This press release makes no mention of any "experts" that Fetzer and his "scholars" used. It's trhe same old empty assertions from them again.

It's trhe same old empty assertions from them again.
911Poller | 05.30.06 - 7:32 pm | #
i know, once again the government expects us to take this Osama tape on good faith. "trust us" is what they are basically saying. i know thats not a problem for you 911poller, as you are a world class sheep/shill/lemming who trusts the government/corporate media to tell you everything. but for most of us, thats not something we can easily do. we expect PROOF from our government unlike you.proof. something they still havent given us.

911Poller must be busy trolling on many boards -- he's not even spell-checking.

Looks like no one knows who the "experts" are supposed to be or why the "scholars" assertions are supposed to carry some weight.

keep wondering douchebag. get a real job.

911Poller, please go to http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/HaveWeBeenLiedTo.html, and click on the Word version of the document.

Kindly search for the words "The ratio of the distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe . . . ." Please take a look.

Thank you.

"we expect PROOF from our government unlike you.proof. something they still havent given us."

I'd just like to know who the "experts" are supposed to be that the article title refers to and are not named by Fetzer in the article.

I think it's best to ignore people like 9/11Troller who are here merely to agitate truthers.

"There is no "debating" them. If they honestly wanted to talk about things, they would be inquisitive, and not aggressive."

I recall that it was you who responded to an earlier question by being aggressive.

"I think it's best to ignore people like 9/11Troller who are here merely to agitate truthers."

I'd really like to know how spot-on questions of truthers "agitates" them.

"Have you ever thought about looking into what you are talking about before you talk about it, Just a thought."

I know a lot of what I'm talking because I'm not afraid of asking questions.

It's when people object to asking questions that I become suspicious.

" Does it frighten anyone else that top members of st911 have stated as fact:..."

It doesn't frighten me. But it reinforces my suspicion that scholars speak with fork tongue.

911polesmoker - I told you in a previous thread this, but it bears repeating: You need to think back through the cost/benefit analysis of your distracting posts. Or, I guess I could do it for you.

Benefits:

(1) distracts those here from making progress on discussing the real issues thereby perhaps slowing the spread of the truth about 9/11 by some measurable degree

Costs:

(1) You honestly look like an idiot compared to almost everyone else here, which would lead any independent or new person observing to think you either have something to hide or that you are just plain wrong in your beliefs.

(2) You help those that do engage in debate with you polish their debating skills, thereby enabling them to present a more effective case for government involvement in 9/11 to those that have never heard it before.

(3) You irritate many here. Though this may be seen by you as a benefit, but it is more likely a cost to your cause because it will probably motivate those that are irritated to do something about it, like go somewhere else and spread the truth.

(4) You chose a name that easily lends itself to an extremely demeaning nickname, which I guess adds to cost #1 above.

But if you wish to continue, go for it. I bet there is a time coming soon, as happened with terrence, when everyone will just ignore what you say and cost number (1) will be the dominant factor in your participation here, with no counterbalancing benefit. Best of luck.

It´s really depressing you bring these alive hijackers up again and again.
There were reports right after the attacks that many were still alive, yes.
But that story hasn´t evolved anywhere since. There has been no Alex Jones interview on them, nothing.

There were people from middle-east who heard or saw their names mentioned as hijackers, and went to their local papers and so to tell they were alive.
But there are others with same names, they weren´t the ones meant. BBC and others took those early news as facts without checking or trying to talk to some of the them.

Why BBC (and others) still have those news about hijackers alive up in the net without a note that the story was false, I don´t know (but I have my suspicions).

There simply is nothing new about these guys anywhere since september 2001. No one from media has talked to them, and get this... THEY HAVEN´T SUED ANYONE FOR USING THEIR NAMES AND FACES AS 9/11 HIJACKERS!!!!

And please, don´t give me that "they´re hiding somewhere so CIA won´t kill them"...

Now, instead of asking me to prove my case, show me an interview of an alleged hijacker, or show me a court case where one of them wants his name away from the list of hijackers.

SHOW ME SOMETHING BETTER THAN SPECULATION BETWEEN 911TRUTHERS OR STOP BRINGING THIS ALIVE HIJACKERS CRAP UP AGAIN AND AGAIN OR I MIGHT TAKE 911 BLOGGER AWAY FROM MY FAVORITS LIST

This press release makes no mention of any "experts" that Fetzer and his "scholars" used. It's trhe same old empty assertions from them again.
911Poller | 05.30.06 - 7:32 pm |
__________________________

I don't get it! This guy makes an unjustifiable smear against the messengers and says nothing about the message--and this list swoons? Where is the discussion of the arguments that are presented here? There must be at least a dozen, which are being given now because the lastest tape has just been released.

Moreover, no one even mentions that Griffin is perhaps the leading expert on the case in the world today; that Fetzer is an expert on scientific reasoning and conspiracy theories; that Bruce Lawrence is an expert on the messages of Osama bin Laden; that William Arkin is an expert on voice synthesizing; and that the Scholars' paper that is cited includes Steven Jones among its co-authors.

So you let this "911poller" trash this piece because of a supposed lack of expertise to support it, which is clearly false and misleading, and the members of this list start chasing their tails and scratching their backs while ignoring (a) that the piece IS supported by experts and (b) that the ARGUMENTS they present are powerful and ought to be convincing? It makes me wince.

There are many techniques for misleading the unwary. I can see that whatever "911poller" has to say exerts a disporportionate influence over the parties to this discussion. It reminds me of "The Force," which can have a powerful influence upon the weakminded! Don't be taken in! At the least, don't be taken in so easily!

James Fetzer thanks alot for all your work. I just recently interviewed an engineering teacher at my school about WTC 7 and showed him the footage which he had not been aware of. He was speechless to say the least and is going to start doing research and has already told some of his colleagues, maybe even join your organization. I go to Mesa College in San Diego. If you would like his e-mail address I could get it for you.

But in regards to your post above mine. 911poller is what we call an internet troll. He's not here to debate, just to waste time and disuade us from being productive. Unfortunately too many people take the bait and respond to him as if reason and discourse will have any effect on what he will say and what he believes. This is not so, and is why he is classified as a troll. He is not debating the facts and should be banned in my opinion. If he were to have legitimate discussions he would be welcome but he does not and should therefore be blocked from our forums. Mr. Fetzer, it will not serve anyone any good to fall into his trap, it will just encourage him to continue trolling. Ignoring him is the best way to deal with him short of a banning.

"(2) You help those that do engage in debate with you polish their debating skills, thereby enabling them to present a more effective case for government involvement in 9/11 to those that have never heard it before."

Good. Then you should be able to answer my question and not attack me for asking it.

Right?

"Moreover, no one even mentions that Griffin is perhaps the leading expert on the case in the world today; that Fetzer is an expert on scientific reasoning and conspiracy theories; that Bruce Lawrence is an expert on the messages of Osama bin Laden; that William Arkin is an expert on voice synthesizing; and that the Scholars' paper that is cited includes Steven Jones among its co-authors."

James Fetzer is no dummy. He is fully aware that neither he nor his group of "scholars" are experts in the fields of structural engeneering and forensic science required to make the assertions he does about the collapses of the wtc towers.

He is also no dummy at propaganda knowing full well that in order to achieve the political goals, which are the sole motive for SF9/11T's existence, he must depend on people not asking questions and accepting the notion that he and his group are "scholars" and therefore possess all the credentials needed. So he wants you to accept his assertions about their "expertise" blindly.

It has worked in groups like this because people here are not asking the necessary questions. It does not fool the rest of us.

"He is not debating the facts and should be banned in my opinion."

You insist there are no facts to debate. It's settled as far as you are concerned.

And you don't like the fact that I ask a reasonable question which you do not like, don't answer, and then hurl insults instead.

I want to see you ask hard questions of James Fetzer and his group and not just think he knows what he is talking about. If you accept his assertions on faith, there is nothing to debate. He wins, you lose.

is that really Fetzer? if it is, i loved your book on Wellstone, thank you for making it. i wish more people would have spoken out about his murder. thank you.

Hey tep... regarding the hijackers. If they did make a plea, or if they did try to come forward, you don't think the media could be controlled enough to keep something like that silent? The Jersey Girls themselves asked the FBI about the hijackers that were supposedly still alive, and they never received any response to their questioning. None. Nothing. Surely, it would have been a simple matter to clear that up. Why didn't they?

I visit your site regularly and have studied 9/11 matters closely. There is compelling evidence across the board for the failure of the official 9/11 explanation. This is a remarkably tolerant and polite website given the nature of the topic. But I believe you may doing a considerable disservice to the 9/11 movement by allowing people like 911poller to post here.

James H. Fetzer is correct. The experts cited by them are credible as are the arguments presented. The situation is somewhat akin to a site about Evolution allowing repeated postings by Creationists. While it may have the APPEARANCE of an exchange of ideas it is not a genuine dialogue.

The Creationist simply gains credibility in the eyes of the uninformed by repeatedly posting. Their methods involve the multiple restatement of falsehoods, refusing to respond to fair arguments, and an appearance of sincerity that is completely hollow.

When was the last time you convinced a Creationist that Darwin was right? Will you ever be able to do so? At the end of the day these people go home to their friends holding like minded beliefs. They joke about how they struggled with the pagans and maybe came close to converting one or two. They may or may not be sincere. It's not relevant. They simply wear out good willed people who try to answer them and they create confusion in the minds of newbie members of the public who visit your site.

If you were a scientist responding to a persistent Creationist there is only one civilised, decent, intelligent and moral course of action: thank them politely, refer them to other sites, and ban them from contributing. It's even possible to do this politely.

Scientists don't tolerate Creationists, restuarants don't tolerate people who insist on cooking their own meals. After a decent interval and a courteous reception send them on their way.

In fact, you ought to have that as some sort of policy statement: "If we think you cannot help us and we cannot help you, we will direct you to where you may most feel at home."

It's draining on everybody and confusing to inquiring minds that come to your site to have these people around. Do it politely, but send them elsewhere.

"Scientists don't tolerate Creationists."

That's why scientists don't tolerate "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." You need to know that, damien.

Quote:
So you let this "911poller" trash this piece because of a supposed lack of expertise to support it, which is clearly false and misleading, and the members of this list start chasing their tails and scratching their backs while ignoring (a) that the piece IS supported by experts and (b) that the ARGUMENTS they present are powerful and ought to be convincing? It makes me wince.

There are many techniques for misleading the unwary. I can see that whatever "911poller" has to say exerts a disporportionate influence over the parties to this discussion. It reminds me of "The Force," which can have a powerful influence upon the weakminded! Don't be taken in! At the least, don't be taken in so easily!
James H. Fetzer | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 1:04 am | #

911poller doesn't have any influence here. He's a well known troll that several people have encouraged banning.

You can see the issues that I have with the press release above, in my 05.30.06 - 9:38 pm post, which were intended to spur thoughtful discussion or citing of sources.

The press release doesn't have links to recent research that would enable you all to state those items as fact. Perhaps I haven't explored the Scholars' site enough to find them. If you can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

That said, I generally think st911 does more thorough, responsible research than most 9/11 Truth organizations. And I appreciate the work that you have done, of course.

Scientists don't tolerate Creationists, restuarants don't tolerate people who insist on cooking their own meals. After a decent interval and a courteous reception send them on their way.

In fact, you ought to have that as some sort of policy statement: "If we think you cannot help us and we cannot help you, we will direct you to where you may most feel at home."

It's draining on everybody and confusing to inquiring minds that come to your site to have these people around. Do it politely, but send them elsewhere.
damien | 05.31.06 - 10:03 am

Well said Damien. This needs to happen. The trolls continue to be fed and now apparently we have a new one named tim.

I repeat, damien. You're not paying attention. You may an outrageorus claim that needs to be spanked down.

Scientists don't tolerate "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

Scientists don't tolerate "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."
tim | 05.31.06 - 3:48 pm | #
wow. a blanket statement from a troll/shill? you dont say.......

Ignore the trolls. Why?

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/02/con06077.html

All he'd have to do, if he were a genuinely curious person, is go to st911.org and see the list of S911T's members.

Re: Gold
No I don´t think media can be controlled all around the world like that, so that even bloggers wouldn´t know, no way.
Good reason for FBI and such to stay silent would be to allow people who are questioning 9/11 THINK they are alive.

The more false leads truthers chase, the better, just like not giving all available footage of Pentagon attack they make suspicious people think theyre hiding something about what actually hit P., when people should be wondering:
-Why the plane hits that part of the building which had just been reinforced against attack.
-Can it be coinsidense that the pilot of 77 Charles Burlingame had actually worked in that very spot which was damaged.
-Exercises simulating closely what actually happened...

I don´t have an all-explaining theory, but am quite convinced with the info available those alleged hijackers aren´t alive.

"All he'd have to do, if he were a genuinely curious person, is go to st911.org and see the list of S911T's members."

I've done that many times over the months as new members have been added. The membership is noted for it's lack of structural engineers or experts in construction and heavy on some very stupid and discredited 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Within the scientific community SF9/11T is knows as a group of political hacks with no knowledge of the subject matter. This is perhaps why the group has been desperately seeking credible structutal engineers for months now without success.

"wow. a blanket statement..."

You know I'm right.