FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 830
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi TimmyG

Here's the interview. I think you will agree that Dave did an amazing job in getting all the key points over, and finishing on a note of hope and empowerment.

I think the interviwer had orders down his earpiece to ask Dave about the NPT. Up until that point he looks transfixed, and then comes to life and goes on the attack. However, from what I remember, Dave skirts around the issue, and just asks people to look for themselves.

Enjoy!

http://www.officialconfusion.com/shayleronsky.html

_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
commanderson
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 94
Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sh*t! Another very public straw man, I'm beggining to believe ANYBODY who you might find appearing on a mainstream programme discussing conspiracies, is a disinfo agent.
I've had a great deal of respect for David Shayler throughout his carreer as a whistle blower, and in a way the first twenty minutes of this interveiw is the best performance he's ever given, being very lucid and addressing all the points given made suctsinctly and articulately (almost although it was scripted)
The very fact the news caster allows and encourages this debate on fake terror (when the real topic is meant to be the libvanyenko assasination) is suspicious, as when David Icke appeared on this morning and started giving info on this topic, he was steered into his reptillian theoreys, to avoid and discredit the nuts and bolts 9/11 facts.
The same thing is done at the end of this interveiw, after all the right on, on the level research is disclosed, he drops a big turd in there (with a cheeky smirk) that planes didn't even hit the towers. He didn't need to say this, as he had just been able to speak for 20mins and give lots of credible verifyable research 9/11 7/7,
I don't know where this No planes theorey came from, but it seems like a few have been sucked in by it (or have adopted it to divide and scupper the truth campaign).
There is some synchronisity here as I was just listening this morning to the Jeff Rense show with william rodriguez (caretaker at WTC who helped firfighters access the stairwells) and this is where I first heard of this no-planes theorey William had to break ranks with jimmy water and his reopen911.org because or their endorsement of this ludicious idea.
It was just after hearing this on the show that I logged on here and read this tread and watched the shayler interveiw, we have to be aware that may of these public personalities and organisations, might well be controlled entities to misguide and divide the opinions of their supporters.
For me the same suspicions have fallen upon David Icke, for his involvement in this brandon corey storey fuc-u-mentary farce, it seems to me there is a series of constant attacks being made upon the overall truth movements, and that the presumed leaders and spokespeople for the alternative veiw are intimately involved in this dis-info.
All I'm waiting for now is for alex Jones to put his foot in his mouth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
the mulberry bush,
the mulberry bush,

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
On a wet and windy morning!

Anyone like discuss points of evidence at all?

Or are we trapped in the media spin and PR world of mainstream media and digital TV?

"We look good!"
"We look bad!"

It's sounding like it was a party political broadcast!! Heck, I haven't even had time to watch it yet!! Tsk!

Smile

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG wrote:
if shayler mentioned the no planes theories in this interview then i'm very dissapointed.
as far as i can see any progress made will have been made by the 'other side'



Correct me if I am wrong - but has not the vast majority of Joe Public bought into the Official Government Version Conspiracy where amateur pilots somehow learned TOP GUN skills and beat the best Air Defence on the planet.

If Joe Public will believe that they will believe anything (including the truth which is NO PLANES)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Anyone like discuss points of evidence at all?


When are you ready Andrew?

What, in your view, is the single strongest piece of evidence supporting "No Planes"?

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World


Last edited by John White on Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:
Hi TimmyG

Here's the interview. I think you will agree that Dave did an amazing job in getting all the key points over, and finishing on a note of hope and empowerment.

I think the interviwer had orders down his earpiece to ask Dave about the NPT. Up until that point he looks transfixed, and then comes to life and goes on the attack. However, from what I remember, Dave skirts around the issue, and just asks people to look for themselves.

Enjoy!

http://www.officialconfusion.com/shayleronsky.html



Annie - please don't make excuses for David. He doesn't need any.

The program was brilliant which was endorsed by the majority of the emails read out.

I take it that you are in the no planes camp?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
commanderson
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 94
Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:


Anyone like discuss points of evidence at all?

Or are we trapped in the media spin and PR world of mainstream media and digital TV?


