Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[Bob_the_lost]

The established facts go beyond conspiracy theorising, including

1) police tailing Copeland in Soho

2) MI5 advance knowledge gays/Soho would be a target

3) Admiral Duncan one of only 3 gay venues visited

etc: as I say, order NFB issues 3 5 & 6 from the British Library.

1) It's not proven, merely speculated from one remark (at least all i've seen), even so they didn't know he was working on his own at that stage, i'd think they followed procedure. (There was the phone call to a desk sergeant too, but again it's not proof, people lie all the time)

2) They suspected it, but didn't KNOW it, and they did take action, just too slow and too late to be of any real use. If Copeland had stuck to his orriginal timetable it would have been ok.

3) Sorry but i'm not getting you here, that copeland visited the admirral duncan before hand and checked it out whilst the police were following him?

Maybe i'll read this NFB of yours, but probably not (rather lazy and can't be bothered to get into central london, sorry )

 

[editor]

Unless it's possible to agree with the spirit, if not the letter, of a thread?

The 'spirit' of the thread appears to be another wild, groundless, evidence-free, emphatic 9/11 conspiraloon claim from bigfish, and I can never agree with them.

In fact, I'm utterly fed up with them.

 

[BarryB]

To save me the bother of trawling through another of bigfish's cut'n'paste-from-dodgy-sites-athons, could someone sum up if a "Former MI5 Agent" really did say that "9/11 Was An Inside Job" or not, please?


(with credible links, natch)

If my memory serves me correctly at the Shayler/O'Hara debate Shayler said 9/11 was a failed coup d'etat by the neo cons against the Bush administration. Which if true it means if it was an "inside job" but not by Bush and his closest supporters. Perhaps someone else at the meeting can confirm that I understood Shayler correctly?

My guess is that Shayler was just saying something he thought the audience would like to hear.

BarryB

 

[Roadkill]

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?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not only obsessed with loony conspiracy theories, but ready to start snapping and snarling at anyone who dares question his sources... If you want to bring my profession into it and get into an argument on sources and evidence, be my guest. You've already proved you'll accept evidence from wherever you see it, regardless of its provenance or the agenda of your sources...

I love you conspiraloons. you make me laugh. You reckon that, because there's no evidence for something, it's because someone's hidden it. Therefore, any theory you make up cannot be disproved, because the lack of evidence for something happening is evidence to you that it did.

I know there's a troll under London Bridge. I've no evidence for it, but I know it's there because I can't see it. Prove me wrong!

 

[DaveCinzano]

pah!

your pathetic diversionary tactics don't work on me, mr road 'kill'... i knowe FOR A FACT that you are, indeed, an asset of the secret trilateral international troll proliferation department, whose work it is to spread untrue rumours of where trolls can be found, and so cover up the true locations of real trolls

 

[DaveCinzano]

...and i have websites to back me up on this as well!

 

[editor]

...and i have websites to back me up on this as well!

Damn right!

Geocities ones at that, written by anonymous authors with zero relevant qualifications who have based their claims on similarly clueless websites which in turn feed other clueless websites until they are eagerly reproduced here and pronouced as 'fact'.

 

[DaveCinzano]

hmmm...

'editor'... is that a jewish name..?

 

[DaveCinzano]

mein gott! you're one of them! you have infiltrated our ranks to sow the seeds of confusion!

but you forgot one thing, 'editor' - we are more than capable of being confused on our own!



*loosens spaceblanket bonnet*

*drips sweat over keyboard*

 

[editor]

mein gott! you're one of them! you have infiltrated our ranks to sow the seeds of confusion!

but you forgot one thing, 'editor' - we are more than capable of being confused on our own!

Hold on. You sounds like you know the truth and are thus fully qualified to make outrageous claims free from the shackles of peer pressure, evidence, facts, the real world etc etc

 

[DaveCinzano]

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Oh goody, another 911 thread!

You've already proved you'll accept evidence from wherever you see it, regardless of its provenance or the agenda of your sources...

