They Are Losing It
If you need any convincing of the mental instability of the conspiracy theory crowd, give a listen to this interview with Jim Fetzer by Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity and Colmes. Fetzer comes on and tries to pump up his academic credentials, heck I was ready to sign up for a class, but quickly degrades into lunacy. Even one of the CTers here admitted he acted like a jerk. It is obvious Fetzer is a huge Loose Change fan, he discusses many of the movie's theories and even talks admirably about Dylan giving him a spreadsheet of "evidence". This kind of puts a damper into the theory that the "scholars" are supposed to be the more conservative academic wing of the party. Warning: this will most likely get you upset, especially when Fetzer starts screaming at the caller from Seattle whose uncle died on flight 93. If you can hold on that long, the caller has a great response though.
posted by James B. @ 8:22 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Fetzer is not only a jerk, he is a petty tyrant. He recently suspended one member of the Sf911T for an undetermined reason. The bylaws of the Sf911T allow him to do that at will, without informing any of his co-founders, including Stephen Jones.
That member is the one going by the name 'brumsen', who recently made the Scholars journal message board.
Brumsen has quit the Sf911T in disgust with Fetzer's actions as well as a form of protest over the poorly formed and petty tyranical bylaws of the organization.
I wrote a post on their qualifications, it is quite sad. I am a grad student, so I was thinking of applying as a student member, just to see what was going on, but now I am probably too associated with the real 9/11 truth movement to sneak in. Besides, it appears to be like the mafia, I would have to prove my loyalty before they would let me in on the big secrets.
Most of the scholars only list fields and don't list their schools or degrees. I wonder why??
There was a discussion on the Apollohoax forum about one of the members who was listed as being an architect and Physicist, Heller to be specific. This was a bit odd since most architects have a good idea of how buildings stand or fall, but since there are many types of architects they may not all be 'up to scale' on structuring.
Turns out, Heller's 'Architecture degree was from the 'San Francisco Architectural Institute'. An unaccredited Feng Shui 'school' with more courses of eco-design and Bhuddist influences than structuring.
So when one Heller of the Sf911T says they are an architect, he lies. No surprise.
Isn't tyranny what this group is supposed to be protesting?? Look at their "News" section for Chrissakes!
Aww, next you'll be telling me that they tell lies in the name of finding 'truth'!
That is a good one, I'll have to remember that. A similar example, that I found for my post
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-scholars-for-911-truth.html
Jeffrey Farrer, a full member, is listed as a "physicist". He is not a professor though, he is a lab manager at BYU. He probably has some academic credentials, but being Steven Jones' lab manager is hardly the highest posting someone can aspire to.
Favorite Fetzer quote:
"You need a credit card to do that!!"
Referring to the use of AirFones on the flights and acting as though credit cards are rare and/or fictitous items.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James,
You refer to me as a CT (I had pointed out the Fetzer disappointing interview). I realise using terms like CT is part of the lexicon that you use based on your understanding. I'm not saying that you don't get to use what ever words that you think are appropriate. Unfortunately in the end, everybody gets to use whatever words they want to and have the words mean what they want them to mean.
In that vein, I should have made the following point here before: If you would allow me the label of my own choice, rather than what amounts to a slur (CT), I would call myself a government story skeptic (GSS).
There's a huge amount of discussion to be held about angles with respect to Mineta, Fetzer, 9/11 Scholars for Truth.
I would ask that you respect the stated preference by individuals as far as labels, and look forward to continued discussion here.
I would call myself a government story skeptic (GSS).
You're not really a skeptic, though. Technically you're a psuedoskeptic. I, by nature, am I skeptic. I say "prove it to me." We have given proof beyond any reasonable doubt as to how WTC7 collapsed, why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, and who perpetrated these attacks. No skeptic worth his reason and logic would hold the views you (or nesnyc, or joan, or roger, etc) do.
Shawn,
Of course I don't agree with your allegation (me being a "pseudoskeptic).
Let's debate the point you are making, where you say in so many words that I am discredited because I'm refusing to accept the many proofs that has been released supporting the Govt. story.
Here's my first point (of hunderds):
Take a look at this video of the WTC towers. South WTC Tower (WTC 1) during the second hit.
As a skeptic, my first question would be whether any particular video from youtube should be taken seriously. I acknowledge that technology allows complete fakery. And, of course, there are "photoshopping" ways to take honest material and add changes / effects / whatever to tweak the video.
If you want to assert that this vid is a fake in some way, so be it. I think, in that case, our debate goes to that question, which I would want to enlist the service of experts with skills and experience far beyond mine.
Setting that point aside for now, I would ask you to, for the sake of discussion assume that this video is not fakery in any way. With that in mind, notice the bird. By the way, I'm not suggesting that the bird was a conspirator (humor arr, arr).
About 18 seconds into the vid. about the time of the 2nd hit explosion which can be viewed related to wtc 2, one sees the bird leave it's perch, you can also see a "squib" coming out from the side of WTC 1 (the one on the right).
This is one tiny example of what no-one supporting the govt. story has explained.
Uh yes I see an explosion. The building had been hit by a plane full of jet fuel. It's not an odd thing to happen.
Again, you're using pseudoskepticism here. You're also using a strawman here, why should the government investigate something expected from a building that has been hit by a plane and is in flames? Explosions occur ALL THE TIME in building fires.
You call this (circled in yellow) a puff of smoke?
Those of you who say I have a closed mind are simply incorrect.
Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.
Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.
Actually, if you were a skeptic you'd be the other way around. As all of the available evidence points to a plane (that plane no longer exists, its occupants gone, it was heading in that directions, the debris all over the lawn, the engine and wheels inside the building, etc) and not to a missle or other projectile.
You do indeed have skepticism and pseudoskepticism backwards.
apathoid,
There is eyewitnesses who claim that a huge explosive sound and shaking happened in WTC1 at the same time the the second "hit" on WTC2.
Of course, there are eyewitness accounts of an enormous variety.
I'm a skeptic. I don't say you should believe anything based on eyewitness testimony.
However, you are asking me why I consider seriously that there was a meaning squibb from WTC 1 one hour before the collapse. The reports from both building of "secondary explosions" create a large amount of interesting allegations that deserve an honest investigative treatment. This has absolutely not happened.
BG, just because you don't like the conotations, does not mean it is not a correct term.
conspiracy theory
n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
"Shawn said...
Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.
Actually, if you were a skeptic you'd be the other way around. As all of the available evidence points to a plane (that plane no longer exists, its occupants gone, it was heading in that directions, the debris all over the lawn, the engine and wheels inside the building, etc) and not to a missle or other projectile.
You do indeed have skepticism and pseudoskepticism backwards.
10:54 AM "
The comment above is exactly why I really find debating with you futile, Shawn
Skepticism has no automatic "starting point". The starting point of skepticism is whatever assertion is being made. If you go back to CNN's coverage of 9/11, specifically Jamie McIntyre, you hear him report, in so many words, there's sign of a plane....
A starting point of skepticism could be skepticism of that report. For this and many reasons, in general, I don't find your charges against me logical.
apathoid,
who says C4?
If you go back to CNN's coverage of 9/11, specifically Jamie McIntyre, you hear him report, in so many words, there's sign of a plane....
Yes he does say there is sign of a plane. How does this help your point?
If there was no plane at the Pentagon, how do you explain the 90 foot wide hole in the wall?
James,
The govt. contention about 9/11 is a conspiracy theory!
So, at the very least, I request that you call me someone who is considering a CT that is an alternative to the CT alleged by the govt and media.
I ask, are you more interested in the truth, or are you more interested in leading readers with ad homiem attacks?
James,
Sorry, McIntrype says "no sign" of a plane.....
Video of Jamie McIntyre
apathoidm,
In point of fact, loud booms were reported, and they are caught on tape (audio and video).
CHF,
The Madrid building fire is, in fact, according to my best unexpert opinion, more dissimilar than similar to WTC fires. I wouldn't find it surprising if explosions were heard and seen in the Madrid case. I would find it mind boggling if demolition squibs were videoed or reported in Madrid.
Demolition squibs were reported and videoed at the WTC complex.
I tend to like to go deeper than any of the comparisons that you are making or that the GSS'ers make about steel skyscrapers never having fallen down before 9/11 or after.
"apathoid said...
bg, you might want to dig a little deeper with regard to Jamie McIntyre ."
I know about all of this.
Jamie McIntyre cried on camera during the on-site CNN coverage of the 1st 9/11 anniverary at the Pentagon. Nothing wrong with anybody crying, but there is something wrong with McIntryre revising the tone of his commentary to fit the story, which he clearly did.
There is eyewitnesses who claim that a huge explosive sound and shaking happened in WTC1 at the same time the the second "hit" on WTC2.
Hmm I wonder why that would happen.
MAYBE BECAUSE A PLANE JUST HIT THE ADJACENT BUILDING?!
more dissimilar than similar to WTC fires
Wanna know the difference between most every other building fire and the WTC? None of the other buildings were hit by planes.
"Then why bring up the McIntyre vid, he said he saw airplane debris, is that not good enough for you?"
Airliner debris that appears "planted" that corresponds to many other details that point toward fakery are clearly not "good enough for me"
Airliner debris that appears "planted" that corresponds to many other details that point toward fakery are clearly not "good enough for me"
Here you are making an assumption with zero evidence. You insult skepticism at every turn.
A hundred people saw an airliner, there was debris everywhere...no skeptic worth his salt would ever claim anything but an airliner crashed into the Pentagon.
It's like those people who call themselves skeptics and believe in Bigfoot.
Hell even taking the "no sign" of a plane statement out of context shouldn't degrade its meaning, they just want to change his meaning. I knew the first time I saw that statement 'quoted' by the CTs that he meant the plane was destroyed.
Sorry, McIntrype says "no sign" of a plane.....
On the lawn, that is because it was in the bleeping Pentagon.
Conspiracy theory logic is so inane. That is like if my wife asks me "Honey, take the car out of the garage, I want to clean in there."
And I reply, "There is no car in the garage."
Then this means that we do not own a car, rather than the fact that I parked in the driveway.
It is just unreal.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Timeout, Dudes
Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!
I admit I don't know what happened. I think there is evidence of lying and cover up. You are free to disagree. You are in fact allowed to call me a CT or a looney or whatever.
I'm not saying I have conslusive proof of anything. Even if I were saying that, I wouldn't expect anybody to take my word for it without a thorough investigation.
We have not had a thorough investigation. The honor of those who died, the honor our Nation's intregity demands that.
I want to believe that even those who support the official story and think those who don't are either anti-govt. or dulusional,would want a legitimate inquiry.
The way the crimes scenes were treated was a criminal act of mishandling evidence. This alone warranted skepticism.
Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!
Bull. You cannot ignore overwhelming evidence on most issues and then use that to claim that you are just asking for an investigation.
If you want to claim that you want more investigation into the collapse of the towers, and incredibly complicated engineering job, than that would be reasonable. But ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon, including hundreds of witnesses, and then claiming you want an investigation is disingenous. You can't just ignore the evidence that is out there, in hopes that some evidence might show up to fit your views better, that is absurd.
I might as well just ignore the presence of gravity in hopes that someone will come up with something cooler, and then say I am just "asking questions" about science.
Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!
We got one.
James,
As has been apparent before, we simply disagree.
I would bet my IRA fund that Fetzer's got a higher IQ than any of us.
So does John Nash.
I would bet my IRA fund that Fetzer's got a higher IQ than any of us.
Doubt it.
IQ is a measure of how quickly you assimilate new knowledge.
JoanBasil,
My problem with Fetzer isn't his IQ. My problem isn't with a good bit of the meat of what he said.
If anyone doesn't see that his blustering ill-mannered disrepect for his Host and his callers is no way to communicate with radio listeners and create credibility, I would submit that I've entered some kind of alternative universe, of which the blind government 9/11 story supporters already
accuse.
I'm not trying to throw stones. I admit my ability to gain credibility hasn't seemed to be sterling either. But Fetzer's tone here is unacceptable. And there are news reports that I could cite that show him as a scary public speaker as well.
By the way, this is a video from 9/11 I doubt most of you government story supporters will enjoy. It is discrediting to your insistence that there were no explosions based on exposives materials in the building.
video from BBC(Realplayer)
I doubt most of you government story supporters will enjoy.
We're not "government story supporters" we're "living in the real world".
The 'Official Government Account' of 911 "proves" that 19 young Arabs with boxcutters can suspend the laws of Physics.
(Good luck, gatekeepers. You can't keep a secret forever.)
Post a Comment
<< Home