Submit a question for Morgan using the comment form below:
John’s question,
I’ve got a question about 9/11 concerning the various people who rolled out the official government storyline on TV that day. To what degree did they understand what was happening? In other words, which reporters and witnesses do you think were “in on it?”
June 6, 2011
Morgan’s answer,
That’s a good question John. It must be good because the short answer is I do not know, in most cases, which TV personalities and witnesses were in on it from the git-go and which were not. The reason: I was not “in on” the planning or execution of the crime. I cannot, in other words, at this stage offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who was consciously “shilling” for the government and who was not.
Nonetheless, your question deserves some thought and informed speculation. As a general proposition, we know the broadcast media were in on 9/11, that these people are the “enforcement arm of the powers that be,” in the immortal words of Joe Keith. 9/11 was first and foremost a “psy op,” the greatest lie ever sold, and that means the media was central to the plot, as they always have been in major government scams.
Jesse Ventura says, “There is enough meat on this bone to begin making arrests.” I agree. So if I were a prosecutor I would form a grand jury and begin making arrests of media personnel and witnesses on relevant fraud and conspiracy charges, grill them as best I could, expose their contradictions and lies, break ‘em down and make a case against. Who was “in on it” based on initial evidence? I would start with these fake eye witness accounts:
Sean Murtagh, CNN Vice President of Finance, conveniently called in the first report to CNN claiming a (fictional) airliner flew by him at 5 Penn Plaza and crashed into the WTC North Tower, one of the modest few in NYC that morning to claim such an event happened and thereby good ol’ Sean hardwired the airliner flight 11 myth into the American psyche.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2-StqUMXD8
This video also points out that George W. Bush is one of the rare witnesses who claims he saw a plane fly into the North Tower too, on TV no less. How he could have done that goes unexplained since there was no known broadcast of the North Tower hit, nor do we have any corroboration from witnesses around the president to support his story. Notice in the video all the alleged eye witnesses interviewed by the media uniformly say that a plane hit at about the 80th floor, even if they were at street level!? They all must be speaking from the same talking points.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-11/us/worldtrade.crash_1_plane-world-trade-center-crash?_s=PM:US
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sean_murtagh
The next day the media acquired the Naudet brothers or so-called firefighter (six-second) video, thereby cementing the fiction that an airliner crashed into the North Tower.
Beginning with Sean M. the media on 9/11 interviewed other (alleged) eyewitness media to sell the airliner fiction. It was a nicely controlled situation, including the following:
Rose Marie Arce, CNN producer: http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards.html
Theresa Renaud, wife of CBS Early Show producer Jack Renaud: http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_05.html
Don Dahler, ABC correspondent: http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_12.html
Kai Simonsen, alleged Fox News reporter: http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_16.html
Then we have other lyin’ 9/11 eyewitnesses to interview in a most hostile manner like Stanley Praimnath and the Harley T-shirt guy (actor, “Fox freelancer”) Mark Humphrey. So I would take a “bottom-up” approach to prosecuting the corporate media for selling the 9/11 lie rather than beginning at the top with media CEOs.
As Still Diggin’ sums up, “When I began to look into the background of the ‘eyewitnesses’ who ‘called in’ to the various networks, I invariably found that even those people who appeared to be ‘common folk’ were anything but. They were either tied to the media or big business.”
June 9, 2011
More in response to your question about media and witness participation in the 9/11 hoax: a Florida appeals court ruled in 2003 that falsifying the news is not against the law: http://search4beauty.blogspot.com/2007/02/fox-news-has-no-legal-obligation-to_21.html and http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/. Further, FCC regulations do not seem to hamper deliberate deception by the corporate media http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title47/47tab_02.tpl. Two lessons seem obvious: 1) news buyer beware, and 2) prosecution of the corporate media and lying witnesses for their participation in the 9/11 conspiracy appears legally hopeless.
June 13, 2011
Dear Professor of criminal activities promoted by our government : MORGAN REYNOLDS ;
YOU REFERRED to Gerard Holmgren ,in our conversation ,Would you know where he is now ?and what he is doing ? I have printouts of his “planes “. 20+ pages . I have not been able to find him in years .. We e mailed each other periodically ,but as you saw with my writing , i soon lost him . I fear the worst ,because his work was questioned just like yours was in the NIST Report .
One suggestion , if you can pull all my comments ,and put them to gether , i think you will derive a better explanation of my wild ride / Thank you
Gerard Holmgren, 51, died on May 2, 2010 in Sydney, Australia of cancer diagnosed only a week earlier. He was a brilliant if acerbic 9/11 researcher. You can start here.
Re: FAA and 911 Commission ; One needs to remember ,this was a fact finding mission ,they found none in this meeting . Statements or questions ?if any , are done to elicit a Negative answer , Gorelick kills a lot of time ,trying to sound Lawyerly , and flops Royally . ” examples > “that’s correct , that’s correct ‘ I don’t remember , i wish i could but i don’t ; I never heard that before . How can this be corrected in your view . Hire more cameras , more ATCs (just joking )
Tom Kean asks ? “why is the transponder in the cockpit “. (maybe because if it was anywhere , we could send the code for hijack . CANAVAN, general , Hijack coordinator was in Puerto Rico .
Linda Osmus , who became acting director of FAA , was out sick . You can find notes from the staff on SCRIBD , fantastic site . Why was a general called to W.H. in July , and placed in FAA , and not show up on 911 ; Jack Kies , who hired SLINEY , and was listed has manager for the 11th , was out of town . There are so many blunders in this meeting , the 3 stooges could have used a plot like this .
Everyone is still spinning their wheels ; WillB 11/18/11 tells us the video of Chief Hall is suspect ;he certainly is right . Lets check the backgrounds on the people involved ,and resolve their duplicity . and why .. The part here that should be investigated is ,?were any of them listed has witnesses for the 911 Commission ? Is Pat Dawson around to ask about the CLEAN white shirts ,lack of perspiration . ? thank you WILL B good video ..
Good idea. I’m going to watch that afternoon FAA session and report back.
for an answer on plane parts ,or where were the planes , or were there any planes ? see the video of JUNE 17, 2004 ,THE LAST SESSION OF THE 911 COMMISSION meeting ,FAA . your wasting your time and energy , trying to place the parts ,, this ain’t a puzzle .The enemy is within .
Richard Clarke ,” the Government failed you “, makes absolutely no mention of the FAA , NTSB.
“NPH”, by Dr. Griffin , only mentions Sliney , Belger ,Canavan on pages 82/83 ,making simple statements ;(i have already chastized him on this .PHIL SHENON and Griffin do a good job on exposing Zelikow ;but they fail to go into detail on FAA . IF NO ONE WATCHES THIS VIDEO , then they know nothing .
IF YOU DON’T WATCH THE VIDEOS FROM ALL THE COMMISSIONS AND WITNESSES , YOU WILL NEVER SOLVE 911 , For ten years + ,people have been putting out books , articles , blogs ,and no one is close to proving anything ? The 911 Report is just bunk . except for 2 items : PAGE 22 ,PARA 2 ; The FAA DID NOT WANT TO BE DISTURBED “. . …. Now watch the June 17, 2004 ,meeting last two or just the last one , sessions . MY FINAL WPORD ON THE MATTER / /> we are all spinning our wheels ,as long as the judges rule the courts of “IN “Justice
here we go or come again : of course , alot of people died on 911 WTC ,Pentagon ,Flight 93 (NNOOOO). There were no bodies , no survivors ,that we had in the other Sites. CLARKE , ” your Govern,e t failed you .”, Does not give the impression ,that the government was behind 911. SEEMS like he believes 19 }”whatevers ” did it >? Can anyone tell me if the TORONTO HEARINGS , ever mentioned the 911 Commission ,Public Hearings >?”" Clarke does not mention the FAA at all , The Commission will tell you they failed us ,but the Commission does nothing about it .
So, i say unto you all ; listen and watch the video of 6/17/2004 ,FAA and Military . last two sessions ;if you can’t tell they are lying ,?then you need top research all 18 + Government Officials ,from these two sessions .which should have been held in the FIRST meeting .
BEN SLINEY ,DIRECTOR OF FAA ,HERNDON ,VA. HQ’s.Monte Belger , never make it clear who , what , when , why ,where ,they were or what they did . …
Hi Morgan,
Following the logic, it is obvious that nobody died on 9/11 … the 3000 victims are also fake. After all, that was the Northwoods plan: mock funerals. It explains why you can’t get anybody to care about this “mass murder” … they don’t care because they know it is a fraud. The western media is covering up because the media is controlled and they are in on this gag.
Have you looked into the vicsim information? Your thoughts?
As John McEnroe once famously shouted, “You cannot be serious!” All that destruction in downtown Manhattan on a normal workday morning would necessarily cost many lives. Nearly 500 first responders lost their lives and approximately 1,000 jumpers. Those jumpers’ remains basically were the only bodies positively identified, since those trapped in the towers essentially were “dustified” or molecularly dissociated along with most of the materials in the towers and therefore never found. Further, 1,000+ lost within the towers is not hard to credit plus some likely occupants in WTC 3, 4, 6 who did not escape and we get near the official death count without considering the Pentagon or Pennsylvania. Just because four plane crashes were faked does not imply that all else that morning was fake. It does not follow. To maintain otherwise is not “following the logic.” The primary rule is to follow the evidence, authentic evidence only. We have enough of that to prove that the perpetrators are guilty of mass murder without doubt.
Vicsim info? Don’t know about that, but will look into it.
This reminds me of a funny storefront sign I saw in Turkey: “GENUINE FAKE WATCHES”
An obvious contradiction. Either a watch is genuine or it isn’t. This is why the sign was so funny – we commonly assume that something is either genuine or fake. But to say it’s genuinely fake…
This is part of what we’re up against in educating the public about 9/11. Apollo, too. People readily assume that things are either real or fake. Nothing in between. So if no planes crashed, then obviously the buildings must still be there and no one died, right?
Perpetrators of 9/11 and “landing on the moon” know that the American public has little practice understanding that significant events in U.S. history are often a mixture of reality and fiction. The fiction is required in order for the “real” parts to have at least a half-believable cause. So yes, there were real plane-shaped holes, but the planes were faked. Real buildings were turned to dust with real people inside them, but the causal mechanism was kept from view. We really went to war, but the reason why is bullshit.
Imagine: John Q. Public sees a show on FOX saying the moon landings were faked. He then assumes that if no Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, then no Apollo astronauts went into orbit, then the rockets must be die-cast models and for that matter Niel Armstrong is a cartoon. But…Niel Armstrong appears to be a real person, therefore he must have walked on the moon since events can’t be real and fake at the same time.
Just like the fake watch sign.
Very nice, deep insight, and it’s not “doublethink” because the separable real and fake aspects are part of the same event (“intertwined”).
Does there being fake video of landing on the moon equate to not landing on the moon? Does a fake video of John being shot equate to John wasn’t shot? Best I can tell, it isn’t proof that John was shot. It proves nothing about John.
There is some loose reasoning here that misdirects us. We have other facts to consider before reaching any conclusion about the alleged moon landing. For example, who was the source of the fake video (we stipulate it is fake) of man’s historic “first” landing on the moon? NASA, i.e., the U.S. government, then under the overall direction of president Dick Nixon, a paragon of honesty and honor (!?) following in the footsteps of that other worthy, Lyin’ Lyndon. Why would the sponsor (USG) of the moon landing issue a fake video if its moon landing were real? Likely because the sponsor did not actually pull off a moon landing but wants to convince the public that it did so. That’s only a common sense suspicion, especially considering the source. Combined with a great deal of other evidence like the deadly Van Allen radiation belts against which astronauts would have had no protection we reach the conclusion that the Apollo missions were hoaxes. So a fake video of “man’s greatest achievement” issued by USG to glorify itself via a BIG LIE is very important. Granted, that leaves the question open of whether or not man secretly traveled to the moon and back (I doubt it) but that is a question for another day.
The rest of your challenge is not directly related to the moon landing hoax but I’ll answer anyway. “Does a fake video of John being shot equate to John wasn’t shot?” No is the answer, you’re right, but it also raises a question about why the shooting was faked and who was the photographer and so on. It’s a matter for possible further investigation. “Best I can tell, it isn’t proof that John was shot. It proves nothing about John.” A fake video does not prove that John was or was not shot, I agree with that part. But I wouldn’t go so far as to conclude, “It proves nothing about John,” because it may raise questions about “cui bono” (who benefits) from the fake video and the what-why-and-who questions surrounding possible frauds or other criminal events.
Morgan, I agree the fake video of John being shot raises questions such as who benefits from the fake video. Describe a scenario where a fake video explains anything about John. For example, a beneficiary of John’s life insurance policy is suspected of creating the fake video of John being killed, what does the video prove about John?
Hey zonsb, you are right on it, aren’t you?
Ordinarily empirical proof requires more than one piece of evidence, that was my point but one you seem to resist. In your hypothetical for example, John may or may not be complicit in the suspected insurance fraud. We’d have to investigate further; that implies that any suspicions we might have about John’s behavior would require further evidence before we could confirm our suspicions. In combination with other evidence, the video might supply relevant evidence on behalf of a charge, whatever that may be. I do not have to spell out a scenario to make my point.
About now we need a definition: “A proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28truth%29 The trouble with your approach is that we need a proposition, hypothesis, or criminal charge about which the fake video may provide partial evidence that goes into a real proof. Then we would know if the video helps us prove anything about John. For example, does it fit into a consistent pattern of behavior and complement all the other evidence? Your approach fails to provide the proposition about John for which the fake video might provide support (or refutation).
BTW, Jim Fetzer maintains that the first stage of scientific reasoning is puzzlement, then speculation, etc.https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3AaqkpP_QRMJ:assassinationscience.com/LogicAndEvidence.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgNCb6P2F52Y1TABJdGzEYA6dzZTXLH-icLN2ek_bdoKonMWJOvGeREKV4w3gq9D9BwM6KN53CEk4MUd5OYXq7Gkz4xyJKzn1ZMWcWQ9ppQ4exFSy-xQUEOGFJdpMh_w-QTLo-G&sig=AHIEtbSxNnBXGeb98WayAPEb8ho2oBZDKg; your approach and example ignore such crucial elements for establishing appropriate proof…of what? You don’t say. Hard to talk about proof for a proposition and whether a fake video is relevant for that proof when the proposition to be proven goes unspecified.
Morgan, I’m not resisting. You wrote: “The trouble with your approach is that we need…” What is “my” approach? Approach to what? It appears you assumed I had an approach to something or created an approach to something and then assigned it to me. Thus whatever, if anything, you refute about the approach you assigned to me has in fact refuted an approach you created.
You wrote:”Hard to talk about proof for a proposition and whether a fake video is relevant for that proof when the proposition to be proven goes unspecified.” Like I said, the fake video proves nothing about John. In my previous response I said I agree with you that fake video raises questions.
Regards man landing on the moon and 9/11 events with regard to government complicity. A big one is the 9/11 cover up of directed energy technology; aka, the 911 truth movement controlled opposition — the “steering committee”. Of course government agents and complicit media lie. Government has no voluntary support. Pay the tax or go to jail. Pay the mafia protection money or “Guido” will break your legs. Tax is the politically correct term for theft. Jail is the politically correct term for cage. “Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. …If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn’t be provided on a compulsory basis.” ~ Marc Stevens
There is no principle-agent relationship with alleged government representation or alleged representatives. Pay the tax or go to jail isn’t representation. That’s ownership/enslavement.
“The thought of how far the human race would have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination.” ~ Doug Casey
I’ve consumed more or less ninety-three percent of the information on your website. I’ve source quoted information from your website many times. Watched your Madison presentation four or five times. Suffice to say I have much more information and knowledge about what you know than you know about what I know.
If I were to label myself, I’d say I’m a voluntarist/anarchist. From my experience, the non aggression principle is too often hypocritically espoused by libertarians for me to label myself a libertarian. I assume you hold steadfast to the non aggression principle. In other words, you’re not a hypocritical libertarian.
What the founding fathers may have intended by the constitution to be the rule of law so as to suppress the rule of man has failed to deliver, as rule of man now runs the government. As Lysander Spooner wrote over 120 years ago in, “No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority”: (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/64): “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
The remedy to that is the Twelve Visions Party proposed Prime Law Amendment to the constitution. (tvpnc.org). It also means you and Dr. Judy Wood would have an honest court forum to present your legal cases.
Preamble
*The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily.
*The function of government is to provide the conditions that let individuals fulfill that purpose.
*The Prime Law guarantees those conditions by forbidding the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual, property, or contract.
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self, property, or contract.
Article 2: Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
*The Prime Law® is the fundamental, natural law of protection (that directs all decisions and actions of the Twelve Visions Party) and is not open to amendment or change.
The TVP is but one facet of a project that has been in the works for thirty-five years to create a voluntary civilization the world over. I’ve kept myself abreast of it’s progress for twenty-one years.
Morgan, I think you and I could have some great conversations. On the issue of economics I offer for your enjoyment the following videos: “The Essence of Money” (7:37), “Introduction to Digital Coin” (8:32) and “Money as Debt III – Evolution Beyond Money”. Paul Grignon created the videos and has them on his YouTube channel at: http://www.youtube.com/user/paullwgrignon#g/u
Also, newapproactofreedom.info has the literary works of E.C. Riegel. A two minute read of the homepage is a good introduction.
The following videos are the work of Larken Rose: “TheTinyDot” (6:49) is posted at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs — His recent appearance at “Libertopia” (33:42) is posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnfH8ttsd58 — “I can point out thousands of people… who have gone from statist indoctrination to actual humanity; I don’t know anyone who went back.” ~Larken Rose.
“The Most Dangerous Superstition”, authored by Larken Rose, is a real eye opener for people that don’t yet realize they’re a voluntarist (Ie. non-statist) in nearly all aspects of their actions except when it comes to government, wherein they’re statists.
Returning to economics, which is essentially, underpinned by man’s labor creating/producing wealth for which money at a technology was derived to make trading more efficient. The industrial evolution began at about 1780. One hundred twenty year later, 1900, the man hours required to produce the basic necessitates for a family of six was halved and the quality of basic necessitates was improved over that of 120 years earlier. The reason I use a family of six rather than a family of four is grand parents were active members of most families.
History shows that man produces more than he consumes. The excess productivity allowed for slavery to be viable at least as far back as Ancient Egypt. Also, as man has gained knowledge of the predictability of the laws of nature/physics he has increased his control of nature. If you’re indoors, look around the room and you’ll see that’s true.
Technology advances exponentially. The main theme of inventor, futurist and author, Ray Kurzweil’s work is, “The Law of Accelerating Returns — Exponential Advancing Technology.” An essay can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/29e82vw A video presentation of the same is here: http://tinyurl.com/7d3t6y5 –Ray’s website address is kurzweilai.net — The ai stands for Accelerating Intelligence.
From 1900 to 2010 man should of halved the required number of man hours to produce/acquire the basic necessities for a family of six at least four more times. In other words, since 1900, the nature of volutarist man increasing productivity exponentially (albeit increasingly hindered by government along the time-span) should have decreased prices, not increased prices. Not to mention having been robbed of eighty percent of his time and energy due to statist indoctrination to provide for a family of four would otherwise be less than eight hours per week. The notion of “making ends meet” should have been a thing of the past fifty years ago.
Okay, I’ve gone on long enough. Hope you gain value form the links posted above.
Regards,
Steve
P.S. I
Hi Morgan,
Thank you for the reply, but I don’t think you have fully followed the logic, because it does follow that “no planes” means “no victims” too. Our government didn’t want to kill Americans – they only wanted to outrage the public. A fake plane is a victimless plane – and an empty building is a victimless building. Now perhaps one or two people did die, by accident, which would be understandable given the logistics of the operation. But that is it – nobody else is meant to die. The “dead” are all faked – that is how you have outrage without causing “murder.” They didn’t do this to murder Americans. Re-read the Operations Northwoods plans – you’ll see that nobody dies. The funerals are mock victims.
