Monday, December 01, 2008

More Whine, Mr. Gold?

A writer transcribed our closing arguments with hyperlinks to details on the information presented in the post. But apparently Jon whined afterwards:

“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 was not told specifically not to play the guilt by association game. I was given the topics and Justin did ask me to stick to them, but he did not say anything about not playing guilt by association.

And, not surprisingly, Gold completely missed the point. I was not accusing him of being guilty by association, and I was not saying that they never correct themselves. I was making a logical conclusion to a debate focused on unanswered questions and whether the 9-11 Commission was a legitimate investigation.

It is at this point that the logical next step is to call for a new investigation; isn't that what we always hear from the Truthers? That all they want is a new investigation. I pointed out the absurdity of it:

“If there is another 9/11 investigation, and let’s say it comes down a little harder on the Bush Administration, saying that Bush was not paying sufficient enough attention to the Al Qaeda threat, and that several of the NORAD generals lied to the original Commission about when they knew about the hijacking of Flights 93 and 77, and saying that Tenet should’ve been fired for not notifying the FBI about the presence of Almhidhar and Alhazmi in the United States- if all that happens, but the new investigation also concludes nobody in the US government knew any sorts of details about the terrorist attack and let it happen intentionally, that there was no demolition at the World Trade Center, that what hit the Pentagon was Flight 77, and that Flight 93 was not shot down, would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “Well, OK, we we’re wrong”? Would Richard Gage shut down Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Would Patty Casazza accept that her informant along the highway in Maryland was lying to her? Would David Ray Griffin stop talking about Voice-Morphed phone calls? Would Nico Haupt give up on TV Fakery? Would Killtown stop claiming that Val McClatchy’s photo was phony? 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.


And his response is "Don't lump me in with Nico Haupt and Killclown?" Okay, take them out of there, and take out Flight 77. What does that leave? Richard Gage's Architects and Engineers, Patty Casazza's unknown informant, David Ray Griffin's voice-morphing? If all those are proven wrong, will the Troof Movement fold his tent?

This has always been the problem with Gold's position, and the position of all the "we just want a new investigation" people. Any new investigation will come to virtually the same conclusions as the original investigations, and the Troofers will yell "coverup" again. There may be some minor changes; a new investigation might come down a little harder on Bush and Tenet, as I pointed out. But of course that will not be enough to satisfy 99% of the movement.

Jon also bitched about the LIHOP/MIHOP thing being brought up. For Chrissakes, Jon, you brought up Patty Casazza's informant. Do you believe he was telling the Troof? Because if you do, you believe LIHOP.

Of course, this is where Jon goes into the old shuck and jive routine. "I don't know what to believe, I just believe we need a new investigation." He claims there was a coverup, we know that from this film:



A coverup of what, Jon? "I don't know what they covered up, that's why we need a new investigation."

More griping here:

May I assume that when “Pat was told specifically not to play the "guilt by association" game." he agreed or he wouldn't have participated? If so, then that leaves him proven dishonest and a liar. Thus, he can be regarded as irrelevant to the discussion.


I was not told specifically not to play the guilt by association game, and I did not. All this hoopla over my bringing up Nico's TV Fakery ignores that I also brought up Box Boy Gage. Aren't the Troofers just as angry about my bringing up that fruitloop? No, because he's one of the "sane" people.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home