Chicago Conference Resolution - Uniting round MIHOP

[Keith Mothersson]

[kbo234]

[TimmyG]

i was just thinking that
well put indeed.


isn't morgan reynolds theory that the planes didn't exist atall and were holograms or video fakes? I suspect him to be a disinformant. i'm concerned that he's being associated with the likes of steven jones and david griffin (who I think are 'on the ball')

i don't think there's any question that somewhere out there. middle eastern terrorists would like, very much, to attack america like this.. the point is they couldn't do it without being organised by the US. and much evidence points towards the alleged hijackers not being in the planes atall.

however I don't think we should question the motives and/or existance of 'mainstream', middle eastern terrorists organisations. I don't think the threat they pose to us is anything like what the media wants us to believe... but we need to make sure that what we're saying doesn't look like we are suggesting they don't exist atall. we know they exist, the CIA funded and trained them!

islamophobia is very important issue, and is fueled by our media. but to some extent i think we should be careful about what 'the movement' focuses its energies on with respect to exposing the truth to the masses. we should be demanding real answers to our questions. trying to do things like getting stephen jones and a NIST scientist in a room together, in public to debate the theories. (jones would win if NIST would argue rationally). Demanding government transparency on able danger and access to information (freedom of information act).

[Andrew Johnson]

You need to listen to and study what Morgan Reynolds has said before forming a firm opinion. These might help:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/9-11%20Morgan%20Reynolds%20- %20Coast%20to%20Coast%20-%20Jun%2016%202005.mp3

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Jim%20Fetzer%20et%20al%20-%2 0Scholars%20for%209-11%20Truth%20-%20Coast%20to%20Coast%20-%20Feb%2023 %202006.mp3

I will post the link to a video of him at Chicago, once I have it transferred from Alex Jones' subscriber section.

[Keith Mothersson]

Morgan Reynolds was a Republican bigwig in Bush'es first administration, who is now speaking out very courageously about BushCo as a criminal Nazi gang! I mentioned him as he was one of the first prominent voices to focus strongly on the demolition of the triple towers (my phrase). I don't vouch for his other positions, nor those of Jim Hoffman on the other flights, Pentagon, etc, but I think the no-planes holograph promoter is Gerald Holmgren or somesuch.

Conceivably these way out ideas could be right, I haven't looked into them but I doubt they are right. My point is why bother with controversial stuff when we have several key smoking guns, of which the biggest two are the very iconic buildings which have elicited most human interest/psychological identification in the tragedy of that day?

Other MIHOP smoking guns are the destruction of the evidence, witholding and cover-up; the advance trades; the 'coincidence' = foreknowledge involved in the Naudet brother film of the first crash, but these are either less involving or too complicated, reliant on a lot of extra information which people feel may or may not be right, whereas the 'collapse' of the twin towers is something everyone thinks they know about and can review on film taken on the day by CNN etc.

So the evidence of smoking gun is right in their faces when (if) people are prepared to just look and use a modicum of commonsense reflection (e.g. on the many telltale signs of demolition present in the basic physics - speed, even-ness, dead-centredness of the collapses; the powdering of concrete; dvds such as Eyewitness 9/11 showing the booming explosions at the base 7 seconds before the buildings collapse, and all the squibs of energy coming out sideways before the floors 'pancake' that far down, etc; plus the molten steel for weeks subseaquently - though this last point isn't in people's face the way the other telltale signs are. )

If this crime had happened in the eighties, the media wouldn't have been so united (co-ordinated, captured) and the public and media wouldn't have been trained to see this event 'correctly'. Too many people would have said - looks like a controlled demolition to me! But after the first WTC bombing of 1993 and Oklahoma the 'meme' of the murderous fanatics out to destroy us was well established in people's minds, so that the juicy Islamophobia in the hi-jacking story - coupled with the sheer shock of seeing the tragedy in real time for many people - overwhelmed any ability to question the official 'frame'.

Without wanting to endorse lots of stuff about the Da Vinci Code phenomenon, personally I find the way none of us has until now been able to see the femininity of the figure on Jesus'es right in the Last Supper painting another example of the power of the Frame to dictate what we think we see and to NOT notice what we subconsciously know isn't supposed to be there.

RD Laing once said something to the effect that revolution would come from people noticing the obvious, not so much learning about the hidden stuff (especially as people are often correctly so sceptical about what they are being told about the hidden facts, e.g. the pingpong of spook and counterspook assertions, - which is why I think Able Danger is much less useful to us than these flipping great iconic smoking guns which have been shown a million times on worldwide TV).

To the streets!!