The No Planes Religion now has a living Messiah Christ (David Shayler)

David Shayler, ex-British Intelligence turned whistle-blower, and champion of the "9/11 No Planes" 'Religion', has been officially declaring Himself to be the new Messiah.



I found this quite startling tonight after having recently, in The John Lear Hologram Challenge thread, compared how staunch adherence to the No Planes theory parallels that of a religion. As it turns out, not only is it religion like it even has a real life living (No Planer) "Messiah".

Some criteria of religion:

3. Anything that involves the association of people in a manner resembling a religious institution or cult.
(i.e.)At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
4. Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.
en.wiktionary.org...

Faith:

1. Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
3. A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen.
en.wiktionary.org...

As I've argued in the Challenge thread:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
But most importantly, you're speaking in direct absolutes. There is no maybe or perhaps in your rhetoric. You're absolutely convinced without any exception that you're completely correct about no plane etc. We all might as well go spend our time trying to convince that their (anybody) "God" isn't real, or athiests that "God" is real, and the rest like Global Warning etc, because this is your faith and you're sticking to it without any compromise. And the MIB planted the aircraft parts on the streets of NYC.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If one did not have the faith of their conviction, then what would be the point?

You shouldn't need faith to have certainty, unless you're dealing with something which cannot be proven, like "God" for example. You really can't prove such a "thing" exists, or doesn't. The same goes for human CAUSED "Global Warming", which with current human sciences and understanding we can not even precisely determine how much humans are indeed actually CONTRIBUTING to it.

But people can attempt to disprove certain aspects of a "god" with the religious doctrines that are associated; Or you can disprove many of the Global Warming Alarmists arguments wrong. And when you do the arguments are ignored, rejected, sidestepped, etc and the original idea and attitudes of the faith based person are hardly shaken. In fact, all to often, challenging a biased subject's faith only arrouses their ideals even further and as absurd as it may sound you can strengthen their original faith despite putting it to shame.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As "Arabesque" pointed out in my 9/11 OSS Disinfo thread:

Originally posted by Arabesque
Here is the problem of disinformation in a nutshell:
There are two types of speculation:
1. Speculation that can be answered through confirmation/evidence/experiments/additional investigation, etc. (example: I see molten metal. I speculate thermite caused it. I test and confirm variant thermate)
2. Non-falsifiable speculation: can never be confirmed/proven false. (example: I speculate that an unknown laser beam destroyed the WTC. No experiment/evidence can disprove this theory because the "unknown" laser is unknown to us. Therefore, it can not be proven false.)

The non-falsifiable theories work like this: no evidence can prove them wrong (everything else is labeled "faked/planted/disinfo" evidence).
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those descriptions all apply directly to our "No Plane" ordeal. It's a theory based on conjecture on non-falsifiable scenarios. However, the purported evidence can be fallsified and when it is the No Planers still push on because they've attached blind faith to something that cannot be proven or disproven in the literal it-smacked-you-in-your-face-sense, yet their evidence can and almost always is disproven. That last part ensures that our definition of it being a "faith" 'based' "religion" is a proper definition of the No Plane craze phenomenon.



Then comes David Shayler, who for a time was a highly credible and respected "Truther", but in recent months has apparently jumped on the No plane bandwagon, and then subsequently lost His mind, at least to most of us. For others, however, His recent claims as the savior christ incarnate might seem legitimate.

I can't say how many No Planes boys and girls are out there lighting candles to their religion, nor how many followers David has gained, but it seems likely that many of them may soon realize who their living messiah is.

More on David:
God David @ wikipedia
www.google.com...


Does anybody know of any good warning quotes from His Holyness that might be interpreted as "prophecy"?

[edit on 10-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

yes i learnt this a few weeks back, shocking. He has lost so much weight too I wonder if he is on drugs or perhaps someone is drugging him, or he has stopped drugs and gone nuts as a result! Perhaps has lost the plot completely which in my opinion which would be very sad indeed or its a diliberate act? Perhaps to get people thinking he is a looney on purpose. But he plays it well if he is! I have seen it happen to people before and it has been drug related. One guy i met at this church was a complete born again Christian and insisted he 'saw God one day', he was heavily on drugs and just came out of it in a religious like experience.

Drugs can give euphoric and even spiritual/religious like experiences (hallucinogenics like '___', Marijuana) and can give one a extreme delusions of grandeur (stimulants like Cocaine, ecstasy, Amphetamine). It seems like he has been given a cocktail of all these things. I bet a dope test would reveal a thing or two


[edit on 10-10-2007 by Insolubrious]

oh yes i see now on wiki it quotes

At the July 2007 Glastonbury Symposium, David Shayler announced publicly that he was the new Messiah, stating that much of his revelation had been attained as the result of drug-induced altered states of consciousness; listing mushrooms, Ayahuasca & Ibogaine coupled with the sustained use of marijuana, as the primary catalysts for the realisation of his divine mission.[citation needed] In an effort to bring him back to consensus reality, Shayler has been challenged by friends and family to desist from the continued use of hallucinogenics.


No suprise there then. Daft old fool should of stayed off the drugs.

David Shayler? Who the [bleep] is that?? Never heard of the dude. And presumably neither have many other no-planers like myself. What did he do, get into a bad batch of corn (liquor) or something?

Heck, I don’t even watch television anymore. Nor have I seen a single 9-11 movie. Still I’m a no-planer. Because it’s logical. Just because some crackpot attaches himself to an issue — and contaminates the discussion with his presence — doesn’t mean we should allow ourselves to ignore the message. Doing that would give the ‘crazies’ too much influence altogether, now wouldn’t it?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Heck, I don’t even watch television anymore. Nor have I seen a single 9-11 movie. Still I’m a no-planer. Because it’s logical. Just because some crackpot attaches himself to an issue — and contaminates the discussion with his presence — doesn’t mean we should allow ourselves to ignore the message. Doing that would give the ‘crazies’ too much influence altogether, now wouldn’t it?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Is there anybody who has attached themselves to the no-plane belief who is not a crack-pot?

I would have to guess that drug induced paranoia and delusions come in handy when imagining how no planes were used on 9/11.

robert z,
I agree with you, the no plane theroy is way out there. I could understand a Government involvement theroy, but no planes, no way. When you ask them to explain the just ask something like( how could they fly with all that blood, why didn't they change the transponder, why are you ignoring the evidence). I dont think most have even changed a transponder frequency let alone timed someone doing it. They ask questions that only the people involved could answer, reject any guesses you make and call that evidence. give me a break! They sound like senators.

Originally posted by robert z

Is there anybody who has attached themselves to the no-plane belief who is not a crack-pot?

That would be me robert z. While I do have some ideas that are not understood by many I don't believe I fall into the crack-pot category.

I would have to guess that drug induced paranoia and delusions come in handy when imagining how no planes were used on 9/11.

Unless you consider that Macanudo has somehow laced their Hyde Park (Maduro) with paranoia and delusion inducing drugs it would be safe to say that drugs have nothing to so with my belief that there were no planes involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or Shanksville.

At least there are no plane parts other than a few bits and pieces scattered around here and there which wouldn't amount to more than what could fill a dumpster.

You should understand that those of us who have been around planes all of our lives know that there could not possibly have been 4 airliner crashes with the amount of parts that were left. It is impossible. Thats why we are called "no-planers" because there were no planes.

On the other hand "Plane Huggers" or those that believe that there were planes involved are generally unable to conceive or grasp an alternative to very few parts and insist there must have been a plane regardless of whether or not there was any evidence of a plane.

"Plane Huggers" are easily fooled by magic, illusions and PsyOps. Their heroes are Lance Burton and Seigfried and Roy and their battle cry is "I saw it so it can't be a hologram!"

They are the type that leave $100 donation to the family of the lady that Lance Burton cut in half during the show.

Thanks for your post, it is greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
David Shayler? Who the [bleep] is that?? Never heard of the dude. And presumably neither have many other no-planers like myself. What did he do, get into a bad batch of corn (liquor) or something?

Heck, I don’t even watch television anymore. Nor have I seen a single 9-11 movie. Still I’m a no-planer. Because it’s logical. Just because some crackpot attaches himself to an issue — and contaminates the discussion with his presence — doesn’t mean we should allow ourselves to ignore the message. Doing that would give the ‘crazies’ too much influence altogether, now wouldn’t it?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Props on the media avoidance WIW
But this response makes me think of something. Say a MI5 agent parading as a truther wanted to bolster no-planes. He might promote the theory but then act nutso and discredits the idea to a few (to whom it wasn't already discredited), but to those who believe, they have a choice - follow the messiah, or presume an attempt to discredit the theory, which actually bolsters the theory by making it look worth covering up.

I was vaguely aware of shayler before - he came out first via Greg Szymanski, as did Morgan Reynolds, Paul Craig Roberts, and others. I didn't know how silly he'd gotten even before the chemical revalations.

PS - besides no planes, he could also be attempting to discredit more legit psychedelic usage, as well as 9/11 Truth and the expose of false flag terror in general - and this same tactic described above could turn it around to look like he's promoting these things, cause we're in the world of reverse psychology that could become a revolving door.

Weird stuff, thanks IIB

Originally posted by johnlear
You should understand that those of us who have been around planes all of our lives know that there could not possibly have been 4 airliner crashes with the amount of parts that were left. It is impossible. Thats why we are called "no-planers" because there were no planes.

Right...No one with any real experience with aviation would believe there were planes involved in 911. Please humor me with some kind of corroborating evidence here, I don't believe you.

On the other hand "Plane Huggers" or those that believe that there were planes involved are generally unable to conceive or grasp an alternative to very few parts and insist there must have been a plane regardless of whether or not there was any evidence of a plane.

