How Can We Arrange a Debate?

Jaguar said:
These misfits have no concept of a bigger picture.
Click to expand...

All the troofers have is the big picture. The fact that there are no facts or evidence to support that picture doesn't bother them in the slightest. They don't need 'em. They have their pre-conceived view of the world and no amount of evidence will alter that.

Steve S.
 
pomeroo said:
Now all you have to do is persuade Tarpley, who was last seen running like hell.
Click to expand...

Running to his next lecture or interview, sure. Running from you? Not so sure.

If you want Tarpley, frame it as an interview, rather than a debate. And then ask the questions you would in a debate. But let him answer. (Being a lecturer, he can ramble, but there are things to be picked up on when he does). But if you don't want to hear what he has to say, then I'd say don't bother. I see a series of interviews, like he does on MNN and radio shows. Weekly interview, maybe? Ongoing discussion?

When it comes to analysis, Tarpley is macro to your micro. You could both learn a thing or two from each other.

If you hear out Tarpley, you'll get a better idea of where the main thrust of the Twooooooof movement is. It isn't da joooooooz, or Bush did it, or mini-nukage, or space beamage.

Respect is the key; you give it, I'll bet you'll get it back.
 
steve s said:
All the troofers have is the big picture. The fact that there are no facts or evidence to support that picture doesn't bother them in the slightest. They don't need 'em. They have their pre-conceived view of the world and no amount of evidence will alter that.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

You guys could use a dose of "the big picture." Just as much as the twoofers need to chill on it some, and see the micro-analysis more.

Between the two polarities, this mystery could be solved. Let's face it; the official version has holes, and the extreme twoofers are just nuts. Somewhere in between lies The Truth. We should stop hating and deriding and use our collective skills to figure out what the FBI can't seem to.

I don't know James Randi, but I'll bet that's more what he's about than just debunking any/all conspiracy theories. Conspiracies exist. (See the Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln for examples).

Both sides should drop politics and comfort zones, and let's figure it out. The first step, Ron, might be requesting these interviews (rather than "debates") with a little more respect offered. That's how you get it back.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Let's take up a collection for Fetzer's roundtrip ticket. Seriously.

And remember, Jamieson has the Urantia cult behind him. They're required to buy videos so they'll have something to entertain their extraterrestrial visitors with.
Click to expand...


I actually have an airfare voucher for 500 dollars that I would happily volunteer to the cause.
 
SCG, you named several "independent investigative journalists" who you think produce good 9/11 work.

I have repeatedly asked you to present a single significant 9/11 revelation that any of them got right. You haven't done so.

If your best can't produce such results, and consistently get things horribly wrong, what makes you think your claims have any validity, and aren't just fantasies? Your opinion about 9/11 means nothing if it isn't supported by facts.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
You guys could use a dose of "the big picture." Just as much as the twoofers need to chill on it some, and see the micro-analysis more.

Between the two polarities, this mystery could be solved. Let's face it; the official version has holes, and the extreme twoofers are just nuts. Somewhere in between lies The Truth. We should stop hating and deriding and use our collective skills to figure out what the FBI can't seem to.

I don't know James Randi, but I'll bet that's more what he's about than just debunking any/all conspiracy theories. Conspiracies exist. (See the Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln for examples).

Both sides should drop politics and comfort zones, and let's figure it out. The first step, Ron, might be requesting these interviews (rather than "debates") with a little more respect offered. That's how you get it back.
Click to expand...
Present your facts and point out the holes in what happen on 9/11. The world is waiting.
 
We can aim for a taping in early May.

The final director's cut of the two Hardfire debates with Bermas, Avery, Roberts, and Wieck can be found on Google Video. Go to Video (dot) Google (dot) com and search on Hardfire Bermas.

Gary Popkin
Producer, Hardfire
www (dot) Hardfire (dot) net
 
Gravy said:
SCG, you named several "independent investigative journalists" who you think produce good 9/11 work.

I have repeatedly asked you to present a single significant 9/11 revelation that any of them got right. You haven't done so.

If your best can't produce such results, and consistently get things horribly wrong, what makes you think your claims have any validity, and aren't just fantasies? Your opinion about 9/11 means nothing if it isn't supported by facts.
Click to expand...

Typical Gravy response to what I thought was a respectable post.

Just because something can't be proven with a smoking gun doesn't make it "fantasy." I'm absolutely sure I've read more books and heard more talks by former Intel folks than you have. Are they lieing? We don't know.

Start with Hopsicker. Read ALL of his columns, from the beginning. You might find some revelations. Hint: he believes that 19 hijackers flew planes into buildings!
 
beachnut said:
Present your facts and point out the holes in what happen on 9/11. The world is waiting.
Click to expand...

Hey Beachnut... YAWN!!!!

Can you post without the word "facts?" Please! I beg of you. Just post something, and leave that word out!

Again, one man's "fact" is another man's "factoid."
 
Gravy said:
If your best can't produce such results, and consistently get things horribly wrong, what makes you think your claims have any validity, and aren't just fantasies? Your opinion about 9/11 means nothing if it isn't supported by facts.
Click to expand...

Define "facts." Ready... GO!
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Define "facts." Ready... GO!
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, SCG, when you find yourself stumped for a definition, you can look up most common words, and many uncommon words, in a thing called a dictionary. That's a fact.

  • S: (n) fact (a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred) "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
  • S: (n) fact (a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened) "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
  • S: (n) fact (an event known to have happened or something known to have existed) "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
  • S: (n) fact (a concept whose truth can be proved) "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
 
beachnut said:
So when can I get a tour to the Bitter End?
Click to expand...

OMG! Unbelievable. A Beachnut post that doesn't contain the word "facts!"

I just wish it was a reply to me. But I'll take it.

(One man's "fact" is another man's "factoid," just in case I haven't mentioned it).

If any punk wants to nominate, please be intellectually honest and include the entire post. Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
Here is an e-mail exchange with Jim Fetzer from yesterday (it appears in reverse order). Normally, I would request permission to post private correspondence, and I would certainly guard Fetzer's (or anyone's) privacy on a sensitive matter, but I just don't see the harm in making this material public. Fetzer's e-mail address has not been deleted as it is easily obtained.


Dear Jim,

I'd be happy to do two shows with you in April. It's not a live
braodcast. We generally tape in the evening, so you could expect to be in
the studio from roughly 7 P.M. to 9 P.M, probably on a Tuesday or Wednesday.
You can use your photographic evidence. I don't think I can offer
accommodations.

Regards,
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
To: "Ronald Wieck" <e-mail address deleted>
Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Debate


Ronald,

Can you give me more specifics? When would this program be taped?
Would it be broadcast liVe? Could we use visual evidence (slides)
during our exchange? (Much of the evidence here is photographic.)
What day of the week would this happen? I would have other events
to coordinate, so let's see if we can work this out. Thanks for
getting back to me again. And are you including accommodations?

Jim

Quoting Ronald Wieck <e-mail address deleted>:

> Dear Mr. Fetzer,
>
> The popularity of the two 'Hardfire' debates I hosted between
> the Loose Change boys and Mark Roberts prompts me to renew my offer to
> you. I have openings in April. If you can tell me when you're
> available, I think I can arrange transportation to NYC. Are you still
> interested in either one or two half-hour debates?
>
> Regards,
> Ron Wieck
> e-mail address deleted
>
 
Aww Jeez Ron, why can't you let Uncle Fetzer crash on your couch? I'm sure he'd keep his pants on, if you insisted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom