• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fetzer on 'Hardfire'

impaired buffoon

Fetzer tells me I am an impaired buffoon.

Do you always make up your mind without looking at the evidence? That doesn't sound very rational to me. In fact, if one side has studied
the evidence and arrived at conclusions based upon it, while the other
side is going on the basis of its "gut" instincts, I would say that one
side is rational in its beliefs and other side is either ignorant or at
least cognitively impaired. It doesn't know what it's talking about.
And that, Keith, appears to describe you! Thanks for writing, but why
don't you actually look at the evidence and act less like a buffoon?

Jim
Click to expand...

And the standard party line then, which includes those pesky beam weapons now.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the basics of the case, so here is a simple
summary of some of what you need to know to figure out what happened here.
That steel melts at 2,800*F, that the max temp of jet-fuel based fires is
only 1,800*F, that UL certified the steel used in the towers to 2,000*F for
up to six hours before it would even significantly weaken, when the fires
burned only for less than an hour (South Tower) and about ninety minutes
(North Tower) at low temperatures because it was oxygen-starved, means the
steel neither melted nor weakened. The impact of the planes was negligible
because they had sophisticated load-redistribution capabilities built into
them. As Frank DeMartini observed, the impact of a plane on the buildings
would be like sticking a pencil through mosquito netting! Even THE 9/11
REPORT itself conceded that the towers fell in about 10 seconds, which is
the same as a grand piano in free fall would have taken, if it had been re-
leased from the top of one of them at the same time it began to collapse,
which would have been impossible under any scenario other than controlled
demolition removing lower floors before falling mass impacted with them.
So some source of energy other than the planes or the fires was necessary
to bring the buildings down. You can actually see massive explosions on
floors at the start of collapse before they were enveloped with clouds of
debris, fine dust created by pulverizing the concrete flooring material,
and steel beams are thrown outward and even upward! You would expect to
see clouds of debris from the ground up when the buildings fell, but in
this case, they were exploding from the top down! This effect only have
been the result of previously positioned demolitions exploding in series.
That conclusion, supported by multiple kinds of evidence, including even
observational evidence (see "9/11 Revisited", for example), receives ad-
ditional reinforcement from the pools of molten metal found at the sub-
basement level of all three buildings. (Don't forget WTC7, which was
hit by no aircraft, only incurred very modest fires, and was "pulled"
at 5:20 PM following the suggestion of Larry Silverstein.) It really
doesn't matter if structural engineers are afraid to speak out because
they think they will be ridiculed or otherwise punished by the loss of
funding, for example. Even they cannot possibly violate natural laws!
Members of the society have conducted their own experiments with cell
phones and your claims contadict their findings. As to whether or not
these pilots could have handled these aircraft or whether cell phone
calls were possible, please see the studies on our "Resources" page,
which were authored by a mathematician and computer scientist and by
a pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer. If you are sincere, I
would be glad to continue corresponding, but if not, let's let it go.

Jim.
Click to expand...
 
That steel melts at 2,800*F It didn't melt, that the max temp of jet-fuel based fires is
only 1,800*F, that UL certified the steel used in the towersassemblies to 2,000*F for
up to six hoursfireproofed before it would even significantly weaken, when the fires
burned only for less than an hour (South Tower) and about ninety minutes
(North Tower) at low temperatures because it was oxygen-starved, means the
steel neither meltedcorrect nor weakenedincorrect.
Click to expand...

oh boy, when will this joker ever learn?
 
gumboot said:
It's already the 18th here... I can report, from the future, that nothing overly exciting happens regarding Fetzer today. I mean yesterday.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Should we tell them it's Chipmunk Stew's birthday?

Happy birthday CS!
 
Oh you think that is funny e-mail from Fetzer, let me look into my archives:

This is when I explained to him that the US was not building pipelines through Afghanistan:

Since I believed everything I have said, I cannot possibly be lying. Don't you grasp that, even if I were wrong, I would not be lying unless I was deliberately asserting something I knew to be false with the intention to mislead? Why not just say that it was a natural gas pipeline rather than an oil one? What leads you to be so incredibly nasty and to assault me verbally and in writing? Last night you committed slander, today libel. So you are covering all the bases.
Click to expand...
 