It's sounding like it was a party political broadcast!! Heck, I haven't even had time to watch it yet!! Tsk!

Smile

If our aim is to evangelise the notion of synthetic terror, media spin and pr is imortant information initself, to show up the intricacies of the game and how its played. Strawman arguments and their proponents must be exposed and debunked.

watch it
then comment
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
markwm
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I felt he diminished his own arguments the moment he started talking about planes melting into buildings.

There's so much other evidence that you don't even need to mention this! the moment you do people will think you're an idiot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

commanderson wrote:
Sh*t! Another very public straw man, I'm beggining to believe ANYBODY who you might find appearing on a mainstream programme discussing conspiracies, is a disinfo agent.
I've had a great deal of respect for David Shayler throughout his carreer as a whistle blower, and in a way the first twenty minutes of this interveiw is the best performance he's ever given, being very lucid and addressing all the points given made suctsinctly and articulately (almost although it was scripted)
The very fact the news caster allows and encourages this debate on fake terror (when the real topic is meant to be the libvanyenko assasination) is suspicious, as when David Icke appeared on this morning and started giving info on this topic, he was steered into his reptillian theoreys, to avoid and discredit the nuts and bolts 9/11 facts.
The same thing is done at the end of this interveiw, after all the right on, on the level research is disclosed, he drops a big turd in there (with a cheeky smirk) that planes didn't even hit the towers. He didn't need to say this, as he had just been able to speak for 20mins and give lots of credible verifyable research 9/11 7/7,
I don't know where this No planes theorey came from, but it seems like a few have been sucked in by it (or have adopted it to divide and scupper the truth campaign).
There is some synchronisity here as I was just listening this morning to the Jeff Rense show with william rodriguez (caretaker at WTC who helped firfighters access the stairwells) and this is where I first heard of this no-planes theorey William had to break ranks with jimmy water and his reopen911.org because or their endorsement of this ludicious idea.
It was just after hearing this on the show that I logged on here and read this tread and watched the shayler interveiw, we have to be aware that may of these public personalities and organisations, might well be controlled entities to misguide and divide the opinions of their supporters.
For me the same suspicions have fallen upon David Icke, for his involvement in this brandon corey storey fuc-u-mentary farce, it seems to me there is a series of constant attacks being made upon the overall truth movements, and that the presumed leaders and spokespeople for the alternative veiw are intimately involved in this dis-info.
All I'm waiting for now is for alex Jones to put his foot in his mouth.



So you think David Shayler is a Straw Man and a disinfo agent - presumably you think he is therefore still on the payroll of MI5?

You say that the no planes theory is ludicrous, so do you also think that the official Hijackers theory is ludicrous? - if you do then what do you believe happenened and why do you not think that your theory is less ludicrous than the other two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
commanderson wrote:
Sh*t! Another very public straw man, I'm beggining to believe ANYBODY who you might find appearing on a mainstream programme discussing conspiracies, is a disinfo agent.
I've had a great deal of respect for David Shayler throughout his carreer as a whistle blower, and in a way the first twenty minutes of this interveiw is the best performance he's ever given, being very lucid and addressing all the points given made suctsinctly and articulately (almost although it was scripted)
The very fact the news caster allows and encourages this debate on fake terror (when the real topic is meant to be the libvanyenko assasination) is suspicious, as when David Icke appeared on this morning and started giving info on this topic, he was steered into his reptillian theoreys, to avoid and discredit the nuts and bolts 9/11 facts.
The same thing is done at the end of this interveiw, after all the right on, on the level research is disclosed, he drops a big turd in there (with a cheeky smirk) that planes didn't even hit the towers. He didn't need to say this, as he had just been able to speak for 20mins and give lots of credible verifyable research 9/11 7/7,
I don't know where this No planes theorey came from, but it seems like a few have been sucked in by it (or have adopted it to divide and scupper the truth campaign).
There is some synchronisity here as I was just listening this morning to the Jeff Rense show with william rodriguez (caretaker at WTC who helped firfighters access the stairwells) and this is where I first heard of this no-planes theorey William had to break ranks with jimmy water and his reopen911.org because or their endorsement of this ludicious idea.
It was just after hearing this on the show that I logged on here and read this tread and watched the shayler interveiw, we have to be aware that may of these public personalities and organisations, might well be controlled entities to misguide and divide the opinions of their supporters.
For me the same suspicions have fallen upon David Icke, for his involvement in this brandon corey storey fuc-u-mentary farce, it seems to me there is a series of constant attacks being made upon the overall truth movements, and that the presumed leaders and spokespeople for the alternative veiw are intimately involved in this dis-info.
All I'm waiting for now is for alex Jones to put his foot in his mouth.



