NOTE: I decided now to mirror this article and lock this blog in respect to Gerard Holmgren.
After the hack on our server a few days ago (incl. 911closeup), he decided to withdraw also his own website (at iinet.net.au) and couldn't be reached yet for a permission.
As a defender of "open source", but also as an exception of my usual procedure on Holmgren writings i will not longer sit on a very valuable article which has to be outsourced and promoted. [Comment settings are disabled, the article can be commented in an own blog]

THE 9/11 LIARS CLUB. PART 2
MORGAN REYNOLDS DIGS HIMSELF MORE HOLES WITH CLUMSY LIES.
Gerard Holmgren: June 25 2007. This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for reasonable reference purposes, providing that the article is linked to.
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to set the public record straight in relation to 3 vicious but clumsy lies about me, told by Morgan Reynolds.

In my article "The 911 Liars Club - Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer - Lying for truth " , I exposed the duplicitous agenda of Morgan Reynolds.

Reynolds responded with this article

Reynolds Booted from No Plane Club Inducted into 'Dirty Liars Club'

which would better described as a "retaliation" rather than a "rebuttal". I don't intend to get into a tit for tat exchange with Reynolds on the main question examined in my critique, as he provided nothing of substance in his retaliation. It consisted mostly of a crude pretence to psychoanalyze me on the basis of verbose generalizations which failed to address the substance of my article linked above.

However, there was one part of Reynolds' article which appeared superficially to contain something of substance. The problem was that the apparent substance was based upon on several bald faced defamatory lies on the part of Reynolds.

Frankly, I doubt that a lot of people are particularly interested in such nitty gritty, but when one is defamed with a bald faced lie, one might as well set the public record straight just for the sake of it. Apart from clearing my name in relation to the lies which Reynolds has pinned on me, the demonstration of how dishonest and unscrupulous this man is should
induce any thinking person take a closer look at his behavior.

Reynolds managed to score the trifecta with the matter discussed in this article.
1) He lied - in clumsy, blatant and malicious manner.

2) He defamed me by using his own lies to falsely paint me as a liar.

3) He used this lying defamation as part of his continuing campaign of plagiarism. BACKGROUND

The origins of the dispute which led Reynolds to retaliate with this deception trifecta are explained in this article

"The 9/11 Liars Club - Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer - Lying for truth "

I exposed Reynolds as playing both sides of the plane/no plane argument. As being a plane hugger disguising himself as a no planer and attempting to create a subliminal belief that "no planes" and "no Big Boeings" mean the same thing. Ultimately setting up a doublethink position- that planes both did and did not hit the WTC.

I also exposed him as supporting the litany of lies and philosophical abominations of Jim Fetzer, someone who can barely put finger to keyboard without telling whopper after whopper and known for advocating that if one should find the truth inconvenient, then one should simply redefine what "truth" means.

The lies of Jim Fetzer

Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism and disinformation The 911doublethink movement
The specific problem with Reynolds as examined in the liars club article was not that he's pushing a substitute planes idea. There's plenty of that rubbish around and one more doesn't make much difference. Ultimately, if people are emotionally wedded to the idea of planes hitting the WTC, then that's what they'll continue to believe, no matter how much proof one presents to the contrary. Reynolds has as much right as anyone else to ignore or distort the evidence and live in a fantasy world of disappearing planes which defy physical laws.

What distinguishes Reynolds from the crowd of overt substitute plane advocates is his development of doublethink in relation to the issue - just as David Ray Griffin has very successfully created the doublethink position that flight 77 both did and did not hit the pentagon.

It says something about Reynolds' lack of honesty that the only part of his "rebuttal" which contained any appearance of substance was based on concocting brazen lies which served the triple purpose of smearing my name, plagiarizing my contributions and using the personal smear to discredit my analysis by association with an alleged lie on my part.

I don't intent to pursue the argument presented in my first critique any further here. The purpose of this article is primarily to clear my name in relation to the way that Reynolds defamed me in his retaliatory article.
THE REYNOLDS LIES

I will begin by quoting the relevant sections from Reynolds' retaliatory article. Reynolds Booted from No Plane Club Inducted into 'Dirty Liars Club'

If you scroll down to the section titled "plagiarism" in Reynolds' article, you'll find the following text.

