Thursday, September 21, 2006

The Debate

J. R. Dunn, at the American Thinker, continues to pound Jim Fetzer into the ground. This fight should have been called a long time ago.

At the end of my first response I set certain conditions. Any commentary was to be a logical, succinct, and coherent analysis of every statement I have made here, and in my article as well, following the example I have given you. I have no interest in any more factoids, none of this “I saw it someplace on the Net” stuff. Fully sourced, fully researched material – that is the minimum acceptable response.

That’s not what we have here, needless to say. I admit I wasn’t really expecting it either.

13 Comments:

At 21 September, 2006 07:29, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

Come on! Everyone knows Dunn's Cheney's Mossad contact at the American Thinker!

The curtain of 9-11 is falling away! It was teh Joooos!!!

 
At 21 September, 2006 08:14, Blogger Pat said...

Hah, did you follow the link to the Portland Indymedia site? It's an article by Tom Flocco, citing no less an authority than Karl Schwarz!

 
At 21 September, 2006 08:54, Blogger Chad said...

For some reason, the song "Smack My Bitch Up" kept popping into my head while reading that.

 
At 21 September, 2006 09:52, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I don't know how you figure Dunn won that argument. For example:


"'Neither of the massive engines was recovered at the Pentagon,' the Chair tells us. This photo says otherwise." And links to a photo shown at the Moussaoui trial. Only a trial where the defendant wasn't going to be allowed to present a defense would win on that argument. The trial of whether the official 9/11 story is truth or hoax doesn't follow those rules - "because I say thats what it is and I say it came from the Pentagon scene." This fellow Dunn can't prove anything he says.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:10, Blogger Alex said...

For some reason, the song "Smack My Bitch Up" kept popping into my head while reading that.

Thanks Chad! I saw your comment before I read the article, so I put that song on before clicking the link! makes an excellent soundtrack to the article.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:30, Blogger CHF said...

Joan, the fact that you can't tell who won the debate is why you're a CTer.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:52, Blogger CHF said...

Fetzer is so out of his league!

I've always thought this would happen.

These "scholars" sound real intelligent in an echo chamber but as soon as they step into the real world of debate, they're slaughtered like a band of Taliban in an Apache's crosshairs!

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:53, Blogger Alex said...

The trial of whether the official 9/11 story is truth or hoax doesn't follow those rules - "because I say that's what it is and I say it came from the Pentagon scene."

And THAT is one of the reasons we call you CT nuts.

Because evidence gathered by professionals, and expert testimony on the nature of that evidence, is not enough to convince you.

Instead, you rely on Youtube videos that basically say "I don't think that it's what they say it is".

In the real world, only one of those scenarios is considered suitable evidence. The fact that you believe in the one which is NOT tells me all I need to know about you and your beliefs.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:39, Blogger Rob said...

Q: Why does Fetzer put a "sic" when quoting Dunn mentioning the tailplane ("The wings, tailplane (sic), and rudder...") as if the use of "tailplane" is an error?

A: Because Fetzer knows very little about aviation. "Tailplane" is the right word for the small wing-like horizontal surfaces at the back of an aeroplane.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:59, Blogger Rob said...

Fetzer says: "A pilot and aeronautical engineer has explained to me that, at
full throttle, a Cessna could not fly lower than 15 feet to the
ground... "

So how to explain this roughly Cessna-sized plane flying at speed at about 5 feet?

"...and that a Boeing 757, at around 500 miles per hour, would be unable to get closer than about 60 feet from the ground"
So roughly speaking the faster you go the higher you have to fly to avoid the the Deadly Gas Pocket? See how low the 3rd plane gets about 25 seconds into this, despite travelling fairly fast.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:26, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I have got to admit, I though Fetzer was gonna come out swinging. yet all he does is quote incredibly old and well debunked photos. i mean how many times do we have to show them the true size of the hole in the pentagon before they will get rid of this stupid 16 foot hole argument.

As for the engines, large parts of the engines were recovered.

Oh my...I may take his rebuttal and correct him on all the shit Dunn didnt.

TAM

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:46, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Very well put Alex!!!!

 
At 22 September, 2006 15:09, Blogger pomeroo said...

You know what's scary? Good Lieutenant is engaging in satire, pretending to be a drooling moron. But, he doesn't sound any dumber than the people who write stuff like that for real.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home