Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward by

gravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the

middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there

it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 911 vehicle attack.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles were flipped on their side or top.

Without apparent cause, hundreds of vehicles were wholly or partially melted.

Without apparent cause, hundreds of vehicles were selectively set afire though nearby paper was not.

Without apparent cause, hundreds of vehicles were suddenly turned to rust.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles had their engine blocks melted and ablaze.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles had burned interiors without exterior fire.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles had rubber and plastic melt, but not metal.

What can cause these effects?

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? :lol: What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He is highly intelligent, and... ... ...

Jack

I didn't ask what makes him better qualified than you, I asked "what exactly in his CV especially qualifies him to opine on jetliners crashing into steel framed buildings should look like."

Being intelligent doesn't specially qualify people to pose as experts on matters outside their areas of expertise. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was obviously quite bright but he believed in fairies and Houdini cut off contact with him because the author insisted he had magical powers. You have to be quite intelligent to become an engineering professor at Northwestern Univerisity but Dr. Aurthur Butz believes the Holocaust was a hoax. The lisit of smart people who believe or believed stupid things isn't a short one.

I can also cite a lot of very smart people who disagree with your views of 9/11 who unlike you and Doyle and Butz and Reynolds etc etc are commenting on subjects they are eminently qualified in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Does "Colby" consider President Bush especially qualified (or even just merely qualified) to speak about the events of 9/11?

Since he was POTUS at the time, despite his limited intelligence the answer would be obviously yes for issues within his scope of knowledge. Not that I would believe anything he said.

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?

Jack we’ve been over this before, perhaps you forgot. I don’t think it’s possible I think he either was confused or lied about it with the latter being more likely

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?

See above.

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?

What supposed “impossibility” do the videos of the crashes supposedly show?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward by

gravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the

middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there

it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4.

Jack

WTC 2 was 1362 feet tall and about 400 feet from Church st. WTC 4 was only 9 stories tall

wtc2.jpg

I think we've all seen the effects of rocks dropped into water. Under Jack's understanding of physics water being projected outward is inexplicable

511443055_71258f6e71.jpg

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? :lol: What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

You are wrong, sir...about your COMINCH.

Jack

EDITED TO ADD TRANSCRIPT:

At http://www.cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote.

STUDENT QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until days later.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being attacked, he continued to read to the classsroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

Confirmation of Bush's comments is also at http://w ww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/stor...,612354,00.html

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward by

gravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the

middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there

it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4.

Jack

WTC 2 was 1362 feet tall and about 400 feet from Church st. WTC 4 was only 9 stories tall

wtc2.jpg

I think we've all seen the effects of rocks dropped into water. Under Jack's understanding of physics water being projected outward is inexplicable

511443055_71258f6e71.jpg

Explain how the multi-ton intact section of wall flew horizontally more than 400 feet.

The physics of that must present an interesting equation, when the rest of the building

was falling by gravity. Just what OUTWARD force detached the wall and hurled it

horizontally? I am depending on your physics expertise here, because it is beyond

my understanding. According to Newton, there had to be a horizontal force, but I

cannot figure what it was. Tell us.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? :lol: What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

You are wrong, sir...about your COMINCH.

Jack

EDITED TO ADD TRANSCRIPT:

At http://www.cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote.

STUDENT QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until days later.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being attacked, he continued to read to the classsroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

Confirmation of Bush's comments is also at http://w ww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/stor...,612354,00.html

How am I wrong? Is he not an idiot? Did he not have multiple websites that made fun of his numerous verbal errors? Notice the bolded red. Your transcripts says the same thing I said that he said. You still don't know the tense. Add the single word "had" as in "had hit the tower" and it could easily mean he saw the news footage of the smoking building. Or add the word "that" as in "saw that an airplane hit the tower" and it will have the same effect. Can you say with 100% surety that he said exactly what he meant? He still could have seen the same news footage that was on shortly after the first plane hit before the second hit that showed the first tower burning when they still didn't know what kind of plane hit the towers. Perhaps it is silly to assume that a plane hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. But he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Plus, before the second plane hit, the various news stations didn't know what type of plane or the cause either.

And again there is this: Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? :lol: What ever happened to plausible deniability?

Do you really want to assert that he is a master orator? I still think he's an idiot with a speech impediment. Whether or not he is my commander in chief or not has nothing to do with it. As I've said multiple times before, my miltary status is unrelated to my posting.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3

He (Mr Keith) also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines...

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

Some more interesting stuff - B767 pilots discussing various limitations:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/tech-log/9961...vmo-mmo-uk.html

Please note that it is not a 9-11 discussion, simply professional B767 pilots discussing performance with each other. Note that one talks about the Flap Limitations; he talks about a Flap 15/20 (degrees) airspeed limitation of 210 knots - which is about 240 miles per hour. Why would they have a flap limitation (which is used at low level, during takeoff and landing) 20 mph ABOVE the speed which it is claimed by this "expert" the aircraft would break apart?

How stupid does this Keith think people are, that they won't check on "facts"? IMO, more evidence that the "truth movement" is an oxymoron.

Still, this is only discussion by B767 pilots on an aviation forum from 6 months PRIOR to 9-11. Take it with a grain of salt until I produce evidence to support those figures.

Edited by Evan Burton
corrected spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...