Jim Fetzer

[rational]

Jim Fetzer has to be one of the wackiest conspiracy theorists out there.
I would like to see some of the comments and/or claims that you have heard come from him. He claims to deal only with logic and critical thinking, yet comes to some of oddest conclusions.

I will give a small example of the "logic" he employs.
A few years ago, he was debating Mark Roberts and Ron Wieck. During the discussion, the subject of "beam weapons" came up. Fetzer is a believer in the theory that high energy weapons took out the WTC. When informed that a weapon, that produces the energy required to do what he claims, does not exist, his next statement is this: "Then I guess the buildings are still standing".
My question is: is this the kind of "logic" that should be used in the search for the "truth"?

[beachnut]

Does anyone have a friend full of BS? Fetzer is that person. He will answer your email, and you can get him to call you a clown by exposing his lies and fantasy.

Fetzer's logic; it becomes truth, because he said it is. An evidence free anti-logic.

[twinstead]

So energy beams must exist because the buildings were destroyed by energy beams. Yea, no circular reasoning there

[rational]

Originally Posted by twinstead

So energy beams must exist because the buildings were destroyed by energy beams. Yea, no circular reasoning there

Right!
And to be fair, he does use the phrase "alternative hypotheses" a lot when making claims. But one hypothesis that he cannot accept, or even look into apparently, is that the towers may have fell due to damage and fire.
The falling towers don't look right to HIM, a professor of philosophy........not physics, therefore they were brought down by some force other than gravity!

[rational]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Does anyone have a friend full of BS? Fetzer is that person. He will answer your email, and you can get him to call you a clown by exposing his lies and fantasy.

Fetzer's logic; it becomes truth, because he said it is. An evidence free anti-logic.

I think we all have friends that are full of it. But if a friend of mine ever starts talking like he does, we will have to drastically limit the topics of conversation.

[twinstead]

I have a friend whom I can't talk religion, politics, 9-11, the moon landings, philosophy, music, or movies with.

That leaves only beer and women.

[rational]

Originally Posted by twinstead

I have a friend whom I can't talk religion, politics, 9-11, the moon landings, philosophy, music, or movies with.

That leaves only beer and women.

I have a friend that is the same way. Except he doesn't drink, so beer it out. We are both married, so the women talk is fairly minimal. The main thing we talk about is work. With both of us being engineers, you can imagine those conversations are absolutely riveting!!

[Oystein]

I can't be bothered to look it up and post a link, but I have seen an almost entirely reasonable, logic and fact-filled post on his blog. Not written by him but fellow named Hightower, if I remember correctly, but clearly endorsed by Fetzer.
That post argues rationally and correctly against - the Harrit/Jones nanothermite bunk.





I guess it's like many Christians can give you the sanest reasons why Hinduism is silly and Islam is crazy (and vice versa).

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I can't be bothered to look it up and post a link, but I have seen an almost entirely reasonable, logic and fact-filled post on his blog. Not written by him but fellow named Hightower,.....

I guess it's like many Christians can give you the sanest reasons why Hinduism is silly and Islam is crazy (and vice versa).

Well obviously Hinduism is ridiculous since its god can take on something like 7 forms when 3 forms is the number of forms the true God has

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Well obviously Hinduism is ridiculous since its god can take on something like 7 forms when 3 forms is the number of forms the true God has

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I can't be bothered to look it up and post a link, but I have seen an almost entirely reasonable, logic and fact-filled post on his blog. Not written by him but fellow named Hightower, if I remember correctly, but clearly endorsed by Fetzer.
That post argues rationally and correctly against - the Harrit/Jones nanothermite bunk. . 0-).

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011...-you-must.html
Hightower is a CD nut, fighting against Jones bunk, but deep in bunk himself. He and Fetzer are anti-Jones.

Not that you are fooled, but the paper/post is bonkers, along with Fetzer.

Quote:

Hightower has further calculated that if conventional explosives (such as TNT or RDX) acting alone were used to bring down the Twin Towers, the quantity necessary would have been hundreds of tons of explosives per tower.

