XPost: alt.building.engineering, alt.conspiracy, aus.aviation   
   XPost: aus.politics, alt.politics, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america   
   From: exra@aol.com   
      
   We Have Some Holes   
   in the Plane Stories*   
   By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.   
      
   Charlie Sheen contends that my June 9 article "provides an excellent summary of   
   evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers" but that about a   
   third of my article supports "the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers,   
   the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of   
   the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01." My article "thus weds the thesis of   
   controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175,   
   77, and 93 crashed where reported." Charlie Sheen believes that this is   
   "unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by   
   associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and   
   are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack - especially the   
   survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights."   
   Charlie Sheen's critique uses intimidating language-"lack scientific merit,   
   easily debunked, inherently offensive"-to denounce someone of a contrary mind   
   about the government story of hi-jacked jetliners. This article constitutes   
   part II of my reply to him and here is part I. Many 9/11 researchers would be   
   surprised to learn that the controversy over the reported crashes of Flights   
   11, 175, 77, and 93 has been scientifically resolved and settled in favor of   
   the official story. Whatever the state of disputation over crashes may be, the   
   WTC demolition theory is in no danger of being discredited. Let's make this   
   statement in bold letters so that Charlie Sheen and others worried about   
   "unity" within the vaunted 9/11 truth movement cannot fail to understand:   
   WTC demolition is truth inviolate, entirely separate from airliner crashes,   
   proven beyond reasonable doubt and newly supported by a BYU physicist who calls   
   for a serious investigation. It's the linchpin establishing that selected parts   
   of the U.S. government, aided by certain outsiders, committed the crimes of   
   9/11.   
   But that unassailable fact of demolition does not settle all phases of this   
   complex scam, a commonplace in ongoing criminal investigations. Further, if   
   controversy over the role of airplanes and hijackers played in the 9/11 hoax is   
   "inherently offensive," then we are in worse shape than I thought. According to   
   William Rodriguez, the janitor who was last man out of the WTC and a much-   
   decorated hero, healing is impossible for survivors because only truth can   
   bring closure.   
   Step back from wrangling over planes for a moment and three things stand out:   
   o 9/11 was a colossal hoax, an egregious example of false-flag terrorism   
   o Corporate media dutifully sold the scam   
   o Four reported airliners vanished as if by magic   
   September 11 was a well-planned psy-op, deceptive at every level, intended to   
   manipulate public opinion, and wildly successful in the short run. Given this   
   background, virtually everything the government and its media stenographers   
   parrot to this day must be construed as deception until proven otherwise.   
   A primary question is, why investigate the crashes? Some writers object that   
   pursuing questions surrounding the planes is a sideshow and can only distract   
   from an uncompromising focus on the WTC demolitions. Yet the contention that   
   young Arabs hijacked specific flights and crashed them is a vital component of   
   the official fiction. New, rational understanding about the plane stories would   
   have great value, and that probably explains the intense resistance to such   
   scrutiny. Questions and answers about each plane crash matter for at least   
   three reasons:   
   o If the perpetrators get away with the plane hoaxes, it encourages more   
   audacious, blood-soaked scams   
   o The key to acquiescence in the government's war on terror and global   
   domination project is public belief in Arab hi-jacked airliners and crashes   
   o Exposure of airplane lies expands the proof that government committed the   
   9/11 atrocities   
   Some readers might object that critical examination of the official airplane   
   stories is silly because everybody saw a plane hit the WTC south tower that   
   morning. But that was only one of four events and seeing is not believing in a   
   world of special effects. Something fantastic shown on TV is not the end of a   
   criminal investigation but the beginning. Any important proposition delivered   
   by the media must be established by evidence independent of their sleight-of-   
   hand. They have been repeatedly exposed as liars, usually on behalf of the   
   social apparatus of compulsion they must appease daily to continue their high-   
   revenue businesses over the public airwaves. The media are not so much   
   "embedded" with the U.S. government and military as "in bed" with them. Even if   
   you reject this "echo chamber" view, there is no doubt that the technology   
   exists to insert prepared images into pixels in real time and make the images   
   prepared in advance look (mostly) real. The first-down stripe inserted in NFL   
   telecasts is an example. Some analysts argue that the WTC crashes were little   
   more than Tuesday-morning cartoons. Whether or not such a conclusion is   
   warranted, any proposed theory of what happened must be consistent with   
   physical evidence and conform to the principles of physics, the official   
   conspiracy theory included. We should put aside preconceptions based on pixels   
   and evaluate the physical evidence anew. Videos are discussed again toward the   
   end of the article.   
   It is not my burden to prove what really happened. That burden lies entirely   
   with apologists for the official plane story like Charlie Sheen. Mr. Charlie   
   Sheen, not the skeptics, must prove that four Boeing airliners crashed as   
   government and corporate media say they did. Proof must be verifiable,   
   corroborated, physical facts and not contradictory reports from witnesses,   
   including those bought off or pressured into a predetermined result by media   
   coverage that morning. Evidence offered by so-called plane huggers like Charlie   
   Sheen should be obvious and powerful. After all, land crashes by big planes in   
   populated areas are quite easy to identify. Skeptics, by contrast, need only   
   point to one verified fact contrary to the official theory to send it crashing   
   into oblivion. We have the facts to destroy the official account of each   
   reported incident.   
   Ordinarily it is child's play to confirm the exact identity of a commercial   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)