• 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.

On Experiencing Jim Fetzer

pomeroo said:
Hokulele, I can provide you with a very useful shortcut that addresses all of your rational suggestions:

Whatever your complaint--whoever you take it to--HE'S IN ON IT! There is no way out. No redress is possible. Every imaginable loophole has been noticed and closed.
Click to expand...


Hmph. Why do we even bother paying our licensing fees?
 
Gravy said:
Smoke and dust.

Because the wind was blowing to the southeast, silly.

See how easy this is? All you have to do is try.
Click to expand...

No, silly. Here is evidence that it went as far north as it did east. This video was taken from the northwest, looking southeast.

OfficeFIres-.gif


Try again, senor Gravy. Why does this "smoke and dust" end up going north and east?
 
chipmunk stew said:
Ace, you must be a master at those "Guess How Many Jellybeans Are in the Jar" games!

I'm always WAY off on those things. And to think: that's just a few hundred jellybeans uniformly packed in a regularly-shaped jar...
Click to expand...
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MUNKSTEROO!
(I mean, Chipmunk Stew)

I've tried, as a leftie loon, to BE a jelly bean in that jar so I could determine how many of my brethren are in there. I've tried to make the other jelly beans my friends (so they'd count off for me).

Never works fast enough. Some giant rabbit always comes along, scoops us up, sticks us in a basket with yellow marshmallow peeps, squeezes down some chimney and leaves us in a dirty sock hanging over the fireplace. Doh!
 
qarnos said:
I'm no scientist, but from my elementary understanding of physics, the "mushroom" cloud would simply be the result of the top of the building creating a vacuum above it as it fell, and the smoke and dust from the fires simply "swooped" down to fill the void.
Click to expand...
Plausible.

On the other hand, would you believe the "shroom" cloud could simply have been formed by a throng of Woodstock attendees who got lost on Manhattan Island and whom all collectively exhaled in frustration?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, silly. Here is evidence that it went as far north as it did east. This video was taken from the northwest, looking southeast.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BlownToKC2/images/OfficeFIres-.gif

Try again, senor Gravy. Why does this "smoke and dust" end up going north and east?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


STOP THIS IDIOCY!

EIGHTY-PERCENT OF THE STEEL WAS NOT MISSING.

NONE OF THE STEEL WAS "DUSTIFIED."

NOBODY GIVES A RAT'S PATOOT ABOUT WHY THE CLOUD OF SMOKE AND DUST (note the absence of disingenuously applied quotation marks) WENT IN WHATEVER DIRECTION IT WENT.

THERE IS NO ENERGY SOURCE THAT CAN ACCOUNT FOR JUDY WOOD'S ABSURD FANTASIES.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, silly. Here is evidence that it went as far north as it did east. This video was taken from the northwest, looking southeast.
Click to expand...
You were speaking of the "mushroom cloud" that rose from the collapse. I answered your question.

The video was taken from the northeast, looking southwest. So much for your video analysis skills.


Final request, TS, or you will once again be shown to be representing a position that is not reality-based:

By what process could 80% of the steel in the towers have been turned to dust?

You've been working on this for months. Do you mean to say you have no idea whatsoever?

Please answer the question. It's rude and silly to keep avoiding it.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
...The big question is, are they really choosing a2? I always thought so, but perhaps it's not quite so simple. Consider the possibility that they aren't selecting anything. The process goes something like, the steel was "dustified; No, it wasn't; ZIP!----right back to, the steel was dustified. Something got short-circuited. The process was anything but a process...
Click to expand...

OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I think I have an extention to my doink...doink...doink theory. Basically, it involves the individual's perception of the universe, which of course is a combination of external sensoral input and internal interpretation of this data. As babies, we're extremely self-centered, with a hyper-inflated senses of our place within the universe. Our internal thoughts are pre-eminent, thus we cannot distinguish fantasy from reality -- to us anything we imagine is every bit as real as something we can see or hear.

As we get older, most of us develop a more mature and realistic understanding of the role we and our imaginations play within the universe. Thus we are willing to accept external input, such as facts and evidence, as important components on which to build our views of the world.

Only some of us don't do that. We continue to believe that our thoughts, imagination, and opinions are pre-eminent. This produces a sort of inflated ego, a form of meglomania if that's the right word. Within such a mind, facts can simply be ignored if they don't fit in with what one already believes. Thus the individual has no problem ignoring evidence...it's probably all just faked, or irrelevant, or something else; whatever, it can safely be discarded at will. And such people can blithely dismiss the opinions of even the most highly trained experts bearing mountains of supporting data. Within their internalized universe, all opinions (especially theirs) are equal to anyone else's. (This is the main theme of my original "doink...doink...doink" post.)

So I think this is what colors at least some of the CT'ers thinking. They still perceive the universe as a place where their own thoughts can contravene external reality. It's sort of a paranoid version of "The Secret" -- if you believe something, you can make it true. Just like a three-year-old, their world consists of equal amounts of reality and fantasy. Only instead of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, they see missiles and concrete cores.
 
Stellafane said:
OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I think I have an extention to my doink...doink...doink theory. Basically, it involves the individual's perception of the universe, which of course is a combination of external sensoral input and internal interpretation of this data. As babies, we're extremely self-centered, with a hyper-inflated senses of our place within the universe. Our internal thoughts are pre-eminent, thus we cannot distinguish fantasy from reality -- to us anything we imagine is every bit as real as something we can see or hear.

As we get older, most of us develop a more mature and realistic understanding of the role we and our imaginations play within the universe. Thus we are willing to accept external input, such as facts and evidence, as important components on which to build our views of the world.

Only some of us don't do that. We continue to believe that our thoughts, imagination, and opinions are pre-eminent. This produces a sort of inflated ego, a form of meglomania if that's the right word. Within such a mind, facts can simply be ignored if they don't fit in with what one already believes. Thus the individual has no problem ignoring evidence...it's probably all just faked, or irrelevant, or something else; whatever, it can safely be discarded at will. And such people can blithely dismiss the opinions of even the most highly trained experts bearing mountains of supporting data. Within their internalized universe, all opinions (especially theirs) are equal to anyone else's. (This is the main theme of my original "doink...doink...doink" post.)

So I think this is what colors at least some of the CT'ers thinking. They still perceive the universe as a place where their own thoughts can contravene external reality. It's sort of a paranoid version of "The Secret" -- if you believe something, you can make it true. Just like a three-year-old, their world consists of equal amounts of reality and fantasy. Only instead of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, they see missiles and concrete cores.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Very interesting.

Again, I want make clear that possibly I'm over-thinking this phenomenon and nothing complicated is going on: they are merely selecting a2. Fetzer was visibly stunned by the Osama Conundrum, as all twoofers are. It cannot be dealt with; it destroys their conspiracy root-and-branch. Yet, somehow, he and the others absorb the crushing blow and continue to peddle their falsehoods. Maybe the bottom line is that they're loons, fools, and charlatans. Or, put more precisely, each fantasist combines the three in different proportions. If you've been watching Ace in action on this thread, I think you'll admit that it's hard to have confidence in any explanation you come up with for his total imperviousness to factual evidence or logical reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Pomeroo, I look forward to seeing this debate. I enjoyed the others. Have you any future guests in mind?

What about having Greening on the show?
 
TraitorBasher said:
Pomeroo, I look forward to seeing this debate. I enjoyed the others. Have you any future guests in mind?

What about having Greening on the show?
Click to expand...

Greening, for starters, is pretty neutral on the 9/11 issue, so you wouldnt likely find a guest who could be an "adversary" which is often needed to make these shows "move".

As well, as he is an actual scientist, who hasnt lost their mind, it would be near impossible to find someone that his equal on the truther side.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
If we are going to feed the troll, it should at least be Fetzer troll, given it is a thread about him.

TS is quickly entering Christophera territory, and perhaps we should treat him as we did the latter.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


But, TAM, let's not lose sight of the big picture. We're trying to isolate a particular mode of thinking exemplified by Ace and Jim Fetzer. It doesn't really matter what hobby-horse they're riding at the moment. Note what happens again and again:

Ace advances an argument that is wrong--flagrantly and demonstrably wrong. No objection to his reasoning, no concrete evidence undermining his conclusions, has the slightest impact. The notion that he ought not to believe that 80% of the steel from the WTC was missing because it isn't true that 80% of the steel was missing NEVER OCCURS TO HIM. Changing his mind about a hopelessly mistaken belief is IMPOSSIBLE.

What are we dealing with here? I ask this question from the perspective of someone who hosts and engages in debates. If we start out with an audience consisting of people who understand that Fetzer promotes falsehoods and others who buy his falsehoods (should we call them "errors"?), and despite ANYTHING that gets said during the debates, the audience make-up remains unchanged because it's unchangeable, what the hell is the point? Why bother?
 
T.A.M. said:
Greening, for starters, is pretty neutral on the 9/11 issue, so you wouldnt likely find a guest who could be an "adversary" which is often needed to make these shows "move".

As well, as he is an actual scientist, who hasnt lost their mind, it would be near impossible to find someone that his equal on the truther side.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking of a debate format for Greening. Perhaps an hour long interview covering both his research and his appraisal of NIST. I think that would be fascinating without the adversarial element. It can be good TV to see erudite experts talk sometimes, rather than people with clear agendas, or clear nutjobs like Fetzer. Just an idea.
 
TraitorBasher said:
I wasn't thinking of a debate format for Greening. Perhaps an hour long interview covering both his research and his appraisal of NIST. I think that would be fascinating without the adversarial element. It can be good TV to see erudite experts talk sometimes, rather than people with clear agendas, or clear nutjobs like Fetzer. Just an idea.
Click to expand...

That would be a good idea...you have suprised me a little bit here.

Good suggestion.

TAM:)
 
TraitorBasher said:
Pomeroo, I look forward to seeing this debate. I enjoyed the others. Have you any future guests in mind?

What about having Greening on the show?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Like the caveman in the GEICO ads, I'm suffering an existential meltdown. I'm trying to justify arguing with twoofers, and it ain't easy.

As time passes, perhaps my appetite for the struggle will return. Dr. Greening debating Judy Wood sounds like fun, but we have no budget for flying in guests. Fetzer was a one-time event.

We'll see, we'll see. I just can't think about it right now.
 
I hope we see more though. The hardfire debates are actually the only real intelligent coverage of this among all the rubbish on google video. Perhaps you could convince a network with money to allow you to do a 911 series or a general conspiracy series.
 
pomeroo said:
Very interesting.

Again, I want make clear that possibly I'm over-thinking this phenomenon and nothing complicated is going on: they are merely selecting a2. Fetzer was visibly stunned by the Osama Conundrum, as all twoofers are. It cannot be dealt with; it destroys their conspiracy root-and-branch. Yet, somehow, he and the others absorb the crushing blow and continue to peddle their falsehoods. Maybe the bottom line is that they're loons, fools, and charlatans. Or, put more precisely, each fantasist combines the three in different proportions. If you've been watching Ace in action on this thread, I think you'll admit that it's hard to have confidence in any explanation you come up with for his total imperviousness to factual evidence or logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

My thought was that since they are in the habit of using specious arguments themselves, they assume the arguments of others are just as flimsy and can be summarilly rejected.
 
I think I have an idea, but just to make sure, could you describe the Osama Conundrum for me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom