View Full Version : Their Words On Paper

08-26-2008, 10:26 AM
Their Words On Paper

Jon Gold

As 9/11 Family Member, and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza said (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17519), "one of the reasons why we still continued to fight with... for the Commission, even as we knew it was a farce, is we wanted their words, their lies down on paper."

As most of you know, I have never been a huge advocate for the idea that a "Controlled Demolition" took place at the World Trade Center. Reason being, I'm simply not qualified to tell someone if that did, in fact, happen. Also, for years, the media has tried to paint us as a movement filled with "conspiracy theorists" that think "explosives brought down the World Trade Center", and a "missile hit the Pentagon" without mentioning the 1000's of other problems with the official account. As a result, I can't tell you how many times during activism I've had people come up to me and say, "you're one of those people that think explosives brought down the buildings" as if to say, "you're one of those crazy people that I should ignore." So, I've always tried to push other incriminating information that the media and others DON'T like to talk about.

On 8/21/2008, NIST released their final report that supposedly explains how WTC7 collapsed. Now that we know their side of the story (their words on paper), as has been the case with every report regarding 9/11, I now have more questions than answers.

First of all, when NIST admitted (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html) that "this was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that it was an "extraordinary event," alarm bells went off for me.

If this was the ONLY "extraordinary event" that took place with regards to 9/11, then MAYBE I wouldn't think twice about it. However, that is not the case. The fact that the most defended airspace in the world (Washington D.C.) was left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when EVERYONE in the world KNEW America was "under attack," was an "extraordinary event." The fact that some of our elected and appointed officials in Washington D.C. were meeting with an alleged paymaster for the 9/11 attacks in the weeks prior to 9/11, on the day of 9/11, and in the days after 9/11, were "extraordinary events." The fact that the President and Vice President of the United States didn't want to investigate the attacks, and in fact, fought against the family members who wanted an investigation, was an "extraordinary event." The fact that the last person on Earth that should have been made the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, WAS MADE the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, was an "extraordinary event." When you have SO MANY "extraordinary events" taking place, one has to wonder if there is more to the story than what we're being told.

Secondly, after listening to Dr. Shyam Sunder during his interview on No Lies Radio (http://www.911blogger.com/node/17316), I was shocked at some of the things he had to say. For instance, they apparently looked at the alternative hypothesis (Controlled Demolition/explosives in the building) without talking to the individuals promoting those hypothesis (Steven Jones/Richard Gage/Kevin Ryan). That makes absolutely no sense to me. One of the things I've learned during my time with the 9/11 Truth Movement is that you ALWAYS go to the source. Since they didn't do that, I am not convinced that they thoroughly "debunked" what Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, and Kevin Ryan have to say.

Again, I am not qualified to tell you what happened to those buildings, and again, I am STILL a firm believer that it is better to promote that which they don't want you to, or that which the media hasn't prepped the public to disregard. However, now that their words are on paper, I am simply not convinced that they are right, and/or telling the truth about how WTC7 collapsed. In fact, now that I have seen their words on paper, I am more prone to think that Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, and Kevin Ryan might be right.

08-26-2008, 08:12 PM
Something this made me think of...

"You can do an investigation, and if you don't really want to research an area, you just don't look at it. If you don't ask them all of the questions, or you don't let them tell you the whole story, ya know... then you can write a report based on half-truths." - Mindy Kleinberg