Fetzer on O'Reilly

[Anti-sophist]

http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=6D6DB67376B3727332D23FFD6E8F7A02?a ction=viewTVShow&showID=1027

This will be funny is unaware of Mr. Fetzer's position. Either way it'll probably be good for a laugh...


Impact Segment
Controversial professor keeps teaching
Guest: Prof. James Fetzer, ret., University of Minnesota at Duluth

Why does University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett continue to teach, with virtually no repercussions for his incendiary remarks about 9/11?


EDIT: This is on TONIGHT.

[DavidJames]

http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=6D6DB67376B3727332D23FFD6E8F7A02?a ction=viewTVShow&showID=1027

This will be funny is unaware of Mr. Fetzer's position. Either way it'll probably be good for a laugh...



EDIT: This is on TONIGHT.I hate shows like this. As an Avalanche fan, this is like watching the Red Wings against Vancouver. I wish there was a way for both to lose :)

[Mince]

I hate shows like this. As an Avalanche fan, this is like watching the Red Wings against Vancouver. I wish there was a way for both to lose :)

Yeah. Regardless, I wish that (whomever) would stop giving Fetzer and his ilk undue notoriety.

[delphi_ote]

No doubt. Putting an easy guy up on t.v. to yell at doesn't make you a hero. It's like Hannity and Colmes having Fred Phelps on.

But even worse, I can promise you O'Reilly won't have any of the facts on hand, and he will just attack the guy and appeal to emotion. In the end, this does nothing to stop the urban myths from spreading. If anything, it helps them tremendously. The CTs get air time, they sit as equals next to someone famous, and they'll probably make more logical arguments and present more "facts".

If the hosts of any of these shows actually cared about this stuff (more than, say, their own egos,) they'd book someone like Gravy and put the nonsense to rest once and for all.

[money]

I hate shows like this. As an Avalanche fan, this is like watching the Red Wings against Vancouver. I wish there was a way for both to lose :)

I was thinking almost the exact same thing except I was thinking Boise State and BYU...

I'm having trouble deciding who I would prefer to get their ass handed to them... probably O'reilly, as the shelf-life of his BS is longer.

[Oliver]

General Q: Is there a possibility to watch FOX live and online?

[Pardalis]

General Q: Is there a possibility to watch FOX live and online?

It'll probably be on Youtube and/or Google video before you know it.

[Oliver]

It'll probably be on Youtube and/or Google video before you know it.

It´s online now:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/orielly_fetzer_20061012.wmv :D

[jujigatami]

That was AWESOME!

I'm not an O'reilly fan by a longshot, but that was great.

Fetzer looked like the boob he is and Bill hammered home rthat he has got NO evidence at all.

Man, that interview gave me such a clue!

[StoneWT]

That was great! I was disgusted when Fetzer tried to bring up his Marine Corps service. His years in the Marine Corps are merely credentials to hang on a wall and impress people with.

I'm going to send a letter to Bill. Good job.

[Oliver]

Ouch! That hurts... http://www.mom-community.to/forum/images/smilies/hurra1.gif

[Brainache]

I'd like to see more people on the left of politics take on the "scholars". I'm as far away from a Bush supporter as you could get, but even being the stark raving lefty that I am, I can't see how any of these CTs are even remotely possible.

[David Wong]

It was an appeal to emotion and no, he didn't roll out reams of data. But man was it effective. Especially once Fetzer said the news media won't report on this because they're all controlled by government regulations...

That's right. No newspaper has ever run a negative story on the government.
Because of regulations.

[Pardalis]

That was horrible, I almost felt bad for Fetzer. Exactly how Delphi predicted it to be.

Really not good. :(

ETA: Thanks Oliver for the link.

[Oliver]

Some nasty guys posted a thread to the AVI at the enemy board ... Thread canceled: Re-troof-mooooved and never seen again... :D

[EGarrett]

I can't open the video link. Help...I must see this!

[EGarrett]

nm I got it. :)

[Oliver]

I can't open the video link. Help...I must see this!

Try this player - it handles most video-types... :)

ETA:
VLC media player

Homepage: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
DirectDL: http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/videolan/vlc/0.8.5/win32/vlc-0.8.5-win32.exe

[EGarrett]

Bill pretty much beat him by asking him why no paper in the world would take their case.

It's just like the passenger/pilot question on the plane...it just breaks their neck.

[Mince]

It's just like the passenger/pilot question on the plane...it just breaks their neck.

What's the passenger/pilot question? As in, where are all of the passengers and pilots?



Strip away all of O'Reilly's ad hominems and he still raped Fetzer on evidence. I've never seen Fetzer so handicapped. You know he was thinking "OMG, Where's Alex, Where's Alex." It's about time someone started undressing these people.

[Pardalis]

I disagree. I think nobody, no matter how insane they really are, should be called a nut on live television. This show completely wasted a good opportunity to show once and for all how stupid these CTs are.

[apathoid]

I disagree. I think nobody, no matter how insane they really are, should be called a nut on live television. This show completely wasted a good opportunity to show once and for all how stupid these CTs are.

I disagree. Sometimes, you gotta just call a spade a spade.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No surprise the JREFers would enjoy O'Reily tonight, he employed the JREF shout down. O'Reily must have said "no evidence" 8 or 10 times. During that time, he could have showed his audience WTC7 being demolished, and the molten metal streaming out of WTC2, the twin towers being blown to kingdom come, the mushroom clouds, the phony bin laden tape, etc. I.E. the evidence.

They won't do that, of course.

David Wong makes what he thinks is a sarcastic remark

That's right. No newspaper has ever run a negative story on the government.
Because of regulations.

Of course news organizations run stories that are critical of government, but only to a degree. Rarely, if ever, do news organizations question the premise.

For example, when was the last time TV news did a story questioning the legitimacy of the FCC? Or explained the origin of money, how government stole it from the people, and how fractional reserve banking, (as institutionalized by the Fed) is theft?

David, you need to get aquainted with the important concept of the "limited hang out". It's very effective.

[Pardalis]

You don't get it TS.

The mass media doesn't give credence to crazy theories because they are crazy theories.

[SezMe]

Fetzer was ignorant of the sound-bite nature of TV in general and BillO in particular to think that he was going to go into a lot of detailed "evidence" on this show.

But BillO as usual lead with his "you hate America" diatribe which is a useless remark and guaranteed the rest of the segment would go downhill.

Finally, BillO's logic was also a bit lacking. Getting something in a major newspaper is evidence of the soundness of that thing? I don't think so. Either that or psychics, who are all over the MSM are real and Randi's about to lose his mil.

[Muckar-duva]

Of course news organizations run stories that are critical of government, but only to a degree. Rarely, if ever, do news organizations question the premise.

Media doesn't cover things in depth because that doesn't sell papers/commercials. Your average joe isn't interested in complex and big issues- you see, that would require people to actually take an interest in recent history, other nations' cultures, national economy and political ideologies. Much in the same way that the 9/11 CT is appealing because it doesn't require any knowledge about the history of US foreign affairs or the recent history of the middle east.

People are stupid/uninterested, and media delivers.

[smother]

You are a nut. You are a loon. You hate your country. You are a disgrace.

Oh man. That was a bag of fun.

[Bell]

No surprise the JREFers would enjoy O'Reily tonight, he employed the JREF shout down. O'Reily must have said "no evidence" 8 or 10 times. During that time, he could have showed his audience WTC7 being demolished, and the molten metal streaming out of WTC2, the twin towers being blown to kingdom come, the mushroom clouds, the phony bin laden tape, etc. I.E. the evidence.

They won't do that, of course.

<snip>

Of course they won't do that. Because those things didn't happen. And I think O'Reily rather addresses 3/4 of the Americans who have a brain, instead of 1/4 who are retards.

[Peephole]

I hate O'Reilly but that was one of the best pieces of television, ever, ever.

[Blutarsky]

This was on Fark yesterday, hope it's not a repeat here:

http://home.comcast.net/~cheidle/fark/101106.jpg

Sweet...

Oreilly worked him over like a punching bag...

[Dave1001]

No doubt. Putting an easy guy up on t.v. to yell at doesn't make you a hero. It's like Hannity and Colmes having Fred Phelps on.

Prescient, in light of the later responses in this thread. But your point may cut a little too close to home to the JREers who feel heroic for this very reason.

[CurtC]

Or explained the origin of money, how government stole it from the people, and how fractional reserve banking, (as institutionalized by the Fed) is theft?
So is there any nutty crap you don't believe?

[DavidJames]

No surprise the JREFers would enjoy O'Reily tonight, he employed the JREF shout down. O'Reily must have said "no evidence" 8 or 10 times.This should say something to you. Even nutbars like BOR realize you need evidence to support a theory.

You CTist are dumber then BOR.

That's pretty much the pinnacle of criticism. You've achieved it the old fashion way...you've earned it.

[Peephole]

For example, when was the last time TV news did a story questioning the legitimacy of the FCC? Or explained the origin of money, how government stole it from the people, and how fractional reserve banking, (as institutionalized by the Fed) is theft?

Maybe because those are another bunch of retarded little conpiracy theories?

[delphi_ote]

So Ward Churchill thinks the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 now? He's crazy, but that's a misrepresentation of his views. Lumping together everyone who disagrees with you is foolish.

O'Reiley doesn't touch the WTC7 comments, or any of the lies about papers and studies. Bill responds with roughly 95% ad hom. The point about going to foreign media was admittedly well put, but the rest was pathetic. The South Park send up of 9/11 conspiracies was better researched.

Sure, we can all cheerlead when someone calls the person we disagree with a "nut." It feels good. But then we're all just like Alex Jones' fan club ridiculing Gravy.

[twinstead]

No surprise the JREFers would enjoy O'Reily tonight, he employed the JREF shout down. O'Reily must have said "no evidence" 8 or 10 times. During that time, he could have showed his audience WTC7 being demolished, and the molten metal streaming out of WTC2, the twin towers being blown to kingdom come, the mushroom clouds, the phony bin laden tape, etc. I.E. the evidence.

Because these things are FALSE. Dammit troothydude that's the WHOLE issue. WTC7, so-called ‘molten metal’ streaming, twin towers 'blown to kingdom come', mushroom clouds, 'phony' ben laden tape, whatever is NOT evidence. It is subjective labeling of events as suspicious when they either aren't, or are completely false (like your phony bin laden tape).

Just because you don't understand what happens, or just can't believe a building can do what it did, or fall for propaganda, doesn't mean you have a slam dunk case. And you certainly don't.

[delphi_ote]

You are a nut. You are a loon. You hate your country. You are a disgrace.

Oh man. That was a bag of fun.
It's basically the same thing he says about Al Franken (or anyone who disagrees with him, for that matter.) There was nothing special about this. You're getting excited about the standard O'Reilly diatribe.

[twinstead]

It's basically the same thing he says about Al Franken (or anyone who disagrees with him, for that matter.) There was nothing special about this. You're getting excited about the standard O'Reilly diatribe.

I agree to a point (I'm not a big O'Reilly fan), but you probably know how difficult it is to debate 911 CTs. Every point they bring up requires a lot of explanation, but before you can even begin to show how they are wrong about one point they have changed the subject and brought up another.

What I wish O'Reilly would have done is countered Fetzer's web sites with 911myths.com and any of the other good 911 CT debunking sites. He also could have looked at the audience and warned them not to take Fetzer and his sites at face value, go to the opposing view's sites and decide for themselves.

Especially when Fetzer rattled off all the Structural engineers and other experts who he has on board, when mostly he has nobody who could be considered an expert in relevant fields, O'Reilly should have jumped all over that. To me it showed that he hasn't studied Fetzer and his 'movement' nearly enough to do much else BUT just call him nuts and (rightfully though) berate him for not having any real evidence.

In that respect I feel O'Reilly's interview was more about yelling at Fetzer than getting to the truth.

[MarkyX]

It was an appeal to emotion and no, he didn't roll out reams of data. But man was it effective. Especially once Fetzer said the news media won't report on this because they're all controlled by government regulations...

That's right. No newspaper has ever run a negative story on the government.
Because of regulations.

I've actually been contacted by several members of the press, including some major ones (not giving names) giving the same message: The government rarely gets involved in the media. You can count the number of times they have with one hand in the Bush Adminstration on a certain New York newspaper. Even then, they didn't "obey"

To say there is some of filtering is a myth.

[MarkyX]

Because these things are FALSE. Dammit troothydude that's the WHOLE issue. WTC7, so-called ‘molten metal’ streaming, twin towers 'blown to kingdom come', mushroom clouds, 'phony' ben laden tape, whatever is NOT evidence. It is subjective labeling of events as suspicious when they either aren't, or are completely false (like your phony bin laden tape).

Just because you don't understand what happens, or just can't believe a building can do what it did, or fall for propaganda, doesn't mean you have a slam dunk case. And you certainly don't.

Ignorance is Strength

See, I can quote 1984 too!

[MarkyX]

Sure, we can all cheerlead when someone calls the person we disagree with a "nut." It feels good. But then we're all just like Alex Jones' fan club ridiculing Gravy.

Delphi, we've gone past that phase of playing with facts. Everything they put out, we counter. We point out the lies, quote mining, misreading, and junk science involved in their theories.

When it comes to facts and science, it's on our side. But that's not why the 9/11 Deniers exist.

[uruk]

Bill does make one good point. If the CT'rs have hard evidence why aren't they doing something about it? They say they love thier country. Where are the lawsuits, the petitions for congresional investigations, the presentations to global media, the mass demonstrations in washington D.C., the haranging of senators and congressmen,? They seem to be content with only posting websites and acosting visitors to the Ground Zero Memorial site.

They say the media only goes so far. Well, what about Watergate, and the Clinton/Monica scandel. Both incidences brought impeachment charges against two standing presidents.

It seems to me that the CT'rs don't do anything of significance because they know they really have nothing but innuendo, conjecture, hearsay and circumstancial evidence.
The "doesn't-it-seem-odd" and "isn't-it-a-coincidence" argument holds no water.

[MarkyX]

Watching the interview now and I agree, Bill is no position to talk with this nut. He should've mentioned chief Daniel Nigro giving the order or the "structural engineers" being full of crap.

However, Bill does have a bit of common sense here. Thousands of people PAID to keep their mouth shut? No media outlet, even the ones that despise Bush, reporting it? I remember seeing the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine saying that Bush is the worst president ever with the artwork of Bush wearing a dunce cap, and suddenly they have an article saying how 9/11 theories are full of crap?

And most people politically here are against Bush. Mark Roberts said right in front of Alex Jones and on video that he hates Bush. Abby thinks the Patriot Act and Fox news is full of crap. Being a Canadian, I'm supposed to hate Americans by birthright.

:boggled:

[Peephole]

Sure, we can all cheerlead when someone calls the person we disagree with a "nut." It feels good. But then we're all just like Alex Jones' fan club ridiculing Gravy.
There's a time for facts and science and a time for sitting back and enjoying one retard put down an even bigger retard.

Video is up on youtube now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiSe_OsaQrk

[DavidJames]

Bill does make one good point. If the CT'rs have hard evidence why aren't they doing something about it? They say they love thier country. Where are the lawsuits, the petitions for congresional investigations, the presentations to global media, the mass demonstrations in washington D.C., the haranging of senators and congressmen,? They seem to be content with only posting websites and acosting visitors to the Ground Zero Memorial site.Hey, that's my main point. What a minute, that's my main point and BOR's good point?

Excuse me, I think I'm going to be ill. Should I recover, I'm going to have to reexamine my entire political and philosophical outlook and possibly even my reason for existence. This can't be good.

[Shrinker]

I agree with many that it was about as subtle and clever as dropping Fetzer into a tub of custard. But who wouldn't enjoy watching Fetzer dropped into a tub of custard?

[Bell]

There's a time for facts and science and a time for sitting back and enjoying one retard put down an even bigger retard.

Video is up on youtube now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiSe_OsaQrk

Why reason with someone who has none? :D

Funny clip!

[jujigatami]

Why reason with someone who has none? :D

Funny clip!


EXACTLY!

I don't think BOR or ANY media host should spend even a whit of time debunking these loons on points.

Not worth it, and they just plain aren't smart enough to do it. And as we all know, these CT loons just change the subject when they are cornered.

They need to be called RETARDED over and over. They need to be mocked and ridiculed on EVERY talk show, over and over. Thats all.

Markyx's video and Gravy's guide are fantastic, but South Park calling them all retards did far more damage to the deniers credibility than those combined could EVER do.

Abby's movie probably did more than Gravy's guide. Why? because it shows what complete loons the CTs are and mocks them hilariously and non-stop. The fact that Abby is cute helps too.

You can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

[milesalpha]

Being a Canadian, I'm supposed to hate Americans by birthright.

:boggled:



You mean you don't? I am afraid I will have to report you to CSIS. Expect a knock on your neighbour's door in the next 30-50 years.

[bjb]

They both looked stupid and illogical, but overal, Bill O'Rielly was more offensive to me. I don't mind him calling that guy a loon and mocking him, but the 'you hate America' thing is just awful. I also was offended when he suggested that Fetzer take his story to France or Canada, as if Canada is an agressive enemy of the United States. I think O'Rielly disgraces everyone who opposes these 9/11 deniers by being such a bully. He might have had an expert come on and explain why the 911 scholars are a bunch of idiots. That would have been far more painful and damaging to Fetzer, who clearly becomes upset when the facts aren't going his way.

[DavidJames]

They both looked stupid and illogical, but overal, Bill O'Rielly was more offensive to me. I don't mind him calling that guy a loon and mocking him, but the 'you hate America' thing is just awful. I also was offended when he suggested that Fetzer take his story to France or Canada, as if Canada is an agressive enemy of the United States. I think O'Rielly disgraces everyone who opposes these 9/11 deniers by being such a bully. He might have had an expert come on and explain why the 911 scholars are a bunch of idiots. That would have been far more painful and damaging to Fetzer, who clearly becomes upset when the facts aren't going his way.excellent points. If you read the LC boards take on the show they mostly talk about BOR being, er, well, BOR. It would be much better for someone to calmly, but systematically, disembowel the CT. Of course, like the SP show, they would provide quotes showing them to be idiots and claim it was a good thing.

[StoneWT]

He might have had an expert come on and explain why the 911 scholars are a bunch of idiots. That would have been far more painful and damaging to Fetzer, who clearly becomes upset when the facts aren't going his way.

Fetzer has a nervous breakdown whenever his 'facts' :rolleyes: are countered. He was pushing his "Zapruder film (Kennedy assassination) was altered" theory at a Dallas meeting years ago and was devastated by the debunking. He monopolized the time for questions and eventually had his microphone cut off.

With that being said, you don't have to counter someone that doesn't bring anything to the table.

Has anyone mailed a copy of '9/11 Deniers Speak' to the various Fox shows?

[jujigatami]

His point was that Canadian, British and French media cannot even be construed to be controlled by the US government.

Saying that US media is is stupid, but OK, maybe, but France? No Way.

It was actually his most logical arguement.

Uncle F said that he couldn't get his story out because the US government controls and regulates the media. So why not go to the Canadian or British or French press? Wouldn't the Guardian LOVE to report on the evidence that would bring down the Bush Regime?

But no, even they knw what a loon Fetzer is.

My favorite though was when BOR said "I hope people do go to your goofy website".

Debating their points gives them credibility. Mocking them exposes them for what they are. Loons.

[dirtywick]

It was only 5 or 6 minutes long, hardly enough time to debunk anything especially when we all know he'd run off on some unrelated tangent and avoid the direct question completely. Just pointing out what a regular person would ask who isn't particularly well-versed in the topic worked for me, especially when Fetzer can't come up with an answer.

I'd have liked it more if instead of France he'd have asked why Al-Jazeera doesn't care, you'd think they'd be jumping at the opportunity to clear the stain on the Muslim community, right?

[Anti-sophist]

I actually agree the best point BOR made was that not even the foreign medias are taking them seriously.. even if you buy into the conspiracy completely, you'd need to explain that. Short of invoking the "new world order", it's hard.

[Darth Rotor]

I actually agree the best point BOR made was that not even the foreign medias are taking them seriously.. even if you buy into the conspiracy completely, you'd need to explain that. Short of invoking the "new world order", it's hard.
Some Iranian media appears to be, or at least one Iranian president. ;)

DR

[MarkyX]

as if Canada is an agressive enemy of the United States.


Our news outlets called "So-called War on Terror" and "Bush's war"

Don't think for a second that there isn't some anti-Bush or anti-Americanism up here. There is, lots of it. Most of them being in Ontario or Quebec.

[delphi_ote]

I agree with many that it was about as subtle and clever as dropping Fetzer into a tub of custard. But who wouldn't enjoy watching Fetzer dropped into a tub of custard?
:dl:
Good point.

[smother]

It was only 5 or 6 minutes long, hardly enough time to debunk anything especially when we all know he'd run off on some unrelated tangent and avoid the direct question completely. Just pointing out what a regular person would ask who isn't particularly well-versed in the topic worked for me, especially when Fetzer can't come up with an answer.

I'd have liked it more if instead of France he'd have asked why Al-Jazeera doesn't care, you'd think they'd be jumping at the opportunity to clear the stain on the Muslim community, right?

Exactly. 5-6 minutes is too short for a debate. Furthermore, you cannot debate uncle Fester. There is no reason to reason with a man that cannot be reasoned with. A guy like Uncle Fester is capable of spouting 200 CT claims a minute - more than enough to keep a dozen debunkers busy. If you start to defend the official story, you lose. Like O'Reilly, you have to apply common sense, because after all common sense is what persuades the average viewer. They don't care about details. They want the short story. And common sense works great under those circumstances.

[T.A.M.]

For anyone here who feels bad for poor Uncle Fetzer, let me remind you of MarkyX's "Deniers Speak" video, and all the things Fetzer has said about how the UA93 Phone calls are fake, and how he mocked the passengers with his top 10 list from earlier this year.

If this guy were a quiet little CTer who had his beliefs, and was then crucified by BOR, fine, have some sympathy, but for this arrogant, obnoxious man who has said what he has said about the victims onboard the planes, I have no pity, none. I wish Bill had said more.

TAM

[Gravy]

I agree with many that it was about as subtle and clever as dropping Fetzer into a tub of custard. But who wouldn't enjoy watching Fetzer dropped into a tub of custard?My favorite frozen confectioners in Long Lake, New York, that's who, Mr. Glib!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452fe4385ba3f.jpg

[aofl]

I agree with many that it was about as subtle and clever as dropping Fetzer into a tub of custard. But who wouldn't enjoy watching Fetzer dropped into a tub of custard?

I wouldn't. Why ruin a tub of custard by dropping a load of crap in it?

[bjb]

For anyone here who feels bad for poor Uncle Fetzer, let me remind you of MarkyX's "Deniers Speak" video, and all the things Fetzer has said about how the UA93 Phone calls are fake, and how he mocked the passengers with his top 10 list from earlier this year.TAM

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see on TV. Show what Fetzer says and watch him squirm. I love it when people are made to look stupid by using their own words against them (Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show), and there are few easier targets for this strategy than Fetzer.

[Pardalis]

I also was offended when he suggested that Fetzer take his story to France or Canada, as if Canada is an agressive enemy of the United States.

Yeah, I resented that part, even more so because I'm a French Canadian and I have great respect and admiration for America.

[EGarrett]

What's the passenger/pilot question? As in, where are all of the passengers and pilots?Basically yes. Depending on the flavor of CTer you have, you ask them about the fate of the people and the pilots who were killed (or "killed") on the plane.

If they claim the flights were landed and replaced with remote control jets, you ask where are the people who were supposedly killed on the flights? What about their families? The people either agreed to never contact anyone they knew ever again, or they have to bring every family member and friend of every person into conspiracy. That's easily into the tens of thousands of people.

If they claim the passengers were just murdered, you ask about the pilots. Did they agree to allow their planes to be crashed? If the pilots were made-up people, or government agents, who played the "part" of the pilots for decades? Who are all the flight attendants and Airline managerial people who vouched for the existence and death of these pilots?

And so on and so forth...if they're actually stupid enough to try and answer the question...you quickly reduce them to either insanity or stuttering.

[Hellbound]

Yeah, I resented that part, even more so because I'm a French Canadian and I have great respect and admiration for America.

"Canada has amassed 80% of it's population along the border with the U.U...."

Anybody here see the move "Canadian Bacon"?

:D

[Peephole]

Basically yes. Depending on the flavor of CTer you have, you ask them about the fate of the people and the pilots who were killed (or "killed") on the plane.

If they claim the flights were landed and replaced with remote control jets, you ask where are the people who were supposedly killed on the flights? What about their families? The people either agreed to never contact anyone they knew ever again, or they have to bring every family member and friend of every person into conspiracy. That's easily into the tens of thousands of people.

If they claim the passengers were just murdered, you ask about the pilots. Did they agree to allow their planes to be crashed? If the pilots were made-up people, or government agents, who played the "part" of the pilots for decades? Who are all the flight attendants and Airline managerial people who vouched for the existence and death of these pilots?

And so on and so forth...if they're actually stupid enough to try and answer the question...you quickly reduce them to either insanity or stuttering.
Why they simply ordered the pilots to land, then shot them all and used voice morphing technology to impersonate all the passengers. It's not that far fetched!

[CurtC]

Basically yes. Depending on the flavor of CTer you have, you ask them about the fate of the people and the pilots who were killed (or "killed") on the plane.
I wish I could someday meet a Truther in person. I've never come across one, as far as I know. The closest I've come is seeing a car last week that had stickers in its rearwindow that said "infowars.com" and something about how the government was responsible for 9/11.

But if someone I talked to made the claim that the planes were not the four flights in the "official" story, I'd lead them down the following path. Since none of those 200 people has showed up to their families 5 years later, we have to presume they're dead, right? And the planes haven't turned up either, so we have to presume they're destroyed, right?

So if the government was going to murder the 200 people and destroy the 4 planes anyway, why didn't they just use those four planes where they say they did? What the hell purpose could it serve to pull the switcheroo and then dispose of the originals anyway?

[Pardalis]

"Canada has amassed 80% of it's population along the border with the U.U...."

Anybody here see the move "Canadian Bacon"?

:D

Well it's freaking cold up there!

BTW, isn't that a Michael Moore film? :boxedin:

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, we've gone past that phase of playing with facts. Everything they put out, we counter. We point out the lies, quote mining, misreading, and junk science involved in their theories.
Not in nationally syndicated media, where we could actually change the minds of fence sitters. Anyone remember my first post in the Loose Change thread? Talking about my real estate agent friend who actually fell for it? All it took was some basic facts delivered reasonably to convince him.

Imagine if O'Reilly actually used this chance to do just that. Think about how many of these myths would've been put to rest. Instead, he made it a partisan issue. He ground his usual axe agains liberal academics run amok (an issue O'Reilly has been very (http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/evolution-on-oreilly-factor.html) wrong about before (http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/oreilly-just-keeps-topping-himself.html).)

Facts and logic are what make us different from them.

[Big Les]

Prescient, in light of the later responses in this thread. But your point may cut a little too close to home to the JREers who feel heroic for this very reason.

Damn, I see it now, we're all doing this for an ego-trip. I feel so dirty. I for one welcome our cretinous self-deluded overlords and will cease refuting their drivel right away.

You arse.