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

I think one of the problems with the 911 truth movement is it's continued failure to translate truth into meaningful action either in court or in the field of politics.

Demos are fine and exemplary actions like the confrontations engineered by the We Are Change guys are fine, but the 911 situation is a lot like the anti-Vietnam war movement or the civil rights movement. Until you can seriously disrupt life with masses of people in the streets, the political leaders of the society will be able to avoid dealing with the hard issues, like how to get a proper criminal investigation of 911, leading to the arrest of the real perpetrators of it.

Eric Hufschmidt is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Instead of working to bring about some kind of actionable case against ANYBODY responsible for the controlled demolition of the WTC, he spends his time sniping at other people in this fight, who he thinks are not paying sufficient attention to the Zionists involved. Simply using the word Zionist instead of the word neocon is not smart. Zionism and Zionist are two superheated words that have connotations that go far beyond the events of the last few years.

Many people are Zionists in the loose sense that they believe that come hell or high water, the Jewish people were going to have a homeland wherever they could grab it in the aftermath of the holocaust, although it actually started earlier. Zionism continues today as a name for people who believe in militarism in Israel in the service of an expansionist agenda to create a greater Israel and even in some cases to ethnically cleanse it of Arabs. My point is that Zionism means different things to different people. Sometimes the meaning depends entirely on the age of the person in question.

Whatever you think about Zionism, it is clear to me that for the purposes of investigating 911 and getting people into court over it, the Zionists relevant to the discussion are the neocons, many of them dual Israeli/American citizens who are influential in right wing Republican policy making circles.

For investigating 911 in an actionable way, the aims of Israeli expansionists are only marginally relevant. The real question is who among their neocon sympathizers committed crimes on American soil. What were the crimes? What is the evidence for the crimes? How do we force the judicial authorities to seriously investigate these crimes and lay charges against these people? The history of Zionism or what Benjamin Freedman says about it or what happened to the USS Liberty is irrelevant.

Hufschmidt is a brilliant guy who has done great work, but what he is doing now borders on hysteria. There is way too much of this carping and finger pointing going on in the 911 movement. There is a whole new species that has differentiated itself from the main body of the movement and that is the "911 navel gazers" who are wasting their energy like Hufschmidt appears to be doing. Let's get the job done first, Eric, you can write "the nine volume history of Zionist perfidy" (heavy irony intended here) later.

Edit: I've edited this post to make it crystal clear that I'm not an anti semite, that I believe that there should be a Jewish national homeland (as long as they don't keep all of the "Hamen taschen" to themselves) and I wish (as Howard Stern does) that the Jewish homeland were in Arizona. Life would be so much simpler. Clear? I'm not Jewish, but I like Jews. Oy vey!

[edit on 14-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

Wow, was just doing a search for any new material from Shayler then found out he's lost his mind. He's obviously only a shadow of his former self.

So sad, his earlier videos were very informative.

This man or should I say women, has completely lost the plot. If you ever wanted proof that MI5 & MI6 have brain washing technology, this is it. Either that or being an MI5, MI6 agent is bad for your mental health. I'll roll around the floor with laughter for all eternity, if this man/woman really turns out to be Christ.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

"No plane theory" (regarding only the Twin Towers mind you) = COINTELPRO.

...According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive....

Wikipedia

Peace

I don't get something.

If Shayler is a shill, who's job is to try to discredit the entire truth movement, why did his bosses have him portray himself as a member of a fringe theory (ie No Planes) which was already thought of as disinfo according the majority of the truth movement?

Why not use him to try to discredit one of the mainstream "un-discredited" 9/11 conspiracy theories?

I've also always wondered if no-planes was disinfo, why doesn't the media dwell on that theory the most to make the truth movement look silly, instead of mostly the "non-disinfo" theories?

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.

I am absolutely convinced thousands of Americans died on September 11th, 2001. I am convinced without exception that they died. You all might as well go spend your time trying to convince people that their (anybody) "God" isn't real, or athiests that "God" is real, and the rest like Global Warning etc, because this is my faith and I'm sticking to it without any compromise.

Originally posted by ATH911
I've also always wondered if no-planes was disinfo, why doesn't the media dwell on that theory the most to make the truth movement look silly, instead of mostly the "non-disinfo" theories?

Simple, because discussion of a no plane theory involving the Twin Towers would ultimately lead to the Pentagon, which wasn't hit by a plane, and pictorial evidence proves it.

It's a Pandora's box the media knew (was told) not to open.

Peace

reply to post by kindred



I think he's just another 911 truther. A bit more eccentric.

Originally posted by Dr LoveSimple, because discussion of a no plane theory involving the Twin Towers would ultimately lead to the Pentagon, which wasn't hit by a plane, and pictorial evidence proves it.

It's a Pandora's box the media knew (was told) not to open.

Are you kidding? No plane at the Pentagon was the first 9/11 conspiracy theory reported by the media. Remember Thierry Masson?

When has the media NOT reported on no plane at the Pentagon theories?

Some plane parts were found at the WTC. The no planers seem to forget, that whatever brought down the WTC was powerful enough to basically turn the building and its contents into dust. Contents that included, along with people, office equipment, furniture, ect, the planes themselves.

Thus, the NPT really doesn't have a leg to stand on, except in the cases of the stubbornly delusional. Since No planers obviously believe there was a massive conspiracy on 9/11, and 95% 9/11 conspiracists believe the towers were brought down by powerful demolition or even energy weapons...explosions that reduced the building to a pile of dust, then how can you expect a mostly aluminum plane ti survive what thousands of tons of steel and concrete could not?

I believe the towers were demolished, and with them, the planes and all their parts were likewise reduced to nothing.

As I read this thread the thing that surprised me and actually saddened me was the fact that two people, traderonwallst and jjohns gave us their eyewitness accounts of seeing the 2nd plane crash into the WTC and they just seemed to be discounted and ignored. Aren't we all supposed to be here looking for the full story regardless of whether we are truthers or debunkers?

I believe the twin towers were hit by planes. How risky would it be for the government to just rely on telling us something when they have no possible control over anybody who could have been out that day in NY taking photos or shooting film? That would have been an enormous risk to take and I don't believe they would have done that.

Did a plane hit the Pentagon or go down in Shanksville? No, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon and I don't believe a plane went down in Shanksville. However, just because I don't believe planes were involved in the Pentagon attack or Shanksville doesn't make me believe there were also no planes that hit the twin towers.

Originally posted by Mark_AmyI believe the twin towers were hit by planes. How risky would it be for the government to just rely on telling us something when they have no possible control over anybody who could have been out that day in NY taking photos or shooting film? That would have been an enormous risk to take and I don't believe they would have done that.

What if the planes missed their targets? Wouldn't showing a fake image on TV be more reliable?

Originally posted by ATH911
What if the planes missed their targets? Wouldn't showing a fake image on TV be more reliable?

You mean if the planes missed the twin towers? That would still carry the huge risk of someone filming them going past the twin towers and flying very low over Manhattan. People would see them and say they didn't hit.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
You mean if the planes missed the twin towers? That would still carry the huge risk of someone filming them going past the twin towers and flying very low over Manhattan. People would see them and say they didn't hit.

What I'm saying is wouldn't using images of planes instead of real ones be more reliable to hit their intended targets?

Originally posted by ATH911
What I'm saying is wouldn't using images of planes instead of real ones be more reliable to hit their intended targets?

Maybe if there was just one hit they would get away with it, but not two at two different times because everyone would be looking skywards after the first one hit and to say the 2nd hit was a plane when it wasn't would be just too great a risk.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
Maybe if there was just one hit they would get away with it, but not two at two different times because everyone would be looking skywards after the first one hit and to say the 2nd hit was a plane when it wasn't would be just too great a risk.

But what if the real planes missed their targets? How could they risk that when missing their targets would me no demolition the towers and by that no demolishing WTC 7?