FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

Pickup or delivery at Church and Murray?

Jack

[Len Colby]

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented.

[Craig Lamson]

Joe Keith updates JOE'S LAW.

...........

Joe's Law

Joseph Keith

Retired Aerospace Engineer

June 13, 2008

Revised and updated on July 24, 2008

Joe's Law. It's immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren't immutable, I wouldn't have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: "Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected." The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: "Truth goes through three stages; first it's violently opposed, then it's highly ridiculed, and finally it's accepted as an obvious fact." Adolph Hitler once wrote: "Little people tell only little lies. They don't dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth."

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force's NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!" By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don't have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane's nose and then use your remote's single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton's first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton's third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe's Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: "What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job." Well, here's what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media's defense will be: "We didn't fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!" The question now is: When this fakery(5) is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe's Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.

Email Joseph Keith

(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.

(2) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tM3BUDkz-NY Michael Hezarkhani video, real time http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.

(3) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9GXR_FNuqOA Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid...999054184235899 Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.

(4) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ Luc Courchesne video, real time. http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9mxlmkkUvtI Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.

(5) How they faked it: http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb67/genghis6199/

I guess "they" brainwashed everyone who witnessed the planes crash into the towers. How does that square with "joes law" (snicker) ?

Morgan Reynolds discusses witnesses:

.....

What about Witnesses?

The “dog that did not bark” at the WTC was that there were almost no reports of a

deafening sound from incoming “kamikaze airliners.” Everyone should have heard

thundering airliners screaming at above-top speed, and only the deaf could have missed

it. The speed of sound at sea level is approximately 760 mph, easily exceeding the

alleged speeds of Flight 11 and 175 airliners. Testimony about the ear-splitting sound of

the above-top-speed airliners should have been nearly universal yet few remarked about

the deafening sound or said their eardrums nearly split open because it was so painful.

Full throttle jet engines will emit 130-140 db at their source, vastly in excess of the

loudness in front of amplified speakers at a rock concert (approximately 110-120 dB).

When dB levels increase by 10, the subjective loudness roughly doubles, so 130 dB is

twice the cacophony of being in the front row at a rock concert and 140 dB would be four

times the loudness at a rock concert. Any lengthy exposure to 140 dB courtesy of, say,

being within 200 feet of a full throttle jetliner is dangerous and at the pain threshold.61

Few, if any, complaints of such deafening noise from airliners were reported at the

WTC.62

An important if secondary line of evidence is to listen to those who were there.

There are only two systematic studies of witness testimony that I am aware of. I

participated in a research study of 503 witness statements from 501 first-responder

witnesses compiled by the 9/11 Task Force. That compilation points clearly and directly

to the plain fact that the actual eye- and ear-witnesses to the event DO NOT confirm that

jetliners crashed into the WTC on 9/11.63 In the only known systematic review of

63 August 12, 2005: “New York Releases Records of 9/11 Emergency Responders.”

The City of New York releases a large volume of records from 9/11. These include over

12,000 pages of oral histories—testimonies from 503 firefighters, paramedics, and

emergency medical technicians involved in the 9/11 emergency response—and about 15

hours of radio communications between dispatchers and firefighters. The oral histories

witness statements, the report reveals surprisingly little support for the official airliner

“impact” stories. Clearly, we can see that the witnesses do not describe events consistent

with wide-body jetliners hitting the WTC at speeds of over 400 mph and 500 mph,

respectively. Instead, and in the aggregate, they indicate that the witnesses are not sure

what, if any object, they saw and are only clear on having heard or both seen and heard

explosions.

To be more specific, the study found that of 501 individual witnesses, only 16

claimed to see a plane before the hit at WTC 1 and 16 witnesses claimed to hear

something like a plane before the hit at WTC 1. Ten of those claimed to be both ear and

eyewitnesses. There is little or no consistency among these reports. Only one witness

claimed to see and hear a plane before the WTC 1 event. Only one witness, William

Walsh, described an American Airlines plane, although all interviews were conducted

weeks after 9/11, plenty of time for government and media accounts to influence and

control memories.

The study found that at the time of the hit on the south tower, 21 witnesses

reported they were inside the twin towers and 96 were outside, either at the WTC or

within six blocks, for a total of 117 witnesses potentially able to see and hear an

incoming airliner at a reasonably close distance. Only 19 claimed that they saw a plane

and 98 made no such claim, so only one in six reported seeing a plane, a surprisingly

small percentage. Only 20 reported hearing a plane, 97 heard no plane, so only 17%

reported hearing the sound of a plane. That is astounding testimony, given that such a

speeding airliner would emit sound exceeding that of the front row at a rock concert.

Only two witnesses inside the towers reported hearing a plane, a shockingly low

percentage if there were truly a 130-140 dB noise approaching at the speed of sound

(sound travels at the speed of sound, approximately 760 mph near sea level). Among

those claiming to see or hear a plane, there is little or no consistency among their reports.

Some are rather odd statements, for example, Thomas Fitzpatrick said, “The noise from

the plane was enough to make you not want to look up. I thought the plane was actually

going to land in the street to be honest with you. The noise was outrageous. When it hit

the building it was even worse.” Yet no one claimed to definitively see and hear a

screaming airliner hit either tower at high speed in this sample of first responders. Most

witnesses reported hearing or seeing or just hearing a sudden explosion in towers 1 and 2

and explained that they did not know a plane had hit it and only found out later from the

news that “it was a plane.”64

Approximately 100 of the first responder civilian interviews were redacted, or one

in five, some heavily redacted, for example, see interviews of Rene Davila who recently

died and Ronald Coyne. Others were concluded abruptly. What are the authorities

hiding?

No surprise, witness testimony is often problematic and contradictory. What is

surprising is given the traumatizing nature of 9/11, the lack of psychological and material

preparation for the shock of the 9/11 attacks by the population, the vast governmental and

media control over information and psychology, plus false memory syndrome, that so

few first responders claimed to have seen and heard an airliner hit WTC 1 or WTC 2,

even though weeks and months had passed after that fateful morning before their

interviews conducted by their FDNY superiors. None of the witness statements were

under oath or under hostile cross-examination. Some of the anomalies in witness

testimony might be resolved under oath in deposition.

The evidential case for the remarkable dearth of witnesses claiming they saw and

heard an airliner hit a twin tower is deftly presented in a radio interview by Ace Baker on

January 15, 2007, including audio clips of commentary by network anchors and reporters

on 9/11, as well interviews with alleged witnesses to the alleged WTC airliner events.65

Most eyewitnesses saw no planes and heard no jetliners yet many insist they

heard and saw the initial explosion at each tower come from inside. For example,

twenty-four of 39 witnesses failed to see or hear a plane in the study of the witness

statements in Never Forget.66 Only two witnesses of 39 claimed to both see and hear a

plane, and both were first responders. The "no planers" like so many downtown that

morning failed to report seeing or hearing a plane, and some insisted that the initial

explosion in each tower came from within. Many witnesses remarked that they only

"learned later" that a plane had hit the tower.

Given the conflicting witness reports, eye- and ear-witness testimony must be

described as problematic and inconclusive at this point. One issue is that memories are

remarkably malleable and “one of the cleverest and most powerful techniques for

planting highly implausible false memories involves the use of fake photographs.”67

Some of 9/11 is about false memories. Further, we cannot completely reject the

hypothesis that the unidentified technician/perpetrators may have used drones, missiles or

other aircraft disguised to look like airliners. There may have been other “black

technology” used to deceive enemies and civilians about what was flying or not flying.

The complete story of what the perpetrators actually did to pull off their magic show has

yet to be told. Perhaps the most fascinating testimony among plane "huggers" remains

that of scuba specialist Steven Bienkowski who said he was aboard a NYPD helicopter

southwest of the South Tower as a plane approached on 9/11: To him it "looked like an

evil magician's trick...nothing like what I would have imagined...the plane just

completely disappeared...being there was surreal." Surreal indeed. Witness accounts deserve additional investigation and research but one thing is

clear: no planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11 as maintained by apologists for the

regime. The evidence, especially the physical evidence and laws of physics, is

overwhelmingly against the official myth that airliners “entered” the twin towers. The

claim that Boeing 767 airliners crashed into the twin towers is indefensible. The towers

likely suddenly acquired their gashes that morning via directed energy weapons (DEW),

though that is a research topic for another occasion.

A major problem for the perpetrators was that they knew the plane videos were

unconvincing because they did not look real, so they employed people like the scripted

“Harley T-shirt” shill on the street, interviewed on Fox News, who said: “…several

minutes after the first plane had hit, I saw this plane come out of nowhere, and just

scream right into the side of the twin tower, exploding through the other side, and then I

witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural

failure, probably because the fire was just too intense.”68 Amazing, isn’t it? This

obvious plant, a guy in a Harley shirt, brought closure to America by explaining

everything in one sentence, explaining it all, enunciating the same script replayed by

NIST and its contractors years later in more elaborate regalia.

What happened to the passengers allegedly aboard Flights 11 and 175? To

paraphrase author Jim Marrs, “I did not plan 9/11 so I do not know.” We will never

know everything about such a complex crime as 9/11. Rarely is such perfection

achieved, nor is it an obstacle to obtain criminal convictions and plaintiff victories in the

courts.69 Searches of public records by 9/11 researchers support the suspicion that many

names on the (variable) passenger manifests were fake.70 Ellen Mariani, widow of Louis

Neil Mariani who allegedly was aboard Flight 175 apparently has never found other

family survivors of victims allegedly aboard Flight 175.71 Perhaps the defendants in my

federal qui tam lawsuit possess information about missing persons that may be found in

discovery. The query, “What about the passengers?,” serves as a rhetorical device to

establish the presupposition that jetliner crashes occurred. The premise is: Since so

many innocent people died, it is unworthy to challenge the very occurrence of the alleged

jetliner events. In legal proceedings, the question “what about the passengers?” would be

stricken as being misleading since it presupposes a state of facts not shown to exist.

The court is the right forum for these disputes to be tested via evidence.

Unproven assertions cannot be used as facts in a court of law, at least with diligent

counsel to challenge them. For that, I am grateful.

Lipstick on a pig Jack...

Cut to the chase of this "research"..yes people saw and heard the planes but lets just pretend they were wacky because thats what is required to support the moronic story that the planes were CGI!

Fricking amazing to see the mental gymnastics loony CT's will attempt to pimp failed positions.

[Len Colby]

Joe Keith updates JOE'S LAW.Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!" By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Since it seems "Joe" was an unlicensed electrical engineer who ended up working as a software engineer it is understandable that his understanding of Newtonian physics is even more limited than an English teacher's. The mass of the plane contiued into the towers because of the conservation of momentum. More instrutive would be Leslie's law as in Leslie Robertson.

“[WTC lead structural engineer Leslie E.] Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

"Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html

Call me crazy but I put more faith in the calculations of the man who designed the building than some guy who claims to be a software engineer who did contract work for Boeing but belives 767s would shake apart if they flew about 5% over takeoff speed. Note that Robertson calculated a large hole even in the case of a 707, which was about 20% smaller than a 767, and flying at 180 MPH 1/3 the speed of flight 175. Since KE is based on the square of velocity the projected crash would have been 1/10 as energetic.

[Len Colby]

Morgan Reynolds discusses witnesses:

.....

What about Witnesses?

The “dog that did not bark” at the WTC was that there were almost no reports of a

deafening sound from incoming “kamikaze airliners.”

Rubbish jets are only especially noisy when accelrating etc most witnesses were over 1000 feet away. Numerous witnesses including some inside the towers reported seeing the planes. Some mentioned the noise.

"In a normal three dimensional setting, the intensity of sound waves will be attenuated according to the inverse square of the distance from the source."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundproofing

1000 feet = 10x 100 feet, 10 squared = 100 so the noise 1000 feet away would have been 1% that 100 feet away

Edited July 31, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

RUBBISH. I have been underneath passenger jets landing and taking off at Love Field

in Dallas. The noise is deafening, even in a car. And these are the small jets of SW Airlines.

Military aircraft take off and land at the JRB FW, formerly Carswell AFB. I patronize

a produce stand at the end of the runway. Four engine jets taking off and landing

are ear-splitting, and the whine of F16s practicing touch-and-go landings even

inside a car hurts your ears.

Jack

[Jack White]

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented.

Colby's degree in spelling competence is revealed in as he spells EXCERT...non-existent.

Jack

[Jack White]

New study by Dr. Fetzer:

New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11

---------------------------------

Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:25.

Abstract. Five arguments have emerged as among the strongest proofs that

video fakery took place on 9/11, namely: that United 175 is traveling at

an impossible speed for its altitude; that the entry into the South Tower

with no debris is physically impossible; that this occurs in uniform

motion in violation of Newton's laws; that the Naudet brothers’ video of

AA 11 hitting the North Tower reveals "cut outs" being created by

secondary explosions; and that the Evan Fairbank's video of United 175

displays similar problems.

Madison, WI (diatribune) July 30, 2008 – A recent dispute between

prominent 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett and founder of Scholars for 9/11

Truth James H. Fetzer has led to the presentation of what appear to be

five of the strongest, if not the strongest, arguments for video fakery

on 9/11. Indeed, they are strong enough that Fetzer, who spent 35 years

teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, has described

them as “decisive” in establishing the complicity of the media in

misleading the American people about the events of that day. “It is a sad

commentary on the state of freedom of the press that we now have

overwhelming evidence that the mass media – television, in particular –

was crucial to the deception.”

