| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: Beware disinformation |
 |
|
Just figured I'd give a heads up on the 'shills' tactics although I'm sure most here are well aware of the stuff (disinformation) they come up with.
There is good solid stuff here that makes you aware of what lengths these people will go to: http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trying to shut people up is my idea of disinformation. You can damage and divide the movement just as effectively by proclaiming one hpothesis to be the only possible one as you can by pushing unlikely and seemingly absurd theories. I say: call someone a shill or an agent only when you have undeniable proof that they are lying. Otherwise you will lay yourself open to the charge of "it takes one to know one".
There are many things which don't point to 767s at the WTC. How can we call ourselves truth-seekers if we are not passionate searchers after the truth, however strange is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just sent the following message to review@911review.com :-
| Quote: |
http://www.jacobsm.com/images/plane2jf5.gif
On your website, you lampoon the NPT and Webfairy. What I cannot get over, though, is the linked gif file above of the second crash. How can a plane enter WTC2 so easily, with no deceleration and very little exterior damage, and then sit inside the tower (perfect fit) for a few frames before exploding. It does not make sense, and this is why a lot of us doubt that what we saw was what actually took place. Nowadays, there are holographic projectors, radar jamming systems with plans to also jam light, and all sorts of remote control technologies. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that what we saw was not what happened.
As for the meat of the 9-11 conspiracy, there is no doubt that CD was used to bring down 3 steel-framed buildings that day. The Pentagon fiasco is even more obvious as a hoax, because of the lawn, lampposts, size of hole, and lack of aircraft debris.
If they claim that a jumbo jet hit the pentagon, when we definitely know that it couldn't have, why do you think the rubbish footage we have for the WTC2 tower hit, proves that jumbo jets were used? If you were a reporter after the first tower hit, wouldn't you have taken high-res camera equipment to ground zero, and shot constantly for hours? But nobody did. There is no crystal clear footage of the second plane hitting the tower. That is simply astonishing in its own right.
9-11 stinks, but so do the Madrid, Bali and London 7/7 bombings. It seems that all major "shock" events, including wars, that are reported in the media, are all staged by politician-and-secret-service-wielding rich twats who want to become even richer and more powerful (Rockerfellers, Rothschilds ...). It is time to abandon politics completely. We have to learn to be nice so that we can govern ourselves, and play down the importance of money.
|
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.
Graphic  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've just recieved this back from my email server :-
| Quote: |
Your message
To: review@911review.com
Subject: "No planes" theory
Sent: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:28:55 +0100
did not reach the following recipient(s):
review@911review.com on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:28:57 +0100
The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did not
report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it still
fails, contact your system administrator.
|
I wonder if it's a genuine mistake, or is 911review.com yet another disinformation site... 
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.
Graphic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rabbie McM
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Motherwell
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No wish myself to open up a planehugging vs noplaner debate, but I equally do not necessarily see no plane strikes at the wtc as disinfo.
The way I look at it, US and western media is so heavily controlled that CGI is emminently possible. How many traumatised New Yorkers really saw what happened with the 2nd strike? I haven't seen definitive witness evidence. Am I not looking hard enough? I have saw obvious witness plants in MSM network coverage after the event. I recently studied the Naudet film in depth as well. Where does one even begin with commenting on that?
I place some weight in the fact that William Rodriguez at the wtc felt convinced it was a plane strike, due to debris I think. But I am still not convinced, from 2 points: * From a criminology perspective - a CGI crime would give these guys one hell of a buzz - duping the stupid masses. * It would actually be easier to pull off than using real planes. As long as you can lie your teeth off - and that is what the perps are top dog at!
That said, evidence for controlled demolition is I think definitive - and is my focus when talking to people. As Scotty would say "Yeh canna change the laws of physics Jim." But I agree with the Graphic E, just because something is "wacky" does not neccessarily invalidate it. We weigh up evidence. And by the way -"Occam's razor" to my mind often doesn't hold - I always find the use of that term a bit questionable - often peddled on "rationalist" sites that slate 9-11 truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| graphicequaliser wrote: | I just sent the following message to review@911review.com :-
On your website, you lampoon the NPT and Webfairy. What I cannot get over, though, is the linked gif file above of the second crash. How can a plane enter WTC2 so easily, with no deceleration and very little exterior damage, and then sit inside the tower (perfect fit) for a few frames before exploding. It does not make sense |
That's known as "arguing from incredulity", i.e. you don't understand the physics, therefore you feel free to dispute it.
I tried this in an 'O' level physics class at age 15 in 1965 .. "I don't see how <blah>...". The teacher was quite good about it : "That's because you don't understand the physics, yet .."
Ever seen a piddling little car that had been travelling at 50mph embedded in a brick-built house? That should give you a clue.
kinetic energy = 1/2*m*v^2 (half m*v squared)
then the plane slows down dramatically when it encounters the massive steel core of the building and knocks the sh*t out of some of it
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rabbie McM wrote: | No wish myself to open up a planehugging vs noplaner debate, but I equally do not necessarily see no plane strikes at the wtc as disinfo.
The way I look at it, US and western media is so heavily controlled that CGI is emminently possible. How many traumatised New Yorkers really saw what happened with the 2nd strike? I haven't seen definitive witness evidence. Am I not looking hard enough? I have saw obvious witness plants in MSM network coverage after the event. I recently studied the Naudet film in depth as well. Where does one even begin with commenting on that?
I place some weight in the fact that William Rodriguez at the wtc felt convinced it was a plane strike, due to debris I think. But I am still not convinced, from 2 points: * From a criminology perspective - a CGI crime would give these guys one hell of a buzz - duping the stupid masses. * It would actually be easier to pull off than using real planes. As long as you can lie your teeth off - and that is what the perps are top dog at!
That said, evidence for controlled demolition is I think definitive - and is my focus when talking to people. As Scotty would say "Yeh canna change the laws of physics Jim." But I agree with the Graphic E, just because something is "wacky" does not neccessarily invalidate it. We weigh up evidence. And by the way -"Occam's razor" to my mind often doesn't hold - I always find the use of that term a bit questionable - often peddled on "rationalist" sites that slate 9-11 truth. |
good stuff, must be all that clean water you're drinking back home  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewwatson wrote: | | Trying to shut people up is my idea of disinformation. You can damage and divide the movement just as effectively by proclaiming one hpothesis to be the only possible one as you can by pushing unlikely and seemingly absurd theories. I say: call someone a shill or an agent only when you have undeniable proof that they are lying. Otherwise you will lay yourself open to the charge of "it takes one to know one". |
Thanks Andrew. This precisely how I see it.
The movement has 2 choices
It can either squabble amongst itself in ever decreasing circles, arguing the toss over the latest 'theories', calling each other names and generally expending all of our energy on 'infighting' about planes/no planes, LIHOP/MIHOP, pods/no pods, peak oil/non peak oil, zionist connection/no zionist connection. The web is full of such boll*cks.
Or we can unite around a common platform based on the best presentations of the known facts, whilst tolerating our differences, allowing everyone to speak their own truth.
Does this ring any bells with anyone?
| Quote: | BRIAN:
Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG:
* off!
BRIAN:
What?
REG:
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS:
*.
BRIAN:
Can I... join your group?
REG:
No. Piss off.
BRIAN:
I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA:
Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG:
Schtum.
JUDITH:
Are you sure?
BRIAN:
Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG:
Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN:
I do!
REG:
Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
A lot!
REG:
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the * Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah...
JUDITH:
Splitters.
P.F.J.:
Splitters...
FRANCIS:
And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA:
And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG:
What?
LORETTA:
The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG:
We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA:
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG:
People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS:
Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
