Logic, The Pentagon, and question for Mr. Fetzer

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Apr 1, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting comment cause that's exactly how I would characterize the same old "official" supporters who frequent forums like this. Guess it's up to the intelligent reader.
     
  2. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One of the reasons why I've been posting less here (and more in, say, the birther threads) is that I've realized the 9/11 deniers have long ago crossed over from humorous and have just become sad. To live in this wonderful world of information availability and free education, and be so stupifyingly, colossally wrong, as they are, in some ways I pity them.
     
  3. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An insult. That's different huh?
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An insult on whom?
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When your life is filled with paranoia and fear, everything becomes a conspiracy.

    "9/11 Truth" is nothing more than a defunct cult, the few scattered hangers still trying desperately to find someone to support their twisted views, which they have trouble expressing in the first place.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Someone with an interest in truth, honesty and facts would not find the simple act of calling or emailing someone to verify identity so incredibly daunting.

    Someone with little interest in truth, honesty and facts verifies a person's identity based solely on the assumption of their own intelligence.

    You should really watch this video.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html
     
  7. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes, it certainly does. If the agenda was to seek the truth as you claim, you would have emailed the source and found out for yourself. I emailed him last night and here is the text of the exchange.

    Mr. Fetzer responded with . . .

    I then requested his permission to post the exchange here.

    Which he granted.

    As you can see, he seems very prompt and accommodating when contacted by email. Perhaps instead of being so quick to throw the shill card, RWF, you should contact him yourself. I'm sure he would answer your question via email. It appears that he has corresponded via email with two other members here besides myself already. I know Hannibal said he contacted him. I don't know who the other one was though.

    Note for the conspiratorially minded: I've listed the timestamps on the emails in Pacific Time to illustrate the flow. I removed my last name and email address from this posting.
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who are interested in logic evidence and truth apparently find it appropriate to run away and hide when presented with multiple scholarly, and scientific challenges to their premises.

    Odd how that works.
     
  9. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Well, if these are indeed Jim's words, he seems to share my attitude towards the shills that advocate no "funny business" occurred on 9/11....rather, the commission "got it right",saying anything to try and get us to believe their disinformation and propaganda.
     
  10. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Devil's advocate:
    Do you not refute the multiple scholarly, and scientific challenges that RTW's side has produced, as there are Ph.D men and women that believe wholeheartedly in the 9/11 conspiracy and have contributed great time and effort into it?

    Play fair.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you cite an example of these?

    I mean, Dr. Judy Wood has a PhD, and she postulates that Directed Energy Weapons, powered by a hurricane, destroyed the buildings from space. She has spent years of effort and published a few books. That doesn't make her theories less insane.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do refute them, if they can be called such, directly. I do not run and hide from them. I point out exactly where they are wrong.

    You want fair?

    Go back and review the exchange I had with Fetzer. I challenged his claims head on, and provided actual data to substantiate my claims.

    Fetzer provided incredulity, he provided innuendo, he provided character attacks, but when faced with a direct challenge to his premise he chose to run away.
     
  13. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fair enough.
     
  14. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes, I thought that was kind of interesting as well.

    What do you mean "if"? Do you still doubt that it is indeed Fetzer? Why don't you email him yourself?
     
  15. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must be new to the cult of 9/11 denial. Being a 9/11 Denier means never admitting you were wrong.
     
  16. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You called the user Jim Fetzer a shill.

    You were provided with contact information to confirm his identity.

    You refused to avail yourself of the information and continued to call him a shill.

    I emailed Jim Fetzer and he confirmed that the user Jim Fetzer here is indeed him.

    I posted his emailed response.

    You don't seem convinced but STILL won't email him yourself.

    Who's not telling the truth here?
     
  17. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I suggested one possibility of what the poster may or may not be. IMO, I did not think it was Fetzer. I could have been wrong. Very minor point in the overall scheme of things, but, take your bows if you feel the need. Continue to focus on side issues, and avoid the major issues. Seems to work to a degree.
    Sometimes it's more telling watching who responds to what and to what degree (if they even address the point at all). Lots can be learned by simply watching people, and their agendas running out ahead of them. Saves time in assessing who represents what, or more precisely, WHAT they represent. Thank you for making it easy.
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For 'truthers', it is much easier to backpedal and make excuses than actually contact the source.

    Actual evidence is contrary to their cult.
     
  19. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I'm confused...wouldn't this be "trolling"? Wouldn't "cult" be insulting? The rules are so consistent sometimes, I have trouble following.
     
  20. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not trolling as it is the poster's opinion and germain to the discussion. "Cult" is not insulting because he is talking about a group, not an individual. If you are going to try and get "truthers" special protection, good luck with that as you will have single handedly made every insult against Democrats and Republicans or any other group a TOS violation, thus killing debate.

    He is also speaking the truth which weighs heavily in his favor.
     
  21. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It sure is.
     
  22. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wouldn't constantly calling other posters shills in an attempt to divert from actually providing evidence to back up one's speculations be considered trolling?

    Answer: yes
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I specifically call no one a shill. I try to stick to sweeping generalizations like I've been taught here. Would you like an email address as proof?
     
  24. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, according to you, calling truthers a cult is somehow NOT the same as you calling anyone who doesn't agree with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) a shill? How so? Truthers is a "sweeping generalization", is it not? Yet you consider that a personal attack. You whined that the rules are consistant, yet that is what they are suppose to be. I realize you probably meant inconsistant, but those freudian slips sometimes get the better of people.
     
  25. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That's a complete lie.

    Be proud of your work, own it you worthless troll.
     

Share This Page