Why scholars are propagating false theories? - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-29T07:26:33Zhttps://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/why-scholars-are-propagating?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A10774&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJim,
I had enough evidence…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-02-11:3488444:Comment:107742011-02-11T06:31:50.944ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p>Jim,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I had enough evidence to state that your group is supporting all disinfo. I do not know how much you are involved in the production of such disinfo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any way, you and your group is so much involved in the propagation of disinfo that I can not more be member of such group.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>By that post I ask you to delete my membership from all your groups and do not more use my name as member of your group or as supporting your work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>By the…</p>
<p>Jim,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I had enough evidence to state that your group is supporting all disinfo. I do not know how much you are involved in the production of such disinfo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any way, you and your group is so much involved in the propagation of disinfo that I can not more be member of such group.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>By that post I ask you to delete my membership from all your groups and do not more use my name as member of your group or as supporting your work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>By the way, I am going to add your name in my disinfo list at <a href="http://www.peace911.org">www.peace911.org</a> .</p>
<p> </p> sandy rose said: "again, what…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-08:3488444:Comment:98302011-01-08T20:16:10.000ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p><em>sandy rose said:</em> "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????"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>sandy rose said:</em> "but be advised, no one here, or any other…</p>
<p><em>sandy rose said:</em> "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????"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>sandy rose said:</em> "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........"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>later <em>sandy rose said:</em> "and bee tee dubs, where do you get off telling Jim that he needs to decide know?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>later <em>sandy rose said:</em> "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,. "</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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".</p>
<p> </p> sandy rose said: "ps meh met,…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-08:3488444:Comment:98292011-01-08T19:53:12.000ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p><em>sandy rose said: "</em>ps meh met, you wouldn't know disinfo if it bit you in the butt."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That's your case Sady, it bits you in the butt and you don't know what happens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The best manner to destroy a theory is defending teh theory by using wrong arguments. That what…</p>
<p><em>sandy rose said: "</em>ps meh met, you wouldn't know disinfo if it bit you in the butt."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That's your case Sady, it bits you in the butt and you don't know what happens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here are the disinfo theories that members of that group here are propagating by the benediction of Jim Fetzer:</p>
<p>- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.<br/>- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/>- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/> </p> ps meh met, you wouldn't know…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-07:3488444:Comment:97962011-01-07T15:30:30.000Zsandy rosehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/sandyrose
<p>ps meh met, you wouldn't know disinfo if it bit you in the butt.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br></br> <cite>Mehmet Inan said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/why-scholars-are-propagating?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A9786&xg_source=activity#3488444Comment9786"><div><p>Brian,<br></br> <br></br>You got the top level of disinfo.<br></br> <br></br>In 1980's, a Russian nuclear specialist heard about the nuclear demolition of the twin towers and you claim that they were actually…</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>ps meh met, you wouldn't know disinfo if it bit you in the butt.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br/>
<cite>Mehmet Inan said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/why-scholars-are-propagating?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A9786&xg_source=activity#3488444Comment9786"><div><p>Brian,<br/> <br/>You got the top level of disinfo.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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."<br/> <br/>That clear explanation of the demolitions is in my power point <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.peace911.org">www.peace911.org</a> . But disinfo people like you will never agree on the truth. That's why you think the explanation is still to be made.<br/> <br/>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.</p>
<p><br/><cite>Brian Horsfield said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div><p>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.</p>
<p>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: <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg</a>. </p>
<p>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: <strong><em>"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."</em></strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> yeah, man, thanks Brian, you…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-07:3488444:Comment:97952011-01-07T15:23:38.000Zsandy rosehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/sandyrose
<p>yeah, man, thanks Brian, you da Brian.</p>
<p> yeah, mehmet, it is true, you can't force yer ideas or thunks on us any more than</p>
<p>we can force ours on you. if the actual truth is more than you can fathom, and you</p>
<p>constantly berate, then you rilly should nt be bothering with us types here. noted, not</p>
<p>everyone here is a non planer, and we don't expect them to be, but your protests me</p>
<p>think are a bit much. again, what is your worst fear, mehms? if…</p>
<p>yeah, man, thanks Brian, you da Brian.</p>
<p> yeah, mehmet, it is true, you can't force yer ideas or thunks on us any more than</p>
<p>we can force ours on you. if the actual truth is more than you can fathom, and you</p>
<p>constantly berate, then you rilly should nt be bothering with us types here. noted, not</p>
<p>everyone here is a non planer, and we don't expect them to be, but your protests me</p>
<p>think are a bit much. again, what is your worst fear, mehms? if you're afraid of the</p>
<p>truth coming all the way out then i hafta ask,.... say whut????</p>
<p> also, mehmsie, you said something, when i questioned you, about who did 9/11, and</p>
<p>you said that bash, chains, and the izralie pigs did it, yet you think the no planes theory</p>
<p>goes against that. ta me that makes no sense. does osommy bim whommy control our media?</p>
<p> if indeed our bastardly media whores were part of 9/11, and of course our great and</p>
<p>wonderful no planer varieties know that for fact, then how do you not think that it woulda</p>
<p>been an inside jawb? the whole plane story was just part of their crock. see it please. </p>
<p> mehmet, you question certain aspects of the story and that is ok, because only the</p>
<p>gdmf criminals that did the horrendous deeds know for sure, but be advised, no one here,</p>
<p>or any other truther place that i know of claim to know all the answers.</p>
<p> no matter what the scenario actually was, we don't have all the answers, so it is</p>
<p>ABSURD for you to expect that we or anyone (except the slimy criminals) do........</p>
<p> mehmsie, you are not going to change the opinion of peeps who KNOW that the</p>
<p>plane story was FUCKING BULLSHIT, excuse my french, so i bleeve yer time it is</p>
<p>wasted in trying to change peoples' minds that already know. take it elsewhere, kay?</p>
<p> and bee tee dubs, where do you get off telling Jim that he needs to decide know?</p>
<p>which in our language would be translated into "now". Jim has known the truth for years,</p>
<p>my not friend, he doesn't need to decide shit now, cause he already knows. and has known,.</p>
<p> i'd take your worrrywort crap elsewhere where it is not quite so wasted. bye bye.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><cite>Brian Horsfield said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/why-scholars-are-propagating?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A9775&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3488444Comment9775"><div><p>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.</p>
<p>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: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg</a>. </p>
<p>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: <strong><em>"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."</em></strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> Brian, You got the top level…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-07:3488444:Comment:97862011-01-07T00:10:48.000ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p>Brian,<br></br> <br></br>You got the top level of disinfo.<br></br> <br></br>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…</p>
<p>Brian,<br/> <br/>You got the top level of disinfo.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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.<br/> <br/>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."<br/> <br/>That clear explanation of the demolitions is in my power point <a href="http://www.peace911.org">www.peace911.org</a> . But disinfo people like you will never agree on the truth. That's why you think the explanation is still to be made.<br/> <br/>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.</p>
<p><br/><cite>Brian Horsfield said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div><p>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.</p>
<p>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: <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg</a>. </p>
<p>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: <strong><em>"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."</em></strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> Sandy,
Keep your insults fo…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-04:3488444:Comment:97472011-01-04T17:16:08.000ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p>Sandy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Keep your insults for yourself. It's too much easy to insult, but making a true investigation seams to be very difficult for your.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any way, nobody here is able to defend all the theories that I claim are wrong. Such situation is highly suspect to be disinfo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here are the fasle theories for your information:</p>
<p>- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.<br></br>- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.<br></br>- Missile or military plane on the…</p>
<p>Sandy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Keep your insults for yourself. It's too much easy to insult, but making a true investigation seams to be very difficult for your.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any way, nobody here is able to defend all the theories that I claim are wrong. Such situation is highly suspect to be disinfo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here are the fasle theories for your information:</p>
<p>- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.<br/>- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/>- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/> <br/><br/><cite>sandy rose said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div>i'd boot his ass. <br/><br/><cite>Mehmet Inan said:</cite><br/><blockquote><div><p>Jim,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> i'd boot his ass.
Mehmet I…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-01-04:3488444:Comment:97462011-01-04T14:14:23.000Zsandy rosehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/sandyrose
i'd boot his ass. <br></br>
<br></br>
<cite>Mehmet Inan said:</cite><br />
<blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/why-scholars-are-propagating?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A9702&xg_source=activity#3488444Comment9653"><div><p>Jim,</p>
<p>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…</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
i'd boot his ass. <br/>
<br/>
<cite>Mehmet Inan said:</cite><br />
<blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/why-scholars-are-propagating?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A9702&xg_source=activity#3488444Comment9653"><div><p>Jim,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Yes, if you continue to propagate wrong theories that you refuse to defend, you become complicit with the actual perpetrators.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Precisely, the wrong theories that you still support and propagate are:<br/>- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.<br/>- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/>- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/><br/><br/><cite>James H. Fetzer said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div>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<br/><br/></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> Jim,
I decided not to add y…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-12-30:3488444:Comment:97022010-12-30T22:27:13.000ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p>Jim,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But your support and propagation of wrong theories is extremely suspect and needs…</p>
<p>Jim,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But your support and propagation of wrong theories is extremely suspect and needs to be explained. Those wrong theories are:</p>
<p>- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.<br/>- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/>- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.</p>
<p><br/><cite>James H. Fetzer said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div>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<br/><blockquote><div><p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> Jim,
I do not assail you. I w…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-12-27:3488444:Comment:96532010-12-27T21:18:51.000ZMehmet Inanhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/MehmetInan
<p>Jim,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, they did not.…</p>
<p>Jim,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Yes, if you continue to propagate wrong theories that you refuse to defend, you become complicit with the actual perpetrators.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Precisely, the wrong theories that you still support and propagate are:<br/>- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.<br/>- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.<br/>- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/>- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.<br/><br/><br/><cite>James H. Fetzer said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div>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<br/><br/></div>
</blockquote>