Jim Fetzer on media fakery

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby Critical Mass on November 19th, 2014, 12:18 am

simonshack wrote:I frankly fail to see what good could possibly come out of engaging in any sort of debate / conversation with such foul & unpleasant individuals.

I can barely listen to even a few minutes of this Fetzer character.

He is as much a joke to me as Jones... I used to think that everyone in the 'Truther' movement was as crazy & annoying as those two guys.

Then I heard this.

Like night & day.



*******
Admin notice (simon): if the above mp3 link doesn't open for you, just go here http://www.septclues.com/AUDIO%20FILES/ and download the file named "KFAIradio_HOI_POLLOI_dec2012.mp3"
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby hoi.polloi on November 19th, 2014, 5:46 am

Well, you seem to have appeared recently, Critical Mass. I feel like we spent half a decade just yelling at trolls and shills to GTFO of the discussion, and we're still doing it. I was only able to compose the KFAI show with a great deal of time to do my best attempt at extremely thoughtful writing and pre-recording it. Live shows are a different beast, and I am not good with words when speaking live and off the cuff. Even though I wrote my own script for that show, I had to do a few takes on some segments. Simon, not being a native English speaker, is even better than I am at ad libbing from the heart. So besides not having the experience Fetzer has in live audio, I just don't know if the level of research we are talking about lends itself well to live audio. It can't and won't be as entertaining to most as a shouting, righteous sounding angry man, I guess?

Good research takes time, and spending a show of any length pleading with the audience to patiently spend hours and hours doing their own research just seems like an invitation for call-in "plants" to sensationalize and derail that fact. On the other hand, Fakeologist Radio seems to have wobbled on that line (between shills through the easily misled to the genuinely scientifically curious) demonstrating an average mood that is, if not pointed on the subjects, occasionally therapeutic listening and/or participating. And they've come up with some good ideas and theories on how some of the "big picture" might fit in with realizations about how controlled our cultural paradigms are.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby Critical Mass on November 19th, 2014, 11:02 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Well, you seem to have appeared recently, Critical Mass.

I won't bother going into all the things that have delayed me joining Cluesforum though I only watched September Clues in Dec'12 & I listened to your fantastic audio very late into 2013.

Besides the delay was probably beneficial... I doubt you'd guys have appreciated another confused newbie asking "well surely some people died?".

As for your points you're likely right. Live audio is not really a good medium for promoting media (usually visual) fakery research. .. although I suppose you could play 'Tony Arrigo' on a loop?

I think my 2015 goal will be to help make a documentary about the research exposed by this forum... I have a few ideas on that which I'll probably go through with you & Simon one day.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on December 12th, 2014, 1:30 pm

*

Ladies & Gents,

I often hear that Professor Jim Fetzer "does at least try very hard to seek for 9/11 truth" - and that, therefore, he shouldn't be labeled as an outright shill / gatekeeper.

Well, here is an example illustrating the 'depth' of Fetzer's interest in what is, undeniably, one of the major issues of the 9/11 hoax - (i.e. the missing 3000 victims). As you can see in the below-linked "9/11 SCHOLARS" page, Fetzer simply copy-pasted (a now defunct) article on the subject (back in July 2011) with no commentary of his own - and no follow-up whatsoever. All there is are a few comments by the good Dean Hartwell - author of the excellent essay Malice without Murder"- and another couple of comments by one Ben Collet:

9/11 SCHOLARS: http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/bl ... 911-not-in



*********************************************************************************
RED ALERT

The below 2011 news article is quickly being wiped off the internets. Please do save the entire Daily Republic webpage on your hard disk before this important document disappears completely and forever into cyberspace!


As the original article <[dead link!] by Thomas Hargrove was published in July 2011 (on Naples News), it was soon mirrored on a dozen or more local online newspapers around the USA. It has now virtually vanished from official press publications - and is only to be found discussed on private blogs* / or forums.

"Why are 3,000 victims of 9/11 missing from Social Security death list?"
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/usworld/wh ... eath-list/



* This one features some interesting readers' comments: http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/07/12/nea ... of-911-don’t-show-up-as-dead-in-social-security-records/
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on December 13th, 2014, 3:28 pm

*
This is a message for Repentantandy / aka Andy Tyme

Andy, lest you miss it, I have just commented on your recent post over at Fetzer's "REAL DEAL" blog:
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014/11 ... 9975622500

Thanks for replying - and hopefully, for retracting your erroneous / unfair statement regarding the "gross insults" which I am supposedly guilty of.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby repentantandy on December 14th, 2014, 9:25 pm

The relentlessly hostile web relations between the three main Internet locations where authenticity of the 9/11 imagery is seriously questioned (right here, at LetsRoll and to a lesser degree at RadioFetzer) appear to be quite eloquent testimony to the overwhelming effectiveness of Dr. Sunstein's nefarious "cognitive infiltration" strategy, quite trenchantly documented and critiqued by Dr. Griffin (PBUH) before he went silent. :unsure:

So as the years roll by, each nexus of 9/11 sceptics continues to accuse the others of being either crazy or shills for the perps.

It's enough to make any latecoming visitor to the "party" simply wonder if those accusations are ALL correct! :wacko:

Which is just what Harvard's "Cass Baby" intended, isn't it?
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby simonshack on December 14th, 2014, 11:10 pm

repentantandy wrote:So as the years roll by, each nexus of 9/11 sceptics continues to accuse the others of being either crazy or shills for the perps.


Repentantandy (aka Andy Tyme),

Thanks for your response over at Fetzer's "REAL DEAL" blog.

At this point however, I have to wonder what motivates you, Andy. You have been around for a long, long time - profusely opining / gossiping about this and that - yet hardly ever submitting any research of your own - while incessantly lamenting about my (natural / instinctive / logical) refusal to engage in debates with blatant gatekeepers such as Fetzer and co.

In your last response (linked above) you complained, for instance, that some members of this forum have "repeatedly, rudely and angrily ridiculed and lampooned Dr. Fetzer, calling him the "flabby fibber," for instance, and depicting him via gross, cartoonish images".

Well, please know that we still live in a free-speech society ( :P ) which allows people (and even professional journalists / satirists) to lampoon any public figure deemed as deserving to be lampooned. Your apparent outrage about this is quite bizarre and misplaced. Why you should spend more time lamenting about OUR critiques of Fetzer's antics (what with his exasperating, feigned aloofness - and FLAT OUT refusal to respond to ANY of my numerous questions to him over the years) rather than lamenting about Fetzer's own behavior - is quite beyond my comprehension. And what about Fetzer's gross / vulgar language thrown at us? Doesn't this merit your outrage? There was a time I used to think you were a level-minded, fair, intelligent and well-educated fellow (and somewhat on 'our side'), Andy - but not anymore.

And now you even propose that I engage in a radio debate with the whimsical Clare Kuehn character - who popped out of nowhere shortly after the Vicsim Report was published, and was interviewed on Fetzer's show - on the topic of fake 9/11 victims - without her ever mentioning our Vicsim Report / website / forum and, quite frankly, sole / unique and pioneering vicsim research... Much in the same vein as Fetzer himself, who started writing long articles about the "no-plane" issue shortly following my first September Clues release in 2007 - without EVER mentioning my 90-minute movie on his blog. And much in the same vein as "Ace Baker" (another Fetzer 'production'), who - back in 2007 - popped out of nowhere asking me (in what looked like a genuine fan mail) if he could screen September Clues at Fetzer's Madison "Truth conference" (also attended by Judy Wood, btw) - and then made a "180°" stating that September Clues is 95% false.

So why, Andy, do you have issues with OUR 'treatment' of Dr. Fetzer? What makes you still think that he's a 'good guy' worthy of anyone's time?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby repentantandy on December 15th, 2014, 1:50 am

As I have "opined" before, Simon, I think you're BOTH good guys, but each with some ego issues and blind spots. I have often expressed my bitter frustration with Dr. Fetzer's inexcusable refusal to examine your work closely and carefully, just as I have repeatedly urged you to accept his standing invitation to appear on his program -- where you could easily confront him with some of the most obvious contradictions in the 9/11 imagery, examples that his blustery manner could not simply avoid without damning himself in the process.

And as for Clare Kuehn, she impresses me as a genuine seeker after recondite truth. At times excessively wordy and overly hesitant to wholly commit herself to any theory not of her own devising (as demonstrated in my various exchanges with her regarding my agreement with the SeptemberClues assertion of the news networks' total-fakery, "101-minute movie") but still an intellectually honest gal. (And her Paul /Faul McCartney research is quite compelling, IMHO.)

So if you still refuse to "shoot fish in a barrel" with Fetzer, you at least ought to "box a few rounds" with Lady Clare. :P
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby brianv on December 15th, 2014, 2:13 am

Andy you replied in exactly the same format that Simon just called you out on! Are you a professional shit stirrer?

Why do you insist that Simon should talk to these clowns? Are you trying to say that our work here is somehow connected to their gatekeeping efforts?
That we should be guilty by association with these morons? Please don't Simon!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby fbenario on December 15th, 2014, 2:35 am

repentantandy wrote:The relentlessly hostile web relations between the three main Internet locations where authenticity of the 9/11 imagery is seriously questioned (right here, at LetsRoll and to a lesser degree at RadioFetzer) appear to be quite eloquent testimony to the overwhelming effectiveness of Dr. Sunstein's nefarious "cognitive infiltration" strategy, quite trenchantly documented and critiqued by Dr. Griffin (PBUH) before he went silent. :unsure:

So as the years roll by, each nexus of 9/11 sceptics continues to accuse the others of being either crazy or shills for the perps.

It's enough to make any latecoming visitor to the "party" simply wonder if those accusations are ALL correct! :wacko:

Which is just what Harvard's "Cass Baby" intended, isn't it?

Nice false equivalency. Nice straw-man. Argue in bad faith much?

We've shown conclusively that all relevant video shown on 9/11 was faked. These other entities you mention have not conclusively shown anything at all - other than their bad faith, egregious behavior, etc., etc. Take a look at all the evidence, and make a decision. Don't sit there on the fence and say that each party adds something of value to the investigative process.

In other words, how 'bout starting to act in good faith?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby Flabbergasted on December 15th, 2014, 3:11 am

repentantandy wrote:As I have "opined" before, Simon, I think you're BOTH good guys, but each with some ego issues and blind spots. I have often expressed my bitter frustration with Dr. Fetzer's inexcusable refusal to examine your work closely and carefully, just as I have repeatedly urged you to accept his standing invitation to appear on his program -- where you could easily confront him with some of the most obvious contradictions in the 9/11 imagery, examples that his blustery manner could not simply avoid without damning himself in the process.

Andy, you get an A+ for cunning.

First of all, despite appearances, Fetzer´s boisterous trutherage and Simon´s investigative work are completely diverse things by nature. They are not efforts in the same general direction which can be brought together for mutual benefit. It is like mixing good wine with wastewater. What could possibly be gained from it?

Falsehoods, gossip, distortion and misrepresentation take only seconds to throw into a debate, but take hours (and loads of patience) to correct. Ever heard of asymmetric warfare?

If Fetzer refuses to examine Simon´s work closely and carefully, as you pointed out, it´s laughable to assume he would act with any sort of honesty in a debate.

Try again tomorrow.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 653
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby brianv on December 15th, 2014, 3:30 am

It's not that he refuses "to look at Simon's work", he will not entertain the notion of fakery due to feigned Academic Myopia. He's stuck rigid in his cop show investigation paradigm act. Towers gone - who cares. Nobody died. Somebody lied. Fetzer knows full well we are right.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby hoi.polloi on December 15th, 2014, 5:10 am

You haven't any good reason to doubt Simon because he's an actual dude, whereas "Jim Fetzer" is a character created for the actor that plays him. Equating those reasons is like saying the neighbor that shits in your lawn is just as guilty as you who steps in it.

And then at the same time, you say if we continue to march around in that shit it will eventually smell like perfume.

I am sorry to even give you the attention on this subject, but your jovial acceptance of things that so much as mention September Clues' existence makes you useless as a researcher here. Only someone who can sort out wastes of time like Fetzer from genuine inquiry like the world assortment of people on real research forums makes any sense posting on such a forum — which are primarily about what shape, appearance and simulation the liars and their technologies take.

Jim Fetzer resembles and acts like a paid shill to rub legit research into military PsyOps like "Nuclear Weapons" and certain favorite assassinations and hoping that it sticks. You're not much better since you can't apply your own skeptical eye to those PsyOps and who is promoting them in the sliest fashion. Fetzer is as useful to us as a Joe Q. Public talkshoe, except more obstinate and childish. We the public would all be better served by discussing it amongst ourselves and releasing a hundred different mildly entertaining shows than giving Fetzer any attention whatsoever. Y'all would probably say convincing Fetzer will convince his followers? Waste of time. What good are followers? We need thinkers! Independent critical thinkers. Fetzer doesn't try to make those. He seems to just want ratings and everyone to swallow his personal pet theories, which — as another said — I'm not convinced he actually believes himself.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby bostonterrierowner on December 15th, 2014, 10:45 pm

Maybe "repentantandy" and "James Fetzer" are scripted by the same institution and we are just giving people ( there must some at one point or another ) behind it satisfaction by this feedback.

Dear admins please just ban this sleeper shill entity and let's move on :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

Postby elmoastro on January 22nd, 2015, 1:26 am

Fetzer in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Interesting to me how belief is always at the core of censure. Funny that it's Fetzer who gets scrutinized...over his holocaust findings. egad.

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/289227381.html

Norman Butler, owner of a small Northfield pub that holds regular community forums on compelling issues, said there is no truth to the rumor he’s now changing his name to the Discontented Cow.

“But it might be a good idea,” he said.

The pub is actually called the Contented Cow, where Butler has been hosting “Cow Talks” on various topics, hoping to engage area professors and college students and get them to buy a beer or two during the winter. Talks include such topics as the Israel-Palestine situation and transgender athletes.

But when word got out that Butler invited conspiracy theorist Jim Fetzer to do a series of talks on historical events on which he holds controversial opinions, some customers revolted.

They say that Fetzer is an anti-Semite because he also denies aspects of the Holocaust. Several residents sent notes to Butler saying they would stop frequenting his pub unless he canceled the talks.

Butler forwarded several of the e-mails to Fetzer, who promptly put them on his website under the headline: “The abdication of reason and rationality in Northfield,” and he called efforts to stop the speeches an attempt “to suppress unwanted truths.”

Those “truths” include Fetzer’s belief that the Sandy Hook school shootings never really happened, that the 9/11 attacks were a “reality fraud” by the government conspiring with Israel and that the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone was a possible assassination.

Fetzer’s posting of critics’ e-mails apparently caused one of his readers to send a threatening e-mail to one professor.

By Monday, Fetzer had agreed to change the events from speeches to debates, inviting people with expertise to rebut him. On his website, Fetzer said the community response “has shattered any lingering illusions I may have had about Northfield as an enlightened and intellectual environment.”

In a note he sent to his critics (and to me), Fetzer said: “If, during the course of my collaborative research, I have found that Israel was complicit in 9/11 and that the official narrative of the Holocaust cannot withstand critical scientific scrutiny, I think that’s worth sharing with the world.”

In a phone conversation Tuesday, Fetzer stressed his credentials as a “philosopher/scientist” who has studied each incident for years, logging reams of scientific data and books.

“I am an expert in all these subjects,” he said.

As of Tuesday, Butler was not backing down on the forums.

“I almost folded this morning,” he said. “I was down on my knees almost. But I got a second wind.”

Asked if he expected the backlash, the England native channeled British comedy troupe Monty Python: “Well, I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.”

One of those who oppose Fetzer’s appearance is Gordon Marino, professor of philosophy at St. Olaf College.

He called the appearance “unbelievable.”

“Is this some free speech thing?” Marino wrote to Butler. “If so, why not some pro-slavery person as well?”

Butler responded that Fetzer was not really a Holocaust denier.

But on his website, Fetzer says, “my research on the Holocaust narrative suggests that it is not only untrue but provably false and not remotely scientifically sustainable.”

Fetzer denies he is an anti-Semite. He suggested I describe his skepticism of the Holocaust like this (his words): “Fetzer argues that, if the inmates had been gassed using Zyklon B, then their bodies would have turned pink and the walls of the gas chambers would have turned blue. But we have no reports of pink bodies and the only walls that are blue are those used for delousing, which means the official narrative cannot possibly be correct.”

So there you go.

“My uncle was killed bombing Buchenwald,” replied Marino, who rejects the idea he’s among “a handful of rabid Zionists” going after Fetzer. Marino has even written articles criticizing Israeli policy he said.

“I didn’t organize any boycott, I just don’t want to support a place that gives a forum to a Holocaust denier. I find it hate speech.”

Fetzer has now offered to add another event on the Holocaust and invited one of the people who complained to debate him.

“What he says is interesting and controversial,” said Butler. “A lot of it obviously invites scrutiny. But this has caused a lot of intimidation and threats to boycott the Cow. It’s tough enough to be a small-business owner.”

Louis Newman, on faculty at Carleton but speaking for himself, expressed his views to me via e-mail:

“I respect the rights of people to hold and discuss unpopular views, as well as the rights of people like Norman Butler to invite such people to share those views in public,” Newman wrote. “But some views — particularly those that vilify entire groups of people, or that are based on patent lies, or that fly in the face of established historical facts as well as common sense — do not deserve our attention. Providing a platform for people who hold those views is ill-advised, at the very least. I personally regard it as morally unconscionable, even if it is legally permissible.”

During our chat on the Sandy Hook shootings, I stopped Fetzer to tell him I had cousins living near the town, that they attended the funerals of slain children and their photo at the funeral appeared in several newspapers.

“Funerals are easy to stage,” Fetzer said.

I guess maybe I’m in on the conspiracy. Maybe we all are.
elmoastro
Member
 
Posts: 81
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 10:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests