The "Patriots and 9/11" Trap

Websites like "Patriots Question 9/11" function as bait to attract people who think that it's an asset to have big names in a movement. They spread the urls without realizing that sites like this are packed with nonsense and ultimately function as a boobytrap to link us all to theories that commercial jets weren't involved on 9/11, that passengers were dissappeared or never existed, phone calls were all faked, etc -- all the stuff that makes average people see us as crazy. The most obvious examples on the list are Reynolds and Shayler, but many of the others on Patriots Question 9/11 are supporting nonsense which mainstream media has already trashed us with, like the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon.

At first I wondered, why does the website "Patriots Question 9/11" feature known hologram promoter David Shayler and known no-plane-at-the-WTC promoter Morgan Reynolds? I tried writing to the owner of the website but got no response. Pretty soon, looking at more of the names, I realized that this is just another hoax site that functions primarily to discredit us. Maybe the webmaster is sincere but he's being fed ideas or information from others, or maybe he isn't sincere. We generally can never know these things. But what we do know is that knowingly listing a HOLOGRAM advocate as a "Patriot" is absurd, and government officials who think a missile hit the Pentagon are probably still working for the givernment and will only decrease our credibility.

Ultimately, however, getting rid of Reynolds and Shayler won't help this site or these types of efforts. It's already clear what its message is - mix the nonsense with the real stuff and label and hype it as "big names" from the government who can "help" us. Well, we've got all the "help" we need. Instead, why don't we stick to the work of real activists and real researchers - grassroots - and forget about the slick loud hoax traps that everyone walks into over and over when they are trying to reach people through FOX news, cool films and big names celebrities. Even Charlie Sheen was saying he didn't think those were "real" commercial jets that hit the WTC. Did you notice that? Well he did. Look again.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

SHAYLER:
"A recent article for the British magazine New Statesman profiled David Shayler and Annie Machon, former MI5 agents who went public with details of their service, who have since joined the growing "9/11 truth movement." Much to Machon's chagrin, Shayler outed himself as a "no-planer" who believes the airliners we saw strike the World Trade Center towers were actually cruise missiles disguised as planes using sophisticated hologram technology. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes…I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe," Shayler told journalist Brendan O'Neill."
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1006/1006debunking.htm

The Sunday Times - Comment
The Sunday Times September 10, 2006
Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms
David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. "We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," he tells the New Statesman. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. "I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes." Hard to believe, isn't it? Come to think of it, are we sure this isn't an MI5 agent posing as Shayler in an attempt to discredit him? Is there indeed such a person as Shayler, or was he — as some now think — invented by the CIA?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2350584,00.html

"got the chance to chat with David Shayler afterwards, who was drawing quite a crowd around him. I was a little surprised to hear him talk about holograms, and it seems Shayler may be a 'no-planer'."
http://jultra.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-david-ray-griffin-david-shayler.html


REYNOLDS
The papers of Reynolds and Woods grab at anything they can to try to discredit Physics Prof. Steven Jones, which functions to deflect attention from any sincere address of the content of the debate -- they make stabs at Jones' character, his previous work in cold fusion, the timing of his responses to their papers, and call him names like "retarded," of all things. Just looking at the papers briefly, the character attacks and efforts to deflect away from content are everywhere.

Here are some quotes from the essay, "Reynolds & Wood Try to Help Steven E. Jones"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/255413.shtml

Other references on Reynolds:

A response to Reynolds and Wood (Word Document)
Frank Legge
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Response_to_Reynolds_and_Wood2.doc

A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?"
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, June 26, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/

Reply to Reynolds and Wood--Part I (Word Document)
Steven E. Jones
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
12 September 2006, georgewashington.blogspot
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html

A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories
by Eric Salter
28 September 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html
updated version: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf (PDF)

Notice that although many facets of this piece have merit the author never supports the connection of a missile hitting the Pentagon with the no plane distractions and he deliberately conflates the two separate investigation paths.
One thing to remember through all this is the fact that the government conspiracy theory of improbable circumstances is unsupportable at any level under examination

In criticising the no planes research, the author is entitled to their opinion, but a basic courtesy which should be extended to all, no matter how much you might disagree with someone's work, is that when you criticise it, you should link to it, so that readers can see it for themselves and unltimately make up their own mind.

By failing to do so, the author above insults the readers by effectively issuing an instruction about what to believe, and telling the readers that they are not to be trusted with a viewing of the actual work in question to be able to make up their own minds.

I've written some savage ctritiques, but I have always been meticulous about linking to everything which I crticise and about quoting word for word from the critiqued articles, in sections large enough to be meaningful, not paraphrasing.

For example, the author critiquing the no planes research refers to "holograms" which simply isn't what's being proposed.

Shayler's statements about Holograms don't count because Shayler didn't do any of the no planes research, does not understand it, does not accurately represent it, and is not connected in any way with the real researchers. Shayler has no credibility whatsoever with the actual researchers involved, and is most likley spouting the hologram stuff deliberately to confuse the issue.

The author above knows this very well, which is why Shayler- a late coming buffoon with no research credentials at all, who spouts this misleading stuff,twisting our work - is quoted, but the actual research - which does not propse holograms is not quoted.

You can say whatever you like about somebody's views, but to falsely attribute to them views which they do not promote - while denying the reader the opportunity to verify for themselves what the critiqued researchers say and what they don't say - is defamation.

This is probably why the author chooses to remain anonymous, although there is little doubt from the style of the writing that the author is Mark Robinowitz.

Robinowitz is critiqued here.

How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman Lied about the BTS database
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/rabidbts.html

You'll notice that in the critique linked above, I do Robinowitz the courtesy of quoting him word for word and linking to his website so that people can check that I've quoted him accurately - a stark contrast to Robinowitz's attack on me where he lies about my work and fails to link to it.

Robinowitz is also extensively quoted and linked in this critique.

The Truth about Truthlings - The 9/11 doublethink movement
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/slithering.html

In order to redress the lack of protocol shown here by Robinowitz in again failing to accurately represent or link to the work under attack, I provide the links to the actual no plane research in question, so that readers can look at it for themselves instead of being ordered what to think, "Lord Of The Flies" style.

No big plane hit the Pentagon

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/pentagon.html

No Plane crashed near Shanksville
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/93.html

No big plane hit the Nth Tower

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/nthtower.html

No big plane hit the Sth Tower
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/sthtower.html

Two of the allegedly hijacked flights did not exist
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

The two flights which did exist did not crash anywhere
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/aircraftregistry.html

Wont you trust this guy?

Shanksville is a good example at miss-direction.
The Government's case of ridiculous and preposterous fabrications are simply unbelievable.
They have no case. The Sept. 11 Event is a wide open window of the true intentions of the ultra- elite.
We are chickens in their coup, staring at the white line drawn in front of us.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=94

That stated, we must remember that these rancorous attacks on the members of the 9-11 Truth movement is deliberate divisiveness.

This was the impact zone. Note the debris and wreckage strewn about.

This was too graphic for my pet chicken.