Fetzer Agrees to Disputation on the Pentagon

[pomeroo]

As most of you know, I have been eager to arrange a disputation between our side and a leading conspiracist. Jim Fetzer, who I continue to applaud for his willingness to enter the arena (in sharp contrast of the vast majority of his colleagues in the fantasy movement), has agreed to a comprehensive discussion of the Pentagon. I invite feedback from anyone interested in the subject, but I'm particularly eager to hear from the people most knowledgeable about avionics and piloting such as--but not restricted to--Apathoid, Anti-sophist, Beachnut, and Gumboot. I used the superb debate platform developed by The Doc as a selling point, so I hope he'll weigh in. And it should go without saying that I anticipate hearing from Mark and Ryan and, well, the rest of you extremely bright people.

Here is the most recent reply from Jim Fetzer, a note from Rolf (I don't recognize him, but he is "Galileo"), and my last note to Fetzer:


Ron,

It sounds very interesting. I think we would have to begin with some
statement of the official account that JREF is defending and that I am
attacking. Then at least we know what we are talking about. I think
we should start with a commitment to 12 rounds, where each round ought
to focus on some specific aspect of the official account. Let me give
this a little more thought. Perhaps we can work out a mutually agree-
able formulation of the proposition under debate and that not count as
part of a round. Then JREF can outline its general position in support
and I will pick it up from there (Round 1). After eleven more rounds,
we will conclude, where I, as your guest (target) will have the last
word as a gracious gesture of appreciation for engaging in debate with
this notoriously tough-minded group. The debate can be extended only
by mutual agreement and no negative connotations will be attached by
either party to the other's non-extension of debate after 12 rounds.

If this sounds reasonable to you, then your side can draft a proposal
for the proposition under debate and I will take a look and see if it
is agreeable to me. We can negotiate until we are mutually satisfied
with the proposition. If we can't come to terms at this stage, then
that will be an indication that such an exchange is probably unwise
and unlikely to resolve anything. But I presume that this will pose
no bar to progress. I appreciate your willingness that both sides
can use additional consultants. I rather took for granted that this
would be me vs. JREF, so that comes a no suprise. I probably have a
friend, Galileo, who would like to contribute in one capacity or an-
other. So let me know if this works for you. I do have commitments
that might take me away from the exchange for a day or so, which I'll
let you know about as they arise. But I like the idea in general, so
if this sounds like a plan to you, discuss it and send me a proposal
for consideration as to the proposition that we are going to debate.

Jim

P.S. Bear in mind that we may need a system of "flags" for points
about physics, engineering, and aerodynamics, for example, on
which we have differences that may require independent experts
or professional sources. I expect that many of our differences
may fall into this category. When we have a dispute about the
specs of the plane, its flight properties, and such, my guess
is that we should offer our sources and explain why they are
appropriate but not spend our time in an inconclusive debate
about them other than to flag them as points of difference we
acknowledge to require independent resolution beyond the con-
text of the debate. In any case, each side should be able to
explain why they do or do not accept specific sources as being
competent and appropriate for citation in the course of debate.
Let me know if this sounds remotely reasonable. I am sure we
don't want this exchange to degenerate into endless squabbles.

(From "Galileo)

I accept this challenge on the Pentagon and suggest WTC 7 as well.

Gravy stands not a ghost of a chance versus Galileo.

Sincerely,

Galileo



Jim,

Everything in your e-mail sounds reasonable and perfectly acceptable.
Again, I have no wish to pin you to a deadline. I would expect responses to
be posted within a day or two, but if circumstances make that impossible, we
aren't going to abandon the whole project. The idea is to be comfortable and
to examine the subject as thoroughly as possible.

As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF.

I assume you won't mind if I post my proposal and your response. I'd like to
get the ball rolling and start assembling the team. Incidentally, you are
not restricted to Galileo. I don't want the disputation to swell too much,
but you can use anyone who think will assist your presentation. We can hammer
out the ground rules as we proceed.

Ron

[Gravy]

Does Fetzer have any credibility with anyone besides a handful of Star Wars death ray proponents? Is there some argument of his that hasn't been completely demolished or that isn't ridiculous on its face? Is there some reason that an aeronautics or avionics expert is necessary to demonstrate that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Wasn't three Hardfire shows enough to devote to this severely delusional person who's desperate for attention?

Edit: Perhaps Mr. Fetzer will read this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary), attempt to understand it, and think about his behavior.

[~enigma~]

As most of you know, I have been eager to arrange a disputation between our side and a leading conspiracist. Jim Fetzer, who I continue to applaud for his willingness to enter the arena (in sharp contrast of the vast majority of his colleagues in the fantasy movement), has agreed to a comprehensive discussion of the Pentagon. I invite feedback from anyone interested in the subject, but I'm particularly eager to hear from the people most knowledgeable about avionics and piloting such as--but not restricted to--Apathoid, Anti-sophist, Beachnut, and Gumboot. I used the superb debate platform developed by The Doc as a selling point, so I hope he'll weigh in. And it should go without saying that I anticipate hearing from Mark and Ryan and, well, the rest of you extremely bright people.

