Jon Gold Talks To Chris Hedges About 9/11 - 7/1/2012

This took place at Franklin Square in Philadelphia at the Occupy National Gathering.


You handled Hedges perfectly. Even though I support the Building Seven aspect, the way you deflected his skepticism left HIM with some questions to answer for himself. Nice job.

Sad to watch Hedges squirm

but KNOWING and deciding to lie makes one do that.

confessions of an ex-Squirmer...

I dunno. If you automatically figure everyone who doesn't agree with you for a fool or a liar... good luck with your so-called strategy about getting the word out.

I know I easily wasted about 4 or 5 years 'squirming' like that about 9/11 ... in retrospect being a total dummy.... 4 or 5 years when I didn't lift a finger to survey any available evidence about what happened. I figured the skeptics of the official story were nuts. Why ? Mostly , and only because a close friend of mine kept trying to educate me about the 'missile pods' on the planes . , when he wasn't dropping broad hints about holograms etc. And he would finish with, " How can you not see this was an inside job?" I worked with the guy , so I saw him frequently and he kept after me
in this fashion... bad, or no evidence , combined with an unshakeable certainty.

Finally , to shut him up, I showed up to watch a video he was showing in his neighborhood about the' pods'... and I was appalled at the truly shaky nature of that 'evidence'.That switched me off for a couple more years. Or , if you prefer, you could say it shored up my defense mechanisms . Anyway, I kind of understand what I can 'see' about Hedge's reaction in Jon's video clip.

I am NOT a public figure like Hedges, but his demeanor reminds me of myself, back then. In fact , if you watch other vids of Chris Hedges being confronted about his take on 9/11 , he usually says since he hasn't 'reported' on 9/11... (journaleese for he doesn't know anything about it....) he isn't comfortable speaking about it. Since he isn't informed ... he won't speculate. Anything not sensible about that ? This tells me he hasn't looked into it much , if any. That's all it tells me.

I'll shut up soon , but what finally got me to get off my ass and make the effort to wade thru the the crap to get to DRG, Kevin Ryan, AE-9/11 Truth , this site , David Chandler etc. was another buddy who asked if I would take a look at a book somebody was trying to get him to read. I said something like , 'Why don't you read it yourself...?' He replied," Look ... every time I do a gig , these 9/11 fanatics keep coming up to me, demanding to now why I won't speak out about the 'truth ' of 9/11" . Now , this guy WAS and IS a public figure and a smart guy , to boot, ..... a fairly well known entertainer who spends a lot of time on the road , at hotels , venues , airports etc. . To give you a quick picture , all he knew about 9/11 was that 'fanatics were bothering him all the time '. So , I said tell me what the book is . He said, ' Something about Pearl Harbor , I think ? "

So, I read David Ray Griffin's book and started un-shackling myself. ( like I said , with help from others , including posters on this site. )

To this day ... years later ... my show-biz pal, the guy who indirectly got me to take off my blinders ... THAT guy still steadfastly buys the 'official story' and will hang up on me if I try to get a word in edgewise, or straight up. Never read a single page of 'The New Pearl Harbor'. When I told him it made a lot of sense to me ... he probably figured I went over to the 'other side' , I guess .

I don't take either him or Chris Hedges for being liars. I don't know Chris, but I'm being patient with the guy I do know. He's smart. He'll probably come around.

My other pal ? The 'hologram' guy? Well, in a narrow technical way... he's RIGHT ... after all !!... the official story is a nest of lies. But he just can't make a halfway clear , logical case on behalf of his 9/11'beliefs' to save his life.

If only they were consistent

'...he usually says since he hasn't 'reported' on 9/11... (journaleese for he doesn't know anything about it....) he isn't comfortable speaking about it. Since he isn't informed ... he won't speculate. Anything not sensible about that ?'

In and of itself, no--nothing not sensible about that. Invariably, though, these ostensible skeptics who criticize the government and the establishment media will use that line when confronted by 9/11 truth; but when speaking about 9/11 in other contexts, they will simply pay lip service to the official story--limit their criticisms to the government's response to and exploitation of the attacks, while everything they say about the events themselves presumes that the story we have been told is sound. Their position comes down to, 'I haven't looked into it, but until I do, I'm going to go along with the official story--no matter how many lies these institutions have told me in the past.' So for me, it isn't about whether their justification for avoiding our questions is 'sensible' or not. Instead it's a matter of hypocrisy and inconsistency and double-standards.

Serving a Constituancy

I heard Dr. Cornell West speaking about the anti "Stop and Frisk Law" movement in New York City. In his speech West despaired of the "quasi-fascist" environment in the U.S. I had to agree except I didn't know why that he had to say fascist parenthetically by buffering it with "quasi." I decided it must be that these people have constituencies that they don't dare inflame. Who? Who knows. It could be blue haired liberals, bosses, Deans, NGOs, or whoever is buttering their bread. I can only think, in the case of Hedges and others, that it must be a hell of an embarrassment that someone like me with a state school education can be more advanced in their political thinking than someone with an Ivy League one; 9/11 was an inside job, ipso facto.



Great Job John for pinning Hedges down respectfully, and keeping him on topic.

*If you slow down the video, you can actually see his brain fart out his ears (squibs?)when you mention the Saudi's, ISI, Zelikow.

"I don't think we were lied to"

C'mon Chris really? Your smarter then that. That's what's frightening.

A Cowardly Response.

Seldom have I seen such a "weasel" response to a set of legitimate questions. Hedges didn't even attempt to address Gold's points, let alone justify the omission of pertinent facts about 9/11 in his (Hedges') writings.

He instantly referred to al Qaeda - in an attempt to derail the questions. However, if Hedges was that well researched on al Qaeda, as he was so quick to point out, then perhaps he should have mentioned that the method and degree of sophistication of 9/11 should have raised a host of red flags all over, being so far removed (i.e. non-signature, "out of pattern") from anything attributed to al Qaeda, both before and after 9/11.

Hedges, if he is the "ever so informed know-all" that he claims he is on the subject must surely know that the 9/11 Commission was a totally compromised dog's dinner of an investigation - hijacked by the Bush White House and the Pentagon - run by an insider, and since the report was published, a majority of the senior Commission staff have trashed the findings of their own inquiry. Perhaps a question for Hedges (or anyone else in the gatekeeper arena) could be: Since the 9/11 Commission was such a failure, riddled with so many lies, who was Zelikow etc. protecting? More al Qaeda operatives? (?/!!)

Hedges' body language suggests that he knows a lot more about 9/11 than he's verbally omitting, and talking about the subject makes him extremely uncomfortable.

Hedges attitude is that of a coward.

Afraid of the Bear

Chris was afraid of being eaten or at best, mauled --Jon's a big guy.

No reason to doubt Hedges' sincereity

It hurts badly that someone as concerned with courage and cowardice as Hedges will not look at the evidence on 9/11. He really was a foreign correspondent for the NYT. To address that one we need Nafeez Ahmed to show the likelihood that Al Queda was a creation of western intel and Sibel Edmonds to report the feds paid Bin Laden up through 9/11. If someone could finance a Ahmed/Hedges/ Edmonds presentation and Hedges has the courage to do it, we'd get somewhere.

Bob McIlvaine and I went and hear Naomi Wolf be interviewed by Hedges a few years ago in Princeton. Hedges was very angry at the Dems, calling them cowards. Wolf was less cynical, but did note her son had been close to GZ that day and does have a cough. She agreed to interview Bob, and never followed through.

Contact me at 410-499-5403 if you want to work on Ahmed/Hedges/and Edmonds


I put Hedges in the same group as Amy Goodman: the spooked; the scared. These people have been influenced or somehow persuaded to look the other way and ignore what should be the biggest story of their careers. I hope the day will come when the insanity ends and Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges can honestly explain why they stayed on the sidelines on this story. If we ever do hear the reason, I'm sure it will not be that they didn't bother to investigate or were too busy. But it is frustrating because they still have a lot of clout and their painfully conspicuous silence on 9/11 is like a wet blanket on any sparks that might enrage liberals in this country to take their thumbs out of their mouths.

When You Can See the Seams

I have some jelly jar glasses. I jokingingly call them my "elegant crystal." The reason that I like them is that they are really thick walled and take a beating when I wash them. This is great for me because I have always enjoyed drinking out of a sparkling clean glass and their sturdiness allows me to have a good supply day in and day out. But, you can see the seams and this lets you know how they were made. They were made in a mold and the seams show both the constraint of the mold and where the mold fits together. The seams are a delimiting factor, well that and the logo on the side and no it's not the Flintstones. The seams limit the function of these glasses to everyday use; they would certainly look out of place in a white linen setting. I think about seams in glasses a lot both because I see them every day and because someone ran a game on me. I heard through the grapevine that a friend, a wannabe communist, had declared me and another person "bourgeois." Where this "assessment" came from I knew immediately because he had once handed me a jelly jar glass and asked me: "is this a good glass?" I failed, along with my other friend, the test. Yet it was a poor test because it was a game; it wasn't honest. We repeatedly filled those glasses with wine and had he judged my relishing the wine as proof of my lack of disdain for the glass, we might have remained better friends. There was a seam in his logic, a single factor reductionist one that didn't allow for the assessment I would use when, say, my mother would tell me to "put out the 'good' glasses we are having company.

