9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley - Video Inside

9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

Part I
Click Here (GooTube)

Part II
Click Here (GooTube)

Part III
Click Here (GooTube)

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

cool! I only got to listen to the first one I will let you know what I think overall when I get to hear the other two.

Cool. I'd be interested to hear it.

Nice job. Never knew you could be so composed, when Pat started talking I could have imagined you filled with rage.


volume is very low though

Thanks... Here's what i posted on 911blogger.com...

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.

yeah, I think your argument in the third video was the strongest point. I don't think pat Curley did bad until his closing statement. I simply want to know the truth and debates such as this help to refine and polish areas where dust may have collected or unravel knew areas of interest.

His closing statement was fallacious shit. He is right in that even if there was a new, independent investigation there would be some questions unanswered which would no doubt lead to speculation.

I've heard Richard Dawkins compare 9-11 truthers to creationists. In that, he believes like creationists, 9-11 truthers find small holes in the official theory and try to exploit them.

This of course is something that someone who is not well-read in the arena of government special ops (for lack of a better phrase) would say.
9-11 Truthers do not only have small holes to combat the official theory but rather are able to provide a separate much more tangible theory for the event of 9-11 which is based on historical behavior, known protocals which were broken, testimony, science (something which seems lacking in the official account), etc.

Anyway, good job Jon.

Thanks.