9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Check out; pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21054


An exceptionally interesting exchange is taking place on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum, which you can access using the URL I have posted as the title.


post Today, 11:36 AM

Post #68





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, this is most interesting. I came to SUPPORT your work against the attack by Chandler and Cole, not to "associate" anyone with anything. Perhaps you missed my statement. On the other hand, you are now demonstrating that you are better at some kinds of research than you are at others. You are reacting on the basis of your IMPRESSIONS of what you take my positions to be, not on the basis of my actual views.

This is ironic, since that is the kind of charge you have justifiably made against Chandler and Cole, where you are committing the same kind of IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR here. There is a difference between ADVOCATING THE STUDY OF A POSITION and ADVOCATING A POSITION. We don't know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, but it appears to me most unlikely to have been done with thermite and explosives alone.

I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including nukes (3rd or 4th generation, mini or micro, fusion or fission), lasers, masers, and plasmoids, because we don't know how it was done. Perhaps it has to do with my background as a professor and philosopher of science, but it is not good science to reject hypotheses on the ground that they are unusual, unconventional, or you simply do not like them.

As for video fakery, I guess this is another case where you are willing to take a stand WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE. Personally, in the course of my work in epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science, it is very clear that those who are unwilling to consider the evidence are unlikely to discover the truth. But I suppose you have never read "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" to learn more about it.

The tendency you display of claiming "privileged access" to the truth about 9/11 is most unfortunately, since it puts you in the same category with others who think they know all there is not know about these things. A recent example, in case you missed it, is that of Robert Parry, who published a piece attacking the 9/11 truth movement entitled "The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game". He is prominent; lots of people read it.

So I replied with "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'", where I took him apart for endorsing so many provably false claims about 9/11: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/91...arlor-game.html Rather to my astonishment, Kevin Ryan used the occasion to ATTACK ME, very much as you do here, based upon his IMPRESSIONS of my positions rather than KNOWLEDGE of those positions. It was very bad.

Kevin not only had my positions on 9/11 wrong, he had completely misunderstood a subtle exchange between professional philosophers about the meaning of the word "information". Luciano Floridi claims that, for an assertion to qualify as "information", it has to be true. But we receive information all of the time and have to sort out which is true and which is not, like your claims about my positions on 9/11.

I therefore had to explain why his critique of me was unjustified and false, just as I am having to explain it to you. The article in which I purse this task is entitled, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", and can be found here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/mi...kevin-ryan.html I hope you will read it, although I expect that you will not, to see where the combination of ignorance and arrogance leads.

I do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, but I do know that Judy Wood has advanced an interesting hypothesis. I don’t know if CGIs, video compositing, or holograms were used to perpetrate video fakery, but the evidence of video fakery is simply overwhelming, once you actually study the films. I have in fact initiated a thread at Above Top Secret for those who want to become familiar with the evidence.

So I don't understand why you would think that attacking me based upon false beliefs about my positions is any more admirable than for Chandler and Cole to attack you and Craig based upon false beliefs about your position. You and Kevin Ryan seem to belong to the same fraternity of condemning those who hold views at variance with your own. If you were always right, that might work, but sometimes you are wrong.

Something is warped in a research community that is intolerant of research. None of us possesses privileged access to the truth about 9/11. We all have to struggle to sort it out. But if we exclude some theories on the grounds that they are unusual, unconventional, or not "politically correct", we may in the process have forfeited our opportunity to discover the truth. We must follow logic and evidence where it leads.

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 5 2011, 06:20 PM) *
Of course, here comes Jim Fetzer pulling his Killtown tricks, trying to blend in and associate his no plane, Judy Wood, Space beam disinfo with us.

Jim Fetzer, this thread is about the Chandler/Cole article. Please take your disinfo to the alternative theories forum and DO NOT dare try and associate your disinfo with us.

Rob, can we move his posts to the trash can?

DISCLAIMER: CIT does not support or welcome the "work" of Jim Fetzer. A common tactic disinfo operatives pull is trying to associate with their target so it appears they are on the same side. Hence, Fetzer is trying to blend in his crap with us and bring down this very important response piece and thread. CIT does NOT support no plane/video fakery/holograms/space beams at the towers, Fetzer or Judy Wood.

Views: 65

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on February 6, 2011 at 5:47pm

"DISCLAIMER: CIT does not support or welcome the "work" of Jim Fetzer. A common tactic disinfo operatives pull is trying to associate with their target so it appears they are on the same side. Hence, Fetzer is trying to blend in his crap with us and bring down this very important response piece and thread. CIT does NOT support no plane/video fakery/holograms/space beams at the towers, Fetzer or Judy Wood."

 

The ignorance, logical fallacies, etc. of this statement are immense and so typical.  What exactly do they mean , for example, by not supporting or welcoming Jim's work?  You mean they do not support scientific method?  I could spend 10 paragraphs analyzing the logical fallacies in these statements, but we've done it all a million times before.  These groups all claim to be "truth" groups, but theoretically speaking, do they even understand what "truth" means?  

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service