Matt Taibbi: "Of course we've been lied to about 9/11"
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 even have an article of his posted on my site.
One of the other things Matt Taibbi likes to do is write hit pieces against the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here are some examples:
Before the 9/11 Conspiracies, There Was the Oklahoma Bombing
If Cheney & Co. Had Really Plotted the 9/11 Attacks …
Mailbag: Charlie Sheen, 9/11 Truthers, Oil Prices
At one time, Matt and the Loose Change crew debated.
On October 6th, 2008, he debated David Ray Griffin. You can decide for yourself who won the debate.
When I first contacted Matt Taibbi, my intention was not to post this correspondence online. However, I believe it has since become worthy of publishing. I apologize to David Ray Griffin for how he was portrayed in this correspondence. My intention was to be able to talk to Matt on my own terms, and not have him look at me and the cause of 9/11 justice through the David Ray Griffin filter. David and I are two different people. We each have our own problems with the official account. There is a portion of the correspondence that says “idiot.” That was me, speaking as I thought Matt Taibbi would speak considering his opinion of David Ray Griffin.
There are portions of this exchange that got heated, and things were said. My apologies to Matt if he was offended.
I hope that Matt will take a look at the information I provided for him, and I thank him for giving me the time of day.
I asked Matt for his permission to post this, and never heard from him.
Here is our correspondence that took place on Facebook:
November 7 – 8, 2010
Jon Gold: Hi Matt… I realize that you and the designated “leader” of the 9/11 Truth Movement, David Griffin, disagree. However, you must know there are a multitude of problems with the official account of 9/11, with the investigations of 9/11, with the unanswered questions of 9/11, etc… and so on. Why can’t you just write about that?
http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves
Matt Taibbi: Sir, To quote H.L. Mencken: You may be right. Sincerely, Matt Taibbi
Jon Gold: Matt… I’m seriously trying to reach out to you. Obviously, if I can “turn” someone who was against 9/11 Truth, FOR 9/11 Truth… at the very least, recognizing what I said, then that would be good for this extremely important cause… would you be willing to at least do that much? Just state (not verbatim obviously) that “even though David Ray Griffin is an idiot, I do think there are serious issues with the official account, with the investigations, and with the unanswered questions, and I feel the families seeking justice (which includes the Jersey Girls) deserve said justice.” Or something like that…
Matt Taibbi: Jon, And I’m seriously answering you: good luck with your movement. I have no interest in arguing with you. You are entitled to your beliefs. Please offer me the same respect. Sincerely, Matt T
Jon Gold: Wasn’t trying to argue with you. Was at least trying to get you to acknowledge there is more to the story than what David Ray Griffin has to say.
Matt Taibbi: Jon, No, there isn’t. It’s all equally retarded. But, you’re entitled to enjoy such diversions. Sincerely, Matt T
Jon Gold: I see. Ok. Well, at least you don’t let your bias cloud your judgement.
Matt Taibbi: The entire concept of 9/11 Truth is ridiculous and people like you are being hoodwinked by third-rate con-artists like Griffin, who do this for a living. I wonder that none of you seem to notice that all of the country’s best reporters and best investigators equally think that 9/11 Truth is a joke — people like Seymour Hersh and Wayne Barrett and Lawrence Wright — while the leading writers in your movement all have histories writing, commercially, about other conspiracy theories. If it wasn’t 9/11, it’d be Oklahoma City or the moon landing or JFK. You’re being had, don’t you get it?
Jon Gold: Lucky for me Matt, I wasn’t turned onto this cause by David Ray Griffin or any other “third-rate con-artist.” I came into this all on my own 8+ years ago, and have been working hard for it ever since. I have noticed that the “country’s best reporters and best investigators” have ignored asking ANY hard questions of 9/11. Which, is part of the reason I was trying to reach out to you. The “media” in this country have focused specifically on people like David Ray Griffin and the con-artists to illegitimize this EXTREMELY legitimate issue. But, since you see it as “retarded” (which tells me you really don’t know jack shit about this issue), I won’t “reach out” to you anymore.
Months later… after he wrote this, I decided to challenge Matt Taibbi to a debate.
March 19 – 21, 2011
Jon Gold: Would you like to have a real debate on whether or not we have been told the truth about 9/11, and if there needs to be justice and accountability for what happened that day? A real debate on a podcast. Let me know.
Matt Taibbi: Tell you what — you come up with one piece of real evidence that the US had something to do with planning 9/11, and I’ll consider it.
