"Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job"

[dbeach]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm
Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions

Prison Planet | June 27 2005

[Endangered Specie]

1. hmmm...prisonplanet ties to infowars...

hardly what Id call credible.

[dbeach]

2. PP has been here before..so your opinion is noted..

[number6]

3. much more credible than the Bu$heviks

prisonplanet ties to infowars..." yea so what

and other links to many MSM stories ....

"hardly what Id call credible" ya why ???

give us more than a drive by ....

[Endangered Specie]

4. aside from it being a looney libertarian bin

of "worldwide mindcontrolled martial law police state orwellian" conpiracy theories (gosh, Ive never heard that one before)...
there is also
- modern day Concentration camps
- anti immigration
- heavily RKBA pro gun
- alot of Democrat bashing
- oh, and I even believe Ive seen "jewish zionist world domination" crap there too.

Other than that, some moderatly fancy graphics and a nutcase for a webmaster, that about covers it, though Im sure I left something out.

(not saying that ALL libertarians are looney, but this takes it to the extreme)

[number6]

5. so there are some things you disagree with ......

me too ..

but there is some good info

dismissing the whole site as "loony libertarian bin"

is unfair ....

but like you say

"not saying that ALL libertarians are loony"

...modern day Concentration camps, I'd consider that a possibility
from Bushco ......

"Jewish Zionist world domination" crap
I missed that part, but I haven't looked throughly
at the site

I'd consider Alex Jones more of a Anti Bush Right winger
than Libertarian ...

[demodewd]

7. more to the point

Jones is a political social conservative who is anti Bush anti NWO anti globalist.

[Frederik]

9. You are wrong

about "jewish zionist world domination" stuff on Alex Jones' sites. He has never endorsed anything remotely anti-semitic, and however over-the-top he may be, he's clearly anti-racist.

As for Democrat-bashing, he shows equal amounts of disdain for both parties.

He is endorsed by no lesser man than Greg Palast by the way, who calls him a "crack in the electronic Berlin wall".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. David Shayler, the former MI5 agent is a whistleblower and has served

prison time in the UK for being one. He is Very Real. Here is a page of links to articles about him in the Guardian. Is that mainstream enough for you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/shayler/0,2759,339663,00.html

[LARED]

8. So what?

David Shayler joined MI5 in October 1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in January 1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. He left the organization in 1996.

So he's been out of the spook business for 11 years, has a bone to pick with his government, and has the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job. There is nothing that makes this guy more credible than any one else. If anything his baggage makes him less credible.

[Bismillah]

10. What about Colleen Rowley then? Or Sibel Edmonds? Or Karen Kwiatkowski?

Or any of the American whistleblowers who were actually working for the FBI or the CIA or the Pentagon until very recently? What's your reason for dismissing their concerns, their allegations, and the evidence they present?

"There is nothing that makes this guy more credible than any one else. If anything his baggage makes him less credible."

Rubbish. He worked for British intelligence for years, and then he risked prison to testify that MI6 had paid Islamist terrorists substantial amounts of money to attempt the assassination of a foreign head of state. Why on earth should such "baggage" (sic) make him less credible? What you call "baggage" is simply inside knowledge of the means, methods and morals of Western intelligence agencies.

And if he didn't have such "baggage", you would present that, too, as a reason not to take him seriously.

[dbeach]

11. Anybody out there sans baggage?

or baggage is in the eyes of the bagee...

[LARED]

12. Who said I dismissed any other's concerns?

The guys been out of the business for 11 years. He was only in it for five, so why is he more believable because he spent a few years as a spook?

[Bismillah]

13. So you take those concerns seriously?

"The guy's been out of the business for 11 years." And you have, presumably, never been in it. (Or are you in fact currently in "the business"? Pray tell. If you are, that would certainly explain some things.) And Shayler went to jail for stating what he saw and heard first-hand. And he now states the obvious: that the US government's account of what happened on 9/11 is not just remarkably self-serving; it's an insult to the intelligence of a budgie. And they committed a crime by removing and destroying the evidence from a crime scene (a crime that has never been the subject of a police investigation but has so far served to justify two invasions and the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts.)

So let's hear what you have to say about the statements made by Edmonds, Rowley and Kwiatkowski. It seems you believe they're well worth taking seriously. Why?

[Bismillah]

14. I see you've edited your two-line reply

...without inserting the missing apostrophe (but that's by the way). It now read like this:

"The guys been out of the business for 11 years. He was only in it for five, so why is he more believable because he spent a few years as a spook?"

I had in fact already answered the question:

"What you call "baggage" is simply inside knowledge of the means, methods and morals of Western intelligence agencies."

To cut a short story long: He knows first-hand what Western intelligence agencies are capable of. (That includes murder and lying.) He knows precisely how useful "Islamist terrorists" have been, and still are, to the West. He knows what he's talking about. And I might add that someone who has already been to prison for whistleblowing deserves some respect when he now comes out and braves the mockery of the terminally gullible by stating the obvious about The Crime That Justifies Everything: that it should, finally, be investigated (goddammit), and that it bears all the hallmarks of an inside job.

[spooked911]

16. Exactamundo!

[LARED]

21. No, what I call baggage is

the guy has an ax to grind with his ex-employer, the government. It makes little difference if it is a legit issue or not. That fact makes his agenda murky.

To cut a short story long: He knows first-hand what Western intelligence agencies are capable of. (That includes murder and lying.)

Really? Thanks for that nugget.

He knows precisely how useful "Islamist terrorists" have been, and still are, to the West.

Sure they are useful, that does not mean they were used for 9/11

He knows what he's talking about. And I might add that someone who has already been to prison for whistleblowing deserves some respect

Not all whistleblowing deserve respect. I would like to know a lot more about this guy before I start singing his praises

when he now comes out and braves the mockery of the terminally gullible by stating the obvious about The Crime That Justifies Everything: that it should, finally, be investigated (goddammit), and that it bears all the hallmarks of an inside job.

Not investigated? Crime that justifies everything? Bears all the hallmarks of an inside job???????? Please get a grip.

Also, why not skip the terminally gullible nonsense.

[Bismillah]

23. Instead of prevaricating, waffling and sniggering, why not actually answer

...the questions I asked you?

You fool nobody with this kind of stuff:

"Not investigated? Crime that justifies everything? Bears all the hallmarks of an inside job???????? Please get a grip."

You're good at inserting question-marks. And the answers to those three questions are: 1. Yes. 2. Yes and 3. Yes.
So "Please get a grip" won't hack it, LARED. Stop spreading smokescreens and answer the questions I asked you. All of them.

[LARED]

30. All of them, well aren't you just special.

Who died and left you in charge?

What specific question did you have in mind? Oops, another question mark.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ROH]

35. Why not actually attempt to answer the questions asked

instead of grasping at ad hominem diversionary waffle once again?

What exactly is so difficult to understand about the phrase "All of them" as the poster requested in his message? Surely the meaning is crystal clear?

[Bismillah]

40. Yes, it's gone very quiet in here, hasn't it? I hope LARED is OK.

But there's probably nothing to worry about. I guess certain answers to certain questions require approval from the boys in the backroom.

Or else those questions have to be ignored completely. LARED is in a bit of a bind here. He cannot simply dismiss Edmonds, Rowley and Kwiatkowski out of hand, for those three women are clearly honest, their patriotism is unimpeachable, their rationality is evident, and they have verifiable first-hand knowledge of what they are talking about. On the other hand, he cannot address their statements seriously, for that would involve the admission that the Bush Gang has some serious questions to answer, and that the Official Conspiracy Theory consists mainly of holes tied together by lies.

What remains to him, then? Silence or evasive sarcasm.

[LARED]

42. I am impressed by your concern

I can not spend all my time responding to your demands. Sorry. I'm sure you will manage without my immediate response.

But I will give you my basic understanding regarding Rowley and Edmonds

to quote Rowley

I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:

I think she is very credible, but this is way short of her saying 9/11 was an inside job.

Regarding Edwards

A short summary from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the Fib's language division, says the documents weren't translated because the division was riddled with incompetence and corruption.

Again I believe her to be quite credible, but again she is not saying 9/11 was an inside job. Also it is hardly a secret that the FBI is inept and corrupted.


I am not familiar enough with Kwiatkowski to comment. If it is important to you I will be pleased to do my homework and respond.

Is everyone happy now???????

[Bismillah]

44. LARED: "Is everyone happy now???????" (sic) To which the answer is:

Nope. You'll have to do better than that. (By the way: One question mark suffices, in English, and the question is not made any more compelling by a string of them.)

1. You quote one line from Rowley, out of context (I don't know exactly which context, because you don't deign to provide a link), and you reply with a single, vacuous, content-free, carefully fence-sitting line. I know what your beliefs are; the only thing I'm interested in hearing about is what facts support those beliefs. I have the impression you get most of them off the TV.

"The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel <...> continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause. In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

2. Sibel Edmonds is in fact called Sibel Edmonds, and not Sibel Edwards, as your one-line, out-of-context quote makes clear. This shows an admirable attention to detail on your part. And you spared yourself no pains, googling CBS to find out what she'd actually said. (In fact, she said a hell of a lot more than that, even in the mainstream press, as you could easily have found out if you'd tried. Anyone might think you weren't interested):

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Sibel Edmonds managed to say this despite the fact that the regime you support is doing its level best to gag her. You are so interested in what she has to say that you cannot be bothered to notice her name, even when you're quoting it.

3. "I am not familiar enough with Kwiatkowski to comment." No surprise, and speaks for itself. It's just strange to see you admitting it. Here's what she says, then:

The new Pentagon papers

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

By Karen Kwiatkowski

March 10, 2004 ]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp/index_np.html

So you confirm my points, LARED. Rejecting the option of silence, you are forced to resort to evasion and sarcasm. And if you really believe that this persistent pattern of obstruction, corruption, suppression of information and twisting of the truth can be explained by incompetence in high places, shouldn't you be perceptibly concerned that those notoriously feckless Keystone Kops are still in charge of your nation's security? (The answer is "Yes". But you're not. Which, once again, speaks for itself.)

[Frederik]

72. You clearly know nothing about Mrs Edmonds

She is definitely hinting at 9/11 being an inside job, or at least what has become known as "LIHOP". As you may not know, she is under a gag-order and can't say much of what she knows.

[k-robjoe]

75. Edmonds

Frederick,
You want to listen to this interview with Tom Flocco :

http://www.blackopradio.com/black225b.ram

(First part:http://www.blackopradio.com/black225a.ram)

I think it´s in the second part (first link) that he talks about asking Sibel Edmonds about the American names that she found, when she started digging into the finances of 911. Flooco asked her if we´re talking about as many as ten names, she says yes. If these are people high up in the hierarchy, yes.

[Frederik]

81. Thanks!

[Bismillah]

41. My response to your sarcastic post has been deleted, so here's ...

...the main question again (for the third time now):

So let's hear what you have to say about the statements made by Edmonds, Rowley and Kwiatkowski. It seems you believe they're well worth taking seriously. Why?

[JackRiddler]

28. "Axe to grind"?

"Former employee with axe to grind" is supposed to be less credible than "still on the payroll as a PR shill"?

Please. Maybe he has a reason?

[k-robjoe]

38. Link

Don´t know if this is allready posted. There´s a chance to listen to the interview also for nonsubscribers. Here :
http://911blogger.com/

( Second post on Sunday. )

[LARED]

43. Maybe he does have a good reason, maybe not

What reasons seem likely?

The guy has been out of the spy business for 11 years, and he was only in it for five, and recently got out of prison for telling state secrets. Illegal ones.

So it probably safe bet his buddies from agency are not on speaking terms with him. After 11 years out of the loop, he would not be my first source for what's going on in the American intelligence business either.

So his reasons for stating 9/11 was an inside job may be because somehow he knows something. Based on his present circumstances I sort of doubt his has any special knowledge. The fact that state intelligence agencies perform covert (and sometimes illegal) activities is hardy a secret to anyone over 25 years old. Him working in an intelligence agency 11 years ago and telling the world about illegal activities elicits a big yawn from me regarding his ability to know something special about 9/11.

Other (more credible reasons IMO) could be he needs money. He wants to embarrass his old employer, he is just expressing an opinion no more valid than yours or mine. I keep wondering when his book will be coming out and a little pre-publicity never hurts. Call me a skeptic.

[Bismillah]

45. LARED: "Call me a skeptic."

You couldn't make this stuff up. What do you call a "skeptic" whose skepticism extends only to those who venture to criticize his government? I can think of a few words, and "patriot" isn't one of them. Nor is "skeptic".

- Shayler, of course, never once suggests that he has inside knowledge of what happened on 9/11. He says he has some inside knowledge of what Western intelligence services are capable of: bribing Islamist terrorists to attempt the assassination of a foreign head of state, for instance. LARED finds this entirely irrelevant. He tells us: "The fact that state intelligence agencies perform covert (and sometimes illegal) activities is hardy a secret to anyone over 25 years old." Yet - wordly-wise skeptic though he is - LARED sees no reason to doubt the threadbare accounts given him by his own government and the leaders of those notoriously ruthless and secretive "state intelligence agencies".

With skeptics like these, who needs cheerleaders?

[staticstopper]

19. ya, what L said - makes a lot of sense

:eyes:

[Bismillah]

24. Thanks for that, o Bodhisattva. n/t

[Frederik]

71. Well, it certainly makes him more believable

than you.

[spooked911]

15. He's credible.

What will it take for you to wake up to the facts?


Throughout history, governments have used terrorism to suit their own agendas. Modern day US is not different, and you should well know what kind of people this administration is composed of.

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Not especially credible

I don't think Shayler has any specific knowledge of intelligence regarding 9/11 - he left MI5 five years before the attacks.

I agree with one or two of his points and I think there must be a cover up of something going on, but he puts the most dramatic spin possible on it - coup d'etat - and the question I ask myself is why should I take this shameless self-publicist seriously when he is shamelessly publicising himself?

[demodewd]

20. re: credibility

We all have some specific knowledge of intelligence by the substantiated reporting of FBI agents and international intelligence warnings that were either blocked or went unheeded by the executive and justice departments.

Cover up does insinuate coup d'etat.

Going public with one's alternate 9-11 opinions doesn't win you any popularity contest.

[Kevin Fenton]

26. Cover up does insinuate coup d'etat.

What do you mean by that?

[JackRiddler]

29. You said it yourself...

"why should I take this shameless self-publicist seriously when he is shamelessly publicising himself?"

There's the reason: You should take the self-publicist more seriously than the paid government shill, because he is publicizing himself -- as opposed to whoring himself to an illegitimate, self-appointed state within the state (i.e. MI6 like any other secret government agency outside of parliamentary oversight).

"Credibility," source in which it was published... I only care about the credibility and evidence of the story.

Why should I think Shayler should make stuff up when he's already in the shit (under gag order, threat of prison) for the earlier beans he spilled?

[demodewd]

31. agree

good points.

[Kevin Fenton]

47. Lot's of people have spoken

and most have managed to do it a lot better than Shayler.

The credibility of the evidence is obviously very important. However, I think whether the revisionists actually get anywhere in the near future or whether the 9/11 truth movement just becomes a footnote in the history books is also important.

Whilst I agree with some of what Shayler is saying, I really don't like the way he says it, because he tries to put the most dramatic spin possible on it (coup d'etat) and in terms of getting people to listen to arguments that the government is covering something up this is very counter-productive.

[Kevin Fenton]

18. Not especially credible

I don't think Shayler has any specific knowledge of intelligence regarding 9/11 - he left MI5 five years before the attacks.

I agree with one or two of his points and I think there must be a cover up of something going on, but he puts the most dramatic spin possible on it - coup d'etat - and the question I ask myself is why should I take this shameless self-publicist seriously when he is shamelessly publicising himself?

[Bismillah]

22. ""Not especially credible"? He is, in fact, stating the obvious.