"Plane Huggers," or more accurately, people who experienced first-hand the events of 9/11. You know, witnesses. A far cry from people who make money off of exploiting tragedy and death.

"Plane Huggers" are easily fooled by magic, illusions and PsyOps. Their heroes are Lance Burton and Seigfried and Roy and their battle cry is "I saw it so it can't be a hologram!" They are the type that leave $100 donation to the family of the lady that Lance Burton cut in half during the show.

Ok, I can play this game too: No planers are dellusional, preferring fanastic, unproveable theories to obvious reality. They are the type to take a theory at face value, without serious thought as to the actual mechanics involved.

Wow, he musta been saying some things on that talk show that someone didn't like. I mean look at him now.....

Looks like they gave the guy a full labotomy or something. Man did they mess that guy up. Maybe an overdose of '___'?

I mean look at the weight he lost, I couldn't even recognize him. Not only did they get him to stop talking about TV-Fakery, they got him saying he's jesus incarnate. That's even better than shutting him up.

I am really tempted to cry disinfo on this one and it probably is. But he really looks to be a bit loony. He looks to be exhibiting Schizoprhrenia or something similar, he has now a Messiah Complex. He could have been drugged?

But, considering he always supported NO Planes, I am of the opinion he is still working for British Intelligence.

Originally posted by robert z
Is there anybody who has attached themselves to the no-plane belief who is not a crack-pot?

I don't get the question. Is there anyone who's a crackpot who's not a crackpot? Probably not. Present company experienced with piloting and discovering bases on the moon excluded of course.

I like the video title - Shayler's "mind destroyed by who?" using the before-and-after videos as proof that he went crazy sometime AFTER arguing for holograms/TV fakery/whatever. Funny stuff.

Is he really scrambled, or acting?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I like the video title - Shayler's "mind destroyed by who?" using the before-and-after videos as proof that he went crazy sometime AFTER arguing for holograms/TV fakery/whatever. Funny stuff.

I think you might be confusing cause and effect here. Most people would argue that a sincerely held belief (as opposed to many on this forum) that no planes were used on 9/11 would be a clear sign of a delusional mind - the initial symptoms before he went completely barking mad.

He has also admitted to taking a face load of mind bending drugs...or maybe "they" made him say that?

Suggestions that he has been driven mad intentionally are ridiculous: for a start, like all the "no-planers", he has nothing to show, just a load of blather. Also, he wasn't even a big name amongst the no-plane loons.

The other point you should keep in mind is that after leaving MI5 his main point of criticism against them was that they were completely incompetent - he now appears to be suggesting that the security forces are omnipotent - quite a change.

for thoses unaware of David Shayler

en.wikipedia.org...

his most famous for been a whistleblower about a MI5 plot to assasinate
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi in February 1996

Id recomend watching him on the Mark Thomas comedy product.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


really theres nothing about your analogy that cant be applied to people who beLIEve the official story except for the messiah part.

he is NOT christ and never will be and i shall come to him and i shall slam his spirit to the ground for i AM christ.

may his soul burn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe this bloke fancies himself as the new David Icke.

He's probably seen Icke earning a nice wage from his books and touring, and thought he'd like a slice of that as well.

reply to post by VelvetSplash



keep an note on this on this forum
so can come back to me.

I will arrange to meet him through email and i know that he shall refuse because people refuse when i know my ablity.

he shall have a serious accident within the comin months let this be known 2 thoses seein this message i am he and that man is not jesus he shall perish



[edit on 11-10-2007 by deathpoet69]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by deathpoet69]

i sent this to david

read the below and see the pictures. you are not jesus. meet me and i shall show you what i am capable of with just my hands. I shall arrange to meet you to show you if you refuse and you carry on with your words in my name you shall burn in your accident let this be known, you have been for told.

reply to post by johnlear


I am sorry Mr. Lear, but your gonna have to explain things better to me. I was not in the buildings that day, but was at the base of the building. I did not see the first plane, but did hear the explosion. The explosion was not that loud, being that it took place so many floors above my head and I really was not listening for anything of the like. But, like so many others outside the building that day I DID SEE THE 2ND PLANE. First thing was the load roar, followed by seeing the plane come into my view between some buildings. There was no indicationg that what I saw was or could be anything except a plane. I have written about this in many threads, and dispite everyone arguing over plane or no plane theory, everyone seems to ignore my posting. I am not sure if they just feel bad that I was there, that I lost friends, or they don't want to hurt my feelings and tell me what I saw was not what I saw.

I have seen many threads on here that showed different kind of planes/missles that could be mistaken for planes and even have read your theories about holograms. I am sorry Mr. Lear, I saw what I saw. And I don't want to sound obnoxious or anything, but I do not think anything you say or show me can change my mind. BUT, I truly would like to hear what you have to say to someone who was there. Someone who watched the 2nd tower get hit. Somone who witnessed people jumping to their death and hearing the muffled thud their bodies made on impact.