Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, and Jim Marrs to Speak at National Press Club?

Cutting-edge 9/11 research coming to National Press Club - has learned that The McClendon Group, founded by the late, great, White House correspondent and investigative reporter Sara McClendon, will be sponsoring a presentation at the National Press Club in Washington, DC by top 9/11 researchers.

The event is to be held Wednesday, September 6 at 7:30pm. Featured speakers will be Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood, with author Jim Marrs tentatively scheduled to speak as well.

Dr. Reynolds has promised an audio-visual presentation covering the whole spectrum of 9/11 issues, including the questions raised by the video record.

Thanks Judy for the submission.

Morgan Reynolds is an

Morgan Reynolds is an embarassment...perhaps intentionally.

This is no good folks...

This is no good folks, we need to push hard for someone else to represent us in this meeting. Maybe start an email campaign to encourage other's like Fetzter, Stephen Jones, or Alex Jones to have a part in this.

Morgan Reynolds, Here to Destroy 911 truth

Morgan Reynolds will do his best to poison the well and destroy 9-11 truth with his hand puppet, Judy Wood. I agree that people in DC need to speak to the press make it clear that the "No Plane" theory is pathetic disinformation made to discredit the real evidence.

Morgan Reynolds, you are worse than the neocons. Those who deliberately disrupt the effort to arrest the 9-11 criminals are accomplices after the fact.


Reynolds and Wood: Shill + desperate = dangerous

Reynolds is a plant for sure. I never trusted him. Judy Wood was denied tenure, so her career as an academic is over and she knows it. She is desperate and will take the $.

Time to expose these guys for the shills that they are.

Stephen Jones was actually

Stephen Jones was actually invited for this event at NPR, weeks ago.
He refused to come.

probably anticipating an attack on him

that would be my gut feeling

listening is key

I had been distraught to hear that Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood had left S911T. I was similarly distressed to hear that they were going in the direction of the no-planers. My initial gut reaction was, "Oh God. They were either plants all this time - or they had been made an offer they could not refuse that convinced them to go in another direction."

But I would make no public statements and decided to reserve judgment until I had the time to listen to all of the evidence. I have only a B.S. and am clearly no physicist, no engineer, and do not have expertise in fake video nor photo manipulations. It is hard for a non-technical person, an admitted non-scientist, to make decisions without great study - so I promised myself to at least keep an open mind.

I went 9/11 to DC to hear what Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds had to say. After hearing their presentations, I can honestly not tell you for certain that any large commercial jet hit either of the towers because I kept an open mind and listened to all of their arguments.

There is nothing definitive that I have been able to find that proves to me that flights 11 and 175 were ever at the WTC.

I am now prepared to say that both Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood have made some extremely valid points. This does not mean I am prepared to say what did or did not hit WTC 1 & 2. It only means that I need to do more research and continue to keep an open mind like anyone should do until we have had a chance to hear people out and listen to - and examine - their claims carefully.

What I have learned over the past three years is that what often seems genuine may not be. What seems ridiculous at first needs to be examined and then ruled out carefully after much examination.
I have judged people prematurely in the past because what seemed to be one thing wasn't at all the case after I did my homework.

I do not believe we should say that because they do not believe the "official story" (that flights 175 and 11 hit the WTC towers) that they are disinformation or trying to split apart the 9/11 Truth movement. I will say that if one actually listens to them carefully, they make persuasive arguments that can not be automatically discounted.

If any of you have persuasive research that can prove to me that flights 175 and 11 were ever at the WTC, please post them if you would? Maybe I have missed some valuable research that makes you believe the official story on this point and I may simply not be aware of the research you have seen.

Please also remember that what seems benign does not necessarily mean it is truthful. There is only one truth, and eventually the evidence and hard science will prove these things.

Cathy Garger

This is no good folks...

agreed. good thing they resigned from st911, but a true embarrassment to the movement if they push this NPT or Nuke nonsense.


you guys truly are lame. the

you guys truly are lame. the entirety of your outrage stems from reynolds' refusal to accept the govt/MEDIA fairytale that 4 highjacked boeings were slammed into 3 landmark buildings. it doesn't once occur to any of you dwarfs to demand proof of these 4 alleged boeings, no you all bend right over and accept the govt/MEDIA fairytale right up the smoking gun! you are so worried about how you will be portrayed in THE MEDIA that you have lost sight of the fact that THE MEDIA is the enemy. and you should be thanking your lucky stars that reynolds and wood have come forward about the questionable research that went into the official truth movement handbook.
you are embarrassed?
you should be ashamed of yourselves.

anyone that still subscribes

anyone that still subscribes to the no plane theory at the World Trade Center and still advocates the 9/11 truth movement to promote it should be ashamed of themselves, or else I hope is getting paid well.


4 hijacked boeings were slammed into 3 landmark buildings?

I thought it was confirmed at least 2, and then alleged another into the third. the fourth obviously never made it to a building.

Anyways, your loose semantics aside....we already have proof, simple ass.

It's called SOUND...and MILLIONS of people in downtown new york as well as looking at the island from all directions!!!!


How about all the photographs of jetliner parts like engines and landing gear strewn on the streets below?
You think they just dump that stuff off with nobody noticing?

Does it not occur to you that the ONLY thing that is 'questionable' that you base your whole silly theory on is the 'plane couldn't enter the building' and the video looks 'odd' based on the opinions of the quacks you're so eager to believe... like that puff of dust that you assume everyone says is a fuselage exiting the building...(NPT claims people think that, I haven't heard a word about it until I saw what you NPTers were whining about)... but that it's only just a cloud of material coming out in that shape?
You cretins make up crap to then try to 'disprove' it to only try and 'prove' it was a projection...

That's ALL you have to base this nonsense on...extremely shaky...everything else surrounding it doesn't corroborate whatsoever.

You 1%er NPT goons aren't getting your massive attention because people find it believable, it's because it's useful to the establishment in making 9/11 truth look like a joke.

Please, if you cared at all, wake the hell up and drop this inefficient and silly garbage... not your little hobby x-files pontifications.
Getting justice for 9/11 isn't a playground for you.

Otherwise go join David Icke in his crusade to prove the elite are lizards..while you're at it...that Elvis is still alive, we never landed on the moon, we're living in a matrix, and tin foil hats really work.
That way people won't get confused of who's serious.


'Tis true, the highly logical Dr. Reynolds is proving an embarassment to the highly dubious Dr. Steven Jones.

Ha, ha, ha.

Ha, ha, ha.

Morgan Reynold/Judy Woods

nut/nut the no plane no brain kicked out of the tin foil hat club at scholars for 9/11 truth

what an oxymoronic group, can you describe them as such

Morgan Reynoldsa and his "no plane" theory friends must go

morgan reynolds and his allies ARE DISINFORMATION INFILTRATORS. They must be forced out of the 9/11 truth movement to protect our credibility. They are trying to discredit the movement intentionally.
Stop giving attention to the "no plane theories" disinfo agents like Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, killtown, and others who are sabotaging this movement, either by sheer stupidity or intentionally as government moles.

If Reynolds starts popping

If Reynolds starts popping off about "no planes" at the WTC we are in for some problems.

This has been one of my fears and it seems to be coming true.

Reynolds is a Texan like Bush and a Bush appointee.

And he addresses enough legit material to seem like a genuine truther, and then veers off into "no plane-ville" to make the movement look like UFO abductee claimers.

He's a plant in my view, sent to wreck the movement just as it is really gaining ground.

We need action on this

We need protestors with literature and signs that read: "Morgan Reynolds Does Not Speak for 9/11 Truth"

Morgan Reynolds is clearly

Morgan Reynolds is clearly STILL a member of the Bush administration.

Morgan Reynolds

he is nuts, just nuts!

9/11 truth plant?!

Steven Jones is a full professor at the flagship Mormon university.

Mormonism is masonic cult, just like Skull & Bones.

Steven Jones proclaims just enough legit material to seem like a legit truther, then he obfuscates and fights real research to steer the movement away from what's at the bottom of the elaborate masonic traumatic psychodrama.

He's a plant in my view, sent to drive the movement off a cliff just as it was really gaining ground.

Hope this helps.

And he will do that how, exactly?

Steven Jones has done two things:

He has clearly presented the controlled demolition hypothesis as worthy of further research, by demonstrating that it explains facts about the collapses better than a gravity-driven collapse hypothesis.

He has provided data that is highly suggestive of the presence of thermate on WTC steel, which in turn adds weight to the initial hypothesis.

Neither of these acts has anything to do with being a Mormon, other than he apparently has developed a moral sensibility that enables him to do research that is basically thankless.

I'm not a Mormon and I have no particular affection for that tradition, but bringing Prof. Jones' religion into this just makes you sound like a bigot.

"""He (jones) has provided

"""He (jones) has provided data that is highly suggestive of the presence of thermate on WTC steel, which in turn adds weight to the initial hypothesis."""

yes, and he has also resorted to using dubious footage as a reference:

Mormonism is a Masonic Cult?

Are you kidding me? Mormonism, a major Christian religion, is a cult? Go back to the cave you crept out of you bigotted inbred.

Did you ever study the Mormons?

My son is writing a paper on them. You're like someone who thinks Scientology is cool because Tom Cruise is in it. "How could it be all bad? So many celebrities wouldn't be n it them. Someone in the Mainstream Media would tell us."

I don't care if Morgan Reynolds *was* a Bush appointee at some time. He still makes more sense than does Stephen Jones.


The Mormons have a very colorful history and I'm plenty aware of various critiques of Mormonism. What you can't explain is why that has ANYTHING to do with Jones' research.

If you think Morgan Reynolds makes more sense than Steven Jones, I can't help you.

All Religions

Are Cults, but that has nothing to do with Prof Jones research which has been peer reviewed by many and found to be respectable.

Come on

Ok guys, I understand that many of you feel that Mormons are part of the NWO heirarchy, but the fact is we are also the only religion that I am aware of, which holds as a matter of doctrine that the Constitution was inspired of God.

Dr. Jones is sincere, and his work in this regard stems from this belief as does my own.

Knock off this infighting BS, PLEASE.

Come on..

double post oops

So is this true, No Plane

So is this true, No Plane Theory is going to be presented in front of the National Press Club, as if it is representative of the 'scholarly' arm of the 9/11 Truth movement?

The planted agents are

The planted agents are steadily -- and purposely -- attempting to position themselves as the "leaders" of 9/11 truth movements. And I am not only talking about the 3 people named in this posts' title.

Now they can do an extra good job at the NPC, of making real 9/11 researches look like they are/associated with lunacy peddling, disinformation and destruction agents *points at Reynolds and Woods*.

I didn't ever trust Jim Marrs. I'm glad I didn't. Look who he's alligned with lol -- providing this news is true about the NPC.


Fuck Reynolds, Wood, Fetzer and Alex Jones. I gaurantee that all of 4 of them are frauds.

3 months ago when I wrote multiple times -- at 911Blogger -- that Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction, no one wanted to believe me. And now that is the general concensus. I gaurantee that Fetzer and Alex Jones are frauds also.

What's the dirt on ALex

What's the dirt on ALex Jones?

Tons. I won't elaborate at


I won't elaborate at this time. Mostly because the majority of what I've seen and heard, I don't have available to present to support what I wrote. I don't even really no where I would begin to explain why I am concluding that about him, anyway. It would be a lot to explain.

But I'll say that he does NOT represent nor speak for me regarding 9/11 truth. neither do Fetzer, Reynolds or Wood. although, admittedly, I don't know much about Wood. But I've been paying a lot of attention to Fetzer, Reynolds, and Alex Jones. Alex the most, since late 2002.

