Oct 202013
Congratulations to Martin Hanson and Roger Morris whose fine letters were published in the Golden Bay Weekly 18 October in response to the letter below from Martyn Fisher. 
Congratulations to Martin Hanson and Roger Morris whose fine letters were published in the Golden Bay Weekly 18 October in response to the letter below from Martyn Fisher.
Martyn Fisher’s letter typifies the response of the MSM to reasoned argument and, ironically, strengthens the case for a genuine inquiry. Phillip Rose wrote a first class rebuttal of Fisher’s vacuous diatribe, but unfortunately it wasn’t published. In fairness, the GBW is a local paper catering for local events, and it is to the editor’s great credit that the issue received the coverage that it did. Another point worth noting is that most of the letters to the GBW are well written, suggestive of a higher than average ability to think independently of the MSM. Here is Phillip’s letter:
Thanks to the GBW for presenting a series of letters relating to the crimes of 9/11. The ongoing discussion revolves around Martyn Fisher, who takes an opposing view to all the other correspondents. What epithets does Mr Fisher have for 9/11 Commission panel co-chairs, former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and former congressman Lee Hamilton? They both accused the CIA of (quoting Wikipedia) “making a conscious decision to impede the commission’s inquiry after the agency received a memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelikow, the panel’s former executive director.” Mr Hamilton has famously said that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail”. By questioning the official report, the 9/11 Commission co-chairs must be included among the tens of millions of people who call for a genuine investigation into 9/11.
While your other correspondents cite facts, Mr Fisher resorts only to crude logical fallacies. He uses the Straw Man fallacy several times by misquoting other correspondents, then mocking the obviously ridiculous assertions he just invented. He makes liberal use of ad hominem attacks (“adolescent anarchists”, etc.) and even calls the other correspondents “gang members”. For someone who (supposedly) held a position of some responsibility in Manhattan, his verbiage is emotional, cranky and irrational, not reasoned, logical and articulate. He is incapable of summoning any factual arguments, only childish insults.
Those of us who question the official 9/11 myth welcome coherent and respectful debate with supporters of the official myth. If there is anyone out there matching that description, please come forward!