Jon Gold Addresses Pat Curley and the jref

[RedIbis]

Jon Gold addresses Pat Curley and the jref in a recent post on 9/11blogger. I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points. I'm not saying I agree with the entirety of his list, and I might have appropached it differently, but I think it can be constructive and his central question is a good one.

http://911blogger.com/node/18724

During my recent debate with 9/11 Debunker Pat Curley, in his closing statement, after listing a plethora of different theories from a whole spectrum of individuals, including many I do not endorse, he asked, "would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “well, OK, we were wrong?" if, in fact, a new investigation found that we were. He then answered his own question by saying, "and the answer is “of course not," so stop pretending that all you want is another investigation - you want another investigation that comes to the conclusions that you believe."

 

[Dr Adequate]

I was hoping he might answer the point he quoted, but of course he's a Truther. So instead he drones out boilerplate Truther nonsense and whines about debunkers.

 

[RedIbis]

I was hoping he might answer the point he quoted, but of course he's a Truther. So instead he drones out boilerplate Truther nonsense and whines about debunkers.

That's what you got out of it? Wow, that's creative.

 

[Drudgewire]

Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have either slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?

Would you? Of course not so stop pretending like you know anything about 9/11 because you certainly do not.

We're skeptics. If we were proven wrong first and foremost we'd not only admit to it but re-assess our whole thought process in the name of science and historical accuracy.

That'll happen the day proof is provided. Since it hasn't been, and since nothing in that crybaby post attempted to provide any, I'll address it with all the respect it deserves:



Douchebag.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's what you got out of it?

Of course. That's what's in it.

If he was that desperate to avoid answering Pat Curley's question, then quoting it seems like a dumb idea. Why not just pretend it didn't exist? --- that's the kind of thing that Truthers are good at.

 

[uruk]

I'm sorry but Gold doesn't reaally address Curley's statement. Gold engages in some sarcastic word play covering issues that have already been addressed and then just simply reverses the question to "debunkers".

It's really is not a new or unique approach.

I think most here have said in the past that they would change thier mind if irreffutable evidence were to surface.

Speculation and dot connecting by armchair "investigators" might not suffice.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, I got to his second and third points, and the eye rolling began.

"We might be wrong to think that our intelligence agencies should have known something was up because of the suspicious trading that took place prior to 9/11. Trading that they monitor.

We might be wrong to think that ALL of the suspicious trading should have been thoroughly investigated by the 9/11 Commission, and that their conclusion that the trading was "innocuous" is wrong."

Is it wrong for us to require that Mr. Gold provide some evidence to support the conclusions upon which his claims are based?

Was it wrong for the posters on this forum to have utterly and completely rebutted and "debunked" the so called peer reviewed article that the Journal of 911 Studies published addressing the "suspicious trading"within 24 hours of its publication?

Gold, if you think you are right, start providing some evidence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I too would like to see Red answer the question. If the truthers got a new investigation adn that investigation found there to be no inside job, would you admit to being wrong?

 

[Brainster]

I went with the nuclear argument at the end of my debate on Justin's show, and Gold hated it because he knows it exposes the whole "Just give us another investigation," line as bogus.

My response is here.

I do note that twice now he has declined to admit that the controlled demolition nonsense is garbage; in fact in this post he's at least pushing it:

We might be wrong to think that someone like Shyam Sunder should have met with people like Dr. Steven Jones to at least look at the information he has collected.

So, Mr G, do you believe in controlled demolition of WTC-7 or not?

 

[1337m4n]

Jon Gold addresses Pat Curley and the jref in a recent post on 9/11blogger. I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points. I'm not saying I agree with the entirety of his list, and I might have appropached it differently, but I think it can be constructive and his central question is a good one.

"Constructive", how? His entire post is obvious flame-bait. He's not looking for discourse, he's looking for a fight. And he didn't even answer his own question.

 

[RedIbis]

I too would like to see Red answer the question. If the truthers got a new investigation adn that investigation found there to be no inside job, would you admit to being wrong?

Absolutely. And I'd be flippin' happy to do so.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Jon Gold addresses Pat Curley and the jref in a recent post on 9/11blogger. I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points. I'm not saying I agree with the entirety of his list, and I might have appropached it differently, but I think it can be constructive and his central question is a good one.

http://911blogger.com/node/18724

Would you admit you were wrong?

Hmm... so if he's right about even just one of the things he lists, we have to admit that we're wrong about everything?

Maybe it's just me, but that seems just a wee bit imbalanced. Oh, and the proposed "deal" isn't fair, either.

Of course, he's already "won":

We might be wrong to think that the heroes of 9/11 should be given the health care that they need [...]

Looks like you're right, Jon; 9/11 was an inside job.

Anyway, most of his concluding questions are crude attempts at flame-baiting and deserve no answer.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Jon Gold addresses Pat Curley and the jref in a recent post on 9/11blogger. I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points. I'm not saying I agree with the entirety of his list, and I might have appropached it differently, but I think it can be constructive and his central question is a good one.

http://911blogger.com/node/18724

Just adding some more comments...

We might be wrong to think that the multitude of warnings our Government received prior to 9/11 should have caused people within the Bush Administration to warn the American public [...]

...and be accused of fear-mongering by the chronically paranoid, just like when the Terror Alert Level thing was big and the news made any mention of a foiled terror plot. Those hindsight goggles do wonders for your vision, don't they?

We might be wrong to think that the most defended airspace in the world should not have been left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when everyone in the world knew America was under attack.

Thirty-four minutes isn't a lot of time, especially when you realize that, if they were going to shoot down Flight 77, it would have to be done over a sparsely-populated area so as to avoid casualties on the ground. Again, the hindsight goggles are in play.

We might be wrong to think that the Bush Administration should not have done everything in their power to cover up possible Saudi Arabian involvement.

Whoa. This one's just bizarre. Does announcing publicly that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia constitute a cover up nowadays?

We might be wrong to think that whistleblowers should not be retaliated against, or gagged because they were trying to do the right thing.

A clear nod to Sibel Edmonds, who talks a hell of a lot for someone who's been gagged, and yet has nothing to say.

We might be wrong to think that the murder of 2,973 people should be treated as a crime instead of as an "act of war."

Umm... Where do you draw the line?

We might be wrong to think that there shouldn't be a single family member with doubts about how their loved one was murdered, and who was responsible for it.

Clearly Jon doesn't understand human beings at all...

Also...

I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points.

Most of those aren't even points; they're just opinions. It'd be like trying to address the "point" my friend's father makes about Mexicans being lazy. It's futile. You just laugh.

 

[Pardalis]

I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points.

Boy you've got some nerve. You're the expert at dodging questions...

There are dozens and dozens of threads you've left without addressing our points.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mr. Gold's post strikes me as one giant strawman:

Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have either slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?

Would you? Of course not so stop pretending like you know anything about 9/11 because you certainly do not.

Source

I can only speak for myself, seeing as how there is no "debunker movement," and posts here do not represent the considered opinion of the JREF but are instead our own individual contributions. However, if anyone can find a single instance where I am guilty of any of the above, please point it out, and I will eagerly make amends.

As for Mr. Gold's accusation that I "know nothing about 9/11," my posts here prove quite the opposite. The presumption he makes is absurd.

His post does not strike me as either intelligent or constructive. It also adds a rather distateful epilogue to what was a reasonably well conducted debate. With this statement, Mr. Gold seems determined to commit exactly what he was complaining about -- lumping us all together, and accusing us all of being crazy. I fail to see what he hoped to accomplish with such theatrics.

 

[bje]

When Jon Gold wrote this:

Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have either slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?

I was reminded when he told us this in 2006:

"You are scum. You deserve to hang for the crimes you're committing. Along with all of the other treasonous bastards who are running this country right now."

Jon Gold never changes.

 

[beachnut]

Jon Gold addresses Pat Curley and the jref in a recent post on 9/11blogger. I find his approach interesting and would like to see how the resident debunkers address his points. I'm not saying I agree with the entirety of his list, and I might have appropached it differently, but I think it can be constructive and his central question is a good one.

http://911blogger.com/node/18724

In conclusion, I'd like to say that yes, we may very well be wrong. On the other hand, we may very well be right. If we are right, and I'm certain that we are, at least about SOME of it, would you Pat Curley, would you Mark Roberts, would you Ron Wieck, would you James Bennett, would you Troy Sexton, would you Jim Miegs, would you Michael Shermer, would you Chip Berlet, would you members of JREF... would you... would you... hmmm... are there any more debunkers than that?

Jon Gold reveals he is wrong on 9/11, and he lacks knowledge and sound judgment to know he is wrong. What is new, 9/11 truth has exposed zero evidence to support their ideas.

Failed ideas based on hearsay, fantasy and lies = 9/11 truth.

What a great movement! One which celebrates their supremacy in anti-intellectual claptrap.

 

[T.A.M.]

I will address the last part of his statement now, as I have to go to my son's hockey game, and perhaps the rest of it later...

In conclusion, I'd like to say that yes, we may very well be wrong. On the other hand, we may very well be right. If we are right, and I'm certain that we are, at least about SOME of it, would you Pat Curley, would you Mark Roberts, would you Ron Wieck, would you James Bennett, would you Troy Sexton, would you Jim Miegs, would you Michael Shermer, would you Chip Berlet, would you members of JREF... would you... would you... hmmm... are there any more debunkers than that?

Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have either slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?

Would you? Of course not so stop pretending like you know anything about 9/11 because you certainly do not.

1. If by some 1 in a billion chance it was found that the USG carried out 9/11, I would apologize to the families of the 19 hijackers, if they were proven to be innocent. I would apologize to the family members of the victims, not for what I have said, but for what I obviously did not discover...the magical evidence that proves the USG did it. I have no one else to really apologize to, as I have not accused anyone else of anything, nor have I accused any first responder of any foul play.

THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR THE TRUTHERS. They have suggested, speculated, or implied the complicity of hundreds of people working for the USG. Some of them have accused members of the FDNY, and others of the same. They have implied hundreds of witnesses are lying, some have even accused family members of those who died on the planes of lying.

2. Of course, if it was PROVEN that the USG carried out 9/11, I would admit I was wrong.

Not gonna happen, but to address his hypothetical...there you have it.

TAM

 

[Brainster]

I did slam a few "first responders", like Kevin McPadden and Mike the EMT; of course, it was hardly slander since they were so obviously bogus.

As for the fringiest of the fringe, I spend a lot more time on Richard Gage and David Ray Grifter than I do on CIT or the No-Planers. But maybe Gold accepts that Gage and Griffin are crackpots?

 

[JamesB]

AS Michael Shermer put so well:

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.

Ya got that Jon?