The 9/11 Truth Movement I Belong To...

By Jon Gold

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't invite individuals with a known history of disruption, and promotion of questionable, crazy sounding theories to speak at 9/11 Truth conferences.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't promote information provided by individuals with a known history of disruption, and promotion of questionable, crazy sounding theories.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to does not consist of people that spend more time attacking other people than actually contributing to the cause.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't promote theory as fact. "A missile hit the Pentagon", "Flight 93 was shot down", "Controlled Demolition brought down the towers and building 7."

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to does not put all of its' eggs into one basket.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to cares more about truth, accountability, and justice than proving any one theory right.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to consists of people willing to work together, in spite of our differences regarding any particular theory.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to always promotes the best information possible, and understands the value of pointing out inconsistencies in what we were told.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to understands that the information we promote should be well researched, well sourced, and stands up to scrutiny.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't promote debunked theories, or debunked information after said theory or information has been debunked.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to does not consist of people who force you to believe any particular theory.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to does not consist of people who obtain all of their information from a movie, and instead, consists of people that have taken the time to read and do their own research.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to consists of people that understand if you get a media opportunity, you do not waste it promoting "pet theories", and instead focus on the obvious reasons we are here.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to consists of people that understand incorporating controversial causes (Holocaust Revisionism, Anti-Zionism, UFO Study, Moon Landing Research) into our already controversial cause does not help our efforts.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't single out any particular religion as the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to consists of people that make every effort to contact their local media (either by phone, or by protesting), and their local representatives (either by mail, phone, or protesting).

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to is non-violent.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to makes a conscious effort to reach out to 9/11 families, and supports them when they make an effort towards truth, justice, and accountability.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to does everything within its' power to help the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders, and New Yorkers because local and federal officials continue to ignore them.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to is made up of nothing but heroes, and doesn't put any one particular person on a pedestal.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to consists of people that will be successful in changing this world for the better by holding those responsible for the attacks, accountable, and by restoring this country to the fundamentals our forefathers envisioned it to have.

That is the 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to.

you need to stop preaching this bullshit

::" doesn't promote theory as fact: Controlled Demolition brought down the towers and building 7.""

Because that my boy is a GD FACT!! that has been proven.

Show "..." by Jon Gold

Nobody is "forcing" you to believe

in the "theory" of gravity either but I dare you to prove it wrong.

What's the alternate theory

To Controlled Demolition to elicit SHOCK AND AWE?

You don't want to hang your hat on CD (your choice), but what's the alternate theory you are keeping in the "list of possibilities"? Does this alternate theory have any supporting evidence? Evidence anything like the list on the right side of ?

I will note that's it _is_ a valid position _not_ to have an alternate theory, but we (scientists) usually wait until we can falsify or cast serious doubt on the proposed theory to take that position.

You seem to be protecting a (very) dead horse just in case he somehow un-rots and comes back to life.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

I Agree with Everything, except CD

Its solid - Physics doesn't lie.

The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Controlled Demolition IS a FACT

CD is NOT a theory...There's way too much hard, direct, and physical evidence and I think it's safe to say that 99% of serious 9/11 truthers know this already.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Jon, but I would just add a line that says:
- The 9/11 truth movement I belong to UPHOLDS AND DEFENDS THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND DOES NOT DARE INFRINGE UPON ANYONE'S FREE SPEECH, REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AND PLACE. (i.e., during the 9/11 anniversary events in NYC)

Well said, JG. Sounds like the movement I'm part of ...

Except for the singling of a particular religion part.... Just a coincidence there were no Zoroastrian pantheist victims in the Towers that day?

One cavet:"The 9/11 Truth

One cavet:
"The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't promote theory as fact... Controlled Demolition brought down the towers and building 7."

John I understand your point that it's a "theory" that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. It's also a "theory" that the laws of physics are invariant everywhere on earth.

The only way the towers were _not_ brought by CD is if the laws of physics (conservation of momentum ect.) were different on 9/11.

The controlled demolition if the towers _is_ the issue that will blow 9/11 wide open. NOTHING ELSE WILL DO IT. You can have a senator on tape admitting lihop... it's not going to be effective. The PSYOP is _BUILT_ on the SHOCK we all experienced watching the towers explode from top down. It's Prima facie. Anyone who does not understand this is (frankly) still living in the PSYOP.

I do appreciate your point. And thanks for all the great blog posts.

- Justin Keogh
Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.


Awesome post Justin...That's THE best video I've seen to date on 1WTC coming down....If this can be slowed down even more , the already visible detonator cord flashes will be even more visible...You're absolutely right...The key to making this whole charade collapse is to expose the Controlled Demolitions at the WTC site.

ummm, jon

that was your shortest recess ever!
"As I said, I'm taking a break. You won't have to worry about what Jon Gold does for a while." (posted yesterday)
jon gold - the roger clemens of 911blogger


"The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to does not consist of people that spend more time attacking other people than actually contributing to the cause."

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

some may construe your manifesto as...

and downright useless.

you wouldn't make a very good lawyer, jon. stick to your quitting plan.

Show "Must Be Awful Lonely..." by Brainster

Give it up, twinkletoes

I was sharing simular sentiments when I posted Victronix's Good 9/11 Activist Guidelines:

in the comments at your blog. And you lot were too afraid to respond to them. (Well, Jumbo gave a thumbs up at Chief Brief--but the rest of you are cowards)

So you know very well that Jon isn't alone in demanding standards.

Mind, it helps not to sound pushy--that's why I say "guidelines". Let people have a chance to give it a think, see what they need at the mo.

But more importantly, considering any standards scares the living shite out of both the disinfo and debunker camps: because this threatens to put them both out of work!

Ah, the screams of my enemies in pain brings such a smile...>:-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Thank you...


It is not up to Jon to declare what those standards shall be. That takes debate. And resolution.
What he implied was that some theories are better than other theories but he did not back up his evaluation. (he appeared to mistakenly assume 'theories' per se were wrongheaded in some way. But he does not understand philosophy of science. So it is right that his interpretation is debated. And the evidence is debated.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

I'm all too familiar with theories.

I have MANY of them.

I also understand that the reason they exist is because those who should answer our questions, REFUSE to do so. It is human nature to question that which we don't understand, and we deal with what we don't understand by theorizing about it, researching about it, etc...

However that does NOT mean that we promote ONLY our theories. We also must promote the information that got A LOT of us here today.

If all we promote is Controlled Demolition, than we are not representing everyone that questions 9/11. If all we promote is Controlled Demolition, than we are only bringing in people that Controlled Demolition would appeal to.

One thing I have learned after all of this time is that those who do question the 9/11 attacks are MANY in number. Another thing I have learned is that not everyone that questions the 9/11 attacks agrees on the "set of questions."

We must, as Jenny said, set a standard. We must be, as I said, strategic.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

I've turned on one military

I've turned on one military intelligence analyst by simply showing him wtc7 footage and letting him seek out the rest. He in turn has turned on another ex-intel analyst. It is his opinion that more people would ask more questions if they simply saw the footage of wtc7. It is my opinion also that people will respond well to it. People can more readily understand stimuli that they are familiar with. Many people have seen other CD's on tv or even at Vegas. Most people don't even look at conspiracy theories which IS what we are dealing with because the f'ing media has been conditioning them to associate "loony, whacko, etc." with that phrase and concept since Kennedy was assassinated. People have been working for years now to turn on others to this massive conspiracy. Most of the bases have been covered as far as the suspected who, what, when, where, how, and why. These are issues that individuals need to learn about on their own. There are PLENTY of resources available for them. The important thing is to keep turning people on and the easiest way to do it is not to dive in head first to discussing all of the issues. Something simple like wtc7 coming down will get the 9/11 truth foot in the door and the rest is cake from there.

Take it from a psychologist (or don't. What do I know about the human mind?).

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Great post. We need to

Great post.

We need to always keep in mind that no one piece of information will immediately cause a person to switch to accepting the possibility of US involvement. The question is: what is the quickest way to get a person to start looking into it for him/herself, to desire to become immersed in all the facets of the conspiracy? Much of the geo-political and contextual reality is complex, and, for most of the busy and/or dumbed down populace, not immediately compelling.

There is a near 1:1 success ratio for people who have been exposed to videos of WTC7. The success is two-fold; it makes one wonder why the hell the information was uniformly suppressed if its collapse has an innocent explanation (particularly considering the agencies that were housed there), and the nature of the collapse itself is just so damning. "Who are you going to believe -- them or your lying eyes" is the most efficient way to crash cognitive dissonance. Friends of mine who were persuaded to watch Press for Truth said that everything else in the film could be rationalized as covering up for stupidity or inefficiency or looking the other way (things they already attributed to this administration), but the brief view of WTC7 was what made them willing to look further.

It's not going to work for everyone, but it's as good a start as any.

Our message is not crafted for Fox News, and should not be targeted to their audience (which is thankfully dwindling). Similarly, we shouldn't worry about professed and professional debunkers from either side of the political divide. They are going to treat all evidence of complicity in the same manner. They've never copped to any of the evidence presented -- why should their attempts to debunk CD be placed in a special category?

Not Disagreeing With the Concept of Standards...

It's just that Jon Gold's movement sounds like an Army of One.

Is that smoke coming out of your ears, luv ?

Brainster: Must not agree with guidelines Jenny posts---Jenny Truther--Jenny bad. I must not agree with Truthers that Jon maybe too strict--Must not say Truthers standards can be too high--must not agree with bad Truthers at all costs--must not agree with Jenny Gold--does not compute, does not compute--eeeeerm.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

needlessly divisive

needlessly divisive, as lists usually tend to be. and i thought I was passive aggresive........

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Well said.

I'll add: Hey Gold... it's not about you! Check your ego.
"Cogito ergo sum"

Welcome to the Jon Gold movement

The Jon Gold movement i dont belong to thinks it has to define what the movement is about for other people every day (even after quitting).

The Jon Gold movement i dont belong to rates the Times of India as more trustworthy than the laws of physics (maybe because its about pakistan?)

The Jon Gold movement i dont belong to thinks it is the fault of the controlled demolition 'theory' and the people who openly talk about such 'crazy theories' that 911 truth is not being reported on fair by the mass media.

The Jon Gold movement i dont belong to tends to attack with aggressive and abusive language if people dont act and think the Jon-Gold-movement-way.

If I put forth nothing as

If I put forth nothing as actual fact, then you can not attack me for what I believe may have happened.

I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying something's wrong, and that should spur some investigation. What's wrong exactly? I'm not saying in any concrete way.

After all, what is a fact, anyway?


Personally (speaking just for myself)

I agree with many of Jon's points, but not all of them. For example, I believe that these folks (including the engineers linked thereto) make a very strong case for CD.

Indeed, the list of prominent scientists who believe CD is growing so fast, I have to update that list.

Show "What about Video Fakery" by Freedoms_Please
Show "To clarify..." by Jon Gold

and in the same piece you write

"Victoria... I apologize if my statement offended you. I have a tendency to be in the middle of a lot of arguments (some by my doing, and some by others, mostly by others), and as a result, occasionally, I "flip my lid." For all its' good, and yes, is a good resource for activism, and 9/11 related news (whether it's news you agree with or not), the commenting can be a detriment. The commenting is also a good resource sometimes, however, more often than not, it's a detriment."

The problem with your post is that you are pontificating.
I would not call that talking strategy, which I agree is very important.

On the otherhand, I appreciate your many contributions.

Good post Jon

9/11 truth is much more than controlled demoltion.

I do believe that it is an important first step, but only a first step.

Keep heart brother.

Thank you...

One does not have to

assert that other's points of view are lacking in order to assert the simple message that 911 is more than CD. CD is terribly important (see But it is not the be all. For persuading people, CD has been very useful. But other aspects of the events are useful as well. You use what you must and you be a good enough psychologist to recognize what may work with the person you are speaking to.

I welcome your effort Jon but do not assume you only, know the truth and which event(s) is/are best supported by the evidence without debate. Nor dictate by fiat those which will be most useful.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

I don't know...

But I know what did not happen--the govt's fairy tale version

didn't happen, of that I'm certain.

And having a massive 47-story building implode from small, scattered fires, with the over-insured landlord, Lucky Larry, on video saying it was "pulled", is very compelling evidence to me!

Was to me also

CD is the BEST evidence we have BY FAR. We have freaking video of it happening from many sources and all angles and 100s of eye witnesses that collaborate what all those videos show clear as a bell.

It is not the only evidence as there are literally hundreds of dots to connect and all of those dots once connected all point to this administration, Neofascist Cabal being guilty of a false flag attack on this country.
But CD is still the cornerstone because it is hard tangible and PROVABLE by the Scientific method, a skeptic can see it with their own eyes. CD is not just provable it has been PROVEN, not only that but there is not even any other possibility except CD unless you deny the laws of physics & lots of video with eyewitness testimony.

To me anyone that can watch all the videos of all 3 buildings, listen to the science, listen to the eye witnesses, watch with their own eyes several multi ton beams & columns being blown away from the buildings 400-600', to anyone that can view that evidence and still look you in the eye and call you a "conspiracy nut" while denying their own lying eyes & the laws of physics well that person is UNREACHABLE and NOTHING you present to them will ever change that idiots mind. I don't care what it is, the Bush angle, the able danger angle, NORAD/FAA, anything to do with the rest of the planes, all the documented evidence about at least 11 different countries intelligence agencies telling us before 9/11 what was going to happen, the clear cover up by the media & the 9/11 Omission report and on & on.

That person is hopelessly ignorant and that is the way they want to stay and nothing you say or show will make any difference.

Its the same phenomena you see with such lunacy as a Young Earth Creationist, it doesn't matter what evidence you show this nut as a matter of fact the more evidence you show them the less they believe you and the stronger their "faith" becomes its quite an insidious mind plague but it is basically the same type of mind set we see with people that flatly refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of 9/11 truth.
The 28%ers are Unreachable and there is nothing you can do or say that will ever sway them.

A few things...

Jon, if I may.

There are two separate issues here. One is the question of whether CD should be the only issue discussed; the other is whether CD should be discussed in concert with other issues. I think you’re conflating the two.

The idea that most people in the movement exclude issues unrelated to CD is a straw man. It’s simply not true. The vast majority of people I’ve come into contact with in this movement regard CD as merely one piece (albeit a very, very important piece) of the puzzle.

In fact, when I talk to “newbies” about 911 truth I rarely mention WTC7 at the outset. I talk about the war games simulating hijacked airliners crashing into buildings on 911, Norad, put-options, pre-911 invasion plans for Afghanistan, PNAC, A Clean Break, obvious evidence planting to frame the patsies and so on.

CD is a bitter pill for some to swallow head on unless they see the footage of WTC7, in which case most people conclude the obvious. Polls demonstrate that the percentage of people who believe 911 was an inside job is roughly equivalent with those who have seen the footage of WTC7.

“The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to understands that the information we promote should be well researched, well sourced, and stands up to scrutiny.”

You appear to be making a distinction between the “theory” of CD and the “theory” of (eg) the Pakistani wire transfer. The latter, for some reason, you consider fairly unimpeachable “evidence”, presumably because some FBI agent confirmed it and it was printed up in a newspaper.

Yet, as many have pointed out, the laws of physics invariably trump newspapers, Indian or otherwise; FBI agents to boot. Had the individual responsible for the initial article about the alleged wire transfer slipped out of his chair while typing it up he would not have floated to the ceiling; he would have hit the ground with a loud (I’m not sure of the Hindi translation) thud.

So this is the dilemma you face. Unless “God” decided to suspend the laws of physics as a favor to Larry Silverstein you’re going to be challenged on some of the issues you promote.

Now you say in response: “I’m not trying to marginalize CD, I just think we should explore and promote ALL evidence on the subject, not merely one facet”. That’s fine. That’s great. I agree with you. But again, since most people in the movement (rightly) regard CD as a foregone conclusion they are naturally suspicious of seeming attempts to divert attention away from the perps to Saudi patsies and Pakistani Generals.

I know you like John Judge, so I assume you’re aware of his contention that far more time is spent on the “cover story” of a black op than the op itself. When you continually post information about the alleged funding of “the hijackers” (not “alleged hijackers”), for instance; when said articles are in conflict with other evidence (eg distinctly Un-Islamic behavior on the part of the patsies); when said articles seem to reinforce the official story which we all know is a load of bullocks – largely due to CD -- it’s completely natural that people criticize said posts.

Like it or not, CD is ground zero. Every other piece of “evidence” presented to us must be examined in light of the explosives placed in the twin towers and WTC7.

I know you’ve been subjected to a lot of attacks despite your quality work in many areas of 911 research so are sensitive about all this. But I’m not attacking you, just being honest. I feel that (some of) your blogs deserve the rigorous criticism they’ve received, if not the personal attacks.

A few other points:

You mentioned that 911 truth should not be conflated with anti-Zionism. I’m not sure this is possible. Zionists and Neocons are partners in crime, to the point where it’s almost impossible to distinguish one from the other. Many of us regard Zionist entities as main actors in the crime of 911. What’s more, anti-Zionism is just another way of saying anti-racism. Anti-Zionism should be encouraged at every opportunity, imo. If the price of 911 truth is supporting racism then I want no part of it.

You talked about quack theories being promoted at 911 truth conferences (space beams, “no planes” etc.) I agree with you here and I also agree with Jenny’s contention that 911 truth groups should make an effort to dispel such nonsense.

Most of the rest of your post I agree with as well. Just keep in mind that criticism can be healthy.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Remember: This Is War...

War for the minds, and hearts, of our fellow countrymen, for truth and justice regarding 9/11.

So approach it in a military mindset.

(1) Always attack with your greatest power.

In this case, this is WTC7.

If everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement did nothing but show the video of the destruction of this 47-story skyscraper to everyone they know, there would be a dramatic change in the number of "Troofers" and "CDiots".

Don't you remember that look of amazement on the face of that person that you showed WTC7's video to?

You don't have to say anything. The building says it all. This is exactly why there has been an almost complete shutdown {until of late} of the viewing of this on MSM TV. The question of CD on WTC1 & 2 literally pales in comparison, even close to a point of distraction (try spending some time at and see some of the other side's army of highly educated, clever people with explanations surrounding WTC1 & 2...but they are weak regarding WTC7, their main thrust being, "We're waiting for the NIST report").

Understand, there are many excellent areas of 9/11 research and investigation, but regardless of what you may hold dear in these arguments (and the noble researchers involved in them), nothing comes close to WTC7.


Therefore, always go with your best weapon, your best shot, your FORCE OF POWER, if you want to win. To do otherwise is to divide your strength, and it tends toward failure (as in "divide and conquer").

(2) Conversely, never show weakness...ever. It is shunned in everything military.
This is exactly why "no-planes...holograms...TV fakery...exotic weaponry...etc." have no place in the 9/11 truth movement (at least not now while the war rages, especially with time apparently running out).

These types of arguments / theories (whether they be right or wrong) will always be DETRIMENTAL due to inherent, readily-seen weaknesses that the common man easily perceives. In this war to win people's minds, the fact that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB...must be crystal clear.

WTC7 = 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. This is no theory to me.

How about you?

Everything else of smoking-gun level seems not to even come close.