So you think David Shayler is a Straw Man and a disinfo agent - presumably you think he is therefore still on the payroll of MI5?

You say that the no planes theory is ludicrous, so do you also think that the official Hijackers theory is ludicrous? - if you do then what do you believe happenened and why do you not think that your theory is less ludicrous than the other two.


I don't know how you feel you have a right to demand these kind of answers when NPT doesn't have answers to these questions itself. Or maybe it does, do tell me...

The objective isn't to find the least ludicrous set of events (though that does indeed firmly rule out no planes). It's to find the set of events which is most readily achievable, and most likely given the evidence available.

BTW, your last sentence there has a double negative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

markwm wrote:
I felt he diminished his own arguments the moment he started talking about planes melting into buildings.

There's so much other evidence that you don't even need to mention this! the moment you do people will think you're an idiot.


He didn't use the 'h' word which was good, but what you get with David is a guy who says exactly what he thinks. He did hold himself back, however, and encouraged viewers to 'go and look at the footage yourselves', which was the right thing to say.

Actually most of us would prefer that he never alluded to the 'no planes' theory again (even though, for all I know, it could be true......it is just that it doesn't help our case right now) but let's be grateful for the energy and determination he does bring to the movement.

Actually, he did a great job. Well done David.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
commanderson wrote:
Sh*t! Another very public straw man, I'm beggining to believe ANYBODY who you might find appearing on a mainstream programme discussing conspiracies, is a disinfo agent.
I've had a great deal of respect for David Shayler throughout his carreer as a whistle blower, and in a way the first twenty minutes of this interveiw is the best performance he's ever given, being very lucid and addressing all the points given made suctsinctly and articulately (almost although it was scripted)
The very fact the news caster allows and encourages this debate on fake terror (when the real topic is meant to be the libvanyenko assasination) is suspicious, as when David Icke appeared on this morning and started giving info on this topic, he was steered into his reptillian theoreys, to avoid and discredit the nuts and bolts 9/11 facts.
The same thing is done at the end of this interveiw, after all the right on, on the level research is disclosed, he drops a big turd in there (with a cheeky smirk) that planes didn't even hit the towers. He didn't need to say this, as he had just been able to speak for 20mins and give lots of credible verifyable research 9/11 7/7,
I don't know where this No planes theorey came from, but it seems like a few have been sucked in by it (or have adopted it to divide and scupper the truth campaign).
There is some synchronisity here as I was just listening this morning to the Jeff Rense show with william rodriguez (caretaker at WTC who helped firfighters access the stairwells) and this is where I first heard of this no-planes theorey William had to break ranks with jimmy water and his reopen911.org because or their endorsement of this ludicious idea.
It was just after hearing this on the show that I logged on here and read this tread and watched the shayler interveiw, we have to be aware that may of these public personalities and organisations, might well be controlled entities to misguide and divide the opinions of their supporters.
For me the same suspicions have fallen upon David Icke, for his involvement in this brandon corey storey fuc-u-mentary farce, it seems to me there is a series of constant attacks being made upon the overall truth movements, and that the presumed leaders and spokespeople for the alternative veiw are intimately involved in this dis-info.
All I'm waiting for now is for alex Jones to put his foot in his mouth.



So you think David Shayler is a Straw Man and a disinfo agent - presumably you think he is therefore still on the payroll of MI5?

You say that the no planes theory is ludicrous, so do you also think that the official Hijackers theory is ludicrous? - if you do then what do you believe happenened and why do you not think that your theory is less ludicrous than the other two.


I don't know how you feel you have a right to demand these kind of answers when NPT doesn't have answers to these questions itself. Or maybe it does, do tell me...

The objective isn't to find the least ludicrous set of events (though that does indeed firmly rule out no planes). It's to find the set of events which is most readily achievable, and most likely given the evidence available.

BTW, your last sentence there has a double negative.


I have not demanded anything - just asking questions

Isn't it amazing how all these plane huggers all put themselves firmly in the "we don't know what happened" (apart from definitely no planes) and it don't really matter category

It's pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Isn't it amazing how all these plane huggers all put themselves firmly in the "we don't know what happened" (apart from definitely no planes) and it don't really matter category

It's pathetic


Fitting the theory around the evidence? You wouldn't be familiar with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Isn't it amazing how all these plane huggers all put themselves firmly in the "we don't know what happened" (apart from definitely no planes) and it don't really matter category

It's pathetic


Fitting the theory around the evidence? You wouldn't be familiar with it.


So come on Fallious spill the beans tell us all what really happened?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 830
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi TTWSY3

Not making excuses, just explaining. I think Shayler did a magnificent job on Sky IMHO.

And I'm not in any particular research camp. I hate labels. Plus, what with being on the road a lot and my computer being down about 70% of the time because it's being attacked, my research time has been severely curtailed recently.

If anything, I would say I'm in the campaigning camp: getting the fact that the official version of 911 is a crock of sh*t out to as many people as possible!

Regards

Annie

_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Busker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Shayler-No Planes-Sky Tv Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
http://www.officialconfusion.com/shayleronsky.html


David - Brilliant - Well Done - Best 911 exposure in UK we have seen


Quite agree. Excellent job Mr S.

Typical unbiased, journalist, contact us if you are offended or disagree........

Liked the long pause where the host just didn't know how to respond as well. I had visions of all sorts of voices into his ear piece trying to redirect the conversation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow six posts by TTWSU3 and not one mention about the beam weapon that must be some sort of record. Now DS has mentioned of no planes on sky news were back onto the no planes. You mentioned your campaigning in the park does your dog walk you round or do you walk the dog?

I have a couple of questions about the interview firstly:

It looked to me that the interview was set up to talk about 9/11 and not about the russian spy or the moon or Iraq surely an interviewer brings the topic of discussion on to the topics that were mentioned at the top of the news hour and not going along with what a guest is saying. Usually an interviewer brings a new subject up or says to the guest we have gone slightly off topic?


Secondly AM states that she did not know that DS would be talking about 9/11 on the sky interview and also states that a producer asked the interviewer to question DS on the no planes theory. So did the producers know that 9/11 would be talked about so that the no plane theory would come up?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Fallious wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Isn't it amazing how all these plane huggers all put themselves firmly in the "we don't know what happened" (apart from definitely no planes) and it don't really matter category

It's pathetic


Fitting the theory around the evidence? You wouldn't be familiar with it.


So come on Fallious spill the beans tell us all what really happened?



What's up Fallious are you lost for words?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
commanderson wrote:
Sh*t! Another very public straw man, I'm beggining to believe ANYBODY who you might find appearing on a mainstream programme discussing conspiracies, is a disinfo agent.
I've had a great deal of respect for David Shayler throughout his carreer as a whistle blower, and in a way the first twenty minutes of this interveiw is the best performance he's ever given, being very lucid and addressing all the points given made suctsinctly and articulately (almost although it was scripted)
The very fact the news caster allows and encourages this debate on fake terror (when the real topic is meant to be the libvanyenko assasination) is suspicious, as when David Icke appeared on this morning and started giving info on this topic, he was steered into his reptillian theoreys, to avoid and discredit the nuts and bolts 9/11 facts.
The same thing is done at the end of this interveiw, after all the right on, on the level research is disclosed, he drops a big turd in there (with a cheeky smirk) that planes didn't even hit the towers. He didn't need to say this, as he had just been able to speak for 20mins and give lots of credible verifyable research 9/11 7/7,
I don't know where this No planes theorey came from, but it seems like a few have been sucked in by it (or have adopted it to divide and scupper the truth campaign).
There is some synchronisity here as I was just listening this morning to the Jeff Rense show with william rodriguez (caretaker at WTC who helped firfighters access the stairwells) and this is where I first heard of this no-planes theorey William had to break ranks with jimmy water and his reopen911.org because or their endorsement of this ludicious idea.
It was just after hearing this on the show that I logged on here and read this tread and watched the shayler interveiw, we have to be aware that may of these public personalities and organisations, might well be controlled entities to misguide and divide the opinions of their supporters.
For me the same suspicions have fallen upon David Icke, for his involvement in this brandon corey storey fuc-u-mentary farce, it seems to me there is a series of constant attacks being made upon the overall truth movements, and that the presumed leaders and spokespeople for the alternative veiw are intimately involved in this dis-info.
All I'm waiting for now is for alex Jones to put his foot in his mouth.



So you think David Shayler is a Straw Man and a disinfo agent - presumably you think he is therefore still on the payroll of MI5?

You say that the no planes theory is ludicrous, so do you also think that the official Hijackers theory is ludicrous? - if you do then what do you believe happenened and why do you not think that your theory is less ludicrous than the other two.



What's up commanderson are you lost for words?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Fallious wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

Isn't it amazing how all these plane huggers all put themselves firmly in the "we don't know what happened" (apart from definitely no planes) and it don't really matter category

It's pathetic


Fitting the theory around the evidence? You wouldn't be familiar with it.


So come on Fallious spill the beans tell us all what really happened?


I don't know. You tell me. Was I lost for words? No, I was getting some work done. Now get ranting..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Location: bucks

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

great coverage Shocked Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
TimmyG wrote:
if shayler mentioned the no planes theories in this interview then i'm very dissapointed.
as far as i can see any progress made will have been made by the 'other side'



Correct me if I am wrong - but has not the vast majority of Joe Public bought into the Official Government Version Conspiracy where amateur pilots somehow learned TOP GUN skills and beat the best Air Defence on the planet.

If Joe Public will believe that they will believe anything (including the truth which is NO PLANES)


Indeed TWSU3 - that's the point.

This idea that there are nice polished, PR-ready theories all packaged and acceptable to Joe Public on one side and others that we need to gag people on is misunderstanding many of the wider issues involved in exposing a mafia-led government faction.

There's a whole heap more to come [incl. outside the 9/11 arena] and from where I'm standing not a lot of it is 'acceptable' or the sort of thing we can use to 'break people in' to the facts of history.

Besides... we don't have time to wuss about.

Twisted Evil

Just d/loaded the video - off to have a watch.

<EDIT>


That Sky host was a bit open-minded as media hosts go. I think that was a pretty good discussion and you can't mention NPT in a more subtle way than was done then. I hope more people on this board are annoyed by the fact it got slipped in and no-one laughed out loud in the studio Twisted Evil

Which brings in another point if we view that as a kind of test case in the media fairground. Interesting how it's getting harder for the producers of TV and Radio to get in any kind of 'opposition' in the way they love to for those balanced pro/con debates. I think we're seeing a subtle shift insofar as no-one wants to sit on a live braodcast and take on the role of defending the official story. You gotta be a mug to do so @ this stage both because

- You'd have a hard job with [no] evidence.
and also
- By it's nature it would mean you'd end up facing someone who's done far more research than yourself.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--


Last edited by utopiated on Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:38 pm    Post subject: Postings Reply with quote

I really never managed to understand why people have to write 2 lines of their own text and THEN copy about a page of text from the previous answer which is clearly visable 2 inches above anyway!!!!!

What a waste of web-space. Its my one personal item of net-hate.

Now to TWSU3; I belive that stating "I dont know" is an infinitely better state of logical analysis than being scared to "not know eveything".

If you MUST 'know' everything about 9/11 then you can just make up any old rubbish to fill in the gaps. Oh but wait; thats exactly what HAS happened here with NPT!

I dont know "where the passengers are" or "wheres the planes" and I`m perfectly comfortable with that.

It seems not everyone is..............

C.

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
the mulberry bush,
the mulberry bush,

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
On a wet and windy morning!

Anyone like discuss points of evidence at all?

Or are we trapped in the media spin and PR world of mainstream media and digital TV?

"We look good!"
"We look bad!"

It's sounding like it was a party political broadcast!! Heck, I haven't even had time to watch it yet!! Tsk!

Smile


But what points of evidence Andrew?

The video flight paths don't match?
Well yes they do once you appreciate the concept of three dimensions.

The cartoon cutout in the impact faces?
Only if you don't look closely at the darker snapped and bent columns.

The 500mph cloud of jetfuel that doesn't ignite immediately?
Why would the ignition front not take some time to catch up?

Something emerges out the other side of a building with a grid structure and designed to have no obstructions and clear floorspace?
Quelle surprise.

Smaller Boeings?
They impact areas appear to fit the type specified.

Hijacked airliners?
Well some room for doubt there....

What is it that makes NPT so compelling that a chance to make the campaign look like it has something solid immediately gets filed under 'loopy' in the minds of a Sky audience, not all of whom are Homer Simpsons?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
the mulberry bush,
the mulberry bush,

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
On a wet and windy morning!

Anyone like discuss points of evidence at all?

Or are we trapped in the media spin and PR world of mainstream media and digital TV?

"We look good!"
"We look bad!"

It's sounding like it was a party political broadcast!! Heck, I haven't even had time to watch it yet!! Tsk!

Smile


But what points of evidence Andrew?

The video flight paths don't match?
Well yes they do once you appreciate the concept of three dimensions.

The cartoon cutout in the impact faces?
Only if you don't look closely at the darker snapped and bent columns.

The 500mph cloud of jetfuel that doesn't ignite immediately?
Why would the ignition front not take some time to catch up?

Something emerges out the other side of a building with a grid structure and designed to have no obstructions and clear floorspace?
Quelle surprise.

Smaller Boeings?
They impact areas appear to fit the type specified.

Hijacked airliners?
Well some room for doubt there....

What is it that makes NPT so compelling that a chance to make the campaign look like it has something solid immediately gets filed under 'loopy' in the minds of a Sky audience, not all of whom are Homer Simpsons?



So come on Chek -please give any explanation of what happened that will not be deemed controversial (i take it u are not in the OBL did it camp)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're in critic territory now TTWSU3 - demanding explanations is their favourite ploy.
But as a working hypothesis, big Boeings were flown into the Towers, and then - when it seemed likely the fires might be contained - they were demolished top down by a combination of high explosives on the outer walls and thermate in the corner and core columns.

Of course we don't know how, but we do know that holograms, simul-tv fakery and beam weapons are more creative thinking than hard fact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that interview was going really well.. i was really pleased. I hoped the npt comment early on would be the only one made during the interview as david handled it well ('watch the video in slow motion and draw your own conclusions') and although I felt slightly uneasy, the debate didn't indulge on the issue at this point, so i was happy...

a lot of good comments were made by david, put across really well. The lack of evidence to support the OCT, explosives in the towers and wtc7. The interviewer was suprising receptive for a sky news presenter i thought. Even the on-hand 'critic' was fairly reasonable and not entirely dismissive of most of the evidence being discussed. Half way through the interview I was actually quite excited about the whole thing! David made reference his own experience of false flag terrorism, highlighted the fact that 9/11 isn't an isolated case, got some great information 'out there' about Litvinenko etc... came across as a credible voice, it seemed, although being (unsuprisingly) amidst skepticism, David was being taken seriously by both sky news and Margolis.. the public emails reflected a (so far) successful dialogue for David and the truth movement.

but then at the end, unfortunately, the issue of the planes was brought up again and David took things a step up with the 'melting' comment, causing both Johnathan Margolis and the sky presenter to stop dead in their tracks. Silence and an outward appearance which indicated that, whereas a few seconds ago they were skeptics who were considering this persons theories, they now were concerned about David's mental well being and perhaps even their own proximity to him.

Whether you are a noplaner or a plane hugger.. the public aren't ready to consider the no planes stuff, and they don't have to!! There's plenty of other evidence which is much more credible,involves a lot less speculation and far fewer variables. There was sooo much progress made in that interview before the end imo.. Personally I think it would benefit the 'movement' massively if people who appear credible (like david) don't juxtapose such highly speculative theories with credible evidence.

_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
You're in critic territory now TTWSU3 - demanding explanations is their favourite ploy.
But as a working hypothesis, big Boeings were flown into the Towers, and then - when it seemed likely the fires might be contained - they were demolished top down by a combination of high explosives on the outer walls and thermate in the corner and core columns.

Of course we don't know how, but we do know that holograms, simul-tv fakery and beam weapons are more creative thinking than hard fact.


Ok - so your on Sky TV and you are telling the interviewer it was an inside job - he says to you "so your telling me that it was not Mohammad Atta and Co that flew those planes - then just exactly who did?"

What is yor response?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG wrote:
that interview was going really well.. i was really pleased. I hoped the npt comment early on would be the only one made during the interview as david handled it well ('watch the video in slow motion and draw your own conclusions') and although I felt slightly uneasy, the debate didn't indulge on the issue at this point, so i was happy...

a lot of good comments were made by david, put across really well. The lack of evidence to support the OCT, explosives in the towers and wtc7. The interviewer was suprising receptive for a sky news presenter i thought. Even the on-hand 'critic' was fairly reasonable and not entirely dismissive of most of the evidence being discussed. Half way through the interview I was actually quite excited about the whole thing! David made reference his own experience of false flag terrorism, highlighted the fact that 9/11 isn't an isolated case, got some great information 'out there' about Litvinenko etc... came across as a credible voice, it seemed, although being (unsuprisingly) amidst skepticism, David was being taken seriously by both sky news and Margolis.. the public emails reflected a (so far) successful dialogue for David and the truth movement.

but then at the end, unfortunately, the issue of the planes was brought up again and David took things a step up with the 'melting' comment, causing both Johnathan Margolis and the sky presenter to stop dead in their tracks. Silence and an outward appearance which indicated that, whereas a few seconds ago they were skeptics who were considering this persons theories, they now were concerned about David's mental well being and perhaps even their own proximity to him.

Whether you are a noplaner or a plane hugger.. the public aren't ready to consider the no planes stuff, and they don't have to!! There's plenty of other evidence which is much more credible,involves a lot less speculation and far fewer variables. There was sooo much progress made in that interview before the end imo.. Personally I think it would benefit the 'movement' massively if people who appear credible (like david) don't juxtapose such highly speculative theories with credible evidence.



Ok Timmy - put youself in David Shayler's shoes

The interviewer says - "well Timmy you think 911 was an inside job and you say it was not Mohammad Atta and co flying those planes - well just who was?"

What would you say?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
chek wrote:
You're in critic territory now TTWSU3 - demanding explanations is their favourite ploy.
But as a working hypothesis, big Boeings were flown into the Towers, and then - when it seemed likely the fires might be contained - they were demolished top down by a combination of high explosives on the outer walls and thermate in the corner and core columns.

Of course we don't know how, but we do know that holograms, simul-tv fakery and beam weapons are more creative thinking than hard fact.


Ok - so your on Sky TV and you are telling the interviewer it was an inside job - he says to you "so your telling me that it was not Mohammad Atta and Co that flew those planes - then just exactly who did?"

What is yor response?


I'll handle that one:

"It may very well have been that those person's were on the Planes, though the evidance has been very poorly tested. regardless, it doesnt change the fact that the plane impacts were physically incapable of bringing the towers down, and in no way explain the collapse of builidng seven, which was obviously blown up"

and I'll raise you your answer to the same question now TWSU3:

Quote:
Ok - so your on Sky TV and you are telling the interviewer it was an inside job - he says to you "so your telling me that it was not Mohammad Atta and Co that flew those planes - then just exactly who did?"

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 2 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group