It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former Bush Economist to Present 9/11 Inside Job Evidence

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Dr Morgan Reynolds, will speak out on September 11th being an Inside Job at the University of Wisconsin Madison State Historical Society on May 6. Will also present evidence that top Bush official orchestrated the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

some video




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
i see this news has already been picked up by the usual conspiracy sites. According to rense, Morgan Reynolds will show the video "Loose Change".
Now i'm confused.. is the film the evidence mentioned in the article that he is going to present, or does Morgan have some intel he found out during his years in the bush administration? a smoking gun perhaps?
More on may 6, i suppose.

mr Jones



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
i hope not! if he comes out with loose change as evidence then i'll be very disappointed



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
yeah, showing "loose change" followed by a cosy chat and a drink would be pretty dissapointing.
Anyway, just found out that mr Reynolds claims in his paper "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" that flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 were not involved in the WTC and pertagon crash (not even the field in Shanksville)... Dubious at least.
Although he makes a very good case for the supposedly demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7, the denial of airplanes being used in the attacks smells of disinfomation.
Unless he knows more than we do?

info found on indymedia



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I coudln't tell from his paper for sure, but by saying that those flights weren't involved, he may not be dismissing that planes were used, just not those specific flights...

hopefully he'll have some new stuff, because i've been dying for some new information



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister Jones
Although he makes a very good case for the supposedly demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7, the denial of airplanes being used in the attacks smells of disinfomation.
Unless he knows more than we do?


He probably has a good idea. Like Derdy said, he's probably just dismissing those particular flights. Read the Operation Northwoods documents and you'll see the same thing: plans for quietly switching out planes with the public not knowing the better. And those were serious plans for a military operation, a psyop, to get the US into war with Cuba.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
It will be very interesting to see if this gets any coverage from a major news network.

I sure hope it does.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by fm258]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I doubt that any major news networks will cover this, and if they did the man would be ridiculed and made fun of, especially by fox news.

I hope this man presents something new, not just playing loose change and speaking on the film, that would be a waste of time. Mabye he will present new evidence that is undeniable, most likely not though.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Maybe Charlie Sheen can show up.


That would be especially nice if Reynolds sticks to his claims that the plane crashes were all faked.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That would be especially nice if Reynolds sticks to his claims that the plane crashes were all faked.


Post where he says that.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Good. The more exposure the better.

Even if it is ´just´ a former Bush Economist, and ´just´ Loose Change II.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That would be especially nice if Reynolds sticks to his claims that the plane crashes were all faked.


Post where he says that.


His original statement:

Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either.


Then he backtracked, sort of:



On the more speculative issue of the impact holes, it’s still unclear, at least to me. I never reached a firm conclusion, and so I never explicitly asserted there were no jetliners. Instead, I raised questions about the airliners that continue to puzzle me based on what I saw in the evidence. . . I am highly skeptical toward the official story that Boeing 767s struck the towers because the evidence doesn’t convince me. . . .



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Come on HowardRoark, that´s just misleading.


His claims are that he thinks another type of boeing struck the towers, not persé 767 but 737.

This because of the impact sizes etc. Anyway, this is just a small part of a huge body of data Reynolds has collected, so I´m not too concerned he is a loony as such you make him out to be.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Well at least he hasn't explicitly stated that he thinks they were "faked." If he did, that'd be a pretty stupid move on his part as I don't think many people are willing to question things down to that fundamental of a level. The ST group should just stick with what Jones is saying imo.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The more people that come forward the better but if this is just a coverup by the real perps of 911 in order to peg it all on the White House so that they can escape unscathed then I'm not falling for it. Then there is the political angle and the coming election in 2008.

The truth should rise above mere politics or backstabbing and I'll know it when I see it otherwise be very skeptical.

Oh and it international finance isn't involved then don't believe a word of it either. After all why have we not had a lawsuit against our buddy Larry and his embezzelment of insurance company dollars from fund holders and account holders and even shareholders of the insurance syndicate?

I've seen insurance companies sue to ruin somebody that had legit claims so that they could avoid paying them and destroy innocent people's lives... so why not sue on a 90 day claim for $5 Billion US on a staged terror attack?

Come on people...



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I would like to see someone requestening an explanation from Bush about his:

..and I (bush) saw an airplane hit the tower
www.youtube.com...

and when he recognised something slipped out of his lips that shouldnt have:
off an off an the TV ..(ops) .. the TV was obviously on..

(Note: The impact of the first plane was not send on tv before the 12.sept.)

Eighter a blatandt lie or blatant inside knowlege!
(on a court he would be nailed on this)

just found this on the web again. .almost forgot about this.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
ok, may 6 has just finished. i'll be checking online tomorow morning for any updates on this.
Any Wisconsin based ATS members here who managed to actually go and see the presentation? Still curious whether mr Morgan released anything explosive at the meeting (pun not intended).

By the way, has anyone heard of the organisation ("Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth") that organized this? IMO, powerfull stuff can happen when bringing muslims, jews & christians together on a 911 thruthseeking mission... (on a professional sidenote, their logo and website are absolutely hideous



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Here's a report on the event by Indymedia, copied by quite a few sites. All other media ignored the event, not a word, not even the local paper, nope, a textbook media blackout.

why am i not surprised?

Here's an opinion piece on the event by Kevin Barrett (Scholars for 9/11 truth).
btw, nothing was revealed that hasn't been discussed here yet.

mr Jones



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
One of the comments from the indymedia site:


It wasn't really "standing room only." My friend and I were the only ones in our row. I'm all about the 911 truth cause, however I was very unimpressed with Morgan Reynolds. He was working for the White House when this happened, yet he had no other information to present other than what the "Loose Change" video had already stated.


So the claims were slightly exaggerated.

Here’s a real winner:


Morgan Reynolds bases his truth on the crash video given us by the Establishment. Who, other than God, could make an airliner disappear into a steel and concrete tower by defying Newton's Laws of Motion. Watch a crash video and try to detect the airliner's deceleration as it crashes against the mighty tower. Wow! Why would God cause this to happen? Airliners don't meld into buildings, they crash against them.





posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
yeah, i've read those comments too. The auditorium was probably soo jampacked that no one could spot that empty row : ) Let's stick too "unusualy full for a political talk". No wonder really, given the theme... a few other sources would be welcome.
Reactions like that second comment could ofcos be expected, (i've read your previous comments too, howardR), i've labeled some viewpoints of Reynolds as dubious in the beginning of this thread myself.

btw, the Indymedia piece is also written by Kevin Barrett, in fact, i haven't really found much about the event on the net that he didn't write...

Mr Jones



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join