To win: >>> WTC7... >>> new, real Congressional investigation... >>> JUSTICE.

God help us to this end.

Craig T. Furlong

You're in the wrong Movement, buddy


Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

The gov't tried to razzle-dazzle us into believing that

caveman Osama & his 19 lackeys box-cut airliner pilots to death, turned the airliners around & flew them like Blue Angels hundreds of miles into the WTC, Pentagon, & a field in Pennsylvania. Steel-framed skyscrapers erupted, exploded, & imploded; the Pentagon had a 16' diameter initial-impact hole supposedly from a jet with a 125' wingspan; & Shanksville was just a smoky pit in the ground. So of course people are going to expose the obvious lies in all of this!

Hey, I'm all for investigating & publicizing other evidence like, "Pakistani Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, (then head of the ISI), wiring $100,000 to Mohamed Atta", but along with the physical evidence, not instead of it.

"Hey, I'm all for

"Hey, I'm all for investigating & publicizing other evidence like, "Pakistani Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, (then head of the ISI), wiring $100,000 to Mohamed Atta", but along with the physical evidence, not instead of it."

We've been through this many time. This story is a story. Un-verifiable. There is no available evidence that this man wired 100K to Atta.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Show "By the way..." by Jon Gold

standards are fine but it

standards are fine but it seems to me that you want us to abandon some of our most convincing evidence(CD) because the media pretends to debunk it. your definition of standards and strategy seems to be-"just stop pushing CD". and in your eyes the media ignores all of the evidence you wish they would report BECAUSE of CD. i still think that argument is way off base. the powers that be have yet to give CD a fair shake in the MSM(care to debate that point?) because we all know(most of us) how that would turn out. Steven Jones got shut out(basically) of the History Channel piece for a reason-its damn convincing stuff to most and the laws of physics are on our side. the MSM only attacks CD because its obvious and its visual and it cannot be ignored at this point. its not so easy to ignore what the entire world witnessed. the entire world witnessed the towers fall. the entire world does NOT know about the deep politics and history that surround 9/11 and "al qaeda". people dont read like they used to. if it wasnt for people pushing hard on CD, im guessing we wouldnt be nearly as far along as we are right now. the media would have glady ignored all of the evidence of inside job if this movement NEVER pushed CD in the first place. CD evidence has been crucial in moving the ball forward.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


"the powers that be have yet to give CD a fair shake in the MSM"

The MSM has NEVER given the families ANY shake. How's that for a debate?

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

i would agree with that.

i would agree with that. there are a lot of things that havent gotten a fair shake and im glad you can admit that CD is one of them.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Unfortunately the MSM has marginalized the victim's families

as excessive. Although I believe I am a generally compassionate person I even bought into some of that, with all of the controversy surrounding the payouts to victim's families and some saying they wanted pensions not to be counted and the like.

The possibility of the building collapses being caused via Controlled Demolition is what caught my eye and caused me to further research the events of 911, after reading Dr. Jones' paper on it. It was only then that I realized that there was a possibility that these people had a real issue, other than just grief, and that those killed that day weren't just accident victims due to the collapses.

I agree that we should research the deep politics of 911 along with who had the motivations etc. since that all goes towards making a complete case. However, the key to initiating interest, in those who have not yet looked into it, is most probably the fishiness surrounding the core of the psychological operation performed on us on Sept. 11, 2001, and that is the collapses of the buildings. Once that is understood the other material can then ice the cake.

To further clarify...

Here is some correspondence between GW and myself yesterday.

My respect for you is 11 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I agree we have to focus on strategy.

You haven't yet convinced me to stay away from CD. But I'm open to hearing arguments...

My response...


Did I say we should stay away from it?

Look at these two sentences VERY carefully, and tell me what the difference is...

The towers, and WTC7 were brought down by Controlled Demolition.

There is reason to believe we haven't been told the truth about how the towers, and WTC7 collapsed. For instance, the family members along with two scientists filed a petition for correction with NIST because of faulty information within their report. NIST's report regarding the collapse of WTC7 has been delayed twice, and has yet to be released. The 9/11 Commission completely omitted any mention of WTC7 in their report. If there are going to be high-rise buildings in the future, don't you think we should investigate every aspect of how and why those buildings collapsed so as to make sure something like that doesn't happen again in the future?

Ok, the second "sentence" is a bit longer, but surely you can see the difference. One has reached a conclusion, and a "crazy sounding" one at that, and one points out the discrepancies in the "official story", and points out why it is necessary to really investigate what happened.

I once started a thread on my site entitled, "What's The Difference Between Theory And Fact?"

In fact, here it is...

All of us have our theories as to what happened on 9/11. Personally, I think some of the "hijackers" may have actually existed. I think they might have been part of a "drug running operation". I think they were used as "patsies", and they may well have not even known of the plan for 9/11.

I think it's possible that those planes were somehow controlled by someone on the ground.