It wouldn’t have been difficult to evacuate both the towers and the immediate area prior to the building’s take down. In fact, after the 93 bombing they specifically planned for a speedy evacuation of the WTC in any future emergency.
In this clip http://youtu.be/mhCiAHTp4a4 Chief Hall lets slip that the building was totally evacuated.
Who are the dead really? Have you know any personally? The dead were manufactured identities created randomly on computers. We only believe they existed because they were said to be employees of either the NYC government or some CIA-related company who kept the phantom employee at its WTC office.
The “jumpers” – caught falling on video with perfect camera zooming – were just cartoons.
The fakery is seen in the simulated images of the victims (hence “vicsims”). Their photos are clever compute generated images and are doctored. Why would somebody photoshop an image of their dearly departed? Since it makes no sense that anybody would make a fake photo of their loved-one who allegedly died on 9/11, the fake ones that show up cast doubt upon the entire slew of pictures.
You can’t follow just evidence – you have to authenticate evidence. And when the truthfulness of some of the information is called into question by fake images (planes) you must take all the evidence with a measure of scepticism. And when more fake images show up (fake victims like Elizabeth Waino) – the whole thing is suspect.
Do you find these people credible witnesses? or bad actors?
What do we know for certain? We know that after catching well over 500 fraudsters posing as survivors of fake victims, the statute of limitations has run and NYC has stopped counting the number of fake dead people: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/artists-cashed-5-8m-9-11-tragedy-article-1.244458
The government didn’t go through all the trouble of 9/11 to simply commit “mass murder” — that could have been done much easier in so many different ways. No, the trouble it went into was to make it look like mass murder yet without any casualties. That took work – including fake planes.
The lack of “mass murder” give some measure of relief — but the fact that this scam was that deep and successful creates a whole new level of unease about how massively the US government is able to control information.
You wrote: “In this clip http://youtu.be/mhCiAHTp4a4 Chief Hall lets slip that the building was totally evacuated.” Actually, Chief Hall said: “The numbers we don’t know yet. We tried to get almost everybody out that we could early on.” The interviewer asked: “How many people were you able to get out, do you have any idea?” Chief Hall responded: “We don’t know. We tried to do a floor by floor search; NYC police, fire department, port authority police, best they could tried to get everybody out. But as you know there were still people coming out after that building came down.”
Also, considering there were no toilets found in the rubble and just one oddly deformed/mangled file cabinet with a file-folder that appears to be fused with the metal, it’s possible that what happened to the people inside the towers met the same fate as the toilets and file cabinets. Have to question the reliability of people that witnessed that prior to the collapse of the towers the ground was strewn with bodies of people that jumped.
That said, the number of American’s of essentially all nationalities or races that died on 9/11 and first responders and clean up personal thereafter that died and those still suffering ill health as a result of the toxicity of ground zero is dwarfed by the million-plus people killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of aggression.
RE: Jet engine that was found ? It is now hanging in the “NEWSEUM”, IN D.C.
i believe ,but has never been properly identified by NTSB. Speaking of the devils.NTSB .
CHARLES PERREIRA ,WAS THE official representing them on the 911 Commission staff. His boss at that agency was a man named ,?????? HALL. CHARLES LEFT the Department to go work for Hall Consultants .While they conducted the most comprehensive
investigation on Flight 800.. They forwarded some paper work ,that was meant for the FBI. IT landed on the desk of Jamie Gorelick ( Mueller, MArcus,Gorelick .all worked for WILMER HALE DORR CUTLER PICKERING ,at some time or other ) that in itself is a long complicated affair. Suffice it to say that in 2005, Gorelick and Mueller destroyed all FBI computers. The connections in the Justice Dept. are / were like an Octopus ; Chertoff ,Mueller ,were working for Ashcroft the week before 911. . Concentrating on the June 17,2004 ,FAA ,911 Commission meeting is the easiest way to prove ” the inside job” . I have all the material ,but not the means of putting it all together in a sensible , readable form .
Some clues for finding the FAA totally guilty .1) watching the video of that meeting .
2) reading ‘,Touching History, “by Lynn Spencer.
3) reading John Farmers’ “Ground Truth “.
4) USA Today (2006 ) FAA guy plays himself ; (archives )
5) focus on Sliney and Belger ,at the meeting and in the books .
6) Check out the actual Command Centers of the FAA.
7) The NMCC IS on one side of the Pentagon : Rumsfeld’s ; Command Post ,below his office . he never got there until 10:30 The best Radar in the world . The section that was blown up ,on the opposite side of the NMCC, was the NAVAL COMMAND CENTER. One survivor ;LT > Kevin Shaeffer , who worked for the COMMISSION STAFF ,until 2004 ? He then disappeared until this year . He was at Naval College in NEWPORT ,RI. on 9/11/2011.
His interview with CHIPS a Naval Quarterly Magazine , has been removed . Like April Gallop ,he probably came to the resolution of what really happened . Chapter 6/7 ,of the interview , he states”, If we had not been blown up, the Navy Command would have proven what happened at WTC. We were watching TV (CNN) when the second plane hit . Then the explosion. TIMELY
In one of your articles, I believe from 2005, you mentioned that the smoking jet turbine found on NYCity at Church St on 9-11-2001 was a CFM56. This is a turbine from a 737 Boeing I believe, and not from a 757 or 767 aircraft, the alleged crime weapons. I was wondering if you have any other information regarding this finding…because it does seem to be a rather huge detail.
Thanx,, Guy
Sorry to be tardy but this question deserves a considered response. In my article http://nomoregames.net/2006/03/05/we-have-some-holes-in-the-plane-stories/ I wrote, “None of the parts are consistent with 767 crashes (substantial sections of unburned fuselage, a 737 engine part, a piece of unburned landing gear) nor have they been independently verified and matched by serial number against the maintenance logs of the specified aircraft. This piece is a 737 engine part (CFM 56) according to aircraft experts rather than from a 767.” Unfortunately even at this late date we apparently cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that this allegedly wrong engine part was planted vertically (!) under the scaffolding but virtually everything we can see about it is wrong, including the necessary flight path to land vertically under scaffolding. I know pilot John Lear believes it is the CFM 56 produced by GE/SNECMA yet a United Airlines 767 would have had a Pratt & Whitney JT9D. You might consult the 4-page discussion here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=636&st=0
I would caution against making this question into a “rather huge detail.” Yes, we always like to catch the perps up in errors but would it change our conclusion about what happened with plane fakery at the WTC if the perpetrators had planted the right part(s)? No. Here is how confused people can get: some in the “CFM 56 camp” conclude that the “plane” that allegedly flew into WTC 2 must have been a Boeing 737! Or some other aircraft model, say, military because of a “pod” in the (cartoon) videos that would not be on the underbody of a civilian airliner. This is myopic nonsense. For examples of these errors see http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/98ed9cd274ca17f8?pli=1 All four 9/11 “crash” sites are the cleanest in aviation history because no planes crashed there. Duh. This “no-plane” conclusion is based on common sense reinforced by physical laws plus compelling evidence. This result is further reinforced rather than refuted by phony videos, especially those showing a physically impossible “immaculate penetration” of WTC 2, whose only purpose can be to cover up the lack of evidence of violent collisions between airliners and the towers. As Noel Twyman wrote in his book, Bloody Treason: “…evidence that has been forged, by those who are prime suspects in the crime, is tantamount to proof of their guilt.”
What happened to this article?
http://web.archive.org/web/20090111062151/http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=plane_trick_wtc2
follow up on any responses please.
lets see ?no one saw the first plane .the second plane was definitely not a Commercial Passenger plane with a Funny looking thing attached at the bottom . No one saw Flight 93 , except Ben Sliney .he said he was an Air Traffic Controller >?WAs he ? NO . no one saw the parts of Flight 77 ? certainly not Chief Ed Plaugher ,who was in charge that day ; and Torie Clark would not let him speak to the press ; But he spoke to Creedon ” Firefight ” , NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THE E 4B AIR FORCE SUPER PLANE , EXCEPT JENNINGS ,AND JOHN KING .. . There’s no reason in the world why the Government could not get # 93 out of the ground for positive proof and identify the victims ,and the “INSURGENTS “, WHO LEFT 2 PASSPORTS ON THE GROUND . Tom Kean “,Without Precedent … what a nice man . and the only FAA guy he names in the book is Monte Belger , who was nowhere near FAA HQ in Herndon ,Va. on 911 . He was on the tenth floor of the FAA HQ in Washington ,D,C. with Garvey and Osmus .. the entire commission covered up along with WILMER HALE DORR CUTLER PICKERING ,and their 3 stooges . Muller , Marcus ,and Gorelick ,all worked for this firm ..
Hi Morgan, Anthony Lawson is still promoting the four Boeings as “murder weapons” in this recent vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF-Rp4W_ABE
I think he’s smart enough to have deduced no BOEINGS crashed that day, so *methinks* old Anthony is peddling DISINFO, and may even be a DISINFO AGENT…LOL.
What’s your take?
Morgan says:
Mr. Lawson is a “plane hugger” alright, a true believer that large aluminum airplanes flew into extremely strong buildings or the earth itself and disappeared on 9/11, unprecedented outcomes for crashes of large aircraft, which are very easy to identify in all previous and subsequent instances because of the enormous wreckage strewn over the landscape. Lawson’s motives are difficult to judge, just like many bright economists I know are Keynesians or Friedman monetarists, clingers to ridiculous theories of the business cycle whose implementation is wreaking destruction daily here and abroad. Lawson may believe his impossible 9/11 airliner theory (contrary to reality) for the best of motives…or not. I don’t know and it doesn’t matter much because the results of his error(s) on the public and other researchers are largely the same, whether misinfo or disinfo.
