Barrett versus Reynolds on Bombs Did Not Unravel the Towers

by
Morgan Reynolds

Following my article “Bombs Did Not Unravel the Towers,” I received the following email:

On 2/28/12 9:18 AM, “Kevin Barrett” wrote:

Morgan, the problem here is that you aren’t acknowledging all the people who DID hear huge explosions, and described them as sounding like a typical demolition sequence. I’m sure you’ve watched all the big 9/11 truth films and seen the firefighters describing the “boom-boom-boom, all the way down.”  And I’m sure you’ve seen the WTC-7 first responder who cites his military background and says “I think I know the sound of explosions when I hear them.”  Those are just two of a great many examples of witnesses who cut against the grain of your thesis. You just ignore them, and cherry-pick evidence that supports your pre-established conclusion.

When we keep in mind how easy it would be for well-funded military experts to engineer cutter charges (and perhaps other kinds of explosives) to minimize the bang, along with claims that virtually all the extant footage has had explosion sounds removed through sound editing, I don’t think you’ve proved your case. You’d be better off arguing more tentatively, and acknowledging the contradictory evidence and arguments.

Kevin


My reply:

Kevin,

Explosions happened, true.  Huge?  No, that did not happen.

I have no reason to be “tentative.”  I write about what the evidence tells us, especially when laid out by a meticulous scientist/engineer like Dr. Wood.  I shall leave “tentativeness” to you and other humanities scholars.  The best approach is to focus on the evidence and science of the case, not beliefs, assertions or accusations.

Things exploded at the WTC on 9/11, yes, we agree on that fact, but you must concede the following fact or look the fool: most explosions are not the result of bombs.  The vast majority of daily explosions, for example, occur inside internal combustion engines.  My article did not ignore explosions but rather cited many: eggs exploding inside microwaves, water/steam explosions, Scott Paks and cars exploding around the WTC plus pressurized vessels shooting out horizontal squibs in the towers (highly likely given Scott Pak and car explosions at ground level).  So the article did discuss reported explosions.  I did not ignore them.  You are either a careless reader or a liar.   Yes, bombs explode, but not all explosions are from bombs.  These are incontestable propositions.

Nor did I ignore witnesses.  I discussed some of them.  Look, for example, at my reference to Andrew Johnson’s assessment of the 502 first responders.  I quoted witnesses as well.  How about Kevin Cosgrove as he died five floors from the top of the South Tower without a loud blast?  Abed?  Ober?  Heaney?  D’Angelo?  I consider the Cosgrove audio tape a devastating piece of evidence, good luck on refuting that.

By contrast, to use your language, you “cherry pick evidence” to support your belief in bombs and cutter charges, overlooking the obvious fact that the towers (somehow) turned to dust in mid-air.  You are not being scientific.  Yes, under the stress of extraordinary and murderous events, witnesses reported explosions (so stipulated) and some probably believe to this day that bombs destroyed the towers.  Some may be military veterans, as you say, who “know the sound of explosions.”  OK, fine, most of know the sound of an explosion when we hear it but witnesses beliefs (especially about causation) do not determine what really happened on 9/11.  People on the scene had little idea of the what and how of the incredible events of 9/11, and latched onto whatever answer they could find or were given.  Truth is not determined democratically.  The totality of the facts tell us what happened via patient and thorough collection and scientific review of all the evidence.

Let me be plain: witnesses who claim the towers were destroyed by bombs planted inside are wrong.  Just like you are.  It is easy to understand why some witnesses would get it wrong: they heard and/or saw explosions and saw destruction, and put the two together.  They assume bombs exploded and destroyed the towers or they learned it on the internet from “truthers” like Kevin.  But here’s the fundamental problem: presence at the event does not confer analytical infallibility about what happened.  Presence does not qualify witnesses as scientific experts.  Witnesses who believe explosives destroyed the towers understandably have it wrong because they simply latched onto “the obvious” or what they were told to make sense of events.  They are wrong but it’s quite natural, but with you, Kevin, not so much.  You have the immense advantage of Dr. Wood’s textbook and my articles, and therefore access to the relevant facts, not to mention your obvious savvy and intelligence.  Somehow, you are unable to process the facts and learn what happened?  What is wrong with this picture?

The ABC News team puzzled over the lack of debris after the WTC buildings disappeared on September 12, 2001, and George Stephanopoulos tried to explain it thusly: “The reason there’s so little rubble is that all of it simply fell down, into the ground, and was pulverized, evaporated.”

This is gibberish of course.  Evaporate means to change from a liquid or solid state into a vapor or gaseous state.  But who can blame him?  Steel and concrete had turned to fine dust in mid-air in mere seconds.

The towers’ destruction simply does not match the behavior of buildings collapsing or blowing up from planted, shaped explosives.  First, the towers did not collapse but turned to dust (impossible for bombs), and second, the sound of explosions heard at the WTC were not loud enough by half nor frequent enough to point to nukes or the enormous sequence of conventional explosives that would have been required to blow up a 110-story steel tower.  You apparently endorse claims that “the extant footage has had explosion sounds removed through sound editing.”  In the videos I cite?  You have no proof, only an allegation.  A belief about sound editing is not proof.  I bring evidence for my conclusions, so please offer specific facts to support your editing allegation.  Do not bother with the likes of an assertion by (bomb non-expert) Sophia.

You fail to appreciate the multiple facts that completely and utterly refute conventional explosives.  For example, rigging the towers and WTC7 with conventional explosives without detection would be impossible.  It would take weeks if not months of research, test blasts “to assess the strength needed to fracture or eliminate” columns, assessment of “the number and types of holes to be drilled to house the explosives,” drilling holes in exposed columns (steel of course) and load bearing walls, insertion of explosives and charges necessary to ignite them, insertion of wood-clay-sand-foam to shape the charge (guide the explosive force), all the detonator wiring (explosive cord), and a careful sequence of electrical timing necessary to orchestrate a building folding in on itself, especially two towers 110-stories tall each (!) in downtown Manhattan when the tallest demolition ever attempted (that I know of) was the Hudson Department Store in Detroit, less than 1/3 the height of WTC 1 or 2 (quotations are from Helene Liss, “Demolition,” p. 44).  Of course demolition experts like Mark Loizeaux scoff at 9/11 truthers like you who assert “demolition” but display little or no knowledge about it.

Explosives propel material at supersonic speed, thus the BOOM.  Preparing a CCD requires that all “stuff” be stripped in advance, including window glass, furniture, coke cans, anything that could become a projectile and shoot into adjacent buildings and people.  Yet no one noticed the removal of WTC windows or anyone carrying port-a-potties with them on the subway or PATH trains that morning.  Cantor Fitzgerald wasn’t asking employees to use the toilets across the street, was it?  Employees would spend a lot of time going up and down elevators.  The U.S. Post Office right across the street from WTC 7 was untouched by projectiles.  How many reports do we have of people cut up by flying glass or porcelain toilets?  None that I know of.

Preparing the Seattle Kingdome in 2000 for demolition took a crew of 20 people five weeks to drill 5,905 holes for the explosives, 4,728 pounds of explosives and 21.6 miles of detonating cord (p. 108).  For the sake of argument, imagine people working in the WTC towers wondering who all those blue-collar guys were drilling into exposed steel support columns throughout the towers (10,000+ holes up and down, all around each tower) for weeks, trucking in tons of explosives and detonators, strategically planting them, stuffing in tons of shaping materials followed by explosive cord connecting detonators throughout the towers with all those cords ultimately extending to…where?  To Demolition Central (otherwise known as “D.C.”) across Liberty, West, Vesey or Church St., to some unspecified location?  Do you have evidence that WTC 7 was D.C. until it came time for the perps to relocate?  Where were their cords?  You are the proponent of explosives in the towers, so you tell me.  Are we to believe that WTC office workers and executives shrugged their shoulders and ignored all this prepping activity despite the 1993 bombing and daily threats against the WTC?  To my knowledge, nobody reported any such prepping of three WTC towers for demolition.  Despite frequent patrols, the Port Authority PD, WTC security and bomb-sniffing dogs never detected anything out of the ordinary either.  You invoke “military experts” in demolition.  They can minimize the bang of RDX and other conventional kinetic energy weapons you say?  KE devices suddenly release big energy and necessarily involve light, heat and supersonic blast waves.  Can these experts minimize all the physcial properties of KE devices?  Who are these magicians?  How do they defy physical laws with KE devices?  What is on their resume?  They know more than Mark Loizeaux about CCD?  Prove it.  You invoke “military experts” without documentation, proof of concept or any form of evidence.  Like most 9/11 leaders, you advocate hocus-pocus.

While we’re on the topic, 9/11 was a psyop, correct?  The U.S. military employs experts in psychology, no?  Try this: When we keep in mind how easy it would be for well-funded “military experts” to engineer a “9/11 Truth Movement” and plant leaders in it to control public opinion, I don’t think you’ve proved your case.

The remaining four of five facts I cited remain uncontested–slight debris, intact bathtub, small seismic impact and immense amounts of fine dust—and these alone prove five popular theories of WTC destruction wrong.  The popular theories are exposed for the hopeless bushwa they are.  A scientific approach begins with what happened and the most important fact is that the towers turned to fine powder in mid-air.  Bombs cannot do that.  Impossible.  KE bombs fragment materials into chunks.  Prove that false.  You cannot.

Time to change your mind Kevin.  I’d suggest changing your team too.  Or don’t you care about being on the winning side?  Remember journalism’s mantra: get it first, get it right.

Best regards,
Morgan Reynolds

Are these the well-funded military experts Kevin had in mind?

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Barrett versus Reynolds on Bombs Did Not Unravel the Towers

  1. Plausibility is the tool for the motive of deception. Here in the case of 911 WTCs where the objectives,amoung others are, kill enough Americans to blame it on the arabs for a Pearl Harbor type reaction and pretext for the so called war on terror. Bring down a few old white elephant, asbestos infested buildings whose previous owners(the New York Port Authority) tried to get a demolition permit five times and were refused until it had undergone an asbestos abaitment removal procedure costing 5 to 10 billion. The fake airplane crashes were a pretext for the later demolition, but plausibility requires a sufficiant time period between the phony aircraft crashes, supposedly spilling their high flying bomb jet fuel loads whose resultant fires would, after hours, acording to NIST, produce enough heat to begin buckeling the floors leading to pancake progressive destruction leading to total collapse. The actual time interval, really allowed insuficient time-heat requirements. Yet to have some time space between plausible fire start crashes and the collapse, and to trap people for death until the death collapse itself, explosives were used to trap them in the buildings during the plausibility wait between events, destroying elevators, stair systems, sprinkler systems and repeatable multiple lobby explosions in the attempt to kill those who almost made it out. And, as Rabbi Abe Finkelstine said ” Larry(Silverstien) and the Mossad boys got together and wired up the buildings, and got rid of the old things and made some sheckels at the same time.”. So, it does not seem unreasonable to me that hundreds of witnesses to explosions and the many explosions on video, knowing the motive to trap as many people as possible for death early, or for the eventual collapse, could use more conventional explosives, then the high tech type to kill any survivors and consume to dust, the vast majority of the construction components, all without letting the buildings fall over sideways upon neighborhood highrisers. So, it is not hard to see, in view of the needed time interval and multiple goals, the use of more conventional explosives as well as the final exiotics.

    • william02138 says:

      You do realize that “Rabbi Abe Finkelstein” is fictional, I hope. As is the rest of your theory.

    • Suzsan says:

      testifies that he heard a seires of explosions, Thum, thum, thum, thum, thum preceding the fall of the building So how come the only one who claims that is the one who admits he has serious mental and emotional problems? There were thousands of others there that day who did NOT hear explosions right before #7 collapsed.And these mysterious explosions are, amazingly, absent from all the video shot that day.Hmmmmmmm.

  2. These are brave heros to me, Barrett and Reynolds, and to see them going at each other so rabidly is awful. They are so good at what they do they are not seeing any bigger picture, i.e, there are good reasons for both types of explosives. George Bush’s 35 second, 2006, video saying that KSM’s opperatives were to insure that the explosives in buildings on 911 were to be placed high enough to trap, (for death,) as many people as possible. KSM did not agree to admit to this until after 183 waterboardings and finally promises to torture and kill his entire family. So the perps motive to trap for death a Pearl Harbor + amount of people as a pretext for the phony war on terror, began with exploding the means of escape, elevators, stair wells, sprinkler systems, roof escape doors chained closed ect.. Now I am a retired United Airlines pilot and flew their 767-200s. Two years ago, I first looked at the videos of the supposed Flight 175 and at first said, holy crap, they have now put me in the middle of this thing because that is not a United 767, that is a 21+foot longer -300 and a military version. It is going 200mph beyond never exceed speed, impossible, not crashing against the building but going all the way through with the fuselage coming out 1/3 the other side intact, impossible, no bebris in or outside the building, impossible The following hyposisis may help to explain some leftover anomalies. The perps may have used cruise missiles initially to hit the towers then video-overlayed the 767s on their flight paths. This might explain the flashes at the point of contact of each plane to building, the cruise misslles having capability to blast their way in to the building and perhaps out the other side, explaining the pieces flying out the other side. They may have the high speed capability at low altitude the airliners do not have and the pricision to hit a pinpoint spot at high speed the airliners do not have, and the divebomer profile shown in some videos and the irratic recorded radar track, ect..

    • william02138 says:

      So….. you’re saying explosives trap more people the higher up they are ?!? That’s kind of backwards, don’t you think? And you say it wasn’t a United 767 because you’re positive it was a -300 military version, except you say it may been a cruise missile… And the fuselage came out “1/3 the other side intact, impossible, no debris in or outside the building” yet you need a cruise missile for “explaining the pieces [debris??] flying out the other side. Your story is completely incoherent. I find it hard to believe you are a retired commercial pilot.

  3. Barabas Mckenzie says:

    Mr Reynolds, I would like to personally thank you for the important work you have done regarding 911. Your work and the work of Dr Judy Wood have changed my life in many ways. It is because of you folks I now know who the deceivers are in the so called “911 truth” movement. I find it hard to believe that the “boy wonder” can’t understand the clear cut empirical evidence that Dr Wood has so brilliantly revealed in her groundbreaking book. Please keep it going, humanity may well depend on it.

  4. milesofmusic says:

    Dr Reynolds – this is my first time reading your blog dialogue here and it is excellent work – you speak the truth and it is upsetting to a lot of people – so what, can’t be avoided

    no planes – no bombs – no thermite – no mini nukes

    the folks who find the DEW theory outlandish need to do some research or as you suggest heat up a burger in the microwave also, as you suggest, most folks probably don’t want to see another deployment of this weapon any time soon

    all the best Morgan and keep up the good work!

  5. Douglas Ralph Zork says:

    Mr. Reynolds,
    Obviously Kevin Barrett is neither a careless reader and interviewer, nor a liar. He disagreed adamantly with you on your treatment and interpretation of eyewitness testimony of large, powerful demolition-style explosions. He alleged you were cherry-picking evidence related to reported explosions. I’ll bet Mr. Barrett would admit that he himself must have fallen into the trap of cherry-picking evidence at one time or another, since this is a common error of human reasoning. But you gratuitously escalate from disagreement to character assassination when you call him “either a careless reader or a liar.”

    “No More Games” — Yes. But incivility and refusal to recognize that people can disagree with you on some points without becoming immediately suspect of being gatekeepers or disinformation agents actually damages the cause of unpopular truth about 9/11 that you have courageously defended.

    You, and Andrew Johnson, and even Dr. Judy Wood evince the same unfortunate tendency to refuse to allow others to agree only 40%, 60%, or 90%, to agree only on the fundamental issue that, as Dr. Wood so aptly put it, the destruction of the World Trade Center complex was not only a new Pearl Harbor, but simultaneously and most significantly a new Hiroshima. Give people a break!

    Dr. Wood has brilliantly made the case for the use of directed free-energy technology to destroy the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. I agree with your assessment that Dr. Wood’s book “Where Did The Towers Go?” is a meticulous work of scientific analysis, and potentially one of the most important books ever written.

    Why? Precisely because Dr. Wood shows the overwhelming evidence of the use of advanced technology based on a systematically-suppressed theory of physics that unifies electro-magnetism, gravity, and torsion.

    She correctly connects the evidence of 9/11 to the theories and experiments of Nikola Tesla, Edward Leedskalnin, the US Navy’s World War II Philadelphia Experiement in radar invisibilty, John Hutchison’s repeatedly demonstrated effects, and A.N. Dmitriev’s theories of inhomogeneous vacuum domains and the electro-gravitic theory of tornadoes and other “self-luminous natural formations.”

    Dr. Wood has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the WTC towers could not have been dustified in mid-air by high explosives, whether chemical or nuclear.

    Your recent articles summarize her evidence concisely and cogently, but you follow Dr. Wood into the unnecessary, and counterfactual, insistence that because the almost noiseless, shockless dustification, persistently fuming cold rubble, intact bathtub, strange fires, toasted cars, low heat, impossibly contorted steel beams, missing marble facing, unbroken double-glazed windows with only the outer layer of glass perforated with small holes, levitated cars and people, cannot be explained by the effects of explosives of any kind, therefore no high-powered demolition-style explosives were actually detonated on 9/11 at any time, no matter what many credible eyewitnesses reported hearing, and feeling them, and seeing their unmistakable effects, long before the towers disappeared..

    Exploding pressurized containers such as Scott Packs, and larger pressurized tanks on the utility levels of the towers may plausibly account for many of the booms that witnesses could have mistaken for exploding bombs or demolition charges, but it’s unsubstantiated for you to rule out all use of high explosives, either to supplement the dustification process, or to create a cover story plausible enough to entrap the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. You don’t make your case on this point.

    You undermine the well-substantiated points that prove the use of directed free-energy technology beyond a reasonable doubt by being pig-headed about “no demolition-style explosions,” where even Dr. Wood uncharacteristcally goes astray.

    It’s hard for many scientists, or for a philosopher of science like Dr. Jim Fetzer, to realize that academic science and archeology have been systematically subverted by the banking cartel, their tax-exempt foundations, and the military-industrial-black ops establishment, ever since the rediscovery, in the late 19th and early 20th century, of torsion physics, the alchemical transmutation of elements, and the true antiquity of human history on Earth and in the solar system.

    Dr. Wood and her defenders, of whom I am one as Dr. Kevin Barrett will attest, need to move beyond the Hutchison Effect, valid and important though it is.

    The use of directed free-energy technology on 9/11 is directly related to the theoretical and applied physics of the Haramein-Rauscher solution of Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity.

    Dr. Joseph Farrell’s books document the modern rediscovery of alchemical transmutation of elements and torsion physics by the SS in Nazi Germany, and the relation of torsion physics to hyper-dimensional physics in the Kaluza-Klein unified field theory, in Einstein’s 1928 unified field theory, and in the theory and experiments of Soviet Russian physicist Anatoly Kosyrev.

    Knowing “What” happened on 9/11/2001 reveals a much bigger truth about the political power founded on hiding and suppressing the truth of physics and human antiquity. Much is at stake in our time for humanity, and for common humanity’s natural predators, the ruthless natural “aristocracy” that stalk us.

    • Why would perps bother with conventional explosives since we agree they had the new dustification gizmo? Especially in view of the practical difficulties identified here of rigging ordinary explosives undetected in quantity in three towers, wiring them up and detonating them in sequence during short 7-10 sec destruction sequences. That would violate the KISS rule, especially since these guys already had the most complex crime to execute in history on their hands anyway. For what gain? More confusion? To add to the explosions already guaranteed to occur? Doesn’t make sense to me. Abundant confusion was guaranteed anyway. I doubt you have thought this through.

      • Douglas Ralph Zork says:

        Anyone who clings to the belief that the towers were rigged for demolition with explosives that were detonated synchronously with the operation of the dustification gizmo indeed has not thought this through.

        I’m arguing for something quite different: the consilient testimony of multiple independent witnesses recorded shortly after the lived events is a kind of empirical evidence, and following Dr. Wood’s maxim and example in her book, we fit our theory to the evidence; we don’t discard evidence that doesn’t fit our favored theory.

        Much of the clearest testimony of credible witnesses of explosions concerned the effects of explosions starting in the lower basement levels just before WTC 1 got its plane-shaped hole. Multiple large isolated explosions with devastating blast effects were reported by witnesses as having occurred at intervals throughout the period before the short 7-10 second destruction sequences.

        We are not obliged to hold any particular hypothesis as to why perps would bother with conventional explosives that may have been detonated at a leisurely pace long before the dustification sequence. Nor are we justified to arbitrarily declare that perps would never violated the KISS rule.

        We can infer that the perps decided to use the dustification gizmo in a Hiroshima-style threat display that would be unmistakable by potential global rivals: we have mastered the fearsome power of torsion physics–we can crush any group that challenges our bid for world domination.

        At the same time the perps took great pains to make the attacks appear as a new Pearl Harbor to the public at large: a dastardly sneak attack executed using perfectly conventional physical principles. They have been at great pains to hide and suppress evidence of torsion physics for almost 150 years, because popular knowledge of the full range of technology made possible by applying the true physics would threaten the perps’ monopoly of political and economic power.

        We are neither obliged nor allowed to discount all witness testimony of preliminary explosions consistent with powerful demolition-style explosives.

        Of course we must point out the prohibitive difficulties of rigging the WTC complex for a 7-10 second destruction sequence with conventional or nuclear explosives, quite apart from the impossibility of explosives dustifying a million tons of steel and concrete without shattering window glass across the street. Explosives would create large chunks of debris plummeting onto the bathtub and shattering the slurry wall, not nanoparticles of dust.

        But for truth’s sake we should not insist we know what we cannot know. We cannot know that the perps would not have used isolated large explosions detonated well before the 7-10 second destruction sequence.

      • Barabas Mckenzie says:

        Just my humble plebeian opinion, but adding “more confusion” would seem plausible to me because if you were going to pull off a mass murder of that proportion you would want as much cover as possible.

      • Munyaradzi says:

        They are rebuilding on the WTC site. Last I realcl, they were going build a Freedom Tower 1776 ft building with surrounding other developments including at least one memorial.Building at WTC site has been going on for a few years now. Mainly rebuilding transportation lines etc. Most companies and employees relocated elsewhere either in Manhatten or in surrounding areas.Files etc. Most everything is gone. A few things may have survived but only if something of durable nature

    • Salim says:

      If I had experienced the ngthimare that the first responders lived through that day, I would have suffered emotional problems, as well. Sad you support stripping 9-11 heroes of their second amendment rights. Shame, shame.Police and firefighters are intimidated from speaking out by retribution from above. Government is also quietly killing them off from lung ailments, when the EPA knew the air was toxic. The air is safe to breath , remember? the government YOU trust..

      • Douglas Ralph Zork says:

        Salim,
        Perhaps you meant to reply OneBornEveryMinute. You have completely mischaracterized everything I said by accidently replying to the wrong commenter. Please try again by hitting Reply directly below the comment you want to reply to, and address the commenter by name.
        Thanks,
        Douglas Zork

  6. Robert E. Salt says:

    When I suggested “small explosives” I was speculating, trying to account for firemen who said they heard boom, boom, boom as well as survivors who said they heard other explosions. I can understand Scott paks exploding and elevators dropping. I heard a fireman claim cars were exploding. I didn’t experience any of this; I left Manhattan at 10:10. Were the squibs in the corner of the building real or special effects?

    • If gravity (pancake) collapses had occurred, many more high-speed “squirts” should have occurred than shown in videos because each tower’s contents, including air, must be expelled at a rapid rate. See pages 110-16 of Dr. Wood’s book for discussion and calculations. With Scott tanks exploding at street level, imagine what was happening to water and other tanks in the towers. Know anything about the water tanks? Which floors were they on? I recall blueprints where they appeared to be in the center of each face. Surely corner space would not be used for water tanks. Btw, any idea of the toilet count on each floor?

      • Robert E. Salt says:

        There were 16 toilets on each floor: 10 in the ladies room, 6 in the mens room with 5 urinals. I have no idea where the water tanks were.

      • Morgan Reynolds said: “If gravity (pancake) collapses had occurred, many more high-speed “squirts” should have occurred than shown in videos because each tower’s contents, including air, must be expelled at a rapid rate. ”

        [ I guess this will get me banned, but anyways, here goes] :

        But Morgan, yourself [and Judy Wood, Steven Jones etc.] have all been busy analyzing the network equivalent of Hollywood movies – all of the various tower destruct videos are 100% computer generated fakes – every pixel🙂
        See: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=386&sid=90061e84dc1c837378f49f3fea37bc75 , and: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=90061e84dc1c837378f49f3fea37bc75

        Regards, oneborneveryminute

        • william02138 says:

          I just looked at that first cluesforum.info page.

          What. An. Idiot.

          All the video anomalies on this page are easily explained.

          Ghosting causes a faint echo of the image to appear slightly to the right. It’s normal. Also, transmission from a live camera to the studio would often drop out several scan lines. The studio’s digital equipment would show the viewer the last known ‘good’ image for those lines, which could make moving objects appear split in two, while stationary backgrounds look fine. This was normal for live broadcasts with a moving camera 10-15 years ago.

          The author mentions the ghosting but doesn’t understand what it is, so he calls it evidence of fakery and conjures up conspiracy explanations that sound really silly to anyone who understands what they’re looking at. Likewise with the transmission dropout artifacts. If anything, these flaws further establish that the videos are real!

          Maybe the author is too young to have seen enough analog TV to know what it looks like in sub-optimal conditions. Okay, then he shouldn’t pretend to be an expert.

          But not understanding why photos taken from different vantage points don’t look the same? That kind of stupidity is timeless.

          The other guy’s page isn’t as blatant. There’s one fake photo he correctly points out as a fake photo, but that doesn’t prove a vast media conspiracy — just one clown with Photoshop. I can’t definitively explain the video that apparently shows only 39 columns in one of the towers, probably some aliasing artifact. The one of the antenna falling the wrong way looked like someone merely bumped the camera.

  7. onebornfree says:

    Fact: every pixel of the “amateur” “plane into/through building videos are proven computer generated fakes, for example see:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    Fact: every one of the alleged “live” media broadcasts [i.e. Fox, NBC,CBS ABC, CNN,MSNBC etc. etc.], including all of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 tower destruct sequences, are also complete, computer generated pre-fabrications [including sky, holes in buildings, all smoke, all explosions, entire backgrounds/foregrounds, shadows, etc. etc.] , as are all of their soundtracks.
    See: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=386&sid=90061e84dc1c837378f49f3fea37bc75 , and: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=90061e84dc1c837378f49f3fea37bc75

    Therefor, absolutely nothing can be realistically deduced from repeatedly watching them regarding exactly what brought down the WTC complex that day. [ All that such repeated watching _may_ accomplish is perhaps a heightened awareness of just how fake they all are- as impossible anomaly after impossible anomaly is revealed, once you know what to look for.]

    Fact: in real life, tall buildings are never demolished “top down” as all of the [fake] MSM tower destruct sequences all depict, but from the bottom up: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm

    Fact: any experienced cop will tell you that “eye-witness” testimony is extremely unreliable, and that therefor, trying to “reasonably” deduce what brought down the WTC complex via entirely non cross-examined, alleged, “eye-witness” testimony, is just as futile and entirely non-scientific in methodology as is endlessly examining obviously faked videos and stills , as far as I can see.

    Cherry- picking alleged witness testimony to support ones own favorite theory of what brought down the towers etc. is hopelessly transparent , and to my mind, diminishes the credibility of the person so doing.

    FACT : on 9/11 the media was directly involved in the broadcasting of entirely fake imagery showing magic planes doing impossible things and magic buildings doing impossible things ; magic tricks that are only possible in Hollywood movies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRyoFgAhW4c

    Question: are all these endless, futile debates/arguments over what exactly was used to demolish the towers etc. , and which are all based on the examination of predominantly FAKE imagery, fake soundtracks and entirely unverifiable, non-cross examined “eye-witness” testimony, merely part of the controlled opposition, a “limited hangout” , deliberately designed to keep us arguing over virtually nothing, while distracting us from the _obvious_ : that practically all of the imagery seen by us all on 9/11 and thereafter was/is false, pre-manufactured, computer generated imagery that was deliberately broadcast by the media, in the manner approximately depicted in another Hollywood movie, “Wag The Dog”? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNDmDZi05dY

    Are the champions of DEW, thermate, or mini- nuclear style demolitions etc. etc. who post here and elsewhere no more than willing media/government dupes whose job is to distract from the “in your face” evidence of TOTAL media complicity in the alleged events of 9/11?

    In truth, I don’t know the answer to that question either [no more than I know what destroyed the towers- outside of it _not_ being fake planes hitting them and alleged subsequent fires], but I am starting to have my suspicions🙂 regards, onebornfree

    • My son is a criminal defense lawyer and former assistant DA. I’ve been around law enforcement, the courts and prisons a bit. I was Director of the Center for Criminal Justice at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. What is your expertise? Engineering? Video technology? Sure. It sure is newsworthy that “any experienced cop will tell you that ‘eye-witness’ testimony is extremely unreliable.” What? Across the board? Including cops’ own testimony? Their eye witness testimony about chain of custody or lab results or what they saw, heard and did during an arrest or other action with the accused or other persons? Credibility depends on the witness. The “reliability” of witnesses varies. Get it? Anyone with an eye and a half wit would know this. In legal proceedings forensic evidence depends on witnesses too, testifying under oath about authenticity. You paint with the widest brush I’ve ever seen, like a bad undergraduate essay that generalizes willy nilly but backs it up with little or nothing in the way of evidence. You wipe your feet on the testimony of all the 9/11 first responders? All “extremely unreliable?” You’ve got a lot of nerve. You are among the lowest of the many low lifes in 9/11. And you tell us the towers must have been “demolished” bottom up? That’s rich. Take your claim to Mark Loizeaux and watch him crack up. Knocking out support columns at the base of each tower without toppling quarter-mile high buildings built on a relatively narrow base (208′ square) would require perfection in planning and execution, not once, but twice. Perfection is not of this earth. Even if perfectly planned, a fractional delay in any charge anywhere in the sequence, would tip the tower and send it sprawling three blocks, totaling expensive buildings and real estate all over the place. Did not happen. Btw, is every pixel of George Stephanopoulos faked in the video? You, sir, are on probation at this site.

      • I just figured out what ‘one born every minute’ does for a living. He must be a private attorney because in court he can prove all eye witnesses who testify for the other side “extremely unreliable,” thereby nullifying the value of their testimony. In fact, it seems likely that once he represents someone, the other side would fold, so he makes millions without trying a case. Well, at minimum the other side would not bother putting any eye witnesses on the stand. Yet it’s strange that one born every minute’s powerful technique has yet to spread throughout the lawyering trade.

        • Faleh says:

          An investigation into WTC7 was begun long berfoe the “pressure” from the truthers. The interim report has been out for 6 months now. I can guarantee the final report will be close to the same as this report, with a few comments on the likelihood, or lack there of, that a blast event could have caused WTC7 collapse.Think I am wrong? Come back to this post when the report is out.I am the prophet TAM, predictor of no October surprise, the new and improved Alex Jones.TAM

  8. You refute, refute, refute directed cutter charge mini-nukes, directed high explosive cutter charges, and much, much slower cutting nano-Thermate as being responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers.
    But you fail to explain what did all of this damage.
    In this whole blog, all you do i refute and then do not present one iota to proof for Dr. Judy’s moronic DEWs Theory.
    Please, Please, tell us what DEWs are, show a photo of one or two, tell us how one works in relationship to the Towers.
    Enough of the never ending reftutations, so please present your proofs.
    Judy’s evidence is no way, even remotely, for DEWs, it is evidence for the explosives mentions above and can easily explain every detail of her “Questions To Be Answered” for explaining the Towers destructions.
    Please state your proofs, not evidence, and then show us some examples of your proofs…

    • Chuck, be careful what you wish for. Your DEW entree is slow cooking over a weird, cool fire out on my deck. Once it lathers and puffs out a few smoke rings, I’ll serve it up. You’ll eat humble pie for dessert.

      • the thompson twins says:

        Dear Dr. Reynolds
        Thank you for your excellent work, keep it up! I don’t know if I’m covering old ground here but have you noticed the regular mottled wave pattern in much of the surviving aluminium fascia above the alleged “flight 11 impact silhouette” in the north tower 911? http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html could this be evidence of directed energy forming the gash?

  9. maxthedog2 says:

    Give it up Kevin! Morgan simply destroy your response with real facts and Reality..Seek terms of surrender and come over to the real science of Truth and be a winner in this insane world of idiots in the 9/11 movement..

  10. Matthew Naus says:

    This is for Kevin Barrett,
    Kevin you know me personally and you know I have been following this research for over 6 years. It is my opinion, based on what Morgan Reynolds writes in his response to your blog that Morgan Reynolds is “spot on” with his reply to you.

  11. Robert E. Salt says:

    Something not commonly known about the Towers is that each one was like three buildings stacked upon one another with three separate lobbies. There was a ground lobby and two upper lobbies. There were four oversize elevators large enough to drive a pickup truck on. There were two of these elevators devoted to each of the upper lobbies for making shuttle runs between the upper and ground lobby. The upper lobbies had regular elevators to take you to your floor of choice. I would expect an elevator free falling to one of the upper lobbies to sound like an explosion. I was working on the 27th floor of WTC-1 near the northern windows at 8:45 when things went boom. I took it to be simultaneous explosions from above as well as below. Those were the only explosions I heard that day. I exited the building around 9:35. I was outdoors a half mile away when WTC-2 was destroyed and never heard anything out of the ordinary. It would not surprise me if small explosives were set up to go off when the Towers were destroyed to cause confusion.

    • I treasure your WTC experience and contributions on this site, but I ask clarification here. You were 2600′ away when WTC 2 was destroyed “and never heard anything out of the ordinary.” OK, your experience supports the thrust of my article. But then you suggest “small explosives” might have been “set up to go off when the Towers were destroyed to cause confusion.” That is speculation rather than experience since you did not hear or see “small explosives” explode from half a mile away. Problems with your suggestion, no doubt offered with good intentions, make it dubious: 1) planted small explosives might be detected in advance of the big event, spoiling some of the perps’ “fun,” so risk seems large for little or no gain, 2) there was going to be confusion aplenty anyway, including explosions going off from non-bomb sources, so there was little need to exacerbate “bomb impressions,” and 3) planting explosives would produce testimony contrary to interest, at least superficially, because the #1 story for the perps to sell after 9/11 was jet fuel and office fires in the upper stories weakened the steel and caused catastrophic collapses. The official story (A) was not to point to explosives as causing the destruction, as verified by the Bush-Cheney administration, FEMA report, the 9/11 Commission and NIST Reports. So the question would be, why engineer “small explosives” to hype the explosives meme? Doesn’t seem logical. True, there is a deeper version, call it Plan B, as sold by Jones, Gage, Ryan, et.al., to rationalize your suggestion but I doubt that’s what you had in mind, so I put that aside for another day.

  12. Not A Number says:

    Believe it or not I was engaged in an email argument with anti-conspiracy type college professor back in 2003 about 911 being an inside job and I used those very words “Those towers turned into dust–and you’re going to tell me jet fuel did that?!”

    Now I say to conventional 911 Truthers:
    We saw WTC 1 & 2 turn into dust right before our eyes-what kind of conventional controlled demolition can cause that? And how could those towers come down faster than free fall?
    Reason: They didn’t fall down in the conventional sense–those towers turned into dust and blew away in the air and settled covering the ground of lower Manhattan. Sure there was some rubble at the bottom, but not enough to account for a conventional controlled demolition. The technology that was used to bring those towers down is not widely known about and certainly not by the general public. As Dr. Wood has said — free energy technology exists and “they” have weaponized it.

  13. This is like the engineers or architects ( not the AEI) but average guys ;cannot relate a 757 ,the size of it ? and the damage to the pentagon ,and the wall fell 35 to 40 minutes later .. Any artist ,carpenter ,etc. who deal with space issues in their lives ,should have noticed the impossibility of it being a plane . No less BLDG 7 , where no plane hit ? Photographers ,like the AP foto guy ,on 9/ 12 , put a picture in the Boston Globe that showed the Facade of the building ,before the collapse ? and 3 reporters who wrote the article could not see what happened. EXCUSE ME , GW BUSH ,BUT YOU DID IT .

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