Their Words On Paper

Jon Gold

As 9/11 Family Member, and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza said, "one of the reasons why we still continued to fight with... for the Commission, even as we knew it was a farce, is we wanted their words, their lies down on paper."

As most of you know, I have never been a huge advocate for the idea that a "Controlled Demolition" took place at the World Trade Center. Reason being, I'm simply not qualified to tell someone if that did, in fact, happen. Also, for years, the media has tried to paint us as a movement filled with "conspiracy theorists" that think "explosives brought down the World Trade Center", and a "missile hit the Pentagon" without mentioning the 1000's of other problems with the official account. As a result, I can't tell you how many times during activism I've had people come up to me and say, "you're one of those people that think explosives brought down the buildings" as if to say, "you're one of those crazy people that I should ignore." So, I've always tried to push other incriminating information that the media and others DON'T like to talk about.

On 8/21/2008, NIST released their final report that supposedly explains how WTC7 collapsed. Now that we know their side of the story (their words on paper), as has been the case with every report regarding 9/11, I now have more questions than answers.

First of all, when NIST admitted that "this was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that it was an "extraordinary event," alarm bells went off for me.

If this was the ONLY "extraordinary event" that took place with regards to 9/11, then MAYBE I wouldn't think twice about it. However, that is not the case. The fact that the most defended airspace in the world (Washington D.C.) was left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when EVERYONE in the world KNEW America was "under attack," was an "extraordinary event." The fact that some of our elected and appointed officials in Washington D.C. were meeting with an alleged paymaster for the 9/11 attacks in the weeks prior to 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, were "extraordinary events." The fact that the President and Vice President of the United States didn't want to investigate the attacks, and in fact, fought against the family members who wanted an investigation, was an "extraordinary event." The fact that the last person on Earth that should have been made the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, WAS MADE the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, was an "extraordinary event." When you have SO MANY "extraordinary events" taking place, one has to wonder if there is more to the story than what we're being told.

Secondly, after listening to Dr. Shyam Sunder during his interview on No Lies Radio, I was shocked at some of the things he had to say. For instance, they apparently looked at the alternative hypothesis (Controlled Demolition/explosives in the building) without talking to the individuals promoting those hypothesis (Steven Jones/Richard Gage/Kevin Ryan). That makes absolutely no sense to me. One of the things I've learned during my time with the 9/11 Truth Movement is that you ALWAYS go to the source. Since they didn't do that, I am not convinced that they thoroughly "debunked" what Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, and Kevin Ryan have to say.

Again, I am not qualified to tell you what happened to those buildings, and again, I am STILL a firm believer that it is better to promote that which they don't want you to, or that which the media hasn't prepped the public to disregard. However, now that their words are on paper, I am simply not convinced that they are right, and/or telling the truth about how WTC7 collapsed. In fact, now that I have seen their words on paper, I am more prone to think that Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, and Kevin Ryan might be right.

Spot on.

You're right. Too many "extraordinary events" AINT A COINCIDENCE!

I've always admired and continue to admire everything you're doing for the movement. I'd always wondered why you were so reluctant to embrace CD even after the advent of though. How ironic that NIST's report has actually swayed you more to the side of Gage. These cover-ups just end up backfiring in their faces!

I've always...

Respected the question, and those who advocate it most (with the exception of Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, etc...). I've never accepted, and still don't, the idea that the question defines this movement, and should be promoted before anything and everything else. For the reasons stated above. Also, I'm more prone to believe bombs/explosives were there rather than a "Controlled Demolition" taking place (white vans).

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Jon, Focus on what you do


Focus on what you do and are interested in and don't worry about whether it's "CD" or "bombs" or whatever. Others with experience are working on that.

And please -- again -- don't conflate demolition and Pentagon issues. They are night and day, even though it may seem, if one only looks at MSM attack articles, that they are similar.

Treating them as one is like saying Barry Jennings is the same as Sibel Edmonds. Yes they are both "witnesses," but they are radically different in terms of what they offer and how they can be used, and how they have already been used. Jennings is a dead end and was used to discredit us to millions. Edmonds case is ignored for a reason and is complex and wide-ranging. If I always added "Barry Jennings" every time I mentioned SE, that would be discrediting to her, to be seen no differently than him, you see what I mean . . .

"don't conflate demolition and Pentagon issues"

What I stated is fact. The media has tried to paint us SOLELY as the group of people that think A) those buildings were brought down in a "Controlled Demolition" B) that a missile hit the Pentagon, and THAT'S IT. I could go through the archives on my site of "hit pieces" over the years to prove this to you, but I will only do this if you ask.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Bombs vs CD

Jon, surely you agree that WTC 7, especially, looks very much like a controlled demolition. How could *bombs* cause such a result?

Bombs cause random damage. Poweful bombs can *topple* a tall building, but not cause them to fall floor by floor straight down. At least I cannot see how bombs could do that.

Here's something...

That proves just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it is. With regards to the debate you're trying to draw me into... thanks but no thanks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I'm not trying to draw you into anything...

And as you should know by now, I base the CD conclusion on a LOT of other things, too, apart from the similarity (as my last three sentences above also show). Duh.

Hear, hear

now let's push all that extraordinary events further to the minds. Maybe sometime something will change.

Glad to read that!

I never thought controlled demolition should be the centerpiece for the movement and indeed there are various other important pieces of evidence - the ones you've mentioned and many more. But I also think that, as Arabesque has said it, the evidence for controlled demolition is "extremely compelling" - and so it should definitely be a talking point, I believe.

Mike Ruppert (whom I admire) has basically said: "We couldn't prove it in front of a court and that's why we shouldn't talk about it at all" - the first part of the sentence might be correct, but the second definitely isn't. Because how do you get a new investigation? By creating public pressure. And if a majority of Americans were convinced of controlled demolition - that their own government might have been involved in something so gruesome -, there would be tremendous public pressure. So Ruppert's "court trial perspective" is too narrow, I think.

That said, it's of course perfectly fine not to mention it if you're uncomfortable with it. The only thing that really infuriates me is when people dismiss controlled demolition as some kind of disinfo. Your point of view - not to make it the centerpiece of the movement - has always been fine with me. I'm glad to read that you now openly acknowledge the possibility of controlled demolition.

The work you have done is brilliant and your website is an invaluable research resource, so please continue what you're doing - with or without physical evidence.

Controlled demolition...

was easy for me to grasp and I have no scientific ability whatsoever. Just logically, if it was a gravity collapse, there would have been 220 floors of steel and concrete largely intact lying in the streets of Manhattan. The NORAD standdown, the subsequent coverup, and the myriad of other issues surrounding 9/11 are important, no doubt, but if I can realize how obvious it is that there were bombs in the buildings pulverising the concrete to dust, hurling steel girders hundreds of feet, anyone can grasp it. There's a reason why building 7 is referred to as the biggest smoking gun. It is obvious and it is right before your eyes. Visual proof is always easiest for people to understand. Even a friend of mine who doesn't believe most of this stuff heard the NIST explanation on Howard Stern and found it laughable that it was declared a new phenomenon, never seen before or since. This coverup of the Building 7 collapse is the biggest gift the Bush administration has given us. If we just let this phony NIST report stand we cannot call ourselves any kind of serious political movement. Now we have not just the curious collapse of Building 7, we also have the demonstrable coverup by the government of the real reasons for that collapse. Combined with all the other aspects of 9/11 Jon is talking about, we have all the tools we need to convince all but the most die-hard of Bush supporters, and they are becoming less and less by the day.

When everyone realizes someone placed bombs in those buildings and blew up all those people, we will all become Jersey Girls, and we all need to get as angry and as active as the Jersey Girls. In all honesty, I think we have done enough educating. The 2006 CBS/Zogby poll showed that 87% of Americans think the government is lying about at least something about 9/11. That's almost 270 million people. We now need to take those people, organize them into groups and get them off their asses, agitating for the truth. Staying on the internet won't accomplish much. We've got to take this into the real world and re-take our democracy.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Something this made me think of...

"You can do an investigation, and if you don't really want to research an area, you just don't look at it. If you don't ask them all of the questions, or you don't let them tell you the whole story, ya know... then you can write a report based on half-truths." - Mindy Kleinberg

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?