Jon Gold Addresses Pat Curley and the jref

[HyJinX]

You can't possibly be that naive.

Actually, Red, there is no such legal term as Criminal Incompetence. One cannot be charge with such a crime.

 

[T.A.M.]

How about criminal incompetence, calls for accountability, and investigation into obstruction of justice?

I 100% agree that if there is evidence for such, it should be investigated. If you or others have such compelling evidence, I am sure there are a number of politicians and Journalists who would love to have it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You can't possibly be that naive.

Criminal Negligence, yes, but Criminal Incompetence? I am not sure such a charge exists in the legal system.

TAM

 

[Drudgewire]

You can't possibly be that naive.

To believe laws which don't exist don't really exist?

 

[RedIbis]

Criminal Negligence, yes, but Criminal Incompetence? I am not sure such a charge exists in the legal system.

TAM

Mea Culpa. Criminial Negligence would have been a better choice of words.

 

[funk de fino]

Mea Culpa. Criminial Negligence would have been a better choice of words.

Criminial?

Who do you think was criminally negligent and could be prosecuted for it?

What evidence could be used against them?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I hear that more from you guys than any "twoofers". They're nothing but silly strawmen that you guys hold onto because they're easy to knock down even though hardly anyone argues for them.

See the entry for "Strawman" in the [swiki]9/11 Glossary[/swiki].

 

[RedIbis]

See the entry for "Strawman" in the [swiki]9/11 Glossary[/swiki].

Which is exactly what TAM was doing when he listed the following:

1. Pods
2. Space Beams
3. mini Nukes
4. Israelis with Parachutes
5. CGI
6. Real Time Voice morphing.

None of which Gold mentions in his essay, thus a strawman argument. I recommend looking for a less biased source than the one you provided, as you appear to need a review of this fallacy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Which is exactly what TAM was doing when he listed the following:

1. Pods
2. Space Beams
3. mini Nukes
4. Israelis with Parachutes
5. CGI
6. Real Time Voice morphing.

None of which Gold mentions in his essay, thus a strawman argument. I recommend looking for a less biased source than the one you provided, as you appear to need a review of this fallacy.

He did not claim or imply that they were mentioned in Gold's essay. Thus, he did not make a strawman argument.

You, by constrast, are pretending that TAM did claim or imply such a thing when he did not. By pretending that he claimed what he did not, you are making a strawman argument.

You are also not deceiving anyone. And I really don't see how you can expect to.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Which is exactly what TAM was doing when he listed the following:

1. Pods
2. Space Beams
3. mini Nukes
4. Israelis with Parachutes
5. CGI
6. Real Time Voice morphing.

None of which Gold mentions in his essay, thus a strawman argument.

I'll see your strawman and raise you an ad hominem tu quoque. For ten points, where exactly, in the currently understood sequence of events of 9/11, do the topics "pancakes", "diesel fed fuel fires" and "mystery fighter planes over the Atlantic" appear? And for five bonus points, where have "mystery fighter planes over the Atlantic" ever appeared in an officially endorsed account of 9/11?

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is exactly what TAM was doing when he listed the following:

1. Pods
2. Space Beams
3. mini Nukes
4. Israelis with Parachutes
5. CGI
6. Real Time Voice morphing.

None of which Gold mentions in his essay, thus a strawman argument. I recommend looking for a less biased source than the one you provided, as you appear to need a review of this fallacy.

Oh Hai Guys! Just wondering if old Red is ever going to address Gold's fraud about the stock options? Maybe.

Oh hell, Red, why don't we just add that to your list of failed Truther theories:

1. Pods
2. Space Beams
3. mini Nukes
4. Israelis with Parachutes
5. CGI
6. Real Time Voice morphing.
7. Unusual stock option trading
8. Red Ibis' secret 911 theory of secretness. Shhh, Red sez its a secret!
9. Thermate
10. CIT NOC
11. Gage's cardboard boxes.
12. clunkity clunk
13. Red Cross Count Down to Demolition.

 

[T.A.M.]

Which is exactly what TAM was doing when he listed the following:

1. Pods
2. Space Beams
3. mini Nukes
4. Israelis with Parachutes
5. CGI
6. Real Time Voice morphing.

None of which Gold mentions in his essay, thus a strawman argument. I recommend looking for a less biased source than the one you provided, as you appear to need a review of this fallacy.

For the final time. You were attempting to (or at least I thought) trivialize some of the issues around the official account of 9/11, So I was, in reply, exhibiting how silly some of the truther arguments are.

As for strawman, I would have to be making an argument for it to even apply...where was my argument, except to say that the list was a list of truther theories...which it is.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

You are also not deceiving anyone. And I really don't see how you can expect to.

Seriously. Does he think that the rest of us don't know how to read or something?

 

[RedIbis]

8. Red Ibis' secret 911 theory of secretness. Shhh, Red sez its a secret!
.

Elaborate, as I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

[dtugg]

Elaborate, as I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

You've never said what you think happened on 9/11. Never even come close. Closest I've seen you come is that you think LIHOP is unlikely because that would mean that NIST isn't lying about WTC7 and that MIHOP has more "options" for the "perps." Or something to that effect.

 

[RedIbis]

You've never said what you think happened on 9/11. Never even come close. Closest I've seen you come is that you think LIHOP is unlikely because that would mean that NIST isn't lying about WTC7 and that MIHOP has more "options" for the "perps." Or something to that effect.

Please, one mangled misrepresentation at a time.

 

[dtugg]

Please, one mangled misrepresentation at a time.

Are you telling me that you didn't actually say those things? Do you want me to go back and find the post I'm talking about?

ETA, here it is:

I find LIHOP to be a difficult proposition. If it were the case than WTC 7 collapses due to NIST's single column/global collapse theory. The terrorists thinking they were flying two planes into two buildings, instead manage to destroy all 7 buildings.

MIHOP allows for far more options for the perpetrators, including using patsies, deception, and cover up.

It's the OT that requires the greatest stretch.

Does anybody think that I misrepresented anything that Red said?

 

[DavidJames]

You've never said what you think happened on 9/11. Never even come close. Closest I've seen you come is that you think LIHOP is unlikely because that would mean that NIST isn't lying about WTC7 and that MIHOP has more "options" for the "perps." Or something to that effect.

Red, who in over 3k posts has yet to provide a coherent, supported by evidence theory about 9/11, is wondering "what the hell" someone else it talking about?

funny, in a sad pathetic way.

 

[Furcifer]

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

I love the "edit" part.

Edit: "Does everyone understand the purpose of this article? No, I am NOT saying that we ARE wrong."

Apparently sarcasm doesn't register with the truther movement unless it's followed by

The next poster is equally on the ball:

I also give them my contact information to continue the dialogue, most have yet to do so, including my high school physics teacher who I ran into a few weeks back (he did suggest that I write a book, though).

Physics Teacher- "Yep, got yur email. No, no I didn't have time to look at it, been meaning to though. Interesting stuff I'm sure. Lotta material there to wade through. So little time with me having a job and stuff... How about you write a book on that and send it to me? Great, nice seeing you again...What was your name?"

I don't think they really read things and interpret them correctly over there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Elaborate, as I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

No need, several other people have pointed out your penchant for cherry picking, and weaseling out of questions.

Kind of like how you ignored the fact that Gold is a freaking liar about the options, or did you want to actually take a position and thereby risk sticking your neck out?

Oh Red, you are the king of the JAQ offs.