The 9/11 Liars Club

[marky 54]

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

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

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

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

oh wait..

i think you will find most on this site don't dismiss that no planes/energy weapons and what ever else has been claimed on this site could be true for all they know.

you will find however people disagreeing with the evidence to prove such things however, evidence is not just someone turning up with any old trash claiming it proves the theory if it dos'nt stand up to questioning or counter evidence proves it wrong.

evidence is something that stands up and is'nt just a blurry video for example.

[KP50]

I'd love to know how the holes were achieved, and 911researchers is a great site for new ideas on all aspects of the con trick, but it was impossible that it was a plane, so no plane.

If a 911researchers film shows a man describing 9/11 and the voice-over remarks on how the background is moving while his face stays in the centre of the frame, hence TV fakery, then either :-

1. The film-maker is stupid.
2. The film-maker is spreading disinformation.

Which do you think it is?

How do you come to the conclusion that it was "impossible" to be a plane?

[Andrew Johnson]

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

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

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

Garrett

Going back to the original post in this thread. I have communicated several times with Gerard Holmgren and he is an odd fellow. I have great respect for the research he has done and how he has steadfastly stuck with some basic points of evidence. He's certainly "been through the wars" and campaigned strongly in many areas YEARS before we were "awake".

I regard Gerard as something of a rottweiler and he tends to back people into a corner and ask them questions. Sometimes, they have already answered these questions, but not with the in specific words or the specific way he wishes. For example, Reynolds/Rajter reference Newton's laws several times here:

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?pa ... crash_myth

And agree with Holmgren's own conclusions! Gerard tends to go into "attack mode".

Perhaps it is the Holmgren and others expect Reynolds to "do more" as he is a former government member. Trouble is, we don't know how much each person is doing outside posting articles and message board posts.

Several people brought pressure to bear on Judy Wood to comment specifically, using explicit calculations on the "no-plane" issue. She declined to produce such calculations, partly because she didn't want to get into another fight of rebuttal and re-rebuttal on a completely separate issue to the one she was engaged with.

However, if people look carefully, they will be able to deduce Judy's view on "no planes", partly through looking at evidence she highlights on this page:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html

specifically figures 62c - and I guess 1 should be labelled 62d and see attached.

So I can sort of understand Gerard's point of view (because I think I understand where he's coming from), but it's OTT to lump Profs Wood and Reynolds in the same camp as Jones, if you ask me - and a closer examination of evidence bears this out, as far as I am concerned.