Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

[utopiated]

[Pete J]

Hi Commanderson

Thought I'd make a couple of observations regarding your challenge to Dave & Annie since I've been watching your argument develop and wondering if the point you're trying to make really matters given the size and scope of the 9/11 'truth' movement now.

I suppose it's possible that they are 'plants' designed to go off like a time bomb with a 'credibility implosion' after initially gaining popular support. If that's true, it wasn't a very effective plan since there is so much diversity of opinion and personalities in the movement that the adverse influences of any individual are simply dampened by those with alternative views. Also, this would have had to have been planned way back in the early NINETEES when there were no web forums, no widespread email, no 'You Tube' etc. D.S's excape to France and subsequent Guardian campaign would also have had to have been staged. It doesn't sound like much fun to me.

The fact that they 'flip flopped' their views as you put it may or may not be important, but if you choose to draw significance from it then you're not really doing justice to the way generally accepted theories developed. Until about a year ago, for example, anyone who suggested that controlled demolition was involved in the tower collapses was being branded a 'disinfo agent' in many quarters. Also, D.S. and A.M. weren't exactly in a minority by not jumping on the 9/11 'Inside Job' bandwagon at the time of Thierry Meyssan.

The other thing which makes this issue not as relevant as you're making it out to be is that your talking about people who's identities are known. Their faces are known, their day-to-day activities, their professional backgrounds - even their 'flip flopping' views (as you're so eager to point out) are in the public domain. It's also public knowledge that they are former MI5 people, so the challenge your making presents itself automatically and you can make your own mind up. They seem to be genuine people who have wrestle with the day to day challenges of public life (and probably personal life also). Nobody can prove that they're not still 'agents' with a different agenda, but people know this and that fact in itself is empowering for their audience when deciding whether or not their views are expressed in good faith.

The same cannot be said for yourself, however. You could have just come on the forum, made the point constructively and left it at that. Instead you've ground out one of the longest threads ever making very speculative but nonetheless public accusations against specific individuals. Nobody knows who you are, what particular axe you have to grind, what motivates you or anything about you (you haven't even filled in your profile at your blogspot). This is normally no problem - most of us on here post anonymously - but the point should be raised when someone starts making personal accusations against other posters, antagonistically, with no evidence whatsoever other that 'he changed his mind' or 'I have made my mind up'. (Even the Klingons, nasty as they were, had to 'de-cloak' before firing any torpedos .

So what if you're right ? We would still need people to go up and down the country organising grassroots meetings to bolster questioning of the 9/11 account. We would still need people with some public prescence bringing the technical issues into the mainstream media. If you read Annie Machon's account of David Shayler's behaviour when she first encountered him professionally you'll see that he was generally 'against the grain' and asking a lot of questions, even back then. So it's not exactly out of character for him to be making waves now then, is it ? I always try to keep an open mind on everything because people are people - not robots. They are complex. But I generally like the fact that D.S. is prepared to entertain unpopular theories. You don't have to agree with him (I don't actually - until the next piece of evidence comes along which might change my mind). It just makes him more credible as an individual in my view since he isn't scarpering around trying to find a 'mast' to nail his colours to like everyone else.

[drunkenmunky]

Hi, although this is my first post on this forum, I have been looking into 'Conspiracy' Theories for about a year now.

From what I gather about this topic, it’s an argument about whether David and Annie still work for MI5. Sparked by the 'No-plane' theory David admitted to believe in, when interviewed on SKY.

Concerning the video, it does seem strange that David, who I assume was trying to build up credit for the 9/11 theories, should suddenly introduce the 'No-plane' theory right at the end of the interview; thus building upon the stereotype of the 'Conspiracy' theorist. [Bearing in mind, that the average person remembers the first and last things they do in greater detail, whether that’s watching TV or studying in school. Also, most people find it hard to believing in the 'Conspiracy' theories with the most factual evidence, let alone the 'No-plane' theory. Which I would have though David would have taken into account].

I don't know whether the two still work for the MI5 or not. But I see nothing wrong in questioning it. To just question the Government, and then not question the other half, I think is foolish. And to attack people who question certain 'Freedom Movement' figures, I also think is foolish.

Furthermore, I find it really distressing when I read through other people quotes, and find they seem to have elevated certain people campaigning for freedom to some sort of saviour/leader, this happens a lot with David Icke, and David Shayler. And the irony in this is crazy.


Originally posted by Annie:

[lifeinthed]

[poiuytr]

I'm still waiting for agent Annie responses to David's quotations from Alex Jone's show and in the 2005 "Stop the War" book.

And how about missing the beat on Thierry Meyssan's pentagate ?? It made a splash around the world in 2002;hard to believe false flag whistleblowers like you two didn't jump the gun then like the few others.

Or maybe you just consider you really can't be bothered ?
Are you and David going to do like Mike Ruppert and exile yourself in Central America ,away from a doomed western civilisation ?

I suggest you stick around and keep try getting in the news whats hapenning with DU in Iraq;that will give you a lot of support,not to mention put to rest suspicions .

DU travels around the world in three weeks:central america might not be the safe heaven Mike Ruppert and your pair had hoped.

[brian]

Ruppert is now in Canada.

[prole art threat]

[poiuytr]

[IronSnot]

[paul wright]

There's this persistance that D & A cannot possibly be genuine because they once thought something else. Most people here once thought something else, and 9/11 may sooner or later have been the trigger to think differently, or to perceive differently.
From that triggerpoint, if you really understand the meaning of 9/11, rather than regard it rather as some kind of possible misdeed by a single regime, then a whole network of possibilities and probabilities are awakened, NPT being just one
Why the obsessing? why shouldn't Shayler generally follow this small thought pattern amongst a host of others he's expressed?
Why have we got this self-obsessed argument on board, with people who've no idea of who Shayler is expressing expertise, who start threads on subjects they have previously disdained?
What's Paul Stott's view on all this. Some posters here might find a man they can follow there

[utopiated]

[poiuytr]

[chek]

[paul wright]

Paul Stott of the 911Cultwatch who was around here recently
Apologies for the typo

[poiuytr]

[scar]

I think you might mean Jim Fetzer.
If not please provide a link to Hoffmans NPT/beam weapon stuff.
ta.

[chek]

Er...yeah. Hoffman may have entertained the maser theory, but he was never an advocate, as his rebuttal below shows:

"Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?

The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.

Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severly attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light".

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/energybeam.html

[poiuytr]

[scar]

Ta for link, i missed that 1 or it slipped down the memory hole.
He explored the idea and rejected it which is rather different than advocating it wouldnt ya say.
Whats the problem?
How else can conclusions be reached?

[poiuytr]

[Thermate]

[commanderson]

[scar]

[poiuytr]

[Thermate]

[Mick Meaney]

[rodin]

[rodin]

[rodin]

[quote="poiuytr"]

[rodin]