9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

Blogads

Banner Exchange

9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 7:10pm.

Part I

Part II

Part III

All three parts to a debate between 9/11 Activist Jon Gold and Pat Curley the creator of the popular blog ScrewLooseChange.

The debate took place on Monday, November 24th, 2008 on the Franklin Pierce University closed circuit television show, The Dynamic Duo and was moderated by the show's hosts Justin Martell and Eric Jackman.

The only editing that has been done to the three segments is all references to commercials have been removed (to make the conversation continuous), along with the opening and closing credits. The content of the debate has not been altered in any way.

FP-TV's The Dynamic Duo is in no way affiliated with the GCN Radio Network show of the same name.

www.FormYourOwn.org

» Jon Gold's blog | login to post comments | printer friendly version

» login to post comments | 13 points

For those who were curious...

I'm holding my Honorary Director plaque from the FealGood Foundation.

After listening to this a few times, I think it went rather well. I did my very best not to get angry. I did my very best not to argue about theories. I did my very best to put forward the best information possible. I did my very best to stay on topic. Pat was told specifically not to play the "guilt by association" game. He asked Justin for time for a closing argument, and that's exactly what he used it for. I have always thought 77 hit the Pentagon. I have never endorsed voice morphing. I have never endorsed Nico Haupt. I have never endorsed Killtown (except for his 200 Smoking Gun list, but his antics since then made me steer clear). I have been one of the biggest advocates against promoting bad information, or what is considered bad information. Also, to think that we never correct ourselves, or admit mistakes after I JUST corrected something in my facts article because he pointed it out, is absurd. I decided to take the "high road," and I think maybe... it was the right decision. Sure, I would like to have mentioned Troy, etc... I'm glad I didn't.

I think it's funny that Pat agrees 1) there are unanswered questions 2) the 9/11 Commission wasn't a real investigation.

I would have respected his effort more if he didn't do what he did. I hope everyone enjoys this. Debating against someone "out to get you" is VERY hard.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 7:50am.

» login to post comments | 7 points

Pat was told specifically not to play the "guilt by association"

"Pat was told specifically not to play the "guilt by association" game. He asked Justin for time for a closing argument, and that's exactly what he used it for."

That's exactly what he used it for. He took the low road and screwed himself, trying to paint the 911 Truth Movement as believing things not many believe. In the 2006 Scripps poll, 12% thought a missile may have or probably hit the Pentagon; only 4% said "probably".

in 2007 51% supported Bush and Cheney being investigated for 9/11 - Zogby

in 2006, 81% said Bush Administration "mostly lying" or "hiding something" about what they knew prior to 9/11.- NYT/CBS

In Nov 2007, 62% thought it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" "that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings"
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28534

That's the 9/11 Truth Movement, imho. The victim's families, all Americans and all the people of the world deserve the whole truth and justice, not spin, limited hangout and disingenuous BS from shills like Curley and SCL.

Curley sounded shaken up- not like debunking Nico Haupt, is it, Curley?

EDIT- forgot to note in my comment below that Jon noted in the debate that he's never endorsed 99% of what Curley tried to "guilt by association" him with.

Pat at SCL
EDIT 3- removed hyperlink, SCL doesn't deserve it- screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-debate-with-jon-gold_25.html
"Justin and Eric treated me fairly, and they did not interject their own opinions into the mix. They did a professional job on this production, and I appreciate and applaud their efforts. Jon represented his side well."

Well, at least he's honest here- very gentlemanly, Pat- I hope you'll spend some more time at The Facts Speak For Themselves, and HistoryCommons.org.

EDIT 2- 126 comments so far at SCL- i glanced thru a couple page-downs; their typical sewer of foul-mouthed jokes, ad homs and false claims

EDIT 3- COMMENTS have been REMOVED from SCL; i have a .webarchive of the comments, and the current page showing 0, for what it's worth-

i hope everyone regularly archives what they come across; it only takes a sec to hit Ctrl + S and save a webpage, and storage is getting cheaper and larger at an exponential rate; you can get a 1TB drive now for a little over $300.

EDIT 4- Comments are back up at SCL; up to 133- i made another .webarchive

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Submitted by loose nuke on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 9:08pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

what I would like to ask pat

First i'm glad everyone noticed that cheap tactic of labeling truthers as supporting loony theories. (I'm suprised he didn't throw aliens in there somewhere) But what I would have liked to asked him is this:
If the new investigation proved otherwise, such as the things we have strong evidence for...would YOU accept it? I think the answer might be no...

Submitted by Brett on Thu, 11/27/2008 - 2:37am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Who is Pat?

Just curious... who is Pat, and why are we concerned with what he says about anything, and why are we concerned that he and screwloosechange get all of this great publicity? Would anyone care about his ridiculous comments if you had not done this so-called debate with him? Just curious. How does this help us achieve our goals?

What are our goals?
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Submitted by bbruhwiler8 on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 4:55am.

» login to post comments | 1 point

Who is Pat? you ask

Pat is no one in particular. He is, however, representative of millions of people in general, who are still under the spell of the psyops.

It would be a tremendous coup to get Pat to actually see through his own eyes rather than through the fog of the psyops.

I don't think this can be done by a confrontational approach. He gets ego satisfaction out of "championing" "his" point of view. I do not know HOW to break through to him, but if someone could figure that one out, it would really help the cause of Truth.

He is in a position to do the cause of Truth a lot of good. BUT - it will take someone who is a really good, creative thinker to get him to trust his own ability to think, and reclaim his own mind. The battering ram approach probably will not work.

Submitted by zmzmzm on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 12:04pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Bruno.

On Oct. 27, I advised you, DHS and Jon to refrain from replying to each other on this message board, via email. You acknowledged receipt of the email. You have now chosen to disregard this advice, and are now attempting to bait Jon into another rhetorical battle.

You were advised that the consequences would be that I would put your account in the moderation queue, where it shall now go.

Submitted by Reprehensor on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 3:13pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

Here's my take on the debate, Pat and ScrewsLoose

The Debate Over 9/11 Truth - Jon Gold & Screw Loose Change
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-debate-over-911-truth-jon...

Who are they?

From SCL's front page:

As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Still, their traffic is nowhere near 911Blogger - 77K on Alexa:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/911blogger.com

LostScrews - 344K
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/screwloosechange.blogs...

You see that, Pat? How you like my article?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Submitted by loose nuke on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 5:57pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

Who is Pat? A nasty little man...

...whose 15 minutes of fame has long since been over:

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2008/12/happy-christmas-to-all-plus-s...

Great debate, Jon.

______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:23am.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Thanks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 9:21am.

» login to post comments | -1 points

Pat also mentioned Richard Gage

and you disassociated yourself with him.

Submitted by Dwightvw on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 6:17am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

No...

I didn't.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 10:49am.

» login to post comments | 9 points

that was good

whoops, didn't see the other parts- part 1 kicks curleys ass- way to stand up for the families- NORAD lied; don't they deserve answers?

EDIT- Part 2- good- Curley admits Zelikow is Bush insider and "arrogant"- mentions Shenon- Jon agrees, notes that Shenon recommended the 9/11 truth movement push his book (source? details- did he elaborate? please reply)

Part 3- good- Jon- Bush Admin said no warnings, PDB comes out (it mentions hijackings, surveillance) and the fact that there were 70 active FBI investigations- Sibel Edmonds testified they knew Bin Laden was planning to attack cities with planes- July 10 Condi emergency meeting, left out of Commission Report- whistleblowers; Casazza statement; anonymous whistleblower says they knew the day, target and type (her questions deserve answers but Curley can dismiss this as "hearsay" in his response, in spite of all the other evidence- cuz he's an ass). Curley's response; "he doesn't believe" as it would require too many people to be involved, tries to bring up his terrorist buddy Nico Haupt's creation; LIHOP, which Jon smacks down with pointing out they're labels and he doesn't use them, then goes right into the fact we don't know the reasons 9/11 happened, and since the day that changed everything is being used to justify preemptive war (and undermine the Constitution). Curley's nervous, wouldn't respond, requests to go to closing statements- says (major paraphrasing) if there's a new investigation, if it says Bush wasn't paying enuf attention, and if NORAD lied, and if Tenet should've been fired for not notifying the FBI about Alhmidhar and Alhazmi but if it concluded no officials Let It Happen On Purpose, no controlled demo, no missile at the Pentagon, no Flight 93 shoot down, would Gage stop talking about controlled demolition, would DRG stop talking about VOICE MORPHING, (his buddy) Nico Haupt TV fakery, Killtown voice phony, would they stop doing it? (I don't know- probably not??? Does Curley "know" something? Huh, Curley- do you?)