I love you conspiraloons. you make me laugh. You reckon that, because there's no evidence for something, it's because someone's hidden it. Therefore, any theory you make up cannot be disproved, because the lack of evidence for something happening is evidence to you that it did.

You contradict yourself here. Firstly, as long as facts and information presented support the claim that the towers were brought down by something other than planes flying into them, that why it is called "evidence."

Secondly, more than enough evidence has been presented here to shake the official version - and it's not hidden as you claim - however, you choose not to see.

You have a blind spot about Building 7. Can anyone explain why, if the other two towers collapsed due to impact of planes and catastrophic fires, Building 7 should also collapse mysteriously onto its own footprint?

 

[Roadkill]

You contradict yourself here. Firstly, as long as facts and information presented support the claim that the towers were brought down by something other than planes flying into them, that why it is called "evidence."

Secondly, more than enough evidence has been presented here to shake the official version - and it's not hidden as you claim - however, you choose not to see.

You have a blind spot about Building 7. Can anyone explain why, if the other two towers collapsed due to impact of planes and catastrophic fires, Building 7 should also collapse mysteriously onto its own footprint?

1. No, I don't contradict myself.

2. I have seen no credible evidence to suggest that the twin towers were not brought down by the 'planes hitting them - or the fires they caused.

3. Most of the 'evidence' that you suggest undermines that version of events simply isn't credible. Wild claims by untraceable 'experts' on insignificant webistes; little more than that.

4. I'm not interested in getting involved in a detailed discussion. These 9/11 threads always end up going in circles, with ever-more insignificant 'facts' being blown up out of all proportion and a growing amount of abuse and mudslinging.

5. I've questions of my own about 9/11, but the modus operandi of the attack was as it looked on 9/11 itself - two planes, two tall buildings, two big impacts and subsequent fires. Who knew about the plan in advance, what was done (if anything could have been) to prevent it and why are all questions which I feel we've not had the full answers to, but I'm not interested in fantasies about remore-controlled jets and the like.

 

[editor]

You contradict yourself here. Firstly, as long as facts and information presented support the claim that the towers were brought down by something other than planes flying into them, that why it is called "evidence."

We've done this a fucking zillion times before.

Unless anyone has any new, credible, peer reviewed evidence to support these claims of invisible explosives being invisibly fitted into the WTC/Building 7 then all future threads repeating the same bollocks will be deleted.

 

[R.I.C.O.]

...

It was the giant lizards what done it....

 

[Final]

The possibility of remotely controlling aircraft doesn't sound like an unreasonable idea.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

1) It's not proven, merely speculated from one remark (at least all i've seen), even so they didn't know he was working on his own at that stage, i'd think they followed procedure. (There was the phone call to a desk sergeant too, but again it's not proof, people lie all the time)

2) They suspected it, but didn't KNOW it, and they did take action, just too slow and too late to be of any real use. If Copeland had stuck to his orriginal timetable it would have been ok.

3) Sorry but i'm not getting you here, that copeland visited the admirral duncan before hand and checked it out whilst the police were following him?

Maybe i'll read this NFB of yours, but probably not (rather lazy and can't be bothered to get into central london, sorry )

Well

1) There are two admissions, at different meetings, that Copeland was being tailed on the day--both explicitly contradicting the claim he was only identified while on the way to plant the last bomb.

2) This point doesn't make sense.

3) Copeland was probably followed on the way from Brick Lane a weel earlier.

But anyway, it is not my intention to recapitulate all the detailed research/developing questions/supporting evidence in the Copeland case. If you're too lazy to look into state-licensed murder of gay people, well there's little point in me saying more here or responding to questions divorced from examining the evidence.
1)

 

[editor]

The possibility of remotely controlling aircraft doesn't sound like an unreasonable idea.

Really?

So what happened to the original planes, its passengers, pilots and crew and how come no one noticed?

 

[R.I.C.O.]

Really?

So what happened to the original aircraft passengers, pilots and crew and how come no one noticed?