I used to really like Alex Jones too! So I'm not someone just randomly hating on him or some bullshit. But by early 2006, I really started beginning to see through him. And by now, I can't conclude anything other that he's a fraud.

It sucks. I used to trust him.

"And by now, I can't

"And by now, I can't conclude anything other that he's a fraud.

It sucks. I used to trust him."

when you say he is a fraud do you mean he is pretending to be concerned about the issues he raises? a disinfo gov agent or what?

i dont need you to explain why you came to this conclusion (even though id like you to) but id like you to elaborate on what exactly a "fraud" means in this instance

Well if he was a disinfo gov

Well if he was a disinfo gov agent, then pretending to be concerned about the issues he raises, would go hand in hand.

Yes. I suspect that he is an agent, or severly compromised. Working for whom? I have absolutely no idea. I am also holding out hope that my STRONG suspicions which lead to my present conclusion about him, are not true. I don't want him to be a fraud. But as of right now, I can't see it being any other way.

If Alex Jones is an agent...

If Alex Jones is a agent he is the worst agent i have ever seen. He motivates the hell out of people to share with others that 9/11 was an inside job. (which we all beleive)He makes expensive movies about the truth and gives it out for free on the net. If he is an agent, (which looks very doubtful) he has simply joined our side of the fight. Rock On Alex Jones.

If alex is an agent, then I

If alex is an agent, then I think it's his job to divert people from the ufo issue.

Because he doesn't include extra terrestrial possibility in his paradigm, he is missing on probably the most fundamental issue of the whole equation... just my opinion.

Don't put all your faith in any one person.

But, just think about it. it would make sense for the gov't to pump out people like jones, just so they can influence the whole movement as they want.

Webster Tarpley is an agent too in my opinion. He's the george castanza of 9=11 truth...

Comments from outer space

Webster Tarpley, an agent!!!!!! Now you are just being silly.


AGENT AGENT AGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOUR MOM IS AN AGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


man i hate these tools. 'well, heh, in my opinion...just an OPINION....but um, yeah, that one guy, he's SO agent....i mean agent-esque extraordinaire"..."his not-so-superb handling of this issue just has agent written all over him".

are we like still in grade school or something with these morons?

Ya know, how do people get so goddamn stupid? THEY MUST BE AN AGENT!

Or how about this....

maybe they're a....PERSON!!!!

People are inherently flawed, as these buffoons have so expertly and ironically exhibit beyond any of the people they're slightly disappointed with that they're so eager to call agents!!

let me also say that the

let me also say that the next fake war is on extra terrestrials.... I think it's important to consider that now, before they roll out the fake war on et's...

What? Oh come on. An agent

What? Oh come on. An agent would love to do everything they can to to associate 9/11 truth with those kind of things.

That is exactly the type of association that helps them.

man the infighting on these boards is out of control.

I agree that No planes is harmful and warrants being singled out and distanced from, but beyond that this infighting is just counter-productive.

Everyone just stick to what you can prove, and follow your own intellect and research.

Alex Jones a

Alex Jones a paleoconservative, and I disagree with most of his political agenda, but he often presents useful information and strikes me as sincere.

i agree, i cringe every time

i agree, i cringe every time he talks about social issues,global warming etc., but to call him a fraud is laughable in my opinion.

you gaurantee Alex jones &

you gaurantee Alex jones & Fetzer are frauds? What evidence do you have?

A lot of the stuff AJ and Fetzer says is baseless and very speculative but i haven seen evidence of them being purposefully misleading, fraudelent, or disinfo.

Maybe gaurantee was too

Maybe gaurantee was too strong of a word.

Like I wrote above, I hold out hope that my really STRONG suspicions which have helped lead to my present conclusion about him, are not true. I don't want him to be a fraud.

But I've been paying attention, analyzing and scrutinizing everything he's said or done, that I've read/listened to/watched (that I am aware of), and I presently do NOT see any way of changing my position or belief that Alex Jones is really a fraud.

And like I wrote. I am not some random person hating on him or some bullshit. I used to really like Alex Jones. And I used to trust him. But not any more.

It's like what Alex has said numerous times in the past about disinfo being like rat poison: you only need to add a little bit of poison to the good stuff, to kill the good that the poison is then associated with. I can't remember exactly what his analogy was, or how he worded it. It's been a while since I've heard him say it. But it was something akin to that.

That's how I see Alex now: always poisoning everything important. And poisoning it just enough to help kill it, while making himself look like he's really trying to do good and he's really an honest guy.

I shouldn't have written gaurantee. But presently, I don't see it being any other way. I guess it's an accumulation of too much Alex Jones poison.

What's the difference

What's the difference between poisoning the information and making a mistake? Also one example of what seems like purposeful disinfo mongering would be appreciated.


During the callers segment of Alex Jones's recent appearance on Alan Colmes' radio show from a week ago? when giving a reply to a caller, regarding the hijackers in the planes on 9/11, Alex again says (paraphrasing):

"a gas was used to knock out the people on-board [passengers and hijackers] then the planes were flown by remote control"

while practically yelling it into the phone or microphone, sounding like a crazy person.

While that may be what happened, where is his evidence? He hasn't presented any yet, ever since he first starting pumping that "fact" in Martial Law 9-11, when his "evidence" in the video was: a picture of an aisle in an airplane with no passengers, and it was purple tinted. Then a picture of an airplane cockpit with no pilots in it.

Evidence that was not.

That is one quick recent example, of a litany of things. How many "mistakes" can someone make -- especially during highly public things -- before you have to step back and ask "why does Alex keep poisoning things like this?".

You can find the interview link to Alex's appearance on Alan Colmes' radio show, here at 911Blogger. It was from about a week ago or so.

Knockout Gas in Airplane cockpit.

I agree with - Ø®£Z - on the statement about the knockout gas, I really like Alex Jones but there is no hard evidence of this statement. Although he does refer to AIRPHONE calls by stewerdess about something being in the cabin. He says she says a gas in the cabin, but I have not heard this tape. Alex jones admits that he is right about 90% of the time.

He refers to it because...

Stanley Hilton at one time stated that he had the documents to substantiate this claim.

Where are they?

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.) said they were gassed..

"a gas was used to knock out the people on-board [passengers and hijackers] then the planes were flown by remote control"


Alex Jones is refering to comments made by Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.) during an interview with him. Here is an excerpt of the transcript of this interview:

DGP: Well, what I was trying to get through here, John has done a beautiful job of laying it all out here on 911. What I want to carry away is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself has agreed, there were no hijackers. There were no cell phone calls. Everybody aboard that aircraft, pilots and crew, were unconscious within 8 to 18 minutes after take-off. And you can take it from there. I've got it covered in books 2 and 3, what actually happened.

AJ: So, they're knocked out and then the remote control takes place and the rest is history.

DGP: Yeah, there was remote control and .. yes.

Here is the link:

And Donn de Grand-Pre's

And Donn de Grand-Pre's evidence of this is presented where? Oh, yes. That's right. It isn't. He's only saying that "a gas was used and the planes were remote controlled"; he isn't actually offering any evidence to support that whatsoever.

Do you believe Donn de Grand-Pre?

If yes, do you believe him because Alex Jones believes him?

Or does Alex Jones "believe" Donn de Grand-Pre because that is what Alex has been instructed to do? having Donn de Grand-Pre as a guest in a pre-planned move to, among oher things, "reveal" and propagate the remote control "evidence" (basically disinformation until any actual evidence is presented that substantiates it)?

I do not take this as fact.

I do not take this as fact. I was just showing where Jones heard this information. I'm right there with you. I think we should only focus on elements of 9/11 that can be backed up, rather than using just pure conjecture.

Okay. :)

Okay. :)

Alex has speculated about a

Alex has speculated about a gas being used to knock out those aboard the planes.

I have heard him refer to airphone calls where flight attendants are heard to be saying "there's something in the cockpit, I can't breathe, *cough.

Has anyone heard these calls that can back this up?

The biggest disinfo is

The biggest disinfo is coming from those that use the word 'disinfo' all the time to discredit others.
- Mike Ruppert calling 'Loose Change' a well made "CIA disinfo"

- Daniel Hopsicker calling controlled demolition "disinfo" and spreading the "info" that 9/11 truth is "funded by al-Qaeda"

Generally, it is those that never consider the opponent's theory and don't give reasons why they dismiss it.

you have yet to give 1

you have yet to give 1 concrete example of Alex JOnes acting like an "agent" or whatever. what SPECIFICALLY made you come to this conclusion. not just your "feeling", what specifically?

Just a feeling...

Ewing has presented no evidence of his claims that Alex Jones is an agent, it is purely based on a feeling. It is a good thing Alex Jones doesnt base his facts on feelings.

I never ever said that Alex

I never ever said that Alex Jones is an "agent", i never even use that silly word.
I concentrated on various kind of manipulations and infiltrations within this movement and that's it.

The current focus is also on other persons.
While AJones is clearly plagiarizer No.1 in the movement and pretty sloppy on the details, also didn't do any single 9/11 research by himself, i only criticize him as a planehugger, but not as a cointel-pro asset.

It's even more who are dictating Alex Jones contents, not himself.
Get your accusations straight.

Maybe you confused it which what i had to say about S*Jones or you confuse me with someone else.
However not even WING TV claims, that AJones is a spook.

AJones' agenda is clearly dictated by GCN and the main accusations are that they're overexaggerating fear and threataganda, which is a pure business thing IMO.

On the other SJones still here:

Just a feeling...

Ewing has presented no evidence of his claims that Alex Jones is an agent, it is purely based on a feeling. It is a good thing Alex Jones doesnt base his facts on feelings.

Did you just refer to me as

Did you just refer to me as Ewing?

Did you just refer to me as Ewing?

No, the user with the name ewing2001.

Then read above. I have

Then read above.
I have nothing to do with - Ø®£Z's conclusion on AJones!

Too many to name. Read the

Too many to name. Read the above reply to Douglas.

Reply for Chris about Alex Jones

A lot.

But what SPECIFICALLY made me really start to question Alex Jones and wonder (on my way to realisation) if he was actually a fraud, was when Alex had two guests from the CIA on his show in early 2006 or mid-late 2005. One CIA guy in Alex's Austin studio one day, the other CIA guy on the phone the next day. And Alex did not ask either of them even one single CIA related 9/11 attack question.

Nor did Alex even mention WTC 7 to either, since there was a CIA office in WTC 7. Absolutely nothing.

Nor did Alex even mention anything about the "CIA run drills on 9/11" that he always likes to yap about. Absolutely Nothing.

Nor did Alex mention anything about anything else regarding the day of the 9/11 attacks from any of his 9/11 "documentary's". NOTHING.

He basically let both CIA guys walk all over him. I should have saved the audio recordings of the shows. But I erased all the Alex Jones video and audio from the computer a few months ago.

Let me say this again so you understand.

He had a CIA guy in person IN HIS STUDIO the first day. He had a CIA guy on the phone the second day. He let both CIA guys basically walk all over him -- ON HIS SHOW! -- make all of Alex's points that he brought up seem fruitless, laughable, crazy and incorrect, and he didn't even broach any hardcore 9/11 attack subject, directly CIA related or not. He did NOT even mention, broach, comment or question any hardcore 9/11 attack subject, directly CIA related or not, to either CIA guy that he had as guests. And each CIA guy was on his show for at least a full 1 hour segment.

I don't remember the exact date that the CIA guy guests were on his show. Someone here might remember. It was either late 2005 or early 2006.

In my opinion, the only thing that could be deemed of value from the interviews, was when the second CIA guy admitted that Bush basically let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, because Bush wouldn't authorize more special forces troops being sent in to capture him, or something to that effect. But other than that, both interviews basically weren't worth shit.

