9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

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?

Views: 982

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mehmet Ignanrant, your truly are an idiot and funny too.
I guess we all will just have to tolerate you.
Your comments are really not worth replying too, so do not be suprised if everyone stops commenting back to you as it is a waste of time.

"Knowing that you are a fool and incompetent, that is the beginning of your wisdom"

Mehmet Inan said:
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?
Chuck Boldwyn said: “Mehmet Ignanrant, your truly are an idiot and funny too.”

Keep your insults for yourself, you deserve them at best.

Chuck Boldwyn said: “I guess we all will just have to tolerate you.”

You are wrong. I do not turn around. Since longtime I had one more question to answer: Is Jim Fetzer also disinfo, like Steven Jones?

The answer will be final on end of 2010, I promised to wait till the end of the year. I’ll do. But if no other clear answer, you can be sure the answer will be final.

He just has to remain silent and send his two service valets (Chuck Boldwyn and Brian Horsfield) to divert me. But that does not work. :)

Will Jim Fetzer still remain silent?

Yes, I think so. And he will be certified disinfo with all his friends.
Brian, My input here is just the TRUTH of 9/11. But you are unable to understand it. Sorry, this was wrong, I should say: You refuse to see the TRUTH, you prefer focusing crazy disinfo theories to create confusion and make the events impossible to understand. And I must accept, you are succeeding in that way. The main questions of this thread are still unanswered:
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




Brian Horsfield said:
Mehmet. So you now you say everybody here except you is a disinfo agent as well as Steven Jones? If I was the moderator here, I would be tempted to delete you and this entire thread as you seem to have nothing constructive to say.
dudee, (sa’dy), yes my time will be better elsewhere, far from disinfo theories; if you read better my precedent post, you’ll understand that I promised to leave. I will not remain collaborating into disinfo.

Yes, I know this is Jim Fetzer’s group. In December 2005, I was member of ST911, you were not. That makes 5 years I know Jim, and I wanted to believe that he was not disinfo. Unfortunately, I was disillusioned. The only possibility that remained for the perpetrators was using disinfo agents propagating disinfo theories. And they are succeeding. And Jim Fetzer is collaborating into that disinfo, same as Steven Jones and many others.

Do you imagine, 5 years of collaboration to “SHOLARS for 9/11 TRUTH”, and finish by such crazy disinfo theories with a leader who becomes silent when strong true questions are asked, who is unable to defend his theories before a simple Muslim researcher, and you imagine that he will be able to defend any theory before any justice court! This is a huge disinformation, deceiving people by using “SCHOLARS” title.

You are asking “Whom I work for?”: I was always working for myself, my family, my children, and for nobody else. Yes, by blaming Muslims on 9/11, USA and common Medias put in danger the life of my family who lives in a non Muslim country. My work was to study the subject and understand how the events were made to make justice about these events. As you can understand here up, I was expecting that SCHOLARS for 911 truth will make the actual job of investigation. They just made disillusion and deceiving people.

Now, I must ask “whom do you and Jim Fetzer working for? Why do you propagating such crazy disinfo theories? Why do you cover up the perpetrators? Why do you make yourself complicit with these horrible strikes? By asking these questions, I am 100% sincere! If you are also sincere, you should be able to answer these questions. But you will not be able. Disinfo agents are not sincere, so they become silent and continue their disinfo.



sandy rose said:
dude, (m'met) yer time might be better wasted elsewhere. you do know that
this is Jim Fetzer's group, yes? oh, if i were he, i would waste most
of the pretend people on this group and just leave the real ones. if
you are so disheartened by the folks at this group it must be bye bye time.
instead of the endless bickering, your time might be better invested if
you actually LOOKED at the god damn stuff. off with your head. your
insults are enough to get you bye byed. Jim is often too tolerant to off people
even when they irk him, you have spake your speak, now go do something else.
but nice to see the Others having their say. that's what we're here for, eh?
power to the people, right on.
who do you work for, by the way, just curious. is it the filthy pigs, by chance?
your mind is a wee bit too closed to absorb the actual truth. get thee hence.

yeah, mehmet, i get pretty peeved when people call 'us' disinfo when they

don't know their asses from holes in the ground.  i don't know what to

think of you at this point other than that you just don't know what you are

talking about.  i stand by Jim Fetzer and no (other) planers til my croaking day.



Mehmet Inan said:

dudee, (sa’dy), yes my time will be better elsewhere, far from disinfo theories; if you read better my precedent post, you’ll understand that I promised to leave. I will not remain collaborating into disinfo.

Yes, I know this is Jim Fetzer’s group. In December 2005, I was member of ST911, you were not. That makes 5 years I know Jim, and I wanted to believe that he was not disinfo. Unfortunately, I was disillusioned. The only possibility that remained for the perpetrators was using disinfo agents propagating disinfo theories. And they are succeeding. And Jim Fetzer is collaborating into that disinfo, same as Steven Jones and many others.

Do you imagine, 5 years of collaboration to “SHOLARS for 9/11 TRUTH”, and finish by such crazy disinfo theories with a leader who becomes silent when strong true questions are asked, who is unable to defend his theories before a simple Muslim researcher, and you imagine that he will be able to defend any theory before any justice court! This is a huge disinformation, deceiving people by using “SCHOLARS” title.

You are asking “Whom I work for?”: I was always working for myself, my family, my children, and for nobody else. Yes, by blaming Muslims on 9/11, USA and common Medias put in danger the life of my family who lives in a non Muslim country. My work was to study the subject and understand how the events were made to make justice about these events. As you can understand here up, I was expecting that SCHOLARS for 911 truth will make the actual job of investigation. They just made disillusion and deceiving people.

Now, I must ask “whom do you and Jim Fetzer working for? Why do you propagating such crazy disinfo theories? Why do you cover up the perpetrators? Why do you make yourself complicit with these horrible strikes? By asking these questions, I am 100% sincere! If you are also sincere, you should be able to answer these questions. But you will not be able. Disinfo agents are not sincere, so they become silent and continue their disinfo.



sandy rose said:
dude, (m'met) yer time might be better wasted elsewhere. you do know that
this is Jim Fetzer's group, yes? oh, if i were he, i would waste most
of the pretend people on this group and just leave the real ones. if
you are so disheartened by the folks at this group it must be bye bye time.
instead of the endless bickering, your time might be better invested if
you actually LOOKED at the god damn stuff. off with your head. your
insults are enough to get you bye byed. Jim is often too tolerant to off people
even when they irk him, you have spake your speak, now go do something else.
but nice to see the Others having their say. that's what we're here for, eh?
power to the people, right on.
who do you work for, by the way, just curious. is it the filthy pigs, by chance?
your mind is a wee bit too closed to absorb the actual truth. get thee hence.

Sandy,
 
I have no problem with you. I understand that you remain with Jim Fetzer, I do not ask you (not also for anybody else) to follow me. My problem is with Jim Fetzer who presents himself as the founder of ST911 (and that's true) and goes into such crazy disinfo theories. As one of the first members of ST911, that's unacceptable for me.

Before Jim Fetzer, I challenged Steven Jones about his thermite theory, and also concluded that he was disinfo. If Jim Fetzer continues to remain silent and supports crazy disinfo theories, both founders of ST911 will be disinfo. And that's a huge public manipulation which should not remain as it is. Justice must be done for 9/11 and for disinfo about 9/11.

You can imagine what you want about me. But before telling any insult, you should be able to debunk my work. If you debunk any argument included in my work (www.peace911.org) and I do not change it, then you are right to tell what you want about me. Not before such study. If you are unable to study or debunk my work, you should avoid telling any insult. Isn’t it?
 

"My problem is with Jim Fetzer who presents himself as the founder of ST911 (and that's true) and goes into such crazy disinfo theories. "

 

I contend that you have not studied Jim's work carefully enough to understand where he is coming from:  he comes from the truest place to find truth:  critical thinking, understanding logical fallacies, and methods of science .  He has spent decades applying these principles to subjects such as JFK, Wellstone, and 911.  This is the correct method, and it is yielding results.  Thank goodness someone with his background is on the scene, otherwise we'd have the same old banal fuzzy thinking that so dominates this world.  I've heard him being interviewed , and he frequently has to bring the interviewer "back to school".

 

 

Thoth, I also listened Jim's interviews, on many subjects I agree with him and I expected that he will discuss the subject, really investigate and act like a real scholar. Unfortunately he did not. He just escaped the discussion on many subjects while I really studied his arguments and really answered him by logical thinking and logical arguing. That's really a big problem for me. I can not accept scholar people refusing the study and clamping in his own ideas (his dogmas).

 

Since end of 2005, beginning of ST911, I studied and progressed too much about 9/11. ST911 helped too much. I changed tens of times my opinion, ... Finally the events are clear for me. Jim may not agree with me, but he must argue why, only with such communication we can progress. But he does not.

The remaining biggest problems are :

1- The pentagon strikes is a B737 made strike, not an A3, not a 757, not a missile, not an global hawk, ...

2- The planes on the towers were real ones and real B767s.

3- The towers were not demolished by hydrogen/nuclear/... kind unique bombs. They were demolished by thousands of explosives carefully placed on required places.

4- DEW of Judy Wood is false.

 

Mehmet,

 

just for clarity about where I stand on your 4 issues, and I've also studied these in great detail:

 

1-the pentagon and shaksville totally bore me , so I haven't studied these

 

2- you know I strongly disagree with you on the no planes, and so do KT, webfairy, Ace and other very expert video people, plus Jim is totally correct in that the physics of these videos is cartoon physics, plus the lack of identifiyable parts

 

3- I am still 50/50 on this:  you could be totally correct in your control demolition sequence, but I also think there is equal evidence for mini nukes at this point

 

4- I totally agree DEW of wood is false, that is just a fantasy.  First of all, DEW wouldn't absorb into the core metal that way, plus the blast waves of ejecta wouldn't go outward, they'd be assymetrical.  That is just her impression, but I think it is losing in the "race" of hypotheses.  

 

So we disagree on some issues, agree on others.  What is the big deal?  Why are you so set in your ways?  Science is constant progress like this and Hypotheses are constantly being evaluated against the evidence.  Science is never "final" only tentative.  Why are you so set in making a "final" decision on these things at this point.

 

And I'll tell you one thing, scholars are in no way spreading "disinfo" , we are following the scientific method properly.

Thoth,

 

Yes, science is continuously progressing. But the study of 9/11 is not the study of the nature, not the invention of new technologies! It’s just the study of specific events. So it should be finalized when the events are known, are fully known.

 

When studying such events, it’s like assembling a puzzle. At first we begin by the corners (easy evidences), then complete the borders (simple relation between the easy evidences), and then the complex things begin. In that step we compare colors, assemble similar colors together making bigger and bigger assemblies. Finally all assemblies are linked together to create the complete puzzle.

 

In that puzzle assembly, instead of creating bigger puzzle assemblies (=interdependent theories), most of the 9/11 truth movement members are bringing unrelated puzzle parts and put them inside the main puzzle. And we are wasting our time to separate extra puzzles from our main one. And they put such external puzzles as the main parts on the top of their work. That’s disinformation.

 

If you remove these external puzzle parts, the evidence will interconnect all strong theories and finally explain the events. That’s what I am making since the beginning. And that’s what most of the 9/11 truth members are not making. Especially Jim refuses to make such rational investigation. He is still keeping external puzzle parts inside the main puzzle and making it impossible to solve.

 

My English is not perfect, so you may not understand; I hope you do.

 

For example, the Pentagon strike: At first, I was following Meyssan’s theory. I began to investigate it deeply at the beginning of ST911, Jan 2006. In April 2006, it was clear that the plane was a B737. There was no doubt. All other hypothesis were not consistent:

-A3 skywarrior: too small, 10m wingspan instead of 29m.

- Missile : Impossible, the damages made by the wings are clearly visible on the façade.

- Global hawk : impossible, could be easily recognized by the eyewitnesses.

- B757 : Impossible, wingspan 125ft bigger than visible damage span, landing arm and FDR position is the debris is not consistent a real B757.

 

B737 is consistent with all known strong evidence : The damage span and the damage strength are totally consistent, the plane breaks exactly all light poles, it’s exactly hidden behind the box in the first released image, the presence of an explosion is consistent with the second released image and the “slab deflected upward area”, the exit hole, the available landing wheel image, the eyewitnesses could not easily recognize the difference between B757 and B737 within some seconds, one of them (Terry Morin) recognized a B737 … There is nothing more inconsistent with the B737.

 

Since end of 2006, SCHOLARS refused to study the subject. When I brought all evidences, they had no more argument, they invented one : We are not agree about the Pentagon, let’s wait some more evidence released. And since that time, we are stopped about the Pentagon strike study. In three months, Jan 2006 to April 2006, the problem was solved; 5 years later, in December 2010, the scholars are still undecided about it. And they refuse to discuss the subject. Which kind of scholars they are? Dogmatic scholars probably!

 

You told “Cartoon physics”: I was not considering that cartoon video, but when explained that some SCHOLARS are claiming that “the plane should stop and fall near the building”, people told me “like in the cartoon, the plane stops near the building, then fall down!”

 

Really, the NPT is a cartoon claim.

 

The demolition of the towers! Single explosion hypothesis is totally false. Progressive collapse is an evidence proved by all videos and eyewitnesses and pictures, …

mehmet, i haven't read all of your stuff, and don't care to, but i suspect

you and thusly ask you this, "WHO DO YOU THINK DID 9/11?"

something tells me that you belong on an i love warmongers group, not this one.

i don't trust you, and think you doth protest too much to be one of us.

 



Mehmet Inan said:

Thoth,

 

Yes, science is continuously progressing. But the study of 9/11 is not the study of the nature, not the invention of new technologies! It’s just the study of specific events. So it should be finalized when the events are known, are fully known.

 

When studying such events, it’s like assembling a puzzle. At first we begin by the corners (easy evidences), then complete the borders (simple relation between the easy evidences), and then the complex things begin. In that step we compare colors, assemble similar colors together making bigger and bigger assemblies. Finally all assemblies are linked together to create the complete puzzle.

 

In that puzzle assembly, instead of creating bigger puzzle assemblies (=interdependent theories), most of the 9/11 truth movement members are bringing unrelated puzzle parts and put them inside the main puzzle. And we are wasting our time to separate extra puzzles from our main one. And they put such external puzzles as the main parts on the top of their work. That’s disinformation.

 

If you remove these external puzzle parts, the evidence will interconnect all strong theories and finally explain the events. That’s what I am making since the beginning. And that’s what most of the 9/11 truth members are not making. Especially Jim refuses to make such rational investigation. He is still keeping external puzzle parts inside the main puzzle and making it impossible to solve.

 

My English is not perfect, so you may not understand; I hope you do.

 

For example, the Pentagon strike: At first, I was following Meyssan’s theory. I began to investigate it deeply at the beginning of ST911, Jan 2006. In April 2006, it was clear that the plane was a B737. There was no doubt. All other hypothesis were not consistent:

-A3 skywarrior: too small, 10m wingspan instead of 29m.

- Missile : Impossible, the damages made by the wings are clearly visible on the façade.

- Global hawk : impossible, could be easily recognized by the eyewitnesses.

- B757 : Impossible, wingspan 125ft bigger than visible damage span, landing arm and FDR position is the debris is not consistent a real B757.

 

B737 is consistent with all known strong evidence : The damage span and the damage strength are totally consistent, the plane breaks exactly all light poles, it’s exactly hidden behind the box in the first released image, the presence of an explosion is consistent with the second released image and the “slab deflected upward area”, the exit hole, the available landing wheel image, the eyewitnesses could not easily recognize the difference between B757 and B737 within some seconds, one of them (Terry Morin) recognized a B737 … There is nothing more inconsistent with the B737.

 

Since end of 2006, SCHOLARS refused to study the subject. When I brought all evidences, they had no more argument, they invented one : We are not agree about the Pentagon, let’s wait some more evidence released. And since that time, we are stopped about the Pentagon strike study. In three months, Jan 2006 to April 2006, the problem was solved; 5 years later, in December 2010, the scholars are still undecided about it. And they refuse to discuss the subject. Which kind of scholars they are? Dogmatic scholars probably!

 

You told “Cartoon physics”: I was not considering that cartoon video, but when explained that some SCHOLARS are claiming that “the plane should stop and fall near the building”, people told me “like in the cartoon, the plane stops near the building, then fall down!”

 

Really, the NPT is a cartoon claim.

 

The demolition of the towers! Single explosion hypothesis is totally false. Progressive collapse is an evidence proved by all videos and eyewitnesses and pictures, …

mehmet, (what's your real name?)  wrong.  i can tell you what i want

whenever i want.  that is the beauty

of this sort of group.

     and i hate to crush your big fat know-it-all bubble, but you don't get

to decide what is disinfo.  especially when you don't know what yer

talking about.  i'munna do a search on you and see if i can find out

what you really are, i'm not buying your front.  and wonder what the

hell you hope to accomplish.  don't be too crushed if you fail miserably, kay?
by the way, if your plan is to act like you don't know english, you should

do it all the time, not just once in a while.  i believe you are fraudulent.  b'bye.

tell your buddies bash and chains that they will suck dead cows in hell.

Mehmet Inan said:

Sandy,
 
I have no problem with you. I understand that you remain with Jim Fetzer, I do not ask you (not also for anybody else) to follow me. My problem is with Jim Fetzer who presents himself as the founder of ST911 (and that's true) and goes into such crazy disinfo theories. As one of the first members of ST911, that's unacceptable for me.

Before Jim Fetzer, I challenged Steven Jones about his thermite theory, and also concluded that he was disinfo. If Jim Fetzer continues to remain silent and supports crazy disinfo theories, both founders of ST911 will be disinfo. And that's a huge public manipulation which should not remain as it is. Justice must be done for 9/11 and for disinfo about 9/11.

You can imagine what you want about me. But before telling any insult, you should be able to debunk my work. If you debunk any argument included in my work (www.peace911.org) and I do not change it, then you are right to tell what you want about me. Not before such study. If you are unable to study or debunk my work, you should avoid telling any insult. Isn’t it?
 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service