But if you’re going to conflate holes in the official story with evidence of US involvement, that tells me you’re not an intellectually serious person, and I’ll pass. Of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11. Governments lie about everything. But that’s a long way from complicity in the attacks.
Jon Gold: The request for a debate had nothing to do with whether or not the “US had something to do with planning 9/11.” I repeat, my request for a debate revolves around “whether or not we have been told the truth about 9/11, and if there needs to be justice and accountability for what happened that day.” You say, “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” Why that is acceptable to you, I don’t understand. I’m assuming it’s acceptable to you because you’ve done NOTHING to get to the truth and/or justice for what happened that day. At least so far as I can see. Should there be real justice and accountability for what happened?
Did you see this latest effort put forward by the September Eleventh Advocates (The Jersey Girls) and 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds?
The FBI “Kamikaze Pilots” Case
Does that show the “US had something to do with planning 9/11?” No. Is it another example of too many to count that justice and accountability for what happened must be demanded by all? Yes.
If you want to learn about why people like me do what we do, I suggest all of the following:
Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit
Matt Taibbi: The fact that the government failed to prevent a terrorist attack through incompetence and, on some level, corruption, is simply not high on my list of outrages, at least not compared to other things that have gone on.
It is a very different thing than causing the attacks to happen, or being part of their planning, which is what the 9/11 Truth movement continually asserts. Moreover, it continually does so in a supremely intellectually dishonest way, charging complicity and then retreating into these nebulous calls for answers to questions about the official story, when asked to produce evidence of said complicity.
But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?
Jon Gold: 9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime. That’s how I answer your question of complicity.
But hey Matt… thanks for admitting that “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” I’ll remember that the next time you take a shot at the only movement that has been supportive of the families seeking justice, and the 9/11 First Responders seeking health care.
Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11. It’s asinine and an incredible distraction.
Moreover the government’s failure in 9/11 was, comparatively speaking, a rather small-scale screwup, compared to its intentional invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its failure to police Wall Street. I’m with Noam Chomsky on this one. If you’re looking down the list of US Government outrages, 9/11 doesn’t crack the top 100.
Jon Gold: Childish insinuations? I don’t think it’s childish at all to point to suspects of a crime. Especially when there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to think so. What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.
Matt Taibbi: Exactly how are they suspects in this crime? Again, show me the evidence linking anyone in the US government to this crime. There is none; you admitted this yourself.
On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence showing that bin Laden and al-Qaeda committed this crime. And as for me not knowing what I’m talking about, how about this: I’ve actually traveled to the Middle East, to Iraq and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and I’ve met Sunni radicals and I’ve met Shia radicals, and I know firsthand how absolutely realistic it is that a group of anti-Western extremists would be motivated to commit such an act. On the other hand, I’ve met literally hundreds of American politicians, dozens of Senators and congressmen, and I’ve spoken at length with Senate 9/11 investigators; I’ve spoken repeatedly to Bob Graham, for instance, who is often cited by you people as an ally because of the so-called “missing 19 pages.” Graham thought I was kidding when I told him (and yes, I had to tell him) that there were people who thought the US was suspect in the crime.
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.
Again, I come back to the now-unchallenged fact that you have no evidence linking the US to the planning of this crime. Show me one piece of evidence. Just one. You should have some — it’s been ten years, after all…
Jon Gold: I gave you evidence Matt. You didn’t respond to it. Here it is again… Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit. Want me to show you how to read, Matt?
And again… by questioning whether or not I actually “picked up the telephone” in my investigation shows just how ignorant you are of this cause, and especially of me and who I am.
Was it Osama bin Laden and friends that obstructed justice, that fought against the family members for an investigation, that limited the funding and time for the investigation, etc… and so on? No, it most certainly was not.
Matt Taibbi: None of that has any relevance to the planning of and/or causing of the attacks. You’re conflating apples and oranges.
I ask you again: where is the evidence that the US had anything to do with the planning of or the carrying out of the 9/11 attacks? You keep talking about the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the planning of and carrying out of the crime.
Jon Gold: It’s all relevant. I can’t help it if you choose not to read it.
You’re aware that the “Al-Qaeda” system that was used throughout the Afghanistan/Russia War continued throughout the 90’s in the Balkans, etc… and existed up until the day of 9/11, correct (according to 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Nafeez Ahmed and others)?
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?
That’s just one example of an avenue you can take to point to the U.S. There are many others. The 9/11 Commission considered referring NORAD to the justice department for a criminal investigation because of their lies.