[[we now descend into the fevered mind of Mr. Holmgren who writes:
"Reynolds and I made contact, and after he showed interest in the no planes issue, I personally tutored him by email in the physics of the forensic evidence. Reynolds was so impressed that he responded by writing his own article which was essentially a direct copy of my article. Because Reynolds took 7 months to write his article- while I was doing the work to argue and promote the concepts around the various discussion groups on the web- Reynolds final presentation was slicker and better presented than mine. It contained no original observations whatsoever, but it appeared to be a valuable addition to the cause because of the time that he had put into the presentation."...
...we have caught the self-appointed 9/11 truth cop in a lie. Even worse for Mr. Holmgren, the public record alone establishes it as a lie...
...I actually found Holmgren's November [11 2005 ] article on no-plane physics after I put out my article. I was a little red faced about that but maybe that was just as well because Holmgren and I worked different tracks. The articles complemented each other...

...And what about the claimed Holmgren "tutorial"? It never happened. I notice that Holmgren slipped the tutorial claim by me in an email on November 15, 2006. I chose not to "rile him" at that time and unfortunately did not refute this slice of megalomania because I was busy answering his principal question about me writing a book. He may try to use this fact against me but my polite refusal to argue about it then was no admission that he was my tutor.]]

Let's extract the important claims from this. Reynolds correctly quotes me as writing

[[I personally tutored him by email in the physics of the forensic evidence. Reynolds was so impressed that he responded by writing his own article which was essentially a direct copy of my article.]]

Reynolds claims that this is a lie on my part. He answers the alleged lie with this.

[[I actually found Holmgren's November article on no-plane physics after I put out my article. ...And what about the claimed Holmgren "tutorial"? It never happened. ]]
Really ? Reynolds seems to have "forgotten" a certain email exchange which took place on August 11, 12 and 13, 2005.

Before providing the documentation by way of a direct paste of the emails, I'll summarize.

An email which I sent Reynolds on August 12, 2005 contained the entire text of the article which Reynolds is now claiming that he never knew about until *after* the publication of his March 2006 article. Why is Reynolds lying about having been supposedly unaware of this article ?

The article about which Reynolds is lying began as an argument presented in an email debate (which did not include Reynolds) in July 2005. I had written earlier versions of the same argument, but this was the version which was forwarded to Reynolds on August 12 2005 and then posted as an article on Nov 11 2005.

That article lays out the forensic concepts copied by Reynolds in his article of March 2006.
So in fact, Reynolds saw this article And now he is lying about having been
several unaware
months *before* it was even published as such. of it until after he published his rehash.
Why does the truth about when he became aware has resorted to such a brazen lie in relation
of this article threaten him so much that he to it ?
The magnitude of Reynolds' lie is increased by the quietly avoid mentioning the fact that he saw this not many people knew . He actively constructed his libelous allegation.

Let's trim the recent exchange on this down to its bare bones. HOLMGREN

[[I personally tutored him by email in the physics of the forensic evidence. Reynolds was so impressed that he responded by writing his own article which was essentially a direct copy of my article.]]

REYNOLDS

[(we have caught the self-appointed 9/11 truth cop in a lie. Even worse for Mr. Holmgren, the public record alone establishes it as a lie...
...I actually found Holmgren's November [11 2005 ] article on no-plane physics after I put out my article. ]]

My statement as quoted above is the absolute truth and Reynolds has responded with a brazen lie to - and in doing so, has called me a liar.

Now to the wider claim that I "personally tutored Reynolds" in the forensic evidence. Here Reynolds accuses me of lying yet again.

[[And what about the claimed Holmgren "tutorial"? It never happened.]]

Having established that Reynolds is lying about when he first saw my article, is in itself powerful evidence that this is yet another lie from Reynolds. Why would he have any motive to lie about when he saw the article, if it did not count as a "tutorial" ? Why not admit the truth about when he saw the article and simply claim that either he didn't get around to reading it and/or that he had already worked out the same ideas himself ? Why lie about supposedly not having seen the article at all ?

Well just in case after reading this, Reynolds attempts a back peddle by admitting that it's possible that I might have sent him the article, but if so he didn't read the mail and therefore effectively didn't see the article, or that he saw it but that it had no effect on his thinking, here is how Reynolds responded to me in relation to the article - on August 13 2005

[[Send more. I find your physics crash 101 very informative. ]]
fact that it's not as if just tried to article on August 12 2005 and hope that lie in order to smear my name with a
So the crash physics forensics tutorial was "very informative" in August 2005, huh ? But by June 2007 it "never happened".

Reynolds accidentally provides a further admission in his recent retaliatory article.

[[The first part of my July [2005] reply [to Jim Hoffman ] dealt with demolition but I needed far more time to understand planes and so I spent eight months preparing my no-plane article of March 5, 2006. ]]

So Reynolds admits that in July 2005, he "needed far more time" to understand the planes issue. Therefore he obviously had no concept at this time of the forensic proofs which I presented to him in August 2005. And prior to August 11 ,2005 he still had no real idea because he replied that the article was "very informative". So informative in fact that asked me to continue the tutorial.

[[Send more.]]

Furthermore, it's not as if my article had come to Reynolds out of the blue, unsolicited. He had actually *asked* for my help in understanding the no plane issue. Let's backtrack to the conversation which led to the tutorial.

On August 11 2005, Reynolds wrote to me.

[[I'm still struggling with the planes/no planes issue at WTC ]]

So on August 11 2005, he had no idea of these forensic proofs. If he did, then he wouldn't have been "struggling" with the issue.

In reply - the same day - I told him

[[ have developed conclusive forensic arguments that its impossible for either object to have been a large plane. These are not written up in a properly organized fashion, but if you would like to go through them, I can forward you a series of email exchanges...

...Would you like me to forward you the debate emails, which provide the forensic proof ?]]

Still "struggling", but eager to learn, Reynolds replied on August 12.

[[ I haven't digested this message yet, but, yes, please send the email debate.]]

So the "struggling" one actually *asked* for my help in understanding the forensic analysis.

In response I sent him the "very informative" article about which he is now lying in supposedly not having seen it until after he wrote his rehash.

But that wasn't all. My tutorial was not restricted to the article itself. I also offered to send him the rest of the debate so that he could see how the article stood up to debate.

Here's what I wrote to him as an introduction to the article.

[[This is the opening of the argument. If you think this is enough once you've thought through it, then I'll save you the trouble of the rest, but if you would like to see Roy's counter arguments and how they were countered, let me know and I'll keep sending them until you say stop.]]

And he didn't say stop. Noting that that my crash physics article was "very informative", he requested

[[Send more.]]

So even after having read the article about which he is now lying that he was unaware of, he was *still* asking for more tutoring.
So I did send more. I sent him almost the entire exchange, which consisted of an attack on my article by a person named Roy McCoy and an engagement with Roy's attack by myself and Ray Ubinger. This material was contained in a series of emails sent on August 13.
This is the tutorial about which Reynolds now lies

[[And what about the claimed Holmgren "tutorial"? It never happened.]]

How do you - the reader - know that these emails -proving Morgan Reynolds guilty of lying, plagiarism and defamation - actually exist ?

I have pasted the entire exchange, and highlighted with bold font those parts which are relevant to this discussion. I am prepared to forward the emails to anyone who asks for them. Not being particularly web savvy, I haven't worked out how to post the actual files of the emails on the web in a form which can be opened by the reader from the site or downloaded to their email program, but if that is possible and I solve that problem, then I will provide them in that form also.

Perhaps Reynolds will then claim that I forged the emails?

Click here to see the paste of the complete email exchange with dates, times, titles and addresses.

This documentation proves that Morgan Reynolds is a ruthless liar and plagiarist. REYNOLDS TELLS A THIRD LIE

In his retaliatory article Reynolds writes.

[[According to Holmgren, "Reynolds now claims that although the forensic analysis in question shows that 'no Big Boeings' hit the WTC, it is still quite possible that they were hit by different kinds of planes." Holmgren does not offer a quotation from me because I have never advocated another kind of plane hitting the WTC]]

Really ? If you go to my article you can find me quoting Reynolds thus.

[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes, missiles or drones as some eyewitnesses reported or nothing at all may have hit the towers ]]

I'd say this qualifies as claim that "it is still quite possible that they were hit by different kinds of planes".

I also quote him thus.

[[The conspiracy runs deep and the No Big Boeings Crashed (NBB), not the somewhat misnamed no-planes-theory (NPT), takes the analysis to a new level, right into the inner sanctum. ]]
I'd say this also qualifies as an claim that " it is still quite possible that they were hit by different kinds of planes".

So Reynolds lies about my alleged failure to "offer a quotation".

In combination with this, he renews his doublethink campaign.

He writes sr [[I spent eight months preparing my no-plane article of March 5, 2006.]]

Excuse me, but as pointed out in my first critique, this is what his "no plane" article of March 2006 suggests.

[[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes...may have hit the towers ]]

And yet Reynolds continues to label this as his "no plane article". Assuming that we are all writing in English, this is a clear continuation of the doublethink that almost any kind of plane other than "big Boeings" means the same thing as "no planes."

In closing on this point, I'll clarify something here. The debate with Roy McCoy was restricted to the issue of a "large passenger jet". In that particular debate, I decided to
methodically take things one step at a time and win that argument before taking it to the second stage of showing that the same arguments could be then be used equally as effectively to prove *no plane* - of any kind.

Roy bombed out before stage two could be debated. So I introduced the debate to Reynolds thus. (Emphasis added)

[[This debate leaves open the possibility that the Sth Tower could have been a very, very small plane loaded with explosives]]

I've clarified this point in anticipation of Reynolds seizing upon this and misrepresenting me by claiming that I also held a position restricted to "no Big Boeings."

On the other hand, if Reynolds were to do that, then he would have to admit that the tutorial *did* in fact take place, which would be somewhat awkward for him, considering that he's just lied that it "never happened", and accused me of lying in alluding to it.

Although - it would not be entirely surprising to see him claiming that the tutorial both did and did not take place...

So we see that I got as far as tutoring Reynolds in the forensic proof of no large planes and his own email comments confirm that. He then immediately set to work to copy these concepts in his own article - a project which came to fruition in March 2006 - and which Reynolds still falsely labels as his "no plane article".

More than a year after that he had not only failed to move beyond "no big Boeings", but had shown absolutely no interest in even examining the question - as demonstrated by my initial critique which has provoked this flood of retaliatory lies from Reynolds.

Reynolds is now crying foul that I didn't attack his article of March 2006 earlier. At the time, naively assuming his intentions to be honest, I thought that he had at least got the first part of the argument, and one shouldn't excoriate a newcomer who is trying to be helpful just because they haven't yet caught up with full picture.

I lost patience with him much later, when he had refused all challenges to examine the question of "no planes" vs "no big Boeings", long after he had been given ample opportunity to address this question. As I pointed out in my first critique, as recently as April 28 2007, he was still claiming that there was a "lack of adequate evidence" to say "no planes" - without ever having addressed a word of debate or analysis to that question, and having publicly attacked the term "no planes" as a misleading label, and having refused all challenges to debate it internally. At the same time as presenting himself publicly as king of the no planers.

Once I went public with my complaint, then Reynolds responds by whining that I should have attacked him earlier.

I showed patience, a preparedness to compromise and accept what seemed at the time like reasonable diversity, and time for the learning process and did so for nearly two years.- up until it became clear that I had been taken for a ride.

That trust and patience and benefit of the doubt is now complained about by Reynolds and presented as being some kind of psychosis- at the same time as complaining that I'm not still showing it.
If one shows patience and a desire to work things out methodically through constructive debate, one is attacked for not losing patience earlier, and once one does lose patience, one is attacked for being "over the top", and that allegation then used as the excuse why he was never prepared to engage the question to begin with.

Immediately upon having had his duplicitous agenda outed by my article , Reynolds throws out a casual comment that he's now finally prepared to say "no planes" (the timing of this concession of course, being a miraculous coincidence) and then immediately resumes his doublethink campaign by describing an article which suggests

[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes...may have hit the towers ]] as being his "no plane" article.
REYNOLDS USES HIS LIES FOR DEFAMATION AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

We have now proven that Reynolds lied twice in relation to the issue of plagiarism. First with this statement.
[[I actually found Holmgren's November [11 2005 ] article on no-plane physics after I put out my article. ]]

And secondly with this one.
[[And what about the claimed Holmgren "tutorial"? It never happened.]]

Not content with simply lying as a means to plagiarize my work, Reynolds couldn't resist also using it for character assassination.

[[we have caught the self-appointed 9/11 truth cop in a lie. Even worse for Mr. Holmgren, the public record alone establishes it as a lie...

...The most disappointing part about Mr. Holmgren's attack is that he makes things up and lies ...

...And why lie? ]]

But as we've seen, it is Reynolds who is lying.

REYNOLDS ACCIDENTALLY ADMITS HIS PLAGIARISM

Reynolds writes

[[His plagiarism charge is really low and refutable on the public record alone.]]

If so, then why did Reynolds have to resort to a fictional public record rather than a real public record ?Why did he lie about when about he first became aware of my earlier article? Why did he lie about supposedly never having received tuition from me ?

