Excellent new article from Morgan Reynolds

[spooked911]

here:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

" Jim Hoffman contends that my June 9 article “provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers” but that about a third of my article supports “the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01.” My article “thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported.” Hoffman believes that this is “unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack — especially the survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights.”

Hoffman’s critique uses intimidating language—“lack scientific merit, easily debunked, inherently offensive”—to denounce someone of a contrary mind about the government story of hi-jacked jetliners. This article constitutes part II of my reply to him and here is part I. Many 9/11 researchers would be surprised to learn that the controversy over the reported crashes of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 has been scientifically resolved and settled in favor of the official story. Whatever the state of disputation over crashes may be, the WTC demolition theory is in no danger of being discredited. Let’s make this statement in bold letters so that Hoffman and others worried about “unity” within the vaunted 9/11 truth movement cannot fail to understand:
WTC demolition is truth inviolate, entirely separate from airliner crashes, proven beyond reasonable doubt and newly supported by a BYU physicist who calls for a serious investigation. It’s the linchpin establishing that selected parts of the U.S. government, aided by certain outsiders, committed the crimes of 9/11.

But that unassailable fact of demolition does not settle all phases of this complex scam, a commonplace in ongoing criminal investigations. Further, if controversy over the role of airplanes and hijackers played in the 9/11 hoax is “inherently offensive,” then we are in worse shape than I thought. According to William Rodriguez, the janitor who was last man out of the WTC and a much-decorated hero, healing is impossible for survivors because only truth can bring closure.
Step back from wrangling over planes for a moment and three things stand out:

1. 9/11 was a colossal hoax, an egregious example of false-flag terrorism
2. Corporate media dutifully sold the scam
3. Four reported airliners vanished as if by magic"

More at the link...

[MrSammo1]

1. Isn't Hoffman

one of the "people" that believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

[spooked911]

2. Yep. He thinks the Pentagon hit is a booby-trap for 9/11 skeptics.

Anyway, the Reynold's article is great.

[Bushwick Bill]

3. What are the best Flight 77 OCT debunkings?

Reynolds seems to make a good case, but then I read these links
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
and the opinions of some well-respected people like Riddler who apparently maintain that the Pentagon no-plane stories are garbage and I have no idea what to believe. This seems to be the most hotly contested issue in the 9/11 truth movement.

[greyl]

4. It's not hotly contested, exactly.

It's just all of the online articles which have been proven to be bunk haven't been edited to show the effects of productive "peer review".
Some people who produce 9/11 conspiracy web sites aren't interested in the truth at all.

[spooked911]

10. Nonsense.

"Some people who produce 9/11 conspiracy web sites aren't interested in the truth at all."

[MrSammo1]

5. Those links are total

bunk!

>>>opinions of some well-respected people<<<

How well respected can liars possibly be?

[mirandapriestly]

6. Yes, I'm with you

I start to become fairly convinced of the possibility of
"no plane" especially at the Pentagon, and then I see posters here, who I think highly of, ridiculing it and I don't know what to think.
One thing I AM sure of and THAT is controlled demolition.

[greyl]

7. It's better to be unsure.

At the moment you're sure, the truth drifts away.

[mirandapriestly]

8. There's a good quotation to that effect, but I can't remember it..nt

[greyl]

9. see the critical thinkers vs uncritical thinkers thread ;)

[mirandapriestly]

18. So, you're not sure? :) nt

[spooked911]

11. Look at the evidence for yourself

those windows on the far right are supposedly where a 757 went into the building.

Killtown has a great site on the pentagon:
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight77.html

Personally, I can't say that I can prove that a Boeing 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but I find it highly unlikely for many many reasons.

First off, is the fact that flight 77 never even took on 9/11.

Then besides the Reynold's article, there is this article:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

Personally, I think what happened is the Pentagon was rigged up to make it look as though a plane crashed there, similar to the WTC and Shanksville. That is why it looks a bit like a plane crashed there but not everything fits together.

[Kevin Fenton]

12. What windows?

You wrote: "those windows on the far right are supposedly where a 757 went into the building."

Specifically, what windows are you talking about? There is a big hole on the ground floor on the far right (above the white car in the picture) where the plane's wing went in. There are no windows left. There is no wall left. It's a hole.

[spooked911]

14. officially the plane went entered through that black hole

to the right of the two windows where the frames are sort of blown away but the window is still intact.

[Kevin Fenton]

16. I don't understand you at all

"Officially"
What do you mean, "officially"? According to which document? Please provide a page reference.

I don't see any windows where the frames are sort of blown away but the window is still intact. Where are they from the white car?

[sabbat hunter]

13. never took off

can you provide a link that proves that flight 77 never took off. htat is the first i have heard of that particular theory.

[spooked911]

15. here

http://oldsydimc.cat.org.au/front.php3?article_id=36354

Here is the BTS chart (scroll down):
http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html

[mirandapriestly]

19. I hate to say it

but there IS that video of a plane actually disintegrating on contact , I think it's on Above Top Secret, accompanied by an article, but then I've read that ATS is a "psyops" site, heh heh.

[reprehensor]

17. Here are some alleged pieces from one of the WTC planes.

Scroll down at link...

http://www.gnn.tv/B13554

Any Boeing experts handy?