Jon Gold Still Appears to be Desperately Trying to Frame Muslims for 9/11

Over at TrueFaction they have a thread discussing "suppressed evidence" about Hani Hanjour, that has to do with how he obtained his flight certification (after failing several times he was allegedly passed by an Israeli, Eddie Shalev.)  Now, I'm not sure what the point of passing Hanjour would be, or why it matters, except maybe to create the illusion that this was a qualified pilot who could conceivably have flown AA77 into the Pentagon.  I mean, it's not like you need a pilot's license or any kind of certification to hijack a plane, right?  So anyway, whatever the case, by all accounts Hanjour could not have been at the controls of AA77.  Big problem for the OCT right?  WRONG!  Jon Gold has a knack for finding poorly sourced obscure stories based on rumors and innuendo that also serve to keep the focus on Arbas and/or Muslims as the evildoers we know and love

Jon Gold

Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:28 pm    Post subject:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2936761.ece

According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight.

Paul Thompson, author and 9/11 researcher, said Sakka’s account was credible. “I think there is a lot more about the history of the hijackers that needs to be found out and Sakka’s claim may resume the debate about just how much was known about them before 9/11,” he said.

Why does no one mention this ever?

Let me answer that question for you Jon.  Actually, YOU mention crap like this constantly.  But no one else thinks it's credible or relevant.  See, most people who understand that the official story of 9/11 is a lie understand that when all the evidence provided for a given account (like the official story) turns out to be fabricated, it is not logical to conclude that real solid evidence exists for that same claim--OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Mr. "Gold", I suggest you quit while you're ahead.  You may yet convince most people that you were genuinely interested in 9/11 truth.  Continue to persecute arabs and muslims, continue to defame them, continue to cling to the Islamofascist libel, however, and you will find few people who will give you the benefit of the doubt when the real truth is ultimately known.