Don Dahler ,on WABC 7 with Gibson and Sawyer ,(two lying anchors ), stated .like a missile ,”swoosh “. Don , are you a pilot ? ????? but i have lived on bases and have heard that sound before . Then he tries to discredit Jennings about that .
and why did all the anchors have their backs to the WTC and Pentagon . ? or not shown at all ? all the TV shots came from the same white helicam copter . you can see it flow back and forth in the screens during the shows , only aaron Brown CNN comments on it ? and why has there been no E4B clarification ? Jennings reported it , and the segment where the WTC 7 goes down has been removed . they are shown in 41 minute segments ,, , That is the only one missing … ONE more ? where is LT.Kevin Shaeffer ,the lone survivor of the Naval Command Center ,Pentagon . worked for the 911 Commission staff ; page 11 ,911 report , also in Kean’s book .Without president ???? I have an interview he did with CHIPS naval magazine ,Pgae 22 para 2 of 911 Report :the FAA did not want to be disturbed . I think this was acryptic message that got by Zelikow . Ground Truth also calls NEADS ,NORADS liars . Ben Sliney is my biggest problem ?
Morgan, why is the testimony of William Rodriguez considered suspect?
As I mentioned in an earlier email reply to you, I do not trust the guy. I just ran across this 2007 discussion by ewing2001 (Nico Haupt) expressing doubts about what I’ll term “The 9/11 Willie Rodriguez Hero Show”: http://web.archive.org/web/20070606092618/http://www.911researchers.com/node/555
What is going on with that lawsuit?
has the court done anything so far?
or is it expected that these things take time….
Click this link re: dismissal of Morgan’s lawsuit.
http://nomoregames.net/2008/09/19/reynolds-answers-judge-daniels-dismissal/
Its been 4 years already, has the court taken any action on that lawsuit?
Color me curious
Dear Morgan Reynolds,
The email I received a copy of today informed me that you, Thomas Potter and the Webfairy are now secretly investigating my deceased family members in your pursuit to solving 911. This quote was in the email, from you: Before this quote, astounding research done by Thomas Potter and the webfairy (Rosalee Grabel) discovered that my father was an MP at Los Alamos labs during WWII. Thus the quote below is now in context.
“And the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree? Even though the tree grew
at Los Alamos only a short while? ARA, a leading Directed Energy Weapon
(DEW) defense contractor, is headquartered in Albuquerque, NM, only 98 miles
from Los Alamos, NM,”
Thus because my Father worked as an MP guarding a gate at Los Alamos labs during WWII, and ARA is located just 98 miles away, you & your amazing research team have deducted or speculated from this that my Father and I somehow are guilty of 911 and involved in it? That’s some amazing dots you guys connected. My Father got out of WWII and went to work as a cookie salesman for Salerno. Salerno cookies. Is Salerno cookies also part of the 911 network? He then went and sold cookies for Keebler, another huge player in 911 as well, if I am to follow your research. When 911 happened in 2001, my Father had been out of the US Military for 56 years. And he was dying of cancer, Non Hodgkins Lymphoma. Coincidently, we believe it was a cancer he contracted while working at Los Alamos labs as an MP for the US Military.
You see my Father, Donald Jayhan was a guard at Los Alamos labs. You might all be wondering what he guarded. My father guarded the first atomic bomb blast site on the plateau.
Yes, he guarded a huge greenish yellow glass floor at Los Alamos labs. The site of the first atomic bomb blast in the world. All alone he would sit in his guard shack, which was just this side of the perimeter fencing set up around “ground zero.” Because of the heat, he, as did all other MP’s given this shittiest of all jobs in the military, would strip down to nothing but his green G.I. boxers and place his 45 caliber pistol on the table, and he would guard “ground zero.” While ARA is just 98 short miles away as you so studiously reported, I fail to see the connection between my father, guarding a radioactive glass floor, and sitting in a radioactive guard shack in 120 degree heat, ARA & the crime and hoax of 9/11. Where is the connection Mr Reynolds? And why are you investigating my dead brother & father?
And my father on his worst day was a far better man then you will ever be even on your best days Mr Reynolds. My father had integrity and was honest. While your sadly lacking in both these qualities. For you, Thomas Potter and Rosalee Grabel to pursue this is nothing but a smear campaign, and will easily be seen as such by all who witness your disgraceful investigations of my deceased father and brother.
You were a senior Bush administration official? And are a practicing professor at Texas A&M university? And pursue this base disgustful investigation of my deceased father and brother, in order to solve 911 I presume? People will see it for what it is, a smear campaign. You quipped that an acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. For once your correct Morgan. I am much like my father, although not half the man he was and hopefully not nearly as radioactive. He instilled in me a strong sense of honesty and integrity, something your devoid of altogether.
When first reading this vile line of investigation into my dead brother & father and their “obvious connection to the crime of 9/11 through directed energy weapons” (It sounds even more idiotic when you say it) lol – but my first reaction was that if that’s how you want to play, then I would meet your challenge and place your entire family under a full public investigation and make you experience as much pain as much as you created for me through your “911 research” into my deceased father and brother.
But while writing this I remembered something my father used to say to me all the time. “Son, never ever stoop down to a small petty persons behavior, because you allow them to be raised to your level, not by elevating them, but by lowering yourself.” He had a better way of saying the same thing Morgan. He would always tell hide the to “never wrestle with a pig in the mud, because you both end up getting muddy, and the pig kinda likes it.”
That is what you are Mr. Reynolds, is a pig in the mud. People will quickly see that the only research your engaged in is research you can use to malign people, cause division and much strife. You are obviously a man who’s only pursuit is to hide the truth, not expose it. And a small petty man at that. Please leave the memories of my brother and father alone, as they had nothing to do with anything related to 911.
Feel free to continue on with this planned smear campaign, trying to find something to sully me with, even going to the drastic extreme of attempting to besmirch my deceased brother & father, but to be honest the 911 atmosphere has changed and highly doubt it will be effective in the least. And also believe that this will blow up in your face leaving egg all over it, and to some extent has already.
I want to close by saying there could be only one (1) reason why an old man like you, a Professor at Texas A&M and former senior Bush administration official, would spend all of his time investigating Phil Jayhan & Phil Jayhans dead father & brother, obviously straining to find something to smear me with. It is because we have discovered the secret of the mystery to 9/11 at the Lets Roll Forums and these truths are spreading faster then you can suppress them! And your job is to make sure those truths are suppressed. People will see this for what it is Morgan and see right through your thinly veiled facade. Your act is “hollow.” Much like the towers on 9/11.
Sincerely,
Phil Jayhan
Morgan Reynolds says,
Phil,
I do not share your enthusiasm for making this dispute public. A perfectly sensible explanation is at hand and I sent that to you earlier today. But if you insist, I’ll try to accommodate.
As you found out through the actions of someone who labels himself “von Zolta,” Mr. Thomas Potter sent an email on 7/21 to a small group of a few dozen including me to inform us of his “discovery,” not mine, about your father’s service at Los Alamos labs during WWII. I didn’t find this allegation relevant in any way, shape or form, so in my reply of 7/22 I asked Mr. Potter to explain: “And the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree? Even though the tree grew at Los Alamos only a short while?” This was too subtle apparently for you and others to get my drift. Notice the question marks? I intended to express skepticism about such an allegation or connection to possibly explain Phil Jayhan’s opinions, work or research on 9/11. And Mr. Potter has yet to explain why he announced the alleged fact of your father’s military service, thereby unfortunately leaving it to innuendo.
I’ve never engaged in digging up potentially negative news about relatives. I did use (mistakenly on hindsight) the offered email reference to Los Alamos labs to spotlight it because exotic weaponry work occurs there, including Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), which in my opinion are directly related to the events of 9/11 at the World Trade Center. My email then presented data regarding ARA (a defendant in my dismissed 9/11 federal lawsuit), the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) and the dysfunctional upcoming 9/11 hearings at Ryerson University http://torontohearings.org/
As for a smear campaign, not true; suppressing the truth, not true either; I agree with you and your Dad on pig wrestling; on the worth of Morgan Reynolds, you are really, really hurting my feelings. I do not share your opinion but you’re so entitled to it that I’ll allow you to express it on my website!
Finally, note that the anonymous Mr. von Zolta, among his many faults, advocates mass murder.
Dear Morgan Reynolds,
I would like to know why it is that you are investigating my dead father and my dead brother. I would like to know what this has to do with any 911 research. Please detail this line of inquiry so that all your readers can understand why it is your investigating my dead brother and father, and why it is that you are slandering their memory? My Father was an MP at Los Alamos labs in 1944 and 1945. He guarded a gate. So please tell all of us how it is necessary to investigate my father and brother. It is obvious to me that this is a smear campaign headed by you and the webhag, Rosaleee Grabel. But would still like to hear you explain how investigating my dead family members and souring their memories is helping you to solve 911. Please tell us Morgan, enquiring minds want to know.
With much disgust-
Phil Jayhan
Admin/Lets Roll Forums
No one in Manhattan (almost) could have missed the events described in the official version (huge jets at near ground level, astonishing speeds), but it only consisted of explosions in buildings and what followed. Why did people not come out in droves to question the TV version?
Suggested answer. Understandably bewildered at first, frightened second, don’t really care third, like the status quo.
Powerful point and well said, kla. Thanks.
What is their agenda? Semi deniers, “truthers with planes”. Very limited US culpability, and thus mostly a distraction.
It was allowed to happen on the basis of an intelligence blunder, for example. This is a critique of a German public TV propaganda production, by “Focus Online”.
“If the CIA and FBI had worked together, then 9/11 would not have happened”…
“He (John O’Neill) was only few days on the job, as both towers were hit by passenger airliners, fell and buried him with it.”
These statements are made with dead-set (fake) earnestness! But this is German prostitute media, same as US. All the same.
http://anrufen.blogspot.com/2010/08/doku-zum-11-september-im-zdf-from-focus.html
Then there are the “radio controlled” contenders, just like on Saturday morning animated TV.
This is all academic, as 9/11 has gone the way of JFK, as expected, given human behavior and limitations. But it serves as an amazing revelations or confirmation of the human, as to how it can be had, if it can be made to believe that it maximizes its own selfish lot and is locked into its own self-destruct pretend world.