Jon Gold Addresses Pat Curley and the jref

[1337m4n]

Ok, so what is the point of your post?

What was the point of yours when you said that we all lacked "integrity"? You insulted us, he corrected you. People are going to correct you when you make up dirt dumb slanderous lies. Get over it.

 

[T.A.M.]

exactly. His entire posting had nothing to do with "admitting he was wrong". It was a complete turn of the assertion, onto the Debunkers.

I would say more, but he is a member here at JREF, so the User Agreement prevents me.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

exactly. His entire posting had nothing to do with "admitting he was wrong". It was a complete turn of the assertion, onto the Debunkers.

I would say more, but he is a member here at JREF, so the User Agreement prevents me.

TAM

Nothing prevents you from having a calm and civil discussion about a rhetorical tactic that is obviously bothering the debunkers.

The angry response and ad hominem attacks on Gold are borne of frustration. I suspect the phrase, "we might be wrong" is just too difficult for most around here to utter.

 

[RedIbis]

What was the point of yours when you said that we all lacked "integrity"? You insulted us, he corrected you. People are going to correct you when you make up dirt dumb slanderous lies. Get over it.

The strata of wrong in this post is just too dense for me to unpack right now, but suffice it to say you should learn the difference between slander and libel.

 

[WildCat]

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.

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

Excellent Red!

We now know that items 8 and 17 are items you feel should be investigated further. Of course, item 8 is one only you know about, and you're not telling.

Anything else Red?

 

[T.A.M.]

Nothing prevents you from having a calm and civil discussion about a rhetorical tactic that is obviously bothering the debunkers.

The angry response and ad hominem attacks on Gold are borne of frustration. I suspect the phrase, "we might be wrong" is just too difficult for most around here to utter.

It bothers me only because I think he is wrong on all accounts.

As for a calm and civil discussion, I think most can have it here. I think they are confused as to why you brought up the Gold comments as having some validity, when in fact you knew, as I knew, that it was a "rhetoric turn about", and nothing more. You knew before you posted it, that Gold was not admitting possible misgivings about the "theories" he believes in. You knew it was basically a slap to the face of the debunkers, albeit a more subtle than usual one. So WHY did you post it RED?

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

Nothing prevents you from having a calm and civil discussion about a rhetorical tactic that is obviously bothering the debunkers.

Pretty enormous strawman you've got there.

The rhetorical tactic that does bother us, however, is the "bait and switch." As in, someone claiming to have a superior theory, but doggedly refusing to divulge what that theory might be.

It bothers us because it's dishonest, and it places us in the uncomfortable position of either (a) ignoring the offender, or (b) branding them a liar. We cannot progress to a rational, polite discussion since we are being denied promised information. This is not our fault.

The angry response and ad hominem attacks on Gold are borne of frustration. I suspect the phrase, "we might be wrong" is just too difficult for most around here to utter.

I haven't seen any ad hominem attacks on Gold. You might want to look up that phrase.

I also see no possible way that we could be wrong, simply because there are, to date, no alternatives. If anyone could provide a plausible alternate explanation, however speculative, it might be different. I haven't seen one, and I've been looking and asking for one for nearly three years.

You certainly haven't helped in this regard.

 

[dtugg]

I haven't seen any ad hominem attacks on Gold. You might want to look up that phrase.

Red doesn't know what a strawman is also. Either that, or he is extremely dishonest. I think I know which one it is, but I will let Red tell us if he feels like it.

 

[RedIbis]

I haven't seen any ad hominem attacks on Gold. You might want to look up that phrase.

You must have missed post #120.

 

[R.Mackey]

If you are implying that Post #120 contains an ad hominem logical fallacy, I do not see it. Perhaps you'd care to explain?

 

[stateofgrace]

Nothing prevents you from having a calm and civil discussion about a rhetorical tactic that is obviously bothering the debunkers.

The angry response and ad hominem attacks on Gold are borne of frustration. I suspect the phrase, "we might be wrong" is just too difficult for most around here to utter.

So go ahead, Red, utter it.

 

[dtugg]

Apparently Red doesn't know what an ad hominem attack is. Or he is extremely dishonest. Pick one, Red, it has to be one of the two.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I suspect.../

<Redibis skipped all of this content snipped out & jumped to:>
The man is a fraud and a liar and a coward. <and strikes out the rest> He isn't admitting the possibility of being wrong at all. He's trying to fool us. He is failing miserably at doing so.

Apparently with a little bit of hack and slash....

Having read Gold's post however I'm inclined to make the same judgement... short of carrying out a stack of strawmen the size of Mount Everest he isn't admitting to anything... the entire tone of his page isn't particularly enlightening

 

[R.Mackey]

Me too, but that is not an ad hominem.

 

[1337m4n]

Nothing prevents you from having a calm and civil discussion about a rhetorical tactic that is obviously bothering the debunkers.

What "rhetorical tactic"? Subtle insults?

Okay, I'll bite. I will say: we might be wrong to think that the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists should be valued over the opinions of a handful of people sufferring from paranoid delusions. There, I just used the exact same "rhetorical tactic" that Gold used.

Besides, you're supposed to be a TRUTH movement; did you forget that part? TRUTH is not determined by "rhetoric". It is determined by evidence and logic. None of which were demonstrated in Gold's post. If you truly want to discuss "rhetorical tactics", this is not the subforum for it. This is the subforum for evidence of what happened on 9/11. Gold has none, zero, zip. Not one point in his list is anything we haven't heard and refuted a hundred times before. Go to this subforum as rhetoric could be considered an art.

As for the "calm and civil part": Need I remind you that this man called for us to be HANGED? And you want me to be civil in my dealings toward him?

 

[1337m4n]

The strata of wrong in this post is just too dense for me to unpack right now, but suffice it to say you should learn the difference between slander and libel.

Good, jumping on semantics as an excuse to ignore the question. Your mother would be so proud.

 

[1337m4n]

Apparently Red doesn't know what an ad hominem attack is. Or he is extremely dishonest. Pick one, Red, it has to be one of the two.

I see no reason why he cannot be both.

First, he does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between an ad-hominem and a plain statement of a person's character.

Secondly, he is dishonest because he posts an OP that is basically nothing more than a slap in the face to debunkers, and complains when we aren't "civil".

Not to mention, RedIbis keeps suggesting that we should be having some kind of "calm and civil" discussion, but he never makes it clear about what? What is it that we are supposed to be "discussing" here? I don't get it.

Tip, Red: When you want to have a "discussion", you're not supposed to insult everyone and call for them to be hanged. That tends to STIFLE discussion, not promote it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My answers in BOLD

From the Truther list, the best 1's I picked out:

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."

It is a crime as it should be and you are wrong

We might be wrong to think that the media in this country should cover things like family members calling for an entirely new investigation on two separate occasions.

LOL! NYCCAN failed to get a new investigation to pass. Wrong again!

We might be wrong to think that Dick Cheney and George Bush should have been made to testify publicly and under oath.

Yeah right! Get the President of the U.S. to stand in court and prove what exactly? Dick Cheney too?? Wrong again!

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.

They know who did it. The terrorist and Al-Queda. Wrong again!

We might be wrong to think that the event that created the "Post-9/11 World" should be THOROUGHLY investigated to make sure all of the actions taken in the name of that day are justified, responsible, and in we, the people's best interests.

Doesn't the 1993 WTC Bombing ring a bell? Wrong again!

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....

Umm it's called evidence. Please look in the dictionary about it's term and meaning. And yes, you're wrong until proven otherwise.

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?

We're not wrong, the 9/11 Commission is right. Who said we disrespected the 9/11 Families or the 1st Responders but you Truthers? The 9/11 Truth Movement slanders, harasses and threatens anyone that doesn't agree with them or their looney theories. So NO! Who, What, Where, When, Why? The 9/11 Truth Movement and the Truthers paint themselves into a corner and yes, you are ALL a bunch of crazies.