Support 911Blogger


Civil Disobedience For 9/11 Justice At The White House - 1/31/2011C

On Monday, January 31st, 2011, I am planning on going to the White House to chain myself to the fence. The purpose of this is solely for 9/11 Justice. 9/11, the event that created the "Post-9/11 World." 9/11, the event that our politicians use day in and day out to justify horrible atrocities inside of this country, and especially in the Middle East.

I am not going to put pressure on the White House for a new investigation. I do not want Washington D.C. to investigate the attacks. It simply cannot be trusted to do so, as was proven with the Joint Congressional Inquiry, the PENTTBOM investigation, NIST's investigation, and especially the 9/11 Commission.

I am going for the families still seeking the justice they have been denied for what happened to their loved ones. I am going for the families that have to watch the names of their loved ones used for the horrible atrocities taking place. I am going because it is the right thing to do.

We have been lied to about that day. There needs to be accountability and justice. That is the statement I wish to make. If you want to join me in making this statement, please do and thank you.

Please be...

At Lafayette Park at 10am. Thanks.

Great!

Thank you for doing this Jon.

Is This The Best Way To Spend One's Time?

An activist on a street corner quietly passing out reading material to the uninformed public can reach more minds than one being arrested with virtually no one watching.

It's my time...

Isn't it? And who says no one will be watching? I've already been told by several people that they will make it. Stephen Webster asked me to get video so they could post it as a story. I've been thanked by a family member already for "taking a stand." In my opinion, we need MORE of this type of action. That's why I joined Cindy's "Peace Of The Action."

Fully agreed

"In my opinion, we need MORE of this type of action."

If a sizable fraction of the third of Americans who according to the Scripps-Howard poll do not believe the official story acted on - with civil disobedience - what they know, things could change.

Perhaps enough people know already.

Btw, Chomsky (with whom I'm hopefully gearing towards the end of a rather absurd debate), while deriding the efforts of the truth movement (because all the movement does is "exonerate the Bush administration" by pointing the finger at Saddam or Osama) keeps wondering why the movement does not set up tribunals. I have pointed him to NYCCAN, but apparently that doesn't count, as he has never commented on it. According to Chomsky, tribunals would be the only way to go.

Tribunals

Vesa: I'm not sure what kind of tribunal Chomsky has in mind, but we are planning to hold international Hearings in Ottawa around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, with systematic presentation of evidence. Feel free to tell him that, and you might let him know that Kevin Ryan and I (Graeme MacQueen) are both involved in this initiative, which we'll be formally announcing soon.

In the meantime, all my best to you, Jon. I agree that we need to do more of this.

I mentioned that to him...

... but he just replied that it "merits no comment".

Based on our voluminous exchanges, nothing that the truth movement does can, in Chomsky's view, change the fact that the Bush administration or the military-industrial complex could not have been behind the 9/11 attacks, and that is because none of the hijackers were Iraqis or identified as such. That fact discredits any and all evidence to the contrary, which is why I asked what function said tribunal could then have in the first place. But that, too, merited no comment.

"because none of the hijackers were Iraqis"

Amazing, Mr. Chomsky's logical prowess continues to astound me (sarcasm alert!)

And to think I actually read everything he wrote for 20+ years....a mind is a terrible thing to waste, eh Noam?

While my recently departed friend Janette really wanted accountability with some good old American justice, I tend to favor a truth and reconciliation process for those who come clean (they should lose anything gained through illegal means, however) (but I'm just a cili kind of guy).

Keep talking to the Chomsky nator, maybe that will help limit his appearances on Democracy Now!

Cheers!

The truth shall set us free (why some choose to enslave themselves is beyond me).

Love is the only way forward ( I love them even if they do move in circles).

LOL!

"The Chomskynator" ... Part 2.

IMO, Chomsky is slowly becoming a curmudgeon.

hmmm

Well, that's kind of insulting, given that I arranged for him and his late wife Carol to visit my university for about a week, and we had lots of good talks, and they had a very nice dinner at our place and....it "merits no comment?" So much for mutual respect, I guess.

Specifying a bit

Below is what I had written to him. Chomsky commented on the first two Afghanistan-related paragraphs and summed up the rest by writing "The rest merits no comment", the rest including this: "I was yesterday informed by professor Graeme MacQueen that International Hearings, to be formally announced soon, will be held in Ottawa around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, with systematic presentation of evidence".

* * * * *

Good to see that you shifted from "the" to "a" in ascribing statements to me.

As I have said, Afghanistan likely constituted *one* of the reasons for 9/11, and again, there may have been several motivations for invading Afghanistan. Other reasons for 9/11 may (as I have said) have included the fuelling of an endless "war on terror", vast financial transfers to the military-industrial complex, the advancement of the "police state", and so on. 9/11 was a multi-purpose operation. And I have never said that *Bush* was behind 9/11. Cheney may have been - at least to some extent - but that is a matter for a real criminal investigation to establish (and there has never been one for 9/11).

