I watched it.
His arguments are:
1) If you don't do science through the establishment, then you are not doing science.
2) Only people trained in universities can be trusted to do peer review.
3) Bush was running the government (and not the DEEP STATE) and Bush's only objective was not "you are either for us or you are against us". He entirely sidesteps the point of 9/11 was to foist "you are either for us or you are against us" on the entire world. And he substitutes a strawman, Hegelian dialectic for logic. He sidesteps the concept that the DEEP STATE plays many different elements against each other in order to retain control.
In short he is either knowingly acting as a gatekeeper, senile, or just not that smart. I would bet on the first conclusion.
I'll agree with your bet. Classic controlled opposition. I have to think that Chomsky (and Kruggman) is fully aware of what 9/11 was all about but for whatever reason or set of reasons they believe that it is better to cover it up. One of the strongest guesses about why this might be is that it is their job.
I'm not sure what the venue was, but one of the most amazing things I noticed was what the audience clapped about. The programming to 'shut down' has been deeply and broadly implanted for sure. As I continue to detach from the 'mainstream progressives', this is fast becoming the most disgusting attribute I notice in these people.