I came out as a truther in 2015 with my 9/11 novel, Locus Amoenus. It wasn’t an easy decision. I anticipated being called "clinically insane," a “dickwad,” promoting “rank steaming bullshit” by the likes of Matt Taibbi.
"Are we ALL to be held to the flame for every mistake we ever made? No one here has ever changed their minds, their beliefs on a subject?" I'm sorry, Susan, but you are missing the point here. No one is accusing Taibbi of having changed his mind about the facts apropos 9/11. As you say, people revise their opinions all the time, and it is the people who refuse to revise them when they learn new facts who alone deserve censure. The accusation against Taibbi is, however, not that he changed his mind and then came to better conclusion -- IF indeed he ever did -- but that he made no RATIONAL ARGUMENT, utilizing STRONG FACTUAL EVIDENCE and SOUND LOGICAL INFERENCES to attack what he, already at the start of the piece, illegitimately derides as 1.] the "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS"-- a self-serving term invented by CIA gaslighters by the way -- who merely hold a different opinion on the matter. Thus, among many other things, Taibbi is also being accused by many of his critics both here and elsewhere, of 2.] supplanting any rational argument for his position with nothing but scurrilous, primarily "AD HOMINEM," attacks, not on the opinions of those he lambasts, but upon them personally. And indeed the invective which he pours upon them can only be considered well "över-the-top"! He begins not by championing free speech and reasoned argument, but by proudly "ignoring" any possible opinion contrary to his own position, i.e. a position, by the way, totally COMPLICIT with governmental fabrications designed to gaslight and hence shut up the public through endless bullying and intimidation, just as he himself seeks to shut up his much smaller audience of his opponents here. 3.] The technical name for such a mistaken discourse ploy in the Western rhetorical tradition is "ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTUM" or "argument from ignorance." 4.] He continues by calling everyone who accepts any other view of 9/11"ïdiots," and instead appealing to "[his] few scientist friends" [evidently VERY few at that!] who inform him that such heterodoxy against the Establishment truth of the BIG PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR US LITTLE PEOPLE is naught but "rank steaming bullshit" and that "none of that stuff [i.e. evidently no solid evidence and rational argument whatsoever] would prove anything," which, I suppose, it wouldn't to a self-maimed purblind dogmatist like Taibbi, but that hardly acquits him of the charge of having utilized here a typical version of the 5.] AD VERECUNDIAM fallacy, i.e. the appeal to the opinion of some false authorities, "his scientist friends," in lieu of providing evidence. He then proceeds to claim that his opponents on how the three buildings came down on 9/11 are also to be condemned because; 6.] "they just analyze the physical evidence pointing to the use of incendiaries, and they do not offer, a “concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why,” as if one could know such further facts without a detailed CRIMINAL investigation, -- which we have still never had! -- seeking to assign particular human responsibility and blame for the attacks rather than merely to establish that the official account of how the THREE WTC buildings came crashing down defies the most basic LAWS OF PHYSICS and must therefore be rejected. This tactic is usually called 7.] "moving the goalposts of truth" or "upping the burden of truth" and indeed IS rejected by all who seek to participate in legitimate argumentation. As V.N. Alexander notes, Taibbi next 8.] "associat[es] [the 9/11 Truth] movement’s investigators, who had Engineering or Physics PhDs, with “Flat Earthers” and “Moon Landing Deniers” (yawn)," which is, of course, simply more particularly distasteful, AD HOMINEM mudslinging. ................ Well there are many other reprehensible compositional and rhetorical flaws in the Taibbi article, but I suspect you get the point by now. In short, the piece is one of the most God-awful pieces of constative prose I have ever had the misfortune to read and analyse. It everywhere displays a mind that remains completely ignorant of the most fundamental pragmatic rules of rational discourse as these have been worked out over literally thousands of years. That such shoddy scribbling should be printed in public journals, or merely taken seriously on an FB page like this one is, to put it charitably, simply DISGRACEFUL!!
The job of the limited hangouts is to keep the black budget technology that was used that day hidden just like it always has been. Nikola Tesla's "death ray" papers were all taken for the FBI by Trump's uncle. He was told to hand over anything militarily useful but he kept crates full of papers and grew rich off them. Tesla based his Wardencliffe Tower on his understanding of the Great Pyramid. Listen to an experimental physicist explain.
From an old Wikipedia article on the Internet Archive and a link to an old article quoting it. "The New York Times [edit] CHRIS HEDGES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRAQ INVASION
Hedges worked for 15 years as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He was based in the Middle East for five years, serving for four of those years as the Middle East bureau chief He covered the war in the former Yugoslavia as the Balkan bureau chief based in Sarajevo. He later covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East from Paris.
Three of Hedges' articles were based upon the stories of Iraqi defectors, who had been furnished to Hedges by the Information Collection Program of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress. [20] The program promoted stories to major media outlets in order to orchestrate U.S. intervention in Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Most significant of his reports in this period was a November 8/2001, front-page story about two former Iraqi military commanders who claimed to have trained foreign mujahedeen how to hijack planes without using guns. [21] Hedges quoted a man whom he believed to be an Iraqi general: "These Islamic radicals... came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco. We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States". The two defectors also asserted there was a secret compound in Salman Pak facility where a German scientist was producing biological weapons. [22]
George Soros According to Mother Jones: "The impact of the article... was immediate: Op-eds ran in major papers, and the story was taken to a wider audience through cable-TV talk shows. Wherr-Condoleezza Rice, then George W. Bush's national security adviser, was asked about the report at a press briefing, she said, 'I think it surprises no one that Saddam Hussein is engaged in all kinds of activities that are destabilizing." As late as 2006, conservative magazines including The Weekly Standard and National Review.continued to use this article to justify the invasion of Iraq. 23]
It later was revealed that the story which Hedges reported was "an elaborate scam". The defector whom Hedges quoted, who had identified himself as Lt. General Jamal al-Ghurairy, was a former sergeant. The real Ghurairy had never left Iraq. Hedges said that he had taken on reporting this account at the request of Lowell Bergman of Frontline, who wanted the defectors for his show but could not go to Beirut for the interview. The trip had been organized by Ahmed Chalabi, whom Hedges considered to be unreliable. Hedges said he had done the piece as a favor to Bergman, explaining, "There has to be a level of trust between reporters. We cover each other's sources when it's a good story because otherwise everyone would get hold of it." Hedges had relied on the U.S. embassy in Turkey for further contrmation of the man's identity. [23]
Hedges wrote two more articles that year that were informed by Chalabi-coached defectors. The second one, claiming that Iraq still held 80 Kuwaitis captured in the 1991 Gulf War in a secret underground prison, was also found to be baseless [24]"
I am reminded of Max Blumenthal who was used in a similar way (over Syrian) when he began his journalism career. But Blumenthal figured out that he was being used to spread propaganda and started doing honest reporting. Hedges did not figure this out and has made himself quite irrelevant now.
"Hedges did not figure this out and has made himself quite irrelevant now." That seems a bit harsh to me. No journalist worth their salt hasn't at times been duped by sources with hidden ulterior motives. It may well be that Hedges should have caught on to the prevarications sooner and repudiated his initial reports based on them. But I, for one, wouldn't think that this invalidates or renders "irrelevant" everything that Hedges reports today. He is still one of the more brilliant journalists the US has produced in recent years and he covers so many important stories, sometimes all at once, that I wouldn't censure him for getting a story wrong once and awhile. Unlike many other "would-be" journalists, Hedges intentions were never to deceive his readers in the manner that they often do.
Did he ever retract and apologise for it? No, all sorts of limited hangouts, including Assange, have tried to get us to ignore 9/11. Hedges won't go back.
