Podcast Show #84

The Boiling Frogs Presents Jon Gold

BFP Podcast Logo

Longtime 9/11 activist and 9/11 Truth News contributor Jon Gold joins us to discuss his recently released autobiographical book 9/11 Truther: The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability. Mr. Gold shares with us the catalyst that put him on the path to 9/11 activism and truth seeking, the common obstacles and challenges encountered by devoted 9/11 truth-seekers, the many still-unanswered questions involving the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the importance of continuing the quest for truth and justice. His book is currently available at Amazon .

Listen to the preview Here

Here is our guest Jon Gold unplugged!

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Jon Gold says:

    Many thanks to Sibel and Peter for giving me this opportunity.

  2. Maggotbrain says:

    Great, great interview. Many important points. Thanks to everybody involved.

    Btw, anybody have a tip on reading covering for example the Saudi’s perspective on Saddam (as mentioned in the interview)..?

  3. If we could just clarify.
    ‘False flag’,’inside job’ and ‘controlled demolition’ are to be/not to be considered What? in light of this conversation.
    To say ‘don’t know whether 911 an inside job or not’, yet DISCUSS every possible verification of it BEING one, by virtue of every possible truthaction taken SO FAR at EVERY LEVEL systematically being negated/shorted/ignored/mocked/blocked/stuffed and burned FROM the INSIDE- including but not restricted to FULLY fledged and produced NIST/COMMISSION reports patently FALSE., Whereby Law courts, Investigative branches, The ENTIRE Media. OBAMA, Hamilton, ZELIKOW – All involved in complete denial of the need for any FURTHER investigation and ABLE to actually STOP investigation suggests a very real agenda exists WITHIN the networks controlling those very forum. By virtue of their fact, INSIDE. What are you saying?
    Very sober listening.

  4. @remo:

    I thought the conversation was pretty clear. The issue with labeling is one of framing communication.

    One frame is that of a criminal investigation and the view of the facts pertaining to such an investigation.

    Another is a view of the messenger having an idea or theory that can be attacked as the view of the messenger and the labels pertaining to the view and the messenger.

    In the second frame, the facts become secondary to the view/the label. This is meant to be avoided by using rhetoric pertaining to facts, rather than labels and theories.

    In the first frame, the facts become primary, as does the effort to investigate and communicate them.

    As an example regarding the NIST report on WTC7, we can easily talk about facts, such as the secrecy/classification of the input data used for their model (which points to a cover-up), and the about-face they did on admission of free fall of the building (which points to credibility). Also regarding NIST Bld 7, see the recent videos by 71gerry:


    These use rhetoric that frames their communication as an investigation of facts, instead of theories.

    I think this is what Jon, Sibel, and PBC were trying to promote. Does this seem reasonable?

  5. Yes, I understand the distinction very well. but thanks for the up. have used Gerry’s column 79 clincher twice to great effect already and thanked him for it, but not at any BENCH. Not infront of judge JOHN.
    Its the FIREWALL in common to BOTH frames we are talking about. Maybe somethin got lost in translation. anyway. lovely day today. suns out.

  6. Great Interview! Good job, Jon. You represent our efforts well. And thanks, Sibel, for the credibility shout out. I’m in incredible company, indeed.

  7. jschoneboom says:

    Nice job, Jon. Thanks to Peter and Sibel for having him on.

    I really like Jon’s “stick to the basic facts” approach, and stopping ourselves short of jumping to the “inside job” conclusion, no matter how tempting. The truth is, most people seem willing and able to reject a conclusion that blows their minds, without troubling themselves over the evidence. If you want them to think about the evidence, then you have to withhold the conclusion. Let them make it themselves.

    I also sympathize to an extent with Jon’s frustration over the prevailing focus on controlled demolition. But I respectfully differ a bit from him there. I know that those building collapses can serve as an effective eye-opener because that’s what opened the whole can of worms for me. For some of us, it’s the visual impact and the stubborn gut feeling that “that ain’t right” that can inspire further research and “lead to harder truths.”

    And of course there’s some very compelling physical evidence, so it’s not just wild theorizing. There’s a legitimate place for it. Within reason.

    Still, as Jon says, there are plenty of indisputable facts at our disposal, and it’s best to stick with those, and put them together helpfully. Saves a lot of breath in avoiding futile arguments.

  8. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the tale they’ve been told about 9/11 is false? It boils down to psychological vulnerability. The truth, were it to become known, would cause the epistemic foundation upon which people carry on with their lives to crumble, leaving them directionless. Most people, I’m afraid to say, are childlike in their need to trust authority. Even when authority hands them a blatant pack of lies, along with the conditions of relinquishing certain civil liberties “or else,” they will accept this if it means they can get on with their careers, raising families, having barbecues, etc. At some unconscious level, they must know the true nature of the threat – how deep the “or else” goes. This then makes any consideration of the truths of 9/11 (or other similar fabled histories like the JFK assassination, OK bombing, Obama’s identity, etc.) so difficult to bear within the epistemic construct of “what we know to be true.” So if you think that exposing facts about 9/11 will lead to the true perpetrators being brought to justice, you’re mistaken. The only hope that the truth has is a total collapse of the system that the pack of lies was designed to perpetuate… When all bets are off.

  9. Well that was rather pessimistic of me…

    On the other hand, we can try to encourage people to be more curious, more distrusting of authority, more epistemically self-sufficient, or at least more embarrassed of being duped by “the man behind the curtain”.

  10. Randgrithr says:

    I have had an argument with Jon about the function and purpose of the Able Danger information. I served in the US military from February 1986 to December 1991 and I recognized those keywords. I cannot talk about them but I *do* know that they do not represent what the American public is being told about them. Jon pressured me to reveal what I know but like you, Sibel, I cannot do so without breaking my oath. I do not appreciate Jon’s refusal to understand that I will not go to jail just to satisfy his curiosity. I could not be the activist I am from there and I am not an oathbreaker. It should be sufficient and obvious that I served during the time I did and am aware of those keywords from my service. I am confident that ANYONE who served in a classified environment during that time period and held a TS/SCI/SI-TK can back me up on this. The American public is being told that this program was created after I left the service in Dec 1991. THAT’S A LIE, and it’s not the only one being told concerning Able Danger, but I cannot go into more details without violating my oath. Of anyone, Sibel, you should understand that.

    Jon is considered by some activists to be a disinformation agent within the 9/11 Truth movement because if you disagree with him at any point, he stops talking to you. While in general his purpose is noble, he has caused controversy and dissent within the movement. I appreciate you having him on but like anyone and anything connected with 9/11, critical thinking and skepticism need to be in play at all times. I welcome debate, discussion and the questioning of my story within reason. Should I be asked to testify before an appropriately secured panel of Congress, I am very willing to reveal everything I know about Able Danger. I will not break my oath – not for Jon Gold, not for anyone. I’d be an extremely poor activist if I was trying to do so from the pokey.

    Best, Eileen Coles

  11. @Randgrithr:

    May I say that, after reading Sibel’s book, I can start to comprehend the fear and risk that goes along with whistle blowing. I have tremendous respect for those that do say as much as they can. And I don’t envy you for being in a position of making that decision. I hope you have someone that you can talk to about your situation.

    That said, my critical thinking alarm bells go off whenever someone starts talking about dis-info agents, which I don’t think is helpful. Many people are called many names for many reasons. I don’t need to hear that someone has been called a name. Are you calling the name or just letting it kind of sneak in by mentioning that others have?

    I have a question regarding your oath(s). Are you talking about the oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies? Or another oath? Are those in conflict?

    Thanks in advance.

  12. Randgrithr says:

    @Xicha, those of us in the military who accept the responsibility of a security clearance are made to take a second oath in addition to the standard oath of enlistment, where we swear we will not reveal the classified information entrusted to us for a period of 75 years unless it comes to light through other means (for example a breach, technical obsolescence or a vetted news agency). I can talk about the classified message handling system I was in charge of, MAXI, because that was 25 years ago and it no longer exists – it’s been replaced several times over by now, has a different name and is running on different hardware and software. On the other hand, I still can’t talk about how it worked or what exactly it did.

    My personal experience with Jon was negative, and I later found out via the 9/11 Truth Facebook Group that I was not the only one. I am quoting someone else when I mention that he’s been called a disinformation agent. The 9/11 Truth group on FB does a fairly good job of policing itself. I don’t have a problem with Jon’s genuine efforts for the 9/11 Truth movement, what I have a problem with is when he attempts to marginalize the efforts of others. I fail to see how satisfying his curiosity about Able Danger and subsequently going to jail would help the movement. As much as I admire the courage and the sacrifice of Bradley Manning, I cannot help but notice that he can’t really do much in the first person for anyone else from where he is besides maintain his courageous stand for justice and truth. I am more effective on the outside of that wall and I intend to stay there for as long as possible. If Mr. Gold doesn’t like that for whatever reason, oh well.

  13. Again, you are repeating this claim that isn’t helpful.

    How does Jon asking you to divulge classified information amount to marginalizing the efforts of others?

    Sorry, but I won’t use Facebook, so I can’t check out the group to which you refer. But, I find the allusions troubling.

    “1. snitchjacketing
    snitchjacketing or badjacketing isn’t an east coast term. it refers to someone calling someone an informant or a “snitch” to out them from a group. the FBI and other law enforcement groups use real informants to plant evidence on people that they may be a snitch to then create infighting or a witch-hunt. it also makes it difficult for those reffered to as snitches, who are in-fact snithes, to work within the movement they come from, because people are weary of such a rumor possibly being true.

    when not used by cops/ security forces/ etc it’s usually employed by someone as a low blow, because they can’t come up with anything of any merit to accuse, denounce, or argue with someone about.”

    Sounds like you’re complaining because he doesn’t want to talk to you, and you say that’s because you won’t divulge secret information about a topic which you seem to say is important and publicly lied about, but then can’t find any value in telling the truth about, except, you say, to satisfy one person’s curiosity. I find your logic inconsistent.

    You do have the right to remain silent. I won’t hold it against you. In fact, I’d encourage it.

  14. Three days ago there were 37 comments on this thread.

    Now there are 14 .

  15. jschoneboom says:

    (Shhhhhh…it got up at least into the 80s but the swamp has been cleared….shhhhhhh)

  16. there was also a hosting change about the same time. it might have had something to do with that. other posts lost comments.

  17. I saved them all before they disappeared. 🙂

  18. Btw Xicha, I have followed Boiling Frogs for a long time. I just have never posted much, but I was discussing the Podcast with someone and Jon’s view that certain opinions about 9/11 were verboten. That person then told me that it was happening on this Thread, and so I put in my two cents.

    And then those comments disappear. De ja vu as they say. 🙂

  19. William York says:

    I tried downloading this podcast but was only able to download the preview. I am a member and I’m logged in. I only seem to have this problem with certain podcast episodes — mostly ones in the range between Episodes 70 and 90, give or take a few.

  20. May I say that, after reading Sibel’s book, I can start to comprehend the fear and risk that goes along with whistle blowing ..IS THAT what You are Saying Xicha…
    Hmmm.. Kathrine Gunn…
    What is…these little women translators….
    kind Regards.

  21. Hmmmmmmmmmm…
    Little People Like Me.
    Said by Katherine Gun.

    Think about That.
    Kind Regards.

  22. And the Snow..
    come dowm..
    It is Christmas time…
    Kind Regards.

Speak Your Mind