The Big Man Makes a Big Promise
Frequent visitor Jon Gold is all excited about some big Troofer related announcement tomorrow:
This Thursday in Colorado, CPT12 is going to show 9/11: Press For Truth. They are also going to have Director Ray Nowosielski, Co-creator John Duffy, and the creator of the 9/11 Timeline, Paul Thompson, on to discuss the film. During this showing, Ray and John are going to reveal something explosive that they have been working on. When I say “explosive,” I mean it. I believe that it might finally be that “foot in the door.” I believe that it will be something the media will have a hard time ignoring.
On the Truthaction forum Jon adds a little taunt:
I'm waiting for the true believers and debunkers to see their reaction. I'm sure they know "something" is happening, and are waiting to do something diabolical.
Oh, yes, I am in the bunker conferring with Dick Cheney and Queen Elizabeth as we speak.
I have my doubts about how earthshaking this really is though. A couple of weeks ago Gold made the following post on Truthaction:
Hopefully a nice surprise in the coming weeks...
Did Larry Silverstein turn himself in to the FBI? Was Manny Badillo named the new human rights commissioner for the UN? No, not quite that exciting unfortunately.
Here is part of it...
PAUL THOMPSON IS BACK!!!
Be still my beating heart. A blogger that only truthers care about has resumed blogging. I follow them more than 99% of their own movement, and I didn't even know that he left. I don't know why that didn't push the budget negotiations off the front page...
Labels: Jon Gold
posted by James B. @ 6:41 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
I'd hate to rain on the turther parade, but...who is Paul Thompson?
Be still my beating heart
Yes, I agree!!!
It's SO exciting!!!!
Wow, this will shake the NWO to its Facist boots!!!
Just like all the other explosive revelations....oh.....er....erm...
So many "bombshells" from the truthers over the years, we should all be deafened or shell shock by now.
It's about damn time that the truthers come out with something "big". It's been almost 10 years of nanothermite, micro-nukes, modified attack baboons, death ray beams from space, and holographic planes.
And I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't mention Jon's shocker from last week, that secret government documents show that Islamic fundamentalists from the Arabian Peninsula might be connected to the attacks.
I thought the issue was Saudi funding, which you pretend to be unsurprised by, but which is definitely not part of the official story. In fact the 9/11 Commission bent over backwards to poo-poo the whole idea, saying that since the alleged hijackers had many potential sources of funds, the question of where they got their money was "of little practical significance".
Of course anyone who knows about organized crime knows that the way you get them is to "follow the money". The 9/11 Commission's refusal to do so was most revelatory.
I thought the issue was Saudi funding
The issue was "Saudi involvement", where both "Saudi" and "involvement" mean nothing in particular.
And I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't mention Jon's shocker from last week, that secret government documents show that Islamic fundamentalists from the Arabian Peninsula might be connected to the attacks.
Damn! Next you're going to tell me that it was Japan and not Estonia who attacked Pearl Harbor!
Of course anyone who knows about organized crime knows that the way you get them is to "follow the money".
Brian's understanding of organized crime comes from watching "The Boondock Saints" while huffing glue at 3 am.
No, the fact that Saudis fund al Qaeda has been known for years. Entire books have been written on the subject. You intentionally avoid the fact that the 9/11 Commission was set up to determine how the attacks were able to be carried out successfully and how to recommend changes to policy in order to prevent them from happening again, not to have Lee Hamilton personally hunt down and destroy al Qaeda. Whether the Commission was concerned with their funding or not, I can guarantee you that the CIA, FBI and the Treasury Department were very concerned, and certainly have put more work into this issue than any Troofer investigoogling.
Be still my beating heart.
That was probably the funniest thing I've read all day.
SoJames B, what you're telling us is that the funding of al Qaeda was outside the bailiwick of the 9/11 Commission, even though they were charged with giving a full accounting of the events of 9/11--but that's OK because the FBI, the CIA, and Treasury were on the job.
So I guess we needn't worry about it, even though we've got no reason to believe they've done a damn thing, because it's none of our damn business anyway, right?
So I guess we needn't worry about it, even though we've got no reason to believe they've done a damn thing, because it's none of our damn business anyway, right?
In one thread, Brian is squealing about how they FBI, CIA, and Treasury haven't done a damn thing. In another thread, he's squealing about how unfair it was to kill Osama bin Laden.
Brian, I understand that your pathetic, failed life has no meaning without 9/11 truth and that's why you twist yourself into knots desperately trying to keep these delusions going, but it's still hilarious to see you do so.
Ok, I guess the big news is Richard Clarkes' speculation, and he admits it is speculation, that the CIA might have tried, and failed, to recruit 2 of the hijackers. Uh, isn't it the job of the CIA to recruit intelligence sources? All that would prove is the hijackers didn't work for the CIA! I think Paul Thompson returning was bigger news than this.
Ian, it's not a question of unfair. It's a matter of illegal, damaging from an intelligence standpoint, unsatisfactory from an historical epistemology standpoint, and providing fuel for conspiracy theories to endure 10,000 years.
James B, the notion that the CIA, for intel purposes, let the Malaysia-summit operatives have breathing room has been around for years.
Of course there's little conflict between letting them breathe and keeping them under observation. If they had simply checked the credit card file, they would have seen that al Mihdhar and al Hazmi bought ten airline tickets for 9/11/01.
Also, a recruitment effort by one arm of the CIA would by no means prove that the ops were not already agents of another arm. Need to know and all that, right?
I know, Lawrence Wright speculated about this. That is why there is no news here.
Paul Thompson is the creator of the Terror Timeline, which I described a few years back as half valuable resource and half conspiracy BS. Unfortunately, since Fenton's been editing it, much of the value has gone out of the site. The dolt apparently has never heard of the Wayback Machine, and thus he's been busily scrubbing the site of dead links and not fixing them with archive.org links.
Richard Clarke has new speculation? I read the Shenon article and let's just say I'm underwhelmed.
Ian, it's not a question of unfair. It's a matter of illegal, damaging from an intelligence standpoint, unsatisfactory from an historical epistemology standpoint, and providing fuel for conspiracy theories to endure 10,000 years.
Brian has been sniffing the good glue tonight.
Anyway, Brian, what do you think is more likely: that your squealing will bring bin Laden back from the dead, or that the widows will have their questions answered?
I go with the former.
Using an IPA analysis:
It would be remiss of me, to request you "debunk" the facts.
Of course, if the ends justify the means or if you just don`t want others to believe in your own personal manifesto....
Who cares about your sophmoric findings...your challenging a quasi-conspiracy theorist group..
try spitting into the wind...
you'll get the same results.
Nobody gives a rat's ass in the end.
Can you get me an interview w/ Fliesher? Or that math teacher in
Saudi arabia who got all those awards last year, but our govt claims he died flying a plane into the wtc 10 years ago?
Hmmm. didn`t think so....
The real ? for the modern socail anthropoligists in the future will only be:
Did they know beforehand if they were red, blue...and/or ...pink?
Post a Comment
<< Home