Here is the most recent reply from Jim Fetzer, a note from Rolf (I don't recognize him, but he is "Galileo"), and my last note to Fetzer:


Ron,

It sounds very interesting. I think we would have to begin with some
statement of the official account that JREF is defending and that I am
attacking. Then at least we know what we are talking about. I think
we should start with a commitment to 12 rounds, where each round ought
to focus on some specific aspect of the official account. Let me give
this a little more thought. Perhaps we can work out a mutually agree-
able formulation of the proposition under debate and that not count as
part of a round. Then JREF can outline its general position in support
and I will pick it up from there (Round 1). After eleven more rounds,
we will conclude, where I, as your guest (target) will have the last
word as a gracious gesture of appreciation for engaging in debate with
this notoriously tough-minded group. The debate can be extended only
by mutual agreement and no negative connotations will be attached by
either party to the other's non-extension of debate after 12 rounds.

If this sounds reasonable to you, then your side can draft a proposal
for the proposition under debate and I will take a look and see if it
is agreeable to me. We can negotiate until we are mutually satisfied
with the proposition. If we can't come to terms at this stage, then
that will be an indication that such an exchange is probably unwise
and unlikely to resolve anything. But I presume that this will pose
no bar to progress. I appreciate your willingness that both sides
can use additional consultants. I rather took for granted that this
would be me vs. JREF, so that comes a no suprise. I probably have a
friend, Galileo, who would like to contribute in one capacity or an-
other. So let me know if this works for you. I do have commitments
that might take me away from the exchange for a day or so, which I'll
let you know about as they arise. But I like the idea in general, so
if this sounds like a plan to you, discuss it and send me a proposal
for consideration as to the proposition that we are going to debate.

Jim

P.S. Bear in mind that we may need a system of "flags" for points
about physics, engineering, and aerodynamics, for example, on
which we have differences that may require independent experts
or professional sources. I expect that many of our differences
may fall into this category. When we have a dispute about the
specs of the plane, its flight properties, and such, my guess
is that we should offer our sources and explain why they are
appropriate but not spend our time in an inconclusive debate
about them other than to flag them as points of difference we
acknowledge to require independent resolution beyond the con-
text of the debate. In any case, each side should be able to
explain why they do or do not accept specific sources as being
competent and appropriate for citation in the course of debate.
Let me know if this sounds remotely reasonable. I am sure we
don't want this exchange to degenerate into endless squabbles.

(From "Galileo)

I accept this challenge on the Pentagon and suggest WTC 7 as well.

Gravy stands not a ghost of a chance versus Galileo.

Sincerely,

Galileo



Jim,

Everything in your e-mail sounds reasonable and perfectly acceptable.
Again, I have no wish to pin you to a deadline. I would expect responses to
be posted within a day or two, but if circumstances make that impossible, we
aren't going to abandon the whole project. The idea is to be comfortable and
to examine the subject as thoroughly as possible.

As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF.

I assume you won't mind if I post my proposal and your response. I'd like to
get the ball rolling and start assembling the team. Incidentally, you are
not restricted to Galileo. I don't want the disputation to swell too much,
but you can use anyone who think will assist your presentation. We can hammer
out the ground rules as we proceed.

Ron
Neither of them are scientists so why exactly should anyone here waste their time debating these wackos scientifically? Let them put forth their scientists...oh yeah, I forgot, Kevin Ryan has been [rule10]slapped quite nicely by the court and Steven Jones has essentially shut up about anything except the truth burn microsphere fiasco. Guess they don't have any valid scientists on their side unless they can prove Judy Woo-Woo ever came out of her coma and even then I would like proof her brain wasn't damaged.

[Blender Head]

I'm excited and happy Uncle Fetzer is willing to debate. Good on him!

[Gravy]

I'm excited and happy Uncle Fetzer is willing to debate. Good on him!Fetzer doesn't care how many times he's made to look like a gibbering idiot. As long as he's the clown in the spotlight he's happy. He speaks for almost no one in the 9/11 truth movement. His delusions are not amenable to reason. Therefore no good can come of this, IMO.

Bad on him, and on us for continuing to give him exactly what he wants.

Hardfire TV program: Wieck, Roberts, Fetzer: Part 1 (http://tinyurl.com/32mya6) – Part 2 (http://tinyurl.com/32hx6g) – Part 3 (http://tinyurl.com/yurzs4)

[NYCEMT86]

Fetzer doesn't care how many times he's made to look like a gibbering idiot. As long as he's the clown in the spotlight he's happy. He speaks for almost no one in the 9/11 truth movement. His delusions are not amenable to reason. Therefore no good can come of this, IMO.

Bad on him, and on us for continuing to give him exactly what he wants.

Hardfire TV program: Wieck, Roberts, Fetzer: Part 1 (http://tinyurl.com/32mya6) – Part 2 (http://tinyurl.com/32hx6g) – Part 3 (http://tinyurl.com/yurzs4)

I am going to have to agree. I feel that we can give him endless supply of evidence that show proof that Flight 77 did indeed hit the pentagon and he will continue to ignore it, examples of this can be seen in the Hardfire episodes. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Major problem, he is equating posters on this forum with representatives of the JREF.

[Hyperviolet]

Fetzer at least agrees to debate. Unlike others in his camp.
However, he is immune to reason. The Hardfire show proved that. Any evidence that supported the official story was planted, and he didn't need evidence to suppor that assertion either.

Proving the official story is not the essence of the Fetzer debate, it's proving to him the evidence wasn't secretly planted. Ie Impossible.

[pomeroo]

Does Fetzer have any credibility with anyone besides a handful of Star Wars death ray proponents? Is there some argument of his that hasn't been completely demolished or that isn't ridiculous on its face? Is there some reason that an aeronautics or avionics expert is necessary to demonstrate that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Wasn't three Hardfire shows enough to devote to this severely delusional person who's desperate for attention?

