Reynolds Booted Out of SPINE
By Morgan Reynolds — January 7th, 2007

Kee Dewdney, a Canadian scientist and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE, website http://www.physics911.net) notified me last week that I was dismissed from SPINE because I was “over the top” in my no-plane remarks on the Faux News Network on Sept. 10, 2006. These remarks are on YouTube here http://youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8. I had tried to get Professor Dewdney to post one of my no-plane articles to no avail, and he would not post a pro/con exchange on the issue. I consider his website to be moribund because it has no articles on the leading research controversies, especially thermite, energy weapons and planes/no planes.
Dewdney’s unsolicited January 4, 2007 email started the exchange:
Dear Morgan,
I am sorry that it has come to this, but when I recently saw the video clip of your FOX TV interview, I hit the roof. I believe it was precipitous of you to go public with an unproven theory regarding video fakery. In doing so, you created a situation that has set the whole movement back.
Indeed, even if I HAD undoubted proof that the plane videos were faked, I would keep such information to myself, knowing that it is a) largely irrelevant to the overall picture that the hijackings were stage-managed, and b) making a hard sell 100 tmes harder.
The association of your name with SPINE must now come to an end simply because of the enormous loss of credibility we will suffer every time a visitor who is familar with your position sees your name on our website. Should you reconsider your position and make it public, I will reconsider mine. This is not a scientific position, but a management decision.
I don’t believe you are “disinfo,” as some have claimed, but you have become what I call “effective disinfo,” which is just as damaging.
I hope you will reconsider the whole “no planes” hypothesis in this light.
All the best
Kee
Reynolds’ January 4, 2007 reply:
Kee,
Does this mean my fat SPINE “paychecks” cease too!? Or merely cut in half?
Your “over the top” label reminds me of Dr. Robert M. Gates’ accusation against me that any assertion that the government was involved in 9/11 was “beyond the pale.”
I’m sorry you are so “on edge.” What? No serious scientific disagreements allowed in SPINE, even when there is clearly room for disagreement and research? Oh my, that’s really too bad. And as far as the public is concerned, it is entirely prepared for the truth and nothing but the truth.
You’ve never read my fundamental article from last March, as far as I can tell. https://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
Why not? Prove me wrong. I prove no big Boeing crashed at any of the designated sites. I’ve yet to see a scientific defense of the Boeing crash stories based on an analysis of the physical “crash data.” Also see the more recent version of this no-plane-crash finding with Rick Rajter:
https://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth
I take it from your membership list that Rick was excommunicated too!? Even though he did not appear on Fox TV to spill the truth about how the perps and complicit corporate media pulled the wool over nearly everyone’s eyes?
Well, you’ve made your decision and I gladly depart your now-unified group–no skepticism about big Boeing crashes allowed. Look at your list of members–I’m not disinfo but I see some fine candidates for that label in SPINE membership.
Sincerely,
Morgan Reynolds
Dewdney’s January 5, 2007 reply:
Dear Morgan,
Your (virtual) paycheques will continue, of course, but my original contention stands. Let me take one issue as an example. Salter claims that the plane does, in fact, lose (some) momentum during the entry into the south tower. Can you successfully refute this claim?
Secondly, there is absolutely no question, should the perps have worrried that too much of the incoming aircraft would be left outside the tower, that the impact site could have been prepped with thermite and explosives to welcome the baby in with minimal fuss. In light of this alternative, one simply cannot make a claim of no planes without refuting the alternative, as well.
As for Rajter, I had no plans to suggest he leave, although he has just offered his resignation. I told him that I have no objection to alternative views being explored, but that mainstream exposure is wildly premature, failing confirmation of the position. I will wait for his reaction to that message before accepting his offer.
Your last word on other “candidates for disinfo” leaves me curious. If you would care to share your opinion with me, I will keep it confidential. Salter claims (and I agree) that we must be at least as suspicious of those who cry “disinfo” as we should of the accused. You may also agree. I’ll wait on your answer.
All the best
Kee
Reynolds reply January 6, 2007:
Kee,
Get with it! Rick Rajter refutes the “momentum loss” contention here:https://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=deceleration_WTC2_myers
and it was an appendix here:https://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth
I invited Salter to the st911/Fetzer conference to defend the pro-plane position and he declined for unexplained reasons. Gee, I wonder why. Have you read his article in the Jones Junk Journal? Get real! This is the best your pro-plane crowd has got?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Volume 4, October 2006. Talk about desultory! All about bogus no-collision, glide-in videos, refuted here (October 29, 2006), among other places: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_covertoperations_archive.html
And your alternative? “…the impact site could have been prepped with thermite and explosives to welcome the baby in with minimal fuss.” That’s it??? Thermite again? Nicely timed for ignition? Where is the proof of concept, ignition method, video evidence for the garage door, etc.? Where do you develop that little anti-KISS theory? Please enlighten me.
I can name names on disinfo in SPINE but I’ll resist the temptation. No sense getting into a long evidential effort to prove it. Confidential? I do not trust your word for a minute. How can I? You have been acculturated for decades in the sci/academic method and drum me out of SPINE for daring to dissent from the plane fiction. That leaves me with few alternatives in terms of interpretation. Have a nice year.
Sincerely,
Morgan R.