Monday, September 18, 2006

Uncle Fetzer in the American Thinker?

Sheesh, guys, Fetzer doesn't qualify:

Evidence the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 747 [sic], as the government claims, for example, is extensive and definitive. Here are three points from the first piece anyone coming to Scholar’s web site might be expected to read, which is titled, “Why doubt 9/11?”, namely:


Yep, Uncle Fetzer thinks the official story is that a 747 hit the Pentagon.

* The Pentagon’s own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when it was shown on “The Factor”; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!


In this paragraph he gets the plane right, but what is the relevance of the relationship between the length of the plane and the height of the building?

17 Comments:

At 18 September, 2006 09:08, Blogger 911coverup said...

Yes!! Keep on mocking those who advocate fringe theories while you're ignoring other truthseekers with more credibility.

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:11, Blogger 911coverup said...

Like all the high government insiders in this link...

Www.patriotsquestion911.com

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:26, Blogger 911coverup said...

One would have to start questioning deunkers' intellectual honesty in this blog

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:33, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I dont at all question the fact that you are supreme douchebag.

You have advanced to the top of the douchebag list.

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:33, Blogger Chad said...

Intellectual honesty is not a platfrom from which ANYONE in the truth movement should preach.

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:36, Blogger 911coverup said...

Yeah yeah shower me with all the insults, it's not going to have any effect. So what do you think of the link I posted above? Are they all liars too? If you're going to start with morgan reynolds, I'm going to laugh.

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:42, Blogger Alex said...

Keep on mocking those who advocate fringe theories while you're ignoring other truthseekers with more credibility.

Is it even possible to ignore someone who doesn't exist?

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:43, Blogger 911coverup said...

What about the family commitee for 9/11 truth who have spent more time searching for answers as to what had happened to their lost ones more than anyone of us ever have? Are they liars as well?

 
At 18 September, 2006 09:45, Blogger Chad said...

Yeah, it's an impressive list. My question for you guys is here you have all these government insiders on your side. According to that recent poll, 30% of Americans are with on the whole "inside job" thing (to some extent at least).

So what's the ETA on this new independent investigation you guys are always on about?

What are you waiting for? An gold-engraved inviation from Bush himself? Get on with it already. It's such an open and shut case, right?

Prove it and put this whole thing to bed.

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:02, Blogger 911coverup said...

An opening of a new inestigation can happen if the movement multiply to greater extent but unfortunately most of you are too busy debunking strawman theories lol

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:09, Blogger Alex said...

What about the family committee for 9/11 truth who have spent more time searching for answers as to what had happened to their lost ones more than anyone of us ever have? Are they liars as well?

Some are. Others are just ignorant. Still others are just poor deluded fools. Just like most of the 9/11 denial movement. Very few of the twoofers are aware that they're spreading lies and disinformation. In their eyes they are the avenging angels come to exact rightful vengeance on a wicked government. But their delusions do not make them correct, nor do they mean that we should simply ignore them. Just like a religious fanatic spreads lies while believing that he is doing "God's work", so too are the twoofers convinced of their unfailing righteousness.

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:14, Blogger Chad said...

An opening of a new inestigation can happen if the movement multiply to greater extent but unfortunately most of you are too busy debunking strawman theories

If we're just debunking strawmen, then that shouldn't be inhibiting any growth for your movement.

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:50, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

An opening of a new inestigation can happen if the movement multiply to greater extent but unfortunately most of you are too busy debunking strawman theories lol
WTF?!?!
LOL!!!

Ya tell that to that student in Tienamin Square who stopped a fuckin tank and your fuckin excuse is "An opening of a new inestigation can happen if the movement multiply to greater extent"?
That is the most asinine statement statement.
But you dont just stop there....NO!!!
You go on to blame a blog for your numbers not growing?
WTF?!?!
Again another Tin Foil Hatter spouting cookie cutter responses not based on anything.

NEXT!!

 
At 18 September, 2006 11:26, Blogger furrod said...

"If you're going to start with morgan reynolds, I'm going to laugh."

I started with Morgan Reynolds and laugh I did.

Personally I’d be shocked if the 9/11 Commission Report was completely accurate. I imagine there are errors (it is, after all, a government publication) and I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there were instances of butt-covering by officials who didn’t perform as well as they should have. If you want people to stop shooting down strawmen then you CTers need to stop throwing them up. If there were any legitimacy to the idea that the US government orchestrated 9/11 for political purposes then you have done yourself a great disservice by presenting controlled demolition and phantom guided missiles as your evidence. If a rational/credible CT claim exists, it has been long buried among the nut-house crap. Congratulations.

 
At 18 September, 2006 13:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

911coverup:

Well, if you are going to call Fetzer, head of the "Scholars" a fringe proponent, and without credibility, than I'd have to say, choose your leaders more wisely next time, or shut them up when they open their traps atleast.

As for your obvious ploy at the heart strings, show me quotes from family members that say "BUSH killed my family member" or "Dick Cheney caused 9/11". I suspect most of them want clarification on some things, but I doubt many of them believe the shaite you do.

TAM

 
At 18 September, 2006 14:57, Blogger shawn said...

Are they all liars too?

Liars, idiots, or ignorant.

Pick one.

 
At 18 September, 2006 17:46, Blogger CHF said...

911coverup,

I was down at ground zero in NYC on Saturday and asked a few of you morons: WHO SHOULD CONDUCT A NEW INVESTIGATION?

I got no names, no outline for an investigation, nothing.

They had no idea who should conduct the very investigation they are constantly calling for!

You people have no unified position and no idea what it is you even want.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home