Why does Chomsky ignore the 2001 Jalalabad video, the 2004 taped statement, multiple video interviews with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the Se

Why does Chomsky ignore the 2001 Jalalabad video, the 2004 taped statement, multiple video interviews with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the September 2006 which shows Osama bin Laden with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri... I agree that in a fair and impartial trial, what we've been given may not have been enough to secure a prosecution. And there may or may not be enough evidence to actually implicate Osama in 9/11. But why does Chomsky act like there was nothing but the October 2001 video where he praises the attack? If he wants to argue that there isn't enough evidence to link Osama to 9/11 he should at least present all the evidence. As it is he comes off as disingenuous by not mentioning all the other videos and evidence (which I'm sure he is aware of). There is a lot more I disagree with in his reaction but that stands out the most.