David Shayler on Sky News
In this recent debate on UK's Sky News, David Shayler gives a convincing explanations of false flag terrorism and the involvement of multiple intelligence angencies from various governments.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KgGTpkjhBo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRBjP_uicyc
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CngQR1Kfi
He relates the bizarre Russian spy poison plot to 9/11and 7/7. And manages to cite PNAC, WTC7, Dancing Isrealis, Controlled Demolitions, Automated Pentagon missile defense system, 7/7 fake bombers, 7/7 cancelled Luton train, Mossadeq, NWO and more. Unfortunately, he does mention more contentions issues such as Pentagon hole and no-plane theories. Still, this is pretty amazing for a Murdoch-owned channel!
Thanks David!
- Emmanuel Goldstein's blog
- Login to post comments
The guy's a shill!
David Shayler;
"Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, fuck it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says."
http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028
And of course he'd be on a Murdoch-owned channel, they want to ridicule and discredit straw man bs. Is it any surprise now why Fetzer was on Fox so much? Reynolds also made an appearance. Who knows, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Shayler in fact never left the intelligence services, it’s called “COINTELPRO”.
No wonder he's on Alex Jones
No wonder he's on Alex Jones so much, and in Terrorstorm. Fuck 'im!
I was hoping someone would call in
to AJ's show today and bring that up.
i was hoping AJ would bring
i was hoping AJ would bring it up. talk about dropping the ball. its obvious Alex hates those theories as much as anyone, you would think he would ask him about that. still, Shayler did a pretty good job on Sky.
More than a shill . ..
>>"The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,"
This theory was created by Holmgren / the Webfairy as far as I can tell. So draw your own conclusions.
Gee, can't imagine why all the "former" intelligence agents and "former" Bush Admin employees who are inserting themselves into the 9/11 truth movement believe the most looney sounding theories with no basis in reality.
People think, "but they sound so sincere 90% of the time," and "but they're so well known and they really did a great job on such and such," then . . . bam. Holograms. It only takes one word to trash 100% of their credibility. That's what poison pills are. It's a person with a piece of luggage in his hand that you try to ignore. But when he needs to, he open it up and exposes his hologram porn to the media, and then everyone around him is finished.
Worse, then the big bucks and cool looking films come along and promote the missile / no plane / swapped plane theories, so that then we get the Hollywood stars repeating the looney stuff mixed with the strong points - if no one noticed, Charlie Sheen was saying he didn't think real commercial jets hit the WTC .. . just like "former" Bush employee Morgan Reynolds, in contradiction to all the evidence, but in keeping with Holmgren, the Webfairy and the "former" intelligence community members, like Shayler.
"People think, "but they
"People think, "but they sound so sincere 90% of the time," and "but they're so well known and they really did a great job on such and such," then . . . bam. Holograms."
^ Really well put! I think Charlie Sheen’s for real though, but I do agree about taking issue with what he said about the planes not being commercial, I thought that was getting on the verge of disinfo territory.
There is a huge difference
There is a huge difference between a modified Boeing 7x7 and missile with hologram projection.
well, they may NOT have been real commercial jets
but that they were real planes is not in question by anyone but shills.
plenty of non-shill people, including myself, believe it's possible that the flights were faked (i.e. the passenger lists, phone calls, etc.) but not the actual planes. there's a big difference, and shills like to pretend there isn't.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
>>plenty of non-shill
>>plenty of non-shill people, including myself, believe it's possible that the flights were faked
That's on par with the formula, isn't it? After promoting the non-scientific bs via the slick films and websites and massive forums like Letsroll911, as hard as possible for years, we end up with people convinced that flights were faked. This is to be expected. Many of us have believed aspects were faked at one point in our learning. Many of us then spent a LOT of time looking at the evidence and used common sense and discovered that the most powerful evidence suggests that the flights were most likely not faked.
Could they have been? Possibly. But the place for "possibly" is not on front pages of newspapers, as we saw on the 5th anniversary with the massive media attacks on missile / no-plane /drone plane at the Pentagon. And unfortunately the overwhelming evidence -- if you look at it scientifically -- points in the other direction and suggest the planes were on autopilot of some kind. The cell phone calls issue has only been dealt with by people who have an agenda in place already. No serious scientific effort has been made with that issue yet -- the Dewdney studies are not scientific for many reasons, but from the view point of people not trained in science, they do appear to be scientific. But they have such significant flaws in the design and premise that they cannot serve as serious studies.
Science is not about hunches, and phrases like, "that just sounded wrong," or, "that didn't seem right." Hunches can start an investigation, of course, but hunches can never be used as 'evidence'. Hunches are not evidence, they are informed guesses. Much science starts with that. But real testing must be done, not fake or extremely flawed testing, or promotions of hunches alone. The demolitions are as strong as they are because they are testable. The tests are replicable by others to test the tests. And so forth. Much of the no-planes claims are based on situations with so little evidence that we cannot make a conclusion and still be in the realm of science. Yet many claim "I know." They do not. They believe. This a huge problem.
One thing i noticed
I sent this in yesterday from the truth seeker web page.
The one thing i did notice is how the British media is.
What i mean is could you imagine giving Dr Griffin
an hour on NBC prime time,with a host that does'nt bash and interupt?
In my opinion.....The fight would be won.