Jon Gold wrote: "And why won't S. King or Conspiracy Smasher sign up on my site?"

We debunk you right here already where more people can see how easily it's done. Why bother doing it again?

Note that you have been unable to rebut us.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst080904.htm

"To understand the nature of our domestic response to the September 11th, 2001 attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises- whether real or manufactured- serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9-11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad."

thanks, Ron Paul is the man. i have a feeling he will be one of the first politicians to speak out when it becomes clear the MSM cant deny and spin the cover-up anymore.

Hey is that where DZ is? Did he go to the conference?

I found this clip yesterday, I hadn't seen it before, It looks like theres a huge explosion on one floor near the crash zone before the Tower collapses. Does anyone know wether this clip is genuine and if so whats actually happening in the clip? Heres the website

http://www.areadownload.com/vide...m/video/ wtc.htm

and the clip is Best Charges Going Off Footage, its about 30 clips down the list.

Does anyone know if this is true?

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=147059

I don't see it here...

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

Well, if C-span is going to cover LA conference that means Rockfellas are testing how to pull rug under busheviks - that's total cool..

Or on the other hand, they might have been just too busy swimming in the lake of fresh new war/oil billion$ and someone blew it on his censorhsip watch..

FYI... I told the "Debunkers" I was going to post that everytime they showed up...

jon gold, no i too had no desire to get into an argument with you. it was just what you said made me think that you were implying that reynolds endorses the hologram claim -
__________--

conspiracysmasher - ha - at least skyking@ actually pretended to make a case.
_______________-

Just to educate you all on how easily Jon Gold was debunked, here is my repsonse on Conspiracy Smasher:

---

King said...

Jon Gold, in his ignorance, wrote: "Really? Then why was it the main reason given to go into Iraq?"

You haven't a clue what the main reason was, Jon.

"Why did the President say just two days ago that 9/11 drives U.S. foreign policy?"

It's pretty obvious. It's a political "rallying point."

"Why have people like Rep. Peter King say that, "We would not have invaded Iraq without 9/11"?"

Anyone can say anything they want in hindsight, can't they? The REAL reason was neither 9/11 NOR WMD.

"They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."

And, in your continued devotion to logical fallacies, you continue to use post hoc fallacies: that a particular event, B, is caused by event, A, simply because event, B, follows A in time.

"It was WELL KNOWN to the American intelligence community that Saddam Hussein DID NOT have WMD. They needed 9/11 ON TOP OF WMD in order to sell the war."

As I already educated you, WMD was not the reason Bush invaded Iraq, it was the justification. Pay attention, Jon.

"Gee, why on Earth would I think to believe my President?"

"We went to war "because we were attacked" according to GEORGE W. BUSH."

And we're right back to square one: despite your years of whining you have yet to provide a causal connection demonstrating that Bush was behind 9/11 in order to justify invading Iraq. Why in hell should anyone believe you, Jon?

You're even clueless about the real strategic reasons for invading Iraq.

Gosh.
---

Sorry, guys, you're 9/11 conspiracy game was up a long time ago.

"FYI... I told the "Debunkers" I was going to post that everytime they showed up..."

Which only illustrates your desperation, Jon.

Unless and until We The People demand answers, we don't deserve to get our priceless beloved stolen Constitution back.

Unless and until We The People even demand questions, we don't deserve to get our priceless beloved stolen Constitution back.

When you see supposed, self-proclaimed (aren't we all?) 9/11 truthers Carol Brouillet and Bob Bowman running for Congress, and they refuse to even pledge to, if elected, question President Bush about Bush's repeated, self-implicating, incriminating 9/11 witness statements, can you recognize that something is wrong with that picture?

When you see supposed, self-proclaimed (aren't we all?) 9/11 truthers Barrie Zwicker (TGC, 911truth.org -- but Bush never said "ordinary TV"!) and Mike Rivero (wrh.com -- falsely claims that "Bush lied") running around telling outright lies about Bush's repeated, self-implicating, incriminating 9/11 witness statements, can you recognize that something is wrong with that picture?

http://911blimp.net debunks the government's ludicrous, impossible, disproven, discredited conspiracy theory of 9/11, even as many supposedly respected 911 truthers provide cover for it.

As long as we give "a pass" to bogus 911 truthers who won't even question BushCo, we're giving license to them to keep on covering up for Bush and Cheney. In that sense, we have only ourselves to blame!

Recognize the pattern, connect the dots, see the truth about (so much of) the 911 truth movement...
______________________________________

blimp, meet S.King. im sure you guys have met at the agency before though.

birds of a feather, right blimp and S.King?

Unless/until someone is able to demonstrate how s/he conslusively ruled out the POSSIBILITY that holographic visual cloaking was employed on 9/11, I have an exceedingly low opinion of anyone and everyone who tries to rule out that POSSIBILITY (or even refer to it as a claim or "a theory") without any sound basis.

There is *HUGE* difference between not knowing that some technology exists and knowing that it does not exist.

Honest investigators consider all the possibilities, and rule them out as they can, but not before.

Getting 911 truthers to not consider certain possibilities is the job/role/function/task of gatekeepers!

So, why does Jon Gold -- who foolishly claims "of course there were no holograms" -- continually and repetitively behave like a gatekeeper?

Support your contentious unfounded claim, Jon Gold, or be labeled a gatekeeper!!!!
______________________________________

Chris, who rarely misses an opportunity to launch a baseless person attack here, acts as if she seems to believe that everyone who opposes, say, Bush, therefore must all agree with one another on everything, and could do so only because they all must be getting paid off by the same checkbook/agency.

Simplistic illogical insinuations such as Chris' (which are basically just noise pollution) will never help solve the biggest crime in U.S. history.

Hell, with such simplistic, backasswards, illogic, Chrissie couldn't think her way out of a paper bag!
______________________________________

Wow, I'm getting it from someone supposedly in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and someone from the 9/11 Conspiracy Smash Movement.

I must be doing something right.

You guys know each other?

And why won't S. King or Conspiracy Smasher sign up on my site?

911 blimp never misses an oppurtunity to try and slow down the progress of the 9/11 truth movement by spouting off about holograms and Bush's statements on 9/11.(because Bush never misspeaks right?)she constantly bashes Steven Jones and goes on about holograms, but Jon Gold or somebody like myself is the real problem? 911blimp might not be getting paid to do what she does, but she sure as hell should look into it.

i feel sorry for blimp though, she must have a hard time making friends since she always goes on about holograms and other delusions.

poor blimpess probably hasnt gotten laid in years,what with her delusional rants about holograms and shit. she must have cobwebs down there........

Chris has been banned here for impersonating me, and since being unbanished (thanks, dz), has consistently behaved irrationally towards me. Chris cannot comprehend me any more than he can comprehend 9/11, yet he tried to associate me with someone else he doesn't like, as if the world should be divided between those Chris does and doesn't like, and all those who don't like Chris and whom Chris doesn't like must be working together in a secret conspiracy against Chris, which makes it alright, in the mind of Chris, to devolve 911blogger into a total pissing contest.

Jon Gold, on the other hand, has continued to act like an obvious gatekeeper by first saying "of course there were no holograms" (see above) which amounts (to trying to get others) to pre-emptively ruling out a possibility, and then having failed to tell us on what basis -- how he can be so sure that -- he can make such a statement without any risk of doing the bad guys' work for them.

NO honest investigator has the right to pre-emptively rule out ANY possibility, much less to try to ridicule/coerce others into not considering a possibility. On that basis, I find Jon Gold's unsupported "of course there were no holograms" statement to be a behavior which is entirely inconsistent with that of an honest 911 truther. If Jon can't tell us how he ruled out the possibility, then why should anyone tolerate him going around acting as if he knows that we can safely rule it out?
______________________________________

"Note that you have been unable to rebut us."

There you go again. "Muddying" the issue.

"Jon Gold, on the other hand, has continued to act like an obvious gatekeeper by first saying "of course there were no holograms" (see above) which amounts (to trying to get others) to pre-emptively ruling out a possibility, and then having failed to tell us on what basis -- how he can be so sure that -- he can make such a statement without any risk of doing the bad guys' work for them.

NO honest investigator has the right to pre-emptively rule out ANY possibility, much less to try to ridicule/coerce others into not considering a possibility. On that basis, I find Jon Gold's unsupported "of course there were no holograms" statement to be a behavior which is entirely inconsistent with that of an honest 911 truther. If Jon can't tell us how he ruled out the possibility, then why should anyone tolerate him going around acting as if he knows that we can safely rule it out?"

OF COURSE THERE WERE NO HOLOGRAMS

uh oh. blimp is mad, i think it may be that time of the month for her.......

assumptions are annoying huh blimp?

911blimp said:Chris cannot comprehend me

HAHAHAHAHA, who the hell can? your a joke for a reason.........

Jon Gold insists upon behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with that of an honest 911 truther.

He dismisses certain possibilities without being able to tell us why, even when asked to. Further, he dismisses them in a verbally/socially aggressive way. That's not how honest investigations work.

It seems to me that Jon Gold also has a now-long history of dismissing/neglecting/disregarding much of the same government-lie-breaking evidence (Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements, the anomalies in the Naudet video of the 1st WTC impact, the biggest anomaly of all [whatever it is, it's TOO SMALL TO BE A 757!] in the government's own Pentagon impact video imagery - which we've 'only' had available for examination since March 7, 2002) as did the 9-11 Commission when it omitted them from its report. . . . Coincidence???

We already know, and long have, that we cannot blame the "collapses" of the towers on "airplanes" (they fell WAY too fast - http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml ) but I've never seen Jon Gold ever suggest to people that it is wrong to blame 9/11 on "evil suicidal Muslim hijackers".

In other words, Jon Gold's behaviors as they relate to 9/11 consistently fail to be inconsistent with the protection and sustenance of the core elements of the government's big lie of 9/11. http://911u.org/CoDR/DR215.html IOW, Jon's behavior works for The Big Lie, not against it. Tactically, Jon's a real go-getter; but, strategically, he pulls in the wrong direction(s).

Once we know that we cannot blame the "collapses" on "airplanes", hijacked or otherwise; once we know that the government has shown us a video of "the hijacked 757 which hit the Pentagon" which shows us a portion of an aircraft that is too small to possibly be a 757; we ought to be well beyond blaming 9/11 on "suicidal Muslim hijackers" already!!!

Once people notice how much big-lie-killing evidence is being disregarded by so much of the "movement", it rapidly becomes pretty clear to most of them that much of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" is not at all what it claims/appears to be.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we can't observe motives, but we can sure observe behaviors! And pulled punches are the surest sign of fake opposition: http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/2heads,sameMonster.gif
_______________________________________

"Jon Gold insists upon behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with that of an honest 911 truther.

He dismisses certain possibilities without being able to tell us why, even when asked to. Further, he dismisses them in a verbally/socially aggressive way. That's not how honest investigations work.

It seems to me that Jon Gold also has a now-long history of dismissing/neglecting/disregarding much of the same government-lie-breaking evidence (Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements, the anomalies in the Naudet video of the 1st WTC impact, the biggest anomaly of all [whatever it is, it's TOO SMALL TO BE A 757!] in the government's own Pentagon impact video imagery - which we've 'only' had available for examination since March 7, 2002) as did the 9-11 Commission when it omitted them from its report. . . . Coincidence???

We already know, and long have, that we cannot blame the "collapses" of the towers on "airplanes" (they fell WAY too fast - http://911blimp.net/ prf_FreeFall...llPhysics.shtml ) but I've never seen Jon Gold ever suggest to people that it is wrong to blame 9/11 on "evil suicidal Muslim hijackers".

In other words, Jon Gold's behaviors as they relate to 9/11 consistently fail to be inconsistent with the protection and sustenance of the core elements of the government's big lie of 9/11. http://911u.org/CoDR/DR215.html IOW, Jon's behavior works for The Big Lie, not against it. Tactically, Jon's a real go-getter; but, strategically, he pulls in the wrong direction(s).

Once we know that we cannot blame the "collapses" on "airplanes", hijacked or otherwise; once we know that the government has shown us a video of "the hijacked 757 which hit the Pentagon" which shows us a portion of an aircraft that is too small to possibly be a 757; we ought to be well beyond blaming 9/11 on "suicidal Muslim hijackers" already!!!

Once people notice how much big-lie-killing evidence is being disregarded by so much of the "movement", it rapidly becomes pretty clear to most of them that much of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" is not at all what it claims/appears to be.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we can't observe motives, but we can sure observe behaviors! And pulled punches are the surest sign of fake opposition: http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/ 2h...sameMonster.gif "

OF COURSE THERE WERE NO HOLOGRAMS