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: 387

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Those theories are not be propagated as "fact" but only being considered until 100% verified as false. Many of the theories may be unlikely, but have not been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt as "false"
After calculating the energy requirements from the established and well agreed upon tower masses and also agreeing on the absolute minimum safety factor of "5" for NYC code and still considering the John Skilling "Live Load" safety factor and also knowing the thickness of the steel at top and at botton and basements, the minimum energy is in the area of multiple Little Boy Atomic Bombs.
If mini nukes were not used than prodigious tons of TNT or C4 or other explosive together with thermite were like used. Mini nukes of the neutron type seem to be the likely candidate to where the noise is muffled and the explosions are sheilded by the internal parts of the Towers.
We do not claim that mini nukes were absolutely used, just that the energy requirements were in the quantitative area of multiple LBABs.
Be careful about what you claim as absolute.
Please show all of your detailed math on your theory of the demolitins, pulverazations.
I do not see where people are claiming absolute knowledge of what happened and how it occurred, except for Dimitri Khalizov.
It will all play out to some conclusion in the end.
I feel that my theory is the best and most likely, but came not claim it as proven "fact".
If you do not believe in the Thermite, then read the paper:

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Thermite%20paper%20by%20Niels%20Harritt.pdf?w=dbc1a18a
And I do not see where you have proven no mini-nukes, no way...

The only real thing that I am sure of is the minimum amount of energy required to bring down the buildings. What exactly did bring them down is still up in the air.
Mini nukes may not have been used, but equavalent to multiple LBAB were used. How many I will be calculating soon and posting and disscussing them on my next interview with Jim Fetzer.


Please show me your detailed physics and math calculations of how much energy and how much explosives and which type or types were used, please do. We all want to know your quantitative input on this controversial area of research of which nearly no one, no body, can quantitatively and knowledgeably contribute to...
Chuck Boldwyn
actually his theories are correct. you might need to look a little closer.
Jim Fetzer A Number One Son.
Whose theories are correct? You did not say who...


sandy rose said:
actually his theories are correct. you might need to look a little closer.
Jim Fetzer A Number One Son.
Rose, Whom are you speaking about?


sandy rose said:
actually his theories are correct. you might need to look a little closer.
Jim Fetzer A Number One Son.
Brian,

The video of R. Halls is wery low precision and is meaningless. STudy on such wrong videos are also meaningless. The last proof is that Richard Hall is Jew, and that's a supplementary doubt for disinformation.
Before asking other question, you should comment my calculation of the absence of deceleration during the impact.

The planes were real, and all people supporting NPT are disinfo, or credule follower ignorants.



Brian Horsfield said:
I joined this forum a few months back in order to learn more about theories that are censored on other forums. For example the moderators on 911blogger told me they have a strict policy to ban all posts relating to no plane theories. I asked why the moderators would not post a comment about a recent analysis at: http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

I received this curt reply:

Please see:
http://0x1a.com/#Disinformation

and

http://0x1a.com/#[[No%20Planes]]

However I think his analysis is excellent to point out NBC for one have clearly used video fakery and doctored a video they showed live with no plane, to one with a plane in the evening news. Please see the video here: http://www.richplanet.net/911.php


I clipped a picture from the video above. I find this quite compelling and surprised my post on this forum drew no responses. So I post again here hoping others can enlighten me as to whether rich planet is onto something or not.
Brian, "I joined this forum a few months back in order to learn more about theories that are censored on other forums. For example the moderators on 911blogger told me they have a strict policy to ban all posts relating to no plane theories."

Brian you joined the correct forum, and that is why I am here too. I was attracted to Jim Fetzer's background in teaching and researching critical thinking , ethics, and scientific reasoning. It is key that we keep following correct scientific techniques if we are ever going to get to the bottom of this 911 truth. Other forums who block discussion are excluding hypotheses from consideration, and thus violating established principles of science. They are in essence special pleading like advocacy lawyers.
This note is for Mehmet Inan, You are badgering me, which is an unwelcome form of harassment. I have welcomed you here to speak your mind, not to badger me because I disagree with you. I know your believe what you are saying. That does not make your beliefs true. Kindly cease badgering me. I don't want to block you. Thanks.
Brian, " I am surprised and disappointed this has not caused more interest in the 911 truth movement."

My two cents on this, is that somehow 911 truth people can wrap their heads around exploding towers, but can't get what they saw on CNN that morning, a plane hitting the south tower, they can't get that out of their heads. I believe this is extremely dangerous: the TV sets have become surrogate parents to people since they were children. As I type this, I see into my neighbors window because he has a monstrous TV set blaring in there at all hours, but he never talks to me. The TV is his world all hours. He is a typical american, dumbed down so much by TV that he'd believe anything it says. So that's why I think 911 blogger etc. avoid no planes, it is too against their core belief that TV could never lie to them: no way could the planes be fake because we SAW it! ( I'm being sarcastic here because I am positive no plane hit that building from massive evidence I've seen over the years from KT, Webfairy, etc.).
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.
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.
Jim,

My deal is NOT bagering you or any body here. But I can not more accept the propagation of wrong theories. As the founder of ST911 and the leader of the group, you have the responsibility to check all evidences and all theories. By the time you should eliminate all weak and false theories and keep only the strong true theories that lead to the TRUTH. Unfortunately most of the 911 truth groups are propagating weak and false theories continuing to turn around the same theories without getting any propgress. Since 2001, if the groups were really making sincere professionnal work, removing all weak and false theories, we would have an extremely strong explantion of the events and we should be able to start lawsuits.

For me, that's a big problem. I can not more accept the propagation of wrong theories. If you refuse the discussion and the consideration of the strong scientific arguments, I can not more continue to be part of your group. Finally I will be obliged to consider your group as disinformation. Before getting into such conclusion, I need to ask you all strong questions and leave you teh time to answer them. That may look like bagering you, but this is not the deal. Though you should consider the evidences I gave. Aspecially the explanation why there could not be visible deceleration.



James H. Fetzer said:
This note is for Mehmet Inan, You are badgering me, which is an unwelcome form of harassment. I have welcomed you here to speak your mind, not to badger me because I disagree with you. I know your believe what you are saying. That does not make your beliefs true. Kindly cease badgering me. I don't want to block you. Thanks.
Brian, read my text again, tehre are some arguments. Have also a look to my power point that explains how the strieks were made : www.peace911.org .



Brian Horsfield said:
Mehmet there was no text in your reply. Do you agree the above photo, and video is pretty convicing that NBC mysteriously did video editing for their evening news broadcast?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service