Is Morgan Reynolds an insider?

[TimmyG]

I've had suspicions about morgan reynolds for a while now.
potentially one of the most credible and effective voices for the 9/11 truth movement (as has worked for the whitehouse) and he chooses to push the no-planes theory (which i feel can be ruled out and is the best device for making the truth movement look bonkers)

now he's going out of his way to attack steven jones (who I feel has done some good research and papers on the towers collapse and the visible thermite)

does anyone else suspect reynolds to be working for the other side?

[Wokeman]

No, I don't. The 'no planes' theory has been around for a long time. If you look at the Web Fairy's images of the 'planes' supposedly crashing into the WTC something about it definitely does not look right. The 'planes' do not behave as, I believe, planes would. They seem to melt into the structure, they do not do any damage. IMPO, If that is the case, then graphic designers have been at work here. QED, no planes, but explosions. Why Professor Steven Jones has been attacked, I do not know.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hi Timmy

I can give you 10 reasons why you should doubt that real planes were used.

1. They have had previous experience of “faking it” with the Apollo Moon Landings.

2.The technology exists to superimpose whatever you like on film footage. Given that this technology exists why would they not use it?

3.Jets flying that low would be very loud – on all of the footage there is no Jet noise

4.Given that the planes would be loud the Naudet brothers would have heard a real plane as it approached and would have been alerted to it sooner.

5.The planes went through the building like a knife through butter – we saw no wings being sheared of or tail section falling to the ground. They were also very fuzzy and not clearly identifiable as passengerplanes.

6.Most of us on this Web site accept that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon – was is different here?

7.Using a missile on The Twin towers would guarantee pin point accuracy – this could not be guaranteed by flying Jets by remote control – they must have spent years planning this – why would they leave anything to chance.

8.The little wreckage of the jets that was captured on film was not consisted with plane components that had been involved in a crash – they were not damaged enough

9.The locations where the alleged bits of wreckage were found were remarkably clean with little or no dust – indication that it had been planted there.

10.There is evidence of a missile on the footage that is available – you can see that 51 seconds in the CNN footage coming out of the other side of the building at an angle of 45 degrees – why would they use both a plane and a missile.

[Andrew Johnson]

I have corresponded briefly with Morgan Reynolds and slightly less briefly with Steve Jones. There is quite a lot going on behind the scenes (some of which I have been party to).

I would suggest that you look at Morgan's and Steve's papers and ignore the ad hominem attacks.

Both sides have valid data and arguments to bring to the table, in my view.

The "no planes" idea are more accurately called "no 7x7's". Read Morgan's and Judy Woods articles and see what you think. Try to ignore the fact that he's laying into Jones big time. You can hear a candid interview with Morgan here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278

See this thread on our forum too:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=19071#19071

[IronSnot]

It has crossed my mind, TimmyG.

I'm with you on the 'no planes' nonsense.

[James C]

[Andrew Johnson]

I am always drawn to study topics which are passionately described as "nonsense" and "nonsense". It's amazing the evidence you can dig up.

"No planes" for a start is a mis-nomer it's really "no 7x7's" at WTC. If you start from that premise and look at the evidence, the "nonsense factor" starts to go down. When you have a professor with 2 degrees and a materials science graduate analysing the evidence, as well as Professor Judy Wood, I tend to look at it with an open mind. These 3 voices are added to a small group of people who have been studying the evidence for 4 years - even Steve Jones agrees the evidence is worth looking at.


http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?911tvfak

See also:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=18923#18923


I also like it when they don't claim to be able to answer all the questions, but they do look at different bits of evidence - even when they are ridiculed for doing so (as they have been repeatedly both here and on insulted the Scholars Forum). This takes courage.

[James C]

[MiniMauve]

I have to agree with James C on this theory, also. We all saw the videos of the 2nd plane hitting WTC2 literally seconds after it occurred. Think about what would be involved in distributing a photoshopped video to all those news networks. Think about how complicit these news networks would have to be to not have someone somewhere blow the whistle. It's one thing for the media to look the other way and not air certain stories but quite a step further for them to knowingly air fake stories, especially when you consider that many of these news stations were not friends of the US government. It's too unbelievable. Stick to what is obvious, like controlled demolitions of the towers.

Also, in videos taken by helicoptor of the hole in WTC1 before it collapsed, you can clearly see the damage caused by the wings. I can't tell if the wingspan is the right size for a 757, but, really, is it that relevent? Do we really need to try to prove the planes that hit the towers weren't the planes that are said to have hit them? That raises a huge number of questions for which there are no answers. If you stick to the obvious untruths in the official story, the rest comes out in the wash (assuming there is at some point a full investigation of 911).

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

My answer to this is that it would be far too risky to use real planes.

They couldn't exactly have a practice run at guiding 2 cumbersome jetliners by remote control with pinpoint accuracy into skyscrapers (I take it you are going for the remote control theory).

Lets assume for arguments sake that one of the planes missed and crashed into the ground - there would be fireman on the scene within minutes and they would find an empty wreckage with - NO PILOTS, NO AIRCREW, NO PASSENGERS AND NO TERRORISTS. THE 911 PLAN WOULD BE SCUPPERED. WOULD THEY WANT TO TAKE THIS CHANCE?

They have however had plenty of practice at guiding missiles with absolute precision in the Gulf War.

As far as the media is concerned - they were complicit then and have been complicit ever since - keeping people silent is not a problem for them
The Manhattan Project involved thousands of people for many years and it never got out.

[Andrew Johnson]

[James C]

[Andrew Johnson]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hi James

Do you think any planes were involved at the Pentagon or Shanksville?

[James C]

[James C]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Where did you hear about the body parts at Shanksville - The local coroner said "he stopped being a coroner when he got to the scene because he could not find a single drop of blood"

[James C]