Considering that the FBI has been caught red-handed in, for example, trying to clandestinely fly tonnes of cocaine into the United States, I find it a bit strange that you think that they (or the rogue elements within the FBI) might be worried about the increased flow of drugs to Europe or about further corruption of the Karzai administration. The military-industrial complex in turn thrives the more, the more wars and threats are extended, as history has shown. So, no, I do not see why the Taleban now being funded by a small part of the Afghanistan drug trade as a reason for continuing war expenditures would be so detrimental to its interests. Note that I pointed out that - unlike being easy as you claimed - the negotiations with the Taleban had reached a point of military threats by the US side well before 9/11.

Allow me to explain the relevance of the term "Finlandization". By "Finlandization" and "Realpolitik" I tried to illustrate the historical reality that in many cases governments are not going to question other governments, especially if the other governments are superpowers. It is absurd to raise the case of Kamputchea in this context (a case with which, incidentally, I used to much preoccupy myself earlier, wondering how on earth the US could support the country's representation by the Khmer Rouge in the United Nations).

Let me illustrate this point further. Operation Gladio in Cold-War Europe included false-flag terrorist attacks blamed on the Left to weaken its support base and keep it outside governments in Italy and some other countries. This is now common historical record, thanks to the European Union resolution in 1990 and the research by historian Daniele Ganser and others (of course, Ganser also questions the official story of 9/11). Some low-level operatives were sentenced to prison, but no higher-level ones. Why? Because of the "wall of silence" by NATO, the various secret services and the United States government. And this despite the parliamentary committees set up to investigate Gladio in several countries.

And you suggest that a much bigger atrocity like 9/11 could be investigated just like that?

You did not comment on the views of Daniel Ellsberg or Senator Mike Gravel (who at the time read the Pentagon Papers into Congressional record, thus making it impossible for the U.S. government to hide them from the public). But related to your call for a 9/11 tribunal, I was yesterday informed by professor Graeme MacQueen that International Hearings, to be formally announced soon, will be held in Ottawa around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, with systematic presentation of evidence.

Then again, what difference would a tribunal with any evidence make in your view, as any and all evidence can be discarded a priori because the international "Al-Qaida's" hijackers were not of a particular nationality?

You have no responsibility to respond to any one of my letters. But I would still like to know why you evade questions like this:

Cheney and his stuff began to take the antibiotic Cipro on 9/11 in anticipation of anthrax attacks (as confirmed by the legal watchdog Judicial Watch following their FOIA request), which then came as expected, but from within the military-industrial complex. Can a man of your intellectual calibre not be able to deduce the profound significance of this by the application of simple logical reasoning?
Vesa

Vesa

If you sent that to Chomsky, then that is an extremely powerful statement and you have my utmost respect for the way you phrased your letter. As I told you ... you are up to the task.

Cheers.

Thank you

Of course, that Chomsky just bypasses it all with a "no merit" comment may in itself be symptomatic.

How unfortunate

and typical of his dismissive attitude towards 9/11 truth. Way to keep up the outreach though Vesa! It is so important to make these spokes people for various political movements say exactly what they think about 9/11 and to hold them to the position. It is a critical form of outreach whether people are siding with us or not.

Thanks + further quotations

As Graeme asked me to inform Chomsky about the hearings and as his formulation was here in a public forum, I saw no reason not to quote it directly for Chomsky. I also took the liberty to quote Chomsky's short message in which he now says he welcomes the hearings but dismisses Graeme's analysis of the link between 9/11 and the anthrax attacks as utterly incompetent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *

"The rest merits no comment."

Not even the upcoming international 9/11 hearing, which you have been asking for, or the historical example of the stifled state-level crime investigations into the Gladio conspiracy?

Or the established fact that Cheney and stAff (sorry about the typo in my previous email) began to prepare for the upcoming anthrax attacks on 9/11, showing (among other factors) that the anthrax attacks were integrally connected with 9/11?

There is a lot that does not merit comment in your view. Any fact, in fact, that points to 9/11 as some kind of a false-flag operation only too familiar from history.

The Iraq war was much facilitated by 9/11. Tony Blair, one of the chief architects of the war, has said so much himself. But of course, every observer knew that even before his statement.

You are no doubt glad that members of the patriotic movement, such as Cindy Sheehan, Jon Gold, Daniel Ellsberg and others have been and are being arrested as a result of civil disobedience. After all, you called for being arrested. People like these are doing their best to prevent the USA from becoming a full-fledged police state. Where is your contribution?

Vesa

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *

Agreed. There are two comments in the stream of letters that merit comment. Glad to learn that after 9 years the TM is calling a tribunal.

I don’t like to be polite and not respond, so please send these remarkable thoughts about Finlandization, drugs, the utter incompetence of the alleged effort to tie the anthrax attack to 9/11, etc. to someone else. Surely there must be someone else whose time you would like to waste.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

According to Graeme MacQueen, your dismissal of the news about the international 9/11 Hearings was

" kind of insulting, given that I arranged for him and his late wife Carol to visit my university for about a week, and we had lots of good talks, and they had a very nice dinner at our place and....it 'merits no comment?' So much for mutual respect, I guess."

But perhaps Graeme will be contacting you personally now. Who knows, he might be willing to ask you precisely how his analysis of the obvious link between 9/11 and the anthrax operation manifests "utter incompetence".

In the same way in which your response to the news I conveyed from your colleague and erstwhile host was insulting to him, your dismissive attitude to 9/11 Truth is insulting for the hundreds of family members (such as Bob McIlvane, who lost his son), who want to get answers to clearly very good questions like

- who used advanced explosive material, nanothermite, at the WTC, as demonstrated in Bentham's peer-reviewed chemical physics journal
- why did the FBI Orwellianistically claim that a closely reported and long-lasting data retrieval investigation never happened
- why did Cheney and staff began as early as 9/11 to prepare for what turned out to be a false-flag anthrax operation

These are the questions that any real crime investigation would follow. And by the way, that constitutes evidence of a crime; speculation about reasons for invading Afghanistan is not evidence. So when I suggest possible motives for the invasion, I'm not writing about evidence. And I think that should be clear to a man of your intellect.

But we have seen that politeness is not your strong suit, and I do not wish to invite further impoliteness on your part, if only to prevent you from burning more bridges with your distinguished colleagues. Noam, shall we just conclude that we have different priorities and go on to celebrate Christmas?

Vesa

Vesa

I had a similar exchange with Chomsky about five years ago.

You were extremely eloquent and expressed the case clearly, more so than I did.

The sad fact is that Chomsky simply will not acknowledge the obvious.

I think he speaks profoundly about the vast majority of American crimes. But 911 truth -- he won't go there.

It's a black stain on his reputation. Celebrity has its costs.

Unless someone threatened to kill his grandchildren, thereby justifying his behavior, he is apparently unwilling to come to terms with 911 truth.

No need to fret, however, since public opinion is far more important than Noam, as I'm sure he himself would agree.

And we're winning.

Perhaps you could...

... email the man and ask him personally if he supports the International 9/11 Hearings that you and Kevin will be organizing. Perhaps he would write to you in a somewhat different tone.

Ask Nader as well.

I believe that Dave Slesinger has contact info for Ralph Nader. Let's get some endorsements for both AE911Truth and the International 9/11 Hearings in Canada by big name politicos. We can get some great PR mileage from it.

tribunal etc.

I feel rather as if we're hijacking a thread that should be devoted to civil disobedience so I won't make further posts here on the the Chomsky issue, but thanks for contacting him, Vesa. If you've actually got him to look at a couple of things (even if he says they're signs of utter incompetence) that's an improvement. I believe he has been looking the other way resolutely for some time. (I assume he's talking about the anthrax talk I gave in Walkerton? I see the talk as rushed and full of gaps because I was contracting an hour long presentation for a 30 minute space, but "utterly incompetent" seems a bit strong.)

I'm afraid...

... I haven't got him to really look at anything. I really don't think he has bothered to actually watch your presentation, although I linked it to him. He just keeps dismissing or evading things out of hand because they do not fit his position.

Would you have time to contact him yourself? I'd appreciate that, and he now knows that I have informed you about his response to your tribunal-organizing activity and anthrax presentation. He may even expect you to approach him.

He might deep down have more respect for you and perhaps could not act as dismissively as with someone he does not know personally. He can be contacted as follows (you may have known the address already):

chomsky AT mit.edu

If you contact him, I'm sure he will not spare his complaints about my emails. I'm not too worried about that. But should he go too far in complaining, I might consider showing what kind of emails we exchanged.

Why not both?

I've participated in many peaceful direct actions that have enabled me, upon being arrested and detained, to speak at length with lots of police officers with great success about 9/11 and 7/7 and the wider nature of international terrorism - none of these opportunities would have existed otherwise.

If you believe in the innate conscience that is within all humans, that every individual possesses a conscience, then it is possible that every individual to varying degrees is capable of listening to their conscience and acting upon this knowledge. If the oppressor - whether it's a police officer, member of the military or a high ranking government official - feels a sense of injustice through experiencing or witnessing the suffering of the practitioners of non-violence it can provoke a searching of the conscience which are the first steps to a change in behaviour.

I fully support you Jon and anyone else who participates. I only wish i could be there. In fact, January 31st i will perform non-violent civil disobedience outside Downing Street in London likewise for the families still demanding justice and the atrocities being carried out in their loved ones names. I'm sure i could find a few people to join me too.

'So, if the making of peace today means prison, that’s where we need to be. It is time to accept our responsibility to do ALL we can to stop the violence of wars waged in our name. Now it’s our turn to ponder those questions.' - Ray McGovern from Witness at the Whitehouse Fence

Excellent Gareth...

Thank you.

I mostly agree with Aidan, and heres why

I support Jon Gold 100% , his commitment to go through with this act of civil disobedience, If ever a man in the 9/11 truth movement who can do civil disobedience well... Jon is one man who can.

That said I do agree with and side with Aidan that most activists can do more by informing the public without spending a night in jail.
For myself I do my part as a 9/11 truth activist using civil information activism to get the news and information out into my community.

9/11 activists in my hometown have shared thousands of DVDs, leaflets on Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint, copies of the "14 points of agreement with NIST " to University students over 3 years, and this year promoting " BuildingWhat.org" .

Over 30 - 9/11 civil information actions at farmer's markets, rallies, festivals, football games etc. this year alone.

How do I know this method of activism works well for me?
Give me a nickel for every person I met over the year who has never heard about WTC7... !

We are leaving the local corporate "9/11 silent" media in our dust and doing the job they should have in the first place.
1 in 3 Canadians now doubt the official 911 story according to CBC the Fifth Estate.

Police were called out on us 4 times in 2 years by complaints from security companies and complaints by individuals who did not like our 9/11 cause. Each time police sided with us saying we were were not breaking any law, had a democratic right to free speech and to assemble in public. We always continued 9/11 civil informing the public with leaflets and free DVDs regarless of the red faces and angry complainers. One city official complimented us as to how we conducted our cause civily in the public and wished other causes would do the same.

I do support civil disobedience as an honorable and at times very effective method of activism and will resort to it if ever my freedom to assemble and free speech is restricted or taken away from me as a Canadian.
But for 4 years of success using the civil information method ...why mess with something that works, I'll pass on a night in jail.

Best to you Jon Gold!

Ask yourself why Chomsky is denying the truth!

Really ask yourselves because he must have what he thinks is a very good reason eh? He dodges and makes insensitive as well as non-logical comments etc. But Why? What does he know or feel which prevents him from standing up for the truth which potentially could not only set us all free but would substantiate his life's work? As an expert in propaganda and mind control of the masses 911 is the ultimate illusion to date. The reasons must be dark, very dark, of course. The attacks of September 11th were very dark ! Yet very profound to a profound agenda with profound power reaching around the world. IMO Chomsky does not underestimate this power and chooses to avoid the big truth in hopes of continuing to make some smaller contributions. Once my hero, he has failed to rise to the occassion of history to which his life directed him. Yes I have sympathy but my disappointment is profound.

What is the lesson here? The lesson IMO is that we are underestimating the machine. We continue to argure among ourselves about the details which make little difference. We seperate ourselves from others over these details which continue to divide the movement. We discount some extensive and significant efforts and risks made by committed people over these details. As if the machine will throw out our case if we make a mistake in the fine print, or that the american people will discount the truth over a mistake in the details. We don't need the whole truth at this time, what we need is a great many people who want the truth working together and putting their differences aside for the sake of the big picture. Which is a real chance at exploiting the mistakes and mishaps of the biggest exercise in dominating the masses in modern history.

I wish I'd said that.

peacefulwarrior- your statement is extremely eloquent. Expresses my thoughts exactly.

I wish I had your gift with words.

Thanks

Room for all

I've come to believe that civil disobedience, civil resistance and civil information[ing] actions/activism has over the 9 years played their parts in contributing to the success of the 9/11 truth movement as clearly shown with today's polls.
There is room for all 3 as proponents to each method of action from a maturing 9/11 truth movement. All 3 have made mistakes and have learned from those mistakes and have honed their skills where all 3 actions have potential to be very effective.

Noam Chomsky shared the idea that world public opinion is indeed a superpower to be recognized equal to the superpowers found in Washington DC. So with or with-out Noam Chomsky that momentum for world public opinion "That ever growing doubt of the official 9/11 story" will reach the front gates of the President, Newspaper Owners, and Military Corporations either by leaflet or chains as they will no longer one day soon be able to ignore nor fend off that "World Public Opinion" demand for 9/11 truth and justice.

Regardless if your an activist sharing leaflets or next to Jon Gold chained to the White House Fence in January...
The 9/11 Truth movement is the best place to be for any activist who loves peace, truth and justice.

i'll be there

w/ video camera

Thanks...

Erik.

We'll be there to support

We'll be there to support you! Don't hesitate to reach out to us for logistical support. http://truth-march.net

Categorical put down of civil disobedience

Aidan,
Should we judge Gandhi and King as undeserving of the honors they earned? Any given civil disobedience may deserve constructive criticism. Categorical rejection of nonnviolent civil disobedience is defies the judgement of history.

Godspeed, Jon

Thanks for standing up for the families. Who knows, maybe I'll see you there.

Of course, it's a long way from New Zealand..

I'm standing up...

For us to because that day has affected all of us. I hope you can make it. I know it's a long trip.

Stay safe

The great anarchist play-write Henrik Ibsen once said that "The strongest man in the world is he who stands alone."

Even if your act is a singular one it is meaningful. When I was putting together "Truth Revolution" for the 11th day Actions the most powerful photos, to me, were not those that contained hoards of activists (though kudos for organizers in cities like San Diego and NY for getting such huge turnouts) but those which showed a single person or maybe five people engaging in outreach. It's easy to join a march when you can blend in. It's much more difficult when you stand alone.

Hopefully you won't have to do so. I don't have a current passport and doubt I would visit the US even if I did, but I'll be with you in spirit.

As for civil disobedience, it is one of the greatest engines of positive change in history. Gareth points out above that's it's not either/or, ie civil outreach or civil disobedience. We should use every weapon in our arsenal.

Good luck.

Back in the 60's they burned themselves alive.