But let's face it; seams are déclassé, In writing this I stumbled across a reference to "the seamless robes of Jesus." I had forgotten all about that. While not a religious man, I think I know what the writer meant; I take it to be an analogy for purity, and quality. You can see the term "seamless," everywhere: seamless integration, seamless stockings, I even saw seamless take-out. We struggle with seams every day. If you go for a job interview your clothes are pressed so that the seams don't pucker and all your seams should be straight. We struggle with seams all the time. The errant and recalcitrant staple in the fold of a magazine that is covering what might be a "vocabulary word" or some other treasure, the fold in a broad sheet newspaper that obscures some factoid or the seams in your pocket where the lint goes.

Seams are bad. When you have reached the limits of your understanding, that is where you will find a seam, that is fine, we all have limitations. But when you see a seam deliberately put somewhere by some obscurantist then what? Well that can be good and bad; it's bad because the truth is hidden yet good because you know that they are trying to hide something. The seams are everywhere and they are easy to spot. A white blonde girl is missing; there is a seam. I always wonder if we could ever find out historically just what they were trying to hide right then like a trans-shipment of plutonium hidden among a grain shipment or something bizarre like that. Author Bill Bryson in his book In a Sunburned Country suggests that Aum Shinrikyo might have, just might have, set off an A-bomb somewhere in the outback of Australia. Have you ever heard that, or was Lindsay Lohan wrecking her car that day? Bryson is an academic and they do have a tendency to parse their words and take responsibility for them; so who knows? One of the most annoying "tailors" I can think of is Thom Hartmann. you can see seams all over his programs. According to this "change agent," the progressives are waiting in the wings ready to part the curtain seams and come to the rescue. You see it is just that the Wobblies and other unionists are locked in a tenement in Duluth and the place is surrounded by reactionary forces. We just have to clear that one last hurdle. Some seams are so obvious they are funny, well not really: Tonight on PBS Whale Watching From the Deepwater Horizon brought to you By Exxon Mobil and the German Marshall Fund. Speaking of seams, does Anderson Cooper still have pillow creases on his face from his sojourn at The Farm, was all that for funsies or keepsies? My mother was an artist with wall paper. You see, with wall paper, you have to butt the seams just right and then screed them with the back of an oaken wall paper brush for a smooth, discreet, seamless finish. But, as I have tried to show, sometimes the seams show. Sometimes I think I see a seam, a disconnect, on Pacifica Radio. They feature both Democracy Now and Project Censored. Can you see a seam there? I can, and I think it has something to do with the smooth stylizations of 9/11 Truth. I think that Jon Gold managed to uncover a seam vis a vis Hedges in his recent interview, a big puckering one. This seam is as big as the one that exists for anything to the left of center in the US, a Terra Incognito stamped with the admonition "monsters live here." If you look carefully you can always spot the seams and when the breeze is just right and you're not distracted you can see the ripples in the curtains that delineate this Truman Show that we all live in.

Come on, you gatekeepers, now is the time. You can do it.

Well said. And Noam Chomsky's take on 9/11 is another particularly flagrant example of how to weasel out of responsible journalism. I believe the silence of the "gatekeepers" is partly based on the notion that questioning 9/11 would cost them their comfy careers, or perhaps even their lives. It maybe also partly be caused by the misperception that questioning 9/11 will lose them credibility in the minds of the mainstream American public. This latter case might have been true some years ago, but I believe that at the present, most people, even if just in their own minds, acknowledge that the official story is at best, "incomplete or lacking", and at worst, a total pack of lies and fabrications. I honestly believe that if Chris Hedges, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky et al overcame their intellectual cowardice and did some responsible, fact-based reporting on 9/11, as well any story as to who might have threatened them, they would be APPLAUDED, rather than castigated, by the majority.

Hedges POV v. Jon's questions

Hedges (may be paraphrasing): "The government was asleep at the switch" ... something about bldg 7 ... "I don't believe the US govt did it." ... "I don't know that we were lied to."

Jon made clear he wasn't promoting nutty theories or CD evidence, and raised Saudi/ISI support, NORAD lied, Zelikow/9/11 Cmssn conflicts, family mbrs have called for a new investigation. Hedges had no answer to these points, and wasn't the least bit curious. He didn't ask Jon, a polite [EDIT: but mildly confrontational] and obviously rational person, for evidence foreign state support (links have gotten some MSM attn, including thru several court cases the US govt has bent over backwards to shut down). He didn't ask for info on why Zelikow role as ED was problematic. He didn't care that 9/11 family mbrs have demanded a new investigation.

He acknowledged 9/11 was exploited to create the post-9/11 world, but won't even look at questions pertaining to foreign state support and cover up by the US govt, none of which necessarily means the US govt did 9/11, but which have everything to do w/ transparency, responsibility and accountability, in addition to getting at the justification for the 9/11 wars, domestic security state and the ability of the US defense/intel establishment to protect our country and Constitution from 21st century threats.

Hedges is a fierce Establishment critic, he's intelligent, he worked in the MSM. He's in a position to understand the 9/11 story's a fraud, he's got a platform to get info out, but he won't examine the license for the post-9/11 world to see if its valid.

[EDIT: Even the 'asleep at the switch' excuse for accepting 9/11 is BS. Even if one believes this - despite the steady drum beat of warnings that was first denied then widely reported in the MSM - it's no excuse for not holding these allegedly sleepy people accountable for the deaths of nearly 3000 people, plus billions in damage to property and the economy. No excuse for not calling for accountability over the fact that, while whistleblowers got ignored/threatened/fired, the 'incompetents' were promoted or given bigger budgets w/ less oversight and this led to trillions spent on invading and occupying foreign nations that had nothing to do w/ 9/11, killing hundreds of thousands of people, kidnapping and torturing innocent people, undermining the Constitution and civil liberties, etc.

Re: ".....undermining the Constitution and civil liberties, etc.

Talking about "....undermining the Constitution and civil liberties, etc." should be Job One in all media in the United States. Just think of the asspainedness (to coin a word) that it took to even circulate a pamphlet in colonial America. Have you seen their fonts? You can get better fonts than that in a freeware word-processor. All the pamphlets and newspapers had to be set by hand, tediously, there was no Linotype. Then all this material had to be delivered by horseback. And meanwhile, they are all in their cups constantly; even the Puritans drank more beer than water. And yet these beer drinking, buckwheat and bacon eating, stinky oil lamp burning primitives had a better grasp of politics than is shown in the media today. Have you noticed that just about all of the political infighting is about money and with the exception of a couple of wedge issues, there is nothing about rights, freedoms and liberties; there is no philosophical coloring to political discourse here in the US and yet we could do it all, with buttons. The length of a keyboard key stroke is around 2 to 4 millimeters and dissemination is instantaneous, just short of the speed of light, and much more of an expedient than the (LIHOP)* buckboards that the colonials were stuck with.

*Little House on the Prairie


Chris Hedges "Turning a Blind Eye to Catastrophic Truths".

"The psychoanalyst John Steiner calls this phenomenon "turning a blind eye." He notes that often we have access to adequate knowledge but because it is unpleasant and disconcerting we choose unconsciously, and sometimes consciously, to ignore it. He uses the Oedipus story to make his point. He argued that Oedipus, Jocasta, Creon and the "blind" Tiresias grasped the truth, that Oedipus had killed his father and married his mother as prophesized, but they colluded to ignore it. We too, Steiner wrote, turn a blind eye to the dangers that confront us, despite the plethora of evidence that if we do not radically reconfigure our relationships to each other and the natural world, catastrophe is assured. Steiner describes a psychological truth that is deeply frightening"

Turning a Blind Eye

Since I have an ungrad degree in Psychology I would be remiss if I didn't point out the abject lack of profundity in this Psychoanalyst's epiphany that we turn a "blind eye" toward something. I am sorry to be negative but Psychologists just seem to have an inane knack for trying to elevate the mundane to Parnassian levels. While this may seem profound to the uninitiated it is quite tiresome to many that have looked into this stuff. Since we profess to be on a quest for truth here we should question all our paradigms, psychology is one of them. It is one thing to take the survey courses in the field and then make pronouncements in the form of squibs, dropping them like bread crumbs to leave a trail to some Valhalla of objectivity; it is yet another to truly understand the limitations of this field and this only comes with rigorous study both in and outside of school. Take a cue from Vladimir Nabokov: "Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. I really do not care.”