I think the wargames were used to "confuse" the FAA and military's response, and I think that either Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney ordered a "stand-down", or something that would mean "non-participation" in the response of those hijackings.

I think it's possible the buildings were brought down by explosives. I think it was done for "effect", and to cover up their involvement.

I think Flight 93 was shot down, and they're covering it up because it might be considered a "questionable" action, and the "hero" propaganda worked better for them.

All of that is "Theory". It's "Theory" BASED on facts. All of it may be wrong. Some of it might be right. We'll NEVER know until there's a THOROUGH investigation. An investigation done by individuals who serve NO ONE, that might be considered a "suspect".

I'm writing this because people LOVE to bash our "theories". The "Theories" are what they think is "crazy". The FACTS are what make us credible.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Here's a quandary of mine, Jon.

Maybe you can help with all your time and research.

Once a person in this current culture begins to point out ONE fact inconsistent with the popular narrative of How The World Is, (take YOUR pick), the Worldly Vested listener encountering your cognitive dissonance inducing fact has but few choices they stand before:

First choice, simply respond by informing you they happen to know your fact is not. Whew, good to have that debate over with.

Or second. To suspend disbelief for just a moment and consider your tough but new fact in some way or another.

The open-minded fellow who takes a peak inside door number two... if only just for a moment... will almost without hesitation immediately ask the closest person at hand to help guide their way on the immediate next few steps inside. The one presenting the first fact in-countenance, is often that same person immediately available to ask a few questions in return. The choice of these first return questions are the sole and just prerogative of the receiver of the odd new fact.

You're really not in any just position to delay answering their first return question, nor counter with additional facts or advice as to the questions they 'really' should be asking. Do you generally agree with this simplified description of such an encounter?

Seemingly it is true, that truthful fact-telling is not an easy job... but the first few seconds are often pivotal to whether or not the new relationship will hold out for any productive length of time. Again, do you agree with this posit or not, before I expend a seemingly unproductive chunk of time blogging here with you further?



Ooga Booga.

Prof. Peter Dale Scott's Paper

... in the Journal of 9/11 Studies is a great example of a carefully researched, peer-reviewed publication.

It is an example also of BREADTH in our research and publications -- and hopefully in our PRESENTATIONS also. The Journal covers much more than CD, although that is an important line of inquiry IMO.

I think this is the main message Jon was getting at -- the desirability of BREADTH -- and I agree with that.

(I also find compelling evidence that the official story for the WTC collapses is WRONG, but this is just one topic I discuss in talks. I also refer very often to April Gallop, a survivor -- some of you have heard of her -- and other families affected directly by 9/11/2001.)

Jon Gold

The hypocrite.

Jon, does it not weigh heavy on you? YOu are the only one telling people we shouldn't mess with certain theories. You've openly declared a fatwa on 'Controlled Demolition". Then, just seconds later, cry about people making you believe certain theories.

The controlled demolition fact and evidence speaks for itself. That is why you don't see Jon Gold posting blogs about debunking Controlled Demolition. Because he can't.

The problem is, the Pakistani BS you promote as been thoroughly debated (even with your cry baby bullshit tantrums) and debunked as hype and most likely disinformation (IMO). Your second pet is the Sibel Edmonds narrative which is equally un-verifiable and has also been thouroughly debated here and elsewhere.

Seems to me you should embrace Controlled Demolition at this time. What other legs are you standing on?

Here's for sale....

You are a hypocrite.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Show "Why is he not banned?" by Jon Gold

The B word....

Considering that whoever adims. this website has NEVER contacted me besides once when some chump used my real name when responding to a blog I wrote here...

Considering that your whacky antics get consistently voted down....incidentally, I don't have the same problem.

So I don't imagine that it is so CLEAR as you say.

So whats up with your un-attributed quote at the foot of your comment? Is that your own quote?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Show "So when..." by Jon Gold

gold wrote-I will gladly

gold wrote-I will gladly give up my "status" in this movement if it means people will start talking about this. Gladly.

what kind of status do you think that you have??? i dont think that you have any at all with any real truthers...

let me just say that im part of the "truth movement" not just the "911 truth movement" that means i want the truth about everything not just 911...

i dont want to be a part of any 911 truth movement that thinks 77 hit the pantagon, wtc 7 came down from fire, or 93 crashed in PA...

Speaking of "why"

Why, oh why, aren't you banned?

No controlled demolitions? The whole thing an Islamic operation, allowed by an insufficiently pro-Israel Bush administration?

What you're doing is so obvious.

Who lets this disinfo clown start threads here, anyway?

Everyone involved in this

Everyone involved in this little scuffle have been placed in the moderation queue until you all cool off. I'm sorry to do this, and you are not banned, however your comments will go through the moderation queue queue before being posted.

If anyone wants to discuss further, please contact me.

Show "Sorry, dude." by Al Czervik

Umm maybe you can name just ONE of those "1000s"

of so called "qualified experts" that back the official conspiracy theory?
I personally cant think of any but a couple of Reich wing nut bags.
There are about 150 qualified experts on the 9/11 truth side however.


Indeed. James Meigs is no reason to back away from the CD evidence.

in fact, we should be

in fact, we should be heartened by the fact that Meigs(and his buddy Coburn) is one of the main point men for the media on "debunking" 9/11, specifically CD. what does that say about the credibility of the official story and the theory of how the towers fell? to me it says not that many people want to be on record vouching too strongly for it.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I have had the same thoughts

on why Meigs and Coburn would be offered as "experts" on the History Channel show. Although they did also have two real engineers in Matthys Levy and Gene Corley supporting the present government theory of collapse, both have heavy conflicts of interest. I would really like to see the calculations that Corley said he did concerning the collapses. He is one of the infamous four volunteer engineers who FEMA was able to convince to help out with the initial farcical investigation they did.

It really seems as though they have a dearth of real expert type people willing to publicly support the present government explanation for the collapses of the buildings except for insiders.

I have to believe that any honest engineer, who has looked at the collapses of the towers and Bldg. 7, would have to think something is at least fishy, and would probably not want to go out on a limb backing up the fire and damage theory. The buildings simply came down too fast and explaining the visible highly energetic squib blowouts, that made it past the perimeter, as just puffs of debris and dust from the collapse, probably strains credulity to an honest person.

I totally agree with

I totally agree with Gold’s sentiment, who couldn’t? He may bash CD a bit, but all he’s trying to do is emphasize the importance of the Movement’s credibility and sobriety. CUT THE GUY SOME SLACK!

You can't be too careful, either.

The 9/11 Truth Movement I belong to doesn't promote theory as fact. "A missile hit the Pentagon", "Flight 93 was shot down", "Controlled Demolition brought down the towers and building 7."

You have to agree, that in light of the existing evidence, those statements are pretty damn close to the fact. Even if we don't know everything yet, the CD, F93 shoot-down and something else hitting Pentagon (at least in a presense of another aircraft), has become quite conclusive by now. Even if we can't make these conclusions with utmost certainty, it does not mean we have to dance around them, either, as if they were comparable to moon landing hoax etc. I personally prefer the wording of Bill Christison (ex-CIA department head), who said about "collapse" of WTC buildings: "They almost had to have been controlled explosions."

In your too-carefulness, you sound almost like a FEMA or NIST official. They were also going to great lenghts to dance around the issues. It takes great effort to witness the sulfur attack, eutectic mixture and partly evaporated structural steel members and not to mention "thermate" even once (even as an unproven hypothesis).

It's like watching a bunch of firemen around a burning building, commenting: "I don't quite understand what's going on here, I see some strange yellow things licking up the side of the building, lots of smoke, but I can't quite determine for sure what's going on!" It is ridiculous to that degree!

I mean -- how close do you have to get to the truth before you call it for what it is? I agree with other posters here who think that the CD evidence is one of the strongest we have in this whole convoluted story.


when you see someone dancing around a question, or doing everything possible to be overly PC, then 9x out 10 they are LYING.
Just like every single politician you hear and virtually all of the propagandist media and the so called OCT "experts" NIST/FEMA etc none of these people will commit to ANYTHING or answer a simple question. We have WAY MORE than enough evidence to prove that all 3 buildings were controlled demolition it is the best evidence we have and should be shouting it from the damn rooftops.

Two kinds of people in 9/11 Truth

The problem, I think, is that there are two kinds of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement: those who want to put forward a theory of the crime, and those who want justice. The first group is larger in number and isn't afraid to reach conclusions about ambiguous evidence (the Dancing Israelis must mean Mossad did it; all other evidence must be disinfo). The second group knows that if there is ever to be a real investigation and prosecution, you can't go around accusing people of crimes before they are tried; the addendum to this rule is that when the law no longer functions, you still need mass public approval to make change, and this requires the strategic acquisition of such support.

The first group is content to rail on the internet. After all, there are no consequences. And so they clutter 911blogger with "Zionists this" and "controlled demolition that." They have no sense of strategy, no sense of the way one must negotiate one's way in the real world. They simply keep yelling "inside job" and being certain of their theories. They may be right, but being right isn't the only force that propels social change.

The second group will forever be outnumbered, because their moderation is seen as complicity with the perps. The second group tries to accomplish justice in the real world, which involves compromise.

The frustration of the first group overwhelms the moderation of the second group.

The first group is always featured on TV, especially on Fox. This suggests the first group is the best form of disinformation, and in some cases may be agents provocateurs.

Many from the second group are not very visible anymore, rarely posting at 911blogger and almost never appearing on TV. This leads the first group to presume that the tactics of the second group failed.

The first group reels at the suggestion that human communication is a negotiation, not an idealized space in which truth recognizes truth, because the first group sees negotiation as a form of censorship. "Don't tell me what to say," says the first group. The second group has an open mind like the first group; after all, they both believe the official story of 9/11 is problematic.

I suspect in the long run there will be only the first group, because the moderates will give up.

John Albanese(appeared on

John Albanese(appeared on Fox) is disinformation? you really see just 2 groups out of all of the various types of people involved in 9/11 truth? thats sad. i guess you classify me in the first group and yourself in the more noble second group correct? you do a whole lot of speaking for the first group of which your not a part. let us never accuse anyone, that means Isreal, that means Pakistan, that means Cheney, that means Saudi Arabia, that means anyone you may suspect, based on evidence and connections, to be involved in 9/11. cant have a double standard right? its not so black and white and its not as simple as moderation or complicity. theres a whole lot of grey area in there. im not in any "group".

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

No, you're misrepresenting what I said

I didn't say "let us never accuse anyone". I said let's not accuse with ambiguous evidence. Are the Dancing Israelis suspicious? Yes. Are they proof that Mossad did 9/11? No. With the evidence available, you could not prove that in a court of law. There is definitely enough evidence to deserve further investigation of what they were doing on 9/11. Conversely, I would accuse supporters of the official story of carrying a theory (Bin Laden did it) on ambiguous evidence (a poorly translated video of unknown origin). It is unclear what the Bin Laden video proves, except that its origin is unclear and it does not represent "hard evidence" against Bin Laden.

I said nothing like "moderation or complicity". I agree there is much grey area. That's my point. The problem is too many people certain of their theories, and not enough people considering what it takes to get justice in the real world. For example, I do believe WTC 1, 2 and 7 were exploded; but I would not begin a conversation of 9/11 with that premise, and I would not rest my demand for justice on that fact alone. I choose this approach for what I believe are strategic reasons, not because of some cowardice in the face of truth. I guarantee you that you could approach every member of Congress every day for a year with videos and books that prove the towers were exploded, and you will not get a single member to give you the time of day. But there are other appeals available to us that could better demand a response from politicians. The point is not the truth of CD; the point is what kind of evidence represents an "opportunity" in the public discourse.

If you want your pet theories, you are welcome to them. I have a few myself. But consider the JFK assassination as a template of where all of this is headed. Forty years from now you will still have your pet theories, but nothing will have changed.

I didn't say everyone who appears on Fox is disinfo; but most of them are. Count the appearances by Fetzer, Barrett, Reynolds, and Shayler, and compare that number with Albanese's appearances. Fox loves the people with the "courage" to share their pet theories about No Planes at the Pentagon, TV fakery, and Direct Energy Weapons. Forty years from now those people will still have their courageous theories, and you are welcome to salute them for embracing their first amendment right.

I know you think this is about Israel and my unwillingness to discuss it. I assure you it is not. My point is that there is as much evidence pointing to Israeli involvement as there is pointing to Pakistani and Saudi involvement. Some people arbitrarily decide only the Israeli evidence matters, and therefore everything else is disinfo. The evidence does not support that assertion. There is strong evidence pointing to the involvement of all three countries, and to elements of the US govt. But only the US govt could cover up the crime in the form of the 9/11 Commission Report, and that is why 9/11 Truth should begin with the White House. To say that is not to dismiss the other leads; rather, it is to proceed strategically.

Show ""I suspect in the long run" by Tiguhs OndaBayou

I'd suggest being clearer on this bit:

"The second group tries to accomplish justice in the real world, which involves compromise."

I take your meaning to be compromise on strategy, not compromise on facts, but others may not see that.

I also wouldn't divide these groups into "those who want to put forward a theory of the crime, and those who want justice". I think we all need to have a working theory of the crime and we all want justice.

The difference I see is there is a group that thinks shouting about the facts will be enough to wake other people up and get the ball rolling. And in a healthy political climate, with a media that wasn't corporately owned, they'd be right and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, at this point, it's dead obvious rabbiting on about the matter. all by itself, will not work. The MSM is compromised. As are most public office holders. Add to that overworked, under paid, stressed people are HIGHLY motivated not to add one more worry to their already overburdened lives. After all, if our leaders were really mass murders, they would tell us, right? So you can shout, and bullhorn all you want--it just won't work.

When somethings NOT WORKING, you have to change tactics. Host lectures, put on conferences, work with peace activists, work on identifying and expanding your base so that 1: your activist options expand, and 2: talking about the evidence will actually have a chance of getting through.

So I see the problem as a group of people, who may have been misled about how social change happens(we learn about the massive civil rights protests, but we don't learn about all the boring behind the scenes work that goes into making them work), are still stuck in one strategy/ group of tactics, and haven't learned how to change gears or when it's neccesary to change gears.

Remember, the MSM wasn't helping MLK & co. out either. And they(MSM) were no where near as corporate compromised as they are now. There's some homework we could do--how did MLK & co. network around that one? And why did it work?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.



I just with everybody else in the Movement was as well reasoned as you are.

The 9/11 movement I belong to

doesn't promote Mossad disinfo agents as 9/11 truthseekers.