"Progressives" Need To Address The Lies And Cover-Ups Of 9/11

Source: cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com

Jon Gold

Recently, I have started to talk to the "progressives" in this country about addressing the lies and cover-ups of 9/11.

In a talk I gave in Fresno recently, I said that "progressives" were afraid of losing their "pulpits" if they address the 9/11 issue.

I'm sorry, but this selfish reason is the best explanation I can think of as to why they don't (or, I could say that they are paid shills for the CIA, etc… but I'm not a "Conspiracy Theorist"). The lies and cover-ups of 9/11 are so glaringly obvious that when someone who supposedly stands for truth, justice, and accountability doesn't address them, I have to ask why.

As I said in my talk, the media has worked very hard to make anyone that questions the official account of 9/11 the equivalent of a dog torturer or a baby killer. Losing one's "pulpit" because of being painted with the "9/11 Truth Brush" is the best explanation I can think of.

Years ago (before the media had a chance to have its anti-9/11 Truth campaign), MANY "progressives" were supportive of the cause for 9/11 Justice. People like Howard Zinn (RIP), Michael Badnarik, Medea Benjamin, David Cobb, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Stan Goff, Thom Hartmann, Rob Kall, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and many others. This is no longer the case (with few exceptions for sure).

I was told today that "Social justice, anti war, environment, political reform = 1 movement. (And all doomed to fail, until everyone involved learns that fact.)" I think this person is right.

I have been VERY supportive over the years of the movements for Anti-War, Occupy, Civil Liberties, Bradley Manning, Rape In The Military, the BP Oil Spill, Palestinians, Healthcare, and many others. How many in those movements can say they regularly point out the lies about 9/11? Not too many. This needs to change.

People are still dying because of how that day is being used. Liberties are still being destroyed because of how that day is being used. There are still family members that have to watch the names of their loved ones used to do all of these things, all the while not knowing what happened that day or who was ultimately responsible. The lies and cover-ups of 9/11 are just as relevant today as they ever were.

No one is asking "progressives" to say that "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!" No one is asking "progressives" to make 9/11 THE issue for them. No one is asking "progressives" to play nice with these people. As far as I'm concerned, telling people that "we were lied to about 9/11" is good enough for me.

The reason I have been so supportive of all of those different movements (including the ones that aren't directly related to 9/11) is because to me, it's a "no brainer." The 9/11 Card needs to be taken away. The killing needs to stop. I can't think of any faster way to do that than by taking away the justification for it. To "progressives," this should also be a no-brainer.

Please do what you know in your hearts is the right thing.

Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes.

Show "Who can blame them? This" by waitew

Praise for Jon's effort here

Good suggestion to replace "9/11 was an inside job" with " The government is lying about 9/11". Badnarik was never a progressive, always a libertarian. Zinn did pull back.Ellsberg, Nader, and Benjamin were never particularly supportive, just not particularly hostile. Kall has removed his 9/11 section from OpEd News because he cannot afford to monitor the extensive comments which ensue whenever 9/11 is mentioned. Wayne Madsen has suggested, if I am not mistaken, that his former employer the NSA has 1000 paid people to disrupt our efforts. Could be burdening people like Kall is what they do.

I urge all concerned with truth efforts with progressives check out Wayne Coste's excellent website Let-The-Architects-In.org which recounts the refusal of NettRootsNation to even rent AE911Truth a table recently at their annual convention in Providence. Dozens of progressive truth sympathizers weighed in. If you are of that description, please comment now so we can maintain contact. If you are not a progressive and believe no progressive could possibly be sincere, please don't weigh in there.

My personal challenge to progressives can be seen at YourCowardiceIsBelowYou.blogspot.com and MuslimsDidntEvenDo911.blogspot.com

My most concise challenge to progressives is the following question. " If we could show Arab and Muslim people are not the culprits for 911, wouldn't that undercut the Islamaphobia being used to foment our current imperial ventures.?

Similarly, if we could show that foreign terrorists are not the culprits for 9/11, wouldn't that undercut the war on terror being used to erode our civil liberties?

Ultimately, progressives refuse to address the evidence. Anyone who can show our evidence or logic is weak deserves praise. The laws of physics were not suspended that day, folks.

This article...

Doesn't ask ANYONE to promote ANY specific theory, or specific 9/11 Truth group, etc... and so on.

No Need To Play A Weaker Hand At This Stage

Claiming the government simply lied about 9/11 and expecting a massive public response is wishful thinking.

Powerful interests lie regularly. For some, its almost accepted as a part of doing business.

Emphasis on sound research (or what some here dismiss as "conspiracy theories") that may implicate certain powerful interests has and continues to be what generates public interest in understanding the truths behind 9/11.

Emphasis on sound research is what caused dozens of major publications nationwide to recently report alternative 9/11 views.

Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of U.S. Political and Military Leaders on 9/11


Governments regularly research and pursue criminal conspiracies. So too can the public.

Not a weaker hand...

A smarter hand... they lied. We can prove that beyond a shadow of doubt. Anyone who claims they know what happened that day or who was ultimately responsible is full of shit. Incidentally...

"The international Panel also discovered that four massive aerial practice exercises traditionally held in October were in full operation on 9/11. The largest, Global Guardian, held annually by NORAD and the U.S. Strategic and Space Commands, had originally been scheduled for October 22-31 but was moved, along with Vigilant Guardian, to early September."

Wasn't it Paul Thompson that discovered this bit of information, and not the "International Panel?" I could have SWORN I remember him talking about it at Cynthia McKinney's 9/11 Congressional Briefing. Giving credit where credit is due is also "sound research." As I read through this article, I see many things that were "discovered" long before the "international Panel" convened.

Was Paul even invited to take part in the "consensus" panel? How about Kevin Fenton?

Mr. Monaghan,

the link you posted above at http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-07-12/progressives-need-address-lies-and-cover-ups-911#comment-257073 doesn’t look to me the way you described it at all. It looks like a press release written by your group and probably automatically placed on that website by a service for hire at http://www.prnewswire.com/. You're an official representative of http://www.consensus911.org/. What’s the story, sir?


Has gotten better coverage than 9/11: Press For Truth, and yet, that was shunned by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Go figure.

I'm watching it now.

I don't know. It's a good presentation. The soundtrack is something for a sci-fi horror movie. I think it's designed to create tension, fear, and maybe a sense of foreboding or something. I'm having difficulty watching it because of that. If they have the resources to take that music off, they should definitely do it.

@ 9/11 Artists & ... Jon Gold

9/11Artists: "the link you posted above ... doesn’t look to me the way you described it at all."

I'll be glad to field questions about the 9/11 Consensus Panel.

For more information on semantics, please see the following:


As for PR Newswire, they deliver press releases to publications who reserve the right to decline publication.

Jon Gold: "Anyone who claims they know what happened that day or who was ultimately responsible is full of shit."

I note your hostility toward the 9/11 Consensus Panel. I also note your hositility over the years directed at the valuable work of David Ray Griffin, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the Loose Change film series. Perhaps you choose this approach in a misguided effort to distinguish yourself. The 9/11 Consensus Panel's efforts are worthy of support. Thus, I'm sure we can look forward to your continued support.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel


The Purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.

The goal of the Consensus Panel is to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.

The Authority of the 9/11 Consensus Panel

The Consensus Points were derived from a Delphi survey of over 20 expert panelists, who, blind to each other’s identities and responses, ranked each proposed point on a scale of 1-6 through three rounds of review and feedback.

The Delphi Method is a standard consensus tool which uses an established methodology to advance scientific knowledge in fields such as medicine.
The ranked Consensus Points have thus achieved at least 90% agreement by over 20 people. (This is considered a high percentage in scientific literature.)

Together with the professional video-clip accompanying each Point, this controlled survey of Panel Members should help to reduce the confusion and controversy concerning the events of 9/11, and to thereby embolden the media to deal with both sides of the issue.

The Consensus Points are also supported by a comprehensive list of documented references in the form of witness testimonies, oral histories of firefighters, early newspaper and television reports, and scholarly books and articles.

What does...

Questioning David Ray Griffin's promotion of different theories, praising and collaborating with certain individuals who are a detriment to this cause, questioning things like Richard Gage sharing a stage with someone who thinks there will be a false flag alien invasion, or not liking how easily Loose Change was used to write hit piece after hit piece against us have to do with "sound research" and giving people credit when it's due?

Was Paul Thompson (someone who knows more about 9/11 than most anyone) or Kevin Fenton invited to participate in the consensus panel? If not, why not?

@ Jon Gold: "The Pot Calling The Kettle Black"?

Jon Gold: "David Ray Griffin's ... collaborating with certain individuals who are a detriment to this cause ... Richard Gage sharing a stage with someone who thinks there will be a false flag alien invasion."

Your concern for "appearances" did not prevent you from once proudly announcing your phone calls to Rosanne Barr:


Barr's resume includes anti-semitic Holocaust humor and personal substance abuse humor:

Roseanne Barr Burns “Jew Cookies” Dressed as Hitler


"Barr describes herself as "drunk as a f----ing skunk."


Jon Gold: Your hypocrisy is staggering. Perhaps your continued hostility toward the afore mentioned 9/11 figures, groups and works is merely the product of envy. I digress.

Answer my question...

About Paul and Kevin Aidan. Roseanne Barr was world famous. Known for her TV show, comedy act, etc... and so on. Not for her picture in Heeb magazine. Many people still love her, including Cindy. She is also Jewish, and a Jewish comedian to boot. MANY Jewish comedians mock Judaism in their comedy. I think any individual that managed to get the attention of a world famous celebrity (something we have all tried to do at one time or another... those of us trying to bring attention to this issue anyway) would be excited. So, I don't apologize for that. She is not a Holocaust Denier (like some of the people David has associated with/collaborated with, etc... and so on). Incidentally, Heeb is known for taking things to the extreme.

Answer my question Aidan.

Re: 9/11 Consensus Panel Membership

Those who are members of the panel were invited by the organization's administrators.

Questions regarding member selection should be directed to organization administrators David Ray Griffin, William Vealle and Elizabeth Woodworth.



"Consensus panel" that doesn't include Paul Thompson, Kevin Fenton, Erik Larson, and several other researchers isn't credible in my opinion.

Incidentally Aidan...

I wasn't aware of her picture. I was only aware of her fame. No one made me aware of that picture. Not that it would have made a difference, but I wasn't aware of it. Wasn't Gage approached about meeting with Mr. False Flag Alien Invasion beforehand? Wasn't David approached about collaborating with certain individuals over the years? Yes. Did it change anything? For the most part, no.

@ Jon Gold: Double Standards?

Not surprising that you would provide yourself substantial latitude when confronted by your poorly researched decision to openly embrace the troubled Rosanne Barr.

Unfortunate that you don't provide the same latitude to those you regularly attack for their preceived missteps.

And not surprising that you see no fault in Barr's Holocaust oven humor, given your previous mocking of one prmoinent 9/11 researcher's Christian faith with labels like "The High Priest of 9/11 Truth".

I rest.

O. K. Mr. Monaghan. Thank you.

I don’t think it’s a matter of semantics, and I think that your description of that link is clearly misleading. Also, what you did here is typing an unnecessary insult towards a complete stranger upon fair questioning. I think that no further centralization of attention or power of any kind should go to David Ray Griffin and those who are led by him. I think what you’re doing is clearly a cult, it serves only the power and financial power of its leaders, and everybody involved gets damaged. For more information on cults, please see the following:


heaven's gate

To me, these two statements beneath together are clearly double-talk and the only reason to double-talk is to con. Please speak to this point, sir.

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.


The Panel uses the term in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges. It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general. It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses.


They were spoken to, I was not. I always correct mistakes when they are pointed out to me. Others can not say the same. Either way, "progressives" are not being asked to promote any theory or group in this article. Sorry if you don't like that. Incidentally, with regards to your statement about envy, is that why I'm promoting Paul Thompson and Kevin Fenton, as opposed to say, myself?

I rest.

Self Promotion

Dear Jon,

As you asked the question, in my opinion, your whole purpose seems to be about self promotion.

I rest.


I often recommend the works of Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, Kevin Fenton, Peter Dale Scott, and select others. In fact, I would bet that I promote the work of these individuals moreso than anyone else in the "9/11 Truth Movement." I think what you mistake for "self promotion" is actually me busting my ass for this cause. I do a lot, therefore, you see my name a lot. Sorry for that. I don't mean to do so much.

Also, what you perceive as "self-promotion" (meaning, me posting my own work, something I'm comfortable with), stems from being burned by too many individuals promoting bad information. It's in my book. You should read it.