Gold Admits He's a Crackpot

Jon Gold decided to tackle Matt Taibbi. The headline on the piece is about Taibbi admitting that we've been lied to about 9-11 (not exactly Earth-shattering news), but I find it more interesting that he managed to paint Gold into a corner where he started having to admit his crackpot ideas. Jon doesn't usually do that; he's Mr "all about the families and justice and accountability" without actually revealing anything about what he thinks happened on 9-11.

Matt Taibbi: The fact that the government failed to prevent a terrorist attack through incompetence and, on some level, corruption, is simply not high on my list of outrages, at least not compared to other things that have gone on.

It is a very different thing than causing the attacks to happen, or being part of their planning, which is what the 9/11 Truth movement continually asserts. Moreover, it continually does so in a supremely intellectually dishonest way, charging complicity and then retreating into these nebulous calls for answers to questions about the official story, when asked to produce evidence of said complicity.

But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?

Jon Gold: 9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime. That’s how I answer your question of complicity.

But hey Matt… thanks for admitting that “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” I’ll remember that the next time you take a shot at the only movement that has been supportive of the families seeking justice, and the 9/11 First Responders seeking health care.

Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11. It’s asinine and an incredible distraction.

Moreover the government’s failure in 9/11 was, comparatively speaking, a rather small-scale screwup, compared to its intentional invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its failure to police Wall Street. I’m with Noam Chomsky on this one. If you’re looking down the list of US Government outrages, 9/11 doesn’t crack the top 100.

Jon Gold: Childish insinuations? I don’t think it’s childish at all to point to suspects of a crime. Especially when there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to think so. What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.

As you can see, Jon is one of those people who believe in the awesome power of ALL CAPS to prove his point. That's because he doesn't have strong arguments. I gotta love the part where he challenges Taibbi to "read" his 9-11 Troof starter kit:

Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the “official account.”

After that, I suggest you ask people to watch “9/11: Press For Truth“…

Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families“…

Then I suggest ask people to you watch then former Rep. Cynthia McKinney chair the 9/11 Omission Hearings that took place not two months after the release of the 9/11 Report in New York City on 9/9/2004…

Then I suggest you ask people to watch then Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s 9/11 Congressional Briefing held in Washington D.C. on 7/22/2005…

Yep, of the first five things Gold wants Taibbi to "read", only the 9-11 Commission Report is actually written down; the rest are movies.

Kevin Barrett Finally Wins Something

I have been on vacation, so I missed this, but Kevin "Hang em high" Barrett made the media again, with Rolling Stone journalist and frequent truther critic Matt Taibbi awarding him the Most Obnoxious Thing on the Internet This Month. Matt might be a little behind though, because he is usually the most obnoxious thing on the Internet any month.

The author is a Truther and former Fullbright scholar from Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett who at one point was a professor at UW but left amid controversy over his lunatic-ass views. (I love the fact that the last course he was scheduled to teach at Wisconsin was on The Canterbury Tales). Barrett starts out by pointing out the huge percentages of the worldwide Muslim population believe 9/11 was an inside job, then adds that the Mosque should be turned into a kind of museum of American treachery:

The best means of repentance and reparation, in my view, would be for the U.S. government to fund and build a new mosque at Ground Zero covering the entire World Trade Center site, with twin minarets looming above in memory of the Twin Towers’ destruction by genocidal Islamophobes. The minarets should be more than 700 feet in height, which would make the new structure the world’s tallest mosque.

The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi -- Part III

Yesterday I mentioned that there was a part II to this interview, there are actually 3 parts, for those of you who never got through Griffin's long and winding answers. Just reading Taibbi's hilarious questions is worth another post.

In the end it all comes down to what you believe. If you believe that events in life tend to have simple explanations, then you're not going to be very impressed by Griffin's arguments. If on the other hand you think that the people running this country spend their days plotting to create phantom civilian jet-liner flights, disappearing whole fuselages full of passengers, and then shooting missiles into the Pentagon in broad daylight in order to cover up embezzlement schemes if you think, in other words, that our government is run by the same people who cook up second-rate French spy movies or your mind instantly produces the word "crossbow" when asked to produce A MURDER WEAPON by a Mad Libs script well, then, you're probably going to enjoy Griffin's books.

The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi -- Part II

Amid all of Griffin's long, droning, circuitous answers I didn't even notice that there was a part II to this interview. I disagree with Taibbi on about everything political, but there is no question he has got this right.

Secondly: what the f***? What kind of lunatic comes up with this as his "illustrative example"? Your simplifying parable is more fantastic and complicated than the actual story! At first I thought you were kidding, then I had to go back and read it to believe it -- astounding! It should tell the readers of this debate quite a bit that this is your idea of a good way to start an argument: "Say for example that your best friend is killed in broad daylight with a crossbow, and the government frames you for the crime using advanced morphing technology"

Uh, okay. I can say it, sure. It's stupid, but I can say it. Does the story end with my wife in bed with a cow in a spacesuit? I mean really. I don't mean to take a gratuitous swipe here, but your fictional example says a lot about how your mind works.

Matt Taibbi Takes on David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin, who is known for ducking any form of debate, locks horns with Rolling Stone journalist and frequent troofer critic Matt Taibbi. A typical question from Taibbi:

Exactly what do you believe is the significance of Hani Hanjour's record of poor piloting? Do you believe someone else was flying the plane? Do you believe it wasn't a plane at all? Why don't you just come out and say what you think? Because we know this much: somebody piloted a jet liner into the Pentagon, and that somebody did a pretty good job of it. What does it matter if the ostensible pilot had a poor flying record? Who cares? Because unless you've got hard evidence that something else happened that day, that it wasn't Muslim hijackers but some other fanatical suicidal terrorist (for whoever it was was a fanatical suicidal terrorist) the detail is irrelevant. But you don't even have a theory about that day. Or do you? (Note: I fully expect you to respond by saying, "It's not our job to reveal what happened, it's only our job to raise questions." Which is a very convenient way of saying one of two things: either your evidence doesn't add up to any kind of coherent story, or you don't have the nerve to say in public what you really think the evidence suggests. Please, please disappoint me!).

Griffin of course, dodges the question.

Once again the high priest of the 9/11 truth movement insults the victims:

With regard to Ted Olson, your argument is based on the assumption that his wife, Barbara Olson, really died, and that he truly loved her. Both of those things may well be true. But I certainly do not know that they are, and I suspect that you do not, either.

If Deena Burnett was tricked, then it's possible that Ted Olson was, too. My own hunch, however, is that he simply invented the story. For one thing, he was very much an insider in the Bush-Cheney administration, being the attorney who successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the Florida recount in 2000 should be stopped (thereby making Bush president) and that Cheney did not have to reveal the participants at his secret energy-policy meeting in 2001. Also, if the calls really came to the Department of Justice, Olson could have provided evidence of this fact when the veracity of his story was challenged, but he never did.

Well At Least They Are Optimistic

A truther over on 911 Blogger lists some recent books discussing 9/11 (no surprise that Firefight is not on that list).

For pure bizareness though, check out this reference:

2. "The Great Derangement" - by Matt Taibbi - Chapter Eight: Conspiracy Interlude I, or 9/11 and the Derangement of Truth, pg 148 - Reading in between the lines, I think Matt may be questioning 9/11 now and is subtly apologizing to 9/11 truthers . . .

I haven't read the whole book, but I have read those two chapters, and anyone who thinks that Taibbi is apologizing to truthers is high. No, they are not laughing with you, they are really laughing at you.

The Great Derangement

Rolling Stones journalist Matt Taibbi is known for writing one of the best parodies of the 9/11 truth movement:

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of f***ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of f***ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

Now it he has apparently dedicated an entire book to the subject of right wing religious fundamentalists, which also discusses the fact that truthers share many of the same traits of religious zealots, something I have been arguing for years.

In his new book, "The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire," Taibbi embarks on a journey through contemporary America, a place that he believes is on the verge of a psychological collapse. Reporting for Rolling Stone, Taibbi goes undercover as a born-again Christian to investigate John Hagee's apocalyptic mega-church. He also documents his contentious experiences with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, whose conspiracy theories he portrays as leftist parallels to the delusional beliefs of the religious right. Taibbi sees Americans on both sides of the political spectrum reverting to a new tribalism that makes communication and mutual understanding near impossible. In a book that is as darkly funny as it is depressing, Taibbi assails every aspect of modern-day America.

Click on the link for an interview with the author.

Update: Walter Ego points us to an MSNBC interview with the author.

Matt Taibbi III

Matt Taibbi, who wrote two terrific articles on the 9-11 Deniers for Rolling Stone, answers readers' questions.

Matt-
You’ve probably already been asked this too many times, but, are you planning to write the third installment of your 9/11 series? If not, why?
- Dallas Redig

Hi Dallas. I’ll eventually publish this written debate I had with the Loose Change guys via email. It was pretty funny stuff. At one point I asked them if they’d made even a single phone call before they ran that stuff about the hijackers still being alive. Their answer was that they had made some calls, but “couldn’t get through” to anyone. Then when I tried to point out that not getting through to anyone in your research is usually a good time not to publish your unverified material, they just ignored me and started babbling about how the original congressional report about 9/11 had 28 pages redacted, etc. etc. etc. It wasn’t really a debate, it was like one angry non sequitur after another. Eventually they dropped the debate in the middle – I haven’t heard from them in a while.

It's the last question, so scroll way down; there's a hilarious paragraph after that one involving electrocuting swingers in a bathtub.