Hoffman on Reynolds

An interesting comment by Jim Hoffman on Morgan Reynold's recent article on 9/11.

Reynolds' article promotes two distinct theories:

* That the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition.
* That the initial damage to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, as well as the crater in Pennsylvania, were not caused by jetliner crashes.

The contrast between Reynold's handling of these two theories is striking.

Reynolds provides a compelling summary of the analysis of earlier researchers that the collapses of the WTC towers had to be the result of controlled demolition. That analysis employs diverse lines of reasoning and includes the application of basic principals of physics to the features of the towers' collapses documented by abundant physical evidence, such as scores of photographs of the collapses themselves.

In contrast, Reynolds' premise that jetliners were not involved at any of the four crash sites is baseless. Aside from the fact that there is no credible evidence that the initial damage was produced by anything other than jetliners, Reynolds fails to mention any of the bodies of evidence that jetliners did crash as reported, such as eyewitness accounts of each of the four crashes.

Each argument Reynolds advances for the no-jetliner theory is flawed. He confuses aluminum cladding for steel columns in North Tower crash photographs, fails to appreciate the effects of momentum on target damage and aircraft-part survivability in high-speed crashes, repeats an erroneous description of the Pentagon's facade damage, and makes unsupported claims that Flight 175 should have sliced through the South Tower's east corner and that its engine parts are "unconvincing."

As with the WTC towers' demolition, the points Reynolds makes in favor of the no-jetliner theory are all made by other authors, so the contrast between the the soundness of his arguments for the two theories may just reflect the contrast between the strengths of the theories themselves -- a contrast which Reynolds may not appreciate.

Reynolds' article, which combines strong theories with erroneous ones, is a microcosm of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Experience has shown that the mainstream media will amplify the least credible and most offensive theories and misrepresent them as gospel of the "conspiracy theorists." Reynolds' concluding paragraph highlights the importance of getting the science right.

If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall."

I couldn't agree more.

I think Hoffman is basically right here. HOWEVER, I also think Hoffman is a little too quick to dismiss some of the oddities of the 9/11 plane crashes, particularly the Pentagon hit and the flight 93 crash. These, to me, anyway, are telltale signs of plane-swaps and thus of MIHOP. I'm not sure if Hoffman really appreciates that point, but I think Reynolds does.