9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

TonyGosling wrote:...Quality ass kicking...

That's what i'm talking about! Right there. BAM!

You do know a fellow moderator frequently spouts NPT poop the accuses people who disagree of being shills, right?

Hi Commanderson

"But you (and david) have gotta understand that us here in the conspiracy theorey community (If we can call it that) are a suspicious bunch, ..."

And long may it continue.

"This is why I would disagree with skeptic and ask David to directly address his no planes ideas on his radio show, ..."

Not sure if he's going to now. The general consensus seemed to be that he shouldn't. He's on air at the moment, and I didn't go to the studio with him. And my computer's soundcard is bust, so I can't hear the show.

Remember, he only hinted at other explanations on Sky. Perhaps we should all be suspicious of you for advocating a course of action which will highlight in public the NPT!

"if he wanted to convince the masses that 9/11 was an inside job he should stick to the nuts and bolts of drills, norad stand down, hijackers alive, controlled demolition, al CIAda, and all those other good teflon arguments."

I seem to remember he did cover most of that too on the Sky interview.

"Surely it would not be too much to ask for him to put down some words to us converted about his controverial interpretation of the conspiracy,..."

I have, and he said he would, but again surely it's airing a divisive issue to do so??

"Another thing about you guys that makes me suspicious, is your latecoming to revelations about 9/11, with all your insider knowledge on how the brits and americans worked with Al Qaeda, why were you not right there blowing the whistle from the start with all the other truth campaigners?"

I have actually explained this before on the forum, as you would have seen if you had been on it longer yourself. But, yes, I look back in amazement myself that it took so long.

In 2001 we were indeed busy blowing the whistle, just not about this. When 911 happened we were trapped in a hideously frustrating and protracted court case. When Dave returned voluntarily to the UK in August 2000 he expected to be put on trial within 6 months. However, the forces of darkness strung it out for over 2 years, closing down his defence step by step. He finally appeared before a jury in October 2002, was convicted, and was in prison (Belmarsh for half the time) and then on parole for 6 months.

Once he was free, we hid away for that summer, and I wrote the book. I then had to submit it to MI5 or face prison. They sat on it for 15 months, during which time we struggled to survive financially (no change there then!), but also spent a huge amount of time travelling the country campaigning for Stop the War. This only ended when we started talking about 911 on their platforms.

Once the book came out in March 2005, we spent a lot of time trying to promote it ourselves - the publishers were, at best, useless at this. It was during a trip to an NUJ conference that we met Simon Ralli, and he started talking about 911. He put us in contact with Xmasdale, who came to see us, and from that moment we were hooked. It was so bleeding obvious.

So that's the reason for the delay. We were absorbed in the detail of our own particular fight, and didn't examine the bigger picture closely enough.

Regards

Annie

i dont see many people insulting david here (although the shill comments are uncalled for and pointless) just voicing their dissapointment about npt and david mentioning it. which isn't the same thing as being rude and nasty, and i would hope that annie and david are pleased that members of this community are being honest about what they think. most of us who feel uneasy about npt are focused on the best course for success.

i have much respect for the work you both do as i said when i saw you guys in manchester. but i really think david needs to consider our opinions rather than just doing his campaigning in a kind of isolated fashion. after all we all do a lot of research on 9/11 and have a lot of experience with bringing the theories we hold to other members of the public. i realise dave is under a lot of pressure as he is such an important figure to us. i believe he really can change the face of history if his approach is well thought out and socially aware.

i honesty think there is a MASSIVE step between the idea that a government has killed 3000 of its own people to pursue adventuristic foreign policy, and holograms. and i really dont think that the idea that 9/11 was a false flag operation is beyond the comprehension of even the MAJORITY of the population. i have brought 9/11 up in conversation many times with people i meet socially, and explained to them what i believe and why in the most rational way possible.. in doing so most of the people i have spoken to who actually give a nonsense about any global issues are now of the opinion that 9/11 was a false flag op. if i mentioned no planes before i mentioned the pakistani isi, i'm sure they wouldn't be.

dave is doing great work at getting on shows like heaven and hell and sky news!! who else is in the uk?? NOONE!!! he's really our only hope!!!! sorry if this sounds really negative but theres so much riding on this.. i really don't want things to go tits up!

i can't believe david isn't being more careful in his approach. surely the path to success is to gain as much credibilty as possible from the mainstream media and our own MPs!! i don't hold them in high regard either, but they're not all in on it and they're not all 100% state loyal self censors. if we hold our hands up and say 'noone in the msm or establishment is ever going to consider what we are saying! lets talk about what we want and hope we get a few new converts!' then the 'truth movement' is always going to be an underground culty thing and personally i'm not comfortable with that

"if he wanted to convince the masses that 9/11 was an inside job he should stick to the nuts and bolts of drills, norad stand down, hijackers alive, controlled demolition, al CIAda, and all those other good teflon arguments."