Because the giant lizards tricked everyone by buying all the gold?

 

[Wess]

hmmm...

'editor'... is that a jewish name..?

No! ... of course not.

... it's his Masonic name

The possibility of remotely controlling aircraft doesn't sound like an unreasonable idea.

 

[tangentlama]

No! ... of course not.

... it's his Masonic name

Hmmm...

How Paul Laffoley's Leg Almost Became An Exhibit in Joe Coleman's Museum of Human Oddities
by Joan d'Arc

"Paul explained that he had worked on the WTC buildings as a student architect, and he knew why the buildings had "pancaked" the way they did. He said the X-bracings on the exterior of the building were bolted, not fused. The bolts had given way. He described the towers as two white elephants - "file cabinets" which had been built in defiance of normal building codes. http://www.kentgallery.com/lafgau.htm

?

 

[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 of 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?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not only obsessed with loony conspiracy theories, but ready to start snapping and snarling at anyone who dares question his sources... If you want to bring my profession into it and get into an argument on sources and evidence, be my guest. You've already proved you'll accept evidence from wherever you see it, regardless of its provenance or the agenda of your sources...

I love you conspiraloons. you make me laugh. You reckon that, because there's no evidence for something, it's because someone's hidden it. Therefore, any theory you make up cannot be disproved, because the lack of evidence for something happening is evidence to you that it did.

I know there's a troll under London Bridge. I've no evidence for it, but I know it's there because I can't see it. Prove me wrong!

One could surely be forgiven for thinking that such a glaring historical contradiction between 3 "fire induced" building collapses in one day and zero fire induced building collapses in the entire preceding history of tall buildings, might have caught the eye of a trained historian. But rather than address the question, you instead default to the tried and tested "conspiraloon" construct, just like the rest of the desperado's.

I love you phony academic types, you make me laugh, with all your pompous airs and graces. Here you are, supposedly a trained historian, apparently unwilling to set important aspects of the WTC attack in historical context. We already know, from impeccable sources, that the Bush Crime Gang earmarked Iraq for "regime change" from the very moment it arrived in Washington, eight months prior to the attacks on 911. Now a leaked and authenticated downing street memo, shows conclusively that both Washington and Downing Street engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit illegal war, fixing "intelligence and facts around the policy". Everywhere we look, we find high crimes and criminal intrigues committed by the American and British elite: genocide through sanctions; fraudulent elections; corporate embezzlement, fraud and extortion; illegal war; illegal occupation; state sanctioned terror; state sanctioned torture; resource theft; the fixing of "intelligence and facts around the policy". But there, somewhere in among all of these coils of corporate/state crime, we are being asked to accept at face value the preposterous and deeply mythological idea that 19 Islamic phantoms overcame the most sophisticated national security apparatus ever assembled anywhere on Earth, not once but 4 times in a single day, when the obvious and principle beneficiary of the 911 attacks is in fact the ones pointing the accusing finger at Islam.

 

[editor]

One could surely be forgiven for thinking that such a glaring historical contradiction between 3 "fire induced" building collapses in one day and zero fire induced building collapses in the entire preceding history of tall buildings, might have caught the eye of a trained historian.

If it was all a big cover up, you'd think such a high profile incident would easily catch the eye of the architect who built the towers and all the structural engineers, scientists, experts, accident investigators, construction experts, fire investigators, trained safety experts etc etc.

Strangely enough, they've uttered ne'er a peep on the matter, so you're forced to rely on laughable, credibility-lite, UFO-loving conspiraloon sites for your 'analysis'.

So why do you think all the eminently qualified, highly trained experts in related scientific fields that you know Jack Diddly squat about are all wrong and the amateur bedroom sleuths on conspiraloon sites right?

Any ideas?

 

[STFC]

One could surely be forgiven for thinking that such a glaring historical contradiction between 3 "fire induced" building collapses in one day and zero fire induced building collapses in the entire preceding history of tall buildings, might have caught the eye of a trained historian. But rather than address the question, you instead default to the tried and tested "conspiraloon" construct, just like the rest of the desperado's.

Just out of interest, how do you know that there have been no other examples of tall buildings collapsing due to fire? Have you thoroughly researched the reasons behind the collapse of every tall building in history? The WTC buildings weren't just subjected to normal fires though were they. Each building had a jet plane full of fuel flown straight into it. That must have caused some weakening of the structure, surely? The heat of all that fuel burning must have been higher than your average building fire, surely? Are tall buildings built to withstand jet planes laden with fuel slamming into them? As for building 7, I reckon the impact of two huge buildings collapsing very close to it must have caused some structural damage, maybe it was older or not built as well as the other buildings round it and the trauma from the collapse of the north and south towers in turn caused it to collapse? If the US Government wanted to make it look really convincing, why didn't they demolish every building in the immediate area?

 

[STFC]

...the Bush Crime Gang...

That sounds like it came straight from the mouth of Osama himself.

 

[editor]

One could surely be forgiven for thinking that such a glaring historical contradiction between 3 "fire induced" building collapses in one day and zero fire induced building collapses in the entire preceding history of tall buildings, might have caught the eye of a trained historian. .

Err. Wrong.

The FEMA report further states that until the attack at the WTC, no protected steel-frame buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire. The key word is "protected." In Chicago, Illinois, the McCormick Place Exhibition Center collapsed as a result of a fire in 1967. In this structure, the steel-frame of the building was unprotected. The reference to McCormick Place is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.
http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

When you've finished reading the rest of that report, perhaps you might offer an opinion on this analysis on why the WTC collapsed.

It's not written by a janitor, it's written by a fire chief.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Feel free to tell me where he's got it wrong.

 

[bigfish]

Strangely enough, they've uttered ne'er a peep on the matter, so you're forced to rely on laughable, credibility-lite, UFO-loving conspiraloon sites for your 'analysis'.

So who did you rely on for your cartoon like 8 hour delayed action underground shock wave analysis for building 7 ? It wasn't any of those lie peddling Oxbridge toady conspiraloons down at the jolly old BBC gravy boat was it? Or was that one purely the product of your own fevered obsessions?

 

[Wess]

Hmmm...

How Paul Laffoley's Leg Almost Became An Exhibit in Joe Coleman's Museum of Human Oddities
by Joan d'Arc

"Paul explained that he had worked on the WTC buildings as a student architect, and he knew why the buildings had "pancaked" the way they did. He said the X-bracings on the exterior of the building were bolted, not fused. The bolts had given way. He described the towers as two white elephants - "file cabinets" which had been built in defiance of normal building codes. http://www.kentgallery.com/lafgau.htm

?

fist of all...what has that reply got to do with what I wrote?...(unless you quoted the wrong quote?) My hilarious reply was in reply to Bristle's equally hilarious joke about "Editor" being a Jewish name implying that he may be part of some secret controlling order.
secondly, I'm not sure exactly what "X bracing" you are referring too ... but I can assure you that bolting metal components in steel framed buildings is exactly how it is done .... welding the joints was hardly ever used unless it was a building under stress's, such as a power station or factory building and even then it went out in the 50's along with riveting. (I was a rigger for many years and have worked on literally dozens of steel framed buildings.)

 

[bigfish]

Err. Wrong.

More pedantic bollocks! That building was uninsulated, as it clearly states in your link, whereas both towers and building 7 were insulated. So no comparison there then, just more meaningless disinformation.

By the way, what does the fire chief's report you've linked to have to say about the collapse of building 7 ?

A quick scan through your link reveals that the fire chief doesn't even mention it, which is odd don't you think, bearing in mind it collapsed neatly into its own footprint too on the same day?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

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.

It took me ten seconds of googling to find out that the Bishopsgate bomb weighed between two and four tonnes, rather than a thousand tonnes.

If Mr Shayler had been able to spend ten seconds doing the same in-depth research and adjusting his theories accordingly, I might consider taking him seriously.

you don't need any googling. just consider the logistics...