How long before Jon Gold decides to boycott the "joke"*, "compromised"* 911blogger again? *his words

He's saying goodbye to 911blogger because Pavlovian Dogcatcher took issue with his big fat list of facts, and will run back to truthaction where Pavlovian Dogcatcher spends most of his time?

Anyone that acts like they know what happened on 9/11 in the 9/11 Truth Movement is full of shit. Have a nice day, and goodbye 911blogger.com.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 2:45pm.

Anyway, I know I didn't vote for less than a week--who was it Larry Horse? Was it you??

nuff said.

The usual LIHOP suspects--Victronix, SnowCrash... Their idea may have been to "wow" us so much with Wikileaks' release of the bad behavior of troops in Iraq that we would be open to blaming ourselves for making 9/11 truth unpalatable to him, and other "heroes". Just like when LIHOPpers put out the vid of Cindy Sheehan saying a lot of what 9/11 truth talked about sounded "batshit crazy". I'm sorry but coming from a woman who camps out outside the presidents ranch expecting a dialogue with him, the accusation falls a bit flat. We could just as easily say to her that the reason she doesn't have over 1000 professionals signed onto her campaign is because she is "a batty old biddy".

Thanks.

Interesting piece. It would be nice to know what his reservations are, what he sees as the conspiracies. Most people who see the "conspiracists" as "nuts" or crazy will respond with things like, "they don't even think real planes were used," or as one person said to me, "they think Hitler's brother did 9/11", off the wall stuff.

That's why it's so important to pull out the strong stuff for those who have latched onto false impressions.

The Feds are hanging around at conferences where he's supposed to speak, trying to catch him. I tend to doubt wikileaks is a limited hang-out. This is just the average response of the average person, and if he chooses, then, to filter out "conspiratorial nonsense", that's just another area we've lost to the dis- and mis-info campaigns by both the Bush Admin and the no-anything advocates -- "conspiracy theorists" on the one hand, and "no planes, no passengers, no hijackers" on the other.

Any average person will steer clear of those and it's an uphill battle to re-learn history once they've gotten those ideas into their heads.
Submitted by Victronix on Fri, 07/23/2010 - 5:26pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 1 point

Proportions

I've noticed a high proportion of your own posts involve 'fake planes' or Hitler/Jew related stuff.

"The Feds are hanging around at conferences where he's supposed to speak, trying to catch him."

Really?? What does he do, outrun them and jump in a getaway car? Maybe he just transmits himself to Iceland through the modem?
Submitted by influence device on Fri, 07/23/2010 - 8:02pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 1 point

Good catch influence device, I had the exact same

reaction when I read Vics sentence, "The Feds..."

How does he know who is after whom? MSM? Maybe there is a trap door under the drum kit, maybe it's more like a "beam me up Scottie" type deal.
Maybe he utilizes the cloak of invisibility.

All seriousness aside. The "story" pedaled in the lamestream is that yes the dastardly Feds are hot on his trail....but our hero is smart enough to not show up.
Curses, foiled again.

Of course there were planes Vic, Hitler was on one, Judy Wood told me it is the only explanation that makes sense.
Submitted by camusrebel on Fri, 07/23/2010 - 9:24pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 1 point

Thank you Victoria

and I agree. No planes, no passengers, no hijackers, these theories have little to no basis and supply our opponents with attack vectors. I'm well aware of DRG's implied case for 100% government orchestration but I disagree with him. I think two conspiracies converged on 9/11, one by Al Qaeda, and one by the US government who was monitoring and manipulating them. I understand there are strong disagreements within the movement about this subject, and unfortunately those of us who don't go along with the no hijackers theories are often attacked. Al Qaeda's trainer, Ali Mohamed, was a quadruple agent (CIA, FBI, Special Forces, Al Qaeda), and I feel that too little attention is given to the double agent phenomenon. Who was infiltrating who?

And I would like to point out that I'm mainly concerned with the incongruity between Assange's choice of words and the terminology used by Graham and Kerrey, both insiders of government run investigations into 9/11. Kerrey obviously knows a lot more than he lets on. Notice how quickly he leaves after he says what he's so reluctant to say. Kerrey may have given us a hint: start your research into 9/11 at Operation Cyclone. I think Jeremy just wore him down and he decided to concede this much.

Kerrey and Graham's words blow any notion of 9/11 being anything else but a 'conspiracy' out of the water. The question is thus, not IF 9/11 was a conspiracy, but WHAT KIND of conspiracy. So, regardless of the various running theories about 9/11, it most certainly is a government conspiracy, regardless of, and separate from, Al Qaeda's conspiracy to attack the United States. The 9/11 truth movement is just trying to work out those "secrets" which Bob Graham says the White House is "withholding". Some of these secrets obviously go beyond 'incompetence', into the realm of criminal complicity. Certainly by now we can say it has been factually established that there was a criminal cover-up of 9/11. The work of people like you and Jim, prof. Jones, Kevin Ryan (my favorite 9/11 whistleblower), AE911Truth et al. is ongoing, and is even more damning, suggesting direct and targeted government complicity in mass murder.

Somebody else in this thread said Assange, by his choice of words, discourages 9/11 whistleblowers to come forward. I agree. As for Assange's motivations: who is to know. I suspect he's simply overly concerned with credibility issues, fearing attacks from the mainstream media, which are on his side now, but only time will tell.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Sat, 07/24/2010 - 1:03pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 1 point

Time will tell!

Good questions all around. The jury is still out in my opinion. One thing is for sure once he does mention 911 truth in an objective light there will be no more invites to NPR. If he cultivates his reputation with a few more big stories and then comes forward with 911 truth that would be better. I personally am not convinced that he has looked at the issue to any great extent. I broke the truth bottle open today with a business associate who I have listened to complain about the govt. for the past few years. He almost flipped out when I said I didn't believe the OCT! After about 45 minutes of further discussion he still could not get his mind around it. And here's a guy who knows that politics is really corrupt. In the end after another 45 minutes or so he started to really consider what I was saying and said he would be fighting mad if this could be true. I assured him I didn't believe it when someone first told me about it and it took some time for me to research and accept the fact that in his words " this level of evil could exist with people in power in our country."
Submitted by peacefulwarrior on Sat, 07/24/2010 - 2:22pm