Fetzer Gets In Some Decent Points
James pointed the other day to this hilarious argument between Mark Dice and Jim Fetzer. As others have mentioned, the part where Jim discusses Dice's nutty "Resistance for Christ" group and their belief in "Luciferians" is quite amusing. But the part that I found interesting was the bit where Uncle Fetzer claimed that Jim Hoffman and Webster Tarpley had brought up "Directed Energy Weapons". Sure enough, I was able to pull it up from Synthetic Terror (Page 225 of the PDF):
And a paragraph later
This certainly shows how annoying it is to read Tarpley; he tells us not once, but twice on the same page that the power cord would be rather large. And Tarpley gets into real science fiction territory here (Page 245):
So Fetzer has a valid point; why is Webster Tarpley considered credible in the 9-11 Denial Movement and Judy Wood a kook? Of course, Fetzer's arguing they're both credible, while I would maintain they're both nutbars....
Labels: Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Mark Dice, Star Wars, Webster Tarpley
posted by Pat @ 7:10 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
The solution to this problem will indeed require more time and research.
This is the standard line, but the question is, what research? Short of building a device capable of using 'high energy interferometry using coaxial beams' to destroy buildings, there is, as far as I can see, no other 'research' that can be done.
"This fully-armed and operational C-130..."
You will find you are mistaken, young Tarpley, about a great many things.
So Fetzer has a valid point; why is Webster Tarpley considered credible in the 9-11 Denial Movement and Judy Wood a kook?
Indeed - where does one draw the line?
Demolitions, laser beams, holograms, remote control planes....all of it's completely insane.
The only conspiracy claim that doesn't have to require massive drug use and medical treatment would be the LIHOP scenario - and even that one has serious problems.
Yeah, "let it happen on purpose" is at least plausible, but not as plausible as "let it happen because they fucked up".
"This fully-armed and operational C-130..."
Hey, he stole that line from the Return of the Jedi.
Good coverage on this.
I wonder what kind of airborn laser he is talking about. The current one still in testing is so big it takes a 747 to hold it
Yesterday, I hosted three 'Hardfire' debates between Mark Roberts and James Fetzer. Right at the outset, we established that Fetzer does not imagine that the senseless carnage at Virgia Tech had any political implications.
That was a relief.
The debates will be available on Google sometime next week.
BG, admit it, we have good coverage on everything.
We have more truth before 9 AM than most websites have all day.
Cool, so where do I buy the limited edition DVD boxset?
Right at the outset, we established that Fetzer does not imagine that the senseless carnage at Virgia Tech had any political implications.
If he was involved with a credible, sane movement, that wouldn't need to have been established.
Tarpley - nonscientist...imagination ran wild
Judy Wood - alleged scientist...should know better.
TAM:)
So, at last you lot admit 911activists think Wood is a kook---
Thank you. Now let's see if you remember it next week--as Jimbo has shown, long term memory is NOT a debunk strong point.
Demolitions, laser beams, holograms, remote control planes....all of it's completely insane.
Let me help:
demolitions--PROVEN APPLICATIONS --exist in the real world.
laser beams--SPECULATION--large scale destruction theoretical at best.
holograms--SPECULATION:--fesibility theoretical at best.
remote controled planes--PROVEN APLICATIONS--exist in real world.
As you can see it is really quite clear why some theories are given more credence than others.
But then some of us aren't very bright...
Jenny
I have always maintained, that despite me not believing any of the MIHOP crap, of which Woods stuff is the worst, the only way your movement will ever go anywhere, is if you isolate and marginalize her type of shaite, form a unified stance, and put it forward.
TAM:)
But then some of us aren't very bright...
"Some"?
Post a Comment
<< Home