Reynolds, Wood, Jones & Plane Parts

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have posted an article critical of Steven Jones and his 9/11 research at Reynolds' website: The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

In fairness, here is Jones' prior defense of his research, (note that this was published before the above linked article).
"Answers to Questions and Objections"

Last year, a construction worker sent us scans of photos that he took, of wreckage that he believes are pieces of the planes that struck one of the WTC towers. Now that is seeing more traffic, it's time to represent Louis' story;

I was there that morning of 9/11 working on a nearby roof and the following week I was asked to go to Ground Zero to help with the rigging of some of the buildings that were damaged. I worked on, 1 Liberty Plaza, Century 21 Building, Hilton Millenium Hotel, and The Federal Building.

Working at the Federal Building, it was our job to hang swing stage scaffolds from the 7th floor setback roof. When I first got up on the lower setback roof and saw the amount of debris I was amazed. Giant pieces of the World Trade Center aluminum siding were everywhere. We had to move most of them to fasten our tie-back scaffold cables. While moving one of these 7 foot pieces of aluminum I noticed what looked like an airplane part. I picked it up and it had a serial number on it and something in writing "hydraulic piston".

About a half hour later, the Postal Investigator and an FBI Agent came up to the setback roof. I was asked where exactly did I find it and not to remove anything else, especially anything spray painted in yellow paint. I was told that there were many airplane parts on the roof and most of them were identified by yellow spray paint. Well throughout the day working on the roof I had come across the yellow paint on some objects. No one was supposed to have a camera on the Ground Zero site, but everyone had one. I had my in my work bucket and took pictures of the whole setback roof and debris.

Well, we had problems securing some tie- back cables to the setback roof and I had to go to the upper roof to see if we could run the cables up there. I had my camera and headed for the upper roof and I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a large piece of a landing gear and pieces of airplane parts all over the roof. I took many pictures and quickly left the roof.

A large airplane jet engine was photographed in the street near Church St., but was immediately roped off my the FBI. Those photos have raised many questions as to whether the plane was really was a 767 engine or a 737. The engine has since been supposedly "lost" or buried at the landfill. Why would such an artifact of great importance quietly disappear and not end up in a museum!

I'm a construction worker and have almost no knowledge of photography, my pictures are real and authentic and have never been altered in any way. - Louis

Original blog entries;
Airplane Parts from 9/11, Dec.12, 2005
More Photos from 9/11, Dec. 15, 2005

Photos still viewable online at;

Thanks Louis

For your wonderful contribution.

Why is it that the

Why is it that the no-planers insist on attacking others rather than simply trying to prove their point?  Is that their evidence?  Attacking others?

How about writing an article exposing real evidence, not interpretation of a plane "melting" into a building, but real concrete evidence of CGI??? If the evidence is so compelling, there is no need for hit pieces or namecalling, the evidence should speak for itself.

 All that time and effort spent attacking others, rather than 
doing something productive.

You mean like posting the clip

Dr. Jones is being attacked

Dr. Jones is being attacked by disinfo types like Nico..

We all heard Nico on Tarpley.

I was willing to give this character the benefit of the doubt but no more.

This guy is pure disinfo.

He's trying to discredit the truth movement with his ridiculous "no-plane" bs.

This guy is POISON

attack on SJ

I live in the UK and meticulously study the events of 9/11,through web sites like 9/11 blogger and especially scholars for truth.It infuriates me to witness the likes of Morgan having free reign in having ago at SJ,were does Morgan get his science from?I have read SJ's work and found it to be well researched,honest and forthright.It seems ominous in the last few weeks that SJ has come under the microscope,especially those who are trying to ridicule his work.The likes of Morgan are doing their best to undermine truth especially at this time.The movement needs to remain strong and united,purposeful and resolute.Both administrations US/UK are seeking to divide those seekers for truth with their disemination stories,and are most probably using"sleeper cell"operatives within the truth movements.Unity is strength,Morgan needs to rebuffed before more harm is caused.SJ's integrity has been called into question,especially by a person who worked for the Bush administration.Whose word would you believe?

part of the reason why noone

part of the reason why noone has taken the time to put together a solid rebuttle to the no-plane arguement is because doing so requires a heated confrontation, it cant just be a respectful thing anymore it seems.. as soon as you do attempt to make the counter-argument you get labelled as being 'in on it', or so it seems..

No planes @ the WTC is preposterous

Sorry dz, no planes @ the WTC is preposterous. Even if they "somehow" faked all the videos & photos (also preposterous), what about all the eyewitnesses??? Couldn't fake images into their eyeballs, now could they? (I know one personally, btw.)

If some of the vids were

If some of the vids were faked, wouldn't that help prove the lie regardless of planes or no planes? Wouldn't that prove media complicity by showing us that they fed us cartoons?

Or do you not want to go down that route for fear of where it leads? If you can show all the vids are consistant and A OK, you'll shut them up right?

no planer's in attack mode

"No plane" could have been or not have been the case. I see no problem to name that as one possible scenario, though improbable because of all the eye-witnesses. And "blue screen" technology would depend on a blue sky, and fail if the weather hat gotten clouded.

The problem with the no-planers, - as stated above -, is their over-eagerness, over agressiveness to hammer down their point, and all for WHAT? Just to make the difference that from the Operation Northwoods "plane swap" location to the WTC, no planes flew & crashed into it. Subsequently, the WTC was blown up, just like we say, and before the real airliners disappeared, just like we say. So why is this so f.... important for them? It doesn't matter! unless you're an agent trying to DIVIDE US ALL, and the eagerness stems from the RECENT SUCCESSES of the truth movement, making the divisive campaign ever more URGENT!

hello, The No Plane theory


The No Plane theory is important in that it shows that there was no Arab/Muslim hijackings. No attack from outsiders, that the entire 9/11/01 deal was the work of individuals from within this Administration and their agents. . .

only if it's true.

Hello. If true, yes it would be important. But it is not necessary to insist on no-planes to have no-arabs.


no plains = no brains!

I couldn’t give a rats ass if a no planer thinks I'm "in on it" F*CK THEM! You might as well be arguing with someone who believes Bush is a lizards man, "no planes" is what real "conspiracy theorists" who deserve the label gravitate to. Maybe Nico is onto something, despite the fact that he's a nut bag. But maybe also CGI was put on a few videos deliberately for people like Nico to shout about.

There is no way planes did not hit those buildings though, again CGI might have been added somehow. But to argue that no planes hit the towers is as ridiculous as it is disrespectful. To get into this shit about "planes no planes" is to allow ourselves to fall into a disinfo trap. It sounds so wild that it's damaging affect is obvious to anyone who understands reality. Even if Nico and his ilk are genuine, and to throw them a bone actually onto something, their useful idiots to the murdering bastards who carried out the attacks.

We've go to come up with a way to get "no planers" to respect the fact that we people who want to actually affect change. Are having our credibility undermined by what their pushing, and if they actually also want to see these f*ckers in trial then they have to put it on a back burner.

I was watching TV the other day and it was a program about rewriting history with CGI. They had Hitler animated and it looked amazing although your brain could still work out that it was fake. A guy came on and said jokingly with a ridiculing tone "we all know the moon landings were fake, and we all know no planes hit the towers". And I was just like WTF, I really don’t want "no planes" to be the bs sound bite catchphrase associated with 911 truth. I don't want to see this sh!t f*ck up the great credibility that so many people have fought so hard for.

So my message to the no planers is simple, think outside of your no plane box, take those blinkers of for a second and look at what you’re doing to the effort that actually wants to succeed. You may be right, (I can’t imagine at all that you are though, perhaps CGI was used on something to get you people making noise), but you maybe somehow your right and “no planes hit the towers”. Regardless the idea is a harmful one to the 911-truth movement’s credibility as a whole. Totally continue to do your research, and continue to do the shit you want to do. But think about what the consequence of pushing it all over the place is, think about what's most likely to help 911truth succeed, and what’s most likely to damage its chances. I can guarantee that the perps want the later to be pushed, please consider what the average person who still believes the official story is going to think after being told that “no planes hit the towers”.

If we have an investigation then we'll find out if “no planes hit the towers”. But "no planes" will not get us an investigation in the first place. So "no planers" if your that committed, help get an investigation with the solid state issues that I don't have to mention if you know anything about 911truth. And put "no planes" to one side until then.

Yes! no plains = no brains!

Extremely well put by Dem Bruce Lee Styles!

Nico & others like him who only talk about no planes are frauds, plain & simple. They are leading the truth movement down the toilet with a divide & concur strategy. Don't let them get away with it.

(BTW, no-planes @ WTC is a huge turn-off to the curious public. They find it laughable & label truthers as kooks.)

quote (BTW, no-planes @ WTC

(BTW, no-planes @ WTC is a huge turn-off to the curious public. They find it laughable & label truthers as kooks.)
end quote

Oh? Some would argue the same for "controlled demolition". Actually, that was the case last year before controlled demolition became accepted with the "9/11 truth elites".

As I said...

I've always found that not coming across as a "Conspiracy Theorist" works best. The "wierder" the information, the "wierder" you are perceived. Best to start out simply, and work your way from there.

Comparison Truthing

"OH MY GOD!!! Our leaders worship an owl!!!"

Result. You're a nut. Even though it's true.

"Bush has lied about everything else. Why should we believe what he has to say about 9/11?"

Result. I've seen people say that is the one argument they can accept, however, it is rather "aggressive".

"The Afghanistan War, The Iraq War, The loss of our civil liberties, the looming bankruptcy this country is about to endure... all of it happening because of 9/11. Don't you think it wise to really take a look at the day that changed the world?"

Result. You really can't go wrong there...

"No planes hit the towers on 9/11..."


not at all

"Oh? Some would argue the same for "controlled demolition". Actually, that was the case last year before controlled demolition became accepted with the "9/11 truth elites"."

^ No I thought controlled demolition was crazy until I saw WTC 7 collapse. Its got nothing to do with “911 truth elites”, that's just you finding a rational for "no planes" being legitimate.

i must take issue with one

i must take issue with one of your comments.
dz said:
""part of the reason why noone has taken the time to put together a solid rebuttle to the no-plane arguement is because doing so requires a heated confrontation, it cant just be a respectful thing anymore it seems..""
that is not so dz! i posed the same couple of questions on this blog many times:
why was the hole in wtc2 smaller than a 767 while we saw a 767 on tv?
did these so-called airplane parts-debris that were 'recovered' break off on 175's way into the tower or did they punch all the way thru and out the other side or were they trapped in the tower when it collapsed?
a "heated confrontation"?
not one time did anyone even try to answer any of my questions (i have many more!) and i was never disrespectful to you or anyone else on this blog.
if your guys' movement still hurts then you shoild take a harder look at your movement.

A Tidbit Of Something I Wrote In An Email

Last night...

Also, and I know I'm just as guilty as everyone else in taking part in arguments, let's "grow up" as a movement shall we? This isn't a competition. This isn't "Let's Play Who Has The Best Theory." It's really very simple. The 9/11 Truth Movement needs members. The best way to get a member is to make them ask questions about the event of 9/11. How does one do that? I've always found that not coming across as a "Conspiracy Theorist" works best. The "wierder" the information, the "wierder" you are perceived. Best to start out simply, and work your way from there.

As citizens of these United States, we had a "hand" in 9/11. We are guilty of being complacent, and stupid, and uncaring about the way this country works. As a result, our Government has been occupied by fascists. Fascists who had a hand in 9/11. That may be a difficult way of looking at it for some, but it is a concept I have grown to accept.

There is reason to be angry at ourselves. There are plenty of reasons to argue. However, it is WE THE PEOPLE, who ultimately have to take responsibility for this Country.

We may have had a "hand" in 9/11, but NONE of us would have done so willingly. Which is why we're here today.

Try to focus people.

attacking others rather than trying to prove their point.....

I agree very good points, if their evidence is so scientific and incontrovertible why are they out attacking others who have elevated the 9/11 truth movement. It seems that Dr Steve Jones is going to get attacked regularly especially over the next few weeks.

Snakes within and outside the movement need to take down someone big it seems, this shows that they are worried about the exponential growth of this movement. The prime targets must be people like Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones, Steve Jones, Prof Fetzer or Bob Bowman, David Griffin etc. etc.

However the recent attacks on Professor Steve Jones by Jon Moseley and now Reynolds show a worrying trend. Those who seek to attack the truth movement (from "within" and form the outside) have now shown their strategy - attack Dr Steve Jones.

some good points there.. as

some good points there..

as for the comment about being more skeptical that the parts were planted, my issue with that stance is that there is no way to prove it, hence it goes back to perception, and is not possible to build a case off of..

Plane Parts

An alternative explanation of why the large engine piece was hidden: If it was examined closely it would be seen not to belong to a 767 - agreed. But it was needed for witnesses to spot at the time, in order to reinforce the idea of a airplane strike.

Why they didn't just plant 767 airplane parts - maybe there aren't enough of them under control of the military or under the control of the cabal who engineered this?

It could be more for the amateur investigators to fight over - a distraction.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

Shouldnt we be working

Shouldnt we be working together not fighting eachothers theories or questions. Something is foul here.

Has anybody ever heard of the concept

of planting evidence?

" c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc."

Yea, but have you ever heard

Yea, but have you ever heard of the concept of a little know thing called "credibility"?

This will definately make

This will definately make people want to listen to us. syke. This no-plane shit is so fucking stupid wtf. It needs to fucking stop you idiots. STFU Nico you lunatic.

reynolds and wood have

reynolds and wood have jumped the shark. their hit peice on Dr Jones is as bad or worse than the Mosely hit peice.

No-plane theory and Nuke theory are totally debunked and ridiculous to boot. this is a CLEAR cointelpro disinformation campaign meant to discredit the truth movement.


"this is a CLEAR cointelpro

"this is a CLEAR cointelpro disinformation campaign meant to discredit the truth movement"


Like I've always said, Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction. Just like I STRONGLY suspect that Fetzer is as well.



Piece of shit disinformation and destruction agent!

fetzer??? REALLY!! what

fetzer??? REALLY!! what makes you think that?

A lot. But I'm about to go

A lot. But I'm about to go shave, shower and sleep. So I'm not writing the reasons.

I'll say this, though. Trust Fetzer if you want. But I do not trust him whatsoever.

Actually, I can paste something I wrote about Fetzer, in a 911Blogger comment page, like a couple months ago. It doesn't explain much about what I suspect, but I'm only pasting the one comment that I wrote like a couple months ago.

"DHS: "If Fetzer promotes no plane at the pentagon i'm going to slit my wrists."

He's proudly promoted, supported and propagated that in every other radio and video clip that I seen/listened to of him; it's a pretty sure bet that he will.

That's one reason, of several, that I've been suspecting Fetzer of being a possible disinfo & destruction agent.

I also happen to suspect that one of his main purposes is to sideline, sidetrack and ultimately try to discredit Professor Jones's work.

Who started Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the website? I know that it's a joint-cooperation between Fetzer and Jones, but who actually registered the website, came up with the main idea, created the website and is in charge of dictating what is published at the website?

Because there is a lot of nonsense that's been published at that shouldn't have ever been published there. And instead of trying to stick to a limited amount of strong, inarguable, irrefutable points to make the case for 9/11 having been an inside job, there is loads of unimportant distractionary links, non-evidence and the like.

I don't like it. If you do, okay. But I don't.

I don't know, but I personally suspect that Fetzer is in charge of dictating the main direction of the website, and inparticular, what is primarily published there.

As I recall, Fetzer didn't burst onto the 9/11 scene with his paper Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, until almost immediately AFTER Professor Jones released his first public draft of his beautiful research paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?" online.

I've been looking at it like this:

1) I thus far trust Professor Jones, although he's done a few things that I don't like, for the most part he's been doing beautiful work! Just amazing work!

2) But with Professor Jones being a credible, highly educated, and reputable person, would it not be safe to assume -- and should it not be expected that -- people working in the capacity of agents of disiniformation, distraction & destruction, would try to befriend Professor Jones, or infiltrate any honest groups he may belong to, in an attempt to hinder him and his work from reaching a critical mass of exposure, ultimately trying to destroy him and his work, from the inside out?


And would it therefor not be safe to assume, that someone [possibly] working in the capacity of an agent [Fetzer], who happens to also be a Professor, would be one to attempt to befriend Professor Jones, since it's probably not that difficult for people who work in the same Professional fields, or have the same Professional Job description [Professor, Ph D], to connect in a friendly manner?

Especially if one of them [Jones] is going to probably be very receptive to someone else [Fetzer] who he [Jones] thinks is honestly searching for, investigating and trying to present evidence of the same thing [9/11 = Inside Job]?

I don't know if Fetzer is an agent, I am not saying that he is an agent for certain. I do, however suspect that he may, in fact, be an agent.

Remember, guilt by association is a very strong tool to use, to discredit something. hosts extremely important information in Professor Jones's research paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?". But then has ridiculous links such as Morgan Reynolds "no plane hit the WTC towers, it was hologram missiles" paper -- as only one example of what should NOT have ever been published at Especially since it is of utmost importance to stick with what can be scientifcally proven. Remember, guilt by association is a very strong tool to use, to discredit something.

How can someone as apparently intelligent as Professor Fetzer -- if he were to be looked at uncritically, as just some honest person -- continuously promote, support and propagate the "no 757 hit the Pentagon" hoax? When there is so much credible evidence against it that shows that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

And how can you [anyone reading] then look at Fetzer, and not be suspicious and question his true motives or purpose in the 9/11 truth movement?

The continuous promotion, supporting, and propagation of the "no 757 hit the Pentagon hoax" is one strong reason that I am highly suspicious and distrusting of Professor James F. Fetzer.

If you trust him and like him, okay. But I don't.

I'll have to wait and see what he does tonight on FAUX News.
- Ø®£Z - | 06.21.06 - 8:33 pm |"

I didn't rewrite or edit any of that comment.

Amazingly, during that FAUX NEWS appearance, he did not mention "no plane at the Pentagon" -- probably the only time that I've ever heard him not do so.

Fetzer had been reading/posting comments at 911Blogger in the days prior to that above comment I wrote, so maybe he saw it and decided to "play it safe", in case a lot of people were watching to see if he would mention "no plane at the Pentagon".

In any case, there is a lot that I could say about why I don't trust Fetzer, and why I STRONGLY suspect that he's an agent of disiniformation and destruction. And since then, a lot of my suspicions have been answered about Fetzer -- STRONGLY reinforcing my suspicions. But I won't explain further now.

Like him, love him or hate him -- I choose the latter.

honestly, I tend to agree

honestly, I tend to agree with Dr Jones more than Dr Fetzer. he's a little wild sometimes.

but, my take....allthough he's been open to nukes and NPT, as Dr Jones has been, he has made no sign of supporting them, zero. these debates are RAGING in the st911 forum. however, the only evidence the NPT\nukes can provide however are name calling and smear. they lack critical thinking skills, evidence and manners.

R.I.P. - No Plane Theory \ Nukes


i also think that fetzer's a disinfo agent

not that i have any proof but it just seems that every time he opens his mouth, he is abrasive, rude, loud, laughs at the victims, yells at survivors, comes across as a bit of a lunatic and i think he really hurts the truth movement by doing that. i think hes doing it on purpose because it seems that if he was trying to help he would know not to piss people off so much and turn people off so much every time he opens his mouth. just my opinion of course.

Your research abilities are severly lacking.

I don't trust Fetzer myself, but for completely different reasons. As to your assertation; "As I recall, Fetzer didn't burst onto the 9/11 scene with his paper Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, until almost immediately AFTER Professor Jones released his first public draft of his beautiful research paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?" online."

Product Name: Black Op Radio Single Season Archive
Archives Year 2002 on MP3

79 James Fetzer 9/11 May 23

Seems to me that Mr. Fetzer was talking about 9/11 LONG before "Indiana Jones" was present on the scene.

but there was no plane (757) at the Pentagon!

If you're only objection to Fetzer is that he thinks there was no 757 at the Pentagon, then I have no problem with Fetzer... because he's right, THERE WAS NO 757 AT THE PENTAGON!


You suspect Prof. Fetzer... I think you're mistaken friend!

Prof. Fetzer is above all suspicion. MOST DEFINATELY!! You only had to listen to him in today on the Republic Broadcasting Network when he interviews David Griffin and the structural engineer from California. Also please refer to his interview with Jon Moseley on the Alex Jones Radio Show , or watch him at the Chicago conference or the L.A. Scholars for Truth conference which was aired on C-SPAN.
Not to mention read the countless articles he has published and radio interviews he has given, some of which are available on

NO FETZER is above suspicion.

HOWEVER REYNOLDS IS THE BIGGEST AGENT OF DISINFORMATION THERE IS! What’s more he has identified himself as such with this pathetic piece of no-plane nonsense.

However this will back fire on Reynolds as the NUTS in the truth movement will no doubt believe his BS and follow start following him. Everyone else will simply say "NO" to Reynolds and he will be ostracized. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot; Reynolds has just shot himself in both feet and then taken the gun to his head too!!

His is just a card, in a

His is just a card, in a game of spades... he has been played. The perps are still in the game.

Don't let your guard down and think the war is over.

i agree, Fetzer has spent so

i agree, Fetzer has spent so much time and effort on the JFK killing,way before 9/11 ever happened,that i find it really hard to believe he is some sort of agent. now Reynolds is another story.........

Fetzer is the creator and

Fetzer is the creator and top controller of st911. Who do you think accepted Reynolds to be on the team? and green lighted Reynolds' other bullshit that's been posted and hosted at st911?


I am now looking at this situation at st911, with Judy and Reynolds leaving, as Fetzer and Reynolds conspiring -- others at st911 could be knowingly involved -- to destroy any honest 9/11 Scholars' credibility. Basically, pitting agent [Fetzer] against agent [Reynolds], ultimately, both purposely working in tandem to destroy Jones. Go re-read what I wrote in that above comment about Fetzer trying to destroy Jones. Because Jones's "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse" is arguably the most important thing to be found at st911.

And I can also see it now

Random "News" Host: "The Scholars can't even stay together for 1 year and agree on their little "conspiracy theories" about no planes at the WTC and pulse weapons and aliens and area 51 and elvis, without splitting up. Why should we believe a word of what they say? NIST, the 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration are still in agreeance about 19 hijackers and Osama; that's why I believe them"

Perfect disinfo agents

Come to think of it, what better disinfo conspiracy than Jones, Fetzer, and Reynolds discrediting the 9/11 Truth Movement?

What better tactic than showing dissention in the ranks? Reynold's over the top with his laughable explanations. When it comes to showing an intact 767 in the ground, you gotta know that either the guy's a kook or it was intented to make the 9/11 Truth movement look like a bunch of immature children. Something stinks here real bad.

I don't know about Reynolds,

I don't know about Reynolds, I mean that bitch was in the Bush Admin lol. But Fetzer’s a great man, he goes a bit to far occasionally with speculation. But people like Hoffman, who's work I also respect, are deeply wrong about Fetzer from my perspective.

Read Fetzer's response to

Read Fetzer's response to the latest hit piece, as published on and here. It was brilliant and completely not divisive.

just more evidence of an inside job (NT)


why Wood?

I can understand how Reynolds is disinfo... but why Wood?

It is absolutely crazy to suggest nukes were used.
Simple observation would show that the mode of demolition... with the towers exploding floor-by-floor from the top down, does not fit with a nuke, which would be a BIG blast. If there was a nuke it would have had to be the LAST explosion after everything was already falling, in which case why bother?
And a nuke would leave telltail radiation that I don't think could have been missed.


Gatekeeper Chomsky live call-in show tonight

if you've read zwicker's new book, you're well aware of chomsky's gatekeeping tactics, esp. regarding 9/11. i've been in contact with the host of the show this week and have given him plenty of reference material.
please call the show and ask mr. chomsky his stance on 9/11.
To Participate live, please call 1-337-232-4434 ext 207 (only during the show)

Showtime: Thursday evening 8 - 9PM USA Central Time ...
Friday morning 01:00 - 02:00 UTC ... Friday morning 11 - 12AM East Austrlia Time

Notes to callers:
1 - because of limited time available all questions should be short, to the point and directed to Noam so he can answer directly.
2 - Also there will probably be lag on the phone from countries outside the USA or for people using free VOIP, so you need to allow for that.
3 - Turn the sound down on your PC or TV when you are on the phone to prevent feedback loop.

any desired perception

you can literally believe anything you wish so long as you can explain away the counter evidence.. if you have reached a conclusion, then no matter what evidence is shown to you you can explain it away - especially whenever you can state that any video is doctored, any witness is lying (or a government op), any photo is of planted evidence, etc. etc.

youll see this exact same thing happen in any number of other subjects.. people who see what they see and deny whatever they wish because they have a desired perception.. the same way that any article written about bush can be labeled a 'liberal newspaper' for example - you can just ignore it and claim it is compromised data, then you don't have to deal with it.

im glad that reprehensor dug up this email and these photos, i had forgotten all about them.


No matter how many times you tell me sbg is a good guy, I'm just not going to believe it.

Pathetic example of an argument ad hominem

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have now clearly identified themselves as crack-pots and CIA plants to create disinformation within the truth movement. They have both discredited themselves. This article is surely their crack-pot terms of reference from this point onwards and it will define them as being such.

What a moronic piece of work, it's honestly quite laughable, I laughed out loud when I read descriptions of figures 23b "Figure 23(b): Silhouette of passage by Invincible RoadRunner. Hmmmmmm!?" and 23c,
Figure 23(c): Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! in the article, yes they are quoting Road Runner. So the article is not only comical, it is in fact imitating a cartoon.

This is the worst piece of argumentum ad hominem I've seen so far and this far exceeds the article by Jon Moseley as it's dressed up in pseudo-scientific prose.

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods have discredited themselves and I hope that they realize this.

umm in regards to the

umm in regards to the landing gear near the Greco Roman pillar.
"Figure 26(b): Landing gear on a dust-free street corner near shiny new scaffolding, set back from the curb and no Greco-Roman pillar visible. The tire and brakes look different too."

it looks like the same tire to me. It has just been rolled on over a little bit. Look at its placement to the fallen lamp post between the two pics. Is it not possible in the mayhem that this thing rolled a foot and a half?

"Morgan Reynolds and Judy

"Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have now clearly identified themselves as crack-pots and CIA plants to create disinformation within the truth movement."

I don't know who planted them. But I agree with what you're inferring.

Rick Siegel is really

Rick Siegel is really pushing this crap too. geez, you should see some of his posts in st911 forum :o


I thought you were joking about the roadrunner pic,

but I LOL'D HARDCORE when I saw that on Reynold's site! LMFAO!!!

Isn't it possible that 19

Isn't it possible that 19 hijackers took over 4 planes on 9/11, causing the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the damage to the Pentagon exactly how the Government says they did, but nevertheless the terrorist attack was allowed to happened by high-level members of the government?

Why does it have to be so complicated? I understand people are looking for a smoking gun, but saying there were no planes, that no plane hit the Pentagon, or that explosives took down the towers without concrete proof simply polarizes the argument between asking every question and asking none.

If it were that easy to fake such an elaborate attack, anything would be possible and nothing would matter.

I'd rather focus on bringing attention to the "theory before the conspiracy", that is the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen on Fox 6 months before 9/11. Maybe the idea of a government cabal-sponsored wargame where remote controlled planes are flown into to the WTC to increase defense spending is only fiction, but neverless wargames on 9/11 enabled the terrorist attacks (whether terrorists cracked our intelligence or it was planned) which tremendously increased defense spending. The coincidence is beyond everything, especially considering how one wargame on 9/11 was regarding planes flying into buildings.

What's the real failure of imagination? That the threat is real from terrorists, or that the threat from 'idealistic' elites is real?

9/11 as a necessary evil is easy enough to rationalize. What's worse, controlled terrorism or uncontrolled terrorism? 3,000 lives, or 3,000,000 via a nuclear explosion? For if 9/11 didn't happen, the latter could have happened. Maybe 'they' saved millions of Americans.

unfortunately there is

unfortunately there is little room left for the LIHOP theories in most of the 9/11 community, however you are more than welcome here.

there tends to be a good bit of pressure put on those that do not fully advocate things such as controlled demolition, or that no plane hit the pentagon, and that is unfortunate in that we in turn turn away those that might increase our numbers in demanding answers to our questions.

i have no problem if someone

i have no problem if someone wants to belive it really wasnt an inside job, and they really dont thik the towers were brought down with explosives. but read that guys post closely. does it not look like he is making excuses for the 9/11 perps? example:What's the real failure of imagination? That the threat is real from terrorists, or that the threat from 'idealistic' elites is real?

9/11 as a necessary evil is easy enough to rationalize. What's worse, controlled terrorism or uncontrolled terrorism? 3,000 lives, or 3,000,000 via a nuclear explosion? For if 9/11 didn't happen, the latter could have happened. Maybe 'they' saved millions of Americans.

if your LIHOP, your LIHOP, i have no problem with that(though i disagree),but this seems to be a rationalization i cant agree with. how is letting 9/11 happen going to stop a nuke attack?

well, there is always the

well, there is always the idea that perhaps they made this happen so they could have the funding to go after real terrorism, but given the actions of this administration i find that to be a very flawed idea.. i think we want to try to rationalize and understand how they could do such things, and one of the only ways we can see that is if by killing 3,000 they somehow saved 50,000 - or something like that.

at the end of the day, to do evil in order to do good is a very slippery slope, and is specifically talked about in most religions as being totally unacceptable..

I was just trying to

I was just trying to introduce the point of justifying 9/11 as an inside job to explain the potential psychology behind 9/11 as a false flag operation. Feign ignorance to expose the flawed logic in the other person's rationale. Imagine making a film that was proud 9/11 was an inside job, just in order to reveal how incredibly evil it was. The biggest hurdle people have in believing it was an inside job is not understanding how or why government officials could do such a thing.

One should remember that not everything George Bush, Osama bin Laden, or Michael Moore says is true or false or right or wrong. There really are people out there (terrorists, religious fanatics, disturbed people) who would detonate a nuclear bomb if they had the chance. Homeland Security and the 'War on Terror' has saved lives. Yet, the government does use the fear of terror as a tool to control people, to acquiesce the masses by the extreme degree that the government creates terrorists and committed terrorists acts.

It's a dangerous game they believe is a necessity to save the world. They opened up Pandora's Box; they have the mentality that creating terrorism is preventing terrorism. The greatest way to change society is through war, so through war comes peace.

A large part of the world suffers. There certainly needs to be a new world order -- of some kind. It'd be impossible for the entire world to live like Americans do, though connecting ('controlling') people through globalization is their solution for terrorism.

The only way to fight them, is to provide our own solution.

In regard to your first

In regard to your first question, the 9/11 truth movement has established PROBABLE CAUSE to SUSPECT that element of the U.S. government, intelligence, and military command were complicit in the attacks. We have mean, motive, and opportunity. I suggest more reading.

It is complex! And yes, fanciful hypotheses have been polarizing the movement.

No, its not that easy to pull off what they did. All the mistakes made and cover-ups since then have a lot to do with how the movement started. And YES, facing the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job, does call many basic assumptions into question. 9/11 truth can help us tear down our addiction to self-destructive social paradigms, opening our eyes to a valid world view. Its takes a lot of intellectual and emotion development to take on the whole picture.

The evidence you site indicates that you are interested in one particular area of 9/11 research. Certainly a credible line of inquiry. Many others are as significant, but the Wargams have the most pop to me when Dick Cheney's command authority is included.

But then you lose me. Failure of imagination? Idealistic elites? Who? Dick Cheney? Both of these concerns are valid. Terrorism does exist. So do crazy rich people. I sense that you are sticking it to the "liberal" elite. Could we have a conservative in our midst? Justifying 9/11 as an inside job in the name of control? Where have I heard that one before?

So let me get this straight. You think 9/11 was an act of terrorism facilitated by the government to promote its strategic goals. That's what you said. That also what I'm saying. Here's my concern with LIHOP (let it happen on purpose), which seems to be your position. You are saying the same thing MIHOPers are, but simply trying to soften the blow. Hey, I've been there. Then I read more. If the government has ANY participation in the event, acts of high treason were committed. That's all we need to know to activate. We mustn't act like them facilitating the attack is somehow acceptable.

You go on to do just that, suggesting that a rather fanciful scenario in which a nuke is used in a major city could justify the death of those who died on 9/11. Ehhh... Too much Fox News.

Bottom line: Evil assholes stole my country and I want it back. And more than that, we must take it back if we are to steer away our present path of industrial suicide. There are many in the movement focused on your concerns. Seek them out. There are in fact, centrist and conservative 9/11 organizations. But you'll have to search for them. I apologize if you are not conservative. But you gotta steer clear of the newsspeak in a place like this.

Reading more is a good

Reading more is a good thing, but believing everything you read isn't. That's what Morgan Reynolds appears to have done -- he supports every conspiracy theory, the bigger the better.

I've never heard FOXNews justify the government allowing 9/11 to happen to save lives. Where have you heard that before?

I'm certainly not saying that we should excuse any complicity in the attacks. I do not know of any centrist or conservative 9/11 organizations that does. They may say the terrorists did us a favor because we weren't prepared but not that those 'smarter than the ignorant U.S. citizen' allowed it or make it happen.

The bottomline is, if you could convince people Dick Cheney was a patriot for being the mastermind of 9/11, maybe more would listen to the evidence, and you could possibly trap those involved into coming out to reveal their 'brilliant' strategy for world peace. Then everyone could see our real enemy.

What about Thermite discussion?

Everyone seems to be all in the tizzy regarding planes. But has anyone went through the thermite evidence that Morgan/Judy discuss? I admit, I didn't catch it first... but the thermite could be a red herring.

After all, demolition of WTC7 and WTC1,2 was WELL established beforehand.


it was nukes ---- wtc 7

it was nukes ----

wtc 7 evidence is a total smoking gun---so debate on the type of explosives is secondary

Relax with the nukes, ok?

Really no evidence that it was nukes or mini-nukes. Stick with Dr. Jones for now, why don't you.



LMAO.....nukes ZERO evidence


ZERO evidence of it.

there is hard evidence that there is NO NUKES!

Prof. Jones found NO - NONE - ZERO radiation caused by neutron activation above background in the material, something his is probably the MOST qualified to test for.

Its disinfo, plain as day...

Oh? Where is Jones'

Oh? Where is Jones' evidence for thermite? A mysterious sample that only he has, that nobody else has been able to test, and which may just be noise.

Ahh. Then there is the video... Note the official story is the hot jet fuel caused the steel to melt. Isn't this just what the sheeple will point to?

Thermite? Yeah right. Thermite made the dust blow up from the inside.

No if you actually read his

No if you actually read his paper its a combination of Thermate incendiaries, and explosives like HDX and RDX. "mini nukes" like "no planes" like “pods" sounds very wild. And because it sounds very wild it's probably blatant disinfo.

Anyone pushing that shit is an idiot as far I’m concerned, becuase crap like that is never going to help.

problem is that it keeps changing

first it was controlled demolitions then thermite then oops thermite isn't explosive then oops lets find something to explain how we screwed up last time around and it was some kind of patent for some device that has never actually been used oops, and now its well maybe some other new combination that has never been used and then it will be oops lets look at c4 again. i think that jones has lost a lot of credibility too. maybe its best to stick with the grass roots people, that's what usually works best and no big egos getting in the way to cause fights like the ones going on now between jones and fetzer and woods.

Demolition wasn't WELL established scientifically!!!

Demolition wasn't established, it had been proposed and accepted as being established within the 9/11 Truth movement. It was not accepted by the 9/11 commission it is still not accepted by Popular Mechanics (and their “thousands of experts”), or Jon Moseley for example.
There is a MAJOR difference between demolition being established as fact & being accepted within the 9/11 truth movement, and it being accepted as a possibility within the scientific and engineering community!

For it to be accepted within the engineering and scientific community serious research via controlled experiments and measurements, with accurate recording of the facts which can be reproduced are required. That is not all; the research has to be published and peer-reviewed with references given. Only then can the “theory” of demolition become WELL established as fact, proven by vigorous scientific enquiry.

Professor Steve Jones has done science to provide us with a theory and a mechanism of demolition. This is rather than just 'accept it was explosives' without understanding what explosives, how and what method was used to cut the core columns, what mechanisms could also be used to account for the phenomenon observed that day.

Sure thermate is part of it, thermate plus some other plastic explosives is the most likely cocktail that brought those buildings down.

I'm still waiting for Jones

I'm still waiting for Jones to publish new peer reviewed papers on chemical evidence of thermate and for his colleagues to do the same. Has he said when he expects to publish his results?


Free fall speeds don't prove it?
Squibs don't prove it?
The pulverization doesn't prove it?

So am I to assume that if I find a person with a bullet wound on the ground... I can only assume they were shot when I actually find the bullet?

anxiously awaiting your answer.

you'd need a ballistics expert to confirm it...

Are YOU an expert on bullets? Do YOU have a degree in ballistics? I'll wait for a ballistics expert to confirm that the lead pellet you find in that wound is actually a from a bullet and not just something an angry fisherman threw at the guy.


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

I have some initial logical problems trying to fathom the NPT

I have never really looked into the no plane theory for the WTC towers before. I decided recently to start looking into it, just to see where this point of view is coming from. I immediately run into two logical problems trying to fathom the possibility here:
1) One argument I have seen in a few of the NPT sites is that the criminals wouldn't want to risk a real plane attack in case something screwed up--ie: it would be easier and less risky to inject the airplane video into mainstream media than really attempt a crash. However, I find this argument extremely difficult to accept because I would imagine (although I have no expertise in this field) that the risks of real-time injects of false CGI into multiple mainstream media feeds would be just as risky... IE: All it would take would be for one feed to not inject properly and the whole thing would blow wide open and be suspect.
2) After the first plane/explosion impacted the tower, the streets were probably swarming with handheld cameras and camera phones. If the mainstream media truly had CGI injects, then there must be a large number of privately shot video on handhelds and cameras that simply show the second attacked tower simply exploding rather than a plane flying into it. However, I have not heard of a single instance of anyone claiming to have such video...

#2 is the key point.

2) After the first plane/explosion impacted the tower, the streets were probably swarming with handheld cameras and camera phones. If the mainstream media truly had CGI injects, then there must be a large number of privately shot video on handhelds and cameras that simply show the second attacked tower simply exploding rather than a plane flying into it. However, I have not heard of a single instance of anyone claiming to have such video...

That is the key point in my mind. There is no WAY that you could pull that off and not have amateur video showing there was no plane. No way at all.

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

exactly. NYC is only one of

exactly. NYC is only one of the most crowded cities on the planet. the logic of these no-planers is ridiculous. "they planted all the plane parts, even the ones in the street, during the chaos!". really? you really believe that Nico? and not one person has come forward with an amatuer video showing no plane? and you still believe that shit your pushing?

I used to think Nico and co.

I used to think Nico and co. were just morons,

I'm now of the opinion that these characters are deliberate disinfo.

Surely no one is this stupid. They try time and time again.

Nico is a disinfo pawn; keep an eye on this troll.

Judy and Morgan, the Prequel

Those who are regular listeners to Non-Random Thoughts will remember that the most recent Steven Jones interview episode (I believe it was August 10th?) featured a strange, and unusually tense exchange near the end of the show, when Judy and Morgan both called in to Fetzer's show to tag-team Dr. Jones on the subject of the color and luminescence of molten aluminum.

The exchange was awkward and painful- and wholly unexpected. Jones did his best not to lose his patience but with their badgering and condescension - and with Fetzer's lack of assistance. It served I believe as the last call of the episode- and ended the entire exchange on such a sour note.

I couldn't help but feel then, with the two of them acting in unison in attacking perhaps the most prominent researcher of CD evidence, that we were witnessing some bit of disinformation theater- meant to expressly create the perception in the listeners mind that 1) Steven Jones is incompetent and 2) what Jones claims is molten steel pouring out the the Tower is possible aluminum, which could be from the plane.

Fetzer in facilitating the exchange- which helped to undermine the credibility of his Co-Founder of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth- gave further munitions to those who question where his loyalties lie...

On that note, anyone who caught Fetzer's prior NRT episode (last week) were already questioning his judgment. It was an outright embarassment. An interview with a guy claiming that a microbiology student he knew decades ago told him about plans for "9/11" (it was already named 9/11 decades ago!) involving planes hitting the Towers, Anthrax attacks, Bird Flu, and something akin to the Black-Oil crap from the X-Files.

It was such crap - and Fetzer's toleration of being absolutely played the fool by a third-rate con artist bonehead was absolutely shameful. He grants two hours of airtime to the worst phony in the world, when he should've just kicked him off after his first obvious lie... And he meanwhile tells people on this message board, "You can not trust Jim Hoffman! Either you are for HIM or for ME, you can't be for us both!"

I'm sorry- but it looks like Morgan and Judy are the new Thorn / Guliani, and Fetzer is more deserving of skepticism than ever.

Fetzer isn't disinfo

But you are right, he really screwed up having that corn ball on the show. That guy's crap was one of the worst ever. In Fetzer's defense, I think he was supposed to have Barrett on, and then Barrett couldn't go on. And I guess he reached for that guy, don't ask me why. I think it would be good to have on some former officials, like Paul Craig Roberts, or 9/11 family members, etc.

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

I don't know much about Judy Wood, but Reynolds worries me

Who is Morgan Reynolds to argue physics with Dr. Jones? Reynolds is an ex-Bush economist, for God's sake. Reynolds was also into no planes @ the WTC for a long time. Science does not seem to be Reynolds' forte.

"Jones did his best not to

"Jones did his best not to lose his patience but with their badgering and condescension - and with Fetzer's lack of assistance."

Interesting. And something that I would completely expect Fetzer to do -- not help Jones. I would like to listen to this. Link?

I too heard Non Random

I too heard Non Random Thoughts featuring SJ from August 10th.
And yes,i also heard the tense exchange between Jim,Steven and caller Morgan regarding molten aluminum.Both Jim and Morgan seemed to be ganging up on Jones.
I had also read the article which suddenly appeared featured at,the one in which Judy Wood and Michael Zebuhr tried to claim that molten aluminum GLOWS orange,red,yellow take your pick (any colour other than what common sense tells you is silver) when poured in daylight conditions.This claim,to me at least due to experience,was absurd.
Both the article and subsequent radio programme made me very concerned indeed.
Why would Jim Fetzer take part at least,in a phone conversation which was trying to discredit Steven Jone's?
I emailed Steven Jones with that very question and offered some evidence from my own experience working with alumium alloys which seemed to corroborate his own experiments.
He emailed back stating,with regards to Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood,that maybe i should put my questions and evidence to them directly.
I emailed Steven again,with a more detailed description of the behaviour of molten aluminum,this time with information supplied by my Father,whom had worked in an aluminum foundry.Again,this information corroborated what Steven Jones had observed in his own experiments.
In reply to this second email Steven had included my response and had sent a copy to Morgan Reynolds,Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer amongst others.
The same day i received Steven Jones reply to my second email,i noticed that the Wood/Zebuhr article was no longer featured at
And now this shocking Reynolds/Wood attack piece appears.
Why are they doing this?
The no planes theory is ridiculous!!
The whole article is ridiculous.

I read the complete article

I read the complete article and i consider it lacking a lot of evidence and misjudes SEJ so much. They fault SEJ about how he does his research, but they themselves contradict that by laying out there theories with little or no evidence.

The comments about Nephi, and other things are totally missing SEJ point, and as a fellow Mormon, i find Morgan finding anything to critique him on. I have very little desire to follow anything Morgan says, and sad to see Judy is siding with him.


This is exactly why this crap needs to stop!

In all honesty, I was always a little sceptical of thermite/thermate/superthermate being used because it contradicts the Seigel video, witness testimony of explosions, pulverization of concrete, lobby damage, etc...

However, I am also having a helluva time grasping the no-plane concept for obvious reasons.

Regardless, none of this matters! We can't just "guess" at the secondary details and then develop theories. It's a waste of time and as we all know, harmful to the movement. The more of this crap that we have to see thrown around means the longer we'll have to wait before the perpa-traitors capitulate and admit to WTF they've done. Hopefully the minute details of "how" they pulled it all off will come out then. Only then will our thirst for details be quenched and all our curiosities put to rest.

Quoting you above: "In all

Quoting you above: "In all honesty, I was always a little sceptical of thermite/thermate/superthermate being used because it contradicts the Seigel video, witness testimony of explosions, pulverization of concrete, lobby damage, etc..."

I personally do not think SEJ's work discredits Siegel's at all. SEJ does not suggest that ONLY thermite/ate was used to bring down the buildings. In fact, he does suggest explosives were used as well. It is my view SEJ's work enhances the work of many other controlled demolition works out there (including Siegels, IMHO). I find it disturbing and confusing they are choosing to attack SEJ.

Anyone here believe the following statement?

"The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.

"Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of research."

Repost: I used to think


I used to think Nico and co. were just morons,

I'm now of the opinion that these characters are deliberate disinfo.

Surely no one is this stupid. They try time and time again.

Nico is a disinfo pawn; keep an eye on this troll

Yes flying pigs and whazits

Yes flying pigs and whazits are of the highest degree of scholarship!

About Reynolds+Wood's

About Reynolds+Wood's criticism of Prof Jones:

This is a very disturbing paper. Its science is questionable and it even inappropriately criticizes Jones' character. At certain points it borders on disinformation. (I hold a Ph.D. in physics and know nonsense when I see it.)

Why are Reynolds and Wood doing this? WHY?

If Jones can prove that he has Thermate residue, and other researchers can substantiate the claim, the proof of the 9/11 scam is in hand. It's that simple.

your attempt at trying to

your attempt at trying to discredit Dr. Jone's work is really, just lame. You're an incredibly shallow shell of a man/woman.

Have you no self-respect?

You're a despicable character; truth will out.

Those who tried to defend the official story will be remembered ;)

I want YOU to remember that.

What goes around comes around.

Video of steel beam vaporization

Does anyone have a good video link or video file posted anywhere of the WTC steel beam vaporization of the north tower spire? This Reynolds/Wood paper is the first place I have seen a reference to this... I always thought that steel beam had simply collapsed to the ground, although I never watched this part of the video closely when I did get a chance to see it.

It DOES collapse. It does

It DOES collapse. It does NOT vaporize. The "vaporization" is most probably fine dust from the collapse of the rest of the structure, coming off of the spire when the heavy steel spire collapses quicker than the light dust could follow -- blanketing the spire and obscuring the full collapse.

What caused its collapse? I don't know.

My best guess is -- providing explosives were used to bring down the towers support columns, of which, I DO believe to be true -- a late explosive charge and/or thermite/thermate cut near the base. I've seen a fairly large sized video of the spire collapse, and it does collapse. If I can find it or remember where I saw it to look, I'll link it.

I haven't read the Reynolds/Judy paper, and don't care to even look at it. I already don't trust Reynolds whatsoever. I hate Reynolds. I won't be wasting time reading any more of his nonsense. But if they're showing low-res images/video, that would help explain how they're attempting to sell "vaporization".

It did NOT vaporize. It collapsed.


Yeah, if you find a video link, I would appreciate taking another look...

Spire Videos

Definitely a sudden collapse, not a vaporization. My theory is that there was one or more blasts in the core close to the bedrock, causing the upper portion of the spire to drop maybe 10 stories or so. Then the upper portion hits the bedrock and stops suddenly, causing dust on the beams to become airbourne; the spire begins to tip over at this point, but is already engulfed in the larger dust cloud.

North Spine Collapse

Hi anon... Thanks for providing these videos. I would agree that these clearly demonstrate a simple collapse of the spire, and not some type of more exotic phenomena like metal vaporization/ablation. I have seen video of this in the past (don't remember the source) and it didn't strike me as any sort of unusual process then. I wonder why Reynolds/Wood would feel it necessary to invoke a fairly exotic process when the video appears to show a simple collapse. Strange. I'm gonna email him the video link and ask him why he felt it necessary to do this.

I'm wondering if perhaps

I'm wondering if perhaps this information about the steel found at WTC7 might help explain what happened to the spire.


Pertinent paragraphs:

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
IPB Image

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot cossosion attack on the steel.
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Morgan Reynolds is a bit of

Morgan Reynolds is a bit of a loose cannon.

And he is also a well connected "insider", the likes of whom I'm always suspicious of.

The timing of some of the recent attacks against Jones are hard to ignore.

I'll defer to Jones any day on issues of science before I would Reynolds.

Nico is pure gov op

Nico is pure gov op bullshit.

This guy may be literally insane. Seriously. Either he's black op or insane. Someone's gonna have to admit that fucker.

Forget Nico and forget those who follow his "no-plane" absurdities.

There's plenty of evidence.

OT: But funny...

A lie doesn't become more

A lie doesn't become more "truth" the more you repeat it, especially in the Goebbels Way.

There are 5-6 amateur videos which have no plane in it, only the impact.

The sky position in these videos where the alleged aircraft supposed to have come from, whether you pick the simulated flight path from either FOX5 LOCAL or the in itself opposing ABC7 footage, was empty and no sound of any engine.

I showed all of these clips at ny911truth's event 2 weeks ago and almost everyone was surprised.

It's all listed here and was never debunked:

All links which are missing are available at

It also includes footage from one real aircraft which PASSED the crime scene at time of impact.
This is a real airplane over which member Reynolds Dixon was threatened and resigned.

The audience from ny911truth even suggested by themselves that this must have been the aircraft everyone saw which allegedly hit the South Tower (and furthermore violated physical law, as also pointed out by ex-SPINE member Joseph Keith, Morgan Reynolds and co.)

Damn.. what a stoopido..

Damn.. what a stoopido.. why didn't he take
a photo of a serial number...


The airplane parts may well be from the C-9

ONI Navy intelligence ? (pentagon!)

No proof in this one

I just visited the site you listed as "never debunked" and I can debunk the following....

From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers:
"...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...."
Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..."
Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane)

The camera was ZOOMED in on WTC1 at the time, the fist plane crash, and only when he started zooming out do you see the explossion in WTC2.


You can't see a plane because they are zoomed in on the other building!

that doesn't make sense

The camera was ZOOMED in on WTC1 at the time, the fist plane crash, and only when he started zooming out do you see the explossion in WTC2.

The camera is zoomed in focusing on WTC1 prior to an explosion which appears on the left side of the video, coming from WTC2. Neither the guy filming (who speaks once) nor the girl reference a plane or jet engine sound (nor does the tv/radio in the background) even though their proximity in the relation to the towers appears very close, especially when the camera zooms out.

You can't see a plane because they are zoomed in on the other building

All one can conclude from this video is that an explosion is seen, no witness references a plane, and no plane is seen. These are two (presumably) witness' who do not see a plane or refer to a jet engine sound and see an explosion @ WTC2.

Does not prove NO PLANE

An absense of them mentioning a plane does not mean that this is proof of no plane.

They were located a large distance from the towers... When they zoom out, they are at least 1 to 2 miles away easily.

Your not gonna get a plane sound in a city like that from that distance.

Sorry, but still does not prove anything.

i agree that an absense of

i agree that an absense of them mentioning a plane does not mean that this is proof of no plane.

..least 1 to 2 miles away easily

you can see a couple buildings in the camera field when zoomed out, but can you see a distinctive building that enabled you to determine a 1 or 2 mile distance? furthermore, if they are or 1 or 2 miles away, thats a fine camera to have such powerful zoom, especially given the clarity of the initial on WTC1

Your not gonna get a plane sound in a city like that from that distance.

i've heard plenty of planes around NYC making noise, and i've been on long island and seen them fly nice and low on final approach making plenty of noise. why are we 'not gonna get a plane sound in city from that distance'? (1 or 2 miles you say, i say a few blocks)

Sorry, but still does not prove anything.

i think proves some witness' exist who didn't see/hear a plane but did see and react to an explosion.

Haupt, I've watched all the

Haupt, I've watched all the NPT videos and something is wrong with every, zoomed too far back, edited right after hit, north tower in the way, etc.

Post a link to YOUR BEST video evidence of NPT. I want to be convinced!

BTW, please explain this one. The guy clearly says "Where's this other jet going?" Then it plows into the tower.

NPT is total BS!

This freaked me out..!?

WHAT is the purpose of this if not messing everyone's heads?
Judy Wood "billard balls" argument is terribly inappropriate -
it does not take transfer of momentum into account.

I really don't know what's going on...

or maybe they are just pathetic

as THEY wanted to be the ones that reaveal the truth...

Gut-Check Time

This Reynolds/Wood disinformation represents a true turning point in the life of the 9/11Truth movement.

I, for one, will not stand for this. This is what disinformation is all about - divide and conquer. You can see it on this thread already.

If we don't have enough sense to rally behind the true scientists and academics that are risking their reputations, we will not succeed.

I think 911Blogger should not sit idly by and watch our best hope for Truth be smeared like this.

I propose:

1) A high-profile denouncing of such tactics

2) A high-profile voice of support for Professor Steven E. Jones (and Jim Hoffman while we are at it)

Jim Hoffman, multiple NSA-

Jim Hoffman, multiple NSA- and NASA affiliate,
who u-turned on the pentagon no-plane evidence.
That's a true support :)

On Prof. Steven "Los Alamos" Jones, still here:

Thank You Nico

Your objection to my post only affirms my convictions.

From now on I'm gonna ignore

From now on I'm gonna ignore *everything* Nico says. Slamming good people isn't wise.

Our attracting so much disinfo these days probably means we're making progress.

What will be next: that garden gnomes were running holographic projectors on 9/11?

The Sleepers Awake!

Put 'em back to bed... this disinfo/smear attack seems to be synchronized with Popular Mechanics campaign. Professor Jones deserves our strong support.

It's synchronized with the

It's synchronized with the 5th anniversary, the perps are more frightened of us a movement then you expect.

They are pulling out aces and still losing.

They are dinosaurs from the days before there was an Internet. The Chinese Regime is the only group that understands this in total, everything is monitored and scrubbed.

This is why Net Neutrality is so important, they already know they have lost and are getting the laws in place for the next attempt at World Domination.

..yaaawnz, yeah i'm so

..yaaawnz, yeah i'm so frightened that i finally put up a one-pager advertisement in NY TIMES about 9/11 TV Fakery.

Argh, still not up? Why are my NIST/NRO/NSA handlers are still so slow?
And still no FOX NEWS about 9/11 TV Fakery either.

Instead Fetzer/Barrett, Fetzer/Barret, wait....
No Barrett anymore.

Yes, the media and the perps are soo frightened.
And that's why they bring controlled demolition and the 9/11 Truth Movement 24/7 on TV and Print.

They're pretty scared aren't they?

Never mind, it's just the thermite truthling movement, sponsored by Al-Quaida and MUJCA they will soon say :)

But now ex-intel and ex-mil guys like McGovern Bowman and are tuning the script.

Hey i miss the good ole days when this truthling movement was sponsored by Adnan Kashoggi, George and Jonathan Soros.
It was more real that time, because only Kyle Hence spoke out :)

case in point (NT)


Where is the video.

Hi Nico,

I looked briefly at the link you mentioned: but I'm not seeing anything videowise that in my mind proves your case. Sure I saw a video of a fireball of the second tower, but no area shot right before the fireball to show that there was no airplane that caused it. I'm having trouble finding the videos you claim prove your case. Could you please provide direct links to several videos which prove your case by showing amateur video capture of the second tower exploding, while also allowing us to see that no plane caused it. Thanks.

doesn't that site refer to

doesn't that site refer to witness' who didn't see a plane but saw fireballs/explosions? one woman even says she had to rewind the tv to see what happened.

again, all you can draw away from that site 14 witness' who didn't see an plane but saw an explosion and may have been in a position to see a plane.

#8 is a great one who def should have seen the plane and #9 is on the source - getting to see these video clips in the source as they unfolded is a huge help.


Hi Shep. When Nico said: "There are 5-6 amateur videos which have no plane in it, only the impact" above, I assumed he meant not only that they had no plane in it, but also that the video gave a panorama which allowed us to see no approaching aircraft to cause the explosion. Perhaps I mis-interpreted him. Nonetheless, if such video exists, showing the explosion, and a panorama view with no airplane in sight, I would be interested to see it. So far, the video I have seen which shows ONLY the fireball doesn't convince me there was no plane--it only convinces me the camera didn't capture it.

You say: "[#8 is a great one who def should have seen the plane]"
- If we are talking about the same video segment ( I don't know how you can conlude the reporter on the ground should have seen the plane. He was only included as an audio feed. We are not informed by the reporter on the ground where he is reporting from, or if he looked up at the explosion zone just prior to the explosion. Without that knowledge, I don't believe we can conclude anything. Perhaps he had a birds eye view of the airplane trajectory and explosion site right before and during the explosion, or perhaps he didn't. This video clip certainly doesn't say.

You say: "[#9 is on the source - getting to see these video clips in the source as they unfolded is a huge help.]"
- Again if you are talking about: and I don't understand your POV. The main point of this video/image combo is that Nico et. al. are claiming a CGI'd plane accidentally has a wingtip/engine superimposed in front of one of the towers, thus exposing fakery (because no part of the plane should appear in front of the first tower it passes). I'm no expert in this field, but the image looks to me simply like two distant objects passing very close together, and MAYBE having some minimal optical distortion effects. Certainly, nothing that makes me believe it's a fake.


i can conclude the reporter didn't see a plane because he said he didn't see one. he didn't seem to hear it, only saw an explosion and reacted to an explosion.

in #9, i am referring in winston. he is on the archive source, on the ground, and gives an interesting eyewitness account and parallels reporter in #8. source is worth the bandwidth to download a for reference.

just trying to highlight the existance of eyewitness' to the explosion but not to the plane crash. i think there is equally compelling evidence from NPT such as the physics of impact holes in the buildings. i still try to get my head around some of the video evidence but there are a few avenues to approach NPT.

thx for asking :) Here below

thx for asking :)

Here below are some of the links.
Keep in mind that the analysis of contradictions of CGI-sizes compared to the Tower Sizes are even stronger,
that's why i have the amateur footage with no planes in it even down under in the evidence list.

It also makes only sense if you compare the empty landscapes with footage where the aircraft silhouettes showed up at a particular geographical spots (ABC7 and FOX5 ironically suggest two opposite!! live broadcast directions, from where i argue, when i show empty amateur footage)

Then you can also analyse the following evidence
of contradictive deceptions:

1 Comparison of incoming simulated flight paths
2 Comparison of geographical directions
3 Comparison of CGI shape
4 Comparison of CGI behavior, banking
5 Comparison of LIVE with NON-LIVE footage
6 Comparison of Speed
7 Comparison of Timecodes
8 Comparison of Soundtracks
9 Comparison of Hitting Angle
10 Comparison of CGI size
11 Comparison of color filters
12 Comparison of edited, cropped footage
(systematizing, organizing, counting)
13 Comparison of Amateur Footage
with NON-LIVE, LIVE footage

all direct video links of noplane/2ne hit footage here:

Saturday, August 05, 2006
Another amateur footage shows no plane hit South Tower (08/05)

Saturday, August 05, 2006
Compare with yet another amateur video, same perspective, explosion, no plane

The "no-plane" bird (07/13)
(now also vlogged at 911CGIwatch.blogspot)

May Archives
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)

May 1, 2006
Two dudes do not catch any plane

March 5, 2006
Dahler doesn't see or hear any plane at the South Tower

February 2, 2006
Amateur Video of 2nd hit without any clear plane

9/11 CGI: FOX vs CNN (06/28)
Amateur Vid of couple not seeing any plane

and here is one satire fake how can easily do the opposite:
WTC 7 "hit" by a "plane":


Using anonymous and bad quality videos from youtube or GV as evidence is at least laughable.

Speaking about missing plane parts of flying planes, this so called "expert" dont even know, what compression is and how it works.

Why is he using few MB big videos to prove his case is obvious :) All hi-res videos are OK.

What a headache! "These

What a headache!

"These pretzels are making me thirsty!"

Ok f*ck Reynolds

"Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong."

^ What a joker, he is ex-bush admin after all lol.

Just for clarification...

Just for clarification... what has jones added besides thermite? (which, btw, hasn't been independently checked)

Read his paper, besides

Read his paper, besides other things he's done the best work to date on WTC7's collapse IMO;

Really? What part of his


What part of his WTC7 analysis was originally his?

It seems like most of his analysis derives from work done in 2002-2003

He didn't add anything. As a

He didn't add anything.
As a matter of fact, he backed up from the traditional evidence on controlled demolition, which was already established by our group "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" in 2002- for 4 years against the resistance of and finally presented in Jimmy Walter's "confronting the evidence" event here in NYC which made 2000 visitors!

1. The free fall speed
2. That burning jet fuel cannot melt steel
3. That the original claim was that the steel melted, and after this was ridiculed, the official story was changed and they now deny that they ever claimed it.
4. The pulverization of the concrete.
5. That asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse over that distance.
6. That no steel framed skyscraper has ever before collapsed in such a manner.
7.That there is no evidence of a hot fire
8. The resistance paradox - an even stronger proof than free fall by itself.
9. The WTC 7 squib footage.

Also, Prof. Jones didn't receive the dust sample directly from Janette McKinley but she sent it first to Mike Berger and we don't know what Berger did with it.

I spoke yesterday with McKinley in person and recommended she should keep her other samples safe and put a lawyer on this case, in case US Government will harrass her on this, should Jones' final thermite/thermate analysis turn into forgery....

What like your "no planes" bs?

"should Jones' final thermite/thermate analysis turn into forgery...."

What like your "no planes" bs?

Hi Nico... Thanks for

Hi Nico... Thanks for providing some more info. I'm out of time for tonight. I will take a look at what you've provided here. Perhaps I will play devil's advocate with what I find if you don't mind... Will get back with my POV in a few days (if not sooner)...

Call Them Out

People are not taking this seriously enough.

This should be an "Action Alert" just like the Alex Jones stuff.


Just to be clear here, I

Just to be clear here,

I agree with DBLS - not this qwerty joker.

funny... but just to answer


but just to answer the joker, Prof. Jones brings hard physical evidence for thermate in the towers.

Anyone else have hard evidence? Hmmm... flying pigs don't count.

imgstacke Video evidence of


Video evidence of the squibs isn't hard evidence?
Calculation of the collapse times by seismic data isn't hard evidence?
Dust cloud sizes are not hard evidence?
Dust particle sizes are not hard evidence?

Or are you going to argue that the controlled demolition hinges solely on thermite?

thats not hard, hold in your

thats not hard, hold in your hand, no doubt about it, smoking gun, game over we win, easy to convince the sleeping people that they have been lied to evidence.

Where exactly do I go to

Where exactly do I go to hold this evidence then?

I mean, I can download the vids and see the fireworks with my own 2 eyes... and show everyone else as well.

I can't hold the thermite anymore than I can hold the video of the squibs.

Try again.

watch the cspan video, he

watch the cspan video, he holds it in his hand, with a plastic glove mind you...

"Video evidence is not hard

"Video evidence is not hard physical evidence?"

No it isn't. Neither are photographs or diagrams. Dust particles would be physical evidence.

A piece of evidence is not physical evidence if it merely conveys the information that would be conveyed by the physical evidence, but in another medium. For example, a diagram comparing a defective part to one that was properly made is documentary evidence—only the actual part, or a replica of the actual part, would be physical evidence. Similarly, a film of a murder taking place would not be physical evidence (unless it was introduced to show that the victims blood had splattered on the film), but documentary evidence (as with a written description of the event from an eyewitness).-wikipedia

Ok. Technically you are

Ok. Technically you are right. But we have analysis by scientists of the dust particles, and videos can be analyzed as evidence (if you don't believe me, see any and every crime that has been solved using security cameras)

So why is the thermite (which only Jones has access to) the only "proof"?

And what did these

And what did these scientists conclude upon researching the dust that proves 9/11 is a lie?

Just remember this is about exposing the truth to as many people as possible, people are going to need something they can wrap their heads around to let go of the fear induced psychosis they have been under for 5 years.

Molten metal is something people can "Get"... and verifiable tests (two other universities I believe) will validate the initial findings.

Material is not aluminum
Has a large concentrations of sulfur and Flourine(!)

SJones is a careful scientists and I look forward to reading his findings.

Lets go with what We can prove...

We go over the ground again and again,the free fall collapse of the Trade Center buildings,whether or not there were planes ,is pointless to argue. Lets just say We found actual evidence of material(without a shadow of doubt) that proved there were steel cutting explosives;What would be the next step? First there would be an investigation,maybe,but who would rule for it? who would appoint the investigator? Would the investigative team have any possible CIA on its committee? Would the MSM underreport the investigation? Would the committee make a future claim that the evidence was only trace amounts,therefore to be rendered inconclusive? I'm not trying to be negative here,but there has to be something that is more plausible to get to people that were accessories to the actual perpetraitors. So far the FAA,and NORAD look like a major Gilligans' Island type of operation,but what if that was setup that way? The NSA, but also the NASA had their eyes not only on the 9/11 "plotline" but also on the "military operation" of 9/11
More closely than any other U.S. Government Agency.The NSA can also basically login and monitor all important databases of the U.S.,especially aviation databases.
Therefore it doesn't matter if either CIA, BND, MOSSAD, Dutch Intelligence or "Able Danger" "observed" or "impostered" the alleged hijackers.
The NSA has their own satellite surveillance trackers, developed by SAIC and other private intelligence contractors.However the official 'plotline' of 9/11 had nothing to do with the military operation.
The 'plotline' of 9/11 helped as most important distraction, even still in 2006.
While the 9/11 perpetrators used the CIA as helpful distraction idiots,the NSA knew exactly who observed whom
in the 'plotline' and when the 'military operation' would take place:"Tomorrow is Zero hour" (September 10th, 2001)
The alleged suspects of 9/11 met next to Fort Meade.
Also, it was ex-NSA agent Linda Mills (BENS), who lived in the same city as some of the alleged suspects of 9/11.
And BENS helped creating the Tail to Tooth Commission,
an important tool for the neocons and PNAC.
Chairman Stanley A. Weiss is a member of the
Advisory Board of RAND's Center for Middle East
Public Policy, a member of the CFR and writes for Journal sentinel.Members of BENS are also:

Norman R. Augustine (Director Lockheed Martin),
David S. Browning (Vice President of Schlumberger),
Daniel H. Case, III (Chase),
Rudy de Leon (Senior VP, Boeing),
Victor Ganzi (The Hearst Corporation),
Richard Grasso (New York Stock Exchange),
Frank W. Jenkins (SAIC),
Paul V. Lombardi (President and CEO of DynCorp),
Stephen T. McClellan (Merryl Lynch),
Philip A. Odeen (TRW),
Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman (Blackstone Group).
The "military operation" of 9/11 therefore also included a P.R. and media operation and
was a close cooperation with their very own private military- and intelligence contractors:
AMEC renovated the wedge of the Pentagon, which 'coincidentally' was attacked on Sep 11th.
Then also AMEC was in charge to remove the rubble of the Pentagon, but also from Ground Zero.
Among other contractors: Tully Inc., which subcontracted Controlled Demolotion Inc.
Honeywell produced the cockpit recorder, which was officially found in Shanksville.
Two Honeywell employees 'followed' the Colgan Flight of 'Mohammad Atta'.
The CIA (same to FBI) was also used as a distraction for the 'limited hangout' to divert
not only attention away from the NSA but also NRO and NIMA (later renamed into NGA).
The National Imagery and Mapping Agency was also known as "the 'eyes of America'
On August 8th, 2001 (two days after Bush received a new PDB with a clear warning on Bin Laden),
James R. Clapper was announced as new head of NRO.
These 3 intelligence agencies had been already in charge
during the mid 90s to develop a so called 'secret surveill-
ance project', closely also linked to former Reagan's "Star Wars",which was in reality well known,even for U.S. Congress:ECHELON and PROJECT TRAILBLAZER.
During 1998/1999, under Bill Clinton, the NSA and NRO handed out their first contracts of "Trailblazer" to almost a dozen
of less known private military- and intelligence contractors.In the same years, controversy breaks out over the NSA "Echelon" project.
U.S. Congress 'figured' a problem with Echelon and looked into it.However in 1999 both General Hayden (NSA) and George Tenet (CIA) neither denied or confirmed the existance of Echelon and their sub contractors.If they would have confirmed the existance of Echelon and its sub projects,
no one would have believed into negligence on the morning of Sep 11th.The denial was therefore most important, because 9/11 was already in planning.Some parts of this program had been also developed in the very same wedge of the Pentagon,which was attacked on 9/11.The 'pentagon attack' not only 'wiped out' the Office of Naval Intelligence,
but also three employees of James Woolsey's Booz Allen Hamilton.Woolsey (ex-CIA director and PNAC)'s company was working on "Trailblazer".Also killed: two employees from BTG Inc., another sub contractor of Trailblazer.
Only 10 days after Sep11th, BTG Inc. was suddenly purchased by Woolsey's other former company,Titan Corporation.
Needless to say, Titan was another main contracter of Trailblazer since 1998 (contracted by both the NSA and NRO).
Why is the NRO much more important than the CIA?
The NRO was established in 1960 to develop the nation's revolutionary satellite reconnaissance systems.
It was endorsed by Dwight D. Eisenhower in February 1958
after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first orbital satellite.The existence of the NRO was declassified by the Deputy Secretary of Defense,as recommended by the Director of Central Intelligence on September 18, 1992.
The Director of the NRO is appointed by the Secretary of Defense with the consent of the Director of National intelligence,without confirmation from U.S. Congress.
In late 2001, "Trailblazer" (just another sub project and codename of Echelon and others)was integrated into "Misty".
The information was still 'classified'.Finally during December 2004, the so called 'classified' project, popped up in U.S. mainstream media.Now described as "controversial spy satellite program" or "stealth satellite program",
it was debated by some U.S. congress members, among them Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Finally General Michael Hayden (NSA) somehow confirmed, that this 'spy satellite program' was a cooperation between the NGA (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency), the NSA
and NRO.Hayden also confirmed, that Lockheed was then picked as one of the main contractors for this Satellite Surveillance program.
On December 8, 2004, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia,
the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee,
"complained" ...that the spy project was "totally unjustified and very,very wasteful and dangerous to the national security.
"Rockefeller and three other Democratic senators -Richard Durbin of Illinois, Carl Levin of Michigan
and Ron Wyden of Oregon - refused to support this 'secret project'.It took only 3 weeks to kill the debate and approve the project.It was the result of an officially labelled 'natural disaster':The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, followed by a series of tsunamis throughout the Indian Ocean.
Meanwhile, noone in U.S. Congress,especially 'since Katrina' argues about any 'satellite surveillance threat' anymore.

Meanwhile also Hayden has the guts to claim, "had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al-Qaida operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such.."
Meanwhile, the reorganization of the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus is almost done.
The first was the stacking of too many responsibilities
on the director of central intelligence (DCI),
with insufficient statutory powers.
The second was the Defense Department’s ownership
of the national intelligence agencies (the National Security Agency [NSA],the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO], and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency [NGA]).
And the third was the FBI’s control of domestic intelligence,or in other words, the absence of a U.S. counterpart to Britain’s MI5 or Canada’s Security Intelligence Service..."
So I will repeat it again;If they would have confirmed the existance of Echelon and its sub projects,
no one would have believed into negligence on the morning of Sep 11th.and it would be a smoking gun of prior knowledge to "Zero Hour"

I think many people fail to

I think many people fail to realize that the 9/11 debate isn't one that's going to be won on overly-complex scientific research -- it's going to be won on common sense. Professor Jones could find conclusive evidence that the WTC was brought down by thermate, and it wouldn't find a thing to the average person on the street who has no scientific knowledge and perhaps reads the newspaper once a week. Think of all the other scientific evidence that goes largely ignored every single day. Second hand smoke leads to breast cancer. Flu vaccines factor into Alzheimers. Though it pains me to admit, people don't have the attention span or ability to process complex scientific study these days.

Jones is a GREAT guy, but even if he spends ten years determining whether or not thermate brought down the Towers, he'd still be preaching to the choir.

The key isn't who's *exactly* right about what happened. They true key is to continue to get as MANY people as possible aware of the fact that the official 9/11 story is simply NOT true.

Our numbers are growing by the day, and goofy in-fighting like this does nothing but harm the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

All this one-upsmanship simply isn't necessary. We've already got a slam dunk case against the official story, but it seems like people have become so preoccupied with impressing others in the Truth community and advancing certain insanely specific theory that they're detracting from the overall effectiveness of what we should all be trying to do -- waking others up to the truth of 9/11.

The KISS (keep it simple, stupid) philosophy is extremely cliche, but its so easily overlooked. You're not going to convince some random soccer Mom by showing her siesmographic recordings, thermate information, or a complex diagram illustrating the impossibility of the pancake theory.

Rather, focus on the GLARING evidence that -- though we may have all been desensitized too -- will KNOCK HER OUT.

- A simple video of WTC 7's collapse.
- A side by side comparison of the real Bin Laden and the "confession video" Bin Laden.
- Marvin Bush and Securacom.
- The impossible hole/wreckage at the Pentagon.
- Bush's weird reaction, and the Secret Service's inaction.
- NORAD and the Air Force's lack of defense.
- Pictures of the prominent squibs going down the side of the WTC.

I'm a little drunk and a little cranky, but it's just idiotic to see some of the most prominent, respectable people in the 9/11 community attacking each other like a bunch of immature children. We're all in this together. Even if we all can't agree on every last detail, we're all part of a much bigger whole. As the old saying goes: united we stand, divided we fall.

The hard scientific proof

The hard scientific proof might be enough to convince honorable journalists to print the truth and the news would hit the soccer moms in a simplified way. Something like: Scienctific America article claims Thermate used in WTC demolition.

Something like: Scienctific

Something like: Scienctific America article claims Thermate used in WTC demolition

Fahrenheit 2777

MSM ain't gonna rescue you.

Go home troll

Go home troll.


Heh, that was a great article. We're trying to get to the truth, aren't we?


Care to debate the "Truth"?

Well said Ken

I agree with you man! We need to compile the list into a solid condensed version such as what you put out there. Nico you certainly have a compelling case with the fakery,but what comes aross to convince people with this evidence is for skepticism to take them over, because video (I believe), is the easiest thing to manipulate,meaning when you show this to someone,they May give you that funny look and close their mind as quickly as you have got their attention. That is not to say the fake video is not real,its something that an editor of the MSM would have to admit doing,and exactly which one. This is a steep hill to climb. Your claim of the NSA( I admit plaigerizing some of your writings) mostly of the ECHELON and TRAILBLAZER..if any one in the government confirms the existance of these on 9/11,then they are had;No more claims of neglegience will fly there for NORAD or the FAA.

LMAO Now Nico has convined


Now Nico has convined someone EVEN DUMBER THAN HIM of his "TV fakery".

Well done Nico, let the disinfo train roll on.

Not convinced..skeptical

I believe there is some credibility to the fakery..but only as far as the fact it was made to make it look like the "hijacked Airliners" were the planes that hit the towers to cover-up the actual drones that did.I don't soak up this stuff ,considering the evidence We know,without believing a possible ulterior motive behind it. This kind of info gets way down on My list of things to MAYBE check out.As I said,this is a steep hill to climb and that is a hill I will pass by. This is something that will be amongst the most difficult thing for anyone in the MSM to confess...let alone if it even was the MSM.So don't instantly regard Me as a disinfo-monger who falls for anything. This is the main site I go to for 9/11 information.I go to many others so that I can distinguish between truth,disinformation,lies and to cross-reference all to get collaberating facts. Truly good investigations have to go through false leads to really know
they are false.TV fakery is one of the easiest things to do in making a case,but you must also have a hide drones and make them look like the hijacked airliners? Would the government do it? would the complicit MSM do it for them? What do you think?


It doesn't really matter anymore if commercial airliners hit the twin towers or not. The American public will never believe anything else. Those images were burned into the collective mind of the entire planet, and anyone who thinks they can "educate" 51% of the people as to the efficacy of some kind of hologram theory is a fool. Either that or a neocon.

Did a plane hit the pentagon? Maybe, I haven't seen any hard evidence. Was flight 93 shot down? Sure looks like it. Did WTC 7 collapse for no good reason? Absolutely, no doubt about it.

So much time spent on on mental masturbation. It helps me to remember the objectivity of Lewis Mumford's classic "Pentagon of Power-The Myth of the Machine". He describes petro-industrial forces as having a life of their own, and being virtually unstoppable except by their own inevitable self destruction. He wrote that in 1970, I have no doubt he would view current events unfolding exactly as predicted.

This doesn't feel good

Reading that article gave me the sense that the Truth effort will not succeed. Prominent figures attacking each other for their proofs and opinions about something yet unproven. Theories abound, but they are theories. If we had hard evidence, we wouldn't have to try so hard to convince the skeptics. I'm not saying there's no evidence. Anyone who takes the time to use their logic can see things aren't right. I mean - don't tell me he's wrong about Thermate and you think it's scalar technology - that a Tesla Howitzer knocked down those towers. Let's agree they shouldn't have fallen, and demand open investigations.

Along that thinking, if dark forces used holographic technology so beyond what we've ever seen to make fake planes crash into those towers, we're screwed.

"I believe there is some

"I believe there is some credibility to the fakery..but only as far as the fact it was made to make it look like the "hijacked Airliners" were the planes that hit the towers to cover-up the actual drones that did."

Ok mike, I actually agree.

But this no-plane stuff should be avoided like the goddamn plague. Not only is it ridiculous, it will be the death of the 911 truth movement if the msm latches onto it.

Reading that article gave me

Reading that article gave me the sense that the Truth effort will not succeed. Prominent figures attacking each other for their proofs and opinions about something yet unproven. Theories abound, but they are theories. If we had hard evidence, we wouldn't have to try so hard to convince the skeptics. I'm not saying there's no evidence. Anyone who takes the time to use their logic can see things aren't right. I mean - don't tell me he's wrong about Thermate and you think it's scalar technology - that a Tesla Howitzer knocked down those towers. Let's agree they shouldn't have fallen, and demand open investigations."

Jersey, I had the same sense of dread while reading the article.

This is very, very bad.

The kooks have taken over the asylum.

Please, someone email these characters and give them a slap of reality.

I think we may be seeing the bastard birth of the real disinfo agents.

But how are THEY using it?


The whole 'what is good evidence' debate is not going to topple the movment, and does need to be addressed. But let's not forget what's actually going on out there in the process.

The broadcast MSM has demonstrated a fairly consistant approach to 9/11 research, with only a few recent exceptions. They talk about missles, and ask you where flight 77 went, and then they talk about CD, attmpting to make it sound outlandish. I've personally watched nearly the exact same "interview" happen over ten times now, specifically in recent cable news coverage.

The fact that they keep pushing CD and the missile theory could suggest a number of things. First, it could suggest that these areas of 9/11 research are actually those that are most threatening to the establishment. I personally do not think this is the case, as I find much of the documentary evidence to make a more compelling argument. But its possible. CD has recently become very convincing, and very prominent in the movement. Second, this could demonstrate that they consider these concerns the easiest to attack. I find that vey likely. Many in the movement are concerned about us focusing primarily evidence that is most easily attacked. While all of it will be attacked, we should be hitting them with all we've got, and that hasn't been happening. Why, for instance do we not hear more about foreknowledge? Third, and most paranoid, this could demonstrate the culmination of a plan to covertly push these concerns from within the movement specifically to have them shot down. The Pentagon CCTV releases suggest something along these lines. We all have to acknowledge that there must be some in our midst who are pushing evidence for reasons other than truth and justice.

Either way, we all must be as concerned with the evidence as we are with what part it plays in the case to be made for complicity, as well as how it is used by the MSM attempting to discredit us.

Stay on your toes.

As far as "No Planes" and

As far as "No Planes" and the article, I did a simple thing. I went to and watched 30 or so home videos of the second plane hitting WTC 2, from all sorts of angles. Sometimes the video followed the plane in, sometimes you just caught a glimpse of it as the tower exploded. Some from across the Hudson, others 2 blocks away.

Were all these faked and distributed, or did they all record an incredible holographic image in mid-air?

If this was the first thing I ever read about 9-11 conspiracies, my desire to look further would have been eliminated by the insanity of it.

My Take On All This

I’ve never seen so much childish behavior as demonstrated in this thread. Hardcore truthers who attack no-planers with ad hominems are just as bad as the idiots in this country who believe the boxcutter bullshit! How about looking at the evidence? If planehuggers think they’ve totally debunked the NPT then they are seriously delusional. I’ve read through all the childish comments here and have not come across one remark explaining the lack of deceleration when the “planes” hit the towers, or how aluminum cut through structural steel. Any proper debunk will need to address that, as well as ALL other evidence. If you can’t debunk ALL the other evidence, then STFU – you’re making FOOLS out of yourselves! Now, I’m not saying that I personally believe holograms 100%. But if there’s evidence that supports it, then it CANNOT be discounted!


Steven Jones has been allowed to do his 9/11 research. Why is that? He promotes thermate evidence despite the fact that his samples are NOT authenticated, and therefore are totally meaningless to anyone outside the 9/11 Truth Movement.


Many newbies ask why we’re still alive; iow, why the government didn’t kill us. Perhaps this is because we’re not a threat. Who would be the threat? Perhaps the author of the “Flying Elephant” paper on Journal for 9/11 Studies. After all, his kids were threatened by name, he was told to resign from ST911 and that his paper should “go away”. Other threats may include Reynolds/Wood’s paper (although they’re fortunately too popular now to “disappear”).


Take a look here for this quote: “NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done.”


I agree with that 100%! However….. I also believe that the average American would never believe any type of hologram theory, which is why James Fetzer might be right in promoting the plane hugger theory at this time. He might not even get on air otherwise, if too much of the truth is talked about! Which one to choose? Who knows.

The hologram theory is one of the oldest regarding 9/11. Interesting how it’s the only theory that’s not seen as realistic despite the evidence that keeps mounting. Perhaps this is being done on purpose?


Did all the eyewitnesses see “nothing” fly through the air? A fake picture generated in the sky using technology that only an idiot would assume doesn’t exist? I don't know. Anyone with a relative over 75 yrs of ago.. ask him/her what they would have thought about cell phones in the 1940s. How the hell can anyone assume real hologram technology doesn’t exist?


How anyone could blindly accept the 767 theory is beyond me. Just like anyone believing bin Laden and his 19 boxcutters. It’s groundless, meaningless, and insulting.


Again… I’m not saying I believe the holograms 100%, but I do have an open mind and will not blindly fall for a story from a government that has lied about everything. Anyone who does is in the same boat as those who deny 9/11 Truth!


And if any of you dare to accuse me of downplaying Professor Jones’ importance to 9/11 Truth, just remember that this is my work.

However….. I also believe

However….. I also believe that the average American would never believe any type of hologram theory,...

That's my point above - that theory drives away people, regardles of it being supported by evidence or not. It is penultimate tin foil hat fodder. I don't know the answer, but I also don't see the hard evidence for that theory, or I'm not versed enough in it. I don't know what aluminum wings with 6 ton engines going 500 mph does to steel columns, and I don't know what to expect when I see it.

As I said in my original post, if someone used holographic technology to pull that off, we're screwed, because it's beyond the ability of most people to believe. I accept that articles that tout amazing technological advances coming soon are really saying the military has it, used it and now wants to make a commercial application of it.

If they used cell phones to pull off Pearl Harbor, how would you have proven it back then? How would arguing it to an uninformed and dubious public help your cause?
WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ

27. So you're telling me a hologram hit the towers?

You didn't read carefully enough. Start from above again.
We're talking about vector-keyed CGIs (Computer generated Imagery), which aren't 'airborne', but born on computers ('capsules'), 3D programs ('animations') and video editor software ('clips').
There are still attempts to confuse these findings of digital manipulation by performing a "holography dance".

There were singular and wrong conclusions during 2002/03, while the TV fakery research was already ongoing at the same time as well, though with less intensity or as a 'competition'.

However, all the newest conclusions have been repeatedly confused by saboteurs or 'strugglers' from outside to muddy down the waters....

slicing like a hot knife through butter

thin objects at high velocity can make the object more potent than you think, take Chris Ferguson, the poker player who cuts through bananas and carrots and other fruits with playing card...paper cutting through fruits and vegetables...which wouldn't happen under normal conditions....but with high velocity and a small piercing edge relative to a bigger flat object???? done.

as for deceleration, how can you tell it didn't? You're talking about milliseconds between the nose entering the building and the rest of the plane following. if a plane is going 500mph which is 26400 feet/hr, how can you tell it didn't decelerate when it only went 0.681% of the distance? 180ft/26400ft = 0.00681 = 0.681%...not even 1% of the distance.

the example isn't fully compatible but you asked how to explain and so there you go. the card slices through the fruit LIKE BUTTER....much like a sharp metallic object going 500mph through a glass and steel.

as far as i am concerned it is discounted. move on.

anyone ever gotten a paper cut?

the Chris Ferguson argument is weak; its comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). we're talking about an alluminum plane with a plastic composite nosecone vs. a 110 story building with massive core collumns and a permeter wall/lattice like structure. these towers were quite capable of standing without any glass in them, so it doesn't add much to your argument when you accurately describe the planes buttering into the towers. to say that the plane should have shown no deceleration when it impacted the towers, and then to solely base your arugment on velocity alone completely ignores the real physics going on here. we're talking about force, density, and the impact of two objects.

if you allow the plane to completely enter the building with negligible deceleration, then how do you account for the plane stopping once inside?

after all, the playing card cuts thru the orange - it doesn't get halfway inside and then stop, does it?

I recommend: History "No

I recommend:

History "No Planes on 9/11" hoaxes
traps to distract and discredit the 9/11 truth movement

The Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline

promoters of "no plane" hoaxes
sabotaged the 9/11 truth movement

Fake Debate:
no plane or no complicity (neither is true)

Media Strategy:
Focus on the "No Plane" Hoaxes, Ignore Best Evidence

The Obvious Question

Why didn't Dr. Woods and Reynolds publish an article with their evidence in the Journal for 9/11 Studies?

They would have to go through the same peer-review process that Dr. Jones has gone through.

Dr. Woods and Reynolds paper as it now stands stoops to attacking Dr. Jones personally. Are we honestly supposed to believe this is science? What a joke.

I can't think of a more obvious disinfo op than the one so blatantly being propogated by Dr. Woods and Reynolds.

There a difference between contructive critisism and blatant divisiveness.

You decide which this is.

Best Thermite Evidence

Much of the most compelling thermite use evidence has been collected by me at my site:

There, one will find one rarely viewed image of molten metal at Ground Zero that I found personally and sent to Jones, which he utilized in his Powerpoint presentation at the Alex Jones conference.

Also seen in abundance, are images of a white dust or smoke streaming away from the base of each tower and severed core columns of the WTC towers. Such white "smoke" is a signature sign of a thermite reaction (aluminum oxide)

I'm dying to hear Dr. Reynolds explain this evidence away, EMP's not withstanding.

911 Polemics

Yes, well, WTC7 is obviously a demolition job, and yes, Jone's thermate signature technically isn't proof of demolition until the sample is proven to be authentic. But his analysis certainly adds to the argument for a re-investigation of 911 this time allowing for the possibility of government complicity. And that would include an independent metallurgical analysis of the molten slag held by the government authorities.

I also agree that thermate obviously cannot account for the incredible pulverisation of the two towers, although it of course does explain the complete failure of the load bearing central core structures and near free fall collapse.

I couldn't care less about who said what when, what planes where? Does arguing about planes even matter if WTC7 was obviously a controlled demolition? Isn't that grounds enough to push for an independent Grand Jury investigation leading to the impeachment of Bush and company for misprision of treason?

Subconscious agree w NOPLANE

Your subconscious has already agreed with the
noplane (better: different plane/missile) scenario
for the second tower.

The first tower is a different story.

The first impact was indeed a plane, and the signal

Re: 2nd impact

In the real world, the vertical stabilizer should have
left an impact-imprint.. but hasn't.
The argument that it broke off doesn't count, since
you can SEE in the video there is NO deforming even.

The magic-show worked great.

Albanese and DemB are abusing the people in the audience who claim that the virgin was not really cut in twain.

Has anyone got a contact at boeing who can check the
shape of that massive plane-part found on the roof?

Maybe it isn't even from a Boeing.