The post Media Roots Interviews Jon Gold appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The report, released by a joint panel of the House and Senate intelligence committees in December 2002, contains 28 redacted pages that family members and victims say would shed new light on the hijackings. At the time the report was released, the Bush administration classified the material, but numerous sources reported it dealt with the Saudis.

“Flight 93 was supposed to have hit the Capitol Dome,” imposing a special obligation on Congress to get to the bottom of the matter, said Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham was one of the passengers who rushed the cockpit, thwarting that part of the attack. The plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the crash in Shanksville, including the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudis.

The small group was joined at a press conference at the Cannon House office building attended by Reps. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who are calling for passage of a House resolution requesting that the Obama administration make the information public.

“This is the beginning of a long process,” Jones said. “I do not believe that we as a nation will be strong unless we reveal what the 28 pages say.”

The Saudi government for years has been embroiled in litigation filed by victims, their families and insurers that suffered billions in losses at ground zero accusing the kingdom of providing financial support to Islamist charities that in turn funded al-Qaida.

One of the suits, filed by the Philadelphia firm of Cozen O’Connor, alleges the Saudis continued their support even after they were warned in the late 1990s by a delegation of senior U.S. officials of the link between the charities and terrorists.

The lawsuit, filed in 2003, has taken a long and winding road through the federal court system. In 2005, federal District Judge Richard Conway Casey granted the request of the Saudi government and an affiliated charity, the Saudi High Commission for the Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to be removed as defendants.

Casey ruled then that the charities were too far removed from the government to establish responsibility.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Casey’s ruling in 2008, but on different grounds. It found that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, suits alleging a foreign government’s involvement in terrorism can only go forward with what amounted to a sign off by the U.S. State Department. And in the case of Saudi Arabia, there had been none.

But in a surprising development, the 2nd Circuit reversed itself in December, effectively reinstating Saudi Arabia as a defendant. The court said it decided to change course because it allowed a related lawsuit to go forward on similar grounds.

Jones and Lynch introduced the resolution late last year calling on the Obama administration to make public the redacted 28 pages. At the time, Jones described the redacted material, which he had read, as “shocking.”

The 9/11 victims have gotten key support from former Sen. Bob Graham, D., Fla., who was co-chair of the joint investigation and who was one of the first on Capitol Hill to accuse the Saudi government of involvement in the attacks. Graham also provided a sworn statement in the Cozen lawsuit alleging that an obscure Saudi national who provided assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, likely was working for the Saudi government. Graham said that Omar Al-Bayoumi was “acting at the direction of elements of the Saudi government” when he helped Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar find an apartment in San Diego and provided them financial assistance before the hijackings.

The post Renewed Effort To Declassify Key Portion Of 9/11 Report appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The latest legal pursuit is that of an insurance syndicate of British insurer Lloyd’s, which says the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its banks and various charities should be financially responsible for the $215 million it paid in insurance settlements to 9/11 victims’ families.

William Doyle’s family is one of the families determined to find those who funded the attacks on 9/11. Doyle’s son, Joseph, was killed in the north tower of the World Trade Center.

William Doyle told ABC News there are “concrete facts” showing the majority of the hijackers’ funding originated from Saudi Arabia. He said the government helped “shield” some of that evidence when the joint congressional committee investigating the attacks published a report in December 2002 and redacted about 28 pages.

Doyle and others believe names of Saudi financiers and companies have been removed.

“How could they hide under diplomatic immunity?” Doyle said of those he believes have been protected. “People don’t get missiles to strike down helicopters by themselves. Someone is funding them. If someone is funding them, let it be known and cut out their funding.”

Former Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, former co-chair of the congressional committee, has called on the government to reopen its 9/11 investigation.

Thousands of individuals and companies are still pursuing a multi-district litigation suit in New York called “Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001,” which has dismissed about 127 defendants, according to the law firm Motley Rice, which represents 6,700 individuals for that case, including Doyle. There are about 24 remaining active defendants, says Motley Rice.

Craig Unger, journalist and author of “House of Bush, House of Saud,” said there is widespread reason to believe prominent Saudis were funding terrorists through Islamic charities. But the United States-Saudi relationship is “duplicitous from both sides of the fence,” in part because Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer and exporter.

“The relationship has soiled contradictions and we turn a blind eye to various aspects,” he said. “The U.S. is so dependent on oil, you don’t want to rock the boat.”

Despite unanimous dismissals of Lloyd’s nine defendants in cases in New York, the insurer’s suit, filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania on Sept. 8, claims “al Qaeda would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the September 11th attacks” without the funding.

Sean Carter, an attorney with law firm Cozen O’Connor, whose client is the Lloyd’s syndicate, said the lawsuit seeks recovery for amounts that were paid to settle claims brought against airlines and security companies related to Sept. 11.

“The theme of the lawsuit is that the ultimate responsibility for a terrorist attack of this nature should rest with parties that were intentional actors rather than parties alleged to have been merely negligent,” Carter said.

The Pennsylvania lawsuit lists nine defendants, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Red Crescent Society, which is associated with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

“Though this case has a different plaintiff, the suit is essentially based on the same claims around the tragic events of 9/11. However the court has dismissed most of the defendants,” Lynne Bernabei of the law firm Bernabei & Wachtel, representing the Saudi Red Crescent Society, told ABC News.

Bernabei said the lawsuit is another attempt to get around the rulings which have been mostly adverse to the plaintiffs. Her client was in part dismissed because it was not shown to have any involvement and because it is a sovereign defendant, or state entity, for which the requirements to sue were not met.

Mark Hansen, whose law firm, Kelloff, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the previous 9/11 suits, said the firm does not comment on pending litigation.

While 2,983 families of 9/11 victims and 2,300 physically injured have received over $7 billion from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, 94 families decided not to participate in the fund. Those families received on average an estimated $5 million each, using figures from the report of Sheila Birnbaum, the 9/11 mediator. However, that information is confidential.

Only one victim’s family is still pursuing litigation against United Airlines and security company Huntleigh under the plaintiff’s arguments they were negligent in failing to prevent the attacks. A hearing will take place Monday in New York with a trial date scheduled for November.

The post Who Funded 9/11? Families & Insurers Still Want Answers appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

During a 75-minute “initial” meeting with about 10 people whose relatives died during the terrorist attacks in New York, US Attorney General Eric Holder “broke protocol by acknowledging there is an investigation,” said an attorney for the victims’ families, Norman Siegel.

Holder “listened to their questions, told them the department was taking the allegations seriously, that the allegations were disturbing,” said the Justice Department official who confirmed a probe into the affair was running and was in a “preliminary stage.”

The official asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly about an active investigation.

“Hopefully the allegations turn out to be not true because if it’s true, it’s only more pain for 9/11 families,” said Siegel.

“If it happens to be true… the allegation is illegal both criminally and civilly… (which brings) up to 5 years of prison and punitive damages,” he added.

Siegel said the families are not accusing News Corp. of “any wrongdoing,” but he added it is “logical” to ask about what happened in the United States after revelations that reporters from the media group hacked into phones in Britain.
ADGRPID:|SERVTYPE:

Diane Horning, whose son was killed in the attacks said even an unsuccessful attempt to hack into the phones should be punished.

“The attempt to invade this privacy is reprehensible and will be treated even if this attempt was not successful,” said Horning.

News Corp. has been shaken up by a phone hacking and corruption scandal in Britain that erupted into a full-blown crisis for the Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in July and caused the media titan to close their Sunday tabloid News of the World.

The post DOJ Probes Alleged News Corp 9/11 Victim Hacking appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

“Some people have said we should go on forever,” said the mayor. “Some people have said change is good. The subject’s come up a couple of times. I think we’ve said the foundation board will talk about this… We’ll talk to a lot of the family members and talk to a lot of the existing first responders and see what people think. You’ll never have unanimity. There will always be dissension. The papers will make a big deal of it. You look at the stuff. It’s a quiet news day, cycle, in New York right now so people are trying to make a big deal.” Hmm, maybe—or maybe there’s dissension because it’s because it’s one of the most memorable parts of the ceremony for victims’ families and friends, many of whom don’t even have remains of their loved ones. First responder James O’Connell said to the Post, “How do you honor and memorialize someone if you forget their name?”

At least the tangible memorial will open this year, at least to those with strong bladders, deep pockets and Abrahamic religious convictions. Got all that? Never forget!

The post Victims' Names May No Longer Be Read At Annual Services appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

MP3 Interview with Lorie Van Auken [48:26]

Lorie Van Auken, the mother of two children, lost her husband Kenneth Van Auken in the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. She is one of the “Jersey Girls” who, along with Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza, fought the Bush administration for a commission to investigate the attacks. Ms. Van Auken is also a member of the September 11 Advocates.

The post Lorie Van Auken Interviewed by Sibel Edmonds appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Ten years later, now fully awake in the bright sunlight of the day, when I contemplate the definition of victory for our country when it comes to the death of Osama bin Laden, I can only think about the damage that has been done.

I think about the thousands of lives lost — American, Afghani, Iraqi. I know firsthand the sorrow those families have felt. I ponder how the billions — maybe trillions — of dollars could have been better spent. I remain alarmed about the continued expansion of absolute Executive power in the name of fighting this seemingly ongoing and never-ending “war on terror.” I worry about the further erosion of our constitutional rights. I wonder when our troops will ever be called home. I know all too well, that thousands of young American men and women soldiers will never have the opportunity to return home. And of course, I fear reprisal.

But more than anything, I cannot seem to remove the optics of the giddy, gleeful throngs of Americans who took to the streets celebrating in the early morning hours.

Forgive me, but I don’t want to watch uncorked champagne spill onto hallowed ground where thousands were murdered in cold blood.

And I don’t want to see any ugly blood stained sheets as proof of death or justice.

Nor do I want to think about bullet-ridden corpses being dumped into the sea.

And it breaks my heart to witness young Americans cheer any death — even the death of a horrible, evil, murderous person — like it is some raucous tailgate party on a college campus.

Why are we not somber?

Where is the deeper, more meaningful reflection?

Haven’t we learned any lessons in ten years? Paid any attention along the way? Gained any valuable wisdom? Are we really better off?

Can it ever be a true victory when so many don’t even seem to comprehend the magnitude of what has been lost along the way? Or even what the future might hold?

Was it all worth it?

As my phone rings and the media looks toward me to give them their trite, warm soundbite of closure and elation, I have to be honest, today is not a day of celebration for me.

The post Kristen Breitweiser: Today Is Not a Day of Celebration for Me appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.

Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.

It’s a requirement that was tacked onto the law during the bitter debates over it last year.

The letter from Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informs medical providers and administrators that they should begin letting patients know before the new program kicks in this July.

“This is absurd,” said Glen Kline, a former NYPD emergency services officer. “It’s silly. It’s stupid. It’s asinine.”

“It’s comical at best, and I think it’s an insult to everyone who worked on The Pile and is sick and suffering from 9/11,” said John Feal, a former construction worker who lost half a foot at Ground Zero and runs the advocacy group Fealgood Foundation.

The provision was added in an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) during the heated debate over the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last May.

Sept. 11 responders in the committee room at the time mostly shook their heads at the move, which Democrats accepted on a voice vote after battling to bar other amendments on abortion and immigration that might have killed the bill.

But suddenly the point is no longer just a strategic concession to get a law passed.

As doctors and administrators begin acting on the federal instructions, participants in the 9/11 treatment and monitoring programs will soon be told that their names, places of birth, addresses, government ID numbers and other personal data will be provided to the FBI to ensure they are not terrorists.

Howard’s instructions include a sample letter to responders designed to minimize alarm.

“Although neither we nor [the Centers for Disease Control]/NIOSH anticipate the name of any individual in the current Programs will be on the list, CDC/NIOSH is expressly required by law to implement this particular requirement of the Act,” it says.

“Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to working with you and ensuring that you continue to receive uninterrupted services under the new WTC Health Program,” it concludes.

Feal, who counts hundreds and first responders in his foundation’s membership, predicted the letters would not go over well.

“When cops and firefighters get this at home, they’re going to hit the roof,” he said.

Kline, who sits on the Fealgood Foundation’s board, said he personally wasn’t offended, but couldn’t think of a good reason for cops and firefighters to be screened by the FBI in order to keep getting treatment.

“I mean, who are we even talking about — the undocumented workers who cleaned the office buildings?” wondered Kline Thursday. “We know who all the cops, firefighters and construction workers were. They’re all documented.

“Is the idea that a terrorist stayed to help clean up? And then stayed all these years to try and get benefits?” he asked. “In all the things I’ve seen out of Washington, this probably takes the cake.”

Some are more understanding.

“Do we want terrorists getting money? No,” said Anthony Flammia, a former NYPD Highway Patrol officer and Sept. 11 responder. “How do you know if there were any terrorists there? Where they there as observers, watching? Probably.”

But he noted that his perspective likely would not be shared, especially if people whose names are similar to actual terror suspects get flagged, as happens with air travelers.

“I’ve got nothing to hide, so it’s no big deal for me, but there’s got to be safeguards in place to protect the people who are innocent,” Flammia said. “It’s going to be controversial,” he added. “It’s probably going to create an uproar, but I think it will dissipate. I hope they’re ready to answer people’s questions.”

Congressman Stearns said in a statement that his intent was to answer exactly the questions raised by Flammia.

“This amendment was adopted in the full Energy and Commerce Committee without opposition and it merely requires that the names of those receiving health benefits be cross-checked with the terrorist watch list to ensure that no terrorists get these benefits,” Stearns said.

“These benefits are not just for our first responders; nearly anyone who was in the vicinity or worked on a cleanup crew afterward is eligible,” he noted.

The prohibition is included in two parts of the bill. One specifically covers responders, while the other deals with all survivors, including office workers, bystanders and residents.

Feal acknowledged that the terrorist screening has to be done because it is the law, and that the letters have to go out.

But he holds Stearns responsible, as well as several other Republicans who were hostile to the 9/11 bill, and tried to tack all manner of amendments onto it.

“I think Congressman Stearns is stabbing at pettiness. He’s a buffoon,” Feal said. “We get sicker and die, and they’re going to disseminate a letter wondering whether we’re terrorists or not. … I think everybody needs to start showing a little more compassion.”

The post 9/11 First Responders Will Be Screened For Terrorism appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

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!

The post Matt Taibbi: "Of course we've been lied to about 9/11" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.