Support 911Blogger


Jon Gold on Visibility 9-11 - Two Huge Events in March!!

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Jon Gold

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1673

Jon Gold

Interview by John Bursill

This week on Visibility 9-11 we have Jon Gold, a long-time 9/11 truth activist who is currently building bridges between the 9/11 truth movement and the peace movement. Jon talks about two very important and groundbreaking events that he is participating in March. The details are below.

Treason in America: 9/11, The Wars & Our Broken Constitution Conference
Valley Forge Convention Center
March 6 & 7th

This event brings together peace activists, whistleblowers, alternative media and 9/11 truth advocates to a conference discussing the issues and problems produced by the 9/11 attacks and cover-up. Jon will be the MC at this event and the speakers include Richard Gage AIA, Cindy Sheehan, Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, Bob McIlvaine, Daniel Sunjata and Luke Rudkowski just to name a few! Neither left nor right, this gathering is truly groundbreaking.
Please support this event, see details here: www.treasoninamericaconference.com

Peace of the Action
Washington DC
Washington Memorial March 13th of March

Direct Acts of Resistance Begin on March 22nd
The bold plan to stop the Masters of War by bringing their system to its knees by peaceful resistance might just work! If Gandhi could do it so can Sheehan with our help and determination. Why not get a peace of this action yourself?
See details here: http://peaceoftheaction.org

Cindy Sheehan on 9/11 truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzxG-phm8Iw , Jon will speaking about 9/11 at the Peace of the Action events.

At the end of the show we discuss good methods for reaching out to people who ordinarily wouldn’t be open to 9/11 truth. It should be noted that Jon is considered controversial by some in the 9/11 truth movement because of his very critical approach to the evidence of the crimes of 9/11. Jon prefers to stick to the facts that “speak for themselves” and Jon is not a promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis. I and a great many others would agree that being careful with evidence is a must, although we would strongly argue that the destruction of WTC 7 does “speak for itself”; screaming out “Controlled Demolition!”. But as Jon likes to remind us, the advocacy of any particular hypothesis is not a prerequisite for being a 9/11 truth activist.

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1673

I

would not mess with the man in that photo.

No kidding

He looks like he could take down the 9/11 perps single-handedly!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I think

that peace sign might be a little more than just a friendly suggestion.

whew..

Thank God he's on our side. lol I would not want this man knocking on my door at 3am.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Controlled Demolition vs. Explosive Demolition

The towers destruction were brought about by explosive demolition; they exploded to smithereens! WTC 7 was classic controlled demolition.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

you got that right!

And that is the evidence that's going to demolish the whole charade....
Nothing else will work.

??

with all due respect - i've been hearing this same claim since 2003.

i think its time for you to accept ALL of the evidence - and stop trying to create peer pressure among activists to embrace only ONE AVENUE of truth. what is this? high school?

AE911Truth is being represented at this event. what more do you want? to beat Jon Gold with sticks and declare him a witch?

let it go already. Gold is one of this movements most enduring and highly respected and productive activists. His work with Sibel and Shaffer and the Jersey widows and Press for the Truth and TOO MANY OTHER EXAMPLES TO LIST HERE has been an INCREDIBLE contribution towards keeping this movement alive.

CD is being represented at this event. Jon's agenda is clear. one really has to wonder what YOUR agenda is.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

ALL the evidence IS needed

Many people cannot be reached through the destruction of the WTC for a variety of reasons and only by following all of the evidence will we discover all of the perps. The 9/11 operation was clearly compartmentalized and thus investigating only one element of it (e.g. the destruction of the WTC) will most likely only lead to a limited number of the perps. I don't know anyone in the truth movement who wants that.

Personally, while I find the science related to the WTC to be a very useful tool in educating many about the events of 9/11/01, I am much more interested in uncovering the financial and social networks involved in the operation (and those supporting it). I also find that other issues are easier to use when introducing people to 9/11 truth.

I don't think that those who focus on the WTC necessarily have an agenda, more likely just a certain form of myopia that does not serve them or the greater movement terribly well, imho.

[I would also like to say that just because Jon Gold is not posting here at present, people should not feel that they have license to take cheap shots at him.]

Good to see you here, John.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

triangulation of crossfire is always good

I just wrote a big YES to a recent AE911 Victory post, but I too honor Jon Gold's insistence in approaching this from another pov. Rather than debate which of the two is better, lets figure out the third position and take this BIG LIE out once and for all.

- omniadeo

9/11 Truth won the "Gold"

Another Jesse Ventura wannabee

WEBSITE: http://gators911truth.org
YOUTUBE: http://youtube.com/911Planet

?

Could you elaborate? I dont get your meaning.

________________________
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

Jon gold

Jon gold is so worried about being credible that he goes around deciding who is acceptable and whAt is acceptable in order to appear unified. I recall the blog in January on Adam Syeds blog- DRG Speaks on hard evidence, unnecessary anonymity, and coming together.
Whit addressed Jon ...."to the uninformed the whole damn Truth Movement sounds crazy and therein lies our task. ..... stop hacking away at your own leg, it's not a smart thing to do. ... we can never entirely avoid being discredited. ...if you start pointing fingers within the movement, it will surely fracture. ...you are doing what 911 truth deniers do to all of us. ..... Each of us has made a personal journey into the realm of 9/11 truth and we believe what we believe. But I think we all believe one thing...that we were lied to about that day, and the implications are too horrifying to ignore. Take aim and fire at the enemies of truth ".
We don't need to be credible to the point where we become overly self- conscious in our truth seeking or be too quick to silence difficult questions by calling names or fearing disinformants.
Often we take on the characteristics of those we are fighting, so it's important to stay alert to who we are as we proceed!
lillyann

hmm

yet - on the face of it - it would appear that you are the one pointing fingers here.

can you show us a link to some of the events YOU have organized - so we have something to compare him to?

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

It is Jon gold who points fingers, as I see it!

I do not call somebody irrelevant to the 911 movement if they are not out organizing events. No I am not organizing events and yet I care very passionately about 911 truth!!
When the child in The Emperors New Clothes declares "The king is naked!", that outcry of the truth is a wake-up call to anybody who hears. Each of us cares deeply and finds ways to make a difference. We don't all need to be organizers or leaders in order to get this thing done.
Lillyann

no

I'm glad you care passionately about 9/11 Truth.

but - no - that's not enough.

your posts here just smack of 'disruption.'

Thank you.

Thank you for speaking up Lillyann.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Oh my

What a lightning rod this Jon Gold is. How dare he try to be as credible as possible!

Its really disheartening to see the 9/11 controlled demolition movement pay such a disservice to this man. As someone who really does believe that the WTC complex was destroyed with the aid of explosives, Jon and I have at times not seen eye to eye on this compelling hypothesis. Yet somehow, we are friends who respect each other and realize that there are many avenues to the path of the truth seeker.

It seems like your main problem with Jon is his determination to remain credible. Surely it can't be his laser focus on the 9/11 truth cause, or the immeasurable amount of energy, time, and money that Jon has spent on 9/11 truth. Look, if your feelings have been hurt because Jon won't endorse your favorite theory, Im sorry. But it isnt going to happen, not when acclaimed scientists of this movement are juxtaposing 9/11 truth with things like HAARP and chemtrails and earthquake weapons.

Now since you have listened to the interview that John Bursill posted above, please direct me the point in the interview where Jon says "I do not support AE911truth.org".

________________________
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

Which "acclaimed scientists

are juxtaposing 9/11 truth with things like HAARP and chemtrails" ?

While I agree that we need to work very hard to maintain our credibility, I'm also very aware that not everyone has the same standards for credibility and we need to have an ongoing civil dialogue within the movement to educate each other as to what is and is not credible. This is just the nature of humanity and it takes time and patience for people to reach a collective consciousness on many things, including 9/11 truth.

Slamming the door in people's faces is no way to influence people and build a movement.

That said, people pushing outright disinformation should be shown the door as politely as possible.

There are as many paths to the truth as there are people traveling them.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Agreed

LW,

We know what Im talking about :)

I certainly dont want to slam the door in peoples faces. I think most people are here because they want to learn and to be active in their own lives. In my participation over the years, I've had to learn some hard lessons about credibility from some supposed 9/11 truth leaders.

So I tend to follow Jon's model these days, and thats what works for me. If I sound overly critical at times I suppose it comes from wanting to prevent others from making the same mistakes I made.

________________________
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

I wasn't suggesting that you are slamming doors

in anyone's face.

I'm still wondering who you think is pushing HAARP and chemtrails, as it certainly was not Dr. Jones. During his somewhat regrettable post-press conference presentation on the possibility of human induced earthquakes Dr. Jones made it very clear that he does not think HAARP could do this.

[Since the proverbial cat is now out of the bag, I really hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future Dr. Jones will be able to make a full presentation for the record on this hypothesis (unless of course he finds enough evidence in the meantime to convince him that he is in error, which I think he is on this)]

I support everyone's right to pursue 9/11 truth activism and research in the way that they think is best. However, I won't hesitate to critique someone's approach to same if I deem it injurious to the movement as a whole. Thus, I have no problem if someone chooses to promote a subset of the credible evidence, as they are really only impairing their own ability to persuade others. Where I draw the line is when people choose to promote speculation as fact, especially when they do it with a level of certainty that borders on religious faith.

In the end, a more conservative approach may take longer, but that path still leads to the same place.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

keep it all in perspective

I think this is mostly a handful of people working hard to blow something out of proportion to take pot shots at the scientists, apparently under the belief that everything that's wrong is because of their work. These are the same people who say things like "the 9/11 controlled demolition movement" and post almost non-stop about how no one should ever mention demolition. It's understandable that some are annoyed by banners and other efforts focusing on demolition and not other points, but harping on it nonstop doesn't amount to a benefit to anyone since people do what they find inspiration in and what motivates them, and no one else can tell them what that is -- they know it themselves.

Scientists hypothesize, that's what they do. Steve was speaking to a crowd of people that he likely felt were a group of 9/11 activists and researchers (it was after the main press conference event) -- he wasn't speaking to CNN or Glen Beck or the evening news. Anyone who does science understands that the way science advances is through sharing theories and working through them to discover their viability.

Unlike some, Steve is not mixing his hypothesis with 9/11 on public websites or giving interviews to newspapers about it or writing books about it. He was practicing science.

Trying to blow this one event up into something it is not helps no one. Let's support Steve and the sacrifices he has made already for the work he has engaged in.

Controlled demolition movement?

I do consider CD to be our strongest evidence BY FAR and frankly speaking I do not find it credible at all for a seasoned veteran truther who has seen Blueprint for Truth and David Chandlers excellent presentations and who has read the Harrit paper to be clinging to the stance that CD is just some nebulous unproven theory. It isn't a "theory" anymore now it is the probable cause of the WTC destruction. The theory has been tested and challenged repeatedly and it has passed with flying colors so now the burden falls upon those who dispute CD to show us how and why CD was not the case. The case for CD has been made and it is iron clad. We have very strong physical evidence, eye witness testimony, and the laws of physics to back up CD as the cause of the destruction, period. It just isn't credible for veteran truthers who have seen all the evidence to be calling it a theory anymore. It really smacks of demanding impossible levels of proof which no one could ever reach. I for one am very confident that with what we have today we could win a case for CD in a court of law where the standard is (beyond a reasonable doubt). That is really the sticking point for me with the CD evidence and Jon's position on it. What are his reasonable doubts about CD and are they really "reasonable" doubts and are they "credible" doubts?

If a person simply prefers not to discuss CD because they don't understand the evidence or think some other evidence is stronger that is all well and good I have no issue with that and I don't know anyone who does frankly. I am glad there are truthers out there talking about all the evidence. I am one of those by the way who talks about all kinds of evidence besides CD.

I am glad Jon is out there doing all he does for 9/11 truth. The rub comes for me when a veteran truther tries to convince me or the movement as a whole that some other evidence that they favor is somehow stronger then the CD evidence. I know about the "other" evidence and have been studying it since early in 2002 and the fact is CD is by far the strongest evidence we have, it just is.

To drive home my point about demanding impossible levels of proof and credibility I am going to address one of Jon's famous 50 points. I will take #1 since most likely by it being placed as #1 Jon considers it to be the most important.

(Fact #1
The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.)

The very first sentence is false and is provably so. Jon said: "The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century.”" That simply isn't true in fact most of Bush’s senior cabinet were NOT members of PNAC. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bushcabinet.html

* Neither secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell were members of PNAC.
* Neither treasury secretary, Henry Paulson or John Snow were members of PNAC.
* Of the two secretaries of defense only Donald Rumsfeld was a PNAC member while Robert Gates was not.
* None of his three attorney generals John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, or Michael Mukasey were PNAC members.

It goes on and on and in fact out of the 33 senior cabinet members in the Bush administration only 1 that I can determine was a member of PNAC, Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney was a PNACer but that’s it as far as senior staff goes. The rest of the PNAC crew that were in the Bush administration were in lower level positions and were greatly outnumbered by non PNAC members.

So right off the bat in the very first sentence of point #1 we have a provably false statement and a credibility problem with Jon’s paper, sorry but that is the truth. So I find it very difficult to consider him the paragon or exemplar of credibility and an authority on what evidence is best. I love that he fights for 9/11 truth and hope he keeps going and I wish him all the luck and support in the world. I will choose for myself though who I consider to be credible and what evidence I consider best to talk about with others. I also think there are many people out there struggling just as hard as Jon is and would appreciate it if we could stop with the Jon is holier then thou routine because he isn’t. He is a fallible human being and a truther working just like all of us are, no better no worse.

Excellent Post

That was an very, very fine - well thought out - cogent post.

Thank you.

Just curious - why do you call yourself "AtomicBomb?"

Why call myself AtomicBomb?

It was my old nickname from blogs long ago (blogs where I really didn't want the members knowing my real name) and was supposed to reflect my explosive personality I guess. I really would like to drop the nickname here and go with my real name which is Adam Ruff by the way. If I can somehow change my name on Blogger to Adam Ruff instead of Atomicbomb I would like to do so. If a Mod can do so or tell me how to do it I would appreciate it. Anyway zmzmzm thanks for your comment.

Yes, a moderator has to do it.

I decided in 2009 to start using my real name on here instead of "kameelyun." I first looked to see if I could do it myself but you can't. I'm sure they'll do it for you.

Jon's reply:

Atomic Bomb says, "So right off the bat in the very first sentence of point #1 we have a provably false statement and a credibility problem with Jon’s paper..."

The first sentence was "The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For A New American Century."

Putting aside the fact that the individual who ran the Bush Administration was a member of the Project for a New American Century, and that the indivdual who ran the military was a member of the Project for a New American Century, and all of the articles written over the years that have mentioned the PNAC's involvement with the Bush Administration, and people like Helen Thomas talking about their influence over the administration, and the fact that Bill Kristol ran a major newspaper that was pro-PNAC, let's take a look at just how many people existed within the Bush Administration from PNAC.

According to this, there were a total of 29 members or associates of the Bush Administration affiliated with PNAC (including even a member of the 9/11 Commission).

Now you can pick apart the individuals who weren't members of the PNAC to try and say they didn't "predominantly" make up the Administration, but the fact of the matter is, they did.

My reply:

I am glad that you find CD so useful. Please, by all means continue to use what works for you. I choose to not use the CD argument as an outreach tool, and that works for me. I realize that CD has become the central issue of the 9/11 truth movement, and in my opinion thats absolutely useful to the MSM's continued silence on the "political reality" of the truth movement.

Im sorry that you think Jon's 'Facts' piece is composed of falsehoods, Ive found it incredibly useful in reaching out to the progressive/liberal sects of my community. Anywho, in a movement impossible to police, I think you overstate your case about Jon's "holier than thou" attitude.

________________________
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

MSM and Jon's 'facts'

The MSM would have a heyday with Jon's 'facts'. Just taking AtomicBomb's example of the first 'fact', the MSM would rip Jon and his 'fact' apart. That's bad for the 9-11 truth movement. If the 9-11 Truth movement is going to stand behind a list of facts, we best be sure those facts are rock solid and truthful <-- might seem obvious to some.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

( ._.)

Are you guys really mistaking predominant as a synonym for majority?

________________________
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

Perhaps they are...

words are tricky things and are often open to subjective interpretation (kind of like eyewitness accounts, eh?).

I hope we can avoid a nit picking fest on this, y'all...

;)

Cheers!

Words are a powerful and dangerous tool

Words need to be chosen carefully. By trying to distinguish between predominant and majority, you are doing the nitpicking. Predominant can be a synonym for majority, make no mistake about it. Let's use words where there can be no misinterpretation. Predominant is a falsity in the case of the first 'fact' anyway. Jon's 'facts' are riddled with such problems. Would you like to get into it? :)

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Oy

NIST admitted free fall - not "approximately" free fall ----- not "virtually" free fall ---- but FREE FALL.
They admitted that in their FINAL report after going back and double checking their measurements.

If there is someone in this movement - ANYONE - who thinks FREE FALL is possible while simultaeously doing the work of destroying the 8 stories that were observed by NIST to have undergone FREE FALL - then that person simply does not understand the concept and should refrain from commenting one way or another until they actually understand what "free fall" means. Free fall means - falling freely - not encountering or overcoming any resistance.

That having been said - if the political tack works best for you - then by all means use what works best for you.

Something wrong in this picture

To spread peace and truth we must become these!

Lillyann

Pointing fingers

Lillyann seems to be making a fair point; together we have a chance to bring the truth to the masses and help heal our planet, divided we fall.

Jon A. says in effect, "because you have not organised a symposium your opinions are irrelevant".

Let us try to stay unified and aim our barbs at the perpetraitors.

JGold may not put much stock in CD, but Richard Gage is a participant at Valley Forge. Wonderful. All members of our movement deserve respect. None deserve ridicule unless a strong case can be made that they are actually working against our best interests(space beams etc.)

We are growing stronger every day. More and more "mainstream" media are discussing the many lies about 9/11 without the attempt to tinfoil us that had been par for the course. There is light at the tunnel's end, and it grows brighter.

Truth, peace and justice will prevail if we stay together, focused and united.

Thanks

Yes you said it well, and we can and will come together.
Lillyann

lol

"Jon A. says in effect, "because you have not organised a symposium your opinions are irrelevant"."

lol i never said that. why don't you let me speak for myself friend.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

The future

I look forward to a time in the hopefully near future when all the differences will be put behind us because we will all have the same information, and will therefore know that it happened like this and not like that. It's a shame that such division happens in this movement, we are all in search of the same thing, even if our motives or actions are not the same. I think that as long as the idea of finding the truth is coming out of your mouth, you are helping. Whether you talk to one person or one million, it really does not matter in the grand scheme, you are seeking the truth. Whether I agree with Jon Gold, or Richard Gage AIA, or any of the other hard working "public" figures or not, their efforts should always be appreciated and not diminished. I post links to stories and videos, and I always start debates at parties. I am not able to get out for real "activism" like I used to, I rarely burn DVD's and hand them out anymore, but I am always putting the idea of corruption and the need to inform yourself in the heads of those I come in contact with. They joke about it, read my links, watch my videos, and either look more into it, or they continue being ignorant. I refuse to put my emotions in the equation any longer, and I always appreciate people being vocal and active in seeking the truth and spreading the message of truth. Thanks to John B, Jon G, all of you on here, and anyone else with the courage to question and dissent. Let's do it together, there will be plenty of time to celebrate and our differences will truly dissolve that that point.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

nice post

well said.

but - let me tell you what concerns me.

