Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth (By Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter)

Excerpt below. Click here for full paper.
Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth
By Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter - October 27, 2006
I. Introduction
Newtonian laws of motion combined with physical evidence prove no Boeing airliners crashed on September 11, 2001 at any of the four designated sites. The government's story is a provable, gigantic lie although various possibilities remain open about what really happened.
From a narrow prosecutorial point of view, we already have enough evidence to prove guilt at the top. The 9/11 hoax was a stunning psychological operation (psy-op), the most audacious and murderous false-flag operation in history, well-planned, deceptive at every level, intended to manipulate public opinion, and wildly successful in the short run. Against this background, everything the government and its conspiring media say must be treated as a lie until independently proven otherwise.
No one can prove the plane crash stories because no one can prove a lie. By contrast, here we prove no Big Boeings crashed, we repeat, no Big Boeings crashed (NBB), at designated locations but that does not mean that large planes did not fly by, repeat, planes could have flown by. One thing is sure: laws of nature and physical evidence render the official story and any close variation of the plane story impossible.
Click here for full paper

How about you use your

How about you use your energy for something useful?

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

TV Fakery Discussion Very Useful...

since 9/11 almost every image we are shown on the Tube is intended to manipulate us into fear, anger or a purchase of something - such is the power of the Medium. We need only to look at North Korean TV to see what our own propagandists have in store. Stay tuned...


QUOTE since 9/11 almost

since 9/11 almost every image we are shown on the Tube is intended to manipulate us into fear, anger or a purchase of something - such is the power of the Medium. We need only to look at North Korean TV to see what our own propagandists have in store. Stay tuned...

This, I agree with.

"TV Fakery Discussion Very Useful..."
This is BS

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell


"TV Fakery Discussion Very Useful..."

"This is BS"

In 25 words or less - Why? Do you not believe that Fox, home of Bill O'Reilly, is ready, willing and able to do whatever is necessary to keep the NeoFascists in power?


It is my opinion that this is spam

Cointelpro disinformation

designed to discredit the movement.

the whole no-planes, star wars energy beams, keebler elves, mini-nukes research is all coming from the sam small handful of clowns who CLAIM to be experts- but are clearly simply pushing absurdist crap - in my opinion intentionally.

The most suspicous part

is their apparant herd mentality, and the notion that it's 'them versus us'. Why is it that the people with the most far- fetched ideas are the ones totally united in attacking the more credible members of the movement? Why does every no- planer adamantly support this brand- new and entirely speculative space laser theory? It's really very bizare... And yet it all makes perfect sense at the same time...

Must read for planehuggers

Planehuggers on this site have an obligation to read this article in its entirety and either present coherent rebuttals or STFU.

Planehuggers continue to divide this movement by clinging to their physically impossible theories and attacking those who refuse to drink the CGI Kool-Aid. They really need to get on the ball, for the sake of the families...


you are so exposed


you guys are a fucking riot. Hey tell me again about those trajectories that don't line up and the fecal matter you ate for breakfast, if you could be so kind?


Further Proof of TV-Fakery -- Conservation of Energy is Violated

This article (linked from Reynolds'/Rajter's paper) discusses how the "Real Plane Theory" violates Conservation of energy, a standard physics principle. More reason to examine the evidence?



A few quotes from article:


Think of the cartoon scene, where the cat chases the mouse through a mincer. The cat emerges from the other side still running, not realizing that its now made of a jigsaw type shapes. It keeps running for a while, and then with a look of resignation realizes that its been cut up, stops and collapses into a pile of little jigsaw type pieces.

Why do small children find this funny ? Because even at that age, they know that what they've seen is impossible.

In real life, the cat either....

Gets immediately cut into pieces and ceases all co-ordinated movement as a single object, and doesn't damage the blades or Bursts through the mincer blades, breaking them or Mangles itself, stopping almost immediately and also causing significant damage to the blades.

So what we asked to believe at the WTC is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

What would happen in real life is....

the plane would smash itself to pieces against the building, doing little damage to the building and the wreckage falling mostly to the street. or The plane would pass through the wall making a cartoon type shape of itself (heh! Those sturdy aluminium cutting blades slicing through the flimsy construction steel of the building ! ) and come to rest, relatively intact. or You'd have a smashed up and scattered plane, still in large identifiable pieces some of it inside the building, some falling to the street below, and damage to the wall of some unpredictable configuration.

The latter option is what happened when the plane hit the Empire State building in 1945. Large pieces of the plane broke off and fell to the streets below, and the bulk of it stuck pretty much in the side of the building.

Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter???

Now that Eric Salter has published a "9/11 Pro-Planes" scientific article, and now that Dr. Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter have published a "9/11 No Big Boeings" scientific article, the scientific debates & discussions about whether Big Boeings were actually used to effect any of the damage on 9/11/01 should soon scientifically begin in earnest.

The "usual suspects" are lining up on predictable sides of these articles;  however, science is not a popularity contest!  Otherwise, the earth might still be flat...

We in the 9/11 Truth Movement should not allow anti-science, Neo-Luddites to stifle & shut down the necessary scientific debates & discussions by experts & others about these & other important 9/11 scientific issues.  Stifling free scientific speech in this manner may only unwittingly aid & support the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.

Which 9/11 hypothesis is "9/11 Truth" and which hypothesis is not "9/11 Truth"?  Reasonable scientists & others can and do disagree.  Scientist disagree with each other on a regular basis.

Scientists, video & photographic experts, and your own eyes & your own reason should begin to settle these questions in the near- to medium-term future.  It ain't over 'til it's over!  And it ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings!  Despite the tunes that some 9/11 bloggers may now sing (and although I could be mistaken), please rememberThey may not be the Fat Lady! 

In the interim, however, now that two (2) decently-comprehensive, semi-scientific articles have been published, the scientific debates & discussions are now beginning in earnest.

The "No Big Boeings" and "TV Fakery" issues are also arguably in the NEWS.  See, for example, the one and only actual quote of the Iranian Minister in Moscow (as reported in the recent IRNA press release, the mother source for all major stories & virtually all blogs about this issue).  The Iranian Minister appears to support the 9/11 TV Fakery Hypothesis.  But did he really intend what he appears to have meant by his words?  See www.911blogger.com/node/4103.

Maybe the next thing that we should do is to invite long-time Pro-Planes researchers Brian & Eric Salter to debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter in an appropriate forum.  We might even invite some sincere 9/11 WTC eyewitnesses -- such as John Albanese -- to present their testimony & be questioned in a non-hostile manner.

The Salter Brothers & Reynolds/Raijter would do their MS Power Point & video presentations.  They then might take questions from an appropriate panel of experts & others via electronic means.  The last one-third of the session would be devoted to a true scientific and best-evidence-oriented debate about these potentially important issues.  The whole session (including links to the articles & Power Point presentations) would then be posted or linked from the YouTube, 911 Blogger, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & other sites.

Please let us know who will organize the debate, where the best venue would be, and when it will be held...

If 9/11 truths can never hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement, then this may be a useful exercise to scientifically determine what is 9/11 truth and to put these issues to rest -- one way or the other.  The controversy surrounding these issues may also help us to publicize other more-established 9/11 truths...

Reynolds & Raijter Accept the Challenge. Now: Salter Brothers???

I emailed the above comment & debate challenge to a group of approximately fifty (50) persons interested in the Pro-Planes & No-Big-Boeings issues (about 25 on each side).  The list included Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter (but not the Salter Brothers -- since I could not easily find their email addresses).

Following in part is Morgan Reynolds' response: "Let's get it on.  Salter smack down...  More to come and it won't be pretty for Salter and his crew of Big Boeing apologists."

Let's allow these issues be rationally debated in public in an appropriate venue by the most articulate scientific spokespersons on both sides of these issues: Eric & Brian Salter advocating the 9/11 Pro-Planes Hypothesis and 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis on the one side, and Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter advocating the 9/11 No Big Boeings Hypothesis and 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis on the other side. 

This is the scholarly, scientific way for the 9/11 Truth Movement to handle controversial scientific 9/11 issues.  Science is not a popularity contest.

One month before the 9/11 Fifth Anniversary, I first invited Steve Jones to speak at the National Press Club.  Although Steve declined, Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood (both later invited) accepted our invitations. 

Although Wood & Reynolds mentioned the NBB & TVF issues, their presentations concentrated on well-established 9/11 truths on which 95%+ of 911 Blogger & ST911 readers probably agree.

A "Salter Brothers versus Reynolds/Raijter Debate" on the above issues would not be appropriate for the National Press Club.  Therefore, if the Salter Brothers also accept the debate challenge, then we will need to find an appropriate venue for this overly-ripe scientific debate.

Yes, the Physics Behind TV-Fakery Need to be Debated.

I am all for such a debate. If the Salter bros have nothing to hide, then they should have no problem with a debate!

As we all know, NIST refuses to debate the Truth Movement. I wonder why?



So let's have a debate


get something accomplished!

Letter of Preliminary Invitation to Eric & Brian Salter...

Following is my preliminary invitation for a scientific discussion & debate to Eric & Brian Salter, as per the above (sent to Eric & Brian by email this morning).

Of course, some may disagree with this approach, because it supposedly has the potential to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

However, the 9/11 Truth Movement should not be and cannot be afraid of the truth -- whatever it is. 

Eric & Brian:

Congratulations on publication of your scientific article, "A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories" by Eric Salter at Dr. Steve Jones' electronic Journal of 9/11 Studies site (www.journalof911studies.com)Your article has been published in various forms for years at www.QuestionsQuestions.net (copyrighted by Brian Salter, with Brian's significant contributions duly noted).
Of course, Dr. Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter have now published a competing scientific article, "Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth," at Dr Morgan Reynolds' site (www.NoMoreGames.net).
As you know, there is significant interest amongst those in the 9/11 Truth Movement in these issues.  Your contributions to a scientific resolution of these questions have been amongst the most significant for many people.
Given the recent publication of the above two (2) scientific articles, and with the arguable endorsement of the general idea of 9/11 TV Fakery by an Iranian Minister (and if so, a mixed blessing at best -- see www.911blogger.com/node/4103), what ordinarily comes next is public discussion & debate about these controversial 9/11 scientific issues.
In your unfortunate absence (since no one could quickly give me your email addresses), some of us have already decided that a debate amongst the four (4) most articulate scientific spokespersons on these issues would be a good idea.  We hope and expect that you will readily agree -- so that we can begin to put these issues behind us (or not) once & for all.
For some background on what we have been discussing, see "Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter?" at www.911blogger.com/node/4120#comment-85295 (and below), "Reynolds & Raijter Accept the Challenge. Now: Salter Brothers?" at www.911blogger.com/node/4120#comment-85316 (and below), and the additional discussion in the emails below.
Let me know.  Let us know!  Thank you.  Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly


oh my god

there were no planes - it was birds!

I seriously just shit myself.