Important article by Morgan Reynolds

[Andrew Johnson]

Prof Morgan Reynolds questions some of Prof Steve Jones evidence and research

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

Examines closely the evidence for what type or types of explosives were used in the destruction of the WTC - touches on topics mentioned here before.

[brian]

Andrew, what do you make of this?

After only looking at the early part of this essay it appears Reynolds is sloppy and factually innacurate.

He claims Jones ignores the pulverisation when in fact in his paper Jones says this -

"...we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not typical random collapses, but quite possibly a series of “shock-and-awe” explosions coupled with the use of thermate-incendiaries –"

He also claims Jones lumps the WTC 1 2 and 7 together, treating them as "alike" in the manner they collapsed when in fact Jones goes into detail on the differences -

"Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom ...."

Reynolds does himself and the truth mvement no favours here, especiallyif the rest of the article is as is ill informed as the early part.

Odd to say the least.

[MiniMauve]

Re-post from the General forums. I'm thinking along the same lines as you.

First time poster to these forums, relatively new to the idea of 911 as an inside job. Initially thought the idea was ridiculous, which turned to skeptism, which became thoughtful, and finally conviction as I looked into the evidence.

Anyway, enuf of an intro.

Has anyone else seen this article by Morgan Reynolds?
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?Page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

Anyone know what the deal is between these two? As a relative newcomer to the evidence, I haven't read all the articles or seen all the interviews that either of these professors have done. I can say that what I've seen/read of both so far, Steve Jones seems to be genuine and professional. Not sure what Reynolds problem is. In the few articles I've read by Reynolds, I thought he weakened his message by lumping unproven, perifery, and frankly, far-fetched theories in with hard evidence of a 911 conspiracy. He presented many suspicions as fact and seemed to me be committing many of the crimes he accuses jones of committing. Is there a history between these two? What is the rest of the community's view of Reynolds?

I would think that the best way to get the message across to people formerly like me, who find the idea of a 911 conspiracy incredible (at least until they examine the evidence), would be to concentrate EXCLUSIVELY on what is obvious. e.g. the evidence for controlled demolition, which is enormous and really quite obvious once you view the videos in slow motion and see the details of the construction of the towers.

I would also think that petty infighting between scholars of 911 would be hugely counter-productive. Even if Reynolds is right that Jones is 'sloppy' in his research (which he seems to say in the above article amongst more slanderous accusations), he has still done a lot to get the message out and that message is no more assailable by critics than Reynold's own 'research'. I don't get it.

[Andrew Johnson]

I think we always need to focus on the evidence. I have corresponded with both Steve Jones and Morgan Reynolds (not in huge amounts).

I think they both have hugely important things to bring to the table and all the evidence they each present needs to be considered, once personal remarks are subtracted from the equation.

Many valid points are made by Morgan - and there are others who have been in the same camp for quite some time (the article, I forgot to say, is co-authored by Judy Wood, PhD and Morgan made a point of stressing that to me.) He also stresses in a previous article that it was co-authored by Rick Rajter.

The split in the ST911 group is quite bad - and is exactly the sort of thing PTB like - whether it's been engineered or not.

I therefore just say again, focus on the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

One of the key pieces of evidence is the utter destruction of the WTC 1 & 2 - my own (relatively uninformed from a metallurgy or similar) view is that Thermite alone could not have caused all of this - cutting the steel maybe.

People should examine all the evidence they have time to, then decide what the motives of the respective parties may or may not be.

[brian]

Andrew, as I pointed out Jones does not, as Reynolds claims, in any way suggest thermite as being the only instrument responsible for the collapses. He states explosives also had to be involved in the pulverisation

Also as I pointed out Jones does not, as Reynolds claims, suggest the collapse of all three were alike. Whatever merit any other of Reynolds claims has these two patently false claims alone make this attack on Jones highly suspicious and intellectually weak. That cannot be denied or overlooked.

I never took the time to read the rest of it as these claims of Reynolds were so obviously false but would be interested to know what you consider are - "Many valid points . made by Morgan"

[MiniMauve]

I agree everyone needs to focus on the evidence. It's ludicrous to me that either Jones or Reynolds would allow themselves to become embroiled in this kind of pettiness.

I agree that Reynolds makes some valid points, but I would argue that he invalidates those very points by association with far-fetched theories set out as fact.

A lot of his arguments with Jones seem to be self-generated. i.e. argueing that Jones's emphasis on the evidence for Thermite use somehow invalidates the argument that explosives provided the energy to pulverize the concrete out of the towers. Did Jones ever state that ONLY thermite was used? Wouldn't it be logical to use thermite to cut the steel columns AND high explosives to obliterate everything else? How does Jones concentrating on the thermite evidence prevent others from looking into evidence of heavy explosives? Would that not, in fact, be a better distribution of available resources?

[Andrew Johnson]

Brian,

I don't agree with everything Morgan Reynolds says about Steve Jones - this would be one example:

From Steve Jones paper (Section 16):

"And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe” explosions coupled with the use of thermate-incendiaries – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further."

So I agree with you that Jones does not state Thermite alone was used. Therefore, it seems that this paragraph from Morgan's Article (Section II Overview):

Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the twin towers apparently because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants, cannot account for data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into fine dust. Instead, in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite versus mini-nuke (fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a mini-nuke.

Is not totally fair, although Morgan is referring to the huge destruction of the Towers, which Steve Jones only refers to in passing - Jones does acknowledge the dust, but doesn't care to address the issue fully in his paper. If I spent more time, maybe I could find more like this.

So, perhaps what Morgan is saying is that Steve Jones won't look at the other evidence of mini-nukes. I think he also makes a valid point that "Physics Evidence" of anomalous collapse can be argued on the freefall alone, which Jones doesn't seem to do. However, these together may be nothing more than a "choice of evidence" as it were.

Before dismissing Morgan because parapgrahs like the above, I would look at how he analyses the impacts of the planes in this article (co-authored with Rick Rajter - a materials science graduate)

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

If you look at the analysis of the holes, it's kind of like the pentagon in reverse - at the pentagon, there were no holes for the engines or wings. This is because a (large) plane DIDN'T hit the pentagon. At WTC, with thick external steel columns (not bricks) there ARE holes where the wings supposedly hit - but should there be? Can Aluminium travelling at 400 MPH slice through re-inforced steel beams (out to the wing tips)? Maybe - I'm not sure myself. But look at the other evidence and the picture becomes less - pardon me - clear cut.

[MiniMauve]

Doesn't that just muddy the issue though? Why worry about details that are, at best, unclear when there is so much else that IS clear and obvious. We'e falling into the trap of attempting to explain or provide answers for everything that is suspicious about 911, when, in fact, all you really need to do is hammer away at the obvious. We had no hand in the collapse so, of course we don't KNOW what exactly happened! We do know what couoldn't have happened (i.e. much of the official story) by examining basic physics. And that is where researchers time should be spent, not chasing wild (and irrelevent) goose chases such as whether planes hit the tower.

The onus should not be on 911 researches to prove everything that is wrong with the official theory. The onus should be on the government to adequetely answer the obvious discrepancies in the offical story.

[Andrew Johnson]

I agree with the basic thrust of your post, but I don't agree with this:

[MiniMauve]

I doubt we'll ever know individuals involved in planning the explosives. The conspirators will ensure (or already have) that those individuals will never be identified.

And no one will take on this case until public opinion tips the scales to the point that politicians have no choice but to pursue a real investigation. What will bring public opinion to that level of acceptance of a conspiracy? The physical evidence IMO. I can guarantee that charges that no 7x7s were involved in 911 will not win any converts, not after everyone has seen so many different camera angles of the 2nd plane hit at the WTC. And that, to me, is what is dangerous about chasing down indefensible theories. Yes, maybe some of the far-fetched ideas will turn out to be true, but, for now, they are far too easily countered by shills. It's a waste of time and energy, especially since there is so much fertile ground of real, solid evidence to put forth. These far-fetched theories only serve to dilute the message that can be brought by just concentrating on the evidence that is supported by high-school physics. That's my opinion, anyway.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Obvious question perhaps, but who were the computer refit firm that were 'contacted to do the upgrade' the weekend before 9/11 during the power down? I presume they have been investigated and are out of the loop?

[Andrew Johnson]

[MiniMauve]

I find the no planes theory far-fetched because of myriad camera angles that I remember seeing on sept 11 when the 2nd plane flew into the 2nd tower. I'm not saying it's impossible that multiple faked tapes are what I was seeing but think of the logistics that would have had to be involved to get those tapes to the media centers and the number of people at those centers that would have had to have been in on the conspiracy. It's one thing for the media to allow themselves to be intimidated into not covering 911 doubts but for them all to accept passing off fake tapes as real? Many of those same media outlets are far too critical of Bush on other issues to be a part of this, IMO. The other possibility is that it wasn't a 7x7 but a fake plane, but if so, so what? it's still just a plane and doesn't explain the collapse of the towers. Far better to concentrate on that fact then turn people off by pursueing what many, like me, believe they have already seen with their own eyes.

[Belinda]

Re. the Jones/Reynolds altercation, it's confusing for the public and damaging for our movement when the big heads disagree and even descend to incivility towards each other, this is always regrettable and it reduces the standing of the distinguished individuals who indulge in it.

To avoid this kind of wrangling and yet still present intellectual honesty to the public I think it would be good if the Scholars/a kind of coordinating Scholar could provide a MASTER-LIST OF POINTS on which they/the Scholars have definitely established CONSENSUS, with a sub-list of points on which they remain divided/unclear, for the reason that either a) not enough facts are yet known or b) not enough research has yet been done.

The consensus points should head the list, which for clarity and focus could be divided into sections according to the locus of the event under scrutiny, ie.

1) NEW YORK/WTC:
a) ARCHITECTURE of Towers 1 & 2/potential resilience to aircraft impact;
b) PLANES that hit Towers 1 & 2: civilian/passenger or other type of aircraft? speed? manoeuvrability? wing-span? engine-size?
b) IMPACT of planes/aircraft on Towers 1 & 2: angle of entry? 'melting effect'? pre-entry flashes? temperature of fires generated? damage to building?.
c) COLLAPSE of Towers 1 & 2: interval between impact & collapse? features of collapse? (smoke, dust, pulverised or decimated materials extruded) noise? direction of collapse? speed of collapse? height of resultant rubble-pile? temperature of resultant rubble pile on Day 1 Day 8 Day 30?
d) COLLAPSE of WTC7: timing? degree of distress on building from adjacent events? spread/heat of internal fires? features of collapse? rate of collapse?

2) WASHINGTON/Pentagon:
a) ARCHITECTURE of Pentagon/potential resilience to aircraft impact;
b) PLANE that hit Pentagon: civilian/passenger or other type of aircraft?
c) IMPACT of plane/aircraft on Pentagon: angle of entry? speed? effect on adjacent motor traffic? size of entry hole? dimensions of fireball? damage to building/envrirons? debris?

and so on, giving the Scholars’ MAJORITY OPINION on each point.

ALTERNATIVELY, this breakdown could take the form of a Q & A/results of a MULTIPLE CHOICE or YES-NO questionnaire distributed to the Scholars, with questions such as:

1) What type of aircraft hit the Towers 1 & 2?
a) Passenger planes/Flights 11 & 175
(if 150 Scholars replied results might come out as
YES 50 NO 50 UNDECIDED 50
b) R-C'd military drone dressed up as civilian aircraft
YES 20 NO 50 UNDECIDED 70
c) Other
YES 15 NO 5 UNDECIDED 130

2) Were Towers 1 & 2 brought down by
a) Planes
YES 0 NO 130 UNDECIDED 20
b) Explosives planted in buildings
YES 130 NO 0 UNDECIDED 20

Etc, right down the list of points as answered by official Report, supplemented by points not included in official Report.

Providing such a statistical overview would
a) unequivocally demonstrate the Scholars' scepticism re.the official version;
b) avoid unpleasant individual personality clashes;
c) preserve anonymity of participants/encourage honesty;
d) guide public/campaigners to the main STRONG points against official scenario.

I believe that the Scholars would provide a service to the public & a very useful resource for the Truth movement if they could produce such a statistical overview of their opinion, please consider this suggestion!

[paul wright]

Precisely Belinda
This whole thing doesn't need to descend into Life of Brianesque differences about the MO and our responses to the outcome
One thing we can all agree about is the done job
Let's find the things we can all agree on
You know, I could present an argument whereby the prior shutdowns in the WTC couldn't have provided enough time to have planted sufficient explosive charges to bring the buildings down in that fashion and that something else must have been at play, with some small squibs providing a diversionary cover for a particle beam or tesla style weapon being in the action
Look at the turning of the wavering central columns at the end of the videos of the destruction of wtc1 apparently turn to dust
Still, I wont because such technology is not known to exist

[Justin]

Excellent post Belinda - an agreed overview is clearly needed by the Scholars and both Jones and Reynolds should be asked to contain their egos and to pursue their excellent work together in a spirit of teamwork, humility and mutual respect (David Ray Griffin being a good example of this). As has been said before, we don't have to prove EXACTLY how the ptb pulled this one off - we just have to show that the official story is unbelievable and unsustainable. Once we have achieved that, then we can enjoy thrashing out the detail of what actually happened on that fateful day. Can I suggest that British 9/11 Scholars send a carefully crafted letter appealing for the good Professors to 'kiss and make up' in the interests of the greater picture and cause.

[Andrew Johnson]

Belinda,

I have posted the gist of this suggestion to the forum - there is quite a lot of crud flying about on the Scholars' forum at the moment, but at least we can explain the reasons behind it. I think Rick Siegel is "in the mix" too - I presume because his film does contain some supporting evidence of "unconventional" systems being used to destroy WTC 1 & 2.

There are always disagreements among Scholars, so what's new?

Timing of this is of course, suspicious and unfortunate.

[Me]

Download a 500K preliminary report by Steven Jones in MS Word format here:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.d oc

[Mark Gobell]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Garrett Cooke]

I have always had a lot of respect for the analyses of Gerard Holmgren. I draw your attention to the reference at the end of Morgan Reynold's article:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/darkside.html

I must admit that this is the first time I have been made aware of what Gerard has written on the subject of Steven Jones. It is illuminating is it not that the good professor didn't even know what type of plane was supposed to have hit the South tower?

Fintan Dunne has also some opinions of Steven Jones see

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26&start=270#2435

I have read through once the Morgan Reynolds article and my initial reaction is agreement with what he writes. I have of course not done a detailed comparison with Steven Jones' paper(s). The 'no-planes' theory is not as far fetched, in my view, as believing that largely aluminium planes could cleanly penetrate steel and concrete buildings. Analyses of the videos of the second plane hits have shown them to be faked. The only video of the first plane hit appears in the known to be fake Naudet brothers' video.

Garrett

[Belinda]

If they were (remoted controlled) military planes dressed up as civilian aircraft they could have had their wings especially reinforced to enable them to cut through the TTs' facades 'like a knife through butter'.

Just a thought...

[Ally]

Whatever hit defies logic.

[brian]

Reynolds and Woods have answered Jones' response to their first essay -

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones

Whatever the merits of the planes/no planes theories I find Reynolds approach to the matter worrying. His attack on Jones re cold fusion is incredible.

Bringing it down to the level of Reynolds approach - at best Reynolds is a ranter - more worrying he is being severely divisive at a crucial time for the movement.

Even more so when we see this which Wokeman has just posted -

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=19812#19812

I sincerely hope I am totally wrong about his motives but I can't ignore his LIES about Jones which put huge question marks regards his motives.

[Ally]

Professor Jones seems like he's trying to play the middle ground against the more extreme as yet unprovable theories.

However these coincidences pointed out by Spooked are a little spooky.

What you reckon Brian?


http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/strange-coincidence.html

[Andrew Johnson]

In all of this (it's hard I know)

Evidence 1st
Ad Homs 2nd (or rather not at all)

I do dislike it when people accuse others of being liars etc (even when it's true).

[brian]

Ally, on the face of it I cannot see how murdering someone who took part in an experiment that could be repeated time and time again could be helpful to TPTB. Only in an intimidatory agenda it may make sense but to my mind the movement is far too far advanced for that - AT THAT LEVEL. IE Students.

The link to - Here's what seems to be the latest on the killing, and the suspects. - wont resolve for me.

Andrew - I wish I could call Reynolds more ridiculous claims something other than lies but they are so patently untrue I see nothing else to call them. The question is why would Reynolds make such demonstrably false claims? That I cannot understand.

[Andrew Johnson]

[brian]

Andrew, I thought it was clear I was referring to those claims made by Reynolds regards Jones that I have previously shown to be patently untrue. They are so patently untrue, coupled with his farcical attack on Jones re cold fusion, I would be swear to apply the word intelligent to his writings on the matter.


Leaving aside Reynolds' general attack on Jones.

Lets assume for the sake of argument the NO planes case is correct.

We are all familiar with the difficulty many have accepting the WTC was deliberately brought down by explosives - EVEN WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING - and can be seen with their own eyes.

In light of this very real problem does anyone really believe that now is the time to be introducing to the press and general public the notion that no planes were even present?

If Reynolds and Wood make the no planes case a central thrust of their presentation at the National Press Club in Washington would this be helpful to achieving the critical mass required to further the objectives of the truth movement?

Unless there are goings on behind the scenes we are not privilege to it is difficult to see how making the no planes a central issue at this point in time is anything other than, at best, bad judgement.

[Andrew Johnson]

Brian,

I have already agreed that no 7x7's is harder to describe to the average person than CD and how Morgan Reynolds and Professor Wood choose to present their evidence is entirely up to them - who are we to dictate such terms.

As regards the Cold Fusion thing - I agree with your thoughts about this particular issue having done my own research, so Morgan may well be mis-informed about this issue (which is non-9/11 so I haven't focused much attention on the specifics.

But as regards specific points of WTC evidence, you still have not stated what you feel are "patently untrue", so is it correct then that it is just the "Jones related points" you are referring to and not the WTC points? If it is the former, then that's fine by me - I will leave that debate to yourself, Steve Jones, Morgan Reynolds and any interested others - I wish to primarily focus on the WTC issues myself - and the "all missiles" evidence (better than "no planes").

Cheers