Reynolds Booted from No Plane Club
Inducted into ‘Dirty Liars Club’
Morgan Reynolds — June 20th 2007
My prayer to God is a very short one,
“Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous!”
God has granted it.
I was recently exiled from a group called the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) because I appeared on the Fox News Channel and responded to a question about planes in part by saying, “…There were no big Boeing crashes. At all four events, for example, there is no significant wreckage…an aluminum plane cannot go through a building like the South Tower was, as if it were thin air, glide right through it…”
For Professor Kee Dewdney, founder of SPINE and supposed promoter of 9/11 research, this was too much. It was “precipitous” of me “to go public with an unproven theory regarding video fakery…even if I HAD undoubted proof that the plane videos were faked, I would keep such information to myself [emphasis added]…I hope you will reconsider the whole ‘no planes’ hypothesis in this light.” Dewdney averred to his SPINE email list, “This has saddened me because in an ordinary academic milieu, I might well have felt obliged to keep Morgan aboard. I might even have done this in the present instance if I thought the no-planes hypothesis had the slightest chance of being true.”
And Dewdney calls himself a scholar?
Professor Kee Dewdney
I committed the error of answering a media question as best and honestly as I could in the brief time allowed (actually I was surprised they gave me a chance to go there, and I scrambled to give a clear answer in under 30 seconds). Going public about video fakery was not “precipitous” because it has been proven over and over. Even a once-scoffing Jim Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has finally admitted in a radio interview with Rosalee Grable, the Webfairy, that the plane videos are fake. No plane crashes is one of the best-established results in 9/11 research. Professor Dewdney never attempted to demonstrate how and why no planers are wrong. He just suppresses the whole question as best he can. Oops, this just in: “The main observation that launched this school of thought was the butter-smooth entry of Flight quasi-175 into the south tower,” Dewdney ruminates to his SPINE email list. “There is a relatively straightforward technical procedure that asures [sic] the smooth entry…I’m working on it with other members of SPINE in consultation.” The world awaits Dewdney’s demonstration of how structural steel turns to butter and Newton’s third law of motion fails (see below).
Fallible though I am, I try to prove every public claim I make about 9/11, including no airplane crashes. It is unwise to be without proof of what I am saying, if only because of my visibility (“credentialism” obviously plays a major role here). Dewdney’s juiciest admission was, “Even if I HAD undoubted proof that the plane videos were faked, I would keep such information to myself.” The man thereby admits that he is not interested in discovering and disseminating the truth about 9/11, at least if he deems it tactically inconvenient. Faced with a question about TV fakery in public, Dewdney obviously would recommend an informed researcher/scientist lie or at minimum say, “No comment.” The definition of lying includes “anything meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.” For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is so honorable about intentionally protecting the 9/11 scam from the truth in any respect. Gerard Holmgren calls it, “Lying for the truth.”
Many truths about 9/11 are “inconvenient” (i.e., few will believe it immediately, so we can’t speak it). But activists should not suppress these truths; instead, make them less inconvenient. The 9/11 perpetrators obviously benefit from “outrageous” truths about how they committed the 9/11 crimes. They planned it that way to assist their cover up and hobble their pursuers. George W. Bush told us as much when he addressed the United Nations: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.” Bush told us, straight up and down, “outrageous” conspiracy theories like no planes and use of directed energy weapons by the military would prove true.
Dewdney and most students of 9/11 believe Reynolds promotes “no planes” at all four events. The reason? Because it is true! Here is an example from an interview I did with Michael Powell of the Washington Post last September:
Truth movement veterans distance themselves from [Nico] Haupt, who has a bit of a temper. But Reynolds, the former Labor Department economist, also is a “no-planer.”
“There were no planes, there were no hijackers,” Reynolds insists. “I know, I know, I’m out of the mainstream, but that’s the way it is.”
Such talk has made me the black sheep, the bete noire, of the U.S. 9/11 truth movement.
The land of 9/11 is treacherous and the latest tremor was that Gerard Holmgren, a pioneer “no planer” and debater extraordinaire, broke the stunning news that I am “a plane hugger who is pretending to be a no plane proponent.” Mr. Holmgren makes his case by assuming the worst about my intentions, my work and what I say, so I must try to correct the record. But first, let me explain why I am responding to him now rather than, say, back in January.
The reason for the delay is that Mr. Holmgren makes conversation with him a “turn off” once he “turns” against someone, which is early and often. He is about as far from a sympathetic critic as I have seen, despite the fact that we were once friendly and on the same side. He is out to win, stomp his opponents and his tactics include insults, intimidation, and more (documented below). I ignored him for six months because he was so “over the top.” With so many hot heads around, sometimes it is best let things cool down.
Here is the background: Mr. Holmgren began “chewing” on my case in late ’06 in email lists. I first became really aware of it in his big email on November 29 when he appointed me to his “dirty liars club” along with Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood and Steve Jones (do we get free beer?). I was a dirty liar because I was not pointing out Fetzer’s blunders, braggadocio and falsehoods. Holmgren initially made no reference to my expression “no big Boeing” as the main problem, instead it was all about my alleged “dirty deal” with Fetzer, “All in the name of getting publicity.” The alleged deal was “gutless,” “two faced,” and “hypocritical.” If Mr. Holmgren believes there was a “deal,” fine. I await his proof. He cannot prove his allegation since there was no deal.
I first noticed “No Big Boeings” was a verboten term when I received Holmgren’s email of December 2: “‘No big boeings’ can then become good for the movement if we just re-arrange the chips a little.” On December 3, Holmgren “Let-R-Rip”:
“We called ‘proof’ of ‘no planes’ a long time ago, and we stand by it, and if you [Dave Shaw] or Judy [Wood] or Morgan want to take us up on it, we’ll kick your asses, the same way that we kicked Salter, and Bilk, and Jones and Fetzer and the rest of them…
‘No Big Boeings’ is the catch phrase of the dirty liars club.
Once this surreptitious switch was established, then they took the keys to the house that we built, started renovations with permission, locked us out and then told us we had to pay rent to Fetzer to get back in.”
From there, things went downhill! For example, Mr. Holmgren calls Reynolds:
Apologist for lying
Crying, cowering, gutless little sook
Despicable excuse for a human being
Pathetic excuse for a human being
Self styled king of the “no planers”
Good fun for Holmgren but these slurs forestall discussion and learning. Or is that just the whiny crybaby in me? I have been involved in political battles before (I’m a “big boy”) but never encountered this kind of invective. Holmgren’s best smears, however, derive from the fact that I was the (politically appointed) chief economist in the U.S. Department of Labor for 16 months 2001-2 so I am a “bean counter for mass murderers,” “working for mass murderers and liars is how he made his money,” and “all the people you helped bomb in the middle east.”
To touch on this issue seriously for a moment, my previous positions have been assets to publicize the 9/11 hoax but liabilities as well. When I first came out declaring 9/11 an inside job, my 2001-2 stint as chief economist at the Bush labor department gave me credibility. Once I became known as no planer, however, I was a disinfo spook. I first began to seriously question 9/11 because when Bush-Cheney invaded Iraq in March 2003 based on assorted lies, I asked myself, “What else would they lie about?” Bingo, 9/11, and I started investigating it, culminating in an article that caused a stir.
I have a long fuse but the clincher for me to dissociate from Mr. Holmgren was the manner in which he refused my invitation for him to speak at the August 2007 9/11 conference in Madison. I knew how “prickly” Gerard was, but I wanted the best no planer to present at the conference. Here was my (naive) email:
From: Morgan Reynolds
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2007
To: Gerard Holmgren
Cc: Jim Fetzer
Subject: 9/11 conference invite
As you know st911 and Jim F. plan to have a conference on
controversial/noncontroversial 9/11 issues with the major positions
represented by leading researchers/writers (see http://www.st911.org for more info). While Jim originally planned it for July it now looks like fall is more likely in Madison.
I am chairing the session on planes/no planes at the WTC and would dearly love to have you as a presenter at this session. Consider this email a formal invitation. Of course there will be no restrictions on your paper other than it be on planes/no planes at the WTC. Other sessions are devoted to Pentagon/PA.
Presumably I need not tell you why I want you here since it is a virtual given that you are the most brilliant advocate/researcher on the no plane (reality) side. Rick Rajter has accepted an invitation to also present on the no plane side and I have contacted a half-dozen pro-planers to argue the other side with no acceptance yet. Eric Salter was a firm “no” for unexplained reasons. I’m trying to recruit two on the pro-plane side and I have another half dozen in mind. I do not believe that a boycott by the other side will succeed. Any suggestions for pro-plane advocates you may have will be appreciated.
Jim says we can guarantee up to US$1,000 in expenses, and might come up with more if the conference draws well. Perhaps that would buy the plane ticket and living expenses can be economized in various ways while in Madison, Wisconsin.
Gerard, I hope to hear a YES. This is going to be big and I want you to get on this stage to make the NPT case and mix it up with the opposition, face-to-face. If you come it will huge, delicious and maybe even decisive.
Mr. Holmgren promptly replied:
1. One condition for my involvement in any kind of event would be the exclusion of Jim Fetzer. The implication that this
idiot\liar\doublethinker\plagiarist has the legitimacy to play some significant role in filtering and assessing the research of others portrays your utter lack of integrity. Your tacit approval of his litany of lies etc in exchange for latching on to his publicity machine is contemptible groveling of the worst sort.
2. The implication that I can be bribed with free travel or whatever and the *approval* of people whith influence who matter (sic) is an insult to my integrity. The same bribes have been made to me periodically over the years. When people have found that they can’t beat me into line with a stick, then they try bribing me into line with air fares and *approval*.
My work either stands up or it doesn’t. If this is really about truth and
real thinking (ha ha ha ha !) then why do things have to settled with a golden handshake before “approaval” ? Why not just get on it with it? When I find work worth distributing I just distribute it. That’s all too complicated for “truthers”. Everything has to be “conferenced” and paid for with bribes. You are offering me the first step on the ladder of corruption. Not accepted.
3. The idea that some self appointed bunch can sit around and deliberate amongst themselves and issue a decree about what is “not controversial” is an insult to everybody. I have put my work on the internet, which is true peer review, because it means that if there is anything wrong with it, then someone is going to find it. And if someone does, then being a reasonable person, I will modify my views if I am convinced of such an argument Ð as has happened in the past.
Of all the insults that have been hurled at me over the years, this invitation is one of the most contemptible. Shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
After reading this reply, I thought, “Maybe Gerard is a touch deranged.” It is standard practice, for example, to reimburse travel for big names because organizers want their conference to succeed. Expecting every 9/11presenter invited to pay his or her own way in order “to preserve truth” is a bizarre expectation, given so many meager purses. I am not saying Holmgren is mad but his irate response suggested it. Maybe he has worn his “Does Not Play Well With Others” T-shirt once too often. In any event, I wanted as little as possible to do with him after that. At a minimum, I was not going to respond to his fulminations on his timetable, only on mine, if at all. So that is my explanation for “silence” in the face of Mr. Holmgren’s “toonder-n-lightning” over the past few months. I had better things to do and besides, vengeance is a dish best eaten cold.
Now we move to substance. In sifting through Holmgren’s indictment, I see six issues to take up:
1. “No Big Boeing” is about more than semantics because “it is still quite possible that they [twin towers] were hit by different kinds of planes.”
2. Reynolds indirectly challenges Newton’s third law of motion.
3. Reynolds is a plagiarist because “I personally tutored him in the physics of the forensic evidence, ” and his article is a “direct copy of my article.”
4. Reynolds has a doublethink agenda.
5. Reynolds backs Jim Fetzer.
6. Reynolds claims the Naudet video is fake.
1. NPT, NPCT and NBB
While the “no big Boeing” (NBB) and anti-Newton claims that agitate Holmgren raise substantive issues, the rest of his rant is not worth a bucket of warm spit. First, why did I come up with NBB? I was dissatisfied with the label “no plane theory” (NPT) because the word “theory” seemed chosen by a plane believer/hugger to smear the no plane position as an absurd “theory” without evidence, while the “no plane” part was imprecise and cut a swath that seemed too wide. It carried the connotation, for example, that no planes were in the air at any of the four events on 9/11. What is the exact definition of NPT anyway? Where was it written? Was I misreading the NPT label? Who knows? What’s in a name anyway? Shakespeare told us “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” while others command, “Call things by their right name.” Fine, but please write down the exact definitions, OK?
The counterpart to NPT is “plane hugger” and that made me doubt the utility of NPT because “hugger” is a “fighting term” that paints plane believers as irrationally clinging to the plane myth (as they often are!). A no planer likely cooked up the term “plane hugger,” so a plane hugger probably authored NPT. Opponents appear to have named the other side in both cases, although I cannot prove it. Adding to this stew was dissatisfaction with the slow progress Mr. Holmgren and his NPT had made in opening the eyes of the public. Maybe a new moniker could move the ball forward.
So three aspects of NPT seemed to warrant floating a new label:
a) “no plane” seemed to exclude any plane flying about,
b) “theory” conveyed speculation lacking factual support.
c) NPT had made little headway in public persuasion.
On hindsight, I should not have tampered with the NPT label. In my own field, NPT reminds me of the term “Austrian economics,” which originated as a slur by German socialist academics against the economic theory of the Austrian school, but Austrian-style economists eventually embraced the term as a point of pride and this school of sound economic thought flourishes today.
In any event, I vetted my first alternative acronym, “NPCT,” for “No Plane Crash Theory” to a few friends. This seemed like a more precise label for what no planers claimed. The core proposition was that no plane (conventional winged vehicle capable of flight, heavier than air, propelled by jet engines or propellers) of any kind crashed at any of the four designated sites on 9/11. The “improvement” NPCT promised was more precision in clarifying that no planers prove no planes crashed but still allow for the possibility that an airliner, an airliner-looking craft or some other kind of air vehicle might have flown by, perhaps as reported by seemingly reliable eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania and perhaps even at the WTC. Further, NPCT would allow for the possibility that missiles, drones or UAVs, as argued by the Webfairy, might have created impact gashes, say, at the north tower. Whether any of these ideas were valid or not, they are NOT the thoughts of a plane hugger in disguise. During this process, I never believed a plane struck the WTC buildings. A “surreptitious switch” was not the idea at all. Mr. Holmgren, by contrast, insists Morgan is a counterfeit no planer, a poseur, a plane hugger in disguise.
TV fakery of South Tower hit. Notice no break in the building wall between the port engine and fuselage. South Tower was built with a self-healing exterior!
When I proposed NPCT to colleagues I got negative feedback, most importantly from both my co-authors Judy Wood and Rick Rajter, so I abandoned NPCT in favor of “NBB” for No Big Boeings. This label had a few things going for it, or so it seemed at the time:
a) NBB directly and specifically addresses the official conspiracy theory that Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175—all Boeing passenger airliners—crashed at four designated sites. This aims at the bull’s eye because the key to exposing the 9/11 hoax is refuting the official theory which I tagged BBT = Big Boeing Theory without objection. Therefore, “Big Boeings” makes sense because the government and media claimed airliners with tail numbers N334AA, N644AA, N591UA, and N612UA crashed.
b) Websites like “Hunt the Boeing” and “Hunt the Boeing II” had established a tradition of subtly ridiculing the official theory by emphasizing the alleged planes were big and could not disappear through the small holes the government said they did. It was an obvious and easily-understood refutation of the airplane lie. The government story was physically impossible. And where, by the way, did the wreckage, bodies, and cargo go?
In discussions with no-planer friends like Nico Haupt, Webfairy, and Holmgren, it was never really clear what the consensus was on “what did happen,” only on what DID NOT happen. TV fakery, after all, implies footage was altered. Thus, whatever was in the air (plane, missile, UAV, nothing) is unknown, perhaps obscured by manipulation. We thus turned to collision physics to solidly refute an airliner but things get murky regarding smaller craft like missiles. A missile could have been accurately targeted at the center of impact gashes, perhaps augmented by internal explosives or exterior energy beams or whatever.
Part of the problem hinges on the connotation of the word “plane.” Somebody might call UAVs “planes” or from discussions with Nico, there was the possibility of micro/nano planes to get the “airplane-shaped” holes. NPT and NPCT might prematurely rule these out and imply there was nothing in the air except possibly a missile.
The main point is that NBB was NOT a trick to allow a slightly smaller plane or another brand of conventional plane to still “work.” The idea was to allow for fly-bys and UAVs and missiles with warheads until we found out what actually HIT, if anything.
On hindsight I regret going there. Too few benefits and too many costs materialized since it spawned animosity and confusion (real or imagined) among no planers. If I was going to suggest a change, maybe NPCT was better than NBB, maybe not, but staying with NPT would have been better than either. NPT presumably meant no conventional plane crashes. Let sleeping dogs lie. An old tax is a good tax. Yet NBB seemed no more momentous than BBT at the time. It was a variation on a theme, it mocked the official theory and drew no scorn for three months. But that was the lull before the storm. Here we are today, milk spilled, though Mr. Holmgren may have launched his public attacks on Reynolds anyway, what with envy, insufficient deference to Holmgren, and other motivations fueling his fury.
My view was that we should prove what we could and say nothing more until we could prove what happened. NBB fit that job description pretty well and basically meant no conventional planes. The adjective “big” was intended to be pejorative toward plane huggers rather than descriptive. All Boeings are big, after all, and switching the story to a 737 does not help plane huggers one iota because crash physics and evidence still refute it. The ideal phrase, if there is one, would imply no conventional plane crash but still keep the door open for fly-bys, missiles or UAVs.
Reynolds and Judy Wood rolled out the NBB moniker like this:
At the heart of the 9/11 fiction, we were told that, using only boxcutters, Arabs hijacked four airliners and crashed them in designated locations? [Steven E.] Jones sees no real problems with this story. He is hostile to the “no big boeing theory” (NBB), the theory that no Boeing 767 airliners went into either WTC tower, and no Boeing 757 airliners went into the Pentagon or the Shanksville covered strip mine. Advocates usually allow for missiles or other air vehicles flying about, including unmanned (UAV’s), or even smaller planes.
Later Reynolds-Rajter, “Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth,” wrote:
No one can prove the plane crash stories because no one can prove a lie. By contrast, here we prove no Big Boeings crashed, we repeat, no Big Boeings crashed (NBB), at designated locations but that does not mean that large planes did not fly by, repeat, planes could have flown by. One thing is sure: laws of nature and physical evidence render the official story and any close variation of the plane story impossible [emphasis added].
A version of this article also appeared in the Fetzer book, The 9/11 Conspiracy, as “Some Holes in the Plane Stories.” The statement above approaches the generality of NPT via “any close variation of the plane story,” and also asserts the plane crash stories were IMPOSSIBLE [emphasis added]. NBB, therefore, was a misdemeanor, if anything, and not a felony crime.
How harmful was this departure from what I painfully learned was an inviolate label, the scripture “approved” by no planers? Mr. Holmgren sounded the alarm, far and wide, about the risk NBB posed to truth and justice and how evil-doer Reynolds is a plane-hugger in drag. Well, let us consider the risk NBB poses: Will government officials exploit this “doublethink chink” in no-plane armor to help the perpetrators one day by saying, “Forget what we said before about Boeing 757s and 767s on 9/11. They were really Airbus A300s and A330s on that horrific day.”
Oh no! Devastating, huh? But how would this switcheroo to Airbuses help them? Beats me. I fearlessly predict it is “not gonna happen.” And if they pulled the switch, I would be happy as hell. Be my guest, perps, in turning your story upside down. Please ignite the meltdown as you lead a new psy-op plane parade (PPP) down the street stark naked.
OK, give it more credit than that. Consider another scenario to assess the risk NBB poses. Maybe the Boeing-Airbus switcheroo works because the bait ‘n switch NBB persuades nearly everyone that no Boeing airliners crashed, despite what government and media tell them. That would mean NBB had pried open the eyes of the public to the government/media trick and demolished the Big Boeing religion. What is wrong with that? Holmgren would have us believe that people, cured of the Boeing fraud, would remain susceptible to a new Airbus religion. Presumably Big Brother could easily trigger the Airbus cult, MKULTRA-style, and all the proofs against Boeings would be swept into the dustbin of history because, after all, they only applied to Big Boeings and no other aircraft. “The towers were hit by Airbus A330s. The towers were always hit by Airbus 330s.” Gimme a break. Reynolds is that good? The public is that stupid? Even fools would recognize that all the arguments, reasoning, crash physics and evidence that disproved the Boeing fraud would transfer 100 percent to demonstrate an Airbus or any large airliner for a ruse too. And there would be plenty of observers to point it out. Duh.
Well, maybe the problem is that the Reynolds’ psy-op allows the authorities to shrink the jetliners to 737-size or even smaller planes in order to fashion an escape from the thrashing NBB administers to the official theory. Is that the genuine risk? The premise once again would be that Reynolds leads everyone but super-smart Gerard Holmgren down the NBB primrose path, willy nilly disabling truth and justice because proofs of no plane crashes become extraneous. Wait a minute. Ask yourself, how much plane downsizing can the perps get away with in their “revisionism”? Virtually none. The perps are locked into large airliners for many reasons. For one thing, as Killtown explains why they did not use planes at the WTC:
The official reason why the Twin Towers collapsed and thereby causing [sic] the WTC 7 to collapse was that large aircraft (specifically Boeing 767’s) loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the towers at high speeds and exploded causing extensive internal damage and then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby smashing the rest of the buildings to pieces and then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and collapse. Most people bought the official story obviously, so the official reason as to why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed was to most people believable.
So the perps must hug airliners because they “caused” the destruction of the WTC. NIST, the government at every level, the media and the perps are locked into this lie. Further, the war on terror and global domination project rests on the blood libel that young suicidal Arabs hijacked coast-to-coast flights and crashed them into US landmarks. The perps need “airliners” to sell the “Muslim hijackers” fraud. Duh. The official theory has no wiggle room on big planes. The perps and their media allies hang together on that story, sticking to its essentials, or hang separately. Shrinking the story down to A-3 Skywarriors or smaller planes is not an option—too many problems (“Oh by the way, Mrs. Mariani, your husband did not die on flight 175 because it was an Airbus flight. We are trying to locate him now.”). No matter how the perps morph the story and regardless of no-plane label, the same physics/forensics have the bad guys cornered.
Does that mean NBB is superior to NPT or NPCT? No. NBB has a nice element of ridicule, a ring of precision and perhaps a PR edge over NPT but I wish I had never uttered it in public because it divided no planers (how fragile we are!). Yet the “risk” NBB poses to truth, given the perpetrators’ meager options, does not add up to a hill of beans.
Granted, NBB narrows the focus in its all-out assault on the official plane story but that is not entirely a bad thing. For one thing, it is all we really have to do. In a criminal justice framework, we (prosecutors) have the burden of proof to show that the accused are guilty of the 9/11 crimes. That means laying out facts that stand unimpeached and have no other reasonable explanation than the accused did it. We prosecutors also must shred the defense stories for the lies they are, beyond reasonable doubt. There is no prosecutorial burden to prove “what really happened.” The more we know the better, yes, but proving what really happened “is a fool’s errand” in the words of former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi because it is impossible for anyone who did not plan and carry out the crimes to prove.
To give Mr. Holmgren his due, the only real miscue I can find in my public writing is the following statement:
“A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes, missiles or drones as some eyewitnesses reported or nothing at all may have hit the towers from outside. I do not have enough evidence yet to say. My present purpose is not to posit what really happened but demonstrate what did not happen: the official BBT theory about 767 and 757 crashes is full of holes. Physical facts at every turn refute the official story about what gashed the towers, Pentagon and Pennsylvania that morning.”
This grain of error (allowing a commuter plane…military planes) slipped in because I did not set out to prove what really happened but only to prove the official theory impossible. Yet the physics and evidence in my article did rule out “a commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, [and] military planes.” I had overlooked this implication. A two-for-one sale was underway but I had not pushed hard enough on the no-plane idea to realize it. Mr. Holmgren read the paper before it appeared on my website and he did not catch this error either. Privately, of course, I never believed a plane crashed on 9/11 but in public I concentrated on refuting the official theory with overwhelming proof. I continued:
“It is not my burden to prove what really happened. That burden lies entirely with apologists for the official plane story like Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman, not the skeptics, must prove that four Boeing airliners crashed as government and corporate media say they did. Proof must be verifiable, corroborated, physical facts and not contradictory reports from witnesses, including those bought off or pressured into a predetermined result by media coverage that morning. Evidence offered by so-called plane huggers like Hoffman should be obvious and powerful. After all, land crashes by big planes in populated areas are quite easy to identify. Skeptics, by contrast, need only point to one verified fact contrary to the official theory to send it crashing into oblivion. We have the facts to destroy the official account of each reported incident.
…A plane flying into a WTC tower should break up, shatter and scatter pieces everywhere. The only issue is the exact pattern of destruction the building would impose on its intruder.”
Obviously the physics about plane break-up would apply to any airplane. Every argument and proof for NBB is identical for all planes (NPT) except the big plane/small hole argument need not apply to small planes. In terms of an equation we have:
NPT = NBB – UH
NBB = NPT + UH
NPT = proof for no plane theory
NBB = proof for no big Boeing
UH = undersized hole relative to airliner
Properly understood, the two proofs (both use Newtonian physics and the same evidence) are identical except NBB includes big plane/ small hole as part of the refutation of the official theory. The disadvantage of the NBB label is myopia: focus on refuting the official theory can mislead us, as Holmgren warns, into thinking that the proof does not generalize to all airplanes. Yet the potential for real mischief from this “defect” is virtually nonexistent. If the perps make up new airliner lies, NBB would not supply a single “Get Out of Jail Free” card.
That said, NPT and NBB are “negative theories” in the sense that they demonstrate the plane crashes are impossible: they could not happen and did not happen. That is a different achievement from a positive theory that explains what made the sudden gashes at the four designated sites. Conventional planes made no gashes, so what did? That is why I said, “We do not have adequate evidence to say” what made the holes, a statement that infuriated Holmgren. I repeat: a positive theory would explain “what really made the holes.” There are promising theories around like missiles, UAV’s, and directed energy weapons but none have yet been proven. That is work to be done.
2. Newton’s Third Law of Motion
The second major criticism Mr. Holmgren levels is a corollary to the first item above, namely, the contention that Reynolds “challenged Newton in more subtle language by indirectly claiming that Newton’s third law applied in some situations but not in others. This enabled Reynolds to use Newtonian physics to prove ‘no Big Boeings’ while using doublethink to postulate that the very same principles proved nothing when applied to other kinds of planes.”
While an amateur physicist like me might be plagued with “muddythink,” there was no doublethink, no deliberate attempt to confuse or deceive. This section of Holmgren’s critique is quotation-free for a good reason—I did not challenge Newton’s third law directly as Holmgren concedes (nor the law of gravity, heliocentrism, etc.). Nor would I want to challenge it in any way, shape or form. Me, a rebel against Newton’s laws of motion!? Amazing. It is a strawman argument cooked up Mr. Holmgren.
We might improve our understanding by considering Newton’s third law explicitly. According to Newton, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other. A force may be defined here as a push or pull upon an object which results from its interaction with another object. Newton stated his third law of motion exactly as: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.” To restate it, “For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction.” To nail this concept down, consider classroom example 1:
Q: An unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus moving down the road. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton’s third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus windshield?
A: Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal … (equal!). The fact that the bug splatters only means that with its smaller mass and strength, it is less able to withstand the force resulting from the interaction.
Now consider example 2:
Q: A speeding plane strikes the wall of a (“motionless”) Tower. Obviously this contact between objects is a case of Newton’s third law of motion. An aluminum plane hits the steel building and the building hits the plane. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the plane or the force on the building?
A: Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fact that the steel beams, spandrel belts, and steel-reinforced concrete floors of 5-6 stories shatter, fragment and form an airplane-shaped gash…OOPS…you’re kidding! This correction just in: the fact that an aluminum plane crumples, shatters and leaves no “airplane-shaped silhouette of passage” in a collision against massive quantities of structural steel only means that with its lower mass, density and strength relative to the building, the plane is far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies.
We can check our understanding with a few calculations. Each WTC Tower weighed approximately 500,000 tons. As a first approximation, if a plane hit the upper five floors, these floors would weigh approximately 22,727 tons (5 floors divided by 110 floors = 4.5 percent of 500,000 tons). A Boeing 767 would weigh approximately 140 tons flying as described by government and media. The mass of such a plane would be 0.6 percent of the mass of five floors in a Tower (140/22,757). Therefore, the aluminum plane would be less than one percent of the mass of the section of the steel/concrete building it allegedly hit. The plane’s material density and strength (resistance to forces like bending, etc.) would also be vastly inferior to those of a Tower. Conclusion: bye-bye airplane.
Critics may object that the steel beams in upper stories were thinner than those in lower floors (less building mass to support with nothing else lighter on upper stories), so generously shrink the estimated weight of the upper five stories by one-third, yielding 15,152 tons. The mass of a 767 would be 0.9 percent of the mass of five floors it theoretically hit. To restate it: the mass of the building section allegedly hit by the hollow aluminum tube with engines and wings and no crash rating is 100 times that of the plane. Result: bye-bye airplane.
And what if the mass of the plane were even smaller? Same answer: bye-bye airplane.
What if a plane flew faster into the steel tower? Impact force increases but remains equal for plane and tower at any speed. The tower is immensely stronger and harder than the plane. Upshot: bye-bye airplane.
What about the belief that fragile objects with sufficient speed penetrate massive, hard objects, e.g., tornados allegedly driving straws into trees? This can happen because “intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again.”
So much for substance; we now descend into the fevered mind of Mr. Holmgren who writes:
Reynolds and I made contact, and after he showed interest in the no planes issue, I personally tutored him by email in the physics of the forensic evidence. Reynolds was so impressed that he responded by writing his own article which was essentially a direct copy of my article. Because Reynolds took 7 months to write his article- while I was doing the work to argue and promote the concepts around the various discussion groups on the web- Reynolds final presentation was slicker and better presented than mine. It contained no original observations whatsoever, but it appeared to be a valuable addition to the cause because of the time that he had put into the presentation.
Holmgren argues that the time I “had put into the presentation” made it appear to be a valuable addition to the cause! Who gives a flip about the time any author put into his presentation? No one. Applying time and other inputs in the production process yields no value to consumers unless used efficiently. Value is about product quality for money spent, in the consumer’s eyes, not how many inputs may have been used.
More importantly, we have caught the self-appointed 9/11 truth cop in a lie. Even worse for Mr. Holmgren, the public record alone establishes it as a lie.
Mr. Holmgren had nothing to do with generating my interest in the plane issue. I was interested in the plane issue from the git-go. My article of June 9, 2005, which attracted so much attention, expressed skepticism about planes before I knew about Holmgren:
…Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents…The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole.
As I explained in the article, I tried to rethink 9/11 from scratch. Jim Hoffman, an obvious op, surprised me by quickly attacking me for doubting the plane stories:
His [Reynolds’] article thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported. This is unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack — especially the survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights.
Thus, Jim Hoffman, not Gerard Holmgren, was the motivator propelling me to research planes because I intended to answer Hoffman’s attack and show him how wrong he was. The first part of my July reply dealt with demolition but I needed far more time to understand planes and so I spent eight months preparing my no-plane article of March 5, 2006. I worked hard on it and received considerable help from Rick Rajter, a MIT material sciences Ph.D. student, beginning in September 2005, when I sent him a crude draft. It had been through 10 revisions already and went through 15 or so revisions back and forth between us. It was no small undertaking and we wanted to make it as bulletproof as possible, knowing how it would be attacked. Upon completion, I thanked Rick at the end of my finished article for all his help; he had declined my offer to be a co-author.
If the reader believes my article was “essentially a direct copy” of Holmgren’s, I suggest you read both articles and decide for yourself. Not only are the articles distinctly different, what really refutes Holmgren’s “plagiarism, plagiarism” cry is that I had solicited his comments before I put it out. Holmgren made a few minor criticisms, never shouted plagiarism, and pronounced it “good” (you could almost feel his pain as he tapped that word out). The Webfairy and Nico Haupt also had advance copies for comment, so they know the truth. Then we all pretty much remained “no plane” allies for the next 18 months. Why did Holmgren fail to express his outrage right away, in March 2006? Because I am not a plagiarist and Holmgren knows it.
I actually found Holmgren’s November article on no-plane physics after I put out my article. I was a little red faced about that but maybe that was just as well because Holmgren and I worked different tracks. The articles complemented each other. As for originality, Newton was the original, not Holmgren or Reynolds. Any researcher trying to understand the physics of plane crashes would try to understand and apply Newtonian physics and come to similar if not identical results. And what about the claimed Holmgren “tutorial”? It never happened. I notice that Holmgren slipped the tutorial claim by me in an email on November 15, 2006. I chose not to “rile him” at that time and unfortunately did not refute this slice of megalomania because I was busy answering his principal question about me writing a book. He may try to use this fact against me but my polite refusal to argue about it then was no admission that he was my tutor.
Do I have to to refute this charge some more? Sigh. According to Holmgren, “Reynolds now claims that although the forensic analysis in question shows that ‘no Big Boeings’ hit the WTC, it is still quite possible that they were hit by different kinds of planes.” Holmgren does not offer a quotation from me because I have never advocated another kind of plane hitting the WTC.
Holmgren writes, “His agenda is to promote doublethink at a subconscious level by confusing the position of ‘planes other than big Boeings’ with that of ‘no planes’ and merging them to mean the same thing.” Oh? Holmgren is blessed with deep psychological insight and unique ability to read motivations.
“…Reynolds…has been pretending to be allied with the promotion of arguments for no planes…a person who became a major hate target of the planehuggers-is actually a plane hugger himself – in disguise.” Step this way. Secrets revealed! Agent exposed! Proof to come later! (Much later).
“Reynolds responds by presenting Fetzer as being involved in open minded inquiry and promotion of the issue,” Holmgren writes, “while tacitly supporting Fetzer’s litany of lies and philosophical abominations -including his direct exhortation to lie for the sake of truth -as documented in the latter half of the article linked above …
This duplicitous campaign is fully supported by Reynolds, as the two feed each other publicity and when questioned, protect each other from awkward questions about their duplicitous position. They’ll even stage a disagreement from time to time, where necessary.”
Like Holmgren and many other 9/11 types, Fetzer continues on my watch list. That is all I will say for now.
6. The Naudet Video
Challenging the authenticity of the Naudet video supposedly is verboten. Holmgren absurdly charges that I challenge the authenticity of the video for the corrupt reason that I want the video to show an airliner while it does not. The pixels surely do not show an airliner but what they show cannot be clearly identified. I question the Naudet video because it has “perps” written all over it. It is an Easter egg, planted evidence, a propaganda film. There is so much to be suspicious about: evidence of foreknowledge, dozens of convenient “coincidences,” evidence of tampering, an explosion at the North Tower before the “flying pixels” hit it, FBI seizure before release, the disappearance of the “French filmmakers” into obscurity, etc. There is no way this “snuff film” could be admitted as forensic evidence in a court of law because it could not surmount the standard hurdles of testimony by the original photographers, proof of chain of custody and absence of manipulation (all under cross examination).
The upshot is that Holmgren apparently wants me to say, “‘Planes’ of any kind are ruled out by the same observations which rule out ‘big Boeings.'” OK, I’ll say it exactly that way: Planes of any kind are ruled out by the same observations which rule out big Boeings. More precisely, there were no crashes by conventional planes at any of the four designated sites. No problem. Now wasn’t that easy?
No-planer “Coffinman” was badgering me on an email list about NBB and my alleged betrayal of Newton’s third law and I asked him, in effect, “OK, what should I say to the media to pry open some minds out there?” He recommended saying, among other things, that there were “no planes because the depicted event was impossible” and “NO plane could have made the plane-shaped holes.” That was constructive advice and I embrace it. How simple things can be without the sniping, ranting and tearing down. Infallibility, after all, is denied to us.
Roadrunner silhouette of passage resembles plane-shaped hole allegedly left by magic plane
I wonder what ever happened to Gerard Holmgren? Once upon a time he did fine research on 9/11 and his predictions about people and events in the so-called 9/11 truth movement were on the money. Now he keeps firing until he shoots everyone around him. When he found fault with NBB and had a problem finding proper treatment of Newton’s third law of motion in my work, he could have told me without waging war. I could have learned something and maybe he would too and we could have worked it out. Instead, after a few months he chose to tear into me and my work in public. He has badgered me since February to respond to him. Now I supply what he demanded.
The most disappointing part about Mr. Holmgren’s attack is that he makes things up and lies about what I say and why I say it. His plagiarism charge is really low and refutable on the public record alone. He is playing victim to gain attention.
It’s all pretty sad. How does Holmgren expect to beat the perps? Single-handed? That has failed. Turning on anyone around him that jaywalks on his jargon? Holmgren’s doublethink is to attack fellow no planers and consequently confuse the audience. And why lie? He obviously believes he is in sole possession of the No Plane franchise, he owns the patent on No Planes and is empowered to attack any interloper on his “private property” by any means he deems appropriate. The 9/11 research community gets stranger and stranger every day.
It is not my aim to continue this quarrel but if history is any guide, it will. The personalities and egos in 9/11 are so outsized that few step back and take a deep breath before launching yet another attack. Every word in this article will be scoured in search of my “evil intentions,” using the letter of the law rather than its spirit to trip me up and convince others that I’m working for the perps and leading people where they do not want to go. Under these circumstances, I wonder whether this research community, much less the world, can be saved.
Word Count for Morgan Reynolds,
“We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories”
March 5, 2006Aircraft 31
Big Boeing 5
Pingback: No Planes: Media One and Done |