Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

[commanderson]

[prole art threat]

[commanderson]

[IronSnot]

[commanderson]

I do appologise Ironsnot, I totally missed the sarcasm there, should have realised with your earlier posts and the rolling eyes, sorry called you a snivelling snot sidekick too (I did like the imagary though).
Don't worry I'll stick around, not gonna be bullied of a site by folk that cannae even conduct a civil discussion, cheers

[IronSnot]

I've been called worse. Anyway I quite liked it myself.

[prole art threat]

[lifeinthed]

I'll probably get criticised and accused for having just signed up but... I wanted to add my support here for commanderson and others. We have to hold our 9/11 "prophets" up to the same scrutiny that they tell us we should use on others. They taught us to not blindly trust what we're told anymore and be suspicious of all the message-bearers, and the practice of these newfound scrutinizing abilities should start with (or at least include heavily at some point) they themselves! I find myself falling for it all the time all over again. I have to pull myself back for a moment and have a little internal dialogue telling myself not to get too carried away with any one particular truth seeker's viewpoints. After all what's the difference between trusting the mainstream media like it was the beacon of all hope, and doing the same thing with one of our "prophets"? If I distrusted the mainstream source because I knew they were telling lies, does that mean that the prophet (sorry, can't be bothered finding a better word) is telling the truth and shouldn't be questioned too? Wouldn't doing that mean that I hadn't learnt anything from all this? We all know that deploying counter-intelligence agents is well within the grasp of the people we're fighting, and you can bet your house that when these people come they'll be disguised as our best friends. So not only is it reasonable to have doubts about David Shayler, especially considering his background, it's bloody essential if we're ever going to have a chance of winning this. They're a potential bullet in the whole movements head (well, leg maybe) if there's any truth to the suspicions, and we're talking about a movement trying to move humanity away from longlasting enslavement, tyranny, whatever, this is pretty bloody serious stuff, so people who bring it up shouldn't just be laughed down or insulted away on here. So no offence to Annie or David or anyone, but this cause is of such massive importance that you're probably going to be thoroughly grilled at the first signs of anything dodgy.

Admittedly this kind of thinking doesn't leave much room for trusting anyone ultimately... I'm probably about 2½ steps short of full-on tinfoil hat paranoia, shows how messed up these evil f*ckers have made this world. But anyway, just my tuppence worth.

[commanderson]

Thanks for that lifeinthed, good of you to come over from concen to support free speech overhere.
I don't believe I've been abusive or even overly accusational (unlike my detractors) in my pursuit of this issue, I have just asked questions, and looked to follow up on lines of enquiry. And I dont think having a low post rating is reason to suspect folk of shilling, ina way it might show you don't have time just to sit and post (like it was your job). Please don't take that as me calling all the super posters agents, we gotta drop this shill calling every five minutes its getting us nowhere.

peace

[ian neal]

Commanderson

I don't assume you to be an agent. I can understand why you might hold suspicions with regards to David and Annie as ex-intelligence officers.

However it is my experience and the experience of those that I'm in touch with who have worked closely with David and Annie over the past nearly 2 years that they are exactly what they say they are: namely ex-intelligence officers who became aware of the duplicitous nature of the intelligence services and decided to leave and blow the whistle and to my mind they are credible and genuine.

Now I also accept that there is still a possibility that they are not what they seem and they are acting an elaborate charade. I have seen absolutely no credible evidence to support this possibility and it runs counter to my experience of David and Annie but of course it is a possibility. But then when it comes down to it this could be true of any of us.

Just what exciting information do you suppose David and Annie might be previalge to that the intelligence agencies couldn't work out for themselves by reading this forum or intercepting emails and phone calls between campaigners. We are doing nothing illegal, we absolutely reject violence and promotion of hatred and so what exactly do we have to fear.

I post publicly under my own name precisely because I assume that if 'they' (the intelligence services) want to know about my campaigning activities, they have ability to find this out about me. If the global fascists have their way there may come a time when campaigners such as ourselves are locked up. But it won't be because you posted anonymously, commanderson that will save you and it won't be David and Annie who will have passed on your details.

Get real. Of course a movement such as this will attract interest from government agents and agencies and some agents will seek to infilitrate the movement. But evidence free speculation from people who do not know David and Annie (i'm assuming this is the case for you) is only going to fuel animosity and ill feeling.

As I've said before, if people have evidence no problem, but evidence free name calling (shill etc) is not welcome.

To take one area that is held up as evidence; their relatively recent involvement in 9/11 campaigning and the possibility that previously they have held a different opinion. This is no evidence at all. Assuming this is true, are we saying that only people who 'knew' and have been campaigning from the outset are genuine campaigners? Are we saying that people aren't allowed to revise their opinions or make mistakes?

Interestingly Notes from the Borderland (NFB) take a similar position to you, holding up David and Annie's recent involvement in 9/11 (in the last 2 years) as somehow suspicious, whilst failing to see the irony. NFB pride themselves on having an understanding of para-politics and spooky goings on and yet their own interest and research into 9/11 only dates back just over a year. Similarly Commanderson, you appear relatively recently on the scene and yet presume to have better insights into David and Annie that those of us who have closer and longer relationships with them. As for Ironsnot, what you presume to know from the sunny shores of Aus is likelwise of dubious value

Paradoxically Mike Ruppert (who also has family connections to the intelligence services) has been accused by many of batting for the other side. And part of the evidence for this is that he was so quick off the mark in becoming a prominent campaigner. You can't win It seems for some paranoid people everything is evidence of being a shill.

So by all means criticise (or advise) David on how he campaigns. If you have anything that approaches evidence, feel free to argue that David is still an intelligence agent. Although best ensure the evidence has some weight if you expect to be taken seriously

Just to be clear, this campaign has NO official spokespeople. We all speak in support of but not on behalf of the campaign and speak our own truth. The campaign does not endorse any one presentation of the evidence and the views expressed in this forum or on Sky News do not represent the campaign.

If you or anyone else reckons they can speak more articulately, knowledgably, professionally and credibly than David (or anyone else), the challenge is to step forward and demonstrate this. If you do so you will be welcomed and given a more prominent platform as others recognise your talents and start offering to support you in gaining such a platform.

The stage is set for there to be numerous opportunities to speak on a public platform in support of 9/11 next year. Step up and seize this opportunity as many others have.

Don't feel able to speak confidently in public, then create other means of communicating 9/11: leaflets, videos, organising film screenings or demonstrations, etc, but please stop counter-productive sniping

[Garcon Warrior]

I think commanderson it is probably what you are suggesting in your first few posts rather than what it is actually you have written in the posts. As to say rather than being rude you have suggested that 9/11 truth campaign is run by security agencies or have infiltrated the campaign. And me personally you have every right to ask questions about this campaign.

When I first woke up a few years ago into believing 9/11 was done by governments/security agencies it blows your mind and gives you a totally new outlook on how the world is. I stumbled on this website a few months ago and first thought great there is a campaign in the UK to get a full investigation into 9/11. Then i noticed that there are ex security agencies involved in the campaign and im sorry to say it has made me take a step back from joining this campaign. I have always wondered upon this as even in the about us section in this forum there is nothing about when Annie joined the 9/11 truth campaign. I have also asked on this forum about the Shelly Doman article about freemasonry in charge of this campaign but this got unanswered.

Also to suggest David is not part of this campaign is diffucult to envisige being that on a lot of videos pictures of campaigning David is usually at the forefront on them. I do not know either David and Annie so I cannot say anything about them personally and it looks like they do a lot of hard work for this cause but the doubts are always going to be there unfortunately.

Would there be more people who would be campaigning if there was'nt ex secret security at the head of the campaign who knows, for me I will just carry on doing my own thing in spreading the word of 9/11 truth.

[ian neal]

[poiuytr]

Ian,

You make a lot of good points,but leave out the very reason that has flared up this forum:what is David's evidence for the NPT that would justify him endorsing it in THIS interview by brendan o neill

[commanderson]

Hi Ian

I take on board the points you made there.
I admit in my initial posts I was really anoyed at Shaylers mention of NPT, thought it was damaging, after all the good info given, endangering a baby with bathwater scenario, I am suspicious, and floated the Idea that he may be part of a controlled oposition. Since then I have avoided shill calling (finding it a really ugly term- only to be coined with good reason).
And while Annie and Prole have slung the term at me (well annie alluding to it), I have avoided it, seeing it as unhelpful to a real debate. I concede that the whole thread has become a debate on whether shayler is a shill. And I am not strictly saying I think he is, just that his appearance on sky (one of the precious few mainstream representation of our general veiw) raised my suspicions (I realy had no reason to doubt him before), with his allusions to the NPT, that many including myself see as purely a strawman argument, dividing and discrediting the valid sceintific and reasonable research.
This is largely my reason (or evidence) for suspecting David, enflamed by his refusal to address his reasons for NPT belief, and bringing it up in the mainstream like that.
I do not have the benifit of knowing this man, and if I did I might be able to ask him personally his reasons for NPT, and we could discuss, maybe he has info to convince me of this scenario (Ihave seen nothing credible so far) but can see how proposing this causes trouble on all fronts, not least between believers on this forum.
Do you suggest that I just shut-up about this issue?
As proiuytr said

[commanderson]

here's the main thread on this topic over at concen http://conspiracycentral.info/index.php?showtopic=4954
There's many different points of veiw, from shayler shill to hero, and everyones able to discuss it give their opinions and reasons, without abuse, shillslinging or subject stiffling, shall we have a wee go at that?

[ian neal]

You won't find any argument from me that the NPT and other controversial theories should not be referred to in the MSM and side stepped if brought up. Our case does not rely on these areas. Many people passed on this advice at the time of the New Statesman interview to David.

Garcon

your concerns are unwarranted. The claim from Shelley Doman that we were set up by masons is false. I kick started this network 3 years ago in a series of emails and it has grown organically since then as explained in Andrew Johnson's history. In xmasdale's response to Shelley there is more history and the links embedded explain the origins of the national committee, its purpose (which is limited: hosting national events, such as the DRG talk). I wasn't able to attend this meeting but others who were there can explain how the committee was elected. Annie is secretary it is true. But titles are fairly meaningless IMO. There are safeguards to prevent to the campaign in general and the committee being hijacked or being unrepresentative.

The best way to reassure yourself of this is to meet or phone some of the most active and long term campaigners, check whether my accounts or the accounts of Andrew Johnson ring true with them. By getting to know other campaigners you will be able to judge who is or is not genuine. It is my strong opinion that the VAST majority of us are exactly who and what we say we are. You are always free to call me if it helps 07986 616941

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

As far as I know David Shayler does not have access to any evidence regarding no planes other than what has been posted on this site.

I did a poll on this site and 1/3 of those who replied believed there were no planes - this is a minority but not a small minority.

The fact is there is substantial evidence that were no planes.

- Not one clear image showing the livery of the plane (anywhere)
- Plane melted into building
- No wreckage bouncing off building
- no black boxes
- no air crash investigation
- no clearly identifiable wreckage
- plane was travelling too fast
- eye witnesses saying it was just an explosion
- film footage invariably zooming out at the critical moment
- film footage missing impact altogether
- one of the twin towers planes not scheduled to fly that day
- footage showing bits of plane missing (in flight)
- delay in explosion after impact
- slow motion footage showing no entrance hole

It's amazing that most on this site are happy to buy into no planes at the pentagon or shanksville but are happy to accept a cartoon plane as evidence for WTC.

No doubt with all this information available David has concluded that although there were 4 alleged planes that day - in reality there were zilch.

[ian neal]

I don't find it amazing

I suggest there many different groups here

Planers (those who on the balance of probabilities believe there were planes, though not necessarily the ones alleged by the OCT)

'No planers' (those who on the balance of probabilities believe there were planes)

Those who are undecided or feel unqualified / under-researched to express an informed opinion

Those that would not mention these controversial theories on a public platform or in the MSM

Those that believe that this should be a central plank to any explanation of 'what really happened'

[commanderson]

[poiuytr]

Not a single argument for the no plane theory stands up to scrutiny;yet David clearly stated

[Gibson]

David mentions twice:

"the Pentagons automated missile defence system"

for clarification, does the Pentagon have the above?

[commanderson]

unsure, heres some aricles/sites, certainly this allegations been made before http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html and are quite possibly well founded-
http://www.gcn.com/print/vol18_no29/573-1.html

[Light Infantree]

[Gibson]

[Patrick Brown]

[poiuytr]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Patrick Brown]

[commanderson]

[scar]