LC2 Showing - Kings Cross, London (18/04)

[kookomula]

Tuesday 18 April @ 7.30pm

Club Wotever @ South Central (bar)
37 Wharfdale Road
Kings Cross, London NW1

From Kings Cross Station, walk down York Way (on right side of station) take right into Wharfdale Road (5 mins from station).

7.30pm - Loose Change 2
8.40pm - Talk/Question and Answer with David Shayler and Annie Machon

Free Entry

[Pikey]

It would be interesting to read a report of how the event went!

[is]

Well, I was there, I can give you a brief rundown.

The venue was not what I expected. There was a part of me that worried I'd been had when I realised I was about to enter a transexual nightspot asking about 9/11 truth. But this prejudice was quashed when I walked in and Loose Change was being displayed on a good size projector.

The Crowd were a mixed bunch. There were innoculous looking seniors down the front of the small room paying attention, then at the back proppoing up the bar were the younger folk.

I joined at about the time LC was coverning the flight 93, so quite late. People seemed to be watching quite intently. Then, minor nastyness broke out when one young guy started talking very loudly about what he believed to be the 'issues', much to the annoyance of his surrounding viewers. This situation esculated to the point where three people had asked him with growing annoyance to shut up, and one older man had got physical. Forunately, this subsided and the film continued without much fuss.

After it had finished, Shayler took the stage. He declined to use a microphone whilst overviewing the film, and clarifying a few issues, such as the distinction between MIHOP and LIHOP, and his views on 7/7 (MIHOP).

The ensuing questions were not of great consequence. One woman was asking about the pentagon, another was making the point that 9/11, inside job or not, was dwarfed by the severity of the illigal war in Iraq. Another older woman was trying to talk, but she was drowned out by the guy who had been causing annoyance who continued his disruption - letting out unnecessary whoops and claps when Shayler finished sentences.

This did not detrect, however, from the genuine applause that occured when what Shayler said properly struck a chord with the audiance. The crowd were overall very receptive.

I was very close to asking whether he thought it possible that the 'No plane at the pentagon' stance he and the film took could possibly be part of a plan to discredit the truth movement, as we have the problem of testimony of plane sighting at the pentagon, yet the anomaly of the tapes being removed. However, I was feeling shy, so after this point when the Q&A had died down, I left. Shayler offered copies of the DVD for 'whatever contribution you can afford'.

Overall a good event and exposure of 9/11 truth.

[is]

NB::: when I say 'part of a plan', i of course don't mean that I think Shayler is disinfo - only that the US administation may be withholding the pentagon tapes only to release footage of a plane hitting it when the 9/11 truth movement reaches critical mass, which will obviously discredit us if we adopt a no plane theory.

[xmasdale]

They're not that subtle

[andrewwatson]

I agree Noel. The question of the 757 is one that divides the truth movement down the middle, with sensible people on both sides of the fence. For myself I cannot see why they would have held back such clear-cut evidence. As you say, having left it this long, I doubt if anyone would take even the most professional jobs seriously. You only need photoshop and you're away. I could put George Bush in my living room if I really wanted to. After all, they couldn't even get someone looking like OBL. (Unless it was him - and he was working for them, which I believe he is).

[numeral]

Many here will be aware of this but just to repeat it. Neither of the American Airlines flights, 11 and 77, were registered with the US Bureau of Transportation to take passengers bookings on Sept 11th. They were registered on days before and after. They could not have legally taken off with passengers on board on that day.

[Pikey]

Thanx for the report IS, transexual bars, it just goes to show there are no bounds to this 911 truth campaigning. Sounds like another professional job and sucessful mission, well done Team Shayler!

Andrew Watson states:-

[andrewwatson]

Pikey,

I find it very surprising too, but I have encountered some leading lights such as Jon Gold in the US who says categorically that after all the eyewitness reports have been taken into account, he is sure that a Being 757 did after all hit the Pentagon.

There seems to be disagreement too about the size of the entry hole. Again, speaking for myself I cannot see how a 757 could enter at such a low angle and not damage the lawn. Another thing I view with great suspicion is the shot of the men carying away that enormous blue-draped box. What were they trying to hide?

[is]

Yeah, Jon Gold from 9/11 blogger started me to thinking that as well.
On the one hand,

-There is indeed a great deal of testimony to support the claim that there was 'something which looked like a plane' flying towards the penatgon.

-There was also some evidence fo plane wrekage at the site.

However,

-The debris seems disproportinate to to the claim that there was a 757

-The damage to the building seems very inconsistant with this claim

- The mysterious objects shrouded in blue

- The tapes being removed and we have never even seen a STILL SHOT of a plane NEAR the pentagon.

From this, I had a few working hypotheses, none of which go against my belief in 9/11 being inside job (just so you know, Pikey)

i) No plane at the pentagon, the testimony and debris are fabricated
ii) A plane at the pentagon which fired a missile at it when it was close to impact, or had a bomb on board
iii) A genuine plane at the pentagon (though not one that had any passengers), and the footage of this will be revealed when the 9/11 truth movement is about to explode in the public sphere
iv) (dare i say it?) Hologram theory, or some varient of the theme of a missile disguised as a plane

Of these, i cannot decide which is more likely out of ii) or iii). i) and iv) both seem to have problems, some very severe.

Numeral, your v intriguing detail was unbeknownst to me, do you have a citation?

[numeral]

http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren_interview.htm

Q3. — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.

According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.

The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.

No such flight appears in the records.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html


Q13. — Regarding flight AA77, which purportedly hit the Pentagon, what is known of this aircraft?

The answer is the same as for AA11. Not scheduled according to the BTS records.

So far we appear to have established that no commercial aircraft hit either the North or the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, and that the aircraft which is purported to have hit the Pentagon was not even scheduled to fly.

[is]

Thanks man. In light of this, and the video which shows a flash before WTC1 impact, im now comitted to ii). This seemingly would account for some evidence of a plane, but not what could be consistant with a passanger jet, which fired a missile at the pentagon before it exploded.

So, taking into account the recent comments by Andreas Von Buelow, my best hypothesis of what happened on sept 11th is now:

3 military planes, piloted remotely from the bunker in wtc 7, were flown into the two towers and pentagon. They were armed with some kind of explosive weapon and were (probably) themselves rigged to blow up.

[I still dont know all the details of flight 93, and only because of this do I not say that there were 4 military planes]

Some of you are probably saying "Uh huh, and the earth is round and the sky is blue, thankyou captin obvious"

However, I think that if the truth movement is to progeress a definitive working hypothesis that accounts for all the evidence needs to be established and accepted. As Pikey rightly pointed out, there are certain issues that divide the movement, and it would stregnthen our argument if we could commit to a single theory that we are sure of.

[kookomula]

[quote="is"]However, I think that if the truth movement is to progeress a definitive working hypothesis that accounts for all the evidence needs to be established and accepted. As Pikey rightly pointed out, there are certain issues that divide the movement, and it would stregnthen our argument if we could commit to a single theory that we are sure of.[/quote]

I wouldn't say that that there are issues that divide us, I think we generally, understand that the majority of us are not in a position to come up with any definitive answers. I am still open to the possibility that a passenger jet did hit the Pentagon, what I am waiting (!?) for is the release of the tapes and further investigation. I think it is more important to share common goals, such as the release of the tapes, rather than coming up with agreed upon hypothesis.