On, Sept 11. Supposedly a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. And yet there was no wreckage of this supposed aircraft. Consider the dimensions of a Boeing 757. Wingspan about 125 ft. Length about 155 ft. Height to top of tail fin about 40 ft.
Now consider the dimensions of the hole in the Pentagon wall. Width about 20 ft. Height about 20 ft. Length of main damage area about 60 ft.
So the Boeing 757 didn't go inside the building. And since there was no wreckage outside either,then it wasn't hit by a 757.
As I stated in this press interview.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:M4_uUC92usEJ:gonzomuckraker.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html+Morgan+reynolds+AT+skywarrior&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=au
"This idea that a big jet liner vanished into the pentagon is a big non-starter. It is totally laughable."…
Let me repeat - a Boeing 757 cannot vanish through a hole much smaller than itself without breaking off any parts or leaving any wreckage. It is impossible.
However, let me make it quite clear - any other kind of aircraft can do so.
As I made quite clear in the same interview when I said.
"it could have been an AT Sky Warrior."
I've since learned that the name of the aircraft is actually "A3" skywarrior. Since I finally learned the actual name of the aircraft which I was saying could have been the culprit, that enabled me to finally find out its dimensions.
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/specpage.html
Length 76 ft 4 in.
Wingspan 72 ft 6 in
Height 22 ft 9.5 in.
You may ask if a 757 can't fit through a hole smaller than itself without breaking off any parts or leaving any wreckage, then how can an A3 do so?
Well I'll answer that stupid question. I'm a Professor Emeritus and you're not. Got it ?
I'll return shortly to boasting about my qualifications ( in economics. mind you - but I've still got the letters in front of my name.)
But first I do have one small correction to make from that press interview.
I said that it "could" have been an A3 skywarrior. The fact is it was an A3 skywarrior.
For the proof of that, I'll refer you to my main site.
http://nomoregames.net/
Here you'll find links to sites that I recommend. One of them is
Physics 911.net
http://www.physics911.net/
And here you'll find a link to an article by a renowned researcher named Karl W. B. Schwarz
A3 Skywarrior: The Probable Pentagon Attack Aircraft?
http://www.physics911.net/pdf/schwarz.pdf
Read through this and you'll understand why laws of physics are different for any kind of plane other than the official story.
You'll notice that I link to this site, without any disclaimer about anything on the site.
But there's more.
Returning to my front page, here's another site to which I link without any disclaimer.
Scholars for 911 truth.
http://911scholars.org/
This site of course is run by my good friend Jim Fetzer, who also has more letters both in front of and after his name than you do. Jim also says that it was an A3 skywarrior. Jim and I do radio shows all the time, promote each other's web sites, run conferences together, and I've never tackled him on this A3 skywarrior thing. Why should I ? We're on the same page, as I showed in the above interview and in my endorsement without qualification of the physics 911 site.
And here is what Jim ( I can call him Jim - but he's "distinguished professor" to you, thank you very much) had to say.
http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/24/st911s-james-fetzer-david-ray-griffin-morgan-reynolds-on-coast-to-coast-am/
"Fetzer also noted that in the Pentagon attack, the size of the impact in the building was too small for an airliner, and may have instead have been an A-3 Skywarrior."
http://sst911.org/interviews/fetzerinterview.html
"Well the Pentagon, very clearly, was not hit by a Boeing 757. The evidence is more consistent with a much smaller aircraft, such as, perhaps an F-16 or maybe an A3 Sky Warrior. "
Some people who call themselves 9/11 researchers have disputed this obvious fact.
For example take this ridiculous personal attack on Jim, myself, and Karl Schwarz by Gerard Holmgren. (Holmgren has since removed all of his articles from internet, but I saved some of them.)
Holmgren agrees that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but then takes a ridiculous leap of logic to suggest that the problem of aircraft dimensions compared to building damage dimensions should be applied equally and consistently to any kind of aircraft ,not just the kind of plane suggested by the Bush Administration.
In this outrageous personal attack on dedicated and highly qualified experts in 9/11 research - myself and Jim and Karl Schwarz included - Holmgren wrote this vitriolic, unprovoked ad hominem attack.
"An A3 SkyWarrior has a wingspan of about 72 ft. Many truthlings who scoff at the idea of a 757 on the basis of the wingspan problem uncritically endorse the A3 SkyWarrior claim without even examining this problem. If it's ridiculous to assert that a 125 ft wingspan can fit through a 16 ft hole, why is it any more credible to assert that a 72 ft wingspan can do so ? Or alternatively, if a 72 ft wingspan can fold up or vaporize or whatever, then why not a 125 ft wingspan ? In which case why dispute the 757 to begin with ? If an A3 can vanish through a hole much smaller than itself without leaving wreckage, why not any other kind of plane, including a 757 ?
And if we scoff at the Government for asking us to believe without any evidence, that they identified the DNA of the passengers aboard the flight, then why believe Schwarz when he tells us without any evidence that "his team" identified an A3 part ?
Critical thinking which is justifiably applied to the mainstream story regarding the size of the wingspan in relation to the size of the hole is suddenly forgotten about in the name of "911 truth".
The best way to answer this scurrilous personal attack is with a speech I made, and which can be seen on youtube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tQzp1aMhs-E
And here's a partial transcript.
"My name is Morgan Reynolds.I a professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University and a former Chief Economist under George W. Bush 2001 - 2002. Yes a Republican appointee. I've also worked for a think tank in Dallas called the National Center for Policy Analysis. I have 3 degrees from the great university of Wisconsin at Madison and was invited up recently to give a 9/11 talk and my theme was -President Bush ! Come out with your hands up! You're under arrest ! The people demand your trial ! For treason on 9/11! "
So I'm not only smarter than you, but I'm also braver ! And if we experts say it was an A3 skywarrior, then it was.
Let me repeat - it is "totally laughable" to suggest that a 125 ft wingspan can go through a 20 ft hole without breaking off and leaving debris,but there is absolutely no reason why a 72 ft wingspan cannot.
I'm Morgan Reynolds and I've got 3 degrees and you're not and you haven't.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Morgan Reynolds - Plagiarist extrodinare
OK - my website is so appalling - so filled with lies, doublethink and plagiarism that it's hard to know where to start.
But let's begin with some with some plagiarism - something I copied almost word for word from Gerard Holmgren.
Why did I copy it ?
Well, there were quite a few reasons. The first is that I've never had an original thought of my own, and since becoming a 9/11 untruther, I've made a name for myself simply by copying whatever seems to be useful to put me in the spotlight -even when I don't have a clue what it all means - which is most of the time.
The second is that this Holmgren fellow pissed me off very badly, by exposing that I know nothing at all about physics - just when when I had spent two years bullshitting my way through pretending to be an expert in the subject.
You see, when two objects collide, I always thought that whichever of the objects was moving faster received more of the force of the collision. Actually, I hadn't really thought about it all, but that's what my good mate Jim Fetzer said and if he said it, then that was good enough for me.
Here is what Fetzer actually said.
"You cannot assume that the difference between pop cans and steel settles anything.... The speed at which impacts occur is one of their most important properties and make a huge difference here "
And that sounded OK to me. But Holmgren challenged it quoting some thing called "Newton's third law of motion" which apparently says that the amount of force received by both objects is equal. He even provided some links to basic physics sites which explained the concept.
Something like " for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
Apparently, people learn it in school as teenagers ...whatever...
Frankly, I don't even understand it now,but it seems to be accepted scientific doctrine - whatever it really means - so I copied all the explanations that Holmgren sent, along with the links ,and put them on my site as my own work to show off my knowledge of what's- his- name's third law of emotion or whatever the hell the thing is. It seems to be something that I was expected to know if I was calling myself a physics expert.
You can see the postings here.
About Newton's Third Law by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.DAbout Newton's Third Law by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=had_a_car_crash
Basically, I just copied what Holmgren sent and put it up on the website as my own work and it seemed to go down pretty well.
But here's what really pissed me off . Holmgren also wrote a satire - mocking Fetzer, myself and Judy Wood for not knowing what this stupid third law of emotion thing was.
Well, the solution was easy. I took Holmgren's satire - changed a couple of words here and there, and changed the name of the author, and posted it on my site as my own work. The original was satirizing myself and Fetzer for thinking that the faster moving object got less force, but I just changed the names to attribute that little faux pas to someone else, and made it out to be a satire I had written myself aimed at the people I had now attributed it to.
Too easy !
Then I copied all the stuff Holmgren had sent explaining this third law of emoticon or whatever the hell the thing is and posted that as my own work to make it look like I actually understood the subject.
Too easy again !
You can see the result at the link above.
Now - just to show you what a masterful piece of plagiarism this was, I'm going to post Holmgren's original satire and then my version.
I 'll do it paragraph for paragraph. Holmgren's original in red, and mine in black.
Today, my small station wagon was involved in a head collision with a stationary Mack Truck.
I was going about 50 mph as I came over a hill and saw this big truck in my way. It was too late to steer around it. But I knew what to do! Using what I'd learned about physics on 9/11-forums recently, I knew if I hit my brakes I would still be going 25 mph at impact. My SUV would be wiped out in the collision with the huge truck, so instead I put the pedal to the metal and I must have been going 150 mph by the time I hit it. My quick thinking saved me. The stationary truck could not stand up to the massive kinetic energy of my Toyota. I sliced through that big truck and left a neat hole the exact shape of my Landcruiser (just like I always do). It was really cool how my Toyota and I remained perfectly intact
As the front of my car emerged from the other end of the truck, I realized that any moment now, my car would suddenly vaporize – and me with it, so just in time, I flung open the door and threw myself out.
Just before the front of my SUV came out from the other end of the Dump Truck, I realized that any moment my car would suddenly shred into nothing and me with it. Just in the nick of time, I flung open the door and jumped out
Moments later the car completely disappeared, although they found the steering column a few blocks away and one of the door handles flew across a line of parked cars to land on top of a van where it was apparently photographed by police.
I thought my SUV completely disappeared, but they found the steering wheel 500 feet away and apparently one of the headrests flew over Mount Lemmon (el. 9,157 ft.) and landed on top of a saguaro cactus where the sherriff photographed it.
I am eternally grateful to Jim Fetzer for saving my life, as it was his words which I remembered in that split second when I had to make the decision as to whether to brake or accelerate.
[[The speed at which impacts occur is one of their most important properties and make a huge difference ]]
Had I chosen to brake, my car and I would have been obliterated prior to impact rather than after it had been completed.
I am eternally indebted to Arabesque, reprehensor, and Greg Jenkins for saving my life because it was their words which I remembered in that split second when I had to decide whether to brake or accelerate. The speed of my impact with that huge Dump Truck made a huge difference. If I had hit my brakes, my car and I would have been wiped out.
BTW. I am grateful to the person who found my passport and handed it in. It was on the back seat when the car vaporized and of course it finished up under the truck after the car had disappeared.
P.S. I really appreciate the person from ACME Steel Airplane Company who found my passport and turned it in. It was on the back seat when I went through the Dump Truck and of course it ended up near the Dump Truck after my Landcruiser disappeared.
I am also thankful that I was driving a medium sized Holden. Constable Reynolds told me that had I been in a large Falcon, my car and I would have been obliterated on impact, but thankfully medium sized Holdens behave differently in a crash situation.
P.P.S. I am also thankful that I was driving a Toyota Landcruiser. Deputy Reynolds told me that if I had been in a hulking Ford Expedition, I would not be here today. But, thank God, Landcruisers behave differently in a crash situation.
END PLAGIARIZED ARTICLE.
As you can see I had so little understanding of how Holmgren was taking the piss out of me, that I even stupidly left my own name in the end part as the object of ridicule,but who cares ? Nobody reads any more, anyway. They just watch videos - which suits me fine, because I can ponce behind a podium and call myself and expert,and no one gets a chance to check anything.
Anyway, just to put the icing on the cake, I decided to put this at the bottom of the plagiarized posting.
"Copyright Morgan Reynolds 2006+ unless otherwise specified. Distribution of and linking to the articles on this website is strongly encouraged, as long as the content is not manipulated or distorted in anyway. "
Holmgren apparently took exception to this - he's a rather crude and blunt type,and sent me a characteristically crude and blunt message which read:
"Copyright Morgan Reynolds ? Dream on, you idiot. It's not your work, it's mine. And furthermore, the satire was written specifically to mock you and your fellow idiots, Wood and Fetzer for not even knowing what Newton;s third law was until I told you. And the reference to "distortion" is a bit rich.
If I decide to post my own writing - as it was originally written, thank you - and you want to sue me for it,then go right ahead. I'll look forward to the court case. The only thing you've copyrighted is the art of how to be a complete idiot."
But let's begin with some with some plagiarism - something I copied almost word for word from Gerard Holmgren.
Why did I copy it ?
Well, there were quite a few reasons. The first is that I've never had an original thought of my own, and since becoming a 9/11 untruther, I've made a name for myself simply by copying whatever seems to be useful to put me in the spotlight -even when I don't have a clue what it all means - which is most of the time.
The second is that this Holmgren fellow pissed me off very badly, by exposing that I know nothing at all about physics - just when when I had spent two years bullshitting my way through pretending to be an expert in the subject.
You see, when two objects collide, I always thought that whichever of the objects was moving faster received more of the force of the collision. Actually, I hadn't really thought about it all, but that's what my good mate Jim Fetzer said and if he said it, then that was good enough for me.
Here is what Fetzer actually said.
"You cannot assume that the difference between pop cans and steel settles anything.... The speed at which impacts occur is one of their most important properties and make a huge difference here "
And that sounded OK to me. But Holmgren challenged it quoting some thing called "Newton's third law of motion" which apparently says that the amount of force received by both objects is equal. He even provided some links to basic physics sites which explained the concept.
Something like " for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
Apparently, people learn it in school as teenagers ...whatever...
Frankly, I don't even understand it now,but it seems to be accepted scientific doctrine - whatever it really means - so I copied all the explanations that Holmgren sent, along with the links ,and put them on my site as my own work to show off my knowledge of what's- his- name's third law of emotion or whatever the hell the thing is. It seems to be something that I was expected to know if I was calling myself a physics expert.
You can see the postings here.
About Newton's Third Law by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.DAbout Newton's Third Law by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=had_a_car_crash
Basically, I just copied what Holmgren sent and put it up on the website as my own work and it seemed to go down pretty well.
But here's what really pissed me off . Holmgren also wrote a satire - mocking Fetzer, myself and Judy Wood for not knowing what this stupid third law of emotion thing was.
Well, the solution was easy. I took Holmgren's satire - changed a couple of words here and there, and changed the name of the author, and posted it on my site as my own work. The original was satirizing myself and Fetzer for thinking that the faster moving object got less force, but I just changed the names to attribute that little faux pas to someone else, and made it out to be a satire I had written myself aimed at the people I had now attributed it to.
Too easy !
Then I copied all the stuff Holmgren had sent explaining this third law of emoticon or whatever the hell the thing is and posted that as my own work to make it look like I actually understood the subject.
Too easy again !
You can see the result at the link above.
Now - just to show you what a masterful piece of plagiarism this was, I'm going to post Holmgren's original satire and then my version.
I 'll do it paragraph for paragraph. Holmgren's original in red, and mine in black.
Today, my small station wagon was involved in a head collision with a stationary Mack Truck.
Yesterday, I was driving from Tucson to Saguaro National Park in my big ol' Toyota Landcruiser. It was a perfect day -- no Wile E. Coyote and not a cloud in the sky. Unfortunately, I was involved in a collision with a big Dump Truck
I was going about 40 mph as I came around the bend and saw the truck in my path with no way around it. Utilizing what I’ve learned about physics in recent times, I realized that if I braked, I would still be going 10 to 20 miles mph at impact and thus my flimsy car faced certain obliteration in the collision with the massive truck, so instead I put the foot to the floor and was going about 110 mph by the time I hit. It was this quick thinking which saved me, because the stationary truck had little resistance to the speed of my car. I literally sliced through the truck, leaving a neat hole the exact shape of my car, with my car and I perfectly intact.I was going about 50 mph as I came over a hill and saw this big truck in my way. It was too late to steer around it. But I knew what to do! Using what I'd learned about physics on 9/11-forums recently, I knew if I hit my brakes I would still be going 25 mph at impact. My SUV would be wiped out in the collision with the huge truck, so instead I put the pedal to the metal and I must have been going 150 mph by the time I hit it. My quick thinking saved me. The stationary truck could not stand up to the massive kinetic energy of my Toyota. I sliced through that big truck and left a neat hole the exact shape of my Landcruiser (just like I always do). It was really cool how my Toyota and I remained perfectly intact
As the front of my car emerged from the other end of the truck, I realized that any moment now, my car would suddenly vaporize – and me with it, so just in time, I flung open the door and threw myself out.
Just before the front of my SUV came out from the other end of the Dump Truck, I realized that any moment my car would suddenly shred into nothing and me with it. Just in the nick of time, I flung open the door and jumped out
Moments later the car completely disappeared, although they found the steering column a few blocks away and one of the door handles flew across a line of parked cars to land on top of a van where it was apparently photographed by police.
I thought my SUV completely disappeared, but they found the steering wheel 500 feet away and apparently one of the headrests flew over Mount Lemmon (el. 9,157 ft.) and landed on top of a saguaro cactus where the sherriff photographed it.
I am eternally grateful to Jim Fetzer for saving my life, as it was his words which I remembered in that split second when I had to make the decision as to whether to brake or accelerate.
[[The speed at which impacts occur is one of their most important properties and make a huge difference ]]
Had I chosen to brake, my car and I would have been obliterated prior to impact rather than after it had been completed.
I am eternally indebted to Arabesque, reprehensor, and Greg Jenkins for saving my life because it was their words which I remembered in that split second when I had to decide whether to brake or accelerate. The speed of my impact with that huge Dump Truck made a huge difference. If I had hit my brakes, my car and I would have been wiped out.
BTW. I am grateful to the person who found my passport and handed it in. It was on the back seat when the car vaporized and of course it finished up under the truck after the car had disappeared.
P.S. I really appreciate the person from ACME Steel Airplane Company who found my passport and turned it in. It was on the back seat when I went through the Dump Truck and of course it ended up near the Dump Truck after my Landcruiser disappeared.
I am also thankful that I was driving a medium sized Holden. Constable Reynolds told me that had I been in a large Falcon, my car and I would have been obliterated on impact, but thankfully medium sized Holdens behave differently in a crash situation.
P.P.S. I am also thankful that I was driving a Toyota Landcruiser. Deputy Reynolds told me that if I had been in a hulking Ford Expedition, I would not be here today. But, thank God, Landcruisers behave differently in a crash situation.
END PLAGIARIZED ARTICLE.
As you can see I had so little understanding of how Holmgren was taking the piss out of me, that I even stupidly left my own name in the end part as the object of ridicule,but who cares ? Nobody reads any more, anyway. They just watch videos - which suits me fine, because I can ponce behind a podium and call myself and expert,and no one gets a chance to check anything.
Anyway, just to put the icing on the cake, I decided to put this at the bottom of the plagiarized posting.
"Copyright Morgan Reynolds 2006+ unless otherwise specified. Distribution of and linking to the articles on this website is strongly encouraged, as long as the content is not manipulated or distorted in anyway. "
Holmgren apparently took exception to this - he's a rather crude and blunt type,and sent me a characteristically crude and blunt message which read:
"Copyright Morgan Reynolds ? Dream on, you idiot. It's not your work, it's mine. And furthermore, the satire was written specifically to mock you and your fellow idiots, Wood and Fetzer for not even knowing what Newton;s third law was until I told you. And the reference to "distortion" is a bit rich.
If I decide to post my own writing - as it was originally written, thank you - and you want to sue me for it,then go right ahead. I'll look forward to the court case. The only thing you've copyrighted is the art of how to be a complete idiot."
MORGAN REYNOLDS EXPOSED
NO MORE GAMES . NET HOMPAGE
Is this your first visit to the site?
THIS MAN IS A COMPLETE IDIOT
HE IS ALSO A LIAR, PLAGIARIST, AND TWO FACED OPPORTUNIST WHO WILL SAY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.
THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO EXPOSING THIS FRAUD. CHECK OUT HIS SITE
AND THEN COME BACK HERE TO SEE IT ANALYZED.
ANALYSIS WILL BE ADDED PROGRESSIVELY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)