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, 4 ... 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
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG wrote:

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.


B*llox to them. Whatever the 'real' story and whether it drags in a few folks or makes them run a mile these things act like memes and I think 'melting planes' is as good as controlled demolition or for that matter BEAM weapon.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I totally agree about memes Utopiated

Perhaps its wise to consider that awareness of some is not defacto immunity to them all, and in fact there is a requirement for constant vigilant self-awareness

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
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 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
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?"




I'd say:

"Mr Atta had far more interesting things to be doing with his time on this planet than fly planes into buildings. Just a few of those pass-times include consuming vast amounts of class A narcotics, dismembering his girlfriend's kittens and visiting 'ho - houses across the country with a Quran under his arm."

...but then I'm one of those awkward f***ers that thinks by the time you're featured on major media the debates framed for you so why bother providing sane and rational responses [as they'd see it] ?!

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Thermate
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cant believe Shayler put his foot is his mouth on live TV so deeply. First 15mins or so were good as an impromptu hijacking of airtime for the cause then he goes and blows it with NPT, baffling Embarassed

Strawman? Shill? Fruitcake? Who knows. I think it would have made alot more sense to encourage people to go look at the video of WTC7 than investigate laughable NPT but that's just me.

_________________
Make love, not money.
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 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Garcon Warrior wrote:

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?


Good questions, Garcon Warrior,

To the first, I would say that Dave hijacked the show, and the poor presenter really didn't know that to do about it - he looked transfixed at one point. But presenters of live news programmes have ear pieces on, and the producer of the show is constantly barking orders and questions into it from the studio. Believe me, I've participated in many live interviews, and I always marvel that they can look so calm when they have to engage with the guest, listen to the studio's orders and carry on asking the questions in a coherent fashion.

My other comment would be: look at it from the other side. The Sky team probably couldn't believe their luck in Shayler saying such things - remember, these sorts of issues are accepted by us, but seen as completely wacky by the MSM. So they probably enjoyed the perceived "implosion" of David Shayler's credibility - just the moment the MSM has been waiting for all these years. Indeed, they may have hoped this would happen (see below), which is why they invited Margolis on to talk about the societal impact of CTs. But Dave blew them out of the water.

However, then the emails started coming in, and they realised there's a lot of awareness and support for Dave's views. He said the presenter was frantically shuffling through all the emails in an attempt to fine a condemnatory one in order for the show to appear "balanced".

As for your second question, I thought the interview was going to be a quickie about Litvinenko. I have to say, though, that Dave and I have both been doing talks recently where we raise the connection between what Litvinenko blew the whistle on - Russian false-flag terrorism - both with Dave's case - UK false-flag terrorism - and 911. So I assumed he'd make that point and be shut up sharpish. It's only when I saw him go for it, and the presenter passively let him put his case, that I raced upstairs and posted on the forum to see if someone could record it.

One further point to Fallious: don't you think that Dave's "smirk" at the NP question might have been because he recognised the trap?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the current research theories, Shayler put out a cogent, powerful message on prime time mainstream TV that the official version just does not add up. And he finished on a note of hope - we can all open our eyes and be empowered by this.

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
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
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?"



John - please let people answer for themselves - you as a moderator should know that is the decent thing to do
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 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:
I cant believe Shayler put his foot is his mouth on live TV so deeply. First 15mins or so were good as an impromptu hijacking of airtime for the cause then he goes and blows it with NPT, baffling Embarassed

Strawman? Shill? Fruitcake? Who knows. I think it would have made alot more sense to encourage people to go look at the video of WTC7 than investigate laughable NPT but that's just me.


OK, next time I get a request for a live TV interview about Litvinenko, spookery or terrorism, do you want me to put you forward for it, Thermate?

This was a marvellous, unpremeditated opportunity. Rather than nitpicking over the detail, why not just say a big thank you to Shayler for his courage and his constant, tireless efforts to get the truth out?

And before you say "well, she would say that, wouldn't she?", Dave and I separated a while ago. I just don't like sniping and injustice.

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
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:

One further point to Fallious: don't you think that Dave's "smirk" at the NP question might have been because he recognised the trap?