"I seem to remember he did cover most of that too on the Sky interview."

Agreed, he did give a lot of credible nuts and bolts evidence in this interveiw, but this is what makes the no planer stuff all the worse, as it marrs all the good stuff he said with this no plane theorey

"Remember, he only hinted at other explanations on Sky. Perhaps we should all be suspicious of you for advocating a course of action which will highlight in public the NPT!"

Could he have made his outing of NPT MORE public?
he hinted at the theorey that no planes hit those building, and was looked at by the presenter as if he were mentally ill, and this is what the public were left with. If he indeed holds this point of veiw he should state it clearly, maybe in the less public forum of say this forum, where his peers may debate this, and make him aware of how damaging it may prove to the overall truth movement.

"Surely it would not be too much to ask for him to put down some words to us converted about his controverial interpretation of the conspiracy,..."

"I have, and he said he would, but again surely it's airing a divisive issue to do so??"

You have so far defended him, without explaining why he might believe in this no planer stuff, I look foreward to his response and explanation of his theoreys and the way he chose to air them.
You are saying we might be suspicious of my intentions for wanting him to bring up this divisive issue, on a small forum, or internet radio station. But David chose to bring it up on a national TV show!
All I want to hear is why he believes that there were no planes that hit the WTC, and why he chose to tag on this highly contentious and loony sounding theorey on to half an hour of solid evidence.

You seem not to believe in the NPT - good, well reasoned, and until David chirps up we should maybe stick to swapping our own opinions rather than speculating over someone elses.

Incidentally I just listened to Alex Jones's show with David and was somewhat bemused that he didn't pull him up over the no planes ending, but here I am speculating over another persons opinions again, whoops!

peace annie, seriosly I do want to think we are all in it together alongside those with more oppertunity for exposure like yourselves, it just makes me jittery to hear such bloopers alongside the good stuff coming from the famous folk.

commanderson wrote:"if he wanted to convince the masses that 9/11 was an inside job he should stick to the nuts and bolts of drills, norad stand down, hijackers alive, controlled demolition, al CIAda, and all those other good teflon arguments."

"I seem to remember he did cover most of that too on the Sky interview."

Agreed, he did give a lot of credible nuts and bolts evidence in this interveiw, but this is what makes the no planer stuff all the worse, as it marrs all the good stuff he said with this no plane theorey

"Remember, he only hinted at other explanations on Sky. Perhaps we should all be suspicious of you for advocating a course of action which will highlight in public the NPT!"

Could he have made his outing of NPT MORE public?
he hinted at the theorey that no planes hit those building, and was looked at by the presenter as if he were mentally ill, and this is what the public were left with. If he indeed holds this point of veiw he should state it clearly, maybe in the less public forum of say this forum, where his peers may debate this, and make him aware of how damaging it may prove to the overall truth movement.

"Surely it would not be too much to ask for him to put down some words to us converted about his controverial interpretation of the conspiracy,..."

"I have, and he said he would, but again surely it's airing a divisive issue to do so??"

You have so far defended him, without explaining why he might believe in this no planer stuff, I look foreward to his response and explanation of his theoreys and the way he chose to air them.
You are saying we might be suspicious of my intentions for wanting him to bring up this divisive issue, on a small forum, or internet radio station. But David chose to bring it up on a national TV show!
All I want to hear is why he believes that there were no planes that hit the WTC, and why he chose to tag on this highly contentious and loony sounding theorey on to half an hour of solid evidence.

You seem not to believe in the NPT - good, well reasoned, and until David chirps up we should maybe stick to swapping our own opinions rather than speculating over someone elses.

Incidentally I just listened to Alex Jones's show with David and was somewhat bemused that he didn't pull him up over the no planes ending, but here I am speculating over another persons opinions again, whoops!

peace annie, seriosly I do want to think we are all in it together alongside those with more oppertunity for exposure like yourselves, it just makes me jittery to hear such bloopers alongside the good stuff coming from the famous folk.

As I understand it the aim of this movement is to wake up as many people as possible to the fact that 911 was an inside job.

I'm disappointed that David did not go into more depth on no planes

He could have given out some web sites and get viewers to check it for themselves.

If he had said directly - there were no planes - but don't believe me check it out on www.blablabla.com

You lot just dont get it do you? - when you want to get a message out then saying something controversial is going to get more people to take notice

He could have said

"there were no planes - invite me back and allow me 10 minutes to present this to you - or are you scared the truth will get out on Sky TV"

DO YOU ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
If he had said directly - there were no planes - but don't believe me check it out on www.blablabla.com

You lot just dont get it do you? - when you want to get a message out then saying something controversial is going to get more people to take notice

I've tried to find something there already but cannae find a thing, the facts are there are hundreds of eye witnesses to planes crashing into the buildings Willian rodreguez confirms it was actual real planes that crashed into the buildings, there's photo's of people hanging out of plane shaped holes in the sides of wtc, there's engines in the streets, threre's the noise of aircraft accellerating and crashing into the buildings, even if there is some mocked up footage making the impacts look fake I think the facts are still stacked in favour of aircraft having hit the towers.
If you have some more info to persuade me that no planes were there, I would be happy to look at it, until then the no plane stuff is just pure disinfo.
And I believe accusing a secret cabal running the world from behind all governments, of conducting the 9/11, is quite controversial eneough for most, the idea of hollographical planes flying into the towers will just sound nutty to all

There's a lot more evidence for planes than against planes. Why make the Op more complex than it needs to be? ...and more risky? I think its obvious it was exceedingly well planned, anyone whose done planning knows risk management is big a part of that planning.

Why fake planes? What compelling need is there for it? NPT has its foundations on quicksand and is divisive to the message and the movement.

Agreed thermate, there's no need for this no plane scenario, either from the perpetrators or us investigators, so why does it exist? - as a dis-crediting dis-info project

Thermate wrote:There's a lot more evidence for planes than against planes. Why make the Op more complex than it needs to be? ...and more risky? I think its obvious it was exceedingly well planned, anyone whose done planning knows risk management is big a part of that planning.

Why fake planes? What compelling need is there for it? NPT has its foundations on quicksand and is divisive to the message and the movement.

Why is it divisive? No planes may be wrong or right. Remote piloting may be wrong or right. Suicide hijackers may be wrong or right. Why do you not think remote piloting or suicide hijackers are divisive?

Shayler & wife are ex MI5. Do you think MI5 would let them go about telling all and sundry a story that was not in their interest?

Our enemy is everywhere, pretending to be our friend. Watch the Murdoch (clue) Sky TV interview. What a double act! Look at it with sceptical eyes. What do you see and hear. Even the 5 Israelis icon gets twisted. Shayler could have said they were dressed as Arabs, but he leaves the last word to Marigold (a name very similar to Mangold, Dr Kelly's 'friend' and CIA biographer) who says the Mossad boys were 'excited' not laughing and cheering. Laurel & Hardy. Morecambe and Wise.

I can see the headlines in the Sundays...

CONSPIRACY NUT SHAYLER CLAIMS PLANES WERE HOLOGRAMS

...cut to home movie clearly showing planes and outraged WTC witnesses...

Q Is there a huge conspiracy of silence about 911? Yes.
Q Who is keeping it quiet? A http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... media.html
Q Name a thought crime A Holocaust denial
Q Who controls ecstasy, porn, the US and UK administrations A .......
Q What are you going to do about it? A Nothing?

There are no easy targets. There are no white knights. There is only you and me. We damn well better get it right.

If you want more visit posts by rodin @ www.goldismoney.info about what brought the towers down etc

dB

ps sorry if someone has already flagged this Shay-op up already. I'm new around here...

A good read www.judicial.inc.biz and links from there.

numeral wrote:Why do you think remote piloting or suicide hijackers are not divisive?

Remote piloting technology exists and in fact has been fitted to all Boeing planes, before or after 911 I'm not sure, there's been a large court case about it. Suicide Bombers exist. Hijackers exist. I'll refer you to my response in the other NPT thread.

Thermate wrote:Some simple science experiments for all you NPT'ers.

1) Buy a can of pop, lay it on the ground on its side, stand on it. Open it, drink the contents, repeat the experiment. Note the result.

2) Take a tin of beans, try to puncture it with the blunt end of a spoon. Now take a knife, with angled edges and a point, just like the body(point) and wings(angled edges) on that plane. Note the result.

NPT has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Thermate wrote:

numeral wrote:Why do you think remote piloting or suicide hijackers are not divisive?

Remote piloting technology exists and in fact has been fitted to all Boeing planes, before or after 911 I'm not sure, there's been a large court case about it. Suicide Bombers exist. Hijackers exist. I'll refer you to my response in the other NPT thread.

Thermate wrote:Some simple science experiments for all you NPT'ers.

1) Buy a can of pop, lay it on the ground on its side, stand on it. Open it, drink the contents, repeat the experiment. Note the result.

2) Take a tin of beans, try to puncture it with the blunt end of a spoon. Now take a knife, with angled edges and a point, just like the body(point) and wings(angled edges) on that plane. Note the result.

NPT has no scientific basis whatsoever.

OK, you are saying that theories are divisive if the technology they are based on does not exist. Hologram technology, beam weapon technology. You may be right there, I don't know. CGI technology, however, does exist.

So why is a CGI based no plane theory, right or wrong, divisive?
Why is remote piloting theory, right or wrong, not divisive?

CGI would imply a fair number of reporters and techical staff in on the scam. It would rely on too many people as witnesses thinking they saw something, when they saw nothing or something other than they thought they saw. It proposes that independent video footage could all be controlled in some way or other. Is there anyone who saw the thing on the telly on the day and had a good idea what it was about from the image at least of the 2nd plane hit, who believes the CGI theory?
The holographic theory allows for many of the inconsistencies of the wtc events, and even for the various witness reports from the Pentagon.
It presents a real apparition to be filmed and seen, though certain shots may have a cartoonish appearence, as may be expected, for a realtime 3D animation.
Still, I hardly regard the argument as sufficient justification for endless threads or general public presentation.. The precious doltheads need to be nurtured.

numeral wrote:So why is a CGI based no plane theory, right or wrong, divisive?

Its unrealistic, far fetched, but more importantly unneeded. Some people seem to see something in the theory, that splits the movement between people who believe in a realistic series of events and people who believe in unrealistic series of events based on fantasy physics and guesswork. i.e. NPT/Beam Weps. That's why its divisive.

We, as a movement, don't present a united front based on realistic and believable information. Which is exactly the way "they" would like us...

Thermate wrote:

numeral wrote:So why is a CGI based no plane theory, right or wrong, divisive?

Its unrealistic, far fetched, but more importantly unneeded. Some people seem to see something in the theory, that splits the movement between people who believe in a realistic series of events and people who believe in unrealistic series of events based on fantasy physics and guesswork. i.e. NPT/Beam Weps. That's why its divisive.

We, as a movement, don't present a united front based on realistic and believable information. Which is exactly the way "they" would like us...

OK, remote piloting, right or wrong, is realistic and believable, something we can unite behind?

NPT is a false flag. You are meant to be good at recognising these!Shayler is setting us up, or he has been duped. Does he sound stupid to you? Talks about aliens in Iraq too I believe. What do YOU think of him? I started off being thankful someone was on the side of truth now I think he is a very clever double agent. I don't know of course.

Good analysis of the demolitions. With real plane shots.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5308136871

Lets knock this NPT weapon of self destruction on the head. At least for WTC.

i do believe this npt is going to stop the truth coming out, when people are listening to what you have to say about 9/11, they can see your point without even mentioning npt. the number one reason no one will believe in npt is so simple. on 9/11 we were shown shots over and over of a plane going into the building. if you ask anyone which image sticks in there head from 9/11 it will be the plane going into the building. so as soon as anyone says no planes they will imediatly shut down and stop listening and brand you as a looney and wont bother to research. i mean why would you need to research when you know a plane did hit the building that must make everything else they were told false to. if npt is true or not people wont connect the dots when they are being told that what they saw with there own eyes was'nt there.

Having been away for a few days, I've just this morning seen the interview David Shayler did on Sky.

Absolutely brilliantly handled, and well done David, got all the points across and he came over very well. No one seemed to notice that the other interviewee, who was sceptical, just did not put any points across in his arguments of any value, all he could imply was "Oh well, conspiracy theorists, you know... (shrug shoulders) they crop up everywhere."

And with the BBC doing a programme about this subject in the New Year (albeit it looks like their slant will be "Do you know that incredibly there are people who doubt that 9/11 happened the way we have been told") it does at long last appear that the slothfull mainstream media just cannot ignore the issue any longer.

