn't think of anything to write about. He recommended reading Noam Chomsky's views on language. I found a collection of essays on the philosophy of language (edited by John Searle) that included one by Chomsky. He argued that we had an innate knowledge of grammar that enabled us to learn language. What an absolutely fascinating idea! So I took an incomplete and spent the next year reading Chomsky's books on language and also what his critics had to say about them. I thought Chomsky's arguments were the stronger and wrote up a paper on the topic and passed with a "B."
The one thing that I was curious about was how Chomsky thought we came to have this innate knowledge. I learned later that he was skeptical that a Darwinian account of our innate language learning ability could be provided. So did he think this innate "universal grammar" had been purposely designed? Heavens no! So what did he think the historical account was? Apparently he was willing to remain agnostic about it, though I read something recently where he seemed to think that eventually a Darwinian account might be found for it.
Fast forward to the last couple of years, where Chomsky has said some rather interesting things about the 9/11 Truth movement. Perhaps the most interesting thing he said is that even if it were proven that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition, then the most likely culprit would still be al Qaeda.
Now there seems to be a similarity of some sort between these two disparate topics. In the first case, Chomsky discovered something seemingly extraordinary about human beings - an innate universal grammar - but was unwilling to hypothesize an extraordinary explanation for it, such as intelligent design. In the second case, he has said that even if an extraordinary explanation - controlled demolition - for the collapses of the WTC buildings is discovered, there is no reason to think there was an extraordinary explanation for the controlled demolitions.
It's almost as if Chomsky is willing to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no further. I may have discovered something extraordinary, but that is no reason to think it needs an extraordinary explanation. There may be something extraordinary about the collapses of the WTC towers, but that is no reason to think there is an extraordinary explanation for that."
I should add that the fact that we have an innate universal grammar fit very well into Chomsky's political philosophy. To him this proved that we were not just tabula rasa, blank slates, that could be molded however the state wanted to mold us. We were somehow incorrigibly made in a certain way that guaranteed individual dignity.
However, it is not as clear to me that 9/11 "Truth" would fit as well into Chomsky's views. But then, I haven't studied his political philosophy.