Merged: Obama "Green Jobs Czar" a 9-11 Truther?

[Good Lt]

Obama "green jobs czar" Van Jones was a signatory to this 2004 statement from 9-11 Truth.org calling for a new investigation into the 9-11 attacks (signatory #46).

That's as much FAIL as having a birther up there advising the President.

This guy needs to go. We can't afford this kind of juvenile stupidity at the highest levels of our government at this time.

[Arus808]

I suggest that this little information makes it to the National media...a little nudge there.

[Brainster]

Posted at SLC; good find!

[Pinch]

One of Obama's Czars, the "green jobs" czar Van Jones, is a Truther, having applied his digital Vladimir Lenin (their version of John Hancock) to the 911 Truth Statement at 911Truth.org.

Gateway Pundit has the blogilicious lowdown.



So, the Truthers now have "one of their own" so high up in the administration it ain't freaking funny. There is *no excuse* now. They need to apply the pressure and get the goods on Bush and his plans for administering 9/11. There should be pay stubs, blue prints, emails, phone and cell records, delivery bills of fare for the explosives that were pre-positioned in the Pentagon, not to mention the frozen cadavers. Delivery of a couple thousand pounds of paint-on super-duper thermite/thermate should be there, as well.

They have an inmate in the asylum now - strange we haven't heard anything about that.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Pinch

One of Obama's Czars,(snip).

one thing seemed off in the article

Quote:

The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

i guess thats what happens when truthers post articles from 2004 in 2009 (lol jk)

that article was from a time when the "truth" wasnt so obvious in how they did things
at that point they were just riding the coattails of the victims families wanting accountability

[Praktik]

exactly Justin.

Not sure this is enough evidence to conclude he is or was a "truther".

Has anyone asked him specifically about a false flag or CD??

[WildCat]

Heh, Ralph Nader signed it also.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Praktik

exactly Justin.

Not sure this is enough evidence to conclude he is or was a "truther".

Has anyone asked him specifically about a false flag or CD??

i think the more important question might be "would he sign it today?"

[TexasJack]

Well whether or not he's not a truther, the poor guy is going to be barraged by idiots. If he's an idiot as as well, he deserves what's coming.

[R.Mackey]

This just proves that he's disinfo. Obama's rewarding him for all of his fine work, discrediting the critically endangered Rational Truthers, perpetuating the lie, and helping keep Bush in power... or something... [/tinfoil]

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Pinch

One of Obama's Czars, the "green jobs" czar Van Jones, is a Truther, having applied his digital Vladimir Lenin (their version of John Hancock) to the 911 Truth Statement at 911Truth.org.
... .

Did anyone tell Obama he hired a conspiracy theorist who is a dolt on 911 issues? Is Obama being harassed by this 911-dolt each time a perpetual motion machine scam comes across the 911-dolt's desk.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

This just proves that he's disinfo. Obama's rewarding him for all of his fine work, discrediting the critically endangered Rational Truthers, perpetuating the lie, and helping keep Bush in power... or something... [/tinfoil]

You didn't start your post with "tinfoil" brackets, does that mean that everything you said before was...

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) – An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.

Not a 'real' truther, just a LIHOP truther.

Now exactly what did he sign. I can't make out the writing on the pic of the docuement and the link did not work. Was he asking about who might have dropped the ball as far as using the intelligence that was available?

Taking the word of a far right wing org such as Gateway is as bad as not checking original sources when a far left org says that NIST claims something.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Not a 'real' truther, just a LIHOP truther.

Now exactly what did he sign. I can't make out the writing on the pic of the docuement and the link did not work. Was he asking about who might have dropped the ball as far as using the intelligence that was available?

Taking the word of a far right wing org such as Gateway is as bad as not checking original sources when a far left org says that NIST claims something.

Here's the statement he signed:

Quote:

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

1. An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
2. Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
3. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
4. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness. In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41026093059633

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Not a 'real' truther, just a LIHOP truther.

Now exactly what did he sign. I can't make out the writing on the pic of the docuement and the link did not work. Was he asking about who might have dropped the ball as far as using the intelligence that was available?

Taking the word of a far right wing org such as Gateway is as bad as not checking original sources when a far left org says that NIST claims something.

Looks like he signed up for woo

Quote:

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

He is a person with delusions on 911 unable to spend the time to learn the facts and examine the countless studies, papers, and investigation already done. He has made a mistake, or it is not him, or he is not very smart on 911 issues.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41026093059633

How can someone sign something with stupid questions? What makes people sign this tripe?

Quote:

How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon... http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

Sound like the whole group of signers think 77 hitting the Pentagon is not a fact.

[dudalb]

Van Jones has some 'splanin to do.

Best Case Scenario: He signed it without reading it.That Happens a lot with petitions. If true, then he should just admit he signed it without reading it..probably because he was willing to sign anything that might embarass the Bush Adminsitration.
Worst Case; He is a truther and he should quit to spare the Obama adminstration further embarassment.

[triforcharity]

Or, the last option, that it was someone else who signed his name, but this can be easily verified by the IP number.

[Perfume V]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Worst Case; He is a truther and he should quit to spare the Obama adminstration further embarassment.

And if he doesn't quit, he ought to be pushed. I mean, yeah, you could make the argument that his beliefs on 9/11 probably don't have anything to do with his beliefs on sustainable energy, but it offers a legitimacy to these theories that they don't deserve (and, in pure political terms, offers some killer ammo to enemies of Obama and environmentalism).

Edited to add: assuming it's really him, of course (see above).

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by beachnut

How can someone sign something with stupid questions? What makes people sign this tripe?

2004 and all the context leading up to it. I was there with 'em, thought they were alright but a bit soft. It's a different year now, but this is something that'll need some explaining at the least. There will be comments, and they'll be interesting.

ETA: 2004 plus their own weird biases and Bush-aversions, etc...

[TexasJack]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Van Jones has some 'splanin to do.

Best Case Scenario: He signed it without reading it.That Happens a lot with petitions. If true, then he should just admit he signed it without reading it..probably because he was willing to sign anything that might embarass the Bush Adminsitration.

Still, signing something without reading it sounds like someone who shouldn't be making decisions in his position of government. Pretty irresponsible if you ask me.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by TexasJack

Still, signing something without reading it sounds like someone who shouldn't be making decisions in his position of government. Pretty irresponsible if you ask me.

I agree. I think he should be outta there, It's just you will be amazed how many otherwise intelligent people will sign petitions without reading them if it "sounds good".

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm sure that no one here has ever made a mistake. Ever.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Rika

I'm sure that no one here has ever made a mistake. Ever.

I know I certainly have neevr made even the smallest error.

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Rika

I'm sure that no one here has ever made a mistake. Ever.

True, it turned out that I did indeed like green eggs and ham...

[Thunder]

I am less concerned about him being a borderline passive 9-11 Truther, then I am with his comments about Republicans and White people. His comments make him very inappropriate to be advising the President.

This guy has got to go.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Looks like he signed up for woo

.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Van Jones has some 'splanin to do.

.

Yes,,,, yes he does.

Originally Posted by TexasJack

Still, signing something without reading it sounds like someone who shouldn't be making decisions in his position of government. Pretty irresponsible if you ask me.

Like most of Congress

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I know I certainly have neevr made even the smallest error.

Not at all. I understand that I have made mistakes in the past. It happens, I am sure. I just cannot recall any particular instanis of ti thuogh

[boloboffin]

I discover that I had some of the same questions in 2004 listed on this petition, and so I must have been a 9/11 truther as well! Imagine that!

The right blogosphere couldn't get any traction with the STORM membership, it looks like to me. Tell me how 9/11 trutherism impacts green jobs and maybe you'll have a point.

[Thunder]

I used to think that Bush may have known something was coming but didn't do anything to prevent it.

But Ive seen no evidence that anyone knew of a time, date, location, target, or method. So I guess I ain't even a Truther-lite.

[firecoins]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...critical-time/

Congrats! Drudge has posted to it!

[Brainster]

I'm not going to give him a pass on the "just asking questions" bit; he does need to disclose whether he believes in the CT nonsense or not. The top three questions are all pretty kooky:

# Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
# Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
# Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

The excuse that I would be willing to accept is the "I signed a petition for somebody else's cause so that they would sign a petition for my cause."

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by firecoins

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...critical-time/

Congrats! Drudge has posted to it!

Sweet!
Something occurred to me while reading his back peddling on 9/11 truth. To truthers, they think that people uphold the "official story" because of their financial interests. Perhaps they think this way because they themselves, are so easily bought and sold. Talk about the emperor wearing no clothes, if any of these "leaders" in the truth movement found themselves in a place of authority outside the truth movement, they would be the first to distance themselves from their previous comrades just like this guy.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Rika

I'm sure that no one here has ever made a mistake. Ever.

People make mistakes, for sure, but is it really that hard to admit to them? A public statement along the lines of "I should never have associated myself with these morons" would do fine for everyone but the truth movement, who would immediately add one more to the list of conspirators.

Dave

ETA: Or, indeed, along the lines of "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

People make mistakes, for sure, but is it really that hard to admit to them? A public statement along the lines of "I should never have associated myself with these morons" would do fine for everyone but the truth movement, who would immediately add one more to the list of conspirators.

Dave

ETA: Or, indeed, along the lines of "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

Van Jones denies being a truther:

Quote:

A top environmental official of the Obama administration issued a statement Thursday apologizing for past incendiary statement and denying that he ever agreed with a 2004 petition on which his name appears, a petition calling for congressional hearings and an investigation by the New York Attorney General into "evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur."

Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is Number 46 of the petitioners from the so-called "Truther" movement which suggests that people in the administration of President George W. Bush "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of "the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

But he doesn't deny that he signed the petition, so this is kind of a weasely backpedal. If he didn't agree with it, why did he sign it? I guess he must not have read it or something.

Now, has Ralph Nader ever explained himself?

[TheBigKahuna]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Van Jones denies being a truther:

Quote:

Quote:
A top environmental official of the Obama administration issued a statement Thursday apologizing for past incendiary statement and denying that he ever agreed with a 2004 petition on which his name appears, a petition calling for congressional hearings and an investigation by the New York Attorney General into "evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur."

Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is Number 46 of the petitioners from the so-called "Truther" movement which suggests that people in the administration of President George W. Bush "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of "the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

But he doesn't deny that he signed the petition, so this is kind of a weasely backpedal. If he didn't agree with it, why did he sign it? I guess he must not have read it or something.

Now, has Ralph Nader ever explained himself?

Glenn Beck ran with it yesterday, while posting the number to the White House switchboard on the bottom of the screen. It was a couple hours later the statement came out.

I think people sign it for the same reason they sign petitions to rid us off that dangerous chemical, dihydrogen monoxide.

[GwionX]

Originally Posted by Rika

I'm sure that no one here has ever made a mistake. Ever.

Say Huh? This Van Jones Dude is a Truther and fits the mold perfectly. Did you know he was arrested during the Rodney King Riots in LA? Did you know he was arrested in the free trade riots in Seattle in '99? He is a Truther in 2004.. and he calls all of those that don't think like him A-Holes...PUBLICLY.

Since when are people like this able to waltz past Secret Service scrutiny?


Naw.. Bad choice in Czars.. Bad judgement.

It isn't like this guy is the ONLY person in the U.S. qualified for this (cap & trade inspired) position.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Or, the last option, that it was someone else who signed his name, but this can be easily verified by the IP number.

Internet IP's aren't great at identification unless it's a static one and/or not shared with other people as far as I understand. This is often an annoyance for forum staff members and certainly one I've had to contend with on multiple occasions in my experience. So I don't think it's that simple. The things I've heard of the man 2nd hand leave me unsurprised but I don't really want to make an assertion of fact based on that.

[Brainster]

I'm willing to give him a pass on this one, but will leave it to the political types to judge Jones on the other issues.

[novice skeptic]

He can't use the "I didn't know what I was signing" excuse any more.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-movement.html

Quote from Jake Tapper's article:

in March 2002, a march in San Francisco was called to demand a congressional inquiry into 9/11. Jones was on the "organizing committee."

Stating that the 9/11"attacks are used to justify the bombing of Afghanistan, the administration is clearly more interested in controlling the oil resources of Central Asia than in 'ridding the world of terrorism or terrorists' which it has funded, trained, and used for decades through the C.I.A.," the marchers said they would "demand" answers to questions such as:

"What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?

"Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11th, in violation of standard procedures?

"Who actually was in control of the 'hijacked planes'? …

[GwionX]

I believe that 2002 claim was erronious.

But

How many red flags does one need ?

[DGM]

Why do I get the feeling this guy's past is now starting to bite him in the ass?

This should (although they won't get it) show "truthers" that real concerns do in fact get brought to public attention. Notice no one is questioning the topic of the petition only Van Jones sanity.