Shayler in New Statesman on "No Planes"

[xmasdale]

Nico Haupt from New York has sent us this:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2633
Submitted by ewing2001 on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 2:40am. 9/11 Truth | edna cintron league | no-planes | tv fakery
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
Thursday, September 07, 2006


http://www.911tvfakery.net
New Statesman: "Meet the No Planers" (09/11)
http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028
Brendan O'Neill
Monday 11th September 2006

They believe there weren't any planes on 9/11, just missiles wrapped in holograms - and there weren't any London terrorists on 7/7 either. The new-wave conspiracy theorists aren't green-ink types: they're educated; they have secret service connections; they live in Highgate.
At first sight, David Shayler and Annie Machon's home in Highgate - the leafiest of London's leafy suburbs - looks like a picture of middle-class respectability...
...Then you notice the curiosities. On the table sits a document about the "controlled demolition" of the twin towers. The shelves hold books titled The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. There's a stack of colourful leaflets advertising a club night called Truth 9/11, to take place in Brixton in a week's time...
The 9/11 Truth Campaign tries to distance itself from the green-ink loons who have been spreading rumours about 9/11 ever since the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center. "In London we meet socially on the first Monday of every month...
...Its activists - many of whom are fairly well-to-do, and who include lecturers, film-makers and other whistle-blowers - pore over footage and photos of the events of 9/11, furiously debate them online, and argue that, scientifically, the official version of events doesn't add up.
...I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, * it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."
...What about 7/7? Some in the 9/11 Truth Campaign aren't "really into 7/7", in Belinda's words. But Shayler is. He recently finished making 7/7: mind the gap, a film in which he suggests that, given the late running of trains on that fateful day last year, the four bombers could not have blown themselves up in London at the times claimed. He also believes that the closed-circuit TV image of the four men entering Luton Station is a "Photoshop job - a forgery, and a bad one at that"...




So far i count 5 MSM
new
Submitted by ewing2001 on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 3:15am.
So far i count 5 MSM articles since the end of last year somehow kindly mentioning 9/11 TV Fakery or spinning it out of context, replacing it completely with the "no-planes" notion or confusing it with the hologram technology on purpose.
The very real first one was here:
http://www.911tvfakery.net
Toronto Sun mentions 9/11 "TV Fakery"
May 9, 2006
Toronto Sun: 9/11..."Video can be faked"
Conspiracy theorists abound on the World Wide Web
http://torontosun.com/Entertainment/Movies/2006/05/07/1568375-sun.html
Sun, May 7, 2006
By JIM SLOTEK, TORONTO SUN
jim.slotek @tor.sunpub.com
"...The Internet, and its natural constituency of conspiracy-minded misanthropes, can be great entertainment if you're in the mood to look for it.
But there are certain articles you write that makes
the 'Net come looking for you...
But say 9/11 and the conspiracist's head cocks like my dog's,making that "Errrr?" sound, followed by a barrage of angry barking.
The Pentagon was blasted, not by a crashing jet loaded with enough explosive jet fuel to carry it to the West Coast,
but by a missile.
So what happened to the flight that didn't hit the Pentagon,
American Airlines Flight 77?
Well, it never came home, so it must be still up there with my luggage.
The planes that hit the WTC?
They may or may not have actually done so.
(Pictures and video can be faked, and the witnesses could have been paid off).
No 2.
was actually just a spin within a line of Village Voice
beginning of this year:
February 21, 2006
Village Voice gives one line for 9/11 TV fakery research
The Seekers
The birth and life of the '9-11 Truth movement'
by Jarrett Murphy
February 21st, 2006
http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html
"... Others claim the planes were remote controlled, were military aircraft, or did not exist at all...
No.3
was a paragraph in Salon (from 5 pages):
http://www.911tvfakery.net
5 Pages article of Salon includes only 16 words on 9/11 TV fakery
The 9/11 deniers
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/
06/27
By Farhad Manjoo (fm @farhadmanjoo.com)
"..."Loose Change" acknowledges that two planes did actually hit the trade towers -- this marks a variation from more outré versions of the no-plane theory, which propose that live videos of the crash were doctored to include the 767s..."
No.4
was the NYC Villager article from last week
with more paragraphs:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_174/5yearslater.html
Volume 76, Number 15 | August 30 -September 5, 2006
...Missiles, not planes, hit the Twin Towers, Haupt added, and all the footage on television and in newspapers has been edited...
...Morales defended Haupt’s opinion: “...His strong point, which I tend more to agree with, is that the footage, the various mainstream media footage, seems to have been doctored...”
No.5
in this statistics is NewStatesman
I don't see anything offensive in all these articles, which makes it worse than a regular rant in MSM about controlled demolition conspiracy nuts.
However i also still don't expect any U.S. MSM with a detailed article about 9/11 TV Fakery.
I'm actually waiting on a finnish article on 9/11 TV...