John Kennedy was shot almost a half century ago - and with that event - like 9/11 - the american public was faced with facts that simply did not add up - facts that were demonstrably untrue - and they were led to believe 'conspiracy theories' of every stripe.

where did it get us? Did the upswell of public sentiment bring us the ultimate truth - as you suggest will happen with 9/11?

or did the big tent approach to the Kennedy assassination lead to many irresponsible schools of thought sharing the same stage with the Truth - ultimately collapsing the movement of its own weight?

there were those who claimed that the physical evidence - and the magic bullet - was the BEST evidence to prove a conspiracy - since if Oswald could NOT have shot Kennedy in the way that the official story dictated - someone else must have been involved.

Nearly 50 years we have debated the physical evidence. and year after year we see 'experts' trotted out who disagree.

what have we accomplished?

equally vexing were activist/researchers like Dr Fetzer who appeared to forward the MOST outrageously conspiracy theories about the kennedy assassination - in fact claiming the Zepruder Film was faked. sound familiar? his disruptions all but destroyed what was left of unity and cohesion in the Kennedy Truth movement. According to Fetzer - everyone was a spy. Dr Fetzer went as far as to publicly write in one of his scientific papers that 'facts did not need to be true to be considered legitimate information.' the man made a LIVING from spreading disinformation. do you get that?

does it surprise you that Dr Fetzer later appeared in the 9/11 Truth movement?

I would like to believe, like Dave, that TRUTH is like a liquid that eventually always finds its level - and that eventually enough facts will become available to create an open and shut case. but - sadly - history tells us something very very different. history tells us that quite the opposite happens.

given the fact that americans are still debating the science of evolution - its kinda hard to imagine the truth about 9/11 rising from the primodial ooze of propaganda surrounding this issue - and this movement.

unity is nice - but credibility is even nicer.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Excellent point, John

After reading your reply, I was forced to acknowledge how naive I truly am in believing that truth will somehow always triumph over lies. You made a superb parallel between 9-11 and JFK, and I think I would have to agree that characters in the movement such as Jim Fetzer have served mainly to distract and disrupt logical, critical thinking in order to solve the problem. It's a shame, but it needs to be addressed. Perhaps I was not thinking realistically when I assumed that working together would automatically make us find what we were looking for. I am not swayed by "pet" theories or personalities, and I think that is why I have equal respect for Dr. Steven Jones, for Richard Gage, AIA, for those of us that research and expose credible evidence, not complete speculation. I have noticed that Jon is extremely careful whom he associates himself with, and this has made me understand much more clearly why. I find it so incredible that the more you look into 9-11, JFK, or any other "taboo" subject of human history or pivotal moment in time, it seems that more and more unanswered questions surface and less of what you were looking for in the first place becomes clear. I pray (and I am not anywhere near religious) that we will all eventually understand who, what, why, and how about 9-11. Prayer does not answer questions, and people like Aidan, Adam, John, Jon, and countless other tireless investigators have taught me over the years of looking into this that pinning the 9-11 mystery on one person or even one group just doesn't work, and assuming you know who, what, why and how only underscores your ignorance, and reveals how eager you are to latch on to what you believe to be the absolute truth. I learn so much from all of you, and I appreciate you all so much.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

If I may...

What you wrote John is really reflecting a big part of what I think.
On the other hand, comparing the JFK case with 9/11 is a bit difficult. Did you ever see any association of 1000 professionals asking for a reopening of the investigation in the case of JFK? Did you have all of those videos, testimonies and data? And most important of all, did you have anything that can compare to the internet in 1963?

A lot of data has been lost forever in the JFK case precisely because of the lack of technology at the time to reproduce and spread it fast. It was much more easy to eliminate evidence and witnesses. You just had to destroy the negatives and the photos were gone forever. Same thing for movies. Now in the digital age, its much more difficult. 9/11 would be even harder to cover up if it happened in 2010 with all those smart phones taking clear pictures and videos.

So in a way, the massive disinfo and "cleanup" of important evidence and key witnesses that happened in the JFK case can't really happen the same way in the case of 9/11. I'd say the only real protection they have now is the wall of resistance of the MSM.

Still, I also think that there has to be people working on different aspects of this complex event and massive crime in order to be a real efficient group of activists.

I must admit that, since the CD theory has become so credible and important, I've always been a bit annoyed by the fact that Jon Gold insists so much and constantly on the fact that we can't rely only on this aspect of the event. While it is true, it's creating division and it's in a way, provocation for those who have spent so much energy to convince normal citizen in the streets, not to mention people like Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan etc . And in a situation where there are "people" watching the movement in its every move, that kind of division is helping them. I mean, once it is said, why is it so important to insist that much?

I can understand for instance that the pentagon crash is a touchy subject to avoid since there is so little data to research, and since CIT went IMO a bit too far into speculations ( I still appreciate their work and think the critics were aggressive, but its another story) and that we have to be careful. Same goes for United 93. Even the phone calls from the planes. But isn't 1000 architects and engineers enough to confirm that this is not just a vague theory? I know Jon never said he doesn't endorse AE911but he is still the only one that I know of, that constantly write on Blogger and mentions in interviews that point of view with so much intensity.

Also, I have to say, sadly, that one month ago I would have been a bit harsher toward Jon Gold's opinion, but now, after I learned that Steven E Jones made a preentation about man made earthquakes and after I debated with We Are Change's Bruno in a post on this website about chemtrails, I am very disappointed. I can't understand that people who have given so much time and energy to this cause would put their credibility at risk by covering such speculative subjects. But I said it once and I won't insist anymore.

Richard Gage is really the person that makes me confident because he has a solid credibility and he was a regular guy before his involvement, who was a republican (so no one can call him a socialist from San Francisco!), and he is qualified in architecture. By seeing the results of his efforts lately, we have to admit that the CD "theory" is not so much of a theory, but ratter a more than probable possibility. And to this day, I haven't heard a so called debunker destroy point by point the facts and observations that AE911 truth have brought to our attention.

If mainstream news around the World, and now, even the Washington Post begin to cover their work seriously, after all the propaganda aired about the official NIST explanations, to me, it says something.

My conclusion is: let's stop this useless debate. Jon Gold has done so much and still continues to put so much energy in the movement that he doesn't have to prove his credibilty, nor the fact that to him, CD is not the only way to convince the population. The more different angles will be covered, the more chances we have to achieve our goal. But I agree with you, those angles HAVE to be credible and the same goes to the people presenting them.

I agree with your basic premise

That CD is no longer a theory and has moved into the realm of probable cause of the destruction of the WTC.

I have to caution you about your critical remarks about Dr. Jones and about Bruno. What I want to caution you about is that you may be making snap judgements about Dr. Jones and Bruno both based on a very incomplete understanding of what they were talking about. In Dr. Jones case with the presentation (which I have not yet seen and would like a link for) on man made earthquakes I strongly suspect he may have facts and evidence that you are not aware of. I will not get into it too deeply here because this is a 9/11 forum but I suggest you read up on Tesla and I offer this little morsel of information in the hope that you will see that perhaps your judgement of Dr. Jones is both premature and based on an incomplete understanding of the topic he was discussing.

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Earthquakes_Natural_or_Man_Made....

"In a book entitled Tesla – The Lost Inventions, a section is headed “Man-Made Earthquake”. It discloses Tesla’s fascination with the power of resonance and how he experimented with it not only electrically but on the mechanical plane as well. In his Manhattan lab, Tesla built mechanical vibrators and tested their powers. One experiment got out of hand.

Tesla attached a powerful little vibrator driven by compressed air to a steel pillar. Leaving it there, he went about his business. Meanwhile, down the street, a violent quaking built up, shaking down plaster, bursting plumbing, cracking windows, and breaking heavy machinery off its anchorages.

Tesla’s vibrator had found the resonant frequency of a deep sandy layer of subsoil beneath his building, setting off a small earthquake. Soon Tesla’s own building began to quake. It is reported that just as the police broke into his lab, Tesla was seen smashing the device with a sledge hammer, the only way he could promptly stop it.

In a similar experiment, on an evening walk through the city, Tesla attached a battery powered vibrator, described as being the size of an alarm clock, to the steel framework of a building under construction. He adjusted it to a suitable frequency and set the structure into resonant vibration.

The structure shook, and so did the earth under his feet. Tesla later boasted he could shake down the Empire State Building with such a device. If this claim was not extravagant enough, he went on to say a large-scale resonant vibration was capable of splitting the Earth in half."

Now I don't know about you but if Tesla said he could cause earthquakes I believe him. Dr. Jones is also a brilliant man and if I were you I would FIRST look into what he said no matter how strange it sounded BEFORE I made a judgement about it. I would also like to point out that many people said the very same things about Dr. Jones with his 9/11 research that you are now saying about his man made earthquake comments and I am confident they were wrong back then and he was right and I am also confident that Dr. Jones generally knows what he is talking about before he ever opens his mouth. Look before you leap to conclusions is all I am saying.

