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:

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

Douchebag. :p

[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.

[16.5]

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 (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/12/yes-you-might-be-wrong-jon.html).

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. :rolleyes:

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... :rolleyes:

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

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?

[RedIbis]

AS Michael Shermer put so well:



Ya got that Jon?

What well established theories? Pancakes? Diesel fuel fed fires? Mystery fighter planes over the Atlantic?

[1337m4n]

What well established theories? Pancakes? Diesel fuel fed fires? Mystery fighter planes over the Atlantic?

Why are you trying to derail your own thread.

[parky76]

people who refuse to accept they are wrong...even in the face of overwhelming evidence and investigation upon investigation...are called one thing:

losers.

[16.5]

Why are you trying to derail your own thread.

Because it is Red Ibis.

Seven years and counting, he is still just JAQ'ing off, just like Gold.

I notice old Jon the JAQ Off has ignored my request for evidence. But good old Tanabear repeats his request for the Government to crash a plane into a skyscraper to falsify his beliefs. And a bunch of people think that is a good idea.

Hey Red, your Truther buddies are absolute morons.

[Pardalis]

What well established theories? Pancakes? Diesel fuel fed fires? Mystery fighter planes over the Atlantic?

By saying that you show your complete lack of understanding of the scientific process, and are validating James B and Michael Shermer's point.

[T.A.M.]

What well established theories? Pancakes? Diesel fuel fed fires? Mystery fighter planes over the Atlantic?

No, more like:

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

You know, "theories".

TAM;)

[RedIbis]

No, more like:

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

You know, "theories".

TAM;)

And Gold's essay mentions none of those.

[T.A.M.]

And Gold's essay mentions none of those.

No, I was simply pointing out that the Truth Movement is full of absolutely insane (let alone "Mysterious") theories.

Thats all.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

No, I was simply pointing out that the Truth Movement is full of absolutely insane (let alone "Mysterious") theories.

Thats all.

TAM:)

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.

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Yeah, Red, that's it. We of the Official NWO Debunking Society made up all the batguano crazy stuff. None of those things come from Fetzer or Judy in the Skies, or Jones or Ace Baker or Craig and Aldo or Killtown. The debunkers made them up. Or, are you playing the disinfo card?

Does it occur to you that you're hearing about the Looney Toons ideas more from debunkers because the TM, those few who are trying to sound serious, are just plain embarassed by Keebler Elves, Klunkity Klunk, voice morphing dreams, video fakery that was impossible, thermite used in demolition work, etc....

[16.5]

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.

Aha, your completely hidden theory is world's better than your pal's theories.

I guess all that JAQ'ing off has given you an insight better than those of your pals.

By the way Red, 'hardly anyone argues for them." Uh, hardly anyone argues for ANY truthy truth theories.

By the way, is the king of the JAQ offs, Gold, ever going to supply any evidence to support his silly post on the blogger board?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[ETA: Bah. I stopped reading 16.5's post just before he made the exact same point I make here.]

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.


Given the "truthers"-to-world-population ratio, one could also say that "hardly anyone" argues for controlled demolition, too.

So, apparently, by confronting those less-crazy-than-a-Pentagon-flyover-but-still-certifiably-crazy claims, debunkers are still just arguing strawmen.

I guess that means we should just leave you folks alone, then, huh? :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

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.

ok, so if they are strawmen, then where is the reality of those "theories" i produced? Is there not a segment of the truth movement, such as Judy Wood, Ace Baker, and many others that believe that space beam weapons brought down the WTCs, and that the plane images we see were merely "realtime CGI"?

Loose Change, the "Biggest Truther Film" had the "pods" theory within it, in its original version, did it not?

A-Train, who I believe is now banned, use to come here and promote his "Israeli Commandos took over the planes, set them to autopilot, then parachuted out" claim.

Real Time Voice Morphing was heavily promoted by the truth movement, including "Loose Change" and others, despite the author of the article which they base their "theory" on publicly stating that the technology that would be required for "real time" morphing is not even presently available.

I mean come on, I agree these are outlandish theories, but they are far from "Strawmen" arguments.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

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.


You posted a letter full of nothing but strawmen. "I'm wrong about everything and can offer no proof to the contrary, but if I'm right I bet you guys don't apologize because you're jerks" doesn't really deserve anything more substantive in response. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/raise.gif

[dtugg]

Even "mainstreem" twoofers like the High Priest of Da Twoof himself believe in ridiculous nonsense such as faked phone calls and remote controlled planes. I guess they kind of have to otherwise they would be forced to admit that suicidal terrorists did indeed hijack and crash planes. Do you believe in faked phone calls and remote controlled planes, Red?

