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.

 

Jury Trial !!! NO PLANES *ever* hitting *any* WTC & directed energy weapons used in WTC distruction.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
The lawsuit itself is AN INCREDIBLE READ. Have you read it?

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEXT

No planes hit the towers and that directed energy weapons were used for the towers' destruction.

This is what is says in a court-document, ACCEPTED FOR possible TRIAL by JURY.




That will be a hell of a jury trial !!

It is a Qui tam case! A legal provision in the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.), which allows for a private individual, or whistleblower with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the U.S. federal government to bring suit on its behalf.


Plaintiff/Relator, DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is suing BEOING, UNITED AIRLINES, AMERICAN AIRLINES, UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; etc etc!!

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEXT

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Great...another lunatic steps out......



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11-9-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
You posted a reply in under 2 minutes.

You can not possibly have actually read the court-document.

I think your comment is not justified.

I think Morgan Reynolds and his attorney have read a lot of documents and have thought long and hard and THEN worked hard to make a perfect court-case. If that qualifies them as "lunatics stepping out" then I want to be a lunatic, too.

We must remember the First Amendment, which protects any
shrill jackass, no matter how self-seeking.
F.G. Withington



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I think he has read a bunch of crappy internet conspiracy theories and IF it actually goes to trial. It wont take much for him to be shown to be a lunatic.

But I guess in fairness...i should try to read it....



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It was worse than I thought.....I truly hope it does go to court and is televised. Going through the list of defendants....when the true experts get done testifying, this guy will end up in the loony bin.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
This is the government allowing disinformation, to brand the whole truth movement as lunatics.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Right! Its divide and conqure tactics.

When you start getting groups of people who really think this is what truthers belive, is when the real movement loses creditablity.

They get us so busy fighting with this disinfo, that they slip away! But I know here at ATS we are wise to this by now..

And need to get the word out, that the sterotyping is starting to play out.
And people can have their own views, however its clearly murking up the waters even worse IMO..

We have some real good questions,Listen to Jim Marrs, Skepticoverlord! Read some of those posts!
A valid stance on 911 I think most of us can agree with..




No planes hit the towers and that directed energy weapons were used for the towers' destruction.


What are you even saying there?? When I read that I was like what? Huh?

No planes hit, and that directed energy weapons? Okay...




[edit on 11-9-2007 by zysin5]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Two questions.

a. If the plaintiff proves that the defendants committed fraud, then what?

b. If he does not, can the defendants counter sue or charge him with something along the lines of libel or defamation or something?

It could be that he has something, witness(es), undisputable proof that has not been brought to light or maybe something that everyone else has overlooked?

[edit on 013030p://upTuesday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 013030p://upTuesday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 013030p://upTuesday by QuasiShaman]

[edit on 013030p://upTuesday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Any idiot can file a lawsuit, and with any luck take it all the way to trial (look at the $54 million dollar pants case).

Doesn't mean the lawsuit isn't frivolous and baseless.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Imagine September Clues being played in court and people starting to argue its veracity!!

Remember Theresa's super human vision! I wonder what she will tell us under oath!

Review TV Fakery

do it once more. There is knowledge to be gained
(because that's the way it REALLY happened)



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Another Government paid individual making the whole thing and all the work seem like a fringe straight jacket wearing convention.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
its very dangerous, because when this fails no other 911 trials then will be allowed.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Did anyone read the lsit of people he's going againstt?!?! WOWWW! GOOD LUCK!



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Great...another lunatic steps out......


Lunatic indeed.

I guess Texas A&M University employs lunatics? Does George W. Bush? Well, that's another thread in itself.


Morgan O. Reynolds is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. A number of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have expressed concern over Reynolds' theory that commercial jets were not involved in the WTC attacks. Reynolds responded to his critics at his website.


Wikipedia



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Originally posted by anti72



its very dangerous, because when this fails no other 911 trials then will be allowed.




Thanks for the post anti72. In regards to your statement "...when this fails no other 911 trials will be held.." what statute do you think the court wold use to prevent/preclude further litigation?

Also, regarding the QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Docket No. May 31, 2007 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff/Relator Dr. MorganReynolds on behalf of the United Stateof America vs. numerous defendants what is your opinion of the NATURE OF ACTION allegation No. 13 and No. 29 and VII. THE DEFENDANTS SCHEME No. 50, 51, 52 and 53., and VIII. FALSE CLAIMS AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO NIST 55. d)i)and ii)? Specifically how would the court exclude those issues from subsequent litigation?

Thanks for your post and observations?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This is the government allowing disinformation, to brand the whole truth movement as lunatics.


Exactly! Were I in the governments position, I'd do the exact same thing. Let all the nutjobs have their moment in the spotlight, and do everything I can to get the case as much exposure as possible. Let everyone see how crazy the truth movement really is...

Cases like this don't help our cause one bit.

Ill admit I'm posting before reading the case, but the point is, do you think your average American is going to listen to anything after "no planes...". People believe what they see, and they saw planes fly into the towers. If you were somehow able to keep their attention beyond those two words, you'd surely lose it at "direct energy...". Popular response from most people would be along the lines of "y'know, there's government programs that can help you get well...".



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Originally posted by InterWeb




Another Government paid individual making the whole thing and all the work seem like a fringe straight jacket wearing convention.



Thanks for the post InterWeb. It doesn't seem like the government would be involved in this lawsuit and I specifically refer to QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Docket No. May 31, 2007 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff/Relator Dr. Morgan Reynolds on behalf of the United Stateof America vs. numerous defendants and the NATURE OF ACTION allegations No. 1 through 15, II. JURIDICTION (allegations) 16, III. VENUE (allegation) 17. IV. PARTIES (allegations 18-42, V. THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT (allegations) 43(a)(b) VI.THE NIST WTC INVESTIGATION (allegations) 44-49, VII. THE DEFENDANTS' SCHEME (allegations) 50-53, VIII. FALSE CLAIMS AND FLASE STATEMENTS TO NIST (allegations) 54-58 (and I refer specifically to 55.(d)(i)(ii)), IX. DAMAGES (allegation) 59 and the subsequent 7 (seven) CAUSES OF ACTION, PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1, 2 and 3 and JURY TRIAL DEMAND.

The lawsuit is specific, obviously well-documented, well thought out and extremely well-prepared. So my question is, if you have read the QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND, if this were, in fact, "another Government paid individual making the whole thing and all the work seem like a fringe straight jacket wearing convention" as you state would you not agree that this might be a little excessive in regards to the specific criminal charges?

Also, what portion, or specifically, what allegation or allegations do you think make the "whole thing look like a straight jacket wearing convention"?

Thanks you for your post and your well thought out observations.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by Unit541




Exactly! Were I in the governments position, I'd do the exact same thing.



Thanks for the post Unit541 and to you I would pose the same question as I did to InterWeb. Why make the QUI TAM COMPLAINT so specific in its criminal charges and allegations?

Thanks again for your well thought out post.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Mr. Lear is right; there is no relation between cases. If someone wants to file another lawsuit and all the legal elements are there, then the suit goes forward. the " Government ' cannot pick and choose what lawsuits it allows people to bring; the court decides based on factors that have nothing to do with the veracity of the issues at hand.

That is just another poster who believe that the Govt. is some all powerful entity that can control all aspects of life, and we are not there quite yet.

I too have a hard time with the ' no planes ' theory; it would seem to be very difficult for a holographic rendering of a craft to be that effective in broad daylight; however, we are still left with the many anomalies that are part and parcel of this event. The ' planes ' act totally differently than what one would expect from a large aircraft striking a solid stell structure: One might expect to see the building react more radically, as far as movement goes, and the 'planes' seem to ' melt ' into the entire building before any explosions are seen erupting; surely the aircraft would have made a gigantic fireball with tons of debris on the IMPACT side of the building, yet there is none to speak of.

In one film clip I saqw the ' plane ' ( 2nd one of course ) seems to be black as night even in diect sunlight, and the protuberance on the bottom cannot be totally discounted although controversial. There are videos that show what seems to be ' cloaked ' aircraft, like a Stealth fighter or such with ' orbs ' being released. Also, I recently saw a video that shows a definite beam of light, like a white lazer beam, that tracks across the face of the Tower just prior to the impact. There is NO WAY that that is just some reflection, that is an AIMING light for sure.

OF COURSE the ' planes ' did not have anything to do with the ' collapses ' that followed; no way possible for gravity and fire to make mutil-tons of concrete turn into a dust with the consistency of flour. Impossible. So the whole thing was a very advanced set up using various means to achieve the effects we see; no doubt conventional explosives as seen in many videos making ' squibs ' and the resulting BOOMS attested to by score of people there, as well as high energy weapons; there is NO OTHER explanation for those Towers turing to dust.

Dustification requires a vast amount of energy directed to a particular area, and that is exactly what we see happening on 9-11. No regular explosives could have turned the concrete to dust.Only an advanced weapon using high energy could account for that. I am not sure about the planes; I do NOT believe that they were the flights the official story states; there were switches as the facts show clearly and the planes were substituted for the ones that were used for the effects we see.

This lawsuit may or may nor get the attention it deserves; if it is a spurious allegation, then that will be shown quickly. If there is some substance to the whole thing, then that will be revealed as well. There is sufficient evidence to assume that the official story is a dead bang lie and totally made up to fit the desired outcome; keep the sheepies asleep and quiet while the enemies of freedon and the Constitution ruin this nation.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I get so confused and caught up in this whole debate, but one thing I know for sure is my brother worked in the court on centre street which is only a block or two away from ground zero and was helping out and saw the 2nd plane hit the tower, I am very open to alternative theories as to what happened on 9/11, but my bro tells me for sure without a shadow of a doubt that it was a plane that crashed into the building.



new topics




 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join