All That Glitters is Jon Gold

Posted: July 6, 2012 in 911

 If the facts truly spoke for themselves there would be no lawyers….

Jon Gold: Here’s another “debunking” that attempts to portray the question of how those buildings came down as the end-all/be-all of 9/11 Justice. As if it’s the ONLY problem. Nope, sorry, it’s not.

Johnathan: You’re right it’s not the “ONLY problem” … However that blog post doesn’t go anywhere and neither does the “9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS” Face Book page… All they do is say things to intellectually intimidate people like “These videos are just nails in the coffin of an already-defunct twoofer movement” with no specific links to their “irrefutable results” … Then they post some lame pictures of nothing even remotely close to a testable rebuilt section of the wtc or a bomb test of any kind … They just dump a huge pile of purposefully confusing crap on you and say “Oh, it’s in there!!” … Like you’re some kind of wussy terrorist sympathizer to believe otherwise … They hope days of actual research will deter the lazy average Joe to take their word for it … These guys do the exact same thing with your “facts speak for themselves” series all the time … I’ve specifically seen them on several occasions … At first they seem quite convincing but their attempt to defame your work is no less pathetic I assure you … If you don’t believe me join the group and re-post your article … Let’s experiment and see what they say ….

Jon Gold: They tried. A “debunking” is when I say A, and someone proves that A never happened or isn’t true. They can “spin” my work all they want, but they can’t prove any of it is false or untrue.

Johnathan: What’s the matter? … You don’t feel like wasting two days mopping up the floor with them on a post they’ll just delete anyway? … wth?  … My point is THEY will call it a debunking whether it is or isn’t just like they did on that blog post you used as an example ….

Jon Gold: YOU can post my work wherever you like, however, I suggest if you really want to stuff it to them you post my “official start up kit” in its entirety. And no… I don’t spend time arguing with debunkers unless it means something.

Johnathan: The “Debunking of Jon Gold” they’ll call it as they give each other high fives ….

Jon Gold: I’m sure. SLC already posted their “debunking” of it… They touched 5 or 6 facts, forgot the rest… I corrected one thing they pointed out.

Hoz Turner: Well said Jon. I grow tired of hearing about exploding buildings. I’ve said this many times before. It’s far easier to obfuscate the technical/science aspects of 9/11 than the more simpler facts surrounding the Commission. And no debunker, I couldn’t give a fuck who they are – can actually claim that the unanswered questions of the FSC have been answered.

Johnathan: I’ll expect to see your attempt on the “9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS” Face Book page too then Hoz … Put them out of their technical/science aspect misery ….

Hoz Turner: Read the caption.



Johnathan: Ya, let me know when you have them seeing the error of their ways over there … I’ll come check it out.

Hoz Turner: I’m not qualified. Are you an engineer?

Johnathan: Why aren’t you qualified to post on the “9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS” Face Book page? … They probably work at a car wash or something they aren’t engineers … And you don’t have to be an “engineer” to post Jon’s “The Facts Speak for Themselves” … I’m sure he won’t mind ….

Experiment … I contend that it doesn’t matter what “Facts” you put in front of them, they will still ASSERT that you are debunked … You apparently contend that they will suddenly see the light ….

Hoz Turner:  Somethings are far harder to obfuscate and you know it!

Johnathan: Make it as simple as you want … Hell, worst case scenario you’re right and you finally crack the illusive formula for instantly snatching guys like this from their slumber … That’s win win for you ….

Dirk Gerhardt: @Jon, It’s not the scientist’s fault that the media tries to pin it as the last mystery (which it is not). Don’t attack the science behind the demolition, just send your message straight into air. There ARE MANY MORE hints for 9/11 as inside job. Besides science, which nevertheless is the strongest evidence we have right now.

Jon Gold: Dirk… The “movement” tries to pin it as the last mystery as well. Building What? anyone? It’s been gradually getting that way since Nov. 05 when Steven Jones came out.

Dirk Gerhardt: It’s our best evidence- all other stuff was known for years before to no avail. BUT: Keep your message strong, focused, there IS more, without putting to much energy on arguing AGAINST the science, sorry, I have no better words for that. I hope you get what I mean.

Jon Gold: Actually Dirk… it’s not. If it was, then Popular Mechanics couldn’t write their debunking, or the 100’s of other sites couldn’t debunk it. National Geographic, the BBC, etc… couldn’t make their debunking documentaries. Jonathan Kay, and Michael Shermer, and all of the other professional debunkers couldn’t write their multitude of hit pieces over the years if it was our “best evidence.”

Before Controlled Demolition, there was a 9/11 Truth Movement that focused on things like the unanswered questions of the families, the ridiculousness of the 9/11 Commission, etc… and we would hold hearings like the 9/11 Omission Hearings on 9/9/2004, or the People’s Commission on 9/11/2004, or the 9/11 Congressional Briefing chaired by Cynthia McKinney on 7/22/2005… hearings that never once mentioned the “science.”

That’s when we were at our most lethal. The media wouldn’t even touch us back then. Not even to mock us.

There has been an obvious concerted effort over the years to make “Controlled Demolition” synonymous with 9/11 Truth. There was a time years ago when “Controlled Demolition” or at least the promotion of “Controlled Demolition” was frowned upon within the 9/11 Truth Movement. For instance, this statement that got so much news coverage because of Van Jones didn’t even mention it.

The reason was, a lot of people were influenced by Michael Ruppert’s “The Truth & Lies About 9/11.” This is the segment of that film that influenced a lot of people.

Then people like Lisa Guliani and Victor Thorne started attacking people for not mentioning “Controlled Demolition.” They would show up at events with their sign, and everyone would have a problem with them.

Nico Haupt would attack as well.

Kyle Hence confronted Lee Hamilton about Pakistan in a meeting specifically about Pakistan, and WingTV attacked him for not speaking about “Controlled Demolition.”

I believe when Michael Wolsey was interviewed by WingTV, they tried to make him denounce Kyle Hence, and he wouldn’t, and rightly so.

Steven Jones came out on 11/10/2005. On 11/14/2005, he was on Tucker Carlson so Tucker Carlson could make him look foolish by not showing the video, etc… we were fighting for media coverage, and could never get it, and suddenly they were willing to have him on? They jumped at the opportunity.

Then there were the “debunkers” who would show up at who could ONLY speak about “Controlled Demolition.” If you tried to talk about anything else, they would ALWAYS bring the discussion back to “Controlled Demolition.”

I can’t find a specific thread with an example of Terrence doing his “we must talk about CD” schtick, but here’s an old thread where I say, “I was sure he would at least tackle WTC 7.” I said that because that’s what he used to focus on. I imagine that there are several people who could back me up that in “debates” with “debunkers” over the years, they have had the experience where everything must be about “Controlled Demolition.” There are entire “debunker” sites devoted to “Controlled Demolition.”

Do I need to talk about the site that everyone knows and hates, and how they have pretty much taken over for Lisa and Victor?

The BBC, National Geographic… basically all documentaries denouncing this cause have focused on “Controlled Demolition.”

Every time someone would get a mainstream media spot, people would show up on and say, “as long as you talk about WTC7, then that’s all that matters.” I used to beg people who were going to get on the TV to talk about the commission, the families, etc… and they never did.

On, there were individuals “bullying” people into accepting “Controlled Demolition.”

As I said, I think they are right. That’s why I have an archive about Steven Jones. I have spoken to 9/11 First Responders who talked about how many boots they went through because the pit was that hot. The “pulverization” of the dust is heavily documented. Especially in a lot of news concerning the environmental impact of 9/11. NIST’s unwillingness to look at Steven Jones’ findings doesn’t sit well with me.

See this video?

That is where we are now. As Nicholas Filipelli mentioned:

“Since it sounds so out there on its face, many people are immediately turned off and look no further into the issue, believing that those people with signs and bullhorns on the corner are just nutters who need to get jobs.

Ive seen it happen, its been documented on forums, websites and videos. How does the movement combat the perception that the only thing we care about is proving that 3 buildings were demolished in broad daylight?”

I think they are right, but I also think there has been a concerted effort to make “Controlled Demolition” synonymous with 9/11 Truth because the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

I think we need to change the way people perceive us, and I’m not the only one who thinks so.

That is essentially what I was trying to convey here.

the media, the debunkers, and certain 9/11 activists over the years made it the focal point. I saw what was happening, and I wrote this…

I wrote that in June 2007… that’s an indication of how long this process has been going on. And here we are today. Everything is about CD.

‎”It’s easier for the media to deal with us if we’re only about one or two issues.”

I repeated that during my talk at Camp OUT NOW.

Johnathan: Geez … It must be really hard living up there on your high horse Jon … Good thing Hoz is up there to keep you company ….

Jon Gold: Anything in my link a detriment to the cause Johnathan? I mean, I can see where helping out the families could be a bad thing, right? Sticking to credible information, etc… All a bad thing, right Johnathan?

Johnathan: Last I checked most of the family members, Jersey Girls included endorsed the efforts of “” …

Jon Gold: Yup, they did endorse them. Does that mean they think it should be front and center all the time? I think their endorsement of their efforts, and saying that are two different things. Remember, it was the Jersey Girls who were the MOST careful over the years.

Hoz Turner: Nowhere have I read that the Jersey Girls agreed with the claim that the buildings were demolished. They supported a new investigation into the collapses – but from reading a letter they wrote; it seems to focus more on safety issues and lack of accountability.

Jon Gold: When you find something in my links that you think is a detriment to the cause, let me know.

Johnathan: I think you and Hoz should put up or shut up and go prove your theory that “justice would have been served years ago” if it weren’t for those pesky architects and engineers….

Jon Gold: I think you should put up or shut up. Show me something in my links that is a detriment. Show me where the media debunked 9/11: Press For Truth. Can you explain to me why the media has made an extra effort to avoid a movie like that Johnathan? Tell me why the media latched onto Loose Change, and completely ignored 9/11: Press For Truth. C’mon Johnathan… Explain it to me like I’m a 4 year old.

Johnathan: didn’t show up till after 2006 … And the 911 commission is what the family members got for their trouble before that time so I just don’t see where you guys get off blaming Ae911 for a lack of accountability….

Jon Gold: The Jersey Girls from what I understand, because of their EXTREMELY sarcastic letter about NIST’s WTC7 report, think there were explosives in the buildings. Again, does that mean they think it should be front and center all of the time? I don’t think so.

Hoz Turner: There is nothing in that building 7 letter that shows they think there were explosives. Maybe some of them think that now though. Whatever.

Jon Gold: No, it was an extremely sarcastic letter. But guess what? I don’t speak for them.

Johnathan: YOU personally post your article on the “9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS” Face Book page and you will find detriment I assure you ….

Jon Gold: But it is our “theories” that our adversaries mock relentlessly. However, when confronted with the facts, they have a hard time dealing with it. For instance…



Sean Hannity agrees with regards to the 9/11 Commission? What?!? This is the same individual who spent an inordinate amount of time attacking us.

My point is, Hannity couldn’t do anything but agree with Jesse. Because he knew he had nothing. Remember that the 9/11 Commission was sold to the world as the definitive account of 9/11. How easy is that to disprove? Extremely. And it doesn’t sound crazy, it doesn’t cause a “knee jerk reaction” in people, etc… and so on.

Johnathan: I’m a big fan of Sean Hannity … I love to hate him ….

I am confused about one thing though … The last time I spoke to Richard Gage about you and your opinion of his work he refused to comment saying that the two of you are good friends … Yet you bash him here at every opportunity … Why the disconnect between you two if you are indeed friends? ….

Jon Gold: When did I bash Richard? When have I ever bashed Richard Gage?

Johnathan: You act like the controlled demolition ae911truth aspect is the scourge of the truth movement … Ae911truth is specifically Richard’s work … Therefore Richard Gage according to your opinion is a detriment to the movement and a big fat waste of time … Why?

Jon Gold: When have I ever bashed Show me a for instance? Are you talking about how I think the 9/11 Truth Movement should lead with something other than “Controlled Demolition?” How is that opinion an attack against Richard Gage and

In case you couldn’t tell, people believe what the TV tells them, and that the TV has told them that we are a group of people who think that “explosives were planted in the buildings,” that “a missile hit the Pentagon,” that we are “anti-semitic holocaust denying murdering psycho terrorist sympathizers who drink kool aid,” and that it might be in our best interest to act DIFFERENTLY than what the TV tells people.

Johnathan: I’m talking about when you say things like … “If it wasn’t for all of this controlled demolition garbage we would have seen justice for 911 years ago” … I’m loosely translating of course… So are you now saying that you endorse Richard’s work in particular?

Because, like I was saying, Debunkers will say that shit anyway … That’s what they are there for … My question is sound, I would appreciate an answer that is in the form of yes or no ….

Jon Gold: Sure, I support, and Richard Gage.

Johnathan: OK, we agree then … Again … That said, I didn’t find anything detrimental to the 911 truth movement in the links you posted … But I never did to begin with … The people at “9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS” did.


Comments are closed.