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.

 

Dr. James Fetzer: Historical & Philosophical questions

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Dr. Fetzer,

May I be the first to thank you for taking the time to appear here on ATS and discuss your views with our community, and for your work thus far in exposing those aspects of the 9/11 attacks that indicate the complicity of corrupt members of authorities and private interests.
It is my sincere hope that your contributions here, augmented as they are by the collective credentials, expertise and research of the Scholars For 9-11 Truth, will go some way towards clarifying specific aspects of the phenomenology of the event that can be relied upon by members in making arguments against the "official" conspiracy theory.

It is my intention actually to divide my questions into two broad topical areas, which I will separate into two threads, in which I hope to call discretely upon your expertise as a historian and philosopher and your knowledge of the physical sciences separately. Any further questions that arise I shall post on another thread hopefully utilizing your capacities in both respects.

I will begin on this thread with my questions that speak to the former set of your credentials.

And my apologies in advance for the length of this post – I have attempted to formulate my questions in such a way as to highlight the specific facets of the issue raised that I feel are interesting and conducive to fruitful discussion, and of necessity this has required me to be a bit long winded, but please by all means speak about anything you feel is relevant in your answers!




Question 1

I am sure that many here on this forum, particularly those who do not believe the official account of the events of 9/11 to be truthful or exhaustive, have variously heard the term "conspiracy theory" used by proponents of the official account to deride or undermine the validity and/or veracity of the arguments and evidence presented by them.
This has also obviously for some time been a convenient device used by mainstream media in particular to stigmatise and anathematise those with such views as contradict the mainstream paradigm.

In your capacity as a senior academic in the fields of history and philosophy, could you please give comment to the above and voice your own opinions on this? In particular, could you please make specific reference to the prevalence and importance of conspiracies in shaping world history and how this is currently broached (if at all) in the educational system up to and beyond high school level, the reasons and mechanisms by which this term "conspiracy theory/theorist" has become a derogatory one in the mainstream, and your views on the general validity of the dismissal WITHOUT ARGUMENT of non-mainstream historical discussion such as this as mere "conspiracy theory"?

Although I am sure that many members here have their own understanding of the above, I believe that a person with your academic background is in a unique position to authoritatively speak on this issue to the benefit of all here.


Question 2

It is the view of many here at ATS that the 9/11 incident, given the available evidence and the known motivations, associations and actions of certain individuals prior to and following the event, was a "false-flag" operation conducted with the collusion of elements of the government and certain non-governmental organisations who have long been known to have a certain imperialistic geopolitical agenda.

In many of the heated discussions that rage over the above assertion on this forum and elsewhere, it is clear that many of its opponents' dismissals of this assertion as "mere conspiracy theory" rest upon either a complete ignorance or a willful denial of the historical precedent for such operations.

With reference to the issue raised in question 1 then, what is your view of the importance of the ample historical precedent (specifically implicating the US in such operations) in dispelling the "mere conspiracy theory" counter-claim voiced by opponents of the above assertion?
Given your view on this, do you believe that (again, in light of the available evidence and known behaviour and motivations of certain key individuals) on a forum such as ATS the burden of proof currently lies with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" or with the supporters of the “official” account?


Question 3

The description of the individuals and groups working to shed light on the events of 9/11 and other related and unrelated events as the "truth movement" is in evidence in both discussion forums such as ATS and also increasingly in references made to them in the mainstream media. The implication is that this "movement" constitutes the nucleus of activism aimed at revealing the parties that this “movement” collectively determine to be the true culprits, and bringing them to justice.

Numerous members of ATS have expressed the opinion that there is currently an organised counter-intelligence (or “information warfare”) campaign being conducted by parties which are embedded within the intelligence services (and/or by private companies contracted to conduct such work) to obfuscate and undermine genuine discussion and investigation into the events of 9/11 by the use of mis/disinformation and other tactics (on internet discussion forums for example), including the compromise of key individuals within the "truth movement" and their subsequent use as organs of the said mis/disinformation.

Again with your knowledge of history, could you comment on your estimation of the likelihood of this being true, making reference to historical precedent for such operations and the role they have had in previous events of political importance? Could you include in your answer, if possible, your views on how we can best identify such individuals in such an anonymous forum as ATS?




Thank you once again for your efforts and your time, Dr. Fetzer, and I am sure that along with myself there are many here who would be very grateful for your insights into the above issues as they are of critical importance in almost every serious debate that occurs here at ATS, especially on the subject of 9/11.




Fulcanelli



PS: I will post my questions concerning the scientific analysis of the physical and other phenomena of 9/11 on a separate thread for your comment shortly.


[edit on 2-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 2-7-2006 by fulcanelli]




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
My paper, "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which is archived on st911.org (under "Peer-Reviewed Papers") addresses many of these questions. PLUS at least two very good pieces on "conspiracy theories" have just appeared as "Featured Articles" on the forum. So I recommend them. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is two or more persons collaborating to bring about an illegal end. Most American conspiracies are economic. The other side has gone off the deep end by objecting to research that it is unwilling to study. This has been so brilliantly done by Bill Douglas, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts" (13 July 2006) that I won't try to compete but instead recommend it. The additional piece by Jay Esbe, "In defense of the conspiratorial world view" (13 July 2006), is also excellent and well-worth the time. As for the history of "false flag" operations, Webster Tarpley is the expert, but it is all too apparent that, from the Maine to Saddam Hussain, the government has used lies and frauds to abuse the American people. They continue to this day. 9/11 is only the most spectacular. As for detecting infiltrators, I must say that I was not surprised to find the movement included many, but I was surprised by some of their identities. For those who are keenly interested in this, I recommend the two posts I have published about Jim Hoffman, which are archived at the bottom of the "Articles" section on st911.org. I could be wrong about him, but the available relevant evidence suggests that I am right. His case offers useful information for detecting others trying to defeat us.



 
0

log in

join