Absolutely, but I hope he noticed the divisive power of NPT to curtail a good speach
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 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="utopiated"]
John White wrote:


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?"


I'd say:

"Mr Atta had far more interesting things to be doing with his time on this planet than fly planes into buildings. Just a few of those pass-times include consuming vast amounts of class A narcotics, dismembering his girlfriend's kittens and visiting 'ho - houses across the country with a Quran under his arm."

...but then I'm one of those awkward f***ers that thinks by the time you're featured on major media the debates framed for you so why bother providing sane and rational responses [as they'd see it] ?!



I would say "no one was on those planes because they were tv trickery -
what you saw was an image of a plane followed by an explosion, did you know that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly that day, and did you know that they found no black boxes which are made of the most indestructable material on the planet and yet they found mmohammed attas passport in the street, there were no air crash investigations and there was no wreckage other than a few planted parts.

I urge all viewers to go to www.blablabla and watch the slow motion replays - you will not believe your eyes - the plane meets no resistance upon impact, it melts into the building like a ghost and no wreckage falls to the ground.

And did you know that with all the media gathered there with their high tech cameras and gadgetary there is not one clear picture showing the livery of the plane that hit wtc.

Don't believe me viewers check it out now - visit www,blablabla

And Mr TV interviewer you and your company have been complicit in suppressing this information for the past 5 years - shame on you

What have you got to say to that?????
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 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a similar thread running in the Articles section, with further comments there. Can the moderators combine the two?
_________________
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
numeral
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll second that, Annie. I liked the way David moved from Litvinenko's accusations of false flag terrorism to 911 and 7/7.

If there were planes, who was flying them - Hani Hanjour the "Biggles" de nos jours?

_________________
Follow the numbers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:

I would say "no one was on those planes because they were tv trickery -
what you saw was an image of a plane followed by an explosion, did you know that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly that day, and did you know that they found no black boxes which are made of the most indestructable material on the planet and yet they found mmohammed attas passport in the street, there were no air crash investigations and there was no wreckage other than a few planted parts.

I urge all viewers to go to www.blablabla and watch the slow motion replays - you will not believe your eyes - the plane meets no resistance upon impact, it melts into the building like a ghost and no wreckage falls to the ground.

And did you know that with all the media gathered there with their high tech cameras and gadgetary there is not one clear picture showing the livery of the plane that hit wtc.

Don't believe me viewers check it out now - visit www,blablabla

And Mr TV interviewer you and your company have been complicit in suppressing this information for the past 5 years - shame on you

What have you got to say to that?????


And Joe Smith, watches in astonishment and thinks...

"I SAW planes with my own eyes, and there were people talking about them, and the passengers, and... What does this guy think the media ALL conspired to dupe us or something.. yeesh he's a nutter. 9/11 conspiracy.. gotta avoid those guys"

Then the interviewer and conspiracy theory expert laugh and move on..

And the one or two people who go searching, just for a laugh...

What happens when they then go onto the web and find pictures showing the plane livery, and plane parts and witnesses, and a couple of shoddy sites packed with pointless computer animations and stupid little videos which don't even align the towers right?
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 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:
Thermate wrote:
I cant believe Shayler put his foot is his mouth on live TV so deeply. First 15mins or so were good as an impromptu hijacking of airtime for the cause then he goes and blows it with NPT, baffling Embarassed

Strawman? Shill? Fruitcake? Who knows. I think it would have made alot more sense to encourage people to go look at the video of WTC7 than investigate laughable NPT but that's just me.


OK, next time I get a request for a live TV interview about Litvinenko, spookery or terrorism, do you want me to put you forward for it, Thermate?

This was a marvellous, unpremeditated opportunity. Rather than nitpicking over the detail, why not just say a big thank you to Shayler for his courage and his constant, tireless efforts to get the truth out?

And before you say "well, she would say that, wouldn't she?", Dave and I separated a while ago. I just don't like sniping and injustice.

Regards

Annie


Annie,
Firstly I'd like to say I have tremendous regard for David , both for his courage in speaking out against the Libyan plot, for enduring the show trial, and his subsequent efforts to inform us about the workings of the PTB.

However, I admit that the NPT thing goes right over my head (no pun intended).

To me it's like if I was invited to speak to an audience about 911 - successfully revealing the blatant and obvious cover story coincidences and cover-up, and then when asked how, leaning into camera and saying it was Bush's tame captured space aliens and their superbeam whizz weapon wot done it.

No matter how compelling the case made up to that point, the baby and all the carefully won credibility goes out with the metaphorical TV audience bathwater.

And I don't understand the reason why NPT is even necessary...
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 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
John White wrote:
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?"



John - please let people answer for themselves - you as a moderator should know that is the decent thing to do


Skilfully, if rather obviously avoided TTWSU3.

The answer of course is that a variety of means could have been used, and speculating which one in particular was used does not advance us one inch towards solving who organised and benefitted from the crime.
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 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
John - please let people answer for themselves - you as a moderator should know that is the decent thing to do


Moderator's should be seen and not heard huh?

I don't think so TWSU3: will you also be asking Andrew not to accuse members of being paid to post with no evidance? No of course not.

Chek: TWSU3 did tackle the Q on another thread:

TWSU3 wrote:
I would say "no one was on those planes because they were tv trickery -
what you saw was an image of a plane followed by an explosion, did you know that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly that day, and did you know that they found no black boxes which are made of the most indestructable material on the planet and yet they found mmohammed attas passport in the street, there were no air crash investigations and there was no wreckage other than a few planted parts.

I urge all viewers to go to www.blablabla and watch the slow motion replays - you will not believe your eyes - the plane meets no resistance upon impact, it melts into the building like a ghost and no wreckage falls to the ground.

And did you know that with all the media gathered there with their high tech cameras and gadgetary there is not one clear picture showing the livery of the plane that hit wtc.

Don't believe me viewers check it out now - visit www,blablabla

And Mr TV interviewer you and your company have been complicit in suppressing this information for the past 5 years - shame on you

What have you got to say to that?????


We'll let that stand on its own merits

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
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 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:
There's a similar thread running in the Articles section, with further comments there. Can the moderators combine the two?


Wilco Annie: combining this one here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5758

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World


Last edited by John White on Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
And I don't understand the reason why NPT is even necessary...


You and me both, Chek. We all have better things to campaign around.

But the guy speaks the truth as he sees it, and I have to say that in all his years of whistleblowing he hasn't been pulled up factually yet.

Thanks for the supportive comments, BTW. After character assassinations in the press, I do get a little irked by keyboard activists carping from the sidelines over the detail (even if I agree with the principle of their arguments!!).

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.


Last edited by Annie on Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 830
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, John, and there's one in Events too!
_________________
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
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:
Sorry, John, and there's one in Events too!


Sorted Annie Cool

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jason67
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 129
Location: SE London

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Shayler spoke about NP at the end?
Even though I cant get my head around the NPT I still think that it was a positive step for our cause.
He should be congratulated on the interview as I think he spoke very well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thermate
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:
OK, next time I get a request for a live TV interview about Litvinenko, spookery or terrorism, do you want me to put you forward for it, Thermate?
I'd just hope next time he gets a chance like that he sticks to the conventional evidence rather than the more ahem *radical* and remote possibilities. A question remains why he did mention it, its possible it was some clever play to encourage debate/research but if so it was miscalculated.

Annie wrote:
This was a marvellous, unpremeditated opportunity.
Agreed and you both show great courage doing what you do so publicly, but again, why mention NPT?

Annie wrote:
I just don't like sniping and injustice.
I think you'll find I'm not alone thinking mentioning NPT was a huge mistake. Perhaps with hindsight DS even sees it himself, I should hope so...
_________________
Make love, not money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Annie.

I've only just heard about the Sky interview, which I have not been able to watch. Is there a problem with the server or do I need new software?

I am thrilled that Dave had a chance to speak on 9/11 but puzzled that I can find no trace of the story on Sky News' website, or Google new search.

I didn't know you weren't together . That must have been after I saw you both in Norwich. You made a great team -- are you still doing the talks together?

I am a terrific admirer of Dave's but I was sorry to see him being rubbished on www.911blogger, where I have recently been called a 'patsy' and a 'plant' for defending the right of people to talk about controversial issues including beam weapons, which I find extremely interesting. Oh - the best one was 'black-hearted devil'. That is a label I can't say I identify with , but who knows? Maybe being called a 'spook is proof that you have arrived as an activist.

Andrew LW
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 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
Chek: TWSU3 did tackle the Q on another thread


Cheers for the heads up John

John White wrote:
We'll let that stand on its own merits


Quite.
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 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:

And Joe Smith, watches in astonishment and thinks...

"I SAW planes with my own eyes, and there were people talking about them, and the passengers, and... What does this guy think the media ALL conspired to dupe us or something.. yeesh he's a nutter. 9/11 conspiracy.. gotta avoid those guys"


Errr... have you left the keyboard and been out onto your local high street recently?

You are already a conspiracy nutter.

Yes you and your controlled demo theory. Or 'let's roll' was fake theory. Or Osama never did it theory.

We're far too busy thinking our own version[s] of events are the one's that make us the rational one's.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Annie wrote:

But the guy speaks the truth as he sees it, and I have to say that in all his years of whistleblowing he hasn't been pulled up factually yet.


Apart from on Pam Am flight 103...

Where he is.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

utopiated wrote:
Annie wrote:

But the guy speaks the truth as he sees it, and I have to say that in all his years of whistleblowing he hasn't been pulled up factually yet.


Apart from on Pam Am flight 103...



Very true......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trouble in the Ivory Tower

I am honored to be a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth , although I didn’t know I was a member until I got a letter informing me of trouble in The Ivory Tower and asking me to vote on the future of the movement. Before I get into what details I am aware of let me set a little background and stage some scenery for the points I want to make. I consider these points critical and I want them understood; not defeated by a lack of presentation or my own limitations.

For a long time I considered this site the definitive 9/11 Truth site. I have great respect for a number of the members and I appreciated their approach which was based on science and reason. There are some things wrong with the 9/11 Truth movement. Some of these things are the result of faulty reasoning and wild speculation that are often the grounds on which rational thinkers reject what they might otherwise thoughtfully consider. It’s what gets some people and groups the sobriquet of ‘tinfoil hats’ and ‘wild eyed conspiracy nuts’. The other thing wrong is the disinfo specialists. These are organizations like The US Government, organized religion and their sycophants, Main Stream Media, e.g. Popular Mechanics magazine and their talking heads, alleged experts and catamite journalists. On the one side are those who don’t know what they’re talking about and on the other side are those who may or may not know what they are talking about but are more than comfortable with lying for a position or paycheck.

9/11 Scholars for Truth has a remarkable membership of serious and distinguished academics, artists, former government officials and international figures. You may argue with their findings but you would need powerful front credentials and a dump-truck load of obfuscating bs to do it. You cannot argue with their education, experience and credibility. Of course, you could but minds capable of objective reasoning would wonder about this.

There is a third problem that attacks the credibility of any movement and that is ‘personalities on the make’, individuals who are using a platform of public interest as a springboard to the increase of their own celebrity. This is the major feature that kept me from being involved in certain Pro-Peace and anti-War movements. This is what keeps me and others with a sense of personal dignity from joining organizations whose purpose we might sympathize with but whose figureheads we hold in contempt. The issue of concern should always triumph over the ambitions of the barnacles, lampreys and ticks who attach themselves to the body of our best interests. We see this phenomenon in many areas of endeavor and the reform movements whose purpose is to transform these arenas.

It is contemptible that ill made personalities would engage in such antics. They do terrible harm, witness Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. These men and women put their career ambitions ahead of the public good and they kill our faith and they stall our desire to join in the effort to make this world a better place. Whether this is possible I leave to your capacity to believe and imagine… but I submit we should never stop trying. Let me offer my respect and admiration for all of you who have put your principles before the advancement of your personality. There are fewer of you than there should be but the impact of what you do upon the culture and the lives of your fellows cannot be overestimated.

Lately 9/11 Scholars for Truth has been exhibiting some bizarre behavior. We see discussion of theories such as the use of ‘high tech energy weapons’ and the idea that no planes were used in the attacks. Perhaps the first occurred, I don’t know but the latter is absurd… and though anything is possible, promoting this angle is harmful to the 9/11 Truth movement. It’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder just as the absurdity of the government's explanation makes you wonder.

These are ideas that Professor James Fetzer is advancing and he is doing other things as well. I am printing the letter I received as a member at the end of this article. Nowhere in the letter am I told that this is a privileged communication. I feel therefore that I can make it public since it was placed in my hands without a disclaimer. Secondly, we are about truth, therefore let the truth be known. If I have offended 9/11 Scholars for Truth and if this means I can no longer be a member so be it. Whatever details I might have included here can be found in this letter at the end of the article so let me use the rest of the space for my perspective on the matter.

I happen to admire a lot of what Professor Fetzer has done and appreciate his hard work and courage. I equally admire the co-founder, Dr. Steven Jones and many of the membership with whose work I am familiar. I cannot judge whether Professor Fetzer has gone off the rails but something is wrong and it is hurting ‘our’ efforts and it’s got to be fixed. Before we police the world we had damn well better police ourselves. The possibility that so many prestigious scholars might be compromised by juvenile ambitions and wooly thinking is offensive to me. This is just the sort of weapon that the enemies of truth lust after. It is potentially as devastating as whatever brought down the WTC.

We need to come together as one voice and we need to pressure Congress to empanel members from this distinguished community of scholars to present their findings in a public forum. If the new leaders of Congress refuse to do this; stonewall, delay, dance out of range or utilize any of the tactics of procrastination and attenuation then we may rightly assume that they are bought off by the same forces that brought the towers down.

There is no reason why such a large collection of eminent scholars and researchers should not be allowed their place in the debate that so far has never taken place. Let’s set the facts of what was observed to happen on the table and then let ‘both sides’ argue their findings before the court of public opinion. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the public hear both arguments as to how and why the buildings came down. Surely the evidence of one side or the other will prevail. Let us see what that may be. Is this not how it should be in a democratic society? Are we not always hearing about the public’s right to know?

Citizens of America demand your right to know. Members of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth, let’s get ourselves together. Let’s sort this out. What 9/11 Scholars for Truth should be engaged in is getting sympathetic members of Congress to open hearings into this sad, stinking mess. It is less important to be pushing theories and arguments than it is to bring the argument to center stage. This is the important thing. Congress MUST act. Our sole purpose should be to get them to act. We can present all of our arguments then. Sooner or later it must come to this. Therefore, the sooner the better. Let’s make it happen or I will begin to suspect everyone and I would rather not.

Here is the body of the letter I received. The links are inactive but if you are of a mind you can trace them. I have removed the return email for voting, that seems appropriate.



“Dear members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

Thank you for your commitment to the truth, and your willingness to participate in this journey for truth and justice relating to the events of 9/11.

A scholars group was founded on the initiative of Prof. Marcus Ford, who sent out a call via 911truth.org asking if there were other academics who questioned the official 911 story. About 30 responded and became the nucleus. In emails amongst the group, Prof. Jim Fetzer suggested a formal organization with himself and Prof. Steven Jones as co-chairs. The society was organized with two co-chairs, with no president or by-laws or treasury, and it was understood that the group would be a member-owned organization. Steven Jones, Alex Floum and Carl Weis formed a steering committee along with Jim Fetzer. Carl created the logos. Alex pushed the creation of a website, purchased the domain names for the website, and has at all times hosted the website. It was understood that this was done for the group, not for an individual. The original goals of the group were to use the scientific method to investigate the evidence and "let the chips fall where they may".

Since the group was formed, we have launched a website (ScholarsFor911Truth.org), created a peer-reviewed online journal (Journalof911Studies.com) and a private moderated discussion forum for the participation of all members. We have made inroads in the mainstream media and have helped to "move the ball down field" for 9/11 Truth.

Problems have now arisen with the management of the website, currently in the hands of Prof. Jim Fetzer. Many members have pointed out that some of the material displayed there is no longer in accord with our original aims, and personal attacks on members have appeared. Positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth.

Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which many of us consider to be both discrediting and unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.

While we would rather focus on 9/11 research and activism, and do not lightly bother the members with this matter, the "dirty laundry" and non-scientific theories raised by Jim Fetzer are now very public. For example, one of the largest papers in the Twin Cities has covered this -- blogs.citypages.com/blott...of_c_1.asp -- and a well-read blog says "scholars for 9/11 Truth [are] tearing one another new impact holes over speculation on space-based beam weaponry", see rigint.blogspot.com/. In addition, the website now prominently displays a letter titled "Scholars: On Its First Anniversary" which contains inaccurate statements and ad hominen attacks. All of the momentum and progress made by the Scholars is rapidly being destroyed by the current situation. Many of the members strenuously dispute the accuracy of Jim's statements as quoted in these articles, and can provide detailed refutations. These statements are damaging the credibility of the group and, we are concerned, the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Moreover, Jim is using the website as his personal blog, posting non-9/11 related political commentary from a liberal perspective. While there is nothing wrong with a liberal or conservative perspective, we believe the site should be non-partisan.

The current scholars website & group will shortly become two websites & groups. The hope is that both efforts will contribute to the goals of achieving an end to 9/11 cover-ups and wars, that members of both groups will conduct themselves with civility and common sense and have fidelity to the scientific method and its results.

Group Structure 1: This group is proposed to have an elected steering committee in charge of the website and its contents. Administrative positions will be limited to one year. Important decisions affecting the whole group will be submitted via email to the membership.

This proposal emerged from discussions on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Forum as a means to return the web site to the guiding principles of applying the scientific method, performing experiments and analyses, and publishing results and findings with civility. While novel theories would be welcome, and openly discussed, only theories well supported by evidence would be promoted.

A new website is being created which will be attached to the peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies. (Click www.taulbee.us/stj911/ to see the beginnings of this new site, and www.journalof911studies.com/
to see the Journal contents, and its advisory board.)

This proposal is backed by all of the members of the ad hoc committee as well as an overwhelming majority of members participating in a straw poll on the group's forum.

Group Structure 2: Jim Fetzer has proposed an alternative structure for the existing website (scholarsfor911truth.org). In this proposal he would appoint a board which would have control of the website and could appoint members and webmaster by 2/3rds majority. The board would not be bound by the guiding principles set out above but would be free to establish its own. (Members Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and others have declined to be part of Jim Fetzer?s proposed re-organization.)

We ask you to select which group structure you would prefer to be registered with. You may also opt for both group structures, or neither.

Whichever group structure receives the majority of member votes [by Dec 6 at 5 pm eastern] may become entitled, but will not be required, to use the name, domain, logo, and all the links which have been attached. Negotiation on this area is proceeding (and Jim Fetzer may be accorded use of the " st911.org" site address as a matter of courtesy even if the majority chooses Group 1.)

Membership is closed during the voting period.

To sum up, the two choices before you are:

1. Group Structure 1, with a new website associated with the Journal of 9/11 Studies, run by an elected committee, and stressing theories for which there is strong empirical evidence, OR

2. Group Structure 2, with the website run by Jim Fetzer, and a board that he appoints.

To vote simply "reply" to this email

You may elect to register with "1" or "2" by simply typing the number in the subject line of your reply.

If you wish, you may elect to remove your name from the membership listing entirely at this time by typing "Remove" in the subject line. You may also elect to remain on both websites by typing "Both" in the subject line. Any vote in which the meaning is clear will be accepted no matter how expressed.

Members who do not reply by 5:00 p.m. U.S. Eastern Standard Time on December 7, 2006 will be placed in a pending category on both sites for further consultation.

If there are queries regarding this proposal contact the membership administrator at st911@gmail.org .

Please expect to see an email from Prof. Fetzer shortly outlining the advantages of remaining with his website.”

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi brian, how about we start our own www.workingclasspeoplefor911truth.com instead of relying on these ego crazed demagogue's who've spent too long telling us jackie's what to do?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brian
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, ally, it looks like those type are everywhere and round and round we would go.
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, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 3 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