There’s so much more. However, the purpose of this exchange, as I said in the beginning, was to get you to acknowledge that “there are a multitude of problems with the official account of 9/11, with the investigations of 9/11, with the unanswered questions of 9/11, etc…” It is you that chose to make the conversation about whether or not there is evidence of the “planning of and/or causing of the attacks.”
Should there be justice and accountability for what happened? Do the family members, and the people of the world deserve it?
Jon Gold: Matt… why has our Government gone to great lengths to cover up the Saudi and Pakistani involvement in the attacks? Hmmmm?
You still haven’t addressed this in its entirety. It’s been ten years, after all… you don’t expect me to sum up ten years worth of information in one sentence do you?
I sure wish people like Dick Cheney and George Bush would have testified publicly, separately and ESPECIALLY under oath.
Jon Gold: Are we done, because I’ve got other things I can be doing.
Matt Taibbi: Get to them, then. The world I’m sure can’t wait for your activism!
Taibbi is demanding smoking gun evidence before being willing to investigate possible official complicity in 9/11. This is obviously ridiculous. And he dismisses the possibility of US complicity on the grounds that political insiders all say there was no complicity. Again, a ridiculous argument. The issue is whether the official account of 9/11is credible to the point of making further investigation unwarranted. The official account is that 9/11 was an al Qeada attack with no US foreknowledge. What is Taibbi’s proof for this? The 9/11 Commission Report? If so, how does he defend the many gaps and omissions, such as no comment on building 7, evidence derived by torture, no investigation of explosives or incendiaries, etc. Taibbi’s position is nothing more than a refusal to engage the issues surrounding the official account. This is the opposite of journalism.
“Taibbi’s position is nothing more than a refusal to engage the issues surrounding the official account. This is the opposite of journalism.”
Well said. Having some appreciation for his work in other areas, I’ve been very disappointed seeing him act in such an immature manner around this issue. But I haven’t been surprised.
Amy Goodman. Keith Olbermann. John Stewart. Bill Maher. All of them have created for themselves a public contradiction between their expressed values and their behavior around 9/11 truth. They all end up looking totally hypocritical.
Here’s why.
There are few cultural boundary lines that are more firmly reinforced that the left edge of the progressive movement. Mainstream progressives live by that line. Without the line they believe they will be cast in with all the crazies. Specifically at the edge of the line, for people like Amy Goodman, there is increased risk of being totally dismissed and losing mainstream credibility.
So it is, in fact, those furthest to the left that are most ardent in their support for that boundary line. And practically speaking, you can’t blame them. If Taibbi came out for 9/11 truth it would kill his career. And what would that do?
It would be a blow to the progressive movement. And I think that would be a bad thing. Sure, I still wish he’d put his principles on the line. But I also don’t want the progressive movement to be swallowed up by association with the 9/11 truth swamp. There are certainly valid reason to keep your distance.
I think we, as a movement, shouldn’t dismiss these people. They are very close to us is many ways. Instead we should keep reaching out to them, as Jon has done here, and continue to demand that they address the contradictions in their own behavior.
What is considered mainstream CAN change.
damn, what a condescending douche bag Matt comes sounding like! hehe.
Either explosives were used in a preplanned attack or not. In which case everything we saw after the plane impacts were natural events. If explosives were used it was an inside job and we can assume most likely involved at least some high level officials. What is the big stretch for Matt with this??
I’m going to address this on the off chance that some other person may happen across it online.
Someone actually interested in 911Truth.
What I would’ve said to this:
Matt Taibbi: The entire concept of 9/11 Truth is ridiculous and people like you are being hoodwinked by third-rate con-artists like Griffin, who do this for a living. I wonder that none of you seem to notice that all of the country’s best reporters and best investigators equally think that 9/11 Truth is a joke — people like Seymour Hersh and Wayne Barrett and Lawrence Wright — while the leading writers in your movement all have histories writing, commercially, about other conspiracy theories. If it wasn’t 9/11, it’d be Oklahoma City or the moon landing or JFK. You’re being had, don’t you get it?
Albert: That you do not respect the exercise of free speech is ironic in light of your profession, though we all know that “journalism” as it exists in today’s corporate press is really a shell of it’s former proper self. Perhaps 911 Truth seems so ‘ridiculous’ to you because it wasn’t your wife or child blown to bits that day. ? This movement is made up of all kinds of people.
