'Debunker' Related Excerpts from and Review of '9/11 Truther The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability' by Jon Gold

Released 2/26/12, 9/11 Truther The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability starts off with a past aticle by author Jon Gold, which serves as a definition of the book's title:

So what is a "9/11 Truther”? As I said, it's kind of hard to spin the word "Truth," but the "debunkers" and "media" have jumped on the word "truther." To me, that's an inaccurate phrase because the real term is 9/11 Truther.

In my mind, a "9/11 Truther" is someone who fights alongside the family members seeking truth and accountability for the 9/11 attacks. In my mind, a "9/11 Truther" is someone who fights for the sick and dying 9/11 first responders who need health care desperately. In my mind, a "9/11 Truther" is someone who does not like how the day of 9/11 is being used to inflict pain and suffering around the world, and is trying to stop it. Stop it by using the truth. Something we have been denied by our government regarding the 9/11 attacks.

I am sorry that people have used the phrase as they have. All I know is that the definition of "9/11 Truther," to me, does not equal what those who are against this cause say it does.

I am proud to be a "9/11 Truther."

Gold prefaces his article by stating, "Because of the way this phrase has been tarnished by the media and debunkers, I have switched to saying that I am an 'advocate for 9/11 Justice.' I have also changed the name of my forum to the '9/11 Justice Forum.' Nonetheless, this article still rings true."

This is what Gold is trying to redefine and avoid being associated with:

Twoofer , twoofer meaning , definition of twoofer , what is twoofer - 1. derogatory term for those on the outer edges of the 9/11 truth movement.2. derogatory term for any conspiracy theorist or political extremist who regularly uses the phrase 'speaking truth to power'

Some examples : The twoofer said I was following the sheeple for not believing 9/11 was done with holograms, and that he was speaking truth to power - http://www.definition-of.net/twoofer

"Debunkers" had other ideas for the title of his book. Gold notes that Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog suggested, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wasting a Decade?" With commenters suggesting the titles, "You're a liar! - The Fat Deluded Narcissist's guide to gaining attention by having yourself arrested for issues no one really cares about." … "Left Out In the Cold: One Man's Pointless Adventures at the Whitehouse." Gold writes, "One commenter suggested that I'm trying to 'sucker Truthers into forking over cash,' and that I am 'looking to make a killing out of scamming innocent people into buying his garbage novel.' 'Debunkers' disgust me. They are some of the most evil people you'd ever want to meet."

Elsewhere he notes, "More often than I should have, I fought with 'debunkers' about 9/11. Some people liked this about me but I found that it caused me a lot of stress, not because the 'debunkers' were right, but because they had such an obvious agenda. Very simply, they disgust me."

Speaking of his article "The Facts Speak For Themselves" Gold writes, "A few 'debunkers' have claimed to 'debunk' this article but I say that is a lie. To me, a true 'debunking' is when someone like me says Statement A, and a 'debunker'' shows Statements B and C which shows that Statement A is incorrect or never happened. In my opinion, they have failed to do this with my article."

Related:

On October 28, 2010 Gold left the following comment on Rosanne Barr's website after Barr linked to his "Facts Speak..." article with the prompt to "PLEASE READ" his "brilliant analysis."

Here's a "Debunking" of my article.

http://www.smoking-bun.com/?tag=jon-gold

Here's a short film I made about "debunkers."

Don’t Expect an Honest Answer

January 7, 2011

Author: Jon Gold
Source: 9/11 Truth News
Category: BLOG

In November 2008, I made a short video called Ask Any Debunker. In it, I asked three simple questions.

1) Are there, or are there not a multitude of cover-ups concering the 9/11 attacks?

2) Was the 9/11 Commission, headed by Philip Zelikow, a whitewash?

3) Should there be accountability?

I figured these questions were no-brainers for anyone paying attention.

Over two years later, so-called "debunker” Pat Curley has attempted to answer these questions. (I debated Pat on this very topic. I thought I won the debate.)

Here are his answers (see screenshot):



At the end of the movie, I ask that you decide whether or not they sound like honest answers.

Well, do they?

Speaking of his debate with Curley, Gold writes, "More often than not, even though they are shown to be wrong, a 'debunker' will continue to repeat the same arguments so I pretty much had them memorized."

This use of debunked 'debunker' talking points is something I have noticed as well. A prime example is that debunkers will still use talking points after they have been refuted by the official reports! This is either due to just not being informed or it's intentional and in many cases I find it very hard to believe they are unaware of the information. In these cases I think cognitive dissonance and/or ego is often at play. They must prove us wrong at all costs and thus conceding anything is out of the question. This is also true of some individuals in the truth movement, but I contend it is not as widespread because many of us do concede points to debunkers. As Gold writes:

I despise "debunkers" because of their obvious agendas and because they are just some of the most nasty people you would ever want to meet. However, I do look at what they say. Again, if anything, it helps me to strengthen my arguments.

...During one argument with a "debunker," I was challenged to raise money for the 9/11 First Responders. Since I cared SO MUCH about them, then obviously I should spend some time raising money for them, right? It's not often "debunkers" are right,
but this time, they were.

In January 2007, I held my very first fundraiser for 9/11 First Responders.

And as is pointed out in the article "What everyone should know about the 9/11 truth movement...":

The 9/11 Truth movement is not a conspiracy movement. Believe it or not, the majority of people involved in criticism of the government's official story (the 'official conspiracy theory' as many have come to call it) do not know what really happened on 9/11, and they admit that...

The people in this movement are not beyond critical thinking; they are deeply indebted to it. The forums on 9/11 truth have been filled with discussion and debate, much evidence, and many questions. In the past years and months many bad ideas and false leads have been weeded through. We have also become much more clear about what questions remain and what evidence best supports the notion that the government's story is incomplete, self-contradictory, and often times, simply false. This process of reaching consensus has been dynamic, and it is ongoing. It has been aided rather than hindered by the attempts of many scientists and even self-appointed 'debunkers' who have often presented compelling information which was acknowledged, digested, and incorporated into an ever-growing and changing body of knowledge.

In May of 2010, Pat Curley's counterpart at Screw Loose Change, James B., linked to an article about an SEC report refuting claims of pre-9/11 insider trading via put options and informed his readers that, "Nothing ever gets debunked permanently with these people. Put options and 'eight of the hijackers are still alive' will be prominently featured in David Ray Griffin's 2015 lectures." Having posted the entire article he cited the previous day while stating my agreement, I then added an update quoting James and responded by noting, "The fact that I agreed with him in this post debunks him. :) I also concur that none of the hijackers are alive."
 
Similarly, Economics Professor and truther Paul Zarembka, has written that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site 911myths.com has caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options" for American and United airlines stocks.

Moving on, Gold writes, "There are entire 'debunker' sites dedicated to debunking 'Controlled Demolition.' I don't know why this is. Sure, they will 'tackle' other things (dishonestly), but they sure do love 'Controlled Demolition.' I think it has to do with the fact that it does sound crazy at first to a lot of people."

After noting some of his problems with the controlled demolition argument, including that focusing  too much on the issue obscures other "aspects to 9/11 Truth," (I agree) Gold concludes, "After all is said and done, it comes down to this for me with regards to the 'Controlled Demolition' argument. Bob McIlvaine, Lorie Van Auken and quite a few family members question NIST's investigations. If the question is important to them, then it is important to me. It was a crime scene, after all."

In my opinion 9/11 Truther The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability should be required reading for any 9/11 truth seeker, as well anybody who thinks that 9/11 truthers are just perpetuating a bunch of conspiracy theories that have been debunked.

Truth and justice advocates should persistently implore such individuals, who very often have pigeonholed the movement as kooky, to give 9/11 truthers one more shot, because Gold has demonstrated the ability to educe a turning point in the stubborn.

This is noted by author Dr. Paul Rea in his recent review of the book when mentioning Gold's efforts to connect with well known anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and the Peace Movement:

In her Foreword, Sheehan recalls that

The most prevalent of these people who bombarded me, though, were the 9/11 'Truthers.' I was harassed all over the world by them and I swear if one more person asked me if I saw 'Loose Change' I was going to forget my pacifism and punch him (it was always a him) in the face. The sad thing about this harassment was that I never believed the so-called official story of 9/11 and would have tended to be an ally to these people, but they were so rude and pushy. And, I didn't feel that I had the time or the inclination to wade through the stacks of information that they tried to force on me... . I left a lot of that material in cabs or garbage cans.

The implication is that Jon Gold was one of the few “truthers” who favorably impressed Sheehan – and that he, perhaps more than any other individual, helped to bring her into the truth movement. Readers might like to know how he succeeded after so many others had failed.

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza is also quoted in the book as stating, "Believe me, if it wasn't for our friend Jon Gold here, and so many other citizen activists, I'm sure the 9/11 movement would have died a long time ago."

Pat Curley recently wrote:

The "ignored and censored whistleblowers" include Patty Cassazza's mysterious roadside informant who claimed that the US government knew everything about the attacks including the date and method. Gold bitterly notes that I "debunked" that claim by saying that Patty was duped by a conman. But note the oddball response from the Truthers to that particular claim. Sibel Edmonds comes up with the LIHOP faction's dream witness and what happens? Complete and utter lack of curiosity about him or her. If I were a Truther, I'd be asking Patty about this person--was it a man or a woman? How old? Did he say what branch or agency of the government he was in? Can we get him on tape?

First off, as Gold points out in his "Facts Speak..." artcle, Cassazza stated that most whitleblowers did not come forward because they were not subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission, which in doing so would ensure them not being retaliated against like Edmonds was.

Furthermore, as Fran Shure at colorado911visibility.org pointed out to me, Casazza's account of a whistleblower telling her "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets" corroborates an earlier account by David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Pat needs to be complaining about the 9/11 Commissioners, not truthers.



Available here:

http://www.amazon.com/11-Truther-Justice-Accountability-ebook/dp/B007DVDV2S/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1330274003&sr=1-1

Yes, You Are Shameful

 Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted a response to an article by 9/11 activist Jon Gold yesterday. Pat quotes the following from Gold which he says is intended to shame him:

Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?

Gold sums up Pat's response in a comment:

So Pat basically did what I said he does, and he also showed how dishonest he is. He focused "on the fringiest of the fringe," and tried "to paint us all as crazies." I never promoted half of what he said, and in every instance of what he said, I made a comment of disapproval long before he ever wrote this piece. He showed how dishonest he is by claiming that Patty Casazza and Bob McIlvaine are considered "fringe." First of all, they both lost someone that day. They're family members, not fringe. Secondly, both of them attended every 9/11 Commission Hearing, and Patty was partly responsible for its creation, as well as working with the staffers, and providing 100's of well researched questions for them to answer. She is anything but "fringe," and her story is about a whistleblower. One of MANY the 9/11 Commission ignored or censored.

Although Pat asserts that truthers are the ones who have disrespected family members and first responders he ridicules many of them with his browbeating of anyone who fail to believe incompetence can adequately explain away red flag 9/11 issues such as foreknowledge of the attacks. Accordingly, those that disagree with Pat, people who have considered some level of conspiracy, reside in "conspiracy cuckoo land" and believe in something "every bit as crazy as TV fakery and voice-morphing." For Pat there is no middle ground, you either fully accept that 9/11 occurred due to mistakes and incompetence, a postulate that is not supported by evidence, or you are a nutter.

Being that Bill Doyle estimated in 2006 that half of the 7,000 members of his email communication network for 9/11 families thought the government was complicit in the attacks, anytime Pat makes such statements (and he makes them a lot) he is disrespecting a large amount of 9/11 family members.

He could just say he disagrees and present his case as to why without throwing around insults.

As I have recently pointed out, there is much corroborating evidence for the whistleblower's statment to Casazza that "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets," whereas Pat is just brushing it aside based on his world view which dictates it had to be "some con man" she was speaking to.

Let's look further into this outrageous claim: Whom could she have meant by "the government?"

David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton, stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Jesse Ventura's book American Conspiracies recounts another similar warning passed along to John Ashcroft, Ventura writes:

Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, said under oath in a New York courtroom that a longtime associate of his, Susan Lindauer, warned him several times and as late as August 2001 "that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center," an attack "that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon." Lindauer, who says she was a CIA asset, claimed to have made an attemp to inform John Ashcroft at the Justice Department, who referred her to the Office of Counter-Terrorism.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, but was subsequently ignored.

Edmonds has recently reaffirmed these points as factual and provided the testimony of the agent who first raised them. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote, "Pat Curley is confident that if we were to ever see the unredacted testimony, it will bear no resemblance to what Sibel posted. Well, how about supporting the truth movement in a quest for a new investigation so we can maybe see it unredacted then? No? Didn't think so."

Back to the topic of disrespect, it is clear that Pat is feigning ignorance of the disrespect on his side of the debate. I don't think it gets anymore disrespectful than Troy Sexton telling Bob McIlvaine to put a bullet in his head. Did Troy making the first comment on your response to Gold where he said "Fuck Bob McIlvaine" not jog your memory on that one, Pat?

I know you decried this kind of tripe from Troy, but you know damn well this is the type of thing Gold was talking about and yet you divert the attention on members of the truth movement.

When Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley compiled various videos made by "debunkers" in an attempt to showcase their lack of eloquence, venomous nature, dependence on a priori objections and employment of other fallacious arguments, you hilariously didn't get it, stating that, "The best part is that the guy who put it together is a Troofer!" Of course "troofer," or "twoofer" is a derogatory term akin to calling someone a conspiracy nut, so right off the bat you had proven Stewart's point! But most importantly this was over a month after you had proclaimed that you didn't support Troy's calls for truthers to commit suicide, but yet the calls in the video for people to "put a bullet to their head" and "just kill yourself please" were not denounced. Instead, these people were apparently considered brethren of the highest order.



After being shown that his video had been posted on the Screw Loose Change blog Bradley noted that, "They don't even get that the video is mocking them! One guy even posted that I don't understand irony. Don't that beat all!"

So don't get all uppity about Jason Bermas supposedly taking back an apology for saying that the firefighters were paid off because, even if you are right, you are no better. That being said, it looks to me that he was clarifying in both instances that he didn't think they were paid off as in being involved, but rather some could not take legal action after accepting the victims' compensation fund. I don't think this is accurate because it doesn't seem to me that it would apply to them unless they lost a family member, but the bottom line is I think his apology and latter statement are consistent in that he was making clear that he did not think the firefighters were involved in the plot. And don't you think it would be pertinent to mention that Dylan Avery has also apologized for the statement you quoted him on and that you said you would "move on" from talking about it? Troy most obviously has not apologized and I see no clarion call that he does.

And by the way, you suggesting that the health problems of the first responders might just be another "Gulf War Syndrome" is probably perceived as pretty damn disrespectful to them and to the vets suffering from that illness, which has not been debunked.

None of this is to say that members of the 9/11 truth movement, or this blog, always conduct themselves in the most saintly of ways, but for anything we are guilty of you are guilty of at least tenfold.

Where does that leave us? With you having to debunk the debunkers! That means us buddy. We are not a misnamed blog. We are the ones taking back the title of skeptic. Go ahead, prove me wrong!