The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:
 
jackchit said:
You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

Why not add for Fetzer professor of philosophy then. By just stating he is a professor could unduly influence an audience. Adding what he taught would make people question his motives. I would think that most people would then say that a tour guide just kicked the snot out of a professor, so there must not be much to this truth movement.


ETA: I am sure the entire point of your posting is not to bring any evidence, since you have nothing, but just to stir things up. Then you will run back to your buddies looking for their approval on how you pulled one over on the JREFers. Sound about right?
 
Last edited:
jackchit said:
You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:
Click to expand...

Incorrect you have missed the point. You have been asked by myself and by other members to show some level of civility, you have failed to do so. To reemphasize my point I have reported this post for your continued attacks on Mark Roberts. You references to Marks appearance,is uncalled for,deeply offensive and as absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with the facts.The truth is absolute irrespective of who speaks it, lies are lies,again irrespective of spreads them.

If you wish to be heard and not be viewed as nothing but a spoilt brat grow up and stop your silly personnel attacks.

Post your facts and arguments, or leave for some other forum where like-minded individuals may indulge you in your offensive and uncalled for insults.
 
Last edited:
jackchit said:
You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:
Click to expand...

Wow just, wow. It doesn't matter if Mark is right because Jim is more qualified than Mark because he has a degree in philosophy? Well hell old son I have a MFA in Theatre and I'm a current Professor at 2 Universities at the same time! I haven't done near the research that Mark has but I could just get him to feed me his side of the debate through my bluetooth.
 
jackchit said:
You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:
Click to expand...

Ever heard the one about the patent clerk?
 
oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.
 
jackchit said:
oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.
Click to expand...

Insults?

You didn't actually follow the link, did you? That figures...
 
jackchit said:
oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.
Click to expand...

Jack,

I'm not a moderator, but I'm pretty sure everyone around here would appreciate it if you would keep at a mature level of discussion.

I have yet to see you bring up any other argument then ad hominem personal attacks against Mark. You obsession with him has been noted by many people who post here, and some find it rather disturbing and sad, but that's for you to sort out. Instead of breaching your membership agreement by spouting off insults for a hobby on these boards, how about this. If something troubles you about the official story to the events of 9/11, or you would like to discuss a conspiracy theory - let's to do so in a new thread. However, at this point, it looks like you have absolutely no interest in discussion critical thinking and facts. Itd be awesome if you could change my mind on that one, as I am very keen to hear your viewpoints.

We all know your history with Mark, so your "description" is hardly going to be taken what you say it is. I could offer the members of this forum a description of you from my perspective, and I guarantee you would consider it insulting. But I am above that, and I'll keep my thoughts to myself. I encourage you to do the same.

Again, if you want to discuss conspiracy theories, I'm all eyes. If not, your useless insults and personal attacks are childish, off-topic and inappropriate. You have yet to show any ability to debate with facts, and you are only hurting the "movement" you represent.

Again, I am not a moderator and the opinions expressed above are solely mine and not those of this forum or its moderators.

Sincerely,
Doc.
 
jackchit said:
oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.
Click to expand...

Once again you fail to grasp the point and fail to produce a single fact to endorse your theories. You prefer to deflection your inability to do so elsewhere. Now you have decided it direct towards me because I consider your posts devoid of facts and actually extremely childish.

Again if you wish to be seen a mature individual with some cohesive ideas and some form of rational debating skills do so. Equally so if you wish to continue down the road of making nonsensical ad hominem personal attacks against people, then I am sure you will continued to be viewed as nothing other than a spoilt child.

This is your choice, personally I could not care less how you conduct yourself, the only person being seen as foolish is the individual who acts foolish. Again this is your choice, I’m sure you wish to have you opinions heard, at this moment in time they are not being heard. You are simply destroying your own argument by acting this way.

Anyway enjoy your birthday, another year older, and another year wiser, are we?
 
Mark brings the arguments of others forth in an articulate, well organized manner. His qualifications concerning the science of 9/11 are immaterial, as the points he makes are from someone elses interviews, calculations, or reports.

You do not see Mark saying "I calculated this myself" or "I personally spoke with FAA chief so and so" do you?

As I have said, Mark, in my opinion, is an Authority, and Expert, on the history of 9/11.

This is the exact same thing that Fetzer, the Philosophy Proff does, or Griffin the Theologian does...no different what soever.

TAM:)
 
jackchit said:
You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:
Click to expand...
So only a Math teacher can tell you 1 + 1 = 2. Gotcha but we don't believe you are really that stupid...and I say that politely :)
 
jackchit said:
Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...
Err... no. Just... no. They should be confirmed regardless of who makes the statement. You do know that advances and discoveries in the sciences are typically confirmed by other scientists in the same field, correct? No one just takes some guy's word for it, just because he's, say, a biologist.

So, tell us... What makes a professor of Philosophy more qualified than a NYC tour guide to talk about the structural response of heavily damaged buildings?
 
jackchit said:
I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d
Click to expand...
No you have no facts so you have to attack the person. You have no facts so you just talk. You have no experts on 9/11, and the truth movement never will. You have no story about 9/11. You have not one single fact to support any truther ideas about 9/11.

It seems the truth movement has failed and no doubt your engineering degree will help here to prove your ideas. Got some facts? Got a degree?

List your facts so we can see what you have. Just list a fact so we can have a little debate with the expert jackchit.
 
beachnut said:
No you have no facts so you have to attack the person. You have no facts so you just talk. You have no experts on 9/11, and the truth movement never will. You have no story about 9/11. You have not one single fact to support any truther ideas about 9/11.

It seems the truth movement has failed and no doubt your engineering degree will help here to prove your ideas. Got some facts? Got a degree?

List your facts so we can see what you have. Just list a fact so we can have a little debate with the expert jackchit.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Jason is an extraordinary liar and some might even say expert :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom