Go, Jon!

Feel free to use this, which is the most concise summary of false flags I've ever seen:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/introduction-to-false-flag-...

I wish you great success, Jon. Maybe I ought to join the class and you can try to convert me from LIHOP to MIHOP. As you can tell in my blog, I'm only a part time member of the movement due to my hectic scheduling.

But will you be covering any foreigns' possibility of taking part in the o9/11 attacks such as british, israel or pakistan? Because I've read several reports indicting that some of them may had prior knowledge or some involvement.

And geggy... I hate labels anyway. All of us were "LIHOP" at one point or another.

"One simple rule. If you're not a serious student, you will be banned."

Translation: If you're not wearing a tinfoil hat, you will be banned.

"Translation: If you're not wearing a tinfoil hat, you will be banned."

Thanks Flanshill... for giving an example of what won't be tolertated.

" Reminder: the 9/11 Commission is NOT NIST.

You need to refute NIST if you think you're going to get anywhere, Jon."

Considering the topic of tonight's class is "American History And How It Relates To 9/11"... no I don't.

Jon, I'm a bit confused about these classes. Exactly how/where with they be done? I'm assumming it'll be all text/typing based?

cb, i think theyre going to be here http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9271

"I thought Sen.Bob Graham ran it?"

you also think the laws of physics can be changed.....wtf do you know?

As far as your winnings, it's not my contest brain child....I'm sure if you had the ability to pull your head out of your ass and had the scientific evidence, you would have contacted the person offereing the $ about the information you want. Also, if you had the evidence to claim his prize and Walter's was running a scam, you would have no trouble taking the issue to the gaming/lotteries commision and then finishing it off in court and possibly pocketing a larger sum than the prize offering. Depending on your attorney of course ;)

But no, you would rather snivel around here and talk out your ass.

No biggie...we all know you're full of it and you haven't provided anything productive towards this community. So have fun clowning around. Every class needs a ass clown :)

Someone had mentioned Michael Shermer earlier...please, be extremely cautious and wary of him and his ilk. He dedicates his career "exposing the paranormal" as fraud (but really he doesn't) and he and his buddies have been caught in numerous lies and agenda-based manipulation. I'd also like to know who's writing their paychecks.

And funny, for Shermer, laws of physics and gravity are so important to him when he's "debunking" the paranormal, but in the next breathe, the laws of physics no longer matter when its 9/11. He also screeches at the top of his lungs that "the burden of proof" for UFOs and such is on the people claiming its real, but he doesnt demand that same burden of proof unto the government to prove their 9/11 story is real.

Ignore everything and anything that spews forth from his mouth. He's lying if his lips are moving, so to speak.

Infact, he's such a sleaze-shill he's probably one of the cowardly anons trolling this blog.

Loud Studios wrote,

"you also think the laws of physics can be changed.....wtf do you know?"

Here's your laws of physics, LoudStudios:

1. The WTC towers were 2704 feet tall

2. And you claimed the south side of WTC 7 was the north side.

See http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/114347945895392327/ for your outing.

andi wrote,

" Someone had mentioned Michael Shermer earlier...please, be extremely cautious and wary of him and his ilk."

This is a wonderful example of the profound ignorance of 9/11 conspiracists like Andi.

Michael Shermer is a highly respected skeptic whose works long precede 9/11.

He took on Holocaust Denial, a group you apparently support, and all manner of idiotic nonsense like creationism.

That you would claim that the burden of proof is not on those making the claims, like ALL 9/11 conspiracists, is a measure of your own deep denial.

See what scares you to death:
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/meet_michael_shermer.html

Jon Gold made this statement in his first class:

"One of the biggest obstacles we face in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the idea that our Government would NEVER do such a thing. People have it embedded in their brains that no one in Government would ever kill their own people."

.....

"In other words, they were going to kill Americans to justify war with Cuba. Or, to put it bluntly, our Government is MORE than capable of killing it's own.

"Luckily, President Kennedy refused this plan.

"Would it surprise you to hear that the majority of wars the United States has partaken in took place under false pretenses?"
.....

Does anyone spot the logical fallacies of this statement?

As with all fallacies, several may apply at the same time. Jon is using the "question begging" fallacy in this statement.

Let's break it down:

Since the "government" is capable of killing its own

and

they were going to kill Americans to justify war with Cuba.

therefore:

the present "government" could kill its own citizens to justify a war.

Why is this "begging the question?"

Jon is "begging" us to accept the argument that because a past adminsitration was "willing" to kill it's own citizens, then a future "administration" is willing to kill its own citizens.

This is no different than saying:

Since your great-grandfather was a murderer

and

your grandafther was a murderer

and your father was a muderer

therefore:

you are capable of murder.

Of course, Jon is trying to get us to accept that past independent events are predictors of future independent events. He wants us to accept the proposition that because Kennedy was willing to kill Americans, Bush is too.

Let me clear that I am not accusing Jon of intentionally trying to deceive you or anyone else It is very common sloppy thinking.

Of course, the "government" is not a monolithic entity, unchanging over time. But using it in monolithic terms serves the purpose of intentionally eliminating the necessity of actually *explaining* independent events.

Jon needs to actually demonstrate a government conspiracy by Bush on its own merits.

"That you would claim that the burden of proof is not on those making the claims"

You're being hypocritical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove to the public osama did it with 19 hijackers. We have been given no proof. Shermer hypocritically asks for burden of proof for UFOs (and in a way, a very small single minded way, he is right too) but he doesnt demand the same burden of proof from his own government and their version of what happened and who was behind 9/11. He's a hypocrit and a deceiver. "Highly respected" is so laughable I almost spit out my drink! :)

Oh, and HELLO MICHAEL, I know you're reading and posting here (or letting your little zombie followers do it for you).

False-flag operations, especially destroying one's own resources and blaming others, are as old as the hills. There are numerous examples throughout history. Breaking through the Disneyland belief that such a thing could never befall the USA is (would be) a good thing.

I'm more concerned about Jon disagreeing too narrowly with the official lying-government account of events, such as, for example, the ludicrous impossible belief that "flight 77" is what hit the Pentagon.

Jon told us 'here' (diff thread) recently that he speaks with Michael Wolsey (of Colorado911visibility, with whom he evidently shares/shared the ludicrous impossible belief, and who is, concidentally?, also teaching 911 classes) on a daily basis.

Well, last night in Denver I finally got to meet a woman who came across as a true professional, Fran Shure. She's very good at what she does, but just as lies are toxic to logic, so is logic toxic to [her] BS. I now suspect that Fran Shure is (or at least was) Michael Wolsey's handler.

I got to spend significant time speaking with Morgan Reynolds one-on-one and Morgan, too, recognizes that there's something really wrong with that woman WRT moving the truth about 9/11.

Hitler said it best WRT "The Big Lie": It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

In the case of 9/11, as it was in Germany in the 1930s, most people find/take comfort in the government's lies. Specifically, as long as people are able to cling to the BS belief that "hijacked civilian passenger airliners" are what hit the buildings, they will go on fearing and loathing those (fictional) "evil suicidal Muslim hijackers" for 9/11 (even after it has been carefully explained to them that we cannot blame the collapses on "airplanes"!). That belief serves to keep them from fully recognizing (ie, feeling in their bones, so to speak) the horrible truth that, on 9/11, Americans were (deceived and attacked and) betrayed by Americans.

That BS belief and accompanying lack of full recognition supports TBL of 9/11 (Job One of 9/11 was enemy creation).

So I hope Jon Gold will not, in the guise of dismantling TBL of 9/11, help the government support the very core of the governments Big 9/11 Lie, which he would be doing if he continued to argue that we can take the lying government's word for what hit the buildings (and the ground) on 9/11. Repeating talk (propaganda!) of "the airplanes", and "Muslim hijackers", and "the 20th hijacker", and "Mohammed Atta"(cked us), and "all that jet fuel" all serve to powerfully psychologically reinforce and nurture the very core of TBL of 9/11.

Jim Hoffman's a(nother; there are many...) wolf in sheep dog's clothing who will tell us that we cannot blame the collapses on "airplanes", yet he divisively confronts 911 truthers who've seen through and denounce that portion of the government's big lie of 9/11. IOW, even as he appears to oppose the government lie of 9/11, he supports, and enables people to go on clinging to, its very core. And in doing so, he relieves the government proper of the need to "dirty its hands" arguing about what hit the buildings -- something the government cannot afford to be seen doing, yet cannot afford to not do. Thus, regardless of Hoffman's true motivation, his actions perfectly fit the role of a government (limited hangout) disinformation agent.
______________________________________

andi wrote,

"You're being hypocritical. The burden of proof is on the government to prove to the public osama did it with 19 hijackers. We have been given no proof."

You demonstrate your ignorance so willingly. Actually, you haven't debunked the massive amount of evidence that clearly demonstrates what happened on 9/11.

We're still waiting for your evidence and proof.

Shermer is correct and you know it.

Loud Studios wrote,

"you also think the laws of physics can be changed.....wtf do you know?"

Here's your laws of physics, LoudStudios:

1. The WTC towers were 2704 feet tall

2. And you claimed the south side of WTC 7 was the north side.
__________---

LIAR. I never said any such thing.

You do realize you don't have to be an ass clown right?

*this program must have an IP blocker...no?*

"they were going to kill Americans to justify war with Cuba.

therefore:

the present "government" could kill its own citizens to justify a war."

No... that tidbit of information is to open people's eyes, and to look past what the TV's, etc... tell them. The existing evidence is what says "the present "government" could kill its own citizens to justify a war."

I just wrote that.

And we haven't gotten to THAT class yet.

"He wants us to accept the proposition that because Kennedy was willing to kill Americans, Bush is too."

Um... actually, I said Kennedy turned it down. I think he fired Lemnitzer after that.

I don't know what's worse, a troll or a shill. I'm not one for labels, but if there is in existence someone capable of defending the lies, they deserve a nickname. "Shill" fits.

They are exhaustive aren't they? They lie about you publicly so you're forced to defend yourself, etc... it's tiring.

One thing I know... if they lie about you, attack your person, etc... you must be doing something right. ;)

blimpy, the fact that you have to write so much to insult me tells me that whatever the hell you said, (I didn't read all of it), is nonsense. If you're going to make accusations against someone just come right out and say it.

Jon Gold is a "disinformationist". Jon Gold is a "liar".
Jon Gold is a "fraud".
Jon Gold is a "gatekeeper".

It's not hard. If you think I'm anything like that, just say it. No need to write a book.

Then please provide for me which Government agency I'm working for, or what my agenda is because I'd really like to know.

Loud Studios wrote,

> Loud Studios wrote,

>> "you also think the laws of physics can be changed.....wtf do you know?"

> Here's your laws of physics, LoudStudios:

> 1. The WTC towers were 2704 feet tall

> 2. And you claimed the south side of WTC 7 was the north side.

> See http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/114347945895392327/ for your outing.

__________---

"LIAR. I never said any such thing.

"You do realize you don't have to be an ass clown right?"

Referring to the thread where I correct you, see your claim:

"Ya, aparently pieces of the twin towers flew over building 7 and then flew back into the bottom of the building on the other side....that's how it got the = damage the side facing the towers did....and thus the symetrical fall."

And I corrected you:

> There's nothing like proving me right, Loud Studios.

> The damage to WTC 7 was on the SOUTH side, nitwit. Debris from WTC 1, which was SOUTH of WTC 7 hit the SOUTH side of WTC 7.

> No wonder you can't get ANYTHING right, Loud Studios.
---

So far you've gotten everything wrong, Loud Studios. Now you're even having to lie to cover it up.

Jon,

You're still dodging that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the physical evidence supports "explosive demolition'" BEFORE you can make any claims about the 9/11 Commission, or that Bush "lied." You can't have it any other way.

But, instead, you are quite content to repeat KNOWN nonsense and lies on the physical evidence. Repeatedly on this site.

If you don't think that has any effect on your own credibility you're living in a fantasy world.

Are you one of the many "paid" trolls I've come across on the internet?