Matt Taibbi - the Sarah Palin of "Journalism"

Posted by: gary_7vn on Oct 6, 2008 2:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Taibbi is there to appeal to the shitheads out there who are either incapable of, or never learned how, to formulate or understand a rational argument. Just as Palin is there to appeal to millions of Americans who mispronounce the names of countries they are destroying or are about to destroy (there is no eye in Iraq or Iran) with her faux folksiness and appeals to fear, bigotry and stupidity.

There is no rational defense of the official story, so instead we have junkyard dogs like him barking and snarling in defense of the indefensible.

"Yeah, I read it, Matt sure tore that asshole traitor egghead a new asshole!"

The comments clearly indicate that Griffin came out on top. I mean, once you get through one or two asinine comments, the majority of the highly rated comments which define the contours of the discussion are pro-Truth.

Yes David Ray Griffin's answers were comprehensive and he did not give Matt Taibbi any free passes.

David Ray Griffin provided an overwhelming weight of evidence. Matt Taibbi was also not given any undefended ground to stand on.

I score the debate 99.99 for DRG and -20 for Matt Taibbi.

http://www.davidraygriffin.com

voice morphing really is a stretch. i don't believe the truth movement should defend this - moreover, i would think that for the average person, it's on par with fashioning a hat out of aluminum oil.

we should back off this piece of speculation because it cannot be proven one way or another without the perpetrators confessing to it, which is not going to happen.

"When discussing the Pentagon eyewitnesses that Tabbi claimed numbered in the "thousands", DRG simply pointed out 1. that even Popular Mechanics didn't inflate the numbers that high, they claimed only hundreds."

Willyoman. For every "100 documented accounts" how many undocumented accounts are there? Well, the answer is obviously, a lot more. And David Ray Griffin should understand this too. DRG seems to pretend that only recorded accounts "count" when in fact there were many more witnesses who saw what happened. This is significant because it means a very high chance of someone speaking out if they witnessed something other than what the other 100 or so witnesses claimed happened.

"However, perhaps you didn't read DRG's complete interview."

Yes, I did.

"So, Arabesque, the part of the interview you chose to quote does make those kinds of evidence seem weak; however had you continued to read on, you would find that DRG did in fact address key parts of the official story with strong evidence on both topics."

I'm not sure I understand how this in any way validates a serious proposal of "voice morphing". In a DEBATE of all places. DRG is NOT dumb, so I am bewildered to encounter such claims in a debate situation where they will be predictably ridiculed. And they were. So my point is not that he makes no good points, it is that he discredits his strong arguments by association.

"...and all you Arabesque fans do is point out one little flaw in his 10 page dissection of Taibbi?"

The basic strategy (and even DRG pointed this out in the debate) was for Taibbi to ridicule his weaker points and ignore the rest. So why not give him these openings? Seems like fair criticism to me. If you want to win a debate and impress people, why not talk about things like insider trading, war games, promotions, 30% of family member questions answered out of hundreds and other un-debatable issues? Isn't it worth pointing out that the U.S. military had war game scenarios involving "hijacked" aircraft? Apparently, cell phone "voice morphing" is higher on the list? Of course, you can't seriously say this with a straight face, which makes my criticism all the more valid.

DRG has probably done more 9/11 research than I have (he has written more books than I certainly), but I can easily give you about a list of 50+ things more incriminating than the idea that phone calls were "voice morphed".

As someone who has written several books on 9/11, why is this so difficult to figure out? Focus on the best evidence, ESPECIALLY in a debate situation. This should be a no-brainer. Why isn't it? Is this even necessary to explain to you?

Fortunately, I don't have to explain this to DRG who says:

"I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this... ...No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false."
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspiracy_theologian/5834/
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

The Facts Speak For Themselves. Dr. Griffin could have destroyed Taibbi with information that doesn't involve theory.

I made the point to someone the other day that it is more effective to point out that someone is lying, rather than theorizing about why they are lying.

As Patty Casazza said in 9/11: Press For Truth (not verbatim), "They lied. They all lied. Now we need to find out why they were lying..."

I have a great amount of respect for Dr. Griffin, however, I don't agree with him as often as I used to.

Stand Down... those are theories... I'm not undermining Dr. Griffin. I said I have a lot of respect for him. I just don't agree with him as often as I used to. It is ok to critique someone in a respectful way.

You aren't the one suggesting a link between Griffin and "white supremisisits and Nazis" so, I will give you that much. Yes, it's fair to criticize his use of the 'voce morphing" tchnology, but that wasn't what he got into during the interview. In fact he only mentioned it in passing. As I mentioned above, he focused on Taibbi's misunderstanding of the "official story" and the evidence at hand.

dude

see my response below

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

"And why would you, Gold and Arabesque continue to undermine Griffin?"

What do you mean by "continue"?

______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

Taibbi sounds idiotic and juvenile in his defense of the OCT and his attacks on 9/11 theories, whether they're credible or not.

Griffin made a lot of good points, presented some good evidence and raised some good questions. Why then, does he also choose to promote highly controversial and weak claims like voice morphing and "no 757" at the Pentagon? Someone who looks into and realizes these claims are weak and speculative, if not completely bogus, may assume that the rest of Griffin's evidence and arguments are also bogus, even if they sound eloquent. Some may also be inclined to dismiss all 9/11 questions and skeptics out of hand, others (including policy and decision makers in media and Congress) will be inclined to steer clear of Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement because of his high profile and habit of mixing bad info and sources with good evidence and arguments.

Griffin's quotes about the 123 witness is apparently taken from this article by Jerry Russell which provides no links or evidence to support the following claims, although it does provide links for other claims he makes about the witnesses:
"Possibly the most important subset of witnesses consists of those who provide explicit, realistic and detailed claims that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon after executing a high velocity, low altitude approach. In these statements, I found a high level of disagreement among the eyewitnesses, about the detailed physical description of the actual collision, as well as disagreements with the "official story" of the 757 impact as determined by the ASCE report. Out of 31 witness accounts which were classified as "explicit", I was able to identify substantial errors or contradictions in 21 accounts, or 68%. There would naturally be some discrepancies and variability expected in the witness accounts, and I have no way of judging whether the Pentagon testimony is within acceptable bounds. However, it is natural for skeptics to ask if these witnesses could be so wrong about so many things, and yet be trusted to correctly report the difference between a true aircraft impact, and a "magic show" or overflight.

Operating within the hypothesis that there might have been a conspiracy within the Pentagon and the renovation staff, I created a category of "elite insiders" who were either highly placed military officers, government officials, media officials, or employees of the Pentagon renovation team and security staff. This is admittedly a circularly defined category, since if there is no conspiracy, then these witnesses would be no different than any other witnesses. I found a very high prevalence of elite insider connections among the witnesses who claimed to see the 757 hit the Pentagon, compared to other witnesses whose perceptions were more indeterminate. Out of the 31 explicit witnesses, 13 had what I would consider "deep" insider connections, while 24 of 31 worked for either the Federal Government or the mainstream media. It is possible that the high incidence of insiders among the highly explicit witnesses, is simply a result of the location of the incident."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:aJTUAFI028EJ:www.911-strike.com/Pla...

In his books Griffin quotes Jim Hoffman extensively on controlled demolition at the WTC, but ignores his evidence and arguments that what hit the Pentagon was a 757.
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

See this analysis of the eyewitness accounts by Arabesque:
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony (source links)
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.h...

The Pentagon Honeypot
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-honey-pot.html

Griffin also quotes holocaust deniers like Hufschmid, Rense, Serendipity.li, APFN, Bollyn, etc. as sources.
http://www.oilempire.us/griffin.html

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

said for the longest time that we also shouldn't talk about Building 7. Till that silly NIST report came out.

And didn't you guys also say we shouldn't even talk about controled demo there for awhile?

And now you are insinuating that Griffin is in league with Holocaust Deniers?

What kind of site is this anyway?

And i have already explained that Griffin just mentioned the morphing stuff, but he actually used hard evidence to attack Taibbi's claim that someone called his wife and laid out the entire "Let's Roll" story.

And this "morphing thing" is what you guys chose to talk about here?

Kinda leaves people with the wrong impression of DRG's interview, now doesn't it?

i have been calling people's attention to the evidence of controlled demo and the holes in official WTC explanations since 2005.

I've never said people shouldn't discuss stuff; i have maintained that people should verify claims and evidence, and if they're gonna speculate, be clear with yourself and your audience that's what you're doing.

Misinformation distracts and discredits, and will not help the case for a new investigation, or be useful in a new investigation.

Griffin quotes and references people holocaust deniers/neonazi/white supremacist like the ones i named, who've been exposed for making errors, in addition to endorsing offensive/discredited viewpoints- you think those are OK sources, willyloman?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

...on a site that we have ALL been wanting to see cover 9/11 Truth issues...

...and all you Arabesque fans do is point out one little flaw in his 10 page dissection of Taibbi?

I don't know who you are talking about when you say he quotes discredited white supremisists.... I don't know what you are talking about.

However, that isn't what you are getting at, now is it?

What you are asking me is if I support that kind of rhetoric. What you are doing is attempting to find some reason to get me kicked off this site, aren't you? One more dissenting view point silenced?

I don't know what Holocaust deniers you are talking about and I have NEVER heard Griffin say ANYTHING like that and you shouldn't try to link his good name with people like that.

willy- "I don't know who you are talking about when you say he quotes discredited white supremisists.... I don't know what you are talking about."

loose- "Griffin also quotes holocaust deniers like Hufschmid, Rense, Serendipity.li, APFN, Bollyn, etc. as sources."

Eric Hufschmid
Rense.com
Serendipity.li
apfn.net
Christopher Bollyn

and other weird/offensive sources have been referenced/quoted in all of Griffin's books. Anyone, including you, can verify this by checking the references section in the back of DRG's books, and then google the names and visit these sites to check out the kind of material they promote. Many people are, and many have already; you can be sure anyone with a reputation and career in media/Congress is going to do this before considering Griffin "credible"; how likely are they to conclude that he is, considering some of these sources? In addition to the bogus evidence/arguments he sometimes make, i.e. "no 757" and voice morphing? Regardless of the fact that he sounds intelligent and eloquent?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

you try to discredit David Ray Griffin because this MSM and this Congress might not take him seriously? This Congress that refuses to impeach? This Congress that helped create the 9/11 Commission Report? This Congress that gets paid by the MIC and helped sell the Iraq war? This Congress?

I don't really need to say anything about the MSm except that, after all this time, we get a shot on AlterNet, and Griffin does a great job, and the ONLY ones ridiculing him... are you three...

...now what does that mean? AlterNet is "media" and they seem to be taking him very seriously.

Now, when I write I quote all kinds of people; Rove, Cheney, Zelikow, Rockefeller... and of course I have to provide links to those quotes as proof.

Now does that mean I am in league with them? Does that mean my work supports their efforts? Hardly.

But that would give someone the oportunity to come along and use that as a dishonest way to try to discredit my work.

Instead of talking about a bibliography page, why don't you provide links to the places where Prof. Griffin supports the efforts of these sites and these people like you are implying?

Again, you might not think that there is sufficiant evidence to support the events at the pentagon that day, but I and MANY others do.

Of course we all know what your opinion was on talking about Building 7, before the NIST report came out... we remember that that too wasn't "our strongest evidence". And we see how long that lasted and how well that worked out.

In the end, if you have evidence of some association between DRG and these "groups"... spill it. If not...

...then this fabricated stretch of guilt by association is starting to sound like Sarah Palin and that 60's radical guy Obama bumped into once.

and of course, again that begs the question... "why"?

W- “you try to discredit David Ray Griffin because this MSM and this Congress might not take him seriously? This Congress that refuses to impeach? This Congress that helped create the 9/11 Commission Report? This Congress that gets paid by the MIC and helped sell the Iraq war? This Congress?”

L- A patriotic Congress and honest media will have normal standards for evidence and witnesses, such as credibility; that this corrupt Congress and media has used the things i'm pointing out as an excuse to dismiss Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't mean’t it’s not important to rely on good evidence.

W- “I don't really need to say anything about the MSm except that, after all this time, we get a shot on AlterNet, and Griffin does a great job, and the ONLY ones ridiculing him... are you three...

...now what does that mean? AlterNet is "media" and they seem to be taking him very seriously.”

L- Coverage is good, using it to promote misinformation, speculation, weak evidence and controversial theories isn’t.

W- “Now, when I write I quote all kinds of people; Rove, Cheney, Zelikow, Rockefeller... and of course I have to provide links to those quotes as proof. Now does that mean I am in league with them? Does that mean my work supports their efforts? Hardly. But that would give someone the oportunity to come along and use that as a dishonest way to try to discredit my work.”

L- That depends on the reason you’re quoting them and the context.

W- “Instead of talking about a bibliography page, why don't you provide links to the places where Prof. Griffin supports the efforts of these sites and these people like you are implying?”

L- Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Introduction, pg 14:
"Furthermore, if everyone who believes the alternative conspiracy theory, rather than the official conspiracy theory, is by definition a nut, then Cockburn would have to sling that label at [list of names]”

note 47 Eric May http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-is-captain-may.html
Also included in this list as people who Griffin implies are not “nuts”, are Phil Berg, bogus lawsuit filer, and Morgan Reynolds, of “no planes” and Judy Wood fame. Yeah, maybe they’re not nuts; maybe they’re provocateurs.

I stopped looking when I got to May’s name in the notes for the introduction; flipping to this I noticed Fetzer’s name for Note 31 (edit- Griffin is making the point that believing 9/11 was an inside job is not a reassuring paradigm, so that can't be the reason people believe it- i agree with Griffin's argument). Would you reference Fetzer, Reynolds, Berg or May (as credible people, or to prove a point like note 31), Willyloman? If your desire is to add credibility to your work, and not give detractors an easy excuse to discredit you by association?

W- “Again, you might not think that there is sufficiant evidence to support the events at the pentagon that day, but I and MANY others do.”

L- You’re entitled to your opinion and to debate freely in public. However, there isn’t hard evidence for the “no 757” claim- do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon? What if you’re wrong? Are you willing to express your doubts, but qualify them by saying you may be wrong about what hit the Pentagon, but in any case it’s clear that NOTHING should’ve hit the Pentagon, and you support full disclosure, including the release of the 85 videos, hundreds of photos and all other withheld documentation?

W- “Of course we all know what your opinion was on talking about Building 7, before the NIST report came out... we remember that that too wasn't "our strongest evidence". And we see how long that lasted and how well that worked out.”

L- “[my] opinion was on talking about Building 7”; again; I’ve never said people shouldn’t talk about 7 or anything else; I think people shouldn’t go beyond what the facts reveal as far as claims we make, and to make it clear when we’re speculating and theorizing. (Edit- To me, it's always seemed obvious the WTC was controlled demolition; but would a jury of 12 unanimously conclude it beyond a reasonable doubt? (edit2- possibly; but who did it?). A grand jury would probably consider it reason to investigate, but with the steel destroyed, can it be proven? (edit2- A full honest criminal or Congressional investigation might be able to discover and prove who did it in a court of law. Plus there's all the other evidence of negligence/malfeasance/complicity that needs to be investigated- even in the statements of Bush Admin principals http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project ) Documentation in the FEMA report does support the thermate theory, as does video. With the 2 published papers and the upcoming red chips paper and the debate being brought into that level in the scientific community, that introduces a new level, though. Sometimes science does inform decisions makers and public policy.)

W- "In the end, if you have evidence of some association between DRG and these "groups"... spill it. If not..."

L- Griffin referenced them, not me; I’m just pointing out that he did. He chose to reference them; that means they’re in his books for people to reference, and consider what he says based on the true facts and these opinions.

W- "...then this fabricated stretch of guilt by association is starting to sound like Sarah Palin and that 60's radical guy Obama bumped into once. and of course, again that begs the question... "why"?"

L- Right, why are you twisting my words and avoiding the issues I’m raising? Anyone else want to weigh in? How do you like these sources?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

is associated with "white supremisists and Nazis" is beyond stupid. You say yourself that he is just mentioning these assholes.

Griffin does NOT believe nor does he support "No Planes hit the Towers", "Ray beams from Space" type theories, and you damn well know it.

And yes I distictly remember you talking about people not bringing up Building 7 because, as you said, people weren't "qualified" to explain the problems with the collapse.

You know, you and Arabesque and Gold might THINK you are the smartest people around here, and you might THINK you are saving this movement by getting people to vote down any comments that disagree with your little hold on this site... and you may have the numbers of little minions to do just that...

... but at some point, the people that run this site are going to see through your little game here. And on that day, this site will become 10 times better than it is right now.

Now matter how you color it or no matter how much lipstick you put on this bullshit, David Ray griffin did a GREAT job, and for you guys to try and systematicly run him down on THIS site afterward should tell people EXACTLY what you are and what you are about here.

Thank you SO MUCH for telling all of us ignorant SHEEP what the BEST evidence is that we SHOULD talk about.

Oh yes, and I forgot Jon, thank you for also going over to OpEd News and telling everyone THERE what they should or should not be talking about when it comes to 9/11.

I mean hell, if you can't research and you haven't any real insightful original ideas, you might as well control the conversation as your means to contribute, huh?

Thank you thank you thank you.

(now go email your little minions on Arabesques site and get them to come over here and vote this comment down before too many people see it.)

i've been emailing and posting comments with links to controlled demolition videos and articles since summer 2005, my blog 911reports.com and arabesque911.blogspot.com both have numerous articles laying out evidence for controlled demolition. You should link my quote, i don't recall what your problem is; good videos and articles make a strong case, but it still needs a full criminal/congressional investigation to determine the guilty parties and hold them accountable, or what?

Misinformation doesn't help 9/11 truth and justice. DRG is brilliant, it's disappointing and strange he incorporates these theories and sources into his work. Griffin is associating himself with these people and these ideas by the context in which he references them. As Arabesque notes above, there is much better evidence of complicity. This includes things that tie specific people to acts and events; Cheney being contradicted by Mineta, Bohrer and himself about when he was in the PEOC and the "orders still stand" that the Commission obfuscated, distorted and left out. Rumsfeld; authorization for use of deadly force in air defense intercepts changed to include the Sec of Def June 01 during the summer of threat which includes planes being hijacked as missiles which the Pentagon drilled for and Rumsfeld is out of the loop the morning of 9/11 cuz he had to "make a few phone calls". Why push the weak and weird stuff?

(edited to correct typos)

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

You cant have read Gulllivers Travels. Congress has all the credibility of Swifts Yahoos. The same Congress has been all to ready to endorse Bush'sWar of (sorry: ON) Terror. Has ignored many of the problems with the official conspiracy theory, and are well known for bowing to the likes of the Israel lobby.

Why assume Congress is comprised of upright and credible people? Griffins credibiliy has nothing to do with his quoting Hufschmid et al. YOURS tho is in jeopardy, given your lame efforts to smear Griffin.

What has 'Holocaust denial' have to do with 9-11?

What does it matter what 'many people' think?Or are you afraid of other people?

'addition to the bogus evidence/arguments he sometimes make, i.e. "no 757" and voice morphing?'

sorry but no 757 hit pentagon is based on the available evidence.Prove that flight 757 DID hit the pentagon.You will have to show photo evidence of it striking the pentagon, not just piece of flotssam on the front lawn. Evidence will need to show it did NOT plow up the lawn, which is what would happened if it struck the first floor.
etc