Holmgren’s Deeper Analysis of Manipulation within the “truth” movement

Submitted by theSaiGirl on Sun, 2007-07-22 04:43.

Am reposting this because I can’t find an active link to it anymore.
Not sure if Holmgren has updated it yet.
I’m guessing here .. but I didn’t think he would mind if it were posted .. just to give people some more detailed background and context to the latest conflicts here a this site.

I figure it will elevate the level of discussion to bring it back to poliitcal analysis… cause that’s what makes me comfortable.
Apologies to Holmgren if he takes any offense at my re-posting it….
I mean no offense.
Just struggling for some clarity amidst all this …

=========================================
THE 9/11 LIARS CLUB
Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer – “Lying for Truth”

by Gerard Holmgren

INTRODUCTION

This article exposes some of the deepest levels of deception within the so called “truth movement”. It deals with the deceptive maneuvering of three individuals who have tried to present themselves as being at the cutting edge of controversial truth, and shows how they are are in fact dedicated to the cause of deception and doublethink.

This article will be difficult to understand unless you are first familiar with a considerable amount of background.

If you are not familiar with the basic arguments and issues surrounding the background material, then I suggest that you discontinue reading this article and return to it when you have become familiar with the necessary background information.The links below will guide you to some reading about the relevant issues.

BACKGROUND

1) A summary of the evidence that the events of Sept 11 were entirely orchestrated by the US Govt and its agencies in full partnership with major media organizations.

2) The evidence that the event was partly fictional in that the iconic imagery of the event – planes flying into the WTC – never happened. The belief in this event was manufactured through the airing of faked videos passed off as footage of real events.

To be more specific, the video of the first tower strike shows quite clearly that the tower was not hit by a plane but by a very strange looking form of advanced weaponry.

The uncritical belief that a large passenger jet was responsible for the first strike is based not on examination of the video, but by association with the video of the second tower strike – which superficially appeared to show a large passenger jet. The object in the first strike doesn’t look anything like a plane, but the superficial appearance of a large passenger jet being responsible for the second strike creates the assumption that the first strike must have been the same thing. The Sth tower footage- the second strike- was shown over and over -from different angles -to the public for about 16 hours before the first hit footage was ever aired. By the time that most people were exposed to the first hit footage, they were numb with shock and drilled with the endless imagery of what appeared to be multiple planes hitting multiple buildings, were confused about which tower was which and therefore understandably never thought to question which piece of footage showed which tower specifically. This caused people to miss the fact that in amongst the jumble of imagery of planes hitting buildings, there was actually only one video of the first strike -and that no plane can be seen in this footage.

The videos which sold the idea of planes hitting buildings were those of the second strike. These videos appear superficially to show – from several different angles – a large passenger jet hitting the building, but on closer examination, it becomes quite obvious that the videos are fake. The plane is a crude animation and in retrospect doesn’t look very realistic at all. The different videos even contradict each other in relation to flight paths.

As argument over this evidence became more intense, supporters of the official story introduced the idea that the apparent plane shaped holes in both buildings, approximately matching the size and shape of the kinds of planes alleged to have been involved was forensic evidence that planes did indeed hit the buildings.

Apart from ignoring the fact that the second strike “plane” demonstrates such impossible physical characteristics that it is an obvious fake, and the first strike object doesn’t even look like a plane, the forensic claim is only attractive to someone who hasn’t really thought about the physics at all. I responded to this argument by showing that a simple common sense application of basic Newtonian physics principles demonstrated that in fact the plane shaped holes represented more proof that planes did not hit the buildings.

If you don’t understand what I’m saying in the above summary, or don’t feel convinced that there is any credible evidence for it, then I suggest that you don’t continue reading this article because you wont understand it. You need to become conversant with the background research first.

ENTER MORGAN REYNOLDS

(Note: The subject of complaint against Reynolds in this article is not that he’s a planehugger. It is that he is a plane hugger who is pretending to be a no plane proponent. And in the process he also by implication, falsely attributes pro plane views to those who do not hold them.To put it another way, he is promoting a form of doublethink which allows people to believe that planes both did and did not hit the towers.)

I had been arguing this position about forensic evidence on email lists for some time before it was first posted on a web site as an article on Nov 11 2005. The presentation is a little rough because the posting is really just a paste from one of these email lists, not a properly prepared and presented article. But for any sensible and open minded person it provides all the proof necessary to show that from a forensics point of view alone, one can prove that no planes hit the towers. More recently, newer researchers have put the icing on the cake in relation to the forensic arguments. 1 2

Around the time that I began promoting the forensic arguments, an individual named Morgan Reynolds began to show a public interest in Sept 11 issues and after making his initial appearance with the somewhat belated observation (better late than never) that the WTC was deliberately demolished, began to take an interest in the no planes issue.

Reynolds and I made contact, and after he showed interest in the no planes issue, I personally tutored him by email in the physics of the forensic evidence.

Reynolds was so impressed that he responded by writing his own article which was essentially a direct copy of my article. Because Reynolds took 7 months to write his article- while I was doing the work to argue and promote the concepts around the various discussion groups on the web- Reynolds final presentation was slicker and better presented than mine. It contained no original observations whatsoever, but it appeared to be a valuable addition to the cause because of the time that he had put into the presentation.

However there was some fine print which we didn’t notice at the time.

First I will present a generalized summary and then I will deconstruct Reynolds’ article in detail.

SUMMARY

At first, the no plane advocates welcomed Reynolds’ contribution But over time a darker side of Reynolds emerged and in recent months he has been unmasked as working to undermine the very evidence which he purports to support. In retrospect we should have seen it immediately- but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Although Reynolds briefly acknowledges some contributions on my part, he effectively commits plagiarism by falsely presenting his article as a groundbreaking development in this issue, when in fact it contains no significant original information or observations at all and is in substance, nothing but a copy of my work – more professionally presented and differently styled.

That in itself is a minor complaint. The real problem is that Reynolds -after plagiarizing my work -is now presenting it as an argument for the exact opposite of what it actually proves. Reynolds now claims that although the forensic analysis in question shows that “no Big Boeings” hit the WTC, it is still quite possible that they were hit by different kinds of planes.

But Reynolds did not present this dissenting conclusion in a straightforward and transparent manner.

Reynolds of course is free like anyone to make his own contribution to the forensic argument and argue that I came to the wrong conclusion from my own observations – if that’s what he wants to do. What he is not entitled to do is to claim those observations as his original work, twist them to draw the opposite conclusion, without ever directly stating his opposition to my argument and create the false impression that his “no Big Boeings” conclusion makes him a “no planer”, while also falsely attributing to me – and to other no planers -a view which allows for planes other than “big Boeings”.

His agenda is to promote doublethink at a subconscious level by confusing the position of “planes other than big Boeings” with that of “no planes” and merging them to mean the same thing.

As we shall see, this is what Reynolds has really been working on during the time that he has been pretending to be allied with the promotion of arguments for no planes.

Reynolds’ language has been so cleverly duplicitous that it took some time to realize that he was actually promoting “no big Boeings” rather than “no planes”. Once again, Reynolds – like anyone – is free to directly state and argue such a position if he chooses. But by the use of his cleverly ambiguous position, Reynolds gave the impression that he was supporting the no planes position and thus drew the fire of “planehuggers” (people who are hostile to the no plane evidence). Through this subterfuge he managed to create an image of himself as being at the forefront of the “no planes” argument through what he falsely presents as being his original contributions to the evidence.

There’s a big problem when the self styled king of the “no planers”- who supposedly did ground breaking research into the question – a person who became a major hate target of the planehuggers-is actually a plane hugger himself – in disguise.

This is part of a process which I call “Griffinization” named after the masterful doublethink efforts of David Ray Griffin, who after managing to promote himself as one of the world’s “foremost 9/11 researchers” -without actually doing any significant research at all – simply copying the carefully cherry picked work of others – has managed to create a situation where a plane both did and did not hit the pentagon and where there both were and were not Arab hijackers involved.

I predicted some time ago that this kind of Griffinization and doublethink would eventually be applied also to the no WTC planes evidence, although I hadn’t picked Reynolds as the chief messenger. Again, the presentation in the most recently linked article is rough because it’s a paste of a list email, not a properly prepared and presented article, but it should make the point clearly enough.

Recently the planes/no planes doublethink has picked up in intensity. Enter Jim Fetzer. I have exposed Fetzer in several other articles as a serial liar and plagiarist 1 2 3 .After more than a year of attacking the no planes position, Fetzer has recently been lauding and promoting the work of Reynolds (as original and groundbreaking of course) at the same time as continuing to attack its most fundamental concepts. Reynolds responds by presenting Fetzer as being involved in open minded inquiry and promotion of the issue, while tacitly supporting Fetzer’s litany of lies and philosophical abominations -including his direct exhortation to lie for the sake of truth -as documented in the latter half of the article linked above as 1.

Fetzer- with the full support of Reynolds -is now managing to present himself as being in some way associated with “no plane theories” and a target for those hostile to the position – at the same time as actually attacking the substance of the arguments for such a position himself. This duplicitous campaign is fully supported by Reynolds, as the two feed each other publicity and when questioned, protect each other from awkward questions about their duplicitous position. They’ll even stage a disagreement from time to time, where necessary.

As part of his doublethink campaign both for and against the forensic concepts falsely claimed by Reynolds as his original work, Fetzer went so far as to directly challenge the validity of Newtonian physics, claiming that Newton’s third law of motion was wrong and postulating his own law of motion in its place, and using this garbage to attack the concepts promoted by Reynolds – at the same time as lauding Reynolds’ work as an important development.

Fetzer was supported in this endeavor by Reynolds who also challenged Newton in more subtle language by indirectly claiming that Newton’s third law applied in some situations but not in others. This enabled Reynolds to use Newtonian physics to prove “no Big Boeings” while using doublethink to postulate that the very same principles proved nothing when applied to other kinds of planes.

Their third ally is Professor Judy Wood, who supports the “no Big Boeings” sleight of hand from Reynolds, and supports Fetzer and Reynolds in everything they do, regardless of the contradictory doublethink issues it raises. But the main role of Wood in this deception trio is a little different and will have to wait for a separate article.

Collectively, these three doublethinkers are very successfully putting the position that planes both did and did not hit the WTC. They are managing to become the chief villains in the eyes of the planehuggers without actually presenting a no plane case. They switch Newtonian physics on and off as suits their duplicitous cause.

For example, when I asked Wood whether she supports the challenges by Fetzer and Reynolds to Newtonian physics, Wood refused to answer and instead got her lawyer to act as her representative. It does seem strange that a scientist claiming to be using science “to reveal truths and expose falsehoods” should react to a simple question about physics fundamentals by calling in a lawyer to (not) answer the question on her behalf. Wood’s lawyer said that Wood was refusing to answer the question because”‘it might prove Reynolds wrong” and because any answer would “drive a wedge” between them.

This is effectively a direct admission from Wood that she knows that Reynolds and Fetzer are talking scientific garbage in their challenge to Newton , but is happy for scientific fraud to be promoted whenever convenient for the cause of “truth”. Thus Wood tacitly endorsed their lies while trying to stay free of direct responsibility for Fetzer’s ludicrous claim that Newton was wrong about the third law of motion.

In an astonishing display of double standards, Wood (correctly) criticizes the official story of the WTC demolition, on the basis that to believe it requires a suspension of basic physics laws, but then has her lawyer tell us that suspension of such laws is desirable if it’s in the interests of maintaining her political unity with Reynolds and Fetzer.

Likewise, Fetzer and Reynolds trumpet the use of basic physics principles in showing that the WTC was demolished, but then attack those very same laws as being incorrect in order to support the WTC planes story – at the same time as Reynolds trying to create the impression that he’s actually a no planer.

Reynolds goes even further in using Newton’s laws to prove that the Government is lying about “big Boeings” but refusing to invoke the same laws in relation to other kinds of planes and making no objection to Fetzer’s claim that Newton isn’t even half right.

And they call the Government dishonest.

Why should the Govt use honest science if the self styled “truth movement” wont ?

In another outrageous piece of double standards, Wood and Reynolds – partly supported by Fetzer, attack (justifiably) the dishonest and fraudulent science of Professor Steven Jones, 1 2 but openly use the same kind of fraudulent and dishonest junk science themselves as described above.

I have been as harsh a critic of Steven Jones as anyone, but to be fair – why should Jones be expected to tell the truth if his critics are just as dishonest ?

Just to cap it off, Fetzer while seemingly supporting these attacks on Jones, describes the same attacks as “disgusting” if presented by others, and continues to promote Jones, including the lie that Jones’ work is “peer reviewed”.