Hearty congratulations David, well done.

Having watched the interview twice now, I believe that Shaylers no-plane "turd in the punch-bowl" theory controversy can be seen in a number of ways.

His first allusion to the NP theory is the key. It comes after David's factual summary of the planes listed as not taking off that day and the lack of flight forensics at ground zero. This leads him, albeit prematurely, to surmise that there is no evidence that the planes went into the towers. This is done imo, to highlight conspiracy potential for the viewer.

David's first response to the interviewer's first plane-based question - "what about the video?" in my opinion is an attempt to maintain momentum. On a roll at that point I think David, rather than be cut short by admitting to the video-evidence of planes hitting the towers, throws another piece of conspiracy potential in, ie "slow down the footage and look at it for yourself"

If David had have simply said "well of course we all know that planes hit the towers" he may have just lost momentum and been cut off. Interviewers wait for that kind of moment to switch argumentative perspective. As soon as a guest agrees with the interviewer, he agrees with the Station and therefore agrees with the Agenda. Job done, Joe Public hasn't been moved or shocked into thinking for himself...phew...let's bolster the agenda some more with the other guest.

It's live telly. It's what they're trained to do. Instead, David uses his wide ranging knowledge of all 9/11 theories out there to keep the ball that he's running with. To stay on the offensive.

I have to say though that I think to actually end the debate on the NPT was unfortunate. It leaves people with a "conspiracy overload" rather than any truth-seeker intrigue.

Saying that though, why not throw some more conspiracy theories into the pot? Why not sensationalise a little? Creates a bit of hysteria doesn't it? It may actually get people to dust off their old recordings of that day to see what he's actually talking about and slow down the footage. There you go, new investigations are underway in households across the land...in goes the tape..

"hmmm," says Joe Public as he tracks forward and back..."there's a plane..I think..but..wait a sec..those fires weren't that big at all were they?..and hmmm...why is there no mention of WTC7 on this BBC special I recorded?, wow..think I'll dig a little deeper into this..."


I think David did well over all. Let's face it, when has he had such a free ranging oppportunity? We all make mistakes.

No "no-plane theory" next time though Dave ey?

Saying that though, is there any room for censorship in the truth-movement..?

The lasting impression was Shayler is nuts. He definitely made it look like he believed no plane hit WTC.

The reason the plane looks like it is 'melting' into the building is because the building is offering little resistance. Most of the outside wall is an open lattice. Its that old cliche of the potato + the cheesewire tennis racket (quick way to make chips)

But consider this

1) Confusion about David 'it was a missile' and Marigoldround 'my friend saw a plane'

2) Marigoldround gets to spin the 5DI story round to 'they were excited'

3) Both agreed to support the moon landing hoax (anyone who thinks it wasn't just has not done their homework.

Nope. Another one bites the dust as far as I am concerned

Plus has anyone seen

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=90502

Check out 'indiana' jones' contribution here

I missed this thread, well I can't comment on all of them, and I think David did a pretty good job. Most people will drop the NPT pretty quick and after seeing the online documentaries will figure it out. In a way David is taking the piss out of the shills (they love walking so I've been told) by using their own bs.

I've downloaded the vid and well chop it up and do some edited versions. You know short sharp shocks which are good to post on forums.

I hope you are right Patrick. The TV did look powerful - at first at least. But the NPT - why? why? Why if not to leave an achilles heel for MSM arrows to fire at?

Shayler is a pro. Pro's don't make mistakes like that.

Like Alex Jones he has done a great job of spreading the message that something is wrong with the planet, and it isn't just French pop music. In a sense, if the ARE limited hangouts they have still been net positive, because once people start to question & test it will become a habit, and they too will be put in the firing line of criticism.

Maybe Shayler has been reading too much Sherman Skolnick?

OK Here's a physicts question

What melts steel but does not boil water? (I need the answer)

Thermate wrote: Its unrealistic, far fetched, but more importantly unneeded. Some people seem to see something in the theory, that splits the movement between people who believe in a realistic series of events and people who believe in unrealistic series of events based on fantasy physics and guesswork. i.e. NPT/Beam Weps. That's why its divisive.

We, as a movement, don't present a united front based on realistic and believable information.

Look this is just bunk.

We're trying to decode what was/is essentially a compartmentalised black operation and thus there is no "realistic series of events' in the eyes of the wider world. By it's nature, investigating covert ops means a degree of speculation and MULTIPLE answers/possibilities.

The 9/11 movementment is so focused on the intricacies of what made buildings fall that it's become a thought crime to widen the net and look at the many other issues surrounding this episode, the many other similar and related projects that these groups are carrying out.

There won't be a united front *beyond* the general agreement that things didn't happen the way the official line wants us to believe.

This movement has always argued. What's changed recently is the lack of tolerance for areas of investigation which has made me consider the possibilty of jumping into a space ship and heading to Mars if there's some kind of wholesale replacement of people/systems if/when this ever reaches a critical mass. There's an uninformed intolerance that's expanding here and it's not a good sign for creating the sort of structures many of us want to live by.

Friction

Im sorry to throw further controversy out on this forum, but I just want to give you ALL some perspective ;

Which of the following 2 perspectives is more likely ?

A)The biblical character Jesus never existed, and There were no planes at the towers ?

B) The biblical character jesus did exist, and there were planes at the towers ?

Anyone who goes for option B is unquestionably sadly deluded based upon historical fact.

Im not a no planer at the towers btw, but I instantly recognise combination A as a far more likely scenario, however unlikely that the combination may actually appear to be.

And my point is this. However much some peoples truth appears on the face of it to be THE truth, the lies and deceptions thrust upon us all, from birth to death are far greater than ANYONE would believe.

And finally, as a 9/11 community, I truly find all this fragmentation to be frankly ridiculous. Annie has alreadly pointed out how the Oligarchs must be wetting themselves at our division. The point we should all be aware of and emphasise until the cows come home, is that the official story is THE lie, and it is those touting the official theory whom the spotlight should continuously be focused upon !

Just my two-penneth
[/b][/u]

Abandoned Ego wrote:Im sorry to throw further controversy out on this forum, but I just want to give you ALL some perspective ;

Which of the following 2 perspectives is more likely ?

A)The biblical character Jesus never existed, and There were no planes at the towers ?

B) The biblical character jesus did exist, and there were planes at the towers ?

Anyone who goes for option B is unquestionably sadly deluded based upon historical fact.

Im not a no planer at the towers btw, but I instantly recognise combination A as a far more likely scenario, however unlikely that the combination may actually appear to be.

And my point is this. However much some peoples truth appears on the face of it to be THE truth, the lies and deceptions thrust upon us all, from birth to death are far greater than ANYONE would believe.

And finally, as a 9/11 community, I truly find all this fragmentation to be frankly ridiculous. Annie has alreadly pointed out how the Oligarchs must be wetting themselves at our division. The point we should all be aware of and emphasise until the cows come home, is that the official story is THE lie, and it is those touting the official theory whom the spotlight should continuously be focused upon !

Just my two-penneth
[/b][/u]

How about:
A) The biblical character jesus did exist, and There were no planes at the towers?

B) The biblical character Jesus never existed, and there were planes at the towers?


So what's your point AE as you're sounding like a shill?

The divisions in the ranks exist not because there are multiple possibilities (sensible people have open minds) but because there are multiple agendas. The perps are capable of suppressing the truth about 911 AND THEREFORE BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING. Do you think they would have gotten away with the holohoax had the internet been around then?

Do you think the '911 truthseekers' are all that they seem? There is NO WAY 'they' would not infiltrate and seek to guide 911 truth etc, which is why we need to be mega vigilant right now. We MUST recognise the shills, liars, false prophets of doom & salvation. We have the internet - almost anything can be tested. There is NO ROOM for dogma. CLEAR THINKING and ACUTE ANALYSIS is our only hope. For until WE can agree on a truth (a tried and tested, not wished for truth) we stand little chance of persuading the next (and IMO decisive) tranche of activists - the Middle Classes. It is THEY who have most to lose in the coming debacle of which the obviously doomed Iraq adventure is a preparation. Things happen for reason. Why have Bush, Cheyney etc been hung out to dry on this one? Have you seen these http://goldismoney.info/forums/t89904-i ... -1995.html

More on this at http://goldismoney.info/forums/t90539-v ... hilds.html

Did anyone mention Zion?

rodin wrote: Do you think the '911 truthseekers' are all that they seem?

No. But I'm also a little tired of the Adopt-A-Lexicon terms from people who constantly drop terms like shill, disinfo agent, CoINtelPro etc. If you asked people the history of the cointelpro strategy - only a few of them would know.

Currently in this scene you only need to mention the wrong idea or support a currently uncred source and you too are a "shill".

It's all got a bit shilly - and I'm off.