Edit: Perhaps Mr. Fetzer will read this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary), attempt to understand it, and think about his behavior.



Mark, there is a reason for this disputation. Fetzer has been promoting both Ranke's flyover nonsense and the notion that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon, as the Pilots for Truth interpret the flight recorder data. It's two-myths-in-one. Rob Balsamo made a show of wanting to debate, but it turned out that he was willing to do it where it could have actually happened. Here is the opportunity to create a useful archive on this important issue. These guys have long claimed that the plane was coming in too high to have crashed into the Pentagon. Let's see, at long last, the evidence that can't be shown to any real news outlet. And let's demonstrate conclusively what's wrong with it.

We can begin by asking Fetzer and his partners to critique your paper. Let's see them find some errors.

[pomeroo]

Major problem, he is equating posters on this forum with representatives of the JREF.


Arkan, I included this disclaimer in my reply:


As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF.

[BenBurch]

Arkan, I included this disclaimer in my reply:


As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF.

I will wager you a large cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee that the result will still be portrayed as a "Defeat of JREF" whether you win or lose...

[StoneWT]

Please don't waste time on this. Fetzer is only associated with Pilots Fo' Troof because he is a leech that needs to piggyback on the increasingly bizarre claims of the decreasing number of conspiracy theorists willing to be associated with him.

You'd be better off having Fetzer debate the fake moon landing. After a certain point, watching him display signs of mental illness stops being educational for the fencesitters and simply becomes disturbing.

[Gravy]

Mark, there is a reason for this disputation. Fetzer has been promoting both Ranke's flyover nonsense and the notion that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon, as the Pilots for Truth interpret the flight recorder data.
So what? Fetzer has been promoting both fantasies for over a year. What new evidence has come to light? Suppose I claimed that the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy are real. Should smart, rational people spend their time engaging me in a debate about my delusions, simply because I scream for attention? Ron, there is no "debate" over what happened at the Pentagon. For some reason you've chosen to play the no-planers' game, although they've shown you, in person, that they are incapable of supporting their claims. They had their say, and made asses of themselves. I think Avery and Bermas were embarrassed by that. Fetzer? It's what he lives for.

At the start of the first Hardfire show with Fetzer, you asked for our agreement that there are some theories that are so far-fetched that they deserve no examination. This is one such theory, but we agreed to discuss it on the show. That had no effect on Fetzer. No one's mind will be changed by this disputation, and a lot of time will be wasted if people choose to play.

Please reconsider this, and raise your standards. Giving these creeps a platform again and again, when they've proven that they bring nothing to the table, makes no sense. At what point do you stop giving the Fetzers and Ace Bakers and Craig Rankes what they want?

[RedIbis]

Question:

Why is it a team against Fetzer?

I'm not a big fan of his research, but I just want to know why it's not Mackey or Gravy in the debate mano a mano.

[chillzero]

Major problem, he is equating posters on this forum with representatives of the JREF.

Arkan, I included this disclaimer in my reply:


As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF.

But you left out a word. It should read :

As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF Forum.

[8den]

Question:

Why is it a team against Fetzer?

I'm not a big fan of his research, but I just want to know why it's not Mackey or Gravy in the debate mano a mano.

Um because this isn't wrestling?

Fetzer is making a number of exceptional claims about several specific and rarifed fields of expertise. Are you saying people with experience in these fields shouldn't address them?

Why?

[T.A.M.]

1. Gravy is right, debating Fetzer again, even in the form of a disputation, is pointless (although a fun read). As well, given the reasons for doing this, picking the lame duck is not the best idea. Fetzer has been defeated, and most of the movement he claims to be a "leader" in, have abandoned him.

2. I have to agree that regardless of who is to debate, it should either be one on one, or team on team, not team on one.

3. I think Mark is a fantastic person to represent the debunking side, as his knowledge on the Pentagon issue is wide and all encompassing. Others may have superior knowledge in some elements, but not as skilled in others...

4. Unfortunately Ron, the rest of the truther candidates to debate with are either "insane", "psychopathic", or refuse to debate...rock and a hard place my friend.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

1. Gravy is right, debating Fetzer again, even in the form of a disputation, is pointless (although a fun read). As well, given the reasons for doing this, picking the lame duck is not the best idea. Fetzer has been defeated, and most of the movement he claims to be a "leader" in, have abandoned him.

2. I have to agree that regardless of who is to debate, it should either be one on one, or team on team, not team on one.

3. I think Mark is a fantastic person to represent the debunking side, as his knowledge on the Pentagon issue is wide and all encompassing. Others may have superior knowledge in some elements, but not as skilled in others...

4. Unfortunately Ron, the rest of the truther candidates to debate with are either "insane", "psychopathic", or refuse to debate...rock and a hard place my friend.

TAM:)

I was so ready to praise your genius, but then you had to drop #4.

[CFLarsen]

Arkan, I included this disclaimer in my reply:


As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF.

But you left out a word. It should read :

As a disclaimer, I must point out that the JREF is not involved: the team
will consist of regular posters on the JREF Forum.


Absolutely.

pomeroo, you have to make it blatantly clear that he would be debating forum members - not members of the Foundation.

[Brainster]

Fetzer may not have much credibility with his own movement, but he's still a name player in 9-11 Denial, so I think there could be some value to this. Here's an offbeat suggestion; how about inviting a JREF Forum member who's a CT, but who doesn't believe in the Pentagon nonsense, who in fact has a terrific blog (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com) dedicated to debunking Pentagon claims? I refer to Caustic Logic.

[T.A.M.]

I was so ready to praise your genius, but then you had to drop #4.

lol...well nobody is perfect...I ammend my comment #4, to replace "rest" with "almost all".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Fetzer may not have much credibility with his own movement, but he's still a name player in 9-11 Denial, so I think there could be some value to this. Here's an offbeat suggestion; how about inviting a JREF Forum member who's a CT, but who doesn't believe in the Pentagon nonsense, who in fact has a terrific blog (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com) dedicated to debunking Pentagon claims? I refer to Caustic Logic.

Well, upon reflection of some of the comments here, I will concede that Fetzer, due to his past history in the public spotlight on the subject, may still be a player in the OVERALL scheme. My comment still stands about his falling into oblivion wrt respect from WITHIN his movement.

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

NO to giving Fetzer the three things he yearns for most:

1. Spotlight
2. Spotlight
3. Spotlight

Ron, you might just as well put ME on your show. My theory has always been, on 9/11, that an invisibility-cloaked, fire-breathing Godzilla-like creature was responsible for the whole thing. And this one was even bigger than the real Godzilla. It all fits together like a watch if you look at it closely. GET ME ON HARDFIRE! I'LL TEACH 'EM!

[beachnut]

I was so ready to praise your genius, but then you had to drop #4.
As usual you offer no proof to refute the truth. 9/11 truth continues to hate hearing the truth, and fails to recognize the truth. So truthy of you.

[R.Mackey]

Is the "Galileo" referenced here the same chap who's running wild here, equating criticism of Dr. Griffin with treason? I see no value to any discussion with him whatsoever.

Dr. Fetzer on the other hand is welcome, but having been already vanquished by Mr. Roberts, I fail to see what he expects to gain from this.

[pomeroo]

Absolutely.

pomeroo, you have to make it blatantly clear that he would be debating forum members - not members of the Foundation.


You're right. Fetzer does understand, however, that the proposed disputation is my idea and I don't speak for the JREF.

[pomeroo]

I must repeat that the idea behind engaging prominent conspiracists in a disputation is not to gratify their personal desire for attention. It is to produce a body of knowledge that can be accessed by other researchers and debaters. This is what Ryan Mackey was getting at when he pointed out the usefulness of having Fetzer's words on a transcript, even when he'd just finished bamboozling Michael Shermer, just to have a fixed target. Instead of perpetuating these frustrating impasses where our side says, "this stuff has been refuted already," and they claim that there's new evidence that we're avoiding, let's assemble everything in one convenient file. The Pilots for Truth say that the flight recorder data show that the plane would have overflown the Pentagon? Let's show exactly why it wouldn't have. The eyewitness accounts support a flyover? Let's establish that they don't. I routinely accuse fantasists of ducking debates. Maddeningly, they stand reality on its head and accuse us of doing the same. Let's have a showdown.

[Unfit4Command]

I think watching this debate will be amazing if it actually takes place. It would be better if someone other than Fetzer could take part though, since he can never be quiet so the person he's debating can respond.

[gumboot]

I thought this could be fun, until I got to mention of "Galileo". If that's the poster on these forums, count me out. There's no point discussing something with a person who won't even acknowledge you have raised a point (regardless of whether they agree with the point or not).

-Gumboot

[Unfit4Command]

I thought this could be fun, until I got to mention of "Galileo". If that's the poster on these forums, count me out. There's no point discussing something with a person who won't even acknowledge you have raised a point (regardless of whether they agree with the point or not).

-Gumboot

Was Galileo the person who said the dead hijackers should be put on trial? Or am I thinking of someone else...

[pomeroo]

Was Galileo the person who said the dead hijackers should be put on trial? Or am I thinking of someone else...


Let's keep in mind that this will be a written debate posted on The Doc's platform. No debaters' tricks, no rhetorical flim-flam will allow charlatans to survive. Only facts count. There is nowhere to hide.

Do you see why the idea appeals to me?

[~enigma~]

Was Galileo the person who said the dead hijackers should be put on trial? Or am I thinking of someone else...
You got the right woo...

[Unfit4Command]

Let's keep in mind that this will be a written debate posted on The Doc's platform. No debaters' tricks, no rhetorical flim-flam will allow charlatans to survive. Only facts count. There is nowhere to hide.

Do you see why the idea appeals to me?

Of course I see why this debate appeals to you. I would probably never be against any debate between Truthers and others, especially if the "others" are very educated on the subject. I was just curious about what "Galileo" we're talking about here.

[buka001]

I watched those hardfire debates. Fetzer interupts all the time and diverts from the topic. Very frustrating!! The moderator (IMHO) didn't do much to control that.

[T.A.M.]

As well, if it turns out that the "written debate" is argued or written by Galileo for the truther side, it is a waste of time...of what consequence, of what importance in the truth movement is Galileo.

Ron, if your aim is to expose the prominent truthers as the snake oil salesmen they are, than you will not accomplish this is Galileo is going to write on behalf of Fetzer.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I watched those hardfire debates. Fetzer interupts all the time and diverts from the topic. Very frustrating!! The moderator (IMHO) didn't do much to control that.

ummm....Pomeroo (posting on this site) is Ron Weick, the host/moderator on Hardfire that you speak of.

I personally think that for the purpose of the debate (to expose the insane as just that...insane) allowing a long leash helped tremendously....

TAM:)

[chillzero]

Thread locked pending moderator review.


Thread re-opened

[pomeroo]

ummm....Pomeroo (posting on this site) is Ron Weick, the host/moderator on Hardfire that you speak of.

I personally think that for the purpose of the debate (to expose the insane as just that...insane) allowing a long leash helped tremendously....

TAM:)


It was a judgment call, but I decided on the long-leash policy. It's up to the viewers to decide if I made the right choice.

[Blender Head]

Fetzer doesn't care how many times he's made to look like a gibbering idiot. As long as he's the clown in the spotlight he's happy. He speaks for almost no one in the 9/11 truth movement. His delusions are not amenable to reason. Therefore no good can come of this, IMO.

Bad on him, and on us for continuing to give him exactly what he wants.

[/URL]

I've watched all three, and I understand what you're saying about good ol' Uncle Fetzer; he's like Ann Coulter in that regard. :boggled:

[Blender Head]

It was a judgment call, but I decided on the long-leash policy. It's up to the viewers to decide if I made the right choice.

The best way to debunk a Conspiracy Theorist is to let them talk.

You did well, Ron.

[The Doc]

The platform is open and ready to use whenever you need it Ron :) If the debate goes ahead, just drop me a PM of the dates you need anything moderated etc.

My personal opinion on the whole "debate again" issue is if Fetzer's looking for attention he's looking in the wrong spot, because I don't think 911debates.com is doing very well in terms of hits and membership numbers. A written debate where one person cannot interrupt the other could be the best way to get things on the record.

Actually the Fetzer vs. Roberts debates were the reason we started a moderated online debate platform. There was too much interruption and topic changing. That being said I could understand why Gravy wouldn't want to deal with Fetzer again. It's up to him really. The debate platform is ready for use regardless.

ETA:
This was typed before Ron posted his last comment. You did a good job trying to put this together anyways Ron, and I applaud your efforts. The forum remains open for any future debates you may wish to undertake :)

[LashL]

The appeal of this is, of course, that it would be in writing.

Watching Fetzer have to try to support his "arguments" in writing would be rather amusing.

Watching his "arguments" being annihilated by those who, unlike Fetzer, actually know what they are talking about and who can support their arguments with facts, evidence, calculations, knowledge, experience and/or expertise in the subject matters at hand, would be terrific.

[buka001]

ummm....Pomeroo (posting on this site) is Ron Weick, the host/moderator on Hardfire that you speak of.

I personally think that for the purpose of the debate (to expose the insane as just that...insane) allowing a long leash helped tremendously....

TAM:)

Ok, I must extend my humblest of apologies to Pomeroo (Ron).

I guess my frustration at how stupid Fetzer is at the whole conspiracy definitely clouded my views of the show.

I do see how the long leash approach did indeed help, in highlighting the insanity of Fetzer.

I must say, I did thouroughly enjoy the Loose Change debates, with you, Gravy and the LC crew. Very well done. Had me laughing at how they had to backtrack so much of what they say.

Will be looking forward to a debate with LC crew and Gravy (or anyone) about the content of the new LC. Hope this will come about, but they seem very confident of this version. :) Blind confidence at best!

Once again sorry.

Thank you for offering and openning a channel for debates on this issue.

[CHF]

There already was a Fetzer debate in writting JR Dunn took him on regarding the Pentagon. The result? Fetzer linking to Indymedia. Pretty lame.

I see no point in debting people who are regarded as disinfo by most twoofers.

The goal should be to get Mark Roberts vs DR Griffin.

[Hyperviolet]

The appeal of this is, of course, that it would be in writing.

Watching Fetzer have to try to support his "arguments" in writing would be rather amusing.

Watching his "arguments" being annihilated by those who, unlike Fetzer, actually know what they are talking about and who can support their arguments with facts, evidence, calculations, knowledge, experience and/or expertise in the subject matters at hand, would be terrific.

This is definetely a good point, LashL.

If anything could come out of a written debate it would be that Fetzer couldn't do the slick hit-and-run tactics he was trying on the Hardfire show. When cornered he'd just say "Let's talk about X..."
Failing that, he'd just try to talk over Gravy. A written debate would (or at least, should) stop such things happening again.

[dudalb]

Is the "Galileo" referenced here the same chap who's running wild here, equating criticism of Dr. Griffin with treason? I see no value to any discussion with him whatsoever.

Dr. Fetzer on the other hand is welcome, but having been already vanquished by Mr. Roberts, I fail to see what he expects to gain from this.

Oh the guy who as his credentials claims to be a direct descendent of Galileo?

[Galileo]

There already was a Fetzer debate in writting JR Dunn took him on regarding the Pentagon. The result? Fetzer linking to Indymedia. Pretty lame.

I see no point in debting people who are regarded as disinfo by most twoofers.

The goal should be to get Mark Roberts vs DR Griffin.

The goal should be Galileo vs Gravy, the smartest 9/11 Truther vs the smartasst 9/11 Falser!

This would be a titanic battle, an immovable force vs an irresistable object!!

This would be like a showdown between the undefeated Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots!!!

This would be a like Ali-Frazier I, the greatest, the conflict of the century!!!!

It would be like Hannibal Barca vs Scipio Africanus!!!!!

The chances of Gravy staying in the ring with the mighty Galileo is slim and none, and slim is out of town!!!!!!

Let the games begin!!!!!!!

[DGM]

The goal should be Galileo vs Gravy, the smartest 9/11 Truther vs the smartasst 9/11 Falser!

This would be a titanic battle, an immovable force vs an irresistable object!!

This would be like a showdown between the undefeated Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots!!!

This would be a like Ali-Frazier I, the greatest, the conflict of the century!!!!

It would be like Hannibal Barca vs Scipio Africanus!!!!!

The chances of Gravy staying in the ring with the mighty Galileo is slim and none, and slim is out of town!!!!!!

Let the games begin!!!!!!!
Gravy being the Pats!

[Slayhamlet]

Why encourage sociopaths like "Galileo"? He's not even capable of debate.

[Hokulele]

Gravy being the Pats!


Yup, even more applicable, as Gravy seems to be more of a team player sort and less of a show-boating, me-me-me, where are the cameras pointing type that many of the truth members seem to be. Would this make Fetzer et al the Cincinnati Bungles rather than the Cowboys?

(In other words a team with poor prior history, constant signing of players of questionable character, and a woeful record this season.)

[Galileo]

Gravy being the Pats!

No, Gravy would be the Cowboys.

I challenge Pomeroo to go head to head on his TV show vs Gravy. My legions of followers will ensure record high TV ratings.

[DGM]

No, Gravy would be the Cowboys.

I challenge Pomeroo to go head to head on his TV show vs Gravy. My legions of followers will ensure record high TV ratings.
I don't think Ron want's to debate Mark.

ETA Your not very good at this!

[Galileo]

I don't think Ron want's to debate Mark.

maybe so.

But I am talking about Mark debating Galileo, with Ron as the moderator.

[DGM]

maybe so.

But I am talking about Mark debating Galileo, with Ron as the moderator.
You can ask him. I wouldn't get your hopes up though. I think the idea was a written debate on Doc's site.

[Galileo]

Why encourage sociopaths like "Galileo"? He's not even capable of debate.

Many are scared of the brains behind the 9/11 Truth movement, and scurry underneath a rock. Who will step up and meet the challenge?

And beware of what Galileo says in these forums.... Galileo is a username name, not a real person, and 'Galileo' often makes unofficial statements as a rhetorical device. In a TV debate, Galileo will be unmasked from the cloak of secrecy, with the unabashed official truth about the events of 9/11.

Finders keepers, losers weepers!

[Galileo]

You can ask him. I wouldn't get your hopes up though. I think the idea was a written debate on Doc's site.

ideas change...

[R.Mackey]

[Quoting Dr. Fetzer:] I probably have a friend, Galileo, who would like to contribute in one capacity or another.


I had wondered what this friend that Dr. Fetzer "probably has" would have to contribute to the discussion, since it doesn't seem Dr. Fetzer knows...

Many are scared of the brains behind the 9/11 Truth movement, and scurry underneath a rock. Who will step up and meet the challenge?

And beware of what Galileo says in these forums.... Galileo is a username name, not a real person, and 'Galileo' often makes unofficial statements as a rhetorical device. In a TV debate, Galileo will be unmasked from the cloak of secrecy, with the unabashed official truth about the events of 9/11.

Finders keepers, losers weepers!


... but I have a pretty good idea. :rolleyes:

If this goes forward, the written log of debate must be moderated, such that utterly non sequitur remarks are quarantined rather than being allowed to distract the course of discussion. This seems to be a likely occurence given the team that Dr. Fetzer has suggested.

[pomeroo]

There already was a Fetzer debate in writting JR Dunn took him on regarding the Pentagon. The result? Fetzer linking to Indymedia. Pretty lame.

I see no point in debting people who are regarded as disinfo by most twoofers.

The goal should be to get Mark Roberts vs DR Griffin.


That was my goal. Griffin, predictably, refuses to debate.

[pomeroo]

No, Gravy would be the Cowboys.

I challenge Pomeroo to go head to head on his TV show vs Gravy. My legions of followers will ensure record high TV ratings.


Tell me more. Do you live in NYC? I'm not interested in having Mark talk to a disembodied voice.

[Unfit4Command]

And beware of what Galileo says in these forums.... Galileo is a username name, not a real person, and 'Galileo' often makes unofficial statements as a rhetorical device. In a TV debate, Galileo will be unmasked from the cloak of secrecy, with the unabashed official truth about the events of 9/11.

I hope that your little bit about putting the hijackers on trial was just a joke then.

[Redtail]

Many are scared of the brains behind the 9/11 Truth movement, and scurry underneath a rock. Who will step up and meet the challenge?

And beware of what Galileo says in these forums.... Galileo is a username name, not a real person, and 'Galileo' often makes unofficial statements as a rhetorical device. In a TV debate, Galileo will be unmasked from the cloak of secrecy, with the unabashed official truth about the events of 9/11.

Finders keepers, losers weepers!

If you're so great why do you not unite the truth movement an lead a march on DC to demand the truth? Besides the fact you simply don't have what it takes I mean.

[Redtail]

No, Gravy would be the Cowboys.

I challenge Pomeroo to go head to head on his TV show vs Gravy. My legions of followers will ensure record high TV ratings.

:dl:

[Dog Town]

Many are scared of the brains behind the 9/11 Truth movement, and scurry underneath a rock.

Thank you! I might win this Stundie....
STUNDIED!



DT!

[pomeroo]

Many are scared of the brains behind the 9/11 Truth movement, and scurry underneath a rock. Who will step up and meet the challenge?

And beware of what Galileo says in these forums.... Galileo is a username name, not a real person, and 'Galileo' often makes unofficial statements as a rhetorical device. In a TV debate, Galileo will be unmasked from the cloak of secrecy, with the unabashed official truth about the events of 9/11.

Finders keepers, losers weepers!


You know, it occurs to me that you are unknown and have nothing to say, so you very well might be "the brains behind the 9/11 [Twoof] movement."

[pomeroo]

I was listening to Mark's second debate with Fetzer, and approximately fifteen minutes in, the good professor says something like, the plane--if there was one--was about 300 feet off the ground and would have missed the Pentagon. I'm wondering: And if there was no plane, what was 300 feet off the ground? Fetzer's, I believe, is a nuanced position.

[JimBenArm]

Did someone forget to take their meds again?

There's a jacket with extra-long sleeves waiting for you...

[Unfit4Command]

I was listening to Mark's second debate with Fetzer, and approximately fifteen minutes in, the good professor says something like, the plane--if there was one--was about 300 feet off the ground and would have missed the Pentagon. I'm wondering: And if there was no plane, what was 300 feet off the ground? Fetzer's, I believe, is a nuanced position.

Then a few minutes later, Fetzer says a plane may have crashed into the Pentagon after firing a missile...which doesn't make much sense, but whatever.

[Galileo]

I was listening to Mark's second debate with Fetzer, and approximately fifteen minutes in, the good professor says something like, the plane--if there was one--was about 300 feet off the ground and would have missed the Pentagon. I'm wondering: And if there was no plane, what was 300 feet off the ground? Fetzer's, I believe, is a nuanced position.

Fetzer does not say FL77 flew over the Pentagon.

The NTSB says it did, which is preposterous.

[8den]

Fetzer does not say FL77 flew over the Pentagon.

The NTSB says it did, which is preposterous.

I'm sorry are you saying the NTSB say FL77 flew over the Pentagon?

[CHF]

Many are scared of the brains behind the 9/11 Truth movement, and scurry underneath a rock. Who will step up and meet the challenge?

Go ask DR Griffin why he's being such a coward.

[Galileo]

I'm sorry are you saying the NTSB say FL77 flew over the Pentagon?

Yes

[CHF]

Yes

And that, Galileo, is why people don't want to waste their time debating you.

You are, as truthers would say, "clearly disinfo."

If someone is to intellectually execute you on TV, they'll want it to matter.

[Galileo]

And that, Galileo, is why people don't want to waste their time debating you.

You are, as truthers would say, "clearly disinfo."

You violate the rules by attacking me, but ignore my statement.

The NTSB animation says FL77 flew over the Pentagon. That is preposterous. And you wonder why some people believe in conspiracy theories.

[beachnut]

You violate the rules by attacking me, but ignore my statement.

The NTSB animation says FL77 flew over the Pentagon. That is preposterous. And you wonder why some people believe in conspiracy theories.
This is a dumb statement. How can you make such an erroneous statement. There is no need to debate you when you make these real dumb statements.

[CHF]

You violate the rules by attacking me, but ignore my statement.

The NTSB animation says FL77 flew over the Pentagon. That is preposterous. And you wonder why some people believe in conspiracy theories.

Sure is.

Quick Ron - sign this one up for HardFire before its too late! I think Gravy might finally have met his match. :rolleyes:

[~enigma~]

My legions of followers.
You do understand that this is called a delusion of grandeur and it is a sign of Megalomania.

[8den]

Yes

Okaaayyyyyyy.....Sure.

[Galileo]

Okaaayyyyyyy.....Sure.

The flight path of FL77 according to the NTSB takes it over the Pentagon, which contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and all but one eyewitness.

The NTSB also has the wrong flight path, showing the plane coming in from the wrong angle, which also contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and the eyewitnesses.

[CHF]

The flight path of FL77 according to the NTSB takes it over the Pentagon, which contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and all but one eyewitness.

The NTSB also has the wrong flight path, showing the plane coming in from the wrong angle, which also contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and the eyewitnesses.

Actually Galileo, forget about debate.

Take your evidence to Judge Judy instead. I would sooooo love to see her reaction.

[nicepants]

The flight path of FL77 according to the NTSB takes it over the Pentagon, which contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and all but one eyewitness.

so....where did the NTSB get the data which would place the plane flying over the Pentagon?

[Calcas]

The flight path of FL77 according to the NTSB takes it over the Pentagon

The NTSB said AA77 flew over the Pentagon?

I don't think Mark or Ron will be debating you. You are in possession of too much inside info and we can't afford to let your valuable information become public.

[JimBenArm]

The flight path of FL77 according to the NTSB takes it over the Pentagon, which contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and all but one eyewitness.

The NTSB also has the wrong flight path, showing the plane coming in from the wrong angle, which also contradicts the Pentagon police report, the 9/11 Commission, and the eyewitnesses.
Was that flight path NORTH OF THE CITGO? Could Lyte Trip be right? Could space aliens really be responsible for 9/11? Could I be Elvis and Liz Taylor's lost love child? Could this nonsense be half as nonsensical as yours?
Inquiring minds...

[~enigma~]

Actually Galileo, forget about debate.

Take your evidence to Judge Judy instead. I would sooooo love to see her reaction.Isn't Judy Woo-Woo-Wood the reason for the split between Jones and Fetzer. Sort of like a hillbilly love triangle :)
Seems uncle Fester won custody of Judy Woo-Woo-Wood while Jones got saddled with aquamanboy :)

[Galileo]

Actually Galileo, forget about debate.

Take your evidence to Judge Judy instead. I would sooooo love to see her reaction.

The NTSB already has the evidence.

[DGM]

Galileo:
Why don't you show us the NTSB quote that says the plane flew over the Pentagon. That will get you some cred.

[~enigma~]

Galileo:
Why don't you show us the NTSB quote that says the plane flew over the Pentagon. That will get you some cred.
You do realize that galiwhatever is speaking out of his nether regions...

[Drs_Res]

Hmmm, got a link to where the NTSB actually states what you claim they say?

[DGM]

You do realize that galiwhatever is speaking out of his nether regions...
Yes! I just like to toy with his superior intellect.

[Galileo]

Galileo:
Why don't you show us the NTSB quote that says the plane flew over the Pentagon. That will get you some cred.

It's not a quote, it is their animation of the Flight path. Go look at it yourself.

[Galileo]

Hmmm, got a link to where the NTSB actually states what you claim they say?

You get me a link that shows the NTSB agrees with the 9/11 Commission, the Pentagon police report, and the eyewitnesses, regarding the FL77 flight path.

Then ask me why I should care.

[GT/CS]

You get me a link that shows the NTSB agrees with the 9/11 Commission, the Pentagon police report, and the eyewitnesses, regarding the FL77 flight path.

Then ask me why I should care.

See, you are all wrong about Galileo. He is a top notch debater! Such maturity and class is a wonder to behold.

[chillzero]

Please take the discussion of FL77 to a new thread. The topic of this one is Fetzer's disputation.

[DGM]

It's not a quote, it is their animation of the Flight path. Go look at it yourself.
Fetzer does not say FL77 flew over the Pentagon.

The NTSB says it did, which is preposterous.

Then why did you "say" this?

ETA -Sorry Chillzero, I posted this before I read your post.

[Galileo]

.

Then why did you "say" this?

ETA -Sorry Chillzero, I posted this before I read your post.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Please consult your dictionary.

[Drs_Res]

I'll do something you won't, I'll give you a link:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

Have a read.

ETA: Sorry chillzero, anther poster who posted before seeing your post.

[Galileo]

Just a quick question, I'm wondering how many of you chaps out thar have your good buddy Galileo on your buddy list!

:wide-eyed

[Galileo]

Buddy List Offer:

OK, no takers yet, eh? Well, if you put me on your buddy list, I will put you on my buddy list.

Deal?

[Magenta]

Buddy List Offer:

OK, no takers yet, eh? Well, if you put me on your buddy list, I will put you on my buddy list.

Deal?


You do know the buddy list isn't the only list you can be added to?

[Caustic Logic]

Does Fetzer have any credibility with anyone besides a handful of Star Wars death ray proponents?
Not really, or at least he sure shouldn't. I'm certainly no fan (see http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/06/rebuttal-to-james-fetzer.html) I'd like to see this go down though. If he's willing to attack a phallanx of educated people, it's gonna hurt. If you'd like a 'Truther's' help, I'd be glad, not that any help would be needed.

[pomeroo]

Sure is.

Quick Ron - sign this one up for HardFire before its too late! I think Gravy might finally have met his match. :rolleyes:



Hey, I asked Mark if he wants to do it. He has a good sense of humor, but let's test his limits.

[pomeroo]

Fetzer does not say FL77 flew over the Pentagon.

The NTSB says it did, which is preposterous.


You can listen to the debate to learn what Fetzer says. Hint: I already told you. Gee, I wonder why the NTSB reps I spoke to think you clowns are nuts.

[Galileo]

You can listen to the debate to learn what Fetzer says. Hint: I already told you. Gee, I wonder why the NTSB reps I spoke to think you clowns are nuts.

I watched your debate with Fetzer and Roberts, but that has been several month ago, so I do not remember Fetzer's exact statements.

But I do know that Fetzer was basing his statements on the NTSB animation, which contradicts most of the other evidence.

The real issue here is why this contradiction of evidence has occurred in the first place.

[Drs_Res]

IMHO, I think that debating Fetzer is useless and would lead nowhere.

I think he would do the same thing in a written format that he does face to face. The only difference would be that he could not interrupt the other person. He would still sidetrack and be all over the map.

I don't think he is capable of staying on topic and defending his position, or proving his position. He certainly would never cede a point to the opposition, even in the face of overwhelming proof.

[Galileo]

IMHO, I think that debating Fetzer is useless and would lead nowhere.

I think he would do the same thing in a written format that he does face to face. The only difference would be that he could not interrupt the other person. He would still sidetrack and be all over the map.

I don't think he is capable of staying on topic and defending his position, or proving his position. He certainly would never cede a point to the opposition, even in the face of overwhelming proof.

Your informed opinion has been duly noted....

NEXT!!!

[CHF]

Galileo, can you somehow convince Kevin Ryan or DR Griffin to debate?

It's about time your movement brought out it "big guns."

[Galileo]

Galileo, can you somehow convince Kevin Ryan or DR Griffin to debate?

It's about time your movement brought out it "big guns."

There is no bigger gun, besides Jim Hoffman, than Galileo, known by many as the Master Debater.

[HyJinX]

There is no bigger gun, besides Jim Hoffman, than Galileo, known by many as the Master Debater.

Don't you mean masterbat....

nevermind.