Uncle Fetzer on O'Reilly
The clip is over at Hot Air.
Fetzer makes his usual claims about having "structural engineers" on the "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial. I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly, but I loved his bit about "You want to be a nut, you can be a nut; and you are a nut." Fetzer seemed a little taken aback at the forthright denunciation.
posted by Pat @ 8:35 AM
37 comments
37 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just watched it again.
God I loved it.
You can't debate these loons on fact, they don't care about facts or evidence.
I wish every talking head would treat the troofers like that.
They should be treated with the contempt and scorn they so deserve.
Not a big fan of O'Reilly, but I loved the way he handled this douchebag. Used nut and loon about twenty or so times, which was fitting. Thought maybe at the end it would have been better had he said that Fetzer disgraced the victims and their families by denying their heroism and at times even mocking them(9/11 deniers video, Mark Bingham). But he still did a good job.
Did I say nut and loon were fitting for this revolting piece of shit?(looks like he grows another neck or chin or whatever every time you see him on TV). What would have really been fitting was if O'Reilly called him a hateful, disrespectful, hypocritical, useless RETARD. Eh, win some, lose some.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You know,
The only thing I didn't like about the South Park episode is the whole "retard" moniker.
Equating the CT lunatics with the developmentally disabled is really a slander against the retarded.
The vast majority of both high and low functioning developmentally disabled (the new PC way of saying retarded) are far more mentally stable than the average truther.
My wife used to run a program for Dually Diagnosed adults. Dually diagnosed means that not only were they developmentally disableed (retarded) but they were also mentally ill. Most people don't even know thats possible. But it sure is. A 35 year old person can have the intelligence of a 4 year old, and still hear voices in his head (schyzophrenia).
Now that is more like the troofers/deniers.
(edited to change "Intelligent" to "mentally stable)
I never thought I would say this, but at this moment in time, Bill O'reilly is my new hero...lol
FREAKING AWESOME
TEAR'M A NEW ONE.
TAM
Ouch. That will definitely leave a mark on ole' Fetzer.
I thought the point about other nations' media was a good one. Even Fetzer looked as if he was thinking, "He's got me there."
TAM,
I know, its crazy.
I never liked BOR.
Now I might start watching him more regularly.
Its about time someone just out and out called Fetzer a loon.
No repsectful disagreement, no two sides of the story, he's a loon- plain and simple.
I want to see more of that.
I don't want to see a debate of Official Story vs. CT's any more than I want to see a debate of evolution vs. ID, or Round earth vs. flat earth.
But calling a loon a loon... that thar is entertainment.
The clip was kind of like mutually assured destruction. Made O'Reilly look like the a-hole he is, but made Fetzer look like a bigger a-hole.
Sweet Jesus I hate O'Reilly, but he got Fetzer good.
I guess 9C has to pick up the slack now that 9M quit posting irrelevant articles in the comments. BTW, use <> not [].
Hey, whatever happened to Nesnyc?
I thought he changed his name to 9-11(insert CT term here), but Nesnyc used to stick to the topic, sort of, at least more than these guys do.
911coverup doesn't know that ignoratio elenchi is a logical fallacy.
That someone of the likes of Fetzer, or Ward Churchill, or Barrett, breathe the same air that I do, frightens the utter shit out of me.
Someone needs to take a baseball bat to these nuts. A good rap or two on the kneecaps will make them head back to whatever shithole they crawled out of.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Typical truther response every time someone from the right blasts a CTer. Bill O'Reilly,who it is clear most of us are not fond of, tears this dipshit Fetzer a new one, and we enjoy it not because of our political persuasion, but beacuse of our mental persuasion(i.e., not dipshits who ignore boatloads of evidence,IQs above 80, most of us probably MUCH higher than that),and you have to go and play the whole Bush apologist card just like all of the other CTers.It's like the only thing they say,ever. Present them with evidence,get called a Bush lover. Tell them you can't wait until Bush is gone and present more evidence, they call you a Bush lover. Tell them you despise Bush and ask how many structural engineers agree with them, and the wierdest thing happens. They call you a Bush lover! The main theme that I'm seeing here is that every time you prove a point or disprove one of theirs, they either call you a Bush-loving moron or start chanting that stupid mantra of theirs.They never use SOLID EVIDENCE to back anything up.And on top of that, they tell us that they don't know how we live with ourselves, right after they get together with old Jim and make some jokes about the victims, and have a few laughs at the expense of 2,800 people who died(9/11 deniers video). And then, on top of all that, when they've said everything they can think of and everyone just wants them to go away they say something like "Fuck this site and fuck all of you!" or just plain "Fuck you all!". It's their last chance shot at getting attention, and it's entirely pathetic. I guess desperation really does lead to outright anger. And we all know that being angry and whining like a pathetic bitch is no way to prove a point, let alone an absolutely retarded one.
(not to mention the 625,000 iraqi's)
Well the number they said was actually 655,000 - which is obviously wrong to anyone with any critical thinking skills.
The 600000 + number is plain BS but why is it that the whaks never blame the bastards that killed these poeple no matter what the number is?
You idiots come in here so often, telling you off and proving you wrong becomes tiresome, but we haven't had anyone brave enough to come in here in a while, so you will do stuart:
Bill's right. It's inconceivable that Bush would allow nearly 3000
Americans to be killed just to increase his power. Oh hold on - how many soldiers have died in Iraq. 2759 and counting (not to mention the 625,000 iraqi's)
So the presidents during WWI and WWII, they were even worse than BUSH by your reference above...right. asswipe.
Bill O'Reilly is dogshit, and so are you Bush apologists - you have no humanity and I don't know how you can live with yourselves.
Fuck you all!
I live with myself, because unlike you, little MSc in bullshit, I believe in logic, solid evidence, and real expert opinion. So far, all of the above points to the offical story being 90-95% correct.
As for my critical thinking - BSc., MSc. and currently undertaking a PhD.
TAM - EET, BSc-Med Sci, MD, CCFP
and I am one of the less qualified who post here, so eat shaite.
You have not disproved a single thing about the conspiracy because you spend your time discussing the conspiracy and peoples/press response to it while ignoring the contradictory facts that give rise to it.
Acutally most here are bright enough to spend time debunking the CT crap (so much so that now most of your idiot friends just come in here with "pakistani connection" issues, and little else) and mocking you twirps.
Like why did so many emergency crew talk of explosions in the WTC, and why was this verbal evidence not taken up by the commission? Most of us have never put ourselves in danger like them, they are heroes except we choose to ignore them.
This again. Are you real, or just a CT recording. Two skyscrapers are on fire, and have been hit by huge jetliners, and you are whining about noone paying attention to survivors talking of "explosions"! What the F&*k else do you expect to hear in those buildings at the time...please...you are embarrassing yourself.
Someone explain to me why those heroic emergency crew say these things and I'll back off. Come on, explain this evidence.
See above...aeresol cans, electrical transformers, many other things, in a building on fire, would make those sounds, combined with the panic and terror of the moment.
Truth is you people are not open to reasoned debate and I'm not giving you one because like Bill I didn't come here to have a reasoned debate. Like Bill I just want to get up the noses of you people. You can call me "Good Bill" from now on.
#1 - You wouldn't know a good debate if it hit you in the ass.
#2 - I am no big fan of BOR, until recently, but you are far, far, from a "Good Bill"
Here's what "Good Bill" would say to you - "People who apologise for terrorist acts, are the terrorists", "Those who don't question the evidence are traitors to their country", "Bush apologists are Dogshit, Fuck you all"
You are not even as good as some of the CT twirps who have left here. Your insults or more like those I would expect from a 5th grader in the schoolyard at recess.
No take your melted ice cream, and go tell mommy life isnt fair.
TAM
Well put TAM
Just once I would like to see hard evidence from the whaks, something that would stand up in court. Instead of asking the same dumb questions, how about a difinitive explanation instead of simply claims
God I find O'Reilly frustrating
I don't care that he was doing a public service, dude just can't debate or discuss anything
Entertaining to see Fetzer get shut down trying to complain about the evil mainstream media though.
Stuart said...
Like why did so many emergency crew talk of explosions in the WTC, and why was this verbal evidence not taken up by the commission? Most of us have never put ourselves in danger like them, they are heroes except we choose to ignore them. Someone explain to me why those heroic emergency crew say these things and I'll back off. Come on, explain this evidence.
-----------------------------------
Once again with the explosions.I am getting really sick of the Cters talking about all of the explosions. Like Tam said, what do you expect to happen? When two 767's loaded with fuel crash into skyscrapers it shouldn't be a surprise that explosions were heard. And it appears more and more obvious that none of the CTers have ever seen a controlled demolition. The fact that you have SURVIVORS talking about all of the explosions is proof enough that the controlled demolition theory is a JOKE. Albeit a totally unfunny joke, that just shows the ignorance of these idiots. You see CTers, a controlled demo goes something like this: Someone pulls the switch and a whole shitload of charges go off. Many flashes up and down the building. All of the explosives go off and BOOM, building falls down from the bottom up IMMEDIATELY. Anybody in the building to hear it DEFINITELY WILL NOT make it out ALIVE. It sounds so simple to anyone but it's like these people know that if they actually watch a real one then they won't even be able to believe their own bullshit anymore. It's incredible. And do just an ounce of research on what goes on behind a controlled demo. I think the fact that if it was a controlled demo there would be no one around to tell us about the explosions would be enough for you guys, but just in case it isn't... It would EASILY take AT LEAST(emphasis on at least, caps doesn't give it nearly enough emphasis)a year per tower, most likely way longer, to examine each building, prep each building, place the charges in each building(it would literally be in the 10-20 thousand range as far as charges go), and wire each building. And you believe they did all of this during a couple of evacuations? Unreal.And as for ignoring the heroes, we all seem to do a damn good job of respecting them. I think that's why most of us are on here and on other sites looking for real evidence, and communicating with each other, to prove that the CTers are full of shit. We want to disprove everything in that documentary mostly because of the way it shows ZERO respect to the victims and their families. Even though they are all high and mighty on themselves with their dedications that totally contradict everything they say about the victims. Typical Hypocritical CTers.
----------------------------------
Stuart said...
Here's what "Good Bill" would say to you - "People who apologise for terrorist acts, are the terrorists", "Those who don't question the evidence are traitors to their country", "Bush apologists are Dogshit, Fuck you all"
---------------------------------
There you go with the Bush apologist act and the "Fuck you all!" bit again. Even after I said that last night, that's still all you can think of to say. The only thing you can come back with is the same old shit. PATHETIC
-----------------------------------
Stuart said...
As for my critical thinking - BSc., MSc. and currently undertaking a PhD.
----------------------------------
Wow dude you fascinate us with your multiple degrees. The only thing that sucks for you is that having degrees doesn't necessarily mean that you're a good critical thinker. It most likely means that you're a hard worker, and props to you for that. But it seems that the most gifted thinkers are the ones with high IQ's. After all, IQ is the ultimate way to determine problem solving skills. It is basically a critical thinking gauge. So you can have your degrees and spout all of the bullshit you want, but it would seem to me that you weren't exactly blessed with a high IQ.
Sorry Guy.
Blubbers
Have you seen this?
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Steve I'm confused. Did you think I was a Cter? My last post was made up of quotes from Stuart and then my response under the dotted line. I'm not sure if you thought the bullshit parts were my words or if you just think I talk too much. Not sure. Please clarify.Anyway, I'm not a Cter and I thought the report was great. First report that I've seen from a demo company who was on site that adresses all the bullshit claims by the Cters. I thought it was Very well put together. We need to show this to Stuart and the rest of the theorists. Even though they probably wouldn't even read it and even if they did, they would spout some more bullshit about the demo companies being government robots(they love to use that one). They won't let anything spoil their fun.Not even facts.
Like why did so many emergency crew talk of explosions in the WTC
Goodness, a skyscraper on fire and they heard explosions? Well slap me on the ass and call me Sally, there's NEVER explosions in fires are there? No way, Jose!
I mean what with machines and combustibles all over the place (and not to mention pieces of the buildings falling throughout) we should expect no explosions - even though historically speaking explosions are heard quite often in fires.
As for my critical thinking - BSc., MSc. and currently undertaking a PhD.
I'm 20 and don't have a degree yet. I'm still smarter than you. Shame you spent all that money for a kid still in school to be smarter than you.
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. This was a CD report that blows the doors off the toofers and I did not know if you had seen it, it is really good and done by a 20 year expert in CD
Hey no worries Steve. Appreciate you putting the address on here. I have been studying a lot on controlled demos but haven't been able to find a good report by a demo company until now. Definitely blows all of their arguments away. The report was excellent. Recommend it to anyone looking for a good read on the demo theories.
Glad you enjoyed it, the guy knows his stuff. I have folowed CD for years and when I read these so called experts trying to pass off cement dust as explosions I can't stay silent
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/debunking_911_website_debunks_itself.htm
Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Middle school grammar, contradictory arguments befit proponents of the official conspiracy theory
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 22 2006
A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.
Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.
The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."
The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.
As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.
For example, the term "conspiracy theorist," in the singular is used throughout the website in phrases such as, "In every major event there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorist live for this."
The author seems unable to grasp the concept of the plural.
"Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorist clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?"
If a hall is filled one would presume the presence of more than one person.
Again, if I had found a few typos I would be nitpicking but if this individual can't even construct a basic sentence how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?
The author uses the buzzword of 9/11 official story conspiracy theorists in citing the "logical fallacies" allegedly associated with 9/11 skeptic's arguments and yet the website's Building 7 page betrays the biggest logical fallacy by completely contradicting itself.
The website first refutes claims that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment meant to demolish the building by quoting Silverstein's spokesman.
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Having established that there were firefighters in Building 7 and that those firefighters had to be "pulled" from the building, the website concludes that,
"There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out." (Again note the serious case of plural amnesia).
And yet in the second paragraph of the page the author claims that, "Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them ." (another error).
So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?
To repeat Silverstein's spokesman, "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."
Popular Mechanics , which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?
The contradiction proves one of two things - either Silverstein is lying about what his "pull it" comment meant or the so-called "unfought fires" which contributed to the building's collapse were actually being extinguished.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
The likelier scenario when one judges the length of time it took before Silverstein responded to the "pull it" controversy and an overview of firefighter's comments on the day strongly suggests that no firefighters ever entered WTC 7 - meaning Silverstein is lying about his 2002 comments on the PBS documentary.
The website seems to take unbridled joy in the threat to Professor Steven Jones' livelihood in the wake of his suspension, failing to mention that the suspension was preceded by a World Net Daily article that claimed Jones had called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government - a completely bogus and libelous charge that World Net Daily later retracted after the writer Jonathon Moseley was unable to cite his source for such comments during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.
"The DVD of the resistance!" Get TerrorStorm on DVD today! Subscribe to Prison Planet.tv and see it in high quality or watch it for free at Google Video .
In the links section, the website carries a You Tube video of Loose Change guru Dylan Avery's appearance on the Jack Blood Show. Mirroring other reactionary hit piece videos against the 9/11 truth movement, the clip slyly juxtaposes victim's family members looking solemn and images from beheading videos against Avery and Blood making dismissive remarks about the official story - implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims. The contrast of the emotionally laden images of crying wives and children with Avery and Blood's light-hearted casual conversation is a trick to deceive the naive viewer into believing Avery and Blood are rude and unsympathetic to the tragedy of the event.
Even Avery's occasional use of the word "whatever" is portrayed as a sideswipe at the 9/11 dead.
As Avery and Blood discuss the incredulity of Arabs with box cutters being able to take on passengers and burly ex-military pilots, unconnected images of BBC articles about Britain's knife amnesty and how knife crime is rising are flashed.
This is all about emotional style over substance and is bluntly intended to characterize 9/11 skeptics as uncaring inhumane carpet baggers - without ever being able to address the evidence.
We urge our readers to comb through this website for themselves - it won't be long before you run across bizarre leftfield arguments (at one point the collapse of the twin towers is compared to two pool balls hitting each other), confounding statements that are an affront to the English language, and outright errors concerning the claims of the 9/11 truth movement.
"Again, if I had found a few typos I would be nitpicking but if this individual can't even construct a basic sentence how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?"
----------------------------------
Wow Sleepy that's an odd statement considering this comment from one Alex Jones(straight from HIS website) after a certain cartoon made fun of all you retards....
ALEX JONES' COMMENT: This episode is saying that Bush was not involved 9/11, that he is incompetent, that it is anti-semitic to say 9/11 is an inside job. This is the text book template being used by Popular Mechanics, Fox News, Scripps-Howard and all the others. They hit every single point spewed by the "debunkers." In Team America, anyone questioning the war is a terrorist, when in truth Michael Moore does in Farenheit 9/11 exactly with Parker and Stone do with this episode: set out to make Bush look like a buffoon.
[Does this last statement appear to be gramatically correct? I think not. I think he meant to say exactly "what" Parker and Stone do with this episode.How retarded do you have to be when one the LEADERS of your bullshit movement can't even construct a basic sentence?]
So you are presenting a "Hit Piece" Paper on what the writer describves as a "Hit Piece" website so to speak. What is this proving, that both sides often name call, ridicule, and belittle the other side...well yes that is true...and will likely continue.
TAM
LOL why do these clown keep posting the same debunked crap and never give evidence to back up their claims?
There was a push to get the mess cleaned up as fast as possible now they whaks bitch about the clean up being too fast. They just want it both ways
The Internet has done some wonderful things, but in making information so readily available, it has also made it cheap. Before, if you wanted to learn something, you actually had to go out and find a book and read it, or seek out someone who was an expert in the area, and ask them about it. Now you just do a quick google search and the information appears right before you. No need to think about it, or analyze it, the truth is instantly in front of you, it is in a video, it must be true!
What happens then though is you get information without wisdom, it becomes nothing more than a number of unrelated points superficially connected. The movie Loose Change is the perfect example of that. A trio of uneducated 20-somethings make a movie based off of screencaptures of conspiracy websites, and suddenly they are seen as speaking from authority. They never had to do the hard work to turn this information into wisdom, and thus it has no value. If they would have been required to have had more years of experience in order to accomplish this, if they had to exert more effort into compiling what went into their movie, then perhaps they would have paid more attention to the validity of their claims. Instead, they just wallow in their own arrogance, and declare themselves the bearers of the truth.
Stuart you need to do more research.
I have given a fairly detailed explanation for WTC7, did you read it? There was a history ch pgm that did a top to bottom Analysis of how it was built and the compramises that had to be made during its construction. It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.
There are two other possible contributing factors. First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
They stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators and burned for 7hrs under the main load bearing supports.
As far as NORAD goes
Here is a good rundown of what the ATC's went thru
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
I listened to the tapes and most of these people reacted like most people when comfronted by the unthinkable, then grounding 4700 planes, something else that has never happened before. Once they got their wits about themselfs they did an excellent job
When dealing with a stiualtion that was unthinkable, people hesitate before they react and it doesn't take much to cause a domino effect. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground. Trying to cordinate the FAA, the Airforce and Norad is a daunting task
I wonder how all these critic's would do if they were in the position of these folks but most are not qualified. The first and formost thing you have to take in to concideration is that the pilots had no rules for engagement which means that the pilots could do nothing till they have rules of engagement. There were no rules for the airforce to shoot down Amercian civilian planes.
I was stunned after the first and when I watched the second live I was in total rage and could not leave the tube. People love to throw stones from the bleachers but never tell what they were doing or would do in the same situation. Hindsight is always 20/20. This had never happened before and everybody reacts different and people should not be hasty but give people the benefit of the dought, there may have been many things going on and under the same circumstances who knows how anyone would react.
We don't know all that went on, all anyone can do is speculate or guess, it was something that had never happened before
A lot of people seem to believe that NORAD controls all the air force bases in the United States, which is false. They are both entirely different entities. All of NORAD's bases are located on the coastal regions and were never intended to do domestic flights. Also, scrambles are not the same as interceptions. Scrambling is simply scouting the situation and has nothing to do with taking down an aircraft.
Would the hijacked planes be easy to find? No. The hijackers turned off the planes' identifying transponders, so that Air Traffic Control would have to sort them out from a few thousand radar blips on screen in the northeast. And NORAD's radar system mostly looked outward from the coast, not inward.
On 9/11 the U.S. air defense system was not "engaged in as many as 15 war games simulating hijacks and attacks." There is specifically no record of hijacking drills being performed. The only military radar "clutter" was on NORAD screens in Colorado, and was eliminated as soon as the real-world alert was issued.
"Again, if I had found a few typos I would be nitpicking but if this individual can't even construct a basic sentence how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?"
Er. Through the quality of their argument.
Er. Through the quality of their argument.
Yes, well, I've yet to see a "quality argument" from someone who is incapable of putting together a proper sentence. Doesn't mean it's impossible, just really, really REALLY unlikely.
"Here's what "Good Bill" would say to you - "People who apologise for terrorist acts, are the terrorists", "Those who don't question the evidence are traitors to their country", "Bush apologists are Dogshit, Fuck you all"
Good going Stu, you just called yourself and all of the truthers a terrorist. By your logic, all of you Bin Laden and Al Qaeda apologists are terrorists. Way to incriminate yourself, douchebag. Guess your critical thinking skills were lost when you read a bullshit quote from OBL that was shown in Loose Change and couldn't tell that it was the least credible quote ever imagined.
Post a Comment
<< Home