|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
Upcoming Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley
Pat (Brainster on this forum) has mentioned this on his blog but it was officially announced today on 9/11 Blogger.
Quote:
|
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
The comments after the article are pretty funny.
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
|
yeah the comments are hilarious. Shows how delusional everyone at 911 blogger really are.
|
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.” |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
yawn!
Sorry Brainster, I admire you for doing this, but aren't we done already. TAM ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,744
|
Maybe Mike Metz will call in. I'd listen to that all right.
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
New Blood
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
|
Good luck Pat.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,859
|
I've had some friendly conversations with Justin, so I'm not concerned about him being a reasonably fair if obviously not impartial moderator. The show will just be me and Jon on the phones with Justin and Eric in the studio. I hadn't bothered announcing it because it will (as far as I know) only be broadcast live on their campus. They will upload it to YouTube afterwards.
The topics are one of the main reasons I agreed to do the show; it's not missile into the Pentagon or controlled demolition, but the "Truther" fallback position of "Are there unanswered questions" and "Was the 9-11 Commission a legitimate investigation?" At this point I find those more interesting topics. I'm in the process of reading the Shenon book, and I've already read the Commission Report itself and Kean and Hamilton's Without Precedent. Any suggestions for other stuff to check out would be appreciated. I'm actually surprised at how much interesting information I've discovered about Zelikow in the past few days; he really gets an unfair rap from the Troofers. |
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
not really. More like bored with the fact that anyone actually still wants to debate this stuff...there is nothing new, so it will HAVE to be the same old stuff, just different mouth pieces.
Jon Gold is far from a threat, especially to someone as knowledgable as Pat. Thanks for the concern though. TAM ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,116
|
Does 9/11 truth have something new? No
Did 9/11 truth find some evidence to support their nut case ideas? No Thus, 9/11 truth will win in the minds of people unable to understand reality. Pat wins before the debate begins. A review of 9/11 truth fantasy ideas with real information will help those who are able to use logic, knowledge and sound judgment defeat the anti-intellectual 9/11 truth fantasy club. Good work Pat. If the debate is with this Jon Gold, I see the only thing Jon uses is hearsay and opinions based on fantasy and bias political junk. Here he supports Barrett who has the same evidence on 9/11 as Jon has, none.
Quote:
Seems Gold's primary evidence is talk. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
|
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
New Blood
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
|
Sure, I'll answer one question while I'm here. Because I don't like death threats being posted, I don't like slanderous comments against the families and responders being posted, I don't like when "debunkers" choose to use slander against me, as opposed to just trying to counter what's said in the video, and I do not like when people like Nico Haupt and others try to promote ******** information that I do not endorse. If you don't like youtube's commenting features, then take it up with youtube.
Take care. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
Thanks for your reply, Jon. I don’t see the comments you don’t approve or delete of course so I’ll take you at your word. But I do know for a fact that you do censor comments that merely “counter what's said in the video.” Different standards for different people I suppose. Take care.
(Btw, one of the videos you have on YouTube was provided by me. You posted in on 911 Blogger, too. It happens to be on an issue we actually agree on. PM me if you want to know which one.) |
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
|
HAs jon read the entirety of the 911 commission report/ THe various FBI investigations? The Pentagon Performance Report? THE NIST reports (both the towers and hte Wtc7)? or will he come to the table as usual, ignorant of what any of these reports actually state?
|
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.” |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,288
|
Why?
I understand that Pat likes to look at this from a sort of anthropological perspective, but this is just silly. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 447
|
The topics for discussion are:
1. Are there unanswered questions? Yes 2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? No Does Zelikow get a unfair rap? That depends on one's belief concerning the goals of the 9/11 Commission. Was the goal to discover and report the Truth about 9/11, or was the goal to produce a report favorable to the official 9/11 fairy tale? If you believe the former, then Zelikow's bad rap is well deserved. If you believe the latter, then maybe he did get a bad rap. As Philip Shenon reports, "By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, the two men [Philip Zelikow and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian] had prepared a detailed outline, complete with 'chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings'...Zelikow shared the document with Kean and Hamilton, who were impressed by their executive director's early diligence but worried that the outline would be seen as evidence that they--and Zelikow--had predetermined the report's outcome. It should be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided...He labeled it "Commission Sensitive," putting those words at the top and bottom of each page." Investigative reporter, Peter Lance, in his book Cover Up also comments on Zelikow, "When I began this phase of my investigation in the fall of 2003, I developed a confidential source on the commission staff...The source, who had a heavy law enforcement background, revealed that of the eight teams set up to investigate various aspects of the attack..., only one had issued subpoenas. It was run by John Farmer...who was close to chairman Tom Kean. 'The other teams are completely controlled by Zelikow down in D.C.," he said...'Zelikow is calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way. What's worse, none of the other team leaders talk to the Commissioners. Farmer is the only one who deals with the Commissioners, because he has the relationship with Kean.'" |
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?" Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 156
|
The mere fact that Zelikow had an agenda does not by itself mean that the 9/11 Commission was not a legitimate investigation. Zelikow attempted to predetermine the report's outcome for the same reason that Sandy Berger was stuffing memos in his shoe - they each wanted to make sure the administration they represented was not faulted for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Anyone who reads Shenon's book can see that the 9/11 Commission Report was in many ways flawed; however, to say that it was "not a legitimate investigation" is another thing entirely. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Wow
Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.
It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right? Actually, I'm giving too much credit to the poster, since he hasn't really provided an explanation involving a point (subtle or otherwise) that would make his Orwellian claim of the legitimacy of the "investigation" seem reasonable. So let me help him out. Me: "The 911 teams were composed of patriotic Americans, who would never help cover up a crime." or "The 911 teams worked their tails off." or "If the 911 teams not completely controlled by Zelikow had thought there was a need for subpoenas, they would have screamed bloody murder if they were denied." See? Playing at "debunker" can be very easy! Almost any kind of real-world problem solving, described by the word "investigation", involves lots of trial and error. Asking a question may generate a response or finding of fact that leads to a better question. To pre-emptively abort a chain of question/responses is not the way that things are done in, say, a criminal trial. A prosecutor will not take testimony as gospel truth, but rather witnesses are cross-examined, contradictions are sniffed out, etc. I suggest Jon Gold prepare for the debate by studying how other cover-ups in plain sight are done in Washington, such as the Iran Contra hearings. For a cover-up to be worth it's salt, it's important not to ask certain questions. Note: I haven't read Shenon's book, so maybe it's overflowing with examples of why deep questioning wasn't necessary or indicated, and zero examples indicating that deep questioning (aided by subpoenas) would likely have been productive. So, my advice to both debaters is to try and figure this out before-hand, from within the context of Shenon's book. Does Shenon explain just how Zelikow skewed the investigation? (By "how", I mean in what direction, not the mechanics of accomplishing the skewing.)
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Given what Tanabear has described as the topics to be covered.
I restate my earlier position. YAWN! TAM ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,116
|
Your lack of evidence is due to your common sense. Einstein was right, you are wrong on 9/11.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse? The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse? My excuse for slamming 9/11 truth; the absent of evidence in 9/11 truth arguments. Why do you join them, weighing in with zero evidence to support your implication on behalf of the terrorist apologist? You could save these books of woo by adding evidence and get them out of the political section of the library, or move them away from the bigfoot books. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 156
|
If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.
Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Downsitting Citizen
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
|
Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.
I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks. |
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
They would be illegimate if the Truthers attempted to pre-determine the outcome, and there was no counter-balancing individuals who could make sure that the truther constituents didn't have sole ability to ask questions and subpoena documents.* In other words, if there was no balance in the investigative committees, such that if the Truthers really did have a hidden agenda of laying blame where it doesn't belong, it would succeed. And of course, dissenting opinions should be allowed. "Men of good will disagree."
You're being a bit abstract when you lay out your fear of "proving 911 an inside job". 911 Truthers have no state power, right now, and can't compel testimony. But for anybody in a committee with state power, to prove an inside job, you'd have to identify individuals who clearly behaved in a conspiratorial manner. You'd also have to unearth more details than we have now. E.g., if Mohammed Atta was a patsy working with international drug smugglers, who gave him his orders? What was this person's name, and who was this person working for? What group or individuals would have profited from Mohammed Atta's drug dealings? And what would be their interest in perpetrating a 911? If it was solely a contract with another group, what is this group, what are some names of members, and what was their interest in 9/11? Etc. I would recommend that the Jersey girls be part of such a new investigation, even though they probably don't have an investigative or prosecutorial background. I really believe that they want to know exactly why and how their husbands were murdered, whatever that may be. Would it bring them any closure if they laid blame for MIHOP, say, when really it was MEGA-OOPS and CYA? I don't think so, since that would involve blaming innocent individuals. Do you think it would bring them closure? N.B.: Aaron Russo is no longer alive, but a serious investigation would fully investigate his claim of Nick Rockefeller's "911 precognition", also. * By "911 truther", I mean somebody who has shown evidence of 911 activism, but has shown no evidence of deliberately twisting or evading the truth for political ends. Unfortunately, I know of at least one person in the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice who would do such a thing, and I have email to prove it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
did I miss something, or is someone trying to report a "derail".
Since when did derailing a thread with a single post become a "reportable offense"? I do know that ABUSE OF THE REPORT FUNCTION might be considered one though. Unless I am missing something TAM ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 | ||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,517
|
|
||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,859
|
The show has been taped and will be put up on YouTube tonight or tomorrow. I felt it came off pretty well, and Justin and Eric handled themselves in a professional manner. Jon and I managed to avoid getting into a shouting match, so this was not a good audition tape for us to appear on Hannity and Colmes.
![]() |
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
You really don't get it do you.
Let me try a little story... Bill and Joe are two ex-cops working as security guards in a bank. One day a gang of bank-robbers decides to rob the place, so they spend a day casing the place. This is during Bill's watch, but he doesn't notice them. The next day Joe is on duty and the robbers rob the bank taking him by surprise and making him look rather foolish when it is discovered that his gun's not loaded, something that is bank policy. After the robbery partners Officer Jeff and Officer Mick turn up. Turns out that Jeff is an old friend of Bill and when Mick was a rookie he was partners with Joe. Both decide that due to their friendship they aren't going to put their friends in the firing line and so not steer the investigation towards blame for the robbery being placed on their friend. The investigation quickly shows that the robbery was done by a group of bikers from a few towns over, the leader of which had a grudge against the bank because he'd been turned down for a loan extention and had lost his home in a forclosure sale. As far as the bank security is concern, the reccomendation is that the bank arm them properly, but that the failure in realising the bank was a target and preparing was in the training of the guards and so was no one's fault. Now here's the question for you. Just because those doing the investigation set out to make sure their friend wasn't fired for not doing his job, was the investigation no longer legimate? Why, or Why not? Now the argument certainly could be made that both guards could have done more to realise the threat and have possibly stopped it and that this was focused on in the investigation, but would looking at that really have changed the main issues of who did it and the main areas of what when wrong? In the same way, the 9/11 Commision certainly could have made more of both Clinton and Bush's administrations blunders, but that wouldn't have changed the main answer of who did it, how, and where certain things fell over. In essence all it does is give a scapegoat and a false sense of security with the believe that once those that failed are gone the problems are solved. The 9/11 Commission went further than that, they pointed out that the system was sobadly flawed that regardless of who was in charge ot it, it had holes the size of Texas, that it is the system that needs fixing, that blaming individuals inside the system and sacking them wouldn't actually solve the real issues. Which is better, finding scapegoats and sacking them, or actually dealing with and fixing the problems? |
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
First Part of the Debate On YouTube
Justin Martell has the first part of the bebate up on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPWIpCGQGY There will be two other parts and I'll have a playlist of the complete bebate on my video blog when all the segments are available. Edit: Part two now uploaded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFWlzhM8H8 |
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 756
|
|
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
Jon seems to think that the existence of ANY unanswered questions means that the investigation was faulty. I would love for him to point out any investigation that leaves NO unanswered questions.
Interesting debate...would have been 100x better with better audio. |
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
|
You know the 9/11 Comission never established what was served for breakfast on United 93. I suspect a coverup!
|
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin- |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.
I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished. Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that. |
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,859
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|