As everyone knows, WING TV has been staunch supporters of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth, and we remain firmly behind their efforts to expose the lies of 9-11. This can be seen not only in our glowing review of their recent appearance on George Noory’s Coast-to-Coast AM, but also in how Lisa Guliani has been tirelessly disseminating their petition to hundreds of different 9-11 coalitions, victim advocacy groups, Internet forums, and related alternative/mainstream media venues.

Thus, the information we are about to report in no way should be misconstrued as criticism of the Scholars' efforts, or a withdrawal of our support. But a recent development has placed us in an unsettling position to warn the Scholars (and the public) of a trap that we see being set for them. We’ve witnessed this type of modus operandi before (disinformation déjà vu), and so have many other hard-core researchers and activists. Furthermore, we’ve even warned the Scholars privately that they were being set-up for a fall.

It is for this reason that we feel it would be irresponsible if we didn’t bring this matter to the table, for efforts are being made to compromise the Scholars, and this in turn has the potential to harm the entire 9-11 truth effort. Days ago, Dr. Morgan Reynolds posted an article entitled We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories which – although not directly endorsing the “no-planes hit the World Trade Center towers” theory – leaves the door wide open for exploitation and manipulation by well-known disinformation artists.

Before proceeding, we would like to stress in no uncertain terms that we have been very supportive of Morgan Reynolds, and have been staunch advocates of his work on the WTC controlled demolitions. But his recent association with Nico Haupt and other former proponents of the bogus (and thoroughly debunked) “hologram” theory - to whom he has given credence - leaves us feeling very troubled.

The reason we’re concerned is that the Scholars for 9-11 Truth are the hottest thing to hit this movement in years. Plus, as they showed so convincingly on George Noory’s Coast-to-Coast AM, they nailed the WTC controlled demolition (and other 9-11 anomalies) with laser-like precision. The Scholars have been gaining an amazing amount of momentum and are making progress like we’ve never seen during the past four years. In addition, their credibility is precisely the shot in the arm that this movement has so desperately needed.

That’s why we can’t figure out why they would want to venture into such unproven and untested waters as “No planes hit the World Trade Center towers.” In case you’re not aware of what the WTC no-planers advocate, they’re pushing a theory of blue-screen fakery, “butter planes,” “cartoon planes,” video manipulation, and faked reality – all in an effort to sell the notion that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers on the morning of September 11, 2001. Such a theory is apt to be misunderstood, especially when the individuals pushing it are the exact same ones who only a year or two ago were promoting the fraudulent “hologram” theory (i.e. airplanes didn’t hit the towers, but instead were merely “holograms”). And yes, they were as adamant and obnoxious then as they are now about their “Blue-screen 9-11 reality fakery.”

We too at WING TV have been unrelentingly pressured to publicly promote and support the no-plane blue-screen theory (as many others in this field have been), just like they did when strong-arming us with their “hologram” theory. One of the main proponents of this nonsense was a woman named WebFairy, a known video manipulator who has coined such scientific terms in the past as: “whatzit,” “pigs fly,” “King Kong-sized holograms,” “fire-perps,” “dust pimples,” "blurry blobs," "dive-bombing thingies," and “wing-flapping holoshadows.” Also, according to WebFairy, any criticism of her theories comes from "debunkers and teletubbies." This woman is, for lack of better terms, a laughing-stock, and a complete joke to serious 9-11 researchers. And even though WebFairy and her ilk have been trying to distance themselves from their own past theories, we think it's important for everyone not to forget their roots.

In all fairness to Dr. Reynolds, he has not to date publicly endorsed the no-plane or blue-screen WTC theory. However, he has now provided a forum – along with his name – that the no-plane/blue-screeners are manipulating and using to their advantage. The question is: does this serve the bigger 9-11 cause in a positive way, for isn’t the water already muddied enough?

From our perspective: why isn’t the controlled demolition good enough? We can prove it 100% using nothing but physics, mathematics, and simple scientific formulas – with no conspiracy theory, no conjecture, and no unproven notions. It’s rock-solid research, and can be proven in any court of law. Furthermore, controlled demolition research is, and has been, the crux issue of 9-11.

As stated earlier, we’ve tried to warn the Scholars that this type of subterfuge may happen, for the biggest detriment to truth-seekers right now is as such: if the mainstream media, government, or 9-11 shills take this one issue – no planes hitting the World Trade Center towers – and permanently align it with the entirety of 9-11 research, then the whole movement will be discredited. As it stands right now, an entity calling itself The Hard Evidence group (comprised of many researchers who have been studying 9-11 since day one) has come out in direct opposition to Dr. Reynolds report, and regrettably we fear there will be more reprisals.

Repeat: WING TV is still very enthused by the strides made by the Scholars for 9-11 Truth, and we think the world of Morgan Reynolds. In addition, we feel it's healthy to get these issues out on the table for an open debate, and in no way should this article be seen as an attack on the Scholars or Morgan Reynolds. Instead, our biggest worry is that there are forces at work who are trying to deliberately sabotage the Scholars for 9-11 Truth, and we're issuing a public warning before it's too late. If you agree with this sentiment, please contact the Scholars and let them know how you feel.

=======================

Addendum: Even though Morgan Reynolds very unequivocally stated in his article that he didn't advocate any particular theory in regard to what struck the World Trade Center towers, strangely enough Nico Haupt has been circulating e-mails that state otherwise. Now we're not faulting Reynolds for what Haupt is doing, but it shows very clearly the dangers of affiliating one's self with this crowd. Below is the header from a March 3, 2006 e-mail from Nico Haupt, along with its opening lines (unedited):

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:20:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Nico Haupt
Subject: Re: Now also Reynolds PRO Bluescreen "9/11 reality" fakery- next round
To: Lisa Guliani

Lisa,

Morgan Reynolds just released his new article: We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories

March 2006
I had a draft of this article since weeks and was one of the proof readers.

With Morgan Reynolds, Jimmy Walter, Rick Siegel we have now 3 new prominent supporters of the bluescreen research.