GQ, Having No Balls, Spikes Putin Story
Conde Nast owns Vanity Fair and GQ as well as other publications, including Russian versions of GQ, Glamour, Tatler and Vogue. On July 23, Jerry S. Birenz, one of the company’s top lawyers, sent an e-mail memo to more than a dozen corporate executives and GQ editors.
“Conde Nast management has decided that the September issue of U.S. GQ magazine containing Scott Anderson’s article ‘Vladimir Putin’s Dark Rise to Power’ should not be distributed in Russia,” Birenz wrote.
Conde Nast has some explaining to do.
The magazine apparently buried Scott Anderson’s expose about the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia that led, directly according to some and indirectly according to others, to the ascension of Vladimir Putin to power. The bombings were officially blamed on Chechen terrorists but over the years lots of evidence has surfaced pointing to some involvement by the Russian security agencies. A number of people who investigated those bombings, including journalist/deputy Yuri Schekochikhin and his journalist colleague Anna Politkovskaya, have since been murdered, although no direct connection has ever been drawn between the two.
The evidence pointing to FSB involvement in those bombings was always intriguing. The most compelling revolved around a bomb found in the basement of a building in Ryazan that was found to have been placed there by the FSB, which later dismissed the incident as a “training exercise.” Anderson’s story pushes this theory forward with an interview of former KGB agent Mikhail Trepashkin, who investigated the case and claimed to have evidence of FSB involvement. However Trepashkin was arrested just days before he was scheduled to give evidence in a trial related to the bombings. He ended up being convicted of disclosing state secrets.
Trepashkin has ties to gazillionaire mob creature Boris Berezovsky, however, and generally speaking it is impossible to know the truth really about anything with these Russian political shenanigans. But it is certainly notable that there has been an extraordinary effort to shut down those investigating the bombings. Which is understandable, when you’re talking about a thug like Vladimir Putin; that’s what these guys do, after all.
But Conde Nast? For a Western company like this to shelf Anderson’s story in Russia — and bury it, apparently, in the domestic GQ — is totally unacceptable, no matter what one thinks about the issue. What exactly is the thinking here — are they worried about losing the revenue from Russian GQ? They could probably make back what that publication makes in a year with a couple of spreads in Vogue. This is totally shameless behavior.
p.s. note to Truthers: please, no more 40,000-word letters making comparisons between 9/11 and the 1999 apartment bombings, okay? Especially since I only just finished spraying this site with Truther-off. Have a heart!
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I guess business is bizness. Russian GQ may not bring in much, esp. in comparison to VF or Vogue, but it’s still something, and people’s jobs are on the line. Besides, is a magazine called Gentlemen’s Quarterly really the best forum for such a story?
Nevertheless, you’re right: no story should ever be spiked out of a fear of the government, any government.
If Rolling Stone can publish Matt and other political writers, and GQ can publish Draper’s article on Rummy: (http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_9217), then I think they are OK to publish and shine with Anderson’s article.
If they wanted to wimp out, then they should have called around for someone else to publish. Either go whole hog or don’t do it at all.
In response to another comment. See in context »odd; the link doesn’t work. Just google g q article on Rumsfeld and you’ll get there.
In response to another comment. See in context »Fair point. In fact, Anderson may have chosen GQ for his piece precisely because he knew (or thought he knew) it’d be published in Russian, throughout Russia.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Taibbi,
Doesn’t your column answer its own question? The story alleges that Mr. Putin killed many innocent citizens of his own nation to ascend to power. If this were true, as the powers at Conde Nast seem to believe, what would such a man do to a mere magazine?
It might have something to do with whatever deal Conde Nast has worked out with Russian officials. CN appears to do a lot of business over there. Russian government probably said ‘fine, do whatever you want, as long as…’ and you can finish that sentence. You would know better than just about anyone, Matt.
Hah. I bet a lot of folks saw some disconnect between your assumptions/presumptions regarding the perfidy and scalawagism of Russian officials versus that of the Bush Administrations. Just seems to me that the demon that animates Russian officials to commit mass murder for political game is just power, and that particular demon manifests itself in spades among the leaders of this failing empire. Matt– you’re one of the best out there, and I think the world of what you do and write, but the sooner you start seeing the power elite as one rather seamless group of sociopathic a-holes regardless of nationality, the sooner we’ll all be on the same page.
Thanks for the good work. Don’t let the bastards get you down.
The difference is that there is real evidence in the Russian story, and none in the 9/11 story. In Russia the people investigating the bombings were the very best reporters in the country, and some of them were actually murdered, while in America, the people who touted the Truther theories were not people like Seymour Hersh but basement-dwelling kids like Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, who you might have noticed have not only not been assassinated but have been given feature film deals.
But, you can believe if you want that I’m just generally disinclined to believe that Americans can be as corrupt as Russians.
In response to another comment. See in context »But isn’t this business as usual for Conde Nast? I believe they owned the Alabama newspaper which helped to railroad Governor Seligman into jail, with the focused help of Karl Rove’s buddies.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, how can so free to look at facts and let facts lead where they lead in one part of a paragraph in regards to a Russian false flag attack and then do a complete about face in the same paragraph about a different false flag attack?
My father got his PhD in Metallurgical Engineering from a Big 10 University. He spent most of his career doing research designing various types steel alloys for the energy and automobile industries. You know why pretty much the entire oil industry is built, drilled, piped, refined by steel machinery? Because all that steel will not be seriously compromised by an oil/gas fire.
Do you think all these oil companies would have been putting the whole world’s oil supply in steel alloy derricks, platforms, pipeline, for a century if any petroleum product could make two whole skyscrapers of steel alloy girders could be made to melt like a candle in an hour and a half.
This is about 5 minutes of a BBC documentary about the Piper Alpha North Sea Oil Platform disaster…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knT8AJv3SDg
This is just about worst case scenario as far as petroleum product fires. Huge, very productive field. Multiple natural gas (natural gas burns much hotter than jet fuel) pipelines leading into the platform.
The pipelines were not shut down at the first problem. Natural gas continued to be pushed through the ruptured pipeline.
The explosions happen at 10:30PM. The next morning, a big chunk of that steel oil rig platform was STILL STANDING. Multiple pipeline fires, ruptured pipelines still flowing into the explosion for several hours…
…and half that steel oil rig was still standing the next morning. The had to take explosives to it a year later to sink it.
Steel cannot be significantly compromised by a burning petroleum products. The whole damn oil industry has been literally built upon that fact for more than a century.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, thanks for the reply. I guess the notion of “real evidence” is in the eye of the beholder. As an attorney, I see spoliation all over the place, I know of eyewitness accounts that vary materially from the official mantra, and I know a bullshit story when I hear it. And the official conspiracy theory has bullshit permeating all through it. The contours of the real story are impossible to know, and it seems that anyone who even asks for clarification and transparency is immediately attacked as a lunatic by the MSM– another sign of potential credibility.
People who think the official story is bullshit in some degree are not the fringers you make them out to be. Certainly not on the scale of the birthers or death panel nutbags or any other group of freaks who seem to get a thousand times more serious coverage than Truthers. You think there’s more evidence that Obama was not born in the US than that the offical 911 story has impossible holes? Yet, who gets serious coverage to give their brand of bullshit legs?
Anyhoo, no resolving this here. Keep up the good work. The health reform article in Rolling Stone was top notch. Thanks for the awesome job.
In response to another comment. See in context »Maybe the bigwigs at Conde Nast didn’t want to suffer the same fate as Alexander Litvinenko. There is a reason such insidious means of assassination are used. You can escape American libel laws if you’re abroad, but get in the crosshairs of the FSB and God have mercy…
Truther-off… that’s funny. 40,000 words? Was that a PDF?
I had a lot of respect for Matt. But then he single-handed blew off the 911 Truth movement with his snarky little comment: “p.s. note to Truthers: please, no more 40,000-word letters making comparisons between 9/11 and the 1999 apartment bombings, okay? Especially since I only just finished spraying this site with Truther-off. Have a heart!”
NO MATT — YOU HAVE A HEART,DAMN IT. FOR SOMEONE WHO’S SUPPOSEDLY DEDICATED TO THE TRUTH YOU SURE ARE BEING A FREAKING RETARD. To those of us who LOST people (read: EVERY AMERICAN) you are a complete ASS.
I’m sorry for your loss. If you’ve read Matt’s latest book, you’ll see he also sympathizes with those who have suffered (in various ways). However, I have a cousin who is an fireman and certified EMT. If you don’t believe planes caused the devastation of 9/11, maybe I can you guys up. He worked very hard that day.
In response to another comment. See in context »Damn… Looks like Matt needs to switch to Clinical Strength Truther-Off!!
In response to another comment. See in context »It wouldn’t hurt to mention the author of the original story, David Folkenflik, as well as give credit to the ideas you write about, which are virtually identical to the ideas in the story, even in the order you present them. You might want to review some of the definitions of plagiarism….
As someone who’s caught plagiarizers, I believe the link to the NPR story covers Matt in this setting. Were he to write an independent article with no source listed, we could fire his ass (and miss out on future rants, pooh). This use is fine.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Taibbi,
Explain WTC 7 to those of us who see through the blatantly bogus Department Of Commerce, NIST “thermal expansion” explanation. If their explanation were valid, there would be no need for demolition companies. All one would have to do is start a few fires and wait for the building to implode into its own footprint at free fall speed. If I bought their explanation, I would avoid all steel and concrete skyscrapers for fear that they might implode.
I enjoyed your “Great American Bubble Machine” expose on Goldman Sachs. That is why it is so frustrating to see you taking a left gatekeeper position on the reality of the 9/11 psyop. You are clearly an intelligent writer. Why don’t you take on the case of the mysterious death of Barry Jennings? I would like to know this inconvenient witness met his untimely exit. This would be a great story for you.
Truthers are ridiculous.
Why do you even bother demanding explanations of anything? You already believe this crap with zealous quasi-religious fervor. You could be sat down in front of evidence demonstrating the effect of fire on steel all day long (like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffen were) and still you would cling to your preposterous beliefs.
You guys aren’t simply “asking questions”. You already have your minds made up, and belligerently label anyone who doesn’t buy into your paranoid delusions as “left gatekeepers”. The 9/11 Truther theories are ridiculous on their face.
In response to another comment. See in context »…says the guy who thinks cavemen rode dinosaurs like horses 6000 ago.
In response to another comment. See in context »‘You could be sat down in front of evidence demonstrating the effect of fire on steel all day long (like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffen were) and still you would cling to your preposterous beliefs.’
Maybe those guys aren’t disputing the effects of fire on steel. One dispute they have that I read was that while jet fuel buyns real hot it also burns real fast. Almost all the jet fuel was consumed within ten minutes but the buildings came down after 2 hours. Office furniture fires aren’t hot enough to melt steel. Even if they burn for 2 hours.
In response to another comment. See in context »correction: in the post above the sentence should read:
I would like to know HOW this inconvenient witness met his untimely exit.
Oh, for Christ’s sake.
I suggest you go back in history and look at every other conspiracy theory ever furthered and take note of how many of them rested on some bund of third-tier scientists who claim this or that is a “physical impossibility.” In a conspiracy this enormous, if this is your best evidence, you don’t have any evidence at all.
The people who run this country have absolutely no need to do things like this. They have an utterly compliant population and they simply make legal whatever it is they want to do to transfer wealth to themselves. The notion that they would put all their chips on an insane and pointlessly bloody gambit like 9/11 is just laughable, when they already can just sit back and spend all day long counting money.
Oh, God, I promised myself I wouldn’t get into this Truther nonsense again. I apologize to regular readers of this site. The Truther movement is like my own personal case of full-body herpes. I just can’t seem to remember not to scratch at it…
I think Maddox wrote the best takedown of 9/11 truthers (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons). It even has cartoons for those who are too slow for prose.
In response to another comment. See in context »This guy’s linked evidence proves the guy who wrote the webpage you have linked to is a barefaced liar.
“However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius [1830 degrees F], it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
quote from linked page “it doesn’t have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C”
A Barefaced liar.
In response to another comment. See in context »Clearly, he’s part of the conspiracy. He’s probably their chief propagandist.
In response to another comment. See in context »adam503,
The “hard evidence” consists of the full evidence and explanations that have been given time and time again. I can at least commend you for reading through what others have offered, but you seem to cherry pick passages to keep the speculation going.
Case in point: You pick this:
>“However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius [1830 degrees F], it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.”
Let’s go to the full monty:
>”In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
>However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
>UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified … to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.”
Short of reproducing the entire 14 point explanations, some of which have been summarized in answers here, I’ll take a few more spot from (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
From #12:
>”a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.”
From #13
>”Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”
The Popular Mechanics article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html) goes through conspiracy claims even more thoroughly. don’t know if you read that one.
There are claims that an Airforce E-4B plane must have in control of the situation the whole time. Unfortunately, the pentagon’s denial of a military aircraft above the white house has fueled speculation that much more. If that plane were in the air around D.C. around 10 am that would make complete sense, since the WTC Trade towers had been hit already. If the pentagon wanted to have this mechanism for running the government up, the timing of its presence would be right.
The WTC towers I and II were constructed in the 60’s; finished in 1970 and 71. They were constructed to withstand an aircraft accident of a single Boeing 707, not 2 Boeing 767s (nor pending attacks such as the ones carried out by Kamikaze pilots during WWII).
But never mind. You will ignore all of this too. I know cause I’m psychic. You didn’t respond my assertion that the Bush admin was willing to give up life, but not give up money. I work with someone who cites office conspiracies with regularity, and there’s no reasoning there either.
So I leave you with this link to today’s Doonesbury (if you read this later, click on Sun. Sp. 6): (http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury).
(My fingers are crossed that the links that didn’t work for me were missing the slashes, and these links don’t have them from the get go. If you’re still curious, there’s always the cut and paste method.)
Btw, check your water supply for flouride!
In response to another comment. See in context »?!?Popular Mechanics?!?
That same one stupid Popular Mechanics article you sheep keep clinging to was shredded by David Ray Griffin destroyed point by point over and over again for the last 2 years.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
by David Ray Griffin (2007)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156656686X
That’s all you sheep have, and you sheep cling to that Popular Mechanics article like Evangenical Christians cling to John 3:16
How many engineering students have ever been taught anything from the pages from Popular Mechanics?
ZERO.
How many scientific conferences have Popular Mechanics been read at? ZERO.
Popular Mechanics has as much credibility in scientific circles as People Magazine.
Like I said, there is no real evidence supporting the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11.
In response to another comment. See in context »Even though I strongly disagree with your highly insulting assessment of the caliber of scientists involved in the research, I don’t need a scientist to see with crystal clarity, that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the 47 story elephant in the living room.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Mr. Sheen! How you been? I haven’t seen you since we demoralized that waitress in Tulsa!
I saw that you got remarried. Good! Denise was all washed up anyway. The best thing she ever did was let Pierce Brosnan bounce bad jokes off her chest in the Brosnan Bond movie that no one remember. SLAM!
Tell President Bartlet I said hey! Oh, I’ll be in Malibu in a few weeks. Can you hook me up with some snow and some roofies! Thanks, Chuck!
In response to another comment. See in context »Right – who needs evidence when you can look at some footage shot from blocks away and jump to a conclusion?
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
Gore Vidal, in his most recent memoir, lays out his explanation of what happened to JFK.
Vidal claims that Bobby Kennedy is ultimately responsible for JFK’s death. Why? Because the Kennedys had launched a covert plan in 1963 to kill Castro through the DOD (and not the CIA, who the Kennedys believed botched the Bay of Pigs). The DOD then sought to use the mob for the execution of the plan. However, at the same time, Bobby launched a private campaign to squeeze the very same mob bosses who were being recruited – by DOD – to kill Castro. So, the mob killed JFK in retaliation for Bobby’s vigorous harassment, knowing that nothing of the true extent of the presidential assassination could be revealed since it would simultaneously reveal the Kennedy plot to kill Castro and immediately jeopardize the security of the United States, in the form of a Soviet attack.
“Bobby had broken a truce made with the Mob by Joe Kennedy in 1960. Bobby, seeking glory, broke it by hounding Teamster boss Hoffa, and going after the Mob bosses,” wrote Vidal.
“Thus was the murder of JFK ordered and carried out by the same team that his brother was assembling to murder Castro and prepare the way for an invasion of Cuba at the request of a Kennedy-selected provisional government. This is classic irony and on the bloodiest scale.”
Oswald and Ruby were both CIA agents; Oswald, as he said, was the “patsy” and Ruby had been slated from the beginning to be his murderer.
In light of this, you naively write, “The notion that they would put all their chips on an insane and pointlessly bloody gambit like 9/11 is just laughable, when they already can just sit back and spend all day long counting money.”
Look, I don’t know what to think. But, as a student of history, it’s hardly “laughable” to imagine the worst.
Assuming this conspiratorial history as a possibility, how can you categorically deny the possibility of a 9-11 conspiracy? I know you hate the Truthers. But you at least have to admit that the official explanation reveals a “conspiracy” by definition.
In response to another comment. See in context »“They have an utterly compliant population and they simply make legal whatever it is they want to do to transfer wealth to themselves.”
Again, this statement ignores the fact that there are competing elements within the government to control what happens. The ‘utterly compliant population’ is irrelevant in this case. For a 9-11 conspiracy to happen, there had to have been a major understanding between the WH and at least most of the intelligence agencies. I’m agnostic on this “conspiracy theory”.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, for Cripes sake, yourself, there, Matty.
Tell us something, Matt. When was the last time you were driving your car down the freeway and the engine of that car MELTED DOWN ON YOUR LEGS!?!
For your 9/11 claims to be scientifically possible, the burning gasoline in your car engine would need to be melting your steel car engine every time you drive your car a few moments into your drive.
Matt, the physics matters a whole lot more than your belief statements.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your engine has a cooling system which prevents the series of controlled explosions from melting the block. Not quite the comparison you were looking for.
I don’t buy the gov’s explanation for why the towers fell, just as I doubt their story about TWA800, but I can’t make the leap of faith needed to believe my gov’t brought down the towers, I just can’t. It’s unnescessary. We’d have gone to war if one terrorists walked into the Mall of America with an AK*, there’s no need to drop a whole building to get us fired up.
*We didn’t go to war in ‘93 because teh war party wasn’t in charge so we were asked to react differently then. (We are very compliant on the whole)
In response to another comment. See in context »This is exactly the kind of stupid bullshit that causes people to heap abuse on Truthers.
Firstly, your engine has a cooling system. If your engine gets hot enough, due to a failure of the cooling system, or the breakdown of the motor oil, then you WILL experience the pistons seizing up in the cylinders due to heat.
Also, how do you think steel is cast in the first place? Do you think metal just forms itself into engine parts? Metal melts at high enough temperatures.
Of course, in the case of the WTC, it didn’t even need to melt, it simply needed to get weaker. The sheer mass of the building being supported by the steel put sufficient pressure on the metal that once it loses its strength, the thing is going to collapse.
If you spent 1/4 the time you spend masturbating to Dylan Avery reading up on actual physics, you wouldn’t be saying this stuff.
In response to another comment. See in context »Says the guy who thought Shirley Ellis was speaking in toungues just like his minister does when her song “The Name Game” hit the charts.
In response to another comment. See in context »Isn’t it odd that it collapsed straight down? I’ll buy that the steel weakened but it’s a one in a billion shot that all four corners would weaken at the exact same rate so that the building drops straight down on itself instead of toppling as one side weakens faster, which you would expect. Instead a one in a billion shot happened twice in a row. Odd. Showing videos of steel weakening in a fire ain’t exactly addressing a truthers questions. I’m not a truther but some of their points are compelling.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just in case The Taibbi hasn’t read any of these, this is my recommended reading list for his sociopolitical enlightenment:
(1) Brothers — by David Talbot
(2) Family of Secrets — by Russ Baker
(3) JFK and the Unspeakable — by James W. Douglas
(4) John Kenneth Galbraith, His Life, His Politics, His Economics — by Richard Parker
(5) Hot Money and the Politics of Debt — by R. T. Naylor
(6) Other People’s Money — by Nomi Prins
(7) Collapse of Complex Societies — by Joseph Tainter
(8) The Predator State — by James K. Galbraith
Then let’s discuss this subject again.
In response to another comment. See in context »This:
“They have an utterly compliant population and they simply make legal whatever it is they want to do to transfer wealth to themselves.”
And yes, re: your later update, I do believe these people could actually be more like Teabaggers, unfortunately.
In response to another comment. See in context »We must not look askance at a topnotch investigative reporter such as Mr. Taibbi; I’ve had similar conversations before with Ph.D. physicists who go to great lengths to avoid the obvious.
The Taibbi is simply falling into the “Fallacy of the Rational Man” — assuming certain types think along the same lines he does. He is absolutely right in his primary assertion about them legalizing their fraudulent behavior, but that doesn’t mean what transpired on 9/11/01 fell into that same category.
Posit: A gang of super-thieves from Wall Street – together with several extremely highly-placed government cronies – need to transfer trillions of dollars of stolen government funds to create a super-buyout fund — but to transfer it during the same timeframe so this gang can all observe one another as they don’t trust each other — not that they’re particularly scared of us sheeple.
Then, of course, they must tidy up by destroying the evidence (those IT centers and their personnel of those corporations in the WTC which were involved — plus the west side offices at the Pentagon), along with the unwitting operation support staff (check into the backgrounds of everyone aboard those four airliners that day and one will find that some of them fall into three unique and related categories).
Of course, not everything goes as planned, and one of the flights detonates on impact in Pennsylvania, leaving a very large footprint.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi personally picked this fight with 9/11 Truthers on Bill Maher’s cable show.
Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi have been crude and insulting toward in the special way only far right wingers generally are. Nobody on the left (other than than maybe Marcos Moulistsas and a few of his clones at Daily Kos) has been close to as crude and insulting as Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi have.
On top of the big pile of special ire Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi have personally earned is they have been that special kind of rude and insulting to family members of the 9/11 victims.
Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi have been reminded over and over there are victims families in the group of people they were personally insulting, and neither person gives a crap.
In response to another comment. See in context »The purpose of 9/11 had nothing to do with money. It had/has to do with mass psychology, specifically, post traumatic stress disorder and one’s propensity to dissociate. When one dissociates, they become more vulnerable to suggestion and in a worse case scenario, they can be brainwashed to believe and do just about anything. 911 was the big bang that got everyone started on the path to paranoia. It’s been continued by the onslaught of fearful images, messages and suggestions inherent in most of what we view and listen to, specifically, T.V., radio, recorded music and the movies. Images that run the gamut from monsters, demons and aliens to seemingly benign images of death, disaster, and violence that are disguised as dramas, art and commercial sales pitches. To put it plainly, 911 was designed to scare the shit out of us so we’d begin to “zone out”. The human mind can only handle so much before it shuts down and I’d say the images and sounds of human beings hitting the pavement at 200 mph were enough for most people to “learn” how to zone out pretty damn
In response to another comment. See in context »quick. And we continue to “get better at it” as we watch and listen to the messages of the mass media and hollywood. Zombies aren’t a joke, they’re what we’re becoming due to the natural human instinct not to lose one’s mind, to dissociate instead. It’s pretty much a piece of cake after that to ensure that the frightened population believes to be good whatever best suits the people doing the scaring. Religious fanatics have used these techniques for years, so did the nazis. What the truthers and conspiracy theorists need to realize is that they’re doing just what “they” want them to do, i.e. reading all of this crap online, talking about it nonstop, thinking about it nonstop and subsequently scaring the shit out of themselves and everyone else they come in contact with. Do you think the government, the PTB or whomever you blame for 911 other than terrorists is upset that you’re blaming them? Hell no! That makes you AFRAID of them and that’s what they want! Cut it out! Turn off the fucking TV! Stop with the movies and new music, get off the internet and quit reading the disinformation that’s being spewed by these people in order to make you shit your drawers! It’s all bullshit. All of it! Pay attention to what’s really going on, read Taibbi amongst others and learn how our government is actually being run on a minute to minute basis, how we came into such financial ruin as a country and how the religious right uses fear to control people. These are REAL things, not speculation. Knowledge is power people! Deal with reality. If you can’t see, hear, smell, taste or feel something, forget it! Stop believing things that scare you unless you can see it personally or it’s reported by someone with credibility you’ve counted on in the past. This would not include the numerous individuals on the internet who are purportedly trying to “save”you” by reporting on the imminent dangers of aliens, cell phone towers, british bankers and the coming of the anti-christ. Get a grip! Stop buying into the bullshit you’re afraid NOT to believe and start buying into the crap that’s being perpetrated right in front of your face. Most importantly, no matter what, DO NOT BE AFRAID because fear is what will undo us. They won’t have to lift a finger people.
It’s ALWAYS about the money, cui bono is as accurate today as it was thousands of years ago. Following the money always reveals the machinations behind the deed. Greed comes first, power follows. What three corporations benefitted the most? Two private equity firms and one major insurer. What three corporations were most involved? Those same three. The corporate fascist state doesn’t come about from ideology — it derives from sociopathic greedmongers who never, ever stop, no matter their fortunes amassed, no matter their ages.
Has Robert Rubin stopped? Check out his Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institute.
Has Maurice Greenberg ever stopped? Check out his machinations over at the Starr Foundation.
Has Peter G. Peterson ever stopped? Check out all those phony, and forever ongoing, studies to privatize social security and offshore all American jobs at his Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Will Robert McKeon ever stop?
It’s always about the money — everything else follows. Check out the cashing out in listed insider traders — then check out their foreign direct investments.
Check out the forever newly created securitized instruments: tradable insurance credits, constant proportion debt obligations, collateralized risk obligations, carbon derivatives and carbon offsets (and check out the financing and profiting from that cap-and-trade leglistation, in other words, the ownership of InterContinental Exchange, Markit Group, ICE US Trust, Climate Exchange PLC, DTCC, and on and on).
In response to another comment. See in context »The St. Petersburg Times actually reported the questionable activity in the neighboring building.
And, certainly hinted at an FSB essence in the air.
I don’t recall the Exile’s take.
“The difference is that there is real evidence in the Russian story, and none in the 9/11 story.” The only person who could say that is someone who’d deliberately tried not to find any evidence in the 9/11 story. It’s like saying there’s no evidence of anyone but Oswald being involved in JFK’s assassination.
“In Russia the people investigating the bombings were the very best reporters in the country,…”. And if none of your favorite journalists have looked at it, it didn’t happen, right?
“… have not only not been assassinated but have been given feature film deals.” Well, that proves they’re ignorant and untrustworthy!
“But, you can believe if you want that I’m just generally disinclined to believe that Americans can be as corrupt as Russians.” And who does better journalism than people who judge important stories based on their personal ‘general disinclinations’!? And besides, Americans are just better than Russians. The Cold War proved that!
“…Some bund of third-tier scientists who claim this or that is a “physical impossibility.” In a conspiracy this enormous, if this is your best evidence, you don’t have any evidence at all.” Again, only someone who is, say, emotionally unable to examine a story with disinterest could fail to find better evidence than “third-tier.”
The best journalists follow the truth no matter where it leads, Matt. They don’t find excuses for ignoring or running away from the possible truth.
Matt, I’ll take this one back, as it may have been snark on your part: “But, you can believe if you want that I’m just generally disinclined to believe that Americans can be as corrupt as Russians.” If it was snark, I apologize.
But as long as I’m here: “The people who run this country have absolutely no need to do things like this. They have an utterly compliant population and they simply make legal whatever it is they want to do to transfer wealth to themselves.” This applies even more so to Putin’s Russia, and yet he went to the trouble and risk of the apartment bombings. Why do you think Bushco wouldn’t want an even greater guarantee of political cover to invade Iraq on false evidence? Believe it or not, in the US, elections still matter–the Repugs can’t steal a landslide.
My biggest problem with the truther thing is that it would be a conspiracy of, literally, thousands of people. If the US govtis truly bad at anything, its bad at keeping secrets. Now I’m suppsed to believe that thousands of people somehow agreed to stay silent in a massive conspiracy? This is the bush administration we are talking about. Truly a confederacy of dunces, and you think they managed to pull off the greatest con in history? Why don’t truthers push it as a black flag operation without the other nonsense? that would be much more believable.
Actually, Americans do secrecy pretty darn well.
Remember the Manhattan Project? We built so much infrastructure to support atomic bomb research we built whole towns from scratch that never existed before that nobody knew about for years. We nuked New Mexico with nobody finding out, for Pete’s sake.
There was also this whole invasion of Europe thing that you must have missed, too. Millions of troops, thousands of ships, thousands of aircraft successfully moved across the English Channel to Normandy without Hitler or their commander, Field Marshal Rommel, ever finding out they were coming. Rommel was on leave visiting his wife and kids while the troops were coming ashore in Normandy.
Same sort of thing happened at Inchon in the Korean War. Hundreds of thousands of troops involved. Complete operational secrecy.
The SR-71 Blackbird. There was the SR-71 Blackbird construction and deployment for more than a decade in secrecy.
The stealth fighter was constructed at the Skunk Works and deployed for almost 2 decades without anybody hearing a word.
In response to another comment. See in context »Different secrets. It’s easy to believe the secret will be kept if the secret involves how we plan to go to war. There’s a moral aspect to keeping that secret. good peopel will keep it. But if a group is conspiring to damage our country I don’t see that secret being kept. It would be immoral to keep that secret. Only bad people will keep it. There’s plenty of bad people in gov’t but also plenty of good and you wouldn’t keep all the good people out of the loop.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s not just Conde Nast that censors itself to Russian markets. I just moved to Peter, and I can’t watch this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=ED9441CFC963F147
(Watch it to see why, though I doubt it would offend too much. It’s obviously just a comedy vid.)
Instead, I get this message: “This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.” That’s BS of course because I can watch the rest of the vids on that channel. But, hey, we don’t care about censorship as long as it’s by corporations and not governments, right?
Mr. Witherspoon,
I understand how you would feel that way. It does appear that the Bush Administration is a confederacy of dunces. However, ponder this. If there were factions, maybe in the US government, maybe not, who had been successful in keeping secrets, you would not know about it.
I don’t know if Bush was part of it or not. I just know that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Let’s investigate that thoroughly, with subpoena power, and see where it takes us.
Matt:
I’m a fan of your writing back to the Exile days, and the recent pieces you’ve written on our ongoing financial crisis have been, in my view, classic journalism of the type not seen very often in recent decades.
So if I have hopefully earned a tiny bit of credibility with you, I’d like to talk to you for a minute and you’re not going to like it but I do hope you’ll listen. Yes, it’s about 9/11.
About a year ago I began looking into the 1999 Russian apartment bombings Scott Anderson’s piece is about. Anyone spending a short amount of time gathering the facts on this case is immediately drawn to the so-called Ryazan Incident, where (literally) card-carrying FSB agents were caught in the act of placing a bomb in an apartment, a similar MO to the four previous bombings in prior weeks.
The FSB’s official explanation, which came 24 confused hours later, was so implausible that, as Anderson notes in his piece, few people bought it. The explanation was that the FSB had been running a test of vigilance on the people of Ryazan, and congratulations, you passed! Nice job! Right.
Americans who read this piece will not find it difficult to believe that the a far-off warlord in weird, authoritarian Russian murdered a few hundred of his own citizens in their beds in order to gain massive powers over the the remaining 150 million.
Yet if you broach the idea that our own government might have done the same thing to us, a different part of the brain kicks in. The responses immediately become emotional and ad hominem against the person who brings up the unpleasant possibility.
Even with such an admirably skeptical journalist as yourself this takes place, as your comments above on the subject show. The same critical faculties that lead you to (correctly) believe that Goldman has caused “every major market manipulation since the Great Depression” do not seem evident when it is your own government under the magnifying glass.
Let me make just four points about 9/11 and how the US media covers it:
1) I submit that the main reason no prominent MSM journalist has expressed skepticism over the official version of 9/11 events is that any journalist who did so would lose his job and his meal ticket.
2) You claim there is insufficient evidence of a conspiracy — but there has been almost no scrutiny by the MSM of the officials who might have been part of that conspiracy.
3) Ergo the American media has failed in its mission re 9/11 coverage, since the media’s role is to ask questions and uncover truth about the conspiring and plotting of the rich and powerful, not to simply take what they say as true and ridicule those who do question what powerful groups are up to.
4) The people at the top of this world — in the financial, political and military sectors — view our world in a fundamentally different way than the other 99.9% of the population does. I think at the heart of most Americans’ skepticism about 9/11 conspiracy theories is not a lack of evidence but a belief that people that amoral simply can’t exist. But they do exist, and their amorality allows them to climb networks quickly (”Without Conscience” by Prof. Robert Hare explores this), and we are now living in a world run by people who are part psychopath, part Darwinian gangster.
Forgive the long post. Final note contra a poster above: there didn’t have to be thousands of people with intimate knowledge of the 9/11 plot — more like a few dozen. Here’s how I suspect it really took place, again with only a couple of dozen people in the know:
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html
Thanks again for your journalism, Matt. I hope you’ll give the 9/11 theories another look. They are, sadly and unfortunately, an example of the depths of the depravity of people who crave power.
HAHAHA.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Matt,
This actually has nothing to do with this story, but instead with you. I have read two of your books, loved them, and read your column semi-frequently. I was listening to the outstanding Planet Money podcast, from NPR, and heard a clip of an unidentified commentator talking about Goldman Sachs. (This was around the time GS released their earnings numbers) I guessed it was you, having never heard your voice before, based on one thing. You were speaking about how Goldman takes “crap”, “slaps an AAA” on it, and sells it. The blend of common language ie. “crap” and intimate familiarity with the market mechanisms “AAA” is distinctly you.
I wanted to first, encourage you, and say that many, including myself appreciate what you do, and hope you continue to, and then say that I think you would be awesome on a Planet Money episode.
Thanks!!
Do you guys really think George W. Bush, who has been a royal fuck-up at everything he has ever attempted in his entire life, could really have led an operation like 9/11 and not gotten caught? I mean, seriously. What the fuck? If it was all planned out why did it take over a month to invade Afghanistan? Why weren’t they ready to bomb the next day?
Hell, the war delay is further evidence of their ineptitude. They had NO invasion or assassination plan ready for bin Laden of any kind, despite the fuck that he had declared war on the U.S. 5 years before and had already successfully pulled off several attacks.
If it was all an inside job, there would have been troops on the ground somewhere by that Thursday and a few heads on sticks by the weekend. Instead, they had no plan and waited a month to kick off a mountainside bombing plan that didn’t kill anything but goats until the Iranians started giving us intel.
GWB and Cheney might have been criminals, but they were no masterminds.
There’s lots of ways this could have all gone down with Dubya never being brought in on the plot, and Cheney only giving one person the order once. Rumsfeld had to involved in everything, though. CNN has video of a Air Force Looking Glass E-4B command post over D.C at 10 AM the morning of 9/11.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/CNN_investigates_secret_911_doomsday_plane_0913.html
Rumsfeld had to give the order to get one of the flying command posts up over DC on the morning of 9/11.
In response to another comment. See in context »jkd1:
Lol @ the idea of George W. Bush plotting much of anything, much less 9/11. The high insiders in the US Government were Cheney and Rumsfeld, who’ve been working together for 35 years to strengthen the Executive Branch’s powers on behalf of the military-industrial complex. They were the two, for example, who got rid of Bill Colby as CIA head and replaced him with George Herbert Walker Bush in the mid 1970s.
The gangster-like networks that plan and carry out these operations consist primarily of current and former members of national intelligence agencies. It shouldn’t be too shocking that such agencies often grow to form shadow governments pulling the strings behind the public power structure in a society, as they have great control over information (wiretapping, other surveillance, media) plus handy skills like assassination, intimidation, legal threats, and so on.
The KGB/FSB/FSK is a great example, as is our own CIA here at home. Putin went from an unknown KGB/FSB agent to the most powerful man in Russia in a matter of months, thanks to that convenient series of apartment bombings that would have been easy for Russian intelligence to pull off — and it was, until they got unlucky and were caught red-handed, as Anderson’s piece outlines.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for your excellent and lucid reply to such an idiotic assumption. Such nonsensical responses (How could George have planned it?) show a complete lack of discrimination and any critical thinking facility whatsoever!
Gee, how many tactical thinkers does Rumsfeld have working for him? How many tactical thinkers does Cheney have working for him?
During the simian boy king’s rule (that would be Dubya for the parent poster) I suspect plenty of computer programs were written within the government (or at least a few), yet GW doesn’t know how to program — or anything else for that matter. Ergo, how could those programs have been written.
What a pure simpleton to have ever come up with the assumption that GW was behind it!
In response to another comment. See in context »The plans for invading Afghanistan were on Bush’s desk on 9/10/01.
In response to another comment. See in context »The reason for invading Afghanistan is because the Taliban would not make an agreement with UNOCAL allowing a natural gas pipeline to run through the country. That is a fact. Karzai was a UNOCAL consultant. Do some research. 911 was the operation that instilled fear and anger in the American public, which motivated them to approve of the invasion.
‘The plans for invading Afghanistan were on Bush’s desk on 9/10/01. ‘
Link proving this assertion?
‘The reason for invading Afghanistan is because the Taliban would not make an agreement with UNOCAL allowing a natural gas pipeline to run through the country. ‘
Link proving this assertion?
That is a fact.
‘Karzai was a UNOCAL consultant. ‘ Again, link?
Unless you provide some back up you’re just Rush to me, taking talking talking but are you saying anything?
In response to another comment. See in context »in reverse order…
the natural gas pipeline story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
on plans to invade Afghanistan…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
I assume you are familiar with the BBC.
In response to another comment. See in context »Karzai and Unocal
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0610/p01s03e-wosc.html
I am sure you must be familiar with the Christian Science Monitor.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Matt Taibbi Conde Nast has some explaining to do. [...]
I think it’s great that Matt is still responding to 9/11 truthers (of which I’m a proud member.)
Others on the Left like Alex Cockburn, Doug Henwood, Bill Weinberg, Tom Wisker and many more
no longer seem to be annoyed by them despite the ramifications.
That 9/11 was an inside job is easily demonstrated on the basis that physics is physics, that even fanatical Muslims can’t overturn the laws that posit that three steel framed buildings can’t come down in their own footprints at the speed of gravity other than by controlled demolition.
Some things are simple.
The other thing that Matt demonstrates — as do all the others in their own way — is that it is impossible to look at the reality of 9/11 and hold down any sort of public position, like writing for Rolling Stone — once again because of the implications. It’s impossible in our day and age to contemplate putting Bush and Cheney on trial for treason.
Just goes to show how deeply our culture is living in Plato’s Cave, where reality amounts to the shadows that they play for our entertainment.
Otto49
Otto49 gibbered:
“That 9/11 was an inside job is easily demonstrated on the basis that physics is physics, that even fanatical Muslims can’t overturn the laws that posit that three steel framed buildings can’t come down in their own footprints at the speed of gravity other than by controlled demolition.”
That’s total horseshit, yo.
A) The buildings didn’t come down in their own footprints.
B) You don’t need controlled demolition when the supports under thousands of tons of steel and concrete fail.
You’re the kind of smug asshole that makes ad hominem the only reasonable response to Truthers. You pretend to have some airtight knowledge of physics, which is completely laughable. You sound like a flat-earther attempting to claim their views are based on science.
In response to another comment. See in context »Two general points about the comments here:
1) I’ve noticed that whenever there is a Truther vs. non-Truther debate online, 90% of the cussing/insulting comes from the non-Truther camp. I won’t say no Truther ever drops an f-bomb or goes in for ad hominems, but those are usually aimed at Truther, not delivered by them.
I think the reason for this is that it’s enormously psychologically painful to consider the possibility that one’s own government is so messed up that it would false-flag its own citizens. Believing it would require a painful paradigm shift, plus a lot of unpleasant questions like: what do I do about this? Do I tell my family and friends? It’s a mindf*** and believing the relatively comforting myth of bin Laden — and that our government will protect us from him so 9/11 never happens again — is easier than acknowledging there may be traitors high on the inside.
2) Matt T. and others have made comments here, and I’ve heard this many times before, along the lines of “I just can’t believe they would do this.” The two main objections people have to believing we were false-flagged are a) logisitically, how could it have been pulled off and then covered up, and b) this simple inability to believe that we’re really ruled by such monsters.
When I first started looking into 9/11 about two years ago, I had to stop every once it a while and tell myself, “This is impossible, there’s no way this could’ve happened.” Unfortunately the evidence didn’t support my beliefs, so I had to change them.
As I mentioned upthread, 99% of humanity has no “libido dominandi,” or desire to rule others. Those 1% who do — and the 1% of that 1% who make it to the highest levels — tend to possess mindsets and worldviews that most of us would find unimaginable.
Truthers invite ad-hominem because what they believe is plainly nonsensical. Since they refuse to listen to reason and refuse to accept basic facts about the physical world we live in, there’s literally no common ground for having a discussion. It’s literally akin to trying to debate someone about the existence of fairies and elves. It’s also akin to debating religion. Truthers simply believe what they believe, and it’s not based on evidence of any kind. There’s no room for debate when you’re talking to people whose beliefs are based solely on faith.
In response to another comment. See in context »Says the guy who sits around thinking about what’s going to happen to his car if he’s raptured when he’s driving on the freeway.
In response to another comment. See in context »@mvmorgan, re:
What’s even more psychologically painful than that is to admit to yourself that (1) whether you’re Dem. or Repub. you willfully cast a ballot for a candidate who is just a time-share employee of corporate CEOs (2) your will as an average citizen of this country is in no way going to affect the decisions made at the highest levels of gov’t regarding going to war (3) all the time and energy you have spent researching the Truth is the equivalent of a snipe hunt, while the real crimes are taking place in the open, every day in the lobby of congress, among other places.
In response to another comment. See in context »You must be speaking to your own psychological issues there. I’m not brilliant, but I am well read. I’ve been adjusted having two wings of one corporate party since about Clinton’s 2nd term.
The only reason I voted for Obama was to keep that witch Sarah Palin out of the line of succession. As bad as Obama is going to be, it would have been much worse if Sarah Palin had ever gotten her claws around the White House.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow – this turned into a doubt-no doubt Truther-out. Like moths to the flame…
I am amazed that conspiracy theorists just will. not. let. things. go., despite hard evidence to the contrary. I’m avoiding listing another conspiracy theory that’s been floating around the globe for the past few years for fear such comments will attract more to this thread.
Since the above physics and logistics arguments seem to have run in infinity shapes that crashed into walls, I’ll just say the following:
It’s so tempting to feel that Bush and company would allow all those deaths in order to justify a war. We can see from Iraq War that Rove, Cheney, Rummy, Ashcroft, and Bush had few if any qualms in the deaths of thousands of soldiers, contractors, and civilians. (Anyone who still believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks is ignoring the facts in that bit of history.) 2700+ deaths on 9/11 pale in comparison to Iraq war casualties.
However, the Bush administration deliberately destroying all those financial institutions? Causing massive financial damage in one fell swoop? They certainly turned blind eyes to cooked books to make it appear as if companies were doing well, but you’ve got a tough road to hoe if you’re going to convince me that Bush and Co. would purposely destroy major banks, other financial institutions, insurance companies, and some collateral damage businesses just to start a war. Logic again, I know, but there’s a track record of big business support that doesn’t gibe with what the 9/11 Truth movement espouses.
I think we can agree that the Bush administration can be accused of neglect in terms of doing nothing over the Richard Clark Memo of Jan. 25, 2001 (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm). After Sept. 11th, you’ve got a group that’s itching to go after Hussein and control of oil; now they can manipulate the public grief into fear. The war in Iraq then received great support from public and the legislature.
Neglect, yes. Conspiracy, no. At least Ashcroft is coming under necessary fire. Cheney, Rummy, and W should face the same.
hmmm, the links I’m entering are all correct (includes the early post), but they don’t work. I’ve tried to find html protocol for True/Slant to no avail. What i am I missing? Anyone got directions for me?
thx
In response to another comment. See in context »What “hard evidence” would that be?
One Popular Mechanics article?
How many Engineering schools teach their students anything from a Popular Mechanics magazine?
ZERO.
Who told anyone “Popular Mechanics” had any more credibility in the scientific world than People or Vogue?
In response to another comment. See in context »This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Apparently even the employees of music magazines can’t believe the “truth” about 9/11 without being pressured! My masters would not allow it, no sir!
It just never fails — one tiny mention of 9/11 and you come in swarms, all sounding the same tone, hitting the same notes, full of religious fervor, minds 10,000% made up! Could you people be any more like Teabaggers?
Matt,
In response to another comment. See in context »Insisting on rationality will lose you audience share. The American public has been taught that it’s more important what side you’re on than how you differentiate between fact and fiction. The corporatist worldview is truly post-modern – the narrative counts for more than the physics of the situation. Trying to tell these Truthers or Birthers or Birchers that something isn’t logical is entirely missing the point.
Matt:
I think you’re being a little disingenuous in your comment re my point #1.
Really: what would happen if you were to openly question the validity of the 9/11 story in print? Would you not find the publishing avenues open to you seriously and quickly constricted? Certainly. The same is true of any other prominent journalist.
Re the accusations here that 9/11 skeptics (”Truthers”) are quasi-religious in their zealotry, I find the opposite to be true. I’ve discovered those who don’t believe it’s possible that our government false flagged us to be the ones who won’t look at evidence and who — most importantly for those in the journalism profession — the ones who won’t ask questions. If prominent journalists had spent the last eight years asking questions of our leaders instead of ridicule those who suspect them of such plots then we’d know for certain what happened already.
It is a failure of the institution of American journalism — and looking at the incurious and emotional nature of even one of the most skeptical young journalists here on this board, you get a sense of how total the failure has been.
In response to another comment. See in context »Truthers are absolutely religious in their convictions. They flatly claim that there’s no possible way for planes to have taken down the towers, and then when people come forward proving precisely how such a thing IS possible, they get shouted down and dismissed as shills.
You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
In response to another comment. See in context »Some are strident in their beliefs on the subject, yes. Other are more accurately described as suspicious of the official story and simply want people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and other asked questions about that day that no journalist has asked.
Ignoring for a moment whether the Truthers are right or not about what happened that day, imagine what would happen if, say, Matt Taibbi were to openly doubt the official story of 9/11.
The fallout on his career and personal life would be immediate and drastic. He’d find writing gigs few and far between. His father, also a famous journalist, would likely pressure him to reconsider his views. His friends, many of whom are likely journalists as well, would tend to shun him and speak of him behind his back as being slightly off his rocker.
In other words: the reason no major US journalist has questioned the events of that day is that the repercussions for each of them personally is so great that the mind must rationalize that it is untrue.
Note that I’m not asking MSM members to become Truthers — *only skeptics who ask question of the powerful*. Someone could start by asking Dick Cheney about the discrepancy between his personal statements of his whereabouts on that morning and the statements of Sec. Norm Mineta about Cheney’s presence in the PEOC on 9/11/01.
Plenty of time over the past eight years to ask Paris Hilton who she’s been screwing but no one has time to ask that one. Why not?
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s just silly. That’s like denigrating a writer for not questioning the official “spherical Earth” story.
If you want to argue that there’s something fishy about the fact that the US not barring the hijackers’ entry to the US, or not following up on investigations regarding their suspicious behavior in flight schools, OK.
But to lambast someone for not buying into a wacky conspiracy theory that has literally no evidence supporting it is simply not reasonable, nor is it fair.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Matty?
When did Engineering PhDs become “religion” degrees?
I think you need to be reminded once again Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and organization of 825 architectural and engineering professionals are the ones leading the movement for a criminal investigation of the crimes of 9/11.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Matty, you may think these personal insults you keep on tossing back out to the facts we posts are cute, but I guarantee you your boss knows just poorly these personal insults of yours rate rhetorically. The only way you could sink any lower is start four letter word rants about our parent’s sexual histories.
In response to another comment. See in context »Taibbi
The truth is that you can talk about Russian conspiracies and still get paid large amounts of money as a mainstream journalist. Not so with American ones. Ask Greg Palast.
Was Iran/Contra a conspiracy ? It was only uncovered because a plane crashed in South America. If it had been left to American ‘journalists’, it would have been a tin foil hat case like 9/11.
As for Watergate. Was the Washington Post a CIA front ? Was Phil Graham the poster boy of Project Mocking Bird ? No, I’m a silly boy. That’s a conspiracy !!
By the way. In my view, the film JFK was a lot of silly nonsense but that’s Hollywood for you. Big money.
In response to another comment. See in context »Taibbi
Who’s dumb ?
David Ray Griffin (Left wing philosopy professor and theologian) , Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration), Francesco Cossiga (Italian president), Michael Meacher (left wing UK government minister) and Andreas Von Buelow (left wing German government minister. All 9/11 conspiracists.
Objectively they are a lot smarter and more knowlegeable than you.
They had all recently left high powered positions and had time on their hands. Anyone who studies 9/11 is either a truther, a moron or a liar.
In response to another comment. See in context »My God, Matt, it IS a swarm – like the locusts in the second act of “The Mummy”. Wow!
Anyway, please keep your sanity. I rely on your posts to keep mine (along with a sense of humor).
BTW, to take your mind off the swarms, check out this link (which I also added in a different post) regarding a Goldman Sachs banker in London and his interpretation of the correct use of ’stimulus money’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211676/Goldman-Sachs-banker-offered-28-year-old-Slovakian-500-000-leave-pensioner-husband.html
In response to another comment. See in context »One final comment, Matt:
If the Truthers are right and you are wrong — as I believe, based on what I consider overwhelming evidence — and our government did false flag us on 9/11/01, then consider how absolutely useless the institution of American journalism has been for the past eight years.
The event that has decimated out constitutional rights, cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives — that even was faked, in the two cities with the most prominent journalists in the country, and not one of them — not one — ever publicly questioned it.
That is a Pravda-ITAR-TASS level of lapdog media control, Matt.
Rick,
Your comparison of 9/11 conspiracy theorists to people who think the earth is flat is inapt. At http://patriotsquestion911.com/ you can find thousands of military members, academics, architects, pilots, engineers and intelligence officials who question the official theory.
If I may cite just one, Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), whose 34-year career in the Air Force was spent as an aircraft accident investigator. In other words, it would be difficult to find a more relevant opinion on the 9/11 crashes than this man’s. And he says:
“In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. …
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.”
(click on above link for source).
This man is crazy, and given to wacko conspiracy theories? Come on. This man was a colonel in our own Air Force, and worked on airplane crashes for a living. And he says that what they say happened on 9/11/01 couldn’t have happened.
And our incurious media — an otherwise excellent journalist like Matt Taibbi included — finds this not even worthy of honest investigation? There are hundreds more like Col. Nelson, too, from all the relevant fields mentioned above. But instead we get cursing and labels and frustration from Matt T. instead of doing his job.
Again: an institutional and total failure of American journalism.
Thanks for making such a great point!
Ask (not you, those uncurious others) any experienced former member of the USAF Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service if anything at the Shanksville site and the Pentagon site looked kosher? ‘Nuff said…..
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
The most annoying thing about you, among many of them, is that you don’t give a shit if serious, careful people who’ve done a lot more research than you ever have or will on the subject get lumped in with the no-planers that media types like yourself make fun of for giggles and profit.
Here’s the really funny thing: from the standpoint of most of America, you’d be considered a ‘truther’ yourself! And you’ve helped create the environment in which this kind of idiotic identification can thrive. Do tell Matt: the US economy is rigged by insiders (a la Goldman Sachs)? The US political system is set up to NOT deliver remedies to political ills (see the healthcare reform debacle)? Wow. Who would have thunk it? You’re a friggin’ genius. What will you tell us next, that US intelligence/military has spent the last 60 years overthrowing foreign governments it doesn’t like?
There’s no reason to lump faith-based beliefs in with rationally held ones. You and your corporate media cohorts only do it to for the sake of your precious social credibility, for fear you’ll be lumped in with the unwashed.
[...] source for Scott Anderson’s story is the former KGB (FSB) agent, Mikhail Trepashkin. As Matt Taibi points out, “Trepashkin has ties to gazillionaire mob creature Boris [...]
adam503,
Since I can’t reply to your remark (probably due to columns narrowing), I’m going down here.
You don’t seem to have problems with all of the NIST report or you’d go at it. I do believe that Popular Mechanics has more on metal and heat than People. I can get the gist of the inside of People from standing in the grocery line; if i want to know what’s inside PM, and if there’s something in there for a sidewalk auto-mechanic, then I’m gonna have to open it up.
As for theologian Eric Ray Griffin, you have to ask yourself how reliable his sources are. Much of the debunking seems to be asking questions for which there never will be a satisfactory answer for those who believe the government engineered (to use a term) 9/11. The rest of it seems to be the same as retorting to an atheist assertion that there is no evidence of a supernatural supreme being with “but is there any evidence he DOESN’T exist?”
This exercise has been somewhat exhausting, and I’ve wondered if i should have contributed to its prolongation. Unfortunately, the 8-year Rove/Bush dynasty was no help, as it would repeat lies, dig in collective heels, and keep plowing through pointed discourse. Both sides of the 9/11 Truth debate feel that the other side is clinging to their side with no respect for the other side, so here we are.
I think that most of the folks who are adding to this blog are of the view that the Bush administration was majorly wrong to go into Iraq and the like, as opposed to neo-cons who disbelieve the 9/11 government conspiracy theory; they’re still in the biz of war in the middle east.
I promise to apologize if I turn out to be on the wrong side of this argument. I would like the Bush administration to be held accountable for neglect, waging an illegal war, and for torture. You’d add the events of 9/11, undoubtedly.
My concern is that because I feel that the Truthers are barking up the wrong tree, you/they are wasting vital energy, time, and resources that could be directed toward the wrongdoings 9and complacency at best) of members of the Bush administration. (actually, i’d like you all to write your reps about health care first, then get back to the business of war crimes following that, but i digress) Skepticism is one thing, but chasing/running this material in circles is just as good as banging your head against the walls – just that you get more of endorphin high from the former and more seeing stars from the latter. You want to do a service to the victims of 9/11? Then fight the battle you can win, where you can find answers.
That’s about it for me on this subject. Have reached 40,000 yet, Matt?
NIST – NIST went back and redid a big chunk of their draft report on WTC7, and confirmed in the final report WTC7 went down at freefall speed….
http://digg.com/world_news/WTC7_NIST_Finally_Admits_Freefall_Part_I
Popular Mechanic has a little more on heat and metal than People magazine. Hot Rod Magazine has more on heat and metal than Popular Mechanics. None of those publications would ever be used by an engineering school to educate engineering students or presented at a scientific conference.
I don’t know who told you David Ray Griffin’s book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory…
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
…was a theological in nature. That’s dead wrong. David Ray Griffen’s research skills and sources are impeccable.
Here’s the link first in a series of you tube videos from a lecture David Ray Griffin gave in Seattle at the time Debunking 9/11 debunking came out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiqkviFnuXk
20-30 years from now, Matt Taibbi and Bill Maher will be trying to get away with telling people they were leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement. I hope people will make sure they these two in particular do not get away with that.
In response to another comment. See in context »I didn’t say Griffin’s book was religious; i merely pointed out that he is a theologian in my response. As for his sources, I’ve read some conflicting information on that, so I have to take the time out to check his “experts” for myself.
oof-i’m acting like a runner-necker.
In response to another comment. See in context »oops – me no type good. “rubber-necker.” golly gee, the n’s are close to the b’s.
In response to another comment. See in context »I can concede neglect and some slipshod work, but the leap to conspiracy is still to much of a stretch, IMO. Christie Todd Whitman and the EPA also reported that air around ground zero was safe to breathe (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm) and many people were affected; some ended up being added to the WTC death toll. Was this a conspiracy or slipshod work? Certainly not a helpful career move.
The Bush administration was not science friendly. Was this a conspiracy or merely a religious agenda? I did read that NIST made a budgetary decision not to hire extra people so that is why the WTC 7 demise was investigated at such a late date.
It’s not as if every result given by NIST was wrong. Sad to say, i’ve run into enough people in the sciences that will produce bad answers if someone wants an answer. This is bad science, but not a conspiracy. Yes, NIST trying to cover slipshod work up is bad/illegal/license revoking, but not it does not a conspiracy make. You want to take the broadest definition of conspiracy, then yes, every day activities are conspiracies; you got me.
Not all of the Truthers’ arguments are worth considering, either, but i don’t dismiss every one of them, nor do I call them conspiracies. When I see a video that some US General claims no plane hit the White House, I just cringe, knowing the opposite. Oh yeah, my cousin’s (earlier mentioned fireman) a conspirator. here’s where I break down and say fuck you.
I still argue on the side of neglect. For all we know, there was a repeat of the 1993 car bomb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm). Push for answers, but there really is no reason to shout conspiracy at every failing. There were too many to mention in the Bush years.
In response to another comment. See in context »>”When I see a video that some US General claims no plane hit the White House, ”
oof – just going out the door – this is supposed to say When I see a video that some US General claims no plane hit the pentagon,”
As long as I’m acting like some dog who’s squeezed its head through a small hole in the wall, I’ll just say that I had already read the Amazon link To Grifin’s book yesterday. I’m not just gonna go on the publisher’s review; that would be folly. I was lead to some critiques of his sources, which – if valid – would pose a problem for his book. That’s what I was referencing, with the caveat that I’d need to check things out for myself. i prefer to hold the actual book on my hand before swallowing up a review or even a critique.
Ah, there are better things for me to do today…
In response to another comment. See in context »If I might suggest an alternative, maybe consider going to the Architects and Enineers for 9/11 Truth site…
http://www.ae911truth.org/
In the left column in what would be the lower left part of the screen is a video link with a guy with glasses and receding hairline giving a presentation. That’s Richard Gage. He’s an architect, and leads the AE9/11 truth group. Clink the link there where it says, “Watch The Entire Two Hour 2008 Edition Online”
It’s a better introduction to the subject. “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” is a very good book, but not a the best introduction to the subject. It’s more for people who read his first book “The New Pearl Harbor” and have already been exposed to some of the evidence already.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is ridiculous, Matt. There are many of us out here who are not “truthers” but who still wonder what the hell happened, really. Why do you drop your sense of skepticism on this issue alone? You don’t even bother to answer the challenges; instead, you just express contempt, which is unappealing, to say the least.
Christ, dude…are you sure you used the right can? Does Truther-Off have an expiration date?
[...] Shared GQ, Having No Balls, Spikes Putin Story [...]
Matt, dear heart – here is a link to a ‘Daily Mail’ article revealing just what it is that Goldman Sachs people in London are spending their bonuses on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211676/Goldman-Sachs-banker-offered-28-year-old-Slovakian-500-000-leave-pensioner-husband.html
The GS banker in London offered a 28 year old Slovakian brunette a £5,000 diamond ring, £1,500 handbag, £3,500 cash and £500,000 to leave her 67-year old British husband (whom she obviously married because she likes guys 3 times her age).
Oh, Matt, Matt! Here you were all worried that GS wouldn’t spend its stimulus money well? Come on! I double dare you to argue that Miss 28-year old big tits from Slovakia would not stimulate YOU from 100 yards.
On American Investment Banker excess…
Here’s the best article about the real behavior of investment banker/traders’s I’ve found. It’s about an American kid working for UBS from the UK Independent…
“…I put on 45 pounds in my first year at the bank, and, as you might guess, it was not from eating McDonalds. Occasionally I ate stuff like sushi, but mostly it was steak. We went to the good places like Sparks, Peter Luger’s, and the Strip House. We tended to look down on chains like Morton’s and Ruth’s Chris-they were for car dealers or stock brokers, not traders. Regardless of where we ate, we ate in quantity. My standard strategy was to order half a dozen appetisers, plus a steak and lobster, plus a few desserts and much wine as I could drink, as long it was under a few hundred dollars a bottle. Followed by a digestif, typically a 30-year-old port. There’s not any way to justify this except to say I was trying to catch up to my colleagues. We would treat those restaurants like Roman vomitoriums. And it wasn’t the food so much as the wine. Being a junior employee, I couldn’t really order bottles that cost more than a few hundred dollars, but the senior guys could get nicer stuff – Opus One, Chateau Latour. As long as we were out with a client, the bank paid. I remember being stunned the first time I saw a dinner bill for ten grand. But that was just the beginning.
What it boiled down to was austerity for everyone else and rampant consumption for ourselves. I never saw anyone literally set fire to money, but I did drink most of a bottle of 1983 Margaux ($2,000).
The mornings after, with our thousand-dollar hangovers, my colleagues in corporate finance would set up deals and make a few hundred factory workers redundant….”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-excess–a-wall-street-trader-tells-all-1674614.html
In response to another comment. See in context »Adam – awesome link, awesome article. Thanks!
In response to another comment. See in context »I just want to reinforce my point that you cannot be a mainstream commentator or journalist and promote conspiracies. Taibbi will never change his mind unless he comes into a lot of money. Chomsky won’t go near conspiracies because he would never appaer ona TV show again.
Many conspiracists are actually retired with safe pensions.
Governance always has its dark sides & only an alternative (as opposed to mainstream) journalist can bring forth some of that power “conspiracy” to the awareness of the readers.
In response to another comment. See in context »Whether it is Matt in RS or Scott in GQ, they would have done their jobs even if they retire hereafter with pension, which though is quite unlikely.
I just finished Matt’s piece for Rolling Stone on the current state of health care reform and it was a real eye-opener! What a great read! I also read the comments. Several females have beaten me to the punch by proposing marriage, so I’ll just offer to adopt him instead or – be his campaign manager? MATT TAIBBI FOR PRESIDENT!
http://gawker.com/5352827/——gq
9/11 conspiracy theorists need to get together with the Obama-Kenyan-birth conspiracy theorists and have a party. Bring cheetos and mountain dew.
Is that all you got? Ad hominem insults are the last resort of someone who can’t argue with the documented facts.
The controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the 47 story elephant in the living room.
There is plenty of other documented evidence, but the destruction of WTC 7 is enough to merit a new investigation with subpoena power over Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush et al.
Matt,
I never saw anyone in the mainstream push this story until now (of course, maybe I just wasn’t paying attention). Anyway, my dad’s college roommate, David Satter, spent his career as a journalist/author/writer focusing on Russia and he definitely is sympathetic to this story.
Here’s his bio if you want some evidence he’s no flake: http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=sattdavi
Back in 2003 or 2004 he brought over a documentary called “Disbelief” for us to watch which focuses on the bombings and in which he was interviewed. I am not sure if I remember correctly but it basically argues that this stunt allowed for Putin to pretty much rise to power unquestioned by distracting public focus on the Chechens.
Not sure if you ever saw it but thought it might interest you.
Looks like the same guy who directed that documentary will be making David Satter’s book Age of Delirium into a documentary as well.
Anyway, it’s a horrifying story. Read or watch anything about this issue and it doesn’t even seem like a fringe theory (like 9/11) that rests on large collaboration and questionable science but rather the likely truth.