portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Why Does "Patriots Question 9/11" Feature No Planers Morgan Reynolds and David Shayler???

Wake up webmaster Alan Miller! Reynolds and Shayler are "former" government officials who say that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers -- need we say anymore? People have tried to email you. Now I am posting this in public in hopes that someone else will get through to you. Not all who describe themselves as "patriots" are really the type of patriots we think they are.
Why does the website "Patriots Question 9/11" feature known hologram promoter David Shayler and known no-plane-at-the-WTC promoter Morgan Reynolds? I tried writing to the owner of the website but got no response. Please help the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement and send an email to the site asking to take down the listings of David Shayler and Morgan Reynolds -

alan.miller (at) PatriotsQuestion911.com
 http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Why? Because the infiltration by "former" government employees who are sure that real planes didn't hit the WTC, like Shayler and Morgan Reynolds, is destroying our credibility. Morgan Reynolds also has personally attacked Steven Jones in a series of papers.

SHAYLER:
"A recent article for the British magazine New Statesman profiled David Shayler and Annie Machon, former MI5 agents who went public with details of their service, who have since joined the growing "9/11 truth movement." Much to Machon's chagrin, Shayler outed himself as a "no-planer" who believes the airliners we saw strike the World Trade Center towers were actually cruise missiles disguised as planes using sophisticated hologram technology. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes... I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe," Shayler told journalist Brendan O'Neill."
 http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1006/1006debunking.htm

The Sunday Times - Comment
The Sunday Times September 10, 2006
Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms
David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. "We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," he tells the New Statesman. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. "I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes." Hard to believe, isn't it? Come to think of it, are we sure this isn't an MI5 agent posing as Shayler in an attempt to discredit him? Is there indeed such a person as Shayler, or was he as some now think invented by the CIA?
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2350584,00.html

"got the chance to chat with David Shayler afterwards, who was drawing quite a crowd around him. I was a little surprised to hear him talk about holograms, and it seems Shayler may be a 'no-planer'."
 http://jultra.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-david-ray-griffin-david-shayler.html

REYNOLDS

The papers of Reynolds and Woods grab at anything they can to try to discredit Physics Prof. Steven Jones, which functions to deflect attention from any sincere address of the content of the debate -- they make stabs at Jones' character, his previous work in cold fusion, the timing of his responses to their papers, and call him names like "retarded," of all things. Just looking at the papers briefly, the character attacks and efforts to deflect away from content are everywhere.

Here are some quotes from the essay, "Reynolds & Wood Try to Help Steven E. Jones"
 http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones
 http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/255413.shtml

Other references on Reynolds:

A response to Reynolds and Wood (Word Document)
Frank Legge
 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Response_to_Reynolds_and_Wood2.doc

A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?"
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, June 26, 2005
 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/

Reply to Reynolds and Wood--Part I (Word Document)
Steven E. Jones
 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
12 September 2006, georgewashington.blogspot
 http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html

A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories
by Eric Salter
28 September 2005
 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html
updated version:  http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf (PDF)

What is safe, certain and correct to say re events of 9/11 15.Dec.2006 03:06

pdx 911truther

The crashing of a Boeing passenger jet was not responsible for collapse nor full-scale demolition of any building in the world on or about September 11th 2001.

It does not matter what, if anything, struck a lateral blow to either of the twin towers. That is not and could not have been the cause for their freefall into their own footprints on that or any other day.

World Trade Center Seven was not hit by anything. Tiny fires of questionable provenance in a few isolated areas of that building--which had been brought under control well before 5pm collapse--had nothing to do with the classic controlled demolition implosion, where explosives had clearly been staged with intricate care at many strategic points in the building at least weeks before 9/11.

It does not matter what, if any, airborne vessel struck the Pentagon. The blindingly obvious military stand down (or worse) on the most heavily fortified building on this planet could not have been anything but intentional and very premeditated indeed.

Is a smallish military drone a plane? Were they actual, regular, ordinarily equipped passenger jets flown off officially specified course that made lateral contact with two epic high-rise towers (WTC 1 and 2) and a lumbering monstrous bunker of a mid rise (the Pentagon)?

It does not matter.

I do think it is a waste of time speculating on the exact nature of possible exotic and unfamiliar-to-the-public technologies that might or might not have played some kind of minor role in the surface appearance of the public spectacle.

And I think it is a ridiculous waste of time complaining about people who conjecture on facts not particularly clearly in evidence (the hologrammists, space wavers, "no-planers" etc). We don't need to know exactly how the deed was done. It does not matter exactly what mechanical means were used.

The deed was an attack on the United States by covert criminal elements within the US governing elite supported by its client media with clear intent to provoke a whole new paradigm of permanent, global, imperial war ...

... and THAT IS ***ALL*** THAT MATTERS; period.

--GlenOwen--

503 287 3473
No plane nor anything like one hit WTC-7. That's all you need to know.
No plane nor anything like one hit WTC-7. That's all you need to know.

NPTs 15.Dec.2006 15:11

Reader

>>It does not matter what, if anything, struck a lateral blow to either of the twin towers.

It sure does when we are being made to look like fools by "former" intelligence and government officials in the public mainstream media with their claims that real planes didn't hit there. We are then associated with those and considered lunatics. These people stay alive and spreading no plane hoaxes like viruses as long as people like you find it easier to look away and proclaim that it "doesn't matter" than to actually do the work of debunking these whenever you see them. It's simple and it works.

Take a look at the hoax sites - i.e., the webfairy, letsroll911, serendipity, reopen911 - and see how popular they are. They are HUGE. Why? Because of activists over time saying, "Oh it's okay, they're just stupid -- just forget about it, just ignore it." 5 years later those websites trump most serious activist sites on all 9/11 issues because of people who know better remaining silent and pretending it doesn't matter. It does.

Something's Happening Here, and Mr Jones Knows Not What it is 16.Dec.2006 21:26

Jack Straw

Prof Jones was asked at the Lifting the Fog Conference in Berkeley this past Nov 11 how he can assert that thermite/thermate is both a cutting agent and a pulverization agent, when these two results require *completely different modes of action*, the first requires action focused in one direction, the second omnidirection action. He waffled and didn't answer. Then he was asked by the same person to explain how thermite and conventional explosives could account for the pulverization into dust of not only almost of the concrete, but most of the steel as well, evidenced by the seismic signals recorded when the towers were destroyed, 2.1 and 2.3, same as the signal when the Seattle Kingdom came down due to demolition in 2000, though each tower had 30 times the potential energy of the Kingdom (and hence should have created a signal of 3.8, even the steel alone should have created a signal of 3 or so). See  http://janedoe0911.tripod.com the article on Space Beam Weapon, even if you, like me, think this wasn't a space beam, but an exotic earth based weapon.
Jones at first asserted the article had no data, and when contradicted, asserted that he hadn't looked at the data yet, contradicting himself in a major way, not that it matters to people who believe whatever he says, like "reader", who also attack anyone who dares to question him. Do check out the new Wood/Reynolds article on Jones, it asks serious questions that the likes of "reader" don't want to be asked.

The real question 23.Dec.2006 15:51

researcher

>>Prof Jones was asked at the Lifting the Fog Conference in Berkeley this past Nov 11 how he can assert that thermite/thermate is both a cutting agent and a pulverization agent, when these two results require *completely different modes of action*, the first requires action focused in one direction, the second omnidirection action.

So therefore we need a "space beam weapon" to account for the destruction? This leap in logic is not supported by any evidence. Simply because space weapons exist does not then mean that they were used on 9/11. I could use the same reasoning to blame space beams for almost anything, and never need anything more than that they "could have been used," they "exist" and so thus they are a reasonable hypothesis.

Jones states:

"Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific."
 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesResponse.html

This is the real question.