Scathing - but funny - rebuke of the 9/11 Truth movement (Rolling Stone writer).

[Kingshakabobo]

The dialog between Bush, Cheney and Rummy: :rofl:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted September 26, 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/42181/


snip:

A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of fuck-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

" You're just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
snip:

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?



:rofl:

[truth01]

1. Matt Taibbi got torn apart in the comments...

179 Comments and it did not go well for Matt and his weak ideas and excuses.

Read the comments here:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/42181

[MervinFerd]

2. O' I think Taibbi came out OK.

Truthers can't do much else, but they can damn sure post on the internet.

[Kingshakabobo]

5. He came out just fine. ......personal attacks. n/t

[vatgrown]

18. Every road has it's turning, and every dog has it's day.

[William Seger]

9. "Torn apart" ... not

Taibbi scored a direct hit on how absurd the premise is behind the dominant conspiracy theories: Even if we assume someone wanted to plan a "false flag" operation, why would they do something as idiotic as this? Of course CTers don't "get it," or they wouldn't be CTers. The ranting and epithets in the replies did nothing to make those premises even the slightest bit less absurd. All they did was to clearly show why Taibbi has lost patience with the conspiracy nuts.

[CJCRANE]

59. They got everything they wanted -

MSM & opposition capitulation, clamp down on civil liberties, unlimited surveillance powers and two wars.

Seems like their false flag operation was pretty successful and not idiotic at all.

[MervinFerd]

3. A wonderful sendup. It goes for the "meta-argument", not details.

The fundamental problem with the 911 theories is not that the evidence fails, but that the theories are so ridiculous and incoherent that --no possible evidence-- could validate them. The effective and necessary counter-arguments are ridicule and derision. Taibbi does a very good job of this.

[Kingshakabobo]

4. I agree.

"The effective and necessary counter-arguments are ridicule and derision"

I try to avoid it but they make it so damn easy.

[MervinFerd]

6. I try to avoid -personal- ridicule, but often fail.

It's often hard to say "the theory is so idiotic that only a fool would listen to it" without calling the poster a fool.

But, it's definitely necessary to go after the global illogic of the arguments rather than getting bogged down in tedious analysis of supposed 'anomalies'.

[MervinFerd]

7. kick.

[Kingshakabobo]

8. True. For me, it's the sarcasm that I should probably try to avoid.. n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

10. Right. And you ignore the fundamental truth that spawns CTs

The cottage industry that's sprung up to debunk the self-debunking idiocy (wait, you mean that the Twin Towers were not attacked by space beams??? Holy shit!) functions as a denial mechanism. Here is what Taibbi, Mervin Fern, Kingshakabobo (nice Jerry picture, though), Alex Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild and the rest are in denial about:

1. There is no way to tell precisely what the bottom is in a terror attack that involved networks who have been infiltrated, counterinfiltrated, have double and triple agents like Ali Mohamed working with them, have been used by US intelligence for its own purposes, have histories of collaboration with US forces and act as proxies for US interests. In short, NO ONE ON THE OUTSIDE CAN SAY WHERE THE BOTTOM IS. There may well be no principled distinction between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.

Truthers, the responsible ones, know this and keep this insight forward in their comments. Deniers are, well, in denial. There is no disputing what I've written. Cockburn admits it. It can't plausibly be denied that US intelligence is an absolute scourge on humanity, an ongoing scandal of collaboration with 'our' 'enemies.'

To rant about the idiocy of bluescreen technology and pods is so beside the point as to be laughable. It's psychologically interesting, but enough is enough. Learn to deal with better. Or just keeping ignoring it as you wish.

[Kingshakabobo]

11. I can agree with some of this....

If there is a conspiracy on the part of our government, it' probably a conspiracy after the fact to cover up "business/intelligence interests" and incompetence etc.

May I ask?

Where do you stand on planes? and Who do you think was flying them?

[William Seger]

12. You presume FAR too much

... to simply presume, without evidence, that any of the people on your list deny what you say they do. Debunking the idiotic conspiracy theories does not imply that at all. Do "truthers" really want the truth or do they not? If what you claim were true about what Taibbi and others deny, I would expect those people to say something to that effect from time to time. Actually, I don't believe I've heard anyone deny that US intelligence has a sinister side devoted to protecting US interests. Suspicions about what, if anything, that has to do with 9/11 still needs to be verified with some sort of evidence, or it doesn't lead to anything. Just because we don't know the "truth" about that doesn't give us the right to manufacture one.