In what could have possibly been two of the most important and entertaining interviews ever on the Alex Jones Show, where Alex could have put them both in the hot seat and grilled them -- or at the least, a warm seat and asked some tough questions -- Alex basically did the complete opposite, played dumb and let both of the CIA guys off the hook with an easy-as-pie time. For what reason!?

And that is when, dude.

letting a couple of CIA guys

letting a couple of CIA guys off the hook is very weak indeed(i would love to hear these interviews if they exist),but hardly proves hes some sort of agent. you never know what kind of guidelines his guests might make before appearing. although, Alex just had Pat Buchanan on his show and he failed to ask him any tough questions about 9/11 as well, which REALLY pissed me off, so i see your point.

And remember, that is only

And remember, that is only one thing, of a litany. But that really tipped the scales.

If I didn't erase all of the Alex Jones stuff a few months ago, I would have gladly uploaded it. If you're a Prison Planet subscriber, you could find it. I haven't ever been. I recorded the audio clips -- as I used to record many Alex Jones Show broadcasts -- with an audio recording program called Wiretap Pro.

you still cant deny that

you still cant deny that Alex Jones provides an important service, he is a net positive and you cant deny that. i have many problems with Alex Jones, but hes only one man, and i appreciate his work overall. and like PaulRevere said, if hes an agent, hes a terrible agent as he has caused thousands of people who otherwise would still be in slumber to look closer and more critically at the news of the day.

...well, when "ex-CIA" Ray

...well, when "ex-CIA" Ray McGovern was on his show, both of them also NEVER pointed out that 9/11 was an Inside Job.
McGovern doesn't do that generally anyway.

AJones is playing all sides since Day 1. *That's his job.

I don't recall if I listened

I don't recall if I listened to that show with Ray McGovern.

But when the two CIA guys were on his show, though -- especially the second guy who was a more senior CIA guy -- it was like most of what Alex would say or question was moot, and what the CIA guys would say was the "truth". It was like Alex Jones's show had been turned into the CIA Propaganda Hour.

One of Alex's questions was about Osama being trained by the CIA with his alias name being Tim Osmann. And the senior CIA guy laughed out loud at him and said that that wasn't true. I don't know what the truth is behind that. But Alex was just like "okay" and now moving on lol

Both CIA guys were on, talking mainly about Afghanistan. The first guy was a lower-grade field agent. The second guy was more senior, and I believe the first guys case officer or handler when in Afghanistan.

Even though there was some meaningful dialogue and questions, for the most part it was like listening to a one-two punch of CIA propaganda, with Alex pretty much sitting idly by like "okay. yes. okay. hmm. okay. really."

That's how I remember it anyway. I haven't listened to it since about a day after it was broadcast. That could have been more than year ago. But I do have a pretty great memory.

Over all, it was REALLY disheartening.

And that was when, like I already wrote.

AJ is not a freakin' fraud.

AJ is not a freakin' fraud. He's an ego maniac but he isn't a disinfo agent. My gosh. It makes no sense whatsoever for him to be an agent. He's spread the "truth" more than anyone in the movement and he's been doing it for longer than anyone. It's ok to be suspicious but this is overkill.


Are Dr. Woods and Reynold seriously parading as Cold Fusion experts? This is ridiculous.

Many scientists indeed have confirmed what Dr. Jones has published already about properties of cold fusion. These are well known facts in his field. Dr. Woods and Reynolds have got nothing here. This is just plain white-wash.

I don't know who bought these Phd's off but the 9/11 movement would be wise to stay away from Dr. Woods and Reynolds. They clearly care more about discrediting Dr. Jones than finding the truth.

More to the point however, Dr. Jones has invited them to publish in the Journal for 9/11 studies but they haven't for the simple reason that they couldn't get a paper peer-reviewed with the crap they are spitting out.

Don't get distracted by this nonsense.

Can you tell me wherever Cold Fusion has been verified.

That would certainly be Big News.

If it is verified underground, and there is no public record of its existence, do you think it could be the basis of a secret military weapon?

From what I understand it is not publically verified. Please enlighten me if you know where it has been.

I was having a tough time

I was having a tough time following this story. Does Morgan Reynolds believe that no plane hit the WTC? Is he attacking Steven Jones on the grounds of not following a no plane theory?

Can anyone give me a short summary of whats the deal with these no planers? I know little about them despite being a truther since 2002ish

short answer, yes. Morgan

short answer, yes. Morgan Reynolds supports No Plane theory, and WMD (exotic technology, mini-nukes, etc.) as destroying the towers.

And in 2 papers this week, Wood and Reynolds are criticizing Steven Jones work, and advocating for molten aluminum coming out of the tower, AND no planes.

"advocating for molten

"advocating for molten aluminum coming out of the tower, AND no planes."

don't worry, i couldn't follow past this point either ;-)

Molten Aluminum?

Why keep wasting time about molten aluminum? Where the hell is the temperature to cause aluminum to melt coming from? It takes at least 1100+ degrees to do that. I feel that this is a diversion...The idea of trying to figure out molten aluminum(the proof of a plane in the building?)will consume your time. Now something more plausible,like burning thermite in the corner,does not need to find a heat source to light it,it just needs a fire.Molten aluminum is the result of an intense fire and Kerosene does not burn that hot,unless it has a continous source. Otherwise the diffuse fire that was actually going on in that tower was not enough to melt aluminum. I got that from My brother-in-law's brother-in-law,who was a fire control specialist in the Navy.

Reynolds challenged Stephen

Reynolds challenged Stephen Jones also on other issues, where he didn't respond yet. The Nuke claim actually comes from Rick Siegel, why Reynolds pressed Jones to answer, why he thinks, that thermite/thermate only was able to pulverize 2 complete buildings.

You are confusing the issues.

Furthermore Reynolds, but also other 9/11 Scholars caught Jones manipulating his papers after the fact, which is unethical. This was not the first time. Months ago he also altered his first paper, caught by Holmgren.

"...Jones barely mentioned two of our challenges to his work, namely, glowing aluminum and “no planes.” Our paper challenges Jones on ten scientific issues. In our August 23 paper, we dealt with what Jones actually wrote in July [pdf (7/19/06] and early August [pdf (8/15/06)], so his new references above are not what he had written then and what we criticized earlier. What he is doing by evading and “morphing” his work daily is unethical...."

"You are confusing the

"You are confusing the issues."

its kind of hard not to when the man putting forth these issues is a lunatic who believes nukes blew up the buildings and cgi planes hit the towers.

sorry :-(

Whether nukes or not have

Whether nukes or not have been used, is not the issue.
It's Rick Siegel and his producer who provided a list to Jones on that matter 1 month ago (!), which Jones didn't answer yet.

Fact is, that it's impossible that thermite/thermate was able to pulverize these buildings all by itself, even if part of it.

Thermo-Nuclear weapons are just one of many additional suspects of unconventional weaponry.

Others are nanothermite, thermobarics, scalar weapons or maybe even Sonoluminescence, a DoD weapon research, Jones was indirectly involved during the 90s, see also here:

Furthermore Jones completely backed up from the traditional evidence on CD which was developed from our group "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" (2002-2006), which is:

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.

ex-911SCAJA member Holmgren described this setup/treason here:
Holmgren: Prof. Jones trashed the demolition evidence

wow what utter crap...

wow what utter crap... Prof. Jones stated there was no neutron activation above background in the samples he tested, hence no nuke.

This is going to backfire you realize that? Don't You?!

This actually contradicts a

This actually contradicts a report by the USGS and Thomas Cahill, with Barium, Strontium, Uranium and Thorium as plausible indicators.

I personally btw. also not advocating any weapon as the only source for CD, but it's clear to me, that a combination of unconventional weaponry was used, years ago already pointed out by Prof. Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King.

Thermo-Nuclear is just one of many suspects.

The sample from Jones isn't credible enough, since it was first sent to Mike Berger ( and can be declared by US GOV as origined within a "conspiracy group", while the traditional evidence on CD was already good enough for years, but then ruined by the Jones/Jones tandem!!

"while the traditional

"while the traditional evidence on CD was already good enough for years, but then ruined by the Jones/Jones tandem!!"

This is a faulty statement. Good enough for what? Did the 9/11 truth movement win years ago? Did every engineering and scientific publication back up controlled demolition years ago?

Good enough for us means NOTHING.

That's not my problem. This

That's not my problem.

This movement was looking up for 4 years to, Kyle Hence and Mike Ruppert, who blocked our traditional evidence on CD.

Stephen Jones first paper was good enough as well (though plagiarized from "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance")
until he switched to the thermite/thermate UBERALLES hymn.

You state that the evidence

You state that the evidence for controlled demolition was good enough for years...good enough for what exactly? It certainly wouldn't have held up in a court of law. Jones is testing the physical evidence and rather than asking him to authenticate his steel samples, a rational request, you're just smearing him and confusing the issue.

WTC dust contained pretty

WTC dust contained pretty much everything that was in that building, but again no neutron activation above background. Therefore no nukes.

You can TRY to confuse the issue, but in this universe, the laws of physics still apply...

Except in your fantasy world where fusion (without fission) bombs exist, which by the way would be the biggest breakthrough in human history...

Please cite a source

Please cite a source to back up your assertion that Jones has EVER said or written that thermate "only" was used to "pulverize" the towers.

huh? His own paper and

His own paper and several e-mail exchanges.

Jones on July 26:

1. First analysis of solidified slag recovered from WTC, using X-ray fluorescence, TEM and electron-microprobe methods. (I also worked to obtain the samples!)

2. Experiments at BYU with molten aluminum and with thermite and thermate, with results of those experiments as correlated to WTC observations delineated in two scholarly papers...

Furthermore on July 27:

", I was not convinced of demolition as a "proven fact" before I made "any public appearance or publication."

Nor were the faculty assembled at my Sept 2005 seminar at BYU (my "debut" seminar on the subject).

It was the work I did on thermite/thermate, including experiments done here at BYU, that convinced me -- and I explained this in my talk in Los Angeles recently.

Now, farewell list, I really have some serious research and writing to do. Good bye.

Steven Jones .."

Since then, silence on the issue and widely promoted articles by Alex Jones, coining thermite/thermate as only suspect for CD.

nothing in that email

nothing in that email exchange says that Jones is saying ONLY thermate was used in the controlled demolition.

He is talking about what personally CONVINCED HIM of controlled demolition, and some of his colleagues. Apparantly, he and his colleagues had not bought into the prior 'proofs' of controlled demolition. Like I said before, what is good enough for US doesn't mean squat.

I believe, you didn't read

I believe, you didn't read his paper at all.

We corresponded with him via email, BECAUSE there was no other suspect besides thermite/thermate mentioned in his paper.
He clearly pointed on "thermite and sulfur and some other chemicals, known as thermate".
His answers confirmed that he didn't want to concentrate on other suspects as well.

I did read. Unlike

I did read. Unlike Reynolds/Wood's last 2 papers, he chooses to focus on one hypothesis at a time, and the thermite/thermate is what he wants to focus on. Usually in scientific papers this is how it works, not throwing in no planes, moleten aluminum, and mininukes into the same paper. That is not something that will stand up to peer review.

Actually Prof. Jones throw

Actually Prof. Jones throw in "planes/no planes" in his very first paper. Why this stood up to peer review is a mystery then as well :)

It's also not about what he "wants to focus on".
He clearly states, that thermite/thermate is the *only evidence for controlled demolition and *that is where we critized him.

The traditional evidence on CD was already established before he brought thermite/thermate into the mix and that's why it smacks like a setup against this movement.
I also still don't know why Mike Berger obtained the sample before Jones had it on his desk.

"The traditional evidence on

"The traditional evidence on CD was already established"

In what journal? what peer-reviewed paper? Did we win?

If you don't like his hypothesis of what caused the molten metal seen after the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7, work on proving another hypothesis.

You think nukes were used? Get a lab to prove it.

You are not even able to

You are not even able to read 2, 3 paragraphs carefully.
I'm NOT the one who's pushing thermo-nuclear, that's Siegel.

I have the general opinion that EVERY kind of unconventional weaponry should be examined.

No wonder that you lick boots of every new self appointed leader in this movement.

Because you don't even read carefully what they have to say, you just hold your fists and say hooray because too coward, lazy or brainwashed to think for yourself.

it doesn't matter what you

it doesn't matter what you think, you want EVERY kind of unconventional weaponry examined, get it examined, why do you need Jones' approval? And that goes for you, Siegel, Wood, whoever. Do the study and get it peer-reviewed. Don't cry because Jones doesn't support your no plane theory or no airline theory.

Steve's position on thermate . . .

Coincidentally, I corresponded with Steve today about whether he believed that thermate alone was sufficient to blow up the towers, and he assured me--and emphasized that it is already in his paper!--that other explosives may have been involved. I recommend that his paper be cited in these discussions, which are tending toward rumor and speculation. He believes termate was part of the program but probably not the only element of the controlled demolition of the WTC.

Jim, have you heard anything

Jim, have you heard anything about what Reynolds and Woods will be talking about at this national press club event? People in here seem very worried about this possibility

I don't know...

Who you're talking to... just caught a glimpse of your statement, and I know that Professor Jones said there might have been other explosives used as well.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi


even if these substances can not fully account for the demolitions, if it can be proven that they were used at all this fill give further credit to the demolition idea. squibs and pulverization of concrete arent a result of thermite/thermate reaction, but that doesnt mean that these substances were not used at all. if steven jones thinks he can prove that they were used, more power to him.

exactly, If other


If other researchers want to look for conclusive proof of something else used, by all means, get to it! Don't attack Jones, race him! Get a peer-reviewed paper conclusively proving demolition some other way.

That is how things should be happening right now.

That's exactly what was

That's exactly what was blocked by the st911 so far.

I personally forwarded to st911 a request, already back in December 2005 (!), whether *nanothermite might have been used. First Fetzer was even interested to look into, but then blocked by Jones.

Then we have st911 member Siegel and his producer Shaw, who challenged Jones additionally on thermo-nuclear one month ago, no answer yet.

On nanothermite i provided st911 with the following sources, so far noone wanted to look into:

The suspects for "nanoenergetics" aka superthermite as part of the unconventional part of the controlled demolition can be located at the "Center for NanoEnergetics Research" (created in Spring 2001, only a few months before 9/11), the commercialized Department of Defense Contractor "NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc." (also founded during 2001), Sandia and Lawrence Livermore.

Center for NanoEnergetics Research
CNER is an Army funded center created in the spring of 2001 and exists at four university sites, with the University of Minnesota as the lead institution.
External Advisors-Collaborators

Dr. Alex Gash,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Dr. Carl Melius,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Dr. Andrzej Miziolek,Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
Dr. Betsy Rice,Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
Prof. Mintmire Oklahoma State University
...Very little is known about the safety risks presented by engineered nanomaterials. From currently available information, the prevalent safety risks are most likely to involve catalytic effects or fire and explosion hazards....

"....Although insufficient information exists to predict the fire and explosion risk associated with nanoscale powders, nanoscale combustible material could present a higher risk than a similar quantity of coarser material...
...The greater activity of nanoscale materials forms a basis for research into nanoenergetics. For instance, nanoscale Al/MoO3 thermites ignite more than 300 times faster than corresponding micrometer-scale material...
November 25, 2005

A Texas company that has developed a powerful alternative to conventional lead-based munitions says it will commercialize and market its explosive compound through a spin-off company it plans to establish in New Mexico.

During a recent visit here, executives from Nanoenergetics Inc. said New Mexico's research and testing assets, economic incentives, growing private investment scene and accessible political leaders make it an ideal place to establish their new startup.

Nanoenergetics is being spun off from Austin-based Nanotechnologies Inc....
Unique nanoparticles, reactor technology and enabling applications
NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of precision-engineered nanoparticles, with average particle sizes between 10 to 50 nanometers. Our expertise is in metal and metal oxide powders that are pure, discrete, spherical, and highly crystalline nanoparticles. NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc.'s materials allow customers to build new classes of products that we have labeled ANEASM, or "Advanced Nanoparticle Enabled ApplicationsSM".

NANOTECHNOLOGIES Inc. management team
Dr. Dennis Wilson - Chief Technology Officer, Chairman of the Board and Founder

Dennis is co-founder of NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc. and co-inventor of the proprietary process. He received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas in 1977, and has more than 30 years of experience in industry, government, and university research. Dennis' expertise is in hypervelocity physics, plasma dynamics, aerothermodynamics, and materials synthesis...

...Dennis has eight years of technology management as founder and president of Applied Sciences, Inc. He has also served as director of special projects at the Institute for Advanced Technology. In addition, Dennis has been awarded a NASA Faculty Research Fellowship on three occasions, a DoE Research Fellowship twice, and an AFOSR Research Fellowship...

Darrin Willauer - Vice President, Engineering
Darrin joined NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc. in 2000 and is responsible for engineering development activities for all projects and research programs.
...project engineer with Dowell Schlumberger,

Dr. Kurt Schroder - Chief Scientist
Dr. Schroder joined NANOTECHNOLOGIES Inc. in 2000 and is a co-inventor of the core processes. He holds an S.B. in Physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Austin. He has over 15 years experience in plasma physics and pulsed power and has worked for industry, government, and academia. Kurt has numerous publications, 2 patents, and several patents pending in the following technology areas: vibration reduction and impact physics in hammers and sports rackets; blackbody radiation diagnostics and magnetic fluctuation measurements in tokamak plasmas; and onboard optical telemetry systems and launch package design and diagnostics on railguns.

Houston, Texas, January 24, 2002 –
Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc. (CNI) said today that it has stepped up efforts to develop applications utilizing single-wall carbon nanotubes for defense and national security purposes. CNI has engaged the noted consulting firm of Technology Strategies & Alliances (TSA), headquartered in Burke, Virginia, near Washington, D. C., to assist in the strategic market development of national defense directed products. The company believes that an accelerated research effort will bring new and significantly improved products to market that can enhance national defense.

“The U.S. Department of Defense, the Navy, Air Force, Army, and NASA have been involved for some time in extensive research using single-wall carbon nanotubes or ‘Buckytubes’,” said Bob G. Gower, President of CNI. “We believe that Buckytubes can significantly enhance the ability of defense products to shield, absorb, or otherwise modify electro-magnetic signals, key needs in many mission-critical areas...

Molecular Nano Weapons: Research in China and Talk in the West
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004

The Impact of Emerging Technologies
January 21, 2005
Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs...

...With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs)...

Press releases and news

Press releases and news articles mean nothing. Did someone do an actual study on material for evidence of the nanotechnologies? Something that can be verified by outside labs? Has something been verified by an outside lab already from the WTC?

Nanothermate . . .

Steve has repeatedly told me that he though nano-thermate was probably used in the WTC. So I don't know where some of this is coming from. The idea that he "blocked" discussion of this possibility is so far off the mark as to verge on the absurd. It is one of the key claims he advances in his explanations of how the buildings were probably destroyed! A key claim!

"...if steven jones thinks

"...if steven jones thinks he can prove that they were used, more power to him...."

And that's exactly where many of the 9/11 Scholars critized him and not just Reynolds who just had the guts to write this down.
Other members criticized this on the st911 messageboard as well but had been silenced by Fetzer.

While the traditional evidence on CD can be basically proven by everyone worlwide including you and me, Jones is now the *only one worldwide who based the evidence on thermite/thermate and this is only based on one sample, which was also on the desk of before he received it.

Means, the evidence is vulnerable and can now be attacked via only one guy at the top.
If you can't find that risky and questionable, then you live in a dream world.

Since then flagwavers have a field day with Jones, before they had not much else besides a silly report by NIST or drivel by PopMechanics, which was always easy to debunk.

"but had been silenced by Fetzer" . . .

Where does some of this come from? I don't "silence" anyone. What good would that do? It is not only unscientific but no doubt counterproductive. My only interventions on the forum have had to do with a lack of civility by vicious ad hominem attacks and the like. THAT is indeed something I have tried to silence. How can we run a civilized forum with nasty personal attacks? I would appreciate it if some of you would bother to get your facts straight!

Why do you avoid the details?

If something doesn't fit into your world view are you saying it's impossible? Even when the evidence shows it to be true?

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

Of course

Dr. Jone's paper is a living document. He is continually editing it and refining it (why you use the word manipulating I don't know). I don't understand your point. The continual flow evidence demands refinement of past research. This process is at the heart of scientific research. He should be praised and not ridiculed for incorporating new evidence into his papers.

Also, he did publish a response to Woods and Reynolds. Maybe you should read it. He doesn't address all the attacks made on him (like personal attacks on his religion) but I don't blame him.

Good luck buddy.

Molten aluminum contradicts no planes . . .

And precisely what would be the source of this "molten aluminum"? Presumably, it would have to be the aluminum fuselage of the aircraft that hit the buildings. If not, then what? Which means that their insistance on molten aluminum undermines if not contradicts their position on "no planes at the WTC". I do not see how to fabricate a coherent position on these premises.

No, I don't think you read carefully

The point was a criticism of S. Jones' science. Jones says the molten liquid can't be AL since it is not silvery. However at very high temperatures AL is just the color of any other metal. Jones tried to show this with a photo of a test he did. However, it was obvious from the photo that the AL was not of a sufficient temp. to emit bright red or yellow.

There is a question if Jones is setting up the proponants of "911 Inside Job" for a fall.

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

Check out my blog

I've place a summary on my blog here on 911blogger.

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

They Do Not Speak For Me


"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

You have got to be kidding...

You have got to be kidding...

I'm kind of behind but is Morgan Reynolds proposing that NO AIRPLANES flew into WTC 1 & 2?


You win.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

The full out psy-op character assassination of 9/11 truth

Thats exactly what this is right here, by the largest group of slime bags not in government jobs.

if reynolds starts pulling out this EMP and NACT stuff, we know what the purpose of this disinfo blitz has been.

And you can bet...

And you can bet that any media coverage will be focused on the most bizarre statements and assertions Mr. Reynolds puts forth...

Invariably so

don't forget they will add the twilight zone music, and mabey a laugh track.

Get off the Media!

The Media is not your friend.

Contorting ourselves to please the Media will not work.

Nothing so far has worked. We have to find what will. Not chase after what we know cannot and will not work.

If people continue to trust the Media, we will never get out of this vicious game, where we are handled.

If Media weren't the main organ of the Perps, well hells, we wouldn't be here would we?

Barry Zwicker just made the analogy - or I heard it just recently, that Noam Chomsky was like a doctor who has a beautiful bedside manner and smile, and then gives you a lethal injection.

That's exactly how I feel about Mass Media.

As soon as they are not making fun of us, there is something VERY wrong.

"If it's not the TAO, they won't laugh at you" ;)

Are you afraid of saying the truth for being laughed at?
That is really mind control!

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

i'm worried

i agree on the concensus here. after reynolds and woods last papers this does not bode well at all.

Reynolds email

For what it's worth, here's a recent exchange I had with Reynolds. Personally, I think Reynolds has an agenda.