Jon Gold reiterates many unanswered questions, no answers, 9/11's been used for preemptive war.

Overall- good- Curley got his ass handed to him- and if you're lurking, Curley, get a clue; there's tons more at:

The Facts Speak For Themselves
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949

And-

The Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Keep your buddy Nico Haupt's TV fakery to yourself; you know it's not tolerated over here, loser.

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Submitted by loose nuke on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 11:28pm.

» login to post comments | 10 points

Thanks...

Here's the statement I have in an email from Phil Shenon. This is only one sentence of the email. Just to source my statement.

"I am surprised that the Truth Movement has not made better use of my book. I thought I gave the movement plenty to work with."

And in another email.

"I do agree that the ISI/Pakistani stuff is worth exploring, although I do wonder why if the ISI was in on this, the ISI head was in Washington that morning.(Why would he want to risk his own life as suicide hijackers were plunging planes into the city?)"

Keep in mind, I responded to everything Phil ever said to me... comprehensively, and completely...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 11:31pm.

» login to post comments | 6 points

interesting comments from Shenon

Shenon is a trained and established establishment career journalist. I haven't read his book, read some reviews of it and listened to part of an interview awhile back; my take is Shenon spins the Commission as being too much under the control of Zelikow, who had somewhat improper/undisclosed contacts with the Bush administration during the investigation, and that Zelikow spun the report to make Rice look better, but that's all; it was a coverup of negligence/incompetence, written to make the Bush Administration look less negligent/incompetent, and that there's no evidence of anything nefarious, no evidence pointing to complicity.

I doubt a journalist looking to further his reputation and career would print outright lies; at the same time, he omits many facts about the Commission and their "investigation" that an investigative journalist should come across while investigating- he could've uncovered tons of stuff on historycommons.org (even limited hangout cohort Peter Lance has endorsed it, even though there's tons of stuff pointing to complicity, and screaming for full investigation) and in interviews with family members. Still, there may be more buried in his book which could be useful in proving the Commission did not do a real investigation, if not evidence that Zelikow and the Commissioners engaged in an overt cover up.

Anyone read the whole Shenon book? I just searched blogger and couldn't find a full review.

John Doraemi gave this commentary:

'Incompetent' Criticism: 9/11, Phillip Shenon and the Biggest Lie in History
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14140

I just updated this story with a partial transcript of Shenon:

WeAreChangeLA schools Philip Shenon on Michael Scheuer, Mossad and the meaning of evidence when it comes to "incompetence"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17570#comment-201265

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Submitted by loose nuke on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 2:13pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

I was surprised Pat mentioned Shenon so often

Shenon's book indicts Zelikow and provides ample evidence the 9/11 commission was a fraud. Pat tried to frame Zelikow as nothing more than an arrogant jerk, which he is, but Zelikow's role compromised the integrity of the entire commission process. No one who believes in transparency of democratic processes could endorse Zelikow's appointment to the most important commission in American history.

Submitted by simuvac on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 8:56pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

Shenon argues

for example, that Rove was behind attempts to block 911 Commission legislation (p.29), and Rove was in contact with Zelikow during the commission (p. 173).

Commissioner Lehman said Rove was "very much involved" with the commission and was the "quarterback" behind the scenes (pp. 175-176).

Then there's this bit from page 33, regarding Lee Hamilton:

"Cheney and Hamilton formed a close bond when Hamilton led the House investigation of Iran-Contra after the arms-for-hostages affair was exposed. Cheney was the ranking Republican. Hamilton had known Rumsfeld even longer. Rumsfeld served in the House from neighboring Illinois from 1962 to 1969…. They were still close friends when Cheney and Rumsfeld returned to power in Washington in 2001…. Hamilton also had a good relationship with Cheney's powerful White House counsel, David Addington, who had worked for Cheney in Congress."

Submitted by simuvac on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 8:59pm.

» login to post comments | 1 point

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

up.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 9:02pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

Zelikow also

"had good friends on Rumsfeld's staff, most importantly Steven Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, [who] was Rumsfeld's most trusted aide."

Shenon, p. 205

Start adding up the neocons on the 9/11 Commission, and consider their allies in the Bush admin. Lehman (PNAC), Cheney (PNAC), Rumsfeld, Rove, Cambone, Kissinger, Addington, and on and on.

Submitted by simuvac on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 9:05pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

Kean and Hamilton

Here is a list of damming quotes from Kean and Hamilton's book:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16274

Submitted by simuvac on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 9:00pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

thanks for this

and the 3 above; good digging, simuvac

EDIT- simuvac, i just added a question about the page # for a quote
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16274#comment-201287

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Submitted by loose nuke on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 9:34pm.

» login to post comments | 8 points

Digg and Reddit:

Digg
http://digg.com/political_opinion/9_11_Debate_Jon_Gold_Vs_Pat_Curley

Reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7fq2u/911debatejongoldvspatc...

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Submitted by loose nuke on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 12:02am.

» login to post comments | 11 points

Jon, you clearly won the debate

There is no defending Zelikow. Pat Curley reading the statement issued by the Family Steering Committee
before they had seen the report. Your response to quote Bob McIlvaine calling the investigation an exposition!

My only beef is that it was too brief.

What was the response around campus?

Thank you Jon, for all you do.

North Texans for 911 Truth
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/

Submitted by Joe on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 11:01pm.

» login to post comments | 10 points

one only needs to take a look

at Curley's blog (http://www.brainster.blogspot.com) to see that he subscribes to an ideology which is the polar opposite of what this movement is trying to do. He links to Michelle Malkin and was a McCain supporter, need I say more? For Curley to come around to Jon's point of view flies in the face of everything the guy stands for. Jon you did a great job!

Submitted by Lullaby Academy on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 11:37pm.

» login to post comments | 11 points

I thought you did great Jon !

...........Hands down winner ! There are so many more justifiable unanswered questions. I would love to hear his comments on Mineta's testomoney. I find it hard to believe anyone could doubt after seeing the time,and
symmetrical collapse of WTC#7 officially being blamed by fire.

Submitted by WISDOM on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 12:56am.

» login to post comments | 10 points

I guess my point is

that I've examined Pat Curley and, sorry, I just don't find him to be a credible feller. On the other hand, I've examined this Jon Gold guy, and found him to be pure heart n soul. I don't always agree with him, but Jon has passion and guts and an encyclopedic knowledge of 9/11 FACTS, which amazes me. Curley has the Amazing Randi's passion to 'prove things wrong', no matter what (critical thinking, my ass).

p.s. Jon I really cheered at your reaction to Curley's LIHOP statement in part 3. And I forgot to say thanks to Justin and Eric for doing a great job putting this together and hosting. As always, stellar work all around.

Submitted by Lullaby Academy on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 12:34am.

» login to post comments | 9 points

well done Jon

Your vast command of the subject matter and your ability to call up the correct information at the appropriate time while keeping a cool head is amazing. I am glad you speak for the Truth.

Pat Curley punted when you brought up Zelikow, because he knows that Zelikow being the ED of the Commission is indefensible.

And of course Curley had to bring up Nico Haupt, who is clearly on the irrelevant fringe along with Wood and Fetzer.

Submitted by ROBinDALLAS on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 1:02am.

» login to post comments | 5 points

You know you slaughtered him!

Yaknowhatimean? You know clearly he is delusional if he believes Zelicoward was the best choice! Yaknowhatimean? Yaknowhatimean?

Contact your represenatives! http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

Submitted by Razorvocals on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 4:50am.

» login to post comments | 9 points

Thanks all...

I was hoping this would give the movement a shot in the arm.

Edit: Does this graphic make sense?

I think this is the original 20 minute quote:

Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

Here's what 911myths.com says:

read it carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so contact was regarded as lost at around 09:38, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's roughly 76 minutes from the controllers realising there’s a problem, to intercept taking place.

Knight Ridder said they got the 20 minutes from, "an Air Force timeline." They didn't just make up that number. I don't know... something seems fishy to me.

The other purpose of mentioning Payne Stewart is to talk about the number of jets that were sent to intercept as compared to the number of jets that were sent to intercept on 9/11.

WIth regards to the whole Secret Service thing, apparently, they may have stayed there at Bush's insistence.

With regards to CD in PFT, it was mentioned all of 30 seconds, and it only asked the question of how those buildings came down.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 7:15pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

Great going Jon

You know your stuff!

Submitted by Brian WeAreChange on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 11:55am.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Thanks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:06am.

Recent Headlines

Recent Media

Action Items

Blogads

Banner Exchange

User login

9/11 Inquiry Sites

9/11 Regional Sites

9/11 Related Sites

9/11 International Sites

9/11 Memorial Sites

News and Blogs

RSS Feeds

Web Stuff

9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley