KB: Jon Gold is an "intellectually-mediocre pugnacious Zionist lihopper"

I thought this email exchange between Jon Gold and Kevin Barrett is revealing as well as entertaining. Here is my favorite part:
Jon,
The problem isn't that you're pugnacious. Nor is that intellectually, you're utterly mediocre, and that's being charitable. Nor is it that you're pro-Zionist. Lots of my friends and colleagues support a Jewish state in Palestine, and that's their business.
The problem is that the combination of your stupidity, Zionism, and pugnaciousness makes you a huge waste of time, and a drain on the resources of the 9/11 truth movement.
I have never once in my life attacked anyone in the 9/11 truth movement if they didn't attack me first. Why not? Because it just leads to a time-wasting flame war.
But you...all you DO, besides posting moronic home movies that even your dog wouldn't want to watch, and idiotically predictable commentary that even your mom wouldn't want to read, is attack people (mostly people who are at least 50 IQ points and oodles of education ahead of you) and start flame wars. The internet, which puts everyone--morons like you and erudite geniuses like Tarpley--on the same level, has contributed to your developing a wildly inflated opinion of yourself. Like the F student who protests the hardest against not getting an A, you're too dumb to realize how dumb you are.
If you aren't an op, you might as well be. My best guess is that you're just an intellectually-mediocre pugnacious Zionist lihopper who has somehow come into enough money to spend your whole life wasting the 9/11 truth movement's time. You and Brian Good are each other's evil twins. Maybe you two should get together and wank each other while you fantasize about the 9/11 truth leaders you love to hate.
Yes, KB can be outspoken and over the top sometimes, but damn if he doesn't have a way of eloquently telling it like it is and putting people in their place when they deserve it!
This exchange was actually published by Jon Gold on true faction: http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34607#34607
Kevin,
You have referred to me as a "pugnacious Zionist LIHOPper," and even referenced Webster Tarpley's "outing" of me as COINTELPRO in your article.
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-may-2008-i-announced-i-was-running.html
1) What proof do you have that I am a Zionist?
2) What proof do you have that I am a "cointelpro operative?"
I have every intention of posting this correspondence for everyone to see.
Jon Gold
His response...
Jon,
Everybody knows you're pugnacious. Look in a mirror. (Nothing wrong with pugnacity when it's appropriate.)
Since you turned against me (and later started sending busy people spam emails attacking me) shortly after an email exchange in which I explained why I was anti-Zionist, and you reacted angrily, I assume that was the real reason for your sudden enmity. If you are in fact not pro-Zionist, just post something somewhere saying either "I, Jon Gold, oppose a Jewish state in Palestine," or "I, Jon Gold, am neutral on the question of a Jewish state in Palestine." I will then issue a retraction. If you don't want to do that, fine. Nothing wrong with being pro-Zionist. It just means we disagree on one issue.
As for LIHOP, you emailed me a question for David Griffin last January that seemed to be pleading for a place for LIHOPPERS in the 9/11 truth movement. David shot that down, saying that now that controlled demolition has been proven, LIHOP is irrelevant and extinct. (My summary, not the exact words, which can be heard at the archive at http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/archived-shows/fair-balanced .) If you agree with David, just post a statement saying so, and I'll retract that as well.
I would be happy to re-establish cordial relations with you. I get along fine with lots of people with whom I have bigger political disagreements than I have with you. Let me know if you want to have a private phone conversation, or would like to schedule a slot on the radio.
Kevin
PS If you're going to publish this exchange, please publish it complete and unabridged. I'll do the same.
My response...
To which exchange are you referring to? John Bursill started an exchange because he was concerned about the state of the movement, and I responded to him. Then that exchange suddenly included people like Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, etc...
Which email exchange did I react angrily to? Was it when your campaign manager Rolf Lindgren was attacking people left and right on your behalf including me? Mocking my efforts during an "Eleventh Of Every Month Action?"
I'm just curious as to why you would refer to me as a Zionist. That's the real question I want you to answer. What possible reason in the world would you have to believe that I am a Zionist?
Would a Zionist introduce the topic of Israel's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks to the most popular 9/11 Truth site in the world?
Would a Zionist post more about Israel than most people in this movement, including those who consider themselves to be "Anti-Zionist" such as yourself?
Would a Zionist post about people like Jack Abramoff, Elliott Abrams, Michael Chertoff, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Larry Silverstein, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dov Zakheim in my "Who Is? Archives?"
Would a Zionist promote more than anyone on the planet (that is VERY outdated) 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds who calls out the country of Israel?
Would a Zionist post about the Larry Franklin scandal over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?
Would a Zionist adamantly oppose the recent Lebanon War, and Gaza Wars?
Would a Zionist include Israel in Facts #1, #21, and #50 (the who benefitted fact) in an article entitled, "The Facts Speak For Themselves?"
Would a Zionist make a bunch of movies that asks the question of Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks?
Would a Zionist get REALLY pissed off after reading this article?
Would a Zionist write an article denouncing attacks against Ray McGovern because he is critical of the U.S.'s favoritism (to put it nicely) towards Israel, and try to save the image of the 9/11 Truth Movement at the same time?
Would a Zionist contact the only person who could have been the "Fire Department Commander" Larry Silverstein was referring to?
Again, what possible reason in the world would you have to believe that I am a Zionist?
As for LIHOP... Dr. Griffin and I recently had an exchange about this very matter. Here is exactly what I told him...
"As for "letting it happen..." That is an impossibility. Protocols that were in place should have prevented the majority of the attacks. They had to take an active role, whatever that role may have been. I am not ashamed to say that I don't know what happened on 9/11. I don't know. I've been doing this just as long, if not longer than you, and I don't know. I have read everything there is to read on 9/11. In some cases 10x over. I don't know.
9/11 was a crime. What I DO KNOW is that elements within our Government and others have EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11."
I also said...
"It's no different than the false "left/right paradigm." It is a division among the people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Or... that is how it is used, and has been for years. Most people who use the terms seem to FORGET that the United States Government uses people from the Middle East through proxies between the ISI, Saudi Arabia, MI5, Mossad, etc... for terrorist purposes. People who may very well be Muslim. People who may very well be Arab. That doesn't mean you blame the entire religion or race. You blame the individuals. People like Kevin Barrett think LIHOP means you are trying to "keep the focus on the evil Muslims..." or commit a "blood-libel" against an entire race of people. Nothing can be further from the truth. As Donna Marsh O'Connor said at the United Nations on 9/11/2005, "is one Arab the same as all Arabs? How DARE that work in this country." I don't know what happened on 9/11, or who was involved. You blame the individuals responsible, not entire religions, races or ideologies. And in my opinion, part of the blame falls on us for allowing the system that brought us the 9/11 in the first place. Through our complacency."
