Comments on: Matt Taibbi On 9/11 Truthers

By: wayne

wayne — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:43:01 +0000

Matt is spot on regarding the “truthers”.

They are deranged – and incapable of looking at the body of facts and evidence as a whole. They seize on minor inconsistencies and try to run those all the way to their wild conspiracy theories – involving thousands of people that would have to have perfect security and execution of highly uncontrollable situations.

The truthers are truly nutjobs.

By: psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:19:41 +0000

Isn’t science supposed to be a Truth Movement?

How do you build a 110 story 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out the distribution of steel and concrete before even digging the hole for the foundation.

The NIST report says the the south tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after impact and the building deflected by 12 inches at the 70th floor even though the plane hit at the 81st floor. So how much kinetic energy went into deflecting the building? How do you compute how much energy did structural damage without knowing how much merely shook the building?

So how is it that the media and structural engineers can’t address something as simple as a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing? The Empire State Building was designed without computers so why can’t we get such simple data with all of the computing power we have today?

psik

By: Dan Noel

Dan Noel — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:14:00 +0000

Taibbi’s allegation is ridiculous. I have screened several 9/11 movies to the public; each time, I dutifully contacted CIA, FBI, DoD, NIST, FEMA, and several mainstream media outlets beforehand to ask them for any information to refute the movie, promising that I would present it. The only response I ever got was harassment by DoD agents.
My case is not unique. In fact, most 9/11 organizations would welcome some debate with the U.S. government.
Love,

By: KRK

KRK — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:27:47 +0000

It’s unfortunate that for all his soft-pedalling as he does it, Taibbi went after the cliched target of defense attorneys in his analogy. A defense attorney’s job is not to “tell you what actually did happen” but rather to ensure that the state has met its burden of proving its case. A better and more accurate analogy would have been prosecutors (you know, the ones whose job it actually is to “tell you what actually did happen”) who get fixated on a particular defendant or theory of a case and then railroad it through irrespective of conflicting or absent evidence. (See, Innocence Project, passim.)

Gotta call this little tidbit a fail on Taibbi’s part.

By: mdpdb

mdpdb — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:53:26 +0000

Robert Hoogenboom, didn’t you just do what MT complained about in the OP? “Offhandedly, they’ll say that. [Laughs.] Like that’s a very simple thing. It’s really weird.”

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:01:33 +0000

Its pronounced Tie-ee-bee. His dad is a network correspondent so I've heard it multiple times on-air.

By: Scratch

Scratch — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:50:00 +0000

I have a lifetime subscription to Rolling Stone (cost me a hundred bucks a few years ago!) and Matt Taibbi is one of my favorite writers, in spite of the fact that I disagree with almost everything he thinks. I haven’t heard of this book but there’s a decent chance I’ll buy it because those 9/11 nuts drive me up the wall.

Any idea how he pronounces his last name?

By: Robert Hoogenboom

Robert Hoogenboom — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:12:07 +0000

We don’t know what the whole truth ia about 9/11, but we can see parts of the truth. And we can also see that the official story is all lies. 9/11 was an inside job. Who exactly did it, we don’t know. But it must have been done with the assistance of people in and connected with the American government.

Sydney, Australia