Matt Taibbi vs. Jon Gold plus Taibbi on WTC7

[Walter Ego]

Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .

Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog).

Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:

Help me out, Truthers. Exactly why would the conspirators tell Jane Standley and/or the BBC in advance about the collapse of WTC7? Is it so the news networks wouldn’t forget to report the collapse of a 47-story building? I mean, if the buildings are going to collapse anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense just to let the networks, you know, cover that as it happened? It would seem to have more, well, verisimilitude that way, wouldn’t it? The only thing giving them the script in advance does is introduce the possibility of them inadvertently revealing the conspiracy on the air.

But why not, I guess, when we’re dealing with a bunch of people who ostensibly got together, decided to mine WTC7 to destroy evidence in an SEC case (as part of a larger conspiracy to incite America to launch foreign wars of conquest by knocking down the Twin Towers), then knocked on the doors of all the networks and handed them scripts, telling them the building was going to fall down at 5:32 p.m… I mean, what the ****? Am I losing my mind? How can you not see how crazy that is?

 

[Justin39640]

Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .

Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog).

Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:

Lol.

You all think you know something because you surf the Internet. If you had to get your information from the real world, as I do and as all real investigators do, you’d quickly realize how silly the whole thing is.

 

[angrysoba]

Jon Gold displays all the classic signs of the Truther:

Quote-mining:

Matt Taibbi: “Of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11″

Self-pitying and self-aggrandizing at the same time:

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.

Swinging wildly between "I'll be your best friend!" fawning and "I never like you anyway!" petulance:

For those of you that don’t know, Matt Taibbi is an accomplished journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine.

Over the years, he has written several good articles pertaining to things like Wall Street, health care, the housing crisis, and so on.

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.

Equivocating between "JAQing off" and believing the Troof is obvious while being incoherent:

The next question is, was that “Al-Qaeda” system used for 9/11? Hmmm… let’s see… there’s evidence of Saudi involvement, ISI involvement… hmmm… the system that I spoke of used the Saudis, and the ISI. It also included the CIA. Hmmm…

Dick Cheney, according to ABC, Seymour Hersh, and others, used the CIA/ISI relationship to fund, train, and use “terrorists” for “terrorist” purposes inside Iran. After 9/11. Wait, you mean that’s an example of Dick Cheney’s knowledge of the system I spoke of? Again, was that system used for 9/11?

And finally, in typical no-self-awareness Truther fashion, Jon Gold pretends that Matt Taibbi is the one that's been wasting Jon Gold's time rather than the other way around:

Are we done, because I’ve got other things I can be doing.

Anyway, good find Walter. Thanks. And thanks to Comedy Gold for the belly laughs. I don't expect Jon Gold to realize just how hilarious his side of the conversation was, though.

 

[Dog Town]

Gotta love the mind of Matt.

I really wish Mark Twain were alive for that reason. A Jim Fetzer's Literary Offenses would potentially be one of the funniest things ever written in the English language.

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-06-26/matt-taibbi-discusses-his-debate-loose-change-crew

 

[Brainster]

Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .

Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog).

Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events. By announcing the story ahead of time, they made sure that plenty of cameras were focused on the building when it really came down. Of course, the building's demise had been predicted since early afternoon and undoubtedly what actually happened was that the BBC's source heard that and mistakenly thought the building had actually collapsed. Indeed, the Truthers all seem to have forgotten that CNN also reported the collapse early, although Aaron Brown was careful to state that the building either had collapsed or was going to collapse.

 

[Walter Ego]

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events. By announcing the story ahead of time, they made sure that plenty of cameras were focused on the building when it really came down. Of course, the building's demise had been predicted since early afternoon and undoubtedly what actually happened was that the BBC's source heard that and mistakenly thought the building had actually collapsed. Indeed, the Truthers all seem to have forgotten that CNN also reported the collapse early, although Aaron Brown was careful to state that the building either had collapsed or was going to collapse.

Proving, if proof be needed, that Truthers have no idea of how news of breaking events is gathered and reported or how the real world in general operates. (You can watch news coverage of that day from all the major networks plus the BBC here.)

In any case, if the MSM had the scoop of the WTC7 collapse in advance, they failed to get cameras in place at the appointed time. The only live coverage I know about is from NBC and that only because reporter Ashleigh Banfield was interviewing people nearby on air when the building came down. (Listen also to anchor Brian Williams say, "what we have been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened.")

 

[cantonear1968]

I'm a fan of Matt Taibbi from his many visits to Bill Maher's show Realtime. Very intelligent individual with an amazing insight on world events. (If I'm not mistaken, he was interviewed for one of the BBC documentaries on this subject and gave an interesting commentary on the appeal of conspiracies for conspiracy theorists).

Reading the exchange now so it should be interesting.

 

[JohnG]

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events.

A "finale" more "spectacular" than the collapse of the towers? A finale involving a much smaller building with no one inside it? I think the NWO needs to read up on how to construct a compelling narrative, they have it all backwards.

I was driving to work the morning of 9/11 while most of the tragedy was unfolding. At one point my local NPR affiliate reported that the White House had been attacked. Did the NWO accidentally hand them an earlier draft of the script?

ETA: I generally try to not mock Truthers too much for the simple reason that I myself believed all sorts of ridiculous things as a child and into my early 20s. The difference was that my beliefs didn't force me to conclude that 98% of the rest of the world was evil and/or stupid.

 

[RedIbis]

If snark were actual journalism, Taibbi would be Edward Murrow. But he's not.

Other than spite what could possibly be the logic behind this doozy:

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.

Who cares what "truthers" insinuate? If he really believes "the government lies about everything" he would research those lies, instead of worrying about what some "truthers" are saying.

The guy has no integrity.

 

[cantonear1968]

From Gold:
"I asked Matt for his permission to post this, and never heard from him."
Typical trutherism; in the absence of evidence take it as complicity.

"which tells me you really don’t know jack **** about this issue"
Again, in the absence of evidence, fill in your own.

"What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about"
And when challenged on your beliefs, lash out. There is nothing else.

Next is a perfect example of the so-called debate about 9/11:
Taibbi:"But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?"

Gold:"9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime."

A direct call for evidence and an assertion of facts not entered into the evidence; "the proof that they were involved is that they were involved".

Sorry Mr. Gold, we're going to need a little more that that!

But my favorite from Matt Taibbi, and should be the headline of every truther website, if nothing more than a proof in advertising disclaimer:
"On the other hand, who are you? Have you even once picked up the telephone in your “investigation?” You all think you know something because you surf the Internet. If you had to get your information from the real world, as I do and as all real investigators do, you’d quickly realize how silly the whole thing is."

There's a great sentence in the new Dan Brown book The Lost Symbolwhich applies to conspiracy theorists more than any other group:
"Google is not a synonym for research"

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events.

Lamest. Finale. Ever.

I hope that's not true, because it means Truther expectation are completely ass-backwards.

"We've just flown planes into two of the tallest buildings in the country, demolished them in a rather spectacular way, flew a third plane impressively close to the ground, over a busy highway, taking out streetlights before smashing into the very heart of our military, and then crashed the fourth plane into a field to create a rousing hero story.

"Now, for our grand finale... We'll collapse a 47-story building in relative silence. Mua-ha-ha-ha!"

 

[Justin39640]

If snark were actual journalism, Taibbi would be Edward Murrow. But he's not.

Other than spite what could possibly be the logic behind this doozy:


Who cares what "truthers" insinuate? If he really believes "the government lies about everything" he would research those lies, instead of worrying about what some "truthers" are saying.

The guy has no integrity.

Cause Tabbi was saying that the Government lied about its incompetence and corruption that allowed the attacks to be successful. NOT about being complicit. He says truthers are so stupid and so distracting from actual arguments, the real truths and crimes of 9/11 will most likely never be known.

Good job truthers! You helped the real criminals get away with it!

 

[angrysoba]

Who cares what "truthers" insinuate? If he really believes "the government lies about everything" he would research those lies, instead of worrying about what some "truthers" are saying.

That's a good point. He's set up a false dilemma, I would investigate but can't because some people have wild ideas.

John Farmer clearly doesn't think that other people having wild ideas can stop him investigating.

Having said that Taibbi does give his answer to the question of why he isn't investigating and that is that there are more important things to get outraged by. I do think Taibbi wouldn't make a good chess player, though, as clearly Jon Gold's next question should be, "Then why do you get outraged about 9/11 Truthers to the extent that your professional time is spent investigating us morons?" Or something along those lines. Fortunately Jon Gold is also not a very good chess player.

 

[Dog Town]

If he really believes "the government lies about everything" he would research those lies, instead of worrying about what some "truthers" are saying.

The guy has no integrity.

Add articles, and books by Matt, to the things Red has no clue about.
Going after the Gov,and various other scum bags, is what Matt is ALL about!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That's also covered over @ Screw Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

 

[WildCat]

If snark were actual journalism, Taibbi would be Edward Murrow. But he's not.

Other than spite what could possibly be the logic behind this doozy:


Who cares what "truthers" insinuate? If he really believes "the government lies about everything" he would research those lies, instead of worrying about what some "truthers" are saying.

The guy has no integrity.

Hey RedIbis, did you find your first 9/11 fact yet so you can finally start that 9/11 Fact Movement you were talking about years ago?

No?

LOL!

 

[Dog Town]

That's also covered over @ Screw Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Hence the reason for the hat tip, in the OP.

 

[JohnG]

But what's the tipping point between what is and isn't "worth" investigating? How do you prioritize the order in which the theories should be investigated? Doesn't it all just go back to evidence, that bugbear of the Truth Movement?

Does it necessarily follow that since the "Government lies" (no ****, Sherlock) that all allegations against them deserve attention and more to the point equal attention? Even the laughably bizarre Rube Goldbergfinger theories of the Truth Movement?

If an individual who is known for being a liar denies that they were responsible for the Japan Earthquake does then it follow that they must have played some part in the creation of the earthquake? Or do even pathological liars occasionally tell the truth?

Is the Royal Family under any obligation to consent to genetic testing because some small subset of the population believes that the Royals are "reptilians"?

As others have said, I don't doubt that "the Government" have told either inadvertent untruths (based on false data) or flat out lies about 9/11, but I've seen nothing at all to indicate that such untruths and lies are anything more than exercises in CYA for not following leads that could have foiled the 9/11 plot before it (literally) got off the ground.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hence the reason for the hat tip, in the OP.

Yuppers!

 

[GlennB]

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events.....

I hear what you're saying, but then there's also a sub-cult of trutherdom who reckon WTC7 was 'supposed' to come down during WTC1's collapse, that it all went wrong, but was corrected later.

It's all a pile of festering bollocks, frankly.