Reinvestigate 911 Breaks into Parliament

www.reinvestigate911.org...

July 16, 2009

Reinvestigate 911 Breaks into Parliament

In a breakthrough for campaigners, a meeting has been held in the new Parliamentary extension Portcullis House at which speakers challenged the official story of the 9/11 attacks. This was the first time since the attacks nearly eight years ago that MPs and Peers heard - on their own premises - the widespread view outside it: that 9/11 might have been an inside job.

A followup meeting is pencilled in for November 2. Reinvestigate 911 is calling for members of the public to alert their MPs to this.

A previous meeting was abandoned after the MP who had booked the room cancelled at short notice, after apparently being pressured. One UK based intelligence expert and 9/11 sceptic who frequently addresses academic audiences described the meeting as a breakthrough.

Only a few MPs and Peers attended the meeting in person, but others sent assistants, gave support for future meetings or asked for a report of the meeting. This includes well known and senior figures, but to protect politicians from the predictable attacks and smears from those who support the official 9/11 story, organizers are not releasing names at this stage.

November 2 is pencilled in for a followup meeting, with foreign politicians and experts expected to attend. In the runup to that meeting Reinvestigate 911 will be exploring with sympathetic MPs and Peers various plans for raising Parliamentary and media interest in discovering the full story behind the 9/11 attacks.

9/11 truth is slowly (but surely) infecting its way all the way up to the highest levels of government in other countries, including the UK, Japan, and many other countries who still are not satisfied with the official story! This is great news!

Now only if 9/11 truth would infect its way into our Congress! I guess that is asking too much.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The 911 truth isnt about truth. Its about lies. Do you have any evidence that 911 was an INside JOb? Evidence that wouldnt be laughed out of court?

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

The 911 truth isnt about truth. Its about lies. Do you have any evidence that 911 was an INside JOb? Evidence that wouldnt be laughed out of court?

Do you have any evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind it? If you do you should call the FBI and inform them. They seem to still be looking for some.

reply to post by conrad x


A video of a robber shooting a clerk is not laughed out of court but accepted as evidence.

The videos of 911 is almost all we have barring the illegal contraband dust or the WTC.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE. THE TRUTH IS THEIR FOR ALL TO SEE!

THEIR WILL BE JUSTICE!

In any construction there will be weak spots (lazy welders, not quite great materials) so when it comes down on its own there is a great scatter of debris. That is why building demolition is a science instead of good ol boys playing with explosives. When a building comes down cleanly on its own it is a rare occurance (and it does not come down fast). 3 buildings comming down very fast and clean is statistically on the far side off the bell curve. Elevator shafts on very tall buildings cause an updraft even with elevators in them. When the cages have fallen, the air going up, as in a burning building, can reach great speed and will increase the rate of the burn. Metal will not melt or weaken cleanly even at great heat. There will be warping as it becomes liquid or weakens. Just taking into account that one piece of the puzzle will make any fireman, construction worker or architect pause for a moment. Let us not bring into the discussion people who bring down buildings for a living, who I have not heard SINGLE word from.

Take everything you are told with a grain of salt because everyone has their own agenda.

reply to post by Doctor G



Have you read the official report on the collapse of WTC7? Quite interesting. Doesnt it boil your blood when the truthers lie and say WTC7 fell into its own footprint? 30 North Broadway is perplexed by their lies.

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

Your statements were grossly erroneous.

And your statement lacks any evidence to backup the governments theory of 9/11.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply to post by Xtinguish



You made false claims. I was just pointing that out.

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

You made false claims. I was just pointing that out.

Previous to my statement was a question to you. Why not focus on that?

Let's start by rounding up those dancing Israelis on a rendition flight to Gitmo and not use 'torture' to get answers.

reply to post by masonwatcher


dancing jews????

reply to post by Xtinguish



Yes. He admitted to being one of the perps behind 911. It's on video. He was complicit in terrorist attacks pre-911 and, and like he said, he was complicit on 9/11.

Why do you defend terrorists who want me and my family dead?


[edit on 18-7-2009 by conrad x]

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by masonwatcher

 

dancing jews????

No one mentioned the religion of the Israelis. I was referring to the chaps from the moving company that pitched tent over looking the towers with video cameras before they got hit. The dancing part is in reference to the high fivings and jig when the towers came down.

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

Yes. He admitted to being one of the perps behind 911. It's on video. He was complicit in terrorist attacks pre-911 and, and like he said, he was complicit on 9/11.

Why do you defend terrorists who want me and my family dead?


[edit on 18-7-2009 by conrad x]

Excuse me if I don't take your word on it, but could you please source it? If this is true then can you explain to me why the FBI admits what 'evidence' they do have on bin Laden is not prosecutable in a court of law?

Where am I defending terrorist? I am asking you questions. I am curious as to why such evidence is not prosecutable in a court of law, but starting two wars over it is just fine. Explain to me the logic of my questioning defending anything? Where does it define my beliefs at all as all I have stated is that the FBI admits it has no credible evidence bin Laden was behind 9/11. If you say this is false then please show me why. If you like I can link the FBI's own page where bin Laden's wanted photo DOES NOT have him wanted for 9/11. AND again explain to me how I'm supporting terrorist when I ask, why?




[edit on 18-7-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What a crock

Sorry but English due process would call for this to be carried out in a high court - not the house

I call a fake here

Originally posted by Silk
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

What a crock

Sorry but English due process would call for this to be carried out in a high court - not the house

I call a fake here

Actually the highest court in the land is Parliament. Due process is an Americanism.

Regardless, my understanding of the post is that this story is about members of parliament reviewing the evidence of 9/11 at Portcullis House. The situation is a bit like a select committee examining data. They would usually report back to House session in Parliament.

We live in interesting times.

[edit on 073131p://pm3126 by masonwatcher]

reply to post by Xtinguish


Silly, erroneous questions. There is evidence prosecutable in a court of law in regards to Osama's connection to 9/11. Its a shame you read america hating websites that feed you this disinfo.

Oh well. It's nice to know you are defending OBL...

[edit on 18-7-2009 by conrad x]

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

Silly, erroneous questions. There is evidence prosecutable in a court of law in regards to Osama's connection to 9/11. Its a shame you read america hating websites that feed you this disinfo.

Oh well. It's nice to know you are defending OBL...

[edit on 18-7-2009 by conrad x]

You saying I am defending bin Laden is a waste of a post. It solves nothing as I have not said one thing to defend bin Laden. I am looking at this...

www.fbi.gov...

No 9/11.

The FBI's own site, not a hating America site. You can google quotes from the FBI admitting there is no prosecutable evidence no matter how many times YOU tell me there are. I'm asking you Conrad X to show me why it is disinfo as you seem to confidently know it is. If you fail to provide a real source then why is it wrong for me to assume you may be wrong?

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Xtinguish]