New Rules: Don't Talk About 9/11 Until You Learn Some BASIC History

Matt Taibbi and his buddies are making complete fools of themselves by trying to mock those who question 9/11:

The same people who had managed in the 2000 election to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush as an ordinary down-to-earth ranch hand apparently so completely lacked confidence in their own propaganda skills that they resorted to ordering a mass murder on American soil as a way of cajoling America to go to war against a second-rate tyrant like Saddam Hussein. As if getting America to support going to war even against innocent countries had ever been hard before!

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Um . . . haven't you guys ever cracked a history book?

Don't you know that virtually every war is preceded by either a false flag attack or fake intelligence, so as to trumpet an imminent threat from the folks that is going to be attacked?

Haven't you heard of the Maine, fellas? How about the Gulf of Tonkin? The Iraqi incubator story?

Didn't you learn about Operation Himmler? The Reichstag fire? The Lavon Affair? Operation Gladio? Northwoods? Ajax?

Haven't you guys ever heard these quotes by famous historical figures:

  • "This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato
  • "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

  • "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler

  • "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
  • "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

Why don't you get up to speed on what real historians say.

All right, here are the new rules: Neither you or any other idiot on either the left or the right can write about 9/11 until you learn some basic history.

You could have just said...

Very simply that they didn't manage "to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush" during Election 2000. They rigged the game so he could win. They did it again during Election 2004. That is simple, "basic history".

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


election fraud was my first thought, and I voted your comment up.

But since 9/11 and election fraud seem to be the biggest "taboo subjects" to the liberal press, I thought false flags might be a little safer.


We can't help it...

If people like Matt refuse to acknowledge "basic history". Even though people like former Representative Cynthia McKinney did and current Representative John Conyers did.

I wonder if Matt falls into that category of people in America that don't even know the year 9/11 happened.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


9/11 was a long-term investment

I'm sure the Bush administration could've attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11, but it would've faced far greater opposition and, given political realities, would've been forced to an end within a few years. Meanwhile there'd've been immense opposition to the administration in nearly every respect.

9/11 effectively wrote a virtual carte blanche to the administration for aggression against Islamic countries. And these dividends continue to pay, so to speak, as Congress, even while control has been passed to the "loyal opposition," continues to approve hundreds of billions for Bush's wars of aggression on behalf of oil profits, military contracts, international bankers, and the Israeli lobby.

"The truly sad thing about

"The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq."


"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."


Great Counter-point.

Washington Post followed suit

Long Beach, Calif.: While not a total convert to the Sept. 11 theory of it being an inside job, I do think that building No. 7 was a controlled blast, as it was not hit by a plane, and was dropped on camera in the fashion of a pro demolition. Have you seen the footage, or owner Mr. Silverman saying they "pulled" the building? How does that sit with you?

Matt Taibbi: I'll tell you how that sits with me - only a moron could think that a guy like Silverstein, who's suddenly in line to get a massive insurance settlement, is going to confess on live television to demolishing his own building. I mean, are you people completely daft? It's the same with the whole business about Rudy Giuliani "admitting" that he knew the Towers were coming down. If he was in on something like that, is he really going to confess it to Peter Jennings? Why in the world would he do that?

Also, the supposed "motive" for demolishing WTC-7 is hilarious - to cover up evidence of the planning of the attacks, as it is speculated that they were planned from that building. What, did the conspirators carve their plans on slate tables? They needed to blow up a massive skyscraper on live TV in order to prevent "Long Beach, Calif" from finding out the awful truth? Like you're findingout anything without them blowing up any buildings. This theory presupposes that people commit these crimes for no reason at all. It's crazy.

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein

(Dear Matt . . GFY)

Taibbi is a gatekeeper

But he makes valid points about Silverstein and Giuliani.

It should be a wakeup call to stop using bogus evidence, and stick to the facts. Silverstein's comment had nothing to do with demolition, and it has a quite plausible explanation which he gave years ago. This is distraction and misdirection. Giving Taibbi crap to attack us with is counterproductive.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--


refresh my memory . . . humor me . . . I'm an old guy . . . how did Silverstein explain away "I made the decision to pull-it"?

The "pull it" thing is a waste

At best, Silverstein's comment is just plain odd. It's not definitive enough evidence to be leading with.

Why, you should ask, would Silverstein have the authority to demolish his own building, and not the FDNY or someone else? Why would the fire department ask Silverstein for that order?

Of course, Silverstein's comment that he was talking about the firefighters when he said "pull" doesn't make sense either.

Taibbi is at least half right on this one: it doesn't make sense that Silverstein would admit such a thing on TV. If he was "in on it," why didn't he just say the building collapsed on its own?

The "pull it" stuff doesn't add up to anything coherent, in my opinion. At best, it's ambiguous. It's possible Silverstein admitted guilt on PBS, but I don't one can prove this definitively.

I do think it's possible, however, that Silverstein was connected to the plot. He did profit from one hell of an urban renewal project.

Agree - not a smoking gun

I agree that Silverstein's statement is by no means a smokin gun, and therefore, should not be brought into focus as an important evidence. Physical evidence is much more important than what somebody had said or might have meant with that...

However, even when admitting to controlled demo, it might not make him automatically guilty of crime. If the building was indeed brought down in order to prevent a larger damage -- say, it toppling unpredictably into other buildings, endangering emergency personnel and other people, -- it would have been reasonable to bring it down in controlled fashion beforehand.

Of course, such admission would raise a whole host of other issues, such as when exactly was the building wired for demolition, etc., but it would not automatically implicate him as a criminal or even jeopardise his insurance payout (I would think). Perhaps, the PTB (Powers that be) might have considered the admission of controlled demo at some point (giving Silverstein OK to say it) and then scrapped the idea. Who knows?

I don't believe so. It is

I don't believe so. It is somewhat common that criminals will make accidental slip ups even in the middle of direct interrogation by skilled professionals. There is evidence standards for admissions against interest (a hearsay exception) and also excited utterance. Then there is also the usage of these accidental admissions or slips as a bragging mechanism. Street criminals in bars drunk, or even in the jails will often give more information than they intended when they are bragging about something. Afterall, what fun is there in committing a grand crime if you cant tell someone about it. Also consider that sometimes these comments cam come when the criminal feels at ease, when they think they wont get caught, or if caught, nothing will be done.

After all the elite criminals have done - and continue to do - with real little fear of the consequences from roughly 30-50% of the population of the US that outright suspects the worse about 9-11, why shouldn't they just say whatever they want. They know that we can't do anything about it.

how I see it

His statement was a reactionary cover story. We know that his statement is bullshit, but it is also telling. It tells me that he knew that it was impossible to sell the story that this building just fell symmetrically and completely into its own basement in less than 7 seconds. They didn't get him a plausible script, so he improvised. He deviated from the plan in an effort to cover a big hole in the official story. Unfortunately, he didn't consider the logistics of setting up a controlled demolition of this type. He apparently didn't consider that issue or didn't think people would notice a problem with his explanation.
My theory is that he was caught off guard with the question and he came up with this explanation on the fly.

that's possible

I don't completely understand the whole "pull it" thing, but your explanation is better than any I've read.



The Plane Truth Project:
North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

Why vote this comment down?

I would hope that this site is capable of having a serious debate about all the issues in order to strengthen our arguments. johndoraemi makes a very valid point about relying on the Silverstein comments as some kind of proof. It is certainly very odd and strange to say "pull it" in the context of building 7, but it is NOT forensic evidence, or a solid scientific analysis of the building collapses. And I agree, it is very very strange for someone that would be involved in this to basically screw up that much as to nearly admit that they brought the building down. It is a weak argument at best. There is so much stronger evidence that we should rely on.

Certain debates are recycled ad infinitum...

and the argument he is making is not what you describe: it is in fact an argument that Silverstein *meant* "pull them" (the firefighters). I think people object to the constant reiteration of this highly implausible assertion -- I know I do. The argument about what it means that he said "pull it" -- and here I think you're right on about its strength as a bit of evidence (not much) -- is reasonable. Continuing to argue that he meant something other than "destroy the building" is what gets him downvoted.

Yes, but the Silverstein argument is not useful

I agree with him that the argument is "distraction and misdirection." The problem lies in the fact that Silverstein's statement is not explicitly clear. It absolutely is open to interpretation no matter how suspect. And this openness allows the likes of a hack like Matt Taibbi to make a rather good point; namely, why the hell would anyone with foreknowledge say something that would expose them? It is a very valid point.

And of course, people may argue all day long about the hubris of the planners, but then we dive off into irrelevancy speculating about the mind of Silverstein. That is distraction. It's just not solid evidence, no matter how strangely circumstantial the statement might have been.

We should stick with forensic analysis, the physics, the chemistry, the engineering and the testimonies of eye witnesses, etc. We are on much more solid ground when this argument really breaks into the general consciousness.

Matt the Rat

Wow the washington post thing has more spin than a merry-go-round, I 'm feeling dizzy, this guy is dangerous. But he won't answer the hard facts of physics, caused I think he probably skipped all those classes and most likely ethics wasn't taught in his school. As for Silverstein , he is a moron and he made a slip, his later comments about the firefighters being pulled out never made any sense. Who would put him in charge of the firefighters who were already gone. And I think Rudy found out that the building was going to come down that day just before the time he decided to leave it. Under pressure he made a mistake too! These are the mistakes in any crime or operation that come up and have to be handled. Sometimes it's a honest comment like Mineta's testimony or the BBC reporter reading her script before WTC 7 actually falls down etc. And what happens? The testimony is skipped and the tapes disappear, no mystery just mopping up after the accidents. Anyway I'm not buying any more Rolling Stone magazines unless Willie Nelson gets an interview! Or Matt the Rat resigns!

Silverstein "a moron"?

Yeah, sure, and he's crying all the way to the bank.

Look, Larry, sly dealmaker though he is, screwed up with that remark. (But hardly enough to undo the ongoing coverup.) Remember, at the time he said it, there was scarcely any visible 9/11 skepticism, so he didn't realize he needed to think through carefully everything he said publicly. Unfortunately for the cause of truth, in and of itself it isn't hard evidence: It's only meaningful after one _has_ examined the hard evidence and seen that the (pseudo-)collapses could only have been orchestrated controlled demolitions.

Initiating foreign wars was only half the plan

The other and I believe more important aspect was initiating and "legitimizing" increased surveillance of the American people -- apparently policy that had been initiated by the Bush administration even prior to 9/11. But now we have internment camps? "Enemy combatant" status? Torture/Rendition? The suspension of habeas corpus? 9/11 was a further step toward police-state abject fascism and totalitarianism.

Perhaps some Americans might have gone along with foreign wars without a false flag terrorist event preceding them but far fewer would have accepted the new domestic policies without 'cause'.

Good point painter.

Good point painter.


What idiots like Taibbi miss when talking about 9/11 is that this was clearly part of a long-term plan. If the planes had crashed but not toppled the towers, I don't think most Americans would consider the event as traumatic as they do.

The neocons clearly (from their own writings) had in mind a generation-defining event that would enable America to secure its place as THE global superpower, with no contenders. The stolen elections and everything else in the last 8 years is all part of this.

I've revised the essay

Also, 9/11 was planned

Also, 9/11 was planned before the internet was big. I don't think they predicted how much of a force it would become. If Iraq had been as quick and easy as they thought it would be, and if there were no internet, they would have succeeded with their plan. Not understanding the internet was probably their biggest mistake. That's why some of their other mistakes look so lame--hiding evidence, faking it, etc.

JFK on secrecy and the press


RIP PNAC no more

mission accomplished

Great minds ... think for themselves.

PNAC got too much attention

PNAC got too much attention and that is why it is shutting down (at least officially), but the ideas live on through other think thanks such as AEI.

The basic problem

with Taibbi's smirking jackass routine is that it's only useful to a point, and then it's counterproductive. It's only useful if one considers the crimes being discussed of limited importance. If the crimes are as substantial as 9/11, Taibbi and his gatekeeping pals would in theory have to do something about them (something more than casting aspersions from afar).

A quick video about CIA

A quick video about CIA Coups from 1953-1989. All events between the time period are not completely covered in this video, nor has CIA intervention ended in 1989.

check out other videos by this user



... to what lenghts some (semi-)intellectuals would go to psycho-analyze somebody about what they might or might not reasonably do, instead of looking at the hard cold facts.

I guess, the 9-11 Commission was right (or whoever said that) -- it was the lack of imagination that did us in with 9-11 -- that is, the lack of imagination what a determined power would do to gain more control and money. Of course, for a 14 bln tax cut you wouldn't need a boat-rocking conspiracy, but for multi-trillion hand-out, going indefinitely into the future, you might.

Taibbi is ignorant

"The same people who had managed in the 2000 election to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush as an ordinary down-to-earth ranch hand apparently so completely lacked confidence in their own propaganda skills that they resorted to ordering a mass murder on American soil as a way of cajoling America to go to war against a second-rate tyrant like Saddam Hussein. As if getting America to support going to war even against innocent countries had ever been hard before!"

Yes, it has been hard. Very hard. Invasions of tiny countries like Grenada and the occasional bombings and sanctions are easy and can even have short term benefits in the polls, but invasion of more substantial countries by a large number of troops can be the equivalent of political suicide, as it was for Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.