> Truthers, the responsible ones, know this and keep this insight forward in their comments.

I don't know, perhaps that's true; hard to say, since that sort of "truther" seems to be vastly outnumbered by the irresponsible ones.

[Kingshakabobo]

13. That's what bugs me about most of the "truthers" on these threads...

...When convenient, they like to group themselves in with the "more responsible."

[Bryan Sacks]

14. Nice avoidance of the issue.

I presume nothing I have not witnessed on this forum. But thanks for the indication that a nerve has been struck.

[Kingshakabobo]

15. I'm not sure what you mean.

I was trying to agree with at least PART of what you said.

[Bryan Sacks]

16. I'm sorry, Kingshakabobo I wasn't referring to you - I meant Seger

apologies.

[William Seger]

19. Well, I guess you missed me... twice.

Here's what you said:

> Here is what Taibbi, Mervin Fern, Kingshakabobo (nice Jerry picture, though), Alex Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild and the rest are in denial about:

1. There is no way to tell precisely what the bottom is in a terror attack that involved networks who have been infiltrated, counterinfiltrated, have double and triple agents like Ali Mohamed working with them, have been used by US intelligence for its own purposes, have histories of collaboration with US forces and act as proxies for US interests. In short, NO ONE ON THE OUTSIDE CAN SAY WHERE THE BOTTOM IS. There may well be no principled distinction between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.


Since I've never seen any such denials, I suggested that you were presuming far too much. But nonetheless you now claiming:

> I presume nothing I have not witnessed on this forum.

If that's true, one or two references would make your case a hell of a lot better than boasting about having "struck a nerve." You accuse me of "avoidance of the issue," when in fact I directly confronted your issue by saying your "denial" claim was both bogus and irrelevant to the thread. On the other hand, you did avoid my point that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Taibbi or myself or anyone else refuting the ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I think I'll make a presumption, myself: I presume you're simply upset that your own pet conspiracy theory doesn't get the attention, pro or con, that you think it deserves. So sorry.

[Bryan Sacks]

20. You avoid the consequences of the statement. It's proof enough.

I have no pet conspiracy therories, my friend. And I'm not surprised you aren't against presumption in principle, just when it's directed at you.

[William Seger]

24. Excuse me, but what are the "consequences" ...

... of unsubstantiated speculation?

You have an hypothesis about a possible CIA/ISS/al Qaeda connection that I've never seen anyone deny as being at least somewhat plausible (a characteristic most other 9/11 conspiracy theories totally lack), and you apparently can't show me any evidence of anyone denying it, yet you claim they do. But the problem is: I've never seen anyone substantiate this speculation, either, have they? I don't doubt that if some actual evidence should turn up -- something beyond pure innuendo -- then it might become a much hotter topic. Until that happens, there's really not anything more to be said about it, one way or the other, so I really don't see where you're justified in drawing inferences from the fact that the people on your list don't mention it every time they debunk or ridicule one of the absurd theories.

That's what really baffles me: You threw up this hollow "denial" accusation as if it were a valid criticism of Taibbi's ridiculing of some of the absurd stuff. I would think that people who would like the plausible theories investigated should applaud clearing the garbage out of the way. But you seem to take a simplistic "us" versus "them" attitude, which makes me wonder what "truth" means to you.

> I have no pet conspiracy therories...

Really? Well excuse me, but I was presuming that from your very statement here: "Truthers, the responsible ones, know this and keep this insight forward in their comments."

On the other hand, you seem to draw not just presumption but (according to your post title) "proof" from an absence of evidence. Didn't I read here somewhere that you teach a logic class?

[Bryan Sacks]

43. William, there's nothing unsubstantiated whatsoever about my claim

You wrote: "You have an hypothesis about a possible CIA/ISS/al Qaeda connection that I've never seen anyone deny as being at least somewhat plausible (a characteristic most other 9/11 conspiracy theories totally lack), and you apparently can't show me any evidence of anyone denying it, yet you claim they do. But the problem is: I've never seen anyone substantiate this speculation, either, have they?"

What I claimed people deny are the CONSEQUENCES of the fact that the good guys and bad guys meld at the level of deep politics. You still are denying them, by the way, but now the denail takes the form of doubting the fact of the medling. It's very tiring, what you do. Must be similar to the way some of you feel when you deal with the no-planers.

Here's one recent place, among many, you might begin for corroboration of CIA ties with its supposed enemies. Meet Ali Mohamed:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070106133625637

I suppose you also do not know about the case of Saeed Shiekh. Paul Thompson wrote a very informative piece about the man, whose known ties to ISI and Al-Qaeda are not in dispute. His possible ties to CIA and British Intelligence are of course less demonstrable, as these things will be, but there is no serious doubt that he was the paymaster for the 9/11 attacks, and that he sent funds at the behest of ISI Director Mahmud Ahmed. Ahmed was vsiting Washington the week of September 11 and was summarily removed from his directorship four weeks after 9/11, when a story that's since been confirmed by the FBI broke that he in fact was connected to the plot.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed

These are only two accounts, mind you. I'm not going to go through the obvious structural argument that follows from the widely admitted claims that ISI has been a proxy for US activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and also that ISI maintains close ties with Al-Qaeda. Read Nafeez Ahmed's "The War on Truth" if you are interested.

[MervinFerd]

56. You offer no substantiation at all. "Deep Politics" is NOT substantiation.

References to Truther websites are not substantiation.

Substantiation is -evidence-. Testimony from named witnesses, documents, reports in credible publications.

Do you have those?

[Bryan Sacks]

58. Get back to me after you've read "The War on Truth" n/t

[greyl]

31. May we speak frankly about being a teacher? nt

[MervinFerd]

17. I am most certainly -not- "in denial".

Sorry, but this is a standard Truther self-aggrandizing conceit. -You- are -so- damn smart that -you- understand the evil that lesser men dare not speak.

Bullshit.

<<There is no way to tell precisely what the bottom is in a terror attack that involved networks who have been infiltrated, counterinfiltrated, have double and triple agents like Ali Mohamed working with them, have been used by US intelligence for its own purposes, have histories of collaboration with US forces and act as proxies for US interests. In short, NO ONE ON THE OUTSIDE CAN SAY WHERE THE BOTTOM IS.>>

Yes. If "NO ONE ON THE OUTSIDE CAN SAY WHERE THE BOTTOM IS", what is the probability that some hobbyist scouring secondary or tertiary internet sources is going to prove any damn thing?

And, in what way has the Truther Movement--the responsible part, if there is one-- contributed to proving -anything- about "WHERE THE BOTTOM IS"? What actual evidence has been produced? What insight into the world?

Neglecting the clinically insane, the only "evidence" is standard CT bullshit--infinite meaningless lists of "anomalies" and coincidences, incompetent engineering analysis ridiculed by the people who actually understand the subject, repeated assertion of long-discredited "facts".

Just where -are- these, "Truthers, the responsible ones."?

[Bryan Sacks]

21. What a staggeringly idiotic post

Are you so incredibly ignorant that you cannot see where the burden of proof lies? What on earth do I or anyone else have to prove???

Enjoy your denial.

[MervinFerd]

22. Well, what a staggeringly idiotic response to my post.

Would you care to actually --answer-- or --refute-- the points I made?

Or is name-calling the limit of your intellectual abilities?

[wildbilln864]

23. Leave....

that fiftyfirst state Merv! The truth will set you free! :hi:

[Bryan Sacks]

25. Like I'm the one avoiding. n/t

[MervinFerd]

26. Is --either one-- of you geniuses capable of rational discourse?

You are calling me names, not dealing with the issues I raised.

Doesn't speak well for your thesis.

[Bryan Sacks]

28. In the interest of civility, I will start again.

Raise your thesis again, Merv. I will respond. I will let my response, and the effort i go to to give your thesis its best inning speak for itself.

Then I will re-raise mine, and you can respond. I would ask you do the same.

[MervinFerd]

34. OK, here are simple questions:

1. If "NO ONE ON THE OUTSIDE CAN SAY WHERE THE BOTTOM IS", what is the probability that some hobbyist scouring secondary or tertiary internet sources is going to prove any damn thing?

2.in what way has the Truther Movement--the responsible part-- contributed to proving -anything- about "WHERE THE BOTTOM IS"? What actual evidence has been produced? What insight into the world?

3. Just where -are- these, "Truthers, the responsible ones."?

[MervinFerd]

37. No answers to my simple questions. More ED?

And, no refutation of the Rolling Stone article either.

[MervinFerd]

41. -Still- no answers to my simple questions. When, O' when?

[Bryan Sacks]

42. Answers

1. Pointing out that no one can say where the bottom is MAKES THE OBVIOUS POINT that the status quo is unacceptable. The burden of proof unequivocally lies with the perpetrators of covert actions to demonstrate their value. They cannot, and will not. They claim this to be part and parcel of cover operations, that they cannot be put into full view. It is not necessary, nor possible, for anyone to forward a complete theory of individual events when the full documentation of those events remains beyond view, either because of classification proccedures or because it has been destroyed. Neither is acceptable. Full transparency is the only long-term solution. Any actions that cannot stand the light of day must be discontinued, case closed.

2. Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson and several others have ably demonstrated that US intelligence assets include those who US intelligence officially counts as its enemies. The evidence is legion, and widely available. Start with Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" and then give Ahmed's "The War on Freedom" a read.

3. See 2

[Bryan Sacks]

46. ...followed by silence n/t

[MervinFerd]

48. Answers, but not to the questions I asked.

1. OK, the status quo is unacceptable. In what way does that "prove" that "some hobbyist scouring secondary or tertiary internet sources is going to prove any damn thing"? About stuff that happened under the current and old status quo.

2. "US intelligence assets include those who US intelligence officially counts as its enemies". Yes, this is well known and undisputed. Espionage is a dirty game. In what way is this evidence of "Controlled Demolition"?

3. "Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson". These are your responsible Truthers?


For reference, here are three questions.
1. If "NO ONE ON THE OUTSIDE CAN SAY WHERE THE BOTTOM IS", what is the probability that some hobbyist scouring secondary or tertiary internet sources is going to prove any damn thing?

2.in what way has the Truther Movement--the responsible part-- contributed to proving -anything- about "WHERE THE BOTTOM IS"? What actual evidence has been produced? What insight into the world?

3. Just where -are- these, "Truthers, the responsible ones."?

[Bryan Sacks]

49. Obfuscation the last refuge of the scoundrel in this forum

Controlled Demolition? I should have known. Not interested at ALL in actual discussion. I don't care a thing for controlled demolotion and have said nothing defending or criticizing it in this thread.

You are deceitful, but for the others viewing this I'll just reiterate: it is never incumbent, nor should it be incumbent, on ordinary citizens to "prove" anything once it has been ESTABLISHED (as you acknowledge) that it is impossible to know where the bottom is in covert ops/espionage. You apparently have a distorted understanding o burden of proof, to go along with your warped understanding of appropriate conduct for officials in a constitutional democracy.

The three writers I mentioned above have certainly contributed to our understanding of the anatomy of deep politics and the unjustifiable, illegal practices that make up its texture. I could name several others, 'truthers' and not.

But how would you know? There's no evidence you've read anything outside this forum (whioch would explain your perosanilty characteristics, come to think of it). Your attempt to conflate the corruption at the core of the national security state with videos on the internet that raise theories about controlled demolition is tired and old. As if one depended on the other!

You did score a victory here, though. Because you wasted a few minutes of my time and the time of others who offer challenges you cannot answer - your obvious goal in this thread and others

[MervinFerd]

52. "perosanility characteristics"?? WTF? Deceitful?

Perosanility? I know a lot of words, but not that one.

In what way am I deceitful? The great majority of 911 theories are as I described--Controlled Demolition, No Planes and Mini-Nukes. If you don't care for these theories, that in your favor.

As to "Deep Politics", the English translation for this, as far as I can tell is "Bullshit".

But, if that is not so please explain the meaning of "Deep Politics" in simple, straightforward English prose.

And please do not use the word "perosanility". It gives me a headache.

[MervinFerd]

53. "Perosanility characteristics"??

[MervinFerd]

57. Still wondering about "perosanility". Is that from "Deep Politics"?

[Taxloss]

27. Interesting pattern emerging here.

Taibbi:

'I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of fuck-you mail that I actually got. ... "You're just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third ...'

Marina Hyde, The Guardian, 1.4.06:

'I am distressed to the point of requiring constant medication by a week that began last Saturday on these pages, in a column addressing the actor Charlie Sheen's espousal of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and has ended mired in hundreds of furious emails ... Rebuke instead comes from a new army of web readers. "You stupid whore," reasons one. "Do you believe everything the president tells you?" ... enticing subject headers (such) as "you naive bitch".'

Keep spreading the word, truthseekers! The media will pay attention to you soon!

[Bryan Sacks]

29. Caught the tail end of Taibbi on NPR this morning

He was talking about something other than 9/11 (the divisiveness of talk radio and shows like O'Reilly, I believe).

He sounds like a smart guy, but that's never been the issue. He is part of an industry whose function is primarily entertainment. He is not a serious thinker, nor does he aspire to be, apparently. Cultural commentary of the pundit variety can only go so far in terms of seriousness.

Taibbi has obviously ingested the domninant cultural assumptions that frame mainstream discourse, and has deployed his considerable intelligence to make money writing clever things within the structure of that framework. I give him credit for that. It's not like anyone can do it as well as he can (I certainly can't). But that doesn't mean what he writes is important. That's the point. Or, more closely, it CANNOT BE important. He has not read the works which make up the basis for speculation along the lines of deep politics. HEven if he had, it's not clear he has any room to seriously address important issues within the confines of his Rolling Stone column. Ultimately, what he writes will be of little consequence, in large part because the structural features of the discusive space he writes in make it so. The discursive space he occupies makes it virtually impossible to do serious work from within it. But he made that choice, no one else.

[Amused Musings]

32. Well,

That was an unusually verbose way of saying that because he is writing something entertaining and funny at the expense of the conspiracist, he is not worth considering.

The humor in this piece is used to show the absurdity and absolute nonsense of the "Truth" movement. If one puts all the pieces together, it appears bereft of any reality. But I get the feeling from your post a certain snobbery that you maintain over such "mainstream discourse" periodicals that you must of not have noticed that. Does a serious thinker entertain thoughts that this administration is that competent? Have you seen them in action? Thats the point, the 9/11 conspiracist is not being serious. If he were serious, why do they even live in this country. If I thought there was credible proof that, as horrible as those guys in the White House are, they would do 9/11 and get away with it, I would be on the first steam boat to Finland. WHy would you stay in thi country if you seriously entertained those thoughts? The answer is obvious: no, you would not.

[MervinFerd]

33. There's also the question why you would publish those thoughts, if..

you really believed all this 'stuff'.

I mean, really, The Gov't is routinely manufacturing reality and killing thousands and Prof. Jones, who has the goods on them, gets early retirement?

[Bryan Sacks]

36. Jones has the goods on no one, even if CD were true

Even if one could prove demolition, it's a much more difficult thing to prove who did it, and how, when there's essentially no fucking crime scene left to examine. Carting that steel away could have been done for a number of reasons (all of them unjustifiable, by the way), but whatever reason it was carted away, it made close inspection of the scene afterward an impossibility, even if there had been political will to do so.

So long as your mind is actually open, I don't see the need for the bitterness that too often characterizes these threads. It is worth getting hopping mad about things I think (I THINK) you would agree with:

1. There was a criminally inadequate investigation into 9/11;

2. The fact that the federal government was in control of (by that i mean having the power to set the structure of, thwart in key ways, greatly influence the scope and direction of, and thereby greatly effect the conduct of) an investigation to which it was an obvious subject is also criminally unjustified.

Call me idealistic, but that's enough. I want to see the prescriptive atmosphere of gov't practice change, and it ain't easy. I'm very realistic about the difficulty of that prospect.

[MervinFerd]

38. We're agreed the 911 Commission was late and lax.

We ARE NOT agreed that a full and vigorous criminal investigation would have included study of idiotic and unfounded claims such as CD, or Faked Cell Phone Calls, or Disappearing Jetliners.

A full explication of what the various agencies knew and did and what the admin knew and did not do and of the various activities of the intelligence agencies related to Bin Laden with firings of numerous officials would have been just fine.

[Bryan Sacks]

35. I don't think it's snobbery (though I'm capable of that)

As a a rule those who are not serious, like Taibbi, seize either on the most idiotic of the conspiracy theories or on the excesses of the speculative theories rather than attending to what matters: that everyone knows, but cannot bring themselves to deal with the fact that US intelligence does not work for the interests of citizens, and is perfectly capable of working against the interest of citizens - all without ever being called on it due to its highly classified/covert nature. That is the point, in my view, that deserves serious attention.

The administration likely had little/nothing to do (in terms of planning) with any inside job (notification is a different matter). Many of the debunkers in this forum only know 9/11 skepticism from this forum, and do no outside reading, and so they think the speculative theories make up the essence of 9/11 skepticism.

Its essence, in oversimplified paraphrase, is in the first paragraph of this. I take that to be the elephant in the room. I personally don't give a shit about no-plane theories, controlled demolitions or other theories of how this may have happened in particular. There is much evidence that US intelligence knew something like this was going to happen, was positioned to do something if it wanted to to stop it, and likely let it happen/helped it happen for political reasons. If a commentator does not deal with this, and instead treats 9/11 skepticism like a freak show at the circus, that commentator is avoiding its central thesis and focusing instead on lesser points that DO NOT affect the soundness of the central thesis.

Your conclusions do not follow from that reality, however. Why is leaving the country a necessary consequence of that? Terrorism, whether it comes from domestic or foreign sources, is an infinitesimal threat to the averge US citizen, on par with getting struck by lighning in terms of likelihood. Raw percentages make it very unlikely that you will be the target of terrorism. One out of every 100,000 US citizens died September 11, 2001. Then, in the next five years, basically no one died of terrorism on US soil. So not a large threat, statistically.

I was not awakened to the possibility of false flag attacks on September 11, so it did not change my worldview. It wasn't as if i believed US intelligence to be right and good prior to that. there was plenty of reason to leave the country before then, too, if you saw fit!

Last thing for now: the 'verbosity' wasn't exactly unintentional. The point is that it's not that funny/entertaining things themselves aren't worth considering; it's that certain types of discourse are out of place in certain settings. You rightly noted how out of place my language appeared here (it's a message board, after all). In part by writing that way, I was trying to make a similar point (not effectively, it appears) about how out of place truly serious political analysis would be in Rolling Stone (analysis that goes beyond the good, but ultimately mild, work of people like William Greider).

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. I've been suggesting the same for a while

Have never got a substantive answer.

[MervinFerd]

30. That's right! Massive hate mail campaigns are -so- convincing.

The media will be convinced any day now.

[MervinFerd]

39. No refutation to this one either.

Refuting this -should- be easy---if it is false.

Just provide a 'theory of the crime' that --would not-- produce a giggle-fit in a 5th grader.

[Kingshakabobo]

40. Giggle fit is right. nt

[Downtown Hound]

44. The author's example is shallow and quite frankly, dumb.

Most of the conspiracy theories regarding 9-11 center around a neo-conservative plot to gather enough public support to conquer the Middle East region from Afghanistan through Syria, and installing a pipeline through this region to control all of that precious, untapped oil from those countries. It is not just about Iraq and never was. Making Osama the bogeyman would have been much more effective in accomplishing this goal than Saddam, because Osama has a broad network of followers that extend through the entire Middle East, not just one country.

If people want to look at the physical evidence regarding 9-11 and come to the conclusion that our government is telling the truth about what happened, then that's one thing. I personally disagree with that conclusion, but at least they are looking at the facts and the evidence available and attempting to draw conclusions through an investigative process. But the above example is a prime example of poor critical thinking and hastily arrived conclusions without any real analysis. Intellectual laziness like this is one of the main reasons conspiracy theories like these refuse to die. It offers a half-assed hypothesis and then basically declares itself the winner of the argument without any real questioning or getting to the bottom of the truth.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Good post. A salient critique.

[MervinFerd]

47. "Most of the Conspiracy thoeories..."? Could you please name just one?

"Most of the Conspiracies" that I can find (look about the present site) fit Taibbi's description to the proverbial "t".

So, just give us -your- favorite theory that is -not- idiotically ridiculous and would not send a Fifth Grader into uncontrollable laughter.

That should be easy. Right?

[Downtown Hound]

50. Ah, were you not reading?

I did name one, it's in the first paragraph of the post.

[MervinFerd]

51. Pipeline through Afghanistan? Hadn't heard that one since....

--O'-- the time it bacame apparent that no one has any interest at all in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.

But, see, that's not really a testable theory. It's sort of a hypothetical motive to do -something- nasty. Never says what or how. Or provides any actual evidence.

In any case, you will look long and hard through current Truther websites and CDs and Board Posts to find any mention of such things. The NOW thing is controlled demolition and Pentagon missiles and disappearing airliners. Taibbi's characterization of current Truther "thinking" gets it just right.

Sorry.

Still no rebuttal.

[MervinFerd]

54. Maybe it was a camel trail through Afghanistan.

[Laurier]

60. Good stuff.

I hadn't seen it before.