Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Why scholars are propagating false theories?
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: 994
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mehmet Inan on
-
Jim,
You are the leader of that group, the founder of Scholars for 911 truth, you are responsible of all false theories propagated by that group. If you remain silent to such propagation, or you support such theories, you are responsible of all those theories and disinformation propagated by the group.I do not tell that against you. I am not threatening you. I am just making you aware of the risk you are endorsing. You must understand that any person who makes such disinformation is endorsing big responsibility before whole humanity. He is creating confusion in the world to avoid the identification of the perpetrators of the strikes. At any time, some people can come to you and ask you why you made disinformation! You should be aware of the danger you are creating about yourself.
As I told you, it remains some days before you definitely stop any disinformation. You are the only people who can make that. If you continue, you are really responsible of disinformation.
I think, I have been clear with you. After that time, it’s impossible to you to change your message without justifying your action in the past. You have to decide know.
-
Permalink Reply by sandy rose on
-
mehmet, i was gonna just ignore you from now on, but you're really so pissing
me so off. now, you say that you're not threatening Jim, yet this last spewage
from you sounds rather that to me. what is your fucking problem?
you really sound worried about us no plane variety of truther. why, mehmet,
why? what do you stand to lose by our so called disinformation? by the way, i
hate when people say that when they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
you are right about Jim being one of our best leaders, but alas, he is not alone,
we have a bunch of dang greats in our midst and on other lists. duh, do you think that
Jim Fetzer just spoke the word of no planes and we alll rushed around to worship him?
don't take us for such fools. all no planers that i know of have watched, researched,
studied, documented, discussed, and given much thought to the whole plane hoax.
we didn't just blindly start lining up behind your good buddy Jim.
now i am more suspicious than ever about your purpose here. do you think you're
going to convince us all that you are correct even though clearly you are not?
yer barking up the wrong tree, feller. or i guess to you it seems like the right place
since you are alll about TRYING to sway no planers from their correct assumptions.
what difference does it make to you, or should i say your superiors? i mean get over it
already. so some of us hang around discussing this subject and others, that you don't
agree with (or you know are true but don't want it to come out).. i mean do you see
no planers out on the street trying to push their views on others? what is your big
worry about people discussing the subject?
i'm glad to see the others take you on, Chuck, Brian, Thoth i think II, Mehmet
maybe you should just learn to accept that not everyone has the same opinion or
theories as you. after all, no planers hafta do that with the whole rest of the world.
we know that not everyone is gonna have what it takes to look outside the box and
even CONSIDER that the plane story was a big fat LIE, yet we have to accept that
and stick together, cause dude, we have the key to the whole unveiling of truth, man.
and we didn't get there by Jim Fetzer clubbing us over the head, or giving us some
koolaid to turn us into no planers. (love the heck outa you, Jimbob!)
if you don't like no planers then i suggest you hightail it off to neverland. but
if your threats get any more threatening, (what the hell are you talking about days
being numbered shit? explain yourself.) people like you who imply some sort of
threat can easily be turned over to the law, so ya better stop.
Mehmet Inan said:
Jim,
You are the leader of that group, the founder of Scholars for 911 truth, you are responsible of all false theories propagated by that group. If you remain silent to such propagation, or you support such theories, you are responsible of all those theories and disinformation propagated by the group.I do not tell that against you. I am not threatening you. I am just making you aware of the risk you are endorsing. You must understand that any person who makes such disinformation is endorsing big responsibility before whole humanity. He is creating confusion in the world to avoid the identification of the perpetrators of the strikes. At any time, some people can come to you and ask you why you made disinformation! You should be aware of the danger you are creating about yourself.
As I told you, it remains some days before you definitely stop any disinformation. You are the only people who can make that. If you continue, you are really responsible of disinformation.
I think, I have been clear with you. After that time, it’s impossible to you to change your message without justifying your action in the past. You have to decide know.
-
Permalink Reply by James H. Fetzer on
-
Mehmet, I have been very patient with you. Your only contributions are to assail me and attack others, who are doing far more to expose the truth about 9/11 than are you. Give me the reasons why you think I should not give you the boot? Jim
Mehmet Inan said:
Jim,
You are the leader of that group, the founder of Scholars for 911 truth, you are responsible of all false theories propagated by that group. If you remain silent to such propagation, or you support such theories, you are responsible of all those theories and disinformation propagated by the group.I do not tell that against you. I am not threatening you. I am just making you aware of the risk you are endorsing. You must understand that any person who makes such disinformation is endorsing big responsibility before whole humanity. He is creating confusion in the world to avoid the identification of the perpetrators of the strikes. At any time, some people can come to you and ask you why you made disinformation! You should be aware of the danger you are creating about yourself.
As I told you, it remains some days before you definitely stop any disinformation. You are the only people who can make that. If you continue, you are really responsible of disinformation.
I think, I have been clear with you. After that time, it’s impossible to you to change your message without justifying your action in the past. You have to decide know.
-
-
Jim,
I do not assail you. I worked with ST911 since December 2005. I am investigating about 9/11 since 2003. When ST911 was founded, I expected that scholars will make a real investigation work and get a consensus about the TRUTH of 911. That’s what I worked for. Sure, I also temporarily supported wrong theories. But after some time, sincere scholars, who are able to study almost everything, should get to the ONLY ONE POSSIBLE TRUTH about 9/11.
Unfortunately, they did not. Steven Jones continuously propagated his false thermite theory since I debunked all of his arguments. And you supported Judy Wood’s DEW theory which is also wrong. Remember, on end of 2006, I send to you and to Steven Jones the same mail asking to remove your wrong theories. None of you answered to that mail, but you both continued your wrong theories. And you, you are supporting more wrong theories, such as NPT. By the way, the Pentagon investigation is almost stopped since end of 2006.
I always been the same sincere investigator looking for the TRUTH about 9/11. Instead of getting consensus by the scholars, we are getting more confusion created by the propagated disinformation. Today, the disinformation is the most propagated information about the “truthers”. Every disinformation is killing the truth. And I see that you are participating to that disinformation.
If you claim not being disinformation, you should study the subjects on basis of material evidence and scientific logical thinking. Every strong theory is always defendable using material evidence and logical thinking. If you remain silent and refuse to defend your theory that means your theory is wrong. If your theory is wrong and you continue to propagate it, that means you are disinformation agent or you are not a scholar.
As conclusion, I feel myself deceived by “Scholars” labeled “disinformation agents”. About such terror action, propagating disinformation is being complicit with the actual perpetrators. Because disinformation creates confusion and avoids the truth be known; so it avoids the identification of the actual perpetrators.
Yes, if you continue to propagate wrong theories that you refuse to defend, you become complicit with the actual perpetrators.
You must choose: Being complicit with the actual perpetrators, or make a professional work and clean up all the theories that you propagate or support.
Precisely, the wrong theories that you still support and propagate are:
- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.
- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.
- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.
- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
James H. Fetzer said:Mehmet, I have been very patient with you. Your only contributions are to assail me and attack others, who are doing far more to expose the truth about 9/11 than are you. Give me the reasons why you think I should not give you the boot? Jim
-
-
Jim,
I decided not to add you on disinfo group. The reason is there may be other reasons to your silence and continued propagation of wrong theories. The reasons may be your relations with the authors of those theories, or your leak of expertise in some subjects, ... And as long as there could be other reasons, I do not have the permission to include you in the list of disinfo.
But your support and propagation of wrong theories is extremely suspect and needs to be explained. Those wrong theories are:
- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.
- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.
- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.
- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
James H. Fetzer said:Mehmet, I have been very patient with you. Your only contributions are to assail me and attack others, who are doing far more to expose the truth about 9/11 than are you. Give me the reasons why you think I should not give you the boot? Jim
-
-
i'd boot his ass.
Mehmet Inan said:
Jim,
I do not assail you. I worked with ST911 since December 2005. I am investigating about 9/11 since 2003. When ST911 was founded, I expected that scholars will make a real investigation work and get a consensus about the TRUTH of 911. That’s what I worked for. Sure, I also temporarily supported wrong theories. But after some time, sincere scholars, who are able to study almost everything, should get to the ONLY ONE POSSIBLE TRUTH about 9/11.
Unfortunately, they did not. Steven Jones continuously propagated his false thermite theory since I debunked all of his arguments. And you supported Judy Wood’s DEW theory which is also wrong. Remember, on end of 2006, I send to you and to Steven Jones the same mail asking to remove your wrong theories. None of you answered to that mail, but you both continued your wrong theories. And you, you are supporting more wrong theories, such as NPT. By the way, the Pentagon investigation is almost stopped since end of 2006.
I always been the same sincere investigator looking for the TRUTH about 9/11. Instead of getting consensus by the scholars, we are getting more confusion created by the propagated disinformation. Today, the disinformation is the most propagated information about the “truthers”. Every disinformation is killing the truth. And I see that you are participating to that disinformation.
If you claim not being disinformation, you should study the subjects on basis of material evidence and scientific logical thinking. Every strong theory is always defendable using material evidence and logical thinking. If you remain silent and refuse to defend your theory that means your theory is wrong. If your theory is wrong and you continue to propagate it, that means you are disinformation agent or you are not a scholar.
As conclusion, I feel myself deceived by “Scholars” labeled “disinformation agents”. About such terror action, propagating disinformation is being complicit with the actual perpetrators. Because disinformation creates confusion and avoids the truth be known; so it avoids the identification of the actual perpetrators.
Yes, if you continue to propagate wrong theories that you refuse to defend, you become complicit with the actual perpetrators.
You must choose: Being complicit with the actual perpetrators, or make a professional work and clean up all the theories that you propagate or support.
Precisely, the wrong theories that you still support and propagate are:
- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.
- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.
- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.
- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
James H. Fetzer said:Mehmet, I have been very patient with you. Your only contributions are to assail me and attack others, who are doing far more to expose the truth about 9/11 than are you. Give me the reasons why you think I should not give you the boot? Jim
-
-
Sandy,
Keep your insults for yourself. It's too much easy to insult, but making a true investigation seams to be very difficult for your.
Any way, nobody here is able to defend all the theories that I claim are wrong. Such situation is highly suspect to be disinfo.
Here are the fasle theories for your information:
- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.
- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.
- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.
- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
sandy rose said:i'd boot his ass.
Mehmet Inan said:Jim,
I do not assail you. I worked with ST911 since December 2005. I am investigating about 9/11 since 2003. When ST911 was founded, I expected that scholars will make a real investigation work and get a consensus about the TRUTH of 911. That’s what I worked for. Sure, I also temporarily supported wrong theories. But after some time, sincere scholars, who are able to study almost everything, should get to the ONLY ONE POSSIBLE TRUTH about 9/11.
-
-
Brian,
You got the top level of disinfo.
In 1980's, a Russian nuclear specialist heard about the nuclear demolition of the twin towers and you claim that they were actually demolished by nuclear explosion on 9/11! It’s totally crazy claim. In 1980 it was in cold war and the twin towers could be considered as a target of Russian nuclear attack which could be made by ballistic missiles exploding the complete towers and many buildings around. In 9/11, it was a precise target with progressive collapse; totally different things.
Basically, you are covering up the main material evidences seen in 9/11 and you replace them by 1980's cold war spy information. That's disinfo to make people think on every direction, except the evidence based TRUTH.
Niels Harrit is also disinfo. Some pictures gathered several years after the events on so small pieces that nobody can actually prove any relation between these pictures and the demolition. But people's mind is shifted from the evidence to the microscopic fake pictures. That's disinfo.
Technology may not exist, but all technology should be explained on basis of physics law. So when you speak out about inexistent but possible techniques, you should show the physics law on which the technology is based. You just claim "we don't know, it may be possible in military technology". That only means you want to shift the mind of people from strong material evidence to "movie made hypothetic technology that you are unable to prove any existence". Again, that's disinfo and mind manipulation.
Finally you said "But I think it's clear that we have yet to find a clear explanation of how the towers fell which is widely accepted."
That clear explanation of the demolitions is in my power point www.peace911.org . But disinfo people like you will never agree on the truth. That's why you think the explanation is still to be made.
Any way, if you are able to debunk my explanation of the demolition, you are welcome. If you are unable, you should consider my explanation as the TRUTH. If you fail to both possibilities, you are just a dishonest disinfo agent.
Brian Horsfield said:I thought you were leaving this forum? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? It's fine for you to promote your ideas but you cannot demand others to agree with you.
There is substantial evidence that things occurred on 9/11 that have never been seen before or since. For example Danish Chemist Niels Harrit find the nanothermite dust to be of character which suggests a technology not seen in the public domain, though he speculates it exists in the military. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg.
Similarly for mini-nuke theories. You say "that creates huge explosion". Well how do we know what secret technologies exist that have not been seen in the public domain before? In the interview I just posted with Dimitri Khalezov it says: "Mr. Khalezov, because of his unique vantage point as a former member of the Soviet “atomic” and later “nuclear” intelligence says that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers as long back as early 1980´s, while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service."
Of course this is not proof. But I think it's clear that we have yet to find a clear explanation of how the towers fell which is widely accepted. Please stop demanding the moderator remove posts concerning theories you disagree with. That is making you look ridiculous.
-
-
yeah, man, thanks Brian, you da Brian.
yeah, mehmet, it is true, you can't force yer ideas or thunks on us any more than
we can force ours on you. if the actual truth is more than you can fathom, and you
constantly berate, then you rilly should nt be bothering with us types here. noted, not
everyone here is a non planer, and we don't expect them to be, but your protests me
think are a bit much. again, what is your worst fear, mehms? if you're afraid of the
truth coming all the way out then i hafta ask,.... say whut????
also, mehmsie, you said something, when i questioned you, about who did 9/11, and
you said that bash, chains, and the izralie pigs did it, yet you think the no planes theory
goes against that. ta me that makes no sense. does osommy bim whommy control our media?
if indeed our bastardly media whores were part of 9/11, and of course our great and
wonderful no planer varieties know that for fact, then how do you not think that it woulda
been an inside jawb? the whole plane story was just part of their crock. see it please.
mehmet, you question certain aspects of the story and that is ok, because only the
gdmf criminals that did the horrendous deeds know for sure, but be advised, no one here,
or any other truther place that i know of claim to know all the answers.
no matter what the scenario actually was, we don't have all the answers, so it is
ABSURD for you to expect that we or anyone (except the slimy criminals) do........
mehmsie, you are not going to change the opinion of peeps who KNOW that the
plane story was FUCKING BULLSHIT, excuse my french, so i bleeve yer time it is
wasted in trying to change peoples' minds that already know. take it elsewhere, kay?
and bee tee dubs, where do you get off telling Jim that he needs to decide know?
which in our language would be translated into "now". Jim has known the truth for years,
my not friend, he doesn't need to decide shit now, cause he already knows. and has known,.
i'd take your worrrywort crap elsewhere where it is not quite so wasted. bye bye.
Brian Horsfield said:
I thought you were leaving this forum? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? It's fine for you to promote your ideas but you cannot demand others to agree with you.
There is substantial evidence that things occurred on 9/11 that have never been seen before or since. For example Danish Chemist Niels Harrit find the nanothermite dust to be of character which suggests a technology not seen in the public domain, though he speculates it exists in the military. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg.
Similarly for mini-nuke theories. You say "that creates huge explosion". Well how do we know what secret technologies exist that have not been seen in the public domain before? In the interview I just posted with Dimitri Khalezov it says: "Mr. Khalezov, because of his unique vantage point as a former member of the Soviet “atomic” and later “nuclear” intelligence says that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers as long back as early 1980´s, while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service."
Of course this is not proof. But I think it's clear that we have yet to find a clear explanation of how the towers fell which is widely accepted. Please stop demanding the moderator remove posts concerning theories you disagree with. That is making you look ridiculous.
-
-
ps meh met, you wouldn't know disinfo if it bit you in the butt.
Mehmet Inan said:Brian,
You got the top level of disinfo.
In 1980's, a Russian nuclear specialist heard about the nuclear demolition of the twin towers and you claim that they were actually demolished by nuclear explosion on 9/11! It’s totally crazy claim. In 1980 it was in cold war and the twin towers could be considered as a target of Russian nuclear attack which could be made by ballistic missiles exploding the complete towers and many buildings around. In 9/11, it was a precise target with progressive collapse; totally different things.
Basically, you are covering up the main material evidences seen in 9/11 and you replace them by 1980's cold war spy information. That's disinfo to make people think on every direction, except the evidence based TRUTH.
Niels Harrit is also disinfo. Some pictures gathered several years after the events on so small pieces that nobody can actually prove any relation between these pictures and the demolition. But people's mind is shifted from the evidence to the microscopic fake pictures. That's disinfo.
Technology may not exist, but all technology should be explained on basis of physics law. So when you speak out about inexistent but possible techniques, you should show the physics law on which the technology is based. You just claim "we don't know, it may be possible in military technology". That only means you want to shift the mind of people from strong material evidence to "movie made hypothetic technology that you are unable to prove any existence". Again, that's disinfo and mind manipulation.
Finally you said "But I think it's clear that we have yet to find a clear explanation of how the towers fell which is widely accepted."
That clear explanation of the demolitions is in my power point www.peace911.org . But disinfo people like you will never agree on the truth. That's why you think the explanation is still to be made.
Any way, if you are able to debunk my explanation of the demolition, you are welcome. If you are unable, you should consider my explanation as the TRUTH. If you fail to both possibilities, you are just a dishonest disinfo agent.
Brian Horsfield said:I thought you were leaving this forum? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? It's fine for you to promote your ideas but you cannot demand others to agree with you.
There is substantial evidence that things occurred on 9/11 that have never been seen before or since. For example Danish Chemist Niels Harrit find the nanothermite dust to be of character which suggests a technology not seen in the public domain, though he speculates it exists in the military. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg.
Similarly for mini-nuke theories. You say "that creates huge explosion". Well how do we know what secret technologies exist that have not been seen in the public domain before? In the interview I just posted with Dimitri Khalezov it says: "Mr. Khalezov, because of his unique vantage point as a former member of the Soviet “atomic” and later “nuclear” intelligence says that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers as long back as early 1980´s, while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service."
Of course this is not proof. But I think it's clear that we have yet to find a clear explanation of how the towers fell which is widely accepted. Please stop demanding the moderator remove posts concerning theories you disagree with. That is making you look ridiculous.
-
-
sandy rose said: "ps meh met, you wouldn't know disinfo if it bit you in the butt."
That's your case Sady, it bits you in the butt and you don't know what happens.
The problem of disinfo is simple: It makes NULL the credibility of 9/11 truthers, as a whole. By the same it makes the official story stronger and more true than it ever been.
The best manner to destroy a theory is defending teh theory by using wrong arguments. That what disinfo agents are making to destroy any critics on the official story.
Here are the disinfo theories that members of that group here are propagating by the benediction of Jim Fetzer:
- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.
- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.
- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.
- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
-
-
sandy rose said: "again, what is your worst fear, mehms? if you're afraid of the truth coming all the way out then i hafta ask,.... say whut????"
My worst fear is that the truth remain covered over the tenth anniversary of 9/11. And disinfo agents who lead the 9/11 truth movement are succeeding into that by keeping the biggest disinfo theories in the top ten of their claims.
sandy rose said: "but be advised, no one here, or any other truther place that i know of claim to know all the answers. no matter what the scenario actually was, we don't have all the answers, so it is ABSURD for you to expect that we or anyone (except the slimy criminals) do........"
Sorry, the problem is just here: You consider that after 10 years we must not be aware of the main scenario of the events. But the name of that group is "911scholars for the truth"; if the members are really scholars and are really investigating 9/11, after 10 years they should understand and know what really happened, and there should be no one wrong theory remaining undebunked. Scholars should and have the obligation to find the solution of the problem, there is no justification to not know the truth.
later sandy rose said: "and bee tee dubs, where do you get off telling Jim that he needs to decide know?"
In fact, it's too late. Jim is unable (or do not want) to separate the truth and the false. By continuing such behavior, he is continuing to support all ind of disinformation. And that's unaccaptable for a leader of so called scholars' leader.
later sandy rose said: "which in our language would be translated into "now". Jim has known the truth for years, my not friend, he doesn't need to decide shit now, cause he already knows. and has known,. "
Here up you told that "no one here, or any other truther place that i know of claim to know all the answers." And now you are telling that Jim knows the truth for years! Unfortnately Jim is supporting too many disinfo theories, and he should not. As a claimed scholars' leader, he should clearly refute all disinfo theories. Except if he is the leader of "disinfo scholars".
About
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