On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Chris wrote:

Morgan, I saw you speak at the UW Madison. In regards to your and Judy Wood's criticisms of Steven E. Jones, I am wondering why you guys are talking about melted aluminum from the planes, but then you push the NPT?

I was wondering where then did the aluminum come from?


On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Morgan Reynolds wrote:

We are not pushing aluminum, liquid, glowing or otherwise, from planes or otherwise.

When Jones makes an error, we take him to task on it.

The linkages among issues that SJ raises may be non-existent, as the linkage you propose here is.

Further, we do not believe that molten metal of any kind actually flowed from WTC 2, in which case the whole issue would be bogus. But for the sake of argument, we insist that if SJ believes iron did flow (requires 1538°C or higher), he cannot rule out Al because its appearance would be similar to iron if heated to 1538° C or higher. SJ's his work on Al at around 600° C proves nothing about what kind of alleged molten metal may or may not have flowed at the WTC. He is the one who wants to draw a "pro-iron" 9/11 conclusion for some reason, and believes his work rules out Al. But his poor work on the appearance of liquid Al does no such thing.

So consider aluminum glow an isolated debate, to keep it simple, about the color of liquid metals at similar temperatures. Just keep it pure science separate from 9/11 issues, then you will be clear on what each side claims and you can evaluate the evidence on this narrow question.


On Aug 28, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Chris wrote:

Morgan, regarding the footage of the molten metal pouring out the corner of the building, is there any proof whatsoever this footage is fake? Do you know the source of this video? Aside from appearing fake to some skeptical viewers, what else leads you to believe the footage is altered? What's not to say it is authentic?


On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Morgan Reynolds wrote:

Short answer: the burden is on the "pusher" of the evidence to prove it is authentic evidence. There is no such evidence. NIST says it was doctored in unspecified ways, then Jones admitted it was doctored again via splicing after JW confronted him. That's plenty for now. We've got more.
Where is your case that it is valid evidence? I'd like to know.
Morgan Reynolds

the tone definitely sounds

the tone definitely sounds like he has an agenda.

Also the focus on this shot of liquid metal, as if this shot is why Jones started looking at molten metal. But this was not why he began looking at this hypothesis, it is the molten metal that was present after the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

"Also the focus on this shot

"Also the focus on this shot of liquid metal, as if this shot is why Jones started looking at molten metal. But this was not why he began looking at this hypothesis, it is the molten metal that was present after the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7."

precisely, and as far i as remember, that metal in pools at the bottom of the wtc was provem to be not aluminum

Back to Basics

I cannot see the point of these arguments. Whether or not planes hit the buildings, or the exact nature of the explosives used are beside the point. We all agree that Osama bin Laden and the named hijackers could not possibly have carried out the attack on 911, we all agree that the 911 Commission knew it was lied to by the military, and chose to do nothing about it. And we all agree that some obscenely rich people got a lot richer because they knew in advance that these events were going to happen. And there are many other points of agreement, all of which point to the need for a proper independent investigation of the 911 atrocity. All of this name calling and accusations of bad faith must have the 911 criminals rubbing their hands and chortling.

None of us know what happened, and even if we succeed in bringing these events out into the open, and Guliani, Cheney, Myers, and Bush, Bush and Bush are put behind bars, the media monopolies are broken up, the Patriot Act repealed and reparations made to the people of Iraq, there will still be areas of disagreement. None of us are perfect, and I don’t agree with Alex Jones or anyone else 100% of the time, but I’m very grateful Alex is there, and nobody has the right to accuse him or anyone else of being an agent and then not provide any evidence.

Keep your eyes on the prize people.

God/Devil in Details

The 911 Commissioner are perps, plain and simple. They weren't just "lied to by the military." That is the Media spin. They covered up the whole thing. They are in on the hoax. Same with the Warren Commissioners. They didn't foul up just one little footnote.

Some rich people got obscenely rich by doing the deed - not by looking away.

The idea that by fighting we are "hurting the movement" is another psyops attitude that has been layed on us.

I agree, we need to respect individuals at all times, if possible. But to ban disagreement or the working out of issues is wrong. And to enforce a conformity of mind in the name of quieting discord, will do the opposite. "That which is denied will merely come back in another form."

Sometimes we don't speak up, in the name of peace, when we actually need to speak up and are cowardly.

As far as being on the alert for agents - don't be so naive as to think the perps don't have the money, power, inclination to direct this movement through it's leaders or eliminate those leaders, one way or another, who pose a threat. It's not a joke, game or TV movie to them. It's not a past time or hobby, as it is for many of us, I'm afraid. There's a lot in the balance here. And don't think our opposition/truth movement wasn't foreseen and accounted for before the actual crime day.

Do you think the kind of people who have the will to do what they did and are obviously doing, vis a vis foreign wars, aren't going to be ruthless with us?

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

research vs. activism again

Reynolds sounds like an eager researcher here, not like an activist. That's the key difference: research about what happened can go on forever, but 9/11 activism has a clear goal: achieve enough media attention that MSM journalists around the world will be forced (by popular demand) to investigate 9/11 eventually, full scale, once and for all, letting the chips fall as they may, and with them having budgets and leverage that we and Steven Jones can only dream of, we will finally get 80% of the truth, and Bush will have a big problem.
Morgan Reynolds doesn't seem interested in this endeavour.

More Investigation is not Activism

You yourself make the distinction betwen investigation and activism.

If you learn from histroy you will realize the government never makes a new investigation and finds itself guilty. Jim fetzer could probably elaborate better than I can concerning the second Kennedy investigation by a Congressional panel.

100 witnesses or so died in the few weeks before that one.

Check out a movie, "Exquisite Corpses" about the Mafia trials in Italy to get a good picture.

We have to understand what has worked and what hasn't worked, just to understand our position. Without that, we can never win.

Why put a lot of energy to do something that you know ahead of time will not work? Grover Norquist doesn't do that. :)

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

Shit is starting to go down

I don't know how many of you out there watch C-SPAN, but The National Press Club is a big deal. They get tons of high profile speakers (I think Cheney just spoke there). And on Sept 6th., right before 9/11! This smells bad. Real bad.

why hasn't alex jones mentioned this yet?

is he worried to choose sides?

why Judy Woods

I can understand that the national press club would for some reason choose Reynolds, since he came from the Bush administration. But why Judy Woods? Why does it have to be *two* no-planers??? Why not W.Tarpley??

This has to be stopped at

This has to be stopped at all costs. Wood & Reynolds have shown their hand. They are there to do nothing more than subversively discredit the movement. I hope someone tips off Marrs on their true nature.

Morgan Reynolds

M Reynolds came to Dallas and spoke at an event our group put on.
He spoke for 50 minutes about how to bring the cabal to justice via criminal prosecution. He did a good job. He never mentioned anything about planes or no planes. He stayed at my house. He is working to get the truth of 911 out to anyone who will listen. He should do a good job at the Nat. Press Club.

Can you contact him to

Can you contact him to confirm that he's not going to be presenting "No Plane Theory" at the Nat. Press Club (even if he privately believes that)?

Has anyone verified this?

Just wondering if this is verified. If so, groups need to coordinate to respond. They don't represent the movement and that has to be exposed.

Also, Alex Jones is just a

Also, Alex Jones is just a buffoon and a bit of an idiot. I don't think he's an agent. He's just a loud goomba who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. On the otherhand, he could be a useful idiot.

Fetzer is a total fraud, 100% without a doubt. I've never heard someone claim so many times that he is an expert in critical thinking yet actually never apply it at all when he is called upon to do so.

Conclusions without premises

I suggest that, if you actually had any evidence to support your allegations about me, you would have produced it. Since you have produced no evidence to support your allegations, it is reasonable to infer you don't have any. Which suggests to me that one of us is indeed a fraud, but it is not the one who is spending over 10 hours a day working to get the word out!

Perhaps 'fraud' is a bit

Perhaps 'fraud' is a bit harsh but let's just say I'm deeply disappointed by your approach to argurments. Case in point: You were on with AJ and debating an individual from Popular Mech and what stood out to me is that instead of offering sound reasoning in combination with evidence all you could do was reiterate your background of critical thinking and the philosophy of science and refer to the PM guy as a 15 year old several times over. For someone who has written so many books on critical thinking et al, I would expect an almost lethal argumenatative style put forward so much so that it would send these PM people back into the caves from whence they came. Come on Mr. Fetzer surely you can do better.

Calm down folks!

The problem here is that people are focusing on personalities instead of issues. It's not wise to lionize any individuals in the truth movement because you're basically investing a lot in something that might turn out to be fake. I think people are getting that sense now with Morgan Reynolds (Wrap). It sounded great when we had a former Bush admin guy on our side, now we think not so great. Steven Jones sounded like a god-send, and while I've read his papers and heard him speak and I think it is clear that ewing2001 and others are totally misrepresenting him, the fact is that he did also write a paper pointing out aspects of early American art that he thinks support the theory that Jesus visited North America. Personally I'm happy to separate Jones the scientist from Jones the Christian, but not so a lot of other folks. Does it mean he's wrong? No, it just means that we really need more people to look at the issue, including more scientists. The chances of this happening are diminished by having 9/11 represented as being led by any one of these guys as opposed to by the FACTS. Think FACTS NOT FACTIONS! We KNOW that SOME of these people are disinfo--they MUST be. But we know that we can't be sure which, and we can't assume that everything disinfo people say must be false. SOME of it is true, it HAS to be for them to be taken seriously. Very clearly then, we can't subscribe to the views of any one of these people, or allow the public to think the movement is represented by any one viewpoint, other than the OFFICIAL STORY IS A LIE. People aren't stupid, they understand this and what turns them off is seeing the pointless arguing over really unimportant details. For all we know EVRY SINGLE OTHER person is disinfo. Unlikely, but even if it were the case, would we give up? No. if life gives you lemons make lemonade. If the "movement" involves disinfo plants, then try to winnow out the truth in what they're saying--they HAVE to provide some things that make sense otherwise they won't get the following they need to be effective. But DON"T MARRY THEM. Trust that you alone can figure out enough of the truth to convince others to do the same. Let this play out as a process, because that's what it is. Understand how that process functions and is manipulated, and adjust your strategy accordingly. Remember there is a real world out there that is not privy to these dramas, until we start making the drama the story. Let's not let the drama be the story of 9/11. Let's keep taking the case directly to the people, so that whenever some shill reporter tries to tell the public that 9/11 truth is about holograms and aliens, they will think "boy this asshole has it wrong, or he's just trying to convince me not to look into this." We've made it this far despite their best efforts because our case is solid. Don't succumb to a self-fulfilling prophecy of disagreement in the movement when it mostly exists in the imagination of a few disinfo agents.

Real Truther out!

"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

well said!

well said!

thanks dude!

it's frustrating to see BS grow wings and fly... i know at least that there are plenty of genuine truthers, even if I can't be sure which they are, I know they are out there.


"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

Hear, hear

Very well put, Real Truther.

Everytime you speak

I feel good about our chances.

that's awesome thanks :))

I've had to battle my own negativity for so long I'd like to think I've learned how to snap back to reality, which is never as bad as we fear (i can say that because i don't live in Iraq...) SO much of this is psychological--down to the people who know what we're saying makes more sense than the official story, but since the consequences seem worse in the short term for US to be right, they subconsciously resist accepting it, not realizing that in the long run, accepting the offical lies as truth will lead to worse misery down the road. not to mention it ruins many lives in the short term, even if we don't see them...


"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

"SO much of this is

"SO much of this is psychological--down to the people who know what we're saying makes more sense than the official story, but since the consequences seem worse in the short term for US to be right, they subconsciously resist accepting it, not realizing that in the long run, accepting the offical lies as truth will lead to worse misery down the road."

One of the smartest things I've seen in a long time on our challenge to wake people up. The subconscious resistance to anything that will mess up 'their happy lives', without accepting the fact the fact that the hard work that needs to be done will be much easier if we start now rather than later.

we all know it

because we all do it--think of putting off going to the dentist because you know she's going to find cavities--the longer you put it off, the worse it will be, but... we put it off!


"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

funny you say that, i just

funny you say that, i just went to the dentist after 2 long months of daily agony only to find out 2 of my wisdom teeth were rotting out of my head and causing me to have constant headaches. teeth pulled, problem solved, hahaha. still have a gaping hole in the back of my mouth though......

Very Well Said!!!!

"It is impossible to wake a man who is feigning sleep" -- not me

a nightmare coming true?

Isn't this precisely what everybody warned of? That at the time that 9/11 truth goes mainstream, 'they' (the conspirators) will try to expose it as bogus, by having a prominent truther turn on us with no-plane or releasing a Pentagon 757 video. They'll say our theory doesn't "stand up to the facts".

Yes Chris. But the fact

Yes Chris. But the fact that it fits the narrative so well, that it's a perfectly understandable direction for the narrative to take, proves that we ARE dealing with a narrative--in other words "intelligent design" as opposed to "evolution by natural selection" Conspiracies that involve false narratives depend on other false narratives to support their appearance of a genuine progression of events that aren't being controlled. Islamofascism , we are intended to believe, evolved out of the Muslim world naturally. Except that it didn't--it was cooked up, manufactured, INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, and so it is fake. Artificial. What has evolved naturally is the fascist dictatorship in AMerica. This is real. This is not scripted. And being opposed to it, we are real, and not scripted. Deviate from the script and the spinners of narrative have a hard time--so subvert the dominant paradigm!


"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

"false narratives depend on other false narratives"

spot on.

Deviate, yet the truth can follow as it makes the false narrative stand out even more for its original absurdity

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Actually I was one of the

Actually I was one of the ones who warned about a similar scenario at the end of last year. And it was also me who warned Fetzer NOT to fall for the Judicial Watch setup because they will present another pentagon fake video.

I was right. And that's why we're in a countdown situation, because *this could happen:

"...That at the time that 9/11 truth goes mainstream, 'they' (the conspirators) will try to expose it as bogus, by having a prominent truther turn on us with thermit/thermate or releasing a statement that Al Quaida wired the Towers..."

And here is also finally one of the first flagwavers who's pushing into this direction as well:
Andrew Cline/Union Leader thinks Al Quaida did Controlled Demolition

you were right? about the

you were right? about the bullshit video they put out with 5 frames? come on, even Bill O'Reilly admitted you couldnt see a plane on that "video"........

"falling for the Judicial Watch setup"?

There's an unusually high percentage of rubbish on this thread. What did I "fall for" that this wise man "warned me" about? The videos do not show any Boeing 757! Even Bill O'Reilly admitted as much on "The Factor" when he showed one. If a Boeing 757, which at 155 feet is more than twice as long as the Pentagon at 71 feet is tall, had been there, it would have been on the tape. It was not on the tape. Inference: It wasn't there! Those of you who pee in your pants over the idea that MAYBE ANOTHER TAPE IS GOING TO BE RELEASED ignore the obvious point that IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED! The government cannot now come out with a new tape when it was legally obligated to release what it had. This guy is far, far off base.

....yeah, Jim and since

....yeah, Jim and since their new art frame remix the pentagon issue is dead.

What are you talking about?

You are accepting a simulation over real evidence? Is that what you are telling us? The Pentagon is hardly a "dead" issue, except perhaps in your mind. This is quite ridiculous. The official trajectory is not even areodynamically possible. You appear massively ignorant.

Is it any surprise that

Is it any surprise that there would be a lot of rubbish on a thread discussing this rubbish Wood and Reynolds are pushing? How much trouble is this smear campaign from former Bushite Reynods causing for the scholars?

Reynolds and Wood speak nonsense

'nuff said

Important Questions

I am afraid of what Reynolds & Wood may say.

Why are they getting the attention of the National Press club?
Is this something Griffin & Jones can do as well?

I mean, does anyone know anything about the sponsor of this event?

Why did they choose Reynolds & Wood?

What is their (sponsor's,press clubs)agenda,

who are their connections?

Are they informed enough to seek True Truthers?

Let's just see what they say

Let's just see what they say and then see how it is spun. We can imagine everything from a pleasant surprise to the worst case scenario. Let's be ready to respond coherently to anything they try to pull. I can't say I've 100% ruled out no-planes (more like 99%) but whatever comes from this we can handle, as long as we don't freak out!


"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

Great Points..

ditto: is any way we can figure out *how* Reynolds & Wood arranged to speak to the National Press Club?

excellent place to start.

excellent place to start. the more we know about how it came about, the more sense we can make of it--let's get snoopin'!!!


"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

STEVE JONES asked to speak...

I copied this from a google search I did on The McClendon Group. I wonder why Jones is not doing this. Why two no-planers indeed like someone else here points out.
I know Jones is soft spoken and goes about things differently (professionlly, rationally). I guess I can't blame him for not wanting to be put up against people that have put so much effort into discrediting him in such a juvenile, hurtful, personal manner.

Also, The National Press Club DC calendar doesn't show anything like this, so far, scheduled on Sept. 6th.

"Thomas Mattingly invites Steven E. Jones
August 4, 2006

On behalf of the McClendon Group Chairman John Edward Hurley of the National Press Club, I hereby invite you to speak at the National Press Club in Washington, DC with Morgan Reynolds on September 6, 2006.

* * * * * * * * *

On behalf of all Americans and others who sincerely seek the whole truth about the methods, motives & perpetrators of the events of September 11, 2001, I strongly urge you to accept this invitation. Yes, there has been some controversy concerning Morgan and you. This will add to media appeal for this event. The areas of agreement and disagreement between Morgan & you will also help us to set the tone for the 9/11 investigatory work yet to come.

Please contact me for more details at your earliest convenience.

Let me know. More soon. Thank you. Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

P.S. A Semi-Relevant Aside: Thank you, Steve, for your email indicating that you have signed the petition requesting a scholarly article scientifically examining the soft & hard evidence for the 9/11 pro-planes & no-planes hypotheses and the 9/11 TV & media integrity and the 9/11 TV & media fakery hypotheses (with your comments & suggestions for the article). A proper scientific examination of all these hypotheses will bolster our credibility and may deter those who are now taking positions on these hypotheses without having examined the best evidence. For those who have not seen or signed the petition, it is available at
posted by ewing2001 @ 12:13 AM 0 comments links to this post"

Yet another truthling who

Yet another truthling who cannot read but licking boots of self appointed leaders and phonies.

It's clearly said in the introduction, that not the NPC organized this, but the McClendon Group, founded by the late, great, White House correspondent and investigative reporter Sara McClendon.
Behind all this Thomas Mattingly who invited BOTH Morgan Reynolds and Professor Jones for a debate WEEKS ago, but Jones refused to come.

But i guess, if you didn't read it on Alex Jones, it can't be true, isn't it?

If you like i send you the complete email debate.
Apprx. 25 people witnessed, how this offer was made by Mattingly and Prof.Jones bailed out....

why science at the press club??

Why does the ' club' need a scientific analysis of people like Jones? Wouldn't it be more adequate, after 5 years of believing&echoing a big lie, to start with simple things, like shong in Loose Change, that boil down to the need for a new investigation. Once a new investigation is then one day considered, they might need Jones and other Profs, but not now.

thats why it worries me that

thats why it worries me that it will really be on no plane theory, because that theory directly involves media 'coverage' of the event. If it was Zwicker or something, with his new book, it would be more apropos.

Full Spectrum Dominance

“Dr. Reynolds has promised an audio-visual presentation covering the whole spectrum of 9/11 issues, including the questions raised by the video record.”

This would appear to suggest that Reynolds will be making the case for no planes

This is not necessarily detrimental to the goal of calling attention to the need for a proper investigation. There is definitely something fishy about the CNN footage of the plane passing through the building, and this raises the issue of mainstream media bending over backwards to support the 19 arabs conspiracy, as does the disappearance of WTC7 from all broadcasts after September 11. The Press Club is the right venue to make the case for media complicity, and if Reynolds is really going to cover the whole spectrum, then there will be so much material that the no planes controversy cannot dominate the presentation.

If Steve Jones and Morgan Reynolds were to debate their disagreements in a public forum like the Press Club then this could really hurt the movement, so I think it is a good thing that Jones declined to do this.

Don't worry about it . . .

They will have their 15 minutes. Let them have it. If they are right, which I very much doubt, it will eventually emerge through patient research. If they are wrong, then they are eventually going to be exposed as "crackpots". They resigned from Scholars so they are only speaking for themselves. Even if they hadn't, they could not speak for Scholars, which is something only Steve and I can do. Our official statements are our press releases. So if you want to know the society's positions, review our press releases. You might learn something!

"...they could not speak for

"...they could not speak for Scholars, which is something only Steve and I can do. ..."

That apparently also include lies, that allegedly the majority of st911 decided pro planes, which wasn't true.

Also, so far 15 st911 members (incl. former members) signed the petition on 9/11 TV Fakery/forensic evidence, with more pending to sign, incl. Judy Cunningham who also spoke out this week pro fakery evidence.

Hopefully after the release of this paper of Rick Rajter, Jim will also backup from his claim, that a remote controlled pod-plane, coming from 'nowhere' crashed into the South Tower.

your twisted logic is almost

Your twisted logic is almost inescapable. I know I signed the petition for one purpose and one purpose only, for the proponents of the NPT to put forward a paper that is peer-reviewed and addresses the inherent road blocks to establish credibility. So far they have presented, nothing...

Don't lick boots

I don't lick anyone's boots. And, not that it should matter but I don't visit Alex Jones site either. I think I've visited it twice just after I met him in Chicago to see what it was all about. I don't bow to anyone. However, if I were to put my trust into anyone in this movement it would be Dr. David Ray Griffin and I have a good feeling that Dr. Jones is trustworthy as well. Either way, that is just my opinion. I am not here to make personal attacks. I am not going to get involved in continuing an argument. I am here to try and get to the bottom of things. If I have a question, I ask.

I noticed that Thomas J Mattingly was linked with NPC & McClendon Group on the 911tvfakery website. Following his name as a signee of the petiton to st911 are (McClendon Group/National Press Club).

As soon as I saw that Dr. Jones was also invited, I posted it.

I have questions I ask, as I come across a possible answer, I post it. No need to talk down to me. Okay? Good.

you guys truly are

you guys truly are lame.
just look at all the negative comments about reynolds! the entirety of your outrage stems from reynolds' refusal to accept the govt/MEDIA fairytale that 4 highjacked boeings were flown into 3 landmark buildings. it doesn't even occur to a single one of you dwarfs to demand proof of this absurd govt/MEDIA claim. no you guys bend right over and take the fairytale right up the smoking gun! you are so worried about how you will be perceived by THE MEDIA that you have lost sight of the fact that THE MEDIA is your enemy. and you should be thanking your lucky stars that reynolds and wood have come forward about the questionable research that was done by prof. jones in your official truthers handbook.
you guys are embarrassed?
you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Just Curious

Okay, I don't care to continue this but I do have a question. My best friend saw the second plane hit. Is he lying?

"""My best friend saw the

"""My best friend saw the second plane hit.Is he lying?"""

wow that's weird. because MY best friend was standing right behind your best friend and she told me that YOUR best friend was bending over tying his shoes at that exact moment. is SHE lying?
besides, who cares what your best friend saw - WE all saw it over and over and over again on TV.

My point is..

It was not tv fakery, not media manipulation or whatever, he saw it occur live---with his own eyes, just as many others did I am sure. So, I am not trying to be a jerk--unlike how you are coming off, I am asking, what do "no-planers" think about actual, live eye witnesses? Seriously, what do they think? I don't know because I leave this argument alone usually. I don't subscribe to the no-plane theory. However, you could tell me your arguement or explaination to live eye witnesses.

"""what do "no-planers"

"""what do "no-planers" think about actual, live eye witnesses? Seriously, what do they think?"""

there's not really a consensus about eyewitnesses, but i believe that most of the recorded eyewitness reports were of seeing a small plane, not a big 767. but what we saw on tv was an aluminum 767 slip thru the side of the massive steel wtc2 and disappearing without a trace, and without a single speck of it including the wingtips breaking off on it's way in and falling to the ground below. whether there was no plane or even a smaller plane, what we saw on TV and have been recorded for posterity are fake images of a 767. here is a link to analyses of the various images of flight175 that were allegedly captured on film that day and exactly what flaws can be found with each one of them:

no consenses

i get that people may disagree about what type of aircraft actually hit the towers and how they hit it (remote control etc.) but you can't tell actual, live eyewitnesses that the didn't see a plane hit. So, to me, that is why a hard-core "no-plane" theory can't be taken seriously. I am cool with asking what the aircraft was, how it was piloted or not, but to say nothing hit it? I trust people saw sometype of plane hit.

going to bed now...thanks for your response :)

Seriously, why do these

Seriously, why do these "friends" never come forward and wonder why the TV actually contradicts what they allegedly saw:
Different aircrafts with different sizes, wrong impact angles, contradictions of simulated flight paths etc...

Wouldn't these "friends" wonder, why they used TV Fakery?

I am getting confronted by these "friends" a lot.
("Do you think, my best friend Joe lied...?")

Well besides the fact, that we also have the white decoy plane, which could explain a lot,
these statements could be the results of many different reasons.

One of my biggest fans (though not one of the loudest) of 9/11 TV Fakery, started also embarrassingly with these "friends" and now can't even recall his own embarrassment anymore.

He is artist and actually turned around by himself because of his skills of comparing perspectives.
He's a painter.
I met him 2 weeks later after we first had a mini debate on the streets and then it was HIM who pointed out where else to look for...

In NYC btw. it's getting easier with every day to convince people from 9/11 TV Fakery. They're already bored with mass coverage about the 9/11 Truth Movement and hungry for what they think, is something *new.

This correlates

"They're already bored with mass coverage about the 9/11 Truth Movement and hungry for what they think, is something *new."

This correlates interestingly with that review, posted on the TV Fakery blog, of the presentation in NY, in which the tone of the writer is clearly that of a reviewer (as of a performance), who moreover explicitly connects what she saw to the idea of "a new artform."

IMO, a review of the plethora of anomalous facts surrounding 9/11 should not assume the form of an "artwork" (a work of artifice) for consumption by those merely "hungry for something new."

Wow, that's really helpful.

I had been wondering what to make of all the people who adamantly aver that they saw planes hit the buildings. They just didn't!


hee hee
I mean, um, yeah, I guess they are all lying. Why can't we just accept that!?!

"James Ha" like Nico Haupt are deliberate disinfo

Ha and (Ha)upt, if not the same person, are deliberate cartoon-hugging frauds who need to be shunned by all serious truthers, least we be tainted by their b.s.

National Press Club is a rental

Just to clarify,
The National Press Club did not set up this press conference.
The National Press Club is a venue that can be rented. Any journalist (with any halfway decent press credentials) can rent a room at the NPC for a press conference. There are small rooms that can be rented for a few hundred bucks, and larger rooms that cost more. plans to be at this event picketing and/or flyering the event in an attempt to support the truth and downplay any disinformation.



Thanks Matt for the info on the press club and how it works. Sooo, I guess Griffin & Jones and the alike could rent them too someday. :)
It is nice to know that people ( will be there to keep an eye on what info is getting out and are there to protect the integrity of the movement.

Fact is that Prof. Jones was

Fact is that Prof. Jones was invited a long time ago to join this event as a speaker, *together with Morgan Reynolds and he chickened out.

And this *does look weak for someone who has allegedly the No.1 evidence (thermite/thermate) in its hand regarding controlled demolition.

So far a search for Thomas

So far a search for Thomas Mattingly and his group only leads back to the fakery site.

I don't see any evidence that this is for real yet and its a huge waste of people's time if it isn't.


sucks ass. One of my professors brought up this Morgan Reynolds NO PLANE CRAP when I was discussing 9/11 truth w/ him. What's sad is that he had never heard of Steven Jones and shrugged him off as being "another nut".

Fucking POS disinfo bastards. Reason #5768 to expatriate from this POS country. : /

Geez fucking louise folks.

Geez fucking louise folks. THIS is exactly why the media and everyone LAUGHS AT US ALL.

It isn't the 9/11 families or whistleblowers, the solid proof of complicity thru the ISI, the NORAD war games, standdowns, foreknowlege, FBI obstruction, etc that the media focuses on.

It's idiots that think no planes hit the building, WMD's blew up the towers, "Israel was behind it all", "hijackers still alive", etc that make people look at us funny.

Wow, a former Bush administration guy who believes no planes hit the towers is really one to represent us at this event, and then say whose disinfo.

I can see how a lot of newcomers to the 9/11 activist movement could be turned off...geezus, do you guys ever even hear yourselfs?

Alex Jones a disinfo agent? Oh man, that's hillarious. Why? OH! Because he doesnt talk about "The Jews!" in every breath?

Basically let's break 9/11's problem children into 3

1. The junk professors, "scholars", etc pushing no planes...nukes at the WTC, holograms, etc

2. The "Jews did it" Jewish hating obsessed "patriot" fringe

3. The people who fall for that stuff

I'd put the baloney plane swap/missile at the pentagon/etc stuff in their too, but too many people already believe that.

9/11 Truth represents 9/11 Fiction too much, and that's really a freaking shame.

This is what happens when you give NPT disinformation artists


We must ban the NPT disinformation artists from all legitimate 9/11 truth sites. This disinformation crap has to stop.

Stop giving attention to the "no plane theory" disinfo agents like Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Shayler, killtown, CB_Brooklyn, webfairy, Holmgren, and others who are sabotaging this movement, either by sheer stupidity or intentionally.

Makes me Sick

This no-planer nonsense getting MSM attention makes me extremely ill yet in our day of again you kind of expect this mirepresentation to shill a belief.

Kean and Hamilton are supposed to be there

Kean and Hamilton are supposed to be there

One fantasy scenario I imagine around this event is that there is some inner circle who want to bring down the plotters, and they've invited Woods and Reynolds in order to reveal the perps and rein in their rampage. What a great way to stop WW4? This could trigger the end of the charade.

About one in 10K chance.

My bet is there there is an attractive frisson for some of the watching plotters/perps in having these two right in the same room at an eating event.

Of course, unless it's planned as a way to break the story-, then it will be spun, if covered in the Media anywhere but on C-span, from the "Isn't it instinctively ridiculous - no planes" spin.

I doubt if this event will show in the NY Post or on TV. The spectacle is for a more sophisticated audience. Or for bragging rights, like when Fox brings on the true opposition: "Aren't we civilized?"

More realistic, the perps are so sick, they get their jollys by tempting fate - that it's a variation on the juvenile theme of mooning your enemies.

Let's sit down to lunch and smile at you: "Hey you know what I did, but you will never get me."

Another imagined possibility: the *real* behind-the-scene perps want to scare and threaten *Kean and Hamilton*, so they arrange to have them appear at a luncheon with people who are truly onto them.

That would kill my appetite.

Two books help me with the psychology of this:

Crowds and Power by Canetti

A section details the behavior of some despotic personalities of history. Some would like to invite people to a party, show off their extreme power over them at the event, scare them. It's a way the unnatural apparently get their kicks.

Secret Societies :A History
By Arkon Daraul
The sections detailing the Carbonnari. They cultivate good gentle qualities, even while dealing in power plays in the name of a higher good. Part of the function of the secret society is to train members in certain behavior and values. They will show special kindnesses and graces. Much like a Mafia leader will visit the house and console the relatives of someone they have killed. Pretend, "I am there for you" showing a mixture of cruelty and kindnesses/civility, depending on the moment.

Maybe some criminals have a twisted respect for the people who see through them? And want to meet them? Before they discredit them?

For some reason I can't see this as an educational exercise for the public.

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

Kean, infighting, NPC and Camp Democracy...

For some reason I can't see this as an educational exercise for the public.


The Great Mind-F*ck Machine spins faster and faster. Proof that the fabled Perpetual Motion Machine does exist, so long as its built with high grade Bull Shit.


There is going around poeple that claim to be part of the truth movement, and distracting by making us distrust Jones and the site

Look this is all that join claims of the fall of the twin towers:

I've seen many David Ray grifin documentaries

Judge griffin for yourself in that video, ive seen wild claims that grifin, Steven jones is misleading the truth movement, when they have focused on the points that have been ommited on the official truth, they have been wild claims that those authors have spoken things that are out of norm.

Please do not waste your time in the disinfo that is being thrown out at this moment.

I say that we really dont know how the towers came down. We know for sure that they didn't come down because of the planes(wheter it was hit or not hit by any planes) why waste our time argueing about no planes.

We are wasting to much time about Profesor Jones and Grifin, when they all have lay out what has been omitted by the commision report. Jones suggest that thermite might have been used, but not by itself as other types of explosives might have been used along with what profesor Jones suggest.

Lets focus on the facts that according to the structural design of the towers and the steel graded to resist fires of 2000F for 6 hours, therefore making it a silly idea that 50 minutes to 1 hour of jet fuel fire, which by the way burned in the fireballs of the impacts that couldn't have weaken the steel. We dont really know what kind of method of wiring(wired or wireless), or what kind of explosive was used, But we certainly know that fire and the planes crashing couldn't have made the towers collapse in around 10 seconds.

The tapes that never where realase around the pentagon. We only got 5 frames of video at 1 frame per second. Give me a break a 20 dollar webcam that I bought films video at 30 FPS, i dont believe that the most protected building in the world had cheaper camaras than that.

Lets focus in the removal of evidence and the complete denial of the attacks, which shows clear negligence by the bush administration, like when they come in public and state that they had no idea they would use hijack planes to attack us, when there is clear proof they had knownledge that those kinds of attack might happen.

Lets focus on how they rushed to claim to know the identities of the hijackers, when they dont even have the DNA from where to match it. Lets focus on the lie from where they assured us that Bin Laden was the mastermind of 911 when not even the website charge him with the 911 crime. When they never has given us proof that al qaeda
was behind the attacks, all those boldface lies, that launch us into 2 wars, the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians in Iraq and afganistan, all because of faulty inteligence, but rather more like deliverate actions of letting a terrorist attack happen or even worst making it happen, would launch the country in total confusion, so they could launch they agenda that included the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security and the invasion of Afganistan, Iraq and probably Iran.

All those facts of negligence are just enough to Impeach and Jailed them for treason and negligency by acting withouth concrete proof. Such grave errors are not to be allowed by the United States and so we should protect our constitution and get competent leaders in our government by removing the failure of Administration we have now.

There is no proof that Bin Laden did it, but they claim with certainty that he did, they claim al qaeda did it, the cannot prove it, they cannot find traces of any terrorist cells that could have sponsor the would be hijackers, other than thier claims that have so far been lies or so they blame on faulty inteligence.

If there was no proof that Afganistan and Iraq did it therefore the Bush Administration entered us into 2 illigal wars

I agree that Afganistan and Iraq had terrorist that hated us and our freedoms, and sooner or later we had to take them out like we already did but with solid proof and not paranoid beliefs like the Bush administration, but what angers me are the lies that made us enter those wars. What I despise about all this is the sacrifice of more than 3000 thousand people that the bush administration used to enter a war for Oil and not for freedoms.

Steven Jones opting out

Steven Jones must have smelled the rat that this particular event is a set-up to ridicule the truth movement. As seen on Hannity&Colmes and many other shows, the MSM uses no-plane in a New York minute if given the opportunity ("sick theories").


Morgan Reynolds did wrote a very good pro 911 truth movement paper that clearly debunks the original story:

but its weird how he has turn agains Jones on this papers:

and specificaly he should know more than anybody that the no planes theory its not a good case for us, when we already have the material that we need to help us bring the 911 truth. Why loose time analyzing videos for anomalities that there was no plane, when we already know planes and fuel couldn't have made the towers collapse, rather let us focus on the cover up, the omissions, quick removal of evidence such as the steel of the twin towers and the video tapes of the pentagon and Audio Tapes confiscation of the Firemen.

I would bet for Profersor Jones instead of Reynolds, both have initialy exposed that the twin towers collapsed by causes other than planes in a scientific manner. The no planes and mini-nuke theory could ridicule the movement by introducing far out theories of the causes of the twink towers collapse.

Like Reynolds says, it is our duty to look at all information criticaly and scientificaly, but the explosive demolitions sounds more plausible than mini nukes and no planers.

Reynold and Jones if you can read this, please stop fighting each other, afte we expose the truth you all can debate all you want on the possible materials used to bring the towers down.

As far as im concerned, Jones is smarter in a way that he realizes that we should focus on exposing the facts of ommision and removal of evidence, than discussing possible materials used to bring the tower down, since he realizes, that he already has covered a probable cause of the twink towers collapse, but Reynold keeps beating on the dead horse by constantly bringin the no planes and nukes theory too much,when we should focus on other facts, therefore Jones staying out the debates is a smart move to let the already known facts roll out by other 911 representatives, that dont sponsor the nuke and no planer theory.

So in theory if Reynold is the instigator and Jones keeps his cool, Reynolds might have been already been bribed by the goverment to cause division between the 911 movement. So in short we should let Reynold know that even if its its duty to present all information that has been analyzed with scientific approach, there are certian theories that should be kept out of the main issue, until we win the case.

Reynold more than anybody should know to keep its cool, rather than launch extensive attacks on Jones.

There's an old episode of

There's an old episode of The Twilight Zone set in this small, average neighborhood. A group of aliens desperately want to destroy the neighborhood, but there are only two of them in the spaceship. Instead of physically attacking these people, the aliens play tricks on the neighbors to convince them that one of them is an alien. Without lifting a fingers, the aliens watch the neighbors slowly become more and more suspicious of each other. In the end, the neighborhood is destroyed from the inside, and the aliens get everything to themselves.

It's just so disheartening to see the same thing happeninng to the 9/11 Truth Community. How can anyone, with a straight face, call Jim Fetzer a "disinformation agent?" Come on now. Fetzer has been bringing major awareness to the movement, and has effectively schooled Sean Hannity on national television. He's just been all over the place, and you'd think that a government agent would have SOMETHING better to do than found Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

I don't agree with the no plane theory, nor do many here, but just because Morgan Reynolds disagrees with us on ONE aspect (albeit one major aspect) of the 9/11 inside job, it certainly isn't concrete proof that he's working for the feds.

And Lord knows, because Alex Jones wasn't that tough on a CIA agent when he had him on his show, his last ten years of work have been a tOtAl FrAud~! Terrorstorm: Fraud. Martial Law: Fraud. 9/11 Scholars Symposium: Fraud. Charlie Sheen Interview (which really started to snowball the entire mainstream movement): Fraud.

My god, keep your feet on the ground people.

Not EVERYBODY's out to get us.

Something is very, very wrong if people are starting to reject some of our most valuable assets (Stephen Jones, Jim Fetzer, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Marrs, etc..)

We should focus

Very Truth, Alex Jones, Profesor Jones, Fetzer, Morgan all have given papers that help the movement, but they have fragmented as of recently, that is very sad, they should come to thier sense that right now explaining what they used to bring the towers down is not helping us, since all steel was removed, shipped to china and melted down, taking away any opportunity to further analyze how the steel was broken.

For me it sounds mor plausible that a more advance form of thermite in conjunction of explosives of unknown materials and other tools where used to bring the towers down, and they could have use wireless technology to link all explosives, which Jones has it closer to this explanation than Reynold has, with no planes and mini nukes. Yes Reynold explains a lot of anomalities found in videos, photos and the like and Jones dont go that deep into such observations, but we should rather present a more realistic theory of what was used on the towers to make them collapse.

You haven't been paying

You haven't been paying enough close attention, scrutinizing, or thought about it clearly if you honestly believe what you wrote, Ken.

Care to be more specific? If

Care to be more specific?

If Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Stephen Jones, and to a lesser extent, Morgan Reynolds have all brought massive mainstream media attention to 1) controlled demolition 2) building 7 3) The NORAD standown, and 4) the lack of physical evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how "tainted" could they be?

It's Steven not Stephen.

It's Steven, not Stephen.

I'm on my way to sleep. Maybe I'll elaborate further later if I can think of how to word it. Or if I feel like taking the time to write out a more indepth response.

And I presently like Steven E. Jones.

Mainstream Media is our

Mainstream Media is our enemy.
Only 9/11 Truthlings believe, they might help us...

Media Photo Fakery 2006: Katie Couric shrinks...


Nico - do you ever feel remorse being a disinformation agent on 9.11 when you watch all the footage of families shattered - children orphaned - siblings mourned, etc etc?

yeah, i know its just your job, but do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and question your role in protecting the real criminals behind this heinous act?

Probably not, he's most

Probably not, he's most likely a sociopath, in capable of having any feelings or compassion for others.

Albanese is one of the least

Albanese is one of the least credible persons if it comes to ny911truth. Stop your manipulative drivel.

I am quoting here now from a ny911 audience member about Albanese's alleged demand for the truth:

Tom Foti wrote:

"...Both John Albanese and Nick Levis were staunch "non-demolition" people just months ago. You remember the arguments we had at the Wednesday night meetings. Personally, I have nothing against them, and I understand that there are those in the group who, like myself, prefer to maintain a friendly attitude with John and Nick. But as far as policy goes, I think the New York Movement should stay as clear of them as possible.

They were both at the church on Sunday night, speaking in front of cameras. Who knows what they were saying to these cameras, but they were saying it on the grounds of St. Mark's on a Sunday night, which means anyone who eventually sees the tapes or the film will assossiate their remarks with our Sunday night meetings.

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I've handed out thousands of fliers telling people to come to our seminars on Sundays. I believe overall, we have a balanced, informative program which provides an earnest look at a complex issue. If we let John Albanese and Nick Levis -- who have both previously disassociated themselves with St. Mark's events -- make public statements in or around our meetings, we run the risk of contaminating what may be the most proactive, the strongest and possilbly the largest local 9/11 truth movement in the country.

John and Nick are both quite intelligent, and it is curious to me how they could make a 180 degree turn in so short a time. (Only 9 months ago, Nick Levis was telling me that jet fuel running down the elevator shafts led to the towers' collapse. John Albanese was adamantly saying he "wasn't a conspiracy theorist". You can see now why there were arguments.)

If they want to make their points in their own names on their own time, that's up to them. But there is too much at stake, and it would be unwise for the New York movement to ignore the recent past and allow John Albanese and Nick Levis to bring their agenda back into our meetings. I believe it is possible that they carry with them nothing less than a Trojan Horse, and we can not run the risk of compromising our strident progress at this crucial time..."

Needless to say, the majority of the audience of ny911 actually agrees with Foti.

Some clarity on this issue

First of all - this is being posted by Nico who believes that there were no planes used in the attacks. It was all TV trickery.

So - I think a lot needs to be said about the source here.

Second - Tom Foti misrepresents my position. It is relatively easy to find my official position on controlled demolition. My main criticism has always been that it appears that Tom and his group only appear willing to discuss controlled demolition. IT appears that it is the only subject they care to educate the public on - and like Jon Gold I agree that it is perhaps not the smartest strategy for bringing in new members.

In fact, I was attacked for producing a film that looks at the OTHER evidence associated with 9/11. How silly is that?

Further, Foti and Jamieson both have presented at ST. Marks their versions of reality which includes lectures on the 'secret organizations' like illuminati and the international banking conspiracies of the Rothchilds, Bilderburgs, etc etc.

This is just not my cup of tea.

I have always said at those wednesday meetings Foti mentions that i was "agnostic" on controlled demolition - perhaps 65% of the way there. Foti now appears to talk as if St Marks church is owned and operated by his group. It is not.

Nicholas and I have been invited by Father Frank Morales to participate and present there. Tom Foti does not speak for this church - or for the New York movement. He simply speeks for a small group of malcontents who persist in declaring themselves leaders of a movement that HAS NO LEADERS. Nicholas and I are simply doing our own thing - and members like Foti persist in attacking us.

And lastly, Nicholas and I broke from this group after it was discovered that they were distributing literature entitled "Criminal Politics" which is some of the most hatefully rabid anti-semitic literature I have ever seen. This subject has been discussed here endlessly.

So - i guess our readers here can decide who i am - based on my film - and my recent support for the CD theory...

They can also decide who Tom Foti is - and why Nico (the no-planes theorist) is advocating his attacks upon me.

I am sorry that Tom was frustrated by the TV cameras - but the simple truth is the German TV and 2 separate Korean news outlets INVITED Nichoals and I to speak. Tom Foti's comments seem to indicate his frustrations and jealousy that Nicholas and I now have a worldwide audience.

I will be posting the footage shortly - and you all can decide for yourselves on whether we speak for the truth - or Nico, Criminal Politics, anti-semitism, and the Rothchilds presentations of Foti are helping or hurting the 9/11 Truth movement.

Tom Foti and Les Jamieson

are the one on probation at St Marks church. Not Albanese and Levis.

Les Jamieson was caught distributing anti-semitic literature there.

The fact that Tom Foti speaks as if he has some right to decide who may attend and participate at St Marks is a joke. He is lucky that HE is allowed to be there.


How many times has this subject been reviewed?

The split in the NY group was a result of Les Jemieson being caught distributing anti-semitic literature of the worst kind, with articles like "How the jews are poisoning your children".

The fact that Jamieson's group continues to attack Albanese and Levis, with the help of Nico Haupt, should be all anyone needs to know about this splinter group.

Go Morgan Go

Both professor Jones and Morgan were invited to this. After being *invited* by the press club, only Morgan accepted.

Now that the Morgan and 911 Eyewitness have the stage the heavy breathers are at the door and actually rented space next to this room in the hopes of crashing the party so to speak. That is the LA Citizens Court. Regretfully they do not want to partake of the 911 Citizens court and wish to do it without 911. Yet they DO want that press time for their event. Alas each to divide the other.

For 500 bucks any of you can have a press conference. Try it! Say what you want. The media will print what they want.

Why not come on down to DC and stand for the truth? Come on down to where the evil tyrants will be doing business! Show them you mean business! Stop hanging in graveyards thinking it means anything to these scum!