Reinvestigate 9/11 ad. in the Independent newspaper

[Andrew Johnson]

PIkey,

You should know not to "push" 911 evidence and research that has been put into a legal framework and left out of independent adverts.

It's OK for people to be woken up to some of the truth (like the Indi advert will probably do), but the real danger for the perps is 911 getting linked, through evidence and the history of certain 911 researchers, to the energy cover up - as well as the climate scam (i.e. weather control and free energy tech was used on 9/11). This type of research got to be described as "theory", "speculation" and "unproven" - even though a good proportion of evidence is already in the Court of the SDNY documents. ( http://tinyurl.com/911qtam ) We have to accept that a number of posters here don't want anyone to know about this. Or if they do want people to know about it, then they're doing things in a funny way....

[TonyGosling]

No Andrew,
The vast majority of the entire 9/11 Truth movement are not convinced by your presentations.
You are not facing facts my friend.
You are at liberty to discuss absolutely anything here in the controversies section but I will only actively promote stuff when people out in the real world are being convinced.
You have to admit (surely to God) that we get absoluely nowhere by promoting theories that don't convince people.
Ian Henshall, Annie and the gang of four entirely understand that.
I cannot imagine the damage you would do if you gave the 9/11 presentation to MPs?
Can you?
Dare you?

[Andrew Johnson]

[TonyGosling]

That's fine Andrew, you keep plugging away at convincing people.
But don't admit that in its present form your material is entirely useless for an audience that doesn't already accept that 9/11 was a total fraud.

[xmasdale]

I sigh again, Andrew, as I have never seen evidence which explains the theories of yourself and Judy Wood in such a way that convinces. I have watched some pretty spectacular videos showing the levitation power of the Hutchison effect; I have studied Judy Wood's website which I find muddled and not easy to understand.

I do not dismiss without examination any theory on how the WTC was destroyed and maintain there is no certainty about this issue. Yes, I believe there is sufficient evidence that directed energy weapons exist, but whether they could be used to bring about the destruction of buildings in the manner the WTC was destroyed I have no idea.

If you can find someone who understands Judy's theories I wish you could get them presented in a fashion the lay person can understand. But unless I am convinced of something myself, I cannot possibly convince others of its validity.

Reinvestigate 9/11 does not dismiss your theories, but takes the practical view that the public seems to undertand that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the use of high explosives and therefore finds that explanation a possibility. There is a need to demonstrate that there are possibilities other than those presented by US government agencies. Until such hard comprehensible information that DEWs are an equally plausible explanation emerges, not many will give much attention to DEW theories.

I have tried to listen to the links you have provided above. The first is of a man's voice expressing gratitude for something unspecified. The second neither works as a link nor when I copy and paste it.

If we want to convince people that 9/11 was an inside job we have to present plausible comprehensible information.

Noel

[xmasdale]

[flamesong]

I wasn't aware of there being a countenanced split. Though, to be honest, it was a long, long time coming.

Personally, I think that the problem here, Noel, is that any forking between the factions you have outlined has either not been clearly defined or is not being respected.

A major factor here is that those with sci-fi theories find themselves in an ever diminishing claque and need to pollute the campaign for a new inquiry in order to maintain any public attention.

For me, the biggest problem I have with them is that they just don't get the need to remain objective and they are, by and large, too emotionally attached to their theories to recognise that for the greater good it is not helpful to promote hypotheses based on theoretical science, i.e. not proven science.

Time travel is theoretically possible but nobody would ever consider using it as the basis for disproving the findings of the Warren Commission, would they!

[Andrew Johnson]

[scienceplease 2]

So what happened at the meeting with the MPs on Monday?

[ian neal]

[scienceplease 2]

[paul wright]

Despite some knowing roles from Blackadder to V For Vendetta, I'd suggest Fry is too much of a national treasure to anything other than bow and scrape, and blank his mind to any public expression.
I'm hardly surprised that the 9/11 meeting drew a handful of people from that mouldering dunghill of the corrupt, supine and compromised snakes who form the body of the Houses of Parliament.
It'd be good if someone leaked a list of attenders.At least we'd know who showed a streak of courage amongst that toxic ocean of publicly evinced cowardice
I don't really understand the factionalism
My initial impression of 9/11 was that the planes looked rather cartoon, and that concrete and steel, flesh and blood, were pulverised by secret technology. It's never prevented me from promoting other feasible explanations, according to the audience.
The crunch is so fast coming, that we might have a serious need to branch out into other matters, but I've no problem with those such as the Reinvestigate team, who prefer to keep single conventional issue
I'd happily turn to them in the coming emergency as anyone more leftfield

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

REINVESTIGATE 911 COMMONS MEETING Report

Reinvestigate 911 has gained more momentum following Monday's meeting in the House of Commons. The meeting was attended by one Peer, one senior MP and several aides to various MPs, some senior. About eight more MPs from all parties had asked to attend but due to last minute events and diary clashes were not present. (This is normal, the
system keeps MPs overburdened with meetings and short of help.)

MPs and aides contacted after the meeting have said they found the
presentation impressive. Several one-on-one follow-up meetings are
being arranged.

There were presentations from UK 9/11 victim Scott Forbes, nanotechnology expert Niels Harrit and 911 The New Evidence author Ian Henshall.

We now have a small base of solid support within the Palace of Westminster. Plans for a further meeting in the next few months are being developed. Other action points under discussion include asking
the Iraq Inquiry to scrutinise the official 9/11 story, pressing publicly and through informal contacts for fair treatment in the media, and setting up a Parliamentary Group which could eventually hold hearings.

Since the Parliamentary campaign launched in July, Reinvestigate 911 has been contacted for information or requests to come to meetings by people who have in the past held posts of Foreign Secretary, Defence Minister, and select committee chair. Several more have been members of cabinets and shadow cabinets. Clearly these people are unimpressed by the assumption of the US/UK corporate media that the official 9/11 story is the whole truth.

The private meeting in the House of Commons was followed by a public meeting with the same speakers attended by some 120 people in a packed room at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) at the University of London.

The events were advertised in a full page ad in The Independent,
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/pages/advertisementfinal.pdf (2MB pdf file)

ACTION POINTS

A business sponsor, Coffee Plant, paid for the ad in the hope of triggering a response that will fund the next wave of activity. This seems to be working. So far about a third of the costs of the ad have come back in donations and book sales. If everyone still thinking of making a donation or buying a book does so NOW, most or all of the money will all have come back. (To do this go to the website where we have a paypal facility, or call 0208 453 1144 to make a credit card payment).

Please contact us if you would be able to help with leafleting for selected candidates at the general election, expected in May. Meanwhile if you have any time spare and skills in the following areas, please get in touch

* internet marketing and using email lists,
* telephone skills (for our lobbying operation for the next meeting in Parliament)
* organising events (we are considering a comedy and/or music tour)

We are on the lookout for more contacts in music and comedy, and of course the media. We will send a free copy of 911 The New Evidence to any opinion former who promises to read it.

Thank you for your support so far.

[xmasdale]

[scubadiver]

I agree Noel

[blackbear]

In contrast, mountains of well-documented evidence clearly point to certain specific individuals, linked to the Likud, Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, who had ample motive, means and opportunity to plan and carry out the attacks, to ensure they were blamed on Arab/Muslims, to cover up or suppress any serious investigations, and to profit massively from them.

fish5133...comments

...What means and what opportunity? ...

Larry Silverstein....for starters.

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[paul wright]

Hi blackbear,
I think most people here are aware of connections back to certain people, and also what you are talking about. Yes fair enough, but it's still a long stride.
Ian, I'd certainly not like to construe the history of the truth movement as one of factionalism, though I do accasionally here rumours of actual backbiting and infighting, in the actuality beyond the web. Glad to hear you are establishing something in Parliament, but that's a lethally long haul, and by the time of the next election, parliament will be reduced to a largely inexperienced non-influential hub. A limited 9/11 story will probably be released to the public before parliamentarians get much say in the matter
Though I understand much of what Andrew is saying, Noel, I'd probably end up agreeing with you about most things.
I seem to have put myself mostly out of the circle on the whole, so can support the many viewpoints and approaches on their merits
Which is a bit of a masturbatory comment, on reflection

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[chek]

[blackbear]

Hello Chek..

After 3742 posts on this site,,

Who orcherstrated ..9/11.?

[chek]

[Andrew.]