The nearly 3000 people slaughtered that day and their loved ones deserve their due. These attacks directly enabled two continuing wars that have so far caused the deaths of over one million people, led to massive increases in military spending and disturbing erosion of our civil liberties and rights to privacy. This doesn’t mean there have not been even more terrible crimes but those sure as hell do not preclude the need for 911 truth & justice/ There’s no statute of limitations on treason and mass murder. Obviously none of that matters to you and think such efforts worthy of stupid names. (how can anyone take yous seriously?)
I’ve not even heard of the people you mention above but the fact is effective arguments that 9/11 could only have been an inside job can be constructed from a variety of perspectives. We have: foreknowledge -wall st trades; odigo warnings, etc. The ‘response’ of the administration, investigations in name only, disposal of structural steel despite public outcry. Academia/corporate media and NIST’s shameful actions, and the most obviously, demolition.
It is the manner of destruction of bldg’s 1,2, & 7 and resulting underground fires and debris fields, the many photos, and videos, the testimony of first-hand accounts and of government scientists documented: “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.”” http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
All these things and many more all go to make this conclusion so certain. and I cannot believe that you would not reach the same conclusion. How do you dismiss:
– WTC7’s freefall implosion.
Something clearly impossible and unprecedented barring the use of explosives. We know what is occurring inside because we can see how the building is behaving. Even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collapse. How can such a building exhibit every characteristic of a controlled demolition and not be one? when the only time those features have ever been present were during controlled demolitions? Yet on this occasion we are asked to believe that gravity and fire caused the same extremely complex effects.
And you say?? yes. and ask for evidence of a conspiracy. The burden of proof lies with anyone claiming WTC7 was not a controlled demolition.
– The speed, (15 sec each. each standing only 56 & 102 minutes after plane impacts), the symmetry, and explosiveness of 1&2. The squibs (clearly not ‘compressed air from pancaking floors above‘ as ‘debunkers’ suggest), disassembled superstructures, hundreds of tons of pulverized concrete. Explosions so powerful they sent multi-ton wall assemblies flying into neighboring buildings and broke windows hundreds of feet away and pulverized most of the concrete and building contents. The people inside were blown into tens of thousands of pieces with many having body parts found blocks away from where they died. 200 DNA tests match a single victim. Despite 2 years of looking for small bits of bodies through the small debris (as it ran along conveyor belts) medical examiners were still unable to account for 1100 individuals. Where could such degradation have come from? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzheli1.html
You’re saying gravity is the culprit.
The North Tower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 (in case you dont know) was hit just ten floors from the roof line. How can we even imagine with gravity as its only driver that this lightest one tenth of the structure at the top could somehow account for the level of utter devastation which resulted? All of this in 15 seconds, in buildings built to withstand 150mph+ winds and plane impacts as well? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
– How do we explain away the excessive heat? Fires that could not be put out for over 3 months! (Youre a ‘journalist’? obviously not really) Despite heavy rains rain and constant stream of NYFD water lines the intensely hot fires at ground zero burned for 99 days and reached temps of up to 2800f at the surface (Bechtel). 99 DAYS MATT!! What hydrocarbon fire behaves that way? None. There were “pools of molten metal” documented beneath all three buildings by a number of reliable sources. Here’s firefighters telling us what they SAW with their own eyes/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
Then we have the microspheres. the results of the (actually peer-reviewed and published) Harrit paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html
Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11. It’s asinine and an incredible distraction.
Albert: Wow. what a profound point! And that enables you to ignore and dismiss the shitstorm of evidence?
What is ‘asinine’ is throwing the baby away with the bathwater. How you fail to connect 9/11 with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is beyond me.
Matt Taibbi: Exactly how are they suspects in this crime? Again, show me the evidence linking anyone in the US government to this crime. There is none; you admitted this yourself.
On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence showing that bin Laden and al-Qaeda committed this crime. …”
Albert: They are not suspects because we have not had any subpoena powered investigation. Instead we got Bremer telling us it must’ve been Bin Laden, just hours after the attack// phony Bin Laden videos. We got — $9 Billion in Iraq Reconstruction Funds Missing US Auditor Says Pentagon Cannot Account For 96 Percent Of The Money Spent – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iraq-billion-reconstruction-funds-missing/story?id=11306849)
please watch:
NIST Finally Admits Freefall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&rel=0
Read
http://911research.wtc7.net/index
I’d hate to think that Julian is correct about you.
Jon, what no mention of Nano-Thermite found in the dust? I think that’s the hard evidence he was looking for. Thanks again for all of your work.
http://911truthnews.com/taibbi-911-commission-full-of-holes/