. Quibbling about thermite, but being a CD nut, kind of makes the argument failed. It would take very little explosives to bring down the WTC - the primary energy, E=mgh for each tower equal to 130 tons of TNT was released by the fires, and would be used in CD to destroy the towers. The required explosive would be surprisingly small - the preparation would be surprisingly extensive.

Quote:

T. Mark Hightower began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a more probable explanation than was the official story.

Fetzer has no clear 911 theory, Hightower thinks it was CD, and so does Jones. They are arguing over "explosives". Bang.

[Scott Sommers]

Fetzer is not a lot different from other conspiracy theorist ideologists. As I have said elsewhere,

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

...Jason Bermus of Loose Change fame believes just about every conspiracy theory imaginable...David Ray Griffin believes in reincarnation, ESP and all of those other wacko New Age ideas?

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

I doubt there are any CTers who don't believe in multiple CTs. I can produce empirical studies that show this to be the case. It is my personal experience. It is a generally help position on this forum.

In fact, I have empirical evidence that this is the case, and that Fetzer just talks openly about his multiple beliefs.

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

It's like gradations of pedophilia or gradations of serial killing. Was John Wayne Gacy, Jr. worse than Ted Bundy? The Net is full of these discussions. Does it really matter to you? It obviously matters to people who spend all their time trying to buy clothing worn at some time by a serial killer. And since, as you agree, conspiracy theories cluster together, the point is not whether one belief is less crazy than another, but whether that cluster of beliefs is crazier than another cluster.

Is Fetzer's cluster of belief's crazier than Jason Bermus'? Are Steven Jones' beliefs crazier than John Lear's? Could Superman beat The Hulk? Can Reid Richards become smaller than the Mighty Atom?

Is Fetzer nuttier than most conspiracy theorists? No he's not. He's just honest about his madness. And he has a job would make you think he knows better. But he's basically just a run of mill conspiracy nut out in the open.

[Lenbrazil]

Fetzer takes the most loonytoon position on most 'controversies' he looks into.

He doesn't just believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy but that most if not all images of it were doctored, Kennedy's brain was switched, there were about a dozen shooters.

RE: 9/11 he's a no planer and backed the notion the towers were destroyed with space beams but now thinks 'plasmoids' were more likely.

The crash that killed Sen. Wellstone wasn't an accident, the plane was brought down with a DEW

The Hinkley family was in on the attempt on Reagan

He has even toyed with Holocaust denial.

[rational]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Fetzer is not a lot different from other conspiracy theorist ideologists. As I have said elsewhere,



In fact, I have empirical evidence that this is the case, and that Fetzer just talks openly about his multiple beliefs.



Is Fetzer nuttier than most conspiracy theorists? No he's not. He's just honest about his madness. And he has a job would make you think he knows better. But he's basically just a run of mill conspiracy nut out in the open.

I would agree that he is "honest about his madness". I guess I would also agree that he isn't nuttier than most CTer's, so I should have rephrased my opening post. However, he is one of the loudest out there. He has made a name for himself being in so many radio interviews, lectures and on some major network interviews. But also, he is the founder of "Scholars for 9/11 truth". Which I think puts him at a different level of CTer. He has put together an affiliation of scholars and engineers that COULD give some credence to the ideas that he is pedaling. The only problem is, that after 11 years, they still have no evidence for their ideas. And the evidence that falsifies their ideas, is claimed to be fake. Once you fall into that "faked evidence" rabbit hole, there is no recovering.
I honestly don't know what it is about this guy that has gotten under my skin. I just wanted to see if others had the same impression.

[Brainster]

Fetzer once claimed that Norm Mineta resigned because Fetzer mentioned him on the Hannity & Colmes show.

Quote:

Colmes: But what you’re saying is Dick Cheney, who served in other administrations, you’re saying he was complicit—

Fetzer: Absolutely.

Colmes:--in the bringing down of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, and he in fact, knew what was going on, was at the command center at the time it took place.

Fetzer: Yes. We have testimony from Norman Mineta to that effect, and did you know this, Alan, the night before, on Thursday night, I explained that on your show and the next morning he resigns.

Colmes: Well, are you suggesting that Norm Mineta resigned because of your appearance on Hannity and Colmes?

Fetzer: I’m suggesting Norman Mineta resigned because the administration didn’t want him in a public position where he’d have to respond to questions from reporters. By having him resign he becomes a private citizen and he’s no longer obligated to respond to public inquiries.

What I love about that particular interview is the way Fetzer dodges Colmes' questions about planes and passengers:

Quote:

Colmes: Who was in them?

Fetzer: Well, that’s a very interesting question, who was in them. We can explain a lot, without being able to explain everything. My opinion, about those planes, is that they were probably military versions that were refueling tankers of 767s so they carry more fuel.

Colmes: You mean they weren’t the real planes that took off from JFK (sic)? Or Logan Airport?

Fetzer: The real planes from JFK (sic) are something of a mystery, Alan. Let me tell you something, just a couple of things about them, okay? By Federal Law, the National Transportation Safety Board is obligated to conduct an investigation of any crash of a commercial airliner, in this case, there were allegedly four, the NTSB has investigated none of them. Zero.

(9:00)

Colmes: But we know there were actual passengers on those planes who died.

Fetzer: Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes.

It just goes on and on in that fashion; Fetzer dodging and weaving and continually trying to steer the debate away from the passengers.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Quote:

Fetzer: The real planes from JFK (sic) are something of a mystery, Alan. Let me tell you something, just a couple of things about them, okay? By Federal Law, the National Transportation Safety Board is obligated to conduct an investigation of any crash of a commercial airliner, in this case, there were allegedly four, the NTSB has investigated none of them. Zero.

.

This is not true and Fetzer knows this:

"The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support...As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act."

He made a big deal about this in his book and several of his articles, videos, forum posts etc about the Wellstone crash, claiming it would allow the AG to block investigations of suspicious incidents. So either he lied or he has such sever cognitive dissonance he could have forgotten a major point he'd made repeatedly only a year or two later. Since he has started talking about the Wellstone crash again I would not be surprised if you could find him going on about the NTSB not investigating criminal activity after he complained they did not investigate the 9/11 crashes

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by twinstead

I have a friend whom I can't talk religion, politics, 9-11, the moon landings, philosophy, music, or movies with.

That leaves only beer and women.

Oddly enough, I have several friends with whom I can talk about any of those things, and yet we still pretty much just talk about beer and women.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Quinn

Oddly enough, I have several friends with whom I can talk about any of those things, and yet we still pretty much just talk about beer and women.

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by Quinn

Oddly enough, I have several friends with whom I can talk about any of those things, and yet we still pretty much just talk about beer and women.

I don't drink so I'm just stuck talking about women.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by rational

I would agree that he is "honest about his madness". I guess I would also agree that he isn't nuttier than most CTer's, so I should have rephrased my opening post. However, he is one of the loudest out there. He has made a name for himself being in so many radio interviews, lectures and on some major network interviews. But also, he is the founder of "Scholars for 9/11 truth". Which I think puts him at a different level of CTer. He has put together an affiliation of scholars and engineers that COULD give some credence to the ideas that he is pedaling. The only problem is, that after 11 years, they still have no evidence for their ideas. And the evidence that falsifies their ideas, is claimed to be fake. Once you fall into that "faked evidence" rabbit hole, there is no recovering.
I honestly don't know what it is about this guy that has gotten under my skin. I just wanted to see if others had the same impression.

I agree with you, but I don't see Fetzer doing anything different from what a professor working in a university should be doing if he or she believed in something like this. If I believed in this 9/11 Truth slop, I wouldn't start a website or a blog. I'd try to get together other academics and start a journal or an academic organization just the same as Dr. Jimmy. I see him as positioning himself as an academic leader of 9/11 Truth just as he is supposed to. As point to, the real issue for me is that he doesn't seem to be able to understand there is no evidence for any of these ideas he believes.

What bothers me about Dr. Jimmy is that he acts as a conduit for these ideas outside of Christian beliefs. I have heard interviews with some of his students. Now they were probably nutty left-wing anarchist-leaning students before, but Jimmy turned them into conspiracy theorists. He writes books about the Christian right but seems oblivious to the fact that 9/11 Truth is powered now primarily by the extreme Christian right.

Sometimes I wonder if he is mentally all there. But not because he believes crazy ideas. I think he should have the reasoning ability to see the problems with his ideas.

[phiwum]

I'm embarrassed to see that this man is a retired philosophy prof who worked on legitimate subjects (philosophy of science, foundations of computer science). These topics require an analytical mind, one well familiar with logic (in the technical sense).

I've always naively believed that familiarity with logic leads to competent reasoning. I can see how, say, a theologian or even certain kinds of engineers can go off the rails when they're speculating on things outside their expertise, but a philosopher and logician should be good at thinking. They should be able to analyze well.

Ah, well. I guess not. We all have our blind spots, but boy, howdy, conspiracy theories are a pretty glaring analytical failure.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm embarrassed to see that this man is a retired philosophy prof who worked on legitimate subjects (philosophy of science, foundations of computer science). These topics require an analytical mind, one well familiar with logic (in the technical sense).

I've always naively believed that familiarity with logic leads to competent reasoning. I can see how, say, a theologian or even certain kinds of engineers can go off the rails when they're speculating on things outside their expertise, but a philosopher and logician should be good at thinking. They should be able to analyze well.

Ah, well. I guess not. We all have our blind spots, but boy, howdy, conspiracy theories are a pretty glaring analytical failure.

I wouldn't be too impressed by his status as a 'retired professor of philosophy'. Here's his CV. He started out with a reasonable research career, but by the 1990s he was publishing in vanity publishing houses like Open Court Publishing. while his early stuff is respectable, none of his recent stuff appears to have significant citations. The evolution of intelligence: are humans the only animals with minds? is listed as cited almost exclusively in papers posted on the Internet, rather than reviewed academic work.

Wikipedia tells us,

Quote:

Fetzer was employed as an assistant professor from 1970 to 1977 by the University of Kentucky, where he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government, then held various positions as a visiting associate or visiting professor at the University of Cincinnati, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of South Florida, and the University of Virginia. In 1987, he was hired as a full professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and was eventually appointed a Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996. Fetzer taught at UMD until his retirement in June 2006.

He seems to have been moving around a lot for someone with the titles this claims. I find this strange given the job market during the 70s.

He's one of those guys who knows how to write a lot of stuff and get it out into the market, but no one really cares about his work. He started out well, but wasn't able to continue the trajectory of his career. There may be a reason for this that only this close to him understand. He may not be all there. Would that surprise you?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Fetzer once claimed that Norm Mineta resigned because Fetzer mentioned him on the Hannity & Colmes show.



What I love about that particular interview is the way Fetzer dodges Colmes' questions about planes and passengers:



It just goes on and on in that fashion; Fetzer dodging and weaving and continually trying to steer the debate away from the passengers.

What I love is the part where he claims that NTSB has to, by LAW, investigate plane crashes. Well, if he know his elbow from a hole in his rear end, he'd know that NTSB doesn't investigate crimes that result in plane crashes.

It even makes this very clear on their website.


ETA: Damn you Len!! You beat me to it! And that folks is why you read the rest of the thread before posting.

[WildCat]

Jim Fetzer turned me into a newt with his suitcase!11!1111!!1!!

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Jim Fetzer turned me into a newt with his suitcase!11!1111!!1!!

Another of his claims was if the hijacks happened as per the "OCT" the PAX would have beaten the hijackers to death with their carry-on baggage.

He also claimed that there were PAX comments on the CVR transcript of flight 93, which of course would have been impossible (unless they were shouting). The problem was he hadn't even bothered to check the transcript, no such comments were on it.

