9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Sandy has suggested that we have a space for open discussion of topics that may be off-topic. That's fine with me. Let's see if the "Discussion" option will serve that purpose. Please give it a shot. Jim

Views: 1578

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mehmet,

you are making a believer of me. You answered the questions very well and at this point , I am inclined to think that your H (hypothesis) has made the top part of the list. I would totally agree with you if I were more of a demolitions expert and if more research were done to prove that the tritium is really disinfo. I know it is hard to sort out the real and fake data because there are so many disinfo people involved.

Thanks for the time to work this out. Someday, maybe everyone will believe that your demolition sequence is what really happened, so your research is important.
Thoth II said: “Mehmet, you are making a believer of me. You answered the questions very well and at this point , I am inclined to think that your H (hypothesis) has made the top part of the list. I would totally agree with you if I were more of a demolitions expert and if more research were done to prove that the tritium is really disinfo. I know it is hard to sort out the real and fake data because there are so many disinfo people involved.”

Yes, there are so many disinfo agents. I understand. People do not more know what’s true and what’s wrong. That’s the consequence of the work of disinfo agents.

Do you understand how important is to clean up all our theories! If people were really sincere, they’ll speak out and remove all wrong theories. Instead, people become silent when right questions are asked. If people become silent when key questions are asked, it’s very probably that they are disinfo agents. Because that means they are unable to answer, but they continue to push forward their wrong questions.

Thoth II said: “Thanks for the time to work this out. Someday, maybe everyone will believe that your demolition sequence is what really happened, so your research is important.”

As everybody, I can make mistake. And if anyone prove me that I made mistake, I am ready to change my opinion and revoke my claims. If we are really willing to find the truth about 9/11, we must all be able to make that. After several years of investigation, there is less and less unknown questions, even after so long time, I am ready to change my opinion.

Unfortunately, many other people refuse to change their opinion, refuse to tell that some of their theories are wrong. I am really sad with such situation. And when some leaders do such refusal and they become silent, I am very disappointed. I believe leader have no right to become silent face to some questions. Unfortunately many of them became silent. And their silence avoids the group to progress, they really stop the investigation to progress, they make the investigation stop.

For your case, you must follow your own opinion. Face to such conditions, everybody must know what he is following or not.
Military tribunals have tried 20 cases and convicted 3, so they have a 15% conviction rate.

The courts have tried hundreds of cases, and they have an 88% conviction rate.

http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/25767

The problem, as I see it, is that many of those people have been known all along to be innocent. I think most of them are sent to prison so that they can't write books or make movies about the torture they underwent.

The courts often tend to exclude evidence.

It has become an old familiar refrain, the U.S. government claiming that it cannot produce evidence in court because it might expose national security secrets such as their sources and methods.

But there are no secrets.

The methods are always the same. Innocent people are tortured until they confess to crimes they didn't commit.

Then, since the only "evidence" is the "confession" extracted by torture, a source is needed to corroborate it.

So the government looks for someone who is actually guilty of the most heinous and violent crimes and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Somebody who was caught red-handed after murdering people, for example, and who therefore has no hope of ever getting out of prison. The federal prosecutors then offer to commute their sentence, have them fully pardoned, and put them in the witness protection program, if they'll simply lie under oath and corroborate the "evidence."

The result is fascism's ideal of "justice," in that a guilty person goes free and an innocent person is sent to prison.

The only problem is that the government doesn't want to admit in court that it has no evidence other than that obtained through torture and suborning perjury.

So it claims there are national security interests at stake such as sources and methods.

But the sources and methods are always the same, and are well known. The torture manuals used at the Schoool of the Americas/WHINSEC have been published online.

Military tribunals are less apt to exclude evidence or allow perjured testimony, so they convict fewer innocent people.

I know it seems counterintuitive to want people tried in military tribunals rather than in federal courts, but our Justice Department and our courts have become so corrupt that a truly innocent person has a much better chance with a military tribunal.

In high profile cases, the judges in federal courts don't want the publicity or allegations of being soft on terror that might occur if a suspected terrorist was found innocent and freed. Many suspected terrorists were just rounded up at random after 9/11 and had no connections to terrorism whatsoever, while others were unfortunates who were turned in to U.S. forces for the huge bounties our government was paying in Afghanistan. People saw a chance to get more money than they could earn in a lifetime, so they turned in their enemies, strangers, and members of other tribes, none of whom were actual terrorists. Some of us remember the same thing happening in Viet Nam, where people would get even with their enemies, or get a rival's land, home, or business, by simply turning the person in to U.S. troops as "Viet Cong." The judges in military tribunals don't have to stand for election, so they are less apt to make decisions based on politics rather than on the facts of the case.

Our courts are even convicting people of terrorism when they had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists but some informant needed money and would pressure them into going along with some plan that the informant or the FBI devised, that the poor victims would never have thought of if they hadn't been entrapped by paid provocateurs.

It's a scam. The informants are desperate to turn up something so that they can stay out of jail and keep getting paid. So it is like somebody going up to a teenager and offering them drugs, the teen says, no, they aren't interested, the agent says, "Well, just try it," the kid says, "No," so the agent says, "Would you at least look at it? "and puts the drugs in the kid's hand, and then arrests them for possession. When you have the world's biggest gulag, you have to keep those prisons full somehow, and fascists and capitalists don't care how they do it. And when a government is spending trillions on a war on terror, it has to find some sort of terrorists to justify that budget.

We're the terrorists. First we stage a false flag operation to blame terrorists, then we invade countries that had nothing to do with it, then we use torture techniques that were specifically developed for the purpose of coercing innocent people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit, and then we run them through a "justice" system that is one of the most racist, classist, and corrupt in the world. The trials are part of the cover-up. Just a way to point the finger at the innocent so that the guilty can continue to profit from their crimes.
Jim,

I replied to your post here http://911scholars.ning.com/xn/detail/3488444:Comment:8042 since October 1, I also made other comments that require you answer and comment them. But since that time, you are silent. You may have less time, but my questions are strong, sincere and require answers. I hope, you'll take your responsibility as leader and take some decisions, give some comments and chose what route you follow.

Hope to hear from you.



James H. Fetzer said:
Mehmet, If you watch the first 20 minutes of "9/11 Ripple Effect", which is archived here and shows many videos of the hit on the South Tower, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3969310749489496889# you will see what I am talking about with regard to the manner in which the plane enters the building in violation of Newton's laws. The discussion in the film is about the "pod" and the electrical discharge as the plane reaches the building, but far more interesting is the way in which the plane effortlessly enters the building. As Scott Forbes observed from his vantage point, it was as though the South Tower simply "swallowed the plane". I would like to have your opinion on the physics of the interaction between them.

My latest presentation, by the way, if I have not mentioned it already, is at the London Symposium, "Debunking the "War on Terror'", which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ , where I discuss all of the issues that seem to divide us.
Here is a disturbing and apparently well-documented study. I would like to know what it has wrong about 9/11:
http://incogman.net/09/2010/the-zionist-rats-who-stabbed-america-in... It isn't polite. But it may still be true.
Jim,

I have to agree that the article is disturbing. I couldn't find fault with too many of the facts they pointed out. But I am not convinced of the conclusion that Netanyahu was the architect. I also believe that pursuing the "how" of the event will lead us to the "who" as knowing how allows us to eliminate suspects.

James H. Fetzer said:
Here is a disturbing and apparently well-documented study. I would like to know what it has wrong about 9/11:
http://incogman.net/09/2010/the-zionist-rats-who-stabbed-america-in... It isn't polite. But it may still be true.
I'm an atheist, but having been born and raised Jewish, I'm usually very quick to dismiss something as anti-Semitic if it isn't logical and doesn't make sense. I couldn't find fault with that article. The facts are correct as far as I can tell, and I don't see any unfounded conclusions being drawn, but I didn't study it, I just skimmed it.

There was a guy who said that he had proof that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were real, and not a forgery, because they had been found to be a forgery in court. He said that there can't be a forgery unless the real thing exists, so the Protocols had to be real. That didn't make sense to me. I figured if I forged a million dollar check to myself from him, was he going to go into court and claim it was a forgery? If so, by his own "logic" a real check must exist. Which is absurd. So I don't know if the Protocols are real or not, but I know that guy wasn't making sense.

I just finished reading, Albert D. Pastore's book, Stranger Than Fiction, and I didn't have any problems with it. Jewish gangsters are nothing new; Murder Incorporated was Jewish. The genocide-for-profit industry has been the basis for the United States since it was founded, and Israel and the U.S. are staunch allies because they're in the same business. If a decent person has the misfortune to be born into a KKK, Mafia, neo-Nazi, or other fascist family, they distance themselves from it as soon as they're old enough to be able to. I became an atheist at age seven, when I decided that no deity worthy of the name would countenance such disparate conditions as existed among the children of the world, so therefore there was no deity, at least not one worthy of the name.

Off topic, but there were a couple of interesting things in the news. Officer Bubbles, the cop who harassed a protester for blowing soap bubbles, is suing YouTube over some cartoons that made fun of him. It's a really stupid thing to do, as now he is once more a laughing stock on the internet. And Ginni Thomas, Clarence Thomas's wife, wanted to ask Anita Hill for an apology for saying Justice Thomas had sexually harassed her, which is an even dumber thing to have done, as Anita Hill refused to apologize and C-Span is re-airing the testimony from the Thomas confirmation hearing. At least one guy apologized for attacking Anita Hill, and it was pretty obvious that she was telling the truth. So, even if justice is served nowhere else, on the internet it becomes possible.

There was also an interesting item about 9/11. I saw a Tweet a few hours ago saying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has announced that he will set up an impartial commission to investigate 9/11. On October 14th he had asked the United Nations to do it, but he has apparently realized that they are neither independent nor impartial. So this should be very interesting. If this is true and it actually happens, I hope Jim has an opportunity to either testify, advise the investigators, or submit documentation that might help them.
Almost all events are true. But all these evidences are meaningles if the question "HOW they made 9/11?" is not answered. You can fin the answer to that question in my power point http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

My answers to the "HOW" question are also leading to Mossad and in very smaller part to non-jew americans inside Bush Administration.

That explanation of "HOW they made 9/11?" contradicts some theories that ST911 and Jim Fetzer are supporting. These false theories are DEW (Directed Enery Weapon), NPT (No Plane Theory), Mini Nuke theory, ... I am very disturbed by the support of ST911 to such wrong theories. I can not accept such wrong theories in scholars groups. Because that shows two possibilities:
- ST911 is a disinfo group: I refuse to accept such idea. If that status quo situation continues, I'll be obliged to accept that idea.
- ST911 is full of non professionnal people : I also refuse to accept such idea. But if that status quo situation continues, I'll be obliged to accept that idea too.

If we are sincere in our work, we must clean up all our wrong theories as soon as possible, practically before end of the year. If we fail to do that, I'll definitely stop my collaboration to all groups, including ST911.



James H. Fetzer said:
Here is a disturbing and apparently well-documented study. I would like to know what it has wrong about 9/11:
http://incogman.net/09/2010/the-zionist-rats-who-stabbed-america-in... It isn't polite. But it may still be true.
There is another possibility, Mehmet. There is the possibility that the theories you believe are false, are actually true.

But you can't accept that because you believe that they're false. That means that you are a religious person who believes in miracles. You believe that the soft aluminum nose cone of a plane, which can be damaged by something as soft as a little bird, can enter a concrete and steel building and come out undamaged on the other side. You believe that planes which cannot exceed their speed and maneuverability limits, somehow did so on 9/11. You believe that the laws of physics were suspended for a day. Because of your unscientific beliefs, you are unwilling to look at the scientific evidence, because you BELIEVE it to be false.

The professional pilots on pilotsfor911truth.org have flown those same planes for many years and they know what those planes are capable of doing and are not capable of doing. To believe that those planes did what those planes cannot possibly do, is like believing that horses can run 600 miles an hour. They can't. It simply isn't possible. But to those who believe it true, anything is possible because of the miracles of divine intervention. Divine intervention had nothing to do with 9/11.

Those planes could not have flown at the speeds and altitudes the government claims they flew, or performed the turns at those speeds and altitudes that the government claims they did. Not without miracles caused by divine intervention, and that is not scientific. Those planes could not have caused the damage the government claims they did. Not without divine intervention, and that is not scientific.

Your beliefs will not allow you to look at the facts. But accusing others of spreading disinformation or being unprofessional because they don't share your unscientific beliefs just makes you look silly.

If President Ahmadinejad's commission investigates 9/11, they will find no evidence of planes, because there is no evidence of planes. The only "evidence" is of conflicting films that show impossible things, like a plane passing through a building instead of smashing into it the way that a real plane would. When an airplane hits a building, even a small wooden building, the plane falls down, the building does not. There is a lot of photographic proof of that on some of the websites that you won't look at because you prefer to believe in miracles.

When a person believes in miracles, it is useless to try to appeal to reason, because reason conflicts with the belief in miracles.

There were no planes.

And since normal methods of controlled demolition would leave a lot more intact debris than there was on 9/11, something other than normal controlled demolition took place, or something in addition to controlled demolition, and it wasn't a miracle. The strange damage to the cars in the area wasn't caused by conventional explosives, and that damage isn't just a coincidence, unimportant, or another miracle. Dismissing the facts that get in the way of your beliefs is very unprofessional, and insisting that things that couldn't happen, happened, is just a way to support the government's cover-up of 9/11.

Jim mentioned his London talk several times and we've given you the link to the videos: http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/

Apparently you won't watch it because you don't want the facts to get in the way of your beliefs. That's sad and very unprofessional.
I'll take this to another level: Assuming the information about Mossad and Israel complicity in 9/11 is accurate then what better place to hide the facts than on a Nazi web-site? Who's going to take the matter seriously?

If I were Netanyahu I'd have paid money for those awful bastards to post their findings. Best way to discredit a theory is to have a group of racist jerks promote it.

If this keeps on going on here I may start defending the Israelis for taking down the towers. Assuming they did. Not quite but closer...




Dean said:
Jim,

I have to agree that the article is disturbing. I couldn't find fault with too many of the facts they pointed out. But I am not convinced of the conclusion that Netanyahu was the architect. I also believe that pursuing the "how" of the event will lead us to the "who" as knowing how allows us to eliminate suspects.

James H. Fetzer said:
Here is a disturbing and apparently well-documented study. I would like to know what it has wrong about 9/11:
http://incogman.net/09/2010/the-zionist-rats-who-stabbed-america-in... It isn't polite. But it may still be true.
So you don't like Nazis, Lee? I don't either. But not because of their skin color, ethnic heritage, beliefrs, or cultural heritage. I dislike Nazis because they're fascists. They wage wars of aggression, stage false-flag incidents like the Reichstag fire and 9/11 to justify their wars of aggression, and they're generally unpleasant thugs who lie, kill, and have no respect for others. Just like the people who did 9/11. So I have no respect for them because they're fascists, terrorists, and mass murderers, whether or not they are Jewish or Israeli.

On what basis would you defend the Israelis for taking down the towers, if they did, Lee? That they had, by taking down the towers, become no different from or better than the awful Nazi jerks you disrespect?

The United States is a fascist country, founded on the genocide of Native Americans by colonialists and imperialists, and it prospered through the massacres and displacement of native peoples in Latin America for the benefit of private capital. A government that acts on behalf of business is fascist. I don't like fascists of any stripe.

I'm sure it is possible to dislike Nazis, but to respect, admire, or defend other fascists, but only on the basis of prejudices and beliefs, not on any rational, logical, or common sense basis.
I don't know if the Israelis were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Nor would defend them if they did. I just wouldn't take seriously any findings listed in a Nazi type web-site such as the "disturbing" link produced. And in fact the more I see people post and re-post certifiable Nazi web pages the more damage I see being done to the 9/11 truthers.

This web-site is HIDEOUS: http://incogman.net/09/2010/the-zionist-rats-who-stabbed-america-in...

Why was it necessary to depict Larry Silverstein as a "rat"? What good purpose did that serve?

Again: Benjamin Netanyahu should send money to that HIDEOUS web-site begging them to keep up the racist, anti semitic stories and pictures. Plays perfectly into the Israelis hands.



Mark E. Smith said:
So you don't like Nazis, Lee? I don't either. But not because of their skin color, ethnic heritage, beliefrs, or cultural heritage. I dislike Nazis because they're fascists. They wage wars of aggression, stage false-flag incidents like the Reichstag fire and 9/11 to justify their wars of aggression, and they're generally unpleasant thugs who lie, kill, and have no respect for others. Just like the people who did 9/11. So I have no respect for them because they're fascists, terrorists, and mass murderers, whether or not they are Jewish or Israeli.

On what basis would you defend the Israelis for taking down the towers, if they did, Lee? That they had, by taking down the towers, become no different from or better than the awful Nazi jerks you disrespect?

The United States is a fascist country, founded on the genocide of Native Americans by colonialists and imperialists, and it prospered through the massacres and displacement of native peoples in Latin America for the benefit of private capital. A government that acts on behalf of business is fascist. I don't like fascists of any stripe.

I'm sure it is possible to dislike Nazis, but to respect, admire, or defend other fascists, but only on the basis of prejudices and beliefs, not on any rational, logical, or common sense basis.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service