A reply to Jim Fetzer's WND rebuttal
Click on Truth seekers, not Bush bashers For Fetzer's rebuttal.
-----------------
Jim Fetzer is grossly incompetent and has no basis for marketing himself as an expert on 9/11 in general and the collapses of the WTC buildings. Abusing words such as 'logic', 'objective', and 'scientific' do not transform baseless conspiracy theories into fact.
Fetzer has a history of attacking those that debunk his 'creative' theories. Josiah Thompson is the author of Six Seconds in Dallas. This book stands as one of the most important critical books regarding the Warren Report even after many decades. It stands in sharp contrast to malarkey such as The Great Zapruder Film Hoax in which Fetzer claims the Zapruder film to be little more than a manufactured cartoon with frames missing, frames combined, and details painted in. Josiah Thompson relayed the following during a Dallas 1998 presentation regarding Fetzer's pompous, psychotic reaction to those that take the time to correct his errors:
When earlier this year [1998], I had the temerity to disagree, I was told by the Professor that "...you have thereby discredited yourself as a commentator on these matters."
--------------
On Fetzer's assassinationscience.com website, two prominent links in the upper-left corner of the main page promote the false theory that the moon landing was faked. He also hawks books and videos pushing his bizarre theory concerning the Zapruder film.
Moseley taking the time to respond to kooky allegations does not equal an obsession. If he ignored the conspiracy posts, the pseudo scholars would be crowing about Moseley being unable to respond. The fruitcakes cannot have it both ways.
Fetzer's mention of 'special' controlled demolitions is an invention designed to avoid the fact that buildings are not demolished from the top down. It is the only way he has of fitting the evidence around his theory.
Fetzer has uncritically accepted conspiracy 'facts' because they fit his theory.
1. No government report maintains that the plane impact alone caused the towers to collapse. The aircraft impacts that DeMartini and others mention were expected to be slower and lower on fuel. By the way, the towers WITHSTOOD the impact. The resultant damage + fire brought the towers down.
2. No government report maintains that fire melted the steel in the towers. This is a straw man tactic and something that a high school freshman would recognize. One would hope that someone would be able to recognize such a gross fallacy especially after 35 years of teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Perhaps not.
3. Fetzer is relying on Kevin Ryan for the claim that Underwriters' Laboratories certified the steel in the WTC. Ryan was a water tester. Fetzer again repeats the straw man fallacy regarding steel melting showing that teaching for 35 years does not make one immune to faulty reasoning. Regarding Kevin Ryan and certifying the WTC steel, Underwriters' Laboratories had the following to say:
Underwriters Laboratories denied that it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization."
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, a spokesman for the Northbrook, Ill.-based company.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
------------------------
Fetzer repeats the Internet canards of living hijackers, fake cell phone calls, and confuses lists of victims with flight manifests. He has refused, in the past, to view excellent sites such as 911myths.com because he claims the material in them is false. The same behavior from a skeptic toward a conspiracy site would be ranted about as proof of the soundness of the conspiracy theories.
Should a man that promotes the claim that the moon landings were faked, violates Jesus' admonition to not criticize others for something that you have a worse problem with, and can't recognize basic logical fallacies after 35 years of teaching be given free reign to promote vile theories regarding 9/11?
At the Dallas 1998 JFK assassination meeting, Josiah Thompson had the following to say at the end of his presentation:
You may wonder why I've taken the time to attack Professor Fetzer here. It is because he expresses a trend in assassination research which I find odious.
His emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."
- Tom Stoneburner
-----------------
Jim Fetzer is grossly incompetent and has no basis for marketing himself as an expert on 9/11 in general and the collapses of the WTC buildings. Abusing words such as 'logic', 'objective', and 'scientific' do not transform baseless conspiracy theories into fact.
Fetzer has a history of attacking those that debunk his 'creative' theories. Josiah Thompson is the author of Six Seconds in Dallas. This book stands as one of the most important critical books regarding the Warren Report even after many decades. It stands in sharp contrast to malarkey such as The Great Zapruder Film Hoax in which Fetzer claims the Zapruder film to be little more than a manufactured cartoon with frames missing, frames combined, and details painted in. Josiah Thompson relayed the following during a Dallas 1998 presentation regarding Fetzer's pompous, psychotic reaction to those that take the time to correct his errors:
When earlier this year [1998], I had the temerity to disagree, I was told by the Professor that "...you have thereby discredited yourself as a commentator on these matters."
--------------
On Fetzer's assassinationscience.com website, two prominent links in the upper-left corner of the main page promote the false theory that the moon landing was faked. He also hawks books and videos pushing his bizarre theory concerning the Zapruder film.
Moseley taking the time to respond to kooky allegations does not equal an obsession. If he ignored the conspiracy posts, the pseudo scholars would be crowing about Moseley being unable to respond. The fruitcakes cannot have it both ways.
Fetzer's mention of 'special' controlled demolitions is an invention designed to avoid the fact that buildings are not demolished from the top down. It is the only way he has of fitting the evidence around his theory.
Fetzer has uncritically accepted conspiracy 'facts' because they fit his theory.
1. No government report maintains that the plane impact alone caused the towers to collapse. The aircraft impacts that DeMartini and others mention were expected to be slower and lower on fuel. By the way, the towers WITHSTOOD the impact. The resultant damage + fire brought the towers down.
2. No government report maintains that fire melted the steel in the towers. This is a straw man tactic and something that a high school freshman would recognize. One would hope that someone would be able to recognize such a gross fallacy especially after 35 years of teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Perhaps not.
3. Fetzer is relying on Kevin Ryan for the claim that Underwriters' Laboratories certified the steel in the WTC. Ryan was a water tester. Fetzer again repeats the straw man fallacy regarding steel melting showing that teaching for 35 years does not make one immune to faulty reasoning. Regarding Kevin Ryan and certifying the WTC steel, Underwriters' Laboratories had the following to say:
Underwriters Laboratories denied that it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization."
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, a spokesman for the Northbrook, Ill.-based company.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
------------------------
Fetzer repeats the Internet canards of living hijackers, fake cell phone calls, and confuses lists of victims with flight manifests. He has refused, in the past, to view excellent sites such as 911myths.com because he claims the material in them is false. The same behavior from a skeptic toward a conspiracy site would be ranted about as proof of the soundness of the conspiracy theories.
Should a man that promotes the claim that the moon landings were faked, violates Jesus' admonition to not criticize others for something that you have a worse problem with, and can't recognize basic logical fallacies after 35 years of teaching be given free reign to promote vile theories regarding 9/11?
At the Dallas 1998 JFK assassination meeting, Josiah Thompson had the following to say at the end of his presentation:
You may wonder why I've taken the time to attack Professor Fetzer here. It is because he expresses a trend in assassination research which I find odious.
His emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community. When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called "distinguished."
- Tom Stoneburner
posted by Tom at 4:59 PM
1 comments
