Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood Smack Down Steven Jones

[Brainster]

Looks like the "big tent" of the 9-11 Deniers is getting a little tattered. Woods resigned from the "Scholars" a few days ago; now we find out why:

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

They do a lot of debunking Jones' theories; I haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into that part. Considering that Wood still clings to her Keebler Elves in a tree analogy for the towers, I'm not too hopeful that this will be a definitive debunking.

The purges will continue until morale improves!

[Make7]

1. "Jones has proved nothing."

Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of manganese, sulfur and fluorine suggest a "thermite fingerprint" (p. 77). Perhaps he is right but there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has proved nothing.

http://www.nomoregames.net

- Make7

[BootinUp]

2. hilarious.

[Carefulplease]

3. This is how 9/11 science advances...

An insider view on the 9/11 Scholars's way of debating the merits of alternative hypothesis -- or -- some vicious bitch fight between No-Planers and Thermitians.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Thermitians!! OMG

:rofl:

Rhymes with emissions?

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[mirandapriestly]

28. I'd rather be a "thermitian", than believe what the Bush

administration tells me

[Carefulplease]

37. That's fine with me...

But then you're a No-Planer-Thermitian. You will thus never be anointed Scholar-for-Truth in any 911-Congregation. That would be like being a Catholic-Protestant nun.

[AZCat]

74. Fortunately, one doesn't have to be either. n/t

[salvorhardin]

75. Excluded middle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excluded_middle

[LARED]

80. Either view is like a watching a train wreck in slow motion

but with a sense of sadness.

[Carefulplease]

4. On Jones's "peer-reviewed" paper...

"Perhaps Professor Jones' most disturbing offense is failure to verify his data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The origin of his evidence is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and proof for the testing processes undocumented. Just like the 9/11 Commission's methods, much of Jones' so-called evidence is "self referential," that is, it is a closed loop of alleged results inaccessible and therefore unverifiable by outsiders. It is the "trust me" approach. Jones champions peer review yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline."

[Carefulplease]

6. Orthodox 9/11 Thermitians counterattack... Uncle Fetzer under fire...

Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and other suspected dissidents might be paid shills!

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

REYNOLDS CAME FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, FOR F**K SAKES! FROM THE GET-GO, HE SHOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY BEEN THE LEAST TRUSTED -- AND HAD TO HAVE PROVED HIS HONESTY THE HARDEST -- OUT OF ANYONE IN THE WHOLE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT

"this is a CLEAR cointelpro disinformation campaign meant to discredit the truth movement"

Agreed.

Like I've always said, Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction. Just like I STRONGLY suspect that Fetzer is as well.

As I recall, Fetzer didn't burst onto the 9/11 scene with his paper Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, until almost immediately AFTER Professor Jones released his first public draft of his beautiful research paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?" online.

(...)

2) But with Professor Jones being a credible, highly educated, and reputable person, would it not be safe to assume -- and should it not be expected that -- people working in the capacity of agents of disiniformation, distraction & destruction, would try to befriend Professor Jones, or infiltrate any honest groups he may belong to, in an attempt to hinder him and his work from reaching a critical mass of exposure, ultimately trying to destroy him and his work, from the inside out?

[mhatrw]

7. All this, yet still no comments on NIST's own study of the actual evidence

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315

Strange, isn't it, that everyone on this thread has so much time to comment on the perceived deficiencies and conflicts of the personalities in this small group (Jones, Woods and Reynolds), but no time to analyze what the actual physical evidence that NIST examined implies?

[Make7]

8. "...what could possibly be anyone's motivation..."

"...what could possibly be anyone's motivation for spending his or her precious time and energy propping up the official version of 9/11 (which serves as the only justification for so many abominable crimes and policies) against those who seek to cast doubt on it?" - mhatrw

- Make7

[mhatrw]

68. My question remains unanswered. n/t

[Carefulplease]

71. You might want to read messages #11 and #16 n/t

[BootinUp]

10. I would probably differ with you

I have commented on the NIST study, I have only been around a few days, but I started a thread "analysis of the WTC building collapse". Check it out.

Also I would differ with use of the term "perceived deficiencies".

[Carefulplease]

11. "No time to analyse the actual physical evidence..."

In the last month or so I have discussed many issues concerning the steel samples collected by NIST and what has been learnt from their examination. If you want my opinions or the opinions of particular posters, search the archive or send me a private message. If there is something specific that you want to see addressed, kick that thread again with a relevant comment or question.

This recreative thread is devoted to the observation in real time of the progressive collapse of the 9/11 Schoolars for Truth movement that appears to result from No-Plane-Theory impacts and the ensuing flame wars.

[wildbilln864]

15. learnt ?

.

[Carefulplease]

16. I have learnt quite a few things. Maybe some others haven't...

I was thinking of exchanges such as this one I had recently with Dailykoff. It concerns the NIST's steel samples, sulfidation, and the effects of fire on welds and column buckling. It's an exchange that he won, by the way ;-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=104591&mesg_id=105296

See the 15 contiguous posts from #141 through #183

[beam me up scottie]

27. learnt:

learnt (lûrnt)
v.

A past tense and a past participle of learn.

[wildbilln864]

32. wrong again scottie boy..

learned is the past tense!
learnt is not a word!

[beam me up scottie]

34. You should contact the American Heritage Dictionary.

Your obviously superior etymological wisdom should be acknowledged.

Oh, and let the Brits know too, while you're at it. The fools at Oxford don't know what they're talking about.

billyboy

[Make7]

35. learnt

learnt

One entry found for learnt.

Main Entry: learnt
Pronunciation: 'l&rnt
chiefly British past and past participle of LEARN

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/learnt

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

52. You've got to be kidding.

Learnt is most certainly a proper past tense of the word "learn".

That aside, do you have anything to say about the subject matter of this thread or are you just popping in as a (failed) grammarian?

[LARED]

77. What is the difference between 'learnt' and 'learned'?

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/learnt

What is the difference between 'learnt' and 'learned'?

These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Learnt is more common in British English, and learned in American English. There are a number of verbs of this type (burn, dream, kneel, lean, leap, spell, spill, spoil etc.). They are all irregular verbs, and this is a part of their irregularity.

I hope we can all agree on this.

[Jazz2006]

17. Best. Line. Ever. ...

This recreative thread is devoted to the observation in real time of the progressive collapse of the 9/11 Schoolars for Truth movement that appears to result from No-Plane-Theory impacts and the ensuing flame wars.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

69. I simply find it very entertaining that this thread has so many

eager commentators of a certain ilk, while other, seemingly far more important threads -- like this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315 which discusses the actual NIST findings concerning the actual physical evidence, are almost completely bereft of the benefit of such commentators.

[BootinUp]

72. Ok, go look

I got tired of reading your complaint.

[mirandapriestly]

85. It is so painfully obvious.eom

[screembloodymurder]

65. Yes it is.

We are forced to defend our theories, while the 911CR believers accept *BS as unassailable. I still want to know how the concrete turned to dust, but the passport survived the crash, the fire, the collapse, and was almost immediately found in 500 million pounds of debris. My smell test may not be the scientific method, but the stench coming off the government's official theory is undeniable.

[mirandapriestly]

9. Divide and Conquer was predicted

now the OCT are all for Judy Wood, lol...

[Carefulplease]

12. "We" did not divide "them", did we?

They split all by themselves without "our" help. And there is no need to divide Wood and Reynolds from Jones to "conquer" any one of them.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carefulplease]

41. Oh! I thought I was considered by you to be an OCTer...

I misunderstood. Sorry ;-)
(Actually I'm just an Athermitian Four-Planer)

[Jazz2006]

18. Ha!

I have never been able to understand why tinhatters gave Woods or Reynolds any credence in the first place, and I don't know any critical thinker who ever did.

But it is distinctly humorous to watch, in real time, "the progressive collapse of the 9/11 Schoolars for Truth movement that appears to result from No-Plane-Theory impacts and the ensuing flame wars," to steal Carefulplease's terrific turn of phrase.

[mirandapriestly]

26. forget it

[Make7]

29. Thank you. ( n/t )

[mirandapriestly]

33. you know damn well, there is a basis for what I'm saying.eom

[Make7]

42. Not everyone interprets things the same way.

If you want to complain about something that was previously posted, it seems only fair that you provide the post(s) that you are referring to so that people can judge for themselves. Otherwise you are basically asking for people to rely on your recollection and interpretation of what was said as being correct. Some people are simply not willing to do that.

Thank you for editing your previous post.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

56. I don't collect people's posts like you do

I think that is a sort of strange and petty thing to do. your "ethics" only extend to those who disagree with your views, I see. I've never seen you jump in when your buddies are on the attack, no matter how despicable they are.

[greyl]

58. He was very kind to ask you to edit it

rather than let it sit there and embarass you.

