Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face

Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> News and Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5503
Location: Aotearoa

PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:31 pm    Post subject: Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face Reply with quote

by Jon Gold

This may fall on deaf ears. In fact, I'm quite sure it will.

I've written so many of these kinds of articles over the years, it pains me to have to do so again.

When 9/11: Press For Truth was released, there were some in the 9/11 Truth Movement who thought it was "soft and misleading." Who said that it didn't go far enough. That it was "disinformation." Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the film. In fact, I think it's the most dangerous 9/11 documentary in existence. However, because the naysayers had some "influence," and because someone asked me for my opinion on the film, I wrote this. Just like I'm writing this article today. Just like I recently wrote this, and this. Let's just say that I am tired of the games people play.

You may or may not have heard, but Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy recently released a video of an interview taken in 2009 of former Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. They first debuted this interview at the Treason In America conference in March 2010.

How has this video helped those advocating for 9/11 Justice?

It brought attention to this cause at sites like,,,,,,,,,,,,, and many other sites.

It brings attention to 9/11: Press For Truth. Phil Shenon from writes:

"The producers, John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, had previously made a well-reviewed film documentary, Press for Truth (, on the struggle of a group of 9/11 victims' families to force the government to investigate the attacks.

Jason Leopold from writes:

Duffy and Nowosielski, whose previous film, "Press For Truth," followed four 9/11 widows as they lobbied the Bush White House to convene an independent commission to probe the attacks, have also launched a new transparency web site,, set to go live this evening with a campaign aimed at further unmasking Blee.

It brings attention to the 2 hijackers in San Diego. Those same 2 hijackers that apparently received money that was connected to Prince Bandar's wife. It brings attention to the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, which the Jersey Girls have been trying to get released for years.

Because of who Richard Clarke is, it got the attention of people who wouldn't ordinarily write about 9/11 like David Swanson, to write about 9/11. It made Ray McGovern, who hasn't written about 9/11 in years, to write about it again.

There are some who claim to be advocates for 9/11 Justice who are suggesting that this is a ploy to try and hide the "real story" about 9/11. I don't know what the real story about 9/11 is. I know that there are a multitude of cover-ups, that there needs to be justice and accountability for what happened that day, that the families and the people of the world both require and deserve it, and that the "Post-9/11 World" needs to end. So far, this story about Richard Clarke seems to be helping us to do this.

However, to humor those individuals, let's take a look at that theory. That would mean that Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, two people responsible for a documentary that is the most dangerous in existence to those attempting to cover-up what happened that day, were "in on it." Not only is that absurd, it is laughable.

That would mean that the CIA Inspector General's report that suggests that people "failed to meet an acceptable standard of performance, and recommends that an internal review board review their conduct for possible disciplinary action" is a figment of our imagination. That would mean that Porter Goss refused to release the report, and "asked Helgerson to modify the report to avoid drawing conclusions about whether individual CIA officers should be held accountable" in an effort to make it seem even MORE credible so it would fool even MORE people.

Sounds reasonable, right? Yeah, not so much.

Do I entirely trust Richard Clarke? No. However, as my friend Cosmos said, "there is no reason or need to trust Richard Clarke. For whatever reason, Clarke has presented to the world a major, high level contradiction within the government's story that should be exploited for all it is worth towards the goal of legitimate inquiry into 9/11. There is no need to lionize Clarke or obscure his shady connections in order to do this."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> News and Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group