Right-wing bloggers distorting revelation that Van Jones wants a new 9/11 investigation

Right-wing blogs have picked up the story that Van Jones, President Obama's Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is a signatory of the 2004 9/11 Truth Statement demanding a new investigation. The bloggers are completely distorting the stated aims of the 9/11 Truth Statement (and Jones' signature attached to the statement), by suggesting he believes the Bush Administration was behind 9/11. The actual statement says nothing of the sort, but demands the following actions:

"The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry."


also distorts the facts of the 9/11 Truth Statement:



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?

Nice summary

and brilliant highly paid CIA disinformation as always. I especially like the timing of the masterful twist into concern for what Obama "knew" about Van Jones. The finishing touch would be Mike Baker making some McCarthyist comments about Van Jones being a threat to national security. Followed by some more 50 million dollar tears by Glenn Beck. Quite a spectacle.

Its surreal to hear him ask these questions ..

.. but then he so masterfully disparages not the questions direclty but the underlying premise that the bush administration let 911 happen. It is brilliant rhetoric, as much as it is devious and deceptive as it is.

Beck (and is speechwriters) are good. Beck has his own questions about 911, oh, and he says you can have your own questions about 911, such as the list of questions he was reading direclty from petition that Van Jones signed. But you cannot believe a government would have murdered innocent Americans. Can you believe your government would kill you? (if you do, you must be insane, he shakes his head)

Its absurd logic of course. Diabolical. Of course, it is absolutely irrational to dismiss evidence out of hand because you cannot conceive that a purportedly reputable authority could be culpable for doing what the evidence points to. Its really a kind of dictatorspeak that says "don't question authority".

Unfortunately, Beck is able do his theatre of the absurd by referring to speculation by 911 activists such the constant statements by 911 activists that it was "the government" or it was "the bush administration" who made/allowed 911 to happen.

We don't know who it was specifically we can only speculate. Stick to facts, observations and never speculate. DRG often states that officials in the Bush administration must have known and been complicit. He does name Cheney and a few others but it is selective, and based on logic and fact. But that is about as far as I blieve we can go without slipping into the speculative.

I hope that people stop being so speculative in their 911 activism and just stick to asking for review pointing to 911 commissions' own admiissions that it didn't get full picture, or of building 7's undeniable similarity to controlled demolition, or reports of insider trading, or Prof Jones evidenced of high powered explosives, and Richard Gage's fact based questions about the official story of the WTC towers collapses.

Just look at what Beck does with speculative aspects of 911. Reasonable questions about 911 are disparged, effectively rendered impotent, by conflating them with twisted speculative statements.

Anyways, I hope that this new tactic of "full disclosure" eg actually reading 911 activists questions on live tv with the ultimate goal of disparging them is a desparation tactic. However, now that Van Jones has denied his 911 questions, maybe the new tactics are a full out offensive on 911 activism.

Glen Beck

is such a clown. Anyone with half a brain could figure out 9/11 was Government sponsored. The "Official Story" is a fairy tale.