http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-06/sundaylive-radio-broadcastuniv-col...

What happened was Jon was busy explaining that there was nothing to the news stations that reported the "collapse" of building 7 while it was still standing.

It's amazing how many OCT aspects Jon works hard to support, isn't it?

Jon was saying that it is "possible" that "somehow" the media "may" have gotten wind of the predictions about the demise of Building 7 and mistakenly reported them as fact, while the building was clearly standing there in the shot. This to Jon means there is nothing to this aspect of the story so we should stop speaking about it.

A commenter makes a very good point (which I have heard/written many times) in that how is it possible to predict an event that will later be described by NIST as the first time in history that it happened and was completely invisible from the outside of the building hours before it happened (hours before column 79 failed due to "thermal expansion" the first time in history that caused the total collapse of a steel framed building)?

Many other readers leave comments pointing out the value of that observation... Jon says only this...

"No. I have not read all of or most of NIST's report. I've never needed Controlled Demolition for this cause. The predictions about collapse and the news reports of its collapse are one aspect, and NIST's investigations are another. Do you admit that the news stations may have gotten some of those predictions, and reported on them?" Jon Gold

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-06/sundaylive-radio-broadcastuniv-col...

How is it possible that Jon has done all these years of "research" and he hasn't even read the NIST report on Building 7? To me, I would think that the entire Truth movement would take that comment, coming from a guy who seems to be a professional Truth movement/CD debunker, and use it to throw him completely out of the movement. He has NO CREDIBILITY as a researcher or as a self-appointed "leader" of the movement. Actually he should have been kicked out long ago for his constant self-promotion as the "defender of the victims families" and patting himself on the back for "all he has done for them". Frankly, I don't know a damn thing he has done for them and even if he has, wearing it like a badge of authority is tasteless and embarrassing.

I wrote about Mark L. and the "special engineer" years ago when that report first came out. There's a link to it on my site I think.

How is it that Jon spends so much time trying to debunk the work of Truth advocates while taking the NIST reports at face value and never even trying to read them? Who does that sound like? Does that sound like a Truth Advocate?

So anyway, make a long story short, a real comment by someone with a legitimate question about who this "special engineer" was (it was the guy from Protec, BTW) gets many people talking about it, and controlled demo, and Jon Gold can't bring people back to the OCT ... so he gets mad and quits... again...

actually, it is a very enlightening thread and I want to thank Gretavo for pointing it out.

Jon eventually has to resort to this ridiculously idiotically oversimplified statement to try to recoup his faltering credibility...

"Appealing to people's Sense of right and wrong, to people's morality, with good, non-crazy sounding information reaches the masses moreso than anything." Jon Gold

Got a plug for the OCT AND called us crazy to boot. I wonder which company came up with the idea to debunk 9/11 Truth from the inside?

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK