NYC CAN, or NYC CROCK?
The following was posted by Kevin Ryan to 9/11 Blogger two days ago:
Dear 9/11 Truth Movement Supporters,
As authors of the recent mainstream scientific articles relating to events at the World Trade Center, we urge you to support a tremendous opportunity for getting the truth out about 9/11.
On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) filed a petition containing 52,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the creation of a New York City independent commission to begin an investigation with subpoena power. Unlike the first 9/11 Commission, this one will consider all of the evidence, including evidence for the use of explosives in bringing down the buildings.
This is what many of us have been working toward for years. With a new commission, our scientific evidence can be used to achieve real results.
NYC CAN now needs only 20,000 more signatures to override City Council if the referendum is vetoed. If NYC CAN gets the signatures the referendum will go on the ballot, and surely New York City will vote in favor of a new investigation. Please donate now so that this new investigation can happen: http://nyccan.org/donate.php
If everyone reading this donates at least $10, or the full amount they are able, we will raise enough to not only collect the signatures, but also to launch a summer PR blitz that will ensure all of New York City will be watching if Mayor Bloomberg and City Council try to kill the effort.
There are some true heroes on the NYC CAN Executive Council, and together with them, we have never been this close to giving 9/11 Truth a real chance. This is your opportunity to alter the course of history.
Please donate now: http://nyccan.org/donate.php
Sincerely,
James Gourley
Niels Harrit
Steven Jones
Brad Larsen
Frank Legge
Gregg Roberts
Kevin Ryan
Isn't it odd that these individuals of all people would be pushing for the formation of a Commission that will be accountable to no one, that holds as its purpose getting answers to these questions, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the destruction of the world trade center or the true nature of the hijackings, but inexplicably instead focus on holding Bush responsible for the alleged actions of mythical hijackers? What is going on here? What do these people, and people like David Ray Griffin who know the backstory to be bogus, have to say about the bizarre disconnect between the truth movement and the objectives of the NYC CAN project?
This is posted on the NYC CAN website:
NYC CAN Statement on Saudi US Supreme Court Decision
The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) stands in support of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in expressing our deep disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29 decision to prevent the victims of the September 11 attacks from pursuing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes, for their alleged material support of the September 11 attacks.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a step backwards on the journey toward accountability that every 9/11 family member and every American deserves. With the increased urgency that this travesty of justice brings, NYC CAN grows in its determination to establish an independent New York City commission to conduct an impartial investigation into the events of September 11, a new investigation driven not by partisan politics and foreign alliances, but by evidence and fact.
Do Kevin Ryan and the other signers of the endorsement of NYC CAN also endorse the lawsuit aiming to hold Saudi Arabia liable for "financing the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11?"
WTF is going on here? Do folks like Niels Harrit and Kevin Ryan get publicity so that we will trust them, only to have them lead us into a trap, a bogus commission that will be ignored by the media but used to dismiss us in the future as people who won't agree with ANY commission, even an indepedent one they "formed themselves" unless it comes to their pre-ordained conclusions?
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
I'm leaning toward crock
or at least a misguided investment of time and money with the promise of an even more disastrous outcome -- meaning, more support for the illusion that we are fighting terrorism and the Bush junta fucked up (that is to say, LIHOP).
I think most of the scientists listed probably DO think it's a good idea and have been sweet-talked into it.
Jones and Gage hangout at
Jones and Gage hangout at 911Bloggers, they don't know what they are in for.
has Griffin endorsed this?
I wonder... he was pretty clear on his belief in the absurdity of the LIHOP scenario when interviewed by Kevin Barrett a few months ago...
Don't know about NYC CAN, he
Don't know about NYC CAN, he endorsed the worldwide petition
http://world911truth.org/911-leader-activists-support-world-for-911-trut...
Griffin pitches NYC CAN
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20800
oh well...
so now it seems that only Graeme Macqueen among all the endorsers has publicly raised the question of the LIHOPpiness of the questions from the "family steering committee" that are said to be the road map for the new investigation. Very disappointing!
or should it be...
NYC CAN OF WORMS? My prediction is it gets on the ballot, no one tries to veto it, and it fails at the polls, by hook or by crook. Bullet in the foot anyone?
NYC CAN? LIHOP!
Hey, don't rain on the parade before it's had its chance, grevatas!
Sure NYC CAN is taking on the wounded brute in its own lair; softly softly is the only way to go in face of enormous oficial antagonism. Not just the Bloomberg Empire but the Giuliani one before it, which brings the Clintons and Bushes centre stage.
This is very very dangerous territory, especially when you consider how very compromised US law is nowadays.
Give NYC CAN a chance - after all, >60000 people have laid their entire personal details on the line for this to happen. Potential FEMA-fodder if you get my drift?
should also give Obama a chance to give us "change"?
Pure bait and switch BS and I plan to hold so-called truthers who support this fraud to account.
Questions for Robert Muller. FBI Director. September 4. 2001-present (cont.)
In 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said that he suspected that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the Oklahoma City attacks and the September 11th attacks.
What conclusions has the FBI drawn regarding the possibility of a connection between Iraq and the terrorist attacks on the WTC '93, on the Murrah Building in OKC and on
September 11th?
Please comment on the following information, which appears to show a connection between Ramzi Yousef and the Oklahoma City bombers.
In the Oklahoma City bombing, reporter Jayna Davis interviewed witnesses who reported a Middle Eastern men speeding away from the Murrah building just before the Oklahoma City bombing. She also found credible witnesses who saw one of the Middle Eastern men in the company of Timothy McVeigh in the days before the bombing.
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18no02_oke.htm
Abdul Hakim Murrad, convicted of plotting to blow up airliners, allegedly told the FBI that his former roommate, Ramzi Yousef, had orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombings.
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18no02_oke.htm
Nichols attended a meeting in the early 1990s in the Mindanoa. Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad were also at that meeting.
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18no02_oke.htm
Terry Nichols' phone records indicate that in 1995, he place 13 calls from his home phoneto someone in the Philippines.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_IO~27290
Is there any evidence that Ramzi Yousef was an agent for Saddam Hussein?
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/v018no02_oke.htm
NYC CAN (VOTE FOR LIHOP) gets some minor coverage...
The new commission would try to find answers for all of the questions initially posed by the Family Steering Committee, the group of victims’ family members that lobbied for the creation of the original 9/11 Commission. However, Ted Walters, executive director of NYC CAN, said that the terrorists’ funding and the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked jetliners were especially high priorities for a new investigation.
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_326/8yearlater.html
Want Some CANNED Investigation?
Tastes just like Homemade!
i just took out a second mortgage on my home to support NYC CAN!
YES NYC CAN!! Come on folks, give til it hurts! You won't regret it any more than you will having bought those three dozen cases of Steve Alten's The Shell Game to push it onto the NYT bestseller list so that 9/11 Truth could no longer be ignored!!
I just sold a kidney to support NYC CAN!
not my own, of course--but every little bit brings us closer to the whole, unvarnished truth about the evil plot to destroy the buildings I leased and collected billions in insurance on!
i am to feeling inspired!
have just contributioned 2 cases each of zoom copter and puzzle car toys, along with the case of the premier dead sea mud mask. soon will take up collection at mall kiosk for NYC CAN!!
not my
kiosk, Posh Israeli!!! what a face
the NYC CAN charade continues!
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07142009/news/regionalnews/kin_eye_9_11_pane...
KIN EYE 9/11 PANEL
By DAVID SEIFMAN
Last updated: 10:30 am
July 14, 2009
Posted: 2:55 am
July 14, 2009
Some 9/11 families are pushing for a November referendum to create a city commission with subpoena powers to study the attacks, The Post has learned.
Officials are taking the effort seriously, since the group, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, submitted 52,000 signatures and is paying the $75,000 cost of counting and verifying them.
Now I Understand Why "Rescue Me" Covered 9/11 Truth
Needed to buy this guy some cred to spend on NYC CAN VOTE FOR LIHOP... I love how everyone mentions how "eloquent" Sunjata is. They may as well also give him props for being so "clean"...
jeez, you think they want people to send money?
Every one of these NYC "in the" CAN posts includes the usual gang of sock/meat puppets offering their testimonial about how much they gave to the cause. And Sunjata also makes sure to point out that NYC CAN will consider evidence for explosives in the towers--great! He doesn't mention that they will conclude that al Qaeda put them there...
I pledge the remainder of my pork chop transfer to NYC CAN
I understand this will not please my Pakistani paymasters, nor the infidels at Western Union, but NYC CAN promises to restore to me all due credit for spectacular attack against America.
Graeme MacQueen Questions NYC CAN
Question
On the website of NYCCAN there's a point of confusion and I'd like to have it cleared up. On the one hand, in the FAQs we are told that every possible category of investigation will be examined and the trail of evidence will be followed wherever it leads. This is heartening. But we're also told that the 270 unanswered questions of the Family Steering Committee will be the "road map" for the investigation. This worries me. It's not that I object to the 270 questions, most of which are sharp and well formulated. But these questions don't go nearly far enough, and in some cases they open the door to limited hangouts and red herrings. We need many more questions, for example, that deal with collapse of the WTC buildings--our knowledge of these things has grown hugely since the initial list. I hope someone can reassure me that the 270 questions will just be a start and will not in any way limit the investigation.
FYI
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20693#comment-212190
That's where it became clear to me that 911SATYA is Graeme MacQueen...
Apparently fake truther and LIHOPPER Sander Hicks...
...is very much involved in NYC CAN. Need we know more?
Jon Gold apparently squeezes a NYCCAN endorsement out of...
...Peter Dale Scott. And a rather half hearted one it seems!
Dr. Peter Dale Scott Endorses NYCCAN
nyccan | Peter Dale Scott
I am writing to endorse the www.nyccan.org initiative. It is shocking that one of the greatest mass murders in the history of the United States has not received an adequate investigation. The limitations and shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission have now been widely recognized, and even its two chairmen have acknowledged that the commission was "set up to fail." Meanwhile this country continues to live under major legal and even constitutional changes flowing from an event which we still not not adequately understand. It is not too much to say that the future of America as an open society will depend in large part on whether it can find the political will to find out what happened on that fateful day.
Peter Dale Scott
Thank you...
Dr. Scott.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Another thanks
to Dr. Peter Dale Scott. I love seeing more and more reliable people endorsing this, and hope this pattern continues.
Be on...
The lookout. More to come. ;)
Edit: Those of you who know people, now would be a good time for you to ask for an endorsement of NYCCAN...
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
this is not so much an endorsement of NYC CAN as...
...it is an endorsement of a new, real investigation period. Nowhere does Peter Dale Scott say anything along the lines of "this initiative is the way to go because of so and so". Seems like a lot of folks are being sold a bill of goods... to my knowledge no one has actually addressed Graeme Macqueen's concerns about the initiative.
NYC CAN'T, Apparently... More Donations, Please!
"This is your chance--your ONE chance...", "The most experienced election lawyer in New York [who we can't name, of course] stands ready...", "Send us MO MONEY!"
Remember the HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY that The Shell Game represented to MAKE 9/11 TRUTH GO MAINSTREAM?? Remember how we were told to BUY 20 COPIES AND GIVE THEM TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!
Uh huh.
"Gosh, we've been stymied! I don't know what's wrong, but send more money--I just sent another $50 I can't afford, so you should too!"
>snip<
Submitted by Jon Gold on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 1:07pm.
nyccan
July 27, 2009
SEVENTY THOUSAND New Yorkers signed the NYC CAN petition, raising their voices in support of NYC CAN’s demand for accountability. They have chosen to place the decision to create a new 9/11 investigation – a REAL 9/11 investigation – exactly where it belongs: before the voters of New York City this November. The voices of SEVENTY THOUSAND Americans who believe in democracy and believe that government exists to serve the people – and not the other way around – have been GAGGED by ONE so-called “PUBLIC SERVANT” – The New York City Clerk – who denied the petition and the voice of the people.
Welcome to America. Democracy denied.
Did you REALLY expect those in halls of power to honor the WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Did you expect this demand for accountability to go uncontested by those who have forgotten the very meaning of the word? Perhaps this obstruction of democracy would go unchallenged in THEIR America. Not in OUR America.
9/11 family members, first responders and survivors expected nothing less than business as usual and ARE NOT HAVING IT. They are preparing to take the City of New York to court to challenge the wrongful denial of our right to decide on the creation of a new 9/11 investigation.
Friends, your determination and generosity have brought us to this crucial moment. TRUTH IS AT THE CROSSROADS, DEMOCRACY UNDER FIRE AND THE DEFINING MOMENT IN THE QUEST FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS UPON US. This is YOUR movement and nothing may bring you closer to attaining truth than NYC CAN. Stand in the light and demand ANSWERS, not in the shadows of those who would deny you such answers.
THE BIG NEWS: the most experienced election lawyer in New York City stands ready to represent the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors in court in an HISTORIC FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AND TRUTH. BUT WE DESPERATELY NEED YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. This is your chance – your ONE chance – to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, and demand accountability. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE WORKED FOR, AND WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE IF WE STAND TOGETHER NOW.
Donate over $25 and we’ll mail you a free NYC CAN button. Donate over $50 and you will receive a free NYC CAN button and a well-made NYC CAN t-shirt.
ACT RIGHT NOW. Go to – http://nyccan.org/donate.php – and donate whatever you can to bring the quest for answers to the biggest stage it has ever had: THE NEW YORK CITY BALLOT.
www.NYCCAN.org
Oh MY, 911 Blogger is now NYCCANBlogger...
Most recently active threads on 9/11 Blogger at the moment... Jon Gold is bumping 5 of his own blogs by leaving comments on them about how he just donated another $50 "he can't afford" to NYC CAN
NYCCAN
Did you see this one?:
"New York Times Best Selling Author Steve Alten Endorses NYCCAN"
sigh...
-scrubzer
it gets worse...
Alten will be participating in one of the two anniversary conferences happening this year in NY... what a circus! Here's Julian's take at TruthBurnout (note the pic of the ever-ridiculous Sander Hicks...) So what's going on? A false dichotomy? Ostensible diversity masking actual uniformity? Perfidious harming of the cause with faulty arguments? Oy...
July 24, 2009
"We Demand Transparency" Conference - Big Tent Failure
What was the "Real Change and Transparency Conference" has split into two separate and very different anniversary events in NYC.
"Real Change" Conference
"We Demand Transparency" Conference
Sander Hicks had tried to facilitate cooperation between Luke and Les. In the process their previous problems with one another were scrubbed from the internet. You can still find that episode of the movement's history archived here:
Original WeAreChange "Declaration of NY911Truth" - Jamieson v Rudkowki scrubbed
That cooperation appears to have been tenuous and broke down resulting in two separate events. And these events are very different. One appears to be reasonably credible in it's present form and the other does not.
While I have my differences with WAC and Luke, the "Real Change" Conference is BY FAR the more credible of the two events. Those organizing it had asked Bill Deagle to attend. However, it appears that upon discovering that he was a very controversial figure, they took him off the speakers list.
In contrast, the "We Demand Transparency" event has been adding people to their speakers list that are either divisive figures in the movement or who have undermined the movement in one way or another. I nearly jumped out of my chair finding that Cindy Sheehan, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Steve Alten had been added to the list of those participating.
Were Cindy Sheehan to attend, she would be participating in an event with people such as Barrett who defended those such as Webster Tarpley who called her a liar during the Kennebunkport Warning fiasco. And it was Les who allowed Tarpley to speak during the "Ready for Mainstream" conference where he labeled many committed movement figures as cointelpro agents.
Donna Marsh O'Connor, the mother of a 9/11 victim, signed the 2008 Declaration of Standards and Strategies which was largely a response to the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. It would be very unfortunate if anyone used her participation to impugn her judgment or character.
And Steve Alten seems to be more an opportunist than a sincerely committed participant in the movement. For a review of critical opinions of Steve Alten and The Shell Game have a look at this thread.
Barrett, Ranke, and Alten. Three people who I believe have done more harm than good for this movement. And all of this coordinated by Les Jamieson, responsible for the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. And Sheehan, O'Connor, and Sunjata. Three people who deserve a great deal of respect and should not in any way subject themselves to the potentially negative connotations of their participation or the bad press that might result.
How to respond? I would highly recommend two things. First, assuming the lineup remains reputable, that people in NYC attend the WAC event and not the Jamieson event. And second, that people who share any of my concerns make them known to the events organizers and those attending who may not recognize why their participation could have unfortunate consequence for them.
It's not clear this petition was vetted by a lawyer
Jon Gold at 911B, second hand from Kyle hence, has made a statement suggesting it has not yet been reviewed by a lawyer. they want to hire a big elections lawyer, and are asking for money, but if the petition is not allowed under the constitution or statute, it either won't be on the ballot or won't be effective even if it passes.
Can a city commission be given subpoena power? Perhaps. Can a charter amendment create an investigative body? Perhaps? Can such an investigative body with subpoena power be privately funded like the petition proposes? Perhaps.
If they have so much private money supposedly lined up to fund the commission if it passes, to support a budget of up to $10 million/year, then they should have enough money to have the petition done right and have a good lawyer already prepared for the litigation that will inevitably result even they get on the ballot and get the charter amendment passed. Asking people for donations without this serious backing and preparation, from square 1 which is too late to change now, seems unfair to me.
Ningen
seems more than unfair--seems downright shady!
and also reminds me of other "initiatives" people have been asked to "get behind" (i.e. pay money for) like the Shell Game buyup campaign... seems like someone needs some extra cash, or the idea is to demotivate people by having them feel like they are wasting money as opposed to just time... just think--how is anyone who sent money to NYC CAN going to feel about the movement when it's finally admitted that the whole thing fell through?
Gretavo
Two simple yes/no questions for you:-
Have you ever visited Herzliya?
Does the word giyus mean anything to you?
And two more complex, if you can spare the time:-
What exactly is the definition of 'Ethnic Ashkenazim' to your way of thinking.
How do you feel about the information presented on this webpage? :-
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367
Annoymouse
No, I have never visited Herzliya, so whatever happened there, I didn't do it! :)
Yes, GIYUS (as in giyus.org) stands for Give Israel Your United Support and is the site that distributes Megaphone software for use by Zionist sympathizers who want to volunteer their services "defending" Israel in online fora.
As far as I've been able to figure out based on my readings of various sources, Ashkenazim and Sephardim are two distinct groups of Jewish people. The names are derived from the words (in what language I don't know) for Germany and Spain respectively, where the two groups were historically centered. Where it gets murkier is with origins of each. The Sephardim are understood by most people to have come to Europe from North Africa and as such are of semitic descent, essentially indistinguishable from Arabs. The Ashkenazim, whose origins are the subject of some controversy, are said by many to be the descendants of middle age converts to Judaism who belonged to a turko-asiatic people called the Khazars. The entire Khazar nation is alleged to have converted following their king, who chose Judaism as a way of showing that he and his nation would not take the sides of either the Christians to their north or the Muslims to their south. Less controversial is the fact that in the modern history of Zionism, Ashkenazim, making up most of Europe's Jews and practically all of the financially successful ones (and also tending more than Sephardim to be secular), took a leading role in the colonization of Palestine. In doing so they lured many Sephardim (some might say using devious methods such as false flag attacks) to Palestine as cannon fodder and cheap labor. Nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu's family is an example. To date there is well documented history of discrimantion against Sephardic Jews in Israel.
As for the information underground, my gut impression is that it is probably run as a controlled opposition site. This is not to say that everyone who posts there is an agent of some kind, but it seems like just another place where people who may well be honest and well-meaning are encouraged to promote anti-zionism in unhelpful ways. As for the content, I'll just give an example of a mistake in the post you linked to--the dancing Israelis never confessed to being Mossad agents. An FBI source reportedly confirmed that the FBI believed two of them to be actual agents and the company they worked for, Moving Systems Inc. (owned by Dominic Suter) was a Mossad front company. Details like this are important because all it takes is one false claim to cast doubt on an entire case, however strong it may actually be. The best source for the dancing Israeli arrest aftermath is the article that was published in the Jewish weekly The Forward, since it contained a good deal of information and cannot be said to have been biased against the suspects. Unfortunately I've never been able to track down an online version of it since first reading it, but I assure everyone that the story was run, so people should feel free to cite it.
not gretavo but..
I went over the material briefly. It seems like good info but what's up with things like this...
"Jew Michael S. Goff was marketing manager at Ptech and also worked for Isareli database company Guardium..."
The forum thread is littered with things like this. I can only imagine that paragraphs that begin like this are written to be obviously inflammatory towards 'Jews'.
Imagine you are tasked with writing a summary article that briefly describes the multiple connections to Zionist and Israel to 9/11. It's not reasonable to imagine the author just 'forgot' about the sensitivities that should be considered when disseminating information.
Disinfo
verdict in: NYC CROCK
nyccan
Jon Gold
7/31/2009
This is my endorsement of the NYCCAN initiative. It's obvious that I endorse the initiative from the amount of NYCCAN posts I've made but this is a different kind of endorsement.
Today, an "anti-truther/debunker" site posted the letter (thanks to Loose Nuke for this version) written by the City Clerk that explains why they didn't allow the petition on the ballot.
The reasons given were:
Like most things I read on those sites, it made me angry. It didn't make me angry because of the usual inaccuracies, name calling, selective memories, slander, and other bullshit we usually see. I was more angry at those who wrote the petition. I would have thought that those responsible would have made every effort to make sure the petition was legally sound.
After I had a little time to cool off, I heard from John Albanese who said, "I endorsed this initiative because I already consider it a symbolic success. This initiative has succeeded in demonstrating that 70,000 New Yorkers, over 100 victim’s families & first responders, countless volunteers on the street, and supporters from all over this nation, still care about this issue – and will never stop organizing to demand answers."
He was basically looking for the positive in a sea of negative. Something I admire, and something I tried to do for the "Week of Truth."
With regards to the petition not being legally sound, I can't comment on the law. I'm not a lawyer. However, the "federal government" has FAILED MISERABLY with ITS "investigation into the attacks that took place on September 11." THAT MUCH I can guarantee you. If the "federal government" can't be trusted to investigate the attacks, then it falls to the people to do so. The reason I have always endorsed the idea of a new investigation being put onto the ballot is because if we rely on the "powers that be" to have a REAL investigation into the attacks, it will most likely never happen. However, if you leave the decision up to the people, it will most assuredly happen. A real investigation that leaves no stone unturned, that gets to the truth, that holds people accountable, and FINALLY brings justice for the horrible atrocity that took place on that day. That is what we are trying to do isn't it? That is why I endorse it.
As we learned today from the latest NYCCAN release, "the City Clerk maintains the Petition fell short in several areas but it should be emphasized that this is the legal opinion of the Corporation Counsel, the City of New York’s top lawyer, and will be challenged in court by lawyers for the five plaintiffs."
I don't know much about New York politics. What I do know is that the City of New York has treated the 9/11 First Responders horribly over the years. If that is any indication, then in my opinion, the City of New York's lawyer can't be trusted.
A long time ago, I promised that I would never turn my back on the 9/11 Families. They have been through UNSPEAKABLE horrors. If they want to fight this, then that is what I endorse. I endorse the fight. Just as I always have.
Do it for the families. Do it for your families. Do it for your friends' families. Truth and justice must be served.
reason: you didn't send enough money
please send more. for the families!
Fools Gold Called Disinfo
Check out Michael's response calling Jon Gold disinformation to his face...in public.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
Michael - 911blogger.com
http://911blogger.com/node/20789#comment-213078
Clarify your post. The way it reads is that you are implying I am someone who peddles disinformation. Thank you.
Edit: It has been several hours since you posted that, and you have not clarified your post. You're totally out of line."
-Jon Gold
Seems pretty clear to me. Jon Gold = Disinformation. Nothing new.
This can be a lesson for future disinformation specialists. Don't over due it. As my mom use to tell me...sometimes less is more.
I would also like to say something I've been thinking about for years.
I'm sick of Jon Gold and his tired 'the family members' routine. Jon Gold has been latching onto and exploiting the 'Family Members' for over 6 years now. Any good he may have done for 'them' is negated by the way in which he constantly uses them to support any and all arguments.
It's time Jon Gold stopped using 'The Family Members' as his own personal trump card. IMO, we are all family members and victims of the 9/11 Attacks.
amen
He uses the family members as a human shield--now how despicable is that? Does he think that anyone working to expose the truth about 9/11 doesn't sympathize deeply with family members of the real victims? That is the point--Jon isn't just using the families to buttress his weak arguments by association, in my opinion what he is doing is also intended to make any allegation that some of the victims are fake (particualrly on the planes but quite possibly in the towers as well, sound hateful. Now I'm sorry, but whenever a disaster strikes where there are mass casualties, there are people who try to take advantage of the situation by making false claims--just ask any insurance company. In addition, the fact that faking the fate of flights like AA77 means that it is entirely possible that people like Barbara Olson are still alive and living with a new identity (and a couple million dollars from the victim compensation fund.) Ted Olson is a victim's family member--does Jon Gold support him? My guess is that absolutely, since he has said before that he has "no doubt"that AA77 flew into the Pentagon and that all the victims were positively identified. Basically Jon Gold is useful because he is so bad at what he does that he makes his agenda obvious and clues us in on where to look for the truth. That's another reason I really don't think that the cover-up is a "professional" op--it is just way too pathetically inept. True, it has worked to some extent so far, but that is with a happily complicit government and media--the fact that we continue to make progress means that ultimately we will win and the cover-up will have failed.
NYCCAN
I can asure you that if les jamieson is connected to the issue
it will fail on purpose.
Do the people get a refund now for services not rendered?
well apparently he was pushed away
if not out completely. but I agree that the whole thing, like the 9/11 commission, is being "set up to fail". how can all these movement "leaders" be lining up behind this, asking people to send money during one of the most awful economic periods in recent history, without addressing people's real concerns about the nature of the proposed investigation? for god's sake, NY CAN has a web page devoted to expressing support for the lawsuit against Saudi Arabi for "funding al Qaeda"! personally I'm not ready to lump people like DRG in with the fake truthers, but i must wonder what kind of arm-twisting was required to extract this belated endorsement from him.
I would chalk it down to
I would chalk it down to ignorance. DRG may be well meaning, but perhaps he is unaware of all the disinfo guys connected and promoting NYC CAN.
As for NYC CAN, it can be played both ways, to demotivate people by shooting its own foot, as it seems to be doing now and in the process discrediting the honest people who have endorsed it, or to push an investigation that will protect some of the perps while sacrificing some pawns.
Not surprising
Looking at the City Clerk's letter contained in Jon Gold's post, and having looked at the Municipal Home Rule Law, I disagree with Point 5, FWIW (nothing).
Point 1 is not a flaw on the petition drafter's part, even though the State of New York would better handle this and more likely be constitutional, because New york law does not allow state referendums. Presumably they thought this was the only way to do it. If they wanted to battle on this issue, even though it is a long shot, more power to them. That would be a good fight.
Points 2-4, however, are identical or similar to concerns that I had when reading the petition, even without looking at the Municipal Home Rule Law. On Point 2, my concern was with private financing, but the law clearly requires a financing plan, and does not appear to allow specific salaries for new offices.
Just because the powers in New York and Washington don't want to know, or don't want us to know, what happened on 9/11, does not mean that the City Clerk was not doing his job in rejecting the petition. Why give the Clerk a reason to reject the petition with these bizarre provisions?
I mean, come on: New York voters are supposed to approve a privately funded commission with non-New Yorkers paid $100,000/year (by who?) to issue subpoenas and seek indictments? A private law enforcement agency? The more I think about it, the whole thing is absurd on its face.
Ningen
Not surprising
The City Clerk's first point, federal jurisdiction only, is not a flaw on the petition drafter's part, even though the State of New York would better handle this and have a better chance of passing legal muster, because New York law does not allow state referendums. Presumably NYCAN thought this was the only way to do it. If they wanted to battle on this issue, even though it is a long shot, more power to them. That would be a good fight.
But come on: New York voters are supposed to approve a privately funded commission with non-New Yorkers paid $100,000/year (by who?) to issue subpoenas and seek indictments? A private law enforcement agency? The more I think about it, the whole thing is absurd on its face. I'm not even sure I would vote for it if I lived in NYC. Nice job, creating a referendum that could lose even among people that support a real investigation.
Just because the powers in New York and Washington don't want to know, or don't want us to know, what happened on 9/11, does not mean that the City Clerk was not doing his job in rejecting the petition. Why give the Clerk a reason to reject the petition with these bizarre provisions?
Setting specific salaries for a new office is specifically prohibited and gives the clerk a reason to reject the petition on those grounds alone. Municipal Home Rule Law, Article 37, section 11. Odd then to see $100,000 salaries in the NYCAN petition.
Ningen
privately funded, uh huh.
I also have a problem with that. In other words, the commission will be bought and paid for--by whome exactly? Someone in New York with a few million to spare? Uh huh. A certain lucky bastard comes to mind...
Hypothetically speaking, of course...
...suppose NYC CAN is indeed being set up to fail. Suppose that the signatures will pass muster and everyone will be all pumped for the next step, a hearing to decide whether the proposed commission is kosher under the relevant "home rule" statute. What's the worst that could happen?
Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that "precedents" are very important in deciding cases. If NY CAN is set up to fail, the case could end up being heard by a judge with an agenda--as a 9/11 related case who knows if it would be assigned to Judge Hellerstein himself (I don't know if that could happen given that he is a federal judge but whatever, suppose the judge was not entirely on the up and up, or just emotionally incapable of being objective on the subject of 9/11.) Should the case be dismissed, it would set a precedent therefore raising the bar for future similar attempts, attempts that could be made on much better grounds than the LIHOPpy NYC CAN petition.
Just how bad could things get? An example from the world of holocaust revisionism should give us all pause--with the caveat that it involves a legal proceeding in California where the law may not allow for a similar finding. The example has to do with the case of one Mel Mermelstein, who sued the Institute for Historical Review which offered $50,000 for anyone who could offer proof of homicidal gassings in a German concentration camp. Mermelstein's evidence was his own eyewitness testimony, which IHR rejected, hence the lawsuit. Here is how Nizkor.org, a site which supports Mermelstein's claims, describes what happened:
Regardless of one's views on the holocaust or the role played by homicidal gassings in it, what is instructive here is how a court case can lead to an official proclamation of something as "indisputable historical fact", something I would not have believed possible until reading about the Mermelstein case. In fact, Nizkor only provides as much information about the case to make it look as if that was that--and most people who read their account most likely accept that. For the whole story told by the other side, see: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p25_Okeefe.html
I can imagine that some may object to my use of this particular example in an analysis of the potential pitfalls NYC CAN represents for the truth movement, but like it or not, the controversy over holocaust revisionism is very relevant to a movement that in the eyes of many is about historical revision (revising the established historical narrative of 9/11.) As truthers we need not necessarily make common cause with other revisionists, but we ignore their experiences at our peril.