Right after i read David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbor in 04, I contacted him offering to help. First I suggested mailing his book to various thought leaders. I said I'd start with Noam Chomsky. "Don't bother," said David. Noam Chomsky's best friend, Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton, sent Chomsky the manuscript, telling him it was the most important book ever written about American politics. Chomsky refused to read it. I wrote to Chomsky anyway. He said he considered the hypothesis so implausible he didn't even want to entertain it. I wrote back to ask him if on Sept 10 someone told him that 19 Arabs who couldn't even fly a Cessna would outsmart the most heavily guarded airspace in the world and expertly pilot hijacked jets exactly into their target, he might consider that implausible too. Thus pointing out that implausible does not mean impossible. Our dialogue did not go well. Chomsky didn't like being called irrational. He said there were no credible professional engineers coming forward to support the claim of controlled demolition, which was false. In this correspondence, which lasted a couple weeks, he also professed his support for the Warren Commission. He thought the republicans would not risk doing 9/11 because that would be the end of their party. So finally I understood the concept of the left gatekeeper. I never bothered with Taibbi, who never seemed that bright to me, and as you said, a Hunter Thompson wanna be. Hunter was a friend of mine throughout the 1980s till the mid 90s, when he almost stabbed me in the eye with a nine inch hunting knife dripping with cocaine. It just got too weird hanging out with him. Hunter did express his doubt in the official story, which might have been the reason he killed himself, or was murdered.
It was a unaparty venture due to the Skull and Bones involvement. They believe they're modern day Templars. John Kerry is a Bonesman alongside the two George Bushes. The "WMD" in Iraq was ancient, that's why ISIS was created.
[Chomsky] "considered the hypothesis so implausible he didn't even want to entertain it." I find that Establishment figures, even those fairly squarely on the left, are only very seldom willing to push the envelope when it comes to championing heterodox accounts of events. I suppose it is because they are worried about losing credibility and their reputation, in Chomsky's case, of being "the world's leading intellectual" should they go out on a limb and challenge, especially before many others have done so, the "accepted wisdom" of the intelligentsia. Thus whether it is his intention or not, Chomsky, much like Julian Assange and many others who ought to know much better about the facts of 9/11, does objectively serve just the "gatekeeping" role you say he does. His claim that; "there [are] no credible professional engineers coming forward to support the claim of controlled demolition" is especially shocking, not to mention regrettable, when one considers that the number of European professional architects and engineers now demanding a new investigation of the controlled demolition hypothesis is up around 4,000! At some point, long before this, Chomsky and the others need to be shown up for being not merely accidentally, but actually "Willfully Ignorant"!
Jimmy Dore was denigrating 9/11 Truth Activists until about 2 - 2-1/2 years ago. He finally saw some light after reading the WTC7 report from the University of Alaska Fairbanks… I heard him make one more anti-truth comment after that… but then he finally came out.
I think it’s really hard to beat back cognitive dissonance, years or decades for some people, some or most maybe never…
Taibbi graduated from Bard College, where I did… I’m hoping to see him at a Bard event some day and have a talk with him about this.
I know that knowing 9/11 was a scam helped me see through what was going on. I was seeing some of the same techniques to squash gene therapy dissenters as I saw on truth activists. Physics and architecture are my background, so the C-19 Plandemic was out of my wheelhouse. (Thank you V.N.A. for advising me early on… so glad I didn’t let the fear trick me into getting the poisonous jab)!!
I will say, that I’ve done a lot of reading on biology/medicine/virology/pathology…. While I’m by no means close to the level of an actual doctor. But it’s showed me how doctors have been taught to rely almost exclusively on Big Pharma treatments for everything. It’s also taught me to ask my doctor questions and how to research what questions to ask.
Like Taibbi, I think, is a journalist to make society a better place, I think most doctors are in medicine because they honestly want to help people but they are so indoctrinated into a corrupted system, it’s difficult to see the light through the canopy of corruption.
9/11 was to Jimmy Dore what Agency Corporate Capture was to Dr. John Campbell. I remember watching JC and almost screaming “Can’t you see what’s going on?!!!” as he would read science reports. He finally caught on!
