Taibbi, Redux: Rolling Stone Sucks Again

Matt Taibbi is at it again, and although he has apparently had his mouth washed out with soap, he's still madly trying to reconcile poll after poll after poll reflecting widespread distrust in the official story of 9/11 with his blind faith in the "Zelikow-Approved" 9/11 Commission Report.

His new piece is: THE LOW POST: Murrah Redux 9/11 Truth is a bald regurgitation of a silly tale we heard ten years ago.

(If you already feel like writing RS, here's their email: letters@rollingstone.com other contact options here: http://www.rollingstone.com/contactus-update )

Like Taibbi's earlier egregious, indefensible hit piece, he struggles with concepts that he cannot understand, and winds up with an amorphous stroll through a bunch of lazily stitched together anecdotes which suggest that he doesn't even really care about the issue, not even enough to make a half-hearted attempt at researching OKC.

First of all, there were multiple reports of more than one bomb at the Murrah Building, from multiple TV stations.

Second, to categorically align OKC official story skepticism as a product purely of right-wing paranoids is just incorrect. Even Jon Ronson, King of the British conspiracy debunkers, admits in this piece for the Guardian that there are many aspects to the OKC bombing that don't exactly add up, chief among them the case of Andy the German. Ronson is definitely NOT a product of the American right wing. Shockingly, the BBC ran a documentary on the OKC case as part of their hit-and-miss "Conspiracy Files" series that was pretty open-minded. You can watch it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyjAhEhLXag Those pesky Brits. Why are they so darn skeptical?

Third, a blasé dismissal of scientific criticism is a pretty weak tactic considering that Taibbi promises to clear up the anomalies of 9/11, "Truthers are going to complain that I still haven't addressed the science claims. That's coming next." Oh boy. We won't be surprised when it's an omissive, dismissive, distorted pack of tunnel-vision induced garbage. We know this because of the total lack of reference to ordnance expert Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) Benton K. Partin's report on the impossibility of one fertilizer truck bomb to create the damage observed at the Murrah building. Expect Taibbi to mock, belittle, or omit any claims, no matter how scientifically sound they are, regarding the collapses of the WTC buildings.

Finally, there are strong parallels between OKC and 9/11. Notably, that Controlled Demolition Inc. speedily removed the debris from both sites, and that the same experts were rolled out to explain away the anomalies of OKC and 9/11, as chronicled by Kevin Ryan.

This is pathetic journalism. It's time for Rolling Stone to stop publishing crap like this and reflect a counterpoint. Please take the time to write the editors of Rolling Stone and let them know, "This aggression will not stand, man."

Rolling Stone should make room to publish a rebuttal from one of the more prominent critics of the 9/11 myth; take your pick from Webster G. Tarpley, Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, or Alex Jones.

Come on Rolling Stone, you used to have some guts.


Other contact options here:

Show "This line should speak volumes to you all.." by DHS
Show "vote it down all you want...." by DHS

I think any rebuttal...

Should be more holistic than just CD, and should examine the history of False-Flag Terrorism, the roots of "al-Qaeda" etc.

Sure, it should be

but we would be retarded to ignore the cold, hard science and facts unequivocally supporting the "Church of CD".

Show "cold hard science and facts" by tsoldrin


The CoCD consists only of "internet yahoos watching videos"? There was no molten iron, there was no free fall, there was no symmetry, there were no squibs, there were no pre-impact sub-basement detonations? Steven Jones, Gordon Ross and Kevin Ryan are "a bunch of internet yahoos watching videos"?

"We're not in court right now" because of preaching to the choir? Well, that is about activism, not CD, then.

I don't mean to offend, but aren't you one of the Kos-converts? Guess you still suffer from the after-effects...

It depends on what phase we are in

Hey, tsoldrin, don't you suppose it depends on what phase we are in?

Internet videos will never prove anything. But the footage they are made with, the original footage, might be useful in a court case.

But we are not in a court case (yet). We are now in a public relations phase, a 'spread-the-word' phase. Our job is to get this word out, and for that, the internet video route has done rather well... agree? Sure, it's not enough. But isn't it effective in this phase?

"Evil can only exist as long as we support it."
M.K. Gandhi

So shall we BOCOTT THE MSM?


The Internet provides easy access to information, and allows anyone to say their mind. There is nothing inherently faulty about information on the Internet, as you suggest. Of course, information and opinion must be carefully considered.

NIST watched a video and used it to estimate the speed of "Flight 175" hitting the South Tower, and used the same video to measure the swaying of the building that resulted from the supposed impact. Are they "internet yahoos"?

Since you say using Google is not research, perhaps you could suggest what is valid research. Then ask yourself whether faulty research is the problem, or is the problem that the government will not disclose the information it claims to have for "national security / state secret": reasons. By the way, are you a conservative? If the word "state secret" raises your hackles, you're a conservative.

If you don't see that tremendous amounts of energy were added to those buildings to bring them down, I can't help you. Perhaps it is you that is using faith-based reasoning.

why do you care so much

why do you care so much about what Matt Taibbi, who has spent his entire career lambasting one side of the aisle as a partisan hack for a MUSIC magazine says? do you not see the FACT that CD and the evidence for CD has woken up scores of people(so has the Pentagon but i wont get started on that, i promise.)and caused them to question the whole official story of 9/11? this is about activism, i for one am not that worried about someone like Taibbi impeding our progress much. i love how you use the word "cult" too, thats not cheap or anything. come on man, you act as if its the only thing WE talk about. just because its the only thing THEY(Taibbi,O'reailly,PM etc.) talk about doesnt mean we should stop using the evidence to our advantage and completely ignore CD and the Pentagon. i suspect THEY would be very pleased if we did just that. imagine how many people we would have failed to sway if we took what im assuming is your stance and completely ignored CD and the Pentagon. sorry, im about waking people up, CD and the Pentagon have been great for my 9/11 activism along with all the other evidence that you would prefer we stick to. i use it all because all of it is damning and together it makes our case that much stronger. i will not frame my message to please or placate Matt Taibbi or any other shill like him.

Show "I see the possibility of CD" by DHS

Tell that to Professor Jones...

When he was BEGGING Tucker Carlson on MSNBC to show building seven collapse.

It does not get shown on MSM... full stop

I can only speak for myself, but it was the physical evidence that convinced me.

When building a case against the PNAC Cabal and associates, all "reasonable" avenues should be explored and fully compiled and documented.

Best wishes

very good point, they may

very good point, they may "cover" CD and the Pentagon but they do it how THEY want to and never for more than 2 minutes tops.

Show "OK Let's talk about Jones" by DHS


You are forgetting Symetrical collapse in Free FALL time. This must be CD for all the buildings!

Hey, DHS...

I also have read about major damage to WTC7. At a debunking website they show photos with, basically, the middle of the building ripped out due to, they say, a 30 ton burning I-beam from WTC 1, falling plain through WTC7's roof and starting a huge fire.

That's interesting. How would a 30 ton piece of steel get thrown that far? What force would do that? I am just wondering, and not trying to be contentious. Do you have a theory? WTC 1 itself fell more or less straight down except for the pyroclastic clouds which did eject laterally. But, as we all know, that building did not fall over like a tree so as to send material so far from it to WTC 7.

Also, "burning"? Does jet fuel (kerosine) burn metal? If it does, why don't kerosine lanterns burn up? And stoves? It would change how we go camping.

Again, I ask this naively. I am not trying to be contentious.

And now, on re-reading what I wrote above, "pyroclastic clouds"? Do you agree with that term? Because I did get it from Dr. Jones' writings. To me it does indeed look like an explosion, and so the word 'pyroclastic' seems correct. What do you see in the picture of WTC 1 coming down? Clouds of material, ejected outward?

Oh, BTW, please don't anyone quote my numbers. I think they said it was a 30 ton truss. Might have been some other (large) number. Whatever it was, it take a big force to send such a thing 400 feet laterally (and again, I can't guarentee that number either, but think it is about right; anyway, quite far for tossing metal around).

"Evil can only exist as long as we support it."
M.K. Gandhi

So shall we BOCOTT THE MSM?

here you go... 300 tons baby...



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Great correction, RT!

So why is CD such a poor case for us to lead with? Especially re: WTC 7.

