Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Points of View - David Shayler Interview - New vid
My new vid interviewing former MI5 officer David Shayler here in Birmingham. Remember, I'm just the messenger. I do not subscribe to the 'no planes theory' or laser weapons used to bring the towers down! There's some very interesting information here, take from it what you will. Cheers:
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject:
kbo234 wrote:
Jack wrote:
...... there was no steel...
.....pardon???
What were the towers held together by then?
........marmalade??
Perhaps watch the Video first?
Jack is relaying what Shayler says
The treatment of the female audience member during this talk was also deeply unproffesional and IMO worthy of apology _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
It is a tragedy to the 9/11 Truth movement that David Shayler has been duped by the likes of Simon Shack and his no-planes acolytes. He destroys his credibility by venturing into such a controversial view of 9/11. He would have been wiser to focus in public lectures on what is well-established and uncontroversial.
Nothing that isn't already out there in abundance.
Sure, but to newbies it's some awsome information to get to grips with, especially with the other dis-info in there. Which is who I now think he is intending to decieve.
He would have been wiser to focus in public lectures on what is well-established and uncontroversial.
to be fair he was asked the question about NPT, as oppose to bringing up the subject during a public speech on his own terms.
i agree with other comments, the treatment of the woman who walked out was not well handled and he went a bit to far with his comments without thinking how what he was saying would offend her, she asked a question i think was valid.
the rest was a personnal interview afterwards, i don't agree with some of what he say's, but he is entitled to his opinion like anybody else. i just hope his opinions are sincere as opposed to fabricated for some other agenda.
i have no proof of such things, but cannot work out which it is. the latest claims about being god's soul understandably make me skeptical of the motives.
He would have been wiser to focus in public lectures on what is well-established and uncontroversial.
the idea that remote control planes hit the towers is far from 'uncontroversial'.
is that what you think he should have talked about!
do you think david would look any less of a crackpot if he did!
this idea that RC theory is less dismissable than NP theory is an illusion.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
He would have been wiser to focus in public lectures on what is well-established and uncontroversial.
the idea that remote control planes hit the towers is far from 'uncontroversial'.
is that what you think he should have talked about!
do you think david would look any less of a crackpot if he did!
this idea that RC theory is less dismissable than NP theory is an illusion.
Exposing the 9/11 commision as a whitewash would have been an excellent way to compliment Loose Change Final Cut: undermining the research and the position of the makers of loose change is NOT and a dis-service to the film, let alone insulting audience members in the basis of them accepting that position!
And your diversion into RC is a smokescreen when it is a known technology for over 40 years. It is a suggestion for what MAY have happened instead of the OCT concerning hiojackers
However your position on NPT is a denial and rejection of the vast body of credible evidence in favour of an abscence of evidence and the odd act of proven Video Fraud _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: what??
all of the evidence both physical and intuitive(looking at the videos in slo-mo) tells us that there were no planes. Nothing too difficult, apart from the strain on credulity that arises from believing in the 'planes.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: what??
alwun wrote:
all of the evidence both physical and intuitive(looking at the videos in slo-mo) tells us that there were no planes. Nothing too difficult, apart from the strain on credulity that arises from believing in the 'planes.
move on..
cheers Al..
You give your post the heading "what?"
Funnily enough, thats exactly my reaction upon reading it
Could you perhaps explain to us what "intuitive evidence" is, and how it will be useful in a court or law or new investigation?
It seems to me you are saying that you are satisified with NPT becuase it satisfies your belief
Time you stopped resting on the cushion of your belief and got back to work perhaps Al?
You made find that its actually you who has a need to "Move on" _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: what??
John White wrote:
alwun wrote:
all of the evidence both physical and intuitive(looking at the videos in slo-mo) tells us that there were no planes. Nothing too difficult, apart from the strain on credulity that arises from believing in the 'planes.
move on..
cheers Al..
You give your post the heading "what?"
Funnily enough, thats exactly my reaction upon reading it
Could you perhaps explain to us what "intuitive evidence" is, and how it will be useful in a court or law or new investigation?
It seems to me you are saying that you are satisified with NPT becuase it satisfies your belief
Time you stopped resting on the cushion of your belief and got back to work perhaps Al?
You made find that its actually you who has a need to "Move on"
it's all part of the NPT philosophy.
"I think I'm a researcher therefore I am"
"I think I'm a video expert therefore I am"
"I think I understand physics, dynamics and structural engineering therefore I do"
using these three principles, the NPT promoters and their suggestible followers can "prove" that all evidence for planes at the WTC is "fake" - and delude themselves into believing that their highly subjective interpretations of low quality, nth generation compressed clips with multiple compression artefacts and piss poor resolution, is "conclusive proof" that they must be right.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 20 Location: Derbyshire
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject:
Jack wrote:
steel being removed from ground zero and shipped overseas = misinformation because there was no steel...
No steel!? Did I read you right? Are you saying there was NO steel in the World Trade Center buildings? Really!? _________________ Buy 9/11 Truth dvds on Amazon.com from seller BOXBOX - U.K residents get 2 or 3 FREE dvds from him with every order (due too the postage being $13 even though it only costs $3.65 at the most)
I've brought about 4 things from him and collected about 12 free dvds.
steel being removed from ground zero and shipped overseas = misinformation because there was no steel...
No steel!? Did I read you right? Are you saying there was NO steel in the World Trade Center buildings? Really!?
NO, no steel left after collapse not before. which is'nt my view or the person you were quoting. the person you were quoting was only pointing out what it says in the video in the original post.
shayler said "steel being removed from ground zero and shipped overseas = misinformation because there was no steel... "
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 102 Location: NYC/Pennsylvania
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
He would have been wiser to focus in public lectures on what is well-established and uncontroversial.
the idea that remote control planes hit the towers is far from 'uncontroversial'.
is that what you think he should have talked about!
do you think david would look any less of a crackpot if he did!
this idea that RC theory is less dismissable than NP theory is an illusion.
depending on how you want to define "no planes" they can be the same thing, as in a Global Hawk or computer piloted unmanned airliners.
But when you start getting into TV fakery and DEW and that rubbish, RC is easily more plausible for those of us who subscribe to the basic tenets of logic and science. _________________ The answer to 1984 is 1776!
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
painful to watch
