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...

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!

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.

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/

You know your stuff!

Curley came across as the perfect ass!

eventually, he will utter the words "I don't believe."

Pat says he simply doesn't "believe" that the information Sibel Edmonds has is true, because *sound the trumpets* such a plot would involve too many people and blah blah blah.

Eventually, debunkers have to admit they don't know what happened, and their entire project is based on what they "believe" is possible.

I'm sorry I didn't do this sooner...

I'd like to personally thank Justin Martell, Michael Jackman, Michael Wolsey, and Lorie Van Auken for helping me prep for this debate.

Jon,

I know it's tough to debate an asshole like Curley.

Someone needs to make him respond to blatant treason by classifying "foreign governments" and their roles in the attacks.

His first idiotic fallback would be of course that the 9/11 Commission said it never happened.

Except the FBI monitored Omar Bayoumi and his 140+ calls to the Saudi embassy.

You got in a mention of the "ISI," but never elaborated. Tying ISI to "Al Qaeda", and then back to the USA is an important angle that is clearly covered up.

He tried to weasel out of specific warnings. That's where the Genoa G8 warnings come in handy.

Curley has no desire to seek the truth. He is a zealot with an agenda we aren't privy to. He repeatedly hems and haws when the regime is exposed and the lies are destroyed. It doesn't matter. All he cares about is "damage control."

Beyond "a new investigation", we already have plenty to pin on specific individuals. Pin it.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

I was impressed by how well the debate went. It was very civil and courteous. Curley's wrap up made me wonder if one question that could be asked for future debates, is, "What would characterize a thorough, independent, and reliable investigation of 9/11?" What would that look like? It seems to me that for starters, the grand jury or other body investigating, would have to have subpoena powers. They would also have the power to protect witnesses and whistleblowers from losing their jobs or more from testifying. They would have to be non-partisan (not the same bi-partisan hacks that made up the 911 Commission) persons not involved in other cover-up inquiries (like the Warren Commission).

As to NIST, the NIST reports could comprise a debate in itself. For Curley, a good question would be why should we believe the NIST reports, which are based on repeatedly shifting and ultimately unsustainable theories of building collapses? Particularly as NIST was and is an agency controlled by and working for the Bush Administration, an administration that has been proven to manipulate and distort scientific findings for political purposes (cf global warming, among other issues)?

What Curley accuses us of is exactly what characterizes himself and the rest of the anti-empirical True Believers in the official conspiracy theory: they are satisfied with "investigations" which start with a predetermined conclusion, and then gather data to confirm those conclusions. And these points are not even subject to debate. All one has to do is cursorily examine the 9-11 Commission Report or the NIST reports to find that it is so. The 9-11 Commission began with the conclusion that "Al Qaeda" pulled off the 9/11 attacks, without aid from the US govt. NIST began with the conclusion that the WTC buildings "collapsed" due to airline impacts and fires. NIST admitted that they inquired only into "pre-collapse" events. They did not empirically study post-collapse events which do tend to support controlled demolition.

In contrast to this non-skeptical, anti-empirical approach, which complacently accepts obviously flawed "investigations" based on back-slapping Bush administration insiders like Zelikow, we 9/11 Truthers demand a REAL investigation, based upon science and forensic data.

"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?)"

If ISI was in on it, obviously the ISI head would know where not to be.