It Should Speak Volumes To People
Jon Gold
8/17/2013
Years ago in June 2007 when I realized that the focus of the 9/11 Truth Movement was turning more towards the alleged "Controlled Demolition" of the towers and WTC7, I wrote an article entitled, "This Is Not The Controlled Demolition Movement."
In the article, it says "is that what we're known for? Is that what we're all about? I THINK NOT. However, with all of the attention Controlled Demolition gets within this movement, I can understand why someone might think that. Not the media. Lord knows they've helped to create that appearance with their hit pieces THAT FOCUS SOLELY ON WHETHER OR NOT A MISSILE HIT THE PENTAGON, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE WTC WAS BROUGHT DOWN IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (emphasis mine). It's easier for the media to deal with us if we're only about one or two issues."
Some examples of this are available here (with exceptions for sure on which theories they focus on):
- "Debunking The 9/11 Myths: Special Report" - [Popular Mechanics, 2/2005]
- "Fahrenheit 2777" - [Scientific American, 6/2005]
- "9/11 Bush Bashers" - [World Net Daily, 8/16/2006]
- "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" - [Time, 9/3/2006]
- "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns" - [Guardian, 2/20/2007]
In their hit pieces, they won't touch things like former Senator Bob Graham's call for a new investigation (or former 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey joining him). They won't touch things like the September Eleventh Advocates statement, and 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' follow-up pertaining to Behrooz Sarshar. They won't touch this story about "insiders" having doubts about the CIA's role concerning 9/11 (and the follow-up). I have done my best to promote things like this.
Because the media has attacked, misrepresented and slandered advocates for 9/11 Justice for years, and continue to do so, and continue to use that same formula that attacks the most popular theories of the 9/11 Truth Movement while ignoring some of the most incriminating information, I am 100% certain that advocates for 9/11 Justice are, at some level, right. This should speak volumes to people. That the "methinks thou dost protest too much" mentality of our lapdog media, tells us that people like me (responsible advocates for 9/11 Justice), on some level, are right.
IT SHOULD SPEAK VOLUMES TO PEOPLE!!!
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
Washington Post Bought by Jeff Bezos
The Washington Post which, according to Wikipedia, has just been bought by CIA affiliated Jeff Bezos, that should speak volumes to people.
"Me thinks thou doth protest too much..."
is exactly what came to my mind re: Rachel Maddow's recent rants, documented here. If the 9/11 Truth & Justice movement is so insignificant, why the need to keep mentioning it? Some parties are clearly concerned that public opinion might be shifting in the direction of healthy skepticism. I agree that it does speak volumes.
But I'm not clear on what you're saying here: "Because [of this campaign to discredit]... I am 100% certain that advocates for 9/11 Justice are, at some level, right." Did you ever doubt we were?
As far as the focus on CD theories, you make a good point but I don't have a problem with it, since the unnatural destruction of the towers is a very obvious launching point for 9/11 inquiry, and one that everyone can understand. Political intricacies take more time to verify, more time to explain, and fewer people are going to take the time to educate themselves about it. But if there's a way to communicate these facts in a way that will reach a popular audience, that would be awesome.
No...
I never doubted it, but I'm making the argument that other people should see that some of us are right based on the media's actions and refusal to focus on extremely incriminating information.
As for everyone being able to understand the "unnatural destruction of the towers," I disagree, and that's all I have to say about that.