Reynolds – “my brain hurts”
By Gerard Holmgren
April 28, 2007
Months ago, I challenged Morgan Reynolds to explain how, if it was impossible for a 160 ft Boeing to fly into a building leaving a cartoon shape of itself but no wreckage, why different laws of physics applied to a smaller plane or one made by a different aircraft manufacturer.
One might have thought that the great man might have put some thought into this question during the 7 months that he spent painstakingly copying my original forensics observations and writing them out in different words in order to present them as his own thoughts. As he was copying the FAA aircraft registry data from my site to write into his “work”, one might have thought that a spark of an original thought might have popped up somewhere.
As he diligently copied the BTS data from my site to add to his rehash, you might have thought that his own brain might have started slowly ticking over.
As he pasted in the photo that I dug up and distributed of the smashed up plane which had collided with a light steel pole on a runway, perhaps his great mind might have turned to wondering whether the same thing happens to planes other than “big Boeings”.
Alas, no. The strain on the mental capacities of the great one from all that copying and pasting and rewriting in his own words was too great to examine this weighty question.
His keen and enquiring mind had grasped the concept of what happens to a “Big Boeing” when it collides with something, but the question of what might happen to a smaller Boeing or a plane manufactured by some other aircraft manufacturer was still shrouded in the depths of mystery. Perhaps Idiot Jim might eventually be able to shed some light on it with some insight about Elves throwing a grand piano off the top of the world trade center on to a plane. After all, he is a former marine corps officer…
But as the months dragged on and Idiot Jim ran out of grand pianos to use in such experiments, our hero’s brow became increasingly furrowed with the difficult question of whether the same laws of physics applied to smaller Boeings as to larger Boeings. He grappled day and night with the impossible question of whether planes made by other aircraft manufacturers complied with the same physics principles as those manufactured by Boeing.
So several months ago, I invited the great one to present his argument that smaller Boeings and planes manufactured by competitor corporations follow different laws of physics. Suspecting that “an attorney of the Gerard Holmgren variety might crush them” he disrespectfully declined to present such arguments and went to take another headache tablet to relieve the swelling in his brain which he mistakenly assumed was from intellectual effort rather than simply the ego of a brainless cretin who declares himself entitled to “question with authority” as part of the elite Grand Piano throwing and chip rearranging league of a former marine corps officer and prize idiot named Jim who’s published more books than you have.
But never underestimate the perseverance and brilliance of someone with years of experience in the tactical differences of chip rearranging. After over a year of such cerebral endevour, our hero was finally able to declare just the other day that he still doesn’t know. And that therefore while he can confidently declare “no Big Boeings” at the WTC on the back of a year of intense plagiarism activity, he wasn’t yet ready to plagiarize the lot.
There are cherries to be picked, chips to be re-arranged, tactical differences to be implemented and Grand Pianos to be thrown. There are questions to be authorized but not answered and public embarrassments to be concocted by former marine corps officers.
There are conferences to be held and bribes to be offered, podiums to be ponced on, controversies to be avoided, egos to be inflated and hang outs to be hung.
Poor Morgan ! His brain hurts ! What *does* happen to a large McDonnell Douglas or Airbus Plane which flies into a building ? How do smaller Boeings differ from larger Boeings ?
Indeed, perhaps it’s better not to even examine the question. After all, Idiot Jim did decree that “even if true it hurts the truth movement”, so perhaps a little “tactical discretion” is to be required.
If only I had such eloquence.
It is indeed about time that we heard from Morgan what he thinks about the differences between large and small planes with regards to crash physics. For the record, most of the idiots I come across who believe the plane stories favour the weight and speed of the plane as helping in the penetration.
Of course smaller planes are lighter and slower.
A computer simulation calculated that a 767 would have to have been travelling at 7800mph to penetrate the outer wall, and I don’t think that took the floors into consideration.
So Morgan, as I asked Jim, if a boeing is too slow to penetrate the building, and a smaller plane even more so, and if you are still insistent on finding a plane that did it, do you think it could have been a space shuttle?
Morgan needs to answer these long-overdue questions if he wishes to be seen as any kind of theorist.
We know he stole all of the ideas he uses anyway.
Morgan there were no planes that crashed on 911.
I would like you to answer that statement.
It involves four separate planes.
If you claim to be a 911 researcher then you must share your thoughts so far.
If you ignore the question (i.e. hide under a rock, run away, avoid the issue etc.) then you are obviously not being open.
Gerard has proven this already with you but I have noticed that “you guys” tend to use the perceived offensiveness of Gerard’s remarkably humerous form of narrative as an excuse not to engage in discussion with him. Such tactics appear childish to me, but I can see that when you’re ducking, any rock will do.
Well I have never been abrasive or offensive Morgan, so please explain to me why you think that some type of aircraft hit the towers, and what you think of the Shanksville and pentagon stories.