As to Chemtrails I read the debate you had about that with Bruno and although you are correct chemtrails have nothing to do with 9/11 I think you missed the point which was that Bruno never claimed it did have anything to do with 9/11. All he appeared to be saying was that the chemtrail issue was also important to him and that in his view there is mounting evidence that chemtrails are not only real but also dangerous. I have not looked very deeply at the issue myself but I suspect you are making the same mistake of jumping to conclusions with Bruno as you have done with Dr. Jones. I simply think before you consider someone a crack pot you need to look at what they are saying carefully first.

I agree it is wise to be careful about what you endorse but it is very unwise to reject something as bunk based on incomplete understanding or lack of knowledge.

My english limits the clarity of my comment

Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough. The idea in the chemtrail case was that it was mentionned by two persons in a video ABOUT 9/11 truth, and if you go see wearechange.org, 9/11 is mixed with many subjects à la Alex Jones. It becomes one of the elements in the whole discourse about the New World Order. It is the mixing of the two that creates big problems for me, and by seeing the reaction my comment made, I don't think I'm alone. If someone would talk about UFOs while making a presentation about 9/11, would you like it? Many could argue that there is evidence that the government knows about UFOs and that whistleblowers confirmed it. They could say there's a link between the two and blah blah blah.

We all know that it is hard enough to get through the propaganda and try to reach the population with the evidence and facts about 9/11 so why, when we are closer than ever, is it so important to combine the matter with other subjects with flimsy evidence?

Same thing about HAARP and the Tesla discoveries. Prof Jones presentation was AIRED over the internet after AE911 press conference, in THE SAME session. That is a clear association of the two subjects. Maybe it was a technical error and it wasn't supposed to happen this way, but it did. And we all know that there is a high probability that agents of some kind are present in the room in those events. So they can relay this info to whoever is hiring them.

I have researched those subjects too, but if we all agree that speculations about the Pentagon crash are dangerous, chemtrails and HAARP-like subjects should be avoided. I'm much more interested in HAARP then chemtrails, but it's still very speculative to say that it could be fully functional and capable of creating earthquakes. Time Travel was proven in theory by Stephen Hawkins, but he was the first to say it was technically impossible to achieve.... So until we have real evidence about the functionality of those military experiments, we cannot say it's probable. We just don't know.

You can create distinct groups for those subjects, and research them, I would be interested to see what could be discovered, but mixing the two, when 9/11 itself is such a touchy subject with so many people (I've been ridiculed many many times), is to me the equivalent of sabotage. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it is like if it was.

Anyways, this is the last time I mention my opinion about this, because division is counter productive.

I'm not making snap judgment about Prof Jones who is someone I respect and admire so much, he is a professor in physics, not geology!! Also, as I said in another post, I've heard "debunkers" mention often his past work about the presence of Jesus on North American soil. While I think the religious beliefs can't be used against someone, if you combine this with the man made earthquake, it is quite easy for any MSM "journalist" to attack his credibility.

I agree with Le Lys

It's easy to loose our way in this matter. Let's remember what this blog is about. Let's focus on the battle we're fighting here, and when it's won, we'll be able to move on to the next. We do have to remain credible.

I think everyone on this blog has been, more than once, ridiculed in the past for their belief in our cause. We still have such a long way to fight, the big press conference by AE911 gone almost unnoticed by the MSM being yet another proof.The facts are not getting enough press, while little, sidebar-like, footnotes are making it through... Linking us with "crazy conspiracy theories" is what they aim for. It's giving them munitions against us for many years.

Prof Jones and others are without a doubt heroes for speaking out in the way they have done. For putting their careers on the line, if nothing else. But now, they are the speakers for a particular cause, they are clearly identified as 911 Truth Movement Leaders and it therefore limits their choice of topics during 911 events.

Simply put, I think someone should start a "HAARPblogger" or a "Man-made Earthquakes blogger" for those who want to share information and discuss those subjects.

We now have so much science going on for us in this fight, let's not muddy the water with other topics that still need them to be unearth.

Well John...you made your point clear there!

We should use the facts that speak for themselves as Gold says, most of us would include WTC 7's demolition in that and that my friend is where this argument really lies between Gold and many of us.

As we move forward more of us understand political credibility and desire it, AE911Truth present us a way to get this it appears to me and is demonstrated by recent media. Although unfortunately many in the Peace Movement and in politics do not have a good grasp of physics, being predominantly interested in humanities, society, the economy and law which has presented a great barrier to these concepts.

The analogy that was made and has been made often with the JFK "magic bullet" and "WTC 7" and how they are both perceived would be a useful study to conduct.....to see whether the CD argument is the one that will win the day and the truth. For me the physics of the JFK assassination was what proved the conspiracy...but I am an engineer:)

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.visibility911.com
www.truthaction.org

Everyone has blind spots

Even I.

We need to embrace people in the

peace movement. Let the different peace groups know we support their cause 100%. Find out what they really want to achieve. When the time is right to discuss 911, show each and every on of them the classic controlled demolition of WTC7. Even the majority of well informed peace activists have never seen WTC7 destroyed. Once they see this "jaw droppping" image, point them towards the experts; AE911Truth.org. There may be a handful of people who might wake up to 911 more favorably with a different approach, but we can't predict who those people are. Therefore, why not go with the approach that seems to work for most people, is based on solid scientific evidence, and is backed by hundreds of experts in a field. Once the blinders are off, they will be more likely to do further research.

While we are natural allies with the peace movement

in our mutual opposition to war, the peace movement is made up of many different ideological factions which are in near constant conflict with each other, so we cannot really embrace their cause(s) 100%. All too often peace and justice groups seek to impose their own orthodoxy on their members and their dogma too frequently precludes 9/11 truth.

9/11 truth is non-partisan or trans-partisan by definition and it is becoming very clear to me that this is one of the main reasons why the leadership of established ideologically based groups (such as "left" leaning peace groups) work very hard to keep a 9/11 truth informed critique away from their members.

At its core, 9/11 truth is about restoring the constitution, re-establishing the rule of law and creating a government that is truly transparent and accountable to the people it serves.

Once we have restored our republic we can then begin to debate in earnest the true role of government.

What we can do is to educate the rank and file among the peace groups as to the true facts regarding the events of 9/11/01 and put said facts in a context that demonstrates the continuing relevance of 9/11 truth to ending war and creating lasting a lasting peace for everyone.

Ultimately, the 9/11 truth movement can act as a bridge for people of radically different, or even opposing, political philosophies to work toward creating the real change we all need.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Very well said

It would be great if we could end this thread right here on a positive note and get back to the business of spreading some 9/11 truth.

Thanks for that Leftwright

I agree, we do not have to agree 100% with any group we are trying to align ourselves with. Anyone who approaches a peace group should find out if they have anything in common with that group before pursuing a relationship with them. My point is; when people in the 911 Truth Movement approach people in the peace movement, they may be tempted to discuss at length about; "how 9/11 is the foundation for the current wars" and " how the 9/11 commissioners admit they were lied to" when they should really start with WTC7.

You write

“9/11 truth is non-partisan or trans-partisan by definition and it is becoming very clear to me that this is one of the main reasons why the leadership of established ideologically based groups (such as "left" leaning peace groups) work very hard to keep a 9/11 truth informed critique away from their members.”

Although some may fall into this category, I think the majority of peace activists, like Graham Mcqueen explains, have simply never taken the time to look at the information people in the 9/11 Truth Movement have put together.

Jon prefers to stick to the facts

"Jon prefers to stick to the facts that "speak for themselves"."

They do. So why doesn't he listen?

"Jon is not a promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis."

This is not a hypothesis. It is a FACT. Free fall acceleration is indisputable scientific proof that WTC 7 was a CD.

Shyam Sunder admitted that NIST's progressive collapse hypothesis, does not result in a period of free fall because there is structural resistance and "everything was not instantaneous".

If you understand English and physics at a high school level, that is, if know that free fall acceleration means "an object that has no structural components below it" then you KNOW that WTC 7 was a CD.

"But as Jon likes to remind us, the advocacy of any particular hypothesis is not a prerequisite for being a 9/11 truth activist."

Telling the truth is prerequisite for being a 9/11 truth activist.

When Jon says the CD of WTC 7 is a hypothesis, he is not telling the truth.

He has a right to his own opinion but not his own truth.

actually

Not even Gage himself speaks with the certitude that you do about controlled demoltion.

For example - in Richard Gage's Presentation on the Truth Behind the 9/11 Investigation - "at no point did Gage insist that his evidence was beyond challenge, and his central argument was to say that the volume of evidence uncovered clearly calls for an additional inquiry, and displays element of procedural impropriety in the official inquiry report of the 911 Commission."

from his own petition:

The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that MIGHT have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

MIGHT

do you understand the meaning of that word?

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Denial of the law of gravity

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a law of physics. Free fall acceleration means something that has no structure below it. Even Shyam Sunder admits that. There are no exceptions to the law of gravity.

Voting down the truth is something only done by OCTers which makes me wonder what has happened to this forum.

again - even Gage does not

again - even Gage does not attempt to speak with the certitude that you guys do.

and he's highly qualified to do so.

i always find it highly suspect when posters claim to KNOW the truth. not even our most respected scientists claim that. it seems more akin to peer pressure than deductive reasoning. it seems more akin to an excuse to divide - than to unite. it seems more akin to disruption than to promoting unity.

i'm just saying. lol

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

So what?

That does not alter the law of gravity.

David Chandler is more "qualified" than Richard on the laws of physics, not that it matters. ;-)

The law of gravity is not a theory.

Gentlemen -

You've made your points, take it elsewhere (email, maybe?) please.

The topic of this blog is not the laws of physics, feel free to create one on that topic and have this discussion there, if you must.

Thanks.

[Honestly, every time I drop my keys on the floor I am reminded of the reality of free fall and its implications (just my two cents...). ]