"I don't think Shayler has any specific knowledge of intelligence regarding 9/11."

He never claimed to have such knowledge. He says the pattern of persistent obstruction within the FBI indicates a desire to see those attacks succeed. And he knows first-hand about Western intelligence involvement in criminal conspiracies.

"...the question I ask myself is why should I take this shameless self-publicist seriously when he is shamelessly publicising himself?"

The question I ask myself is: What possible relevance does your personal opinion of David Shayler's personality have to the main points he was making?

1. The crime was never investigated.

2. The evidence was criminally destroyed.

3. Numerous intelligence agents were persistently obstructed in their investigations in the months preceding the crime.

4. The uninvestigated crime has served as an excuse for the Bush regime to set itself up as the protector of a terrorised people, and to pursue a policy of permanent war abroad.

- all of which is demonstrably true. And all of which is a hell of a lot more interesting and important than David Shayler's alleged modesty-deficit. I can book the Hollywood Bowl to announce the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, and the truth-value of my statement is entirely unaffected by the circumstances under which I state it. Whether he's correct in surmising that a coup d'état was planned is the kind of thing that only a proper investigation could establish beyond doubt. But considering what is known beyond a doubt (points 1-4) and persistently ignored, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, which is based on first-hand knowledge of what Western intelligence agencies get up to.

[Kevin Fenton]

25. Shayler

"The question I ask myself is: What possible relevance does your personal opinion of David Shayler's personality have to the main points he was making?"

None, I said I agreed with some of his points. However, I cannot help but feel he's jumping on the bandwagon. Also, I think putting the most dramatic interpretation on the government's role in 9-11 puts off lots of people and is counter-productive.

[Bismillah]

27. This is quibbling (wasting time, frankly) n/t

[staticstopper]

39. "This is quibbling (wasting time, frankly) "

yep, you hit the nail on the head. That's what works sometimes - get ppl all distracted w/ crap.

I think ppl that come into a garage level political news forum has an inkling of how to judge a stories worth, be it in the MSM or any other source - of course reports might be bias, why fight over it????

[JackRiddler]

32. The desperation of the OCTers on display.

This thread is a fine example of the desperate rhetorical tactics to which the adherents of the Official Conspiracy Theory have been reduced.

Here we have a man with actual experience in MI6, a man who is under a gag order after spilling the beans on how MI6 hired an "al-Qaeda" member and Bin Ladin associate to kill a head of state, Gaddafi. Shayler makes his argument that 9/11 was an inside job, based on his experiences with a few of the likely collaborators in that crime, and based on the logic that the known facts of 9/11 suggest.

The response of the OCT crowd?

First, as Endangered Specie does: sneer and attack the publication (as though this changes what Shayler said).

Damn you, Shayler, why were your words published on Prison Planet? Why didn't you go to the New York Times, like a credible guy would? (As though the paper that still publishes articles by Judy Miller and has never mentioned the Downing Street minutes is somehow more credible!)

Next, attack him directly. There's precious little the OCTers actually know about Shayler's biography, so we see LARED reach for one of Shayler's most appealing qualities - that he no longer works for the mafia known as MI6 - as though it's a negative!

That's right, the old bit about the "disgruntled" former employee. Apply it, and you'll never have to question another institution again.

Finally, Kevin Fenton steps in to call Shayler a "self-promoter," as though he would be more credible if he were still employed by MI6 and promoting the official line.

Whatever you do, just keep repeating "not credible." Don't deal in logic or evidence.

[Bismillah]

34. The Black Knights of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Motto: "Not having a leg to stand on is no reason not to pick a fight."

Who can deny them their 'armless fun (while it lasts)?

ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.

Etcetera.

http://www.rit.edu/~smo4215/monty.htm

[meppie-meppie not]

36. "bring me a shrubbery" and what did they deliver?

a bloody moron on a platter for another 4 years. Never again will the bellow "being me a shrubbery" rest soundly in my bosom!

[Minstrel Boy]

37. Yup, that's how it works.

And it's worked well. Truth be damned.

Here's a forgotten story from November 2002:

MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'

Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy'about Gadaffi plot

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'.

...

The Observer has been restrained from printing details of the allegations during the course of the trial of David Shayler, who was last week sentenced to six months in prison for disclosing documents obtained during his time as an MI5 officer. He was not allowed to argue that he made the revelations in the public interest.

...

The Observer can today reveal that the MI6 officers involved in the alleged plot were Richard Bartlett, who has previously only been known under the codename PT16 and had overall responsibility for the operation; and David Watson, codename PT16B. As Shayler's opposite number in MI6, Watson was responsible for running a Libyan agent, 'Tunworth', who was was providing information from within the cell. According to Shayler, MI6 passed £100,000 to the al-Qaeda plotters.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,837333,00.html

[Kevin Fenton]

48. OCT

I don't subscribe to the official conspiracy theory and I can see that the government is obviously covering something up.

Generally, I'm happy when somebody speaks out against it, but my point here is that Shayler is not someone I would rush to embrace.

As for his original allegations that MI6 (Shayler worked for MI5, not MI6, as you mistakenly claim) was plotting to kill Quaddafi, I wasn't surprised by them at all. Surely, this is what MI6 is supposed to do?

Just because I agree there is a cover-up doesn't mean I should only write nice things about other people who share the same belief. I took exception to the way Shayler phrased his comments (coup d'etat), because I think this sort of thing doesn't help.

[slaveplanet]

89. Damn...

For all it's worth , I kind of like their tactics ...It livens up the cave ...without em , we wouldn't get to read your humorous replies...live long and prosper riddler.... :toast:

[mirandapriestly]

90. They sure come out of the woodwork don't they? nt

[Dancing_Dave]

46. Great catch!

It's often been observed, that we do need some insiders to come forward, in order to properly sort out the moles from the patsies and determine the REAL plot behind 9/11. Well, now we do have guys like David Shayler and Morgan Reynolds coming forward, and the picture becomes much clearer. One thing they both rightly emphasize, is that thorough investigation of the explosions in the WTC complex on 9/11/2001, the professional demolition of WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 on that day, and the subsequent cover-up up by U.S. federal agencies, must be a top priority! We cannot unravel this Coup D'Etat without understanding those covert operations.

[truth_is_extreme]

49. Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

Shayler ended by questioning the highly suspicious nature of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, the first buildings in history, all in the same day, to collapse from so-called fire damage alone.

"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."

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1559

[Oversea Visitor]

50. But Americans wont believe

Even when airline stock speculation trend was noted prior to 911
All investigation close no answer except.... grr we found no wrong doing they are good Americans company.
Stupid insider information

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Former MI5 Agent Out Of His Mind

". . .thousands tonnes. . ." of explosive. In what? An entire train. The IRA used more than 2 million pounds of explosives and it only broke the glass. 15 thousand tonnes completely eradicated 40% of Hiroshima.

Methinks this guy is less knowledgeable than he himself believes.
The Professor

[truth_is_extreme]

52. don't tell me you

believe the 'findings' of the 911 commission instead.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Is That What I Said?

NO! But, if you're going to lean on this type of testimony for LIHOP or MIHOP, you will be laughed at.


The IRA did not have thousands of tonnes of explosives. If they had, the building would not have had shaken glass.

I'm sure you've seen pictures of Hiroshima after the bomb in 1945. That was the equivalent of 15,000 tonnes of TNT. The center 1/8th of the city is gone, with another 30% irreparable. This guy says ". . .thousands of tonnes. . ." rattled some glass.

Explosives don't work that way. This guy is a hack and not to be used as an expert reference.

All that being said, no i don't believe WTC was a controlled demolition. I believe the original construction was shortcutted in the interest of profit and the building did not meet it's own impact and fire resistance specs. I've seen the films many times. I've seen 3 demolitions in person, and many on tape. There is no evidence of supersonic shockwave anywhere in any of the WTC videos. That doesn't mean i buy the whole commission study. I suppose there is a huge difference between MIHOP and LIHOP.
The Professor

[truth_is_extreme]

78. don't be so defensive

Your assertion that the original construction was shortcutted in the interest of profit and the building did not meet it's own impact and fire resistance specifications falls flat on its behind.

Building 7 suffered no impact.

Your theory is way more impossible and incredible than anything David Shayler ever wrote on the subject.

[moggie]

56. Sheesh, is that the level of discourse we have here?

"Because you disagree with this wildly ill-informed speculation, you must be a government dupe": is that really what you're saying?

The Baltic Exchange bomb used 100 pounds of Semtex. That's rather different from a "thousand tonnes" of explosive, wouldn't you say? A thousand tonnes: geez, if the guy had given that comment more than a moment's thought, he'd have realised how ridiculous it was. The Oklahoma City bomb was 'only' 2300 kg. The largest bomb used by the IRA in the UK was 1500 kg. When Shayler speaks about matters he has genuine experience in, I listen, but in this area he's clearly clueless: not only doesn't he have the necessary structural engineering background, he can't even get his figures right within four orders of magnitude!

[ProfessorGAC]

58. Thanks Moggie

Apparently, for some dedicated to MIHOP, science is irrelevant. If i doubt this guy's knowledge and sanity, given what HE said, i've fully accepted the 9/11 commission.

Hardly what i said, was it? Thanks for your support.
The Professor

[evermind]

63. Maybe he meant "rated as equivalent to 1000 tonnes"

of dynamite. That's how nukes are rated, isn't it? In "kilotons"? Semtex is a lot more powerful than dynamite, but I don't know what rating 100 pounds of semtex would have (though I suspect it would be within "four orders of magnitude" of 1 kiloton).

Not that I have any great respect for Shayler, he's always struck me as a self-serving limelight-seeking prig...

[ProfessorGAC]

66. No It Can't Mean That

Semtex is not a LOT more powerful than TNT. It actually releases about the same amount of energy (roughly 700kJ per mole). But, it's a higher velocity explosive, meaning the entire mass combusts at a higher rate, making the energy release take place in a shorter amount of time. This increases the speed of the shock wave, and makes the detonation more brissant. (I know something about chemical explosives from some past work.)

In addition, there is NO chemical explosive that has to be rated in tonnes of TNT equivalent. When an explosive (say nitroglycerin) has a higher detonative force than TNT, a factor is used. For instance, nitro is said to carry a TNT index of 1.12. IOW, it's about 12% more powerful per unit mass than TNT.

Nukes are rated the way they are because the energy release is so far above what chemical detonations can provide that the equivalence is measured in metric tons! Even FAE's don't provide enough energy to require this equivalence.

Sorry, but this guy simply doesn't know the facts.
The Professor

[JackRiddler]

80. jesus h. christ...

The guy obviously meant pounds, not tons. Next question?

And I'm not hitching my wagon to his. We have every right to note how many of these people have now come out, risked their reputations and subjected themselves to corrosive public treatment from "skeptics" (who are only skeptical of those who are critical of their government)... just to say it's at least possible 9/11 was an inside job (which is obvious to the population of the world outside the United States, all of whom have experience with their own fascist regimes):

Michael Meacher (former environment minister, still MP, UK)
Morgan Reynolds (Bush admin appointee, 2001-2002)
Paul Craig Roberts (Reagan admin)
Andreas von Buelow (former Minister of Technology, Germany)
Steve Butler (USAF Colonel, Dean of Students, Defense Language Institute at Monterrey)
Cynthia McKinney (who lost her seat and then won it back on the strength of saying what she honestly believes about 9/11)
David Shayler (MI5 agent)
David Schippers (House impeachment attorney against Clinton, "former friend" of Ashcroft)

These are generally not whistleblowers, with some exclusive information. They include public figures who have gone out of their way to get sniped at by the likes of the "skeptics." Why?

You think they all have something to gain? McKinney obviously lost out on the deal (she needn't have spent two years away from Congress).

Do you think 9/11 skepticism makes you rich?

Why are they doing this? Maybe they actually believe what they say?! Can we start from that premise?

[ProfessorGAC]

82. I'm Not Taking Any Position

What's your problem? All i said is this guy is not credible. So, nobody should include his belief into any evidence file. You don't know he meant pounds. The British don't do pounds for weight, just money. They use kg and MT.

You may take whatever other evidentiary data & conclude what you wish. I was just leave this guy's opinion on the ground where it belongs.

The rest of your cites are a different matter. I'm not a MIHOP guy. I can sort of go with LIHOP, but i believe it's more a matter of gross incompetence and hubris by a bunch that is far less smart than they think they are. They just didn't believe anyone would have the guts to attack the U.S. on our own soil. I don't see what difference it makes.

An executive branch that did nothing in the face of mounting evidence, even through incomptence is still fully culpable.
The Professor

[Bismillah]

83. "The British don't do pounds for weight." Oh yes they do.

You write this a week after James Baker picked up and ran with Hitchens' ludicrous, disingenuous horseshit about the word "fixed". Well, I'm British and I can assure you that a) "fixed" means "fixed", and b) we DO "do pounds for weight", as well as for money. If you want to waste any more time quibbling about that, contact the British Broadcasting Corporation:

"Just a week ago, a one thousand pound bomb - twice the size of the one which devastated Omagh - was found in rural South Armagh..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/otr/intext/20010123_film_2.html

- One example among many. Or maybe the BBC means the bomb COST a thousand pounds? Hmmmm...(They didn't.) A quick Google search could have sorted this matter out for you a thousand times over. And you say David Shayler is "not credible"?

"I was just leave this guy's opinion on the ground where it belongs."

Aye, well... (as we say in my part of Britain).

"I'm not a MIHOP guy. I can sort of go with LIHOP, but I believe it's more a matter of gross incompetence and hubris..."

What exactly is the point of this? What does it contribute to any debate? To the process of finding or publicising the truth? Nothing. Not a pound. Not an ounce. Not even a gramme.

When you've finished throwing vitriol at David Shayler for having the guts to state the bleeding obvious in public, you might also think again about the meaning of the word "hubris".

[ProfessorGAC]

84. Yes And

Try to do a little deeper thinker and not being such a punk.

I think you need to look up both HUBRIS and VITRIOL. I have said nothing vitriolic either in fact or in tone.

Now: There is NOTHING obvious about the demolition theory. It's speculation, nothing more. Speculation is only obvious to the speculator. You might want to check on the concept of obvious, too. You can believe what you want. I'm not trying to convince you of anything either way. Just that Shayler's not credible if he thinks the IRA used a 1000 tonne bomb.

Now on to that: He SAID tonnes! You somehow has decided he meant pounds. And, since i go over there three times a year, and have seen for myself both in the bulk business and retail world, everything measured in kilos, perhaps you might want to rethink YOUR lecture.

But, i read tonnes. The reporter heard TONNES! NOBODY but you is insisting he meant pounds. Simple task. Prove it! You can't. Done!

Lastly, what i'm contributing is that i'm expressing an opinion on a discussion board of which i'm a donating member. I don't need any further approval. My opinion is just as valid as is yours so you are in no position to tell me to look elsewhere. I will do nothing of the sort.

The point of my statement on LIHOP/MIHOP should be clear. But, in case you didn't see it the first time, it's that if one is looking for evidence to support a speculative theory, one should look somewhere other than a guy who referred to a 1000 TONNE bomb being used by the IRA. He obviously knows little to nothing about explosives and demolition. So, his opinion would be poor support as evidence to a speculation.

And as we say in my part of the states: You're boring me.
The Professor

[Bismillah]

85. "You somehow has decided he meant pounds."

Nope. I somehow has decided you meant pounds, because "pounds" is what you has decided to say.

Not only does I not know nothing about British English usage (despite being British); I also doesn't know the meaning of the word "vitriol", it seem. (The Professor is not called "The Professor" for nothing.) And the Professor tell us: "I have said nothing vitriolic either in fact or in tone."

Well, Prof., this look pretty damn vitriolic to me:

"Former MI5 Agent Out Of His Mind"; "This guy is a hack"; "If i doubt this guy's knowledge and sanity";"this guy is not credible";"I was just leave this guy's opinion on the ground where it belongs".

Vitriolic, oui? And pride - he come before a fall, Prof. But perhaps I's taking your remarks out of context.

Anyway, the Professor conclude with the following hurtful remark: "You're boring me." Shame about that, Prof, 'cos you fascinates me.

PS Please write to the BBC and tell them to sharpen up their act with that "pounds" business. But whatever you do, don't be hubristic about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/videonation/articles/k/kent_injury.shtml

[truth_is_extreme]

77. I was only asking a question

and as for David Shayler's speculation, he seems to be less ill-informed than you. He believes they were deliberately demolished, what's so incredible about that?

Why did building 7 collapse?

And by the way, what's your theory?

[vincent_vega_lives]

86. building 7

Was a rather unique structure that made it vulnerable, it had large tanks of fuel, it was hit by considerable debris when the towers collapsed, and then burned for hours with out interruption ("pull it").

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

88. "concrete structure"???

Referring to Building 7 as a "concrete structure" exposes your ignorance of the facts. I have not read the 9-11 commission report, but Building 7 was a steel girder and truss design. The concrete was in the floor slabs.

[rooboy]

54. You're right, it was only a 100 lb bomb used in Brighton...

but then again, that hotel wasn't a 48 storey building which was hit by nothing more than a falling airplane wheel and a couple dozen manilla folders...

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Thanks, But Hardly My Point

My point is that this guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Leveraging any evidence on this guy's testimony is just plain silly.
The Professor

[clydefrand]

61. First off, I agree with your assessment , ProfessorGAC

Please explain this quote from the article.

"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they're trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."

Now my questions: Why on earth would we want to invade these countries other than for the oil that is there and/or to spread Christianity which ain't gonna work? Why would we spend billions, possibly trillions, by the time we got through invading and bankrupt our own country doing so? That makes no sense to me. If it isn't logical to me, I don't tend to believe it unless I'm shown otherwise.


I know Bush is a dumb asshole, but that's even dumber than even I, who have a good imagination, can conjure up.

[KnaveRupe]

64. Take a look at...

...the profits of Halliburton.

Your Tax Dollars, filtered through the DoD via no-bid contracts is going directly into the pockets of the corporate fatcats.

Nothing to do with religion, that's for sure. It's all about the reconstruction money.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. I Won't Profer An Opinion

I stay out of the whole LIHOP/MIHOP thing. The whole thing is too speculative for me.

There can be no doubt that they have USED 9/11 for some sort of resource domination/economic hegemony idea. That neither means they knew about 9/11 nor that they didn't.

But, i can't speculate on motives. I will only comment on what i see. What i see is a naked power grab based upon the events of 9/11, and the ability to deplete the defense inventory so they can justify spending more public money to restock the supply. At the very least, it's a bold raid on the treasury.
The Professor

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. You know what I like?

I like globalnewsmatrix's other articles:

Katie Holmes: MK-ULTRA Sex Slave?

Exorcist Suggests that Demon Possession In the Supreme Court Put Bush in White House

Communist Judges Destroy Property Rights In The Name Of Community


Reaction To Saddam Centerfold Exposes Moral Bankruptcy Of Islamist Sympathizers

[LightningFlash]

59. If this guy's credible that's just incredibly sick....

Damn.....This is just one disturbing news day.

[ProfessorGAC]

60. He's Not

Read the other items in this thread. His information is so far off base he has no credibility on these matters.

Not that you have to shift your opinion on the event itself. But, this guy is a buffoon.
The Professor

[KlatooBNikto]

62. One does not need this guy's reasoning or physical evidence to build

up a strong circumstantial case for the destruction of the WTC Towers.

On Edit: All one needs to do is to look at the event from the three pillars of investigation: Means, Motive and Opportunity. They will point the finger at the destruction of the Towers.

[DemonFighterLives]

65. I'm not claiming this guys evaluation is completely right

But the evidence submitted to 911 Commission was faulty at best and missing and negligent at worst. Unless there were bombs on the planes, the fuel would never have heated the columns and beams to the point of collapse. The second plane exploded almost entirely outside of the structure. All the steel in a building like that is usually covered by an inch or two of asbestos which would raise the temp. needed to weaken the steel.
The real sticking point is that No. 7 fell without the benefit of an airplane crash or an explosion.
The whole flippin story makes no sense and the commission was a total farce. How about investigate (what a concept) and follow the money.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Fine By Me

Just don't rely on this guy's "expert opinion" as leverage for the circumstantial case. If one does, one will be laughed at by real experts. This guy is completely incorrect. He has zero credibility and bolstering any argument with this guy's statements will diminish the credibility of the case to be made.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

68. Sorry - Duplicate Post

The Professor

[kcwayne]

70. The principle design engineer of the towers disagrees with you

He said the specifications for the steel and asbestos coatings were required to handle a 1960's era jet plane striking the building. That plane would have 10% of the fuel on board as a fully loaded wide body. They didn't plan for wide body jets. That amount of fuel causes everything in the area to catch fire, raising the temps to 2000-3000 degrees Fahrenheit. That's hot enough to weaken steel. And since the World Trade Center was an exo-skeleton design, only one additional wall from the one punctured had to be weakened in order for the millions of tons of building above the puncture point to cause compressive failure of heated metal.

The engineer (Leslie Robertson) has done interviews and PBS programs on this. I don't have a link to the interview I read, but I did read it online somewhere in 2001 after the attack.

