Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[Al-CIAda]

Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Prison Planet | June 27 2005

Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the
British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political
assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11
was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency
in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and
ultimately Iran and Syria.

(snip)

Shayler said that his suspicions were first aroused about 9/11 when
the usual route of crime scene investigation was impeded when the
debris was immediately seized and shipped off to China.

"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and
yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped
out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that
to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because
it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people
that it was Al-Qaeda."

(snip)

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."

David Shayler joins a spate of recent credible whistleblowers who
share the same sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. Former
Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W.
Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds publicly questioned the unexplained
collapse of WTC Building 7 earlier this month. In addition, a former
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig
Roberts, shared his concerns last week when he said the Bush
Administration were making the same mistakes as the Nazis when they
invaded Russia in the dead of Winter. Roberts seriously doubts the
official explanation behind 9/11.


Full-
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm

[wurzel]

1. If the WTC was an inside demolition job, What were the planes for?

[lumpy]

3. Drama ?

More plausible for people to believe planes could do that much damage?

[gumby]

7. If the towers came down from explosives alone,

then there would have to be investigations to find out who did it and how it was done.

Not only were the planes intense psy-ops, they offered an 'obvious' explanation. No 'investigations' really necessary.

[jayctravis]

11. Less explosives needed? (speculation)

Since the buildings had a weak point where the planes hit, it would only take a good decent thump to start the massive weight above the crash sites coming straight down to destroy them?

So they wouldn't have to wire the same amount of explosives it would take the destroy the entire building, just enough to set off the first domino. Set up a tower out of Jenga blocks and try knocking it over by hitting the bottom of the table. It's pretty difficult. Now take out one or two blocks. Without the support and balance of a tiny portion, it doesn't take much to make the entire thing collapse.

All speculation, but what a great way to create a tangled mess out of any evidence that nobody could really investigate easily.

[lumpy]

2. Bump

Where there is smoke.....

[Dancing_Dave]

4. Great development!

As more and more insiders come forward with such information, it will ultimately become impossible for the U.S. corporate media to blithely ignore the truth. It will also help when a few thousand New Yorkers are out on the streets protesting the 9/11 cover-up and what's been done to them...which very well could happen by the end of this summer.

The U.S. corporate media presumes that Americans can't handle the truth...but at this point it's only the media that can't handle it!

[Igel]

9. He was out of the British spook brigade in 1996.

If he's an appropriate person to be called an "insider," doesn't that rather imply the British were planning 9/11 by then?

Truly a revelation.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Exactly what information

did he comeforward with? His analysis is pretty weak.

[The Flaming Red Head]

5. Of course 9-11 was an inside job (a Bush specialty)

I didn't know there was even a debate on the subject anymore.

[Cassandra]

6. WTC didn't collapse from fire damage alone.

If a bomb had gone off outside the buildings, they wouldn't have collapsed but that's not what happened.
I'd be more interested in evidence that didn't involve the way the buildings were destroyed. I'm willing to believe in an overall plan, but I don't think that collapsing the WTC was expected or even necessary to create a state of emergency.

[Dancing_Dave]

8. Demolishing the WTC was financial

The buildings lost money, whereas Larry Silverstein made billions off the terrorism insurance he had taken out on the WTC just weeks before 9/11.

The company handling "security" for the WTC involved President Bush's brother Marvin.

It worked as both propaganda, and an insurance scam.

[Henny Penny]

12. Perhaps some people stood to benefit financially...

This made sure they were "on board", but the main driving force has to have been, the fact that it would act as a catalyst enabling the long term plan for the Middle East to become a reality.

[Gregorian]

10. Wow. Just how have we gone this long without the truth?

You know, maybe we're just a bunch of nuts, but.... But the moment that first building fell, my little sister said she felt, no, she KNEW, that Bush had done it. And she's not even political. Just keenly sensitive. I was shocked to hear her say that. But now years later, I think her intuition was correct.
Why didn't NORAD respond? That one, alone, bothers me no end.