Morgan Reynolds w/interview by Joe Friendly

In this show for "Truth for a Change" Joe Friendly does a mini interview with Morgan Reynolds, who had a prominent position in the bush administration in the Labor Department before he dropped out because of the many inconsistencies in the official version of what happened during 9/11

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• morgan
• reynolds
• joe
• friendly
• exotic
• weaponry
• 9//1
• truth

[rossini55]

Truthers are like Creationists. Pick up on unknowns and claim wild and wacky implausible 'alternatives' but have no evidence to support their own claims.

Kind of like "Conspiracy of the Gaps"

[joefriendly]

@rossini55 Evidence supporting claim of controlled demolition. Speed of collapse can only be explained as result of controlled demolition. Supporting steel core columns had to be cut with thermate cutting charges. That's the only explanation for pools of molten iron at sites. Columns yielding by eventually tearing would have take much more time. Best evidence of all, high-tech nano-thermate adapted for spraying found in all 911 dust samples by Harrit et al in peer reviewed article.

[joefriendly]

It was reported one of the engines of the B25 did fall down an elevator shaft and cause fires. In the WTC baffles were installed in the elevator shafts to prevent air drafts in case of fire. Your point that the empty beer can analogy doesn't quite apply compared with a full can sounds reasonable.

Yes, science holds its theories only so long as no better explanations come along.

Currently there is effort in NYC for a new, legit, 911 commission, with a citizen initiative petition project.

[ToYouWhoHaveEars]

If you notice the B52 crash is a slow crash but WTC crash was much faster. Also the colour of the fireball is determined by the fuel. Is B52 gas the same as UA gas? The 'beer can' is not empty. It is *widely* known that 911 was an inside job and the movement could spend forever gathering consensus. We all help the best we can. In science any explanations are temporary, working theories. "So you're a conspiracy theorist?"---"No, my *working theory* is...."

Press for public investigation.

[joefriendly]

It was a B25, not a B52 that went into the Empire State building in 1947. Googling reveals others made the same mistake. B25's used internal combustion engines, not jets, and therefore used high octane gasoline.

Therefore, altho slower and lighter, that hit did present more stress temperature-wise than the 911 strikes that only involved low octane jet fuel, amounting to kerosene. However, even burning high octane gasoline doesn't reach the 2000 degree F temperatures that soften steel.

[joefriendly]

The question is how much hole and how much squash. I would like to see such a test to determine how much penetration. Further, compared to cement, the steel columns forming the perimeter of the World Trade Towers were extra strength steel according to Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriter Labs, fired for whistleblowing. That's the test we need to conduct, firing an aluminum bullet into such steel.

[911mythbusters]

Morgan Reynolds Rules!

[OzzybinOswald2]

If you still think those were real planes you are in a deep, state-induced trance.

[rossini55]

@joefriendly However the towers would have fallen would have been claimed as conspiracy. If they had fallen like trees, as many suggest, the Truthers would have STILL said it was a conspiracy. Truthers have to come up with a chronology of events, and a feasability study of how such a theory would be possible. You have nothing to look at, bring NOTHING to the table to even discuss. Make a movie or animation showing the events you think happened.

[Sept11Discovery]

SUPPORT THE SEPT 11TH, RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY PROJECT!

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

[TSMPimpDaddyPain]

@USAneedsaChange you just going to cry, or actually tell us about all the specific lies he told?

[USAneedsaChange]

One of the worst talks about this I've seen. Only good part was when he gave info on real airplanes and he got that from other sources so to speak(didn't make it up himself).

So many lies here, especially in the beginning. Either he lied or he simply doesn't know any better.

And, in the end when he talks about the wings and compares to his arms(!?), he both makes a stupid assumption and also go against witnesses(one was a reporter who said "like a cruise missilie with wings").

Just BS.

[beachcomber2008]

@Challagar "I do not believe everything that I hear or read" - I don't "believe" ANYTHING I hear or read. However I UNDERSTAND evidential rules, logic, reason, and engineering, including the metallurgy, the aero-engineering,

"The evidence is clear" - ONLY if you understand it. That is, the evidence of the truth of the NIST Report

watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI

Millions of views but you have missed them

What are the similarities & differences between the 4 impacts?

[Challagar]

@TruthInjector watch?v=O10Tm5bjYoM

[Challagar]

@beachcomber2008 Hold on. I have seen the evidence for myself and I do not believe everything that I hear or read. The evidence is clear.  It was a false flag operation; clearly the MO of the CIA. If you can't accept this then you do not want to accept it. No amount of evidence can prove something to someone who just does not want to see the truth.