Confused ? Welcome to the world of 9/11 doublethink ! A world where “truth” is defined as anything which is politically convenient. A world where any number of contradictory scenarios can be true as long as all of them are good for the “movement”. A world where basic physics principles are used as the supreme proof for one piece of evidence and then dismissed as a political inconvenience in relation to a different issue of evidence.

A world where David Ray Griffin – in saying AA77 did not hit the pentagon -can be the hero to rally around for those who angrily dismiss that very same claim as deliberate disinformation. As shown in my article linked here there are people who demand the promotion of Griffin instead of “junk” and “disinformation” about AA77 not hitting the pentagon. How can this be so, when Griffin himself apparently supports such a view ? Welcome to the world of 9/11 doublethink!

A world where Griffin, at the same time as claiming that AA77 did not hit the pentagon, claims that the air force was stood down to allow AA77’s hijackers to complete their mission – at the same time as claiming that the hijackers perhaps didn’t even exist. Apart from the doublethink, this is what I call the “Griffinization” of evidence, named after the practice of swooning over Griffin as a hero and holding up his books like bibles at the same time as angrily dismissing almost all of the substance in them as “disinformation” – while at the same time celebrating the supposed research of their hero in unearthing such “disinformation” -when in fact he didn’t research any of it but just copied it from other people – who are usually mercilessly attacked as “disinformation agents” for distracting from the work of the hero.

Fetzer is building this kind of cult around Reynolds. In one email debate, Fetzer invoked his new law of motion to challenge everything in Reynolds’ article at the same time as describing Reynolds’ work as impressive and moving us towards proof. Proof that…? It’s not exactly clear.

A world where Fetzer boasts that his mission is “revealing truths about 9/11, letting the chips fall where they may” ,but also tells us that in relation to “controversial” evidence – “even if it were true, it hurts the movement.”

A world where Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood self righteously attack the dishonest fraudulent science of Steven Jones, and of NIST at the same time as telling us that Professor Wood wont affirm a simple and fundamental scientific principle like Newton’s third law of motion because such an admission would “drive a wedge” between her and Reynolds.

Orwell’s “ministry of truth” slogan – “truth is lies” has come to fruition in the form of the 911 doublethink movement.

Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer are now in the process of “Griffinizing” the no WTC planes evidence

Before moving on to the documentation in relation to this Orwellain maneuvering by Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer, I will quote some concluding observations from my article The 9/11 doublethink movement , dated Nov 7 2006.

[[The main idea of the truth movement seems to be to promote the truth movement by just saying “truth movement ” over and over, occasionally pausing to swoon at the feet of its heroes who approve the plethora of conflicting truths sanctioned as acceptable beliefs for truthlings…

…the truthling cult makes a brash frontal assault on the fundamental concept of truth. Truth is defined as the chanting of a truth hero’s name. It is the copyrighted logo of the truth movement.

In terms of it’s specific content , truth is *overtly* expendable, disposable, malleable, market driven, a creation of those of those with the branding rights, strategy driven. It is the property of “truthers” and can be traded and negotiated like company shares. Truth is a popularity poll.

…Truth is determined by it’s usefulness to the movement. The movement appoints truth heroes who become the personification of truth, the content which they utter being no more than an almost arbitrarily chosen vehicle for the expression of worship of his truthliness, and the importance of such worship to the movement.]]

Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer are attempting to create a sub cult within the doublethinking truthling cult which could be described as no planers who actually believe that there were planes.

Let us now examine more closely the article with which Reynolds began his Griffinization campaign, dated March 5 2006.

We have some holes in the plane stories

In retrospect, I plead guilty to charges of naivety and carelessness in failing to be suspicious and vigilant enough when it was first published to notice how Reynolds subtlety played both sides of the plane/no plane question with duplicitous language. To the extent that I did notice any such problems, I thought at the time that it merely reflected the inexperience and caution of someone new to the issue who was taking things one step at a time.

WE HAVE SOME HOLES IN THE REYNOLDS STORY

Reynolds produces an excellently presented rehash of my original forensics article. I wont explain in great detail the actual forensics arguments here. My forensics article doesn’t take long to read and if you have any common sense understanding of the most basic physics principles, you’ll quickly see the point that I’m making. The idea that a plane consisting mostly of aluminium punched through a steel structure so decisively that it left a near perfect shape of itself is absurd. It would have smashed up on impact. Perhaps some of the plane might have penetrated the building, but most of it would have been smashed into wreckage that scattered to the streets below. But even supposing that it was somehow able to form this miraculous feat, there is a second impossibility. Any object which punches so decisively through another object that it leaves a shape of itself, is then by definition, relatively undamaged in the collision. Like an arrow being shot through a piece of cardboard. It doesn’t punch through and then disintegrate into nothing after having done its punch through. It emerges the other side, negligibly damaged. Or if it’s an arrow with an explosive device attached, then in the act of blowing itself up, the explosion also affects the cardboard such that you wont finish up with with a neat arrow shaped entry hole in the cardboard, and the arrow blasted into oblivion without doing any extra damage to the cardboard beyond the original entry hole.

The physics of the supposed plane entry are multi layered impossibilities. On the one hand they postulate things which are individually impossible – like aluminium plane wings slicing through steel construction beams – after the front half of the plane has already taken the brunt of the impact resulting in slowing of speed and destruction of the plane’s structure. But in addition to that, even if one were to concede each individual absurdity as possible, they would have had to occur in such a way that the combination of events is impossible. Basically, the situation is that A,B,C and D all need to have occurred in combination for a plane to have entered the building. Each one of them is an individual absurdity, but even hypothetically conceding all of them as possible in isolation, they still could not occur in combination.

Reynolds to his credit found some good language with which to succinctly rehash this observation.

[[an airplane cannot transform itself from invincible to flimsy within an instant in the same general environment…

…supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ¾ the length of a tower wall. Both 767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second…

…The immense difficulty with this idea, also favored by the NIST, is how to reconcile an aluminum aircraft bursting through the steel in its path followed immediately by complete failure within 0.1 seconds, shredding completely and vanishing…

…After silent entry into the tower, UA 175’s remaining kinetic energy dissipated within a quarter second and proved insufficient to penetrate the east or north wall. A crashing jetliner would decelerate because of the resistance of the steel wall, six steel/concrete floors and the dense core within 37 feet of the south tower wall, impacted within .05 seconds. No deceleration and no visible plane wreckage means we have situation in progress because these alleged facts are physically impossible. A jetliner cannot be invincible and then flimsy the next instant…

…The fuselage could not neatly fold up, accordion style, to conceal itself after demonstrating strength enough to silently rip through the south wall, six steel/concrete floors and penetrate so far into the core to vanish. ]]

My compliments to Reynolds for so eloquently rehashing the concepts already explained in my earlier linked forensics article. One would hope that taking 7 months to rewrite someone else’s work in one’s own words would result in some eloquent expression of the concepts and Reynolds certainly delivered on that point.

And so one would assume that if such laws of physics apply to Boeing 767s or to any kind of “big Boeing” then they would apply equally to other kinds of planes. Or if not, then one would address the question to explain why.

Apparently not.

Here’s the small print which I missed at the time of Reynolds’ publication.

[[Hoffman denounces “ideas that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers.” Well, let’s be careful here: the idea that specific jetliners identified by government did not hit the WTC towers has an initial “basis in evidence” ]]

“specific airliners identified by the Govt”.

My compliments again to Reynolds. This time its a backhanded compliment for a masterful piece of double speak which I didn’t pick up when he first published. First Reynolds provides cheer to the no plane cause by going head to head with one of the most insistent and vitriolic of the planehuggers in Jim Hoffman. He takes issue with Hoffman’s denouncement of “no planes” and then uses the heat of battle to hide the jump from “no planes” to “specific airliners identified by the Govt”.

Having established this transition, Reynolds then continues in more overt fashion.

[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes, missiles or drones as some eyewitnesses reported or nothing at all may have hit the towers from outside. I do not have enough evidence yet to say.]]

So commuter planes, specially prepared aircraft or military planes are capable of transcending the physics laws which apply so definitely to the “specific airliners identified by the Govt.”? If so, then shouldn’t we get some explanation of why?

But Reynolds covers himself by not going so far as to assert with any confidence that planes did hit the towers. He creates a tone of careful academic caution, giving the impression that with more time, he’ll look at the situation more closely, but he’s just settling one question at a time. And considering that this was his first contribution on the issue, as someone who had been a no planer for years, with more time to think such issues through, I decided to cut him a little slack and allow time for him to develop the issue fully in his own mind. He makes all the right promising noises.

This then allows him to warm to his task of transforming the position of “no planes” into “no big Boeings”- now operating on the subliminal level.

[[Most 9/11 researchers reject the government’s Big Boeing Theory for the Pentagon and Pennsylvania events for lack of supporting evidence and presence of contrary evidence. Skepticism about BBT at WTC is less common but if we look at the gashes in the towers, a telling question arises:

How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?]]

A question which apparently applies only to “Big Boeings”and “wide bodied jetliners.”

But the earlier statement that “I do not yet have enough evidence” implies a promise that before long, in some forthcoming article, Reynolds will provide either a retraction of this exemption for other types of planes or else a detailed argument for why the exemption is justified. This seemed reasonable at the time of publication.

In his carefully designed doublespeak in the earlier part of his article, Reynolds set the stage for for being excused from scrutiny over this question. The quality and clarity of his presentation of the forensics rehash has skillfully hidden the double standards which he subtly implies in relation to “big Boeings” vs other kinds of planes.

Having set his stage properly, Reynolds is now free to skillfully play this double standard throughout the rest of the article. It may seem obvious now in the glare of my analysis, but it wasn’t so obvious when one read the article for the first time, focusing on the more obvious aspects of what he was presenting and allowing him leeway as a newcomer to the issue.

In order to maintain this double speak, in amongst the incessant references to “big Boeings” and “767s”and “wide bodied airliners” Reynolds occasionally uses the generic term “plane” – without ever admitting that “planes” of any kind are ruled out by the same observations which rule out “big Boeings”

In fact, in a brief moment of transparency in the introduction, he openly declared that he could not at this stage commit to such a view. But even that admission was soothed with the appearance that all he needed was more time before he addressed that question.

The double speak continues.

[[it is difficult if not impossible to accept the proposition that a wide-body jetliner can smash into a dense steel-concrete tower and disappear virtually without a trace ]]

Reynolds then has a section where he talks generically about “planes” and how fragile they are , but still does not convert this to an overtly stated position that it is anything other than the

[[the government’s Big Boeing Theory]]

which is at issue, and never retracts his earlier claim that “planes” in a generic sense are still on the table.

He then moves into the section which contains most of the previously quoted material which I mentioned favourably – the “flimsy vs invincible” observations.

But even these have some subconscious qualifications built in.

[[767 aircraft are fragile rather than invincible and the holes in the towers were too small to allow passage of an intact 767 even if it were built to “invincible” standards…

…Conclusion: No Boeing 767 hit either WTC tower…

…the 767 would fly through a tower and continue at the same speed, speeding out the other side like a .357 magnum bullet fired through 1 mm thick balsa wood. Further, a Boeing 767 cutting completely through a tower would seriously destabilize the tower by cutting substantial core sections and major sections of at least two walls. ..

…all parties agree 767s are not invincible and it is impossible to build them to such a standard; even the government felt obligated to produce photos of aircraft pieces ….

…A 767 would be flimsy in a high-speed collision against a steel and concrete tower except for engines and undercarriage…]]

All well argued stuff. By this stage in the article its easy to have then forgotten his introductory statement about whether other kinds of planes might have hit the towers and why such arguments seemedto be unique to “big Boeings”.

[[I do not have enough evidence yet to say.]]

Hasn’t he just presented that evidence himself in convincing fashion? The “flimsy vs invincible” problem, which after copying from my article, took him 7 months to work out how to express in his own style, does not provide “enough evidence” ?

If not, then one might have thought that this amount of time might have provided Reynolds with an opportunity to think this problem through and present some reasons for why some kinds of planes might behave differently to “big Boeings ” in collisions.

Not yet. Let’s continue through his article.

[[While a 767 would carry enormous “momentum” or kinetic energy at impact, resistance by steel columns, spandrel plates, floors and core would consume its fixed energy supply rapidly…

…That leaves 767 proponents 100% dependent on the shredding/wrap-around theory…

…Faith in the Big Boeing Theory rests on each 767 disintegrating completely into small pieces inside each tower, concealing all plane parts…

…The official/Hoffman theory is impossible to accept unless the plane was rigged to explode or disintegrate upon contact with the wall, enabling its thorough destruction inside. That might restore some plausibility to the 767 story but it is certainly not the government story. ..

…There is no convincing physics for how two wide-body aluminum jetliners flying at high speed could penetrate steel walls, floors and core via undersized gashes, exhibit no deceleration in videos, decelerate to zero within a quarter second, and conceal themselves entirely within each tower.]]

Having so convincingly devastated the “big Boeing” or “wide bodied airliner” theory, Reynolds still refuses to contemplate the idea that such proofs apply equally to all types of planes, but effectively promises that he will get around to it.

[[Sorting out theories of “what really happened” awaits another day but note that nothing I have written above constitutes an endorsement of a particular alternative theory to the official 757/767 BBT lies…

In other words, Reynolds will not say “no planes” and will not yet explain why. But in order to hide this, he again uses the fog of battle with the planehugger enemy to subconsciously present himself as allied with the “no plane” argument.

…“To argue jetliners were not involved is baseless,” avers Jim Hoffman. I disagree, especially if Mr. Hoffman means the 767/757 fables sold to the public by the government. A series of physical impossibilities combined with numerous irrefutable facts contradict the official jetliner story, although questions about what really happened remain and multiple theories are still on the table. ]]

Once again, Reynolds hides his jump from “no planes” to “no 767/757s” by invoking the Hoffman bogey to cover the double speak .To the extent that it is transparent he makes an implied promise to address the question of other planes eventually, but more than a year later it still

[[awaits another day]]

Giving a brief reference to the video of the first tower strike, Reynolds observes

[[Whatever the flying object is, it does not look like a commercial airliner to me.]]

But it seems that this doesn’t count as definitive evidence either as he continues

[[Was there an actual aircraft or projectile of some kind? I don’t know, but if there was, someone tampered with the Naudet pixels so that no one can identify it in the video. Just like the five Pentagon parking lot frames dated September 12, the video conceals more than it reveals. Both are intended to deceive.]]

This is a particularly ugly piece of doublespeak. First Reynolds admits directly that it doesn’t look like a “commercial” airliner. Then he admits indirectly that it doesn’t look like any kind of plane, but in such a way as to plant the suggestion that it probably was.

[[Was there an actual aircraft or projectile of some kind? I don’t know, but if there was, someone tampered with the Naudet pixels so that no one can identify it in the video. ]]

So rather than simply admit directly that the video doesn’t look like any kind of plane, Reynolds again applies different standards to different kinds of planes. The idea of a “commercial” airliner is easily enough dismissed on the basis that it doesn’t look like one. No problem so far.

But rather than apply the same standards to “an actual aircraft of some kind”, Reynolds then suggests that the failure of the video to show any other kind of aircraft might mean that the video is faked. What a classic planehugger argument ! In keeping with the whole theme of the article , Reynolds is ready to easily accept and strongly argue any evidence against “big Boeings” or any of the other labels which he sometimes substitutes but refuses to apply the same standards to other kinds of planes. If it doesn’t show a BB, then it’s simple – there wasn’t one. But if it doesn’t show some other kind of plane then we should suspect that it’s a fake video.

This assumption begins as merely a suggestion to be considered, but is then quickly elevated to the level of a firm conclusion – again through the use of subliminal language. First Reynolds unnecessarily associates the Naudet video with the Pentagon frames – something which he knows that the great majority of no planers agree to be faked. Apart from distracting critical readers, it complicates any potential argument by forcing a potential critic to explain that these are two quite different cases. Otherwise a critic might be labeled as supporting the authenticity of the Pentagon frames if they word their critique carelessly. Furthermore, by associating the Naudet video with one which definitely is faked, Reynolds better hides his jump from suggestion to certainty in relation to the Naudet video, because what he attributes to both of them is clearly the case for the Pentagon frames.

[[Both are intended to deceive.]]

It seems that this method of presentation is intended to fog the awareness that it is supposedly the Naudet video which is under scrutiny here. The one which he admits does not show a plane.

A genuine undoctored video of a real event cannot be “intended to deceive” us about what the event was. So with this statement Reynolds is making an unqualified allegation that the Naudet is faked – but through subliminal suggestion, not direct argument. First, he created the impression of doubt in the first part of the quoted passage and then hid the jump from doubt to certainty by confusing the issue with the definitely faked Pentagon frames and then hid the certainty of the conclusion by the use of the term “intended to deceive”, rather than overtly stating that it’s a fake.

He seals the spin by also asserting that the video “conceals more than it reveals.” Unless a video is a fake then it can’t be concealing anything. It can only revealing what was there. A genuine undoctored video of the striking object approaching the WTC can not be “concealing” what the object is. The unqualified assertion that this video is an instrument of deception and concealment is complete gibberish unless taken to mean the only thing that it can possibly mean. That the Naudet video is faked.

When you untangle the doublespeak, Reynolds has presented a crude planehugger argument. That because the Naudet video does not show a plane then we must assume that the video is a fake. He attempted to hide this accusation from concious view not only thorugh the use of duplicitous language, but also by gratuitously tying the Naudet video to the Pentagon frames – which have nothing to do with the analysis in question.

While the actions of Reynolds are contemptible, I will admit an admiration for his extremely high skills in the use of deceptive subliminal language and hand him points for managing to pull the wool over my eyes for so long.

Having now led the reader to the view that the Naudet video is “concealing ” and “deceiving” – that is – fake – Reynolds has now used his article to suggest that there isn’t enough evidence to say that no planes hit the towers. The Naudet video doesn’t constitute evidence because it’s fake. And the physical evidence proves only that “big Boeings” did not hit the towers. He might as well be pushing the pod theory or the 737 spin already tried by earlier more crude attempts to drown the no plane evidence in a fog of substitute plane theories.

I have to marvel at the calculated and skillful manner in which he has presented his argument for planes hitting the WTC. No wonder it took him 7 months to write. It’s a masterpiece. He used my forensic arguments, and the Naudet video to present the exact opposite of what they actually prove, while superficially appearing to support the no plane position.In doing so, he subliminally merged the idea of “no Big Boeings” with that of “no planes”.

One is reluctant to pin the label of “cointelpro” on everyone who is fibbing and deceiving as there can be a lot of different motivations for such behavior. But given Reynolds’ background and the extraordinarily calculated nature and highly skilled presentation of this ugly piece of doublespeak, the accusation can be made here with more confidence than usual.

Reynolds boldly declares in conclusion that

[[the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven hogwash…

…What is clear is that the government is lying about the four reported Big Boeing crashes]]

So it appears that while the physics rule out “big Boeings” or “wide bodied jetliners” according to Reynolds, other kinds of planes are still on the table. This carefully downplayed assertion is made without any attempt to explain why they should follow different laws of physics. And a video which shows an object that is not a plane can’t be trusted, because if it doesn’t show a plane then it has to be faked.

I plead guilty to simply not noticing the duplicity of language in this article when it was first published. It may have also been that to any extent that I did notice it, I shrugged it off, thinking that Reynolds was on the right path and that given time he would get the rest of it, and that trying to ram the complete picture down someone’s throat before they’re ready for it is not always the best way to build a relationship.

In the light of this analysis, I feel frankly embarrassed that I was ever taken in by Reynolds’ pretence to be an ally in the no planes argument, but one lives and learns.

Reynolds of course is free to be as illogical as he likes in asserting that 767s follow different laws of physics from

[[commuter planes, specially prepared aircraft, military planes ]].

The problem is that none of the above physics observations are actually Reynolds’ work in concept, only in expression and style. In terms of concept his article is entirely my work – a direct copy – and yet it’s being used to present a view completely the antithesis of what I presented , while failing to overtly make the reader aware of the conflict, and using cleverly duplicitous language to try to create the impression that it is a reinforcement in agreement with my original work.

Reynolds continued this deception and increased the intensity of it with a follow up article published Oct 27 2006. Exploding the airliner crash myth.

He begins in similar fashion.

[[Steven Jones had publicly promised to publish pro-plane and anti-plane articles, had solicited them and this was our effort to defend the position that on 9/11 No Big Boeings crashed at the four government/media-designated sites.]]

It’s becoming a familiar pattern. As in his first article, Reynolds transforms “no planes” into ” no big Boeings” within one sentence, and hides the jump by burying it in the heat of confrontation with a notorious planehugger – this time Steven Jones. Notice that the terms “anti-plane” and “no big Boeings” are subliminally presented as being the same thing.

And now he really goes to town on this theme. Complaining that Jones refused to publish his article, he declares

[[Our article might also profitably be compared with the pro-plane article by Eric Salter (pdf) recently found worthy enough in terms of “scientific” merit to appear in Jones’ Journal. Amid Salter’s unprofessional attacks on No-Big-Boeing researchers, we encourage you to pick through his paper in search of scientific merit in the Salter defense of the government/media Big-Boeing WTC crash stories. We also ask the reader to consider why Salter’s paper proved worthy of journal acceptance and ours was not. Could it be that the editors did not want side-by-side comparison of the pro/con arguments and evidence about alleged Big Boeing crashes at the four designated sites on 9/11? See this for a powerful critique of Salter’s article]]

Notice that he describes Salter as “pro plane” one moment and as a defender of “Big Boeing theories” the next. A further reinforcement of the subliminal suggestion that they are the same thing. He then offers his critique of “alleged Big Boeing crashes” as one of the “anti – plane” articles which Jones was supposed to publish. Once again, the jump from “no plane” to “no big Boeing” is hidden by the heat of battle with strident planehuggers. But it’s not so much a jump from one concept to the other now. It a barrage of constant subliminal suggestion that they are the same thing.

He also widens the subliminal attack on any distinction between the two. He manages to covertly imply the false attribution of a “no big Boeings” position to people who are on record as avowed no planers.

[[Salter’s unprofessional attacks on No-Big-Boeing researchers]]

Anyone who knows the history of this issue knows about the attacks which Salter launched against Rosalee Grable, Scott Loughrey and myself – back when we were almost the only people carrying the no plane arguments. These attacks were launched before anyone had heard of Reynolds. But according to Reynolds, Salter was attacking “no Big Boeing researchers”. None of us ever used that phrase or even implied that it was our position.

So having plagiarized my forensics work in his first article to twist into a position of “no big Boeings”, Reynolds is now beginning the work to make it appear as if Rosalee, Scott and I – the three original no planers – are actually NBB advocates – to the extent that there is any difference at all in the doublespeak world of Reynolds.

He continues

[[Newtonian laws of motion combined with physical evidence prove no Boeing airliners crashed on September 11, 2001 at any of the four designated sites. ]]

This article was published 4 months after Reynolds’ first article which itself took him 7 months to write. This is more than enough time to address the glaring question of why, if Newtonian physics prove “no Big Boeings” do they fail to prove “no planes”. Reynolds is entitled to hold any view he likes. But he needs to be accountable for those views, to openly and transparently state them and to be prepared to argue them. His first article implied a promise to deal with the issue, but nothing has changed in this article.

Although he never overtly and obviously states it as such, Reynolds is effectively putting the view that Newtonian physics prove “no big Boeings” but do not prove “no planes”. And yet, although he is prepared to argue the first half of this view in detail, he steadfastly refuses to even transparently state the second part of the view, let alone argue the case.

The duplicity continues

[[here we prove no Big Boeings crashed, we repeat, no Big Boeings crashed (NBB), at designated locations]]

And now Reynolds launches a direct assault on the people whom he pretends to support. The people who’s work he has attached himself to like a parasite. He now purports to speak on their behalf thus.

[[The conspiracy runs deep and the No Big Boeings Crashed (NBB), not the somewhat misnamed no-planes-theory (NPT), takes the analysis to a new level, right into the inner sanctum. ]]

Well, thank you very much Professor Reynolds for pointing out to me that “no planes” is a misnaming of our “theory” that no planes hit the WTC. How else would one suggest that a view of no planes be described?

It doesn’t matter whether or not Reynolds likes the “no planes” tag , because it accurately describes the view held by Rosalee and I and a number of others and it is not for Reynolds to falsely attribute to us a different view for the sake of his political comfort.

In his efforts to take possession of our work and control it and misrepresent it, Reynolds not only hides his own position through duplicitous language, he presumes the power to tell us that we don’t claim no planes either, only “no Big Boeings”.

That’s news to us.

Also notice that while using the word “theory” in relation to “no planes”, the term NBB is free of any such qualification. Reynolds of course is free to assert that one thing is proven and therefore no longer a “theory” while the same certainty cannot be afforded to other things. I’ll readily admit that I do the same thing myself. The difference is that I’m upfront about what my views are. The same can’t be said for Reynolds. He’s fooled most of the Sept 11 research and discussion community into thinking that he’s no planer, when he might as well be a pod pusher or 737 advocate. Is a 737 a “big Boeing” or a “medium” sized Boeing ? One might might make a reasonable case for the latter description and if so, is Reynolds prepared to rule out a 737 ?

Whatever hogwash Reynolds wants to believe about smaller planes or military planes is his own business. But he has no business falsely attributing such views to others who have clearly stated “no planes”.

Reynolds now delivers a full on assault on our position disguising it as support.

[[The other side makes the familiar charges that NBB advocates are kooks, divisive and spew nonsense to discredit the sensible 9/11 skeptics. The media, goes the argument, can have a field day any time they wish by setting NBB proponents and opponents against each other, so no-crash advocates had best remain silent to preserve a united front and not confuse the public…

…Once their deception and treasonous collaboration come into bright sunlight for all to see, an unprecedented wave of anger will be unleashed against the killers, their media mouthpieces and their paymasters. The traitors will be drowned and America’s reinvention will begin. This explains the intensity of the Big Boeing debate]]

Who would have thought it? For more than four years I have laboured under the delusion that I have been involved in an intense debate arguing the case for no planes. It’s just as well that Morgan Reynolds has finally arrived to inform me that I was really arguing for “no Big Boeings”. I just didn’t know it ! Thanks so much Professor Reynolds, for telling me what I really believe, and what I’ve really been arguing for!

Having established that “no planes” supposedly does not describe my position or that of other committed no planers, Reynolds then proceeds to copy a swag of documentation from my research relating to evidence which in terms of “no planes” is more circumstantial – documentation casting doubt on the specific flights or destruction of the specific planes in the official story. The use of this information within the context of having just falsely labeled us as NBB advocates further implies the fiction we are one with Reynolds in our “no Big Boeing” views.

Reynolds then goes on to present what could be described as an updated version of his previous article, and then completes his implied attribution to me as an advocate of “NBB” by boasting that he’s got me on side to argue such a case.

[[Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That is a new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the “Gerard Holmgren” variety would crush them. ]]

In fact it appears that if there is anyone who is terrified of being “crushed” by me, it is Reynolds himself. Because as his duplicity has gradually become clear to me over time, I have repeatedly challenged him to debate the physics of why Newtonian laws prove NBB but not no planes. Reynolds is not only too afraid to debate this question, he is even afraid to openly declare himself as holding such a position. Take this piece of slithering doublespeak from an email dated April 28 2007.

Responding to Nico Haupt’s observation that Reynolds “hugs smaller planes”, Reynolds proceeded to both deny and confirm the accusation within the space of of one sentence.

[[Nico, Reynolds does not “hug smaller planes” but leaves open the question of what
really happened for lack of adequate evidence yet. But we have overwhelming proof that Boeings did not crash at any of the four designated sites. That is beyond doubt.]]

So within the one sentence, Reynolds claims not to hug smaller planes and then goes on to assert that there is a lack of adequate evidence to say that no such planes crashed into the WTC. Can you say “doublethink”?

“Lack of adequate evidence yet”. Exactly the same line that he was hawking more than a year earlier in his first article. No development of that position. The question which more than a year earlier was dismissed with the vague promise that it

[[awaits another day ]]

apparently still

[[awaits another day ]].

The question which more than a year earlier was dismissed with

[[I do not have enough evidence yet to say.]]

has since received not one word of analysis or debate from Reynolds and when pressed about it is reiterated as

[[lack of adequate evidence yet.]]

Note the sleight of hand here. By using the term “lack of adequate evidence”, Reynolds attempts to create the impression that he is simply not expressing any view at all. This is pure deception. Reynolds is presenting a very definite view. He is stating that physics observations prove beyond doubt that Boeings did not crash, but that the same physics observations do not make the same case against other kinds of planes. This is therefore a covertly expressed, but nevertheless clear claim that one has strong reason to believe that other kinds of planes might behave differently to “big Boeings” in such a situation.

To assert that Newtonian physics prove something beyond doubt in relation to one kind of plane but provide “a lack of adequate evidence” in relation to some other kind of plane, Reynolds is quite clearly putting forward the view that there is something fundamentally different about the way that different kinds of planes respond to such physical laws.

If that’s the argument, then lets hear it. No such luck. In more than a year of thundering against “big Boeings” but declaring himself agnostic about other kinds of planes ,Reynolds has never addressed one word of analysis or argument to reasons for this difference. He has provided nothing but brief generic conclusions implying a vague promise that one day he’ll get around to it. We have been patient with him, but that patience has now run out.

In this recent email he again employs his masterful use of doublespeak to give the impression that he’s not suggesting anything at all. That he simply has no opinion. As shown above this subliminal suggestion does not stand up to close scrutiny. He is expressing a very definite opinion. That there is no reason for any confidence in applying Newtonian physics in this way to any kind of plane other than “big Boeings”.

He’s now had plenty of time to argue that case. But he prefers to try to pretend that it’s not his position.

Since he wont provide such a case in his articles, he has been repeatedly challenged on email lists to present such arguments there and refuses to do so. Perhaps he is afraid that

[[an attorney of the “Gerard Holmgren” variety would crush them. ]]

So afraid in fact, that he tries to deny holding any opinion at all, by means of the duplicitous slithering quoted and analyzed above.

This is a contemptible and cowardly attitude. On the one hand, Reynolds boasts that he has me on hand to “crush” his opponents for him, apparently chortling in glee over their impending destruction at my hands, but then runs off in a hurry when asked to take his own medicine. While using – or to put it more specifically – *misrepresenting* my work and touting my name in an apparent attempt to scare or intimidate plane huggers, the professed respect for me doesn’t go as far as being prepared to put his NBB spin to the test in a debate with me.

It was OK to directly copy my physics observations to use in his own article, but those same observations are not worth the time to test in debate.

I have been misused and misrepresented by Reynolds for too long now. I have been more than patient with him in waiting for him to clear up what I first thought (foolishly so on my part) to be anomalies, uncertainties and teething problems in the learning process on his part, but are now revealed as having been part of a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception campaign from the beginning.

So it appears that some “crushing” has now become necessary.

This article has only scratched the surface of the duplicitous game of the 9/11 Liars Club of Fetzer,Wood and Reynolds.

In future installments, I will analyze how the duplicity of Reynolds as exposed in this article is integrated into a carefully planned network of deception with fellow Liar’s Club members, Fetzer and Wood.‹ This Is Gerard Holmgren’s Site There’s No Research HereupIt’s an angry little truthling ›theSaiGirl’s blogLogin or register to post comments444 reads

Comment viewing options

Flat list – collapsedFlat list – expandedThreaded list – collapsedThreaded list – expandedDate – newest firstDate – oldest first10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per pageSelect your preferred way to display the comments and click “Save settings” to activate your changes.

theSaiGirl's picture

Mining for useful insights

Submitted by theSaiGirl on Sun, 2007-07-22 06:02.

It’s important not to let Holmgren’s rhetorical excesses, rude temperment and insufferable arrogance get in the way of the well-thought-out content of his method.

He extrapolates very logically, almost mathematically, down the paths and implications and agendas represented by these individuals,
…the muddying of waters to service variant possible narratives,
… the introduction of a tolerable level of cognitive dissonance around this or that contradictory and arbirtary configuration of dual facts
…. the undermining of basic and essential facts that would be the foundation
for any kind of case or argument.

He argues with a very ruthless and precise logic.

Unfortunately, most of his projections and predictions over the years have turned out to be correct.
So, empirically speaking, we really have no choice but to consider the lab record, when modeling the likely future paths and behaviors of the individiuals and evolving world-views to be packaged for consumption.

I believe that there is also a kind of social construct model described here; or form of organization (style of social network “realtionships” accomplished through manipulation of others, individual manipulation of thirid- and fourth- parties and, especially, organized self-deception.
This reads like a clinical pathological or socio-pathological biopsy, which Holmgren dissects in sometimes excruciating detail.

It is rather like parsing a strictly legal argument.

A style some might mis-charactarize as “pedantic” or Talmudic ….
or..
.. as self-serving opportunist and apple-polishing careerist James Fetzer might characterize it
….”vitriolic”…
It’s really the painful and depressing ethical implications, presented here, that make the most difficult reading.

Holmgren really does drag us back to Orwell again.
And one wonders whether figures like Wood or Reynolds are themselves somehow assimilated into a permanent structure of deception, ventilated by lots of vague and indecisive “clues” to “truth” …
just enough to keep things “in control” … politcally, ideologically…

As you read thru the brief excerpt below, keep in mind that WE ALREADY KNOW the historical role played by Fetzer …

Recall how Fetzer was “manipulated”
(according to Fetzer’s own testimony)
by Floum, Steve Jones, Fred Burks … and
Fetzer himself has publicly conceded that he was conned and shucked and jived by the covert faction of “Los Alamos 9/11 Truth”… for quite some time.

But now.. he has seen the light.
And he has broken the bonds of darkness and deception.
He is born anew…. ready to lead.

Think about Fetzer’s relationship (again historically and structurally) to other figures who somehow, magickally, get MSM exposure …..
or mainstream fake “alternative” media
from Alex Jones to John Stadtmiller, to Phil Berg and Webster Tarpley…

Think about who ends up making it onto that cable TV screen the most; when they get the exposure and how they get it (that’s never unplanned or spontaneous) ……

Think about the whole way this “9/11 truth” thing has been structured and synchronized from a media management point-of-view.

Put it in it larger social context.

And think about how emerging directions of thought (research) and new social tendencies challenging the authority of corporate media domination (activism) … might be channeled, contained, “satisfied” with empty symbolic “victories” … content to live lip-service to “truth” that is engieered to go nowhere….

That’s what it makes it the most gut-wrenching of all…

…………………………………………………………..
excerpt:
==============================
==============================
Note the sleight of hand here. By using the term “lack of adequate evidence”, Reynolds attempts to create the impression that he is simply not expressing any view at all. This is pure deception. Reynolds is presenting a very definite view. He is stating that physics observations prove beyond doubt that Boeings did not crash, but that the same physics observations do not make the same case against other kinds of planes. This is therefore a covertly expressed, but nevertheless clear claim that one has strong reason to believe that other kinds of planes might behave differently to “big Boeings” in such a situation.

To assert that Newtonian physics prove something beyond doubt in relation to one kind of plane but provide “a lack of adequate evidence” in relation to some other kind of plane, Reynolds is quite clearly putting forward the view that there is something fundamentally different about the way that different kinds of planes respond to such physical laws.

If that’s the argument, then lets hear it. No such luck. In more than a year of thundering against “big Boeings” but declaring himself agnostic about other kinds of planes ,Reynolds has never addressed one word of analysis or argument to reasons for this difference. He has provided nothing but brief generic conclusions implying a vague promise that one day he’ll get around to it. We have been patient with him, but that patience has now run out.

In this recent email he again employs his masterful use of doublespeak to give the impression that he’s not suggesting anything at all. That he simply has no opinion. As shown above this subliminal suggestion does not stand up to close scrutiny. He is expressing a very definite opinion. That there is no reason for any confidence in applying Newtonian physics in this way to any kind of plane other than “big Boeings”.

He’s now had plenty of time to argue that case. But he prefers to try to pretend that it’s not his position.
…..
Since he wont provide such a case in his articles, he has been repeatedly challenged on email lists to present such arguments there and refuses to do so. Perhaps he is afraid that

[[an attorney of the “Gerard Holmgren” variety would crush them. ]]

So afraid in fact, that he tries to deny holding any opinion at all, by means of the duplicitous slithering quoted and analyzed above.

This is a contemptible and cowardly attitude. On the one hand, Reynolds boasts that he has me on hand to “crush” his opponents for him, apparently chortling in glee over their impending destruction at my hands, but then runs off in a hurry when asked to take his own medicine. While using – or to put it more specifically – *misrepresenting* my work and touting my name in an apparent attempt to scare or intimidate plane huggers, the professed respect for me doesn’t go as far as being prepared to put his NBB spin to the test in a debate with me.

It was OK to directly copy my physics observations to use in his own article, but those same observations are not worth the time to test in debate.

I have been misused and misrepresented by Reynolds for too long now. I have been more than patient with him in waiting for him to clear up what I first thought (foolishly so on my part) to be anomalies, uncertainties and teething problems in the learning process on his part, but are now revealed as having been part of a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception campaign from the beginning.
===============================================
================================================

Support Rollie, like you viewers keep PBS alive PayPal.me/RollieQuaidcom Bitcoin: qrk7qz2h3nr3kax22cxh7m8qsyy9demt2ynt5ql75y https://discord.gg/R9CfwGD Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"." patreon.com/Rollie_Quaid https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB-BQKpAVgKeNmBVgaDvehQ/videos?view_as=subscriber Explore the Mind’s 🧠 👁 Eye

0 comments on “Holmgren’s Deeper Analysis of Manipulation within the “truth” movement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: