The 9/11 Liars Club

[Garrett Cooke]

The 9/11 LiarsClub :http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/liars.html

Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer - "Lying for Truth"

This is the latest article from Gerard Holmgren. I don't see it posted anywhere else on this forum so I thought I would bring it to readers' attention. An incisive anaylsis IMO which exposes the Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood axis.

Garrett

[Stefan]

I agree (at least with Wood's - she's a proven liar) but this really should have been posted in controveries.

Moderators?

[Stefan]

At closer inspection; I don't agree with this artical. I just agree Woods is a liar.

[John White]

Woo Hoo! Well the "No Planes" case has been so resoundingly rejected throughout the 9/11 truth community that the No Planes clique turning on each other was only a matter of time

Will we see inter-neccine conflict break out between our resident "No Planers"?

"Woodist swine!"

"Holmgreen hugger!"

I've got my tub of holographic popcorn all ready

[John White]

[MadgeB]

This is the lie that Holmgren accuses Wood of: “Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood self righteously attack the dishonest fraudulent science of Steven Jones, and of NIST, at the same time as telling us that Professor Wood won’t affirm a simple and fundamental scientific principle like Newton's third law of motion because such an admission would "drive a wedge" between her and Reynolds.”

What he means about Newton’s third law of motion, as I understand it, is that the force of the building hitting the plane, in effect, would have been the same as the force of the plane hitting the building.

“The idea that a plane consisting mostly of aluminium punched through a steel structure so decisively that it left a near perfect shape of itself is absurd. It would have smashed up on impact. Perhaps some of the plane might have penetrated the building, but most of it would have been smashed into wreckage that scattered to the streets below. But even supposing that it was somehow able to form this miraculous feat, there is a second impossibility. Any object which punches so decisively through another object that it leaves a shape of itself, is then by definition, relatively undamaged in the collision.”

I recommend that everybody reads the article, whether they end up agreeing with it or not, but I would say that the main theme was that junk science is being propped up in as much as the impossibility of the plane crashes is being covered up the 'Truth movement' generally and by the named scientists/researchers in particular.

Can anyone summarise Steve Jones’ attitude to the application of Newton’s third law of motion, in relation to the alleged plane crashes?

[Stefan]

[Fred]

Yes. Bombs.


Link

[John White]

[Witchfinder General]

Bombs do exist, what's your problem with bombs

Unless of course you don't think WTC was brought down in whole or in part by bombs.

How did those bombs get into the building

[John White]

Holmgren? Fetzer? Wood? or Reynolds?

Who do you think is lying Witchhunter?

you may choose more than one if you wish: or even all of them

[MadgeB]

Regards my question about what is Steve Jones’ line on crash physics - I can’t imagine a scientist would argue that a plane would be shredded if it was standing upright and one of the twin towers was dropped on it at 500mph. Or does he?

As to the plane slicing through steel - what would you call the diagonal cuts in the steel columns which make up the wingtip shape?

I don’t agree that no-planers need to start with the answer as to what caused the holes, if the plane crash scenario is physically impossible. However, there were obviously explosions blasting the aluminium covering outwards, and Judy Wood’s research has turned up an additional possibility. The contractors NIST employed to model the alleged plane impact damage are involved in research and development of directed energy weapons, suggesting that DEWs may have been used.

[Stefan]

OK.

Bombs.

Fantastic.

Now which one of you eager beavers is going to ask the question I have been asking you for months?

How is it possible for a bomb to cause the damage we saw to the WTC?

Let's have a look at what you have to explain:



1. The beams that are broken are all facing inwards. How did a bomb from inside the building cause beams to bend towards it?

2. There was no expulsion of beams outwards on the footage of these "bomb blasts" what happened to the missing steel which was once where the gaps are now?

3. There are slices in the aluminium cladding, which you can draw a perfect line between with a ruler where each of the wing tips would have been. If a plane had hit the towers, which obviously it didn't. What devioius type of explosive acheived this and how?

4. Exactly the in the centre of the line between the two slices in aluminium, we can follow up at a right angle and there is another slice where a tail fin would have been. If a plane had hit the towers, which obviously it didn't. Same question as above.

Thanks, and good luck.

[Stefan]

[ian neal]

FYI Nico's response to holmgren

Haupt reviews Holmgren: "Grand Chess analysis from the finest, Nietzsche of analysis"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3463

May 18th, 2007
http://www.911researchers.com/node/502

[andyb]

^ that made no sense to me. It appears Haupt is clearly a disturbed person judging by his emails and disruption caused at NY 9/11 truth meetings.

[gruts]

here's another example of squabbling noplaners....

Markus Icke (any relation?) attacking Holmgren and "webfairy":
http://proxydisinfo.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Disinformation By Proxy & Other Misdemeanours
Holmgren and Webfairy “Toilet Paper” 911 TV Fakery

[John White]

[Stefan]

Can any NPT proponent even get past the very first step in convincing people of their theory?

Anyone?

[John White]

[MadgeB]

[Witchfinder General]

Clearly a cartoon plane making a cartoon hole.

If you get bashed on the head with a frying pan do you get a flat head?

[Witchfinder General]

real plane crashes look like this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1766609301221903829


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3998892467657667670


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=796070773181554229


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7809823452018518759

[Fred]

The media hoax information is getting out, and the personalities behind the manipulated 9/11 Truth charade don't matter a bit.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C8E9BD6476324BD0A6878640A2961D8B/evan-f airbank-monitor-zoom-s.aspx

You can see the bluescreen system in action as it produces "bad special effects". Check out http://911logic.blogspot.com for further analysis.

[John White]

And what have the last three posts got to do with the war breaking out between different NPT theorists declaring each other disinfo?

[Stefan]

Madge,

1. That's a drawing, not a photo.

2. You aren't answering my question.

I want you to explain to me how a bomb caused this damage.

Unless you break with Fred on this one and think it wasn't a bomb.

But I just want some indication of how you get past what, for me, is the very first stage in convincing someone (or even yourself) of NPT. I have said before that when I first encountered this forum was the first time I encountered NPT, I was quite intrigued, but it was this question- the question of whether anything but a plane could have caused that damage - and there were no answers from the NPT crew. The poster snowygrouch wrote a very coherent post explaining exactly how a plane could cause that damage, indeed showing how nothing but a plane could. All he got back was insults. And as anyone who likes debating knows, once one side starts insulting instead of answering - they've lost.

Since then I have been able to think of very simple explanations for 99.9% of the "PROOF" Fred and Co bring here for TV fakery and NPT, usually it's so obvious I don't even have to pause for thought (See "WTC Built on Platter" and "Those birds sure move fast" for details).

I think you should take these questions seriously, I'm not being disrespectful to you, or to NPT, I simply want to understand where you guys are coming from because I can't believe this conviction comes only from glitches on youtube videos.

I'm attending a presentation this Friday of a scholar for 9/11 Truth who believes in NPT; I am interested for myself in giving every theory about 9/11 my ear (even though I maintain that a campaign should mobilise around questions and verefiable facts, not theories) but I am not seeing anything even remotley convincing, from any of Fred's bunch on this forum.

A lot of conviction. Not a single coherent argument.

[gruts]

[John White]

[MadgeB]

[sidlittle]