Fetzer & Jones Debate (Audio)

[Pete J]

here....

http://911blogger.com/node/5633

I posted this because I've been feeling a bit 'square' lately since I've been struggling to 'get' beam weapon theory as applied to 9.11 as proposed by Judy wood. I've watched plenty of NASA UFO videos on the so called 'Tether incident' and others and have had no problem in accepting that beam weapon technology might exist, (and might have been used) but for some reason I never felt inclined to identify strongly with Wood/Fetzer.

Listening to this interview is a bit like listening to the 'official story' all over again for me.

- I've been trying to give 'beam weapon' theory the benefit of the doubt for so long but the truth is I just don't buy it and have been nervous to admit it (like the official story)

- I've tried to respect the arguments put forward for it, but the truth is I just don't (like the official story)

- I've felt uncomfortable about the prospect of being 'labelled a conservative' by not entertaining the beam weapon theory (same as I felt about being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' w.r.t official story) but the truth is I am one in this particular instance

Fortunately, this audio clip became available and it all became much simpler for me. I just did'nt trust people who don't allow others to make their point and who are permanently plugged in to the sound of their own voice

But more than that, I have always thought tha this movement should be about diversity, truth and transparency. I really find it difficult to conceive of how folks can feel threatned by a genuine researcher who has stated publicly that he's 'open minded' about all hypothises w.r.t. the tower collapses while at the same time choosing to persue a particular line case the he finds best fits the available data. (Specially when that's his profession anyway !).

I hope we as a movement we will continue to dignify S. E. Jones with the same respect that he showed his adversary in this interview.

There have been so many inspirational moments and visionary people who have motivated others and developed the arguments for 9/11 truth in constructive ways. For this reason I have always remained open minded and vigilant. For me, however, this interview just conjured up an image of a drunken <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaf">oaf</a> stumbling over a self aware doormat on his way in a science lab after a nights partying before crashing over workbench loaded with equipment and falling fast asleep on the floor.

Sweet dreams Jim Fetzer and thanks for the memories. (Genuinely)

[James O'Neill]

I agree on a number of bases. The "interview" of Steven Jones by Jim Fetzer was a disgrace. Fetzer gave a perfect imitaiton of an egomaniac totally unwilling to allow his guest the opportunity to answer the questions that Fetzer asked (in beween bouts of self-promotion). the discourtesy extended to the point of apparently turning down the microphone when Jones was speaking so that his comments were barely audible while Fezter overrode him at full volume.

I have been an admirer of Fetzer in the past. His work on the JFK assassination has secured his place in conspiracy research. Unless and until he reigns in his ego on 9/11 issues however he does a great deal more harm than good. It is time his many friends took him to one side and had a quiet word in his ear. Failing that. a period of silence would be welcome.

[MadgeB]

Well yeah, Fetzer did come across as a bit of an oaf, but when he did let Jones get a word in edgeways the slant was interesting. Jones didn't seem bothered about sticking to evidence when it came to 'the spire' - just said that it wasn't vapourised, it was just that the steel fell and the dust already covering it was left behind. That's the first time I've heard that theory - does anyone know if it's mentioned anywhere else?

[MadgeB]

Well yeah, Fetzer did come across as a bit of an oaf, but when he did let Jones get a word in edgeways the slant was interesting. Jones didn't seem bothered about sticking to evidence when it came to 'the spire' - just said that it wasn't vapourised, it was just that the steel fell and the dust already covering it was left behind. That's the first time I've heard that theory - does anyone know if it's mentioned anywhere else?