Jon Gold Addresses Pat Curley and the jref

[dtugg]

How about I pass on playing along with your stupid little game.

Why don't you tell us what you think happened on 9/11 besides that you think LIHOP is unlikely because that would mean that NIST isn't lying about WTC7?

 

[RedIbis]

Why don't you tell us what you think happened on 9/11 besides that you think LIHOP is unlikely because that would mean that NIST isn't lying about WTC7?

I've seen you make this statement several times. Can you please explain to me what you mean by this misrepresentation of my position. The other option, of course, is to simply quote me so I can figure out for myself how poorly you're comprehending what I post.

 

[dtugg]

I've seen you make this statement several times. Can you please explain to me what you mean by this misrepresentation of my position. The other option, of course, is to simply quote me so I can figure out for myself how poorly you're comprehending what I post.

I provided the quote earlier in this thread. Did you miss it? Well, here it is again:

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.

Are you really going to try to say I was misrepresenting you? You know, everybody else here can read too.



ETA: And for some crazy reason, Red leaves the board before replying to this post.

 

[The Big Dog]

Explain what? Gold disagrees with the Commission's conclusions that the trading was innocuous. Gold admits he might be wrong. What exactly do you want me to explain?

He "admits he might be wrong." What the hell? Well now I have to ask you explain why you are wasting our freaking time posting such freaking garbage?

But way back on page 2, I asked for some evidence to support the so-called facts he is relying on in those points regarding the trading. Because you were his waterboy in posting that BS to jref. Why don't you explain?

 

[Baylor]

The biggest problem with the MIHOP is deciding what hit those freaking towers. Some of the most die-hard MIHOPers have abandoned everything but terrorists intentionally steering the hijacked planes into the buildings. The rest don't even try any more.

 

[RedIbis]

I provided the quote earlier in this thread. Did you miss it? Well, here it is again:



Are you really going to try to say I was misrepresenting you? You know, everybody else here can read too.



ETA: And for some crazy reason, Red leaves the board before replying to this post.

Now I see, you think being wrong is the same as lying. Since I understand the difference I stand by my earlier statement. Thanks for digging it up, it succinctly presents my opinion.

 

[RedIbis]

He "admits he might be wrong." What the hell? Well now I have to ask you explain why you are wasting our freaking time posting such freaking garbage?

But way back on page 2, I asked for some evidence to support the so-called facts he is relying on in those points regarding the trading. Because you were his waterboy in posting that BS to jref. Why don't you explain?

I posted it because I appreciate the rhetorical tactic of admitting the possibility of being wrong and presenting a lengthy list of non CT propositions.

Few here have had the integrity to admit that they might be wrong.

 

[T.A.M.]

Red you cannot be LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) and also believe that the USG or some faction there of caused the collapse of WTC7. That would make you MIHOP, as you would have to believe that the USG was in on orchestrating some element of that day.

Unless, of course, you don't believe the USG helped orchestrate the attacks on WTC1/2, Pentagon, and UA93, but for some INSANE reason, believe they were involved in the collapse of WTC7.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

Now I see, you think being wrong is the same as lying. Since I understand the difference I stand by my earlier statement. Thanks for digging it up, it succinctly presents my opinion.

Oh, my mistake, you think that LIHOP is unlikely because then NIST would be right about WTC7. And by the way, even if they are wrong about their theory, that still doesn't rule out LIHOP. It is possible that the mechanics of the collapse were somewhat different, but that still doesn't mean the building was destroyed using magical silent explosives or thermite or whatever nonsense you believe but are too afraid to say.

Anyway, we all know that you think that NIST is lying. You are not fooling anyone. Just like you didn't fool anybody when you accused TAM of making a strawman.

But if you actually think that they are just simply mistaken (yeah right), you must think that it was an honest investigation. Thanks for clearing that up.

And are those few sentences really the only things that you can say about what you think happened on 9/11? Do you lack the courage to present any kind of theory?

 

[WildCat]

How about I pass on playing along with your stupid little game.

RedIbis, I don't want to falsely accuse you of believing in some absolutely stupid 9/11 conspiracy theory, so help me out here.

Which of the following are worthy of investigation:

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.
14. Wall breaching kit used to blast a hole in the C-Ring
15. No evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon
16. Larry Silverstein said "pull it", which refers to a CD
17. Magical column 79
18. Tea party attended by Meyers

 

[T.A.M.]

I vote for Clunkity clunk...I want a timer, and the fastest speaker on the planet!!!

TAM

 

[dtugg]

Few here have had the integrity to admit that they might be wrong.

There is a chance that I'm wrong about 9/11. About a one in a trillion chance. If it ever turns out that 9/11 was an inside job, I will lick the balls of every twoofer in the world.

If the USG had anything to do with 9/11, they did an amazing job seeing as how they left zero evidence (no the crap that twoofers point to is not evidence no matter how much they wish it to be) and managed to plant a crap load that implicates al Qaeda. They even got the leaders of that organization to admit that they did it. As Bush says in South Park, it was the most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever.

 

[stateofgrace]

Yeah because there's nothing odd about the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs remaining undisturbed in a meeting, in which he was looking forward to trying Cleland's mint tea, during the entire duration of the attacks.

Ironically, the tea party was to discuss national security while the most profound attack on our nation's security was taking place.

No wonder Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yeah and there is nothing wrong with implying the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is complacent in mass murder is there?

There is nothing wrong as long as you don't actually come out and accuse the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of knowingly being involving in the mass murder of 3000 innocent people, right? It is Ok to just imply it, right?

Of course there is nothing wrong, so long as you do it on an internet forum. Right?

Oh, I guess there is nothing wrong with me asking you to offer a shred of evidence that substantiates your implications?

There is nothing wrong with me asking why you wonder why Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom?
Maybe you can give your full narrative, rather than implications, but then again I can see exactly why that would be so wrong, I can see why you prefer to imply rather than apply.
It is little wonder you, your ideology and others that subscribe to your ideology are taken seriously.

 

[RedIbis]

Yeah and there is nothing wrong with implying the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is complacent in mass murder is there?

There is nothing wrong as long as you don't actually come out and accuse the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of knowingly being involving in the mass murder of 3000 innocent people, right? It is Ok to just imply it, right?

Of course there is nothing wrong, so long as you do it on an internet forum. Right?

Oh, I guess there is nothing wrong with me asking you to offer a shred of evidence that substantiates your implications?

There is nothing wrong with me asking why you wonder why Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom?
Maybe you can give your full narrative, rather than implications, but then again I can see exactly why that would be so wrong, I can see why you prefer to imply rather than apply.
It is little wonder you, your ideology and others that subscribe to your ideology are taken seriously.

Please stop whining.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, I don't want to falsely accuse you of believing in some absolutely stupid 9/11 conspiracy theory, so help me out here.

Which of the following are worthy of investigation:

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.
14. Wall breaching kit used to blast a hole in the C-Ring
15. No evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon
16. Larry Silverstein said "pull it", which refers to a CD
17. Magical column 79
18. Tea party attended by Meyers

8 is my favorite.

 

[stateofgrace]

Please stop whining.

OH, I forgot, I guess there is nothing wrong with avoiding a post that questions your beliefs. Equally so I guess there is nothing wrong with coming to a public debating forum and not debating a single point you have raised, right?

Such is the TM, post rubbish, fail to back it up and accuse anybody that actually tries to engage you in debate of whining, right?

Yeah, I see nothing wrong in that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll more than happily admit to being wrong on the parts that led me to my position providing that the apparent "authority figures" in the TM (particularly those who they use for authority support like AE911) start providing reasonable demonstrations as to their case. Until they learn to make reasonable comparisons, their rhetoric is nothing more than a playwright for entertainment. Hardly anything I'd be interested in for serious consideration.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Few here have had the integrity to admit that they might be wrong.

Several people have already done so. Not necessarily in this thread, and not necessarily about 9/11 in general, but people here are quite capable of admitting they've made a mistake.

You, on the other hand, apparently believe that the collapse of WTC7 is suspicious for certain reasons, but think the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia was a legitimate accident because of the very same reasons.

While not an error of fact, it surely is a sign that something is wrong somewhere in your mental processes.

 

[RedIbis]

Ahh, the rare double stundie.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Few here have had the integrity to admit that they might be wrong.

Several people have already done so. Not necessarily in this thread, and not necessarily about 9/11 in general

Ok, so what is the point of your post?

You, on the other hand, apparently believe that the collapse of WTC7 is suspicious for certain reasons, but think the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia was a legitimate accident because of the very same reasons.

I didn't know the theory behind the Columbia's crash was magic single column global collapse.

 

[1337m4n]

I posted it because I appreciate the rhetorical tactic of admitting the possibility of being wrong and presenting a lengthy list of non CT propositions.

Few here have had the integrity to admit that they might be wrong.

As I explained before, RedIbis: Jon Gold DID NOT "admit that he might be wrong". He pretended to. Here's an example:

We might be wrong to think that the heroes of 9/11 should be given the health care that they need, and that those who lied about the air quality should be held accountable.

Just because one utters the words "I might be wrong" does not mean one is actually admitting that. Gold is essentially saying "I might be wrong that the sky is blue" and using that to brag that he is bravely "admitting that he might be wrong".

Who the hell would be AGAINST giving them health care? For someone who throws temper tantrums over fake "strawmen" all the time, you seem surprisingly silent when Jon Gold's entire post consists of ACTUAL strawmen. Are strawmen arguments okay as long as your side uses them? Is that it? When Jon Gold "admits that he might be wrong" on something that's actually a point of contention, maybe then I will believe him.

The man is a fraud and a liar and a coward. He isn't admitting the possibility of being wrong at all. He's trying to fool us. He is failing miserably at doing so.