"Evil can only exist as long as we support it."
M.K. Gandhi

So shall we BOCOTT THE MSM?

it's not--it's the best

you'd have to ask those who deny that why they think so!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



Since the phrase Student uses is "lead with", I must admit I also don't think CD is the best way to lead with STARTING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BASTARDS. The BEST way to do that, IMHO, is to focus on means, motive and opportunity--cui bono--not to mention the glaring contradictions in their own" fairy story": "We had numerous warnings and be did nothing because um, Dick, help me out here... "

And the destruction of a crime scene. And trying to stop a murder investiation. And tampering with said murder investigation.


CD, especially of WTC7, is the best lead to discussing 911truth with Jane and Joe Blow and why everything that happened that day just doesn't add up.

So, it depends who your audiance is and what you're trying to accomplish. Criminal proceedings? Criminal negligence? The best lead there is "cui bono". Reaching out to the public? Best lead is WTC 7--"it didn't collapse by itself" as a very good banner said.

I think we need to be clear of context and approach when someone pushes or dismisses an angle. They might be right--for the activism strategy they're using. It doesn't mean you're wrong or even they think you're wrong. As individuals we will have our differences of interest, and even when we otherwise agree, differences in strategy. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


I gathered already that you thought so, RT. I was hoping DHS would weigh in again, given our reasoning here. He seemed to think the CD proposal is poorly reasoned.

I also read your Point/Counterpoint with Marcus. Very strong reasoning, friend. I wish the guy would look into it, based on what you put there. It doesn't look like he will though.

My questions are...

At what time did the steel beam make it's way into WTC7? Is that reported anywhere? How do you know the weight of the steel beam? Is that reported anywhere?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


I realize now that photo isn't of WTC7. Is it? "At a debunking website they show photos with, basically, the middle of the building ripped out due to, they say, a 30 ton burning I-beam from WTC 1, falling plain through WTC7's roof and starting a huge fire." confused me.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Which site?

Surely not this one http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Secret photos that only PM can see?


WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Don't ask me...

Cause I surely don't know.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

It's in the article on #7 by Mark Roberts

at this site. We need to debunk that article. The article is in Word format, otherwise I'd link to it.

i got the weight from 9/11 mysteries

and yeah, it's the Amex building, not 7. i actually wonder myself how the wieght of this section was determined but whether it was 300 tons or 30 tons, it's not supposed to be there!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


OT: Glen Beck is calling for all Muslim extremists

to be shot in the head. This is while both Democratic and Republican bitches are concurring that anything other than "Osama did it" is fully as appalling and in fact the same thing as H-word denial.

i cant allow myself to watch

i cant allow myself to watch him anymore. my blood pressure wouldnt be able to handle it. there is no lower life form on television than Glen Beckkk.

Me either :(

But he was discussing Rosie, and since I'd just watched an hour's worth of in-depth investigative journalism about Anna Nicole Smith on Showbiz Tonight, because someone thought they were going to discuss Sheen and O'Donnell, I figured I could and would take it.

You're right on: he is the lowest of the low.

simple question, do you

simple question, do you think it would have been better for spreading 9/11 truth if all of us just completely ignored CD and the Pentagon anomalies from the start? do you think we would have been as far as we are now? also, do you REALLY think that we can change what the MSM chooses to focus on? good luck with that one. im not gonna frame my message for them because it wouldnt work anyway, but keep on censoring yourself, i hope it works for you.

They address CD

because they have to defend against it. Isn't this entirely obvious?

Show "attack the weakest links" by tsoldrin

Unfortunately Chris

we have to care

like it or not Rolling Stone and Counterpunch and other tradition left-leaning publications do in fact help to shape people's thinking. Rolling Stone reaches a young audience that we hope to capture.

right now we are in a war to shape people's thinking. we are up against giant monoliths of publishing media corporations. it us truly a David vs. Goliath struggle.

but - we are winning. clearly we are winning.

but maybe we can become a little more efficient in how we counter these smears.

speakin of the chilluns

Check out this thread from the Harvard Democrats' site:


They had to turn on comment moderation to stop me. Hee hee!

And guess what they throw out to defend themselves? It starts with "Popular" and ends with "piece of shit shill magazine". Go on--guess!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Two enthusiastic thumbs up!

That was brilliant. Special LOL @ this:

"And how dare you claim that Markus, or any member of this organization, is apathetic as Americans and Iraqis suffer. We just held a 9 hour name reading and candle light vigil commemorating the dead, and are engaged in political activism to try to save lives in the future."

like...holding some more 9h name readings, feeling a little guilty, and ignoring all evidence concerning 9/11 -- because really, what does it matter anyway? We are tending to today's problems...like where shall we hold our next name reading?

What a puss! And he is supposed to govern anyone in the future?

nahhhh... they end up shilling for I banks and consultants


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


or are we winning because we

or are we winning because we have used all of the available evidence that is convincing? this is where we differ, you feel like its a net-minus and i feel like its a net-gain(including controlled demolition and the Pentagon anomalies in our activism). i dont think the movement would have gotten as far as it has without much of the info in your film and others but i also dont think we would have gotten here without the cases of the Pentagon and controlled demolition. its not a case of either or for me, i present it all because it makes the overall case that much stronger when you do.

We are winning because we won't go away

And they are running out of dis-info tactics.

When you run a crypto fascist state--that is a state that has very powerful fascist elements, extremely compromised progressive elements, but the illusion of "free speech and democracy" are still nessecary to maintain for the powerful to have any credability--you must, as Chomsky said in happier days, manufacture consent. Yes, he's a prat now, doesn't mean he was wrong. As evil as these people are, they still NEED to be seen as valid, democratic leaders.

But they've been caught. What do you do?

Ignore. Attack. Igonore AND attack. Ignore some more. Mock. Are they gone yet? Nuts. Make a poll. Distract. Debunk. Insert Holocaust at every oportunity. Laugh--try not to sound too strained. Have a sham "investigation". Are they gone yet? Shit, it's going on six years and they're still not gone! Dick, Help!

They've run out of tricks to manipulate a crypto-fascist state in the face of 911activism that WILL NOT GO AWAY.

You're an evil bastard--what would you do?

1:Start a new false-flag then push for martial law. BONUS, no pesky pretending there's freedom/democracy. RISK: all those armed yahoos who haven't forgotten Ruby Ridge.

2: Quietly withdraw, consolidate resources, dump liabilities, and prepare to flee country if democracy gets loose. BONUS; avoid humiliationg, can spin later. RISK: lose control and leverage of the political scene.

3: Tough it out. BONUS: Standing strong and tall will play well to the base. RISK: constant leak of credability, criminal indictment, until option 1 might be inevitable

All that said, I think we WILL win, IF they don't pull a #1 to head us off at the pass, so to speak.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

yes Jenny, but my point was,

yes Jenny, but my point was, does CD hinder the movement or has it helped us? some people fail to see just how much it has helped us. some people, not you, but some people. and i worry everyday about what the impact of a new and possibly worse false flag than 9/11 would be. scary thought and its why i do what i do. this armed yahoo hasnt forgotten anything,hahaha.

The question is not whether it hinders the "movement"

Please remember that the vast majority of the people that died on 9/11 died because those buildings were destroyed. People are still dying because they breathed those buildings while trying to save the people that died, or at least find their remains.

The crime took place in New York City, not Pakistan.

We can talk motive, means, opportunity, but lets be clear about what the crime is, and who benefits.

It's all about those buildings, in my opinion.

The motive of war and military spending is clear, but with the buildings, we also have tremendous financial interests in getting rid of white elephant buildings. Other interests may have been involved - my candidate is a symbiosis of Christianists and Fascists, but it doesn't really matter - but it all comes back to the crime of destroying those buildings.

What happened to those buildings? Who had the means and the opportunity to make that happen?

It is obvious that energy was added to destroy those buildings, and that was the murder weapon. It does not matter if everyone in America cannot see that, as long as you do.

just a quick tip:

i just clicked on The View because i noticed it was a little past 11 and i only heard the last 30 seconds but i heard them mention Page 6 and then shortly after they went to a commercial. i can only assume that they were talking about the Richard Johnson smear on Rosie and Sheen for 9/11/Loose Change. somebody try to get a tape if possible.

The View, 10 AM PST

Doesn't sound to me like Rosie is going away any time soon. A guest on Scarborough says she has pulled in 600,000 new viewers. Shall we make it a million?

How the Mighty have Fallen...

....I remember the Rolling Stone of the mid-70's that, for example, bravely tackled the Kennedy assassination and the Karen Silkwood affair with exhaustive expose's.....

Now they're just a sold-out corporate shill....real shame.....

they sure are, i actually

they sure are, i actually still have a subscription so i know first hand. some good articles here and there(for example the great RKFjr. article on the stolen election that was almost completely ignored by the rest of the MSM) but for the most part pretty weak.

Yeah, that RFKjr. Election Fraud essay....

....was great....an exception to the rule.

Ancient History, Reprehensor

We blogged this article back in October of last year. In fact, at the time I thought it was a little odd that Taibbi mentioned his scarf because it seemed a little early in the season; now it's late to be wearing scarves.

Wotcher, Pat! You never

Wotcher, Pat! You never answered my questions about whether you approved of underhanded debunking tactics. Jenny's very sad... :( But I could post a link...look, I'm cheering up already! :)

Supprised you have time to visit, what with James in China and all--he better not use the Internet there--they have a mature police state and lots of practise!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Hey people

what Brainster is saying here seems to be true -- and that seems to be a world premiere! Voting it down because of who he is, not what he says, doesn't reflect well on ourselves...

Know what I'm saying?

kind of, but do you really

kind of, but do you really think his motives are pure? i wont cry for him.

No, in fact I know his motives are not pure

Still, judgement should be on what is said, regardless of who said it.

in most cases i would agree

in most cases i would agree with you on that but this is an information war and he is clearly here for one reason. i think you know what that is.

Yes, of course, and I made that clear.

All I'm saying is intellectual honesty > partisanship, in my opinion, which is why I spoke up here to defend Brainster -- generally a completely dishonest shill -- because what he said was in fact correct, and by itself not deserving of negative votes. Why reject correct information in an information war, unless you're being dishonest?

Hope I explained myself satisfyingly. I didn't want to rock the boat, just stick up for my principles. A little controversy can certainly help to reconsider possibly false behavior...

Relax--we'll hold off on making you walk the plank...

...for now. ;-)

BTW: while ideally comment moderation SHOULD be about the quality of comments, the REASON it was enabled(or perhaps the prime/final motivation) was troll management. So while, yes, Brainster maybe right and honest about this point(even a broken clock is right twice a day), because we know his motives are dodgy, it's still a valid act to vote him down as a flag to newer members who might think he's one of us "twoofers"--ESPECIALLY if he's sounding reasonable( ei: lulling one into a false sense of security....)

Do what you think is best for you.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


as usual you put it better than me :-) especially the part about shills trying to make people think they are rational or "one of us". lot of that going on around here as im sure you know(i wont name names though one of them starts with m. i said too much!).

central facts are different for different people

I believe each individual finds their own central fact of 911 truth. To the pilots, it's something different than to the intelligence experts (or 911 commissioners themselves), and it's something different to the families who firsthand observed the stonewalling and coverups.
To me the CD is the central fact because it's the thing that immediately aroused my curiousity and what eventually convinced me positively that this was not possibly what they want us to believe.
I'd bet my engineer's license no honest scientific experiment would support the idea that there were no explosives involved.

good points

I can imagine the families like the Jersey girls being so caught up with their mission that they çan easily miss the forest for the trees when it comes to things like CD. Whichever way you look at it a diversity of tactics is good in this case. The info wars are asymmetrical--we are the little Davids with lots of little rocks. If we only hit Goliath from one side he will easily crush us. In the end I guarantee everyone will be on the same page--they'll have no choice at that point.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I believe the Taibbi piece is from last October

It says October 24, 2006 at the end.

Doesn't matter, I guess. Taibbi is still an idiot who writes like a spoiled little child throwing a tantrum: he clearly enjoys the attention he gets.

His inclusion of Nico is an obvious tipoff that this piece is about mudslinging and not fact-finding. After spending an entire page reprinting every word Nico said to him, Taibbi says "obviously" Nico doesn't represent mainstream 9/11 Truth; then Taibbi refers to "colleagues of Haupt's from 911Truth.org."

This guy is dishonest to the core.