So Kevin, the terms LIHOP and MIHOP are "irrelevant and extinct" yes, but not because of Controlled Demolition, but because they have outlived their usefulness (if they ever had any), and are divisive.
Again, what possible reason in the world would you have to believe that I am a Zionist?
Jon Gold
His response...
On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Jonathan Gold wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you would refer to me as a Zionist. That's the real question I want you to answer. What possible reason in the world would you have to believe that I am a Zionist?
I already answered that. One more time: I noticed you started attacking me immediately after an email exchange in which I expressed anti-Zionist sentiments and you responded angrily, then went on the warpath against me.
Zionism means the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in Palestine. I assume that you, like most US Americans, probably support that. When you seemingly reacted angrily to my anti-Zionist opinions, that suggested to me that you are in fact not only pro-Zionist, but have strong feelings in that direction. Your opinions on Israeli links to 9/11 and the other issues you list do matter, and I agree with most of them, but they have no direct bearing on whether or not you are a (pro-)Zionist.
If you oppose a Jewish state in Palestine, just tell me, and I'll issue a retraction. Alternatively, I will be happy to re-state my opinion that (pro-)Zionists are not necessarily bad nor are they necessarily wrong on other issues.
And if you want to talk it out, let me know.
Kevin
PS You might want to listen to my interview with Steve Alten, archived at the same NoLiesRadio.org link I sent you, in which Steve and I went over some of the same ground. He's a strong supporter of the Jewish state, yet doesn't want to be called a Zionist. That's like being a strong supporter of the ideas of Marx and not wanting to be called a Marxist. Since he couldn't offer his own definition of Zionism, I'm afraid he lost that particular debate.
If you listen to my recent and upcoming shows, you'll see how this works. Last night's guest Richard Falk is skeptical of Zionism (the Jewish state project) but not a declared anti-Zionist. He's professedly neutral on Zionism, thus neither a pro- nor an anti-Zionist. Philip Weiss, this coming Tuesday's guest, is a declared anti-Zionist (he opposes having a Jewish state in Palestine). Likewise with Gilad Atzmon, the following Tuesday's guest. All of these people would basically agree with the definition listed above in boldface. For what it's worth, virtually all Muslims are anti-Zionist, but might be willing to compromise on the issue in certain circumstances...like right of return and return to '67 borders.
By the way, for the past several years, Iran has been targeted by vicious attacks and even more vicious threats purely due to its VERBAL support of anti-Zionism. Same with Hamas and Hezbullah.
My response...
Which email exchange did I react angrily to? Do you have it? I do not believe I reacted angrily because of "anti-Zionist" sentiments, nor do I believe I went on a "warpath" because of it.
I remember I was angry with you because you had these individuals on your show.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16943
Even AFTER I told you about the hell they have put me through. You had them on so you could talk about "the ridiculous LIHOP "blame Pakistan" and "blame the Saudis" Islamophobic hang-outs" and "evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits" on 911blogger.com.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080802001358/http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lamadrid.htm
As I have shown you, 911blogger.com has heavily promoted information pertaining to Israel's possible role in the 9/11 attacks. I have shown you that I have also HEAVILY promoted information pertaining to Israel's possible role in the 9/11 attacks, as well as a plethora of other information regarding Israel. And yet, even back then you lied, and said that "evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits." You were promoting disinformation.
Just like you are promoting disinformation suggesting that I am a Zionist. Did you know people pick up on that Kevin? Did you know there are actually people who think I am a Zionist because of people like you, and because of people like the idiots I mentioned above? Do you know that there are now people suggesting that I pay groups not to discuss Israel?
I'm not a Zionist Kevin. As I have said countless times... I do not support America's policies regarding Israel. I do not support AIPAC's influence over American politicians. I do not support Israel's connection to the wiretapping of this country. I do not support using the Holocaust as a "get out of jail free card." I do not support Israel being allowed to have nuclear weapons, and being able to dictate who does, and doesn't have them in the Middle East. I do not support Israel's settlements. I do not support how Israel's soldiers treat Palestinians. I DO NOT support the recent U.S. supported wars against Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. I DO NOT support the "anti-semitic" label as it is used by those who wish to support Israel's criminality. I DO NOT support how the American media is geared towards making Israel look like the forever good guy.
However, I do not blame the entire ideology of Zionism for 9/11. I blame the individuals responsible.
The way my Aunt explained Zionism to me, someone who has taught hebrew school for 30 years, Zionism is essentially a belief that Israel must be protected no matter the cost or the detriment to those around it. Christian Zionists believe that Israel needs to be "fruitful and multiply" in order for Jesus to return. Kevin, did you know that Christian Zionists outnumber Jewish Zionists?
Speaking of Dr. Griffin, he doesn't promote Israel's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and never has. And yet, I have for as long as I can remember, or at least information suggesting they may have been involved, and I get labeled a Zionist by people like you. Why doesn't Dr. Griffin face your wrath? Why is there this obvious "double standard?"
Personally Kevin, I think the real reason you referred to me as a Zionist is because I am Jewish. I don't expect you to admit that, but it sure seems that way. Given that there's no reason in the world for you to think of me as a Zionist for the reasons I have already pointed out.
I listened to your talk with Steve Kevin, and he was right about A LOT. For instance, you seem to think that the Zionists are responsible for all the world's problems. At least, you come across that way.
The Defense Industry Lobbies, the Pharmaceutical Lobbies, the Alcohol Lobbies, the Gun Rights Lobbies, the Tobacco Lobbies, the Insurance Lobbies, etc... etc... etc... all may have something to say about that.
Jon
His response...
Jon,
Had you not attacked me, I would not have attacked you.
Is that simple enough?
Your transparently bogus excuse for attacking me is that I invite people with widely varying views on my show. Some of them, you and I will vehemently disagree with. (Get ready for next Saturday's show!) But don't attack me personally because you don't like a modest percentage of my over 500 (so far) guests. Attack the guests! Phone in! Post anything anywhere! If on the other hand you have a problem with MOST or ALL of my guests, then maybe you should just turn the dial.
