In the case between Jim Hoffman vs. James Fetzer, here’s Hoffman’s tirade:
Hoffman:
1) Against st911.org generally:
ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence
2) Against James Fetzer specifically:
Review: Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK
Fetzer:
See also attacks on Hoffman:
Again I must say that I tend to follow the reasoning of Hoffman, and I don’t think that Fetzer is really addressing Hoffman’s points.
Also Fetzer is driving the conflict way too hard when he says that one of the combatants has to be a disinfo agent. Hoffman is simply pointing out the weaknesses of the choice of arguments of Fetzer and st911.org, but Fetzer’s ego is too large to accept the critique.
If I was pressed to point a finger at a disinfo agent in this conflict, I would point at Fetzer, and what I perceive as the whole ‘Loose change’ branch of the 911truth movement.
But I think it is important to remember that we in the movement have very different approaches to working with 911truth, and while I agree with Hoffman’s approach of eliminating weak arguments, in order to prevent strawman attacks, I must at the same time accept that the ‘Loose change’ approach of peddling any conceivable argument is also part of the movement.
The fact that I think that their approach is counterproductive doesn’t necessarily make them cointel.
Just as their belief that ‘my’ approach is counterproductive doesn’t make me cointel.
Obviously these two branches of 911truth wont agree anytime soon on the proper approach, so they’re going to have to learn to live in disagreement, and argue against each other, but without throwing the ‘disinfo’ card at any given opportunity.
All that said, I can see how the prize of the undercurrent of this interpersonal conflict between Fetzer and Hoffman, is ultimately Steven E. Jones.
Jones:
Fetzer and Jones has co-founded st911.org, whereas Hoffman and Jones plus Griffin are currently finishing the movie “Improbable collapses”.
Hoffman is clearly not happy about Jones’ association with Fetzer, and belive that Fetzer is actually working against the interest of Jones.
My advice to Jones would be to heed the warning of Hoffman, and distance myself from Fetzer.
I base this advice on my overall feeling that between Hoffman and Fetzer,Hoffman shows better judgement in his analyses.
In particular I’ve independently come to the same conclusion as Hoffman that the Silverstein ‘Pull it’ quote is strawman bait, and that it has already been put to effective use by the government in obscuring the arguments of the 911truth movement regarding the collapse of WTC7.
Fetzer is peddling the Silverstein quote as if it was an admission to the demolition of WTC7.
In my view that shows extremely poor judgement on the part Fetzer.