Barrett, who is running for Congress in Wisconsin’s 3rd District as an

Independent Libertarian, challenged Fetzer to offer stronger and more

formal support for his views on video fakery, which have evolved during

the past year and a half from skepticism to acceptance. “During that

time, I conducted more than fifteen interviews with students of video

fakery and became convinced by the evidence they produced that there is

no reasonable alternative explanation.” Ironically, he and Barrett

jointly host a radio program, “The Dynamic Duo”, on gcnlive.com, where

Barrett hosts Mondays and Fridays and Fetzer the rest of the week. The

arguments that Fetzer has found to be the most compelling were published

in Barrett’s Truth Jihad News (July 16, 2008) as follows:

(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on)

have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael

Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates).

While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet

altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air

is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and

designer of the Boeing "shaker system", has explained, in the video

entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed", which is archived at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY . While Anthony Lawson has

claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is

clearly not diving.

(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be

impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is

now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the

building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without

displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the

fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been

the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being

dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary

building, as early critics and late--from the Web Fairy to Morgan

Reynolds--have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another

physical impossibility.

(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also

violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first

law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a

force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of

the force applied. According to the third, there is an equal and opposite

reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and

building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides

no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the

plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length

into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case

if these are real objects and real interactions. His paper is archived at

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...bpage1=joes_law.

(4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact

of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and

concrete in the form of the "cut outs" that subsequently appear at the

time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A

study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after

the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut out in the

North Tower. Indeed, an extension

of the right wing's cut out was even "penciled in". Take a look at the

study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2",

http://www.revver.com/video/605306/911-amateur-part-2/. It is fair to

infer that the same technique was employed to create the cut out images

in the South Tower.

(5) The same student of the videos has examines the Evan Fairbank's

footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the

same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris

from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of

the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying

through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to

determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this

explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at

"9/11 Amateur, Part 3”, at

http://www.revver.com/video/605306/911-amateur-part-3/. Killtown has now

extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as can be

observed in the very first image currently archived on his site,

killtown.blkogspot.com.

“The evidence is so visual and easier to assess in video format that I

find it more than a little puzzling why Kevin insists that the arguments

should be presented in scholarly, written papers”, Fetzer said. “But the

fact of the matter is that Morgan Reynolds has already done that in his

exceptional study, ‘Plane Deceit at the World Trade Center’, 54 pages

with 71 footnotes, which is archived on his web site,

http://nomoregames.net.” Reynolds, the former Chief Economist for the

Department of Labor in the Bush Administration, is an accomplished

scholar with a half-dozen books to his credit and innumerable articles.

Fetzer, who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of

science, is the author or editor of 28 books, with three on JFK and one

on 9/11.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth has previously published a press release about

this subject, “Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery" (July 28, 2007),

which is archived at 911scholars.org. What is most powerful about these

new arguments, Fetzer said, is that they display the occurrence of events

that would require violations of laws of physics, which is not possible.

Laws of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Which means

that, if they are being shown in videos, they cannot be authentic. . As

Ace Baker, musician, composer and expert on digital processing, has

recently observed, “9/11 seems to have been a media job as much as it was

an inside job.” His own study, “Chopper Five Composite”, may be found at

acebaker.com.

Video fakery and no planes are not the same thing, since, although the

planes must have been present if the videos were authentic, they might or

might not have been present if the videos

are fake. They could have been faked for the purpose of concealing

features of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings.

“Although the absence of planes is even more controversial than video

fakery”, Fetzer observed, “there is considerable circumstantial evidence

suggesting that, in this case, video fakery may have been required to

conceal the absence of planes.” The alleged eyewitness reports, for

example, are far fewer than we tend to suppose. The occurrence of false

memory syndrome appears to be a simpler explanation than violations of

Newton’s laws.

The debris often cited in support of the existence of real planes has

been repeatedly challenged itself. The engine found on the sidewalk in

New York appears to have come from a Boeing 737, not a 767. A piece of

debris from an American Airlines crash found at the Pentagon has been

traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. Col. George Nelson,

USAF (ret.) has observed that each of these planes had thousands of

uniquely identifiable component parts, not a single one of which has been

recovered from any of the four "crash sites". And John Lear, an aviation

expert, has pointed out that, before any commercial carrier can pull away

from the terminal, the captain must submit an "envelope" certifying that

the plane was ready for flight. Yet not one of these envelopes has been

produced, either.

Perhaps even more importantly, Elias Davidsson has a masterful study of

the lack of evidence the alleged Arab terrorists were aboard any of the

planes, among the most important papers in 9/11 research,

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/sto.../noevidence.pdf. “I

know that Kevin is familiar with his work, because Kevin featured

Davidsson as a guest on "The Dynamic Duo" (July 11, 2008). I don't know

what he makes of all of this,” Fetzer said, “but the available evidence

could be explained with a high likelihood if there were no planes and all

of this had to be faked. I submit that any rational mind considering the

evidence presented here should similarly conclude that video fakery took

place in New York and that there is a very strong possibility that the

planes were an illusion. How else is this evidence to be explained? What

would be a more reasonable alternative?”

__________________________

McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder,

Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Research

http://www.diatribune.com/new-proof-video-fakery-911

[Len Colby]

RUBBISH. I have been underneath passenger jets landing and taking off at Love Field

in Dallas. The noise is deafening, even in a car. And these are the small jets of SW Airlines.

Military aircraft take off and land at the JRB FW, formerly Carswell AFB. I patronize

a produce stand at the end of the runway. Four engine jets taking off and landing

are ear-splitting, and the whine of F16s practicing touch-and-go landings even

inside a car hurts your ears.

Jack

Witness accounts below compiled by Mark Roberts. There are too many eyewitness accounts to easily count of them about 17 specificlly mention the noise. Some of the others were quite distant (Brooklyn, NJ, St. Vincent’s Hospital). I guess they were all hallucinating, saw a hologram or are in on it, after all most of them are fire fighters and scumbag Alex Jones says they were In on the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens and hundreds of their colleagues, then lied about.

Links to the sources and witness accounts of the 1st crash can be found here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysa...ountsofthenycai

UA Flight 175 Impact

"I just happened to raise my head watching the Statue of Liberty and as I watched I saw this giant aircraft ... coming in slow motion towards me -- eye level, eye contact. And I just froze."

United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the building, smashing through walls, bringing down the ceiling, breaking computers and overturning every desk -- except the one Praimnath had ducked under.

"I'm trembling and I'm crying, 'Lord, don't leave me here to die!' And I realize that I'm covered with debris when I try to get up," he said. "Peeking through the rubble, all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was."

Stanley Praimnath Source

"...I sat down with this guy who became my "buddy." Tim's story was that he was on the 86th floor of the second tower, when the plane hit the first tower. They started to evacuate, but after going down a dozen flights they were instructed that it was only the first tower that had been hit and that they could go back. So he was opening the door on the 74th floor at the exact moment that the second plane crashed into the 74th floor. He actually saw the wing before the explosion. He was splashed with jet fuel, but the explosion blew him back into the stairwell, saving his life. With other people helping him, because he was blinded by the jet fuel, he ran down 74 flights of stairs. A medic was lavaging his eyes when the first building fell.

Source

At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I HEARD A LOUD ROAR OF A JET, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building.

FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro

At that time, I started walking towards Engine 3. Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I HEARD THE SOUND OF A JET PLANE. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy xxxx. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up.

At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower.

FDNY firefighter Scott Holowach

Upon that time I HEARD A PLANE ROAR. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low come right across us and with A LOUD, YOU KNOW, THE ENGINES REVVED UP, and I had mentioned to him, I had no idea that it was heading towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame, of fire coming up, and it was like disbelief, and he had gotten on the radio and notified the dispatcher another plane had struck the World Trade Center.

FDNY firefighter Stephen Zasa

"While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned HEARD THE SOUND OF JET ENGINES and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTC Tower #2. Following the impact an enormous explosion occurred causing debris to begin to fall down all around the WTC complex."

PAPD PO James Hall Source (pg. 5)

Boatswain's Mate 1st Class Robin Shipley, at the helm of a Station New York rigid-hull inflatable, took up station at the mouth of the East River between Governors Island and Manhattan's Battery Park. "We understood that a Cessna had accidentally collided into a tower of the WTC," Shipley said. "Shortly after our arrival on-scene we saw a large commercial jetliner approaching from Staten Island at a very low altitude.

"It was hard to believe what we were seeing," she continued, "but it took only fractions of a moment to realize what we were about to see. The plane veered to our right, crossed Governors Island, turned left-crossing over our boat-- and turned into a vertical position as it flew into the tower." The reaction of her three-man crew was, "My God, we are under attack." Source

While scores of boats and small craft were moving toward lower Manhattan, the Coast Guard's VTS center for New York harbor shifted into high gear. Cdr. Daniel Ronan, chief of the center's Waterways Management Division, was told there was "a lot of smoke" coming from Manhattan. He arrived at the VTS site within moments. Using radio transmissions from vessels in the harbor and the center's own surveillance cameras, he quickly evaluated the situation. "We saw the second plane hit the South Tower," he said. "There was a mood of disbelief and anger. Every person in the room knew that this was not an accident-and that it was time to go into emergency mode.

Source

"We were standing with the chief and we heard somebody yell, 'There's another plane!'" Mosiello recalled. "THEN IT CAME INTO THE RANGE OF MY HEARING. AND IT SOUNDED LOUDER AND LOUDER AND LOUDER AND THERE IT WAS ... it went right into the building, into (the south tower). Now we have a real problem on our hands. We have two buildings hit by planes. Thousands and thousands of people trapped."

–FDNY Chief's assistant Steve Mosiello Source

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, HIS COMPANY SAW THE SECOND PLANE ROAR OVER THEIR HEADS, "IT SOUNDED LIKE A FREIGHT TRAIN," he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2.

Source

We were going on the first alarm to the staging area by the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. En route to the staging area, we were going down Columbia Street, saw the second plane strike the building and we went from being a, quote, good job or a rough job, or we were going to earn our money today.

FDNY firefighter Joseph Sullivan

Right before the tolls on the Brooklyn side heading towards Manhattan at the Battery Tunnel, we were sitting in traffic and we watched United Flight 175 hit tower two, which was the south tower of the World Trade Center.

At that time everybody was just in shock. The firefighters and I were just really trying to get through the traffic when the plane hit, and we were just standing there in like awe of what was happening.

FDNY paramedic Kevin Darnowski

"I looked over my shoulder and saw the United Airlines plane coming. It came over the Statute of Liberty. It was just like a movie. It just directly was guided into the second tower."

Lakshman Achuthan Source

No sooner did I run downstairs and look up, than I saw the second plane strike the south tower.

FDNY lieutenant Murray Murad

Just then out of the corner of my eye I could see this plane. Just remember it was dark in the shadow. It looked low. I thought, what the heck is the guy doing? I watched it, watched him turn and crash right into the south tower.

FDNY Battalion Chief Brian O'Flaherty

After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten. We were watching it. We could see it from here. We have an unobstructed view. The other guys came up too. All six of us were on the roof.

Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.

I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building.

FDNY firefighter James Murphy

The second plane came in. IT WAS THE BIGGEST NOISE I EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE.

Q. Did you see the plane?

A. Yeah. WE SAW IT, WE HEARD IT, WE FELT THE HEAT FROM IT, THE DEBRIS.

FDNY EMT Sean Cunniffe

And all of a sudden, it was like it just took off across the bay. I couldn't believe how fast it went. At first, I thought it was just somebody trying to take a look at Manhattan. And it just went right across right into the building.

FDNY Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona Source

I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building. I just watched it coming in.

FDNY EMS Captain Mark Stone

I stood there staring and then watched eventually the second plane. I saw it, It looked like it was circling coming south then came back north striking the south side of tower No. 2.

FDNY paramedic Joel Pierce

It was at that time when I saw the second plane hit the building. I called a mayday. I told them the second plane hit the south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors of the south tower. Debris was falling, body parts were falling. We ducked for cover inside Engine 7, but the rig was getting bombarded with debris from the building, debris from the plane. We saw bodies crash landing right next to the rig. So we couldn't stay there.

FDNY firefighter Joseph Casaliggi

A man who was standing on the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge, Nicholas Gasper, who works for the New York City Transit Department, said he saw a four-engine plane ``doing a tilt into the building. From what I saw it looked like the place sliced into the tower,'' referring to the second impact. He said he heard the building shake. ``I am still shaking,'' he added.

Source

A second man who was three or four blocks away from the tower, Terrance Phillips, 35, from New Jersey, said he was looking at the fire. ``Then I saw a 747 or some kind of plane. It crashed in and exploded. People were watching and then they started stampeding away.''

Source

Rich Bautista, 56, a construction consultant, was headed to a 9 a.m. appointment on 59 Maiden Lane, two blocks away from the World Trade Center, when he heard the first blast. "It was so fast, IT WAS SO LOUD," he recalls. "I just came out of the Fulton Street subway when I heard this terrifying explosion. I looked up and saw smoke surrounding the World Trade Center. People started running. There was mass hysteria." Bautista's co-worker Ernie Kneuer, 29, saw flames pouring out of the building. They went up to the 40th floor of their building just in time to see the second plane collide.

Source

About when we got to Chambers Street, by the college, we saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. I told my partner slow down and wait to see if the building was going to collapse right away, because you could see it swaying. After a couple of minutes of waiting, we didn't see it collapse, so we started heading in further.

FDNY EMT Charles Gshlecht, from a few blocks north.

After the first plane hit, we were here, actually. We could see the towers actually from here. So after the first plane hit, we saw it on the news. So we came up here to look out the window, and we saw it. We watched the second plane hit. Just as the second plane hit, that's when we received the alarm.

FDNY firefighter Joseph Galasso

Q. The second plane?

A. I saw it coming in, I HEARD IT, and bang, it hit.

FDNY Firefighter Thomas Gaby

By this time, staff were filing into Ray’s office, because it provided the best view of the Twin Towers. They stood there, watching the fire, watching the people jump. It was barely after 9 a.m. Another co-worker shrieked: "I see another plane!" United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower — just as American Airlines Flight 11 had struck the North Tower minutes before — this time in full view of all those who were watching. The impact shook Ray’s office building. Almost instantaneously, Ray "saw a huge piece of the plane shoot out from the second tower, heading in a decline curve" right in the direction of his building. "It’s gonna hit us!," he hollered.

Ray, in 100 Church Street Source

I was watching, we were watching the first WTC building, watching the people fall and the flames burn when I saw a plane, a passenger size plane, come out of the sky, arc around and crash DIRECTLY into the other tower!! It left a huge hole and smoke and flames. People in the office were shouting and crying.

–Andy, in the Woolworth Building Source

I was going to get my car tuned in New Jersey and saw one of the World Trade Center's towers on fire. I pulled off the road into Liberty State Park, sat on a bench there and then saw a plane fly low over the harbor and crash into the other tower.

Photographer Bob Gruen,who photographed the explosion Source

At this moment HEARING A COMING SOUND I RAISED MY HEAD. No! This is not happening. A big passenger jet was right above me. It was a blink of an eye. A fraction of second later the airplane disappeared inside WTC tower. I was standing at the base of the building that was the target of terrorist attack. There was no place take the cover. It was to late to run away. All I could do was just to cover my head with my bare hands and wait for the miracle. Parts of the building and from the airplane were falling on the street around me.

Maciej Swulinski Source

In the distance we saw another jet flying directly for the Towers. We could not believe our eyes - with a huge fireball, the jet flew directly into the South tower.

Daryl Bryant

Then someone pointed and said "look." It was at that point that I saw another plane. We were all wondering where it was going. In horror, we all watched as it hit the second tower. I WILL NEVER GET THAT SOUND OR THAT VISION OUT OF MY HEAD.

Bonnie Source

Ted Campanello '85 worked on the 29th floor of WTC Building 7 (the smaller, third building to collapse) as a vice president for Salomon Smith Barney. He was on his way to the building and looking up at the smoke coming from the first tower when he saw the second plane coming out of the corner of his eye. When it hit, he ran into the basement of the Hilton Millennium Hotel but after about five minutes went back outside and headed east...

Source

Bob Borski, 32, a financial director at the AIG insurance organization, with offices six blocks from the World Trade Center, was standing on the 15th floor with his boss, watching as the first tower burned. Then he saw United Airlines Flight 175 heading for the second tower.

It just doesn't fit into your mind -- I'm used to seeing planes and helicopters disappear behind the building. And then they come out the other side. But this was so low and it literally disappeared into the building. You think, well, what would that look like? Would it bounce off? But it's like the building swallowed up the plane. It was a swift explosion, it wasn't resounding. It was boom -- like a door shutting. Quick and loud. That silvery shiny plane, just going right into the building -- I'll replay it in my mind over and over.

Source

I looked out my bedroom window and saw the second plane HURTLING FULL POWER across New York harbor, flying low, tilted almost sideways, apparently coming right for me. When it passed over my building to pierce the South Tower, my reaction became a tiny piece of NBC News's coverage of the day.

Eliott Walker, Today Show producer Source

Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then WE HEARD A LOUD ROAR and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. WE HEARD THE ENGINES SPEED UP as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball.

–Carl Cuneff Source

One of the officers behind me said, "Oh my God, Tracey, another airplane is coming!" I COULD HEAR THE PLANE JUST COMING AND COMING, AND THE ENGINE WAS GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER. Then I heard it hit the South Tower. There was a shower of debris and parts of the plane... Airplane parts were falling and crushing police cars...

–NYPD Officer Tracey Donahoo Source

I work at St Vincent's hospital in downtown Manhattan. ...Our patients were asking us to turn their stretchers around so that they could look out the window (They later would be sorry as they had a clear view of the second plane's impact).

Michael Dempsey Source

I walked over to the office areas facing Lower Manhattan. We saw the second plane hit the other Tower. We all knew this was no accident!!!

Michael Anthony Nardiello Source

I watched the plane coming in and it looked it was going to turn right into our building. I hit the floor and the explosion of second plane rocked our building. I could feel the ripple of the explosion right through my stomach. It was powerful.

Pete J. Source

I was early for a meeting in Weehawken,NJ that morning. I parked behind the hotel I was to have the meeting in and looked across the Hudson to see a plane hit the tower. Smoke and flames appeared as I struggled to comprehend what had just happened. A few minutes later, the second plane hit.

Craig Wielkotz Source

This time, a lot of people saw the plane coming.

George A. Buckley III Source

All of a sudden WE BEGAN TO HEAR WHAT SOUNDED LIKE A FREIGHT TRAIN GOING OVER OUR BUILDING. It looked more like a missile until the last second when the plane banked on its side and we saw the two wings as it plunged right into the 2nd tower. The building swayed on impact and we felt the heat and the blast shock like it was a slap in the face.

Kevin J. Dabulis Source

I was standing with my colleagues, staring in horror at the smoke and fire coming out of the south side of 1 World Trade Center, when, WITH A ROAR, A HUGE BOEING 767 FLEW LOW OVER MY LEFT SHOULDER and slipped into the second tower (see CNN video link below, you'll hear roar and understand what I mean by slipped). Screaming, I fled away, not conscious of the explosion or the fireball that resulted.

...Until such time as I see "the Drogin evidence" blogged and linked and debated as much as the reconstructions using videogame technology by these idiots, I suggest that any readers of this consider that the 9/11 "truth" movement is merely another stupid variation on Holocaust denial.

Barry Drogin: My Personal September 11 Page

[Len Colby]

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented.

Colby's degree in spelling competence is revealed in as he spells EXCERT...non-existent.

Jack

This coming from the guy who recently typed "November 11, 1999" when he meant "September 11, 2001" If you are so desperate to find errors in my posts you have to point out an obvious typo you're desperate.

[Jack White]

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented.

Dr. Reynolds presents his CV...Colby should do likewise to establish HIS qualifications:

........

Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Morgan Reynolds

Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Anlaysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets.

Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel.

Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates.

Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free-market economists, scholars and policy advocates.

.....

Show us yours, Colby.

Jack

[Len Colby]

New study by Dr. Fetzer:

New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11

---------------------------------

Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:25.

Abstract. Five arguments have emerged as among the strongest proofs that

video fakery took place on 9/11,

[...]

http://www.diatribune.com/new-proof-video-fakery-911[/url]

You and Fetzer and the other no-planers can repackage the same fallicies as many times as you want they still don't add up to real evidence. No planers are considered fringe quacks even in the "truth movement" for a good reason.

[Len Colby]

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented.

Dr. Reynolds presents his CV...Colby should do likewise to establish HIS qualifications:

........

Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Morgan Reynolds

Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Anlaysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets.

Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel.

Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates.

Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free-market economists, scholars and policy advocates.

.....

Show us yours, Colby.

Jack

My CV is not relevant since I'm not claiming any special expertise. See my bio if you are truely interested. I expect people to be convinced by the strength of my arguments and the evidence I produce.

If the topic was related to economics his CV would be relevant but sinces its not it isn't. Humor me Jack and tell us what exactly in his CV especially qualifies him to opine on jetliners crashing into steel framed buildings should look like.

[Jack White]

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented.

Dr. Reynolds presents his CV...Colby should do likewise to establish HIS qualifications:

........

Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Morgan Reynolds

Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Anlaysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets.

Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel.

Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates.

Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free-market economists, scholars and policy advocates.

.....

Show us yours, Colby.

Jack

My CV is not relevant since I'm not claiming any special expertise. See my bio if you are truely interested. I expect people to be convinced by the strength of my arguments and the evidence I produce.

If the topic was related to economics his CV would be relevant but sinces its not it isn't. Humor me Jack and tell us what exactly in his CV especially qualifies him to opine on jetliners crashing into steel framed buildings should look like.

He is highly intelligent, and... ... ...

Jack

[Jack White]

A "lurker" emailed me some questions for Colby:

...........

"Colby" said about former Bush administration official, Dr. Morgan Reynolds: "Dr Reynolds' degree is in economics thus he is not especially qualified to in the matters he discusses here. The excert adds nothing new it is little more than a rewording of fallicies Jack already presented."

Questions.

1. Does "Colby" consider President Bush especially qualified (or even just merely qualified) to speak about the events of 9/11? If so, then what does "Colby" have to say about the fact that

President Bush said that he saw the first plane crash into the WTC? Would "Colby" kindly explain to us how that could have been possible in light of the fact that video of the first hit had not yet been shown

on TV at the time Bush said he saw it happen? Would "Colby" kindly explain whether he agrees with those who have speculated that Bush was watching a closed circuit TV transmission in his limo? If "Colby"

disagrees with that explanation, then what other explanation is there? Does he think that Bush had been tricked in the same manner as audiences at a magic show?

2. Videos of the "crashes" show an impossibility. Does "Colby" think that the videos have been tampered with or is it his position that the "I can't believe it's not butter" explanation is the truth, despite

the physical evidence to the contrary?