I'm not suggesting that anyone burn themselves alive, but I'm drawing attention to what it took to get people's attention to what was then a protest against the Vietnam war, and it worked.

Buddhist monks poured gasoline over themselves and then calmly light themselves on fire across the street from the White House. It truly stunned the nation, if not the world, and brought the level of protest to the forefront and a new level, it was a milestone in changing the tide and tone of protest from there on out.

We need something on par as an attention getter. Perhaps a nude protest? If a hundred nude people chained themselves to the White House fence, perhaps that would gain some measure of attention?

My point is we need to get creative. We need to be more theatrical. Throw paper airplanes at the White House, or throw fliers off the tops of buildings on crowded city streets. I can't help but feel that we need to make 2011 a break-out year for 9/11. That we need to raise the level to a new dimension that has not been done before.

One of the things I believe we should do is target the press, and certain journalists in particular. They're more accessible than pubic officials and if 10 people surrounded them and challenged them to do their job properly we might get a few of them to actually break.

Perhaps a clever coordinated protest and civil disobedience that would go off at the same time in several different cities?

Anyway, we need to raise the stakes. Somehow, someway its up to us to do whatever we can to make the 10th anniversary one in which we can celebrate the truth finally breaking through. We need to brainstorm this and get it done.

Naked? In January? In Washington D.C. ?

Well, I do look good in blue ...

:)

Yes, we do need to start getting more creative, but some of the super serious types will come down on us like many tons of bricks (I actually kind of like bricks, btw),

(In case you're wondering, I've run out of my anti-silly pills and all this nonsense around the Pentagon has made me punchy).

A few years back the folks in Boston started the Tea Parties for Truth and many others jumped in (out here in SF we got some pretty decent press, btw, they even risked their cameras and filmed me!)

While I'm not going to blame the Boston folks for Sarah Palin, you can see what happened with that .... (yet another attempt at humor, I better go see a doctor about this soon).

Back to the subject at hand, one of my projects for 2011 is to start a comedy troupe to do street theater and more (and more! AND MORE !)

Cheers!

The truth shall set us free (free from my bad jokes, maybe?)

Love is the only way forward (and love without laughing...hmmm..not a good idea, imo)

these times are a changin

The 1960s were indeed the dawn of television ubiquity. With sets now in most American homes, a shift in global awareness was rapidly taking place. Traditional modes of activism were becoming outdated thus creating a new era in demonstration. And despite this altered state in global awareness, it still was the time without internet, cellular communication, and even bloggers. Because the face of activism has always evolved with the changing of the times, we as activists must continue to revisit our strategies. While updated technologies create new limitations to old practice, we are also able to realize new successes in otherwise unperceived ways.

The traditional press is aligned with the establishment. While directly contacting the press - and creating theatrical performances for them - may continue to have its time and place, we must ultimately strive for the advancement of new media.

There is no single action that will ultimately change the course of events but rather an efficient relay of all ideas. Thank you Jon for going down to the White House on January 31. truth-march will cover the event and we will help get the story out as much as possible. Will you create a call to action with your arrest? Are there any allies in the peace movement who will be participating?

Jon

Good luck.

Jon Gold is an American

Jon Gold is an American hero.

I can't stand people who tell others their causes aren't working well enough. How dare someone tell another that their protest isn't good enough. Why don't you go out and protest in your manner instead of telling others how to?

I've been wanting to do this for a long time. Good work, Jon!

twisted humor

Jon: I find your remark, "I don't want Washington to investigate 9/11" to be curiously insightful. I agree with you, I don't want them to investigate it again either. Neither do a huge number of truthers. Thrice now they have botched it up. Yet we are constantly badgering the government to re-open the 9/11 investigation. As a movement, we need to come to terms with this contradiction in our primary message. I'm not a big civil disobedience person, but when it is done responsibly, pre-announced and with clarity about it's message, as you are doing, I'm all for it. Godspeed.

Maybe we all should gather in front of the White House with huge signs that say:

STOP BLAMING 9/11

or

STOP INVESTIGATING 9/11

WTF They're messin' with our heads. Let's spin the mind f*#k back on them

Probably my sign...

I got it...

(No subject)

(No subject)

(No subject)

(No subject)

(No subject)

totally agree that we should focus on common ground

However I don't believe some saudi princes and Osama Bin Laden planned 911 and got Norad to stand down and were able to plant demo charges in the three towers sorry tony that dog won't hunt.
The real target of the extremist muslims is the saudi regime which allowed our military to have bases on " holy saudi lands" yeah that totally rings true.
The fact that this guy wants to get out of Afganistan is totally cool, the fact that he was part of the Bagram torture structure is not!

What he doesn't say is the fact that the national wealth is being transferred to the military industrial corporate complex which is nothing new and as always one of the biggest reason for continuing the wars. It's not really about winning it's about profits and the tax payers haven't bled enough yet. With limited real press coverage of the war and some addtional "terror events" there's no telling how long this war can be extended.

As far as one man chaining himself to the white house gates or for that matter even 50 men chaining themselves to the white house gates.........no good press can come from it. Sorry Jon but even if you do get some press it will be easy to spin it and make you appear as a lone nut or irrational. No surprise I favor mass movements and larger protests which cannot be ignored or minimized. The question is how can that be accomplished? Which leads us back to common grounds and the polictics of inclusion. Anyway I will always support you and anyone who stands up for 911 truth and America is home to the brave so my hat's off to you.

Okey

Dokey.

"As far as one man chaining

"As far as one man chaining himself to the white house gates or for that matter even 50 men chaining themselves to the white house gates.........no good press can come from it. Sorry Jon but even if you do get some press it will be easy to spin it and make you appear as a lone nut or irrational. No surprise I favor mass movements and larger protests which cannot be ignored or minimized. The question is how can that be accomplished? Which leads us back to common grounds and the politics of inclusion."

No good press can come from it?! Hardly! One man or a small group are far more easily approachable by the media than some huge protest. Also most of the massive war protests for Iraq, for instance were EASILY ignored by the press. They like to come and cover them by showing a camera shot of ten folks when there are thousands. I remember going to one in boston that filled blocks, yet just a tiny piece was showed. I disagree with you completely on your march of the penguins approach. Also these huge number protests often lack clarity of vision and agenda, which is one part of the reason why they are generally ineffective. Most of the massive anti-war protests out here are sponsored by socialist radical organizations that I take many issues with. And if the protest gets really big or starts to have an effect, these large scale protests are far easier to frame as disruptive and discredited with random group of "anarchists" who can come in and break up the entire thing. (see most WTO protests)

PS.
Shaffer is whistle blowing! He's trying to come clean! You think he can admit everything at once or denounce everything at once and keep the whistle blowing position he has earned? Are you attempting to get people to confront him?

Put up the proof Kdub !

Your comment is:"Hardly! One man or a small group are far more easily approachable by the media than some huge protest. " Where's the beef on this my friend? Is that how Ghandi got the British to leave India? One man's journey? Is that how the revolution in Tunisia is comming together? What about the Civil Rights movement now that was just a couple of people right? MLK did it all by his lonesome right? Huge protests about demanding 911 truth should be easy " Anyone who wants a new investigation or believes we have been lied to" show up. How's that for clarity of vision and agenda? Of course if you ran the show we would probably have to fill out a questionaire with trick questions about the pentagon before you'd grant permission. Yes WTO protests do attract some high charged radicals who are passionate about concepts that are hurting humanity that most of us don't choose to look at. However real change only comes when enough people stand together. Maybe we should consider going to the next WTO protest.

Also your attitude is very inconsistent with regard to Shaffer your comment is :"Shaffer is whistle blowing! He's trying to come clean! You think he can admit everything at once or denounce everything at once and keep the whistle blowing position he has earned? " My direct answer is no I don't however you seem willing to tolerate his less than perfect stance on 911 while throwing people like DRG and Jesse Ventura under the bus!

"Of course if you ran the

"Of course if you ran the show we would probably have to fill out a questionaire with trick questions about the pentagon before you'd grant permission."

HUH? No see I have been out on the street a lot and was able to speak with my fellow protesters about issues we agreed and disagreed about civilly. The implications of your sentence here are hardly peaceful. Try living up to your name. Maybe if you went out on the street with some 11th of the month street actions you would have a better idea of how detrimental the big tent approach (which you keep advocating) is to basic outreach.

And of course you didn't include the full statement YOU made which I was responding to which was ".no good press can come from it. " when you spoke of Jon's action. This is a generalized statement of yours which is obviously inaccurate and I can see why you wouldn't want to repeat it after I pointed out the flaw in the statements logic.

I proved what I said in my statement. The Civil Rights Movement is not an accurate comparison to the 9/11 Truth movement in a few different ways, one of which is simply that it exists in the digital age which has changed the way propaganda and media coverage is spread. I have gone to major anti-war marches and then seen how little press coverage is received. How all of these people who "just agreed on one thing, no war" yet are all so mixed up with different agendas that the anti-war message get's lost in many different left and right agenda's. I've seen vids of some protests where an honest fox news anchor walks up to a huge line of people in a big protest just to ask them why they are there and the protests all just start yelling at him and chanting f*+% fox news. On the other hand I have gone out on the street with just a small group of people and together a local SF group got a full C-Span piece done on 9/11 truth and even showed footage of building 7 collapsing. I was able to speak to 100's in a shockingly small amount of time and found about 90 percent of folks at least happy that we were out there. This is why I think especially on a subject that people are still extremely ignorant of like 9/11, small groups of activist taking part in peaceful street outreach simply opens to a discussion to way more people. Random folks on the street won't walk up to a giant line of 1000's with signs yelling slogans or a group of communists yelling swear words through a bullhorn (I see this in SF sometimes) and be able to take away much if any tangible information. Maybe a general buzz phrase or two, but not much.

Peacefulwarrior wrote:
"Also your attitude is very inconsistent with regard to Shaffer your comment is :"Shaffer is whistle blowing! He's trying to come clean! You think he can admit everything at once or denounce everything at once and keep the whistle blowing position he has earned? " My direct answer is no I don't however you seem willing to tolerate his less than perfect stance on 911 while throwing people like DRG and Jesse Ventura under the bus!"

