Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:34 pm

Watch Sky News NOW if you can.

David Shayler is on, and has just covered the basic evidence of 911, 7/7 and Litvinenko in barnstorming form.

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

There's another 1/2 hour, so please can someone try and record?

Regards

Annie

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:35 pm

Watch Sky News NOW if you can.

David Shayler is on, and has just covered the basic evidence of 911, 7/7 and Litvinenko in barnstorming form.

There's another 1/2 hour, so please can someone try and record?

Regards

Annie

And here's another link to the Sky News piece
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/shows/webc ... 051206.wmv

[Tony]

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:41 pm

tfayaz · Post by **tfayaz** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:58 pm

Annie wrote:Watch Sky News NOW if you can.

David Shayler is on, and has just covered the basic evidence of 911, 7/7 and Litvinenko in barnstorming form.

There's another 1/2 hour, so please can someone try and record?

Regards

Annie

Annie,

I recorded the last 30 minutes but it's on my Sky+ and I don't know how to transfer that to the PC.

If anyone knows, please let me know.

Toseef

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:23 pm

Hi Ally

Like the location - you and Dave both, at least "officially".

Thanks for that. Did you catch the interview? One of those "one bite at the cherry" moments. Cracking stuff.

Regards

Annie

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:30 pm

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:34 pm

Very main stream media of them to put him on during a free-to-air Champions league match... Missed it.

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:38 pm

Koheleth wrote:Very main stream media of them to put him on during a free-to-air Champions league match... Missed it.

It's the thought wot counts.

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:45 pm

Hi Koheleth

Good to meet you last night. And what are you doing watching footy when the world needs saving?!?

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:50 pm

Hey Annie,
I've got saving the world in my diary for thursday week. My cape's at the dry cleaners.

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:33 pm

Hi all

The Sky interview was great - powerful and lucid. The best mainstream airtime that the campaign has had so far in this country. We'll try and get it up on the forum soon.

Emails came pouring in during the show. Of the first ten that David saw, one was critical, but the rest were supportive - along the lines of "great to hear someone talking about this at last". It might be worth a follow-up email campaign, to show that there are many, many people who don't believe the official version.

Regards

Annie

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:57 pm

looking forward to seeing this

jason67 · Post by **jason67** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:01 pm

Annie wrote:Hi all

The Sky interview was great - powerful and lucid. The best mainstream airtime that the campaign has had so far in this country. We'll try and get it up on the forum soon.

Emails came pouring in during the show. Of the first ten that David saw, one was critical, but the rest were supportive - along the lines of "great to hear someone talking about this at last". It might be worth a follow-up email campaign, to show that there are many, many people who don't believe the official version.

Regards

Annie

Would be great if everybody sent in an email, just sent mine. Things like this dont come around very often, if ever.

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:02 pm

This is great news - thanks to Dave and Annie - AGAIN!!

Also:

Koheleth wrote:Hey Annie,
I've got saving the world in my diary for thursday week. My cape's at the dry cleaners.

LOL - no doubt along with those oversize underpants that fit over your trousers....

I just have 2 capes myself - takes me ages to stretch the undies over properly though.

SHERITON HOTEL · Post by **SHERITON HOTEL** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:43 pm

Will this make it to youtube (unedited) Annie?

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:29 pm

Annie wrote:Watch Sky News NOW if you can.

David Shayler is on, and has just covered the basic evidence of 911, 7/7 and Litvinenko in barnstorming form.

There's another 1/2 hour, so please can someone try and record?

Regards

Annie

Hi Annie

I'm sure we would all love to have watched this

How come you didn't give us any advance notice?

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:34 pm

Didn't know it was going to happen!

As far as we knew in advance, Dave was invited on to do a brief interview about Litvinenko, and hijacked the show with 911.

Hazzard · Post by **Hazzard** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:23 pm

I cant wait to see this. When can you guys upload it?

SHERITON HOTEL · Post by **SHERITON HOTEL** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:34 pm

Where do we send all these e-mails Annie, sky news?

Post by **3hhhvs8bh3** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:53 am

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

Justin · Post by **Justin** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:39 am

Well done David - Rupert Murdoch will probably see to it that his minions do some 'ball crunching' amongst Sky's researchers and news editors for allowing this to happen! We sneaked under the radar on this one and scored a hit!

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:35 am

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

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

John White · Post by **John White** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:24 am

I'm sorry to say I disagree, I was greatly saddened by the last five minutes. It doesnt wipe out the good in the first 20 or so, but it certainly acts as a counter force

Perhaps its niave to think their isnt a price to pay for getting to talk on Sky at all

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:49 am

John White wrote:I'm sorry to say I disagree, I was greatly saddened by the last five minutes. It doesnt wipe out the good in the first 20 or so, but it certainly acts as a counter force

Perhaps its niave to think their isnt a price to pay for getting to talk on Sky at all

So your saying the price to pay for DS to go on Sky TV was to talk about No Planes

If the net effect of that is for thousands of curious viewers going onto the internet and looking at slow motion replays of the impacts - then please explain how that is a bad thing?

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:51 am

Hi Sheriton Hotel

Yes, if you go onto the Sky News website, there's a feedback section on the right hand side.

I hope to get the programme up on the forum in the next day or so.

Regards

Annie

Fallious · Post by **Fallious** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:01 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
John White wrote:I'm sorry to say I disagree, I was greatly saddened by the last five minutes. It doesnt wipe out the good in the first 20 or so, but it certainly acts as a counter force

Perhaps its niave to think their isnt a price to pay for getting to talk on Sky at all

So your saying the price to pay for DS to go on Sky TV was to talk about No Planes

If the net effect of that is for thousands of curious viewers going onto the internet and looking at slow motion replays of the impacts - then please explain how that is a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing, but I doubt thats what the net effect will be. Look at Shayler smirk about it when he's pushed to talk on it, even he knows it's a load of waffle.

John White · Post by **John White** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:13 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
John White wrote:I'm sorry to say I disagree, I was greatly saddened by the last five minutes. It doesnt wipe out the good in the first 20 or so, but it certainly acts as a counter force

Perhaps its niave to think their isnt a price to pay for getting to talk on Sky at all

So your saying the price to pay for DS to go on Sky TV was to talk about No Planes

If the net effect of that is for thousands of curious viewers going onto the internet and looking at slow motion replays of the impacts - then please explain how that is a bad thing?

I'm speculating that perhaps that is the case. Possibilities are an essential aspect of truthseeking. Back to Aristotle and "entertaining a thought without accepting it"

As far as the second point, your a person I recall as making many dismissive statements about "Truth Lite". I'd suggest a look in a mirror on that one.

If your views have changed there perhaps you will now start to use "press for truth" info on your "walk the dog" recruitment drives? Pawning the 9/11 commission coverup would have blown that Sky monkey right outa his chair....

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:14 pm

Fallious wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
John White wrote:I'm sorry to say I disagree, I was greatly saddened by the last five minutes. It doesnt wipe out the good in the first 20 or so, but it certainly acts as a counter force

Perhaps its niave to think their isnt a price to pay for getting to talk on Sky at all

So your saying the price to pay for DS to go on Sky TV was to talk about No Planes

If the net effect of that is for thousands of curious viewers going onto the internet and looking at slow motion replays of the impacts - then please explain how that is a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing, but I doubt thats what the net effect will be. Look at Shayler smirk about it when he's pushed to talk on it, even he knows it's a load of waffle.

Well you should know about waffling Fallious - it's your specialist subject!!!

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:28 pm

Well I've seen it now and it was a good job by Mr Shayler, I was pleasantly surprised at the openness of the interviewer, I was expecting something more "attack dog" from sky news.

It was a very rational and credible delivery of some of the material.

If I had a criticism (and unfortunatley it's in my nature that I almost always do, don't take it personally) it was the asking the public to do the London marathon before they could crawl by touching on the "no planes" theory. I have said before now that I don't think it is a theory without merit, mainly based on the highly strange footage of the plane seeming to "ghost" through the tower and the delayed explosion, and the footage of the nose coming intact out of the other side of the tower and then exploding. I did think Snowygrouch did a very good job arguing the other side of the debate and I remain open minded and un-concluded.

My problem is that, internally, amongst people who are already past the first chapter and accept an inside job, the debate has moved onto specifics and it doesn't seem so wild to start theorising on these areas. On main stream TV, though, this is probably the first time that many people will have been exposed to the idea of an inside job and it could work to damage the credibility of the movement to throw people in at the deep end.

I will say that Mr Shayler took the right approach by urging people to slow down the footage themselves instead of going into detail; it's a shame a clip of what he was talking about couldn't have been broadcast in support.

Again on a positive note, it is hard to imagine that many people other than Mr Shayler would have had the public speaking ability to still sound credible while bringing up a topic like this, and he pulled it off very well.

I was in the pub with my brother last night and had another attempt to bring him around, and I always like to start focus on the "you know about Building 7 right?" line, which Mr Shayler also used to good effect, and then talk about the NIST report and how the central points of their theory- that the fire proofing dislodged and the trusses failed were never properly scientifically demonstrated, and that NIST themselves accept that there was almost no chance of the building coming down without them, then I start my "these were some lucky terrorists" rant, because in effect the official story is one about the luckiest hijackers in the history of humanity:

First with box cutters alone they hijack the planes, without help from air traffic control they guide them to their targets and make perfect hits, totally reliant on NORAD having multiple failures of competence and confusing war games, then, with a scenario even NIST admit was very unlikely BOTH towers crumble into dust- I mean they can't have KNOWN that was going to happen- it was a million-in-one-chance (which happened twice within an hour of each other with completely different patterns of damage) so this was just dumb luck for these murderers. Next a third plane, while the whole world knows that a terrorist attack is under way, manages to hit the pentagon, again without being shot down and employing a complex manoeuvre many pilots consider to be very difficult to pull off indeed, WHAT LUCK! And what happens next? Well based on a little debris falling on it and a couple of fires, the headquarters of the CIA and the secret services collapse into rubble- MAN! If these terrorists were still alive what more could confirm for them that god was on their side- the buildings spontaneously collapsing would have been a surprise but for the headquarters of their mortal enemies to come down after suffering minor damage- what a boon!

If you chose to believe terrorists did complete this attack, you must accept the best they were hoping for was to kill the passengers, the people on the floors the plane hit and, if they’d thought about it, the people on the floors above from smoke suffocation. They could never have predicted the complete destruction of the towers, far less the destruction of building 7. I think this is an angle that is underplayed; either the government planned and enacted the murder of 3000 people, or terrorists planned and enacted the murder of a few hundred, and got lucky- unfeasably lucky.

Then I let the disbelief set in and start talking about core columns, molten metal, pulverised concrete and finish up with Willie Rodriguez's story. And end by giving him the names of some documentaries and web sites and tell him to believe nothing I say and read up on it himself.

I'd say he's half way there now, and he's very up for coming with me to any talks about it, particularly Willie Rodriguez' when he's back in town.

I feel if I'd sat him down and dropped "no planes" into the conversation early on, it would only make the job more difficult.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:45 pm

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'

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

Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

URGENT - Shayler on Sky News Now, talking about 9/11

Re: URGENT - Shayler on Sky News Now, talking about 9/11

Re: URGENT - Shayler on Sky News Now, talking about 9/11

Shayler on Sky

Shayler-No Planes-Sky Tv