9/11 - The Federal Fraud Case Against The Official Story

Source: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/911-the-federal-fraud-case-against

A lot of people would generally think that the theories about 9/11’s official narrative came from blogs, documentaries or podcasts. Very few people realise one of the strongest challenges was legal, sworn under oath and aimed directly at the government’s own investigation.I’m going to explain what Dr Morgan Reynolds claimed, why it mattered and why his case was never tested on the evidence he presented.Dr Morgan Reynolds is an American economist with a PHD who worked inside the US government as Chief Economist at the Department off Labour. His challenge to the official 9/11 investigation came from someone who understood how government reports and contractors operate from the inside. You can read his full biography from his website HERE.Despite being filed in 2007, Dr Morgan Reynolds’ case received almost no public attention. One reason is that Qui Tam cases are initially filed under seal, meaning they are not publicly discussed while the government decides whether to intervene. By the time the case became public it had already been framed as closed without a trial which isn’t very interesting to mainstream media. In addition the case challenges government agencies and major contractors so it was unlikely to make the headlines.A Qui Tam cases is a type of whistle-blower lawsuit used in the US when someone believes public money was paid out based on false or misleading work. Instead of suing the government, the case targets contractors who received taxpayer funds. Dr Morgan Reynolds used a Qui Tam case to claim that government contractors were paid to produce reports and simulations in relation to 9/11 that were not scientifically valid, which would make those payments fraudulent.Front page of Dr Morgan Reynolds’ Qui Tam case against NIST contractors which can be see in this image - view the whole document here - Legal DocumentsAt the centre was the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency responsible for investigating the collapse of the WTC buildings.NIST hired private contractors to carry out much of the analysis. These included major engineering, defence and research firms such as,Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)Applied Research Associates (ARA)BoeingSeveral well known structural engineering consultancies.These companies were paid with public money to help produce simulations, reports and technical explanations that became part of the official record.Reynolds has never claimed to know exactly what happened on 9/11 and he was not presenting an alternative theory.What he was claiming was much narrower and much more serious.Reynolds alleged that the official investigation relied on analysis and simulations that could not be scientifically correct and that government contractors were paid public money for this work anyway.More specifically, he claimed thatThe aircraft impact simulations used by the investigations violated basic laws of physics, such as conservation of energy and momentum.The simulations showed planes entering steel-framed buildings without slowing down, which he argued is physically impossible.These simulations were treated as evidence, even though simulations are assumptions, not proof.Critical alternatives and contradictions were not examined or disclosed.Contractors with the expertise to recognise these problems knew or should have known the work was flawed.Despite this the work was accepted, published and paid for with taxpayer funds.His claim wasn’t ‘this is my opinion’ butPublic money was used to fund work that was false or misleading, and that is fraud.A conflict of interest exists when an organisation investigating an event has other interests that could affect its independence, especially if those interests are not disclosed.The investigation was led by NIST, but the main contractors involved in conductng the official 9/11 investigation areScience Applications International Corporation (SAIC)Applied Research Associates (ARA)Both of these were NOT neutral academic bodies. They were large defence and governmenet contractors, some with backgrounds in military systems, advanced weapons research, psyops and classified government work.Reynolds’ claim was not that these companies caused 9/11. His claims were,Contractors with this background were not independent.Their other work and interests were not clearly disclosed.They helped produce simulations and explanations that were scientifically impossible.Despite this, they were paid public money and their work was presented as authoritive.Reynolds argued that failing to disclose them made the official report misleading.Cover of NIST Report which can be viewed HERENIST was officially tasked with investigating why and how the WTC buildings collapsed. However, in its own final report, NIST acknowledged that it did not determine the full cause of the collapses, and instead limited its work to the period up to the point where collapse was said to become inevitable. Reynolds’ argued that this was critical because,NIST was mandated to determine cause.It admitted it did not fully do so.Contractors were still paid public money for work presented as a complete investigation.This gap between what NIST was supposed to do and what it did became a central part of his fraud claim.In Reynold’s case the DOJ chose not to intervene. This is often misunderstood.A decision not to intervene does not mean the case was proven false. It does not mean the claims were investigated and rejected. It just meant that the DOJ decided not to take over the case themselves. This is the same for the majority of Qui Tam cases, especially when they are technically complex & directed at government agencies.Dr Reynolds’ case challenged the work of federal agencies and major government contractors, not a small private company. Rather than do that the DOJ stepped aside and allowed the case to proceed without them.Importantly, the DOJ did not move to issue a finding that Reynolds’ claims were false. The case ended without any court ruling on the scientific or factual merits of his allegations.One of the most important details that is often missed, is that Reynold’s claims were never shown to be false.There wasn’t a court ruling that disproved his arguments. There was no technical report produced to disprove his claims and there were no expert affidavits submitted to demonstrate that his physics objections were wrong.This does matter because in science and the law, to state something is false requires evidence.For Reynold’s claims to be falsified it would have required,Defending the aircraft impact simulations under oath.Explaining how the laws of physics he cited did not apply.Producing evidence showing the simulations were physically valid.Addressing the conflicts of interest he identified.None of that actually happened. Instead the case ended without any examination of the actual evidence. Incorrect claims are usually challenged with data, experiments or counter analysis. Here no such thing happened therefore no rebuttal was ever placed on the record. That absence is why Reynold’s case should continue to be discussed. Not because it reached a verdict but because it never reached the point where a verdict could be reached.Reynold’s case was not a weak or speculative case despite it never reaching a full court hearing. It actually had several features that made it unusually strong.First Reynolds’ used the correct legal route. He filed a Qui Tam Whistle-blower case, which is specifically designed to address fraud involving public money. That meant the case focused on process, payment and accountability not personal belief.Second his claims were testable. He wasn’t claiming to know exactly what happened on 9/11. He claimed that certain simulations and analysis could not be scientifically valid and that this work was still presented as authoritative and paid for. Claims based on basic physics and disclosure standards are not speculative. They are either correct or they are not.Third Reynolds supported his claims with sworn affidavits. Affidavits are statements made under oath, with legal consequences if they are false. Filing them shows a willingness to have his claims challenged from cross examination. Weak cases tend to avoid affidavits. Next the case was never dismissed as being frivolous. The DOJ declined to intervene but it also did not shut the case down or issue findings that the claims were false. No court ruled that Reynold’s arguments were incorrect. The case ended before any testing of any evidence could take place.Finally, Reynolds claims aligned with documented gaps in the official investigation, including undisclosed conflicts of interest, reliance on simulations rather than direct measurements and an admitted limitation in scope. His case did not rely on a single anomaly but on a pattern.Reynolds’ case did not end with a verdict, but that doesn’t mean it ended without consequence.It actually left behind a clear record that shows serious legal and scientific questions were raised but never answered. Today that matters more than ever.Reynolds’ case highlights Legal mechanisms exist to challenge official investigations.Whistle-blower law can be used to question processes not just outcomes.Declination or dismissal does not equal disproof.Transparency depends on whether claims are tested, not whether they are uncomfortable.When this is looked at along with Dr Judy Wood’s Qui Tam Case (I will cover this more in an upcoming article) it forms part of a large picture. One side shows missing physical evidence and data gaps, the other side shows process failures, conflicts of interest and untested assumptions. Both of these cases point to the same issue - the official investigation was never fully investigated. Whether new investigations happen or not, Reynolds’ case remains relevant because it demonstrates something simple but essential, If claims are never examined, they are never settled.You can find out more about Dr Reynolds and see his work at his website - nomoregames.netYou can read and download all of the legal paperwork in relation to this case at - Legal FilingsAnd you can also check out his latest book, which is an interesting read at - Chatgpt & 9/11Thanks for reading and please share this article as more people should be aware of this court case.Leave a commentShare

🔐 Cryptographic Verification

Archived URL: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/911-the-federal-fraud-case-against

�� CONTENT HASHES:
  SHA-256:  6106154979e69134c7506c7a6306629b60e679aa253acf379c3917f8fe247821
  BLAKE2b:  3d4d29119a929cdd23fa0445eae7ebfd891c485534c405baf4a1ad82d7bf8411
  MD5:      a5f873419a2782e76ea938d6d1e83796

�� TITLE HASHES:
  SHA-256:  1ec3da52e7ce89bd61e9b088a646714c106172f37ee7fd983328e6303aa7fb56
  BLAKE2b:  d8e5f78b584c5a4619b00ec107ebfb943729d3a86e96379c613ca409120be6c3
  MD5:      d8ee06460a36d2e00bc63717b3e6da79

�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
  SHA-256:  36fcacb2d14d9abb47acb8ad08e12a9fe32782494e9bded8e31affe64879983f
  BLAKE2b:  7d086ce6e20eb9511aac1e0ae8ac8d98764a075e14b86260a05d757a1fc9927f
  MD5:      dd3e3f0f4dc7034636d18d859ee8be21

Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system