He's a whistle blower. Like I said. And DRG and Ventura are not. In fact they are putting out bad info that is fueling the debunkers fires and making us easily discreditable. They are NOT providing us with inside info. Do you disagree with what I am saying about Shaffer? I say attacking him or claiming you know his agenda cause he was a soldier for a long time is not fair. I've known many soldiers that have many different views about politics and the wars. Trying to frame them all as torturers or psychopathic murderers, or 'all one way' is a gross generalization which does not take into account the fact that many soldiers are convinced they are working for US and doing whats right for their families. Shaffer can be heard saying he is not a truther in the vid see. Ventura and DRG on the other hand not only claim to be truthers, but also are looked to as supposed "leaders" of the 9/11 Truth Movement. That is why people have become critical when they push conspiracy theories instead of facts. You see peaceful? I would get critical of Shaffer if he started spreading bad info, just like I am of Jessie and DRG. Getting critical and calling bad info, bad info is hardly throwing under a bus. Jessie and DRG get massive media attention comparatively, so as pseudo "leaders" they need to speak the truth and if they spread junk need to be called out on. Same with Shaffer for that matter. Thanks for the attempt at analysis of my attitude. Your attitude is very inconsistent with your name on blogger.

Kdub, let me make a few points about your comments.

I was with Col Robert Bowman in front of the white house when he called for George Bush to come out with his hands up. It was a piss poor showing of support for the truth and the brave Dr. Bowman, let me assure you. While I can appreciate your outreach tactics involving education of the events of September 11th without a ground swell into a populist movement what can this eventually accomplish? Do you want it to grow into a populist movement? I am not being sarcastic here so please don't think I am.

It has been almost 10 years now and the fog of time is growing over the event and with that the will and concern of the American people is fading into what can actually be done anyway. Many people I talk to these days who don't know any of the details of the events no longer even doubt what I say as they have seen lie after lie in US history. However, they feel helpless. Why shouldn't they ? We all know now that the lies of JFK,RFK,MLK, the gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Iran Contra, CIA drug dealing and regime destabilization, Anthrax attacks, the wiki leaked helicopter video have all been clearly documented with no real resulting justice.

The events of 911 contained big mistakes which proved to be a real crack in the matrix. This crack was a chance for a populist movement to force changes and bring some measure of justice. Without a populist uprising the power elite will yield nothing they don't have to. History is the proof of this. If you believe there is a gameplan to sucess another way other than a populist movement I am willing to listen, because I still want to believe we can win somehow.

Regarding the tag Peaceful Warrior it was chosen one to neutralize any concept of violence associated with my "radical" views, and two to show that indeed we are at War. This is a war , make no mistake, life and death have already been established as the parameters. That is why established activists like Chomsky, Goodman, Moore and Zinn see this issue as a non-starter.

Finally, regarding Tony Shaffer: He is denying the truth and is most likely afraid with good reason. How can incompetence explain demo charges in the three towers? The immoral war against the Afganistan people and subsequent inhumane and unjust treatment and torture in Bagram is not something I would want to have had a role in. Donate the proceeds of your book Tony to a humane cause and repent it's the right thing to do.

Lasty Kdub if indeed you see me on the same team as I see you then let us form a truce around common grounds.

Come on people

Don't immediately vote him down, he's trying to open a dialogue.

peacefulwarrior, apart from 'demo charges', you could make the same argument with respect to insider trading. You don't bet on the exact stocks inevitably falling on 9/11 by way of incompetence.

With respect to demo charges...I don't think the science wrt the WTC is 'settled' (I may have at one point, but I don't now), and I don't think we have a good idea of what really happened to the towers. I'm not saying this because I avoid the scientific issues surrounding 9/11, on the contrary, I have immersed myself in these issues for years.

I'm much more intrigued by the temperature discrepancies at and around ground zero. I tend to believe there is something essential about the fireproofing. (Sabotage) Too complex and too long winded to get into here.

As for Afghanistan... I don't believe Al Qaeda doesn't exist, I know Al Qaeda doesn't mean 'database', and I don't believe Al Qaeda is innocent... but that's just the point, I feel the same way about the United States government. It seems you are gripped, to some extent, by the false dilemma fallacy.

I feel Anthony Shaffer has redeemed himself to some degree, and I don't know how close to the torture complex in Bagram he actually was. It's certainly not something I take lightly. The torture issue upsets me greatly.

Some people might argue that because Able Danger program singled out Mohammed Atta, that this vindicates surveillance and data mining. I don't think so. I believe 9/11 would have never happened without the 2000 coup d'etat by the Bush clan. Therefore, it's nice we have Able Danger to point out that they knew and had every conceivable advanced military intelligence resource at their disposal to know, but that doesn't mean I approve of social network analysis programs like Able Danger, which equally focus on dissident activity. I know this.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Snowcrash

The physical aspects of the collapse could be the result of what if not demo charges? The "prediction" of collapse of WTC7 by the BBC, Fox news and people on site means what? The plane approaching the Pentagon described by Mineta indicates ?

Perspective

"The physical aspects of the collapse could be the result of what if not demo charges?"

Please see here for a glimpse of what you do not know yet, (and neither do I, necessarily) and how this goes way beyond soundbites.

When it comes to measuring WTC 7's acceleration through video analysis, please read the this thread where 9/11 researcher femr2 takes on JREF. The battlefield was littered with debunker corpses. No-one survived to tell the story. Are you sure you understand the finesses of interlaced frames, noise filtering, error correction and error margins, lens distortion, using all color channels for analysis, etc. etc.? Why is this relevant? Well...because of graphs like:

And:

Ever been through this thread? Understand communition theory yet? Can't say I do. You?

There is SO much more.

"The "prediction" of collapse of WTC7 by the BBC, Fox news and people on site means what?"

First, there's this:

"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. "

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

But then, there's prof. Graeme MacQueen's analysis.

As I've said before: if it was so easy to predict, why was it so difficult to explain? Please also read this paper I wrote, specifically, the discussion about the second modification from page 12 onwards.

"The plane approaching the Pentagon described by Mineta indicates ?"

Something unholy. But likewise, there's more to it than that, too much to get into here. For now, I prefer Jim's analysis.

Allright thanks

WTC7- Hayden's remarks do not explain the initial collapse of the penthouse, the history of skyscraper fires provides good evidence that the collapse was not pure physics. In addition ample testimony reflects sequence explosions. MaQueen's analysis seems more than reasonable. In addition all the collapses were symetrical and involved very similar time frames, what are the odds that three structures could collapse in similar almost identical fashion including timeframe?

The debunking of Mineta's testimony is too far off in time frame and doesn't really come close to his description of events. The young man description is certainly inconsistent except if you think Mineta can't see. The origin of the debunking is highly suspect indeed.

"Hayden's remarks do not

"Hayden's remarks do not explain the initial collapse of the penthouse"

I didn't say they did. They point to one of several reasons why FDNY 'predicted' WTC 7's demise, justified or not. Which is why I asked: "if it was so easy to predict, why was it so difficult to explain?"

"the history of skyscraper fires provides good evidence that the collapse was not pure physics."

I'm well aware of the fact that no steel framed high riser has ever fully collapsed due to fire. I'm not sure what you mean by "not pure physics". There is a lot of physics and chemistry in the links I've directed you to. Have you bothered to read them?

"In addition all the collapses were symetrical [sic] and involved very similar time frames"

In the case of the Twin Towers, the perimeter was peeled off after acting as a funnel. The time frame comparison is off: WTC 7 and WTC 1 & 2 have incomparable behavior acceleratively. At no point during descent did WTC 1 & 2 fall at freefall acceleration. (Perhaps very briefly shortly after initiation, but I don't think so.) In terms of collapse time, these are discussed in many places, including Jim Hoffman's site.

"what are the odds that three structures could collapse in similar almost identical fashion including timeframe?"

WTC 7's fall is by no means 'identical' to WTC 1 and 2. Danny Jowenko, as you know, agrees. In terms of statistics, I suggest you quantify the odds statistically instead of asking for them, then empirically justify your quantifications.

"The debunking of Mineta's testimony is too far off in time frame and doesn't really come close to his description of events."

When did Lynne Cheney arrive in the PEOC?

Yes I did look at the links for physics and chemistry

honestly the material is above my paygrade. However, Hayden's remarks about a bulge are not consistent with what took place. One side of building didn't buckle and start to collapse and then continue to collapse again after resistance from the unbuckled section of the structure. Time frames for all three towers were within a layman's assessment of controlled demolitions. No partial or uneven collapse took place. Explosions were reported from firefighters, william rodriguez, and Barry Jennings consistent with descriptions of controlled demolitions. If it looks like a duck and quacks like and in the end cooks and tastes like a duck you've had duck for dinner. I give up when did Lynne Cheney arrive in the PEOC?

Alright brother

I owe you a hand shake. Sometimes I'm quick to butt heads. Cheers. May the truth force be with you and with us all.

The Bagram torture structure

Here we certainly have common ground.

I have similar feelings about Col. Larry Wilkerson, who shares direct and personal responsibility for the 9/11 cover up, and then dares lecture us on the extent of that cover up. I listen to the man, I appreciate his insights, he seems well meaning, he has moved mountains in terms of accountability for the conspiracy to invade Iraq, but obviously, a man who has helped the United States government lie to the world about 9/11... that doesn't sit well with me.

The same goes for anybody even tangentially involved in torture and rendition.

Thank you Jon...

Thank you Jon. If I could go to Washington, it would be an honour to stand beside you.

download video to share on your youtube's -

http://www.pumpitout.com/video/gold013111.mp4

.

"To My Fellow First

"To My Fellow First Responders. There is a gentleman that I call a Friend that has cared about 9/11 Heroes from the beginning. He is now going to chain himself to the White House Fence in an act of Civil disobedience for All of us & The Families who have had no justice. Please drop him a line or post a comment here. It may sound weird to some of you but Jon is a Great Man & Has been there for all affected by 9/11." - Charlie Giles