On Experiencing Jim Fetzer
- Thread starter pomeroo
- Start date
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
Ron. why waste time on people like Ace and Fetzer, who even the truth movement have rejected. It's pointless.
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
TraitorBasher said:
maybe 
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
I suggest you watch greg jenkins interview with Judy Wood and listen to Fetzers interview with Mark Dice.
Dice actually played beam noises over fetzer for the whole interview. Every caller asked Fetzer how much he was being paid to spread disinfo. At the end Dice changed the title of Fetzers book to "911: conning the truth movement" instead of conning america.
Fetzer really is finished. I hope your interview is another nail in the coffin.
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
Why was he allowed to start in the first place?
It's obvious that the 'mainstream truth movement' (mtm) have declared Fetzer to be a non-person.
But it wasn't always the case.
So it is amusing that 'truthers' whine about so called 'disinfo' when really all they are doing is distracting from the inconvenient truth that many of their fellow 'truthers' actually BELIEVE Fetzer.
Every time some paranoid kid pops up in the 'truth' movement with his own pet theory about how holograms projected from outer space caused the dustification of a cruise missile hitting the wtc towers, there will always be a large body of the 'truth' movement who will believe his theory.
And the rest, instead of dealing with the fact that their 'movement' is made up of some deeply unstable characters who will believe any old ****, whine about disinfo agents.
It's rather like how the 'truthers' would love to be able to prove that gravy or jamesb are government agents.
Let's just imagine for a second that this is true.
Does it negate any of the facts which they present to counter the 'truthers'?
Are these 'agents' in possession of any inside information, not in the public domain and therefore unverifiable? No. They collate and present information anyone could find (and do it brilliantly) if they bothered to look.
But the 'truthers' feel the only way to counter these facts is to somehow convince people that the people presenting these facts are government agents, and so the facts aren't facts anymore. And that's a fact.
Everything is a conspiracy.
Regardless of how moderate a CTer would like to be seen, deep down they believe in the IVC conspiracy because without it their own CT of choice begins to collapse.
If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job then you have to answer these questions:
Why is there more evidence supporting the official account than the CT?
Why is there a large body of debunkers out there spoiling your fun with inconvenient facts?
Why does the mainstream media ignore your claims?
Why does the opposition party ignore your claims?
Why does 99% of the population ignore your claims?
Why have you failed to acheive anything in the last five years?
And the answer to every one of those questions will be: Conspiracy! CONSPIRACY!
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Is this an actual quote or is it paraphrasing? Because I would love to see more of this exchange. Unless that was it.
Do you have a link?
ETA:I see you added links to a google video. If that is it thank you (I can't watch it tonight), if not please provide a link.
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
To understand Fetzer, you have to look at the history of him.
He has been involved for years in conspiracy stuff. Yet he has never been sacked from his university like others have.
He introduced the nonsense about zapruder being a hoax to the JFK movement.
He is a Professor in the Philosophy of science and lectures in critical thinking, yet he believes space beams took down the towers.
Now, I don't know what you draw from that, but I know what my conclusions are.
He has been involved for years in conspiracy stuff. Yet he has never been sacked from his university like others have.
He introduced the nonsense about zapruder being a hoax to the JFK movement.
He is a Professor in the Philosophy of science and lectures in critical thinking, yet he believes space beams took down the towers.
Now, I don't know what you draw from that, but I know what my conclusions are.
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
Yes thats the link. You are in for a treat if you havent seen it.
I was paraphrasing slightly but that exchange is essentially there. Greg's face is a picture.
Yeah, you think he's a disinfo agent and, therefore, part of the impossibly vast conspiracy.
Can't he just be a bit bonkers?
Why does it have to always be a conspiracy?
Fetzer has probably kept his position by managing to seperate his CT fantasies from his university work and avoided breaching any conditions of his contract. And let's face it, philosophy is hardly steeped in experiments and facts. He's expected to be a bit 'out there'
He could be seen by his university as an eccentric and as such an asset in drawing attention to the diversity and (dare I say it?) libralism of the campus.
Woods and Jones, however, bring into disrepute hard science which actually matters in the world.
TraitorBasher
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 259
He isn't just a bit bonkers. A Professor teaching critical thinking and science philosophy does not believe plasmoids and anti matter weapons may have brought down the towers.
There are other examples. Morgan Reynolds thinks the planes at the wtc were cartoons. By sheer coincidence he used to work for Bush.
David Shayler thinks that the wtc planes were actually missiles shrouded by holograms. By sheer coincidence he was an MI5 agent.
This really isn't rocket science.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Correct. Anyone can see that you're just as paranoid as they are.
And before you cast more stones, let's remember that you don't think that man has been to the moon.
David Wong
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,773
In all seriousness, it would be enormously helpful if you could define for us which members of the truth movement are valid, and which are not worth responding to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80009
I personally don't want to waste my time with the latter and I agree that it's unfair to intentionally target the most outlandish members of a group. But it honestly is difficult to separate them from the outside.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
and the impossibly vast conspiracy gets impossibly vaster
so was MI5 involved before or after you decided david shayler was a shill?
The Greg Jenkins interview of Ms. Wood is classic. I mean, he wants to believe, but he has so much schooling that . . . he just can't. I think that this was one of the better interviews I have seen regarding the truth movement, even if they use it to claim she is "disinfo".
I felt bad for her in the interview, just because she comes off seeming so completely nutty, but, I can't imagine a more receptive interviewer possible to conduct it in a less hostile way.
I felt bad for her in the interview, just because she comes off seeming so completely nutty, but, I can't imagine a more receptive interviewer possible to conduct it in a less hostile way.
What dates were those taken on?
Why is the colour of the smoke so important to you?
What does 'white "smoke"' prove?
Or is this another of your arguments based on incredulity/ignorance?
Interesting that you call it "smoke". I say it's mainly (white) steam, mixed in with a little black smoke.