COINTELPRO: Morgan Reynolds Makes a Federal Case of 9/11

C

CB_Brooklyn

Guest
For any administrator to edit the title of a user's post is an unjust thing to do. For you to believe otherwise is revealing as to your way of thinking. It is quite telling that most people who believe planes hit the towers also believe in censorship, moderation, or, in this case, editing someone else's work. While those who can see the obvious TV-Fakery are for freedom.

You calling my post cointelpro is your personal opinion and should not be in the subject line of my post.

Can you prove to me that you are not cointelpro?
 

John G

The Living Force
CB_Brooklyn said:
For any administrator to edit the title of a user's post is an unjust thing to do. For you to believe otherwise is revealing as to your way of thinking. It is quite telling that most people who believe planes hit the towers also believe in censorship, moderation, or, in this case, editing someone else's work. While those who can see the obvious TV-Fakery are for freedom.

You calling my post cointelpro is your personal opinion and should not be in the subject line of my post.

Can you prove to me that you are not cointelpro?
This is a research forum with hypotheses and posts get moved and titles changed to make things easier for readers familiar with the hypotheses. Nothing personal and nothing bad about it, it can happen to us who share the views of this forum too. You obviously don't share those views, but I'm sure there are forums who share your views too.
 
Here is what Joe wrote in this thread.
Joe said:
The origin of doubts over whether or not Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC is found in the report by Fox News correspondent Mark Burnback on the morning of 9/11 where he stated on air that ""It definitely didn't look like a commercial plane" "had no windows" and that it "had a blue logo" etc. You can view the report here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-oIHeYJrY

We have a sneaky suspicion that Mr Burnback, who has since disappeared from the radar (unless someone can dig him up) is a CIA asset planted at the scene to sow disinfo right from the get-go.

There was also a recent new 911 video released by a couple who lived in an apartment 500m from the WTC complex who filmed much of the event and the aftermath. In that video the woman exclaims that the plane looked like a military plane. (can't find link at the moment, they posted it on some video sharing site)

Other theories about the WTC planes include the theory that the planes were in fact the product of "TV fakery" of some description and are propogated by people like Nico Haupt, Gerald Holmgren and "the web fairy" aka Rosalee Grable. Given the video evidence and many eyewitnesses who all saw two planes hitting the WTC, we can only conclude that these "three amigos" are either conscious agents of the 9/11 disinfo campaign, or they are incredibly stupid.
CB_Brooklyn said:
For any administrator to edit the title of a user's post is an unjust thing to do.
Justice has to do with rights. Once you post something on a form, it is completely within the moderators right to censure or otherwise modify the post.
CB_Brooklyn said:
While those who can see the obvious TV-Fakery are for freedom.
How are the planes hitting the WTC obvious tv fakery? This is your belief, we care about evidence.
CB_Brooklyn said:
You calling my post cointelpro is your personal opinion and should not be in the subject line of my post.
No, calling the no-plane theory COINTELPRO is backed by plenty of research as evinced by the previous thread.
CB_Brooklyn said:
Can you prove to me that you are not cointelpro?
Can anyone ever prove that their not COINTELPRO? I think the real question is what evidence is there for SOTT being yet more COINTELPRO, don't you?
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
CB_Brooklyn said:
The perps performed a PSYOPS on the "truth movement" by brainwashing them into thinking the idea "no planes hitting the towers" is crazy.
If I'm remembering correctly, you claim that no planes whatsoever were destroyed that day, right?
 

Ruth

The Living Force
CB_Brooklyn said:
No, I am not Morgan Reynolds. You are slandering ME since I am known on the internet to not have the opinion that YOU give by editing MY post. For you, an administrator, to edit someone else's post to make it the opposite of its intent is completely inappropriate and makes one wonder what your objective is in 9/11 truth. I find it unbelievable that anyone would do such a thing.
Disagreement, editing for clarity and moderating are not slander.

According to law slander is: "3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. " Courtesy of Dictionary dot com.

Its not even libel either, even though it is in the written form.

You need to be thinking what makes you react so strongly to people pointing out facts to you. And what is it that makes you react so strongly to the idea that real planes actually flew into the WTC? As well as why the idea that some part of the US's Government or Military being involved is an idea which is anathema to you.

Only after a person has observed and acknowledged their emotional reactions and stubborn beliefs (they call those things "sacred cows" around here) can they really start to look at the facts objectively.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
CB_Brooklyn said:
For any administrator to edit the title of a user's post is an unjust thing to do. For you to believe otherwise is revealing as to your way of thinking. It is quite telling that most people who believe planes hit the towers also believe in censorship, moderation, or, in this case, editing someone else's work. While those who can see the obvious TV-Fakery are for freedom.

You calling my post cointelpro is your personal opinion and should not be in the subject line of my post.

Can you prove to me that you are not cointelpro?
Let me make something clear here: this forum does NOT belong to you. You are a guest in "our house." This house has a very specific and carefully chosen "decor" and the gathering that meets here is for a particular purpose that is well-defined. If I permitted a guest in my house to come in and try to propagate what is clearly nonsense without letting all the other guests know that I do NOT subscribe to those ideas, everyone would think that I do, as well as the other guests who also do not subscribe to those beliefs. It is MY responsibility to make sure that the environment of MY house continues to function as it was designed to. You are NOT allowed to move your furniture into my house, repaint the walls, and direct the gathering.

You will NOT propagate that "no planes hit the WTC" nonsense in MY house as though it had equal value as the many reasonable and fact based theories of 911.

PERIOD.
 
L

Locksmith

Guest
I can't help but smile and laugh when I notice the CB part of CB_Brooklyn amidst all the unnecessary confusion CB has generated in this thread.

Surely Christopher Bollyn escaped to a place further out of reach of the Hoffman Estates authorities than Brooklyn.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
CB_Brooklyn said:
No, I am not Morgan Reynolds. You are slandering ME since I am known on the internet to not have the opinion that YOU give by editing MY post. For you, an administrator, to edit someone else's post to make it the opposite of its intent is completely inappropriate and makes one wonder what your objective is in 9/11 truth. I find it unbelievable that anyone would do such a thing.
That is because you do not understand how internet forums work in general, nor how this forum works in particular. This being unbelievable to you also has a lot to do with your own enormous self-importance. If you bring up or promote a topic, it must be valid - despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary.

cb said:
There is no evidence that Morgan Reynolds is cointelpro. You may "believe" he is, but that is your personal opinion not based on any evidence.
I quite disagree - the fact that he is promoting the no plane theory is quite a large piece of evidence that he is cointelpro - it suggests the same thing about you - not an opinion - a fact.


cb said:
You have fallen for a PSYOPS set by the 9/11 perps, hook, line, and sinker.

The perps performed a PSYOPS on America by brainwashing them into thinking the idea of "inside job" is crazy.

The perps performed a PSYOPS on the "truth movement" by brainwashing them into thinking the idea "no planes hitting the towers" is crazy.
Did you think that repeating the word psyops three times in a row would convince forum readers of it? Looks like a weak attempt at NLP, or subtle hypnotic suggestion, but you underestimate your audience. This forum does not 'believe' something is true just because you repeat it three times - it does however speak directly to you accusing others of exactly what you are doing or have fallen for yourself. At this point, with the emotional energy you are investing, it is difficult to tell whether you are actively involved in this psyops or you have fallen for it and are a useful idiot - but I'm sure time will tell.


cb said:
Americans blindly believe whatever they're told without checking facts.
Yes, you do.

cb said:
The "truth movement" blindly believes whatever they're told without checking facts.
Yes, you do.


cb said:
If you're actually interesting in the truth you should get your act together and look at information for yourself instead of believing whatever you're told to believe.
Yes, you should. Odd how that works isn't it?
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
CB_Brooklyn said:
For any administrator to edit the title of a user's post is an unjust thing to do.
First we are slandering you. Now we are being unjust, unfair. Oh, poor you. You obviously haven't read the rules of the forum:

rule number five - we the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.
I guess you forgot that you agreed to these specific conditions when you joined. Since you did agree, any clamoring on your part about us exercising our rights is invalid. All this really comes down to is that you are salty that we don't promote your faulty claim that no planes hit the WTC towers. Guess what? If you don't like it, find a place that will allow you to promote such nonsense.
 

SimonJCP

A Disturbance in the Force
No airplanes hit any buildings on 9-11 and the buildings were rapidly turned to dust with exotic weaponry and explosive charges. My opinion.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
uhmmm...if I'm understanding this post correctly,

SimonJCP said:
No airplanes hit any buildings on 9-11 and the buildings were rapidly turned to dust with exotic weaponry and explosive charges.

Oops...our bad! We must have mistakenly fallen into that 'ol trap of expecting evidence in order to pin a claim down to the ground so that we can see that it is real.


SimonJCP said:
Funny how all the mods are trying to suppress this with their immature little title edits. The agenda? Clear.

Actually, what appears to be clarity to one mind, may in fact, seem foggy to a clearer mind. How does one 'suppress this' when the 'this' that that refers to is that which doesn't exist? :lol:
A little 'evidence' on your part may help clear this up!
 

PepperFritz

The Living Force
Hello Simon, welcome to the forum.

Perhaps you could step off your soap box for just a moment to read the Forum Guidelines -- carefully -- and then have a look around the forum to see what it is all about. It would also be nice if you could post a a little intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us a little about yourself, what brought you to the forum, whether you've read any of Laura's work yet, etc.

You should also check out the thread titled Opinions, to get a sense of how little they are valued here. The primary focus of the forum is the research of Objective Reality (as opposed to Subjective Reality), so if you're looking to present your personal theories here, you'd best have something other than "opinion" and "belief" to back them up....

:)


Question: Do you always walk into houses you've never been in before proclaiming your "opinions", without so much as a how-dee-do? Did your parents teach you nothing about common courtesy?
 

SimonJCP

A Disturbance in the Force
Buddy: I deleted the second part of my post because it was aggressive and unnecessary. As for 'evidence'. there is plenty of that to support the idea that techniques like TV Fakery and Exotic Weaponry were used.

Pupperfritz: Cool. I was just upset by the fact that CB was getting his thread title edited and stuff.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
SimonJCP said:
I was just upset by the fact that CB was getting his thread title edited and stuff.

It's not his title thread, it's the forum's.
 

SimonJCP

A Disturbance in the Force
Pinkerton said:
SimonJCP said:
I was just upset by the fact that CB was getting his thread title edited and stuff.

It's not his title thread, it's the forum's.

It was edited to make it appear as if CB wrote it. This is deceptive editing. I'm just saying that changing someone's title like that is childish and unfair. That's what got me upset.
 
Top Bottom