• 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.

Fetzer vs Jones

I cant believe I am going to say this, but...

I think this is because most of the truthers are at least sane enough to realize that of the two theories, Thermite and Starwars Beam Weapon, that Thermite (I am wincing now, saying this) is the more plausible cause.

You know it is bad when you have the truthers thinking one of their theories is rediculous.

TAM
 
Does it really matter who controls the 'main' group of 'scholars' - iirc, the scholars have a few hundred members, very few of them notable in any way or with any relevent qualifications. Would losing that support be a big issue for Fetzer or Jones?

Do the Scholars have any significant infrastruture or money for the splinter groups to fight over - that could make it more entertaining
Click to expand...

ordinarily, if a member here or there left, it would make little difference, but Woods and reynolds were "Biggies". Reynolds was chief economist during Reagan admin, and Woods is one of the few "Engineers" they have in the group.

More importantly, in terms of the group dynamic, is Fetzer coming out in favor of Woods and Reynolds, a slap in the face to his fomer buddy and co-founder, Steven jones.

TAM
 
maccy said:
The funniest thing is this site attempting a unified theory:

I though this was a parody when I first read it here: http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
Bless its pointy little head for trying! I've been hoping that someone would try to posit a Grand Unified Theory of Stupid that would reconcile imaginary Newtonian physics with imaginary quantum physics, in a way that does not correspond to any observations in the real world. Well done!
 
T.A.M. said:
More importantly, in terms of the group dynamic, is Fetzer coming out in favor of Woods and Reynolds, a slap in the face to his fomer buddy and co-founder, Steven jones.

TAM
Click to expand...
It makes one wonder if Jones is thinking, "Why did I get myself fired over this nonsense?"
 
T.A.M. said:
ordinarily, if a member here or there left, it would make little difference, but Woods and reynolds were "Biggies". Reynolds was chief economist during Reagan admin, and Woods is one of the few "Engineers" they have in the group.

More importantly, in terms of the group dynamic, is Fetzer coming out in favor of Woods and Reynolds, a slap in the face to his fomer buddy and co-founder, Steven jones.

TAM
Click to expand...

Thanks - so it could mean the scholars look even less credible :D
 
Fetzer has a habit of commandeering CT movements. JFK CTs were already well-established when he tried to become the lead figure with his BS about the Zapruder film being little more than a cartoon. Fetzer is a publicity hound.

He is actually a gift to debunkers as his inability to separate reasonable :confused: CTs from whacky :eek: ones will cause him to become a 9/11 laughingstock. The vast majority of JFK CTers already look at as a nut. Josiah Thompson, author of Six Seconds in Dallas, delivered a scathing speech in 1998 concerning Fetzer's abominable research standards and behavior.

WHY THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AUTHENTIC

At this conference two years ago, Professor James Fetzer declared that a "historical turning point" had been reached: The alteration of the Zapruder film had been proven!


When my colleague here, Hal Verb, had the temerity to disagree, the Professor told him he was "irrational."
When earlier this year, I had the temerity to disagree, I was told by the Professor that "...you have thereby discredited yourself as a commentator on these matters."
-------------------

It is Professor Fetzer's practice to ascribe nonsensical views to people and then criticize them for holding them. Likwise here. The Professor ascribes to me the silly idea that "...a view must be true because it is widespread." Then he exposes me as having committed "the fallacy of popular sentiments" for holding such a silly idea.

This isn't argument. It's just silliness!
-----------------------

You may wonder why I've taken the time to attack Professor Fetzer here. It is because he expresses a trend in assassination research which I find odious.

His emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."
Click to expand...
 
I just read the all-time most hilarious characterization of this rivalry:

utopiated said:
Wow. More scholars wrangling, all fairly healthy though. Fetzer ex-marine talks of "hostile take-overs"
icon_smile.gif


It's like Edison and Tesla and Einstein and the new heretical Quantum Theorists when they arrived.

We all like to hold on to belief systems... or we like to live in binary worlds of on/off - right/wrong explanations. Easier that way.

Good topic area covering some of this here...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5484&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=0

This data [the Wood/Reynolds Beam Weapon website] is the most compelling I've seen and feel's intutively right.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Hoo boy, this utopiated character is a hoot:
utopiated said:
John White said:
Agreed, Microwave weapons are getting more and more developed and their nasty things: however, Ive not seen anything suggesting massive damage to property (they're very good at barbacuing people: not so sure about concrete and steel), and if there was, we have no way of matching a theoretical weapon to observable damage: If we have a beam projecting from orbit it has to be acting slowly enough to still require 10 seconds to demolish the towers: so it would have to be traveling slower than the speed of sound, surely? And then Woods is also saying top part beamed, bottom part may be CD'd: WTF? How unlikely is this hypothesis getting? We are totally getting into "it must exist becuase I imagine it does", and thats not good
Click to expand...
It's only 'not good' from where you stand on what constitutes evidence.

If we take that logic we'd not get much further than hijackers take planes and hit buildings. It took a leap of faith to move to controlled demolition. I bet not many of us knew that thermate could be employed but never the less the theory was touted and researched by the wider community.

The main reason I avoid most 9/11 forums and debate is because we're constantly reminded [usually by people new to the area who are still in conceptual shock once they've discovered the possibility we could well be dealing with a global cabal responsible to no-one!] not to "mix issues" because it "damages the scene". Well I'm with Fetzer on this one - you have to put new [and even unlikely] ideas out there to get them worked on by others.

In addition once you do look into the wider abyss of UFOs, space technology research, chemtrails and emerging bio-weapons and those controlling this area you find that what we in fact know and see with out own eyes is in fact a miniscule amount of what's really out there. And that's only after wading through the layers of cover that have been in operation for hundred's of years.
Click to expand...
:dl: again!!!
 
This data [the Wood/Reynolds Beam Weapon website] is the most compelling I've seen and feel's intutively right.
Click to expand...

you know he is a complete nutjob, when he says that a STARWARS ENERGY BEAM was responsible for bring down the WTCs on 9/11.

Dictionary Definition:

Word: NUTJOB
Definition: Someone insane enough to believe that a STARWARS ENERGY BEAM was responsible for the destruction of the WTCs on 9/11.

TAM
 
The main reason I avoid most 9/11 forums and debate is because we're constantly reminded [usually by people new to the area who are still in conceptual shock once they've discovered the possibility we could well be dealing with a global cabal responsible to no-one!] not to "mix issues" because it "damages the scene". Well I'm with Fetzer on this one - you have to put new [and even unlikely] ideas out there to get them worked on by others.
Click to expand...

Like, yeah, 'cuz like...dood, there is no way you would, like, actually do some real research before..umm, you know...publicizing a crappy theory.

81818*!!**!@#&# the NWO!!!
 
T.A.M. said:
I cant believe I am going to say this, but...

I think this is because most of the truthers are at least sane enough to realize that of the two theories, Thermite and Starwars Beam Weapon, that Thermite (I am wincing now, saying this) is the more plausible cause.

You know it is bad when you have the truthers thinking one of their theories is rediculous.

TAM
Click to expand...

I have to disagree thermite is less plausible, because Dr. Jones has practically debunked it himself !
Once he specified nano thermite I knew the way to debunk the theories.
It was always a matter of an energy source.

I think the break up is because people are doubting Dr. Jones, and looking for new theories to save the movement.
 
Triterope said:
...which will only lead them to theories that are even more ridiculous than those of Steven Jones.
Click to expand...

The problem with Dr Jones theories is that Aluminum is his fuel source, and the complexity of the building means he has two options to prove his theory, find a timing device partly intact, or prove that the trigger to natural Aluminum+Oxygen reactions was not in the buildings.
In other words, he has to find the device that triggered the thermate, or disprove the towers ever fell.
Because the fall of the towers alone could cause more energy to be released from Aluminum+Oxygen reactions than needed to cause the collapses.
He is left with the choice to manufacture evidence, or stand the buildings back up and prove they never fell.
I wish him luck on that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom