Matt Taibbi writes, “he lived half a mile from a military academy, in a giant walled compound eight times the size of adjacent properties. He burned his trash, instead of putting it out like everyone else. When local kids kicked their ball over his wall, a guy would come out to give them money for a new one, rather than let them in. What more of a tip-off did Pakistani intelligence need?!”

Macleans reports that John Kerry “complained that not only did Pakistani intelligence fail to look for bin Laden, but for years fed the U.S. what he called “misdirects”—false information—such as “the notion that he’s out in the western part of the country and they can’t control that and so forth.” Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, called on Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to “follow through and ask some very tough questions of his own military and his own intelligence. They’ve got a lot of explaining to do.” For his part, the Pakistani president issued a personal defence: “Some in the U.S. press have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, or worse yet that we were disingenuous and actually protected the terrorists we claimed to be pursuing. Such baseless speculation may make exciting cable news, but it doesn’t reflect fact,” Zardari wrote in the Washington Post.”

CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the Pakistani ISI was “involved or incompetent. Neither place is a good place to be.”

The Associated Press reported that “Congress may consider cutting the almost $1.3 billion in annual aid to Pakistan if it turns out the Islamabad government knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday.”

After 9/11, many allegations of the Pakistani ISI’s involvement in the attacks surfaced. After a decade of barely receiving any funds from the United States, Pakistan was declared our ally in the “War On Terror,” given billions of dollars, and the Pakistani ISI’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks was covered up. It seems the media has helped with that cover up.

Since around 2009, the United States Government has slowly started to acknowledge the Pakistani ISI’s role with terrorism. Many are acting as though this is a new revelation.

Here is an article from the Times of India in 2001 that says, “despite continuing revelations about islamabad’s complicity in terrorist activity, the United States continues to shield Pakistan from terrorism charges in the hope it will turn a new leaf, with the Western media readily toeing the official line. the latest disclosures came at a Congressional hearing on Wednesday at which US intelligence analysts not only spoke about Pakistan’s official role in fomenting and bankrolling terrorism but also addressed the connections between the Taliban and terrorism in Kashmir.”

There is nothing new about it. I think the hypocrisy of calling out the Pakistani ISI now, after rewarding them and covering up their involvement in the 9/11 attacks, should be recognized by everyone. Should the ISI’s role with terrorism be looked at and dealt with? Of course. But so should the U.S.’s support and usage of that “terror nexus.”

Speaking of hypocrisy, one of the most dangerous men in the world, Dick Cheney, is living within a mile of CIA Headquarters. Are they harboring or protecting him?

The post Scapegoating The Pakistani ISI appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

This correspondence with Matt Taibbi took place today:

Jon Gold: Being Proud of What We Are Not

Something you should read.

Matt Taibbi: You make the same mistake with me that you accuse others of making about 9/11 — lumping me in to a category of people without listening to what I am actually saying. Sibel’s essay talks about alternative-media tropes that stay away from certain topics. I have never been afraid of saying publicly that the 9/11 investigation was, like all such government commissions, full of holes. I’m not afraid of taking any unpopular position. I just think the notion that the U.S. was involved in the planning of the crimes is total horseshit. That doesn’t make me any kind of fellow traveler. It just means I think you’re all nuts.

Jon Gold: Something you should watch:

Our “Elected Officials” Are Not Gods

Putting these people on a pedastal like you’re doing. Giving them the kind of untouchable stature you are giving them, is completely and totally irrational and unjustified. You act as though people like Dick Cheney wouldn’t do such a thing. I remember when the Bush Administration edited EPA reports about the air quality down at Ground Zero, which helped to get 1000’s of 9/11 First Responders sick, and over 1000 have died already.

Let me ask you something Matt, what qualifies as suspicious behavior? Does lying about warnings for the attacks qualify? Does fighting against the family members for an investigation qualify? How about limiting the funding and time of that investigation? How about stonewalling access to documents? How about appointing someone like Philip Zelikow who should never have been anywhere near the 9/11 Commission, and as far as I’m concerned, belongs in prison, to head said Commission? How about refusing to testify publicly, under oath, and separately for Bush and Cheney? How about Dick Cheney talking about Iraq’s oil fields 5 months before 9/11 with a group of people that denied ever meeting with him before Congress? Here’s something else you should read.

We Might Be Wrong About 9/11

Last time we corresponded, you said people like me were acting childish because of our concerns. Take a look in the mirror.

Jon Gold: Here’s a challenge for you Matt since you’re “not afraid of taking any unpopular position.” Why don’t you contact Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, and Paul Thompson (if you can manage to get a hold of him), and do a report for Rolling Stone Magazine on the problems with the official account, and why it is necessary to have a real/new investigation for the event that created the “Post-9/11 World?”

Jon Gold: Are you considering it? I’m planning on posting this correspondence again unless you say otherwise.

I never heard from him.

The post Taibbi: 9/11 Commission "Full of Holes" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

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

Truthers Fight Back!

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?

9/11 Family Members Demand Answers from the 9/11 Commission: The Censored Testimony of FBI’s Behrooz Sarshar

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!

The post Matt Taibbi: "Of course we've been lied to about 9/11" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Thus the consensus Truther view toward the GZ Mosque ranges from indifference to support to something a little beyond support. I had this letter from Rediscover911.com forwarded to me last night, an open letter to Mayor Bloomberg entitled “Build a Mega-Mosque ON Ground Zero to Atone for 9/11 Inside job!”

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

More information and a critical view of Rediscover911 can be found here.

To view the original site with added commentary have a look at the counter site Rediscover911.org.

The post Matt Taibbi Uses Rediscover911 To Smear Movement appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.