Morgan Reynolds Sues NIST Contractors for 9/11 Plane Fraud

[Andrew Johnson]

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case
Morgan Reynolds; August 21; 2007 Summary:; Last month the U.S. District Court; Southern New York; unsealed a 9/11 case filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds; thereby making the case public. Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents "the government" declined to intervene in the case. The suit; a so-called qui tam case; alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus; impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared. Yet it can be easily demonstrated; after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers; that no planes hit the towers. The office of Reynolds' attorney; Jerry V. Leaphart of Connecticut; is now serving the defendants in the suit; including Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC); Applied Research Associates (ARA); Boeing; American Airlines; United Airlines and Silverstein Properties. I will post ne information on the case as developments warrant.



http://nomoregames.net/911/federal_case/07cv4612unsealedcomplaint.pdf

[gareth]

[Rowan Berkeley]

as usual, this camp are discrediting "no-planes" by associating it with "space beams":

"Instead, all such documentation serves solely to mislead, obfuscate and provide a vehicle for the intended fraud; namely, that of steering NIST away from a consideration of what caused the destruction of WTC1,2; which, as elsewhere elaborated upon, was the use on 9/11/01 of exotic weaponry known as directed energy weapons... "

(from the .pdf of the complaint)

[TonyGosling]

Moved to 9/11 Truth controversies
If Andrew is successful on this thread or elsewhere in convincing this forum as a whole of the no plane theory we can move it back to news

[Disco_Destroyer]

Still not convinced by the No-Planes but I like this development as it should force more info and possibly even guarded evidence into the open

[mason-free party]

so if you still believe in the plane theory then who was flying the aircraft because it certainly wasn't muslims...your only option is remote controlled aircraft and i doubt very much they would have risked two planes..besides radar would have picked them up...so can you see how stupid the plane theory is?

[marky 54]

[Andrew Johnson]

[CB_Brooklyn]

If Reynolds' complaint had no merit, the court would have dismissed it. They did not.

Instead, they unsealed it, and the Plaintiff's attorney, Jerry Leaphart, is now serving the Defendants with notice of the complaint.

Since the US District Court did not dismiss the complaint as frivolous, they obviously find ample evidence supporting the theory that no planes hit the towers and that directed energy weapons were used for the towers' destruction.

It is worthy to note that the Plaintiff (Dr Reynolds), representing the USA, is demanding a Trial by Jury.

[Ace Baker]

I looked at the evidence page linked above. There certainly are a good number of videos that show planes. But only 3 (AKAIK) were shown "live", and none of them actually showed the plane hit. The rest came out later.

If they can fake one, they can fake any number. We are talking about individuals who can lay their hands on a billion dollars like it was pocket change.

And there is almost no plane debris at all, at any of the 4 sites. Are you kidding me? That landing gear under the scaffolding? Please.

[theSaiGirl]

Rowan raises an interesting point about sheep-dipping "no planes" by wrapping it into DEW/Exotic Weaponry.

They should be completely separate issues.

Of course, the blatant fakery of CNN's "ghostplane", the ABC Fairbanks cartoon and the Park Foreman "plane"
certainly imply that no planes hit the Towers.

Otherwise, why bother to broadcast CGI of cartoon planes ?

For me, there's nothing "controversial" about the TV fakery of the various alleged "South Tower hit" images.

Hence nothing controversial about the no planes hypothesis.

The Orwellian "truth" of it is right in our faces:

See for yourselfl, in case you have any doubts
... if you dare ..

Then watch "September Clues" to grasp how it was done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR183M_VJas
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/nova/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5W3qaWU0dY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxuil6Gv0c&mode=related&search=
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/hezarkhani/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/vanishment/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8
http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6523761027552517909
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/04/earth-is-not-flat.html



[/img]

[marky 54]

[Easy Rider]

Re No Planes

First it was ridiculed

Now it is being violently opposed

Soon it will be accepted as self evident

This thread should be moved back to the news section because THIS IS NEWS

ARE YOU LISTENING MR GOSLING?

[telecasterisation]

What I don't quite understand about NPT, is the process behind creating the 'cartoon' planes.

Is it generally accepted that the footage was created prior to the event and then somehow cut into the live feed?

If there were so many camera crews on the scene, s there any testimony that clearly states there was no aircraft (not, 'I didn't actually see one.' - which is quite different).

There must have been a great many people directly under the flightpath of the second aircraft - are we to believe they didn't see the plane and later imagined they did?

This is where NPT falls down.

In addition, has the NPT 'hologram club' now been disbanded in favour of sensibility?

[TmcMistress]

[marky 54]

[chek]

So, after a break from all this, I'm back to find Andrew and a delegation of 'researchers' finest still peddling their wares.

NPT is the chimps tea party of 911 Truth. Just like the chimps, they go through the motions of logical exposition and ignore the gaping great holes in their performance.

Just as the chimps can ape the usage of cutlery and crockery without having any conceptual grasp of the purpose of a saucer or a teaspoon, so it is with the NPT adherents.

Firstly, they conspire to give the impression that 911 was purely a media event, and ignore eyewitnesses - although they do like to quote those witnesses from the wrong geographical locations who couldn't have seen the strikes as suggestive that the same applies to all witnesses.

But their biggest fraud is in microscopically dissecting electronic media formats that were never designed to convey the information they attempt to extract from it. No amount of counter argument has ever, nor will it ever, counter what they think they can find there.

