Woods and Greening On Same Panel

Foolmewunz

Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Foolmewunz
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
41,468
Location
Pattaya, Thailand
Apologies if this has already been addressed, but I saw today that Scholars for 9/11 Truth are organizing a "Let's Settle Our Differences" get-together in Madison, WI in August. See announcement at link - I don't know when it was posted. http://911scholars.org/

What caught my eye was this paragraph.

The major sessions will be devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. Judy Wood and Frank Greening will explore and analyze the serious possibility that non-conventional means, including high-tech, directed energy weapons, may have been used along with conventional methods to destroy the World Trade Center. Jerry Leaphart and Bob Fitrakis will discuss misinformation and disinformation. Morgan Reynolds, Dave von Kleist, Rick Rajter and others will discuss what happened to the planes at the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the WTC on 9/11. In addition, Ed Haas of THE MUCKRACKER REPORT will present the keynote address on "The National 9/11 Non-Debate".
Click to expand...

Again, if this is in another thread could someone direct me to it. I don't quite get why Uncle Fetzer seems to implying that Greening is there to add to their ironing-out of internal differences.
 
I think Fetzer et al. are using Greening as a way to appeal to the scientific community that they are reasonable. He is soft enough on their "research" that they can tolerate him at such a conference, and having him there will add credibility to their desire to find the "truth" with real scientific experts. They also know it is harder for us to criticize them when one of their panel members is someone who wrote a paper that supports the Official story.

I think this stems from Fetzers interfview with Greening on his radio show.

TAM:)
 
Hopefully, the full audio/visual record of the debate will be available, and not just some cherry picked parts.
 
It really is an interesting move on their part- in one simple move they're trying to get rid of the patriotism argument- the "us versus them" and move to a more simple "hey, let's all look at this together"- which is obviously a way to shoehorn their death ray/CD/mini-nuke arguments into the mix. Problem is: that sheds light on them.

It's as if they've forgotten they're conspiracists. It will be very tough for them to back out of true investigations like Greening's without committing their usual ad hominem, ie Greening was a plant who tricked Fetzer, etc.

This shows the true decline of the "Truth Movement"- and the ultimate problem with mixing faith and reason. Normally, conspiracists rely strictly on faith- and they try and mix in ambiguous and irrational questions to make the basis for their predetermined conclusion. They absolutely must ignore science and reason because it demolishes their argument. If they now try and say "hey, let's investigate this like real people"- they can only come to one conclusion- and that's the conclusion that the rest of the world has already come to.

This'll be great- they'll lose half their supporters because they'll be lost without a "hate them" leader- and they'll lose the other half who are curious enough to actually hear what real scientists say.

Seriously- I can't think of a better way to stop the "Truth Movement" in its tracks.
 
I believe Uncle F says tickets are limited to 150 and they cost $125.00

Is there a debunker or just a scribe who could attend? I don't think this is a large audience for a debate, but more a panel discussion or workshop environment.
 
$125/ticket...well they priced it like a legitimate conference anyway, too bad the content will not be up to the same standard.

TAM:)
 
Foolmewunz said:
I don't quite get why Uncle Fetzer seems to implying that Greening is there to add to their ironing-out of internal differences.
Click to expand...

Fetzer has a unique ability to 'interpret' reality. Compare his insane letter describing the alleged takeover of his troof organization and the reasons for it with the calm, well-written response by Steven jones.
 
T.A.M. said:
I think Fetzer et al. are using Greening as a way to appeal to the scientific community that they are reasonable. He is soft enough on their "research" that they can tolerate him at such a conference, and having him there will add credibility to their desire to find the "truth" with real scientific experts. They also know it is harder for us to criticize them when one of their panel members is someone who wrote a paper that supports the Official story.

I think this stems from Fetzers interfview with Greening on his radio show.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I think Frank is comfortable with what he knows and isn't afraid to expose his beliefs to scrutiny.

It's the insecure that have to take a hard view of their beliefs!

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I think Frank is comfortable with what he knows and isn't afraid to expose his beliefs to scrutiny.

It's the insecure that have to take a hard view of their beliefs!

MM
Click to expand...
I think you're right MM. I agree with you completely. Which makes me wonder: why haven't any of the Joneses or Woods of the Truth movement submitted their papers for peer review (outside of the Truth movement)?
 
I have no doubt Frank is comfortable in what he believes, but he is also very generous in his tolerance of the wack views of the CTists. I think Fetzer et al see this as an opportunity to exploit the latter, while making themselves look like the "open minded" who will welcome someone from the "other side" as Greening is percieved by many. They are also using him to help "legitamize" their conference to start with...IMO.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I have no doubt Frank is comfortable in what he believes, but he is also very generous in his tolerance of the wack views of the CTists. I think Fetzer et al see this as an opportunity to exploit the latter, while making themselves look like the "open minded" who will welcome someone from the "other side" as Greening is percieved by many. They are also using him to help "legitamize" their conference to start with...IMO.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I concur, and actually take it a step farther. As I said in the OP, I wasn't sure if this topic had been addressed, and with all the mileage the CTers are getting out of "the thorough spanking" he gave us (not!!), I was a bit curious (and somewhat put-off) by the description of this as an inside discussion to settle minor differences and concentrate on getting at the "Big Truth".... They are making it sound like Greening's one of the Scholars.

If you re-read Fetzer's piece..... Does anyone else get that from the announcement?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Wasn't it Fetzer that also said that JFK's brain was switched with another brain during the autopsy?
Click to expand...

I don't know about that but the authorities claim to have lost JFK's brain. Easily done when you have lots of brains lying around I suppose.
 
This sounds to me like a PR stunt. "Fertilizer and Greening! The thrilla in vanilla!" It also sounds like uncle Fertilizer wants to use Greening to discredit his competition. Everything they do is very stratigic. I doubt they will do anything different. Like when they "reviewed" Greening's paper only to try and discredit it at the same time with another paper.

I find Greening to be very smart when it comes to science but he walks right into traps these people lay. I hope I'm wrong.
 
If Greening does join the truther side, it would be the first signficant switch from the skeptic side to the truther side. It is interesting to see this pan out.
 
TraitorBasher said:
If Greening does join the truther side, it would be the first signficant switch from the skeptic side to the truther side. It is interesting to see this pan out.
Click to expand...

JOIN the truther side? What "side" is he on now? His responses seem so vague I for one can't figure out what his position is.
 
TraitorBasher said:
If Greening does join the truther side, it would be the first signficant switch from the skeptic side to the truther side. It is interesting to see this pan out.
Click to expand...

See, that is the response that makes me think this is, as Factcheck has said, a very calculated move on Fetzers part. He is counting on that type of response, he knows that is what his sheep want...they want a skeptic to come over to the dark side...and that is what he is gonna try and give them.

His questioning, both in content, and in framing/reframing questions, in his interview on the radio with Greening, along with this new move, has me convinced that Fetzer and the crew are gonna try and get Greening to say some things they can quote, to make him appear as a newly reborn Truther.

We will see.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
See, that is the response that makes me think this is, as Factcheck has said, a very calculated move on Fetzers part. He is counting on that type of response, he knows that is what his sheep want...they want a skeptic to come over to the dark side...and that is what he is gonna try and give them.

His questioning, both in content, and in framing/reframing questions, in his interview on the radio with Greening, along with this new move, has me convinced that Fetzer and the crew are gonna try and get Greening to say some things they can quote, to make him appear as a newly reborn Truther.

We will see.

TAM:)
Click to expand...



You may be right but what I find more interesting is Greening's motive. He may have serious problems with NIST and he might even be agnostic and have suspicions, but he sure doesn't believe in the kind of space beam rubbish that Fetzer is selling. What is in this for Greening?
 
Listen to you JREFers with your conspiracy theories haha :p

Dr Greening is a smart man, he won't get taken in with Fetzer and his Energy Beam theory. Whats the harm in discussion?
 
TraitorBasher said:
You may be right but what I find more interesting is Greening's motive. He may have serious problems with NIST and he might even be agnostic and have suspicions, but he sure doesn't believe in the kind of space beam rubbish that Fetzer is selling. What is in this for Greening?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Tell us about Jowenko's opinion that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 look nothing like controlled demolitions.

You can run, but you can't hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom