Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11
FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27-03-2015, 08:00 PM   #1821
limesub
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: GLASGOW - POLLOK -
Posts: 4,381
Default

Have to say im enjoying this read. Will give my opinion after I am done.

Kind of like eating spiders, you cant really give a taste comparison.

__________________
I don't do guilt, that's for the guilty, I do my best - me
limesub is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2015, 11:29 AM   #1822
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingeagle View Post
Tesla had a beam weapon 100 years ago, so they have it now.....its no brainer to me
PROVE IT. Since it's such a "no-brainer" it should be easy for you.

Tesla's proof that AC power works is in billions of homes today. His "beam weapon" has never been proven or reproduced. Was he such a "genius" that no one else has able to figure out what he did in the past 100 years? Nope. And the absence of proof is not proof of anything but absence.

http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/didyouknow.htm

Quote:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Judy Wood hasn't proven a thing in the almost 10 years she's been on the scene, not in her undeservedly popular book (which I was naive enough to pay 40 dollars for the first week it came out and now hide in shame and refuse to even sell back on e-bay to some other sucker so as to not spread any more BS disinfo around than is already out there). Actually she made a complete fool of herself by trying to promote the proven fraud John Hutchison.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...utchison+fraud

Hilarious that Ace Baker, another OBVIOUS limited-hangout shill, pretended to be fighting her and exposing her on this Hutchison issue, when he himself hasn't admitted ANY non-plane fakery on 9-11, just like Judy Wood and that big fat clown Jim Fetzer. lol

Fetzer is such a shill that he actually has the gall to claim that William "Boom" Rodriguez is an "honest" witness just because he sat down and had dinner with him, despite the HUGE amount of evidence proving that William Rodriguez is a TOTAL fraud.

http://letsrollforums.com/unofficial...nfan-f123.html

http://letsrollforums.com/press-rele...ez-t24680.html

Just two posts prove 100% that she's anything but scientific since she claims the images of the buildings were real and the images of the so-called "jumpers" were real WITHOUT having spent even one minute in authenticating them, something that would is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED before any evidence is accepted as valid in any proper court of law.

Quote:


THE KING KONG MAN – Simon Shack


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...74833#p2374833

KING KONG MAN Part II – the 21 foot jumper! – Simon Shack

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89314#p2389314
Judy Wood has nothing to say on the matter of the PROVEN media-fakery and image-fakery exposed in the above posts because she's a fraud, limited-hangout controlled opposition. I don't really care if she's a direct agent or not because "Direct agent or useful idiot / ego, the result is the same: DISINFORMATION or making everything believable and nothing knowable."

So, with just those two instances of PROVEN image fakery, the ENTIRE case promoted by the media and its government collaborators and the alternative media shills would be THROWN OUT OF COURT under the principle of law called:

Quote:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

False in one particular, false in everything.


This principle of Roman law is still respected and has been appropriated by other disciplines. The concept is that if a witness has been shown to lie in one particular respect in a case, he is not to be trusted in anything else he says. This is why it is important for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: it discredits the rest of their testimony. The object behind the principle is [b]to reject questionable testimony (even if it might be true) before accepting falsehood into evidence.

The legal principles of interrogating witnesses have been drawn into the task of evaluating historical sources. Just as a witness in court can be impeached by being shown to have lied, an historical source likewise loses much of its authority if its author can be shown to have deliberately falsified something--how can we trust an author concerning fact X when we know him to have lied about fact Y? Such an author may corroborate something a better witness says, but has forfeited our trust where he speaks without corroboration.

http://everything2.com/title/falsus+...sus+in+omnibus
Notice, it's falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and NOT

verum in uno, verum in omnibus

or true in one particular, true in everything


the backwards method of many conspiracy hobbyists, LOVED by all con-artists and liars and completely inadmissible in any proper court.

Each separate, major category of 9-11, the non-existent planes, the demolitions, the fake jumpers and vicsims, has proven more than fake enough to be thrown out of court even absent the rest of the fakery in the other categories but ONLY ONE instance of outright, deliberate lie and fraud would have had to be proven, such as the fake planes or the fake jumpers, for the ENTIRE batch to be inadmissible in any proper court.

So where are the police and military willing to arrest the media and interrogate them and the proper courts of law willing to prosecute these slimebags?

There aren't any and they made sure of this and knew this better than anything else BEFORE they even dreamed of planning the whole operation, never mind having the balls to run it.

Otherwise, why would they have given Alex Jones and his followers the rabbit hole of the demolition of WTC7-not-hit-by-anything on a silver platter, announced by Silverstein on fully-controlled media-whore outlet PBS and not one but TWO reporters ahead of time:

That's right, not many superficial 9-11 researchers know this but not just the BBC, but Fox 5 also reported the WTC7 collapse BEFORE the 'official time' (given to you by enemy-propaganda media) that it supposedly happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4CroCsLOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo

So, did BOTH these networks somehow screw up the SAME exact part of the script?

Or did the same higher-up giving orders to two supposedly independent stations, BBC & Fox, across the friggin ATlantic, screw it up twice? lol Did the same message go to both of them?

Please! It was a script that had BOTH these "mistakes" written in and many others, in order to neutralize any real mistakes that they would inevitably make through software bugs and whatnot and target the psychologies of the dissenters, truth-seekers and investigators as well and give them rabbit holes to get lost and waste LOTS of time in, ANY "rabbit hole" or line of investigation that would serve to confirm THE IMAGERY AS REAL and the media as not fully complicit!

Quote:


Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS


by simonshack on September 18th, 2014, 1:18 pm
. . .

To be sure, the desperate, multiple and ongoing efforts to shift the blame away from the TV NETWORKS' total complicity with the 9/11 hoax have been relentless over the years. Here are a bunch of them, listed in random order:


- RICHARD HALL'S HOLOGRAM THEORY: "The planes that eyewitnesses reported seeing hitting the towers were, in actuality, holograms."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- JUDY WOOD'S DEW-DUSTIFICATION THEORY: "The absurd top-down / pyroclastic tower collapses we all saw on TV can only be explained by the use of exotic / classified weapons (turning the towers into very fine dust). This would also explain the gigantic smoke cloud engulfing Manhattan for the entire day."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- JIM FETZER'S NUKE-DUSTIFICATION THEORY: "The absurd top-down / pyroclastic tower collapses we all saw on TV can only be explained by the use of mini nuclear weapons (turning the towers into very fine dust). This would also explain the gigantic smoke cloud engulfing Manhattan for the entire day."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- ACE BAKER'S ONLY-FAKE-PLANE-INSERTS THEORY: "The absurd imagery of the sim-hits (the poor animations of "Flight 175" hitting WTC2) was stealthily inserted into (composited on top of) authentic aerial sceneries of Manhattan shot by the TV NETWORKS that morning."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

- ANDY TYME'S HIJACKED-TV-FEED THEORY:
"The absurd imagery of the sim-hits (the poor animations of "Flight 175" hitting WTC2) was stealthily inserted into the feed beamed to people's TV sets by a clandestine entity - completely unbeknowst to the unwitting TV NETWORKS."
("Ergo, the TV NETWORKS innocently aired only real and legit imagery of the events of September 11, 2001")

Good grief - what will they come up with next? ...
And when will they give us an effing (as opposed to commercial) break?

******
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...W-0MeBOU#t=239
Matt Lauer: "here we go to the tape!"
Katie Couric: "we have the tape!"




http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...91914#p2391914
Quote:

Simon Shack's total debunks of the silliest 9-11 shills of all, 'the hologram huggers':

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...hilit=hologram

RICHARD HALL'S "RADAR ANALYSIS"
or the latest & silliest hologram theory


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1246
The most that Wood can claim is that the towers were brought down by some other means than regular controlled demolition with dynamite (the method of literally ALL other controlled demolitions of buildings) because of the so-called bath-tub they were built on which may have flooded all of Manhattan if destroyed.

The so-called beam weapons are promoted to manipulate people's emotions through FEAR and WONDER

1) Fear monger and scare the shit out of everyone as in "if THEY, the usurocray, have these weapons, then we're all screwed."

2) Marvel-monger and give people the FALSE HOPE that, like Santa Claus and Jesus returning, FREE ENERGY will absolve all of us of all of our individual responsibility for the state of our culture and the state of our usurocracy-shafted and polluted minds and man-made environments.












Lots more proof that ALL or the VAST MAJORITY of the images related to the 9-11 false-flag PsyOp have been falsified, fabricated or been acted in, including those of the building demolitions and the faked and simulated "victims," over here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224648

or directly on Clues Forum:

"TOUR GUIDE" to the September Clues research by Simon Shack

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477

Quote:

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks. [...]

Excerpt from Professor George J. Stein's 1995 essay "Information Warfare"

http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resource...cles/stein.htm

"Wyndham Lewis was the person who showed me that the man-made environment was a teaching-machine, a PROGRAMMED teaching-machine. Earlier, the Symbolists had discovered that the work of art is a programmed teaching-machine, it's a mechanism for shaping sensibility. Well, Lewis simply extended this private art activity to the corporate activity of the whole society in making environments that basically were artifacts or works of art and acted as teaching-machines upon the whole population." -- Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by synergetic67; 30-03-2015 at 11:30 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2015, 04:06 PM   #1823
super glue
Senior Member
 
super glue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,282
Default

As I have said many times before and I will again, Woods is a snake oils salesperson, pure madness in the making, a fear monger who asks her audience, how or where questions, when they are no the wiser than those watching a slight of hand shows where the bunny rabbit came from.

No these buildings had one common enemy, Gravity.

The bath tub threat or theory is pure lies, it exists/ed right enough, but was where the real and final position of most of the debris from the towers ended up, nice and compact too, self supporting the bath tub wall itself, not placing the wall in any danger whatsoever, but preserving it with thousands of tons of basically rubble and infill.

Basically see how the clearance operation was concentrated and how long it took to remove what was above ground, and once at ground zero or street level, how long it then took to clear out the seven or so floor below ground level, and you have one great big clue to as to where the buildings ended up.

No Woods is in for one hell of a showdown once enough people wake up to their magic, and those who are backing her theory and selling her books.

This is her intended outcome, to take as many truther's out of the running when she herself is exposed for fear mongering and telling great big porkies.
super glue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2015, 08:24 PM   #1824
screamingeagle
Senior Member
 
screamingeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Croatia/Zagreb
Posts: 5,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by synergetic67 View Post
PROVE IT. Since it's such a "no-brainer" it should be easy for you.

Tesla's proof that AC power works is in billions of homes today. His "beam weapon" has never been proven or reproduced. Was he such a "genius" that no one else has able to figure out what he did in the past 100 years? Nope. And the absence of proof is not proof of anything but absence.

http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/didyouknow.htm
you calling me ignorant because you are not informed,let see how open minded mr "Thijs van Leer" you are


official statement from the lawyer who was present with government agents when the papers were sized "I was told only that he died Nikola Tesla, who according to some information found air of death, important military device capable of destroying enemy planes in flight"



im sure you will take the effort to translate it,since you are in search for the truth...starts around 24 min mark
__________________
...You Can Try,But Its Useless To Ask Why... "
screamingeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2015, 09:02 PM   #1825
spicy_beetroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amandareckonwith View Post
There is plenty of evidence. Read her textbook. If you missed what I previously stated, I said: [I]It wasn't poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping yours hands 100 times in 10 seconds.
Michael "lord of the dance" Flatley can clap his feet over 250 times in ten seconds

Unbelievable I know (but then he is a Lord)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flatley

Maybe he was responsible?

Last edited by spicy_beetroot; 15-04-2015 at 09:05 PM.
spicy_beetroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2015, 05:03 AM   #1826
helloperator
Senior Member
 
helloperator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 2,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by super glue View Post
As I have said many times before and I will again, Woods is a snake oils salesperson, pure madness in the making, a fear monger who asks her audience, how or where questions, when they are no the wiser than those watching a slight of hand shows where the bunny rabbit came from.

No these buildings had one common enemy, Gravity.

The bath tub threat or theory is pure lies, it exists/ed right enough, but was where the real and final position of most of the debris from the towers ended up, nice and compact too, self supporting the bath tub wall itself, not placing the wall in any danger whatsoever, but preserving it with thousands of tons of basically rubble and infill.

Basically see how the clearance operation was concentrated and how long it took to remove what was above ground, and once at ground zero or street level, how long it then took to clear out the seven or so floor below ground level, and you have one great big clue to as to where the buildings ended up.

No Woods is in for one hell of a showdown once enough people wake up to their magic, and those who are backing her theory and selling her books.

This is her intended outcome, to take as many truther's out of the running when she herself is exposed for fear mongering and telling great big porkies.
Same could be said for all theories about 911.

Nobody really knows except those who did it.
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2015, 09:53 AM   #1827
super glue
Senior Member
 
super glue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by helloperator View Post
Same could be said for all theories about 911.

Nobody really knows except those who did it.
True, but they will reveal all one day.

The one attribute which can be proven is, gravity.
super glue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2015, 03:16 AM   #1828
helloperator
Senior Member
 
helloperator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 2,862
Default

I can't see them revealing 'all'.

Just like JFK...or any of the other felonious acts carried out by criminals dressed up as respectable institutions
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2015, 08:07 PM   #1829
awake canuck
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by super glue View Post
True, but they will reveal all one day.

The one attribute which can be proven is, gravity.
Which we all know from Newton's 3rd law, gravity can only destroy equal number of floors in the opposite direction. Therefore at best , gravity could only destroy 20-30 stories of the remaining structurally intact 70+ stories. I have always wondered what happened to the bottom 30-50 stories (which by the way had thicker steel). Something destroyed the bottom 30-50 stories and according to Newton it couldn't have been gravity....
awake canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 06:41 AM   #1830
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,580
Default

Nope....... It was bombs planted in the base!!!!!! (That went off shortly before they fell)
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2015, 02:24 PM   #1831
super glue
Senior Member
 
super glue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awake canuck View Post
Which we all know from Newton's 3rd law, gravity can only destroy equal number of floors in the opposite direction. Therefore at best , gravity could only destroy 20-30 stories of the remaining structurally intact 70+ stories. I have always wondered what happened to the bottom 30-50 stories (which by the way had thicker steel). Something destroyed the bottom 30-50 stories and according to Newton it couldn't have been gravity....
Selective demolition is the key word here, selective so that there is still enough weight versus gravity to keep the kinetic energy in motion, child's play to an engineering mind with gravity as his main helper.

Which ever way one sees it or imagines it, it was an easy tower to lower, using the correctly placed weakening charges.

The lower regions were the most targeted area so the rest could be deposited into the hole left behind, like I mentioned before, go back and see the first attempt at making this hole for the latter project, wiki has some good views of that attempt, and this was only a tiny device compared to the one that blew out the lobby on the fatal day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_W...Center_bombing

You will see the simple answer eventually.
super glue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2015, 02:28 PM   #1832
super glue
Senior Member
 
super glue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
Nope....... It was bombs planted in the base!!!!!! (That went off shortly before they fell)
Correct synopsis.
super glue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.