• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

Mancman said:
Classic example:

Fetzer: "Larry Silverstein had two enormous white elephants on his hands he wanted to get rid of"

Gravy: "The WTC were not white elephants, they were making money, they were 98% occupied which is considered full occupancy, the mall in the concourse was one of the most profitable in the world"

Fezter: "There were 47 core columns"
Click to expand...

Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.
 
JamesB said:
Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why the next debate should focus on on single very specific topic. Do not let these morons get away with it. Let them face the answers they keep denying, and avoiding.

Fetzer is arguing from personal incredulity, that's it, that's the whole thrust of his argumentation: incredulity. This clearly has to be confronted, otherwise they are just going to move the goalposts on us and make us waste our time and energy.
 
My head still hurts from the number of times he just seemed to be plain unaware of the eyewitness accounts. It was quite obvious that in his mind he simply had to resolve them as made up or planted.

But, seriously, he's never even heard them before? He didn't have a prepared response to these observations? As Mark said: you're a scholar...
 
Gravy, pomeroo, just wanted to add my appreciation as well. Fetzer is ... interesting.

My sons were in and out of the room as I was watching the three debates; Brendan, later, said that Fetzer didn't know how to debate. I think, however, that he may - but since he doesn't have any (defensible) facts, he resorts to other the other tactics we are all familiar with.

As is said over on Groklaw, for a lawyer: when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; and when neither are on your side, pound the table.

Good job guys. :clap:
 
Last edited:
My favourite line from gravy..... "That's great....." @17:36

BTW Ron, is that a Goth thing you've got going on there? :D
 
JamesB said:
Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.
Click to expand...
HAHAHA!

The next time he repeats that, he is a LIAR! He now has NO excuse to call the buildings "white elephants". He should have checked Mark's source and retracted the statement. How much does anyone want to bet he continues to lie.

This will be the end of people saying "They're honestly confused." No they aren't. They're LYING!
 
I suggest a show where you compare the evidence with his statements. He said the steel was pulverized/dustafied, I can show they weren't.
 
I'm sorry to always go back to this, it was a really cool show, but one point that I disliked in the third show was when Fetzer said at around 13:10 (I'm paraphrasing):

"I've clearly demonstrated that there were no 757 hitting the Pentagon."

Which is clearly false, but that's how twoofers get away with it, all the time. You give them the answers to their questions, they deny it and move on to another misinformation. It's really frustrating. We absolutely got to make them acknowledge the data we provide them, and we mustn't change the subject until they do. That's how we break disinformation.
 
FactCheck said:
HAHAHA!

The next time he repeats that, he is a LIAR! He now has NO excuse to call the buildings "white elephants". He should have checked Mark's source and retracted the statement. How much does anyone want to bet he continues to lie.

This will be the end of people saying "They're honestly confused." No they aren't. They're LYING!
Click to expand...

He will stop saying that as soon as he stops saying a 767 tanker hit the WTC.

I was actually thinking of writing an "open letter" to Fetzer on that account, like I did with Jones, just so I could post his humorous and rabid reaction.
 
JamesB said:
Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a transcript of the debate where every change of subject is given a new heading.

Something like:

The Silverstein Insurance Issue

Fetzer said:
Larry Silverstein had two enormous white elephants on his hands he wanted to get rid of
Click to expand...

Gravy said:
The WTC were not white elephants, they were making money, they were 98% occupied which is considered full occupancy, the mall in the concourse was one of the most profitable in the world
Click to expand...

The Core Columns


Fezter said:
There were 47 core columns
Click to expand...


That would put things in perspective. When watching, the timing is such that it almost looks like Fetzer is responding to the issues. Give headings to each topic, and he hands over the last word every time.
 
Unfortunately they could do the same thing. Fetzer pointed to the lawn and said the engines should have plowed into the grass. Then Gravy was about to point out the angle when fetzer pointed out the lightpoles (As I recall) The subject was changed and the issue wasn't debated. The fact is there was damage to a truck and to a concrete lip just above the ground proving the engines hit objects close to the ground before impacting the building. They should have shown this video...



Also, how does a bomb explode on the outside of the building, put itself back together and make the loony tune hole in C ring?
 
FactCheck said:
Unfortunately they could do the same thing. Fetzer pointed to the lawn and said the engines should have plowed into the grass. Then Gravy was about to point out the angle when fetzer pointed out the lightpoles (As I recall) The subject was changed and the issue wasn't debated. The fact is there was damage to a truck and to a concrete lip just above the ground proving the engines hit objects close to the ground before impacting the building. They should have shown this video...



Also, how does a bomb explode on the outside of the building, put itself back together and make the loony tune hole in C ring?
Click to expand...


Oh, well that is the AGM-68P Triple Warhead Sideways Pentrator A-3 Skywarrior Cruise Missile. They used it in Baghdad to take out a particularly well defended shopping mall. They had to use an IFF decoder to get it through the air defenses.
 
Actually, it just occured to me. Doesn't Fetzer claim that a plane could not have crashed into the Pentagon, because it would be aeronautically impossible for even a Cessna to fly that low to the ground.

But then just a few minues later he states something along the line of "Well I know AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but I believe it was a smaller plane. It fired a missile first and then crashed in."

So which is it, is it impossible, or is that what he is claiming happened?
 
It was more like the ground based ACME missile.

coyote_acme.png
 
Last edited:
I'm not as avid a follower of the discussions that take place in this section of the forum as many of you, but I watched all three debates, and was highly entertained and indeed I learned a thing or two. I think both pom and Gravy are valuable members here, and excellent critical thinkers.

I will echo, however, what many have said in this thread already. If the show is going to be referred to as a debate, set it up like a debate, perhaps with timed segments and rebuttals. If the shows are meant to be more of a roundtable discussion, the viewer misses out on a great deal when the panelists talk over each other. The host/moderator must take full control.

Now, it seemed to me that Fetzer was indeed the one most guilty of blathering over other speakers and jumping from one topic to another, and Ron you did a better job at reining him in than I ever could. But I think it would improve the quality of the program and shine an even brighter light on the ridiculous arguments and assessments of the conspiracy theorists to tackle smaller chunks of the issues in full and not allowing the scatter gun tactics.

In all though, good job. Keep up the good work.
 
After watching all three debates, I wonder if much was really accomplished. Both pomeroo and Gravy did very well, but Fetzer just kept going on and on or try and avoid a question and didn't want to discuss specifics.

Could it have been better to discuss each topic one at a time so that each could present their evidence in the debate or pose a question about a topic then require it to be directly answered.
 
Fetzer is not a well man. Gravy and Pomeroo have my respect for standing firm against such a raging torrent of woo, it must have been really frustrating.


The highlight for me was Fetzer trying to establish Griffin's credibility on the amount of books he has written.
 
I'm very much a lurker in this part of the forum, with a passing interest in the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I very much fall into the "official story is probably true although they may be trying to cover up mistakes" camp.

One thing that dissapointed me about these debates was that it will have changed absolutely no-ones minds about anything. To claim Fetzer was "destroyed" is a complete misrepresentation. For those who know all the details intimately, they hear an argument that has been well debunked previously and assume it is debunked by default in the debate. But to someone who doesn't know this detail, Fetzer got across a LOT of material very little of which was actually "destroyed". While it is mostly complete junk what he is saying, Fetzer's inability to focus on a single thought for more than 2 seconds and annoying tendency to claim contrary evidence was "faked" never let Mark make any solid points that would have stuck for the lay watcher. This isn't his fault, I have no idea how someone is supposed to actually have a meaningful conversation with Fetzer!
 
Ginarley said:
I'm very much a lurker in this part of the forum, with a passing interest in the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I very much fall into the "official story is probably true although they may be trying to cover up mistakes" camp.

One thing that dissapointed me about these debates was that it will have changed absolutely no-ones minds about anything. To claim Fetzer was "destroyed" is a complete misrepresentation. For those who know all the details intimately, they hear an argument that has been well debunked previously and assume it is debunked by default in the debate. But to someone who doesn't know this detail, Fetzer got across a LOT of material very little of which was actually "destroyed". While it is mostly complete junk what he is saying, Fetzer's inability to focus on a single thought for more than 2 seconds and annoying tendency to claim contrary evidence was "faked" never let Mark make any solid points that would have stuck for the lay watcher. This isn't his fault, I have no idea how someone is supposed to actually have a meaningful conversation with Fetzer!
Click to expand...
i agree in a sense but what did happen (IMO) is that people clearly saw that uncle Fester let his mind wander all over creation without choosing a concrete position except...the evidence was planted and fabricated. I can also see how some people will use uncle Fester as an example of the entire truth movement. Personally, I believe more along the lines of Michal Shermer and I will say sometimes normal, smart people can believe weird things but uncle Fester should be ostracized from the truth movement (as well as Judy Wood) otherwise people see them as the movement and that is hopefully not truly the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom