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?