Americans, fox and the scholars for 9/11 truth

ApeXaviour

Ok firstly this isn't about 9/11 conspiracies, that'd be for the politics board or paranormal or whatever.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2807.html

So what did Fox set out to accomplish by bringing him on? I don't think they take such decisions lightly given their obvious agenda.
Do they a) believe him to be a conspiracy nut and they can make some light entertainment by ridiculing him. Or b) that his claims, though they may hold some truth, will seem so ludicrous to their brainwashed american public that merely airing and exaggerating his research will inflict a loss of credit on his part.

On thatvideosite they lumped him into the category "Idiot", which lost me some respect for their editing webmaster (or does the uploader get complete control over the category?) given that he really is anything but an idiot. I concluded this after looking at his CV: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/completecv.html
If skimming it I'd just take note of the Professional Experience, Honours & Awards and Publications headings in it.

So my questions remain: why did fox bring him on? Do you reckon the american public are actually unwilling to listen to him and his collegues? As far as I see it the administration need only pay him no heed and let the people bury him with their torches and pitchforks. Are the american public really such an irrational mob?

Dirk Gently

It is puzzling that fox gave him air time alright. It wasn't exactly an in dept interview but it wasn’t a very good character assignation attempt on him either which I presume was why they brought him on. Maybe Murdock just lost a bet or else they plan to point to this couple of minutes of footage to rebuke anyone who claims they only promote neo-con friendly stories.

ApeXaviour

I'm not sure if I'm glad they didn't have hannity asking him questions. I doubt he'd have been able to contain himself from wreaking an emotional tirade of abuse at Prof Fetzer. It would have been wholly disrespectful to the man and would have delighted the rednecks, leaving them to send the academician good ol' patriotic hate mail. It would also however have further decreased most sane people's view of Murdoch's "journalism". Hindering their chances of getting other guests on in future. Instead they had the ever venerable new fox pundit Colonal Oliver North (who all credit too him, is a sly bugger and can hold his toungue), the man who sold weapons to Iran and channelled the profits to rebels in nicaragua.

No I'll agree it was neither indepth or a very good character assasination. Though its intention did (of course) seem to be leaning towards the latter. They really didn't let him go on enough for him to make any sort of point so apart from calling him a Professor (or hippy liberal commie ex-student) he would have got little credence from your average viewer. Though actually showing it hopefull got a couple people to look him up on the internet and at least put what they're investigating in the sunshine.

By the way just out of interest and on a tangent here is a professor of physics's wee paper as to why he finds the official accounts of many events of that particular day really rather dubious in their likelyhood.
http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/Why3Dec13.pdf
One thing I found especially interesting about this paper is how I'd never actually heard of WTC 7 (a smaller skyscraper near the twin towers) falling down 7 hours later.

Hobbes

I think the idiot is the reporter I mean, "Is this a training course?" :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Caught another story on it last night.

Turns out while he was in make-up he asked them to play the show to him on the TV. His introduction was about a conspiracy theorist teaching this stuff to thier children. He realised then he was expecting a stitch up, he wasn't on to talk at all but instead to be a scapegoat that is teaching kids immoral values. Glad to see he wasn't outfoxed.