I have never initiated any attacks on you. But I do support DWI (Defending While Islamic). Google those words for more information on that.
I'm sure that you realize that when you attack someone personally, that person is likely to construe your motivation in a negative light...especially when the stated motivation is so completely and obviously bogus.
By the way, I also respond well to peace overtures, which is more than I can say for some people ; )
Kevin
My response...
When did I attack you Kevin? Was it that time I criticized you for not calling out Webster Tarpley for referring to me, Michael Wolsey, Cosmos, Arabesque and Jenny Sparks as COINTELPRO on a stage in New York City during an anniversary? You claim to have spoken to him after the fact, but what you SHOULD have done was called him out then and there as I understand Steve Alten called you out recently in NY. Was it that time I criticized you for supporting Webster Tarpley's actions concerning Cindy Sheehan?
There was a time Kevin when I was your biggest supporter. I have probably 100 Kevin Barrett posts on my site. Now, I think you are a detriment to everything I stand for. There is a reason for that. You say that you "invite people with widely varying views" on your show, but don't realize, or maybe you do, that a lot of the people you do have on completely and totally destroy the credibility of the cause of 9/11 Truth. You have no regard for our credibility. That is why you were banned from 911blogger.com. It had nothing to do with the fact that you are a Muslim like you claim. Another lie.
Why do you lie Kevin? Why do you lie about hard working people like Cosmos who is responsible for the "Eleventh Of Every Month Action." The ONLY sustained action within this movement. Why did you feel it necessary to write the people organizing the Australia event to complain about Cosmos participation? Because he has a thread on his site with a collection of deplorable things you and people associated with you have done over the years? Hello? Does it register? I doubt it.
People like you have tacked on years to this cause. YEARS. That is unforgivable.
Jon
P.S. This is the 9/11 Truth Movement. Not the anti-Zionist Movement. Even though people like you, and others try to make it that way.
His response...
Jon,
The problem isn't that you're pugnacious. Nor is that intellectually, you're utterly mediocre, and that's being charitable. Nor is it that you're pro-Zionist. Lots of my friends and colleagues support a Jewish state in Palestine, and that's their business.
The problem is that the combination of your stupidity, Zionism, and pugnaciousness makes you a huge waste of time, and a drain on the resources of the 9/11 truth movement.
I have never once in my life attacked anyone in the 9/11 truth movement if they didn't attack me first. Why not? Because it just leads to a time-wasting flame war.
But you...all you DO, besides posting moronic home movies that even your dog wouldn't want to watch, and idiotically predictable commentary that even your mom wouldn't want to read, is attack people (mostly people who are at least 50 IQ points and oodles of education ahead of you) and start flame wars. The internet, which puts everyone--morons like you and erudite geniuses like Tarpley--on the same level, has contributed to your developing a wildly inflated opinion of yourself. Like the F student who protests the hardest against not getting an A, you're too dumb to realize how dumb you are.
If you aren't an op, you might as well be. My best guess is that you're just an intellectually-mediocre pugnacious Zionist lihopper who has somehow come into enough money to spend your whole life wasting the 9/11 truth movement's time. You and Brian Good are each other's evil twins. Maybe you two should get together and wank each other while you fantasize about the 9/11 truth leaders you love to hate.
Over and out.
Kevin
My response...
Thanks Kevin. This is pretty much all I needed.

in the interest of glasnost...
Kevin had emailed Casseia and me the text of this email exchange, telling us it was ok to post it if we wanted to. Both Casseia and I decided it would serve no purpose to do so other than to feed Jon Gold's delusion that we are obsessed with him, or in his words, "his personal psy-op". Clearly, making this public was more important to Jon Gold than to us.
The fact is that Kevin is for the most part right in his characterization of Gold, except that he is perhaps too generous in granting him the benefit of the doubt on the issue of whether he is legitimately dumb (generous) or deliberately deceptive.
I do appreciate that Kevin takes Gold to task on his denial of being a Zionist given that he has never been willing to say that he is not in favor of a Jewish state in Palestine (the definition of Zionism). His series of "would a Zionist do..." statements is sort of like a closeted gay man saying things like "would a gay man date women?", "would a gay man make it known he HATES show tunes?" but never saying "I am not sexually attracted to men." Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. But it's one thing to be reluctant to admit that one is homosexual--one's own personal business--it's something totally different to try to misrepresent one's true political inclinations in a debate on politics.
My guess is that some people would rather we focus on the (fake) characters in the movement than on the (real) important issues, as Casseia alluded to in reference to the debate over the Pentagon flyover...
"My guess is that some
"My guess is that some people would rather we focus on the (fake) characters in the movement than on the (real) important issues"
Can you elaborate on who you were referring to when you said "some people"?
I have occasionally wondered if, by focusing as much as we do on this site on the (fake) characters in the movement as we have ever since the launching of WTCD, we aren't feeding too much into the "soap opera" aspect of the movement. It seems that one of the main purposes for blogging about these critiques of the movement/characters and calling out obvious BS, especially at the beginning of this site's history, was to provide an outlet for dissenting voices that were being (Repre)censored and banned at 911Blogger and TruthAction, and to not let the fakes off the hook or go unchallenged.
I've also occasionally thought that perhaps it might be a good idea to split the blog into 2 main sections - 1) News and research, 2) Movement politics/controversies - in order to not pollute the "important issues" with stuff that perhaps not everyone would be interested in, particularly newbies who are not versed in and familiar with these movement politics and drama the way most of this site's regulars have been.
Thoughts?
I agree.
But I think the problem is that we're not serious enough about sticking to important topics--possibly because it's more fun and helps to keep us sane to focus on and mock the absurdities (like Jon Gold) in the movement. As I said to Casseia--we can gripe all we want but in the end we have to be the change we want to see in the movement!
BTW
When is "The New WTCDEMOLITION.COM coming September 11, 2009" going to be rolled out? Do you have big plans for a new main page?
yeah! btw i miss
the colored graphic of the buildings.
are you having a laugh?
thanks for posting, Keenan. I rarely venture over to truefaction so kudos for sifting through their annals for shit like this.
Jon Gold and LIHOP, the archives...
The LIHOP/MIHOP Labels Are Divisive
Division | LIHOP | MIHOP
Most people don't realize that if elements of our Government lifted a finger, a FINGER to help with the success of the attacks, they MADE it happen.
That INCLUDES making a conscious decision to do... absolutely... NOTHING.
We know they did a HELLUVA lot more than nothing, but other people don't.
A lot of people have a hard time accepting that our Government would have a hand in it. It's until they see all of the evidence that they eventually follow suit.
I just think of my own experience with 9/11. At first, I wanted to carpet bomb the entire Middle East. Then, I started to see the reactions of our Government, and although I originally agreed with the idea of invading Afghanistan, I now know it was wrong.
Then I saw how the families had to fight for the creation of the Commission... Because the Bush Administration opposed it. It's not rocket science at the point. "Hmmm... what are they trying to hide.", and generally at that point, most people are "off to the races" as they say.
Other people research differently, and other people require different amounts of information. They get to a certain point in their research where they've been convinced, and make a decision that the truth must be told. For some, it's a different point than others. For others, they have to know everything.
The point is... just because someone isn't as far along as someone else in their research, doesn't mean you have to give them a label. Doing so is divisive. Ask the "King of Divisiveness".
It's about having patience with other people around you. We don't have to get along, and we don't even have to like each other. We do, however, have to have a common goal, and that has ALWAYS been absolute truth, and absolute accountability. No matter where it leads.
LIHOP leads to MIHOP
Why is it so hard for people to understand that LIHOP is the gateway to MIHOP?
Mainstream LIHOP will inevitably lead to MIHOP. There is no way LIHOP can be safely contained. Recognition of LIHOP leads to WTC 7, which instantly converts it to MIHOP.
What scares me is the possibility that, deep down, a lot of people suspect LIHOP but supress it through cognitive dissonance. I suppose if LIHOP is contained until after 2008, it might become an "irrelevant footnote" like the Gulf of Tonkin. But mainstream LIHOP in the next 2 years scares the crap out of this administration.
As you probably know, Jon
those ridiculous terms were devised by Nico Haupt (ewing2001)... way back.
He's an old hand at taking a useless, distracting concept and spreading it far and wide.
I know...
I invented the term "Truther." I don't think that's divisive though...
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Yeah, that one's not so bad
I kind of like it.
YT is still too much in his
YT is still too much in his diapers to know what he's actually talking about.
I invented the acronym "LIHOP" at the same time when we created "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance", which was pure inside job issue and research on Controlled Demolition and Co.
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
The strategy was indeed to push leftgatekeepers at democraticunderground.com through the next level: MIHOP.
The goal worked until cointel-pro assets like Nic Levis hijacked the term LIHOP and sat on it , even up to 2004/05.
During 2002 i was more naive, didn't actually know what a leftgatekeeper is, believed in the same political "breakthrough" via MSM like most 9/11 truthling goblins still believe *now*.
When hangouter like William Rivers Pitt started to hijack the LIHOP term as well, i woke up...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm
Ironically the second generation of LIHOP dwarfs brought you people like Albanese, Hence + Co.
Maybe a good sign, if Jon Gold realized that there were indeed some diversions, but not provoked by me.
The meme "LIHOP leads to MIHOP" is still the most deceptive meme pushed by ignorants.
Better don't burn your finger with accusations on me like that ; -)
The meme "LIHOP leads to
The meme "LIHOP leads to MIHOP" is still the most deceptive meme pushed by ignorants...
Submitted by ewing2001 on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 9:22pm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Nico.
When Nico denies something it only confirms the veracity of the statement.
oh yeah? tell that the
oh yeah?
tell that the people from:
ActForLove
AFL-CIO Weblog
AmericaBlog
Atrios
Bartcop
Billionaires for Bush
BradBlog
Brainshrub
BrownBagBlog
Buzzflash
Com•Log•ic
Crisis Papers
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Daou Report
DCCC
Delilah Boyd
Democracy for America
DemocraticUnderground.com
Democrats.com
Digby
DNC
DSCC
DubyaD40
Evil GOP Bastards
Firedoglake
Hated
Huffington Post
Hughes for America
Media Matters for America
MoveOn.org
MyDD
Oliver Willis
Raw Story
Smudge Report
Take Back The Media
Talking Points Memo
Think Progress
Truthout
I don't see mainstream LIHOP
I don't see mainstream LIHOP anywhere in that rant...
LIHOP will get you as far as
LIHOP will get you as far as plausible deniability and incompetence.
Nico
Nothing in your post refutes what I said. You came up with the terms, the terms are stupid, facts are facts. Don't even bother with the "hasn't been around long enough" crap. I co-founded the first 9/11 truth group in this country and I've kept an eye on your output since late 2001. You used to do some good stuff, man.
Too bad.
likewise the term 'inside
likewise the term 'inside job' turns off a lot of possibly interested people.. the term infers that our government and our government alone was entirely behind the events of 9/11, and because of that it is instantly deemed crazy by some..
While I agree that the term
While I agree that the term "Inside job" does turn some people off, I think the remedy to that is to make it so that it doesn't turn people off, not to avoid it. After all, it's completely accurate. To avoid the term seems awfully similar to Matt Taibbi's reason for avoiding 9/11 Truth: "it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration." As if they need an excuse to marginalize us!
People may infer from "inside job" that our government alone was entirely behind 9/11, but the term does not imply that. When police or investigators say a bank robbery is an inside job (which I believe is usually their first suspicion in the investigation) it does not mean that the CEO and/or board of directors planned and executed the operation, although it certainly could mean that. More likely, however, it means that someone or some group in security pulled it off or assisted outside perpetrators.
Here are a couple of definitions turned up by Google define:
"some transgression committed with the assistance of someone trusted by the victim"
"The term inside job colloquially refers to a crime, usually larceny, committed by a person with a position of trust who is authorized to access a location or procedure with little or no supervision, e.g., a key employee or manager. The perpetrator can also be a former employee who still has specialized knowledge necessary to ensure the optimum result of committing the crime."
If those don't describe 9/11 I don't know what does. But like I said, I do agree that the term can turn people off. So let's change that! Here's a T-shirt, bumper sticker, freeway blog, poster or flyer idea:
TO SAY
9/11 WAS AN
INSIDE JOB
From my experience and what I have read from others on this site, we continue to be surprised by how many people out there are already on board with 9/11 truth. Let's make it easier for all of us to come out of the closet.
to me, the only people that
to me, the only people that take issue with the terms LIHOP and MIHOP are the ones that seem to be LIHOP themselves. its pretty obvious, based on all the evidence, that they did more than just let it happen. why isnt this consensus by now?
Did you read?
Other people research differently, and other people require different amounts of information. They get to a certain point in their research where they've been convinced, and make a decision that the truth must be told. For some, it's a different point than others. For others, they have to know everything.
And... what part of...
Most people don't realize that if elements of our Government lifted a finger, a FINGER to help with the success of the attacks, they MADE it happen.
That INCLUDES making a conscious decision to do... absolutely... NOTHING.
Don't you understand?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
yes, do you understand that
yes, do you understand that LIHOP is the last refuge of the guilty? LIHOP stops at the White House and goes no further. i would love to see Bush/Cheney/Myers/Rummy fry, but LIHOP doesnt get at those that pull their strings. gettting the Cheney cabal is not enough. getting at just Pakistan is not enough. Saudi Arabia and Israel must be held accountable. businesses like CDI and Boeing need to be held accountable. when the shit hits the fan, what do you think the excuse is going to be? that they simply let it happen on purpose for geostrategic gains. sorry, but Cheney didnt plant the explosives in WTC7. niether did Pakistan. dont you understand?
Don't you understand...
That the only way we're going to get to a point where everyone is held accountable is if we stand together as a movement?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
im just wondering,but did
im just wondering,but did you make this blog because you yourself have been called LIHOP? if LIHOP leads to MIHOP like you say, why would that offend you?
Seeing as how...
I have said on several occasions that "elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks", and as a matter of fact, asked Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter about those very circumstances, and it's on video for everyone to see, I thjnk it's safe to say I'm not offended by my beliefs.
The point of this blog is to say that both LIHOP and MIHOP are one and the same. Or at the very least, should be able to co-exist within the same movement.
The labels themselves are divisive. That is the point of this blog.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
i have no problem standing
i have no problem standing shoulder to shoulder with people who think they simply let it happen and didnt take an acitve role. i disagree with them, but at least they are on the right track. i disagree when you say LIHOP and MIHOP are one in the same, and this is why the labels are useful in seeing where others stand. see Real Truthers post below for a far better articulation. i dont question where you specifically stand, ive seen your work. and even if you were in the school of LIHOP, i wouldnt hold it against you or anyone else that feels that way. i would just disagree. LIHOP and MIHOP are one in the same in the sense that they both are horrendous crimes. i just hope that when the shit really does hit the fan, the real perps wont be able to propagate the muslim hijacker(im not saying there were no hijackers, im just saying that they were not the driving force behind 9/11) myth, thereby justifying the fraudulent "war on terror".
if you seek the truth...
We do, however, have to have a common goal, and that has ALWAYS been absolute truth, and absolute accountability. No matter where it leads.
great, glad to hear it! but if you seek absolute truth, one would think you'd also want to clearly differentiate between LIHOP and MIHOP. while they are not mutally exclusive, MIHOP is far more than simply a subset of LIHOP.
Most people don't realize that if elements of our Government lifted a finger, a FINGER to help with the success of the attacks, they MADE it happen.
i don't think too many courts of law are going to see if that way. LIHOP stops at plausible deniability and incompetence. any LIHOP can be played down as pure gov't incompetence. besides, lifting a finger to help with the attacks sounds more like MIHOP to me.
but i'm glad to hear you're after the absolute truth, no matter where it leads ;-)
Anyone...
Ever see a 9/11 lecturer ask the question...
Who believes the official version... who thinks they let it happen... who thinks they made it happen?
Does that lecturer ever say... "Ok, those of you who believe the official version, and those of you who think they let it happen... get the hell out of here. You're not wanted...?"
Of course not.
However, that's how it's perceived on the internet.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
LIHOP=Murderous Arab Muslims
And MIHOP=Murderous Zionist Landlord
I think the difference is clear. And really, given that the towers were demolished by bombs, not the planes, what does LIHOP dangerously come close to suggesting? That Bush let the evil Arab Muslim terrorists rig poor Larry Silverstein's buildings with explosives. Makes no sense, but a lot of people desperately want to cling to the notion that only evil Arab Muslims go around blowing up innocent people. LIHOP allows for that, true MIHOP makes us face the ugly but ultimately necessary and healing truth.
Arab Muslims were framed on 9/11. That is the worst crime commited that day since it enabled wars that have led to as many Americans being killed as on 9/11, plus the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East. Let alone the unquantifiable damages suffered by Arabs and Muslims everywhere unjustly tainted by association with fictional hijackings.
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
"It's about having patience
"It's about having patience with other people around you. We don't have to get along, and we don't even have to like each other. We do, however, have to have a common goal, and that has ALWAYS been absolute truth, and absolute accountability. No matter where it leads."
Then you should support Nico in his investigations rather than attacking him in what I deem to be a highly divisive way.
No I shouldn't.
His "research" has been debunked over and over again. He incessantly attacks other members of this movement. In regards to Nico, I don't have to do a damn thing.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
"having patience with other people around you"
Does not include individuals who promote disinformation, write divisive articles about the movement, and attack pieces about certain people within the movement. Sorry.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Can't disagree with you
Can't disagree with you there. Your knowledge of the US Truth Movement is obviously far greater than mine. I just think everyone should be encouraged to think the unthinkable and I am against banning on principle . Politically I have always tended towards the LIbertarian Right rather than the interventionist Left. I do not like Fascism in any shape or form.
Jon Gold on Silverstein
Hi guys,
Sorry to be a bit OT. I wanted to document JG being a Zionist as alleged by KB, but I wanted it more focused in particular on Zionism as related to 9-11 truth. Tahooey suggested that he was more partial to protecting Silverstein, and this is what I found.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7698
" I...
Was looking up Larry Silverstein's relationships to Israel's elite, and I found this...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3...
That gets into great detail about his relationship with Sharon and Netanyahu, but there were some interesting statements...
In the afternoon of September 11, the Fire Department informed him that the smaller 7 World Trade Center building, which he owned, was going to collapse.
And...
He was terrified for the fate of his children, Roger and Lisa, who sometimes worked in his offices at 1 WTC.
I think it's possible that if the buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition, Larry Silverstein had nothing to do with it.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Submitted by Jon Gold on Mon, 04/09/2007 - 2:00pm "
---
That took a bit of a tedious search, I was wondering if others can contribute more quotes where he explicitly diverts attention away from Israeli involvement or exempts Silverstein. I would like to point out that he made some posts that were critical of Israel around 2006 such as http://www.911blogger.com/node/3785?page=4 . I am trying to understand if this was just to gain cred or if he had a change of heart, or perhaps recruited after wards. He seems to have done so too with respect to CD, as early on he was supportive of Steven Jones but later on seems to have jumped to the opposite camp (see http://www.911blogger.com/node/2299 ).
Why point this out, the change of heart with regards to CD is I think a big exposure of his duplicity, while there is less new evidence for Israeli involvement, in the CD debate there has been a great number of new info over the last few years to the point that no one with an honest heart seems to still doubt CD. Yet he is one of the very few who seems to have become more skeptical of CD within that time frame.
I think JG has been most transparent as a LIHOP promoter, finding his posts on that line seems the easiest.
Do correct me if I have been wrong with my assessment.
Anything's possible, but....
"I think it's possible that if the buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition, Larry Silverstein had nothing to do with it." -JG
I recall JG posting something to the effect that "we don't really know that the buildings were brought down with explosives" and I responded that he might not know it, but a lot of us do. He asked me to give him the name of someone involved with planting explosives, and I replied that the "finger of suspicion points at Larry Silverstein, Jerome Hauer, and Urban Moving Systems" and my account and ip address were banned from 911b within 24 hours. Coincidence? perhaps....
i searched for it a couple weeks ago and it took a while to find, but I did find it. http://www.911blogger.com/node/16641#comment-192422
i've been looking for one for a while
where he said that to suspect Silverstein was unfair until his involvement was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (i.e. when most people would say he was ready for conviction, not just suspicion). no luck yet--we can't discount the possibility that some revisionist editing has gone on, though I don't know that to be the case...
Thanks, Though I now think
Thanks, though I now think the prime suspects are Silverstein to compromise the building security and Turner Construction for the demolitions set up ( http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2208 ).
I'm not so sure about Turner...
I'm guessing that a fair number of highly ideologically motivated people were required for that part, which points toward a team of Israelis. In fact, this would explain why Fox of all networks publicized the "spy ring" story, since the other explanation for dozens of Israeli agents is much more damning...
I am not sure of Turner
Thats a valid assumption.
I am not sure of Turner Const. Co. myself, and there can be more than one group involved so I wouldn't rule out anyone just yet, TCC just have the skills background, the building access to WTC, and links to military demolitions material that makes them my prime suspects. Add to that, I suspect its CEO at the time was a Zionist too having received an award from the AJC. In the King Dome demolition, TCC acted more like a project management consultant and contracted out the actual demolition work to another company. The WTC, being bigger probably needed even more skilled study and rigging than the King Dome did.
The Mossad was caught filming and celebrating the event and has links to Silverstein through the Israeli government, so that makes them a suspect as well (they could have been filming their own or their colleagues operation and remember the just in time transfer out of Israeli WTC tenants).
Suspects can be cross referenced for their presence at the Oklahoma City bombing which looked like a first test for a false flag high rise building demolition. I believe Controlled Demolitions Inc. was a clean up contractor for that site as well as WTC, so I would add them to the suspect list.
sure, agree with all that
I guess I have a problem thinking of this as if it were a commercial contract, like someone said "oh let's hire Turner Construction". I doubt that they would be printing up invoices on company letterhead, for example. So when you remove the formality of a commercial contract you're left with the individuals who make up the companies being what we're really interested in. For all we know, a "dream team" of experts from various companies and/or agencies or military teams from any number of countries could have come together to work on this project--the link of course would have to be the motivation to knowingly plan for the murder of hundreds or thousands of people. I can't see money alone being enough motivation, but I could be wrong...
Yes, I think that dream team
Yes, I think that dream team would be most likely staffed from commercial demolitions, military, intel and mercenary operators. Selection for the team besides requisite skills could be based on a mix of a ruthless desire for money or privilege (maybe membership among the elite), motivation to advance a shared cause (Zionism, US imperialism), or perhaps vulnerability to coercion.
The USS Liberty shows how some American officers and politicians were willing to let a whole US ship and its crew sink at the hands of Israeli pilots. The officers responsible for withholding the requested air cover was about as murderous as dropping the bombs themselves.
fanatics
the link of course would have to be the motivation to knowingly plan for the murder of hundreds or thousands of people. I can't see money alone being enough motivation - Gret
exactly. the nature of that motivation would have to have been quite fanatical. the planners and the operatives both being fanatics. the victims of the WTC especially, sacrificial lambs, the powerful sacrificial act, manipulated and mythologized as this psyop was, and the ensuant trauma experienced by our nation and the world, thus allowing these fanatical big players to carry out their planned murder of millions of Muslims and reshape the Middle East to their liking. such a mission of evil.
and, let us not forget security companies. However, one line of "truthing" promotes the Marvin Bush/Securacom (we-Bush-mihop) and the other Greenbergs/Kroll (they-Zimihop). any thoughts on this?
I don't think so...
Claiming that these guys have to be "fanatics" really narrows the field of suspects, doesn't it? I don't think that is the case.
Look at what happened; after the planes hit the buildings, right before the demolitions, in BOTH TOWERS, the warning came in over the first responders radios (the firemen didn't hear in in the North Tower) that the people in the NYPD helicopter saw the building "leaning" and that they "knew" the buildings were going to collapse.
In BOTH instances, the rescue teams were given (again, this does NOT hold true for the firemen in the North Tower) 10 minute warnings of the buildings destruction.
And of course we know that the countdown was even given for Buidling 7.
This is not the work of a "fanatic". A fanatic wouldn't warn anyone...
This to me sounds like a deal worked out between the contractor and the client in order to ease the contractor's concious.
Now, the people that flew those planes by remote into the towers? That's a fanatic.
The guys who sat around quietly waiting for "something" to hit the Pentagon accounting office while they KNEW their own workers were in there? That's a fanatic.
The guys who designed "shock and awe"? That's a fanatic.
Jon Gold saying he is responsible for DRG's success? That's a fanatic.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
warnings to evacuate are easy to give...
...when you're at the scene and it is obvious that there are bombs all over the building. One specific warning of a *collapse* is alleged (by Giuliani of all people,) but he could well be lying, to explain how he knew to get the hell away from the buildings in the nick of time. Building 7 is totally different--a story was likely floated that "we're gonna have to bring it down to prevent a random collapse", as most people would not question the feasibility of doing that with so little time to prep.
What's your source for this, btw, specifically the part I put in bold?
There are actually two different videos...
... that I have seen firefighters talk about the warnings they received while in the buildings.
At first, I only knew about the warning that was given in the North Tower. That became quite a stink because, if you remember, the radios that Rudy had recently purchased for them through a kick-back deal, didn't work so they had to use the old ones, that also wouldn't work under certain conditions.
Well apparently, the firefighters say that the police got the 10 minute warning, but it didn't come over the firefighters radios.
One man even went to court to sue about it. He was angry because he said his son (a firefighter who was lost that day) loved his life and would NEVER have ignored that kind of warning.
Well, it's well known that they didn't get that warning, while the police admit they did. Body count backs that up. No police officers died in the North Tower while many firefighters did.
I only recently became aware of the 10 minute warning in the South Tower. That too was from a video and I want to say that it might have even been in one of the BBC "documentaries". It was one of the fire chiefs talking about the warning coming from a scientist of some kind who happened to be there with the Rudy crowd.
He said they were taking readings off the buildings and concluded they were going to fall down (which, of course, is ridiculous).
Oddly, in a CDI report in Popular Mechanics, one thing they say they do is to bring in scientists (sizmologists? I know my spelling sucks) to monitor the effects of the demolitions on other buildings so that someone can't come back later and claim damage to their buildings.
I wondered in a report I did if that was the same scientist that CDI uses...
but I have also seen a statement from a firefighter saying that the helicopter also gave a warning in the first collapse.
but anyway, there you have it. The warnings apparently from the "scientist" and from the police helicopter flying above that "saw the tower leaning". If I can remember the films I saw the statements in, I will let you know.
Wait a minute... wasn't there a recent paper (maybe DRG?) which illustrated a talk between a low ranking firefighter and one of the captan's in the South Tower? As I recall, the low ranking guy went up to the captain or something and tried to tell him that a warning came in over the radio that the people in the helicopter said the building was going to collapse and the captain yelled at the guy "What the fuck are you talking about? Who told you that? That's crazy." or something to that effect.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Yeah, it's not just the money...
The notion that there would be a formalized contract that could be later used against a company contracted for the demolition of the Trade Center complex, is of course, absurd.
There would be no such contract. No real paper trail.
But that doesn't mean a contract for services did not exist.
Take for instance the Blackwater assasignation contract work they did for the State department and the CIA. The only paperwork that I have heard of, is a lump sum payment agreement for future services rendered, and then nothing else after that that could be used as evidence.
Other open end contracts litter Iraq and Afghanistan to this day.
CACI and Triple Canopy have this arrangement with reguard to the privatized torture programs and Blackwater has other contracts that are similar that deal with the secret rendition programs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Caspian Sea Basin area.
I am absolutely sure that this was a contract job. First of all these people "privatize" everything. Second, the absolutely LAST THING they wanted was to have half a building sitting there and all kinds of reports about additional explosive devices being found, like what happened at the Murrah building.
And by the way, as Juan points out, Turner does contract out their explosive demolition work... to CDI. And of course, the man they brought in to run the "clean up" a day after 9/11 was none other than the owner of CDI. The same man who admitted that while the buildings were burning, he contacted several business associates in Lower Manhattan and warned them that the buildings were going to "come down". He is on record admitting he did that.
To me there is no question that they would want this thing to go flawlessly, and in order to do that, they would have subbed it out to the leaders in the field of controlled demolition.
Your idea that they would have used a "dream team" to run the demolition process is possible. But for all my reading on the subject of this industry, I think it is highly unlikely for this reason; in the explosive demolition industry, the first, last, and middle priority... is control.
These guys control everything. They have to or they die. Or they get sued and lose the business. Or they drop the building on another building and end up in jail.
Control is everything. That is one of the main reasons I know for a fact that "nanothermite" or "super thermite" or any other such distraction WASN'T used. There is no control factor on untested explosives (even the Jones report can't fully claim that the stuff could blow up anything... much less the floor systems in the Towers) and therefore I know for a fact, these guys would NEVER have used it as the primary high explosive.
These guys don't like new faces, and they don't trust the job to be done exactly the way it needed to be done by people they know don't have the experience their own guys have.
So I think it is highly unlikely that a "dream team" would have been assembled for this. Though it is possible, perhaps.
As to the motivation question... money is a powerful motivation. But it isn't the only one. Ideologically speaking, this event promised to change the world. To remake it in the "Milton Friedman Free-Market" mold. So, perhaps that factored in as well.
But moreso than even that... the money is just the beggining. The access and influence is also part of it. Plus, think of it this way; whomever they approached for this part and the various other aspects that had to be ironed out, that person had to know that just being ASKED to do this put their lives at risk.
Were they to have refused, and then the Towers "fell down", what would that person's life be worth?
You have that possible outcome on one side, then you have a "carpet of gold" on the other... PLUS the knowlege that your kids and grandkids will forever be in the "inner circle"... they will be accepted at any college they choose. They will get great jobs and live a "green zone" lifestyle...
or...
not much of a choice really when you look at it that way. But certainly, you are correct... it's not just about the money.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
9/11=free-market fanatics?
Um, it promised to align the world's interests with those of Zionism, which is otherwise up shit's creek for various reasons. And 9/11 has not brought about any kind of free-market reforms, quite the opposite in fact.
Here you're using circular reason. Controlled demolition companies like having control, so they didn't use thermite, so thermite wasn't used, which shows it was done by demolition professionals. Not very convincing. Demolition companies are not in the business of demolishing buildings covertly so as to assign a cause other than their handiwork. But this is exactly what was done at the WTC, which points towards the logical use of a steel melting incendiary like thermite to thin down the thicker steel components so as to minimize the use of loud explosives.
Well, let me see... where too begin...
"And 9/11 has not brought about any kind of free-market reforms, quite the opposite in fact" Gret
1. On Sept. 10th 2001, prior to announcing the missing trillions of dollars, Donald Rumsfeld held an historic meeting at the Pentagon, whenin he set forth the policy that he was waging war on the "buerocracy" and "waste" at the Pentagon, then he set out to privatize as much as he could (Blackwater, CACI, Halliburton, KBR... even the Pentagon paychecks were transfered over to a private company. Intel was privatized, survallance, armed protection of high ranking public sector employees as well as military personel. Fact is, since 9/11, the largest percentage of privatized functions of our military ever.
All since 9/11 and BY Donald Rumsfeld (and continued under Gates)... someone I KNOW helped plan the events and carry them out.
2. Iraq AND Afghanistan BOTH had state owned and controlled central banking systems prior to our invasions.
The SECOND order that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority gave, was to privatize the central banking system of Iraq.
They opened the borders to unrestricted free-trade...
They privatized the oil industry and reserves as we all know...
They also sold off over 200 national industries that the Iraqis had created in order to survive during the strict sanctions...
Labor unions have been broken up or otherwise threatened...
"free trade zones" have been set up throughout Iraq.
3. Now, if you believe, like I do, that dates and so forth are important to these people, the ones who planned and carried out the attacks on Sept. 11th... then you can't ignore the 2nd most important event that took place on Sept. 11th...
Sept. 11th, 1973, Chile, a popularly elected president was overthrown in a coup, planned and orchistrated by Kissinger and Nixon with the help of the CIA.
The significance here is that this date reflects what is commonly understood as the very beginning of the Milton Friedman free-market "experiments" in Latin America.
Many more were to follow, but Chile was the first.
4. The same people that brought us 9/11 also were responcible for the crash of our economy. I think that is pretty safe to say.
The economic crash has allowed the same kinds of "reforms" to take place here and now. Obviously the trade unions are coming under fire (UAW for example), average wages are stagnant or dropping, unemployment is up...ect. ect.
Point is, look at the nations that we attacked. The big money isn't JUST in the oil or the defense department contracts, but really the BIG money is in the central bank system for it holds the key to ALL the rest of the money...
and now those banks are privately owned, and part of the "global central banking network". Subsequently, Iran and Venezuela are BOTH not part of that system... and just guess where we are going next.
As far as your comment about the "circular logic" I am using... you would be correct, but you forgot one KEY ELEMENT;
the investigations into the "demolition" were to be conducted by a co-conspirator... so they KNEW PRIOR TO THE EVENT that the tests for residual trace elements of explosive WOULD NEVER BE CONDUCTED by any of the investigating agencies...
... and they weren't.
In fact, the president and owner of CDI was actually brought in as a "consultant" in the NIST Building 7 Reoprt... he was actually able to "control" even THAT investigation.
The other problem with your "thermite weakening the steel" theory is that thermite itself is very slow when it comes to that. Yes, it can cause great damage, but I am sure you have seen the various experiments conducted that show massive ammounts of thermite burning and having a rather undramatic effect on the steel target.
Plus, as you must know, thermite doesn't work well on a vertical structure. It is a gravity driven reaction.
For these and many other reasons, I find it highly improbable that thermite was used in the demolition...
... unless of course you agree with Dr. Steven Jones who now says (like he also said in the Harrit paper) that it is probable that the "nanothermite" they found was from "electric matches" that ignited the conventional explosives.
And for what it is worth, the world was well aligned with the interests of Zionism long before Zionism existed. That is if you can see a similarity between Zionism and our own "maifest destiny", the open air prison of Gaza and the reservations in the Dakota Hills. Zionism and aparthied.
and of course, if I was a better student of history, I am sure there are many other examples to chose from.
Yes, Zionism is horrible and I write a great deal on my site about the plight of the Palestinian people. And it does factor into the events of 9/11, or should I say, some self proclaimed Zionists factor in.
But it is NOT the end-all-be-all too the story of 9/11. There is something bigger at stake here. Much bigger.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Gotcha, Jon Gold again deflects 9-11 links to Zionism
Here is a snipet where Jon Gold again tries to take attention away from Zionism's links to 9-11. KB is further proven correct on JG.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21879#comment
Is the real goal here
darkbeforedawn
to create so much rancor and discord that ALL the comments are removed and certain individuals feel less exposed?
Seems like it has been tampered with and censored, with comments deleted and then the replies to the comments look silly because what they are replying to is gone.
Has this thread rocked a boat or two or what?
I can see the logic in the chain of comments: Main stream media outlet promises to do "objective" show on 911. People are upset because these promises were always broken and the shows turned into hit pieces.
Then we start to wonder.....what is it about the media that makes it so monolithic. Who is controlling the media and what forces are at work that make it so we NEVER GET ANY REAL COVERAGE?????
Submitted by darkbeforedawn on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 4:15pm.
» login to post comments | -1 points
Advertising dollars...
That they are dependent on in order to stay in business perhaps? Advertising dollars that they might not get if they report on certain issues? Could be. I bet it has more to do with that, than anything else. Certainly more to do with that than the religion of those who sit on high positions within their companies.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 4:26pm.
------------------------------------
money
darkbeforedawn
so you feel all the censorship- all the lies- all the deception- all the cowardly treasonous acts- the media has engaged in.....just comes down to money???
too sad for words.
Submitted by darkbeforedawn on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 7:02pm
-------------------------------------
Well...
I wouldn't say it's too sad for words. The people that invented the phrase, "money is the root of all evil" didn't come up with that phrase for nothing. However, I don't think Zionism is the reason. I think it has to do with journalists not wanting to piss too many people off for fear of losing their sources (which again falls back to money... they want to be able to keep their jobs). I think it has to do with the fact that certain media companies are owned by companies that greatly benefit from the wars (which again falls back to money). I think it has to do with fear of being labeled "anti-semitic" and having the JDL come down hard on you. I think being retaliated against by the Government is another concern. I think Zionism has the least to do with it. And again, just because someone is Jewish, does not mean they are a Zionist. If there are people in high positions in media that are Jewish, that doesn't mean they are a Zionist. As I've pointed out elsewhere, believing that the Zionists or Jews are responsible for all of the world's problems is a Nazi ideology I don't think this movement should subscribe to.
CBC better not make a hit piece. ;)
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 7:49pm.
I laughed so hard...
I had Pepsi in my nose!
Oh, and on a thoroughly unrelated note...
RIP Rue McClanahan... thank you for being a friend, and thanks for the laughs.