Strawmen? Please. RedIbis is about as ingenuous with his use of the word as Alex Jones.

[DGM]

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.
OK;
Give it to us straight. What the hell is the "truth movement" on about? You keep telling us that we use "strawmen" against their argument. Now we need YOU to tell us what the argument is.

Red, step up to the plate and define what this "movement" you so adamantly defend (and support) actually stands for (and rejects).

Thanks

[Alt+F4]

Do you believe in faked phone calls and remote controlled planes, Red?

As far as I can tell, Red has only been clear on one point, that he/she believes: the FDNY members there on 9/11 didn't know what they were hearing or seeing (I guess they took the little school bus to work) until the higher ups (those that control their pay and pensions) told them what they saw and heard. Like the good, greedy robots they were/are, no members of the FDNY ever questioned what they were told by their evil, municipal overseeers.

Other than that, Red has no idea what happened on 9/11.

[doobiedoright]

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.



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 JREF 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 JREF for trying to push all the crazy theroies on all of us and by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?

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

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Why are you guys even bothering with this idiot?

[RedIbis]

Why are you guys even bothering with this idiot?

Namecalling, now that's impressive.

[bje]

Namecalling, now that's impressive.

As opposed to Jon Gold: "You are scum. You deserve to hang for the crimes you're committing."

And you still believe Jon Gold is "just asking questions."

Gosh.

[1337m4n]

"You deserve to hang for the crimes you're committing."

Well I feel all warm and fuzzy. How about you, Red?

[Drudgewire]

Namecalling, now that's impressive.


So is completely avoiding the nine posts pointing out the hypocrisy of you using the term "strawmen" in order to focus on the one below it.

It's a shining example of the only way this stupid movement has been able to stay somewhat afloat after seven years (albeit mainly by floating on the corpses of your own sinking ship). By claiming you're "just asking questions" and closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears while yelling "LALALALALAAA!!" at any sort of answers while telling yourselves you're actually engaging in debate.

[RedIbis]

Well I feel all warm and fuzzy. How about you, Red?

I would certainly admit that I think the weakest part of the essay is any exaggerated indignation, and I stated clearly in the OP that I don't agree with everything, and that I might have approached it differently.

What I do think is effective is that all of the points are not necessarily CT related. This is the middle ground of criminal incompetence, botched and resisted investigation, and no mention of demolition.

Why do you think most of the posters jumped on the angrier comments and avoided all the rest?

[Drudgewire]

Why do you think most of the posters jumped on the angrier comments and avoided all the rest?


I can't find the irony meter emote, so here's a monkey rocking back and forth. :mrocks

[bje]

Why do you think most of the posters jumped on the angrier comments and avoided all the rest?

It's been addressed for years here and elsewhere. Jon Gold is no different in behavior than other truthers in the necessity to ignore and deny evidence inconvenient to his desired end to hang us all.

Why do you pretend this is all new to you, Red?

[1337m4n]

Why do you think most of the posters jumped on the angrier comments and avoided all the rest?

Probably because "the rest" have been done to death on this forum already. We've got dozens of age-old threads on just about everything he mentions if you dig deep enough. We have found nothing that would indicate LIHOP.

Jon Gold does not answer the question. Everything is written to the tone of "we might be wrong that the sky is blue". He clearly isn't willing to admit he's wrong about anything, even though he says he is. He is inviting more hostility, not debate.

He was asking for hostility, so the people here gave him hostility. Had he been asking for debate, we would have given him debate.

[T.A.M.]

I would certainly admit that I think the weakest part of the essay is any exaggerated indignation, and I stated clearly in the OP that I don't agree with everything, and that I might have approached it differently.

What I do think is effective is that all of the points are not necessarily CT related. This is the middle ground of criminal incompetence, botched and resisted investigation, and no mention of demolition.

Why do you think most of the posters jumped on the angrier comments and avoided all the rest?

I personally did not address the meat of his post out of time constraints. He made a lot of comments, that would require a hefty answer in reply.

All of his "We could be wrong" comments however, are just an annoying twist on "JAQ"ing off, so they really do not deserve that much of my time.

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

What I do think is effective is that all of the points are not necessarily CT related. This is the middle ground of criminal incompetence, botched and resisted investigation, and no mention of demolition.