Also, the second plane did not explode outside of the building. It exploded on impact, and the fireball from fuel that caught fire inside the building which caused super heated air and fuel to seek escape from its pressurized container (the building) exploded out the hole in the building created by the jet, and hence the fireball. You also see the fireball extend out the other side of the building as the jet debris exited through wall opposite the entry point.

[Kevin Fenton]

73. Jet

A 707 was available in the 1960s and could carry much more fuel than was on the two planes (approx. 24,000 gallons as opposed to 10,000 gallons).

My impression is that the designers thought the building should withstand a plane impact, but didn't really do any calculations about it. They don't seem to have considered the issue of the fuel at all (irrelevant because it burned up quickly anyway) or the issue of whether a plane might knock fireproofing off (which is the reason the NIST says the north tower fell).

Given that jet fuel in an open fire burns at around 1,200 degrees F max., I doubt it would raise the temperature to 2,000 - 3,000 degrees F.

I think the fuel in the fireball(s) was just spilled outside the plane on impact, most sources put the amount of fuel in them at 1,000 - 3,000 gallons and I'd go for the bottom of the range for the North Tower and the top of the range for the South Tower.

[kcwayne]

74. Fact smithing

I did more searching on this plane topic, and came across an interesting analysis. The designers did model for an impact from the largest plane at the time (707-320), which has the same fuel capacity as the 767. However, their models assumed a plane that was lost trying to land, and traveling at 180 knots. The kinetic energy release by this scenario is 7 times less than what occured.

collapse analysis


As to whether the temperatures reached 2-3K F, 5 days after the collapse, NASA did thermal spectroscopy of the site, and determined temperatures at that time in hotspots were still 800 degrees F.

NASA Measurements

I can't do the calculations, but it seems intuitive that the fires would have been much, much hotter on 9/11. The flash point of fuel is not the driving physical factor in this case. An oven is hotter than a campfire given the same flame input. The additional fuel (wallboard, paint, aluminum, etc) in the building add to the heat output at high temps, and the encapsulation of the heat energy in the relatively confined space will raise the temps. If the steel was melted, and there is a lot of conspiracy theory on this point all over the web, the temps had to get to 2500 degrees F to melt it. Of course, you could cause compressive failure by heating the steel to a temperature less than the melting point. Steel gets elastic as it is heated, and as the above link points out, the WTC towers were radical designs of essentially hollow tubes, that are much more prone to elastic failure than traditionally constructed skyscrapers.

[Bismillah]

76. In fact, this is the latest OFFICIAL statement on the steel & the heat:

From the NIST (National Institute of
Standards and Technology) report, which has just been released (See the thread on this very page of the DU forum):

"NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

...

No steel was recovered from WTC 7 (?!)"

[Kevin Fenton]

79. This and that

Impact:
The Wikipedia article says:
"Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing 707-320, and presumably calibrated their design to withstand it."
Actually, I presume the opposite, i.e. that they didn't really give the matter much thought and just figured it would probably do.
I don't think the amount of kinetic energy is either here or there. The plane hit the tower, it wobbled a bit and then came to a stop. The towers were built to sway in the wind and any swaying following impact would have done minor damage, if any. The main source of impact damage was surely the cut columns and damaged floors, not the movement.

Hot spots:
Those who claim the WTC was brought down by explosives, say that the hot spots are actually evidence for this, i.e. that only certain explosives (such as thermite, whatever that is) could have produced such hot spots. If you dismiss this claim you just end up with a circular argument.

"The additional fuel (wallboard, paint...) in the building add to the heat output at high temps,"
Yes, but it doesn't make the temperature higher. The hottest thing in there burning was the fuel (there's no photo of aluminium burning) and the temperature of the fire could not have exceeded the temperature the fuel was burning at. After 10 minutes, the fire temperature would have fallen to around that of a normal office fire, as all the fuel would have burned up.

"...and the encapsulation of the heat energy in the relatively confined space will raise the temps."
That seems logical and it's what I thought originally, but it actually seems that the oxygen supply is more important than being in a confined space. If the space were in any way confined, then the fire should have been starved of oxygen, which would have made it go out. There's some discussion as to whether it was starved of oxygen, but there was a big bloody hole in the tower, so perhaps not all that much. Although you are supposed to be able to tell by the colour of the smoke.

"If the steel was melted, and there is a lot of conspiracy theory on this point all over the web, the temps had to get to 2500 degrees F to melt it."
There isn't a shred of evidence to indicate any steel in the areas affected by fire metled.

"Of course, you could cause compressive failure by heating the steel to a temperature less than the melting point. Steel gets elastic as it is heated, and as the above link points out, the WTC towers were radical designs of essentially hollow tubes, that are much more prone to elastic failure than traditionally constructed skyscrapers."
Again, I see this as a rather circular argument, people say they were weaker because they fell over and they fell over because they were weaker.

[rman]

91. "exo-skeleton design"? you ignore the central core

given the central core, it would take significantly more then "only one additional wall from the one punctured (..) to be weakened" for the entire building to fall like a house of cards.

pre-9/11 source about WTC1 and 2:
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

"Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core."

[petgoat]

92. 707 v. 767

Wayne, according to 911research the 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of
fuel and the 767 could carry 24,000.

I read in one of the MIT papers that the flights only had 10,000 gallons aboard.

As to the exo-skeleton, you're forgetting the 47 36" X 14" steel columns
that were in the core.