Hitpiece gegen Desinformanten

[D-Style]

Kurze Story: D-Style entlarvt Lügen eines Desinformanten (mit nem Stück Papier und ein wenig Verstand), D-Style schreibt Kommentar zu dessen Video, Desinformant löscht den Kommentar und blockt D-Style von weiteren Kommentaren. D-Style wird wütend und macht Video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xU_9dxLWkK8

EDIT:
Hier eine Message eines Apologeten:

Flight 175 supposedly hit the South face of WTC 2. In the FOX video, if you work out the positions of the towers, fireball and smoke, you will see that the plane is coming in from the wrong angle, and hitting the wrong side of the tower; It hits the East side in th FOX video. I can't explain it better than that.. if you don't see it, just take the time to go through it carefully step by step. Its incredibly simple, and once you get it, you will understand where im coming from, and why im telling you..

What does it mean and why am i telling you;

It means that the media was involved on 9/11 beyond what the "truth movement" currently believes. It had an active part in the days events. As i said before, the BBC and CNN WTC 7 video error/30 minutes too early is only one proof of this! We all know the media lies to us on a daily basis.. and 9/11 was no different. They actively edit out the explosions in the towers, don't cover WTC 7 and many other glaring oddities in the official story. They ARE complicit in 9/11.

Why does it make AJ unreliable? Because the truth is so glaringly obvious. When i realized, it took me by suprise. I finally understood what cointelpro is all about... misdirection. And AJ does a fantastic job of doing that. He is very smart, yet, he seems to ignore key pieces of evidence that he would normally pick up on in any other case.. thats what originally aroused my suspicions about him, aswell as his "hey, im angry, be angry" attitude. An example would be the pulverization of the entire towers into micron fine powder, yet leaving paper untouched.. a halmark of a nuclear type of weapon (radiation not absorbed by paper)

He is there to misdirect people, to buy the criminals some time. Whether this is intentional or not, only he knows the answer to that. But looking at that interview of him, he seems very brainwashed to me.

Id be more than happy to answer questions you have. I need to be helping in some way, even if its one person at a time

und hier meine Antwort:

Alright...
I don't understand why you play apologist for bsregistration, but even if it was true, what you say: He LIED by saying the Fox-chopper was SOUTH of the towers and had to be coming from the left. It was a LIE, a conscious lie. He even proved by himself he was lying by asking the viewer where the Empire State Building was. Of course you can't see it, when you're looking into northeast!

Why should I buy into his story at all? You now say the angle is wrong and it hit the east side of the tower on the allegedly faked fox video. I watched it over and over. The explosion is totally consistent with the record regarding it's direction and everything else. Why should anybody fake an explosion after all? Just think for yourself for once, instead of accepting the opinion of other people!!

And regarding AJ and the media involvment: Why do you think he even covered the BBC-desaster? Especially if he would be a misdirector as you say? Why should he be buying the criminals more time? Where is the point in all this?
And regarding BBC: It is no proof that the media was complicit. I agree that they lie to us, some more than the others, but BBC was given the information of WTC7 simply too early by some official and they broadcasted it. It was a mistake of the government! If the media was involved in it the reporter Jane Standley surely wouldn't announce WTC7's collapse while standing in front of it! It was a mistake from the insiders because THEY knew it would blow up, not the media.

The planes were real, ask the dead passengers...

[D-Style]

omg was für ein vollidiot... lest euch DAS mal durch, seine Antwort:

Im not playing apologist for bsreg, he is correct with what he states. The chopper WAS South of the towers, but as you say, off to the South-South-West a bit, facing North-North-East. You should have been able to see the Empire State, it should have been just to the left of towers in the background, but instead there was just a crappy composite layer (think google earth, thats the kind of technology that was involved. this is covered in that rense page i posted, if your interested).

The explosion is constant throughout the videos, the explosion is real (although there is evidence that there was additional layers, to cover the nose-out error for example). If you watch the FOX video you see the fireball


He covered the BBC error, because it can be used as misdirection, and also others would undoubtedly cover the story anyway, so he mite aswell chime in. The point in buying the criminals more time is selfevidence really.. its for the benefit of the criminals. WTC 7 was in NO danger whatsoever of collapsing, that is a lie in itself.. so for anyone to be saying its going to collapse is suspicious, and the fact that someone put out a report too early suggests that someone knew it was coming down by "other" means. The media obviously got this source from someone involved, and i do believe they never explained where it came from.. it was just a "source". Im not pointing the finger at the reporters, they are smallfry really.. the involvement would be with the execs or producers, whoever was controlling the said aspect, be that "info" or "data streams" coming in from cameras.


Find me a plane at the Pentagon and, especially, Shanksville..

If you are honest with yourself you will agree with me here that there is nothing to substantiate the big planes that supposedly crashed. At the pentagon, somehow it managed to penetrate the outer wall, despite it being hardened to withstand a flimsy aeroplane, yet there is only the odd scrap, no engines, no bodies, no blood..

At Shanksville there is even less! Conspiracy theorists all know this, but they immediately turn to the most convienient explanation, which is that it was shot out the air. Rumsfeld said this also, but was it intentionally said you have to ask.. The CT's just ignore the search for physical evidence completely here, they accept it was just blown up.. yet there should still be significant debry, not just the odd planted piece.


OK, so hopefully you will agree with me that there is little/nothing to substantiate that those two planes even crashed there. So, if those two planes didn't crash, they were somewhere else..

So why is it so hard to accept the idea that the planes at the WTC were somewhere else also, and not really on your TV screen?.. You have to admit, its double standards to say that two planes didn't crash, and the other two did, without providing a rational and logistically possible explanation.

The only solution is that none of the planes crashed, that the entire thing was hoaxed. It is of benefit to the criminals.. no evidence that can be tracked back to them. All you have is fake planted plane parts, and fake TV images.. cunning eh

Remember loose change, a navy electronic warfare plane, c-130, flew over the pentagon? ELECTRONIC WARFARE.. intercepting data streams from news channels, and altering them. They do this all the time in territories they are waging conflict in.

"Part 2":

Even AlexJ covered the story about some of the hijackers who are still alive, even after 9/11! But in order to fill that inconsistency, he started spouting the remote control plane idea.. if you take the no-plane idea to be true, do you see how what he did was misdirection? If the hijackers are still alive, which some are, then the planes that "crashed" could not have been the originals.. in which case, you have a hole in the story.. and AJ provided a misguided truth for you.

He stays away from those holes, and diverts your attention to WTC 7 and controlled demolitions using thermate.. misdrection But it doesn't work forever. Right now the micronuke and no-plane theories are starting to filter through to more people, as more and more wake up to the truth;

Did you see AJ cover the Southpark 9/11 episode? He was insulted. And good reason too. Even the makers of Southpark recognise that the 9/11 conspiracy is a government conspiracy! They understand the truth movement is corrupted, and AJ had to attack them for it because it stated truth. Slander is the last resort of a desperate man, and that was the final nail in the coffin for me concerning AJ.

Loose Change.. banned all talk of no-planes on their forums, and also stick with the thermate angle, no exotic weaponary. Yet they promote disinfo theories like "POD" and the missile flash, aswell as the "mysterious blue tarp box".. which was actually a tent!

Im going out of my way to explain this to you, but only because im bored and have nothing else to do today lol. However, i will continue to explain so long as you are interested. If you want me to go away/stop, i will do so.

I leave the ball in your court

Simon

Der ist doch tatsächlich von dem Schrott überzeugt... und besteht auch noch auf einer nachgewiesenen Lüge (Dass der Hubschrauber südlich war).
Was soll ich dem verblendeten Opfer sagen, außer Rest in Peace?

[aristo]

@d-style

vergiss simon. dem ist nicht zu helfen.

[D-Style]

Zitat von aristo

@d-style

vergiss simon. dem ist nicht zu helfen.

Wenns so einfach wäre...
Diese Trottel verbreiten ihre Message doch mit den Videos und erst gestern musste ich nen Kommentar zu dem bereits widerlegten TV-Fakery-Schrottvideo lesen der da (übersetzt) lautete:
"Interessant! Jetzt muss ich meine ganze Ansichtsweise überdenken, vielen Dank für deine Arbeit!" << ein Truther der nem Rattenfänger auf den Leim gegangen ist. Großartig.

Ich hab das Video zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt gelöscht, weils mE für nicht involvierte Leute nicht genügend Infos und nicht genug schlagkräftige Argumente aufweist, da das Ding in weniger als einem Tag entstanden ist. Wenn die zweite Version fertig ist, poste ich nen Link.

[aristo]

Diese Trottel verbreiten ihre Message doch mit den Videos und erst gestern musste ich nen Kommentar zu dem bereits widerlegten TV-Fakery-Schrottvideo lesen der da (übersetzt) lautete:
"Interessant! Jetzt muss ich meine ganze Ansichtsweise überdenken, vielen Dank für deine Arbeit!" << ein Truther der nem Rattenfänger auf den Leim gegangen ist. Großartig.

wo meinungsfreiheit herrscht, ist es auch möglich eine falsche meinung als wahrheit darzustellen.
damit leben wir doch alle, jeden tag.

auch dieser truther wird irgendwann seine grauen zellen anwerfen.

[AlexBenesch]

*Gähn*

Welche Taktiken kommen hier zum Einsatz?

1)Recherchefehler der Loose-Change-Crew zu Beginn ihrer journalistischen Karriere aufzublasen.

Die 2nd Edition war ein großer Fortschritt, der Final Cut wird aller Vorraussicht nach legendär.

2.)Alex Jones' Worte verdrehen.

AJ meinte niemals, dass Attentäter an Bord der 9/11-Maschinen überlebten und später untertauchten. Es ging darum, dass ein paar der von den Behörden "identifizierten" Terroristen Personen waren, die nichts mit den Anschlägen zu tun hatten und ein normales Leben führen.

Vielleicht ist der "Diskussionspartner" ein CENTCOM-Schreiber.
Verwende deine Energien auf das größtmögliche und aufgeschlosenste Publikum; schreibe z.B. gute Artikel und veröffentliche diese.