• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Upcoming Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

Given what Tanabear has described as the topics to be covered.

I restate my earlier position.

YAWN!

TAM:)
 
metamars said:
Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?

Actually, I'm giving too much credit to the poster, since he hasn't really provided an explanation involving a point (subtle or otherwise) that would make his Orwellian claim of the legitimacy of the "investigation" seem reasonable. So let me help him out.

Me:
"The 911 teams were composed of patriotic Americans, who would never help cover up a crime."

or

"The 911 teams worked their tails off."

or

"If the 911 teams not completely controlled by Zelikow had thought there was a need for subpoenas, they would have screamed bloody murder if they were denied."

See? Playing at "debunker" can be very easy!

Almost any kind of real-world problem solving, described by the word "investigation", involves lots of trial and error. Asking a question may generate a response or finding of fact that leads to a better question. To pre-emptively abort a chain of question/responses is not the way that things are done in, say, a criminal trial. A prosecutor will not take testimony as gospel truth, but rather witnesses are cross-examined, contradictions are sniffed out, etc.

I suggest Jon Gold prepare for the debate by studying how other cover-ups in plain sight are done in Washington, such as the Iran Contra hearings. For a cover-up to be worth it's salt, it's important not to ask certain questions.

Note: I haven't read Shenon's book, so maybe it's overflowing with examples of why deep questioning wasn't necessary or indicated, and zero examples indicating that deep questioning (aided by subpoenas) would likely have been productive. So, my advice to both debaters is to try and figure this out before-hand, from within the context of Shenon's book. Does Shenon explain just how Zelikow skewed the investigation? (By "how", I mean in what direction, not the mechanics of accomplishing the skewing.)


Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
Your lack of evidence is due to your common sense. Einstein was right, you are wrong on 9/11.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein
The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse?

The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse?

My excuse for slamming 9/11 truth; the absent of evidence in 9/11 truth arguments. Why do you join them, weighing in with zero evidence to support your implication on behalf of the terrorist apologist?

You could save these books of woo by adding evidence and get them out of the political section of the library, or move them away from the bigfoot books.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?
Click to expand...

If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.

Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job?
 
Jon Gold said:
Good luck Pat.
Click to expand...
Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.

I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com.

Thanks.
 
Gravy said:
Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.

I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

derail

reported
 
Bosozoku said:
If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.

Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job?
Click to expand...

They would be illegimate if the Truthers attempted to pre-determine the outcome, and there was no counter-balancing individuals who could make sure that the truther constituents didn't have sole ability to ask questions and subpoena documents.* In other words, if there was no balance in the investigative committees, such that if the Truthers really did have a hidden agenda of laying blame where it doesn't belong, it would succeed. And of course, dissenting opinions should be allowed. "Men of good will disagree."

You're being a bit abstract when you lay out your fear of "proving 911 an inside job". 911 Truthers have no state power, right now, and can't compel testimony. But for anybody in a committee with state power, to prove an inside job, you'd have to identify individuals who clearly behaved in a conspiratorial manner. You'd also have to unearth more details than we have now. E.g., if Mohammed Atta was a patsy working with international drug smugglers, who gave him his orders? What was this person's name, and who was this person working for? What group or individuals would have profited from Mohammed Atta's drug dealings? And what would be their interest in perpetrating a 911? If it was solely a contract with another group, what is this group, what are some names of members, and what was their interest in 9/11? Etc.

I would recommend that the Jersey girls be part of such a new investigation, even though they probably don't have an investigative or prosecutorial background. I really believe that they want to know exactly why and how their husbands were murdered, whatever that may be. Would it bring them any closure if they laid blame for MIHOP, say, when really it was MEGA-OOPS and CYA? I don't think so, since that would involve blaming innocent individuals. Do you think it would bring them closure?


N.B.: Aaron Russo is no longer alive, but a serious investigation would fully investigate his claim of Nick Rockefeller's "911 precognition", also.

* By "911 truther", I mean somebody who has shown evidence of 911 activism, but has shown no evidence of deliberately twisting or evading the truth for political ends. Unfortunately, I know of at least one person in the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice who would do such a thing, and I have email to prove it.
 
did I miss something, or is someone trying to report a "derail".

Since when did derailing a thread with a single post become a "reportable offense"?

I do know that ABUSE OF THE REPORT FUNCTION might be considered one though.

Unless I am missing something

TAM:)
 
Discuss moderation and reporting issues in Forum Management, not ion threads.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
The show has been taped and will be put up on YouTube tonight or tomorrow. I felt it came off pretty well, and Justin and Eric handled themselves in a professional manner. Jon and I managed to avoid getting into a shouting match, so this was not a good audition tape for us to appear on Hannity and Colmes.

:D
 
chillzero said:
Discuss moderation and reporting issues in Forum Management, not ion threads.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
Click to expand...

Would that be a positive or negative ion thread?


(And don't worry HI, I've already reported myself for attempting to derail.....)
 
metamars said:
Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?
Click to expand...

You really don't get it do you.

Let me try a little story...

Bill and Joe are two ex-cops working as security guards in a bank. One day a gang of bank-robbers decides to rob the place, so they spend a day casing the place. This is during Bill's watch, but he doesn't notice them. The next day Joe is on duty and the robbers rob the bank taking him by surprise and making him look rather foolish when it is discovered that his gun's not loaded, something that is bank policy.

After the robbery partners Officer Jeff and Officer Mick turn up. Turns out that Jeff is an old friend of Bill and when Mick was a rookie he was partners with Joe. Both decide that due to their friendship they aren't going to put their friends in the firing line and so not steer the investigation towards blame for the robbery being placed on their friend.

The investigation quickly shows that the robbery was done by a group of bikers from a few towns over, the leader of which had a grudge against the bank because he'd been turned down for a loan extention and had lost his home in a forclosure sale. As far as the bank security is concern, the reccomendation is that the bank arm them properly, but that the failure in realising the bank was a target and preparing was in the training of the guards and so was no one's fault.

Now here's the question for you. Just because those doing the investigation set out to make sure their friend wasn't fired for not doing his job, was the investigation no longer legimate? Why, or Why not?

Now the argument certainly could be made that both guards could have done more to realise the threat and have possibly stopped it and that this was focused on in the investigation, but would looking at that really have changed the main issues of who did it and the main areas of what when wrong?

In the same way, the 9/11 Commision certainly could have made more of both Clinton and Bush's administrations blunders, but that wouldn't have changed the main answer of who did it, how, and where certain things fell over. In essence all it does is give a scapegoat and a false sense of security with the believe that once those that failed are gone the problems are solved. The 9/11 Commission went further than that, they pointed out that the system was sobadly flawed that regardless of who was in charge ot it, it had holes the size of Texas, that it is the system that needs fixing, that blaming individuals inside the system and sacking them wouldn't actually solve the real issues.

Which is better, finding scapegoats and sacking them, or actually dealing with and fixing the problems?
 
Jon seems to think that the existence of ANY unanswered questions means that the investigation was faulty. I would love for him to point out any investigation that leaves NO unanswered questions.

Interesting debate...would have been 100x better with better audio.
 
You know the 9/11 Comission never established what was served for breakfast on United 93. I suspect a coverup!
 
I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.
 
RedIbis said:
I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.
Click to expand...

No, I agree that Zelikow probably should not have been chosen, despite the fact that he was clearly the best-qualified individual, because of the conflict of interest issues which are legitimate if commonly overstated.
 
RedIbis said:
I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.
Click to expand...

If "Complete lack of conflict of interest and politik" were the #1 criteria for choosing members of the commission, then the commission would have been full of soccer moms from the mid west.

TAM;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom