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: 3015

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing, particularly if it happens not only to be wrong, but to endow its owner with a feeling of smug superiority bordering on hubris."

I agree with this. Which is why I've worked myself hard to learn from philosophers such as Jim how science works. In his books and radio appearances he outlines different methodologies of science and how each works, such as abductivism. There are also "logical fallacies" that must be avoided. Unfortunately, in my opinion, almost no one out there has a clue about this stuff and thus are falling into the above trap you allude to, plus all the other false ways of thinking. If the educational system must indoctrinate people who are youths , why don't they do it with correct logical thinking and scientific reasoning? Could it be that the powers in charge of education are stooges of the elites who are intentionally dumbing the society down to create all this confusion? I mean, look at JFK, that is 50 years old. That one is still being hidden on history channel, etc., and many youth are undoudetedly falling for the HS.

Speaking of a little knowledge leading to hubris, this might be a good opportunity to slam Vince Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History. Jim DiEugenio at ctka.net has a 10 part detailed critique of this massive folly. But to me, this hubris idea is the core of the problem with Vince. He of course, was a great LA -DA and I personally think he was an incredibly good and ethical lawyer, and I respect him personally, plus I read Helter Skelter many many times since 1974 (I keep "gluing" my copy back together again, if I was a wealthy man, I'd just purchase 50 copies). But here is the trap: because he is a lawyer, he will tend to "special plead" if necessary (although I think he was perfectly ethical in all his criminal cases in LA including putting away that sob Charlie Manson). So when it comes to him 21 years ago to do a debate/book on JFK, and he is given his traditional role as "prosecutor of LHO" in the mock trial, of course he will go to his "special pleading" playbook. He will cite only evidence favorable to his case, and not cite all the contradictory evidence. I believe he has "hubris" here in the sense that he was on top of his game with his criminal cases, so he assumes that will translate over into expertise on JFK. But when he goes up, against, the work of a Dave Mantik, he is way, way out of his league on the medical evidence, and so must just ignore all that and resort to ad hominens, because he has nothing left in his arsenal.
Thoth II said: I'm Egyptian , ha ha, like my grandfather Thoth the first, philosopher under King Tut.

Well to openely tell what you are. Same as everybody knows I am Muslim. I refuse to hide such information.

Thoth II said: But seriously, I am just really trying to follow two fields of academics and apply them to 911 (a) philosophy including critical thinking and scientific reasoning, which Jim is an expert in ,

Well. I do the same, or I did (subject closed!). The subject is wide, but philosophy, religion and science work together, not in opposite.

Thoth II said: (b) physics , like Chuck Boldwyn is an expert in,

Yes. Chuck is right in his study of the thickness of the columns. I do not know if he led to any global scenario of the collapse? My deal was always to find the truth and explain how the events were made. My conclusions are in my web site htt://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

Thoth II said: and trying to apply those to all issues from JFK to 911 , etc., that is all I'm trying to do here.

JFK is too old. It is very difficult to find enough strong evidence. I have no evidence, but believe Donald Rumsfeld was member of the group who ordered the assassination of JFK.

But 9/11 is not yet old enough and it's possible to explain the facts. It's still possible to endict the culprits. The first step is clearing Muslims about these events. When this is done, then new investigation becomes possible. But for that, all the events must be explained first.
Mark E. Smith said: According to Mehmet, ... you're either Jewish or a disinformation agent.

My guess is imple: At least 90% of disinformation agents are Zionists. These are woring together.
1- The first disinfo agent was Dr. Bazant, a Tcheck Jew, the masterming of the demolition method od the towers.
2- The second disinfo agent was Tim Donald Timmerman, the only civil who lied to identify a B757 on the Pentagon.
3- The third is Pete Zalewski, who just acted like a simple sleeper cell agent.

9nnn- The 9nnnth disinfo agent is MES : Who infiltrated ST911.

Mark E. Smith said: Only fools judge by appearances and labels. Mehmet keeps saying that there were real planes, but that he doesn't support the government's story, which is that there were real planes. Confused, a little? There is no evidence of planes. A movie isn't evidence, particularly not a doctored movie showing an impossible event.

All evidences are true, you can not claim that thousands of eyewitnesses are unable to recognize a plane and an hologram. All measured evidences are consistent with physics laws. You still not explained us :

F=ma implies :
1- There is nothing enough strong in the plane to create a reaction force enough strong to make itself decelerate enough. The 4 inches thick concrete floor slabs, separated by 144 inches empty area, are some kind of cutters which will cut the parts of the planes like a knife in the butter without creating any significant reactive force able to reduce the speed of the plane within 0.25seconds.
2- To make any speed reduction, the force should remain some time, because the speed is the integration of the acceleration, we saw no speed reduction because the small force made by the plane’s nose and fuselage existed during so short time that the speed reduction is invisible.
3- Using equations, that means F=ma --> a=F/m --> dv= F*dt/m, with m very big, F meaningless, dt=0.25s, so dv is almost null. And that’s what we saw in the videos.

These arguments are true, and they prove that your arguments of absence of deceleration are meaningless, not scientific and should be definitely stopped.

4- The speed of the plane was about 380kts, perfectly possible by such plane at such altitude with closed slats especially with some descending flight.
Jim Fetzer,

Are you there, did you studied my arguments, do you have any answer? Do not consider that like a meaningless subject, I am extremely sincere and I am really waiting some answers from you.

You have two choices: Defend your claims or revoke your claims. Continue to support your claims while you refuse to defend them is not leader’s work manner.

I know you since nearly 5 years, end of 2005, remember that was the beginning of ST911; you must imagine that I am tired and not more ready to hear wrong theories.

If you continue to remain silent to all my requests, I'll begin to think that I was deceived like many members of ST911, and all 911 truth groups are disinfo.
Sure, Mehmet. Only the government's plane story is true and all the 9/11 Truth sites are disinfo. They must all be Jews because otherwise they'd believe the plane story like you and the government. The US government wouldn't lie, it doesn't support Israel, and if the government says there were planes, there must have been planes.

Five years you've been disrupting Jim's forum with your support of the government's plane story?

And no matter how much evidence you're shown proving it impossible, you still believe it because you did some mathematics based on a faked video.

If Jim isn't as disgusted with your ignorance, stubbornness, and cliosed mind as I am, he should be.
oh boy. got this from clg. the comebacks in my head are tripping over themselves.
hey, notice how the great book is coming out on 9th of 11th.

George Bush thought 9/11 plane had been shot down on his ordersMemoirs reveal former US president gave order to shoot down any hijacked planes before United Airlines flight 93 crashed

Share330 James Meikle guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 October 2010 12.15 BST Article history
George Bush initially thought United Airlines flight 93 had been shot down in Pennsylvania. Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

George Bush initially believed the only plane not to reach its intended target during the 11 September attacks had been shot down on his orders, according to leaks from the former president's memoir of his two terms in office.

Bush reveals that he gave the order for any further suspected hijacked planes to be shot down after the first aircraft were flown into the World Trade Centre in New York during the 2001 terror attacks.

He at first thought the crash of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania had resulted from this instruction, although it later emerged that passengers had stormed the cockpit as hijackers flew the plane towards the Capitol building in Washington.

The memoir, Decision Points, is due to be published on 9 November, in the aftermath of the US midterm elections, and Bush is already lined up for interviews on the Oprah Winfrey and NBC Today shows.

The Drudge Report website says the very personal book opens with the line: "It was a simple question: 'Can you remember the last day you didn't have a drink?'" as Bush deals with the well-known issue of his alcohol consumption.

His drinking has previously been said to have come to an end when he woke up with a hangover following his 40th birthday celebrations.

In a chapter about stem cell research, he describes receiving a letter from Nancy Reagan detailing a "wrenching family journey", but says: "I did feel a responsibility to voice my pro-life convictions and lead the country toward what Pope John Paul II called a culture of life."

Bush goes on to describes an emotional July 2001 meeting with the Pope, who had Parkinson's disease, at the pontiff's summer residence.

The Pope reportedly recognised the promise of science but implored Bush to support life in all its forms.

At the pontiff's funeral in 2005, Bush – after a reminder from his wife, Laura, that it was a time to "pray for miracles" – said a prayer for the ABC news anchor Peter Jennings, who had cancer.

The book is said to stay clear of criticising Barack Obama, and a source told the Drudge Report: "You will find the president strong, loving life, and ultimately at peace with the decisions he made."
sandy , yes that is quite remarkable.

I think basically that W was an example in history of an "idiot king" who was controlled from birth . That guy is so incompetent/dissociated from reality that he literally could have been fooled into thinking he was giving true order for shoot downs. His controllers may have been controlling him the whole time, letting him have his biggest worry whether to eat donuts or wheaties for breakfast. He behaved like a petulant child his whole presidency, which of course was stolen by Jeb in Florida for him.
yeah, big stupid idiot jackass. i know, it's tempting to think he was too dum for them
even to involve the dum ass.... but that is one idiot pig i can never forgive, even if
he was oblivious to what was really going on.
i have a hard time blaming anyone else more than it, except for of course our
fearless warmonger chainsey.

his stupid book might even tell a few tales that would help our case, but heck if
i'm gonna waste my gags reading the damn thing.
funny how he put the stuff in about the plane that wasn't, in shanksville. i think he
knew stuff, he just probly usually left it up to the ones who knew how to talk. i am
repulsed beyond words at his diddy, too. the sight of that thing brings up the hurls.

but i'lll NEVER let that little fucker off the hook, drinking or not. and i feel sure he
most likely drank all thru the insanity and still does, and the kicking it thing was a big bs.

wasn't the last line cozy, about living in peace or some hogwash. the little shit
doesn't even know the meaning of the word. i hope he is haunted beyond his scariest
dreams. there goes an awful, disgusting piece of gd shit. love, sandy.

always good to hear from you, Thoth II. don't be a stranger!
ps and i hope Oprah gets in one of her fiesty moods and takes a big sturdy
baseball bat and clobbers him over the head repeatedly. i'd tune in for that.
I really don't understand the hatred for Bush. I don't have any use for the sucker myself, but Obama expanded the wars more than Bush had, Obama gave more money to the rich than Bush did, Obama is the one protecting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang from investigation and prosecution (it was the Democrats, namely Nancy Pelosi who took impeachment off the table because they loved Bush and his agenda so much, which is why they always voted for everything he wanted, why Al Gore ordered the Senate Democrats not to sign the CBC petition challenging the fraudulent Florida electoral vote, and why Kerry conceded early to prevent the votes from being counted in '04), and while Bush said the Constitution was just a goddamned piece of paper, Obama went even further and renounced the Magna Carta, which has been law since the 13th Century, by announcing his assassination hit list.

While Bush was a drunk, a coke head, and a fool, Obama was a community activist, a Constitutional law professor, and is intelligent and well spoken. He has absolutely no excuse for being worse than Bush, yet he is. And I don't hear or see any visceral hatred of Obama.

I knew Obama was going to win long before the '08 election because I saw that the big corporations were giving him more money than they were giving McCain. The multinationals that rule this country know which party is more useful to them, although they do fund and support both parties to ensure corporate rule no matter which one is in power.

I think it must be some type of fetishism. Like the way that some people idologize movie and TV or rock stars. Some people seem to need celebrities to love or hate.

Clinton was the one who joined with Republican Bob Dole to push through free trade, and he also slashed social programs. He had no excuse for doing so, as there was a budget surplus at the time. That led to the outsourcing of American jobs and increased poverty.

Bush is slime but he didn't have much choice. His CIA-Rockefeller daddy's friends had bailed him out of trouble too many times. He couldn't make it on his own, so he ended up doing their bidding, and of course he prospered. Sure he's scum, but what else could he be? Clinton and Obama had no such handicaps. They weren't rescued from the gutter by powerful forced and then manipulated into thinking they were doing good when they were doing evil--they chose to do what they've done and they know the difference between good and evil.

I pity the fools like Reagan and Bush, but they were just slugs and puppets. I have no sympathy for the masterminds of evil like Clinton and Obama, because they had a full range of options and the knowledge and power to choose between good and evil, and they knowingly chose evil.

I myself have come around also for a visceral hatred for Obama, to be honest about it. You have him pegged correctly.
I think W was a dumb idiot/coward, but Obama is just a plain coward.

These are the least of Americans ruling the place, not the best of us, that is for sure. The last president I really really respected was JFK, because that guy really wanted to help the american people. He gave his life for his principles, and I think he knew he was going to get shot, because they were attacking him in meetings and undercutting his authority left and right. And I think Bobby also was going to get elected and expose this whole can of worms, which is obviously why the same cabal, maybe some of the same people, took him out.
Jesse Ventura hits his stride:

this week Jesse is really doing investigative journalism the way it should be done: his show on "Wall Street Conspiracy" is a must watch for all people on this blog. It shows the cozy relationship between Paulson and Goldman Sachs, and the depths of the corruption of the American govt. Watch for Ron Paul's tremendous statement featured on this episode.

Reply to Discussion


© 2023   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service