That is then wrapped in an arse-backwards cult-like insulating security blanket of a philosophy that attempts to portray to themselves that these dozen cultists are 'on to something' - which is confirmed by their being 'attacked'.

Let's go down this current roll shall we?

First we have Andrew posting this 'hollow aluminium aircraft' press release. Null points for any understanding of what an engineering feat of strength a 100 ton airliner that can slam down onto the ground at 200 mph day in, day out, for decades without deforming actually is.

"Yet it can be easily demonstrated; after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers; that no planes hit the towers".

Really? I've taken an interest in this non-subject for quite some time now and the only thing that I've seen 'easily demonstrated' is how time and time again NPT'ers are selective in interpreting 'evidence' and prone to drawing fantastic (as in fantasy-like) conclusions. He later tells us that this is the opinion of a 'Profesor of Economics - and an attorney! - as if that has any bearing on anything whatsoever. Just a question Andrew - would the opinion of the Head of the Federal Reserve and a Supreme Court Judge top both those in the seniority stakes? And since when did appeals to authority ever hold water, in this forum especially. It's not as if you're unaware of these tactics, so why use them?
Maybe they're only there for the benefit of your easily swayed surrogates.

MFP then jumps in completely unaware of the radar data and attempts to imply that the Real Big Boeing Planer evidence is 'stupid'. MFP's gaffe about the radar data is his attempt at evidence to justify his arrogant and ill-informed assertion.

Now I'd never come and flat out to say it like that -nor would I lack the courtesy, but let me just say at this juncture that my view of NPT would be somewhat similar.

Andrew then jumps back in claiming that 'scholarly' (if discredited) junk science such as Ace (Ace! - God, how laughable) Baker's pseudo scientific
chimps' tea party of an attempt at a technical evaluation has some merit.
Can he be that misinformed? Apparently so.

CB_Brooklyn then tries to inject some gravitas by gravely explaining that the case must have merit otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted in court - as if a private case to sue third parties can be judged 'frivolous' before it comes to court.

Baker then joins the fray to suggest that the disappearance of the airframes proves their non-existence. Only with a pre-determined conclusion in mind, Ace. As is well known and leaving all other considerations aside, the site clearance was speeded up at Ghouliani's instigation and wreckage (and remains) sorting became non-existent after 3 months.

Sai Girl - having been hot-housed at that veritable hub of critical thing 911 'researchers' then kites the idea that there is 'nothing controversial about no planes' and spams a load of links to simulations, fabrications and the same tired old footage that has never convinced anyone but the credulous and conspiraloon-minded since day one.

And then dear old PAT jumps in to misquote Ghandi, completely unconcerned that his usage of the quote in question would serve flat-earthers and peadophiles just as readily.

So yes Tony, I certainly hope you are listening and continue to relegate this toss to the appropriate section for as long as tolerating its very existence demands it, and for as long as it keeps spawning and re-spawning its discredited, recycled and repackaged same old non-hypotheses.

[Easy Rider]

Ckek you are a professional FOGGER

Get back under your bridge where you belong

[chek]

[911Eyewitness]

The regrettable thing here is that vanity and votes count more than truth. It is the way of the organization to keep its whole.

It is in the news that a court hears this case.

There has been NO judgment as to its validity, as CBbrooklyn falls to his knees again. To be accepted only form and fees must be paid the best is yet to come.

But news it is and in the "mainstream" when it is in the US Federal courts. Unlike the hard-on for science boys who pontificate a good filing but never made it at least Leaphart and Reynolds stand there in reality.

For these 911 truth organizational pufters news seems to be that Avery was "rejected" from the Toronto film festival. Sad but not truth, truth is he had nothing to submit and was not rejected since he did not submit.

Controversy is 911 Eyewitness who WAS accepted to both the LA and NY film and video fests, showed to packed rooms and already won the award for best Historical Documentary in LA. NY awards have not been posted yet. Of course, not news either as it is not a California sci-fi fantasy supported by the organizations and sent to the History Channel for debunking. What was that she said there? "Do I look Crazy?" America thought so how about you?

I have received a special invitation to show at the Morocco Film Festival and am contemplating right now as it was by the request of the King. You know how I feel about royal requests. All that - not news. Nowhere. So, on with the controversy!

ps, it was news, just not "911 truthy news". It was in Hollywood Reporter and other film magazines. NY Metro (a Murdock Rag) picked up the packed room and even had a picture.

[911Eyewitness]

[chek]

[Rowan Berkeley]

Rick seems to have his gibberish generator stuck at only half strength (unlike Nico)

[911Eyewitness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU4OXvxpeNM

[911Eyewitness]

http://www.911researchers.com/files/JohnGibson_RickSiegel17Jul2007.mp3

Speaks volumes.

http://www.911bloggertv.com/share/view/67/damn-you-you-blew-it-up-/

even more volume up and enjoy!

See you at the film festivals *!

[marky 54]

[paul wright]

[theSaiGirl]

He emphatically insists that "it was a bomb .. not a plane.."
Repeats it even, for clarity.

Here's just one. There are more.

http://www.911bloggertv.com/share/view/6/it-

[theSaiGirl]

For some reason that link got truncated.

Here it is again...

http://www.911bloggertv.com/share/view/6/it-was-a-bomb-not-a-plane-/

[marky 54]