Conspiracy Theorist Jon Gold Quits the Movement Again

...is that he cringes with embarrassment over the promotion of what he considers to be "crazy sounding" theories, such as controlled demolition, flyover, no hijackers, fake phone calls, etc., while at the same time, erring on the side of the official account EVEN THOUGH the 19 hijackers theory is the most crazy, ridiculous and implausible conspiracy theory of all.

Apparently, according to him, we come across as stereotypical crazy conspiracy theorists if we promote the idea that the whole event was staged from start to finish, yet we somehow come across as more sane- and sober-sounding by promoting stuff like "ignored warnings."

Subtle racism on Jon's part. Even if he's not aware of it on a conscious level.

we have two reports (USGS and RJ Lee Group) that found literally tons of evidence of extensive amounts of massive heat from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers that could not have been caused by jet fuel fires or open burn office fires.

we have admissions from chief investigators at NIST that they did not do their job checking for residues of high explosives because the head of the explosive controlled demolition company that was on the scene at the time of the "collapse" said they didn't need to look for it.

we have melted file cabinets, melted floor number signs, melted police badges and gun stocks, and melted concrete floor sections...

we have altered videos released from that same organization (NIST)

we have missing videos from the crash at the Pentagon.

we have lettering on a piece of debris from the Pentagon that is too small to be from Flight 77 (don't get me started on that)

We have put options, changing stories from NORAD, changing stories from Cheney, testimony from Minetta, no warning given to the Pentagon employees

... and we have a concerted effort from certain members of the Truth movement to forget all of that and focus on 19 angry Muslims so that we aren't called "conspiracy theorists" anymore.

now, where is the conspiracy theorizing in that?

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

Wow. He's get's paid for this? I wonder who pays him

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

when i click on the link at "this thread," in the blog above, i get taken to a 911blogger thread that seemingly does not contain the post "Submitted by Jon Gold on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:32pm" referenced above. was the post deleted?

the one where the FBI thriller invoked 9/11 despite being published in 1999? Where'd it go?

and Taibbi is right to say there is no evidence that shows Bush and Cheney were complicit. "Bush and Cheney did it" is a fake truther-manufactured straw man that Taibbi can quite rightly dismiss. What Taibbi could not possibly answer is how, ignoring the fakers who say that Bush and Cheney did it, WTC7 and the twin towers could have come down how they did without explosives. That's it. 10 years on and that's how simple it is to see the difference between real and fake truth seekers.

Matt Taibbi: “Of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11?
Matt-Taibbi
March 23, 2011
Author: Jon Gold
Source: 9/11 Truth News

For those of you that don’t know, Matt Taibbi is an accomplished journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine.

Over the years, he has written several good articles pertaining to things like Wall Street, health care, the housing crisis, and so on.

I even have an article of his posted on my site.

One of the other things Matt Taibbi likes to do is write hit pieces against the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here are some examples:

Before the 9/11 Conspiracies, There Was the Oklahoma Bombing

If Cheney & Co. Had Really Plotted the 9/11 Attacks …

Mailbag: Charlie Sheen, 9/11 Truthers, Oil Prices

Truthers Fight Back!

At one time, Matt and the Loose Change crew debated.

On October 6th, 2008, he debated David Ray Griffin. You can decide for yourself who won the debate.

When I first contacted Matt Taibbi, my intention was not to post this correspondence online. However, I believe it has since become worthy of publishing. I apologize to David Ray Griffin for how he was portrayed in this correspondence. My intention was to be able to talk to Matt on my own terms, and not have him look at me and the cause of 9/11 justice through the David Ray Griffin filter. David and I are two different people. We each have our own problems with the official account. There is a portion of the correspondence that says “idiot.” That was me, speaking as I thought Matt Taibbi would speak considering his opinion of David Ray Griffin.

There are portions of this exchange that got heated, and things were said. My apologies to Matt if he was offended.

I hope that Matt will take a look at the information I provided for him, and I thank him for giving me the time of day.

I asked Matt for his permission to post this, and never heard from him.

Here is our correspondence that took place on Facebook:

November 7 – 8, 2010

Jon Gold: Hi Matt… I realize that you and the designated “leader” of the 9/11 Truth Movement, David Griffin, disagree. However, you must know there are a multitude of problems with the official account of 9/11, with the investigations of 9/11, with the unanswered questions of 9/11, etc… and so on. Why can’t you just write about that?

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves

Matt Taibbi: Sir, To quote H.L. Mencken: You may be right. Sincerely, Matt Taibbi

Jon Gold: Matt… I’m seriously trying to reach out to you. Obviously, if I can “turn” someone who was against 9/11 Truth, FOR 9/11 Truth… at the very least, recognizing what I said, then that would be good for this extremely important cause… would you be willing to at least do that much? Just state (not verbatim obviously) that “even though David Ray Griffin is an idiot, I do think there are serious issues with the official account, with the investigations, and with the unanswered questions, and I feel the families seeking justice (which includes the Jersey Girls) deserve said justice.” Or something like that…

Matt Taibbi: Jon, And I’m seriously answering you: good luck with your movement. I have no interest in arguing with you. You are entitled to your beliefs. Please offer me the same respect. Sincerely, Matt T

Jon Gold: Wasn’t trying to argue with you. Was at least trying to get you to acknowledge there is more to the story than what David Ray Griffin has to say.

Matt Taibbi: Jon, No, there isn’t. It’s all equally retarded. But, you’re entitled to enjoy such diversions. Sincerely, Matt T

Jon Gold: I see. Ok. Well, at least you don’t let your bias cloud your judgement.

Matt Taibbi: The entire concept of 9/11 Truth is ridiculous and people like you are being hoodwinked by third-rate con-artists like Griffin, who do this for a living. I wonder that none of you seem to notice that all of the country’s best reporters and best investigators equally think that 9/11 Truth is a joke — people like Seymour Hersh and Wayne Barrett and Lawrence Wright — while the leading writers in your movement all have histories writing, commercially, about other conspiracy theories. If it wasn’t 9/11, it’d be Oklahoma City or the moon landing or JFK. You’re being had, don’t you get it?

Jon Gold: Lucky for me Matt, I wasn’t turned onto this cause by David Ray Griffin or any other “third-rate con-artist.” I came into this all on my own 8+ years ago, and have been working hard for it ever since. I have noticed that the “country’s best reporters and best investigators” have ignored asking ANY hard questions of 9/11. Which, is part of the reason I was trying to reach out to you. The “media” in this country have focused specifically on people like David Ray Griffin and the con-artists to illegitimize this EXTREMELY legitimate issue. But, since you see it as “retarded” (which tells me you really don’t know jack shit about this issue), I won’t “reach out” to you anymore.

Months later… after he wrote this, I decided to challenge Matt Taibbi to a debate.

March 19 – 21, 2011

Jon Gold: Would you like to have a real debate on whether or not we have been told the truth about 9/11, and if there needs to be justice and accountability for what happened that day? A real debate on a podcast. Let me know.

Matt Taibbi: Tell you what — you come up with one piece of real evidence that the US had something to do with planning 9/11, and I’ll consider it.

But if you’re going to conflate holes in the official story with evidence of US involvement, that tells me you’re not an intellectually serious person, and I’ll pass. Of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11. Governments lie about everything. But that’s a long way from complicity in the attacks.

Jon Gold: The request for a debate had nothing to do with whether or not the “US had something to do with planning 9/11.” I repeat, my request for a debate revolves around “whether or not we have been told the truth about 9/11, and if there needs to be justice and accountability for what happened that day.” You say, “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” Why that is acceptable to you, I don’t understand. I’m assuming it’s acceptable to you because you’ve done NOTHING to get to the truth and/or justice for what happened that day. At least so far as I can see. Should there be real justice and accountability for what happened?

Did you see this latest effort put forward by the September Eleventh Advocates (The Jersey Girls) and 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds?

9/11 Family Members Demand Answers from the 9/11 Commission: The Censored Testimony of FBI’s Behrooz Sarshar

The FBI “Kamikaze Pilots” Case

Does that show the “US had something to do with planning 9/11?” No. Is it another example of too many to count that justice and accountability for what happened must be demanded by all? Yes.

If you want to learn about why people like me do what we do, I suggest all of the following:

Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit

Matt Taibbi: The fact that the government failed to prevent a terrorist attack through incompetence and, on some level, corruption, is simply not high on my list of outrages, at least not compared to other things that have gone on.

It is a very different thing than causing the attacks to happen, or being part of their planning, which is what the 9/11 Truth movement continually asserts. Moreover, it continually does so in a supremely intellectually dishonest way, charging complicity and then retreating into these nebulous calls for answers to questions about the official story, when asked to produce evidence of said complicity.

But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?

Jon Gold: 9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime. That’s how I answer your question of complicity.

But hey Matt… thanks for admitting that “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” I’ll remember that the next time you take a shot at the only movement that has been supportive of the families seeking justice, and the 9/11 First Responders seeking health care.

Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11. It’s asinine and an incredible distraction.

Moreover the government’s failure in 9/11 was, comparatively speaking, a rather small-scale screwup, compared to its intentional invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its failure to police Wall Street. I’m with Noam Chomsky on this one. If you’re looking down the list of US Government outrages, 9/11 doesn’t crack the top 100.

Jon Gold: Childish insinuations? I don’t think it’s childish at all to point to suspects of a crime. Especially when there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to think so. What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.

Matt Taibbi: Exactly how are they suspects in this crime? Again, show me the evidence linking anyone in the US government to this crime. There is none; you admitted this yourself.

On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence showing that bin Laden and al-Qaeda committed this crime. And as for me not knowing what I’m talking about, how about this: I’ve actually traveled to the Middle East, to Iraq and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and I’ve met Sunni radicals and I’ve met Shia radicals, and I know firsthand how absolutely realistic it is that a group of anti-Western extremists would be motivated to commit such an act. On the other hand, I’ve met literally hundreds of American politicians, dozens of Senators and congressmen, and I’ve spoken at length with Senate 9/11 investigators; I’ve spoken repeatedly to Bob Graham, for instance, who is often cited by you people as an ally because of the so-called “missing 19 pages.” Graham thought I was kidding when I told him (and yes, I had to tell him) that there were people who thought the US was suspect in the crime.

On the other hand, who are you? Have you even once picked up the telephone in your “investigation?” You all think you know something because you surf the Internet. If you had to get your information from the real world, as I do and as all real investigators do, you’d quickly realize how silly the whole thing is.

Again, I come back to the now-unchallenged fact that you have no evidence linking the US to the planning of this crime. Show me one piece of evidence. Just one. You should have some — it’s been ten years, after all…

Jon Gold: I gave you evidence Matt. You didn’t respond to it. Here it is again… Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit. Want me to show you how to read, Matt?

And again… by questioning whether or not I actually “picked up the telephone” in my investigation shows just how ignorant you are of this cause, and especially of me and who I am.

Was it Osama bin Laden and friends that obstructed justice, that fought against the family members for an investigation, that limited the funding and time for the investigation, etc… and so on? No, it most certainly was not.

Matt Taibbi: None of that has any relevance to the planning of and/or causing of the attacks. You’re conflating apples and oranges.

I ask you again: where is the evidence that the US had anything to do with the planning of or the carrying out of the 9/11 attacks? You keep talking about the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the planning of and carrying out of the crime.

Jon Gold: It’s all relevant. I can’t help it if you choose not to read it.

You’re aware that the “Al-Qaeda” system that was used throughout the Afghanistan/Russia War continued throughout the 90?s in the Balkans, etc… and existed up until the day of 9/11, correct (according to 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Nafeez Ahmed and others)?

The next question is, was that “Al-Qaeda” system used for 9/11? Hmmm… let’s see… there’s evidence of Saudi involvement, ISI involvement… hmmm… the system that I spoke of used the Saudis, and the ISI. It also included the CIA. Hmmm…

Dick Cheney, according to ABC, Seymour Hersh, and others, used the CIA/ISI relationship to fund, train, and use “terrorists” for “terrorist” purposes inside Iran. After 9/11. Wait, you mean that’s an example of Dick Cheney’s knowledge of the system I spoke of? Again, was that system used for 9/11?

That’s just one example of an avenue you can take to point to the U.S. There are many others. The 9/11 Commission considered referring NORAD to the justice department for a criminal investigation because of their lies.

There’s so much more. However, the purpose of this exchange, as I said in the beginning, was to get you to acknowledge that “there are a multitude of problems with the official account of 9/11, with the investigations of 9/11, with the unanswered questions of 9/11, etc…” It is you that chose to make the conversation about whether or not there is evidence of the “planning of and/or causing of the attacks.”

Should there be justice and accountability for what happened? Do the family members, and the people of the world deserve it?

Jon Gold: Matt… why has our Government gone to great lengths to cover up the Saudi and Pakistani involvement in the attacks? Hmmmm?

You still haven’t addressed this in its entirety. It’s been ten years, after all… you don’t expect me to sum up ten years worth of information in one sentence do you?

I sure wish people like Dick Cheney and George Bush would have testified publicly, separately and ESPECIALLY under oath.

Jon Gold: Are we done, because I’ve got other things I can be doing.

Matt Taibbi: Get to them, then. The world I’m sure can’t wait for your activism!

"No room in the big tent for me." Jon Gold

I doubt any tent would be big enough for you Jon.

Really, it seems that Jon Gold exists in a kind of quantum flux where is both in the movement and out of the movement all at the same time.  I think we can safely surmise that it is now "OK" to express frustration with the LIHOP wing and still be "safe" to the fake truth movement.  This could mean that they want as many people on the AE911truth bandwagon for the 10th anniversary-timed sabotage (mark my words, something is going to go down, from within the fake movement, in time to hurt our credibility when we will need it most...) or that the various factions with something hide are ready to throw each other under the bus, in this case the Pentagon-protectors trying to cut the Silverstein-protectors loose.