Perhaps Taibbi understands the power of $$ so believes monkey business in other systems, academia, MIC, health care delivery system, etc can be ignored as long as economic mistakes are avoided. However it is the Truth of economics, the basic necessity of economic justice that Taibbi cannot locate in the collective west that prevents him from sticking with a moral imperative. He knows we are lost so far and he knows he has no legacy for the children. IMHO it’s not too late to overturn the money lenders tables and find out exactly how Hamilton was able to put the colonies on the road to economic stability even prosperity. Xi has pulled millions out of poverty proving he retains the mandate from heaven to lead simply by applying Hamiltonian principles of credit economics. Nancy Pelosi and other politicians fearing big money should fear Truth as their ill gotten gains profit them nothing!
Yes back then on Don Hazen's Alternet I was having a battle with Joshua Holland over the science of 9/11 and I was winning the argument and gaining popular support. Suddenly Matt Taibbi piled on and just started flinging ad hominems as fast as he could not even trying to make an argument. For my part, I just kept referencing the science, physics and chemistry, of 9/11 and I again was winning the argument and gaining popular support, and Matt was coming away with mud on his face. Then Don Hazen himself stepped in and closed the comments. After that I stopped reading Alternet.
I would love to hear Matt Taibbi come clean about who put him up to slinging mud on anyone that questioned the official story. of 9/11. In my opinion Matt was involved in career building at any cost during those times. It obviously paid off for him. Reminds me of the movie "The Shining"
Taibbi... Even the Twitter files were a limited hangout. Screenshots are not source data. Maybe he just went for the money, like the spoiled ass he was and still is.
There's others besides Chomsky that gatekeep about 911.
Julian Assange has mentioned many times that he thinks looking into 911 a waste of time. One time on democracy now, he said instead of that they have been focusing on revealing the banks. Still waiting on that one... 😂
WikiLeaks and Assange's crew were also silent about COVID.
You would think they would know to not give Julian the shot but he did get a stroke, so who knows.
Chris Hedges always avoided questions about 911. I figured he was scared. But COVID he went along with the newspeak and forgot about human rights and my body my choice. He's a 🐈 , that's why he only talks about things he's allowed to.
I see them as useful idiots, which is a name of a show Taibbi was on 😆.
Fuck Taibbi. He's just a controlled opposition pussy. These assholes are ubiquitous.
People have the right to change their minds when additional evidence is presented
Good question! I'll ask him myself if I run in to him.
"Are we ALL to be held to the flame for every mistake we ever made? No one here has ever changed their minds, their beliefs on a subject?" I'm sorry, Susan, but you are missing the point here. No one is accusing Taibbi of having changed his mind about the facts apropos 9/11. As you say, people revise their opinions all the time, and it is the people who refuse to revise them when they learn new facts who alone deserve censure. The accusation against Taibbi is, however, not that he changed his mind and then came to better conclusion -- IF indeed he ever did -- but that he made no RATIONAL ARGUMENT, utilizing STRONG FACTUAL EVIDENCE and SOUND LOGICAL INFERENCES to attack what he, already at the start of the piece, illegitimately derides as 1.] the "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS"-- a self-serving term invented by CIA gaslighters by the way -- who merely hold a different opinion on the matter. Thus, among many other things, Taibbi is also being accused by many of his critics both here and elsewhere, of 2.] supplanting any rational argument for his position with nothing but scurrilous, primarily "AD HOMINEM," attacks, not on the opinions of those he lambasts, but upon them personally. And indeed the invective which he pours upon them can only be considered well "över-the-top"! He begins not by championing free speech and reasoned argument, but by proudly "ignoring" any possible opinion contrary to his own position, i.e. a position, by the way, totally COMPLICIT with governmental fabrications designed to gaslight and hence shut up the public through endless bullying and intimidation, just as he himself seeks to shut up his much smaller audience of his opponents here. 3.] The technical name for such a mistaken discourse ploy in the Western rhetorical tradition is "ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTUM" or "argument from ignorance." 4.] He continues by calling everyone who accepts any other view of 9/11"ïdiots," and instead appealing to "[his] few scientist friends" [evidently VERY few at that!] who inform him that such heterodoxy against the Establishment truth of the BIG PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR US LITTLE PEOPLE is naught but "rank steaming bullshit" and that "none of that stuff [i.e. evidently no solid evidence and rational argument whatsoever] would prove anything," which, I suppose, it wouldn't to a self-maimed purblind dogmatist like Taibbi, but that hardly acquits him of the charge of having utilized here a typical version of the 5.] AD VERECUNDIAM fallacy, i.e. the appeal to the opinion of some false authorities, "his scientist friends," in lieu of providing evidence. He then proceeds to claim that his opponents on how the three buildings came down on 9/11 are also to be condemned because; 6.] "they just analyze the physical evidence pointing to the use of incendiaries, and they do not offer, a “concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why,” as if one could know such further facts without a detailed CRIMINAL investigation, -- which we have still never had! -- seeking to assign particular human responsibility and blame for the attacks rather than merely to establish that the official account of how the THREE WTC buildings came crashing down defies the most basic LAWS OF PHYSICS and must therefore be rejected. This tactic is usually called 7.] "moving the goalposts of truth" or "upping the burden of truth" and indeed IS rejected by all who seek to participate in legitimate argumentation. As V.N. Alexander notes, Taibbi next 8.] "associat[es] [the 9/11 Truth] movement’s investigators, who had Engineering or Physics PhDs, with “Flat Earthers” and “Moon Landing Deniers” (yawn)," which is, of course, simply more particularly distasteful, AD HOMINEM mudslinging. ................ Well there are many other reprehensible compositional and rhetorical flaws in the Taibbi article, but I suspect you get the point by now. In short, the piece is one of the most God-awful pieces of constative prose I have ever had the misfortune to read and analyse. It everywhere displays a mind that remains completely ignorant of the most fundamental pragmatic rules of rational discourse as these have been worked out over literally thousands of years. That such shoddy scribbling should be printed in public journals, or merely taken seriously on an FB page like this one is, to put it charitably, simply DISGRACEFUL!!
The job of the limited hangouts is to keep the black budget technology that was used that day hidden just like it always has been. Nikola Tesla's "death ray" papers were all taken for the FBI by Trump's uncle. He was told to hand over anything militarily useful but he kept crates full of papers and grew rich off them. Tesla based his Wardencliffe Tower on his understanding of the Great Pyramid. Listen to an experimental physicist explain.
https://youtu.be/cTi0bLvfY6E?si=zl71peBK0H56lYrm
From an old Wikipedia article on the Internet Archive and a link to an old article quoting it. "The New York Times [edit] CHRIS HEDGES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRAQ INVASION
Hedges worked for 15 years as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He was based in the Middle East for five years, serving for four of those years as the Middle East bureau chief He covered the war in the former Yugoslavia as the Balkan bureau chief based in Sarajevo. He later covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East from Paris.
Three of Hedges' articles were based upon the stories of Iraqi defectors, who had been furnished to Hedges by the Information Collection Program of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress. [20] The program promoted stories to major media outlets in order to orchestrate U.S. intervention in Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Most significant of his reports in this period was a November 8/2001, front-page story about two former Iraqi military commanders who claimed to have trained foreign mujahedeen how to hijack planes without using guns. [21] Hedges quoted a man whom he believed to be an Iraqi general: "These Islamic radicals... came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco. We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States". The two defectors also asserted there was a secret compound in Salman Pak facility where a German scientist was producing biological weapons. [22]
George Soros According to Mother Jones: "The impact of the article... was immediate: Op-eds ran in major papers, and the story was taken to a wider audience through cable-TV talk shows. Wherr-Condoleezza Rice, then George W. Bush's national security adviser, was asked about the report at a press briefing, she said, 'I think it surprises no one that Saddam Hussein is engaged in all kinds of activities that are destabilizing." As late as 2006, conservative magazines including The Weekly Standard and National Review.continued to use this article to justify the invasion of Iraq. 23]
It later was revealed that the story which Hedges reported was "an elaborate scam". The defector whom Hedges quoted, who had identified himself as Lt. General Jamal al-Ghurairy, was a former sergeant. The real Ghurairy had never left Iraq. Hedges said that he had taken on reporting this account at the request of Lowell Bergman of Frontline, who wanted the defectors for his show but could not go to Beirut for the interview. The trip had been organized by Ahmed Chalabi, whom Hedges considered to be unreliable. Hedges said he had done the piece as a favor to Bergman, explaining, "There has to be a level of trust between reporters. We cover each other's sources when it's a good story because otherwise everyone would get hold of it." Hedges had relied on the U.S. embassy in Turkey for further contrmation of the man's identity. [23]
Hedges wrote two more articles that year that were informed by Chalabi-coached defectors. The second one, claiming that Iraq still held 80 Kuwaitis captured in the 1991 Gulf War in a secret underground prison, was also found to be baseless [24]"
https://peoplepill.com/i/chris-hedges/
I am reminded of Max Blumenthal who was used in a similar way (over Syrian) when he began his journalism career. But Blumenthal figured out that he was being used to spread propaganda and started doing honest reporting. Hedges did not figure this out and has made himself quite irrelevant now.
"Hedges did not figure this out and has made himself quite irrelevant now." That seems a bit harsh to me. No journalist worth their salt hasn't at times been duped by sources with hidden ulterior motives. It may well be that Hedges should have caught on to the prevarications sooner and repudiated his initial reports based on them. But I, for one, wouldn't think that this invalidates or renders "irrelevant" everything that Hedges reports today. He is still one of the more brilliant journalists the US has produced in recent years and he covers so many important stories, sometimes all at once, that I wouldn't censure him for getting a story wrong once and awhile. Unlike many other "would-be" journalists, Hedges intentions were never to deceive his readers in the manner that they often do.
Did he ever retract and apologise for it? No, all sorts of limited hangouts, including Assange, have tried to get us to ignore 9/11. Hedges won't go back.
Right after i read David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbor in 04, I contacted him offering to help. First I suggested mailing his book to various thought leaders. I said I'd start with Noam Chomsky. "Don't bother," said David. Noam Chomsky's best friend, Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton, sent Chomsky the manuscript, telling him it was the most important book ever written about American politics. Chomsky refused to read it. I wrote to Chomsky anyway. He said he considered the hypothesis so implausible he didn't even want to entertain it. I wrote back to ask him if on Sept 10 someone told him that 19 Arabs who couldn't even fly a Cessna would outsmart the most heavily guarded airspace in the world and expertly pilot hijacked jets exactly into their target, he might consider that implausible too. Thus pointing out that implausible does not mean impossible. Our dialogue did not go well. Chomsky didn't like being called irrational. He said there were no credible professional engineers coming forward to support the claim of controlled demolition, which was false. In this correspondence, which lasted a couple weeks, he also professed his support for the Warren Commission. He thought the republicans would not risk doing 9/11 because that would be the end of their party. So finally I understood the concept of the left gatekeeper. I never bothered with Taibbi, who never seemed that bright to me, and as you said, a Hunter Thompson wanna be. Hunter was a friend of mine throughout the 1980s till the mid 90s, when he almost stabbed me in the eye with a nine inch hunting knife dripping with cocaine. It just got too weird hanging out with him. Hunter did express his doubt in the official story, which might have been the reason he killed himself, or was murdered.
It was a unaparty venture due to the Skull and Bones involvement. They believe they're modern day Templars. John Kerry is a Bonesman alongside the two George Bushes. The "WMD" in Iraq was ancient, that's why ISIS was created.
[Chomsky] "considered the hypothesis so implausible he didn't even want to entertain it." I find that Establishment figures, even those fairly squarely on the left, are only very seldom willing to push the envelope when it comes to championing heterodox accounts of events. I suppose it is because they are worried about losing credibility and their reputation, in Chomsky's case, of being "the world's leading intellectual" should they go out on a limb and challenge, especially before many others have done so, the "accepted wisdom" of the intelligentsia. Thus whether it is his intention or not, Chomsky, much like Julian Assange and many others who ought to know much better about the facts of 9/11, does objectively serve just the "gatekeeping" role you say he does. His claim that; "there [are] no credible professional engineers coming forward to support the claim of controlled demolition" is especially shocking, not to mention regrettable, when one considers that the number of European professional architects and engineers now demanding a new investigation of the controlled demolition hypothesis is up around 4,000! At some point, long before this, Chomsky and the others need to be shown up for being not merely accidentally, but actually "Willfully Ignorant"!
Jimmy Dore was denigrating 9/11 Truth Activists until about 2 - 2-1/2 years ago. He finally saw some light after reading the WTC7 report from the University of Alaska Fairbanks… I heard him make one more anti-truth comment after that… but then he finally came out.
I think it’s really hard to beat back cognitive dissonance, years or decades for some people, some or most maybe never…
Taibbi graduated from Bard College, where I did… I’m hoping to see him at a Bard event some day and have a talk with him about this.
I know that knowing 9/11 was a scam helped me see through what was going on. I was seeing some of the same techniques to squash gene therapy dissenters as I saw on truth activists. Physics and architecture are my background, so the C-19 Plandemic was out of my wheelhouse. (Thank you V.N.A. for advising me early on… so glad I didn’t let the fear trick me into getting the poisonous jab)!!
I will say, that I’ve done a lot of reading on biology/medicine/virology/pathology…. While I’m by no means close to the level of an actual doctor. But it’s showed me how doctors have been taught to rely almost exclusively on Big Pharma treatments for everything. It’s also taught me to ask my doctor questions and how to research what questions to ask.
Like Taibbi, I think, is a journalist to make society a better place, I think most doctors are in medicine because they honestly want to help people but they are so indoctrinated into a corrupted system, it’s difficult to see the light through the canopy of corruption.
9/11 was to Jimmy Dore what Agency Corporate Capture was to Dr. John Campbell. I remember watching JC and almost screaming “Can’t you see what’s going on?!!!” as he would read science reports. He finally caught on!
Perhaps Taibbi understands the power of $$ so believes monkey business in other systems, academia, MIC, health care delivery system, etc can be ignored as long as economic mistakes are avoided. However it is the Truth of economics, the basic necessity of economic justice that Taibbi cannot locate in the collective west that prevents him from sticking with a moral imperative. He knows we are lost so far and he knows he has no legacy for the children. IMHO it’s not too late to overturn the money lenders tables and find out exactly how Hamilton was able to put the colonies on the road to economic stability even prosperity. Xi has pulled millions out of poverty proving he retains the mandate from heaven to lead simply by applying Hamiltonian principles of credit economics. Nancy Pelosi and other politicians fearing big money should fear Truth as their ill gotten gains profit them nothing!
Yes back then on Don Hazen's Alternet I was having a battle with Joshua Holland over the science of 9/11 and I was winning the argument and gaining popular support. Suddenly Matt Taibbi piled on and just started flinging ad hominems as fast as he could not even trying to make an argument. For my part, I just kept referencing the science, physics and chemistry, of 9/11 and I again was winning the argument and gaining popular support, and Matt was coming away with mud on his face. Then Don Hazen himself stepped in and closed the comments. After that I stopped reading Alternet.
I would love to hear Matt Taibbi come clean about who put him up to slinging mud on anyone that questioned the official story. of 9/11. In my opinion Matt was involved in career building at any cost during those times. It obviously paid off for him. Reminds me of the movie "The Shining"
But a narrative might work on people like Taibbi better than argument. That's my hope, anyway.
How would that work if he is only engaged in personal attacks designs to impugn the integrity of the person raising the criticism?
Taibbi... Even the Twitter files were a limited hangout. Screenshots are not source data. Maybe he just went for the money, like the spoiled ass he was and still is.
There's others besides Chomsky that gatekeep about 911.
Julian Assange has mentioned many times that he thinks looking into 911 a waste of time. One time on democracy now, he said instead of that they have been focusing on revealing the banks. Still waiting on that one... 😂
WikiLeaks and Assange's crew were also silent about COVID.
You would think they would know to not give Julian the shot but he did get a stroke, so who knows.
Chris Hedges always avoided questions about 911. I figured he was scared. But COVID he went along with the newspeak and forgot about human rights and my body my choice. He's a 🐈 , that's why he only talks about things he's allowed to.
I see them as useful idiots, which is a name of a show Taibbi was on 😆.
Excellent. I hope he reads this.