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

[Banish]

[andyb]

Of course they won't do a detailed article on tv fakery/holograms, it will only be used to discredit the movement and makes us look like nutters, hence we shouldn't worry about it and concentrate on campaigning the undisputable facts that are enough, IMO.

I do find it difficult that a few NPT'ers don't see how this can be used against us. I've followed the other thread and they seem to say tv imagery, then holograms so it looks like they don't really know. tv Imagery sounds ridiculous to me and I've yet to see proof that the hologram is actually doable, until I do I will not mention this at all to any any truth sceptics.

[IronSnot]

Hey Annie are you sure you've never heard of Thor Fenris Pallson Halland?

This guy;

http://lemming.mahost.org/classwar/briefing.htm

26.09.99: Before the Bournemouth anti-hunting demo which featured in Class War issue 78, Justin Rigby writes piece in Sunday Times on CW and Bournemouth Countryside Alliance demo and anti hunt counter demo. Quoting PP as saying the demo could get "a little bit lively". Names him as a leading member, "Thor Halland".

Of course he's not really an anarchist, in fact last time I was speaking to him online (about a month ago) he said he voted UKIP.

He made a real big deal of being an anarchist and involved in Class War back in 99 on the Guardian board. But it seems he's not really who he said he was, which is of course what makes me suspicious.

And Highgate? How lovely for you.

[ian neal]

Article in full

Meet the No Planers
Brendan O'Neill
Monday 11th September 2006


They believe there weren't any planes on 9/11, just missiles wrapped in holograms - and there weren't any London terrorists on 7/7 either. The new-wave conspiracy theorists aren't green-ink types: they're educated; they have secret service connections; they live in Highgate. By Brendan O'Neill


More by Brendan O'Neill
Browse all articles by Brendan O'Neill in the NS Library

At first sight, David Shayler and Annie Machon's home in Highgate - the leafiest of London's leafy suburbs - looks like a picture of middle-class respectability. There are Japanese landscape paintings on the living-room walls. Shelves groan under the weight of hardback novels and books on politics. An Alsatian with a well-kept, glossy coat looks on curiously as Belinda McKenzie - the grandmotherly landlady of the house - serves tea in china cups with a plate of delicious shortbread biscuits. "Enjoy," she says in a soft, plummy English accent.

Then you notice the curiosities. On the table sits a document about the "controlled demolition" of the twin towers. The shelves hold books titled The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. There's a stack of colourful leaflets advertising a club night called Truth 9/11, to take place in Brixton in a week's time, the "11" in "9/11" represented by two tall stereo speakers. DVDs litter a work desk. One is called 7/7: mind the gap. The cover of another, titled Loose Change, asks: "What if 9/11 were an inside job rather than the work of al-Qaeda . . . ?"

This cluttered house in the heart of respectable, latte-drinking Highgate doubles as the hub of the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign. It's a loose group, founded in January 2004, which suspects precisely that 9/11 was an "inside job", organised and executed by a "shadowy elite" made up of individuals from the FBI, the CIA, the arms industry and politics. Shayler and Machon - the boyfriend-and-girlfriend former spies who famously left MI5 in 1996 after becoming disgruntled - are its leading lights. They've gone from being the Posh and Becks of the whistle-blowing world to something very like the Richard and Judy of the 9/11 conspiracy-theory set.