[Make7]

62. I request you do the same thing I advised Jazz to do below: Let it go.

Edited to add quote.

It is up to you whether or not you really want to get into this with me, but it is probably not a productive use of your time. Don't you have some important 9/11 research to do?

Please let me know if you wish to pursue this matter any further.

mirandapriestly wrote:

your "ethics" only extend to those who disagree with your views, I see. I've never seen you jump in when your buddies are on the attack...

Never
say never. (Be sure to check out the post I replied to.)

Remember what it used to be like? (Scroll down to see my reply to that post.)

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

40. Forget what?

Did you say something?

[Make7]

43. Let it go. ( n/t )

[Carefulplease]

44. No, she didn't, but there was a basis for her not saying anything. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

86. my points are separate

one is that divide and conquer was predicted on the overall "big picture" , ie: by disinformationists and the second point is that now you guys are applauding someone that you formerly criticized. Is that so hard? my post was removed when far worse ones by official theorists remain, and I find this frustrating.

[AZCat]

91. As the mods have pointed out innumerable times...

if you don't alert on a post, there is a good possibility that they will miss it. If you see a post that in your opinion is offensive, please click the "alert" button. It is also possible that your perspective of posts (both your and those of others) is subjective and is not shared by others. Perhaps a step back from the give-and-take of the forum will help you gain some perspective?

[Generarth]

13. You don't 'smack down' and then reference Holmgren

It just doesn't work. I'm surprised he didn't reference the webfairys as well.

[Make7]

14. Do you mean Rosalee Grable? ( n/t )

[KJF]

36. She's the webfairy?

That was the only name I didn't recognise.

[Jazz2006]

39. Yes, that is she.

[greyl]

45. Aren't haupt and killtown the same small pack? nt

[Jazz2006]

47. I don't know.

But I wouldn't doubt it. "killtown" has had dozens of identities over the past few years, here and at various other forums.

[greyl]

49. I think it was based on their having a common webmaster ie haupt

I'm pretty sure I learnt that here several months ago from Make 7.

edit: I could be wrong about the webfairies, but I stand by my use of the word "learnt".

[Jazz2006]

59. I've no idea. I learnt all I ever needed to know about

"killtown" a long time ago and I make it a point not to visit her/his site or those that associate with it.

But the "killtown" site is definitely associated with the webfairy. She/he said that here back in the days when she/he was posting under the name "killtown".

[greyl]

60. Hmm, maybe I heard it straight from the fairy's mouth. nt

[SidDithers]

67. learnt?...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[Generarth]

64. Not necessarily

There is three of them.

[greyl]

22. He DID reference the webfairys, in the "II. Overview" section.

Unbefunkinglievable.

edit: haupt & killtown = webfairy.

[JackRiddler]

19. Address these

cooperativeresearch.org

justicefor911.org

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

[Carefulplease]

20. Do you mean all at once? Or do you mean...

...all over again?

Would it be fair for me to ask you to debunk the whole of a debunking site all at once?

If you feel some one of these questions merits more attention than it has received already, why not devote a new thread to it?

[Jazz2006]

21. The truthiness seekers are having big fights about no-planers vs.

planers on various and sundry truthiness sites, as well.

[greyl]

24. This is pathetic. Every last one of the them are total dolts.

I just can't believe how much bullshit wound up in that article, after 5 years of supposed research. And they have the nerve to attack Jones for not being peer reviewed? What a bunch of nits.

It looks more and more like the whole movement is an orchestrated distraction from the real crimes of the bushadmin, wink wink nudge nudge.

[Jazz2006]

46. It's crazy, isn't it?

Jones isn't a dummy. When he stuck to his own area of expertise, I'm sure he was even credible.

Reynolds and Woods never were, though. The truthiness movement is probably better off without these two.

[mirandapriestly]

25. The Web Fairy is out to get him, too.

The Web Fairy says a lot of the same things that the OCTs on this forum say about him. Interesting. She also uses the truthiness thing. I guess that is from Stephen Colbert but I don't watch TV. People who watch a lot of tv and get their clever sayings like "truthiness" from it thinking they are really hip tend to believe the Bush administration version of things.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

51. So you think that people who like Colbert and "truthiness" are Bushbots?

Careful there, girl, those are probably smiting words here at DU.

I'd hate to see you smote.

[KJF]

30. Jones is OK

Much of his stuff needs more work, but I think he's doing OK.

Wood and Reynolds write:

The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.

That just says it all about them.

I'm glad there's a falling out in the Scholars, hopefully Jones will now gravitate to the more credible side of the movement and the no-planers will go off to their own little planet.

[mirandapriestly]

31. I think he is OK, too,

People can't expect him to risk his job even more by jumping on the no plane bandwagon with them, which seems to be what this is about. They come up with some interesting stuff, but I'm suspicious of their approach they are very divisive.(and we all know what that does)

[KJF]

38. I agree

If he was a no-planer, they wouldn't say anything. Some of the stuff about the colour of aluminium is interesting though.

On edit: many of their points are meaningless, for example:

• There is no proof of Arab hijackers, for example, no Arab names on passenger manifests
• No verified security video tapes (fake of Dulles boarding nearly three years later)
• AA flights 11 and 77 were not in BTS data base
• AA airliner tail numbers N334AA and N644AA not FAA-deregistered until January 14, 2002
• United airliner tail numbers N612UA and N591UA not deregistered until September 28, 2005
• The U.S. government refuses to authenticate the December 13, 2001, bin Laden "confession video."
• Mainstream media reported as many as ten of the accused hijackers alive after 9/11 (Hamza Alghamdi, Saeed Alghamdi, Salem Alhazmi, Ahmed Alnami, Abdulaziz Alomari, Mohand Alshehri, brothers Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri, Mohammed Atta, Khalid Almidhdhar) and Majed Moqed was last reported seen in 2000.

I would argue that: there are plenty of Arab names of the manifests, the Dulles tape might just be a fake - but I don't think that's been proven, databases are riddled with errors - so what? the confession video is one of Osama's doubles and the hijackers are not alive. We really need to focus on our better points and drop the meaningless ones.

[mirandapriestly]

48. Weird that Reynolds is an economist

and doesn't say anything about the insider trading.

[KJF]

55. Yeah, good point

The Scholars have been hogging the media spotlight (Barrett has all sorts of odd ideas). Perhaps if they implode, then we could be represented by people more likely to get our points across, like Jim Hofmann, PT (OK, I'm biased), JackRiddler or the people at 9/11truth.

Re the attempts to turn this thread into another shitstorming session: I would be very happy if you just let it ride and ignored it. btw, I think Make7 is OK.

[greyl]

57. We'd still be dealing with the fact

that the PressForTruth movie site is proudly referencing Loose Change in a friendly way.
Besides making books and movies, how are the 9/11 Truth people at actual investigations, scientifically peer reviewed papers, and FOIA requests?

[planeman]

66. As someone who saw the plane in real life,nothing annoys me more

than to see the amount of unsubstantiated,uncorrobotated,baseless implications that something other than a commercial airliner hit the WTC.Something which is propagated by this no-planer movement.They are on the "other side" of reality.

[rman]

81. unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, baseless implications...

such as yours. Your word alone is not enough.

[mirandapriestly]

88. I don't believe you.eom

[KJF]

61. This is interesting

Check out the comments on blogger:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2256

There seems to be a big majority for planes - even bigger than I would have expected.

[janedoe]

78. This too is interesting.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones

[janedoe]

96. The new "scientific method"

"Let's take a poll to see what the popular answer is."

Golly, that sounds like the way of a political campaign, NOT real science!

[KJF]

97. "Alien ray gun"...

... is not real science, you have no credibility and your no-plane arguments have no foundation.

[janedoe]

99. What are you talking about?

Please explain what you mean by "Alien ray gun."

[Make7]

101. Don't you even read papers that you co-author?

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones"> The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

Open that webpage and search for "alien ray gun".

- Make7

[KJF]

63. Alien ray gun?

I sat down to read the whole thing - there are one or two decent points they make against Jones where he needs to tighten up. However, I stopped reading when I came to this:

... the process would be something that could extract or neutralize the bond energy of metal atoms. Call it an "alien ray gun." It may be a scalar interferometer: tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their interference zone extracts energy at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding forces in the metal and it begins to fall apart.

I have no idea why anyone who wanted to retain a shred of credibility would want to suggest the WTC was destroyed by an "alien ray gun" - this is just David Icke-land, why don't they throw in the remote-control missile-firing holograms, Jewish Elves, satanic lizards, the illuminati and the rest of it? And Wood seemed like such a reasonable woman at the start. Kids, let this be a lesson to you - this is what pixel-wixel does to your brain. So leave the Webfairy alone and do something more useful instead.

[mhatrw]

70. Personally, I fail to see what any "no planers" hope to achieve by

going further and further out on their SCIFI-HOP limb.

Let's suppose for a second that they are completely right and the towers where brought down by holograms bearing pods and EMP weapons (or whatever). So what?

It's like claiming that the magic bullet that killed JFK was a CIA piloted nanotech vehicle inspired by secret alien technology. Even if such a contention were "true" in that it best explained all the available evidence, the "truth" itself becomes a perfect disinformation poison pill.

Meanwhile, NIST continues to ignore its own findings concerning the actual physical evidence of the WTC steel: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315

[Carefulplease]

73. You might want to read messages #11 and #16 n/t

[janedoe]

79. Check this out.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=plane_trick_wtc2

[Carefulplease]

82. Hello Janedoe...

May I suggest that the before-and-after photographs of the landing gear that appears on the first paper might be displayed and interpreted in the incorrect temporal order? Could it be that the "old scaffolding" is dusty because the photograph was taken after the collapse of a WTC tower?

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

[janedoe]

87. the case of the roaming tire

Hi, Carefulplease.

The point is that it doesn't matter what order they are in. None of them are in the same position. i.e. evidence was tampered with, so it's meaningless. If you assume the "clean" tire pics are from before the buildings blew up, how do you explain their near pristine condition, and not a scratch on the shaft? The sunny day picture showing someone with a suitcase (on upper right edge of picture) was obviously not taken on 9/11 after 9 AM. The sun wouldn't be shining. ;-)

[Carefulplease]

89. I am unsure about the sun and the timing...

However, if the tire had been moved one or two feet -- and it was photographed before the move -- I don't see how this constitutes tempering with evidence, unless you suppose the investigators would have looked for fingerprints from the highjackers on the gear.

"Meaningless" might be too strong a qualifier.

[mirandapriestly]

84. why doesn't reynolds mention the inside trading on 9-11?

Isn't he an economist? If this knowledge (who did the inside trading) were to become public it would be very valuable, I would imagine, worth more than 1000 pictures of plane parts, fake or otherwise.

[mhatrw]

90. OK, I guess. You may or may not have good reason to believe this.

But frankly, it's not something I'm interested in analyzing further for the reasons I've stated above.

Why climb out on this speculative, at least bizarre sounding limb? To pick a fight with other members of your own group?

It's simply counter-productive. Call up each other and email each other if you feel the need to fight about this stuff. Everyone has the right to his own her own favorite "best-reasoned" analysis of the (non)evidence, but these over reaching and frankly over speculative competitive fights seem rather demeaning to any claims of scholarship you, Reynolds or Jones are making.

Is this really so important to be picking sides over? What we are talking about is Level 15.5 MIHOP vs. Level 14 MIHOP. Who really and truly cares? Aren't there reams of more persuasive evidence for criminal negligence, LIHOP and even MIHOP -- including some of your own personal analyses? I mean, you do realize that this is fundamentally a propaganda war? Don't you? Why get into a food fight about tertiary "best guess" speculations? Why put the onus on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth to prove these frankly far out speculations when the onus should be on our government to explain why their story doesn't stand up to scientific, rational and deductive scrutiny?

[rman]

83. to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. nt

[janedoe]

94. Aren't we truth seekers?

How does Truth discredit the "truth movement?"

[greyl]

95. That may be bit of circular reasoning.

It could also be a case of a movement whose name isn't accurately descriptive of the accomplishments of the movement.
Kinda like someone asking in regards to No Child Left Behind, "How could not leaving any children behind be a bad thing?"

[Jazz2006]

76. kick n/t

just because

[SidDithers]

92. Kick...

'cause not all of Dr. Jones' biggest defenders have had a chance to comment yet.

Sid

[MervinFerd]

93. Kick. Just because this is fun to watch..... nt

[FoxOnTheRun]

98. I would rather watch Hillary in a mud wrestling match with Laura Bush

[Klimmer]

100. Dr. Jones responds to Reynolds and Wood and sets the record straight . . .

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

Personally, I didn't know that Reynolds and Wood were "No Planers." Anyone who believes that no planes hit the WTC towers, then something isn't right with their thinking, to put it kindly. What are the real motives of Reynolds and Wood for doing this? If it is immaturity, then they need to get over it. If it is something more sinister, then that needs to be dealt with also. I don't know???

And a response by Frank Legge in defense of Dr. Jones:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Response_to_Reynolds_and_Wood2.doc