No, LIHOP is not "the middle ground". That term means there is a compromise; some kind of integration of two opposing ideas. LIHOP in many fundamental ways is a contradiction of MIHOP, and therefore just another example of the Truther "Let's just throw a bunch of crap at the wall and see what sticks" mindset.

[16.5]

Why do you think most of the posters jumped on the angrier comments and avoided all the rest?

Why do most of the posters jump on the complete bull **** instead of just the minor bull ****?

That being said, last freaking week, I "jumped" on the nonsense about the stock options.

Your and Gold's response?

crickets.

why are you wasting our time Red?

[Cuddles]

There's one big problem with the two sides throwing the "If you were wrong, would you admit it?" question at each other - one side has already been proven wrong, and they haven't admitted it. Almost everything that has been claimed by truthers is either proven wrong or is so stupid and insane that no-one even bothered. No planes, pods, missiles, elves, space destruction beams, dancing Jews, billions in stolen gold, voice morphing, holograms, commandos, faked wreckage, faked data, controlled demolitions, thermite, Al-Qaeda being CIA or Israeli inventions, cardboard boxes, thermal expansion, gravity and air pressure, free-fall, speed of clapping, and so on. And on and on and on. On the few occasions that they're not hilariously wrong, they simply have no evidence whatsoever for their claims.

Of course, as RedIbis is always quick to point out, not all truthers believe all of these, and the numerous fights between factions proves that nicely. However, the vast majority of truthers do believe, or have at least made claims (or should that be "just asked questions") about at least some of them. How many have ever actually admitted to being proven wrong on any of these points? More importantly, how many have actually meant it and not just latched on to something else equally wrong and stupid?

Loose Change provides a perfect example. The first edition was full of nonsense and lies, some of which were quietly dropped in later editions. But did they ever actually admit to being wrong, or did they just claim to have deliberately left mistakes in to make people think, and go on to make several more editions filled with slightly different nonsense and lies?

The point is, there's really no point in either side asking the other if they'll admit to being wrong. One side has been proved wrong about nearly everything they've ever said but still refuse to accept that, and the other side simply isn't wrong about most of the relevant claims.

[16.5]

"No planes, pods, missiles, elves, space destruction beams, dancing Jews, billions in stolen gold, voice morphing, holograms, commandos, faked wreckage, faked data, controlled demolitions, thermite, Al-Qaeda being CIA or Israeli inventions, cardboard boxes, thermal expansion, gravity and air pressure, free-fall, speed of clapping, and so on. And on and on and on. nonsense and lies?


"One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just isn't the same"

Lyrics by Oscar the Grouch

[RedIbis]

No, LIHOP is not "the middle ground". That term means there is a compromise; some kind of integration of two opposing ideas. LIHOP in many fundamental ways is a contradiction of MIHOP, and therefore just another example of the Truther "Let's just throw a bunch of crap at the wall and see what sticks" mindset.

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

[WildCat]

How about criminal incompetence, calls for accountability,
It's tempting, but I don't think there's anything criminal in your stated belief that there's no evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

[dtugg]

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

Also in conflict with the MIHOP that you believe in. You can't believe that they were incompetent when they actually did it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just isn't the same"

Lyrics by Oscar the Grouch


Hah. I think Cuddles is referring to the notion a number of truthers have latched onto; that thermal expansion was a phenomenon invented by the NIST.

[Drudgewire]

Also in conflict with the MIHOP that you believe in. You can't believe that they were incompetent when they actually did it.


Of course if they'd left anything around obvious enough for the stupidity magnet known as the truth movement to actually find, now THAT would be gross incompetence. :p

[Brainster]

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

There is no such thing as criminal incompetence.

Calls for accountability? Whom exactly do you want to fire? Bush and Cheney are on their way out the door. Tenet left the CIA in 2004. Mueller? The guy only took the job a week before the attacks.

Please feel free to present your evidence for an investigation into obstruction of justice into a thread.

[Pardalis]

Of course if they'd left anything around obvious enough for the stupidity magnet known as the truth movement to actually find, now THAT would be gross incompetence. :p

And we could accuse the TM of the same "crimes". They're incompetent at getting anything done, they are accountable for not doing anything, and they clearly are obstructing justice by not delivering their key evidence to the proper authorities.

[RedIbis]

There is no such thing as criminal incompetence.



You can't possibly be that naive.

[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? :boggled:

[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 9/11 Glossary.

[RedIbis]

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

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

[16.5]

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.

[3bodyproblem]

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 :rolleyes:

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.

[16.5]

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.

[Almo]

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

I think that you believe this now. It may even be true that this is what would happen. But I suspect that a lot of Truthers would call foul play on the investiagation if it didn't find anything wrong.

[WildCat]

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.
I'll add a few of RedIbis's favorites:

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

[twinstead]

Don't forget no stars in pictures and flag blowing in the 'wind'. Oh wait. Wrong conspiracy. Sorry.

[DavidJames]

I'll add a few of RedIbis's favorites:

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 79Don't forget the guy who attended a "tea party" instead of stopping 9/11. I think it was General Meyers

[RedIbis]

Don't forget the guy who attended a "tea party" instead of stopping 9/11. I think it was General Meyers

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.

[JamesB]

This goes right along with the Bush told the Secret Service not to react theory, which requires the perpetrators to expand the conspiracy for the sole purpose of getting even more people to act suspiciously.

[RedIbis]

This goes right along with the Bush told the Secret Service not to react theory, which requires the perpetrators to expand the conspiracy for the sole purpose of getting even more people to act suspiciously.

Yeah, the Secret Service, that's quite an "expansion".

[JamesB]

So please explain to me why they would involve the Secret Service (despite the name, they don't do covert operations). Usually when I am involved in a massive criminal operation, I make sure that as many members of the law enforcement community are aware of it as possible. But that is just me.

[1337m4n]

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.

Out of curiousity, what would you have wanted him to do? Put on a Superman costume and jump in front of the planes?

It seems to me, that discussing national security is precisely what one is supposed to do in the event of a terrorist attack, assuming one is incapable of immediately participating in combat.

[UNLoVedRebel]

This reminds me of what draftsman always says. In the real world, the list of suspects starts out big, and gets smaller as new evidence is presented. In kook world, the list of suspects just gets bigger and bigger. So we all know someone who was involved in the 9/11 twoof conspiracy, within maybe 2 degrees of separation, let alone 6 degrees.

[HyJinX]

This reminds me of what draftsman always says. In the real world, the list of suspects starts out big, and gets smaller as new evidence is presented. In kook world, the list of suspects just gets bigger and bigger. So we all know someone who was involved in the 9/11 twoof conspiracy, within maybe 2 degrees of separation, let alone 6 degrees.

I'm pretty sure Kevin Bacon was involved...so there goes your theory.

[1337m4n]

This reminds me of what draftsman always says. In the real world, the list of suspects starts out big, and gets smaller as new evidence is presented. In kook world, the list of suspects just gets bigger and bigger. So we all know someone who was involved in the 9/11 twoof conspiracy, within maybe 2 degrees of separation, let alone 6 degrees.

I'm pretty sure Kevin Bacon was involved...so there goes your theory.

Just for fun, I'm going to set out to see how many links it takes to get from Chuck Norris to the nearest person accused by the TM of being "in on it".

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Just for fun, I'm going to set out to see how many links it takes to get from Chuck Norris to the nearest person accused by the TM of being "in on it".


Zero. Chuck Norris is the NWO.

[tomwaits]

nvm

[Dave Rogers]

Just for fun, I'm going to set out to see how many links it takes to get from Chuck Norris to the nearest person accused by the TM of being "in on it".

Easy. Chuck Norris -> Walker, Texas Ranger -> George Walker Bush, owner of the Texas Rangers football team. A classic piece of NWO codename assignment.

And I'd never even heard of Chuck Norris.

Dave

[16.5]

Bump for Red Ibis:

Hey buddy, how's about a little explanation on these points:

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.

Still waiting (and know fully well that old Red will continue to ignore this while he works on his super secret theory).

[JamesB]

Easy. Chuck Norris -> Walker, Texas Ranger -> George Walker Bush, owner of the Texas Rangers football team. A classic piece of NWO codename assignment.

And I'd never even heard of Chuck Norris.

Dave

Everyone knows that Walker Texas Ranger is the cousin of Wirt Walker III, the CEO of Securacom who was head of security for the World Trade Center.

[RedIbis]

Bump for Red Ibis:

Hey buddy, how's about a little explanation on these points:

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.

Still waiting (and know fully well that old Red will continue to ignore this while he works on his super secret theory).

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?

[WildCat]

What exactly do you want me to explain?
How about telling us which of these points you think are are legitimate as opposed to "strawmen" (put in scare quotes because you don't seem to know what one is)?

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

[RedIbis]

How about telling us which of these points you think are are legitimate

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

[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.

[16.5]

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?

[UNLoVedRebel]

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. :rolleyes:

[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.

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3566811#post3566811) theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4071724#post4071724), 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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66969) 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.... :duck:

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 (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=9) 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.