The suppression of truth on the David Icke forum

I recently used David Icke's forum to post a few important articles and I quickly found that there is a strict immediate censorship of certain materials and that no discussion is allowed of how these principles are applied to the truth.

Be aware that the post I made which caused this to become apparent was extremely shocking and disturbing, but I do not believe that it was "discriminatory".

I posted a link to an analysis of the video "Beat it" by Michael Jackson. The depravity of those who control the direction of popular thinking is laid bare for all to see in this video analysis It is indeed deeply disturbing to know that we are being programmed by these methods from childhood.

YOU CAN WATCH THE ANALYSIS HERE:

http://lenonhonorfilms.com/WhatLiesInPlainSight.html

Here is the warning I received at the forum:


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear damienduffy,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Discussing Moderation on the Forum - First Notice
-------
Hi there, discussing moderation and/ or making threads or posts about it is against the guidelines of the forum, please read these, thanks.
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...p?p=1061332751

Quote:

Originally Posted by damienduffy:
I have been informed that the analysis of the "Beat it" video ("What lies in plain sight") is considered "Hompophobic" and that posting it here is counter to forum rules.

This immediately raises the question of the limits to the type of discussion that can be held on this forum.

There was no incitement of negative action towards any group of people in the posted material, nor any suggestion that there was something to be hated about all people of a particular description.

What there was, was an in-depth analysis of how behaviour that is counter to traditional social norms has been secretly embedded into vastly popularised material in order to affect changes in thinking throughout the whole of society. THIS IS MEMETICS AT ITS BEST. THIS IS "MAJIK"!

THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF HOW THEY CONTROL POPULAR THINKING.

But the content that is being embedded relates to a mode of behaviour that has been the subject of much controversy and it seems that discussion of anything that touches on this subject is to be considered "hate-speak" here.

Which causes me to wonder-

Should my recent posting of the book documenting the confirmed history of Jewish ritual murder be seen in the same light, according to the same logic? Even though it in no way accuses "all Jews"?

What about the information that exists relating to Israeli involvement in 911? Is that to be seen as "hate-speak" here?

Would we be able to discuss the role of Britain and the Vatican in the genocide of native North Americans? Would that be considered prejudiced against British people? Or is it okay to talk about that because it involves the "queen"?

What about what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan, can we talk about that?

I do not want to ever make prejudiced posts, but if I must avoid important issues due to political correctness then I would rather keep my mouth shut.




[End quote].

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So the Icke forum operates in the same "boxed-in" way that Icke accuses the World of.

Just like Icke would say:

"You couldn't make it up".


This isn't about any negative view towards homosexuality, it's about the control of information available on thie forum and the complete stamping on any discussion of how the material that is allowed for discussion is filtered.

This is David Icke's forum operating according to the same controlled-knowledge principle that Icke apparently speaks out against. Which OBVIOUSLY means that NOBODY is going to learn the truth of the World from either David Icke or his website.

The deletion of my final post proves that they don't want this cat to get out of the bag.

My last post, titled "My last post it seems" was I thought carefully worded to not breach any rules or offend the administrators. It read:

I am compelled to stop posting here due to reasons that I am unable to disclose here.

I wish you all the best.

You can follow my news feed on Facebook~:

http://www.facebook.com/damien.duffy2

[End post)

Apparently that message was too hot for them to leave on the board!


"Crash physics for everyone" was allowed to be posted there recently. I sent this material to Icke in 2006 and he ignored it.

The article explains why the most basic physics principle show that the alleged explanations of aircraft crashing into buildings on 911 are completely impossible and this proof immediately implicates the media networks that broadcast fake and real-time-CGI "live" video.

The trolls on the forum threw their very best sticks at the idea, and this was a good thing, because the principles were easily defended and stand true.

Nobody has been able to refute "Crash physics for everyone" since it was written 7 years ago as an open challenge to Professor Steven Jones (who did not respond). Hopefully it will stay up on the david Icke forum. It is a 2-part thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235819

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235916

David Icke presents as if he is exposing all of the lies in the World, when in fact what he really presents is a package of concepts, some of which are true indeed (but then often well-known also, e.g. Aspartame, Fluoride), some of which may be totally fictitious, and some of which are gross misrepresentation. The information that he leaves out is extremely important.

The largest gross misrepresentation of course, which is backed up by the "shape-shifting lizard" theory is that the current royal family is legitimate.

[The Royal line was broken after Henry II as revealed by Tony Robinson here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DCasz6oeL4]

! The above is know understood to be a distraction, please read Greg Hallet's extremely informative comments below.

And then the de facto illegitimate line was broken [again], with de facto queen Victoria having had a (de facto) legitimate heir from a first marriage, one Marcos Manuel, the descendands of whome have made a current claim to the throne that is currently being ignored by Buckingham Palace and Downing Street.

The spooky goings-on at the David Icke forum started when I first posted this information about the current claim to the throne there and the thread went missing, then it re-appeared with a rubbish title that would not interest anybody. It seems to have gone again. You can learn all about it here:

http://www.theworldoftruth.net/HallettReport/No4.html#.USqlaFJADpc

Coffinman has never contributed on a forum where the sword of truth must be made to avoid valid targets as they present, and never will. To do so would be to give the false impression of a free discussion. The staff on David Icke website must have felt that this would have been apparent from my last post there and therefore deleted it.

Common ground, AKA THE GREAT COVER-UP

http://www.911researchers.com/node/871

So what did all the agents of deception that have been outed here have in common?

Well firstly they all supported Wood's UNPROVEN DEW hypothesis.
What would be the point in that?
Maybe to cover up the destruction of building by other methods?
Given the incredible things associated with those destructions it seems that the cover-up would be to disguise the fact that NUCLEAR WEAPONS WERE IN FACT USED IN NEW YORK.

Something else was the discussion of apparent black-ops vehicles.
These are pointed to in videos that we know are not untouched originals.
The vehicles are alleged to prove the involvement of the American Black military.
If that was a lie, what would be it's purpose?
Well, it covers-up the possibility of the september 11 attacks being perpetrated by an outside force.

Oh, but we must remember that Grable was happy to consider 911 to be an attack from Russia using beam weapons.
Well why not consider that it could have been an attack from an outside force using NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT WERE NOT MANUFACTURED IN THE USA!!!!

The idea of black-ops vehicles firing a missile also cover-up the possibility of a roof-launched missile having being used.

I think that THE WHOLE INFILTRATION OF OUR COMMUNITY WAS TO COVER UP THE ABOVE.

Coffinman bows out of 911researchers

Coffinman bows out of 911researchers
http://www.911researchers.com/node/721#comment-5536

Do you know what?

Submitted by Coffinman on Tue, 2007-07-17 16:46.

It seems to me that I am talking to myself here.
There are trolls that want to cover up the political exposures happening within our community, and people who present as good researchers yet stand back and say nothing.
The exposed liar, attempted character assassin and tacit bodyguard of Loose Change and 911mysteries, Haupt is back posting as if nothing has happened, and nobody has any problems with that.
I could go on, but I don't think that it would be worth the wear on my keyboard to continue.

I am going to end with a quote from Holmgren:

[CM stood up for basic principles of truth, integrity and logic and “letting the chips fall where they may”]

And another:

[Griffinization of no planes is complete. You all think that victory is within your grasp. Well in a way it is. Very soon, Fetzer will be standing up on a podium with the webhag behind him, aanouncing that if you throw a grand piano at a hologram of a pod, it proves that we have dozens of highly qualified experts (and no bus drivers) to prove that planes both did and did not hit the WTC, thanks to the ground breaking physics research of Moregames Reynolds and the magnificent "911 mysteries video".]

At least Gerard can get to see one of his hopes fulfilled:

[I just hope that CM has enough strength and clarity of vision to walk away on his own terms before you cunts crucify him completely.]

None of you could ever crucify me, because I fight with the truth, and there is no defence against the truth.
Period.
And I am walking away on my own terms.

Coffinman

Bodyguarding

http://www.911researchers.com/node/721

Submitted by Coffinman on Tue, 2007-07-17 02:42.

This was a post that I made early on against Grable's bodyguarding of Wood.
Grable had already put forward that Wood was silent because she did not want to go against Leaphardt's advice.
She had said that this was because women were like that when they had been protected by a man.
It was in response to this post that she made her now famous sexist comment:
[When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees she will not speak out against him. The fear of losing that protection is too great.
I'm a case in point.
I disagree with Holmgren on a number of issues, but I kept quiet out of respect and subservience, cos he bodyguarded me.

I made this post on 13/6/07:

Bodyguarding
There are different types of bodyguarding.
1. When you assist somebody who is engaged in debate.
2. When you support their credibility in advance of any attack being made.
3. When you jump into a fight that they are avoiding, and fight on their behalf. Version 3 allows the person who is subject to the attack to be unaccountable. Nobody should be unaccountable. Stalin was unaccountable. If the group wishes to have unaccountability for certain members I want no part of it.
Any person considering version 3 bodyguarding should feel beforehand that they know exactly why the person they are fighting for has not spoken up, and should be able to relate that circumstance to us all. Otherwise they are acting according to something they presume. It's okay to presume things, but just don't fight with them. "Women's problems" don't cut it.
Version 3 bodyguarding is what the followers of all the other 911 gurus practice. You can see it on YouTube threads and etc.. At least on YT threads they can say "Well ..... isn't here to speak for themself".
Suddenly I see this question of version 3 bodyguarding as being the most important of all. As long as it remains acceptable practice here then any enemy can always be protected by loyal colleagues. This is the way the elite all over the world operate.
[End]

Now think about that, and then read this:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/714
And then think about what Nico has done.
They are a bunch of traitors.
Grable.
Haupt.
Wood.
Fetzer.
Reynolds.
And they are supported by the idiots:
C.B. Brooklyn
Total Idiot (I can't call him anything else)
and a few others that may not deserve to be singled out right now.
This isn't about being nice, you know.
There was nothing nice in NY on 911.
There is nothing nice in Iraq now.
And we are dealing with the same people.
So if you want a "nice" search for truth and justice, forget it.
These people do their utmost to cause maximum damage when they loose their control.
You have seen it.
They are nasty pasties.
Just like Rumplestiltskin was.

• Coffinman's blog

Webfairy, Nico and the smokescreen and smear campaign.

http://www.911researchers.com/node/714

Submitted by Coffinman on Mon, 2007-07-16 05:33.

I have proven that Nico told a lie in order to discredit me and then refused to acknowledge the lie when it was proven.
He repeated to attribute to me a statement that was made by Webfairy even after I had proved that she had said it, and when.
He tried to destroy my reputation.
Once I had done this he deleted my account, and then tried to delete all of my work here.
Fortunately Rick had removed his moderator status by that time.
Now we need to move forward, out of the rut (troll fruit-loop) created by Nico.

Why on Earth would Nico feel the need to tell such a vicious lie and attempt to destroy my credibility?

I will examine the events which provoked Nico Haupt and Rosalee Grable to personally smear me with the lies I have documented in the Post titled “Nico Haupt”:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/707

Holmgren exposed the double thinking and duplicity of Reynolds in his pretence to be a no planer.
Reynolds released an article which contained a multitude of Lies about Holmgren, and a fatally flawed crash-physics analysis that focused on the mass of the building.
In the article he claimed that he had been a no-planer, and offered reasons for why he had lied for so long.
I pointed out that his lies had allowed the circulation of all kinds of silly ideas about what had hit the towers, and created a total confusion for people who were trying to see what we had found out.

Holmgren had also earlier pointed out that Fetzer had openly challenged Newton’s 3rd law.
Holmgren asked Wood to comment on Newton’s 3rd law and so did I, explaining the value of her potential contribution on the matter.
First she refused to comment on the issue, and when she was pressed for an answer we got her lawyer telling us that she didn’t have to answer any questions and that if she did her answers would be used to drive a wedge between her and Fetzer.

Listen:
Where irreconcilable differences exist, then wedges must be driven.

Political unity was more important to her than correct science.
Reynolds didn’t correct Fetzer on his challenge to Newton either, despite his new-found openness about “No-planes”.
So Fetzer’s direct challenge to Newton’s third law was never corrected by Reynolds – who - claims to speak for crash physics - or by Wood who claims to be a mechanical scientist dedicated to truth about 911.
And Fetzer has never retracted his challenge to Newton.
And remember that these are the people promoting no-planes evidence in the mainstream media (or not, in the case of Wood).

Fetzer’s program regularly features Wood and Reynolds.
Wood’s site links to Fetzer.
Therefore they endorse Fetzer as a fellow voice of truth and they refuse to correct his lie about the variability of Newton’s 3rd law on the grounds of “Not wanting to drive a wedge”.

I propose that we DO NOT WANT THESE PEOPLE PROMOTING THE NO-PLANE EVIDENCE AT ALL.
Do we?

Fetzer continues to promote Loose Change and the diabolical 911mysteries prominently on the front page of the “scholars” website.
The fact that so much of Wood and Reynolds’ work goes through Fetzer means that they tacitly support his promotion of Loose Change and 911mysteries, his variable 3rd law and all the other crap he has spouted.

So do Reynolds and Wood support Loose Change?
What about 911mysteries?
Have they ever spoken about the problems with the above when they have appeared on Fetzer’s show?
If they link to his stuff, and promote him as a “fellow voice for truth” whilst saying nothing about the alarming issues regarding his support of disinformation then doesn’t that indicate a tacit approval of that disinformation?

I have tried to address the issue of the planes with Fetzer.
He is fully exposed for what he is.
So why is it that he appears to be immune from the responsibility of his lies, which have been exposed?
Why do Wood and Reynolds go to Fetzer when they want publicity?
Remember I pointed out that Dr Wood has a quote on the front page of her website:
“There comes a time when silence is betrayal”.
Why is she silent on the most important issues?
Why does Reynolds not point out the errors of Fetzer’s absurd variable 3rd law of motion, after all, he says he fancies himself as a champion of crash physics!
Has there been ANY POINT where either Wood or Reynolds has pulled Fetzer about any of his lies or frauds?

I would like to ask Dr Wood when is the time that silence becomes betrayal?
Maybe when you keep your mouth shut about impossible plane crashes?
Or the lies and disinformation of Loose Change?
Or the total misrepresentation of 911mysteries?

So anyway………
Webfairy cheered Reynolds’ article with it’s fatally-flawed “mass hypothesis” (Which I had pointed out straightaway).
Reynolds had asked me “What should I say to the media” and said he wanted to go on tv to promote “no-planes”.
Holmgren suggested that as he was out of practice, Reynolds should practice his no-plane debating skills first.
He said that a debate with either Wood or Fetzer would be suitable.
As Holmgren said:
“to test whether political loyalties are still more important that than truth.”

The idea seemed good to me and I showed my enthusiasm.
I could already see that some “wedges” were in order.
We might at last get to see “the scholars” “letting the chips fall where they may”.
What could possibly be wrong with a scholarly debate on this most important issue?
Well Webfairy saw a problem.
A “pitchfork parade” against Wood was what she called it.
She called it “shitty”.

Then I was a Jackboot no-planer, Napoleon, fascist etc..
Holmgren left in a rage then, furious at Webfairy’s betrayal I suppose.
And in the argument over Wood’s silence Webfairy introduced an analysis which I disagreed with strongly and then she immediately tried to attribute the sexism to me in order to smear me and therefore discredit me.
It seems that there is something about Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer that she wishes to keep hidden.

I then posted the “story so far” here so that this could take place in view of everybody.
It was too important to continue on a small list controlled by them.

Webfairy continued to hide the real content of what had happened by yelling things like:
Sexist.
Jackboot no-planer.
Mcarthyite.
Thought police.
And etc.

Nico was quick to join her in an attempt to ruin my reputation, but unfortunately for them I was able to show that they had knowingly lied about what had taken place in an attempt to discredit me.
In spite of his proclaimed professed mistrust of Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer, Nico resorted to lying in order to smear me personally in order to prevent any discussion of what this was really all about.

Now that we’ve dealt with the “sexism” lie, we can get look at what this was really all about

Why would Haupt and Grable support and Wood with such extreme passion?
Why would they want to destroy my reputation when I was simply trying to find the truth?

The proposal to test Reynolds in a debate with Wood was labeled as “a pitchfork parade against Wood”.
Why would that be?
You must remember that it was not Dr Wood’s stance on the planes that was the issue, the issue was to test Reynolds’ debating skills.

Obviously Wood, Fetzer and Reynolds are not independent of each other, they have an alliance that is more important to them than truth or correct science.

Webfairy says that Wood is independent from Fetzer, yet when Wood was asked to make a comment that might embarrass Fetzer, and the issue was continued by suggesting that Morgan practice debating THAT issue with Wood, Webfairy labeled it as a “Pitchfork parade against Dr Wood”.

Nico made a lot of noise and trouble to create a smokescreen, and exposed himself as a saboteur.
Now that he can no longer shield Webfairy she should return to this forum and account for why she is protecting Woods, Reynolds and Fetzer.

Does that surprise anyone?
Let’s look at that again…..

She is protecting Woods, Reynolds and Fetzer.
(And she tried to destroy me in the process.
And Holmgren left.
I can’t speak for him but I blame her for it.)

This means that she is now tacitly supporting Loose Change and 911mysteries.
Not by declaration, but by protecting Wood and Reynolds, who both protect Fetzer.
So does Nico, by launching a personal smear campaign against anyone who tries to expose this treachery and look deeper into it.

When we try to make Fetzer accountable for his promotion of Loose Change and 911 mysteries, he hides behind Wood and Reynolds and his support for unconventional demolition.
They will not criticize him.
When we try to make Reynolds or Wood accountable, WF and Nico start a campaign to smear and destroy, based on lies.

What is happening?

• Coffinman's blog

Haupt guilty of sabotage at 911researchers

http://www.911researchers.com/node/713

Submitted by Coffinman on Sun, 2007-07-15 23:15.

Haupt deleted my account after being proved to be a liar who was trying to discredit me whilst I was in the process of exposing treachery within our community.
Rick has undone the damage and removed his moderator status.
Haupt is trying his best to get himself banned so that he is unable to answer here for himself.
We do not want to do that!
The research and outing of traitors continues!
This is the email I sent him:

[ http://www.coffinman.co.uk/nico_haupt.htm

You’re scared aren’t you?

Why else would you delete my account?

And you know you got the fuck kicked out of you in the argument.

That’s why you left the bold code active in your last message to hide my highlights.

You fight your dirty fight, and I’ll fight my serious one.

We’ll see what happens.]

• Coffinman's blog

Nico Haupt

http://www.911researchers.com/node/707

Submitted by Coffinman on Sat, 2007-07-14 17:02.

“Nico has recently engaged in directing a mass of garbled vitriol at me.
His starting point was that I was SEXIST.
In fact he reckoned that this alleged sexism signified that I was a victim of some Griffin eco-feminism psy-op.
In order to establish that he attributed to me the following quote “…When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees
she will not speak out against him” describing it as a “SEXIST SLUR”.

This is how he wrote it:
[Coffin writes:
"...When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees
she will not speak out against him..."

WHICH IS ANOTHER SEXIST SLUR!]
And this is the url of the comment:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/706#comment-5400

The problem is that the above quote is from WF- not from me - and I was actually disagreeing with it.
I have pointed this out until everyone is bored with hearing it, and Rick has verified it.
It was also verified by Holmgren in his last contribution.

Will Nico now retract the false attribution to me, and all of the allegations against me that were based on this false attribution?

Will he now direct his rage at the person who actually wrote the above quote, Webfairy?.

All other issues are irrelevant to this thread and would obviously be spam.

I repeat the important part of this post once more so that it will be clear to even those with the poorest reading skills:

Will Nico now retract the false attribution to me, and all of the allegations against me that were based on this false attribution?

Will he now direct his rage at the person who actually wrote the above quote, Webfairy?.
(edited to unbold only)

Now added to remain at top:

Nico the troll
Submitted by Coffinman on Sun, 2007-07-15 15:32.

Nico has shown that he will not answer the two questions posed to him.
It is now an established fact that he lied about what I had said.
He has turned this thread into a trolls fruit loop.
I will look at the reasons why he felt it necessary to lie and attempt to smear me in another post.

I have proven:

1. Webfairy made the sexist statement, which I opposed viciously.

2. Haupt knowingly attempts (still) to discredit me by falsely attributing Webfairy's outlook to me.

3. Haupt will not say he disagrees with Webfairy's sexist outlook.

I consider this matter closed now and it is time to move on.

Coffinman

•