Sitting on the comfy couch, their cups of tea in hand, they try to convince me that the 11 September 2001 attacks were executed by elements in the west who wanted to launch wars and "make billions upon trillions of dollars".

"We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," says Shayler. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire; they were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Machon nods. In black trousers and black top, this sophisticated blonde in her late thirties comes across more like a schoolmarm than a 9/11 anorak. "The Pentagon's anti-missile defence system would definitely have picked up and dealt with a commercial airliner. We can only assume that whatever hit the Pentagon was sending a friendly signal. A missile fired by a US military plane would have sent a friendly signal." She says this in a kind of Anna Ford-style newsreader's voice, as if she were speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. She takes another sip of tea.

Say the phrase "conspiracy theorist" (but don't say it to Shayler and Machon if you can help it, because they angrily deny being conspiracy theorists) and most people will think of those nutty militiamen in redneck areas of America who hate Big Government, or of taxi drivers with possibly anti-Semitic leanings in some hot, dusty backwater of the Middle East who revel in telling western clients in particular: "America and the Jew did 9/11." Yet, here in Highgate, I am talking to a man and woman who have worked in the British secret services and who, together with their landlady Belinda, a professional linguist, truly believe that American elements facilitated 9/11 in order to "justify their adventurism in oil-rich countries in the Middle East", in Shayler's words. Here we have a new kind of conspiracy theorist: the chattering conspiracist, respectable, well-read, articulate, but, I regret to report, no less cranky than those rednecks and misguided Kabul cabbies.

The 9/11 Truth Campaign tries to distance itself from the green-ink loons who have been spreading rumours about 9/11 ever since the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center. "In London we meet socially on the first Monday of every month, and for a discussion on the third Monday of every month," says the ever-chirpy Machon, as if describing a Women's Institute get-together to discuss knitting, rather than a meeting of individuals who think a dark cabal of nutters controls the world. Its activists - many of whom are fairly well-to-do, and who include lecturers, film-makers and other whistle-blowers - pore over footage and photos of the events of 9/11, furiously debate them online, and argue that, scientifically, the official version of events doesn't add up. For Belinda - who describes herself as the "tea-maker and dishwasher of the movement" and allows activists from outside London to stay at her home - this is about "getting to the historical truth of what happened".

Yet, for all their forensic pretensions, their views remain crankily conspiratorial and unfounded. Take the claim that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, which has been doing the rounds since the French journalist Thierry Meyssan published 9/11: the big lie in 2002. "Just look at the news footage," says Shayler. "You won't see any plane debris on the Pentagon lawn."

Truth-seekers on a mission

True, but there was plenty of plane debris inside the Pentagon, where Flight 77 entered and exploded. There are numerous photographs of the blackened belly of the Pentagon crash site, taken by officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other rescue workers, which clearly show airliner wheel hubs, landing gear, part of a nose cone and bits of fuselage in the smouldering rubble (I hate to have to do this, but if you don't believe me take a look here: [http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm]). What kind of warrior for historical truth doesn't pay attention to basic photographic evidence?

Or consider the claim that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition (which would have involved sinister individuals planting tonnes of dynamite in the weeks prior to 9/11 without being spotted by any of the good citizens of New York). The US National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the cause of the collapse - during which "some 200 technical experts reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs [and] analysed 236 pieces of steel" - and it found "no corroborating evidence" that the towers had been toppled by dynamite. There is a lot of scientific evidence there, yet it is ignored or discounted by the apparently scientifically minded truth-seekers of this campaign.

At times, the line between these middle-class campaigners' apparently "scientific investigations" and old-fashioned conspiracy-mongering seems uncomfortably thin. One of their leaflets has a web address for David Icke, the former sports presenter-turned-"Son of God" who thinks the world is run by a race of reptilian humanoids. Shayler says: "There is a Zionist conspiracy; that's a fact. And they were behind 9/11." Machon intervenes diplomatically: "Not everyone in the campaign shares that view."

Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, * it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."

The 7/7 photo "forgery"

What about 7/7? Some in the 9/11 Truth Campaign aren't "really into 7/7", in Belinda's words. But Shayler is. He recently finished making 7/7: mind the gap, a film in which he suggests that, given the late running of trains on that fateful day last year, the four bombers could not have blown themselves up in London at the times claimed. He also believes that the closed-circuit TV image of the four men entering Luton Station is a "Photoshop job - a forgery, and a bad one at that". He goes so far as to argue that those who forged the photo did it badly in order to send a signal to the rest of us. "This could be elements in the New World Order saying, 'Look, we're sick of lying. We've had enough.'"

So have I. The thought of behind-the-scenes suits being cajoled by their evil paymasters to create an image of four rucksack-wearing terrorists in order to cover up their own bombing of London is just too ludicrous. These 9/11 truth campaigners merely add a supposedly scientific gloss to already existing conspiracy theories, trying to make the ridiculous seem respectable. In the process, they actually do a disservice to "historical truth". History gets reduced to a mysterious force beyond our control, and politics - real politics - is imagined to be the preserve of unknown, faceless puppet-masters whom we can never hope to influence. And the rest of us are reduced to the status of helpless spectators, searching amid the rubble of 9/11 and the aftermath of 7/7 for signs of truth and meaning.

[sonic]

I really think this NO PLANERS discussion is a 'red herring' to the 9/11 Truth objectives.

Would it not be much more productive to stick to the basics that are quite clear and pursue that.

WTC1, WTC2 AND WTC7 WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

WE SHOULD BE PURSUING THAT WITH ALL OUR ENERGIES AND GETTING IT OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A DEBATE (NO PLANES).

It would be much better to focus on who were the scrapmerchants who sold the steel from the towers and follow the trail.

Who were the people in NIST who made false claims about the fall of the towers and follow their trails information wise.

Why are we not discussing with vigour which politicians, infuential people and judges etc. are able to run with any CLEAR EVIDENCE that is available.

Are we becoming a debating shop or are we people who want to see the perpetrators of this cruel and evil action perpetrated on innocents brought to justice in courts.

Peace,

Sonic.

[Andrew Johnson]

Hmmm,

That's a particularly irritating article, focusing on people not facts.

Perhaps the new statesmen would consider re-titling itself "same OLD boring reportage lacking in analysis of facts and evidence". They're getting a letter or two anyway.

Andrew

[kbo234]

I felt quite angry with this Brendan O'Neill while reading his article.

The article does demonstrate, I think, the mistake of raising the 'no planes' issue (I haven't got a clue if it is true or false and don't really care).

However, true or false, it does have the potential to make us look ridiculous to those who know nothing of the evidence....and that is very bad for our cause.

Mainstream sh**bags like O'Neill will always use this against us. We must remember that our determined critics don't care what is true and what is not. They only want to discredit us.
I got a sense of O'Neill as I read his piece. he seemed a familiar type....a self-satisfied know-it-all who is too mentally lazy and spiritually dissolute to bother looking into anything as boring as the detailed evidence of an issue. He'd rather congratulate himself on the fact he already knows everything worth knowing. Wan*er.

[Annie]

This is an obvious example of tabloid journalism, and not what one would expect in the New Statesman. It's a classic case of ridiculing the messenger, and not bothering with the message. Dave has been subjected to this for years, but more usually in the right-wing tabloids. O'Neill obviously hasn't bothered to do his reasearch, nor has he bothered to look at the DRG books we gave him, nor watch LC2 or Mind the Gap. Perhaps he thought he knew it all already?

He had obviously been briefed before the interview to keep pressing on the "no-plane theory". For the record, Dave expressed a personal opinion (misquoted) and Belinda and I both said that it was one of many areas of academic research, but in fact there were numerous examples of solid scientific data which disproved the official version of 911. We then wasted another 2 hours talking him through the rock-solid evidence as well as talking about the exponential growth of the truth movement, but that's hardly reflected.

Plus he has grossly misquoted all of us throughout the article, as well as getting most of the "colour" details wrong too. I wouldn't be seen dead drinking tea! But then, over the last 9 years, I've rarely met a journalist who can take down quotations accurately. Perhaps we should send them all back to journalism college to brush up on their shorthand? Regurgitating government spin does not count as journalism in my book.

We shall be demanding a right of reply in order to correct the misquotes at the very least.

BTW, if any of you feel moved to write to him, he's the deputy editor of the soi-disant alternative journalism website, spiked.com.

And he was terrified of Louis, the alsatian.

Regards

Annie

[catfish]

Mr O'Neill is just reporting what he was told. Did David honestly say he believed that no planes hit the towers? I'm thinking it sure but there's no way I'd mention it to any sheeple, let alone a New Statesman shill.

Even if he kept pushing for it, David should have declined to comment.

Are you stupid? I don't think so.... time will tell.

[Andrew Johnson]

It's a hit piece - so lets "hit back"

Sent to: sue@newstatesman.co.uk
Cc: brendan@newstatesman.co.uk
=====

Re: http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS &newDisplayURN=200609110028
"Meet the No Planers"

Dear Madam/Sirs

I read this article with some interest, being as it was about the 9/11 Truth Movement. Many have been watching the media's attempts to give balanced coverage of this most fundamentally disturbing and profound issue.

I have never read a full issue of your magazine, therefore I read the "About" section of your Website, from which I gleaned that the original magazine had

"the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas. "

Also, there is a quotation from Clifford Sharp

"We did not merely profess to have no political affiliations, we had none. We were soon to discover, however, that a great many people who profess to admire independent political thought are apt to be both puzzled and shocked when they come across it."

It therefore would seem a promising platform from which 9/11 Truth may be discussed in a sober, analytical manner and with a balanced perspective, taking into account well-researched and diverse evidence. This type of approach would seem, to me, to be a pre-requisite for articles which had the goal of "permeating the educated and influential classes."

I was therefore expecting a reasoned mention of:
The very near free-fall speed of collapse of WTC 1 and 2 which, if we accept the Government's Conspiracy theory, breaks the Laws of Physics. (Here's a brief analysis I put together almost 1 year ago.)
The free-fall speed of collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane.
The utter destruction of WTC 1 & 2 into fine pulverised dust.
The toxic air, with a pH of about 14 - something similar to caustic soda.
The spread of wreckage in Shanksville - over and 8-mile wide area, from a plane which supposedly crashed into the ground.
The formation of a group of academics (of which I am a member) called Scholars for 9/11 Truth - whose published articles, research and peer reviewed papers de-construct the Official Conspiracy Theory and expose many of the essential elements as being impossible or as being based on faulty, non-existent or fabricated evidence.
Unfortunately, your article omitted all of these facts and, because of the number of "domestic details" it included was rather more remeniscent of an article from "Hello" magazine. At this point, it is interesting to note your "high brow" publication being significantly "outdone" in terms of journalistic quality and integrity by an article in a "lower brow" publication - the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_artic le_id=403757&in_page_id=1770

Even better, their article is FREE to look at - yours, on the Website, is not. Your failure to investigate the voluminous facts and evidence which are the basis of what I have said above is clear. The immutable Law of Gravity and the facts of the Physics/Chemistry of burning kerosene/melting steel are blithely swept aside with some casual assumptions about photos of something at the Pentagon and the supposedly unanswerable question of "how could the demolition explosives have been planted".

It is quite tiresome to read articles where our names are mentioned in close proximity to phrases like "green-ink loons" and "crankily conspiratorial". However, it isn't as tiresome as it could be, because the simple evidence of the freefall of the WTC proves that the official story is false, and such references in articles can therefore be shown to be "psychological decoys" designed to deflect the reader from looking at the evidence themselves. Those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 must reject the law of gravity as a "conspiracy theory". Perhaps if they continue to do so, they will all float away into space, with a look of utter confusion on their faces.

Those of us who know basic the truth about 9/11 (that it was an Inside Job which had little if anything to do with Al Qaida) are, once the irritation has died down, encouraged by the mainstream media's attempts to ridicule us (as I was ridiculed in the UK Daily Telegraph some weeks ago). It means we are "making progress".

I therefore say the same to you and Brendan O'Neill as I did to Susan Harris of The Independent - perhaps it is now time to "stand up and be counted" - the mainstream media is now at a juncture where people may reject you, and what you are standing for, as your establishments, either through your action or inaction, now fail us in the same way as those politicians, that you are often so fond of vilifying, do. Make no mistake - this issue should be on the front pages of ALL the newspapers, but the fact that it is not strongly indicates that the media are gatekeepers of the truth about the real crimes of 9/11. To test this if my analysis is correct, I also make you the same offer I made to the Guardian Newspaper - I will write an article for you, free, for you to publish in whatever medium you choose - and it will be copyright free. Give me a word count. Funny, no one's yet taken me up on this offer.

If you wish to hear a Professor of Theology speak with authority on the 9/11 Cover-up, it's history and what it might mean for future global geo-politics, you could do worse than send a representative to our event, details of which are described in the Press Release below. He hasn't got a "plum English accent" though (I don't know why I even mentioned that actually, as it has no relevance to any real issues).

As a closing comment, I myself am not influential, nor do I want to be - but I do consider myself to be educated (and hope that I have presented ample evidence here to back up this statement - or "claim" in journospeak), and it is one of my goals in life to offer information to others in that they may become educated too.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson
British 9/11 Truth Campaign (www.nineeleven.co.uk)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (www.st911.org)


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Was 9/11 an inside job?


The 911 Truth Campaign (Britain & Ireland) will be hosting a presentation by David Ray Griffin, a retired Professor of Theology, which addresses the question “Was 9/11 an inside job?”. Now for the first time in the UK, David Ray Griffin will present his case for the urgent need to re-open the investigation into the events of 11th September 2001.



The presentation will be held on 7.30pm - Saturday 9th September 2006, at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. (Nearest station is Holborn - Central and Piccadilly lines - approx 3 min walk. Also within reasonable walking distance are Chancery Lane and Russell Square. See http://www.conwayhall.org.uk/where.htm for venue information.) Doors will be opened at 6.45pm. Tickets can be purchased on the door for £12.50 (Concessions £10.00). Some advance tickets may still be available - the Ticket Hotline number is 0845 108 1736, and Online Booking can be made through www.911truthtotnes.com, or by e-mailing tickets@911truthtotnes.com



According to what was reported on September 11th 2001, terrorists hijacked aircraft and crashed them into World Trade Centre buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. A fourth hijacked plane is alleged to have crashed in Pennsylvania, following a struggle between passengers and the hijackers.



It seems strange to some people that anyone should question any of the essential elements of this story, which has been repeated many times over – in print and in other News Media, and is now widely recognized as the beginning of the “War on Terror”. This war on terror is now a basis on which many significant elements of foreign policy, and even domestic laws, have been based.



Even at the time of the attacks, a small group of people openly questioned the story that the media presented to the public. Few people took this skeptical group seriously, perhaps in part because of the shocking nature of the attacks and the significant loss of life that they caused.



In the 5 years since the attacks, however, many issues have been re-examined by a number of people and serious questions have arisen, many of which were raised by 9/11 victims’ families. These questions were not addressed by the 9/11 (Kean) Commission. Despite this, the Commission Report is regarded by many people, including the British Government, to be the most accurate description and explanation of the events immediately before and on 9/11.



The Kean Commission Report has some extremely significant omissions – the main one being the lack of a discussion or analysis of the Collapse of World Trade Centre (WTC) Building 7. This building, supposedly damaged by small fires (which burned for about 10 hours) and, on one side, by debris ejected from WTC 1 and/or 2, collapsed symmetrically, to the ground in 6.6 seconds at about 5:20 pm on Sept 11th.



It is often said that those who want to investigate the unexplained collapse of WTC 7 are “conspiracy theorists” and it seems that it is this very labelling has deterred a great many people from looking at the facts related not only to the collapse of WTC 7, but those related to the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2.



Professor David Ray Griffin is one of a small number of people with significant academic credentials who has looked into these disturbing questions. An author of over 20 books on Religion and Theology, Professor Griffin stated in an LA Times article (28 Aug 2005), he “believed the official account for about 18 months” – considering it to be a “blowback theory” – the attacks were simply a result of US foreign policy. Then, when he had analysed a timeline of 9/11 events, which referenced mainstream sources, he became suspicious that the official story was false, in key respects, so he began to research further for himself. In 2004, he published the results of this research in The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. In this book (which has a foreword by Michael Meacher, MP) he also posed some questions about the motive for the 9/11 attacks in the context of a document called Rebuilding America’s Defences. This document, which was published by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), states that PNAC is a project "to promote American global leadership" and it later refers to the threat of a “surprise” attack on America “like a New Pearl Harbour”, which could then afford an opportunity to “transform” America’s defences. Professor Griffin also points out that the official account of the 9/11 attack is itself a conspiracy theory.



Professor Griffin published his second book on 9/11 a few months later. In The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Professor Griffin argues that "omissions and distortions" in the report amount to a cover-up by government officials and he concludes that the available evidence suggests that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11. This is also strongly indicated by the fact that the Official Account of the collapse of the WTC buildings is not consistent with the Laws of Physics.



In his latest book, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (supported by the US Presbyterian Church), Griffin describes how the United States is the world's “chief embodiment of demonic power” and asserts that events such as those on 9/11 are a part of a long history of 'false-flag attacks' - orchestrated by governments against their own people to garner popular support for military action.

[sonic]

Thanks for the clarification Annie. It is greatly appreciated.

Best wishes,

Sonic.

[Annie]

No probs, Sonic.

Oh, and by the way, Mr O'Neill also told me he used to "hang around with" (accurate quote) the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). He was dying to know if he had warranted an MI5 file. As a journalist he was breaching Section 1 (5) of the Official Secrets Act by asking a former intelligence officer to disclose classified information!

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Doesn't (greatest living Englishman) Tony Benn just record every interview he does with the press, wouldn't this help?

[TimmyG]

i've always had a lot of respect for david, and you annie. the way you put things across always sounds rational and is well presented..

but i've got to say i'm really dissapointed that you seem to have joined the no-planers. it makes the truth movement look completely and utterly nuts.. and for a good reason.

even if there is some evidence (and i don't think there is nearly enough to even make a realistic suggestion that the planes were faked), talking about it/ trying to pursue investigation into fakery is completely fruitless and will only do damage.

it seems that more and more people on this forum are indulging in fakery/hologram theories... it makes me want to stop visiting this forum.

[Andrew Johnson]

[sr4470]

[sonic]

Great response Andrew.

I am so glad you are part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Thank you.

God bless you,

Sonic.

[scar]

Thanks Annie,

I was shocked to read the article this morning i must admit, turns out its just more cowardly, desperate gatekeeping from arrogant repeaters in wilful denial.
I guess it should have been obvious that they would lie and distort what was said as it happens all the time. This truth doesnt sit well with their establishment cognitions...
Nothing they can do will stop this momentum but its quite sickening how they have tried in this article and many others. Do they have no shame?
Great response once again Andrew.
That is a great idea Sheriton, by law does one have to reveal that the interview is being recorded or could it be done 'by accident'?
hmmmmmmmm

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks Sonic - New Statesman are asking for trouble having highfalutin statements on their website. It reminds me of when I read about what Judo instructors teach.

If you have some 19-stone geyser dressed in Pyjamas lunging in attack at you, you swing yourself into a position where you can throw him. The fact that he's 19-stone then becomes his problem, not yours.

I'm rubbish at Judo though.

[scar]

[TimmyG]

i'm not taking the articles bait.. i dislike the article more than i dislike the indulgence of no-planes theories.

and i'm all for freedom of speech. i have considered the no planes theory... a few points have made me think twice about it (but only very very briefly).


but its not as simple as that.

what is this forum and/or the 9/11 truth movement in general about? is it an outlet for hobbyists who wish to explore all manner of exciting theoretical realities for the fun of it? Or is it a collective focused on realistically exposing the obvious deception that the official story is, to the majority of the population? In the hope that we might one day see the PTB brought to justice, future false flag attacks prevented and the new world order plans halted?


think about it. even if the planes were faked or holographic, what are the chances of us exposing the whos and hows? absolutely zilch. Holograms and fakery are one step towards talking about quantum reality manipulations and stuff about dark matter being manipulated in the 9th dimension of our conscienceness. These things might hold some truth, but its so outside the realms of feasibility we might as well assume that they are not true

[paul wright]

Personally I think New Statesman type people and their readers are amongst the most mind-controlled people in Britain. Amongst the white dumb sheeple, I find the apparently dumber ones are by far the more aware and receptive. They haven't quite received the programming right
I think David's right with his views but should really tell these newshounds to piss off with their probings. Stuff integrity when dealing with leashed and owned people
I personally think that we should get off this no planes stuff and face the real meat of the subject, that while wtc7 was undoubtedly brought down by conventional demolition techniques, that the Twin Towers undoubtedly had some demolition charges present, thermite or thermate most probably, but insufficient to produce the pulverisation of concrete steel and human bodies as occurred
This somewhere along the line will be 'proved' - insufficient shutdown time for the setting of sufficient demolition charges
Therefore the third force of at work

[Mark Gobell]

The motivation for folk discussing aircraft evidence is that to them it appears to be questionable.

Why would anybody, assuming sound motivation, want to discuss anything otherwise ?

Why did any of us start asking questions in the first place ?

Disregard our own personal "view" of this particluar aspect for a moment and ask ourselves honestly how we would be where we are now if we had not asked the tough questions?

Each and every aspect of this disgusting mind blowing crime that we care to raise is always treated with derision and contempt by those who either don't know, don't want to know or don't want anyone else to know.

That includes facts such as Newton's Laws of Physics.

Which of these categories do folk subscribe to who denounce others who choose to spend some of their time discussing this particular issue ?

The notion that it will damage us is quite defeatist and wrong. We have nothing to lose. Nothing.

Think about it. If our case predicates on preventing further discussion then our case is not credible. We have enough evidence. We have a strong answerable case.

All you have to do is read the msm coverage, there are plenty who ridicule without mentioning NPT. There always will be until the damn breaks open.

Reading some of the attitudes in response to NPT provokes little distinction between those who laugh and deride us when we talk about unequivocal facts.

Have we reached the stage when we must preserve a position by crushing dissent ?

A compromise would be to create a new area just like CC and let the NPT folk post there.

[TimmyG]

there is asking hard questions... then there's stretching your imagination to make up new and exciting theories.

i disagree with you mark. after looking at all the evidence, the logical thing to conclude is that indulgence of the no-planes theories is damaging to the movement. we have much to lose. the movement is starting to gain momentum

and this is all aside the point, the evidence that the planes were faked is very very weak.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Mark you are absolutely right.

So many posters keep harping on about the Controlled Demolitions - but nobody is disputing that - we need to get to the bottom of everything that went on that day.

Yes the Controlled demolitions is the main subject to introduce new people to 911 but we are not new to it and the day that man stops asking questions and being curious about things will be a very sad day.

If nobody asked any questions we would all accept the official theory - paradoxically the no planes subject seems to come up in lots of the discussions - it's not going to go away

To move the subject on, maybe the plane huggers (where did that expression come from) and the no planers could find some common ground upon which they agree and build on this.

A point you raised could be the starting point

Are we in universal agreement that there is no clear photographs or film footage that is able to clearly identify the aircraft? And is this not highly unusual and therefore a valid point

[ian neal]

Please have a read of what I have written on this thread.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=21612#21612&sid=1b61 f0e711a216092c767b3b461d5f3d

There are other threads where the actual evidence for 'TV fakery' are discussed but it would be useful I believe if this thread focussed on whether the theory should be discussed at all.

As I make clear I agree with David Icke (and Justin and many others) that when discussing the evidence with the mainstream media and the question of no planes comes up, 'don't go there'. So despite the digging by O'Neil, David S should have choosen to bat the question away IMO.

However those like Timmy who despair and are thinking of not using the forum again, I ask you to think again. Forget whether the no planes theories are true or not.

Do you imagine that if the moderators censored/banned all discussion of 'no 7X7s' theories the issue would go away?

Do you think journalists like ONeil wouldn't still refer to it anyway?

If it was banned, what would happen? The campaign would schism into competing camps each wasting their energy arguing the toss with each other over who is the true voice of 9/11 truth and who are disinfo agents

Why do you think there is a no endorsement policy? As in

[IronSnot]

[ian neal]