Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[Lock&Light]

No doubt just to underline your disinterest you will soon post up a series of bandwidth munching images of you and your friends wearing tin foil hats.

Wasted bandwidth as they undoubtably are, such images waste less space than your inane postings.

 

[flimsier]

Wasted bandwidth as they undoubtably are, such images waste less space than your inane postings.

Actually not true.

 

[Lock&Light]

Actually not true.

Actually, in your opinion not true. My opinion differs.

 

[flimsier]

No, you made a comment on quantity of bandwidth. It's not a question of opinion, and you were wrong.

Of course, I'm sure you'll attempt to get out of this hole by talking of definitions of 'waste', but most others will see you've been caught lying again. Sorry clown-shoes.

 

[Lock&Light]

No, you made a comment on quantity of bandwidth. It's not a question of opinion, and you were wrong.

Of course, I'm sure you'll attempt to get out of this hole by talking of definitions of 'waste', but most others will see you've been caught lying again. Sorry clown-shoes.

You are a very sorry specimen, flimsy. Not worth the bother really.

 

[flimsier]

Why do you then, past caring?

(I thought that was hilarious, honestly).

 

[bigfish]

it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down

Now that we've cleared up his first sentence as being a simple case of him misspeaking, maybe you could explain his second sentence about the laws of physics.

Sure. I think what he means is that no insulated steel framed high rise building, in the entire history of steel framed high rise buildings, has ever collapsed into its own footprint before due to fire and yet on September 11 2001 not one or even two, but three high rise buildings did just that, which is a tad suspicious don't you think, especially as one of them, building 7, wasn't even hit by an airplane?

You might recall that a fire completely engulfed the Windsor building in the heart of Madrid's banking district recently, but it remained standing, like it was designed to, despite burning fiercely for more than a day.

So how did the Windsor building manage to remain standing while WTC 7, for example, collapsed neatly into its own footprint, any idea?

 

[DaveCinzano]

tbf, everytime that bloody picture gets posted, it just makes me want to stuff a building full of ct'ers and fly a plane at it, to see what happens.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

To Clarify..

There are two general & one specific issue here:

1) the questions about 9/11, concerning which by definition Shayler's opinions are just (only) that, however interesting.

2) The general question of Shayler's credibility as a whistleblower. Having been analysing his career for 8 years & having also very recently (21/6) questioned & challenged him at length, I'd say his credibility is still (rightly) not established, to put it mildly.

3) Interestingly, he has been particularly evasive on bombs he did/should have known about (the 1993 Harrod's IRA bomb for example). If he is literally in-credible on those, why believe him about other bombs? I wouldn't, & anybody who does is a delusional fool who prefers conspiracy theorising to reality. Harsh but true.

 

[bigfish]

So, Larry, if Shayler is not "credible", how come he got thrown into prison by the British government for blowing the whistle on British intels links with Al-Qaeda, any idea?

 

[bigfish]

2) The general question of Shayler's credibility as a whistleblower. Having been analysing his career for 8 years & having also very recently (21/6) questioned & challenged him at length, I'd say his credibility is still (rightly) not established, to put it mildly.

To put it mildly Larry, how do we find out if you're "credible" or not?

 

[butchersapron]

Here we go...

 

[DaveCinzano]

So, Larry, if Shayler is not "credible", how come he got thrown into prison by the British government

um... because he broke the official secrets act? and, more to the point, did so publicly?

 

[butchersapron]

"So, Larry, if Shayler is not "credible", how come he got thrown into prison by the British government for blowing the whistle on British intels links with Al-Qaeda,"

Where did he do that then? I thought you were of the opinion that AQ never actually existed anyway?

 

[Roadkill]

"I've seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."

What a load of bollocks. For one, as Yoss points out, he got the size of the bomb wrong. Very wrong. For two, he misses the small fact that a pair opf aeroplanes brought down the WTC, and the effect of an aeroplane smashing into a building is rather different from that of a bomb.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

"So, Larry, if Shayler is not "credible", how come he got thrown into prison by the British government for blowing the whistle on British intels links with Al-Qaeda,"

Where did he do that then? I thought you were of the opinion that AQ never actually existed anyway?

Perhaps I should clarify.

1) I should perhaps have said credible on some things, & not on others--one thing he is credible on is the MI6 plot to kill Qadhafi (as too the fact the two imprisoned for the 1994 Israeli Embassy bomb are innocent).

2) As it happens, he was thrown in prison for breaching the OSA by half-inching 187 documents & giving them to the Mail on Sunday. He was not allowed to discuss the content of those documents in court.

3) The two documents that mysteriously appeared on the internet re Libya Shayler denies was him. While the Qadhafi plot one does back him up, there seems to me to be a dissonance between the other Libyan document (concerning Libyan UK Charge D'Affaires) & the claims Machon/Shayler make about same in the book.

4) Re Al Qaeda, I have merely stated the view (developed by for example Jason Burke in some detail) that the term 'Al Qaeda' is shorthand for an ideology and loose-knit confederation of militants, not a coherent pyramidal structure as such.

5) Back to point one, he is not credible on numerouis matters such as the Diana plot, Class War, himself being a civil libertarian, certain anti-IRA operations, the Wilson plot, his own motives for blowing the whistle (3 versions so far) etc etc. Other matters await detailed further review by myself, when assimilating what he claimed/stated in the 21/6 debate & elsewhere. Disinformation is not the same as simple lying of course, and having been a spook it is perhaps not surprising Shayler does not know the difference between fact fiction & spin. One thing he does not deny is ongoing contact with spooks.

6) As regards 9/11, what he says should be looked at on its intrinsic merits.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

To put it mildly Larry, how do we find out if you're "credible" or not?

Read what I have to say, & have had to say over 30 years of involvement in Left/Green politics, and make up your own mind. Shouldn't that be obvious?

 

[butchersapron]

"Re Al Qaeda, I have merely stated the view (developed by for example Jason Burke in some detail) that the term 'Al Qaeda' is shorthand for an ideology and loose-knit confederation of militants, not a coherent pyramidal structure as such."

Agree there (and it's a great book) Those questions were aimed at BF and his claims though, not you.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Those questions were aimed at BF and his claims though, not you.

that's alright--contrary to stereotype, I don't take offence easily

Are you saying BF thinks Al Qaeda are a totally fictitious neo-con creation? Maybe we should let the fish (tadpole??) answer for himself...

 

[DaveCinzano]

in relation to larry's credibility, whilst i don't agree with everything he says, and am more than happy to take the piss out of him ( ), he does at least provide the raw material from which his conclusions are drawn from. and no, 'raw material' doesn't mean links to websites of dubious provenance

 

[bigfish]

What a load of bollocks. For one, as Yoss points out, he got the size of the bomb wrong. Very wrong. For two, he misses the small fact that a pair opf aeroplanes brought down the WTC, and the effect of an aeroplane smashing into a building is rather different from that of a bomb.

Pardon me, but according to NIST, fire brought down the twin towers, not planes, even though planes crashed into them. But even if you are right about the planes bringing down the towers, which you are not, no plane hit building 7. So what brought it down then, bearing in mind that in the ENTIRE HISTORY of tall buildings none had ever collapsed due to fire before, any idea MR Historian?

 

[editor]

Pardon me, but according to NIST, fire brought down the twin towers, not planes, even though planes crashed into them. But even if you are right about the planes bringing down the towers, which you are not, no plane hit building 7. So what brought it down then, bearing in mind that in the ENTIRE HISTORY of tall buildings none had ever collapsed due to fire before, any idea MR Historian?

Good grief. Are you still posting up your bonkers, conspiraloon nonsense?

Put a sock in it bigfish. You're ruddy well obsessed, old bean!

 

[Pickman's model]

Pardon me, but according to NIST, fire brought down the twin towers, not planes, even though planes crashed into them. But even if you are right about the planes bringing down the towers, which you are not, no plane hit building 7. So what brought it down then, bearing in mind that in the ENTIRE HISTORY of tall buildings none had ever collapsed due to fire before, any idea MR Historian?

remind me again what caused the collapse of the tower of babel.

 

[DaveCinzano]

remind me again what caused the collapse of the tower of babel.

mossad

 

[butchersapron]

Waiting for answer on this BF:

"So, Larry, if Shayler is not "credible", how come he got thrown into prison by the British government for blowing the whistle on British intels links with Al-Qaeda,"

Where did he do that then? I thought you were of the opinion that AQ never actually existed anyway?

Now, you've been back already so come on...

 

[bigfish]

Here we go...

Ooh, look, the grand wizard of west country anarkiddyism has run out of proxies to argue on his behalf.

So, butch, what's your theory then? Or is it still top secret?

 

[butchersapron]

So, a claim. But nothing to back it up. Nothing even from Shayler himself. Ok.

 

[Pickman's model]

anarkiddyism

what do you mean by that?

 

[butchersapron]

Who are my proxies btw BF? Can you 'name names'?

 

[Loki]

tbf, everytime that bloody picture gets posted, it just makes me want to stuff a building full of ct'ers and fly a plane at it, to see what happens.

Don't forget to conceal an invisible pod.