Monday, July 24, 2006

Now We Know Why He Isn't a Military Expert

Yesterday, I made a post on an video of speeches given by Morgan Reynolds and Ken Jenkins at the recent Chicago conspiracy theory conference. I pointed out that Ken Jenkins argued, correctly, that the hole in the side of the Pentagon was not 16 feet wide, but 90 feet wide. Well here is an article (hat tip BG) from the other half of the duo, from Morgan Reynolds, presumably the one guy who would know economics, but in the tradition of the "scholars", they prefer to discuss issues entirely outside of their field of knowledge.

Here is my favorite quote:

MR: “Well, a lot of us [Scholars for 9/11 Truth] have worked on the physical evidence front, because it is a lot stronger than eyewitness testimony.

Well yeah, when the overwhelming majority of the witnesses go against you, you have to discount their testimony as weak. That is called the "scientific method".

Now he gets into the weaponry:

LSI: “What do you believe regarding the Pentagon? Was it a missile that hit it?”

MR: “Most likely. It was a cruise missile, I think. I mean, if you want to bust bunkers, which is what they’re made for. They are sub-sonic, penetrating, explosive warheads. There are other theories that I would not reject offhand. It could have been an F-16. It could have been, and I don’t believe this, but it could have been an AT Sky Warrior [sic]. There are others that believe it was an entirely internal explosion. On my website (nomoregames.net), I assembled the strongest evidence I feel proves that it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The most recent development is that you couldn’t, at 500 miles per hour plus, bring a plane in at the first floor. It is physically impossible.”

OK, professor, please explain what model of "bunker buster" cruise missile can knock a 90 foot hole in the side of a building, explode, and then continue through 3 more rings of the Pentagon, all while distributing airplane parts. Or how exactly an F-16 can do that.

Now he is an expert on aircraft construction:

LSI: “What about the light posts? Wouldn’t a plane’s wing get ripped off from hitting just one of those?”

MR: “Right. Yeah. As the movie Loose Change shows, there was a small, corporate aircraft that his one light pole at Houston/Hobby and, um, it wrecked the plane. It was everywhere. People don’t appreciate the difference between steel and aluminum. I mean, I went and weighed my sledgehammer. It is 9 ½ lbs. I could take that hammer and just wreck havoc on a 757’s wing. I could whack a few panels off very easily. The fuselage is only two millimeters thick. It would not be difficult.”

OK, you weighed your sledgehammer, congratulations. Now I have an idea. Go out to the runway at Dallas-Fort Worth, and stand there in the middle and wait for a 757 to land. Hold your sledgehammer up and take a whack at the wing. Let me know which suffers the most damage, you or the wing.

Now he bizarrely argues that the towers were more hardened than the Pentagon, which was made out of reinforced concrete.

MR: “The point is, while the towers were definitely more hardened than the pentagon, the plane would just shatter; crumple. There would be debris.

And finally Professor Reynolds flunks 8th grade science.

If I put my arms out, and come walking toward you at a fairly fast pace, and then bump into you, my arms move forward. (Laughs) Just simple physics! This is 8th grade science, here! Then, you have these engines, with 50,000 pounds of thrust, driving these things into the building. And somehow they folded up and didn’t impact the wall of that building? People need to do their homework on such an important issue.”

OK, professor. Here is an idea. Put your arms out, and slam against the wall at 500 MPH, now what happens to them?

I am still amazed. What is it about conspiracy theories that makes otherwise intelligent people into blithering idiots?

8 Comments:

At 25 July, 2006 03:13, Blogger apathoid said...

Theres so much concentrated idiocy from Reynolds here, its kinda hard to quantify it all.
1. Bunker busters are bombs, not cruise missiles.
2. Whats an AT Sky Warrior?
3. F-16s dont have 90+ foot wingspans.
4. Its very physically possible to fly a 757 at 500 mph and hit a building with it(even the first floor). This is my new pet peeve. Just as there are no SEs or CEs who are in the CD camp - there are no 757/767 drivers in the "no plane" at the Pentagon camp.
5. The aircraft that hit the light pole in the Houston crash was already crashing when it hit the pole(duhh)
6. Breakaway light posts are made of steel?
7. The 757 leading edges are not actually part of the wings. They are strong, beefy flight controls called slats. They are very capable of withstanding a relatively lightweight aluminum obstacle.

If I put my arms out, and come walking toward you at a fairly fast pace, and then bump into you, my arms move forward. (Laughs) Just simple physics! This is 8th grade science, here! Then, you have these engines, with 50,000 pounds of thrust, driving these things into the building. And somehow they folded up and didn’t impact the wall of that building? People need to do their homework on such an important issue

The point is, while the towers were definitely more hardened than the pentagon, the plane would just shatter; crumple. There would be debris.


8. What is the brainiac trying to imply here ? Isnt he defeating his own point? First, the plane should punch a Wiley Coyote hole in the Pentagon, since thats what happened at the "more hardened" WTC. But, then he says "the plane would just shatter;crumple"
...which is it? Plow through leaving a 757 shaped hole or shatter?

Isnt this guy who is also a no-planer at the WTC?

 
At 25 July, 2006 06:43, Blogger James B. said...

There actually is a bunker buster version of the standard US military cruise missile. Although the way it actually works is to fly above its target, and dive into it to gain velocity.

 
At 25 July, 2006 06:56, Blogger freestone said...

well well well...

I, afer having also read
http://www.911myths.com/
LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

Lament.

I lament how for over ayear now, almost every "intelligent" person that I meet, in the Liberal Borders cafe, and the other hangouts of supposedly
inteligent people, seem to be as One with their same summations how Bush and the us gov did the trade center in!
I almost have to avoid the Intelligent people altogether as they ALL seem to think this way.

I recall last year a confrontation between one of these true believers and someone, he said in anger to this guy as this guy did not belive that 12 ruling families control the oil all over the world and for 5000+ years...."give me four hours and you do not say one word and you *WILL* believe"!!

Many of these same people also belive the jet contrails are out to get you, population control and all of that.
there seems to be a kind of "cabal" of thoughforms that if you belive one of them you have to believe all
of them, probably there are many university departments where one HAS to follow this Line or else!

Oh the trickyness of this all: to prune the tree of Falsehoods without cutting off the live branches!
When one gets to things such as ghosts and UFOs, for instance, one must be carefull not to make *everything* a 'falsehood": there might be Real Stuff in some of the theories!!

freestone

 
At 25 July, 2006 07:15, Blogger CHF said...

"If I put my arms out, and come walking toward you at a fairly fast pace, and then bump into you, my arms move forward. (Laughs) Just simple physics! This is 8th grade science, here!"

I just don't know what to say anymore. Their analogies are something the Onion would come up with to parody these loons.

 
At 25 July, 2006 08:01, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

If you actually lok at the few good photos of the 90 ft hole, you see a few things to debunk this guy.

Starters, the wing span of the 757/767 is much greater than 90 feet, so obviously not all the wing penentrated.

Also, if you look at the 90 ft hole, it is only 90 ft wide for a few feet, and then we reach the floor supports, some of which are destroyed, but others, most notibly, where the wings would have entered, are bent and damaged, but not destroyed. The more you study these photos, with either bit of COMMON SENSE, the more you realize that it was exactly a large jet airliner that crashed into the pentagon, and nothing else.

We keep waiting to hear from a legitimate expert from this group, but we are just dreaming. This group only attracts the wingnuts, because the rest of the scientific community is smart and sane enough to realize the "Real Truth".

 
At 25 July, 2006 11:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

5. The aircraft that hit the light pole in the Houston crash was already crashing when it hit the pole(duhh)

and beyond that, reynolds said himself it was a small corporate jet (gulf stream 2 IIRC) id suspect a lightpole can do more damage to a small plane than a large 757

 
At 07 August, 2006 10:21, Blogger onfoyou said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

 
At 11 August, 2006 17:52, Blogger elephantcom said...

Interesting site. Useful information. Bookmarked.
»

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home