Upcoming Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

[JamesB]

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?

Yeah, I want David Ray Griffin on there explaining how exactly he thinks the FBI goes about faking the body parts of airplane crash victims.

And I realize I didn't respond earlier to the question about the bodies. First there were bodies, there were 125 Pentagon workers who were killed. But we have no evidence that anyone from an airplane died at the Pentagon. At best we know that bodies from the airplane, and bodies from the Pentagon showed up at the Army's pathology institute. But these were transported by the FBI and the military and we know that was irregular. They went from the Pentagon to another building, and then from that building were taken to the pathology institute. So the bodies from the airplane could have been transferred to that middle building from somewhere else and to the people at the pathology institute they would assume they all came from the Pentagon

 

[JAMartell]

YOU think they believe that 911 was an inside job.

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside job. I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine. You say there's nothing to debate? There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11. I've always been more interested in other topics and that's why I've been trying to organize debates that focus on those. I don't have to be here. If anyone is interested contact me directly. I'm done here for the time being.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Arus808]

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside
job.

Then why do you support the crackpots who do?

I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine.

Gee, you wonder why they would cover up their ERRORs? doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that those who should have seen the events that lead up to 911, wanted to displace the blame.

how many people work in various agencies in our govt?
There are bound to people who will shift blame to someone else.
Its a known fact that the FBI and the CIA DID not communicate with each other leading up to 9/11. IF the CIA had information on OBL activities, THE FBI was PREVENTED from knowing this.

ERRORS are made. the Govt isn't an autonomous machine, on one set track. It's made up of millions of individual human beings with their own beliefs, and sadly, their own agendas.

Cover ups. Yes, we've never disputed that there wasn't any cover ups. but those COVER UPs do NOT mean that the Govt was 100% responsible for the events of 9/11/2001.

You say there's nothing to debate?

Yes there is nothing to debate. What you want to debate is the POLICIES and POLITICS that were in place before 9/11/2001. THAT has nothing to do with 911 or any of the crackpots who think that 911 was an inside job.

There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11.

BECAUSE that is what matters. Its those that you support that the think evidence doesn't matter. EVIDENCE proves that operatives within Al Quaeda were responsible for the execution and events of 9/11/2001. To ignore this, means that you are ignoring reality.

 

[T.A.M.]

I want to see Gumboot and FAA's Robert Hordon Debate NORAD. That'd be fantastic

Gumboot or Cheapshot (you know, one of the actual ATCers who worked that day, and was responsible for tracking one of the 9/11 flights), would likely tear Robin "Stopped working in the Reagan Area" Hordon a new one on the matter.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Gumboot or Cheapshot (you know, one of the actual ATCers who worked that day, and was responsible for tracking one of the 9/11 flights), would likely tear Robin "Stopped working in the Reagan Area" Hordon a new one on the matter.

TAM

Era, TAM, era.

/pedant

 

[bje]

As much as I respect Pat Curley, Mark Roberts, and anyone else who chooses to debate 9/11 Deniers, I still maintain that no one should debate 9/11 Deniers any more than they should debate Holocaust Deniers.

That position is still controversial ever since Deborah Lipstadt declared in no uncertain terms that she would never appear on the the same stage as a Holocaust Denier, and would never debate one under any circumstances.

What is the purpose and end result of such debates? What have such debates accomplished to date?

Do we need any more evidence than our own experience here and on other forums for the last seven years to understand that reason and rational thinking play no part in in 9/11 Truthers thinking or appraisal of reality?

Are we subconsciously caving to the post-modern assertion that "every opinion counts equally", that "every person has a right to be heard no matter what they espouse?"

Do such debates change minds? Do they serve the purpose to deflect a newcomer's ignorance of 9/11 to assess the positions rationally or to have no effect on one whose mind, ignorance, or motivations will make them a Truther no matter what? Do we have any hard evidence that debating 9/11 Truthers serves any purpose to introduce rational skepticism with positive results?

Having fought Holocaust Denial vigoursly online before 9/11, I have been fighting (far less vigorously) the exact same battle about 9/11 as I was then. The subject matter (the Holocaust and 9/11) are completely different subject matters, but the psychology that ultimately fuels denial of reality in each subject and any semblance of actually trying to acheive the truth as the end result, is exactly the same. I find it particularly horrifying that Jon Gold, of all people, should not understand that, and that what he is actually doing is perpetuating (not intentionally but through vast ignorance and obsession) the same kind of thinking, obfuscation, and mental gymnastics that resulted in the possibility and reality of the Holocaust.

