It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hannity and Colmes Interview Jim Fetzer

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This is an amazing job by Fetzer to get out the amount of info he did in just a few minutes before they cut him off. Colmes and guest debater Ollie North were run over by Mack Truck in Jim Fetzer.

This is a must see if you haven't already.




posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Wow! Amazing job on Fetzer's part. Conveyed a clear message and even managed to turn the usual ferocity of that channel back onto them, without being an ass in the process, lol.

Nicely done, Jim.



On a second watch, I think I've figured out why Colmes and North were so unprepared. Not easy to miss, really, but I did anyway the first time I watched it.

Notice that the headline reads something about universities teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories as courses. Notice that Colmes asks Fetzer on this, and this asks for clarification. Notice that North asks for clarification, and says he thought Fetzer told their producers that it had been taught as a course.

That's what they were prepared to attack him on. It ended up just making them look stupid.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
They were looking to trap him, and he deked them out of their jocks...the ending looked most uncomfortable.

Fetzer is by far the most level headed and informative of all the scholars, and can handle himself in a room of wolves.

Lt. Col. Ollie North looked like a buck private and Colmes like a little girl.


A truly magnificent job, and all done in about 3 minutes.




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's what they were prepared to attack him on. It ended up just making them look stupid.


That's a very astute observation there. Nice one. I wonder how the slip in their information occured?

Good work, anyway, Fetzer.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I LOVED how Ollie North ended up looking like a stammering fool. He seriously sounded like Porky Pig.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
That was an intense interview...wow!

Fetzer certainly put them in their place, imo. The analogy of a Mack truck is perfect.

Cutting Professor Fetzer off spoke volumes as well. It shows the interviewers as being 'married to an alternate view' and not allowing any deviation through critical thinking.




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I missed all but the last 3 minutes or so.

It seemed as if Hannity only wanted to refer to the various theories as stupid, paranoid, childish, outlandish, etc etc etc.

Can anyone give a brief of what was actually said?



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Good to see this guy fend off a blatant media-setup for making the 9/11 truth movement look like a bunch of nutjobs and wierdo's.

Thnx for posting this



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
"It seemed as if Hannity only wanted to refer to the various theories as stupid, paranoid, childish, outlandish, etc etc etc. "

What should they have done.When a lunatic wants to rant, let him.You folks "CTers" are the only ones who thought he looked great.He looked like a crack pot.I wonder if it was the UFO, he was late to meet up, with taht had him tweeking like a meth head?Hmmm!

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
"It seemed as if Hannity only wanted to refer to the various theories as stupid, paranoid, childish, outlandish, etc etc etc. "

What should they have done.When a lunatic wants to rant, let him.You folks "CTers" are the only ones who thought he looked great.He looked like a crack pot.I wonder if it was the UFO, he was late to meet up, with taht had him tweeking like a meth head?Hmmm!

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But they didn't let him rant, they pulled the plug on him when his responses made them uncomfortable and they didnt have any rebuttal. Who's tweeking?



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
You so funny! He ranted right over them.He got the entire allotment of air time he had to beginwith.His misstake was not letting colmes ask his questions,they were designed to make him look sane.Yes, tweeken,or did you not notice?CTERS are worth a laugh,bout it though.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Duhh, try to realize that the people you're ridiculing are people just as competent as yourself, and every bit as human. Many of the full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth teach at colleges and universities, which obviously wouldn't be the case if there was some natural connection between "CTers" and people who can't think rationally. What you're posting is comparable to racism or homophobia, in my humble opinion.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Did you just "pull " the race card ?

"Many of the full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth teach at colleges and universities, which obviously wouldn't be the case if there was some natural connection between "CTers" and people who can't think rationally. "

--Well it is further down in a previous response.I am ever so glad you chose the "Scholars for truth"

----The following is from Debunk 911

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

So maybe the "scholars" have other "experts" from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of "full members" described here as:

I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

There's Your Sighn



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Correction
The "Scholar" info is from Debunk 911 conspircy theories
here is the link.Verry informative on the Scholars.

www.geocities.com...

Please read if interested in facts.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
James really did do a good job.
It was obvious that they were trying to set him up by the way the Col. tried to revert back to the rehersed question. Once he sidestepped that trap they really had no clue what to argue about...they wanted to attack his credibility and he just ended up showing that they have absolutely no interest in any alternative viewpoints other than the "official line" by way they obviously cut the interview short...classic.

This is what really amazes me. Whether or not there was a coverup. If someone came at you with a list of 300 distingushed professors, who have solid evidence against the "official story," why on earth would you NOT want to investigate!? Unless of course you believe everything the government tells us is the truth...
good one.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by xEphon]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Sadly, I realize that these perfect 5 minutes of Fox News ineptitude will never be shown on television again, and will be burried, only available through the internet, and even then who knows when Fox News will have it removed due to copyright infringement.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
by way they obviously cut the interview short...classic.

....300 distingushed professors, who have solid evidence against the "official story," why on earth would you NOT want to investigate!? Unless of course you believe everything the government tells us is the truth...
good one.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by xEphon]


They only have so much time.

...ummm..solid evidence? I think there may be a disagreement on what constitutes 'evidence'.
What is the criteria you're using to claim soild evidence? I mean how does one tell the difference between things relevent to any particular crime and something that is simply an intuitive deduction or an out and out guess?
What makes a picture of an air explusion/'squib' evidence of an explosion and not simply a pressure release etc.?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
One other thing I noticed.

Why is it that whenever someone tell of the fact that the Fbi has no evidence linking Osama to 9/11, the rebuttal is always "you mean other than he openly admits it.."

As far as i know, terrorist organizations do that all the time do they not? For Osama this would be like winning the lottery without having to even play. He gets all the glory from the extremist muslims and he recives an instant raise in status. Please tell me which terrorist organization would NOT want to claim they were behind such a feat!? To be the ones who actually hit America!
It almost seems like Osama caused more trouble by claiming he was behind 9/11 than was previously planned for. Afterall, its clear that 9/11 was a jumping point to Iraq, and it would have been so much easier to directly blame a faction in Iraq for 9/11, however, once Osama made the 9/11 claim, we had to pretend to follow that by going after the Taliban in Afghanistan etc...
That would also explain why Afghanistan slowly faded away from the front and the supposed link between Iraq, terrorist and 9/11 started to come into play.
Once the focus was firmly on Iraq, there was even more decrease on the focus of finding Osama...
just seems really odd imo.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I used to listen to all the conservative talk shows on the radio (a local one in Milwaukee in particular) but really got sick of the same routine in which anyone who calls in with an alternative or opposing viewpoint to the host's conservative line is not allowed to express his views and is then simply cut off and hung up on while the host then continues to personally attack the caller without rebuttal.

It's chicken sh!t and the Fox video here is yet another example and another reason I don't watch or listen anymore. If the government explaination of 9/11 is correct, why is Fox afraid to air Mr. Fetzer's 'alternative' theories? If the government explaination is correct it should be very easy to show that his theories are wrong. The problem is that it is in fact very difficult to answer the questions brought up by people like Mr. Fetzer and people that have to answer for the government have a difficult time disproving the alternative theories. It's much easier to cut him off and go to a commercial.

Great job Mr. Fetzer!

[edit on 14-7-2006 by mecheng]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
"It's much easier to cut him off and go to a commercial. "


The segment ran its full length
Cut to com my bleep,they let him rant because he looked like a mad man.They knew he wouldn't answer anything,and he didn't.Like I said earlier,It is to bad he didn't let colmes ask his questions.Still wondering about where he went so fast on thatUFO....LOL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join