Once more I'll repeat what I've said earlier. The Reynolds forensics article rehashing my earlier article is not in itself plagiarism. It is the subsequent spin which attempts to create the impression that he is a "researcher" presenting original information and analysis, rather than simply a publicist and repackager of what has gone before. Rehashing previous work in one's own words and style is acceptable - as long as one does not actively attempt to present such work as original research and analysis - at the same time as smearing the person from whom it was learned.

By lying about when he became aware of my article and lying that he had received no tuition, and painting me as a lying meglomaniac for alluding to it, Reynolds has erased any doubts that plagiarism. is his intention.

Furthermore, he accidentally admitted it in a more direct manner. First Reynolds claims

[[Not only are the articles distinctly different...]]

That's true up to a point if we are comparing Reynolds article "We have some holes in the planes story" with my WTC forensics article, in that my article dealt only with the forensic aspects of the WTC strikes ,while Reynolds article copied not only from that, but also from other work of mine and others in relation to different aspects of evidence - and put all the copying into one article.

The only thing which makes Reynolds article "distinctly different" is that he was copying from more than just one article and on more than just aspect of evidence. But lets focus on the copied forensic arguments which Reynolds is now claiming -on the basis of his lies exposed earlier - as his original work .

Let's examine this text from Reynolds.

[[I actually found Holmgren's November [11 2005 ] article on no-plane physics after I put out my article. I was a little red faced about that...]]
We've already established that the first statement in this extract is a lie.

How about the second statement? Why would he be red faced if the articles are [[ distinctly different]] ?

What possible reason could there be for the red face after discovering my "distinctly different" article ?

"Oh my god, I 'm so embarrassed ! I've just discovered an article written prior to mine, which is distinctly different!"
"How will I ever live down the embarrassment of the fact what I've written is significantly new and original and nothing like the article that I just became aware of ? "

"This article is so distinctly different to mine, that people might think that I copied from it !"
The allusion to being "red faced" over my article is a recognition that they are distinctly *similar* in concept and underlying analysis. Similar enough that people might suspect him of copying. The admission that my Nov 11 2005 article makes him "red faced", in combination with provoking him to resort to a lie about when he became aware of it, proves that Reynolds knows very well that his article is effectively a copy of my work.

As I said before, there's nothing wrong with writing it up in his own words and style, which is why I had no objection at the time that he wrote it. But now he's proven - by lying about how and when and from whom he became aware of the forensic arguments that it was the first step in a plagiarism campaign.

In the world of cyber investigation and debate this is as close as it gets to having evidence and statements examined as they would be in a court of law. Reynolds is a smooth double talker, but liars inevitably make mistakes when questioned hard enough and Reynolds did so in lying about when he first saw my article, about the tutorial which "never happened" ,and in admitting that my article makes him "red faced".

Perhaps Reynolds, while looking into the mirror as he attempts to scrub the red off his face, and muttering "he makes things up and lies...why lie ? " - back at his own reflection - might like to also reflect on these words of his own from a previous article.

[[Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That is a new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the "Gerard Holmgren" variety would crush them.]]

Reynolds' grubby lies as exposed in this article only serve to reinforce the criticisms made in my first critique.

"The 9/11 Liars Club - Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer - Lying for truth "

It says something about the accuracy of that critique, that Reynolds felt compelled to retaliate with a a vicious character assassination. attempt based on a barrage of blatant lies.

LEARNING THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

DIFFERENT NAMES - SAME LIARS. DIFFERENT ISSUES - SAME LIES Reynolds writes

[[ I never believed a plane struck the WTC buildings.]]

If so, then why did he write to this to me on August 11 2005 ? [[I'm still struggling with the planes/no planes issue at WTC ]]
He was lying to me even in a private email ? He actually knew there were no planes, even at this time ? Or he just hadn't yet figured it out at the time ?

Fast forward to his "no plane" article of March 2006.
[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes...may have hit the towers ]] So he was still lying in March 2006 ? Or still hadn't figured it out at this time ? Fast forward to Oct 27 2006.

[[...the No Big Boeings Crashed (NBB), not the somewhat misnamed no-planes-theory (NPT), takes the analysis to a new level...]]

So he was still lying at this time about what he really believed ? Or he still hadn't figured it out at this time ?

Fast forward to April 28 2007. This is from an email which he sent to a small list of his fellow no planers, as referenced in my original critique of Reynolds.

[[Reynolds does not "hug smaller planes" but leaves open the question of what really happened for lack of adequate evidence yet.]]

So by April 2007 he was still lying about what he believed, even to his closest allies on small email lists ? Or he still hadn't figured it out even at this time ? If it's the latter, then perhaps Reynolds would like to enlighten us on how he understands the meaning of the word "never" ?

It took the publication of my critique on May 18 2007 for him to suddenly declare that he had "never believed" his own words during all this time.

"Trust me folks ! I never really believed there were any planes. I was just lying about what I believed - as one does... That's why you should trust me."

Beneath the superficial differences, the behavior of Reynolds is remarkably similar to that of another professional liar and self styled "truth hero" named Mike Ruppert.

Ruppert's star has waned somewhat from the status he enjoyed in the earlier days of 9/11 untruth, but a brief revision of the story of this charlatan will demonstrate that in Reynolds, we are seeing the same old pattern.

Back in Nov 2003, long before Reynolds-come- lately found his "truthliness", Ruppert occupied a similar position as "hero" and "big name" and "leader" of the untruth movement. To give him his due, Ruppert was there right from the beginning, although the nature of his contributions was such that it would have been much better if wasn't.

Back in Nov 2003, demolition - even of the conventional "explosives " type - was still considered extremely "controversial" within the untruth movement and was regularly attacked by leading truth heroes, in much the same way that no planes is now attacked. The objections were remarkably similar in style.

"Junk science...ridiculous".

"Even if you are right you can't prove it."

"Even if you could prove it, people will never believe it because it sounds intrinsically ridiculous. It wont sell, and what "sells" is ultimately what matters."

"Even if you could sell it, it doesn't matter, because we have plenty of better and more important evidence."

The same old cliches were trotted out against the Pentagon hoax evidence.

Back in those days, when Reynolds was still working for the Bush administration and keeping his mouth shut, most of the untruth movement hated me for being a demolition advocate and Pentagon hoax advocate almost as much as they now hate me for being a no planer.

Ruppert was a particularly strident critic of these two pieces of evidence and in Nov 2003, circulated an email launching one of the customary attacks of ridicule and vitriol against these two pieces of evidence. It also attacked the notion that the Arab hijackers were mythical.
I took Ruppert on in that debate and humiliated him so severely that he was forced to publish
an apology on his web site. I provided documentation showing that Ruppert had been actively lying in the course of his support of the official story ever since Sept 13 2001.

Just as my critique of Reynolds provoked a hurried conversion to the position that he had "never" believed in planes, Ruppert's apology as posted on his site, contained the astonishing claim that he had always known that it was a demolition and that had never believed that an airliner hit the pentagon, and had never believed in the authenticity of the 19 Arab hijackers.
Ruppert explained however that in his position as a leading voice of truth, it was necessary for him to lie in order to make the truth look credible to people who mattered. This "interesting" philosophical outlook is quoted and linked in my article

The 911doublethink movement.
It's remarkably similar to Jim Fetzer's claim that "even if you're right...it hurts the movement", a philosophical abomination which Reynolds apparently has no problem with, given the continuing closeness of his association with Fetzer. When pressured over this question, Reynolds came out with these fighting words against Fetzer's doublethink and litany of specific lies as documented in the articles linked earlier when I alluded to Fetzer.

[[Fetzer continues on my watch list. That is all I will say for now.]]

Reynolds' excuses about why he been believing one thing and saying another are remarkably similar to those of Ruppert.

Just as Reynolds now assures us that the fact that he's been lying for so long about what he really believes eminently qualifies him to be a leading truth advocate, Ruppert quickly moved on from his "apology" to again trumpet his claim to be the greatest voice for truth on the planet and the chief "pitbull" of the 9/11 truth movement.

In fact, in the very same article as his "apology", just a few paragraphs after admitting that he had never really believed in the 19 Arab hijackers at all, Ruppert again launched into an exhortation to focus on the best evidence - that the Government had warnings about the hijackers and could have stopped them if they had heeded these warnings.

In similar fashion, Reynolds in the same article as assuring us that he's been really lying all along in pretending to have believed in planes when he really didn't and denying any kind of doublethink in relation to attempting to present "no Big Boeings" and "no planes" as the same thing, again refers to his "no plane article" of March 2006. You know -the one which suggests
[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes...may have hit the towers ]]

This apparently is what Reynolds both did and did not believe - and both did and did not promote- from the moment of his belated appearance up until my critique of him which provoked his furious outpouring of retaliatory lies.

[ed: see also http://web.archive.org/web/20070207090603/http://911closeup.com/ ]