You are here

Morgan Reynolds is looking for an argument!

Broadcast December 22nd, 10-11:00 a.m. Central (1500 GMT) on, archived here. Note: subscribers can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of and go to the “Private Blog” to get early access to the shows. 

Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Bush II’s top Labor Dept. economist, resigned, exposed the 9/11 inside job, and said his former bosses had  “blown the Towers to kingdom come”

Morgan Reynolds is looking for an argument – i.e. a “connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition” that some combination of nanothermite, conventional explosives and/or mini-nukes could account for all of the damage recorded at and around the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. Anyone presenting such arguments to Morgan, as David Griscom and Jim Fetzer recently have done, is sure to get acerbically slapped down. Morgan is convinced Judy Wood‘s hypothesis – that some sort of Tesla/Hutchison style directed energy weapon was involved – is the best explanation. And don’t even get him started on the planes vs. no-planes debate!

Is Morgan some sort of disinformation-spewing Sunsteinian stooge tasked with stirring up dissension and discrediting the 9/11 truth movement? Or might he be sincereā€¦or even (gasp!) right? Tune in and decide for yourself.

PS You may wish to compare Morgan’s views with those of last week’s guest Dr. Ibrahim Soudy, who is calling for 9/11 truth supporters to keep the discussion friendly and collegial.

2 Thoughts to “Morgan Reynolds is looking for an argument!”

  1. Morgan Reynolds ignores and/or dismisses all existing scientific research on the physics of the WTC airplane impacts and continues to assert that the video footage of the plane hitting the South Tower exhibits impossible, "cartoon physics". Reynolds likes to talk about "physics", as if he's an authority on the subject (not), but doesn't ever provide any scientific data to support his claims. What he offers are simply "appeals to common sense" and "arguments from incredulity", both of which are logical fallacies and have nothing to do with science.

    Those who are interested in genuine scientific research on the physics of the WTC aircraft impacts can look here:

  2. Anonymous

    morgan reynolds seems to not play well in the sand box with others. he has been eating too much cat roca perhaps.

    I'm not sold on Griscom's arguments either, I did far too much vibration and shock testing for DoD to buy the fact you can excite a piece of steel that is long and has many nodes going in other directions, and get it to turn to dust everywhere in every direction.

Leave a Comment