9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

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.


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?

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"

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


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...

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?
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

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.



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.

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

The Debate Over 9/11 Truth - Jon Gold & Screw Loose Change

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:

LostScrews - 344K

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


Who is Pat? A nasty little man...

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


Great debate, Jon.



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?

Pat also mentioned Richard Gage

and you disassociated yourself with him.


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?

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


The Complete 9/11 Timeline

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



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?

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

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"


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.

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."



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?

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.

Kean and Hamilton

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


thanks for this

and the 3 above; good digging, simuvac

EDIT- simuvac, i just added a question about the page # for a quote


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
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

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!

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.

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.

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.

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/

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?

Great going Jon

You know your stuff!


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

Full media coverage

......in prime time on all the major channels. The complete investigation covered. ALL our questions answered. Full document, video,and photo exposure. Nothing classified. Sible Edmonds ungaged.Total accountability, and cooperation from Bush on down.
Full , and total use of sopena power. Everyone under oath, and recorded.
Totally independant investagation.
Ok Pat........DEAL! Prove us wrong, and we will let it go.
So when are you going to set this up?

Great job Jon

Curley came across as the perfect ass!

Great job Jon! Brilliant! I

Great job Jon! Brilliant!

I can't believe that guy would pretend he's some kind of Jedi - those are the good guys, hello!!

If a debunker is left to talk long enough...

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.

which demonstrates...

that they are either fearful thinkers or paradigmatic thinkers.


that they are being PAID to obfuscate, distort, and confuse newcomers who don't know which side to believe.

Part of their tactic is to overwhelm with numbers. The "ten thousand page" NIST report, the "hundreds" of experts consulted by Popular Mechanics, etc.

When one actually strips away their spin, as DRG did so well in D911D, one realizes that the "debunkers" have nothing.

My experience exactly!

From a simple psychoanalytical point of view, it could be said of those people that they are still looking for the love and approval of their parents (which means they did not get enough sane love from their parents, only getting love/approval from them when they obeyed them), or anyone in position of power. They cannot think freely because they do not allow themselves to deeply criticize their parents or anyone they perceive as being above them.
They may also be too afraid of death to admit that people in power could kill people subjected to their power instead of caring for them lovingly.

Read the last genius on this Earth: http://www.notbored.org/debord.html

Not sure if I'm on the right thread - but

I'm not sure if I'm on the right thread - but here's a just plain common sense thought that might be useful to Jon and others:

There are two catagories of "unique" - that is individual, one-of-a kind, "things" on a airplane. One catagory of unique one-of-a-kind "things" are engine serial numbers and (according to Colonel George Nelson) - serial numbers of "time change parts" like landing gear.

The other "unique" - individual, one-of-a-kind "things" are human DNA.

So - How resistant to destruction from "vaporizing heat" is titanium compared to human flesh with it's DNA?

I would guess that titanium is probably several thousand times more resistant to destruction than human DNA. So why would anyone try to identify an unique airplane by the DNA of its passengers when one had in one's possession an engine and landing gear?

The answer is beyond obvious. The party in possession of the engine and the landing gear don't want the plane identified.

There is simply no counter arguement to this. It is plain common sense. To even enter into an argument about it is absurd.


Would those who rated this negatively please explain


I'm wondering why this post of mine got two negative votes.


By the way...

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.

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?

You avoided "treason"


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

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

a good, respectful debate

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.

Questionable Shenon logic

"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.