Tuesday, June 29, 2010

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTHLINGS THE 9/11 DOUBLETHINK MOVEMENT

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTHLINGS

THE 9/11 DOUBLETHINK MOVEMENT

© Gerard Holmgren:Nov 7 2006. This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for reasonable reference purposes, providing that the article is linked to.

What is a "truthling" ?

A truthling is a person who subscribes to a strange religious cult calling itself the "911 truth movement ".

Superficially, there may appear to be nothing strange about the idea of a truth movement in relation to the events of Sept 11. Anybody who has looked critically at the events of that day can see that the official story is a lie.

So it is to be expected that despite some disagreement about the details of exactly what happened, many people would find broad agreement in the idea that the truth of the event should be sought out by researchers to the best of their ability and then that research promoted to the wider community by activists with an interest in the truth. One would expect some healthy debate and diversity in relation to some specific points of research.

The reality of the situation is somewhat different. If you search around the web for "911 truth movement" you'll find a lot of talk about "truth" and a lot about the "movement", but most of this talk has little to with either researching the subject or promoting, or critically analyzing the research which has been done. If the "9/11 truth movement " isn't about this, then exactly what is it about ?

That question is the subject of this article.

OBSTRUCTING THE TRUTH

A lot of good research has been done, but hardly any of the authors of this research want to be associated with any such movement, because it's primary motive appears to be to obstruct any real understanding of what happened that day and at a deeper level, to abolish the fundamental concept of truth.

Let's begin with the first objective identified above. Obstructing the truth about Sept 11.

To analogize: Who is it who talks most about "peace, freedom and democracy"? The very people who are in reality the most obvious enemies of such practices. People like Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

When a person's primary occupation is committing terrorism and mass murder, starting wars, and dismantling civil liberties, then of course they are going to package it with the labels of "peace, freedom and democracy". You don't expect them to openly proclaim themselves as warmongers, terrorists, murderers and practitioners of totalitarianism. The fact that they are guilty of such crimes means that they need to shout the rhetoric of "peace" etc louder than anyone else.

Of course, some people buy their propaganda and some do not, although this question is better visualized as a graduated range of responses rather than a simple yes or no. Naturally, those who - in broad terms -do not buy the cover rhetoric, have reactions which - quite justifiably- range from unease to outrage.

And of course, the outrage levels are highest amongst those who believe or at least suspect that the Govt was at least complicit or involved in some way in the events of Sept 11.

The nausea invoked by the actions of these criminals and the lies of the media which support them can easily blind one into thinking that anyone who spouts rhetoric purporting to expose these lies must be genuinely involved in the pursuit and promotion of "truth".

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. In general, those who trumpet the term "truth" most often and most enthusiastically are actually the worst liars , just as Bush, Blair, Rice et al find it necessary to spout rhetoric about "peace, freedom and democracy" as a cover for the fact that they are some of the worst enemies of such pursuits.

This is what the "9/11 truth movement" is all about. Telling whoppers, packaging them with the label of "9/11 truth", and selling the package by exploiting the understandable knee jerk reaction of many people that anyone who is calling the official Sept 11 story a lie must be working for the truth.

Of course, there is a an element of truth in such rhetoric. The official story of Sept 11 is a lie. That much we can agree on. But that doesn't mean that any alternative story which might be floated in opposition to it is necessarily "truth".

Let's take an example of one specific lie within the bigger lie. It's quite obvious that American Airlines flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon on Sept 11.

From there, many in the "truth movement" invoke the classic logical fallacy.

"AA77 hitting the Pentagon is a lie. Truth is the opposite of lies. Therefore *any* alternative story about what hit the Pentagon is "truth".

This logical fallacy creates fertile ground for anyone who is prepared to label themselves with the term "9/11 truth" to just make up anything they like as an alternative story, and present it as "truth" even if it's just as ridiculous and unfounded as the mainstream lie.

For example, a fellow named Karl Schwarz started spreading the story that what really hit the Pentagon was a medium sized military plane - an A3 SkyWarrior. Schwarz never provided a shred of evidence for this assertion, but it didn't stop this piece of fantasy from being widely promoted as "research" with the label of "9/11 truth". Basically, Schwarz told us that "his team" had identified an engine part allegedly found at the scene as coming from an A3 SkyWarrior and we were supposed to believe it because Schwarz said so.

It's worth considering the following facts as a brief example of how critical thinking amongst the truth cult in relation to Bushco's story turns into braindead mush in relation to Schwarz's story.

The hole in the Pentagon wall after the initial impact was about 16 ft wide. A Boeing 757 (the kind of plane claimed by the official story) has a wingspan of about 125 ft. Obviously a 125 ft wingspan can't fit through a 16 ft hole. And there is no sign of any wing debris outside the building. Since the wings are neither inside the building nor outside the building then they are not there. Which means that they were never there unless you believe that wings can vaporize on impact - without doing any significant damage to the building and without doing any apparent damage to the lawn which was only a few feet below them.Which means that a craft with a 125 ft wingspan can not have been responsible for the impact. Many truthlings accept this obvious conclusion, although there are also many who go along with the official fantasy that the wings somehow vaporized on impact or folded up into the fuselage and got carried into the building and then vaporized once they were inside, or even "flowed through the building a liquid state " according to group of physicists hired to push the official line.

There were even two truthlings who claimed that a plane is made of a semi-soft material like butter and that if a material of this type hits a hard object, it will punch a small hole and squeeze itself through like toothpaste from a tube, thus explaining the small hole and the lack of wreckage. These two physics whizzes are Leland Lehrman, an enthusiastic promoter of the A3 SkyWarrior spin, as linked above, and Phil Jayhan - inventor of the extremely silly "pod theory". These claims came via email and I will write them up as time permits.

But let's leave the extremes of truthling lunacy and return to the realm of regulation stupidity.

An A3 SkyWarrior has a wingspan of about 72 ft. Many truthlings who scoff at the idea of a 757 on the basis of the wingspan problem uncritically endorse the A3 SkyWarrior claim without even examining this problem. If it's ridiculous to assert that a 125 ft wingspan can fit through a 16 ft hole, why is it any more credible to assert that a 72 ft wingspan can do so ? Or alternatively, if a 72 ft wingspan can fold up or vaporize or whatever, then why not a 125 ft wingspan ? In which case why dispute the 757 to begin with ? If an A3 can vanish through a hole much smaller than itself without leaving wreckage, why not any other kind of plane, including a 757 ?

And if we scoff at the Government for asking us to believe without any evidence, that they identified the DNA of the passengers aboard the flight, then why believe Schwarz when he tells us without any evidence that "his team" identified an A3 part ?

Critical thinking which is justifiably applied to the mainstream story regarding the size of the wingspan in relation to the size of the hole is suddenly forgotten about in the name of "911 truth".

The fundamental mental dysfunction which is driving such double think is this idea.

"Schwarz is saying that the official story is a lie and anything which says that is good enough for me".

In the same way that many supporters of the official story seem to think that it has an exalted status free from the scrutiny of critical thinking applied to "fringe ideas", many of the proponents of "fringe ideas" seem to practice the reverse discrimination.

Below are some links to some deconstruction of Schwarz's "research" methods in relation to this question. They reveal that Bushco looks like a paragon of truth compared to Schwarz.

Karl Schwarzl Caught With His Pants Down

Why Schwarz lied About the A3 Sky Warrior

Why Schwarz Lied About the 737

Of course, the "movement" does not unanimously endorse this particular lie from Schwarz. Some have attacked it, in many cases either because they've got their own competing whopper that they are trying to sell, or else because they actually support the mainstream whopper, although there are some who simply show good sense on that particular issue.

DISMANTLING THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH

But it goes further than this, because you'll also find the movement infested with doublethink, in that some people will claim two contradictory truths. For example, that AA 77 did not hit the pentagon *and* that the reason it was able to hit the pentagon is because the authorities stood down the air force to allow it reach it's target.

There is of course nothing wrong with presenting such contradictory claims in a layered context, by saying that AA 77 did not hit the pentagon, but even hypothetically conceding that it did, then a military stand down would have been the only way that it would have been able to reach it's target, thus indicating that at worst the official story is complete fiction and at best that the alleged crash was deliberately allowed to happen through conscious high level complicity.

But such sensibly layered reasoning is rare amongst truthlings. For example, one of the truthlings' biggest heroes is Dr David Ray Griffin. If you are a truthling who realizes that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, then you can give the view credibility by pointing out that his truthliness Dr Griffin endorses this view. Exactly why people need to be told by Griffin what to believe, rather than simply doing their own analysis from the available evidence is another curious characteristic of the truth cult, especially as Griffin made no contribution whatsoever to researching this question. He just looked at the pioneering work on the internet, which is just as available to everyone else, and formed an opinion, like anyone else. And it must be said - somewhat belatedly, compared to others who pioneered both the research itself and the pioneering activists who spread that research into the wider community.

On the other hand, if you are a truthling who claims that AA77 did indeed hit the Pentagon, but was allowed to do so due to a military stand down, then you can also give credibility to this view by pointing out that his truthliness Griffin says so. Again, Griffin made absolutely no contribution to this research either - and once again his arrival on the scene was belated.

But it seems that truthlings like to be told what to believe by someone who is "respected". Exactly why Griffin - a theologian - should be considered as any more "respected" in these matters than anyone else who belatedly took the time to read somebody else's research on the web and come to a conclusion is also curious. Griffin appears to be respected simply for being respected.

But back to the double think aspect. It didn't hit the pentagon *and* it was allowed to reach the target.

A review of Griffin's book,"The New Pearl Harbour" summarizes how Griffin plays all possible "truths" in this way. Griffin of course does not go so far as to overtly claim that both theories are actually what happened. But the way that he structures his explanations creates the opportunity for this collective effect to be achieved by the Griffin worship cult of the truthlings.

This doublethink is achieved by *personalizing* the issues. A characteristic of truthlings is that they diminish the substance of the research in favour of promoting a cult of a "truth hero" - such as Griffin. "Truth" is defined as anything that the hero says, even if they don't actually say it, or even if the hero presents mutually contradictory assertions.

To chant the hero's name is to speak the truth.

It's a general characteristic of the truth cult that it's heroes are all people like Griffin , who never did any significant original research at all, although you'd never know that from some of the accolades which are showered on them. For example Griffin is lauded on the cover of his latest book as a "foremost researcher" on the subject. Perhaps "research" means copying other people's research from the web, rewriting it your own words and publishing it in a book. And including anything which indicates any kind of disputation of the official story without making any decisions at all between the mutually exclusive scenarios. For example, Griffin observes (correctly) that WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished, that AA 77 did not hit the pentagon and that there is no evidence for any of the alleged hijackers on any of the flights, particularly as several of the accused appear to be still alive. But at the same time, he gives equal weight to claims that the Government knew what the hijackers were up to, ignored warnings, blocked investigations and allowed the planes to reach their targets by standing down the air force. He makes a big deal of "foreknowledge". As the author of the review above points out: Foreknowledge ? Of course they knew. They did it.

But if you search around the web, you'll find some truthlings quoting Griffin as an authority that there weren't any hijackers, and other truthlings quoting Griffin as an authority that warnings about the hijackers were ignored. And sometimes both being claimed as "truth". It seems that it's "truth", a) because Griffin says so, and b) because anything which says that the Government lied is defined as truth.

When successfully employed, this doublethinking personalization of the evidence allows the truthling a number of doublethink options.

1)Worshiping a particular individual, such as Griffin as a "truth hero" at the same time as attacking the substance of the views promoted by this hero.

2) Promoting several individuals as being "truth heroes" even though they hardly agree with each other on anything.

3) Promoting an individual who claims mutually contradictory "truths".

Take this example of the first option. They come from Mark Robinowitz (sometimes spelled Rabinowitz).

Robinowitz goes almost apoplectic at the idea that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Here is what Robinowtiz says in relation to this question. This is just a small selection from his long and spirited rant on this issue.

[[Pentagon missile hoax:

the "no Boeing" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity...

the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook ...

there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw Flight 77, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards...

making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people ...

the material on this page and all of the websites that are linked here should finally extinguish the "no plane" hoax -- except for those who have staked their credibility on these claims and cannot admit a mistake, and those who intentionally promote the hoax...

".... if you think that the "no plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless... or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certainly does), please think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others are correct that its intention was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded." ...

Every claim for "no Boeing" has been debunked for years - there is no "debate" about the fact the plane hit the Pentagon. Some people find it hard to admit that they were fooled by the hoax (despite being a "truth" activist). Some people like to speculate wildly and are not interested in careful research. A few promoters of "no plane" are deliberately trying to disrupt, but they are probably a small minority...

Reasons for no-Boeing hoax

discredit the skeptics with a straw man argument

redirect the skeptics into a false debate (no plane vs. no complicity)

protect the plotters from political / military insiders thinking that it was an inside job ]]

Robinowitz has a huge list of "bogus sites" on his site, where he attacks many supporters of the no Boeing view.

Then Robinowitz really starts to put the boot in. as he attempts to associate "no plane" ideas as being in some way intrinsically associated with other ideas..

[["No Planes and No Gas Chambers" Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement]]

[[If you look at who is peddling the "no plane" stuff the hardest, it is generally those who are also pushing the most absurd claims -- missiles hit the WTC, the Moon Landings were faked, and Holocaust denial.]] (1)

Robinowitz is entitled to his delusion, although the last part of his statement comes very close to defamation.

And so you would expect him to identify and lash out at the particular individuals involved, as indeed he does.

And here, he gives a list of "no plane promoters". But there is one prominent name that Robinowitz missed -from both his specific attacks and from his list of the guilty.

David Ray Griffin. Here are some samples of what Griffin has to say about AA77 and the Pentagon.

[[That’s one of the many, many, many pieces of evidence that suggest that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757...As to what really hit it, there’s contradictory evidence–some evidence suggests a missile, some suggests a rather small airplane that might have been a guided aircraft, like a Global Hawk, something fairly light that when it hit the Pentagon it would have shattered into fairly small pieces...there was an explosion and subsequently something did strike it from the outside. So it’s starting to look like all three things may be true: there was an explosion, there was a small plane, and the small plane shot a missile into the Pentagon. That would account for this hole that went through to the C Ring. ]] 1

[[Secondly, we're told that it was hit by -- that Flight 77, of course, was a Boeing 757, and the story that was recorded in the "Washington Post" the next day, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. That is about the size of a hole of a 757 would create, and yet a photograph was taken by a marine that shows that the hole was only 18 feet in diameter. Furthermore, that would have meant that only the nose of the 757 could have gone inside, so the rest of the plane would have been sitting outside. And yet photos were taken by Associated Press among others that show that there's absolutely no sign of the plane in front of the Pentagon...

You don't have to come up with an alternative theory of what happened to show that the official theory, which says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is very problematic...

...the main line press has not raised these questions such as was the hole in the Pentagon only 18 feet in diameter as this picture suggests? They have not raised questions about why the photograph doesn't show any plane on the pentagon lawn. They haven't raised questions about the official story which says that somehow the plane went inside, and then the fire was so hot that it vaporized, it vaporized aluminum and tempered steel and yet somehow left the bodies in tact enough that they could be identified either through DNA -- these are ludicrous.]] 2

[[The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. ]] 3

[[Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements vi
Forword by Richard Falk vii
Introduction xi
PART ONE THE EVENTS OF 9 / 11
1. Flights 11 and 175: How Could the Hijackers' Missions Have Succeeded? 3
2. Flight 77: Was It Really the Aircraft that Struck the Pentagon? 25 ]] 4

So given Robinowitz's rant, it's curious that Griffin didn't make his list of hoaxers. Perhaps he simply missed one name - albiet a somewhat prominent one - amongst the huge crowd of disinformation pushers. On the basis of what we've already read from Robinowitz in relation to the no plane "hoax", if he was aware of Griffin, you'd expect him to be spitting on the ground and taking off his jacket at the mention of Griffin's name.

Apparently not.

This is part of a letter from Rabinowtiz which he chose to publish on his own website.

In yet again bashing the no plane claim, Robinwotz writes (my emphasis)

[[Letter to KPFK radio

From: Mark Robinowitz
Subject: Re: KPFK radio (Los Angeles) promotion of "In Plane Site," a disinformation "documentary" that distracts and discredits the 9/11 Truth Movement

Eva Georgia
KPFK General Manager
(818) 985-2711 Ext: 503
Email: GM@kpfk.org

Dear Ms. Georgia:

I am a member of the 9/11 truth movement, a social justice effort that works to expose evidence for Bush regime complicity in the September 11th attacks. I publish www.oilempire.us -- a website that is part of the "Deception Dollar" campaign. I co-organized a very successful public event with David Ray Griffin on July 28, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," which had about 450 attendees (in Eugene, Oregon). Dr. Griffin was a guest on KPFK last month. ]]

Here, again in a series of letters published on his website, he defends Griffin against a critic.

[[other critical issues left out of your attack on Dr. Griffin and other prominent writers who have dared to try to connect the dots...

I read the transcript of your "debate" with Griffin on DN, and heard your hour long interview on "Alternative Radio," which was one of the more intellectually dishonest things I have heard about 9/11 ...

You're the one chosen to attack David Griffin on the air, to defend the official conspiracy theory ...

I have spent a lot of time on your website looking for justification of your attacks on Mike Ruppert and David Griffin (and noted that you did not address any of the central theses they promote).]]

In an article called Identifying misinformation, Robinowtitz writes

[[It is not surprising that the State Department, like other defenders of the official story, focused on the hoax that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. But they ignored serious documentation of foreknowledge, and complicity as documented by a variety of researchers and journalists, including:...

...David Ray Griffin at http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html.]]

and then later in the very same article begins another rant against the very evidence that Griffin himself promotes.

[[Meyssan and Rumsfeld manufacture the missile hoax

The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax...

There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied claims that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon ]]

Sander Hicks weighs in with some similar doublethink.

The 'No Planes' Hoaxes of 9/11: A Resource Guide

After attacking the no plane "hoaxes" he then advises

[[Other DVDs / downloads to Use Instead of Disinformation Videos About 'No Planes' . . .]]

His list includes

[[Free New Pearl Harbor text http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

...David Ray Griffin Reveals Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN View the program online for free. Windows Media Player required http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.h ...

Truth and Politics by David Ray Griffin

This video captures David Ray Griffin's October 3, 2004 speech in Santa Rosa, CA. The speech is essentially a summary of Griffin's second book on the 9/11/01 attack, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Griffin gave this talk before the book was published. This video supplements the speech with added images and video clips to illustrate Griffin's points. http://www.911research.wtc7.net/resources/videos/index.html ]]

I have coined a new word for this form of doublethink. The verb, to "Griffinate". That is, to practice hero worship of Griffin and hold up his book like a bible at the same time as attacking almost everything that it's in it.

Hicks also includes

[[Video – The Truth and Lies of 9-11 – Mike Ruppert]]

Which is interesting, because in this talk, Ruppert attacks the idea that the WTC was demolished as "speculation" not worth talking about, while Griffin in his talk, makes the demolition a central issue along with his conviction that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon - another piece of evidence which Ruppert has relentlessly attacked over the years. But both are recommended "truth" videos, although anything else which says that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is [[ Disinformation]]

The fundamental process that we are seeing here is the abolition of the idea of "truth" being a set of firmly held beliefs, objective facts or proven arguments which have constant validity regardless of who promotes them, in favour of the idea of "truth" being a logo associated with a truth hero who is a hero for no reason other than that they wear the logo.

The facts or beliefs or arguments are interchangeable and disposable. It is the hero himself who is the truth.

Ruppert and Griffin hardly agree on anything. Griffin claims that the WTC was demolished and that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon and acknowledges that there is no evidence for any of the alleged Arab hijackers. Ruppert has relentlessly attacked such claims. Griffin says quite clearly that the Government "orchestrated" Sept 11 , taking care to distinguish this from the view that they deliberately let it happen. Ruppert hovers somewhere on a tantalizing borderline between negligence and consciously allowing the attacks to succeed. Yet they are both promoted as "truth" by the same person, in an article which itself attacks an important part of what Griffin promotes. Hicks and Robinowtiz both promote Griffin as a sensible rebuttal to himself .

And it's not as if Griffin is an unwilling participant in this doublethink. In his Madison talk he describes Ruppert as a "great hero of the 9/11 truth movement", despite Ruppert's relentless attacks on the very same evidence which Griffin himself promotes - but never on Griffin himself. Griffin has no problem sharing "truth" platforms with Ruppert and even Ray McGovern, who doesn't even go as far as Ruppert. McGovern admits no actual conscious complicity in the attacks at all, suggesting only negligence, a failure to do a proper investigation and a cover up of some kind. But they are all working for "truth".

As we've seen, the fact that Ruppert's "truth" is at logger heads with Griffin's "truth" didn't stop Griffin from describing Ruppert as a "great hero of the 9/11 truth movement". But it goes further than that. Ruppert has openly admitted that he routinely lies for the sake of marketability, but even this doesn't stop him from being a " truth hero".

Here is Ruppert explaining why he lies. The article quoted below was written after Ruppert was severley embarrassed when caught lying in order to support the official story of the WTC collapse. The various lies were contained in this article. I will save the specific deconstruction of that for another time, but for now, I will just summarize by saying that in response to the fallout, Ruppert wrote the following.

[["I don't for a minute believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. And no one has ever seen a video of an airliner hitting the Pentagon because there isn't one. It doesn't look like the WTC towers collapsed because of the impacts and the way that they collapsed doesn't make sense. But if I, with some measure of journalistic credibility, and my readers on Capitol Hill and in universities start writing stories about these things, I wind up in either a journalistic suicide mission, or in the improbable place of having to explain where the airliner that didn't hit the Pentagon went or how the towers were brought down...For the record - and I am certain that this will trigger a whole new round of media attacks against me for being a "conspiracy theorist" - I don't buy any part of the government's story. I speak here now as Michael Ruppert, the human being, rather than as the publisher and editor of an international newsletter with readers in congress and universities.]]

You can't say it any plainer than that. What Ruppert believes and what Ruppert publishes are two different things. It is percieved marketability - not truth - which dominates his criteria for what should or should not be written. If such a practice is to be advocated on the basis of strategic pragmatism, that is a legitimate position for an individual to take, regardless of whether or not others might approve of it. The problem is when the implementation of such a strategy is described as "truth".

So Griffin describes as a "great hero of the 9/11 truth movement" an individual who has not only relentlessly attacked almost everything which Griffin claims as truth, but has also openly admitted that he lies for the sake of marketability.

In an email list debate in which I participated, a fellow named Kyle Hence who supports the entire official story of Sept 11 but mixes enough vague rhetoric to the contrary to create the impression that he might be a skeptic, defended his duplicitous position against critics by boasting that he was the first person to hold up a copy of Griffin's book in public. I thought this extremely curious, since Hence doesn't seem to agree with anything in it. I also took this to be a claim by Hence that he had launched the book, and that if that was the case, one has to wonder why Griffin would choose someone like that to do the launch.

When I raised these questions, pointing out the Griffin supports both demolition and no- Boeing- at- the- pentagon evidence - issues which Hence has refused to endorse and sometimes attacked - Hence then disputed that this was Griffin's position, claiming that Griffin had only "suspicions" in that direction and wanted the Govt to hold an inquiry into itself to find out whether it orchestrated the attacks itself. Griffin was on the same list, so I asked him a very simple question. Was Hence misrepresenting him ? Griffin refused several requests to answer. After several refusals I became quite snippy with Griffin, demanding that he show us the simple courtesy of telling us whether or not Hence was accurately representing him. Others on the list, - the type of truthlings who I describe as "Griffin Grovellers" went into fits of outrage in response to my "attack" on Griffin.

Asking someone to clarify their position in response to apparent misrepresentation is an attack ?

It eventually turned into an attack, because I didn't consider Griffin's refusal to answer the question as acceptable. It only suggests that he is deliberately playing both sides, and that Hence dropped him into a difficult situation in his haste to use Griffin's name to try to find some way to puff up his credentials as a skeptic.

Since then, I've been snapping at Griffin's heels for some months now, asking this same question, but he wont answer it. One can therefore only conclude that Griffin has no problem with being the pivotal point of such double think, Why else would he and Robinowtiz work together on a public event ? Why else is he on such good terms with Mike Ruppert, who's language towards others who support the same positions as Griffin could at times be described as "colourful" ? Why else would he get someone like Hence to (apparently ) launch his book ? In fact if you look at who Griffin mostly associates with, it tends to be fellow "truthers" who hardly agree with anything he says.

If Hence misrepresented him, why would he not simply say so ? Or if Hence correctly represented him, why would he not say so ? He feels embarrassed in some way about the views he holds ? Or - the best explanation - he is deliberately fostering "flexibility" in how his views might be interpreted, and answering my question clearly one way or the other would damage that process ?

I could devote a whole article to the double think cult surrounding Griffin, but I'll leave that for another time. But it is worth noting that since this double think hero worship shows all the fundamental patterns of a religious mind control cult packaged as political activism, it is probably no coincidence that a highly qualified theologian should be at the centre of it. Who better to understand how to successfully manage a religious cult ?

To demonstrate the implementation of this doublethinking truth hero cult, I have compiled below a list email discussion I had with a prominent truthling named Jonathan Gold. It is typical of countless similar discussions which I have had with truthlings.

As the discussion unfolds you'll see how Gold is rabid about promoting "9/11 truth" but when asked what the truth is, won't define it in any terms related to specific evidence or specific beliefs about what really happened. He describes it only as "the truth" as if that were self explanatory, or else as a personalization of the concept to link it to a "hero" - sometimes himself, sometimes Ruppert, sometimes Sibel Edmonds ( who like McGovern, fully supports the official story ) and sometimes Griffin, even though Gold actually attacks or ignores most of what Griffin presents as evidence.

Gold's slithering in this discussion is a perfect example of the disembodiment of the word "truth" from any concept other than as a generic marketing logo for the "truth movement", and a personal quality attributable to a "truth hero".

The movement appears to have no purpose other than to promote itself and something is labeled as "truth" if it is perceived as good for the " truth movement". The way in which Gold uses the word embeds circular logic into the foundation of language.

It's worth remembering that Gold is not an isolated case. There is an entire army of lunatics like this, calling themselves the "truth movement". A lot of very good research by people who share a mutual animosity with the movement in general has been defiled by these doublethinkers appropriating parts of it whenever it happens to be convenient for whatever "truth" is being marketed from moment to moment. It is a curious fact that nearly every piece of solid research which the movement chooses to use when convenient was actually done by someone who is generally despised by the movement as someone who is " discrediting the truth." or "hurting the movement", while it's hero figures are innocent of any significant research contribution at all.

I have edited this discussion somewhat, in order to keep it relevant to one thread. The editing has not in any way been selective to try to misrepresent how the discussion went. The editing was only for the purpose of trying to keep it tight to one thread of the discussion. That thread is the following observation.

Gold began by extolling the virtues of "9/11 truth" and stressing the importance of educating people about it. But when asked to specify what the truth actually was - that is what he believes actually happened that day, Gold described the question as "abuse" towards someone who had "busted his ass for the movement", and immediately changed his definition of what constituted "education" and what was of benefit to the movement.

A little background about how the discussion began. I'm not exactly clear on the prelude, insofar as Gold's involvement but from what I can gather, Gold came in to defend Karl Schwarz against a mauling that some of us were delivering to his A3 Sky Warrior spin. Once Nico Haupt began to take Gold to task for this, Gold then tried to plead ambiguity about whether he actually supported Schwarz. I'm not absolutely certain that Gold's involvement in this discussion began like that, but that was my impression and I have picked up the discussion from just after that point. I had never met Gold before, so I began by simply asking some questions to try to get a feel for what he was doing on the list and what views he held.

Superficially, this discussion - which became a confrontation - may appear to be simply intolerance on my part that Gold wasn't interested in the evidence I presented, and that I took exception to some of the things which he presented as pertinent to the "truth". There is an element of that in the discussion, but underneath that is a far more fundamental and sinister problem. Gold was yelling from the roof tops about the importance of "truth" - as opposed to the official story - but absolutely refused to give any coherent idea of what his objection to the official story is and also expressed total disinterest in any kind of research related to it. The word "truth" came to mean everything and nothing. Far more offensive to me than specific disagreements with Gold about this piece of evidence or that, was his mangling of the fundamental concept of holding an identifiable position and promoting or arguing the evidence for it, or alternatively of being interested in exploring new evidence which might contribute to his stated aim of "9/11 truth".

It's laborious reading in places, but that's because I've left in a lot of fluff in the pursuit of trying to make the edit as honest as possible and not twist it to put myself in a more favourable light.

If you can't wade through the whole thing, (trying to get a "truth activist" to tell you what the truth is is worse than trying to get a politician to give a straight answer) there is some concluding analysis at the end. I've put the email discussion in a different colour font, to make it easier to scroll to the end if you want.

If you do want to skip through some of this, I suggest you at least read the last few mails where I sum up the specific questions that I asked Gold about what the "truth" is in his opinion and the "answers" we got. The discussion is actually not as long as it seems because it includes some long articles about nothing at all which Gold posted in an apparent effort to shake off the questions I was asking. You can probably read the first paragraph or so of these and get the general idea.

GERARD HOLMGREN June 5 2005 10.53 AM

Just a point of clarification please Jon. So you're saying

a) you don't know anything about Schwarz's work, and therefore have no judgment about it ?

b) You are familiar with his work, and approve of it ?

c) You are familiar with his work, and like us, think that it's complete bullshit ?

JON GOLD 11.19 AM

I'm saying I've never read, "Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble". I did read the article pertaining to the new video footage he has from www.rense.com. I've also read the story that appeared on www.tomflocco.com pertaining to the planes that were fitted with missles and remote controls.

I don't put much stock into it because those aspects of 9/11 don't interest me AT ALL. Only unless the video footage clearly shows something other than what the "official" story states, I don't care.

As well, Karl must release this footage, and it must be vetted completely before I'll believe anything. In regards to the missile story, again, who are his sources, etc... I have a thread I posted a few months ago on my site pertaining to the same kind of idea... but that's all it was, an idea.

You can read that here... posted on April 22nd, 2005.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1457

I don't know anything about his personal affairs other than he's running for President. I'm also aware of the fact that he was once a Republican. That's about it as far as Karl goes. I hear he has some kind of nanotechnology business as well.

Apparently, you people don't know who I am. I guess I shouldn't expect for you to know me. The Internet is an awfully big place. Those who do know me, know that I don't focus on that which can't be proven.

That includes missiles hitting the Pentagon, Remote Controlled airplanes being flown into the WTC, Buildings being laced with C-4, etc...

Show me a good put option, Sibel Edmonds' testimony, Visa Express, MASCAL, Condoleeza Rice's testimony, Norman Minetta's testimony, the NORAD/FAA timelines, a warning, etc... and I'm all yours...

As far as Karl goes, I don't know him AT ALL. I do know, however, that apparently, there are people who find his work interesting. In my opinion, any one who gets people interested is good. However, they MUST be given direction. Otherwise, they will spend countless hours arguing with people about things that can't be proven.

Hence the reason I STRESS education...

WEBFAIRY 11.43 AM

Now, if there's anybody with less credibility than Karl Schwarz, it's Condolesa Rice. Here's a schnookie who believes in NORAD and FAA timelines?

The footage shows WAY different than the Official STory states.

It is ANIMATION, vanishing into the building exactly like Flight Simulator vanishes planes..

Sounds like rather than spreading Perp Excuses, you need to get some education for yourself.

http://iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html

All that can be "proven" about Condoleza, the FAA, NORAD, and spooker/cum whistleblowers is that they LIE.

JON GOLD 11.46 AM

This is where you lose me.

GEARARD HOLMGREN 12.16 PM

Jon,

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with some of Rosalee's work and mine.

In case you are, here's my summary article of what really happened on S11 (as far as we can work out)

manufactured.html

The detailed research and documentation to back what's in the summary article can be found at

truth.html

Rosalee's work proving that the object which hit the Nth tower is not a plane and that the object on the Sth tower video which looks superficially like a large plane is in fact an animation is at http://thewebfairy.com/911

Scott Loughrey has also done some good work on this at

http://911hoax.com

I also have an article building on Rosalee's Nth tower analysis at

planevideos.html

And an archived debate demolishing would be debunkers at

http://members.iinet.net/~holmgren/salter.html

I present official documentation that there were no flights AA11 or AA 77 on Sept 11 2001 at

1177.html

I prove that independent of any other evidence about the non existence of AA11, the passenger lists published by the media for the flight, purporting to be official flight manifests, are faked.

http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/fake.html

Here is official documentation that the flights UA 175 and UA 93 did not crash because the tail numbers of the planes to which those flights were assigned are still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry

Go to the FAA aircraft registry

http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11)

This evidence goes way beyond "who did it", because it raises the more fundamental issue of what "it" was.

S11 was part real and part movie. The real part is that the WTC buildings came down and that lots of people got killed , injured and traumatized and made sick with dust.

The movie part is the hijacked planes. There weren't any hijacked planes.

It was a war of the world's con job. Or another way of putting it is that it was the world's largest snuff movie with about 3000 expendable extras, real demolitions, simulated planes, and cartoon villains.

This is as much a crime by the media as the govt and corporations. And its rapidly becoming just as much a crime of those who want to cherry pick the little bits of truth that suit their agenda whatever it is, while covering up the full magnitude of the deception, which when fully exposed has the ability to bust open the very heart of the matrix style "reality" that most
of us are living in. The news is just a movie.

Jon, I don't know you at all, so I will treat you as I treat all people who I don't know - that is, assume that you are genuine unless and until I get confirmation otherwise.

Please take the time to examine the evidence linked above and consider it carefully. Creative discussion and sensible objections are always welcome.

Gold then wrote an evasive reply and it was most likely not an accident that he sent it to me only, rather than the entire list which had been involved in this discussion. So I forwarded it to the entire list and also replied there.

JON GOLD 12.33 ( to me - off list)

Gerald,

I appreciate you sending me this information, but as I said, it really doesn't interest me... all of the other stuff I mentioned, plus geopolitics is really all that interests me. I don't think 911TruthAction is for meanyway. Amy Sasser made me aware that nico was going around saying shit about me, and I defended myself. However, now it's over. Feel free to stop by my site, and argue with Somebigguy... he loves this shit.

Jon

www.yourbbsucks.com

GERARD HOLMGREN 1.18

Jon Gold sent me a mail off list, which I think I am justified in forwarding to the list. It will follow after this, and then will follow my response.

I Posted Gold's message to the list at 1.22, which Gold appeared not to appreciate.

JON GOLD 1.28

Here you go... now I'm done.

GERARD HOLMGREN 1.28

Jon wrote

[[I appreciate you sending me this information, but as I said, it really doesn't interest me... all of the other stuff I mentioned, plus geopolitics is really all that interests me. ]]

Fair enough if it simply doesn't interest you Jon.

However I would like one more clarification from you.

Earlier you said ( my emphaisis)

[[I don't put much stock into it because those aspects of 9/11 don't interest me AT ALL. Only *unless the video footage clearly shows something other than what the "official" story states*, I don't care.]]

So here you clearly state that you would be interested if the footage clearly shows something other than what the official story states. This is the whole point of Rosalee and Scott's work. It does show what you ask.

But now you appear to have shifted ground and are saying that you're not interested full stop, regardless of whether we are right or not. If that had been your position from the beginning, then that is your prerogative. But you appear to have shifted ground mid discussion.

This appears to be confirmed by the continuation of your mail.

[[As well, Karl must release this footage, and it must be vetted completely before I'll believe anything. In regards to the missile story, again, whoare his sources, etc... I have a thread I posted a few months ago on my sitepertaining to the same kind of idea... but that's all it was, an idea.]]

In relation to Karl's "work" - if I can use the word generously - you are absolutely right. Not worth a piece of used toilet paper. No sources etc...

The criticisms are spot on. However, you won't find any such grounds for that criticism towards Rosalee's work or mine or Scott's. It's not an "idea". It's proof. And the sources are fully verifiable in the public domain.

Again, your above statement implies strongly that you are not disinterested in the subject per se, only unimpressed with the quality of work put forward - and justifiably so in Karl's case. But now that I have thrown the work of Scott, Rosalee and myself into the mix, you state

[[but as I said, it really doesn't interest me... all of the other stuff I mentioned, plus geopolitics is really all that interests me.]]

Which is not actually what you said before. What interests you per se, if consistently stated, is solely your prerogative, but shifting of the ground mid discussion is cause for unease.

Going further in your previous email, you stated

[[Those who do know me, know that I don't focus on that which can't be proven. That includes missiles hitting the Pentagon, Remote Controlled airplanes being flown into the WTC, Buildings being laced with C-4, etc... ]]

Once again, it's quite clear. What bothers you is the alleged lack of proof, not a lack of interest in the subject per se. Why the sudden shift in your reply to me ?

Just to clarify my position, and I think that of many others, in relation to your statement

[[missiles hitting the Pentagon, Remote Controlled airplanes being flown into the WTC, Buildings being laced with C-4, etc... ]]

That doesn't accurately reflect my position anyway.

"missiles hitting the pentagon "

I tend to think it probably was a missile, but I don't claim that to be proven. I'm open to all sensible suggestions about what it was, but haven't seen anything which really convinces me. What's proven is what it was not. And that is a plane of any significant size.

"Remote controlled airplanes being flown into the WTC"

No, my position is that were no planes. The Nth tower object doesn't even look like a plane, and the Sth tower object, which does superficially appear to be one, is an animation. The position is not "remotely controlled planes" It's *NO* planes.

"Buildings being laced with C4"

I assume that this is a careless reference to the general observation that the buildings were deliberately demolished. I'm not sure where the specific reference to C4 comes from.

For a start, anyone who is still claiming that it can't be proved that the buildings were deliberately demolished is either a cherry picker, a spook, extremely stupid, or has been living under a rock as far as S11 issues go. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's the latter.

In terms of C4, while one cannot rule out the possibility that C4 may have been employed in some capacity on the day, any suggestion that it was the sole or even the main agent of demolition is absurd. While there does appear to be evidence of the use of conventional explosives as well (which may or may not have involved C4) , it is clear that the primary method of demolition was something far more advanced.

That clears up any ideas which you may have erroneously attributed to us.

It doesn't preclude the possibility that there are some on this list, who agree with what I've said in general terms, but may take issue on one matter or another. That's fine. I can't speak with total accuracy in such broad terms for anyone except myself. But subject to some expected diversity in some of the details, I think I've represented fairly accurately the position of most of us who have been demolishing Karl.

So, to return to the main subject of this mail Jon, I find cause for considerable unease in the apparent contradiction between the two mails you've written.

The first stated quite clearly that your precondition for interest was proof, and high quality of work. When I presented you with links to an abundance of that, you shifted your ground to the precondition for interest being the subject matter itself, regardless of the quality of work or level of proof.

Furthermore, I'm wondering why anyone who still hasn't figured out that the proof of the deliberate demolition of the buildings is beyond sensible objection is regarded as having any serious profile or presence in relation to S11 issues.

JON GOLLD 1.46

Is this what you guys do for fun? I said I'm done, and I'm done. I'm not going to play the word manipulation game used by the Neocons. I've busted my ASS for this movement, and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to sit here, and take this abuse. My work speaks for itself.

DO NOT reply to this email.

JEFF STRAHL 1.51

Sibel Edmunds, whose main accusation is that the US gov't didn't do a good job fighting the "terrorists", is your idea of a good story, Jon?

JON GOLD 2.01

Yeah, considering the fact that Senators Leahy and Grassley felt what she had to say was credible. Credible enough to write John Ashcroft several letters about it.

Sibel Edmonds - April 25th, 2005
"once this issue gets to be...investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally"

Same Day
"There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized"

Source
http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

GERARD HOLMGREN 2.10

Jon wrote

[[Is this what you guys do for fun? I said I'm done, and I'm done. I'm not going to play the word manipulation game used by the Neocons. I've busted my ASS for this movement, and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to sit here, and take this abuse. My work speaks for itself. ]]

Well it didn't long to bust that two faced idiot.

Abuse ? He wrote two completely contradictory emails, which I noted by quoting his exact words, but commented very conservatively that it was "cause for unease" ,and asked for an explanation and he starts ranting about "abuse".

Jon, if we're going to talk about "abuse", then lying to the list by presenting two contradictory positions as being the same thing is extremely disrespectful.

Secondly, you write [[I've busted my ASS for this movement ]]

I presume you mean that you've worked very hard on S11. If so, then we can make the following observation. As I said earlier

[[anyone who is still claiming that it can't be proved that the buildings were deliberately demolished is either a cherry picker, a spook, extremely stupid, or has been living under a rock as far as S11 issues go. ]]

If the statement that you've "busted your ass on this issue" is true, then we can rule out the last possibility, which leaves you as either a spook, a cherry picker or extremely stupid. Lets hope that it's the least offensive option which is the latter.

[[My work speaks for itself. ]]

It does indeed. You cited Sibel Edmonds who is either a liar or an idiot.The govt as "negligent". It's covering up "failures" to "prevent" the tragedy.

[[the word manipulation game used by the Neocons ]]

Heh ! It's amazing how many of these two faced types go bezerk when you quote their exact words, claiming it to be "manipulation".

Jon, perhaps you would prefer if I paraphrased your views in my own words ? That would be more accurate, than quoting you word for word?

If you believe that I quoted you selectively in a misleading manner, then please give us what you believe to be a more representative edit. But just to recap.

Jon's statements.

Mail 1. [[Only unless the video footage clearly shows something other than what the "official" story states, I don't care.]]

[[In regards to the missile story, again, who are his sources, etc...]]

[[but that's all it was, an idea.]]

[[I don't focus on that which can't be proven. ]]

But after I presented links to proof, sources, video clearly showing the official story to be false etc.

Mail 2. [[as I said, it really doesn't interest me... all of the other stuff I mentioned, plus geopolitics is really all that interests me.]]

These are your words, Jon, mot mine. You incriminated yourself by shifting ground mid discussion and then throwing a fit when it was exposed.

RYAN P. CLARKE 2.12

Jon Disinfo? You should all kiss his ass for all that he has done for the movement. Get out of the conspiracy theory business, and focus on the facts.

Dumbasses.

GERARD HOLMGREN 2.18

Jon,

Since we've established that the level of proof or the quality of work is *not* the determining factor of why you consider one thing a good story, and another thing of no interest, can you please tell us what your criteria is for interest or disinterest ?

For example: What makes Sibel Edmonds claim that the official story is true,(with the qualification that there were 'failures" which haven't been adequately dealt with) interesting - as opposed to total proof that the towers were deliberately demolished and were not hit by the planes we were told they were as uninteresting ?

GERARD HOLMGREN 2.27

Ryan wrote

[[Jon Disinfo? You should all kiss his ass for all that he has down for the movement. Get out of the conspiracy theory business, and focus on the facts.]]

What facts specifically would you like to focus on Ryan?

How about we start with the fact that the buildings were deliberately demolished, that no big plane hit the pentagon or the WTC, that official documentation says that neither AA 11 or 77 existed and that neither UA 93 or 175 crashed, and that the passenger lists published for AA11 are fake.

Any dispute there, Ryan ? The funny thing is , I sent the documentation for some of these facts to Jon - in good faith - and he immediately replied that he wasn't interested.

So we have Jon telling us to forget about the facts, and you telling us to focus on the facts. So you two haven't quite got your spin right. Perhaps you can work out a united position amongst yourselves about whether the facts actually matter, and then get back to us, when you've sorted out your little tangle.

JON GOLD 2.30

If you would like a lesson from me on how to turn other people onto the movement, I'd be MORE than happy to oblige.

For instance... I generally show people this film which has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11... you should watch it.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90

GERARD HOLMGREN 2.50

Jon writes

[[If you would like a lesson from me on how to turn other people onto the movement, I'd be MORE than happy to oblige.]]

Jon,

I've noticed that both you and Ryan refer to "the movement" rather than the "truth" or the facts.

At least in that description, you've accidentally said something true. Because the 911truth movement has nothing to with the truth about S11. Its full of people who constantly tell as many whoppers as the people who did it.

So I have no interest in "the movement", only with disseminating good research in relation to S11, something which "the movement" is notoriously reluctant to do.

But as someone who has considerable experience in summarizing and communicating such research, I can tell you that one the first steps is to establish to people that you are honest.

This is not accomplished by starting with one position, abruptly changing to a contradictory position when it gets you into a tangle, and then throwing an abusive tantrum when someone points this out to you firmly but politely.

Neither is it achieved by declaring with apparently no logic or consistent criteria that some matters of evidence are of interest and some are not, and then when somebody notices and asks you to clarify your criteria, responding
by boasting that you can "give them a lesson".

So I think I'll skip the lecture thanks, because I would prefer to take advice from someone who can tell the truth about their own motives.

In addition, if I'm going to accept a lecture, then the person delivering the lecture should preferably know something about the subject on which they have offered their services. The fact that you deny the proof that the buildings were deliberately demolished, demonstrates that you know almost nothing about it.

So thanks but no thanks.

JEFF STRAHL 5.36 am June 6 (replying directly to Jon's 2.01 mail enthusing about Sibel Edmonds)

Nice of you to leave out my remark, maybe hoping people would forget what I said, namely that Sible Edmonds fully supports the utterly foolish notion that 9/11 was an attack by Islamic terrorists upon the US, so we can suppose that's what you think as well, right?

JON GOLD 9.20 PM

I look at a few things regarding Sibel Edmonds...

1. Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley found her testimony to be extremely credible. They found it credible because several other FBI employees corroborated her story.

2. She was fired improperly according to the IG.

3. The Department Of Justice did everything in their power to keep what she had to say quiet, including illegally classifying her testimony.

4. People like Indira Singh & Co. confirm part of her story.

5. The 9/11 Report mentioned her 3 hours of testimony in a footnote.

6. The idea that those hijackers weren't involved in some way is ridiculous. Ever heard of the term "Patsies"?

7. I met Sibel Edmonds, and spent a good 3 hours listening to what she had to say. With the likes of Ray McGovern, John Judge, Coleen Rawley, Daniel Ellsburg, and others.

8. Sibel and other Whistleblowers have formed a powerful organization devoted towards helping protect Whistleblower rights, something essential in order to keep checks and balances within Government.

Some woman named Angie refers to her as a "liar". I don't agree. I don't agree with the logic of her article.

Why is it so important for this group to be right, and everybody else wrong? I believe someone mentioned that this group served as a partial source for David Ray Griffin's information. Wonderful, fantastic!

However, Dr. David Ray Griffin also referred to Michael Ruppert as a "Hero of the 9/11 Truth Movement". Amazing... not only does Dr. David Ray Griffin have respect for whomever of this group provided him information, but he also has respect for someone this group can't stand. Does that make Dr.David Ray Griffin a "Disinformationist", or just someone with a difference of opinion?

You honestly need to learn how to put aside your differences and work alongside ANY group that seeks 9/11 Truth. That's my honest opinion.

GERARD HOLMGREN 9.37

Jon writes

[[You honestly need to learn how to put aside your differences and work along side ANY group that seeks 9/11 Truth. That's my honest opinion. ]]

I do so agree Jon ! So how about we put aside our differences ? You agree with the meticulous research we've provided that there were no hijacked planes, no hijackers, that no big plane hit the pentagon, that the WTC was demolished (and not by conventional explosives), that no planes - remote controlled or otherwise hit the WTC, that AA 11 and 77 didn't even exist, that the passenger list for AA 11 are proven fakes, that 175 and 93 didn't crash... and then all this petty bickering will stop.

You don't want to sow division and infighting do you Jon ? So put aside your bickering and join us in promoting this evidence.

I earlier sent you the links to some of it, but you said you weren't interested. In the name of unity and putting aside differences, are you interested now? Or will you continue to sow division and infighting by promoting the likes of Sibel Edmonds who claims that the govt's story is basically true, while refusing to even look the evidence to the contrary -
evidence that everyone else agrees on ?

JON GOLD 9.49

So I'm either with you, or against you?

GERARD HOLMGREN 9.58

Jon asked

[[So I'm either with you, or against you? ]]

Well Jon, that was your suggestion originally. No disagreements, all on the same side, everyone together, all speaking with one voice... Surely that means you're "with us" ?

Are you saying you're not ? No...perish the thought. You are surely with us Jon, which is why you will no doubt retract your earlier ill considered and flippant remark that you are "not interested " in proof that

:There were no hijackers

:There were no hijacked planes

:AA11 and 77 did not exist

:175 and 93 did not crash

:No big planes hit the WTC or the pentagon :The buildings were demolished
using highly advanced technology

Are you still saying that you are not "with" those of us who have unearthed and promoted the proof of these things ? In the name of unity, surely you are "with us "Jon ?

JON GOLD 10.16

Actually... I think the purpose of the movement is twofold. One, get people interested in the truth about 9/11. Two, work towards holding those responsible, accountable.

There is no need for all of us to get along. As a matter of fact Gerald, I can honestly say that as an individual, I don't like you. I think your tactics are reminiscent of the individuals who currently run this country.

Regardless, if you manage to get someone interested in 9/11 Truth, you're ok by me. However, eventually, you need to get those you "convert" to focus on the unity that relates to holding those responsible, accountable.

If this group wants to spend their time fighting with other groups aboutwho's right, and who's wrong, then that's your prerogative.

I was asked an interesting question the other night. Is the purpose of the movement to educate, or to be politically correct? To get people questioning the official story, or to get along with everyone else...

I'm going to continue doing what I do which is educate. Feel free to continue doing whatever it is that you do.

GERARD HOLMGREN 10.16

Jon writes

[[The idea that those hijackers weren't involved in some way is ridiculous.]]

Jon, I'm shocked ! That anyone should be spreading such disunity ! Such divisieness ! Such infighting ! To label those who are seeking the truth as"ridiculous ".

We should all be working together.

Why is it so important for you to be right, and everybody else wrong? You honestly need to learn how to put aside your differences and work along side ANY group that seeks 9/11 Truth. That's my honest opinion.

JON GOLD 10.27

I'm sorry Gerald. I don't know what came over me... you're right, I'm wrong. Happy now?

GH 10.36

Jon wrote

[[I'm sorry Gerald. I don't know what came over me... you're right, I'm wrong. Happy now? ]]

Deliriously happy Jon. This means that you are now keenly interested in the following links ?

Here's my summary article of what really happened on S11 (as far as we can work out)

manufactured.html

The detailed research and documentation to back what's in the summary article can be found at

truth.html

Rosalee's work proving that the object which hit the Nth tower is not a plane and that the object on the Sth tower video which looks superficially like a large plane is in fact an animation is at http://thewebfairy.com/911

Scott Loughrey has also done some good work on this at

http://911hoax.com

I also have an article building on Rosalee's Nth tower analysis at

planevideos.html

And an archived debate demolishing would be debunkers at

http://members.iinet.net/~holmgren/salter.html

I present official documentation that there were no flights AA11 or AA 77 on
sept 11 2001 at

1177.html

I prove that independent of any other evidence about the non existence of AA 11, the passenger lists published by the media for the flight, purporting to be official flight manifests, are faked.

http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/fake.html

Here is official documentation that the flights UA 175 and UA 93 did not crash because the tail numbers of the planes to which those flights were assigned are still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry

Go to the FAA aircraft registry

http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11)

And carefully consider the following perspective.

This evidence goes way beyond "who did it", because it raises the more fundamental issue of what "it" was.

S11 was part real and part movie. The real part is that the WTC buildings came down and that lots of people got killed , injured and traumatized and made sick with dust.

The movie part is the hijacked planes. There weren't any hijacked planes.

It was a war of the world's con job. Or another way of putting it is that it was the world's largest snuff movie with about 3000 expendable extras, real demolitions, simulated planes, and cartoon villains.

This is as much a crime by the media as the govt and corporations. And it's rapidly becoming just as much a crime of those who want to cherry pick the little bits of truth that suit their agenda whatever it is, while covering up the full magnitude of the deception, which when fully exposed has the ability to bust open the very heart of the matrix style "reality" that most
of us are living in. The news is just a movie.

JEFF STRAHL 10.53

Some people have a different concept of 9/11 "Truth" than others, eg *John Judge* and his assertions of a flight attendant friend who identified remains of Flight 77 in the Pentagon, even saw the tail of the plane, either out on the lawn where cameras missed it in the minutes after the impact, or inside, where it made it in spite of the hole in the wall being only 20 some ft high, vs the tail's 40 some ft, or his assertion that the plane bounced off the lawn into the building, without leaving a trace on the Penta-lawn,and his most recent assertions that the planes brought down the WTC towers, coupled with calling anyone who says otherwise disinfo agents.

You yourself assert "hijackers..involved in some way", without presenting in the slightest any evidence that they were involved, not dealing with the fact that at least 6 of them are still alive, as your beloved David Ray Griffin notes to his credit, ignoring the lack of any Arab names on flight manifestos,...(not to mention the plentiful evidence casting doubt on
whether any of the supposedly hijacked flights ever even took off) And you fully accept Sibel Edmonds and her notion that 9/11 was an attack on the US from the outside, as fundamental a deviation from the truth as there is.

Reminds me of Johnny Cash's 1970 tune "What is Truth?"

JEFF STRAHL 10.55

Your notion of "truth" seems to include several totally contradictory versions of it *at the same time*. Edmonds says it was an outside attack? Sure.

Holmgren says no hijackers? Sure.

Judge says planes brought down the WTC and a plane bounced off the lawn and hit the Pentagon, leaving a hole a
fraction of its own size? Bring it on.

This is a totally bankrupt notion of 9/11 truth, one that is totally unlikley to result in anyone being held accountable or responsible, needless to say that if you can't agree with what happened, you can't hold anyone responsible for it.

CHRIS BELLl 11.00

Hi all,

I think everyone should agree to disagree here. I know Jon Gold and the
last thing he wants to do is hurt the movement. We just have a difference
of opinions on what we feel is the most convincing evidence. Fighting
amongst ourselves and making accusations of "disinfo" causes us all to lose
credibility.

We all have certain topics that seem more compelling to us than others that
we should continue to focus on and refrain from belittling others work.

At this point we don't know which piece of evidence will finally be the
straw that breaks the camels back, so we should show encouragement to
others, and help each other any way we can. In the end, due to all these
different areas of investigation, we may have the whole truth.

Lets all try to show each other a little respect, we're all on the same
side...

JON GOLD 11.06

Amen to that.

GERARD HOLMGREN 12.25

Chris Bell writes

[[Fighting amongst ourselves and making accusations of "disinfo" causes usall to lose credibility. ]]

Note the use of the word "ourselves ". Exactly who does that refer to ?

Apparently it refers to people like Sibel Edmonds, who supports the notion that wild eyed Arabs with tiny knives and hatred in their hearts hijacked four planes and flew them into buildings, miraculously leaving their passports in the streets of NY as evidence, and that while all this was happening, the US airforce did its damnedest to try to figure out what to do,
but was powerless because it took over an hour for Andrews to scramble and Langely scrambled early but the fighters could only do 200 mph.

The lessons to be learned is that there were failures of intelligence in trying to foresee it and the govt hasn't been completely honest about those failures.

Yes that right ! It seems that Sibel Edmonds is included in the meaning of the word "ourselves". So we mustn't fight with Sibel because she's on our side. So are the people who promote her drivel like Karl Schwarz, Amy Sasser, and Jon Gold.

Jon, I didn't catch your answer about your response to the links I sent you.

JON GOLD 12.39

please remove Gold9472@comcast.net from this list. Thanks.

GERARD HOLMGREN 12.46

Chris Bell writes

[[We all have certain topics that seem more compelling to us than others
that we should continue to focus on and refrain from belittling others work.

At this point we don't know which piece of evidence will finally be the
straw that breaks the camels back, so we should show encouragement to
others, and help each other any way we can. In the end, due to all these
different areas of investigation, we may have the whole truth. ]]

If Chris really believed this then he would be promoting my page

manufactured.html

And truth.html

The latter is a compilation of every piece of good evidence I've been able to find and organize into the compilation. Of course, I don't claim that nothing's missing because it takes a lot of work to keep updating it. But it's the best I can do towards that end.

It contains anything which is well researched, both LIHOP and MIHOP, as well as some background geopolicitical stuff.

The former link is a summary of the compilation, so that beginners don't feel overwhelmed by volume of what's in the compilation.

Now lets look at the response of the "movement" to this work. They've lied about it, ignored it, slandered it and blocked it.

In particular Kyle Hence and Bill Douglas admitted (under a severe grilling) that they had taken active steps to block *any* of the information in this compilation from reaching any of the S11 families.

This is what the "movement "is. Lying treacherous supporters of lies and mass murder. Hence and Douglas should be behind bars. Instead the "movement" follows and places them on a pedestal.

I caught Mike Ruppert straight out lying to support the official story of the WTC collapse. He went as far as fabricating sources in an article dated Sept 13 2001.

This is the "movement".

I am more than happy to damage the "movement" because its just as big a problem as the people who actually did S11.

S11 was not only an act of murder. Its bigger implications is that it was the opening shot in a propaganda war. The biggest criminals in the ongoing propaganda war launched by S11 are not the govt or even the mainstream media. It is the so called "movement".

We are *not* on the same side. Get that straight. If you are, you will distribute our research, and stop attacking, twisting, slandering and ignoring it.

And the first thing I would like to see is an apology to Rosalee Grable -IMO our best researcher, who has been the subject of the most hideous slander and disinformation campaign. Until I see that apology from some here who owe it, then don't give me any more bullshit about being on the same side. We are not.

GERARD HOLMGREN 12.58

Jon and Ryan.

Having crashed this list, got caught out in your lies, and then run for cover once you're hog tied - do not expect to come back on and then back out at will.

I have had it with this cherry picking from the 911 truth criminals. They snipe from under a rock , on list to which they were not invited to begin with, then when they are hog tied they scream to be dropped from the list, claiming email abuse if that's not respected, and then once they've had long enough to lick their wounds back in the troll cave come crashing back on again at their whim, screaming censorship if they are disallowed, only to soon be howling to removed again, once they get stitched up again.

If you guys think you can cherry pick on and off lists at your whim, dropping out only when things turn ugly for you, then you've got another think coming.

Either stay on and face up to the tangle you've got yourselves into - or piss off for good - one or the other.

JON GOLD 1.43

Attention Attention: Just a suggestion, but we should protest the shit out of this event. Just an idea.

Members of Sept. 11 Panel Press for Information on Terror Risk

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/p...agewanted=print

By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, June 5 - Members of the Sept. 11 commission, fearing that the Bush administration and Congress will never act on some of their recommendations, are joining together almost a year after completing their final report to press the White House for information showing whether the government has done enough to prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack, commission officials said.

The officials said the 10 commissioners, acting through a private group they founded last summer, will present a letter within days to Andrew H. Card Jr., President Bush's chief of staff, asking the White House to allow the group to gather detailed information from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies about the government's recent performance in dealing with terrorist threats.

Commissioners say they want the information to prepare for a series of public hearings scheduled to begin here on Monday and to draft a privately financed report that will evaluate the government's counterterrorism policies in the wake of the commission's final report last July.

The moves, which may not be welcome at the White House or among Congressional leaders, represent an unusual effort by members of a high-profile federal commission to retain their political viability and to lobby for their recommendations long after their official investigation came to an end.

"We're going to ask a lot of questions," said Thomas H. Kean, who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and is now a board member of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, a private educational and lobbying group. "There are a lot of our recommendations that have not been implemented."

Mr. Kean said that with terrorist groups threatening new attacks on American soil, "we don't have a lot of time left to act."

The Public Discourse Project has scheduled eight public hearings on the government's counterterrorism efforts; the hearing on Monday will focus on the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., the targets of the sharpest criticism in the commission's final report last year.

Mr. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said that although witness lists for the other hearings have not been completed, he would not rule out a request for public testimony from senior administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director.

Told of the private group's plans to approach the White House, a White House spokeswoman, Christie Parell, said Sunday: "We appreciate the work the commission did. We have acted on the vast majority of their recommendations
and welcome their continued involvement. We look forward to receiving the letter."

Over its lifespan, the Sept. 11 commission repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration, which had originally opposed its creation, especially over the panel's access to important White House documents and to witnesses. The battles were especially pitched because of their timing, in the middle of Mr. Bush's campaign for a second term.

With their public hearings and their plans for a new report, the Sept. 11 commission is, to a degree, back in business. The five Democrats and five Republicans who made up the panel are returning together to the public stage - this time, solely as private citizens and without subpoena power - to investigate the government's response to terrorist threats. The 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which has a small staff based in Washington, is underwritten by several prominent private foundations, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the panel and a former secretary of the Navy, said he hoped the White House would cooperate with the former commissioners in their renewed investigation "because we have the same objectives - they should see us a valuable resource outside of the system."

The former commissioners have the enthusiastic support of groups representing the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

"I applaud this," said Mary Fetchet of New Canaan, Conn., whose son was killed in the attacks and who is founding director of a family group called Voices of September 11th. "Typically a federal commission writes a report, makes its recommendations and there's no follow-through."

Members of the commission readily acknowledged that they no longer had any authority to force the Bush administration to hand over information or to make witnesses available, and they have no expectation that they will re-create the fireworks of their public hearings last year, when senior administration officials were subjected to hours of often hostile
questioning under oath and on live network television. (The hearing onMonday is scheduled to be broadcast live on C-Span 2, the cable network.)

"We don't have that subpoena power anymore," said Jamie S. Gorelick, a Democratic commissioner who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and who will moderate Monday's hearing, which will be held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, a scholarly organization partly financed by the federal government. "We are looking in from outside."

But Mr. Kean said he was hopeful that the White House would cooperate and that some senior administration officials might be willing to answer questions in public if only to demonstrate their commitment to preventing new terrorist attacks. "Some of them may be eager to do that," he said. The hearings are expected to culminate later this year in a report that the 9/11 Public Discourse Project has described as a "report card" on its "unfinished agenda."

The Sept. 11 commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, went out of business last August after releasing a unanimous final report the month before demonstrating that incompetence and turf battles among the nation's intelligence agencies, notably the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., prevented the government from acting before Sept. 11, 2001, on intelligence suggesting an imminent Qaeda attack.

The report, which became a national bestseller, came after a year of public hearings at which Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice and others were harshly questioned about intelligence failures before Sept. 11. Its conclusions resulted in legislation that enacted the panel's key recommendation: creation of the job of director of national intelligence, an official who would have the authority to force cooperation among long-feuding spy agencies.

But many of the report's other recommendations have not been acted on, including its call for an overhaul of Congressional intelligence oversight, for the establishment of unified radio frequencies allowing emergency workers around the country to communicate; and for the appointment of a federal civil liberties board to prevent constitutional abuses by intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

In an interview on Friday in his offices at Drew University in Madison, N.J., where he will step down as president this month, Mr. Kean said that he had been gratified by many of the actions of Mr. Bush and Congress in responding to the commission's recommendations, especially the creation of the intelligence director's job and the appointment of John D. Negroponte, the former American ambassador to the United Nations and to Iraq, to the post. "He's met with us, and we were very pleased with the questions he asked and with his approach to the job," Mr. Kean said.

Mr. Kean, who was once seen as a candidate for the intelligence job that went to Mr. Negroponte, has rebuffed suggestions that he return to politics. In January, he accepted a new job as chairman of the board of trustees of
the multibillion-dollar Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, N.J.

While insisting that he saw "the glass as half full" in the government's response to the Sept. 11 report, Mr. Kean said he was disturbed that so many other recommendations had not been acted on, especially the commission's call for an expanded American effort to secure international stores of nuclear materials, especially in the nations of the former Soviet Union.

"There's no greater danger to this nation than a terrorist group acquiring these materials," Mr. Kean said. He said he was also alarmed that there had been little movement by the government in creating the unified radio frequencies for police and fire departments around the country - "that's almost a scandal."

The civil liberties board was created under the law adopted by Congress last year that also established the job of director of national intelligence, but the White House has offered no hint that it is close to naming members of the board.

"I'm very disappointed that the president has not yet seen fit to appoint the board, which is included in the very legislation he signed into law," said Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor and a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission.

Mr. Ben-Veniste, who is scheduled to lead one of the public hearings next month, specifically on civil liberties issues, said prisoner abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the American military base at Guant√°namo Bay, Cuba, demonstrated the need for the board.

WEBFAIRY 2.18

What are you protesting?

The idea that a bunch of 911 Perplings are in charge of the "Investigation??"

Left over Iran Contra coverup artists wagging their fingers at Congress for not taking away our rights and freedoms quickly enough?

I am still appalled that 911 Families were out there protesting IN FAVOR OF Patriot Act II.

Now they want Patriot Act 3, and are using the terrorist hijacker excuses to get it.

I'd rather protest feeble thinkers who buy the lies about the existance of hijackers and passenger planes slamming into buildings.

Horror Fiction with Agenda ridden junior perps trying to keep the silly story vital and puffed up.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/halloween

CHRIS BELL 6.55

Hi Gerard,

Jon likes to concentrate on the facts that have a paper trail, like the put options, the ignored intelligence warnings, the warnings to the CIA not to fly that day, etc. It's not "his" evidence specifically, just the evidence he chooses to pursue.

Jon in no way believes in the official story about 19 arabs, he is well aware that this was pulled off by the government. However, he tries to avoid anything speculative in nature or something that a skeptic can interpret differently and come to different conclusions.

He also tries to stay away from any sensational stories that will cause the skeptics to roll their eyes and brand us as wacko conspiracy theorists.

For example, when I first became aware of what really happened that day (thanks to Jon), I used to go around showing people pictures of the pod thinking it was irrefutable evidence. Needless to say, I was easily debunked by people claiming it was the wing fairing, and I looked like a fool. Whether or not there was a pod (I'm not sure anymore), it is easily debunked based on the fact that it "could" be the fairing, the skeptics will always have an argument to fall back on.

Jon warned me that this was not the right approach, and he was right.

As for Sibel Edmonds, I think Jon is trying to expose government corruption to open some eyes, as well as to support someone who has been wronged by the government. He is a big supporter of those that stand up against government corruption, he's also a big supporter of Mary Schneider. I guess Sibel's view of the attacks isn't as important as the fact that these people are trying to expose government corruption and have been effectively gagged. Jon is very patriotic and tries to support his fellow Americans.

I often use the Sibel Edmonds case as an example of government corruption as well, and I'm MIHOP all the way. Maybe thats a mistake on my part, but I'm just trying to plant seeds. I actually wasn't aware of her official stance.

I am a fan of your work, I have pulled out your "Conspiracy Theorists guide..." on more than one occasion when it was necessary.

Regarding Kyle Hence and Bill Douglas, I'm not familiar with this issue, sorry.

I am by no means an expert, I know enough to know the truth, and I use what I know to try to spread the truth a little.

JON GOLD June 7 9.26 AM

That letter is the DEFINITION of unity. We don't have to agree on everything. We only have to agree that our Government was behind 9/11.

That's all. It's not rocket science. Some people focus on the scientific data, and some people focus on the written word. There's no reason in the world that we have to argue amongst ourselves, when our goal is the same thing. Think of it like a business... there are many different people whodo many different jobs, but their goal is to make money for the company. We are all parts of a whole. The Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

GERARD HOLMGREN 11.03

Jon writes

[[That letter is the DEFINITION of unity. We don't have to agree on everything. We only have to agree that our Government was behind 9/11.

That's all...The Whole Truth,and nothing but the Truth.]]

Perhaps another definition of unity is when one can manage to agree with ones-self from one email to another. Lets take a look at Jon's record.

Jon version 1

[[I don't put much stock into it because those aspects of 9/11 don't interest me AT ALL. Only *unless the video footage clearly shows something other than what the "official" story states*, I don't care.]]

[[As well, Karl must release this footage, and it must be vetted completely
before I'll believe anything. In regards to the missile story, again, who
are his sources, etc... I have a thread I posted a few months ago on my site
pertaining to the same kind of idea... but that's all it was, an idea.]]

[[Those who do know me, know that I don't focus on that which can't be proven. That includes missiles hitting the Pentagon, Remote Controlled airplanes being flown into the WTC, Buildings being laced with C-4, etc... ]]

All of these extracts are from the same mail. The message is unambiguous,Jon's criteria for interest is whether something can be proven.

So then I sent him some links to such proof. This was his reply.

[[I appreciate you sending me this information, but as I said, it really doesn't interest me... all of the other stuff I mentioned, plus geopoliticsis really all that interests me. ]]

So the criteria for interest has suddenly changed. Now its only things to do with geopolitics, and the 'other stuff". So what is the "other stuff" to which he refers ? Going back to his previous mail we find.

[[Show me a good put option, Sibel Edmonds' testimony, Visa Express, MASCAL, Condoleeza Rice's testimony, Norman Minetta's testimony, the NORAD/FAA timelines, a warning, etc... and I'm all yours... ]]

So originally, Jon's criteria for what was interesting was anything which could be proven. Then it suddenly switched to anything geopolitical, plus a few special issues which seem to have been chosen quite arbitrarily, and apparently enjoy a privileged place above the geopolitical definition or the now forgotten requirement of "proof."

When I asked - very politely - in a manner as non accusatory as possible-for a clarification on the apparent contradiction the response was

[[Is this what you guys do for fun? I said I'm done, and I'm done. I'm not going to play the word manipulation game used by the Neocons. I've busted my ASS for this movement, and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to sit here, and take this abuse. My work speaks for itself.]]

The question was never answered.

Then we got

[[The idea that those hijackers weren't involved in some way is ridiculous.]]

Followed the next day by

[[We all have certain topics that seem more compelling to us than others that we should continue to focus on and refrain from belittling otherswork... we should show encouragement to others, and help each other any way we can.]]

But only some of us eh, Jon ? And only when we feel like it ?

Not only that but Chris Bell, who seems to be something of a fan of Jon's, attributed to him this view

[[Jon in no way believes in the official story about 19 Arabs ]]

Which is a little hard to reconcile with

[[The idea that those hijackers weren't involved in some way is ridiculous.]]

So Jon, did Chris misrepresent you ? And could we please know why someone who can't even show unity with themselves from one email to another feels qualified to be the arbiter of what qualifies as "unity" amongst other people ?

GERARD HOLMGREN June 8 5.02

Jon

Since you've poked your head up out of the troll cave again, how about answering a direct question with a direct answer?

In a mail to this group you stated quite clearly that your criteria for interest in a piece of evidence was whether it could be proven.

When I sent you some links containing such proof, you declined to even look at them, pleading lack of interest. Because in the space of a few minutes, you had completely changed your criteria for interest.

Now the criteria did not include proof, but was determined by subject matter - "geopolitical" you said, plus a few issues which seemed in your mind to enjoy a privileged status above the constant carping and criticism which surrounds most issues. One of those privileged issues in your mind was the testimony of that idiot Sibel Edmonds - so it's hardly surprising that you dropped "proof" as one of your criteria, because "Edmonds" and "proof" and two mutually exclusive concepts.

But I digress. The point is - you told a straight out lie. You shifted your ground in the space of a few minutes, when your original position got you into a tangle.

When I pointed out the contradiction you threw an abusive fit, clearly unable to respond to a logical argument with anything other than a tantrum.

You also made the ridiculous assertion that I had twisted your words, even though I had pasted your exact words into my reply. So hopefully you are happier this time, because I'm paraphrasing now, which I guess is much moreaccurate.

(LOL !)

Heh! If you're not happy with me paraphrasing, I can always dig out your exact text and paste it again.

I also invited you to offer your own edit, of your words, if you felt that mine was misleading, but not surprisingly you declined that offer too.

So I am going to ask you a simple straight question, and I expect a simple straight answer.

What is your criteria for deciding whether or not you will

a) read a piece of research ?

b) discuss it ?

c) promote it. ?

JON GOLD 5.09

Scientific American Takes on the 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/c...y.asp?aid=14972

(Gold9472: A good example of why you shouldn't focus on the "minutia")

Written by Steven Plaut
Monday, June 06, 2005

While there are many reasons to believe that the political arena is in fact a circle and not a straight line, with the extremist Left sitting alongside the lunatic neonazi Right and sharing many of the same ideas and positions, nothing so clearly illustrates the "political circle" concept as well as the chasing by extremists of both the Right and Left after conspiracy theories related to 9-11.

The web is crawling with web sites that insist that bin Laden was a patsy and that al-Qaeda did NOT knock down the WTC and attack the Pentagon. So who then did? Usually it is some mix of the CIA, the Republicans, the "Illuminati", the Council on Foreign Relations (a favorite bugaboo of conspiracy nuts), and of course the Jews (and the Israelis).

Some of these "theories" are on the web sites of Holocaust Deniers (like Rense.com) and Stormtrooper-wannabes, while others are on the web sites of Far-Leftist marxies and "anarchists."

Among the leftwing lunatics who promote such nonsense is neofascist Dennis "Justin" Raimondo, editor of antiwar.com, who "proved" that Dem Joos knocked down the WTC because, on the day of the attack, some Israeli moving men were
picked up for visa violations and one was found to have some cash in a dirty sock. Raimondo is convinced that no one could possibly have cash in a sock unless they were responsible for the 9-11 attack! Chronically-unemployed Counterpunch neonazi columnist and Ba'athist Uruknet spokesman Kurt Nimmo agrees. If you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits.

Now Scientific American has devoted a part of its newest issue to debunking conspiracy nonsense related to 9-11. The Scientific American piece was motived in part by the success of a lunabat book crayoned by a French left-wing activist, Thierry Meyssan's, about yet another 9-11 conspiracy "theory", L'Effroyable Imposture, which became an amphibian best-seller in 2002.

After noting some of the ludicrous pseudo-facts trotted out by the conspiracist fruitcakes, Scientific American sums things up thus:

'All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete
evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales. '

About the Writer: Dr. Plaut is a professor of business administration at the University of Haifa, and the author of "The Scout," available from Gefen Publishing House at: http://www.israelbooks.com/bookDetails.asp?book=43.

GERARD HOLMGREN 5.23 am

Fascinating stuff Jon. Having supplied that will you now answer the question I asked ?

JON GOLD 5.26

What is your criteria for deciding whether or not you will

a) read a piece of research ?

The source of the information.

b) discuss it ?

The source of the information.

c) promote it. ?

The source of the information.

Now fuck off.

GERARD HOLMGREN 7.53

How can you tell the source of the information without reading it ?

Unless your thinking standards are so bad as to believe that the author is the source?

The author only finds and publishes the sources. For example, I'm not the source of the info that that neither AA11 or 77 were scheduled on Sept 11. The source is the Bureau of transportation statistics. Who found it (in this case, me) is neither here nor there.

Of course Jon wouldn't understand this this, because he follows the puffed up blusterings of people like Mike "Vreeland" Ruppert and Karl Schwarz who just make stuff up and then allude mysteriously and heroically to "secret documents" and "inside sources"

Clearly Jon's answer is ridiculous anyway, because while the sources are certainly a vital component, the other factors are what facts those sources contain, and also whether the argument built from them is logical.

For example, one might find a credible source that the WTC fires reached 500C degrees and a credible source that the melting point of steel is 1550C and then draw the insane conclusion that the fires melted the steel.

So there's three factors

: whether the sources are reliable.

:whether the facts are correct and not so selectively chosen as to be misleading

:whether the argument subsequently extrapolated is logical.

So Jon's initial statement that his criteria is "proof" looks rather amusing when he doesn't understand the basic process of how proof is discovered.

Furthermore, he fails to address the important category of issues which may be characterized as have strong supporting evidence , while still short of proof, and whether one believes that further investigation has the potential to upgrade it proof, and even if it doesn't, whether total dismissal is justified simply because it classifies as strong evidence , rather than
proof.

And he continues to slither away from explaining why he abruptly changed his criteria for interest when his previously stated criteria got him into a bit of a tangle.

Never mind how he considers the 19 hijackers to be 'proven", to the extent that he was able to label as "ridiculous" the idea that they are fiction.

But then again, perhaps that statement was made after the "proof" criteria was dropped.

And as for Sibel Edmonds. Jon said he liked that because

[[Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley found her testimony to be extremely credible. They found it credible because several other FBI employees corroborated her story. ]]

Hee hee! Someone told him that someone told them that they thought that Sibel was telling the truth. That's proof in the world of investigator Jon.

Jon, you've been reading too much of Swaggering Mike's work (Ruppert). Or maybe Schwarz. I used to call swaggering Mike the world's worst researcher, but I think he's got serious competition from Karl now.

JON GOLD 8.48

Slithering Jon Writes...

What about the millions of people Mike Ruppert turned onto the truth?

I guess that small fact accounts for nothing. You'll be happy to know that I did my own research, and came to my own conclusions long before ever hearing of Mike Ruppert. Regardless... let's talk about the above statement. Millions of people have been turned onto the truth thanks to Mike Ruppert. That is, after all, the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement is it not? The fact that he managed to turn on so many people is a good thing is it not? Maybe... just maybe you're a little jealous of Michael? Maybe you want to be "THE ONE" who discovered the truth about 9/11, and "THE ONE" to receive all of the accolades? Maybe the sole purpose of this "ride", as Nico Haupt likes to call, is to caress your bruised ego. Well, this is the last email you'll be receiving from me, but I'd just like to point out one more thing.

Those who want to be "THE ONE", and want to receive all of the accolades, usually do so because 1) they have a low self esteem, 2) they plan to profit off of their fame 3) they are completely selfish 4) they have alterior motives.

My site is free, and has been from day one. I accept multiple theories regarding 9/11, and do so with PRIDE because just the fact that even one person contributes something to my site, shows me that people care.

Take care, and remember, NO ONE KNOWS EVERYTHING, ONLY TOGETHER MAY WE FIND THE TRUTH.

Slithering Jon Out...

GERARD HOLMGREN 9.17

Jon writes

[[What about the millions of people Mike Ruppert turned onto the truth? ]]

What truth ? That the WTC collapsed from fire, because his ex-wife says so, and that he read an undisclosed detailed review by an unknown author of an undisclosed interview by an unknown interviewer in an unknown publication with an unknown architect who said so, and Mike won't tell us what this incredibly well sourced document says ?

Ah yes - that truth !

You mean the Mike Ruppert who was still claiming two years later that the WTC fires melted the steel - as if he had been living under a rock for the last two years - and yelled at people who said otherwise that they were talking "bullshit" ? And then pleaded that he hadn't had time to find out the melting point of steel ? After two years ? Pl-leeeze !

So I sent them to him. It took about 10 minutes to find multiple sources.

Jon - buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word "truth".

Or perhaps you were talking about thundering Mike Ruppert who gave us the wonderful gift of Mike Vreeland - one of the more embarrassing moments of the Orwellianly named "truth " movement.

Perhaps it's the "truth" of the 19 hijackers promoted so vigorously by Swaggering Mike, who is apparently unable to work out that people who are still alive could not have been on a plane which crashed and killed everybody.

Or maybe it's swaggering Mike's sensational discovery that a plane with a 125 ft wingspan can fit through a 16 ft hole without breaking off any parts and then completely vanish while still leaving all except one of the occupants identifiable by DNA, even though some of them are still alive and the plane which did it never even took that day anyway.

Ruppert is a personality cult - like Schwarz. A swaggering, boasting, puffed up wanker.

GERARD HOLMGREN 9.50

Jon writes

[[What about the millions of people Mike Ruppert turned onto the truth? ]]

Can you get specific about what you mean by "truth" please , Jon ?

What actually happened that day ?

In particular - how did the Nth tower collapse?

How did the Sth tower collapse ?

How did WTC 7 collapse ?

What hit the pentagon ?

What hit the Nth tower ?

What hit the Sth Tower?

If you believe that someone hijacked some planes, please tell us who.

Not much point in trumpeting about "truth", if you refuse to specify what you believe it to be.

JEFF STRAHL 9.57

(quoting Gold)" I accept multiple theories regarding 9/11, and do so with PRIDE"

Yep. Osama and his Arabs did it by themselves, the US gov't was negligent.

The Pakistanis did it. The Saudis did it. The US gov't knew and let ithappen. The US gov't did it......

And the fact that many of these are mutually exclusive doesn't make you wonder about accepting ALL of them? Incoherence Supreme.

GERARD HOLMGREN 10.03

Jon sent me a reply off list.

He replied

[[Planes flew into buildings, buildings collapsed, people died. ]]

(This was in response to my questions outlined in the 9.50 , mail asking him what the "truth" is in response to

[[What about the millions of people Mike Ruppert turned onto the truth? ]] )

I see. So Mike Ruppert turned millions of people on the truth that

[[Planes flew into buildings, buildings collapsed, people died. ]] ?

Riveting stuff, Jon! How would anyone have come to that idea without him ?

JON GOLD 10.21

Please show me a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon. Provide me a link to a video that clearly shows a missile hitting it. I'd like to know where the missile was manufactured. I want to know the last plane or battery it came from. I'd like to know which document shows that the missiles defending the Pentagon were shut down on 9/11. I would like to see the name of the signature who signed off on it. Also, I'd like to know the names of the individuals who planted explosives within the WTC. I'd like the know the day they did it, what kind of explosives they used, and I would like to know from where they were detonated from. I would like to see receipts for all of the purchases required to explode the WTC.

Can anybody provide for me this information?

GERARD HOLMGREN 10.47

Jon writes

[[Please show me a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon. ]]

There isn't a video of anything hitting the building, Jon . So the argument is based on forensic evidence.

Having answered your question, please answer mine. What do you believe hit the pentagon ? Do you have a video of a plane hitting the building ?

[[Also, I'd like to know the names of the individuals who planted explosives within the WTC. ]]

We don't know that Jon.

[[I'd like the know the day they did it, what kind of explosives they used, and I would like to know from where they were detonated from. ]]

We don't have that Jon.

[[ I would like to see receipts for all of the purchases required to explode the WTC. ]]

We don't have them Jon.But I'm sure that if we ask very nicely, whoever did it will provide them.Why would they not ?

Having answered your questions, can you please answer mine for a change ?

Have you got the receipts for the stock trades, Jon ? Can you tell us the name of the individual who placed the trades, whether they paid by cash, cheque or eftpos ? Give us the broker's account number of the trader.

Earlier you gave us the astonishing revelation that Mike Ruppert had revealed to the world that

[[Planes flew into buildings, buildings collapsed, people died. ]]

I take my hat off to the great man ! Perhaps he knows even more than this. I was wondering which planes, specifically hit which buildings specifically. Flight numbers and types of aircraft please, if you believe the information to be known.

Were they flown by remote control or by hijackers ? If by hijackers, please name them and provide receipts for their tickets. And birth and death certificates.

Also please provide us with official BTS flight logs for the planes which you believe were involved, and FAA records of the deregistration of the destroyed planes. Can we please have refueling records for the planes involved and an official flight manifest, and official birth and death certificates for those on board ?

JON GOLD 12.03 am June 9

Nico... I have a question for you... How many emails have you received from people thanking you for information pertaining to 9/11?

I've received 1000's. 1000's of emails from people thanking me for putting up with assholes like you just to get the truth out.

That's 1000's more people that we didn't have before. What have you done to contribute to the movement? How many people have you managed to turn onto the truth? How do you manage to find the time to turn people onto the truth when all you apparently do is bash other people trying to do the same thing?

Gerard, no, I don't have the Put Option receipts, but I DO have a plethora of news articles from LEGITIMATE sources that confirm they exist. Are there any news stories that talk about the questions I asked? No? Ok then, that's why I don't focus on the minutia.:

See, I try to avoid being called a "Conspiracy Nut" at all costs.It helps to be credible in this game that we're playing. You continue playing "Conspiracy", and I and others will continue educating people.

I have another question. www.justicefor911.org was created at the time of the Spitzer complaint, yet, I don't see Nico Haupt, Gerard Holmgren, or Jeff Haupt on that list. I, however, am number 36. Why didn't you sign that petition? Is it because it was sponsored by www.911truth.org? Are you going to tell me that even if they manage to do something right, you won't participate because they go against your precious pod/missile/hologram theories?

Again, it seems to me that this group of individuals is more focused on being "THE ONE" who discovered, "THE TRUTH" surrounding theevents of 9/11 than they do about "THE TRUTH" getting out at all.

Prove me wrong, end this slanderous list of emails, and go back to the activism that this movement was founded on. Then and only then will I believe that you really care about this movement, and not the fortunes to be made with those accolades I spoke of. If I receive another email, then I will consider EVERYONE on this list as money hungry assholes who are
profitting off of the horrific events surrounding 9/11.

Take Care.

JEFF STRAHL 4.00 am

Who the fu*^ is "Jeff Haupt"? Well, I didn't sign (coverupthe)911truth's petition, that group has worked overtime to cover up the truth about 9/11.

At one point, one of its people was arguing in an online debate that the laws of physics only apply inside a laboratory, that they are inapplicable in a real world situation like the WTC collapses, where they are subject to change. We have a "plethora" of articles and videos from mainstream and government sources that do indeed demolish the official conspiracy story, including Bureau of Transporation statistics on flights involved in 9/11, real and imagined, we have videos from CNN which clearly show the WTC towers turning to dust as they collapse and falling through the remaining structures as fast as through air, we have official sources showing the tiny hole in the Pentagon wall next to a practically pristine lawn,.....You indeed are a conspiracy nut if you buy the notion that the WTC towers came down because planes flew into them.

GERARD HOLMGREN 7.45

Jon,

I answered all of your direct questions with prompt direct answers. This was in spite of the fact that the questions were so moronic that they didn't deserve answers, but ignoring that, I made the concession of treating your questions with respect.

Now you will do the same to mine. Nothing more of yours will be addressed until you give direct answers to the questions I've asked. I haven't had a straight answer out of you yet on anything, and then the first time that you asked me direct questions, I answered them, directly and without waffle. Then immediately want to rant on your own tangent, while skipping over questions I've been asking for a while. It doesn't work like that.

So here are my questions. Once you answer them, and *not* before - directly, not with waffle, then you can say something else.

1) Do you belive that the WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished ?
Yes or no. (If you have different answers for different buildings that's OK)

2) What hit the Nth tower ? - Full details please - model, flight
number, airline

3) Ditto for Sth tower

4) Ditto for Pentagon

5) Ditto for the PA incident where a plane is alleged to have crashed

6) Do you believe that the air force scrambled any fighters before the
pentagon was hit?

GERARD HOLMGREN 7.52

Jon,

I missed this, which you've also previously skipped over.

For each plane - was it remotely controlled ? If not, who hijacked it ? Names please.

GERARD HOLMGREN 11.11

Jon,

I answered all of your questions directly and promptly without distracting waffle, even though the questions were so moronic that they didn't deserve that respect. (Find the receipts for the explosives used to blow up the
towers - p-leeeze ! )

But I answered.

Then you asked Nico an insulting personality cult style question, one which also deserved contemptuous dismissal, because personalities are irrelevant -except in the case of people like Ruppert and Schwarz, where they themselves promote their personality as the sole object of discussion, through their failure to provide any documentation which can be checked in the public domain and their constant insistence on personal connections. If you don't discuss their personalities, you can't discuss their work, because it isn't about anything except them.

So both Nico and I answered in a very detailed manner your questions - in spite of the fact that you have so far refused to give a straight answer to anything.

So now it's Jon's turn. All of his postings from this point will be completely ignored until he answers the following questions - directly, and without distracting waffle.

1) Do you believe that WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished ?
Yes or no. (If you have different answers for different buildings that's OK)

2) What hit the Nth tower ? - Full details please - model, flight
number, airline

3) Ditto for Sth tower

4) Ditto for Pentagon

5) Ditto for the PA incident where a plane is alleged to have crashed

6) Do you believe that the air force scrambled any fighters before the
pentagon was hit?

7) For each plane - was it remotely controlled ? If not, who hijacked it ?
Names please

GERARD HOLMGREN June 10 1.53 pm

Notice how Jon Gold went very quiet all of a sudden when I asked him some direct questions ?

Quite innocuous questions. I simply asked him to clarify what he actually thinks happened on Sept 11. As someone who has continually boasted about how many people he's alerted to the truth, one would think that Jon would be bursting to trumpet his truth to the world once again - especially with an explicit invitation !

Apparently not. Perhaps he got RSI from typing how effective he is at telling the truth to the extent that when someone asked him to actually tell them, he suddenly couldn't type any more. Poor Jon ! Get well soon Jon, and when you do, please share with us your bountiful wisdom on the following questions.

1) Do you believe that WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished ?
Yes or no. (If you have different answers for different buildings that's OK)

2) What hit the Nth tower ? - Full details please - model, flight
number, airline

3) Ditto for Sth tower

4) Ditto for Pentagon

5) Ditto for the PA incident where a plane is alleged to have crashed

6) Do you believe that the air force scrambled any fighters before the
pentagon was hit?

7) For each plane - was it remotely controlled ? If not, who hijacked it ?
Names please

JONATHAN GOLD 11.56 pm

How much money have you guys made so far from 9/11?

Incidentally, here are the stats to my site...

2,291

Posts:

23,345

Thread Views:

1,171,071

Registered Members:

256

Visitors:

966,676*

Website Hits:

2,467,323*

As you can see, Nico Haupt LIED. I have 234 MORE members than he stated. Hmmm... if he lied about one thing, then the chances are that he's lied about a number of things.

911TruthAction only has 192 members, and has been around since August 2004. My site has been around since January 2005. Seems to me the numbers speak for themself.

How much money have you made off of 9/11?

JON GOLD 12.28

1) Do you believe that WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished ? Yes or no. (If you have different answers for different buildings that's OK)

Yes to WTC 7, I have on idea in regards to 1 and 2.

2) What hit the Nth tower ? - Full details please - model, flight number, airline

An airplane

3) Ditto for Sth tower

An airplane

4) Ditto for Pentagon

Supposedly an airplane

5) Ditto for the PA incident where a plane is alleged to have crashed

Shot down

6) Do you believe that the air force scrambled any fighters before the pentagon was hit?

It's documented that they were.

7) For each plane - was it remotely controlled ? If not, who hijacked it ?

Names please

I wasn't there, nor was I at the meeting that planned 9/11. Therefore, I have no idea.

JON GOLD 12.28 June 11

Now I have a direct question for you Gerard.

What is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

GERARD HOLMGREN 7.27

Jon, as already explained, we gave prompt direct answers to your questions, even after you had ignored ours.

So now, you'll answer them and everything else you say will be ignored until you do. Just to be really generous to you, I haven't made a cent. It's cost me a fortune in lost time. So there's one more answer you owe us. So tell us Jon, in your opinion, because your feeble "answers " were not answers at all.

All we got specifically was that you think WTC 7 was demolished, and that you support the govt story on the air force response.

Your answer re the alleged hijackings was interesting, because earlier you said that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that none of the alleged hijackers were actually involved, but now you say that you've got no idea who hijacked the planes.

However I do note that you claimed that its documented that fighters were scrambled before the pentagon was hit. This of course is not true. Can you present your documentation Jon ?

And meanwhile answer these questions properly.

1) Do you believe that WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished ?

Yes or no. (If you have different answers for different buildings that's OK)

2) What hit the Nth tower ? - Full details please - model, flight number, airline

3) Ditto for Sth tower

4) Ditto for Pentagon

5) Ditto for the PA incident where a plane is alleged to have crashed

6) Do you believe that the air force scrambled any fighters before the pentagon was hit?

7) For each plane - was it remotely controlled ? If not, who hijacked it ?

GERARD HOLMGREN 7.44

[[Now I have a direct question for you Gerard.

What is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement? ]]

That's rather cheeky Jon, since I've so far directly answered every question you've asked, and you're still slithering and twisting and turning from mine. But just to make the point further, I'll answer this too. On one condition - no response from you to it until you've answered the questions below fully. Do you agree ?

1) Do you believe that WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished ?Yes or no. (If you have different answers for different buildings that's OK)

(Note, Jon has answered yes for WTC 7, and that he has no idea for the other two- which indicates that he also has not the slightest interest.)

2) What hit the Nth tower ? - Full details please - model, flight number, airline

3) Ditto for Sth tower

4) Ditto for Pentagon

5) Ditto for the PA incident where a plane is alleged to have crashed

6) Do you believe that the air force scrambled any fighters before the
pentagon was hit?

(Note Jon, has indicated here that he supports the govt story)

7) For each plane - was it remotely controlled ? If not, who hijacked it ? Names please

(Note here, Jon has given contradictory answers, at one point stating that any assertions that "the hijackers weren;t involved was "ridiculous", but now saying that he has no idea who they were, if indeed there were any at all.)

GERARD HOLMGREN 7.51

So this is what we have from Jon so far.

Was WTC 7 demolished ? Yes.

Was WTC 1 demolished? Don't know and don't care.

Was WTC 2 demolished. Don't know and don't care.

What hit the Nth tower? Refuse to specify beyond a plane, without actually admitting any doubt about its ID.

What Hit the Sth tower? Same.

What hit the pentagon ? Same

Whhat happened in PA? Something was shot down, but refuse to give any more details.

Was the air force stood down ? No. Claims documentation but didn't provide any.

Were the planes remotely controlled, or if they were hijacked then by who?

Now says he has no idea, after previously saying that it was documented beyond doubt, although he never actually gave details or links to the documentation.

Well, I can see that people will feel really well informed after talking to Jon !

JEFF STRAHL 10.17

And WTC 7 was demolished because of ..what? Did the WTC management get aroused by the sight of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and decide to get into the spirit by bringing down WTC 7?

JON GOLD 10.26

More Lies, I'm done.

GERARD HOLMGREN 11.42

Jon writes

[[More Lies, I'm done. ]]

No Jon, you are not done.

You will answer my questions. Of course, you could continue to refuse, but if you do , then I am entitled to state your position as being that which is most strongly implied by your failure to respond.

At the moment, that position would appear to be that you support the Govt story fully, except for the demolition of WTC 7. If you refuse to answer, I will tell people that this is your position. When that happens, then don't complain if you claim otherwise, because you've been given the opportunity to state exactly how you see the events of that day, and repeatedly refuse to do so.

Hmmm, our discussion is about sept 11, and what really happened and Jon seems to think that saying what really happened (in his view) is the least relevant thing of all... In that case, what is he here for ?

Heh ! Not long ago he was boasting about how he is trumpeting the truth from the roof tops. He can't wait to spread it as far and wide as possible.

Now -here's a forum in which to do so, and he suddenly takes offence at the idea that he continue to "educate " people - something which not long ago, he boasted of his number 1 priority.

Why should anyone express fear about stating their position ?

Answer the questions, Jon.

END DISCUSSION.

Gold didn't answer. We never found out the "truth". We never learned what the "movement" needs to promote.

During this discussion, Gold Used the term "truth" 12 times (twice in capital letters) and the word "movement" 13 times. But do you feel any wiser about what the "truth" is according to Gold, than you did at the beginning of the discussion? You found out plenty about what I believe to be the truth, with links so that you can check for yourself if you want, what kind of substance is behind those beliefs. But Gold ?

And if the "movement" is about promoting the "truth", and there is an apparent refusal to say what the truth is, then what does the movement stand for ?

What little progress was made in our understanding of his view of the "truth", only happened because I virtually put thumb screws on him to wring it out of him. His enthusiastic trumpeting of the need to spread the truth far and wide contrasted with a distinct annoyance at being asked to actually tell us what it was specifically that needed to be so widely distributed.

Well, that's not entirely correct. He was reasonably forthcoming about any views which supported the official story - like Sibel Edmonds, a plane hitting the pentagon, hijackers etc. He was reasonably forthcoming about what he was *not* interested in. But he was extremely coy about the details of anything which disputed the official story, creating a contrast with his powerful rhetoric that the lies must be exposed. Exactly what those lies were prompted extreme evasiveness.

Did Gold present you with anything which you could examine as "evidence" ? For most things he didn't even present an opinion. At most there was a generic implication that whatever the truth is we haven't been told it, although even this was sorely tested with the belief that "planes flew into buildings, buildings fell down, people died" as the "truth" of the Sept 11.

The closest thing to an answer was that the "movement" stands for Sibel Edmonds, Mike Ruppert, and David Ray Griffin. The first completely supports the official story and says that the Govt did a rotten job of fighting the terrorists and is covering up it's failures. The second also supports almost everything in the official story but spouts rhetoric about complicity without actually supporting much of the evidence for it. The latter claims active orchestration of the attacks and presents specific points of evidence which have been ignored by Edmonds and attacked by Ruppert. But each is a truth hero to the other as well as to Jon Gold. The truth seems to be whatever you want it to be and the "movement" stands for whatever "truth" you choose to promote at any particular time, and can be expressed by chanting the name of any authorized logo wearer.

The main idea of the truth movement seems to be to promote the truth movement by just saying "truth movement " over and over, occasionally pausing to swoon at the feet of its heroes who approve the plethora of conflicting truths sanctioned as acceptable beliefs for truthlings.

What we see here is far more dangerous than the old fashioned lies of the neo-cons or the Democrats. Comparatively speaking, they still live in the pre-double think world. An example is that no one is asking you to believe both that Saddam had and did not have WMD . One or the other. They lied about him having them, and when the lie was exposed, claimed that it was a mistake, but that there were other good reasons for the invasion anyway. Or even if there weren't and that was a mistake too, now that it's done, we can't cut and run. Old fashioned regulation lies, followed by regulation back peddling and damage control once the lies are exposed - the same as any Government does when they want to start a war and then try to keep justifying it later when the gloss wears off the original spin.

Telling a lie, like WMD or a plane hitting the Pentagon, does not in itself challenge the fundamental concept of truth. They tell a single thread of lies, try as hard as possible to make them appear true, make them as consistent as possible and defend them for as long as possible and only jump to a new thread when that one has reached a hopeless dead end.

There are of course elements of double think in the neo-con/democrat view too. For example, the definition of terrorism morphing as convenient between the targeting of civilians or the targeting of uniformed occupation military forces. Whatever definition allows one to call the other side "terrorists" in any particular situation is the definition that applies. But compared to the truthling cult, this form of double think could be described as low key and anomalous to the general use of language. It seeks to sneak through the blind spots of traditional views of truth and nibble away at the edges. There's nothing new about that.

By comparison, the truthling cult makes a brash frontal assault on the fundamental concept of truth. Truth is defined as the chanting of a truth hero's name. It is the copyrighted logo of the truth movement.

In terms of it's specific content , truth is *overtly* expendable, disposable, malleable, market driven, a creation of those of those with the branding rights, strategy driven. It is the property of "truthers" and can be traded and negotiated like company shares. Truth is a popularity poll.

I have heard it argued that telling the truth might damage the truth movement.

I have heard it argued that certain pieces of evidence should not be aired because they will discredit the truth movement, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Chris Bell came close to that position with this statement.

[[Jon in no way believes in the official story about 19 Arabs, he is well aware that this was pulled off by the government. However, he tries to avoid anything speculative in nature or something that a skeptic can interpret differently and come to different conclusions.

He also tries to stay away from any sensational stories that will cause the skeptics to roll their eyes and brand us as wacko conspiracy theorists. ]]

Translation: It's not important to Jon whether he believes what he's saying . What's important to Jon is whether he can make other people believe it.

There's nothing new about this in itself. This is regulation marketing stuff for political parties and advertising agencies. But the new development here is that this cynical strategy is actually being defined as truth in the mind of the seller and it also appropriates any vocabulary which can be used to criticize it. It's not new to use cynical marketing strategies and dishonestly pretend them to be genuinely held beliefs. But traditionally, the need for pretence, the consequences of being "caught" in such a strategy, maintained the fundamental recognition that cynical marketing and truth were two quite different things and if you chose the path of deception, then you had to construct your deception carefully in case you got caught.

The Gold/Bell view abolishes any linguistic distinction between conscious deception and genuine belief. Truth is what you can sell. If you can convince people that it's true, then it is truth. If you can't, then it damages the effort to spread "truth". "Truth" has become a product, carefully tailored for a targeted market.

Put another way, the language is being redefined to abolish the concept of what used to be called truth. The word which used to be assigned to that concept has now been re-assigned as an alternative word for "whatever sells".

"Truth" vs "Whatever sells" used to be two opposing concepts and that's why there were different words for them. So that the two concepts could be compared and argued about as to their various merits. And so that there was vocabulary available to describe a situation when a liar got caught. By the latter now absorbing the language of the former, the first concept disappears from society because there is no longer any vocabulary with which to articulate it. Instead, we now merely have two different phrases which mean exactly the same thing. "Whatever sells" and "Truth". The concept previously desribed as "truth" now has no word assigned to it.

This is the vision that the Griffinating truthling movement has in store for society. Outrage over the official lies in relation to Sept 11 provides the smokescreen for the introduction of mainstream doublethink by using the desire to expose those lies as the vehicle for the change.

I have heard it expressed far more overtly. Such as this email from Jim Fetzer from Scholars for 911 truth. dated August 29 2006. (Fetzer didn't actually compose this himself, he was relaying someone else's opinion - a message of which he approved)

[[What is very clear, is that internal debating and put downs and attacks are only hindering the movement. And so is the no plane theory. Proponents of NPT must realize, even if they were right (and they aren't, by scores of amateur video capturing the 2nd plane hitting the tower), that it hurts the movement. ]]

Apart from the observation that this mail itself appears to represent [[internal debating and put downs and attacks]]...

Assuming that the goal of a "truth movement" is the pursuit of truth, then the idea such an aim is harmed by debating is interesting. It would seem that the truth is some kind of preordained, pre-manufactured fait- accompli, handed down from above, in completed form by some kind of omniscient source.

This ominscient source, according to the scholars would appear to be themselves. This article in which the scholars introduce themselves is titled to question with authority . Such "authority" is presumably bestowed by the fact they have "Professor" written in front of their names.

Having drawn our attention to their apparent omniscience,( which is not subject to debate according to the email above from Fetzer) the scholars declare themselves to be

[[dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11 "and letting the chips fall where they may." ]]

Apparently this bold statement was in need in some qualification, because if the chips fall in a place which is inconvenient, then as suggested by Fetzer in his email, it might be necessary for the good of the movement to rearrange them a little.

[[Even if they were right...that it hurts the movement]]

According to traditional ideas of truth, the *sole* concern of a "truth movement" - one which "lets the chips fall ", would be the question of *whether or not* it is true.

Ironically, this mail undermines it's own claim to conviction that that NPT is untrue, because it openly states that in the event of being convinced that it were true, the author would dishonestly pretend for strategic reasons, to believe the opposite. So how do we know that they aren't doing that already ? On the other hand, once we know that they will lie for the sake of strategy, then maybe - for strategic reasons - they are lying about their claim that they would be prepared to lie for the truth...

You see where this leads ?

People may well hold a general view that telling the truth is not always a wise strategy to achieve desirable results in the real world. However much I might disagree with such a view , I can respect it if applied consistently so that it has an internal validity, as merely a difference in strategy between people trying to achieve something. But this respect is due only on the condition that such a view does not seek to appropriate the language of the opposing philosophy - "truth", and thus disable any possibility of debate on the subject. Looked at this way, the word "truth" is also being appropriated to have the identical meaning of "strategy".

"Truth" comes to mean the same as popularity, marketability, strategic advantage. It's becoming a multi purpose word - a word which means everything and nothing. Rather like "terrorist". A "terrorist" is anyone who you don't like. "Truth" is anything which will benefit the movement which has copyrighted the word as its logo.

In a frightening new development, but one which some of us have predicted for some time, some truthlings have announced the formation of a "truth party". So "truth" will now be determined by party policy. Presumably the party, like most others, will have some kind of committee with the authority to decide the truth and decree it to the rank and file members.

Remember the party's slogan from Orwell's "1984" ?

"Truth is lies".

Here we see this position being openly promoted on behalf of the "truth movement."

Even if it were true, it would hurt the truth movement.

The email from Fetzer was not an aberration. I've seen the identical Orwellian newspeak over and over again in email debates. Not from supporters of the official story, but from truthlings.

Truth is determined by it's usefulness to the movement. The movement appoints truth heroes who become the personification of truth, the content which they utter being no more than an almost arbitrarily chosen vehicle for the expression of worship of his truthliness, and the importance of such worship to the movement.

His truthliness is the shepherd and the truthlings are his flock. The truth was made in his image and whatsoever shall he utter shall be known as the truth.

If you thought it curious that a theologian who as recently as 2003 still thought that "conspiracy theories" were so nuts that he hadn't even looked at them, should somehow have had such a sudden and enthusiastic conversion, that he had a book on the subject out on the market within a year and had somehow become the "foremost researcher" on the subject 1 1/2 years later, without doing any research at all...

If you thought it was curious that this theologian should also enjoy an exalted status, aloof from the bitter attacks which have been launched against all other proponents of demolition and no- Boeing -at- the -Pentagon evidence...

If you thought it was curious that this theologian should be a hero to people who snarl at almost everything he presents as "disinformation" if anyone else presents the same thing...

If you thought it curious that this theologian should be as much a symbol of truth to those who think that the Government is covering up "failures" in counter terrorism, and those who believe that it was completely an inside job...

Then it becomes less curious when you realize that a theologian is the person best qualified to understand how to organize, control and market an orchestrated religious cult.

The 9/11 truth movement is not about seriously researching and promoting the truth of Sept 11 any more than a cult of alien salvation is about serious research into extra- terrestrial life and the dissemination and rational debate of such research.

Its truth priests are no more researchers and educators than are fundamentalist religious preachers.

Its truthlings are no more thinkers and seekers of truth than are the brainwashed slogan chanters of the Moonies, the Children of God, CNN, or the Communist Party.

This does not mean that anyone who is interested in the 911 truth movement is a truthling, Some well intentioned people who are just starting out on the journey, or without a lot of time to look at the details may simply lack the information or experience necessary to see through the trap which has been laid for them.

In the same way that religious cults are created to pervert the journey of the seeker of spiritual truth, that political parties are created to pervert the journey of the seeker of social justice, and that front environmentalist groups are created to pervert the journey of those with a concern for ecological health, the truth movement is designed to pervert the journey of those who know that something is not right with the Sept 11 story and the "war on terror lie" but are not sure where to start looking for the answers.

But that is only its short term aim. Its more fundamental program is to bring full blown doublethink into the mainstream and ultimately dismantle the very concept of truth - just as suggested by Orwell. This program will be disguised under the cover of the worthy aim of exposing the official lies of Sept 11 .

No comments: