Why scholars are propagating false theories?

[Mehmet Inan]

That question is still asked and it becomes more important to ask. Scholars for 911 truth are still propagating false theories and so creating more confusion. The founder of ST911, Jim Fetzer is still continuing to support such false theories.

 

"Comment by James H. Fetzer on November 25, 2010 at 4:49pm

No one is obligated to respond to anyone else. When you have something to say to which I have not already replied, I will consider making additional comments. But that is not the case at present. Thanks for asking. "

 

Here are some unanswered questions and that Jim is refusing to answer:

 

No plane theory: The main argument of no speed reduction during entry is false. The proof is physics law, well summarized by the calculation F=m*a --> a=F/m=dv/dt --> dv= F*dt/m, F is limited, dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small.

 

All available evidence is consistent with real B767 planes hitting the towers.

 

Mini nuke: That creates huge explosion; that will blow out whole building in one time. We did not saw something like that.

 

Pulverized hydrogen bomb: The explosion will start at one point and progress within less than one second into whole tower. We didn’t saw such unique explosion. With such explosion one can not produce top-down progressive collapse.

 

The demolition of the towers was made by a big number of explosives placed on required positions as explained in my power point at www.peace911.org

 

Why Jim remains silent and leaves people continue to propagate false theories?

[Thoth II]

Mehmet: "Finally I will be obliged to consider your group as disinformation."

Mehmet, I promise you, I have nothing to do with disinfo for this reason, and I hope you will ponder long and hard what I say here: I am a JFK truther and have suffered for 50 years from disinfo about Lee Oswald. Now I am sick and tired of all the disinfo and lies. I want nothing else left but the truth and the whole truth, and I have studied scientific method hard. I have concluded that scientific reasoning and method are the very best ways to "truth". We have discussed scientific technique here, and that is my whole belief system.

[Mehmet Inan]

Brian said: "Rather than brandish people as "wrong" I would invite you to look at the video I sent and clip above. Is this guy "wrong" to say the background has been removed from the NBC footage of the 2nd tower? If he is not wrong, then what is the reason for this video editing?"

The reason is simple: DISINFORMATION. Making the events so confuse that it becomes almost impossible to know what is the truth. And by supporting such individual video here, you are participating to the disinformation. We do not need to study every single fake evidence to know what's the truth. For the truth, we must focus and study interdependent strong evidences.

Whatever it's, www.peace911.org could be stopped from your country, in that case you can use an anonymous server to reach that web site which contains the TRUTH about 9/11. www.peace911.org

Thoth, I can imagine you are looking for the truth about JFK, I can also understand you are tired and sick. But continuing to propagate false theories does not help. Every theory which is proved to be wrong should be stopped definitely. And Jim fetzer is not making that. He continu to consider and propagate false theories like No Plane Theory or Directed Energy Weapon. ... That should be stopped.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

To Sandy Rose

I have for some months believed that the "no planes" idea has made good sense, in light of the massive evidence from video analysts research.
All of that is not important to me anyhow.

My forte is that the M(16) topmost alleged falling block could never, ever collapse the lower M(94), even if severed with a giant machete and then raised miles into the air and then dropped, still it could not collapse the total towers height. Mathematical Physics and Newton/s Laws confirm this. How they were exploded and with what, exactly, I can not be 100% sure of.
What I know is the energy, minimun, required to take down the towers is so stupendous that multiples or a large fraction of a (LBAB), nuclear bomb's energy was required, so this means many, many, many thousands of tons of TNT or C-4, or take your choice of conventional military explosive, was required, unfeasably.
One Little Boy Atomic Bomb is equal to 15,000 to 20,000 Tonness of TNT = 44,000,000 pounds, for just one LBAB. If more were used, then multiply that by the number of LBAB required...
so would that be a lot of manual work, which could have been done, but not very feasably, so that is why I feel and think mini nukes were used.
To disprove my research, one would have to independently come up with the physics and chemistry calculated energy requirements to bring the towers down. Until one person comes forward with this evidence I will pursue my own physics and chemistry analysis on this topic.

Has anyone in this group or any other 911 research group been able to calculate the required energy to bring down a tower: no, no, no. So somebody with their physics, engineereing, and chemistry background needs to do it and explain it in detail, minute detail, as I have been able to do and do it with simplicity and clarity.

Come on, let's see somebody do it.
Quantitative Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry is the correct way to proceed, unless you can get direct physical evidence, such as Neils Harrit has done on the Thermite.

I do not threaten to leave this research group because some people do not agree with me, I just keep pluggin away with trying to allow others to logically analyze my work and to make it simpler, more simple, and, hopefully, most simple, so that non-scientists and even scientists can see the light as I have seen on my science...

Do the research that you are capable of doing and those of us who are capable of doing the "hard-core" science will continue to do so.
If your science background is lacking, then educate yourself, even you researchers who claim to be scientists in one or possibly more scientific fields...



Mehmet Inan said:

Sandy,

I watched all videos, I measured the time to enter the building, ... I made all required study about UA175 entry into WTC2. I analysed the events on basis of physics law, writtent in the first post here up. The conclusion is that all damages are consistent with the entry of a 767 into WTC2.

The problem is that Jim, as the founder of ST911 and leader of the group, has the responsibility of checking the evidence and keeping only the strong evidences. Here, about NPT, the facts are all against that theory. That theory lead nowhere. It just makes ST911 a group of idiot people. That's unacceptable. At least, he can not escape the discussion.



sandy rose said:

hey, Chuck yeah, i shoulda specificated to you and Mehmet and in general that
i was responding to what Mehmet said about Jim Fetzer, A Number One Son.
Mehmet, i am interested in opinions of many, and you're not the first one to
question the no planes/other planes theory, it's a whacky one, but i was just
trying to imply that i agree with Jim Fetzer, of course that's just my opinion,
and we're all entitled to that. alll that the offishal story told us about planes was
false, pretty much, in my opinion. i think you would benefit from looking further
into it, and not just dashing the whacky no plane theories. please search the
Web Fairy, if you haven't seen it already, the 9/11 section. i haven't followed all
that you have said about planes, i just don't have the time, and the second hit
on wtc does look fairly convincable if you watch it at normal speed.. please take
the time to watch it in slow mo, etc. it makes a way difference.
i'm sandy, by the way, rose is my lastest name.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Mehmet,

Your approach to claiming people are propagating "false" theories is not the way to convince people that they may be "wrong". Your approach is tending to "alienate" members of this site as it appears that you are claiming to be the final judge of what may be considered the "correct" theories and research to be pursued.
This is not a "hard-core" scientific site, so to expect people on this site to agree with you and to understand your ideas and theories, and then agree with them is a bit to much to expect.
I would hope that members of this site would understand and accept my ideas and theories and some do, but I do not get upset if they do not.
Evidently your evidence is not strong enough or you have not explained it simple enough for our membership to accept your ideas as "final judgement" So, just keep trying to expand and to simplify your ideas and presentation research and maybe you will be able to win more converts to your "final judgement" theories. Your frustration and demanding attitude just will not work on the members of this site. Be patient and tolerant of other people's views.
Perhaps you should purchase the book by Dale Carnegie entitled: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" from Amazon.com.

[Mehmet Inan]

Nothing proves that NBC initial video was faked. We have not more access to that video.

Also, studying such videos while we did not make the truth about the events is wrong. The first event to study and the first question to answer is: HOW the strikes were made?

If the truthers did not explain that and they are spreading wrong theories, that means they are not investigating, they are just propagating wrong theories to create confusion.

And notice it clearly: Sooner or later, every people who made disinformation will have to answer his actions! Disinformation means COMPLICITY with the perpetrators. Scholars who propagate disinformation will have more difficult to justify their wrong action.



Brian Horsfield said:

Mehmet said:
The reason is simple: DISINFORMATION.

You mean that NBC faked the video on the day to confuse us? Or are you saying it is not faked? If so how do explain that the two videos appear to come from the same camera, or at least cameras positioned very close to one another? It may well be disinfo, but in this case it's coming from NBC not 911 truthers.

[Mehmet Inan]

Chuck,

I am not looking to get friends; I am making an investigation on 9/11. If your deal is finding friends, you should go on facebook.

Here you are on a scholars’ forum normally willing to investigate on 9/11. As scholars, you should study all shown evidence and argue scientifically for or against it. If you remain silent and continue your own dogmas without considering all strong arguments against your theories, you become a disinformation agents or professionally incompetent people.

Here up, I gave you strong arguments destroying three theories of ST911, and nobody is able to debunk my arguments, but you continue your own dogmas as usual. That is not a scholar behavior; that is disinformation behavior.

But you still have time to answer, here are the arguments again:

No plane theory: The main argument of no speed reduction during entry is false. The proof is physics law, well summarized by the calculation F=m*a --> a=F/m=dv/dt --> dv= F*dt/m, F is limited, dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small.

All available evidence is consistent with real B767 planes hitting the towers.

Mini nuke: That creates huge explosion; that will blow out whole building in one time. We did not saw something like that.

Pulverized hydrogen bomb: The explosion will start at one point and progress within less than one second into whole tower. We didn’t saw such unique explosion. With such explosion one can not produce top-down progressive collapse.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Your simple formula does not say anything about the mass and strength of the steel building, therefore your argument merits an "F" in my grade book.

The real disinformation is that your basic physics logic is flawed on the plane alleged reality based entry. Be careful not to make a fool of yourself. I suggest you look at your basic physics again. This is a collision momentum problem. When you get it straight, review your basic collision and conservation of momemtum, then come back to us.
Try not to make a fool of yourself again.

You are a bit outrageous inferring or even accusing members as being disinformation agents. I, at this time view you as an incompetent physics research agent.
I think your arguments are going nowhere. You are becoming a nuisance. I do not believe that we would miss your input is you decided to go elsewhere to other sites.
I have some extra physics texts if you need one...

Mehmet Inan said:

Chuck,

I am not looking to get friends; I am making an investigation on 9/11. If your deal is finding friends, you should go on facebook.

Here you are on a scholars’ forum normally willing to investigate on 9/11. As scholars, you should study all shown evidence and argue scientifically for or against it. If you remain silent and continue your own dogmas without considering all strong arguments against your theories, you become a disinformation agents or professionally incompetent people.

Here up, I gave you strong arguments destroying three theories of ST911, and nobody is able to debunk my arguments, but you continue your own dogmas as usual. That is not a scholar behavior; that is disinformation behavior.

But you still have time to answer, here are the arguments again:

No plane theory: The main argument of no speed reduction during entry is false. The proof is physics law, well summarized by the calculation F=m*a --> a=F/m=dv/dt --> dv= F*dt/m, F is limited, dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small.

All available evidence is consistent with real B767 planes hitting the towers.

Mini nuke: That creates huge explosion; that will blow out whole building in one time. We did not saw something like that.

Pulverized hydrogen bomb: The explosion will start at one point and progress within less than one second into whole tower. We didn’t saw such unique explosion. With such explosion one can not produce top-down progressive collapse.

[Mehmet Inan]

If what you say is true (I did not check it), on such video, with a city background, the plane may be invisible. To make it visible, they increased its size, and instead of showing a real plane, they only put a black ball. Does that mean the plane was not there, and all videos of that second plane were fake? Definitely NOT!



Brian Horsfield said:

Mehmet Inan said: Nothing proves that NBC initial video was faked.

The 1st NBC video is live from the morning. The second is from the evening with identical camera angle and should have all the background of New York harbour which is missing. And a plane is inserted in the evening video. Clearly this is video editing. It's not possible that these are 2 cameras with different camera angles as the building features are identical. This is a smoking gun of 9/11 which needs thorough investigation.

[Mehmet Inan]

Chuck Boldwyn said: "Your simple formula does not say anything about the mass and strength of the steel building, therefore your argument merits an "F" in my grade book."

This is the only argument in your answer. The available force is not only the building's resistance. It's also limited by the plane's resistance. In the plane, the only strong parts are situated between the engines, al other parts, including the fuselage are extremely weak and unable to create any resistance to the impact. So the plane is broken in thousands small parts.

For the resistance of the building, only the outer columns are to be considered, and these ones at the considered high floors are very weak. Still stronger than the fuselage, but with the impact of the strong part, situated between the engines, these columns are unable to resist. That's what we saw as damage.

Chuck Boldwyn said: "The real disinformation is that your basic physics logic is flawed on the plane alleged reality based entry. Be careful not to make a fool of yourself. I suggest you look at your basic physics again. This is a collision momentum problem. When you get it straight, review your basic collision and conservation of momemtum, then come back to us.
Try not to make a fool of yourself again."

Before threatening my work as flawed, you should really consider the formula I gave.

Chuck Boldwyn said: "You are a bit outrageous inferring or even accusing members as being disinformation agents."

After so longtime questions I asked and you remain silent or avoid the discussion, you must expect that I will consider you as disinformation agent, and so COMPLICIT with the perpetrators, and participating to the accusation of Muslims, like me, to be the terrorists who made 9/11. That's unacceptable for me, but also for whole humanity except the complicit people of the strikes.

Chuck Boldwyn said: "I, at this time view you as an incompetent physics research agent."

Such accusation does not reach me. I know my abilities and faults. You should keep it for yourself.

Did you ever thought what kind of disinformation is your 150KTON underground thermo-nuclear explosion is! Yes, that photo and theory is really disinformation made by you, and you still keep it, you continue to propagate such foolish theory 9 years after the strikes.

Chuck Boldwyn said: "I think your arguments are going nowhere. You are becoming a nuisance. I do not believe that we would miss your input is you decided to go elsewhere to other sites."

The only nuisance is disinformation agents like you. And since months I just verified that completely. Now, it becomes clear and sure that you are disinfo. Was that the reason of non success of ST911 in 2006? Probably. And probably nothing will come from 9/11 truth groups which are mostly controlled by disinfo agents.

There was still one group I had to check, ST911 and Jim Fetzer. And now, this is also made.

Will Jim Fetzer still remain silent?

[Shallel Octavia]

"Why Jim remains silent and leaves people continue to propagate false theories?"

Mehmet, this is a forum. It is a place for people to post and discus theories. If posts are censored not much discussion will occur, and our goal of reaching the truth cannot proceed. I applaud Jim for being a true scientist who does not censor information if it is not his own belief. All relevant data must be accounted for. You cannot discard the data you do not like and expect to be credible. You are not only suggesting poor science, you are demanding poor scientific procedure on someone else's forum. Jim is far from silent. He has answered you many times. You are using ad hominem attacks because your science doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You are pulling it out of your ass.

"F is limited, dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small." Utter nonsense.

[Mehmet Inan]

These videos are not coming from NBC web site. So all may be fake. You should reconsider what I told.



Brian Horsfield said:

Mehmet Inan said:If what you say is true (I did not check it), on such video, with a city background, the plane may be invisible. To make it visible, they increased its size, and instead of showing a real plane, they only put a black ball. Does that mean the plane was not there, and all videos of that second plane were fake? Definitely NOT!

What? You did not check to see the video I posted a link to? Or even look at the picture I posted and you reposted? You are revealing yourself to be no serious investigator at all! Look at the picture! It shows two frames of the South Tower - one from the live NBC broadcast with New York Harbor in the background. And the second one from the NBC evening broadcast from identical perspective, and most likely the same camera, yet sky in the background and no harbor. You say definitely there was no video editing yet you don't even bother to watch the video? Please watch it, then give your explanation as to why the New York Harbor is not visible in the evening NBC footage of the south tower.

Link: http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

[Mehmet Inan]

Jim and nobody else replied to this: dv=F*dt/m =>F is limited, dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small.




Shallel Octavia said:

"Why Jim remains silent and leaves people continue to propagate false theories?"

Mehmet, this is a forum. It is a place for people to post and discus theories. If posts are censored not much discussion will occur, and our goal of reaching the truth cannot proceed. I applaud Jim for being a true scientist who does not censor information if it is not his own belief. All relevant data must be accounted for. You cannot discard the data you do not like and expect to be credible. You are not only suggesting poor science, you are demanding poor scientific procedure on someone else's forum. Jim is far from silent. He has answered you many times. You are using ad hominem attacks because your science doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You are pulling it out of your ass.

"F is limited, dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small." Utter nonsense.