email
print
font size
comments
44
options
 

The Truth About Truthers

Scenes from the fractured 9/11 activist movement.

Alyssa Grenning

Confession: Sometimes, late at night, I like to go online and argue with truthers. Or I used to. It would go like this:

Somebody posts a photo on a message board with a title like "Image of the Pentagon Impact area on 9/11. How the hell can anyone with a brain think this was caused by a Boeing 757?" I click. It's a low-resolution ground-level shot of the smoking Pentagon. Using Photoshop, or MS Paint maybe, somebody has drawn a pair of circles — one around some flames on the left and another around a damaged piece of wall on the right. I go to the comments.

Ah, yes, there it is: the single missile theory.

The SMT is pretty simple: What if it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, but a cruise missile (or, as per the most extreme iterations, a missile cloaked in a hologram to make it look like a plane)? No matter how wildly it swerves from most eyewitness accounts, not to mention the official account described in the 9/11 Commission Report, the SMT has likely persisted because (A) that hole in the wall looks kinda small and (B) unlike the attacks on the World Trade Center, no clear footage of the attack on the Pentagon has been released.

All we have is five frames from a parking lot security camera that seem to show the plane crossing the Pentagon lawn and exploding on the western wall. Other footage, from traffic cams and such, was supposedly confiscated by federal investigators soon after the attack and has not yet seen the light of day.

The SMT really bugs me. By the time the Pentagon was attacked, the perpetrators had already proven they could hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Why would they need a missile an hour later? I wrote something to that effect on the message board. Most people said they didn't know. One person said this:

"I don't think there were any planes. There is a video out there that compiles footage from all news broadcasts around the planet and surmises they were all off of one feed. Seriously, if there is no plane at the Pentagon or the field, then why would there be one at the WTC? It's too easy, the people that were called in as 'witnesses' all worked for the networks and therefore are inherently biased based on the BS we are being fed."

That's one of the nagging little problems with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just when you think you've found a starting point to discuss the issues, the rabbit hole goes even deeper. The answer is often a larger conspiracy.

The bigger problem with the 9/11 Truth Movement is that there's no such thing as a unified, coherent 9/11 Truth Movement.

Alyssa Grenning

On Jan. 31, 2011, Jon Gold drove from his home in Plymouth Meeting to Washington, D.C., and handcuffed himself to the White House fence. He had a big, professionally made sign that read, "We were LIED to about 9/11." Even though he'd hyped the stunt on his website for a month beforehand, his friend with a video camera was the only other activist to show up and support him. Police, park police and maybe even Secret Service did stop by at various times. He was eventually freed with bolt-cutters and arrested.

Gold is the kind of guy journalists like to call "a man without a country." He believes his actual country has covered up the true nature of its biggest tragedy. And the people you'd think would be his people, the truthers, he wants nothing to do with.

One of the 260-plus videos Gold has uploaded onto his YouTube channel illustrates his feelings about most of his "fellow" activists. Circus music. A title card that says, "The following crap hurts the cause of 9/11 Justice." Then a laundry list of the stuff that often gets his peers labeled as crackpots: missiles, holograms, CGI, mini-nukes, laser beams from space, chemtrails (more on those later), man-made earthquakes, UFOs, the Illuminati, the Jews, plane-swaps, hijackers who didn't die, and about a dozen other things.

"It's sad. There are people on the fringe, the authors, who constantly write books, who promote crappy information, and people who mean well pick up on this and they start pushing it." This is Gold, when he and I meet up for coffee near South Street. "There was a time back in 2006 when we were very, I don't know if you would say powerful, but we had a lot of members and the media started to focus on us. But who did they focus on? They focused on people like Kevin Barrett, who [says] Israel's responsible for everything, you know? They focused on Webster Tarpley [a promoter of the "9/11 was an inside job" idea], who's just a charlatan. They focused on the fringe."

Gold laughs when I ask whether he ever finds himself arguing with that fringe.

"All the time. I call them out as often as possible because I want there to be clear evidence that I am not associated with those people."

After Sept. 11, Gold got swept up in the "patriotic binge" — waving the flag, supporting the war. Some of that started to erode as he watched the news. He remembers CNN reporting Jan. 29, 2002, that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney each separately asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the scope of the post-9/11 investigation. Says Gold: "And I thought, why would the vice president and the president, of all people, not want to know exactly how and why this happened so as to make sure it could never happen again?"

Then there was the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief, eventually made public, titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." "After that came out and I saw that we were being lied to, and then I saw how they were using the 9/11 attacks, I just — I was furious, and it was off to the races."

He's been at it for nearly a decade. "I'm very old-school 9/11 Truth, which means I support the families and I support the responders," he says. That's something you don't hear in most truther rhetoric: mentions of the 2,977 who died, and their families, and the first responders, and their quest for health care. Gold helped fund the 2006 documentary 9/11: Press for Truth, in which the families of victims, like the Jersey Girls, express their frustration in getting answers from the government about who knew what ahead of time, which warnings we ignored, and why more wasn't done that day. Gold also tends to cite mainstream sources, like FBI documents and news reports, on his website and at public appearances. He espouses no theory.

"I know more about 9/11 than probably most people on the planet, and I don't know what happened that day, I don't know who was ultimately responsible. But I look at 9/11 as a crime as opposed to an act of war, and as with every crime, there are suspects for that crime, and along with Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 19 hijackers, elements within our government and other governments had more than earned the title of suspect for the crime. More than earned."

I'm on the second floor of an unmarked building in Northern Liberties watching a cartoon about the evils of the Federal Reserve Bank. There are about 20 of us, maybe fewer, sitting on couches. The plot revolves around a cool dude telling his clueless friend about how the Fed — depicted as a monstrous, black tentacled beast — is a privately owned and utterly unregulated money-sucker. The movie's kinda funny and mostly pretty straightforward. There's a lot of Google-able stuff about the gold standard. But it does take a dubious detour to explain how JFK got assassinated not long after announcing his intentions to end the Fed. During the quieter parts, we can hear the jubilant outbursts of a yoga class through the walls.

Not 9/11-related, as far as I know. Why am I here? Well, this is a public meeting by a group currently called Truth, Freedom, Prosperity, but they used to call themselves Philly 9/11 Truth, and they still list that as one of their concerns, along with financial and economic freedom, alternative energy technologies, "legalization of nature," etc.

After the movie, organizer Michael Salvi, a friendly guy in a mock-Phillies T-shirt ("Liberty" in the team's script on the front, "Ron Paul" on the back), leads an open forum discussion. A couple people discredit the JFK thing, there's talk about what the average person can do about the Fed, somebody asks if he should buy gold for "when the whole thing comes crashing down."

Page:   1  of  3  View All
1 |   2 |   3      Next»
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:57 AM, 08/25/2011
    Thank you Philadelphia City Paper and Patrick Rapa for covering this extremely important issue. This is a fair and balanced article. Something you don't ordinarily see on the subject.
    Jon Gold
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:37 AM, 08/25/2011
    This is about the first US citizen indicted on the Patriot Act. She worked for the Cia in Iraq and Libyia. Start the video at the 6 min mark or you will not make it. Watch it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G43zl4fzDQg
    jayeats
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:22 PM, 08/25/2011
    By the way thank you for your article, there are millions of others out there that feel the same. There is a lot of fear and shame that has slowed down justice for the crimes of 9/11. The hero's of America don't all wear capes they hold pens, they are writers like yourself you are a hero to me. Keep up the good work someday America will unite around this and become a stronger country for it.
    jayeats
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:18 PM, 08/25/2011
    Despite spending ten years of his life on this topic, Jon Gold has only the vaguest idea of what he wants. An international body of some kind? With subpoena power and the ability to put witnesses under oath? Don't those last two require the government? Oh, but the government can't be involved according to Jon.
    Pat Curley
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:35 PM, 08/25/2011
    Pat seems to forget the effort in 2004 to get Atty Gen. Eliot Spitzer to open an investigation, the effort in 2005 to get the United Nations to do it, the NYC Ballot Initiative that, if passed, would have created a commission. None of these efforts have panned out. Hence, "I don't know." I'm sure if the family members or someone manages to build a credible lawsuit, we may see something in a court room.
    Jon Gold
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:20 PM, 08/25/2011
    Shallow "journalism" from Philadelphia's City Paper - Patrick Rapa carefully constructs his "9/11 truthers" as STRAWMEN, then knocks them down with facile ignorance and "guilt by association." Rapa's "Truth About Truthers" seeks to marginalize and stereotype those who sincerely seek the facts about what really happened on September 11, 2001. Rapa ignores the science of molten steel at Ground Zero to target on the unknowable's at the Pentagon. To his credit, Rapa obtains some good 9/11 vids, including "9/11: Blueprint for Truth," an excellent documentary from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. There’s no word in the article, however, if the reporter even viewed the documentation he obtained. How did this get past the editors at City Paper? Sloppy fielding.
    John Edmiston Milich
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:19 PM, 08/25/2011
    Patrick Rapa didn't do a good job in this piece. So many people agree on some simple needs. Where is the mention of all the family members who supported the ballot initiative in New York City a couple of years ago? What about the www.RememberBuilding7.org/10 campaign that shows military, first responder, family member working together? What about www.Firefightersfor911Truth.org? And Military Officers for 9/11 Truth (www.mo911truth.org)? Rapa mentions building 7, but fails to identify one fact when there are facts listed right here www.rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7 Even the last poll taken about 7 shows that half of New Yorkers want it investigated. I don't know, but I think a lot of people who know the truth are a lot more unified than this article leads one to believe. Another sad day for journalism.
    FamilyMember
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:10 PM, 08/25/2011
    Pat Curley wants to know why the government cannot be trusted to investigate this crime - one only needs to examine the whitewash of the 9/11 Omission Commission that's been discredited by its chairman and other members.
    As for Jon Gold's statement that, "the family members or someone manages to build a credible lawsuit, we may see something in a court room," that's *already* happening.
    APRIL GALLOP, a Pentagon employee and U.S. Army officer Court FILED SUIT in New Haven's Federal Court in April 2011 - only to have the case DISMISSED BY BUSH FAMILY MEMBER JUDGE JOHN M. WALKER.

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-fix-is-in-bush-cousin-presides-over-911-suit-against-cheney-rumsfeld/
    "Gallop, a former U.S. Army executive administrative assistant (with top secret clearance), is suing for damages in connection with injuries she and her newborn son suffered in the supposed terrorist attack at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. The two were injured when the allegedly hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 supposedly slammed into the building. Gallop and many others in the 9/11 Truth movement contend that explosives were planted inside the Pentagon and that Flight 77 never hit the building."

    What say now, Pat?
    John Edmiston Milich
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:24 PM, 08/25/2011
    Why doesn't Patrick Rapa interview April Gallop?

    More on April Gallop's case being dismissed by Judge John M. Walker, the first cousin of Poppy Bush and the second cousin of GW Bush, a party in Ms. Gallop's lawsuit:


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24475

    Mary W Maxwell writes in Global Research:
    "On April 4, 2011, in New Haven, Connecticut, three judges of the Second Circuit sat to hear the appeal in Cheney v Gallop. It was soon announced in the press (of course I mean the alternative press; big media are keeping a lid on the existence of Ms Gallop) that one of the judges is Judge Walker, a first cousin of former President Bush. This fact should be ignored. It is such an egregious breach of ethics that it almost certainly has occurred for purposes of ‘rubbing it in’ to the public (as in “See? See what we can do to you?”) Best to pay it no mind. Judge Walker is oath-bound to handle the case as he would for complete strangers.

    The best use that can be made of this case – and I urge full frontal plagiarism of my comments above – would be to share it with persons who, after a decade, still go for the Arab-hijacker version of 9/11. Just ask them, “Do you think Ms Gallop is entitled to her day in court?”

    Mary W Maxwell, PhD, lives in Australia. Please see www.ProsecutionForTreason.com.



    John Edmiston Milich
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:10 PM, 08/25/2011
    On a positive note, the graphics by Alyssa Grenning are super!
    John Edmiston Milich
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:49 PM, 08/25/2011
    Every movement has its fringe elements. We are not a top-down organization. Some bring their expertise to the table. Others bring only their enthusiasm. It is shoddy journalism to poke fun at the fringes and ignore the solid core. (Jon ["f--k science"] Gold is not entirely on the fringe, but his comment that this is a balanced article is pretty far out there.) You pay lip service to wanting to encounter the hard core science of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but you don't lift a finger (or a telephone) to have a conversation with any of us involved in the scientific research. If you're a REAL journalist and sincerely want to know the "Truth about Truthers" come to the Toronto Hearings: http://torontohearings.org/ on Sept. 8-11. The scientific and academic core of the movement will be there. -- David Chandler, http://911swpeakout.org
    David Chandler
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:53 PM, 08/25/2011
    Sorry, that's http://911speakout.org
    --David Chandler
    David Chandler
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:09 AM, 08/26/2011
    Truthers, birthers, all silliness. Some things are just what you see.
    jonline
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:19 PM, 09/02/2011
    Since when is it "silly" to question your government.
    mikereis
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:35 AM, 08/26/2011
    Hey David Chandler… All I have to say is f*ck science. F*ck science that is sold to us as "peer reviewed," but published in a pay-to-play journal. F*ck science that is sold to us as "peer reviewed," but is partially peer reviewed by someone claiming the 9/11 victims are alive and well and living on a tropical island receiving a Government stipend. F*ck science that is originated by someone advocating man-made earthquakes and perpetual motion machines. F*ck science that is being promoted by individuals setting up groups like "Scholars For 9/11 Truth" that started the first big divide in this movement. F*ck science when it's promoted publicly, sounds batshit crazy, and has no basis in fact whatsoever. F*ck science like "space beams," and those who endorse it, or the writers of such science. F*ck science that is forced on everyone that results in accusations and snitch-jacketing against those who don't believe it.

    F*ck science.
    Jon Gold


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3