Points of View - David Shayler Interview - New vid

[Darren Pollard]

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:


[GVideo]http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 6262221806[/GVideo]

[Jack]

steel being removed from ground zero and shipped overseas = misinformation because there was no steel...

painful to watch

[kbo234]

...... there was no steel...

.....pardon???

What were the towers held together by then?

........marmalade??

[John White]

...... 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

[Jack]

...... 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

absolutely. "would you swear on your daughter's life?"

incredible.

[Lee]

The steady climb toward Ickedom continues. Problem is it's already been done.

There's some very interesting information here, take from it what you will.

Nothing that isn't already out there in abundance.

[TonyGosling]

No planes.

Controversies.

[Micpsi]

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.

[Darren Pollard]

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.

[marky 54]

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.

[jfk]

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.

[John White]

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

[alwun]

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..

[John White]

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"

[jfk]

And your diversion into RC is a smokescreen when it is a known technology for over 40 years

film manipulation and psy ops have also been a known technology for over 40 years

[gruts]

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.

sadly this is only true in their dreams....

[A.L.EX-N.E.TA]

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!?

[marky 54]

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... "

jack said " painful to watch"

[Darren Pollard]

[Dallas]

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.

[karlos]

'By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War'
Mossad motto