A Message to the 9/11 Truth Movement

I posted the following statement on the forum of the UK and Ireland 9/11 Truth Movement earlier today. Time will tell what sort of reaction I get...........

I am one of two authors of a detailed critique of David Shayler and Annie Machon in the new issue of the parapolitcal magazine Notes From the Borderland.

I have major reservations about both Shayler and Machon, and believe that anyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement needs to ask themselves some pretty searching questions about just who they are getting into bed with when they cosy up to these two former spooks.

David Shayler and Machon are both extremely late converts to the 9/11 Truth cause, indeed well into 2005 both seemed to believe that that the security services needed to modernise and up their games to prevent similar attacks. They did not believe that the US was itself responsible for 9/11. Equally to see them talking now about "false flag attacks" when Annie Machon failed to even mention this tactic in her lengthy 2005 book, is extremely curious.

Could it be that the whole industry that has developed around 9/11 (the books, the conferences, the radio shows and subscription websites) are a better money maker than the roles of "public figures" and "peace campaigners" previously adopted?
This is especially the case as I believe it likely that both indivduals had overstayed their welcome in the UK anti-war movement - indeed Shayler's red baiting is never far from the surface for a man who claims to be progressive. Secondly given David Shayler's allegations that the Stop the War Coalition has been penetrated and damaged by the security services, his (and Annie Machon's) failure to do anything to expose this stand in sorry contrast to their public comments.

One of the reasons Shayler/Machon are respected in 9/11 circles is precisely because of their past intelligence roles. Yet Shayler never mentioned Al-Qaeda in regards to the MI6 Libya plot until after 9/11, and the longer he has been out of MI5 the more grandoise his claims have become about the security services and Al Qaeda. Indeed he even suggests that large numbers of Islamic terrorists were allowed to settle in Britain to create a specific threat, without mentioning he was working for MI5 at that very time! Physician heal thyself!

I am well aware that both David Shayler and Annie Machon are personable characters. Given their profession was to infiltrate organisations and groups without attracting suspicion, before damaging those groups (and/or their members) they are bound to be amenable individuals. That is what they have been trained to be, at public expense.

It is perhaps natural to feel sympathy when someone is targetted by the state as David Shayler has been. Such sympathy is not something Shayler himself dishes out - the former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson, exiled from Britain due to state machinations, gets no support from either Shayler or Machon, but is instead condemned as "still working for Six". You can make your own minds up by going to www.richardtomlinson.typepad.com

What I ask is that 9/11 Truth activists read my article (and indeed some of the previous articles published in Notes From the Borderland) which show that Shayler in particular can change his line on an issue as often as he changes his pants.

In London you can get NFB from Housmans in Kings Cross, Borders in Oxford Street or on-line via www.borderland.co.uk The truth is out there, but you do have to look for it occasionally........

Now this one is a whopper....

Comments

[theSaiGirl]

Thanks for the heads-up on Shayler and Machon.
Here in the US we have some subtle disinfo artists and Johnnie-come-latelies by the boatload...
Who knows how many are paid COINTELPRO ?
Lots of "ex-"intelligence types doing the limited hangout on 9/11, still shilling LIHOP or some variation of "failure and incompetence", like Wayne Madsen for example.
People seem to fall all over themselves every time one of these retired Lt.Colonels or "former" NSA analysts suddenly has their vision on the road to Damascus and "discovers" (five years after the fact), that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yeah...
Thanks for that.
We should all be cautious to prematureley embrace these containment operators and PR shills.

[Ian Neal]

Paul, I wasn't going to get a copy of NFB but now I will see what you have to say and come back once I have had a read.

Thesalgirl, you should know that what ever else David and Annie are they are not acting as containment operators.

Paul, can I ask if you support the call for 9/11 to be reopened?

Thanks

Ian

[Paul Stott]

Ian - Yes I think there are enough question marks for it to be reopened, just as there should have been a public enquiry into 7/7.

Having faith in such investigations though can be dangerous - look at the farce of the current Bloody Sunday public inquiry (which the spooks have routed) or most famously of all the Warren Commission.

[Steal]

Paul any idea on what's happenning to Richard Tomlinson now - his site has been taken down.

[Paul Stott]

Steal - No idea, but fear the worst.

Will try and find out..........

[Paul Stott]

Steal - Tomlinson's blog was taken down by Typepad after a complaint from the Metropolitan Police.

He now has a new blog (and a mirror of most of his old one) at:

http://tomlinsonvmi6.blogspot.com/

[Larry O'Hara]

Interestingly, despite Machon's insulting comment that she wasn't going to respond further to attacks from a "micro-magazine" of "fringe nutters", both her and Shayler have been busy trying to retrieve lost ground and pretend their 'conversion' to 9/11 'truth' is genuine. Not just on the 9/11 truth campaign web-site, but also in various videos. Their recent interventions will be fully analysed in the next Notes From the Borderland. The precise, unmediated, comments of Ian Neal on the NFB critique would be welcomed--though we'll not be holding our breath.

[Ian Neal]

Paul writes

"Ian - Yes I think there are enough question marks for it to be reopened, just as there should have been a public enquiry into 7/7.

Having faith in such investigations though can be dangerous - look at the farce of the current Bloody Sunday public inquiry (which the spooks have routed) or most famously of all the Warren Commission."

Cool then we have common ground regardless of our differing opinions of Mssrs Shayler and Machon.

If you ever want to meet to discuss www.nineeleven.co.uk, 9/11 truth movement in general or related issues, you know how to find me

Best wishes

Ian

[Larry O'Hara]

Interestingly, Ian Neal has no comments at all here on either the detailed substance of Paul Stott/Heidi Svenson's article in NFB 7, or even the recent letter to New Statesman by Paul posted on this very blog! Perhaps the 9/11 cult should have a new slogan 'Ignore the Evidence!'. As an attempt to deal with NFB's reasoned criticism, hardly inspiring, or in the slightest bit effective.

[Ian Neal]

Paul, Heidi and Larry

If you post the article on the web I will comment on it

[Larry O'Hara]

The above non-response by Ian Neal shows just how scared (or incapable) he and his kind are of proper debate. There has been no proper answer, either, to what is on this web-site concerning Shayler/Machon. It is a tribute to the power of our argument that you, Ian Neal, are too frightened to answer it. And I can assure you of this: neither Paul Heidi myself or others involved in NFB are going to be deterred in the slightest by the barrage of insults coming our way, in public and in private emails, as well as the goon-squad of thugs the 9/11 cult mobilised for the Anarchist Bookfair in 2005. So, learn to live with it.

[Ian Neal]

Your delusions know no bounds. When you put the 'detailed substance' in the public domain so that a wider audience can see what exciting things you are saying about the '9/11 cult', I will respond.

Why your reluctance to put the offending article on-line? Are you more interested in flogging your piss-poor rag than having your 'evidence' in the public domain?

Alternatively you could always accept the offer I made to Heidi on the Mark Thomas forum to a public debate. The only condition, the event is filmed and available freely

[Larry O'Hara]

Mr Neal, you still have not answered any of our comments. As for your 9/11 cults commitment to debate, is this the same spirit that was shown at the Stop the War demo in Manchester outside the Labour Party Conference? You know, when under your (pretend) open microiphone policy, somebody took the microphone recently held by Shayler (he of the "Zionists are behind 9/11" crap) and attempted to draw attention to Notes From the Borderland's article, only to have the mike wrenched from his hands by none other than shyster Shayler?
Last year, at the Anarchist Bookfair, I witnessed at firtst hand the atmosphere of violence/intimidation that accompanies the 9/11 cult, who attempted to drown out, shout down, and physically bully anybody daring to disagree or even question them. More facts for you to ignore--and ponder this, sonny, we at NFB will debate with we like, whhen we like, on terms suitable to ourselves--not a low-grade charlatan & snake-oil salesman like yourself. You're not even "piss-poor"--as Gandhi illustrated, piss on occasion is useful. But, thank you for showing the real sentiments of insult that constitutre the core of your cult's beliefs.

[Ian Neal]

As I say above if you post the article on the web I will comment on it

[Larry O'Hara]

What an evasive shyster & charlatan you are--this blog is full of allegations/facts you dare not comment on. How about a new slogan for your cult 'Ignore the Evidence!'--has a certain ring, don't you think? If you cannot comment sensibly on evidence in plain sight on this blog, why should anybody remotely believe anything you say about events in Manhattan 5 years ago?

[Paul Stott]

What Ian Neal appears to be saying is that he is refusing to comment on an article he has already read in magazine format (I know for a fact he has bought the magazine), until he reads it again - only on the Internet.

Oh well - I guess it takes all sorts.

[Ian Neal]

The reason is very simple. I want other readers who have no intention of paying the £3.50 for the privalege of being able to read the article, to see the article and my comments about it side by side so they are able to judge for themselves where the truth lies. Your call

[Larry O'Hara]

as I recall, an ancient curse is to be granted that which you wish for--has it modern relevance? Time will tell...