The 9/11 Liars Club

[Garrett Cooke]

The 9/11 LiarsClub :http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/liars.html

Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer - "Lying for Truth"

This is the latest article from Gerard Holmgren. I don't see it posted anywhere else on this forum so I thought I would bring it to readers' attention. An incisive anaylsis IMO which exposes the Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood axis.

Garrett

[Stefan]

I agree (at least with Wood's - she's a proven liar) but this really should have been posted in controveries.

Moderators?

[Stefan]

At closer inspection; I don't agree with this artical. I just agree Woods is a liar.

[John White]

Woo Hoo! Well the "No Planes" case has been so resoundingly rejected throughout the 9/11 truth community that the No Planes clique turning on each other was only a matter of time

Will we see inter-neccine conflict break out between our resident "No Planers"?

"Woodist swine!"

"Holmgreen hugger!"

I've got my tub of holographic popcorn all ready

[John White]

I agree (at least with Wood's - she's a proven liar) but this really should have been posted in controveries.

Moderators?

This is one I'm tempted to leave where it is for a bit: but fair enough, duty calls

(uses mod buttons)

[MadgeB]

This is the lie that Holmgren accuses Wood of: “Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood self righteously attack the dishonest fraudulent science of Steven Jones, and of NIST, at the same time as telling us that Professor Wood won’t affirm a simple and fundamental scientific principle like Newton's third law of motion because such an admission would "drive a wedge" between her and Reynolds.”

What he means about Newton’s third law of motion, as I understand it, is that the force of the building hitting the plane, in effect, would have been the same as the force of the plane hitting the building.

“The idea that a plane consisting mostly of aluminium punched through a steel structure so decisively that it left a near perfect shape of itself is absurd. It would have smashed up on impact. Perhaps some of the plane might have penetrated the building, but most of it would have been smashed into wreckage that scattered to the streets below. But even supposing that it was somehow able to form this miraculous feat, there is a second impossibility. Any object which punches so decisively through another object that it leaves a shape of itself, is then by definition, relatively undamaged in the collision.”

I recommend that everybody reads the article, whether they end up agreeing with it or not, but I would say that the main theme was that junk science is being propped up in as much as the impossibility of the plane crashes is being covered up the 'Truth movement' generally and by the named scientists/researchers in particular.

Can anyone summarise Steve Jones’ attitude to the application of Newton’s third law of motion, in relation to the alleged plane crashes?

[Stefan]

This is the lie that Holmgren accuses Wood of: “Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood self righteously attack the dishonest fraudulent science of Steven Jones, and of NIST, at the same time as telling us that Professor Wood won’t affirm a simple and fundamental scientific principle like Newton's third law of motion because such an admission would "drive a wedge" between her and Reynolds.”

What he means about Newton’s third law of motion, as I understand it, is that the force of the building hitting the plane, in effect, would have been the same as the force of the plane hitting the building.

“The idea that a plane consisting mostly of aluminium punched through a steel structure so decisively that it left a near perfect shape of itself is absurd. It would have smashed up on impact. Perhaps some of the plane might have penetrated the building, but most of it would have been smashed into wreckage that scattered to the streets below. But even supposing that it was somehow able to form this miraculous feat, there is a second impossibility. Any object which punches so decisively through another object that it leaves a shape of itself, is then by definition, relatively undamaged in the collision.”

I recommend that everybody reads the article, whether they end up agreeing with it or not, but I would say that the main theme was that junk science is being propped up in as much as the impossibility of the plane crashes is being covered up the 'Truth movement' generally and by the named scientists/researchers in particular.

Can anyone summarise Steve Jones’ attitude to the application of Newton’s third law of motion, in relation to the alleged plane crashes?

As I understand it the plane did indeed become shredded, but the momentum would have carried the pieces, and the igniting jet fuel into the building, not onto the street below - which is exactly what we saw.

If you look at the hole the plane did not leave a perfect shape of it's self - the continual pressure of it hitting the same beams as it broke apart did break the bolts of some of them, if you look at the hole some of the beams of the left were never broken, just the aluminium cladding broke away, some were bent inwards, some broken clean. It didn't "slice through them" as NPT proponents continually repeat- the continued pressure as the plane slammed into the outer building knocked steel sections away from those they were connected to.



Can you, Madge, or any other NPT proponent explain how such damage to the building could have been acheived by anything other than an object hitting the building from the outside.

How could explosives from within have acheived this?

If you want to convince people of Fakery or any other version of NPT, this is where you must begin.

[Fred]

Yes. Bombs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awdq7ZttV3U[/youtube]

[John White]

Yes. Bombs.

Bombs huh? Well thats it then, its all explained!

What about storing the hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel within the towers ready to blow to simulate the impact of the plane? And how did that get up there?

But, more importantly:

Who is the biggest Liar in your book then Fred?

Holmgren? Fetzer? Wood? or Reynolds?

One of them must be lying: you can't agree with them all

So who is it Fred?

Do tell

[Witchfinder General]

Bombs do exist, what's your problem with bombs

Unless of course you don't think WTC was brought down in whole or in part by bombs.

How did those bombs get into the building

[John White]

Holmgren? Fetzer? Wood? or Reynolds?

Who do you think is lying Witchhunter?

you may choose more than one if you wish: or even all of them

[MadgeB]

Regards my question about what is Steve Jones’ line on crash physics - I can’t imagine a scientist would argue that a plane would be shredded if it was standing upright and one of the twin towers was dropped on it at 500mph. Or does he?

As to the plane slicing through steel - what would you call the diagonal cuts in the steel columns which make up the wingtip shape?

I don’t agree that no-planers need to start with the answer as to what caused the holes, if the plane crash scenario is physically impossible. However, there were obviously explosions blasting the aluminium covering outwards, and Judy Wood’s research has turned up an additional possibility. The contractors NIST employed to model the alleged plane impact damage are involved in research and development of directed energy weapons, suggesting that DEWs may have been used.

[Stefan]

OK.

Bombs.

Fantastic.

Now which one of you eager beavers is going to ask the question I have been asking you for months?

How is it possible for a bomb to cause the damage we saw to the WTC?

Let's have a look at what you have to explain:



1. The beams that are broken are all facing inwards. How did a bomb from inside the building cause beams to bend towards it?

2. There was no expulsion of beams outwards on the footage of these "bomb blasts" what happened to the missing steel which was once where the gaps are now?

3. There are slices in the aluminium cladding, which you can draw a perfect line between with a ruler where each of the wing tips would have been. If a plane had hit the towers, which obviously it didn't. What devioius type of explosive acheived this and how?

4. Exactly the in the centre of the line between the two slices in aluminium, we can follow up at a right angle and there is another slice where a tail fin would have been. If a plane had hit the towers, which obviously it didn't. Same question as above.

Thanks, and good luck.

[Stefan]

As to the plane slicing through steel - what would you call the diagonal cuts in the steel columns which make up the wingtip shape?

Those aren't steel- that's aluminium cladding, there to make the tower look nice and shiney.

Look at the image - it's in equally sized rectangles all over the tower. Look at the image closer and you'll see not all the steel (the darker coloured material) did break- the aluminium did all come off where the plane hit, giving the angular edges all around the hole but some of the impact broke the bolts holding the steel together, some did not, in some areas especially on the left the beams are still intact. The actual shape of the impact hole if you ignore the aluminium and just look at the steel makes a lot more sense as to how much damage a plane could cause to steel and how much it did in fact cause.

[ian neal]

FYI Nico's response to holmgren

Haupt reviews Holmgren: "Grand Chess analysis from the finest, Nietzsche of analysis"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3463

May 18th, 2007
http://www.911researchers.com/node/502

[andyb]

^ that made no sense to me. It appears Haupt is clearly a disturbed person judging by his emails and disruption caused at NY 9/11 truth meetings.

[gruts]

here's another example of squabbling noplaners....

Markus Icke (any relation?) attacking Holmgren and "webfairy":
http://proxydisinfo.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Disinformation By Proxy & Other Misdemeanours
Holmgren and Webfairy “Toilet Paper” 911 TV Fakery

[John White]

here's another example of squabbling noplaners....

Markus Icke (any relation?) attacking Holmgren and "webfairy":
http://proxydisinfo.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Disinformation By Proxy & Other Misdemeanours
Holmgren and Webfairy “Toilet Paper” 911 TV Fakery

From the article:

The reason Holmgren made such a mess of the speed calculation was because Webfairy supplied him with either captures from a defective video source or a sequence of captures from a genuine source with some of the original captures missing having been replaced with duplicates.

Hmmm.... how to make the real appear fake chapter 1? Webfairy and holmgren appear to still be pals

And no, no relation

[Stefan]

Can any NPT proponent even get past the very first step in convincing people of their theory?

Anyone?

[John White]

As I see it, “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” is a joint Holmgren / Webfairy effort to “toilet paper” 911 TV Fakery and additionally damage the credibility of other researchers in the same field.

LOL! Markus Icke's conclusion in his article

[MadgeB]

As to the plane slicing through steel - what would you call the diagonal cuts in the steel columns which make up the wingtip shape?

Those aren't steel- that's aluminium cladding, there to make the tower look nice and shiney.

Bit of slice-effect up on the right hand side, no?

Can any NPT proponent even get past the very first step in convincing people of their theory?

I might have been able to take this seriously if it hadn't been said about the "controlled demolition" loonies in earlier days.

[Witchfinder General]

Clearly a cartoon plane making a cartoon hole.

If you get bashed on the head with a frying pan do you get a flat head?

[Witchfinder General]

real plane crashes look like this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1221903829


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7657667670


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3181554229


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2018518759

[Fred]

The media hoax information is getting out, and the personalities behind the manipulated 9/11 Truth charade don't matter a bit.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C8E9BD64 ... oom-s.aspx

You can see the bluescreen system in action as it produces "bad special effects". Check out http://911logic.blogspot.com for further analysis.

[John White]

And what have the last three posts got to do with the war breaking out between different NPT theorists declaring each other disinfo?

[Stefan]

Madge,

1. That's a drawing, not a photo.

2. You aren't answering my question.

I want you to explain to me how a bomb caused this damage.

Unless you break with Fred on this one and think it wasn't a bomb.

But I just want some indication of how you get past what, for me, is the very first stage in convincing someone (or even yourself) of NPT. I have said before that when I first encountered this forum was the first time I encountered NPT, I was quite intrigued, but it was this question- the question of whether anything but a plane could have caused that damage - and there were no answers from the NPT crew. The poster snowygrouch wrote a very coherent post explaining exactly how a plane could cause that damage, indeed showing how nothing but a plane could. All he got back was insults. And as anyone who likes debating knows, once one side starts insulting instead of answering - they've lost.

Since then I have been able to think of very simple explanations for 99.9% of the "PROOF" Fred and Co bring here for TV fakery and NPT, usually it's so obvious I don't even have to pause for thought (See "WTC Built on Platter" and "Those birds sure move fast" for details).

I think you should take these questions seriously, I'm not being disrespectful to you, or to NPT, I simply want to understand where you guys are coming from because I can't believe this conviction comes only from glitches on youtube videos.

I'm attending a presentation this Friday of a scholar for 9/11 Truth who believes in NPT; I am interested for myself in giving every theory about 9/11 my ear (even though I maintain that a campaign should mobilise around questions and verefiable facts, not theories) but I am not seeing anything even remotley convincing, from any of Fred's bunch on this forum.

A lot of conviction. Not a single coherent argument.

[gruts]

As I see it, “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” is a joint Holmgren / Webfairy effort to “toilet paper” 911 TV Fakery and additionally damage the credibility of other researchers in the same field.

LOL! Markus Icke's conclusion in his article

quite funny I agree - but how do you damage the "credibility" of "researchers" who already have zero credibility?

[John White]

As I see it, “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” is a joint Holmgren / Webfairy effort to “toilet paper” 911 TV Fakery and additionally damage the credibility of other researchers in the same field.

LOL! Markus Icke's conclusion in his article

quite funny I agree - but how do you damage the "credibility" of "researchers" who already have zero credibility?

Its a challenge, to be sure: and Markus Icke himself is a NPT theorist who still asserts that the "hip hop" plane footage shows a fake: but presents no argument as to why

[MadgeB]

Madge,

1. That's a drawing, not a photo.

2. You aren't answering my question.

I want you to explain to me how a bomb caused this damage.

1. That's a diagram that supposedly shows the damage caused by the plane. Do you mean you can't see the diagonal cuts caused by the wings slicing through?

2. Sorry, had to take time out. I don't know if it was bombs or missiles or, as I said earlier, some kind of more secret device, given that the NIST contractors for this work of explaining the plane damage are involved in Directed Energy Weapons.

But weren't you somebody who thought we didn't have to know exactly how the towers were brought down to know that the official tale was a lie? Because impossible? I'd love to know how the holes were achieved, and 911researchers is a great site for new ideas on all aspects of the con trick, but it was impossible that it was a plane, so no plane.

[sidlittle]

And what have the last three posts got to do with the war breaking out between different NPT theorists declaring each other disinfo?

I don't see a big deal in a few NPT's arguing with each other.

Isn't that what tends to happen as research develops ?

In fact , I would find it more curious if I were on a forum where conclusions have been seemingly drawn already with regards to what did and didn't happen that day.

oh wait..