Have any of the debates that have appeared so far by any of us defending reason and truth accomplished anything? Do we not see the same outcome each time we applaud Gravy, Pat, and others for jobs well done in mostly civilized debates? While the 9/11 Truthers celebrate the same thing, both sides claiming victories but for different reasons and motives?

By what standard, then, do we decide it is legitimate and worthwhile to debate 9/11 Truthers? What indeed is the rational standard that justifies giving 9/11 Truthers the time of day?

Hannah Arendt famously wrote,

"Facts inform opinions and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely and still be legitimate as long as they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts are not in dispute."

- Hannah Arendt, "Truth and Politics", 1968

Do any of us really think that 9/11 Truthers "respect factual truth"? Do we think they are just confused and we all posess the power and ability to show them the reality of how objective reality is determined and why? Just what factual information is guaranteed when we deal with 9/11 Truthers in any forum? Hasn't Craig Ranke of CIT shown us that the forum structure on the Internet guarantees that he can say anything he wants without ethical regard for the accuracy, validity, or truth whatsoever of whatever he wants to claim?

"There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

With our seven years experience with Truthers, have we established that the 9/11 Truth Movement has the intellectual honesty to adhere to any acceptable standard of rational discourse?

Perhaps our individual motives are different. We all may agree that we don't want others to fall into the denial trap and fight it. Perhaps we just like to test our reasoning and logical skills against those who ultimately could care less, their motives, psychology, and desires ruling the day over any concernns for reason, accuracy, or truth.

Should we give 9/11 Truthers an audience which appears to give them legitimacy and recognition they neither deserve or have earned by agreeing to debate with them?

Is not the purpose of debate to air and illuminate to the light of day equally valid, but different or opposing views, for further rational discussion and resolution? What does debating 9/11 Truthers actually serve other than to satisfy the adage that perception is reality and reality is irrelevant?

That perception could only be that by agreeing to debate them, we tacitly recognize "9/11 Truth" as a body of legitimate points of discussion. We become the lifeblood of the 9/11 Truth Movement by anointing them with undeserved legitimacy, do we not?

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact -- which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists in debate. [...]
- (Caltech lecture, 1985) - Stephen Jay Gould

I have no doubt why Justin Martell is excited to want to sponsor more debates and why Jon Gold was happy to be "legitimized" by Pat. It has been no different throughout the 63 years of Holocaust Denial or the more recent history of Creationism and "Intelligent Design." It serves no valid pupose, IMHO, and only serves to perpetuate fraud and ignorance on the human race.

I urge anyone to carefully think about the purpose and consequences of debating anyone from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Don't give Justin Martell and Jon Gold what they need to survive, no matter how polite they are to you, to achieve an undeserved legitimacy they desperately need from us.

 

[Baylor]

Good point bje. Dawkins feels that debating creationists gives them the oxygen they need to get a fire going. I feel the same way about 9/11 denial. As if there's something to debate here. Like we need to debate if a secret shadow government that controls a secret shadow government rigged the twins with explosives just so they could pass off a controlled demolition as a progressive collapse from impact damage and fire. It'd be more fruitful debating the evolutionary ancestors of unicorns.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside job. I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine. You say there's nothing to debate? There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11. I've always been more interested in other topics and that's why I've been trying to organize debates that focus on those. I don't have to be here. If anyone is interested contact me directly. I'm done here for the time being.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Yeah, yeah you never SAY anything do you? BTW I still have the emails showing you blowing me off TWICE, and the recording of me calling you out on the Alex Jones show, which was the same day as the debate when you claimed to be "busy." Why would I take you seriously after you blew off the debate twice? Heck, I'm sure I could even link one of the several threads of you on here trolling for a debate and practically begging to debate someone, anyone!

Lets be honest, you and I were only debating because almost everyone else in here, thinks you're too much of a joke to give you the time of day. This debate I just watched between Gold and Brainster accomplished absolutely nothing and Gold simply rehashed a bunch of garbage that has been discussed either here, or on SLC, several times before. You have no new evidence to contribute and I'm still wondering what the heck Pat was thinking even debating Gold. I just hope you finally got that "debate bug" outta your system.

 

[T.A.M.]

Era, TAM, era.

/pedant

DOH!!!!

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Seriously, bje hit the nail on the head Pat. It's almost like you want to run that blog of yours forever. I haven't been on JREF or SLC for a couple months, until recently, and in my time away I haven't heard one single person even mention 9/11, let alone a CT. As a matter of fact, I rarely heard anyone talk about 9/11 until a guy who runs a head shop here in TX turned me on to Zeitgeist (Willie Nelson Hypothesis style). The twoof movement is like tinkerbell and Brainster is clapping it right back to life. Why can't you just make fun of them like everyone else Curley, huh!?!?!

 

[Brainster]

I have no doubt why Justin Martell is excited to want to sponsor more debates and why Jon Gold was happy to be "legitimized" by Pat. It has been no different throughout the 63 years of Holocaust Denial or the more recent history of Creationism and "Intelligent Design." It serves no valid pupose, IMHO, and only serves to perpetuate fraud and ignorance on the human race.

I urge anyone to carefully think about the purpose and consequences of debating anyone from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Don't give Justin Martell and Jon Gold what they need to survive, no matter how polite they are to you, to achieve an undeserved legitimacy they desperately need from us.

This is a valid argument and one that I've wrestled with for awhile. I took this challenge on because I found the topics more interesting. This is where Trooferism is going in the USA, back to the "just asking questions" phase, partly because the debunkers have so thoroughly demolished the controlled demolition and missile into the Pentagon arguments.

It's a tough call; on the one hand you have the argument raised by Lipstadt and others that debating these people is legitimizing them; on the other you have "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." And there I'd say everybody has to make their own judgment.

 

[DGM]

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside job. I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine. You say there's nothing to debate? There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11. I've always been more interested in other topics and that's why I've been trying to organize debates that focus on those. I don't have to be here. If anyone is interested contact me directly. I'm done here for the time being.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving to you also.

Can we now assume that you give no credence to "controlled demolition" and all of the other wacky "theories" that the "truth" movement puts forth?

Personally I think looking for someone (an individual) is pointless and only equates to a "witch hunt" I can agree that there is (and always will be) points to be discussed.

Will you now focus your efforts on silencing the outlandish claims in favor of learning what really happened (although the commission report was not bad)?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Era, TAM, era.

You talk like Ted Kennedy.

(Boston joke)

 

[R.Mackey]

We're looking to set up more debates like this between other representatives from each side. Some of the people we thought about from the side of the debunkers are James B, Mike W, Ron Wieck, Ryan Mackey, Kryptos, and Gumboot. Obviously, we would cover other topics and topics that are of particularly interest to those debating.

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?

Let me just say that I found the debate to be handled well, technical glitches notwithstanding. Well done.

Personally, I am not in the business of debating a person, any person. This is not and should not be a contest of personalities. I need a topic. If there's a given topic that needs to be discussed, and that topic has a natural representative who wants to stand up and talk about it, that's fine. Frankly, though, the number of remaining topics to be discussed is rather small. If you want to get my attention, I would need a name and a frame of reference.

The lone exception would be, of course, Dr. Griffin. Here he has published, and I've put out several hundred pages of criticism to which neither he nor anyone else has competently responded, in the fourteen months since I released my critique. In this case, the topic is obvious, and no further introduction would be necessary.

Some ideas we were throwing around (but haven't talked to anyone about yet) would possibly Sander Hicks V.S. someone regarding the whistleblower and even though CD has been beat to death, maybe Kevin Ryan V.S. Ryan Mackey...

The last three things I've seen from Kevin Ryan are (a) his laughable response to my whitepaper, which I already treated in the v2.1 release, showing him to be factually uninformed; and (b) the embarrassing paper in The Environmentalist; and (c) his simple abuse of NIST regarding the WTC 7 report. There is also his track record versus Mark Roberts, viz. his history of fleeing challenges in the past. I am not convinced he'd make a worthwhile opponent. For him I would certainly want to see what he thought he had to offer before signing up.

Only speaking for myself, of course.

 

[Brainster]

The lone exception would be, of course, Dr. Griffin. Here he has published, and I've put out several hundred pages of criticism to which neither he nor anyone else has competently responded, in the fourteen months since I released my critique. In this case, the topic is obvious, and no further introduction would be necessary.

Oh, man, wouldn't we all like to get a shot at DRG! I'll acknowledge that you've earned it more than I have, but definitely don't hold your breath. He's never going to let himself get pinned down.

 

[JamesB]

Oh, man, wouldn't we all like to get a shot at DRG! I'll acknowledge that you've earned it more than I have, but definitely don't hold your breath. He's never going to let himself get pinned down.

Well, he is coming to town on Wednesday...

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh, man, wouldn't we all like to get a shot at DRG! I'll acknowledge that you've earned it more than I have, but definitely don't hold your breath. He's never going to let himself get pinned down.

I think either of you three (Pat, R.Mackey, or Mark) would be excellent choices to debate against the High Priest (DRG), but I think the odds are better for the lottery...he knows his limitations, and the limitations of his information. You will not get him to debate.

TAM