Dog Town said:
So...how did it go?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to think of an apt description. The phrase "goalposts in a tornado" comes to mind. :eek:

I made some comments in the "Fetzer fund" thread. Beyond that I'll wait until the shows are up. I didn't ask when that will be. Last time it was pretty quick.
 
JamesB said:
Oh you think that is funny e-mail from Fetzer, let me look into my archives:

This is when I explained to him that the US was not building pipelines through Afghanistan:
Click to expand...

Remember he teaches critical thinking! Thus, if he believes it, it can not be a lie. Darn, I know a couple of Presidents that need to use this line!

Since I believed everything I have said, I cannot possibly be lying. Don't you grasp that, even if I were wrong, I would not be lying unless I was deliberately asserting something I knew to be false with the intention to mislead? Why not just say that it was a natural gas pipeline rather than an oil one? What leads you to be so incredibly nasty and to assault me verbally and in writing? Last night you committed slander, today libel. So you are covering all the bases.
Click to expand...


I did not email him after I lost all the arguments by default; I knew he was the BS king, why argue. Jim Fetzer is my hero BS king, he just keep telling bigger and bigger lies, and since he believes everything he says, it is not a lie but - I have to take his course on critical thinking!

I wonder if I can use this line with my wife? I believe it, so I am not telling lies...
 
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode "The Beard" in which Jerry was dating a cop who didn't believe that he never had watched Melrose Place. She wanted him to take a lie detector test, and in a later scene, Jerry was imploring George to help him. As a professional liar, he felt that George could help him beat the test. However, George's opinion was basically that it was such an inborn skill that he could never successfully teach it to another (he used some analogy like teaching someone to paint).

In the end however, he did offer Jerry one piece of advice. "It's not a lie, if you believe it!".
 
Gravy said:
I'm trying to think of an apt description. The phrase "goalposts in a tornado" comes to mind. :eek:

I made some comments in the "Fetzer fund" thread. Beyond that I'll wait until the shows are up. I didn't ask when that will be. Last time it was pretty quick.
Click to expand...

So, at least he showed up then.
 
Whiplash said:
In the end however, he did offer Jerry one piece of advice. "It's not a lie, if you believe it!".
Click to expand...



The exact line I thought of!

So the question is, if you continue to believe it after you've been shown to be wrong, is that lying? Can you choose to believe certain things? Or is belief/disbelief an automatic function of our brain?
 
Horatius said:
The exact line I thought of!

So the question is, if you continue to believe it after you've been shown to be wrong, is that lying? Can you choose to believe certain things? Or is belief/disbelief an automatic function of our brain?
Click to expand...

No. In a mild form it is called self-delusion or denial. It it's most severe form it is indicative of mental illness. Guys like Fetzer may* fit the latter.

*I am in no means qualified to diagnose anyone.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Remember he teaches critical thinking! Thus, if he believes it, it can not be a lie. Darn, I know a couple of Presidents that need to use this line!



I did not email him after I lost all the arguments by default; I knew he was the BS king, why argue. Jim Fetzer is my hero BS king, he just keep telling bigger and bigger lies, and since he believes everything he says, it is not a lie but - I have to take his course on critical thinking!

I wonder if I can use this line with my wife? I believe it, so I am not telling lies...
Click to expand...

Incidently, Fetzer not only lied about the subject in the first place, he lied about my argument. I was not arguing that they are building a natural gas pipeline instead of an oil pipeline, I argued that they are not currently building a pipeline at all. Here is my original e-mail:

Various problems with your oil pipeline theory.
1. Various companies have discussed building a pipeline, but even 5 years after 9/11 it is still in the planning stages.
2. It was never an oil pipeline, it was a natural gas pipeline, which would serve Pakistan or India.
3. The 2 major military bases at Bagram and Khandahar are not in Northern Afghanistan, and are not located on any logical path for a pipeline if there were one.
4. A pipeline which ran through northern Afghanistan would not run anywhere you would want it to.
Click to expand...
 
I am very much looking forward to the Hardfire video of the debate being posted. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom