WTC Destruction: Five Facts Falsify Five Theories*

By
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.

Popular theories about what destroyed the World Trade Center towers
on September 11, 2001 are:

  1. Fires from jet fuel and office materials weakened steel in the upper floors and the buildings collapsed
  2. Conventional controlled demolition blew out supports at the base and the buildings collapsed
  3. Thermite cut steel columns on virtually every floor and the buildings collapsed
  4. Conventional explosives blew the buildings up
  5. Mini-nukes blew the buildings up

Theories 1, 2 and 3 rely on gravity to bring the buildings down while the last two blow them up.  Popular theories, yes, and dead wrong.

To solve a crime, it is best to thoroughly investigate the evidence.  A rush to judgment is not the best way.  Instead, find out what happened.  Do not propose and get married to a pet theory, start with the facts.  After you find out what happened, then it is usually straightforward to eliminate the impossible, what didn’t happen.  Whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth (courtesy Sherlock Holmes).

Five facts scientifically documented in Ph.D. engineer Judy Wood’s comprehensive textbook (Where Did The Towers Go?) prove the popular theories false beyond doubt.  Yes, I know it’s amazing.  Who’d a thunk it’d be this easy?  The facts:

  1. DEBRIS: What debris?  There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no “pile” or “stack.”  Rubble totaled less than a story.  It was a football field as a survivor who emerged from Stairwell B, North Tower, exclaimed. No computers, toilets, and only one small piece from one Steelcase file cabinet were found.  Some steel and mostly dust remained. Lack of debris on the ground from quarter-mile-high twin towers  whispers “no collapse.”  See Chapter 9.
  2. BATHTUB: A bathtub or slurry wall surrounded 70 feet of WTC subbasements to prevent the Hudson River from flooding the WTC and downtown.  If each 500,000-ton tower had slammed into the bathtub in 10 seconds or less, the protective wall would collapse.  Did not happen.  Upshot?  Collapses did not happen.  Chapter 5.
  3. SEISMIC IMPACT: “Had the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the ‘collapse,’” writes Dr. Wood.  Seismic instruments registered disturbances far too short in duration and far too small to record tower collapses.  This was true of both the twin towers and 47-story WTC7.  Again, no evidence of collapses.  Chapter 6.
  4. SOUND: There were no loud explosions, as established by videos, witnesses, and the official report of NIST.  Nor were there loud screeches and screams from massive metal falling, colliding, scraping and collapsing on metal.  Chapter 6.
  5. DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air.  Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, “I was standing there for a couple of seconds thinking where the f**k is the tower?  I simply couldn’t comprehend it.”  The dust rollout was so enormous and thick it blocked out sunlight and left an inch or more of dust covering downtown.  Much of it wafted into the upper atmosphere.  The volume was incredible.  Particles from dust samples were smaller than red blood cells and about the size of DNA.  As for toxicity, researchers said the dust “recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China.”  Chapters 8, 9, 14-16.

This is no collapse, this is a tower turning to dust in mid-air.

Dust 1"+ on the ground and more suspended in air (a tower!) at the end of the street.

Incredible volume of dust from buildings turned to dust.

Facts are facts, extraordinary and inconvenient as they may be.  The five facts are  consistent with each other: small debris, bathtub intact, small seismic impact, quiet disintegration and conversion to fine powder within 10 seconds.

No towers collapsed.  It is an incontestable implication of the data.  No one has evidence to the contrary.  Don’t believe me?  Watch video or look at the pictures in the textbook or on the web.  Talk to survivors.  The buildings unraveled, disintegrated, turned to powder in mid-air.

If someone blames fires, demolition or thermite for “collapses,” the claim is bogus.  Gravity-driven collapses did not happen (WTC7 only had a Richter reading of 0.6!).  Such a person is incompetent or lying.  Theories 1-3 destroyed.  Not only are government and media lying about this, most “9/11 truth” researchers and leaders are too.

Steven E. Jones, physicist and member of Scholars for 911 Truth & Justice

Richard Gage, AIA, and founder of AE911Truth

What about conventional explosives or mini-nukes?  No go.  Kinetic energy weapons release (motion) energy suddenly, with an explosion accompanied by light, heat, sound and pressure (shock wave).  “With explosives (kinetic energy devices), chunks go flying and remain in the form of chunks until they land,” writes Wood.  “They do not ‘dissolve’ into dust while traveling through the air.  In the case of the WTC, almost all chunks that went flying dissolved into dust before they had time to slam to the ground in solid form” (p. 174).  For conventional explosives, fragmentation is the name of the game. WTC 9/11 was not an explosive event but dustification.

Nukes suffer additional infirmities.  Nukes produce light that blinds, temps in the millions of degrees, total devastation at ground zero (radius depends on kilotons), enormous blast wave leveling virtually everything in and around ground zero, plus radiation big-time.  Did not happen.  Speaking of radioactivity, a steam explosion destroyed a reactor in the 1986 Chernobyl accident and “although the damage was not caused by a nuclear explosion, radioactive fall-out was measured around the world,” Wood writes.  “If a nuclear bomb had been used to destroy the WTC, radiation from it would have been detected around the world, and there also would have been a seismic signature” (p. 375).  Conclusion: nukes did not explode at the WTC.  No way.  Chapters 7 & 17.

So what destroyed the WTC?  Conventional explanations fail.  Something unconventional did it.  This will be the subject of a subsequent article, but for now we can say the weapon was some kind of black or “exotic” technology.  It was “energetic” enough to turn the towers to fine powder, it was directed since it destroyed buildings with a WTC prefix only and it was used as a weapon.  Call it DEW for a “directed energy weapon.”  This technology exists.

You wanted an independent, unbiased, scientific 9/11investigation, right?  Be happy, you got it. You’re disappointed with the answer?  Wanted something easier to sell?  The perpetrators knew that in advance, and that’s one reason they used an unbelievable weapon.  Need to know more?  Read THE BOOK of the decade .

* WTC55 for short.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to WTC Destruction: Five Facts Falsify Five Theories*

  1. 911physics says:

    The physics on display when you look at 911 footage is hilarious.I mean never before has a steel frame building fallen to fire. It just does not happen. Fire does not do anything to a steel building. Its like throwing a stone at a tree and it collapsing… this kind of stuff happens in comics, not reality.

    • woohooman says:

      Since a legitimate 911 investigation has not materialized, the effort to investigate the building safety of high-rises is brilliant! No high-rise had ever fallen in history – EVER – due to fire until three high-rises fell in one day on 9/11.

      The 9/11 Commission co-chairs don’t believe the 9/11 Commission Report, why should we? An examination of high-rise structural safety in New York would of course have to examine how and why the 9/11 WTC buildings fell.

    • pomeroo says:

      Who could ever doubt your expertise? Although ALL steel-framed buildings are fire-proofed, it is done just for laughs.

      RIGHT?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds”, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

    “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” [wmv download]
    In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: “… we’re getting ready to pull the building six.” [wmv download]

    There can be little doubt as to how the word “pull” is being used in this contex

    • pomeroo says:

      Demolition professionals do NOT recognize “pull” as industry jargon for using explosives to bring down a building. Sorry, that is another twoofer myth.

      An unsuccessful attempt to pull, i.e. wrap cables around the structure in order to pull it literally off its center of gravity, the much-smaller WTC 6.

      Silverstein merely expressed agreement with the FDNY’s decision to pull its operation outside the collapse zone.

  3. hybridrogue1 says:

    Wow, what a circus of the absurd this thread is.

    Everything from Judy Woowoo to fake video bullshit, and ending with the most stupid person I have ever “debated” in the 13 years of blogging on the 9/11 issue; that person being Pomeroo/Weick, who backs up every point he tries to make with a blank stare and an insult.

    The anagram of Pomeroo is more poo. And he joins the rare club of those who have been banned from Truth and Shadows, sharing this distinction with another screwball here, Onebornfree.

    I have to go take a shower now to wash this thread off

    \\][//.

    • pomeroo says:

      Oh, I can’t be the single most stupid person you’ve ever debated. I’m quite sure that almost everyone has exposed the snake oil you peddle.

      • Anonymous says:

        Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds”, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

        “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” [wmv download]
        In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: “… we’re getting ready to pull the building six.” [wmv download]

        There can be little doubt as to how the word “pull” is being used in this contex

        • pomeroo says:

          The word “pull” was used by Silverstein in a conversation with a FIREFIGHTER. It is FIREFIGHTER jargon. Silverstein was agreeing with the FDNY’s decision to PULL their operation outside the collapse zone.

          NOBODY was talking about explosives.

        • Anonymous says:

          Laughable! Anyone watching the videos can clearly see the nose of the plane poking through the other side of the building. “Projectile-shaped debris cloud” …….translation: BULLSHIT!

        • J Brenner says:

          Hey pomeroo – Anyone can easily watch the videos on their own to see an in-tack nose cone poking through the other side of the building, not a painfully contrived BS explanation.

          “a projectile-shaped debris cloud” = transparent BS

        • pomeroo says:

          The nose cone was relatively fragile. It could not have survived. The debris being ejected HAD TO assume a projectile shape.

  4. Ally says:

    Hi there just stumbled across this blog .so decided to read on , There are plenty of reports of loud bangs , and there was a hell of a lot of rubble , plus remember the big iron girder blown from the towers and embedded its self into another concrete building . Off course there was a collapse but i understand where you might be coming from .firslty who knows what kind of nano technology the American government posses they could have the type of weaponary to as you put it disintegrate a building . Maybe this was a chance to use it on a large scale to try it out plus kill 2 no 3 birds with one stone . I don’t know the answer and I doubt any one ever will cause let’s face it all of America and the world watched as YOUR GOVERNMENT took a crime scene right from under your noses and destroyed it .
    All I know is some people have a hell of a lot of blood on there hands

    • John says:

      Correction: Some people have a hell of a lot of dust on their hands.

      • pomeroo says:

        Yes, the jihadists have a lot of blood on their hands.

        NO steel turned to dust. ALL the structural steel was recovered.

        • the thompson twins says:

          Can you provide us with the salvage paper trail for the north tower ‘spire’ central core box steel section appx’ 60 storeys in height observed falling upright into the ground from every point of the compass 9/11?

        • Ally says:

          Jihadists ,American government you say tomatoe I say tomato .some times I think people are very blinkered when it comes to the American government ,either they are the most incompetent nation on the planet letting so called ” jihadists” run an absolute mock on your proud nation taking 4 planes from your airports , then traveling across country without a sniff from your fighter jets .or there is something more sinister at large . My biggest shock is why you nation is standing back and letting this happen ? But then I remember your people’s greed for money is greater than some fanatics intent on causing destruction .if you believe the official story your really haven’t done any research on this scientific or other

  5. James says:

    Hey Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. in B.S. – You must not have listened to many videos NOT to hear explosions. OVERWHELMING VIDEO EVIDENCE of explosions during interviews with reporters and while filming. There is well known shot of the fireman talking on the public phone ‘ka-BOOM’ whips his head around. When you tell partial truths along with distortions and omissions – you are still lying. Why lie?

  6. joe bick says:

    I am a few years behind in knowledge, so, what about the theory of Khalezov?

    • pomeroo says:

      Khalezov is a crackpot. No evidence of ionizing radiation was found at Ground Zero. Khalezov has claimed has claimed that aluminum planes couldn’t penetrate the mostly glass facade of the towers. This claim is nonsense: an airliner moving well over 400 mph and weighing roughly 150 tons would slice right through the perimeter columns. See NASA aerospace scientist Ryan Mackey’s explanation in his “Hardfire’ lecture.

      • joe bick says:

        I do enjoy “reasoning together,” but I can’t agree that a 767 at 400 k is a 150 ton “projectile.” that suggests that a 22 bullet shoud penetrate a steel beam. when the parts meet they share the energy, the steel is stronger and will withstand the force, the plane should have shattered/squashed and remained on the exterior, like the many planes that hit the mountian cliff, whatever. I was suspicous from the first day, 9/11, and became convinced that it was a hoax -at least to some degree, and even a small degree is not acceptable if one seeks the truth. Agree? Everything I could say has already been said, many times. I have read comments for some 40 hours over the past week, and many are simply emotional rants, many are scientific -or seem so, to me. I am a retired GE engineer, not a scientist.
        I fogot to mention that a 159; projectile would not have penetrated totally into the interior. If it was “squashed” by the interior core, why? since it was still at 450k or whatever, according to the video footage.

        saludos, joe

        • pomeroo says:

          The crash physics were explained in two academic papers, which are difficult for the layman to read. Ryan Mackey explained the planes’ penetration very clearly on the show I host. Google “Ryan Mackey on the Physics of 9/11.”

    • Yerlan says:

      I’m not from the USA, but I guess it’s as good as any day to say thanks (to you, Mr. Blue and the rest of caatoborllors) for all the hard work you’ve put into WTC. Happy Thanksgiving!

  7. Anonymous says:

    this is a very sad story its sader then titanic wat do u think please tell me—-

    • pomeroo says:

      On September 11, 2001, nineteen jihadists who embraced a version of Islam that declared war on the United States in 1996 hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings.

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh well, The FBI on the record admitted “the identities of the nineteen were far from proven, and most probably they will never know the real number or the identities of those who participated in the atacks”. That and the “We have no solid evidence Osama Bin Laden was in anyway connected to the attacks” this offcial statements from FBI director “seems” to leave a huge hole in the official story. Its always fun to know that a huge chunk of Mohammed Attas showgirls had been training in US militar or intelligence agencies. We know that the power of sunii pray altered the electromagnetic spectrum rendering militar radars in/around NYC blind, altered physics etc. Just one single additional point. If minor fires could result in WTC 7 collpasing, 19 terrorists could start fires and fully destroy 19 buildings in manhattan. Say bye to financial, oil and futures markets, tens of thousends of victims, Manhattan buried in debires, waste, smoke…
        The official story, is a serious threat for anyone who lives in a major city all over the world. Means no need for weapons, bombs, training camps, financing… all you need is to get a job as a Janitor an start fires in high rise buildings. What a comforting thought,

        • pomeroo says:

          No, the FBI never “admitted” that the identities of the nineteen hijackers reamined unproven. Stop lying.

      • Harald Meling says:

        How can you be cherrypicking and still be PHD?
        Facts today are that that several “terrorists” have alibi, one is even christian, and
        most are alive. Fact?
        FBI tells Atta received USD100 000 from Pakistani Intelligence and conveniently left tracks.
        Fact?
        Meltet and still hot metal was found in the pile 2 months later. Fact?
        And you know of course about the passport? Who is writing this…hehe! :)
        Trucks are reported every night for 12 nights to have secretly arrived 3 to 5 am
        at WTC. Fact?
        Pictures of the ground under WTC shows melted rocks. Fact?

        What about NO planes, explosions high up to look like plane crashes, and 3 nukes?

        Regards,
        Harald

  8. pomeroo says:

    The buildings did not turn to dust. Nobody sane thinks they did. ALL structural steel–200,000 TONS–was recovered.

  9. Ronald Wieck says:

    As you know, between i.5 and 1.8 MILLION TONS of debris was hauled away from Ground Zero over a period of months. ALL the structural steel–200,000 TONS–was recovered. The rubble piles were 5-6 stories high, exactly what would be expected when 110-story buildings consisting of 95% air are compressed. Stop the nonsense.

    • the thompson twins says:

      Where can we get an independent audit for the salvaged twin towers steel? Surely steel out should equal steel in minus 30 yrs oxidation( and steel melted by 1 and two hour open air fires ☺) Did they ever recover the appx’ 60 storeys of north tower spire seen falling upright into the Manhattan bedrock?

        • the thompson twins says:

          Independent audit? north tower spire recovery? Dr.Wood’s explanation for 220 X1 acre’s disappeared twin tower reinforced concrete floors, steel pans, attendant tubular steel trusses and brace mazes leaves the official “one off pancake/piledriver” story looking pretty mentally challenged ‘roo.

        • pomeroo says:

          Your attempt to understand the collapses of the towers by reading only the ravings of lunatics has failed. Glancing at the NIST reports would help, but you refuse to make any concessions to reality.

        • the thompson twins says:

          …then there’s ALL the attendant incongruities/FACTS (not the rantings of a deranged mind) 1400 vehicles toasted/melted by cold fire,many far from GZ, years of decontamination, record times for fuming, steel toed boots molecularly dissociating , non commensurate collapse seismic readings etc. Anyone (willfully?)blind to these facts is either quite quite mad OR part of the cover up/conspiracy .

        • Ronald Wieck says:

          Nobody believes the dernaged Judy Wood about the seismic readings, least of all the experts at the Lamont-Doherty labs. Those “toasted” cars were mostly damaged by debris. All of the twoof cult’s lies have been exposed. Your ignorance is your problem.

        • the thompson twins says:

          “…mostly damged by debris…” have you ever thought about forming scientists for the official 911 narrative RW? I understand Dr.Wood’s WTC collapse seismic readings come from the federal US seismic body.

        • meh says:

          this ronald wieck clown, aka pomeroo, aka total shill.. also would have you believe pearl harbor was a surprise attack, and that bin laden really was killed in pakistan by the now dead seal team six.

          you need to rethink911.0rg pileofpoo, as many already have, your cult is turning to dust before your eyes, the only believers left are yourself and albury smith.

  10. Harry Bounel says:

    Sorry to be such an ass-hat today. I should have thought before I let my fingers do the typing.
    I wanted to point out that I appreciate the people working on this issue and wish there was more people like you which we obviously need to solve problems and bring true safety to our cousins and our environment which without will be extinction.
    I just want to clarify that i do respect our world and its people after i have my morning coffee.

  11. Harry Bounel says:

    Can John Hutchison melt rock ? Please talk about the ROCK !

    What are you ignoring ?

  12. Harry Bounel says:

    ( i type just like Harry Bounel does. )
    Yes sirs. Why was there Molten Rock underneath the ground ? Look for the Molten Rock pictures. All 5000 pictures were not edited as some idiots will suggest.

  13. Harry Bounel says:

    I was a few blocks away and seen and heard BOTH airplanes hit with my very eyes and ears!
    I began to run immediately and went inside of a building where more than 100 people were taking video and pictures with their phones and normal cameras just like being at a Japanese Parade.
    Where are all these pictures and videos ? People are scared or what ?

    This is my factual contribution.
    I ask. Where these commercial aircraft ? I would say no way. There did not look like they had many windows which these plane model #’s were supposed to have.

    Have a good day.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Eyewitnesses have only limited utility in this matter now. If they have pictures, then those pictures should be produced.

      Here’s the problem: Real events have many facets to them. A truck moving through a street has sounds. Cameras of that date were very good, with auto focus and several mega pixels.

      These planes people claim they saw, have radar print captures and media videos, that have been analyzed, that show these planes were moving at impossible speeds. Over the speed of sound and yet, no one mentions hearing a sonic boom. People less than a quarter mile away from the towers, would hear nothing at all in advance of the plane crashes. First, because the sound would take almost a second to reach down to them from that height. and second because the speed of the aircraft puts it another second or so, ahead of the sound waves traveling to ground. At ground level the sound of the plane is 2 to 3 seconds behind it. That translates to over a quarter mile at those speeds. 911 Pilots 4 truth has the speed data, if anyone cares to look.

      Next we come to the planes themselves. When they hit, they were degrees off the perpendicular in both the X, Y, and Z planes. That fact, added to the strengths and weaknesses of their structural make up, prevents them from entering the solid steel and masonry building completely.
      Thus, if we’re viewing real crashes in the video’s, there should be large pieces of aircraft debris plunging through the fireballs, dragging wake vortexes of fire and smoke behind them. They are absent.

      Most people who claimed to have seen the jet hit the south tower, are unaware that the video of that crash, shows an engine going completely through the building and that engine is supposedly found on Church street at Murray street. But the engine found there was confirmed not to be from either plane by the NTSB itself! Because ad hoc investigators managed to prove that this was the wrong type of engine for those aircraft.

      Then there’s the matter of “nose in nose out”, where the videos show, after careful analysis, that the nose of the south tower plane, emerged from the south tower intact. P4T has those videos too. Worse yet, neither of these flights were scheduled to fly that day according to gov’t kept records that airlines are required to file. These are regularly scheduled flights that fly every day except that day. Worse yet there are still more anomalies for any reader to discover, they are documented and reported on both websites and in the mainstream media, even thought the MSM would rather not have bothered. Consequently they don’t harp on such stories, which were obviously “printed” before the significance of them could be known, or they could be reached and made to retract or otherwise muddy the waters.

      So, before anyone else decides to claim they saw planes crash that day, they need to look to see if there were truly any planes to be seen. It would not be the first time eyewitnesses were mistaken.

    • pomeroo says:

      The windows were not not visible because of the tilt of the plane. AA11 and UA175 were tracked to the WTC complex on primary radar.

  14. I understand the thinking that goes into the article, and I acknowledge that there’s merit to it. But this brings up the major objection to the Directed Energy Weapons theory: the amount of energy needed to be the output of such a weapon is unattainable by today’s energy production facilities. How do we answer criticism based on that objection? The amount of energy required by that weapon for the DEW theory to be valid, is impossible.

    Petros Evdokas, petros@cyprus-org.net

    • John says:

      Hey Petros, The World Trade Center was destroyed using a new physical principle, turning most of it into dust. Cold dust! Witnesses (see NYT witness reports) reported the racing dust cloud was unexpectedly cool. This was a surprise. Even those on the ground couldn’t resist trying to use past experience to understand what they were seeing. That’s natural.

      The logic could go like this: Houses fall to the ground when they burn. The World Trade Center isn’t there anymore, so the WTC towers must have A.) fallen and B.) burnt! Both of these assumptions are erroneous and contradict what was observed.

      The “theory” needs to match the data. If the data implied that heat was the source of destruction I might agree with your objection that such a DEW would necessarily require massive energy. But what we saw on 9/11 doesn’t match that theory.

    • John says:

      An analogy: Trying to understand the DEW used on the WTC in terms of heat is like trying to understand a nuclear weapon in terms of conventional explosives. A nuclear weapon is not an enormous firecracker. Likewise the WTC weapon is not an enormous cigarette lighter.

    • Robert E. Salt says:

      It seems to me that this molecular dissociation process provides much of its own energy like rows of dominoes falling. This is why the process continued for many years.

  15. anastasia says:

    You forgot another theory, and that is underground nuclear explosion, where there would be no ionizing radiation, no radiation fall-out, and the heat generated would be generated and confined to underground. further, such an explosion would pulverize and turn the building into dust. And there was serious damage to the bathtub according to that scholarly paper about tritium being found at Ground Zero. o.

  16. Usual jumble of stuff here – and “oneborneveryminute” wins the award for avoiding the central issues in the most words.

    Wow. Everything you need is here. Time to “put up” or “shut up” (actually, that time was about 4 years ago.)

    • Thanks for posting Andrew, and thank you for all your excellent work on 9/11.

    • onebornfree says:

      A. Johnson said: ““oneborneveryminute” wins the award for avoiding the central issues in the most words.”

      Q1: What is this place- some sort of tedious, name-calling club? Does doing so somehow make a posters argument more weighty? What happens, you make up some sort of childish, retarded name and you get an award ,or points, perhaps :-) Is this type of behavior some sort of requirement for a Judy Wood fan club membership? To me it is both childish and irrelevant.

      Q2: So what are “the central issues” that I have so skillfully [if, admittedly, somewhat verbosely] avoided, according to you, Mr Johnson? Regards, onebornfree.

  17. Ken Ashley says:

    Have we lost the forest for the trees?

  18. Ron101 says:

    Hi Morgan.
    I always admired you for the Fox interview. that was gutsy.

    Around 3-4 months ago i did a similar comparison of WTC theories :

    http://911crimescene.weebly.com/

    Would be interested in getting your take on it

    Thanks
    Ron

  19. onebornfree says:

    Fact: All of the “plane into/through building” videos are 100% fake [i.e they do not just involve plane images being inserted into otherwise real footage; literally every pixel within their frames is 100% computer manufactured.]

    Assuming a scientist is fully aware of that fact, then I would propose that it is more than a little risky for them to then draw supposedly definitive scientific conclusions from review of the supposedly “live” footage of buildings exploding, collapsing, “dustifying”,[ or whatever other adjective an individual might wish to insert to describe what is seen on the tower destruct footage] , without first establishing, beyond any reasonable doubt, that that destruct footage viewed and used to draw/support those scientific conclusions is in fact genuine, and not just 100% manufactured, just like all of those “plane into/through building” videos.

    Why is it somehow still reasonable to carry on with the assumption that the rest of the footage reviewed is genuine, and that the media has merely confined its lying to random images of a couple of planes doing the impossible [After all, even outside of the plane/building fakes, there are numerous examples of media lies, e.g. the events at the Pentagon and at Shanksville] ?

    Even if such supposedly definitive “scientific” conclusions had already been reached as to what caused the tower destruction, _prior_ to it being fully understood by the researcher involved that the “plane into/through building” videos were in fact all 100% fakes, then once that _had_ been understood, surely it is no less necessary, [in my laymans opinion ] for that scientist to be fully prepared to ditch those conclusions to date , in order to go back and _thoroughly_ re-review and reexamine all of the previously assumed to be genuine imagery ["evidence"] that those scientific conclusions were based on.[i.e. all of that supposedly authentic tower destruct related imagery , in both video and still form].

    I understand that psychologically, for most of us, this is apparently a hard thing to do when one’s reputation is already founded on a supposedly definitive theory of what brought the towers down – after all ,when you’ve already written a book, why bother to go back and re-review that “authentic” footage and risk a danger that it might [just like the "plane into through building" footage] , prove to be 100% manufactured on computers, therefor invalidating the scientific researchers conclusions to date about what actually caused the towers collapse ?

    Nevertheless, to my my mind at least, an honest search for truth dictates that a very close and thorough re-examination of all of the tower destruction footage to this point assumed to be genuine, and on which important scientific conclusions have apparently largely been based, needs to be undertaken, by anyone who is interested in a real search for truth, in the face of the obvious 100% falsity of all of those “plane into/through building ” video sequences [as well as all of the other numerous, obvious media lies well known to many here].

    After being a Judy Wood/Morgan Reynold’s believer myself for some time [roughly 2006-8], on being repeatedly confronted with the numerous and often very obvious [on close examination] discrepancies/anomalies within _all_ of the tower destruct imagery, which pointed to it mostly being fake,[ _way_ beyond any reasonable doubt to myself], I had to force myself to reconsider my previous conclusions to date as to what really caused the removal of the towers and surrounding WTC complex and to ultimately discard them.

    I would suggest that this is an even more urgent process [i.e re- review] to undertake for “name” researchers, seeing as how they themselves and others, have reputations for integrity based on controversial scientific conclusions to date reached via the study of what is, to my mind at least, in the end mostly computer generated and manufactured imagery of towers being destroyed [or "dustified" if you prefer].

    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

    • onebornfree says:

      P.S. The still photo heading this very article, captioned “This is no collapse, this is a tower turning to dust in mid-air. Dust 1″+ on the ground and more suspended in air (a tower!) at the end of the street. Incredible volume of dust from buildings turned to dust.”, is an obvious fake [ to me :-)].

      Supposed Angle of Sun?

      Just analyze the inferred sunlight angle from the shadows on the roof of the large building at right, [ that angle being roughly above and to the left and behind the smoke column, roughly at a 45 degree angle across the entire picture] then see if that inferred sunlight angle rings true for all other subjects [buildings] in the photo, including the main smoke column.

      Obviously, if the sun is behind, above and to the left of the smoke as the shadows on roof of the large building at lower right would indicate, that column of smoke should be casting a shadow in front of it, putting that large building in the right foreground entirely in shadow.

      Repetitive Smoke Patterns
      Also, although its hard for the uninitiated, given the relative small size of the photo, take a very close look at the smoke patterns- you will find that there are many examples of repetitive patterns within each main cloud, many of them having face, or dog-like images.
      Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom.

      • onebornfree says:

        obwon said: “Give people a chance to see your “a ha!” moment for themselves. I know it can be time consuming to go one step at a time, but there really isn’t any other way to work through complex material.”

        Thanks, but I will decline to do so. I do not wish to clog Mr Reynolds site any further. I already have a total of 7 fairly long posts in the thread “No Planes, Media One and Done”, and another 4 in this thread. I feel that any one who is interested in what I have to say can easily understand my position via a reading of those 11 posts- if they wish to discuss further they can always email me. Regards, onebornfree.

    • Maybe I should rename onebornfree onenotejohnny?

      Back to content: Dr. Wood has examined 40,000+ images of events at the WTC. The photo in question above and used on the cover of Where…? plus pp. 15 and 171 is not fake in any respect I can identify. If I did see it, I’d then holler, “Fake!” and have the goods to prove it up. Contrary to your accusation, I’m not afraid to admit error and change my mind and tell the tale. That is a good scientist.

      The picture shows the North Tower unraveling at 10:28:31 a.m. eastern daylight savings time. We know that was the time because of seismic data, and none of that data supports the official story. A lawyer would call the seismic data an “admission against interest.” And the dustification pictures and videos are contrary to the official story too. That raises a good question: while it’s clear why the perps and their assistants spun plane fakery, why picture an incredible dustification contrary to the official myth? It’s a head scratcher. The time of NT destruction is beyond reasonable doubt (any fool can raise an unreasonable doubt). If we temporarily assume picture authenticity the camera aloft faced southwest and we see the 47-story WTC7 building’s north side in the foreground, in front of the dissolving NT, Ellis Island out in the harbor area in the background, etc. The buildings line up. The shadows fall to the northwest and are consistent with the sun being above to the southeast (left in the pic) as it was at the time. We could go on about the precise angle, etc., but you’d only dispute everything.

      But suppose this picture and all other pictures of the destruction process are fake in accord with your superior photo-analytical skills (I’m just supposing all this for the sake of argument). Then “fact five” might superficially be in play for disputation or dismissal (no mid-air dustification proven) because we’d toss out part of the direct evidence of the destruction process because it’s proven fake. Yet the inescapable conclusion that dustification occurred before the towers hit the ground still stands tall because all the rest of the overwhelming evidence of mid-air dustification remains: overwhelming witness testimony about dust, for too little debris, an bathtub intact, no flooding, low seismic impact, relatively quiet destruction, incredibly tiny dust particles, choking, lung illnesses, on and on. The evidence of what happened is cumulative, rather than a chain whose strength depends critically on the strength of each link. Each piece of evidence from the WTC strengthens the conclusion. They are consistent in documenting effects never seen before.

      • Mr Reynolds, I guess it is time for me to ask: I am not sure I understand how your repeated name calling, present in every one of you posts to me bar one if I recall correctly, helps your case. O.K. I get it, you are the King of the Castle and you can call whomever you want whatever you want. But beyond that?

        Is this [name-calling] something you learned from Prof. Wood, who, in private emails to me a few years back, resorted to similar tactics when I pointed out obvious chronological and meteorological errors present in her hypothesis regarding the relationship of hurricane Erin to the events of 9/11? [See: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-dr-judy-wood-is-probably-mistaken.html ]. Or, did you teach her this technique ?

        After all, in the end, we both appear to be on the same side – the only difference seeming to be that you believe that the available evidence can be used to conclusively state what destroyed the towers, where I would say that the supposed evidence used to reach such a conclusion [i.e. all MSM "live" footage, all "amateur" "live" footage, all government, private professional and amateur still shots, all MSM witness interviews, all purported seismic activity evidence etc.] , is , on close examination, inherently untrustworthy, so that we know that the towers were deliberately destroyed that day to start a war, beyond that we just do not [and cannot] know for certain exactly how, beyond the fact that fires caused by none-existent plane strikes does not “cut it”.

        Basically, the closer you look at all of the purported evidence, the uglier it all gets , the more suspect it all becomes. Which means that the conclusions that you have reached as to what caused the destruction of the WTC complex seem more than a little tenuous, from where I stand, at least. For whatever _that’s_ worth.

        Particularly in light of the fact that if we assume that the MSM “live” footage of that morning was actually live and “real time”, [as you no doubt still believe], and we assume that such destructive weapons exist, the perps would have had to know with absolute certainty that those weapons would perform to absolute perfection that day, as their immediate effects were going to be seen by millions on live TV.

        And, of course, to achieve the psychologically necessary “shock and awe” and necessary “war fever” in the masses, it was absolutely critical for the towers to appear to have disappeared in under 20 seconds, a huge risk of things going wrong for those weapons if they exist [and for the perps of course], if both beam weapon technology, and real time MSM coverage are assumed to have been real features of the actual scenario that day.

        This makes no sense to me. It’s the exact same argument that goes against the use of actual planes [ why use them and run the risk of them not producing the required result in real time when you have the ability to shut down the MSM and broadcast pre- manufactured at the perps leisure, Hollywood style imagery that would show the required aircraft collisions with a near 100% guarantee of working perfectly, and no worry of possible real-time pilot error?]

        Similarly, why risk an experimental, untested beam weapon in front of millions of TV viewers [ to the best of my knowledge, if such weapons exist, there are no known incidences of them having been tested on structures of a similar size and construction materials], when months, or even years before you can just pre-fabricate on computer, entire movie sequences, complete with multiple view angles for extra “realism” and run them and re-run them until they look just right [or "good enough for government work" at least :-)] , then shut down media central [i.e. WTC1] that morning, and run _those_ computer simulations, knowing in advance that they all would, just like the “plane into/through building” videos, work perfectly, _every time_, in front of the millions of viewers who automatically would assume that they were watching live events, never guessing that they were all just watching a carefully pre- manufactured Hollywood -style movie ,complete with fake smoke and dust ?

        Yes, we definitely know that the towers stood on 9/10, and that by the end of the day of 9/11, they and the rest of the complex had apparently somehow been reduced to dust/rubble. But I would suggest that based on the available so-called “evidence”,we do not, and cannot know exactly what brought them down [although I would personally surmise standard, run-of-the-mill, bottom up tall building demolition methods, using pre-installed standard issue demolition explosives, and which in real life took far longer than the 10-20 sec.'s depicted in all tower destruct video sequences] .

        But beam weapons, mini-nukes, or standard demolitions or whatever else proposed, what difference does it really make as to what actually brought them down, in the big picture?

        I would suggest that speculation about what exactly brought everything down that day is a futile exercise because such speculations are unavoidably based either on seriously comprised “physical” evidence which to a large degree appears to have been faked on computers, or on unverifiable testimony from non-cross examined “witnesses” [ many of those so-called witnesses appear to have been hired actors.]

        As to your contention that if, in your mind [hypothetically], most of the video and photographic evidence of the MSM’s “live” coverage of the WTC complex, from the time shortly after flight 11 supposedly struck the North tower, at least up until both towers were depicted as “dustifying”, was proven to have been mostly pre-manufactured fake footage [again, hypothetically, in your own mind] , that both current seismic evidence and witness testimony would still confirm your present conclusions, this would seem a little naive, to me.

        Don’t you think that if they went to the trouble to broadcast fake planes gliding effortlessly through steel and concrete buildings,plus hours of “live” footage of smoking towers, plus around 20 secs or so of footage showing 1300 ft tall buildings effortlessly disappearing from multiple angles in front of the very viewers eyes, plus “live” “eye-witness” interviews using actors, that they [ i.e the perps] would also make damn sure that all released seismic activity evidence would also necessarily be faked ?

        Furthermore, if you are to trust non-cross examined supposed eyewitness accounts as you claim, why not trust the persons who claim to have heard massive explosions in the basement of WTC1, even _before_ Flight 11 supposedly struck that tower? Why is their testimony not believable- because supposedly trustworthy seismic evidence refutes it?

        What’s that old Temptations song, “Standing On Shaky Ground” ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eET1ye8gYmo

        regards, onebornfree

        • You’re offended? By what? What statement?
          Your missive, as usual, is all about how error is possible. This just in: human error is possible, especially when criminals can fake evidence, courtesy onebornfree. The extreme from your camp is called skepticism in philosophy, the epistemological theory that knowledge is impossible. Yet you know (you claim knowledge) about the 9/11 evidence, namely, it’s all fake. Proof? Rather slim. Only fools like Reynolds “trust” the faked evidence and never reconsider. Rubbish. You are attacking absolutes, certainty and reason itself.
          You make arbitrary accusations (“standing on shaky ground”) when I offer irrefutable evidence to prove my conclusion. Suppose I, the prosecutor (stay with me), present evidence to prove all elements of the criminal charge. The defense rebuts by hollering, “Fake!” every time but offers nothing specific to support its claim. When the opportunity comes to put on evidence in defense of the accused, the defense presents nothing. Jurors, of course, are the ultimate triers of fact. How would that go over with the jury? Not good. The law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction, not beyond all doubt. Only reasonable doubt must erased by evidence prosecutors offer, not all doubt. You’re the unreasonable doubter. The evidence about debris, bathtub, seismic signals, lack of powerful bang, bang, bang during the unraveling, and enormous amounts of fine dust in lower Manhattan is trump tight.
          “‘Maybe you’re wrong’ is an accusation that must be supported by specific evidence,” as Leonard Peikoff writes. Take one example: you ask whether the perps wouldn’t make “damn sure that all released seismic activity evidence would also necessarily be faked?” You offer no evidence for us to believe that the seismic evidence is faked, none whatever. You (apparently) want to undercut confidence in that data, to raise doubt, yet offer no reasonable basis for your allegation to be true. You overrate the power of the perps, for one thing. They cannot successfully fake or “fix” everything to cover their tracks, as you imply, there are no such titans in the world. There are many people around who are professionals and do their jobs, like seismologists, paying little heed to what perps might want. Many have blinders on. It would be foolhardy for the perps to try to come in after the fact and fix such data. You have no evidence for such actions. Further, why would the perps fake data to understate the impact of tower destruction hammering the earth if they really did collapse? Makes no sense. I don’t get it, not at all. I’d fake it so the expected 3.8 values would be reported, all with the details displayed in ch. 6 of Where Did the Towers Go? Understating the data (if that’s your contention, who the hell knows?) at 2.3 and 2.1 Richter equivalent for the twin towers and 0.6 for WTC7 is an “admission against [the perps'] interest” as the lawyers would say.
          What we have here, I suspect, is a bunch of arbitrary claims intended to discredit the no plane result by absurd extension of the proven airplane video fakery to nearly everything, creating doubt about everything 9/11 to discourage public interest and knowledge, and stall out the clock on behalf of the perps. Maybe I’m wrong but you and Simon are in the evidence and reasoning destruction biz.

        • Obwon says:

          If it will help inspire onebornfree@yahoo.com, to marshal his fact, I have to say at this point in time Mr. Reynolds is right!

          At the least Mr. onebornfree@yahoo.com, you could give us some: “If this is true, then this and this must also be true”, kind of testimony, then we might be able to appreciate what you’re trying to say. Failing that, your missives do not rise above the “noise” we hear on the net.

          Since anyone can say whatever they please on the net, we have to be able to think critically before we accept any presentation or offer as true or not true. If we haven’t the skill sets ourselves, to evaluate an offer, then we must rely on the expertise of those who do, usually hearing from both sides and then deciding who is the more credible “speaker”.

          Hope this is of some help! But mere assertions are a waste of everyone’s time.

        • onebornfree says:

          OBWON said: “At the least Mr. onebornfree@yahoo.com, you could give us some: “If this is true, then this and this must also be true”, kind of testimony, then we might be able to appreciate what you’re trying to say. Failing that, your missives do not rise above the “noise” we hear on the net.”

          I understand your position. I am just “noise”. ‘Story of my life. :-0

          A couple of points:
          [1] Although, unlike Mr Reynolds, you might not be aware of this, in another thread ” No Planes, media one and done”, I gave links to a research thread that closely examines much of the MSM’s alleged “live” footage for 9/11, and many of the “stills” either taken directly from that footage, or allegedly shot by pro and amateur photographers.

          It takes time to analyze and digest and perhaps re-analyze ,re-digest these research findings, but if you are genuinely interested, I suggest you start with that link in that thread where imagery falsification can be clearly demonstrated, rather than here, where I can only use words to describe what I see.

          [2] As to my claims/assertions regarding the falsity of imagery posted at “nomoregames” itself , to date I have made that claim regarding 2 specific items.[again only using words,- which is hard to do].

          Fake Imagery Claim [i]: My first specific “fake imagery” claim was made in the previously mentioned thread [" No Planes, media one and done"], and referred to [what I see] as the obvious falsity of the video currently at the top of the “nomoregames” homepage, titled ” 9/11-NBC- best of the best” .

          In that thread [" No Planes, media one and done"] I pointed out that it was not even necessary to play that “Nomoregames” home page video; in my opinion all the viewer has to do is look closely at the initial still image that confronts him/her _pre-play_ : that of an apparent building explosion [or whatever you wish to call it] in the distance, with the requisite buildings/street imagery directly in front of it.

          That video opening still shot dramatically demonstrates [or should] that this is a simple layered composite, where the background image [exploding building] has simply had another layer [foreground building imagery] layered/superimposed directly on top of that background imagery, to create the finished composition [i.e. standard video compositing]. It really should not be that difficult for you [or Mr Reynolds :-) ] to see, in my opinion. Indeed if you cannot see it [the distinct compositional layering], or at least suspect it , you probably need to get your eyes tested :-)

          Fake Imagery Claim [ii]: In this very thread I have previously claimed that the still “photo” that heads it ,[ I'm guessing a supposed shot from a helicopter] , of a large column of smoke and dust, from a viewpoint looking down on the WTC complex, is also a fake, given that the sunlight/shadow information within it is contradictory, along with other major visual discrepancies that I will not get into at this time.

          I stand by that [fake image] claim, although I understand that it does not convince you, or probably anyone else here either. Once again, it is hard to describe in words what really needs to be demonstrated in pictures, with lines, arrows and circles to point out the obvious discrepancies which will otherwise escape the viewer used to assuming from the outset that these and other images like them are genuine photos, so I will refrain from further describing in words what needs to be visually demonstrated .

          In any case, if genuinely interested you first need to develop your viewing power by investing your own time and brain power and repeatedly going over the evidence analyzed in the outside link already given in that other thread here [i.e." No Planes, media one and done"]. I believe that what you will learn there will be invaluable to your photo- analytical skills.

          New Photos In This Thread

          I see that Mr Reynold’s has since added 2 more photos beneath the original aerial view shot that I had called “fake”, both of which are themselves highly suspect. Since the bottom one, of a view of the WTC destruction from across the river is of very low resolution, even for the internet, I will refrain from commenting on it.

          However the middle one, depicting an alleged street scene in downtown Manhattan with various people in the frame,dust in the street etc., has many obvious [to me] visual discrepancies, none of which I am prepared to at this time waste my time trying to describe in words, when it can only really be clearly demonstrated with pictures, drawn circles around its various parts, and drawn arrows pointing to parts of the picture in question by way of illustration.

          All I would say at this time by way of a clue to the falsity of that particular street scene photo is : “sunlight never lies”, [although even outside the sunlight /shadow issues, there is _plenty more_ that is visually very wrong with this particular shot ].

          If you would like me to attempt a description of what I am seeing here, at this site, I’ll consider it, and if I have time I’ll try to illustrate using words only. But in the end, really, if genuinely interested and open-minded, you and others like you need to learn/educate yourselves about the types of visual clues that for me scream so loudly “Fake image!! Regards, onebornfree.

        • Obwon says:

          I don’t believe anyone here, myself included, has any problem believing that there is lots of faked imagery in the 9-11 mix. So you’re not just being put down for “lunatic ranting” etc., but for lack of presenting a clear case. Instead of trying to put across a smorgasbord of data, why not single out one place to start and work with just that one item? Give us a clear and simple outline of what you think these things will prove, if found, or what they will refute.

          Give people a chance to see your “a ha!” moment for themselves. I know it can be time consuming to go one step at a time, but there really isn’t any other way to work through complex material.

  20. mart-kos says:

    hi mr reynolds. nice article

    but…

    what turned all the steel and concrete into dust? thermite? no way. conventional explosives? i dont think so eighter.

    jet fuel?! hahaha yeah right. we all know THAT one is a lie!

    did you know that it is forbidden since 2005, to use a geiger counter within manhattan? ive always wondered why, until Dimitrij Khalezov wrote me a mail on youtube. he gave me permission to reup his videos, i basicly just took the clip concerning the NPT, where he clearly has sayed, there were no planes of course!
    about a week later i got an “content ID” hit, i posted all that into my blog, and as i found out later on, it was a guy from mossad, taking down all the “mini nuces” videos, and once again i wondered, why ;)

    anyways, there are many points, that speak towards the nuces theory, and ive put them all into my blog some time ago. its in german, but you might wanna look in there, with the translator.

    just, in case you wanna read it:

    http://metalfist616.blogspot.com/2011/08/911-in-die-realitat-geatom-bombt.html

    in the end of this post are related posts, where yoll find what i just wrote

    and this one is also funny:

    http://metalfist616.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-plane-extremisten-bei-asr.html

    asr is one austrian “truther”, pretty much the first german speaking truther besides the german info-warrior. well, since about 2 years now, hes not quite sticking to the truth anymore, no wonder, hes a bankster, living in swiss and putting donations into his own shares. but anyways, he called al the no planers “extremists” and i was so pissed off of him, that i wrote an article, where i used his research methods to prove, eighter we are all right, or he isnt (wich is basicly the same, lol) .

    well, hope youll post this new reseach soon, which you wrote about!
    best regards from germany
    mart-kos

    metalfist616.blogspot.com

    • No planes AND no nukes. I’m surprised you are promoting the nuke story since it cannot possibly be correct, especially Khalezhov’s bottom-up big bomb theory, as I prove in my article and Dr. Wood does in her text.

      • pomeroo says:

        Morgan Reynolds will NEVER attempt to discuss his bizarre garble of the crash science with a physicist. He understands perfectly well that he is peddling nonsense.

        For the same reason, Judy Wood will NEVER confront her critics. In her worthless book, she cites weather data showing that all three NYC-area airports reported rain and thunder on 9/11. Her zombies are, for obvious reasons, unable and unwilling to CHECK her source. If they did so, they would encounter yet another of those inconvenient facts that destroy her fantasies.

        The rain and thunder occurred on September TENTH, when a fast-moving band of thundershowers crossed the city from the west. ALL THREE airports reported clear skies and NO precipitation or thunder on 9/11.

        Judy Wood: liar or incompetent? I vote, Both.

    • klasmu@comcast.com says:

      “Kirche das Sagen und alle Regierungsmacht hatte, da wurde jeder hingerichtet, der etwas anderes behauptet hat!” Ja, Wohl. Und heute? Wer hat die Macht? Bald kommt die gleiche. Frau Ferkel-Sauer?

      If we could find a loaner Boeing, we could invite anybody that claims planes to give us a demo, they drive. This is a joke, but the psyhoppers have been very successful in divide and conquer. If one is serious, why give an inch towards the “government” version.

    • Ken A. says:

      Freeman claims that the waving women survived the plane strike! So he thus believes that the airplane cooky cutter pattern was made with a Fleugzeug. He has always maintained planes, my impression. What’s the real agenda?

  21. Obwon says:

    Excellent arguments. I’ve been working on 911 from day one, trying to understand what had really happened, and I refused to accept any answers that could not be grounded in science etc., where I had not the skill levels to make the assessments, I read what the pro’s had to say. If they did not agree, then I simply “bookmarked” that issue and moved on to the next one. Returning as new material was made available.

    Very early on I was forced to conclude that there were no skyjacked planes crashed into the buildings. Because that was the only conclusion that could explain all of the facts that remained uncontroversial.

    Of course, in this missive there are, what appears to be flaws, that are not really flaws at all. There were explosions, but they did not bring the towers down as the article says, and for the reasons enumerated. My guess is that they were there to confuse, confound and mislead. The perps would want as much varied opinion as they could possibly generate, since that would divide and eviscerate the energies of any, who were trying to establish consensus on anything. Looking back over the decade past, that strategy has worked magnificently.

    As far as DEW goes, there’s a very strong case for a black weapon of some kind, since I sincerely doubt that, from the characteristics of thermite (thermate or whatever), even enhanced by explosives, they could not account for the rotating building top disintegrating as it
    did in the films. Nor could that building top have disintegrated by gravitational or even heat causes. Thus, 911 appears to be some sort of weapons test, where that weapon was then made operational, having passed it’s testing. Only now, what ever it is, it must be kept totally secret, for the obvious reasons.

  22. THANKS TO DR. WOODS . AND PROF REYNOLDS ; PEOPE WHO WERE THERE SHOULD HAVE WONDERED ,AS THE NYPD OFFICER .
    I WAS THERE IN NOVEMBER TO SEE THE ROCKETTES XMAS SHOW , AND OUR THROATS FELT LIKE WE HAD PUT A CIGAR IN YOUR MOUTH FROM THE LIGHTED END . WHIC\H I HAVE DONE IN THE PAST . I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMEONE GO AFTER THE GOVERNOR OF IRAQ ,CROCKER,WHO SERVED WITH PETRAEUS . HE HAD JUST LANDED ,HE SAW THE BUILDINGS BURNING AS HE FLEW OVER , AND WATCHED THE BUILDINGS COME DOWN , (NEWSWEEK ,2009 ,NOV.?) HE SAID THEY IMPLODED , AND SO DID HIS ASSISTANT ….
    ALBIE DEL FAVERO NASHVILLE NEWS , ALSO FLEW ABOVE THE BUILDINGS ,SAW THEM BURNING ;WHEN THESE PEOPLE LANDED NO ONE WAS AROUND TO QUESTION THEM . THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED . HIS STORY APPEARED IN THE NASHVILLE PAPER ,9-12-2001.

  23. Ronald Wieck says:

    Morgan Reynolds is a fraud. I have challenged him on many occasions to run his fantasies by a physics teacher. He ALWAYS runs away, tail between his legs. No conspiracy liar has challengeed the conclusions of the real structural engineers. There is a reason why ignorant conspiracy charlatans will never debate engineers and physicists.

  24. the thompson twins says:

    sorry PR you are wrong, there are two contradictory film versions of “flight 175″ exiting the south tower 911, an object of “flight 175’s” nosecone and fuselage dimensions and trajectory exiting INTACT after passing through 1 acre of steel and concrete building–and then being totally consumed by flames in a fraction of a second! then there’s the several dust explosion exit films . Is it Achimprov(sp?) on youtube who collates all available “flight 175″ films? go look for yourself. The dust explosion is more plausible of course as there is no commensurate exit hole on that side of the south tower for any object, engine ,fuselage, landing gear etc. to catapult into lower Manhattan.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Hahaha… That’s simply silly!

  26. the thompson twins says:

    There are two available types of “flight 175 exiting the south tower 9/11″ films (1) nosecone and fuselage exiting completley intact (ie. the Murdoch chopper 5 live shot) OR (2) dust explosion (Naudet bros’). Don’t these two versions slightly contradict each other or am I missing something? Can any of you scientists help?

  27. pomeroo says:

    Silly? Reynolds has run away from every invitation to defend his idiocy on ‘Hardfire,’ the show I host. Judy Wood wouldn’t dream of facing a real physicist. You are clueless.

  28. pomeroo says:

    You are missing something. The nose cone did not survive the plane’s passage through the forest of interior ciolumns. You are seeing a projectile-shaped cloud of debris exiting the building. The shape is determined by the laws of physics. Only the heaviest parts of the aircraft–landing gear and a few engine parts–were found in the street below.

  29. Lonnie Starr says:

    Except that both the FBI and the NTSB have said that none of the parts found on the street, came from either craft involved in the crash. see: 911 Pilots 4 truth.

  30. pomeroo says:

    Silly liar, the FBI and the NTSB said nothing of the sort. Anyone who believes a word Balsamo writes is too stupid to cross the street safely.

  31. pomeroo says:

    No, I am completely correct. The nose cone was destroyed inside the building. A projectile-shaped debris cloud exited the side opposite the crash.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s