04-02-2016, 12:44 AM
This is all kind of like those ultra-detailed graphs with charts and diagrams that break down the ballistics of what went where in Dealey Plaza, and why building X is less likely a source of the shooters than building Y.
These days when talking about 9/11 with people (which, to be honest, I rarely do now, although I gave out thousands of DVD's in the past) I gently raise other 9/11-related topics in passing. I was about to write a long, jarring list but I have a design job to do today and really shouldn't be on forums.
I think the reason Fetzer likes drilling down into miscroscopic debate about scientific minutiae is that it leaves the original topic of discussion far, far behind, and specifically renders discussion about people and perpetrators and motives moot. What was the subject of this thread again? What are we talking about now?
I don't entirely agree with Ahmed on this, but he's mentioned as of late how he tends to distance himself from the 9/11 truth movement because of their relentless dwelling on a handful of topics. Tom Secker, who wrote a book on the 7/7 bombings which I think is the best out there on that subject, has said the same.
I think Jim was right to devote a two part article on Fetzer's behaviour and what it all might mean. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that topic?
These days when talking about 9/11 with people (which, to be honest, I rarely do now, although I gave out thousands of DVD's in the past) I gently raise other 9/11-related topics in passing. I was about to write a long, jarring list but I have a design job to do today and really shouldn't be on forums.
I think the reason Fetzer likes drilling down into miscroscopic debate about scientific minutiae is that it leaves the original topic of discussion far, far behind, and specifically renders discussion about people and perpetrators and motives moot. What was the subject of this thread again? What are we talking about now?
I don't entirely agree with Ahmed on this, but he's mentioned as of late how he tends to distance himself from the 9/11 truth movement because of their relentless dwelling on a handful of topics. Tom Secker, who wrote a book on the 7/7 bombings which I think is the best out there on that subject, has said the same.
I think Jim was right to devote a two part article on Fetzer's behaviour and what it all might mean. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that topic?