Hilariously he complained that most of the hijacker's names were at the beginning of two of the PAX manifests. What he failed to note was that one of the airlines (can't remember if it was AA or UA) ordered the list alphabetically and being Arabs most of the hijackers had surnames being with 'a'.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by rational

.....
I honestly don't know what it is about this guy that has gotten under my skin. I just wanted to see if others had the same impression.

He's an annoying, bloviating attention whore. As Scott points out, there's nothing to him but academic bafflegab.

[SpitfireIX]

Here are some interesting comments JayUtah had several years ago about Fetzer and the Wellstone investigation:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Fetzer's complete mismanagement of his Wellstone claims are what convinced me is not worth paying attention to. I do not have a PhD, but I have spent the majority of my professional life producing the tools and techniques used to design flying machines and to diagnose their failures. Fetzer simply disregarded my criticism of his ham-fisted "investigation" as unqualified because he had a PhD, although he had absolutely no training or prior experience in accident investigation, aviation, or aircraft design and construction.

Earlier Fetzer had also made Apollo hoax claims, again from a position of almost total ignorance on the subject. He seems to believe his doctoral degree and his years of academic puttering about qualifies him to speak authoritatively on any topic he chooses to address, calling into question the findings of well-qualified investigators, engineers, and lifelong practitioners.

It is for this reason that I do not place any faith whatsoever in any organization headed by James "Doctor Conspiracy" Fetzer. I have seen with my own eyes that he will take up any topic and pretend to speak authoritatively on it, eschewing any opinion that does not derive from extensive academic credentials. The knowledge and experience of people who actually do for a living, and take legal liability for the correctness for doing, the things Fetzer only dreams to know about do not have any visible effect on him.

[SpitfireIX]

Here are some interesting comments JayUtah had several years ago about Fetzer and the Wellstone investigation:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Fetzer's complete mismanagement of his Wellstone claims are what convinced me is not worth paying attention to. I do not have a PhD, but I have spent the majority of my professional life producing the tools and techniques used to design flying machines and to diagnose their failures. Fetzer simply disregarded my criticism of his ham-fisted "investigation" as unqualified because he had a PhD, although he had absolutely no training or prior experience in accident investigation, aviation, or aircraft design and construction.

Earlier Fetzer had also made Apollo hoax claims, again from a position of almost total ignorance on the subject. He seems to believe his doctoral degree and his years of academic puttering about qualifies him to speak authoritatively on any topic he chooses to address, calling into question the findings of well-qualified investigators, engineers, and lifelong practitioners.

It is for this reason that I do not place any faith whatsoever in any organization headed by James "Doctor Conspiracy" Fetzer. I have seen with my own eyes that he will take up any topic and pretend to speak authoritatively on it, eschewing any opinion that does not derive from extensive academic credentials. The knowledge and experience of people who actually do for a living, and take legal liability for the correctness for doing, the things Fetzer only dreams to know about do not have any visible effect on him.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Jim Fetzer turned me into a newt with his suitcase!11!1111!!1!!

Oh damn, did that hurt?

[rational]

Originally Posted by alienentity

He's an annoying, bloviating attention whore. As Scott points out, there's nothing to him but academic bafflegab.

That sums it up pretty well.

[rational]

Looking for "truth" or even evidence of the truth is not the business he is in. He is, like alienentity said, an attention whore. Only interested in keeping his name associated with 9/11 (and other conspiracies).

Another example of his smugness to actual evidence is from the Mark Roberts debate I referenced in the OP. Mark is reading him the statements of a person that was recovering human remains at the Pentagon. The person (can't remember the name) stated that he saw the chard remains of passengers still strapped in their seats. The whole time Mark is reading this, Fetzer is talking over him saying "that is a NICE story....................but it didn't happen!"

There's not much else I can say about that! At that point in the debate, I found myself rather pissed!! It is one thing to make silly claims, but dismiss the statements of the people that were picking up body parts and just hand waving it away......................that is not very becoming of a "scholar".

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Jim Fetzer turned me into a newt with his suitcase!11!1111!!1!!

I assume you got better.

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I assume you got better.

Well, no. He's become one of the lizard-people now, hasn't he?