SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

International | Police State and Prisons

The "Patriots and 9/11" Trap
by repost
Thursday Dec 14th, 2006 12:02 PM
Morgan Reynolds and David Shayler are "former" government officials who say that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers -- need we say anymore? People have tried to email the webmaster of the site "Patriots Question 9/11," but get no response. Of course. Not all who describe themselves as "patriots" are really the type of patriots we think they are. Following the "celebs" around has only been shown to tank our credibility -- they often function as bait to promote no planes theories.
shayler.jpg
shayler.jpg

Websites like "Patriots Question 9/11" function as bait to attract people who think that it's an asset to have big names, without realizing that it's packed with nonsense and thus functions as a boobytrap. The most obvious examples on the list are Reynolds and Shayler, but many of the rest on the list are supporting nonsense which mainstream media has already trashed us with, like the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon.

At first I wondered, why does the website "Patriots Question 9/11" feature known hologram promoter David Shayler and known no-plane-at-the-WTC promoter Morgan Reynolds? I tried writing to the owner of the website but got no response. Pretty soon, looking at more of the names, I realized that this is just another hoax site that functions primarily to discredit us. Maybe the webmaster is sincere but he's being fed ideas or information from others, or maybe he isn't sincere. We generally can never know these things. But what we do know is that knowingly listing a HOLOGRAM advocate as a "Patriot" is absurd, and government officials who think a missile hit the Pentagon are probably still working for the givernment and will only decrease our credibility.

Ultimately, however, getting rid of Reynolds and Shayler won't help this site or these types of efforts. It's already clear what its message is - mix the nonsense with the real stuff and label and hype it as "big names" from the government who can "help" us. Well, we've got all the "help" we need. Instead, why don't we stick to the work of real activists and real researchers - grassroots - and forget about the slick loud hoax traps that everyone walks into over and over when they are trying to reach people through FOX news, cool films and big names celebrities. Even Charlie Sheen was saying he didn't think those were "real" commercial jets that hit the WTC. Did you notice that? Well he did. Look again.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

SHAYLER:
"A recent article for the British magazine New Statesman profiled David Shayler and Annie Machon, former MI5 agents who went public with details of their service, who have since joined the growing "9/11 truth movement." Much to Machon's chagrin, Shayler outed himself as a "no-planer" who believes the airliners we saw strike the World Trade Center towers were actually cruise missiles disguised as planes using sophisticated hologram technology. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes…I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe," Shayler told journalist Brendan O'Neill."
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1006/1006debunking.htm

The Sunday Times - Comment
The Sunday Times September 10, 2006
Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms
David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. "We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," he tells the New Statesman. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. "I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes." Hard to believe, isn't it? Come to think of it, are we sure this isn't an MI5 agent posing as Shayler in an attempt to discredit him? Is there indeed such a person as Shayler, or was he — as some now think — invented by the CIA?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2350584,00.html

"got the chance to chat with David Shayler afterwards, who was drawing quite a crowd around him. I was a little surprised to hear him talk about holograms, and it seems Shayler may be a 'no-planer'."
http://jultra.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-david-ray-griffin-david-shayler.html


REYNOLDS
The papers of Reynolds and Woods grab at anything they can to try to discredit Physics Prof. Steven Jones, which functions to deflect attention from any sincere address of the content of the debate -- they make stabs at Jones' character, his previous work in cold fusion, the timing of his responses to their papers, and call him names like "retarded," of all things. Just looking at the papers briefly, the character attacks and efforts to deflect away from content are everywhere.

Here are some quotes from the essay, "Reynolds & Wood Try to Help Steven E. Jones"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/255413.shtml

Other references on Reynolds:

A response to Reynolds and Wood (Word Document)
Frank Legge
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Response_to_Reynolds_and_Wood2.doc

A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?"
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, June 26, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/

Reply to Reynolds and Wood--Part I (Word Document)
Steven E. Jones
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
12 September 2006, georgewashington.blogspot
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html

A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories
by Eric Salter
28 September 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html
updated version: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf (PDF)
by Gerard Holmgren
Saturday Dec 16th, 2006 1:54 PM
In criticising the no planes research, the author is entitled to their opinion, but a basic courtesy which should be extended to all, no matter how much you might disagree with someone's work, is that when you criticise it, you should link to it, so that readers can see it for themselves and unltimately make up their own mind.

By failing to do so, the author above insults the readers by effectively issuing an instruction about what to believe, and telling the readers that they are not to be trusted with a viewing of the actual work in question to be able to make up their own minds.

I've written some savage ctritiques, but I have always been meticulous about linking to everything which I crticise and about quoting word for word from the critiqued articles, in sectios large enough to be meaningful, not paraphrasing.

For example, the author critiquing the no planes research refers to "holograms" which simply isn't what's being proposed.

Shayler's statements about Holograms don't count because Shayler didn't do any of the no planes research, does not understand it, does not accurately represent it, and is not connected in any way with the real researchers. Shayler has no credibility whatsoever with the actual researchers involved, and is most likley spouting the hologram stuff deliberately to confuse the issue.

The author above knows this very well, which is why Shayler- a late coming buffoon with no research credentials at all, who spouts this misleading stuff,twisting our work - is quoted, but the actual research - which does not propse holograms is not quoted.

You can say whatever you like about somebody's views, but to falsely attribute to them views which they do not promote - while denying the reader the opportunity to verify for themselves what the critiqued researchers say and what they don't say - is defamation.

This is probably why the author chooses to reamin anonymous, although there is little doubt from the style of the writing that the author is Mark Robinowitz.

Robinowitz is critiqued here.

How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman Lied about the BTS database
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/rabidbts.html

You'll notice that in the critique linked above, I do Robinowitz the courtesy of quoting him word for word and linking to his website so that people can check that I've quoted him accurately - a stark contrast to Robinowitz's attack on me where he lies about my work and fails to link to it.

Robinowitz is also extensively quoted and linked in this critique.

The Truth about Truthlings - The 9/11 doublethink movement
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/slithering.html

In order to redress the lack of protocol shown here by Robinowitz in again failing to accurately represent or link to the work under attack, I provide the links to the actual no plane research in question, so that readers can look at it for themselves instead of being ordered what to think, "Lord Of The Flies" style.

No big plane hit the Pentagon

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/pentagon.html

No Plane crashed near Shanksville
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/93.html

No big plane hit the Nth Tower

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/nthtower.html

No big plane hit the Sth Tower
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/sthtower.html

Two of the allegedly hijacked flights did not exist
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

The two flights which did exist did not crash anywhere
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/aircraftregistry.html


http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren


by Ningen
Sunday Dec 17th, 2006 1:48 AM
I posted my thoughts on this article here. In short, I do not like to be told what is OK for me to consider. I know nothing about David Shayler's work, but I have read Morgan Reynold's work and think it is worth considering.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/350679.shtml#244943

I have responded to Eric Salter's critique of so-called "no plane theories" here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/11/911-pound-gorilla-in-catos-room.html

(Appendix B)

I think it is ridiculous for someone to say this or that website or argument is a "hoax" or "disinformation." It serves no purpose. What is one to think? How does one know that Reader is not spreading disinformation? Or me?

I think the only thing one can do is judge arguments on their merits.




by Ningen
Sunday Dec 17th, 2006 1:54 AM
All of my comments at Portland Indymedia have been moved to the discussion section:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/350679.shtml?discuss
by repost
Thursday Dec 28th, 2006 11:43 AM
veterans for 9/11 truth also promotes every hoax in the book. Think about it, the perfect poison pill -- a group that no one should DARE criticize . . the "veterans." It's the ideal place to package the nonsense.

Notice right away that their upside down flag is the easiest way to discredit them as "assholes" instead of serious people. While it makes sense for anarchists to use such a flag - that's who they are - vets who use it around an issue like 9/11 will only isolate themselves from all the rest of the vets we're supposedly trying to reach. Lots of vets are on the sidewalks and get ignored because they are just that to the public - assholes. This vets site gets viewed the same.

http://www.v911t.org/

Notice their top link on the left goes to a group that promotes In Plane Site, the hoax film, now dressed up as a fake new group, "Take Back Washington." But when you go there, pretty soon you see that the operators are standing by at the 1-800 numbers to take your cash for their hoax films with fake "experts." Rense is featured prominently there too.

Then on v911t you've got the Judy Wood "space weapons" brought down the towers, the hoax film 9/11 eyewitness that has fake science, no planes theories, etc. It's all about how commercial jets didn't hit buildings on 9/11, isn't it? That seems to be all that groups like "pilots for 9/11 truth" and "veterans for 9/11 truth" care about. But that's the same for the Washington Post and USA Today -- all they care about is how the loony conspiracy theorists think that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did. That way no one talks about the real questions never answered.

How hard is it to figure out?

by Gerard Holmgren
Thursday Dec 28th, 2006 1:52 PM
Mark Robinowtiz (hiding under the name of "repost" this time ) writes

[[How hard is it to figure out?]]

Not hard at all.

No plane hit the pentagon
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/pentagon.html

No plane crashed near Shanksville
http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/93.html

The object which hit the Nth tower was not a plane. Take a look at the video

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/nthtower.html

The Video of the Sth tower strike, shows a fake plane, a cartoon CGId into the footage

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/sthtower.html

Robinowitz even denies that WTC 1 and 2 were deliberately demolished.

He even claims that nasty Arabs who "hate our freedoms" hijacked planes.

How hard is that to figure out ?
by David Howard
( fiat [at] sofnet.com ) Saturday Jul 7th, 2007 9:57 AM
Google and type in "The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects"
by Dimitri A. Khalezov
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 10:52 PM
I would like to invite you to watch a new documentary devoted to the 9/11 – “The Third Truth about the September 11 or defending the US Government which has only the first two…” or, in other words “Nuclear Demolition of the WTC - an interview with Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence”. Without any doubt you will find it interesting, and worth your precious attention - irrespectively of whether you personally agree with this particular point of view on the 9/11 events or not. The movie is intended exclusively for serious viewers who wish to use their own judgment, and by no means it repeats any hysterical argumentation of various 9/11 conspiracy theorists and so-called “9/11 truthers”. So far (it was published less than a week ago) this videos received only positive comments from watchers, with a very few minor exceptions - which means that most visitors took it very seriously. These videos could always be found on Youtube (at least as long as they are not removed by authorities - which is likely to happen any time soon) by searching for ‘911thology’ keyword. There are all together 26 parts of the video published on Youtube so far. Here are direct links to all 26 parts:

Part1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzwyPRgY9o
Part2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U4pwJzK8Dk
Part3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xa8cErtJhY
Part4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0
Part5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddl4qsOc8po
Part6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRzPT8pZUjo
Part7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKJksB3oTPA
Part8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyF6QgE3ufc
Part9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3VqyUXEAPA
Part10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt_-qBVkTJk
Part11 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5DeeHCCROg
Part12 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-TbpezpY0c
Part13 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhgS17l-PZo
Part14 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXk1-Ut7_ks
Part15 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMXdWK3KTGY
Part16 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYf5-iw6vok
Part17 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGHxFXB2Vew
Part18 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bto0KbFtqKs
Part19 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17H6sp-FyiA
Part20 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW9CsWi2aDk
Part21 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYP8JHGRsE
Part22 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x77s9lxt7t0
Part23 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgClEUxLXRk
Part24 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQDHAN3aQAg
Part25 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5q64FW0uiI
Part26 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Wbh32W2uc

You comments would be greatly appreciated.