• 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

jackchit said:
"James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[3]
Click to expand...


I'd like to know how any of these qualifications enable Dr Fetzer to claim expert status on demolitions, engineering, aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, weapons development, etc., etc. If anything, Gravy is more highly qualified as a tour guide to discuss 9/11, simply because HE WAS THERE.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
I'd agree to use "Tour Guide" under Mark if they're also allowed to put "Likely Crazy Person" under Fetzer.

Full disclosure.
 
David Wong said:
I'd agree to use "Tour Guide" under Mark if they're also allowed to put "Likely Crazy Person" under Fetzer.

Full disclosure.
Click to expand...

Great. Now I have to clean chips and water off my desk. You're lucky I didn't laugh it onto my laptop keyboard!
 
The Great Hairy One said:
If anything, Gravy is more highly qualified as a tour guide to discuss 9/11, simply because HE WAS THERE.

Cheers,
TGHO
Click to expand...



To be fair, I don't think he was. IIRC Gravy was leading a tour in Europe on 9/11... though I hope he can correct me if I'm wrong...

I seem to recall him recounting his experience of 9/11 in a thread I created on the 5th Anniversary...

-Gumboot
 
Nearly 4 pages of this thread arguing what the captions under each debate participant should be?!?!

I didn't realize this was Pomeroo's reason for starting the thread. Had I known we were meant to discuss captions and not the content of the debate, I'd have never responded.
 
jackchit said:
So what you are saying is that you will not post roberts qualifications right?
I am happy with you calling fetzer a kook or whatever you want but the only person you have to rebutt this guy is a tour guide?
I gotta say you have me backed into a corner, no wait you can lie about roberts qualifications? he is a tour guide plain and simple hold on one second.....
"James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[3]

"
yeah right that is much less a body of work than a tour guide, and this is your best man.... lol
Click to expand...
After corresponding with Fetzer on 9/11, I have found Gravy to be more qualified as an engineer and an expert on 9/11, Fetzer had no facts or evidence. I am an engineer and a pilot. If I were to choose an expert on 9/11 I would pick Gravy over any PhD in the truth movement.

Only someone without any knowledge or facts on 9/11 would pick Fetzer as an expert on 9/11.

After looking at Fetzers qualifications, Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science. he is a perfect candidate for the beam weapon story. I suspect you are just trying to get Gravy upset or some strange grudge against someone who can reason and use logic on 9/11 subjects.

I have found zero ability for Fetzer to do more than say what ever he believes is true. So much for him teaching critical thinking for all those years, he never learned anything.
 
The Great Hairy One said:
I'd like to know how any of these qualifications enable Dr Fetzer to claim expert status on demolitions, engineering, aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, weapons development, etc., etc. If anything, Gravy is more highly qualified as a tour guide to discuss 9/11, simply because HE WAS THERE.

Cheers,
TGHO
Click to expand...
Actually, I was in Italy. I never even saw images of 9/11 until December, 2001.
 
beachnut said:
I suspect you are just trying to get Gravy upset or some strange grudge against someone who can reason and use logic on 9/11 subjects.
Click to expand...
I have him on ignore. There's a police matter pending. I feel bad for him, though. Do people really need more convincing that he's having great trouble with reality?
 
Gravy said:
I have him on ignore. There's a police matter pending. I feel bad for him, though. Do people really need more convincing that he's having great trouble with reality?
Click to expand...
Yeah...you should read over at LCF...Jason is really well removed from reality.
 
Qualifications

There is a serious point here.

It is, in fact, relevant to the discussion whether someone has a particular expertise. However, it's not the case that one merely tots up the certificates and awards the prize to the person with most letters after his name.

This is the Fetzer technique. He collects a list of people with professorships, and throws them at us. Note how often he claims that so-and-so is a serious researcher who's published books. This is a very limited kind of filter. It removes some people not worth listening to, but it makes one assumption which is clearly wrong - that someone with an expertise is qualified to comment outside his area.

An example of this can be easily found in the debate. Neither Fetzer or Roberts have scientific qualifications. But when Fetzer claims that the steel in the WTC was vapourised, then Roberts is able to point out that this cannot be the case, due to simple laws of physics. In particular, the heat required to do such a thing would be quite obvious and deadly to a large number of people.

It is well within Fetzer's capacity to figure this out for himself. He has chosen not to do so. Instead he relies on Judy Wood. Mark Roberts could believe Judy Wood - she's better qualified than he is - but he applies common sense.

Firstly, Judy Wood is alone in her assertions. Nobody of similar or better qualifications agrees with her. Secondly, the assertions are inherently absurd.

What does this lead us to? Well, clearly we can figure out for ourselves that the WTC wasn't dissolved by a laser from space. That's obvious. What we can also see, quite clearly, is that if Fetzer and Woods are advocating a theory that is obviously, palpably wrong, they must have a serious reasoning deficiency. Since Woods is an engineer, and Fetzer a philosopher, one would normally assume that they know what they are talking about in their own specialist areas. But by their fruits ye shall know them.
 
jackchit said:
...Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?
Click to expand...
jackchit said:
look at the facts you seem to keep harping on about and the fact is mark roberts is one step down from a bus driver... yet you suckers hang on his every word ... lol @ the dumbo's
Click to expand...
Every once in a while I come across someone attempting to belittle Gravy by snickering at his profession, little realizing what they're saying (what a surprise!). A very intelligent friend of mine required three attempts at the certfication test to become a NYC tour guide. Gravy holds the top score ever earned.

What does this suggest? To be conversant with the minutiae of such a large, complex, and relatively old city means you have to have studied and retained an enormous amount. It means you are a historian.

Sept. 11 presents us with more historical information. Andi it's no surprise Gravy is acing this test as well.
 
Last edited:
jackchit said:
...They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.
Click to expand...

jackchit said:
So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information
Click to expand...

jackchit said:
OK fact: mark roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: mark roberts is a tour guide
Click to expand...

jackchit said:
Do you want to debate or try to discredit those with dissenting voices, my money is on the latter.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

Irony much?
 
It just seems a bit odd that from a movement famous for its lack of members with relevant expertise would come criticism of somebody for not having relevant expertise.

The more I listen to these folks the more I tend to agree that they just HAVE to be some kind of 'disinfo agents'. Are people really that out of touch?
 
jackchit said:
I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d
Click to expand...
Ah, I remember being 15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom